Thursday, January 25, 2007

Roger Gale supports churches in
homosexual adoption row

Judging from his website, the lack of comment and press releases from Roger Gale North Thanet MP, on important topics, is frequently more interesting, than what he actually has to say particularly on matters like, dangerous dogs, given that he is a Vice President of the Pet Advisory Committee.

Some of his statements can be quite infuriating such as his intervention on
Train Horns apparently they can be quite intrusive (they're meant to be!), he and other MPs "continue to look for lower maximum noise volumes and minimum safety levels" what? As a track worker and sometimes COSS (controller of site safety) I prefer maximum safety myself, perhaps Mr Gale could acquire a PTS card (personal track safety) and work a few shifts preferably red zone.

Moving on Roger Gale backs churches over issue of conscience here is a quotation "While every person in this country is subject to the law as enacted by parliament it must, surely, also be right for those wishing to do so to be able to adhere to articles of faith that are important to them." well not really since some religions believe in polygamy others would be quite happy too stone adulterers to death etc.

Parliament by and large generally legislates on the basis of shared human values rather than any religious or sectarian standards and to be honest I'm not sure that homosexual couples are the ideal parents but if Parliament thinks they are, then they are.

I might have some sympathy with Roger Gale were it not for the Catholic Church's somewhat chequered history where child welfare is concerned, firstly Catholic agencies (along with others) had considerable involvement in the appalling abuse of young children sent as migrants from Britain to Australia and Canada during post-war period up until the early Sixties and the infamous Magdalene homes where young girls were imprisoned in Ireland.

I do not think any religious organisations should be in a position of responsibility for children if they are incapable of accepting the law. Britain we are told on a daily basis is a multi-cultural Society therefore unless religious groups are prepared to accept democratic parliamentary governance surely they have no place bringing up children.

As an individual I am not allowed to pick and choose what laws I live by and therefore I don't think that religious groups can choose the Bible, Koran or Talmud over parliamentary government.

I'm not saying that Roger Gale is necessarily a bad MP but to argue that some organisations should somehow be exempt from the law of the land suggest that maybe he ought to take some more spiritual job.

Interesting starting point for information on child migration scandal


  1. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's

  2. Cheers Chris, not entirely sure where Ive gone wrong, must admit this post does wander a bit. I have not really commented on Mr Gale in the past mainly till now in his defense, however one thing strikes me, is that he never really has anything too controversial and keeps well away from difficult emotive issues EXAMPLE Dangerous Dogs should be a topic on which he could show some expertise VP of PAC but to date I cannot fined a reference on his site.

    Just clicked the label link (Roger Gale) to read what I have written about him in the past and note that most have been complementary hope this doesn't mean I am becoming a Tory

    The views I expressed I don't think were that well considered but still I will never learn I can make no apology for my them either but I may have been to moderate in this post.

    Still I think their is a consistency in my views of religious organizations, simply put at best their well meaning amateurs at worse dangerous bigots as history proves.

    This post was inspired by the fact that I assumed the good doctor had edited me out or censored me from the debate on his excellent pages.

    Still I'll accept the rebuke any how and dear readers please do check out my Thanet life entry on this theological debate and if Ive been to extreme inconsistent let rip

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. I am sorry that you feel my motivation for posting is simply so as "not to be left out", and feel that my posts are "rants", Councillor. You do have a knack for appearing so considered and measured - almost conciliatory - in your views whilst at the same time being quite insulting. But then you are a politician.

    Looking carefully at the various blog contributions on this particular subject (as well as others), there are many more strident offerings on Thanet Life, which has the biggest collection of material. I wonder if you will accuse anyone there of “ranting”. No, of course not, that might cost you a couple of votes. Musn’t upset the “faithful”.

  5. Come off it, one voice, you take a look at your own postings, at least 2 of your initial post were an attack on someone else's blog then you further attack once again over battling bloggers again you seem to bitch up poor whatsit because he objects to anonymous bloggers which whilst I am myself am uncomfortable with I do see that they might have some reason.

    The whole point of having a blog is for the enjoyment of boring your readers witless and having a good old rant in the privacy of your own blog.

    I have found your attitude to be insulting to at least a couple of the local bloggerati and in particular it seems Chris Wells who has appeared to me to be one of the better contributors to Local blogging

    As a general point it would seem that those who use there own names are less inclined to be abusive also I give more weight to those who are unafraid to attach their names to their opinion.

  6. Interesting thoughts, Mr Flaig - thank you. On this occasion, though, I don't agree with you.

  7. Theres a surprise Mr Voice, well thats what blogging is all about an exchange of views

    No need for the formality Tony will do