Paul Staines ('Guido Fawkes')

GB News and Christian-inanity

Simon Webb, historian: a very disturbing page
Simon Webb: Christianity and homogeneity
Emma Webb and The New Culture Forum
Conservative Woman and Christianity


Note: My political views are predominantly right of centre. Other pages give the evidence. I criticize some right-wing sites here because they're not right about everything. They can be, and often are, confused about some things or many things. They can sometimes be worse than confused - horribly wrong, grotesquely stupid, shockingly bad. An example:  Simon Webb, historian: a very disturbing page


GB News and Christian-inanity [Inanity: 'Lack of intelligence or imagination;senselessness


My page Church Donations includes, in the third column of the page, a long section 'Some objections to Christianity'


In this section:

GB News: banning, blocking and censorship

GB News: Christian religion


This section on GB News is a very new section of the page. The material here will be revised and extended. The emphasis will be upon GB News and Christian belief but the first item here is concerned with GB News and the death penalty and what seems to me to have been a clear-cut case of banning / blocking / censorship on the part of GB News. I'll be concentrating my attention on these GB News people: Emma Webb, Calvin Robinson, Patrick Christys, Neil Oliver. There'll also be material on guests appearing in GB News programmes. There's already material  on some of them,


Peter Hitchens (the material on Peter Hitchens is  facetious, in part), Tim Stanley , 'Fr' Daniel French, Michael Phillips of the Christian Legal Centre.  There'll also be material on people linked with GB News in other ways.


There will be supplementary material on people with an indirect connection with GB News or relevant to the issues I discuss, such as orthodox Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.   One reason for including such people. Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson sometimes claim, in effect, that the Church of England has been taken over by 'woke' views. The profiles of these people are a reminder that this amounts to falsification. However, I intend to discuss  some non-Christians who have an indirect connection with GB News or are relevant to the issues I discuss.


 I recognize that GB News does have some strengths, just as individuals I criticize may have strengths, and substantial strengths.


GB News has this important difference from secular news outlets. Secular news outlets never remind their readers or viewers of the dread importance of their 'eternal destiny.' Calvin Robinson has done just that. GB News regularly includes prayers in its programmes.


The majority of GB News employees will be non-Christians, the majority of GB News viewers will be non-Christians, despite what some of them may think - the people who might describe themselves as 'C of E' but who have never committed themselves to 'The Lord Jesus,' who 'died on the cross for our sins.' Their eternal destiny, according to orthodox Christian theories of redemption, will be with the devoted parents who cared for disabled children, the Jews who died in the extermination camps, the troops who liberated concentration camps or risked their lives on the Atlantic convoys or the Arctic convoys or in North Africa, in all the theatres of war, in all the villages, towns and cities of this country and any other country - everyone sharing the same hideous fate, apart from the minority of true believers, Emma Webb, Calvin Robinson and Father Daniel French, to name just a few.


These are considerations which never arise in the case of secular or semi-secular news organizations but which do arise in the case of GB News, 'God Squad News.' Its activities are wide-ranging and very varied, to name a few,  whipping up hysteria, reinforcing prejudices, using falsification by generalization - but its activities are often informed by common sense and vigorous pursuit of fraudulent thinking, most of the time oblivious to its own shortage of common sense and its own fraudulent thinking.


I oppose their illusions and delusions as well as  illusions and delusions they oppose.


GBNews: banning, blocking and censorship


Copy of an email sent to GB News, 22/08/2023


I posted a comment on your Youtube page 'Death Penalty. Should the UK bring back capital punishment?'


It wasn't accepted. The comment is courteous and it contains relevant information, surely. GB News should avoid banning, blocking and censorship for no good reason. The fact that a comment is regarded as 'inconvenient' isn't a good reason in the least. I tried again and it was rejected again. It seems that I'll have to use the opportunities available to me to publicize this issue, the issue of banning and blocking.

The rejected comment:  

From the Website of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) in the United States: 'Many people assume that the state saves money by employing the death penalty since an executed person no longer requires confinement, health care, and related expenses. But in the modern application of capital punishment, that assumption has been proved wrong. The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life-without-parole-sentences as an alternative punishment.'  

The DPIC page https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs   gives detailed reasons why it's more expensive to execute than to imprison for a whole life term.  A summary of a recent cost study in the United States: Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution. Median cost: $1.26 million. Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration. Median cost: $740,000.


A very large amount of information from individual states is available, to give just one example, a wide-ranging study from Oklahoma, which found that 'seeking the death penalty in Oklahoma capital cases cost 3.2 times more than non-capital cases on average.' The researchers concluded: 'It is a simple fact that seeking the death penalty is more expensive. There is not one credible study, to our knowledge, that presents evidence to the contrary.'

The arguments against the death penalty go far beyond the economic arguments. I attended an event where there were three men who had been sentenced to death in California. They had been released from death row after it was found that they were innocent. In the last 50 years, more than 190 people who had been sentenced to death in the United States have been found to be innocent and released from death row.

The notion that the death penalty is 'a vital weapon in the hands of the justice system ... ' is very wide of the mark. In the United States, the fact that there are executing states and non-executing states makes available a very large amount of comparative evidence. Just one aspect of a very big issue: A survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. ' ... During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states with the death penalty.' From the page

The death penalty won't be restored in this country. GB News is wasting its time and encouraging hysterical reactions by treating restoration of the death penalty as a realistic possibility. Any of your pro-death-penalty followers who don't know about the case of Timothy Evans, hanged on 9 March 1950 after being wrongfully convicted, would benefit by finding out more. This was one of the cases which played a major part in the abolition of capital punishment for murder in this country 1965. Capital punishment was later abolished for all crimes. This country won't be joining the diminishing list of executing countries.


GBNews and Christian religion


Here, I intend to give argument and evidence to substantiate my view that GBNews is very misguided in its general support for Christian belief. I intend to criticize in particular Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson and, also, another presenter who so far as I know is not a Christian believer but someone whose views and approach have, I think, unexpected linkages with Christianity or relevance to the general GB approach to Christianity: Neil Oliver.  I also intend to comment  briefly  on some Christians  who have appeared in GB News programmes, such as Fr Daniel French of Holy Trinity Church, Salcombe. Like Calvin Robinson, he would describe himself as an 'evangelical (Anglo) Catholic.'


There's already some critical comment on Emma Webb in the section in the column to the left  The New Culture Forum and Emma Webb).


I've generally added comments to You Tube videos and other sites every few months and every few years, although recently, I've posted comments more often - I intend to revert to commenting much less often. I'm not in the least a prolific commenter on any sites, apart from this site, of course. I don't add comments to You Tube video pages or other sites with the objective of including the comments on a page of this site. Most of the comments I've added haven't been included on this site, but from time to time,  I do include some, as now.


Another comment I added to a GB News You Tube video,  originally posted on the page




I'll quote the comment now, in full. It will introduce a few of the issues I intend to discuss later. It's followed by 'Matters arising' (which will be revised and extended.) To skip the Comment and go to the Matters arising, please click on a link:


Matters Arising 1
Matters Arising 2
Matters Arising 3
Matters Arising 4
Matters Arising 5
Matters Arising 6
Matters Arising 7


GB News is  a liability, an embarrassment, even. I take the view that the good work of GB News people is undermined and damaged by the work of the orthodox Christian believers amongst your staff. I recognize, of course, that orthodox Christian believers can talk and write good sense on matters unrelated to their faith. 'The Church of England can either push woke agendas or defend the faith ...' Can Calvin Robinson and Emma Webb defend their faith? No, not at all, I think. It's certainly not at all likely. Here's a selection of questions. I don't expect answers to these questions in a future GB News production, that would be asking too much - it would obviously be asking the impossible - but perhaps some of the secularist staff of GB News could do a little probing and elicit some information from the orthodox Christians, informally.


On the evidence available to me, Calvin Robinson combines evangelical beliefs with Anglo-Catholic beliefs. Presumably, then, he believes in justification by faith: he believes that acceptance of Christ as personal Lord and Saviour is essential for salvation. Does he believe that 'good works' are not enough for salvation? Does he believe that sin doesn't preclude salvation, provided that the person has accepted Christ as saviour? Does he believe in the reality of hell? Does he believe that orthodox Christians who have been guilty of gross sexual abuse - John Smyth is one of many examples - spend eternity in union with Christ? Does he believe that the destiny of non-believers amongst GB News staff, and supporters of GB News, is very different - eternal separation? Does he believe that loving parents of disabled children - and the disabled children themselves - go to hell if they never accept Christ as Lord and Saviour? I asked an evangelical Christian if he could cite any 'age limit' for salvation - below that age, there would be no condemnation to eternal separation, or, in the colourful language of orthodox Christianity, to hellfire. I asked this evangelical, do you have a view of this? Do you believe that a ten year old or a five year old can go to hell? He said that he knew of no such exemption. Can Calvin Robinson or Emma Webb outline the orthodox view and their own view? They may not be the same in this case.Can they offer any 'Biblical evidence' or 'Biblical proofs' or quotations from the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas or the early Church fathers, anything at all which they think may be helpful?


Calvin Robinson has an orthodox view of the sacraments, I presume. Would he share my view that 'Saint' Augustine's view of the 'sacrament' of infant baptism is hideous and barbaric? Augustine believed that babies and infants who died unbaptized spend eternity in hell. Do Calvin Robinson and Emma Webb take a 'common sense' view of the issues? Is a common sense view possible? What view do they take? Can Calvin Robinson explain his view of the 'real presence'? Does he believe in transubstantiation, the view that the bread and wine of Holy Communion / Mass become the actual body and blood of Christ, that this is not just a matter of symbolism? My view is that his Catholic beliefs, like his evangelical beliefs, far surpass Woke views in their stupidity.


I think that Calvin Robinson and Emma Webb should do some explaining, although, as I've mentioned, I don't think they would be willing to do it in a GB News video. There are a very large number of other objections I could make but this will have to do. Already, you've received comments from a large number of orthodox Christians. Any chance of a comment on objections to orthodox Christianity, or would that be too much trouble? Are your orthodox Christian commenters ready and willing to 'defend the faith?' I have to say that, based on long experience of orthodox Christians, I have very low expectations of such people. I don't think there will be many, if any, who will be willing to defend Christian orthodoxy. Too much like hard work.


Matters arising:


Matters Arising 1.


Emma Webb used 'Biblical Proof' or 'God's Word' in the form of quotations from the Gospels to corroborate her claim that Jesus had predicted the kind of problems faced by Christians today. She quoted the texts out of context. She ignored the ignorance and dark implications of the context. She showed not the least understanding of a very different kind of problem faced by Christians now - making sense of the chaotic, contradictory Biblical 'evidence,' its remoteness from humane values.

Amongst the texts she quoted is this, from Matthew 10:22. She used the English Standard Version. Below, I quote this extract and some other extracts from Matthew 10, using the 'Good News Translation.'

1. Jesus called his twelve disciples together and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and every sickness. 

14. And if some home or town will not welcome you or listen to you, then leave that place and shake the dust off your feet. 15 I assure you that on the Judgment Day God will show more mercy to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than to the people of that town!

22.    Everyone will hate you because of me....

28. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather be afraid of God, who can destroy both body and soul in hell. 


1. She may believe that the disciples could 'heal every disease and every sickness.' For many, many centuries, Christians believed that curing disease was a theological matter, not a matter to do with patient research, the development of techniques, all the complex knowledge which makes up the astonishing achievement of modern medicine. As a result, Christian communities were devastated periodically by plague and other diseases.

The New Testament has many references to driving out demons. Present day Christians often believe in demons and some of them try to drive out demons. In a Church not far from here, there was an attempt to drive out 'demons' from a person in an attempt to 'cure' this man's homosexuality. The case is being investigated by Barnardo's.

A concise summary of some events in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were supposedly 'wicked.' Traditionally, the wickedness involved homoexual acts. In modern times, the wickedness has been claimed to be of a different kind, simple lack of hospitality. God rains down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, yet another instance of mass murder on the part of God, the killing of men and women, children and babies.  Angels make a crowd blind. Lot's wife looks back, despite being warned by angels, and is turned into a pillar of salt.

Is Emma Webb convinced that God and his helpers, the angels, actually carried out these acts?

28. Hellfire - but New Testament references to hell are full of difficulties. In the Bible, 'Hell' is translated by different words. Christian believers again and again overlook the fact that when they quote Biblical verses in the King James version or others, they are using translations. They overlook the pitfalls of translation. This is the New Testament original of 'rather be afraid of God, who can destroy both body and soul in hell.'

μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ

The last word here 'γεέννῃ' is 'Gehenna,' a valley in Jerusalem, very different in its associations from 'hell' but an analogue of the Lake of Fire in Jewish and Christian tradition. Some scholars have suggested that Gehenna many not be synonymous with the lake of fire but a prophetic metaphor for the fate that awaited the civilians killed in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The word is used 13 times in 11 different verses of the King James Bible.

Whatever her view of Sodom and Gomorrah, demons and evil spirits, cures by faith healing rather than modern medicine, heaven and hellfire, what is GB News playing at by giving her the opportunity to preach to its viewers and by giving Calvin Robinson the opportunity to preach online?

Matters Arising 2.


Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson, GB News as a whole, concentrate their attention on 'Woke' views in the Church of England and claim that this is evidence that the Church of England is finished, that it has been overrun by Woke propagandists. This is to ignore completely the fact that orthodox Christian faith is represented in the majority of dioceses and parishes. Conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have far more power within the Church of England than the Wokeists.


 Matters Arising 3.


Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson, GB News as a whole ignore almost completely one massive problem, the very large number of cases of sexual and other abuse in the Church of England, as well as the Roman Catholic Church. My page Abuse, safeguarding, faith: The Churches and their failures  can only touch upon some of the grim cases. Whenever I read about cases of abuse in the Churches and can obtain information about the beliefs of the abusers, I find that the abusers seem to have orthodox Christian beliefs. Abuse in the churches is a failure of orthodoxy, not of liberal or woke forms of Christianity, which have their own defects, but very different ones.


Again and again, Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson, attempt to reinforce the view that abuse in the Churches is not an important issue, or not an issue which they need to publicize. GB News as a whole is reinforcing the same view. They are making the same mistakes - very bad mistakes - outlined in reports of  the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. An extract:


The Inquiry identified a number of concerns regarding the culture of the Church.

4.1. Clericalism: Power was vested chiefly in the clergy, without accountability to external or independent agencies or individuals. A culture of clericalism existed in which the moral authority of clergy was widely perceived as beyond reproach. They benefited from deferential treatment so that their conduct was not questioned, enabling some to abuse children and vulnerable adults. In the third public hearing Bishop Hancock (then Lead Bishop on Safeguarding) agreed that “issues of clericalism and deference have allowed abuse to be covered up and the voices of the vulnerable to be silenced”. In his view, “the abuse of power has been perhaps the most significant reason why abuse has been allowed to foster” in the Church of England.

4.2. Tribalism: Within the Church, there was disproportionate loyalty to members of one’s own ‘tribe’ (a group within an institution, based upon close personal ties and shared beliefs). This extended inappropriately to safeguarding practice, with the protection of some accused of child sexual abuse. Perpetrators were defended by their peers, who also sought to reintegrate them into Church life without consideration of the welfare or protection of children and vulnerable adults. Contributors to the Inquiry’s Truth Project, who described their abuse in religious contexts, said that they were “disbelieved, discredited and not supported after disclosing their experiences of sexual abuse”.

4.3. Naivety: There was and is a view amongst some parishioners and clergy that their religious practices and adherence to a moral code made sexual abuse of children very unlikely or indeed impossible. Reports of abuse were on occasions dismissed without investigation. There are some within the Church exploring how to respond to these attitudes through academic research.

4.4. Reputation: The primary concern of many senior clergy was to uphold the Church’s reputation, which was prioritised over victims and survivors. Senior clergy often declined to report allegations to statutory agencies, preferring to manage those accused internally for as long as possible. This hindered criminal investigations and enabled some abusers to escape justice. In her review of the Peter Ball case, Dame Moira Gibb concluded that senior clergy placed more emphasis on the Church’s high standing than on the welfare of victims and survivors.Church leaders sought to keep allegations out of the public domain and the resulting lack of engagement with external agencies helped to create a culture of “almost unchallengeable authority” in the Church.

4.5. Sexuality: There was a culture of fear and secrecy within the Church about sexuality. Some members of the Church also wrongly conflated homosexuality with the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults. There was a lack of transparency, open dialogue and candour about sexual matters, together with an awkwardness about investigating such matters. This made it difficult to challenge sexual behaviour. Mr Colin Perkins, diocesan safeguarding adviser (DSA) for the Diocese of Chichester, told us that homosexual clergy may have found themselves inadvertently “under the same cloak” as child sexual abusers, who sought to mask their behaviour “in the same cultural hiding place”.

5. In May 2019, the Inquiry published its thematic report Child Sexual Abuse in the Context of Religious Institutions, which included accounts from those abused by individuals within the Church of England. Many contributors saw their perpetrators as prominent members of society, with “privilege, respect and reverence” by virtue of their influential positions; their actions were “never questioned” and their ability to abuse was “never contemplated”.The report stated that the “particularly high regard and trust placed in religious institutions” amongst other factors facilitated abuse and discouraged appropriate responses to allegations in the Church.

Matters Arising 4.

The policies and practice of Emma Webb, Calvin Robinson and others at GB News are actively harmful. GB News is a distorting, self-censoring news organization in these aspects of its work. Neil Oliver is a gloomy presence whose (relative) popularity depends upon his telling a section of the GB News public just what they want to hear. His sober demeanour, gross generalizations, simplifications  and exaggerations are successful in whipping up a degree of frenzy and hysteria. Some others at GB News do the same or try to do the same, but the long-term reputation of GB News won't survive these trashy efforts. GB News has to do far more than this if it wants to become far more than a  footnote in the history of media.

Matters Arising 5.

Emma Webb and Calvin Robinson have agendas - not hidden agendas, of course, but public agendas - which include evangelism, conversion. People with religious or ideological agendas who work in supposedly general media organizations have to be very careful. The media organizations which employ them have to be very careful. GB News hasn't been at all careful. GB News has been negligent and reckless but throughout, it has at least supported the principle of freedom of expression,  in the comments sections of its  You Tube videos and is many of its programmes.

Matters Arising 6.

Calvin Robinson underestimates the difficulties and complications of the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic sacraments.


Understanding the invalid baptism controversy: a guide for catholics




In  February, the Diocese of Phoenix announced that thousands of infant baptisms that had been performed by a local pastor were in fact invalid as a result of one incorrect word. In the official rite of baptism, the baptizing priest is required to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But in Phoenix, the priest had instead been using the first person plural pronoun, “we,” seemingly to indicate that the priest was baptizing the child on behalf of the entire Catholic community.


The announcement, along with the pastor’s resignation, devastated many in his parish and clearly confused Catholics everywhere else, as they wondered what exactly this meant for them and the church. Could their own baptisms or weddings suddenly someday be declared invalid in this way?




In 2020, the Rev. Matthew Hood, a priest in Michigan, discovered while watching a home video that his own baptism had been done using an invalid formula, which meant not only that his own baptism and ordination were invalid but also that all of the baptisms, weddings and other sacraments that he had ever performed as a priest were invalid.


If Calvin Robinson is ordained, according to the Roman Catholic Church, his ordination will be invalid. It would be invalid if the ordination were performed by the Church of England, not the much, much smaller Free Church of England which made him a Deacon.


The Church of England recognizes the orders of the Free Church of England. Not so the Roman Catholic Church. It recognizes the orders of neither church. All the people ordained by these churches are invalidly ordained, according to the Roman Catholic Church.


Pope Leo XIII issued an apostolic letter in 1896 called Apostolicae curae which declared that all Anglican ordinations are 'absolutely null and utterly void.' This applies to the consecration of Anglican priests and bishops: invalid since the 16th century. Anglo-Catholic priests and bishops who imagine that during Communion they are converting the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ are mistaken, according to this pronouncement of the Pope (who was speaking ex cathedra, a guarantee of infallibility according to Roman Catholic doctrine.) Ex cathedra pronouncements are supposedly infallible when the subject is a matter of 'morals' as well as 'faith.'


Glimpses into the madhouse of Roman Catholicism. Non-Roman Catholics have their own versions.


Matters Arising 7


A claim made in the text which accompanies the video: 'The Church of England can either push woke political agendas or defend the faith. It can't do both.'


Alan Billings, the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, has been doing both.


Police and Crime Commissioners are supposed to be impartial. Since he was appointed Police and Crime Commissioner, Alan Billings has been promoting Christian belief whenever he can. He included a text from the Old Testament, Jeremiah 29:7, or an extract from the text which distorted its meaning, in his 'Keeping Safe,' 'The Police and Crime Plan for South Yorkshire 2017 - 2021.


At the same time, he has promoted vigorous action against 'Hate Crime' on the part of South Yorkshire Police.'


From various pieces of evidence, it's obvious to me that his faith is orthodox Christian faith, but he combines it with woke views. An extract from an astonishing article he wrote which was published in 'The Yorkshire Post.' (16 December, 2022.)





'Police forces should be 'woke' as it helps them understand the communities they serve - Alan Billings.'


'Watch, therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour (Matt 25.13). That verse sums up the Church’s pre-Christmas season of Advent: it is all about being alert and awake. We could say being ‘woke’.'


His use of Matthew 25:13 is grotesque. He seems unaware of the fact that this isn't in the least a general recommendation to be vigilant but a specific order which concerns the so-called 'Second Coming' of Jesus, which was to be expected  by his listeners but which never took place - a doctrinal minefield.



Two comments of mine accepted by GB News and published on the page 'Calvin's Common Sense Campaign. Saturday 19 August, 2023.





More on Calvin Robinson's 'Common Sense Crusade.' In a religious context, 'crusade' could be considered a tainted word. It seems that Calvin Robinson - and GB News - are ignorant of the horrific persecutions associated with the word. From the vast mass of historical evidence, just a few facts concerning one of the many crusades, the 'German Crusade' of 1096. During this crusade, mobs of French and German Christians massacred Jews. These massacres have often been seen as the first in a series of large-scale anti-semitic events in Europe which eventually culminated in the Holocaust. Just one episode in this crusade: at least 800 Jews were massacred in the German city of Worms when they refused Catholic baptism.


Below, statue of Godfrey of Bouillon (who took part in the German Crusade) in the Hofkirche, Innsbruck, Austria. According to the Jewish historian Solomon bar Simson, he swore 'to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name 'Jew ...'





I support the view of the non-believer who wrote in the comments section, 'How can a religious person go on a common sense crusade?' Full title: 'Calvin's Common Sense Crusade.' I know that Calvin Robinson has an Anglo-Catholic view of the sacraments, including baptism. He believes that baptism is a very important step in the life of a Christian. It turns out that doctrines of baptism have unexpected difficulties, to do with validity. Theologians have got to work to address the difficulties and have come up with contradictory, mutually exclusive solutions, as so often in theology. I wonder if Calvin Robinson, as a person with common sense - to his own satisfaction, at least - has a view on one aspect of baptism, to do with valid and invalid liquids. This is an extract from the site http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/ which, according to the site, 'is devoted to the Truth which is the Catholic Faith ... '


'The code of canon law explains that "true, clean, and natural water" is necessary for baptism (canon 849). Liquids can be assessed in three categories: Those that are certainly valid, those that are doubtfully valid, and those that are certainly invalid. Certainly valid liquids include water as found in rivers, oceans, lakes, hot springs, melted ice or snow, mineral water, dew, slightly muddy water (as long as the water predominates), and slightly brackish water. 'Doubtfully valid liquids are those that are a mixture of water and some other substance, such as beer, soda, light tea, thin soup or broth, and artificially scented water such as rose water.The last category is of liquids which are certainly invalid. It includes oil, urine, grease, phlegm, shoe polish, and milk. 'The rule of thumb is that, in emergency situations, you should always try to baptize with certainly valid liquids, beginning with plain, clean water. If plain water isn't available, baptize with a doubtfully valid liquid using the formula, "If this water is valid, I baptize you in the name of the Father . . ." ... Never attempt to baptize anyone with a certainly invalid liquid.'   So, in an emergency, baptizing a baby with beer or thin soup (but not thick soup) will be adequate or more than adequate, providing the priest says 'I baptize you in the name of the Father ... ' But attempts to baptize a baby with shoe polish won't work, even if the priest says 'I baptize you in the name of the Father ... ' Canon law makes this absolutely clear.

i wonder if Calvin Robinson, using his common sense perspective, would agree with this statement of doctrine or not. Perhaps the Free Church of England, the branch of the Church he belongs to, would take a different view: that baptizing a baby with shoe polish would be effectual after all, even if the Church would prefer to use other liquids, such as slightly muddy water (provided that it contains not very much mud.)


'Fr' Daniel French




Title: 'The End of Evangelicalism? Fr Daniel French warns of division in the Church of England.'


The 'warning' is hardly that. In the GB News video, Daniel French comes across, to me at least, as not a very strenuous person at all, an impression reinorced by the Website of his Church, Holy Trinity Salcombe in Devon.




The stress is upon the seaside, the surroundings, not in the least on orthodox faith. This is a missed opportunity, surely - but of course, I would view an attempt at explaining the faith and attempting to convert people to the faith as a waste of time.


In the GB News video, he concentrates so much attention on statistical evidence - again, of a non-rigorous kind, evidence which is misused rather than used, demonstrating and proving nothing or next to nothing. He plays the percentages game but fails to notice that the steadily increase, the dramatic increase in the percentage of secular people, people  who have no interest in Christian faith or next to no interest, is far more significant than marginal increases in one form of Christian belief rather than another.


Calvin Robinson and Daniel French are impressed by bigness, the churches which make a big contribution to the figures for Church attendance, the churches which seem to be making a big impression. With a different perspective, the bigness shrinks alarmingly - the activities of these churches aren't significant in the larger scheme of things at all - but this would be to see it from a secular perspective.


The two of them overlook one very important and significant fact (they overlook far more than one fact, but I concentrate on the one.) The Churches which they regard as so important for restoring the power of Christian faith in society have again and again failed abysmally. The number of churches which have transgressed in particularly serious ways is a minority, but a very significant minority. Here, I add to the material in other pages of the site and use some of the material to be found there. The mass of critical material - the 'critical mass' - is very striking. All I can do here is provide a very small sample. Most of it is information, disturbing information, about a group of Churches not far from where I live, although I begin with a different group of Churches and the starting point is Lucy Letby.


The Church which has been in existence for the longest time is successful. It has planted other Churches, successful too - successful in the very restricted sense used by Daniel French and Calvin Robinson. If the criteria used are ones other than large or very large congregations and the accumulation of money and other resources, the record of the parent church and its offshoots is a story of abysmal failure. There are large numbers of churches throughout the country which show the same combination of 'success' and failure. I think that anyone who commits time and money to such churches would be making a bad mistake - but I don't confine my criticisms to Churches in this class.


Scandal in the second biggest Pentecostal Church in Britain




With her former bus driver husband, she set up a church with a congregation of 50 that grew into a charity with an annual income of £3.5 million.

As the charismatic leaders of the Victory Christian Centre, Erica Goodman and self-styled pastor Douglas Goodman were respected by thousands of worshippers.

But away from the pulpit Douglas Goodman was grooming vulnerable young women in his congregation for sex. And he and his wife were enjoying a lavish lifestyle, with a five-bedroom house and a fleet of expensive cars.

Today a two-year investigation by the Charities Commission into the second biggest Pentecostal church in Britain reveals how it registered debts of £200,000 despite having an income of £3.5 million at its peak.

The probe found evidence of " misconduct and mismanagement," including "significant unauthorised salary payments and other benefits provided to the pastor and his wife as well as a number of trustees."

The church, based in an old cinema in Kilburn, was shut down in December 2002 after a receiver and manager appointed by the Charities Commission uncovered a long list of creditors.

There is little chance of recovering cash and benefits taken out of church funds, and it has emerged that Erica Goodman is back in business as senior pastor of the slightly rebranded Victory To Victory Christian Church (V2V). Her sleek image adorns its website, under the slogan: "The family church with you in mind." It promises happiness, healing and prosperity.

The church meets three days a week at a school hall near Wembley - and is accepting online donations from supporters, suggesting they pay their "biblical tithe" by credit card.

Douglas Goodman is serving three and a half years for indecent assault, attempted indecent assault and perverting the course of justice.

Goodman's victims were a teenage student and a 26-year-old. The jury was told he would shower them with gifts, urging them to call him Daddy or Papa D. A detective said: "The victims are really messed up. Some of those who made allegations against him have made half-hearted attempts to commit suicide."

But while Goodman serves his sentence his church has been reborn as a non-profit organisation, this time without charitable status.

Today's Charities Commission report sets down new rules to close a loophole that allowed Goodman to extort money from his congregation by claiming a salary.

Meanwhile, Mrs Goodman, who continues to live in the couple's ?1.5 million house in Northampton, claims the new church is like one large family. She states on the website: "God has blessed V2V abundantly. He has helped us grow into a thriving church."

She has also set up the Victory Bible Institute, linked to V2V, which holds conferences and offers a two-year diploma in biblical studies for a fee of ?950. The website states VBI exists to make sure that lives fully given to Jesus reap the richest harvest.

The Evening Standard attempted to contact Erica Goodman but a spokeswoman for the church refused to make contact. The spokeswoman refused to comment on the Charities Commission report and refused to state what revenues are used for.

She said: "There is no comment. We do not do interviews for newspapers."

From the Website of Network Church, Sheffield: St Thomas Philadelphia.


'Our church was planted out of St Thomas Crookes (an Anglican / Baptist church in Crookes) beginning in 1998, under the leadership of Mike Breen.



The planting out was in response to significant growth and also to a sense of call to the whole city.


Extract from a  report by the BBC of an event at St Thomas Philadelphia




Children's charity Barnado's is to conduct a review into claims conversion therapy was performed at a church.


Matthew Drapper said he suffered long-term trauma after undergoing a form of "exorcism" at Sheffield's St Thomas Philadelphia church eight years ago.


St Thomas church has denied it engaged in any conversion therapy.


Mr Drapper, 33, previously told the BBC he was made to repeatedly shout a prayer during a 20-minute session, which left him "cramping up and struggling to breathe".


"They told me to speak to the gay part of myself as if speaking to a wild dog coming up to me - and for me to say to 'leave my body'," he said.

"The people I was with told me they could see demons leave me and go out of the window."


Barnard's has still not published a report on the incident.


Most Churches now have safeguarding officers, a response to the fact that Bishops and other senior clergy have so often done nothing or next to nothing about allegations of abuse, sexual abuse and other forms of abuse.  The cases still surface, with claims that the action of the Churches has been insufficient or non-existent.


Daniel French has illusions about the kind of faith or the kinds of faith to be found in 'The Global South.' This is a big topic. I allude to some issues in connection with the farcical map below, included with brief comments in the section Africa and Jesus in my page Home Page Images. Of course, the approach of Daniel French to this continent of 'The Global South' is very different, to some extent its diametrical opposite, approving rather than condemning. However, there are intersections between these two approaches and they are unified by one obvious factor, an orthodox Christian view. I don't claim in the least that the multiple misrepresentations of the map follow from orthodox Christian belief, only that orthodox Christian belief underlies many of them.



Supplementary: Anglo-Catholicism


Calvin Robinson and Daniel French are Anglo-Catholics. Below I include some images of the people they'd find congenial company, fellow Anglo-Catholics attending The Walsingham Miracle - more images and further information on my page Home Page Images.  Or would they find them congenial? Not necessarily. It's necessary to take into account the petty or poisonous jealousies, rivalries, ambitions, animosities which can be found in groups like this, and, of course, far more widely. These people will, though, have this in common -   the assurance that their eternal destiny has been taken care of, is in safe hands. It's possible that Calvin Robinson may  feel aggrieved that this is an Anglican (and Roman Catholic) event. In these august circles, the Free Church of England, the outfit he belongs to, occupies a lowly position. Roman Catholics will claim pre-eminence. If they follow Roman Catholic teaching, they will believe that the ordinations of all the others are 'null and void.'  Doctrinal 'errors' won't be overlooked.




Peter Hitchens


For the time being, this is very short. I include an extract from my page Billingsgate, which includes material on 'Ichtheology.'




Above, representation of Peter Hitchens, contributor to GB News, in the form of a hammerhead shark, with use of artistic licence.


Hammerhead sharks aren't deadly fish. The teeth on this specimen are nothing to be afraid of. There are no recorded human fatalities. Most hammerhead shark species are too small to inflict serious damage. Peter Hitchens isn't big but bloated. The mouths of hammerhead sharks are small. Peter Hitchens talks big but what comes out is far from impressive, more often than not. His reputation as a fearless, deadly polemicist is unearned, but when he makes the effort, he can be quite good, although the opinion that his writing is 'as firm, polished and potentially lethal as a Guardsman's boot' is surely exaggerated, as well as peculiar. So many of his opinions are standard stuff. His opinions aren't the opinions of an endangered species. Some specimens:


Oppose Covid public health measures
Support the Church of England
Bring back hanging


His opinion that the 'Conservatives are now the main Left-wing party in the country' is becoming more and more common but amounts to flagrant exaggeration, surely.


His book 'The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion,'  published in 2018 presents his views on what he would regard as 'the national myth' of the Second World War.   It was reviewed by Richard Evans,  who described the book as 'riddled with errors.' An extract:

 He '
relies on a handful of off-beam, eccentric studies of prewar diplomacy, like the work of the Europhobe and climate change denier Richard North, instead of using standard modern works such as Zara Steiner’s two magisterial volumes on interwar diplomacy in the Oxford History of Modern Europe.


'This leads him into one error after an-other. He suggests, for example, that Chamberlain had decided to bring about a world war in 1939. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this contention, and abundant evidence to the contrary; even at the beginning of the war the British prime minister was trying to arrange for the Italian dictator Mussolini to intervene to stop the fighting, and had to be overruled by his cabinet. The problem with arguing, as Hitchens does, that Britain should have waited to declare war until rearmament had created a military that was effective enough to defeat Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany was rearming even faster than Britain was.



'Similarly, he is flying in the face of many years of research by German historians when he claims that the German armed forces in the war were fighting for military objectives that would have been regarded as legitimate by the democratic governments of the Weimar Republic that pre-ceded Hitler’s rise to power: it is very doubtful indeed whether Weimar’s foreign minister, Gustav Stresemann, would have approved the invasion of France, Denmark, Norway or even Czechoslovakia, let alone the Soviet Union.'


In some ways, the review is  poor. Richard J Evans writes,


The word “we” occurs innumerable times in this book, denoting the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, who apparently hold firm to the false memory of Britain standing alone, fighting a “good war” against Nazi Germany from 1939 to 1945 ... Hitchens’s “we” in truth, I suspect, means mainly elderly readers of the newspaper he writes for, the Mail on Sunday, and this book is really only for them.'


This caricature is ridiculous. Peter Hitchens may write for the Mail on Sunday but his views on the Second World War won't be to the liking of the vast majority of the readership at all.


Richard J Evans would seem to share Peter Hitchens' view of strategic bombing. Frederick Taylor's book 'Dresden' is one of the many re-examinations of strategic bombing which have presented the moral dilemmas but also examined in detail the practcal dilemmas, shockingly hard realities. Richard J Evans, like Peter Hitchens, seems to be unaware of the mass of argument and evidence which presents a very different case.


My loathing for Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens is increased by the fact that both of them support restoration of the death penalty. I've already given some arguments against the death penalty in the section on Patrick Christys. See also my page on the death penalty.


I'll give extracts from two sources on a case which has relevance to the Lucy Letby case. I don't regard the material as having relevance to the conviction of Lucy Letby. I include it only because it has relevance to the case for restoring the death penalty. It would be disastrously misguided to restore the death penalty and it would be impossible or virtually impossible to restore it. The stupidity of Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens may prevent them from realizing this but people with more sense should have no difficulty.


Note: Above, I refer to 'The stupidity of Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens ... '  I'd prefer to use a different form, the more specific 'The *stupidity of Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens ... '


I take the view that natural language, in this case obviously English, is often a very imperfect instrument. It's all we have for uses like this, but it needs modifying or supplementing, in this case, for the reason that calling these two people 'stupid' is an unfair generalization. Similarly for the variant, 'Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens are exceptional people ... exceptionally stupid.' I prefer to make it clear that they are stupid in this context. I wouldn't claim that they are stupid in every way. To make it clear in this way requires explanation, not very much perhaps, but enough to lead to a loss of directness, a decrease in force.  . Using the asterisk before the word would be a way of showing that they're stupid, but in a restricted sense: a sense subject to {restriction}.


The people at GB News generalize again and again - but that is a generalization in itself, of course. It refers to all of them, when what I mean is that some of them (or perhaps most of them) do that. The misuse of generalization is so frequent that it would be justifiable to introduce a new category of generalization, the 'GB News generalization.' They are reckless and ridiculous and the claims can't be corroborated.


The use of the asterisk here can only be used in writing. A spoken form might be useful - but it doesn't seem likely in the least that this idea will be adopted, so I simply repeat the point that Patrick Christys and Peter Hitchens aren't stupid in every way but that their obsession with reintroducing the death penalty is stupid but amounts to more than mere stupidity - much more. I hope this clarifies the matter.


The discussion here has philosophical implications. Very little on this site amounts to philosophical discussion, but academic philosophy is a frequent background. In this case, there's a linkage with 'Ordinary Language Philosophy,' which I find inadequate. J L Austin, an ordinary language philosopher, wrote in 'A plea for excuses,' 


'...our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connections they have found worth marking, in the lifetime of many generations: these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonable practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our armchair of an afternoon—the most favourite alternative method.'


Tim Stanley


Tim Stanley was a guest on the GB News show, 'Calvin's Common Sense Crusade' on 12 August, 2023.

The address of the GB News video:


He appears at 19:36 into the video. He disappears from view at 26:15. During his talk, he refers to the New Atheist Movement. According to Tim Stanley, The New Atheist Movement claimed that 'There was nothing sane about religion.' Tim Stanley claims that 'They never bothered to understand religion.' I think I can claim that I've made the effort to understand Christian religion, including the Roman Catholic variant.


The claims he makes can't be allowed to go unchallenged. I've given answers, I've provided a very great deal of counter-argument and counter-evidence on this site, on this page and on other pages. The material is dispersed and it wouldn't be a good use of my time to collect all the dispersed material and to present it here. He makes a set of claims which aren't in the least reasonable presented in a reasonable tone of voice. His apparent plausibility hasn't been earned in the least.

This is what he has to say: '[Christianity] offers you a map for life. It says, here's what you are created for, here's the purpose, here's the relationship you're trying to build with God and other people and here's a whole ethical code that goes with it, here's 2,000 years of magnificent culture ... '

The '2,000 years of magnificent culture' amount to gross a gross generalization and the generalization amounts to gross falsification. Even a broad survey uncovers massacres, persecutions, executions inflicted by Christians upon non-Christians or inflicted by Christians of one Church upon Christians of another Church.

A much more detailed set of investigations uncovers horrific evidence. To give just one example - in his grotesque generalization, Tim Stanley has failed to take into account this evidence: between about 1450 to 1750, which included the period of the Reformation and Counter Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, there were an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 executions for witchcraft, carried out by both Protestant and Catholic jurisdictions.


Below, three witches being burned alive in Baden-Baden, Germany. The Baden-Baden witch trials (in which torture was used to secure 'evidence') took place between 1627 and 1631 and resulted in the executions of about 200 people.



There are 'floating voters,' people who go from one political party to another, and 'floating believers.' Tim Stanley was a floating believer. He seems to have been faithful to one particular Christian sect, the Roman Catholic branch, for a long time. Can he defend his decision? I'm sure that he can't, but if he wants to defend his views in detail, he should go ahead.

This is from the Wikipedia entry for this floating believer:


In October 2012, Stanley stated he was "raised a good Baptist  boy".Later, he considered himself to be an Anglican,   beginning around "one glorious summer" in 2002, and was baptised as an Anglican in Little St Mary's, Cambridge,  in New Year 2003. He subsequently aligned himself with the Church of England's Anglo-Catholic wing, before converting to the Catholic Church when he was 23.'


'There was nothing sane about religion.' He converted to a Church which venerates Saint Augustine, who taught that unbaptized babies go to hell for eternity. This is just one deranged view that I attack on this site. Tim Stanley lives in a dream world - not all the time, not in every way, obviously, but with some deeply confused part of his personality. I should phrase this differently, though - 'with some shallowly confused part of his personality.'


Michael Phillips, Christian Legal Centre


Michael Phillips, of the Christian Legal Centre, appeared on the GB News programme, 'Calvin's Common Sense Crusade' of Saturday 9 September, 2023.




I posted a long comment on the same page, not directed at Michael Phillips. Calvin Robinson sees the need for every disused Church to be recognized as a 'sacred space.' He recited a list of new uses to  which former churches have been put and said, 'I think it's disrespectful, I think that a sacred space should always be respected and used for worship.'


Before a church closed for good, the congregation may well have dwindled to vanishing point. If he has a miraculous answer to the issue of how a church can be kept in a state of repair when things have reached this state then he didn't mention it on the programme.


But thriving churches, churches which are packed out, aren't 'sacred spaces' so much as places where cruel, backward doctrines are taught - I include some of them in the column to the right. But Michael Phillips has no idea. He persists in the belief that 'the church is in decline because it is moving in a certain direction' (away from orthodox faith.' I give profiles of a conservative evangelical churches which still attracts large congregations on my page Church donations.  The Church is STC (formerly St Thomas Church) Sheffield.


The Christian Legal Centre appeals for donations - no surprise. The page




gives information about how to donate. My advice is: don't bother. According to the Wikipedia entry




the Christian Legal Centre 'has lost most of its legal cases.' Some examples:


Graham Cogman, a Norfolk police constable lost his job for sending emails to colleagues in which he quoted Bible passages condemning homosexuality and gave information about  

a group offering to 'cure' homosexuals. He complained to an employment tribunal, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, claiming harassment on the grounds of his religious beliefs. He lost his case and his dismissal was not rescinded.


Duke Amachree, a homelessness officer, was fired by Wandsworth Council  for subjecting a client to a "30-minute barrage" of evangelism  when he was supposed to be offering her housing advice. The client complained to the council, leading to an investigation. The council complained that Amachree revealed "sensitive personal information" about the client to the media, namely in an interview with the Daily Mail after the Christian Legal Centre  had become involved The CLC supported Amachree in an unsuccessful legal claim for unfair dismissal, religious discrimination, and breach of contract.


In 2018, a High Court judge expressed serious concerns over the conduct of Christian Legal Centre consultant Pavel Stroilov during the Alfie Evans case. [Clicking on the link will give information about the case.] Mr. Justice Hayden described Stroilov as a "fanatical and deluded young man" whose "malign hand" was "inconsistent with the real interests of the parents' case." The judge also accused CLC activists of doing the parents "far more harm than it does them good" and said submissions were "littered with vituperation and bile" ...  Mary Holmes, former solicitor for the parents of Alfie Evans, accused the CLC of exploiting the case for their own benefit.


Three court of appeal judges said a letter from Stroilov to the parents of Alfie Evans was "misleading to the extent of giving the father false advice". The letter in question advised Evans' father that it would be lawful to remove Alfie from Alder Hey Hospital. The court heard that this led to a confrontation at the hospital, in which Alfie was involved, and police were called. A court of appeal judge said that the letter was "disseminated on social media (presumably with the knowledge of Mr Stroilov".



Simon Webb, historian: a very disturbing page

These are two hideous comments that follow a You Tube video of Simon Webb, 'How two Jewish academics in America created the modern concept of anti-racism.'


More comments are quoted later on, many more: in all the comments quoted, spelling, punctuation and grammar as in the original. Simon Webb did nothing about the blatantly anti-semitic, in some cases neo-Nazi comments which he allowed to be published, in very large numbers. One of the comments:

'thank you so much for being such a brave fellow this needs to be heard the truth will finally be revealed to the public one of these days the german man [obviously a reference to Hitler] tried to warn us but nobody listened people like you are so brave thank you so much sir for making this video god bless''

They [an obvious reference to Jews] even managed to make a teetotal vegetarian who loved animals and who enjoyed painting as a pastime ... into evil incarnate.' [an obvious reference to Hitler.]

Anti-semitism takes different forms, obnoxious but comparatively mild and forms which are much worse than obnoxious. The antisemitic language of the Nazis was terrifying, the kind that led to the policy and practice of annihilation. The comments of these people on the Simon Webb page aren't in that category but most of them  surely much worse than obnoxious.

The two academics who according to Simon Webb created 'the modern concept of anti-racism' are Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict. According to the evidence available to me, neither of them were observant Jews. Even if they had been observant Jews, the description Jewish academics would have been completely unnecessary. If Simon Webb thinks that no objection can be taken to the description Jewish academics, a large number of the commenters thought that the mention of 'Jewish' was very, very significant and responded, in some cases like Nazis, in others like easily-led sheep.

It's very, very disturbing that Simon Webb never intervened and responded to the antisemitism of so many of the comments. He did respond to a single comment, which wasn't antisemitic. The comment: 'Did your wife write this one?' Writing as 'History Debunked,' the title of his You Tube channel, Simon Webb responded with 'That is an odd question! No, I wrote it myself.' The question posed in this comment was odd, but he preferred to be silent about the hideous spectacle which was playing out on this You Tube page of his. I find it impossible to believe that the only comment he read was this one about his wife. He must have known that vile claims were being made but chose to do nothing about it.

In a matter as important as this, responsibility doesn't end with posting a video. He should have known the likely response or a possible response from antisemites before posting the video. If his historian's judgment failed him and he had no idea of what could happen, the evidence soon came flooding in - and still he did nothing. He was culpable, he failed. He's welcome to come up with explanations or excuses, if he can think of any.


Simon Webb is a liability to 'the anti-woke cause' - except that there isn't a single, monolithic cause. There are nuances, small differences and, also major differences, with the possibility of the contradictions, unexpected events, grotesque complications which are common in human life.


The comments of what I call 'the rabble,' the rabble enthused or inspired by if not incited by Simon Webb, included these:

'Europe and the US would truly be something magnificent without them.' [i.e., the Jews. And the Nazis believed that Germany would be something magnificent without the Jews.]


'Good work here Simon, finally calling them out.' [Again, 'them' obviously refers to the Jews.] 'Oh yes he's finally addressing the tribe [obviously the reference intended is to Israel] ... Many other things they inflicted on the west.' [No attempt made to give examples. The Nazis did, of course, come up with examples of alleged harm to justify their policy of exclusion and then extermination.]


'I always appreciate your honesty Simon.' [Perhaps someone who is easily pleased - by, for example, an affable manner, by appearances, without delving any deeper.]


'The thanks we get for saving them.' [The commenter would find in Martin Gilbert's book 'The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust' a great deal of information about 'Yad Vashem,' based in Jerusalem, which amongst other things honours, commemorates and makes completely clear the gratitude of the state of Israel for the many people who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. There are countless other pieces of evidence which could be cited.]


'Who would have guessed, a concept invented by the 'chosen' people.'


'It's always them. The same group behind everything.' [The Nazis had the same deluded conviction.]


This [the thesis which the writer of the comment finds in the video and found by so many others who added a comment to the video] is explained in 'Culture of Critique' by Macdonald.' [Wikipedia gives this information, 'The Culture of Critique series is a trilogy of books by Kevin B. MacDonald, an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology. MacDonald claims that evolutionary psychology provides the motivations behind Jewish group behaviour and culture. Through the series, MacDonald asserts that Jews as a group have biologically evolved to be highly ethnocentric and hostile to the interests of white people. He asserts Jewish behaviour and culture are central causes of antisemitism, and promotes conspiracy theories about alleged Jewish control and influence in government policy and political movements.' ]


'15.2 million Jews in the world. 6.3 million of those are in Israel. Therefore, there are only 8.9 million Jews in the entire world outside of Israel. Smaller than the population of London. They've got a lot to say haven't they? They do seem to be at the root of much of christian society's problems. I've never held antisemitic thoughts. I worked on a kibbutz in Israel when I was a teenager. However, even I am beginning to see a pattern here.'


'Oh yes he's finally addressing the tribe...Many other things they inflicted on the west.'


'Perhaps just perhaps that little fella with the strange moustache knew something all along ?' [Another obvious reference to Hitler.]


'Youll get the clicks. Thanks for sticking for the truth.' [Present statistics: 9,600 likes, no dislikes. It would have been far, far better for the reputation of his followers and admirers if for this video, there had been far less likes.]


'Your channel could be taken down soon if you keep this up. It's not worth the risk. It's sad that merely speaking verifiable information with proof is this risky.'

'But isn't it strange that they never insisted on equality between Jews and Palestinians?' A reply to this comment: 'They don't consider anyone else to be their equals. Their sense of worth is vastly out of proportion to their contributions to humanity.'

Is the penny or should that be shekel starting to drop for Simon after all these years?'

'Universal troublemakers' 'I don't hate them, but they've pulled the wool over our children's eyes, enough is enough.'

'WOAH 6 MILLION JEWS WERE MURDERED BRUTALLY IN YHE HOLOCAUST HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE.' [I take the view for a variety of reasons, including stylistic reasons, that this wasn't a genuine expression of dismay that Simon Webb had criticized Jews but a facetious comment posing as a genuine expression of dismay. As such, given the use of the shocking statistic that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust - or rather misuse - this could be called a particularly shocking comment on the part of whoever wrote the comment.]

And with that, I leave Simon Webb and the New Culture Forum to think about the implications of all these comments, if they're so minded, and to consider their responses, if any. Perhaps any people who recorded their appreciations of the wonderful talents, the wonderful gifts, the wonderful personality of Simon Webb in many of the comments on that You Tube page and who find out about this dissenting view may like to think about the issues and consider this possibility: that this is a man less wonderful than they supposed, a man with some very substantial flaws. I think that Peter Whittle would benefit by reconsidering his obviously high opinion of Simon Webb. No professional historian who values his reputation would or should allow what Simon Webb did, complacently allowing so many of his admirers and followers to run riot, in effect.



Simon Webb: Christianity and homogeneity


A Simon Webb video on homogeneity was grossly deficient - as usual. He  left out one one prime example of the effect that non-British people and foreign influences can have on a homogenous society - Christianity! Pagan Britain was a relatively homogeneous society, no more than that, but after the waves of missionaries reached these shores, Britain was exposed to a wide range of foreign influences which made it far less homogeneous. He mentioned 'speaking different languages' as a factor which reduces homogeneity (a bad thing, you think.) He mentioned Jews as one of the groups which reduce the diversity of the country. He thought that that was  regrettable as well (Some of the people who admire him would use a much, much more extreme word than 'regrettable.')


The missionaries claimed that Jesus, an Aramaic-speaking Jew, was the son of god. The 'good news' of the gospel (which turned out to be very bad news for all the victims of Christian persecution) wasn't written in Anglo-Saxon or English, of course, but Greek. The Old Testament, which in some passage supposedly prophesied the coming of the Messiah was written in Hebrew.


The names of the majority of British Churches are named after non-British people, to give just one example, St Augustine, born in North Africa. This is the Augustine who taught that unbaptized babies go to Hell. Another 'saint' called Augustine was born in Italy and came to this country to convert the natives. Later, with the development and intellectualizing of Christianity, there were many more foreign influences.


St Thomas Aquinas, born in Italy, revered the pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his Summa Theologiae, written in Latin, not English, St Thomas Aquinas wrote, 'With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.' This saint of the Roman Catholic Church is known as the 'Angelic Doctor.'


The Church of England and the Protestant Churches owe their origins to foreign 'reformers' such as the German Luther (born in the Holy Roman Empire of the time) and Calvin, born in France and active in Geneva. Calvin denounced the 'heretic' Servetus, who was burned alive. I loathe political correctness but in any fair-minded survey of the issues, the cruelties perpetrated by so many Christians have to be taken into account, as well as the Church's interference with free and reasonable expression - well into the 19th Century, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge were only open to people willing to subscribe to the Thirty Nine Articles, the Anglican statement of doctrine. Compare and contrast 'Woke' attempts to suppress free and reasonable expression. I wouldn't say that the Anglican impact was less harmful than the 'woke' impact.


Simon Webb seems actually to believe that Christianity is part of the fabric of this country and is not just a beneficial influence but vital to British identity. Any chance of fuller explanation from him in a future video? But I think he's much too prolific already and instead of offering so many bite-sized You Tube offerings to people hungry to hear his views, he would benefit by doing more thinking, more reflecting. He seems to take the view that again and again, history confirms his views. Perhaps he would benefit by reading much more history, but with a chastened, more critical viewpoint.

 One comment below the page which presented the Simon Webb video on homogeneity - I don't name the commenter but it's easy to find on the page - was obviously addressed to Simon Webb: 'You overlooked two other examples - Germany [Jews] and United Kingdom [Catholics].' This loathsome comment unwittingly draws attention to some of the dangers of the 'Webb Homogeneity Thesis.' The Nazis wanted a homogeneous, Aryan Germany and saw the Jews as an obstacle, so they used extermination to remove the Jews, killing about 6 million before the war ended and the camps were liberated. Protestants who wanted a homogeneous Protestant society without the 'contagion' of the Catholics sometimes executed Catholics or went to war against them. Catholics who wanted a homogeneous Catholic society without the 'contagion' of the Protestants sometimes executed Protestants or went to war against them. In both cases, this led not to thousands of deaths but many millions, in the 17th century alone.

For the record, I don't in the least regard greater diversity as automatically enriching a society, to be advocated in all circumstances. For one thing, I support stringent and effective border controls, for a variety of reasons. One is the extreme importance of doing everything possible to keep out Islamist extremists. I was surprised to find a Simon Webb video which gives a very relaxed view of some aspects of Islamism, called 'Why some people have a bee in their bonnet about Islam,' with this amplification, 'One religion [Islam] seems to be the focus of a good deal of negativity.' I was glad to find that a large number of commenters took issue with his view of the matter.


 The site of Migration Watch UK (an outstanding site, I think) includes a summary page 'What is the problem?' I agree with Migration Watch's approach to the massive problem -of mass immigration into this country. Attempts to increase diversity can have a range of unintended consequences.


Attempts to reduce diversity can have a range of unintended consequences. Simon Webb has been careless - reckless - in presenting his 'Homogeneity Thesis.' He hasn't thought things through. He doesn't seem to understand the difficulties in restoring homogeneity to a society which has become far less homogeneous. His understanding of practical politics, of the realities of political action seems to me grossly deficient. The same criticism can be made of so many ant-anti-woke people and organizations - and, of course, so many 'woke' people and organizations.


Emma Webb and The New Culture Forum


At one point in the discussion, Peter Kiszely said, with reference to the use and misuse of the word 'safe,' 'We all know you can see it in the language.' Whatever good sense and sensitivity the host and guests showed when discussing the mistakes of the woke, their actions as well as the language they use so often, was nowhere to be found when it came to discussing the 'flag and the swastika' episode. On the evidence available, it seems that Hampshire Police blundered - a comical act with serious, even sinister overtones. But when Emma Webb gave her own interpretation, it was very disturbing, conniving in hideous misuse of language, and those highly accomplished bullshit detectors Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Philip Kiszely seemed to find nothing wrong. Their minds, or their nostrils, perhaps, failed them, it seems.


Has there ever been a time when the word 'love' has been used and misused so often? Connotations of intense emotion seem to have disappeared. I remember seeing an advertising poster put out by the British Conifer association, 'Love me, love my conifer.' Equating a man's love for a woman or a woman's love for a man (or, of course, a man's love for a man or a woman's love for a woman) with loving a fir tree or a yew tree or a juniper bush seems ridiculous to me but the priorities of the people who grow and sell conifers are obviously different.


The word 'love' may be a lost cause, or largely lost cause, but it's essential not to equate the Nazis with people who are obviously not Nazis, to use the word 'Nazi' indiscriminately, negligently, without giving any thought to the barbarities which put the Nazis, probably, in a category apart - their cruelties rivalled by the cruelties which occurred in Stalinist Russia but exceeding them by quite a margin. If people know about Auschwitz and Belsen and Dachau and perhaps a few more concentration and extermination camps, and about some of the horrors which took place in the Nazi domination of Europe, they may not know enough. The mobile killing units, the Einsatzgruppen, which accompanied Nazi forces during the invasion of Russia, are not common knowledge, perhaps, but their contribution to the horrors which took place under Nazi domination was immense. To equate the men who shot babies and their mothers, in some cases, for bravado, with a single bullet, with the actions (and antics) of gay pride is horrible. For Emma Webb to equate Hampshire police with the Gestapo is horrible - a mistake, a bad mistake, a deeply disturbing mistake. Adolf Eichmann was a member of the Gestapo.

Peter Whittle, the founder of the New Culture Forum, declares that he isn't 'a religious man' but adds, 'That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the extraordinary works that churches do.' His comments appear on the Website of 'Premier Christian News,'




His comment is bland, almost formulaic, but is completely understandable, given the circumstances. The issue of the Churches and their contribution, not just their contribution now but in past centuries - the New Culture Forum has quite a developed historical sense - merits a much closer examination.   I can't possibly give an adequate examination here but I think this outline should provide, not unexpected insights but material that contradicts any naive view of the 'wonderful work that churches do.' Peter Whittle may well be unaware that many, many Christians won't have nearly as favourable view of him as he has of the Churches. Here, I discuss not 'churches' in general but particular versions of christian faith. Their differences are often very significant.  


 It would be impossible to do more than touch upon the ridiculousness and harmful effects of Roman Catholicism over the years, over the centuries, which I would claim exceed the ridiculousness and harmful effects of 'woke' views, and not by a small margin. For the record, I've been and still am an opponent of 'woke' views, an energetic opponent, I could claim, but I can't possibly provide much evidence here. This comment is long enough as it is. All I can do is give a few snippets of information but I'll include comments on the ridiculousness and harmful effects of evangelical and other protestant views, a few comments on the Anglican Church's very substantial contribution (as the Established Church for centuries, it has had plenty of practice). I'll begin, though, with the Roman Catholic Church.


 The Roman Catholic Church has few rivals, or no rivals, for ridiculousness but as a source of harm, it's far from being one of the worst perpetrators. Nazism and Stalinism have been vastly worse. I don't in the least claim that individual Roman Catholics and other Christians are always negligible people, quite the opposite. There are many, many Roman Catholics and other Christians known to me with substantial strengths - massive strengths. The teaching of 'Saint' Thomas Aquinas, the 'Doctor Angelicus' ('Angelic Doctor') of the Roman Catholic Church: 'With regard to heretics,' the Angelic Doctor writes, 'two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.' The burning alive of heretics and execution by other means constitutes a hideous episode of Roman Catholic history.


 A well known example: Giordano Bruno, who denied such Catholic doctrines as eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary and transubstantiation. He was found guilty and burned at the stake in 1600.


 Protestants have also dealt with failures to conform to Protestant orthodoxy by methods far in excess of any used by 'woke' people. To give just one, well-known example, Michael Servetus rejected the doctrine and other Roman Catholic doctrines. He was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and fled to Calvinist Geneva. He was denounced by Calvin and burned at the stake for heresy in 1553, by the order of the governing council of Geneva.


The pretence that British history has been overwhelmingly or almost always a a force for good is is contradicted by many, many events.


I'd include in the ong list of exceptions this, the execution of Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy, but this execution was as long ago as 1697. So far as I'm aware, the much more recent phenomenon of 'wokeism,' for all its harmful effects, has never executed anyone. Censoring of books has been an established, official practice of the R.C Church. The 'Index Librorum Prohibitorum' ('List of Prohibited Books') contained books which Catholics were forbidden to read. It included books deemed heretical or contrary to morals.


Books placed on the prohibited list included Kant's monumental 'Critique of Pure Reason,' Pascal's ' Penseés' (with notes by Voltaire), Spinoza's 'Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,' Locke's 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,' John Stuart Mill's 'Principles of Political Economy,' Edward Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,' Flaubert's 'Madame Bovary' - and all the works of the philosopher David Hume, all the works of Zola and all the works of Sartre.  


Here, in its zealous pursuit of 'error,' wokeism comes close to the hideous record of the Roman Catholic Church or even surpasses it in some ways. The penalties for offending may be severe, if nowhere near as severe as execution. Over the centuries, Roman Catholics have persecuted orthodox protestants and orthodox protestants have persecuted Roman Catholics, often forcing them into hiding and often executing them when discovered.   Well into the 19th century, members of Oxford and Cambridge University were required to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine articles of the Church of England, the statement of faith and practice which amongst much else articulated the doctrine of the Trinity and doctrines of sin and salvation which have hideous implications - I touch upon this briefly below. The universities were far from being havens of sanity and unfettered debate before the advent of 'wokeism.'  


It would take a long time to give a summary of the ridiculous aspects and harmful effects associated with one Roman Catholic doctrine alone, baptism. Here, Protestant views are surely less ridiculous, less harmful (but, as I explain later, Protestant doctrines of salvation and redemption are very often much more ridiculous and harmful than Roman Catholic doctrines: the contrast between salvation by faith and salvation by works.  


As in other parts of this comment, I must be brief, in full awareness that this collection of brief comments is adding up to a very long comment as things usually go in You Tube comment sections.   Roman Catholic doctrines of the sacraments are markedly different from Protestant doctrines. The sacrament of baptism has very often been thought essential for salvation in the Roman Catholic Church.   Augustine (the Augustine of Hippo, North Africa, not the Augustine of Canterbury) seems to have changed his views on baptism. In one sermon of his, he claimed that only people who had received baptism could be saved, a belief shared by many early Christians. A passage in 'City of God' may possibly indicate a belief that children born of Christian parents who died unbaptized were not necessarily doomed to hell. The Roman Catholic Church has in general shown the utmost reluctance to concede that unbaptized children could be admitted to heaven, hence the extension of doctrine to include the state of 'Limbo' for unbaptized babies, neither heaven nor hell. I'd say that 'woke' beliefs in general don't quite reach the ridiculousness of all this.   Modern Catholic discussions of baptism equal or surpass in ridiculousness 'woke' views. A short extract from an article on the site




  with a title which reflects the Website address, 'Emergencies and baptism: will soda water do?'   'A red pickup truck was overturned by the side of the road. The driver lay on the grass, thrown clear of the vehicle, crumpled, bleeding and unresponsive. A young man pulled his car off the road and sprinted to the side of the dying man.  He called 911, then rushed back to his car and grabbed the waxed cup from a fast-food restaurant that was in the cup holder of his car. It held some melting ice and water, left over from a soda he’d drank earlier in the day. He poured the water from the melted ice over the man’s forehead with the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The man died a few minutes before the ambulance arrived.    'The next day, the young man posted the question on a Catholic Q&A site: “I’m just wondering — was it a valid baptism?”   The helpful advice offered in the article included this, 'For a valid baptism of an adult, the Church requires an unbaptized person and pure water.' It gives this quotation from the 'Catholic Encyclopedia:'   Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is ... valid. … As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water.'  


As for doctrines of salvation, redemption, orthodox evangelical views are unsurpassed for their hideous implications, but are widely shared by other Christians. 'Saint' Paul taught that the eternal destiny of a person is decided by faith or lack of faith in Jesus Christ as 'personal lord and saviour.' There are countless statements of Christian faith which present this bleak view. This is from a page of the Christian Police Association with the title 'Faith.'   'We Believe ... that 'those who have died having believed and received forgiveness will be raised, and together with those believers who are still alive, will be taken to live with Christ forever. Those who have refused to believe will be condemned from God’s presence forever.'  


The Oakes Holiday Centre in Sheffield, which tries to mix fun with Christianity, can find no fun in this 'Statement of Belief' on their Website: 'The Lord Jesus Christ will return in person, to judge everyone, to execute God's just condemnation on those who have not repented and to receive the redeemed to eternal glory.'  


These are some implications of these statements and similar statements from Christian Churches all over the country, all over the world. The list could be extended indefinitely. According to this doctrine of redemption, commonplace in Christian circles:


 All police officers are doomed to spend eternity in hell, except for the minority of police officers who have accepted Jesus Christ as personal lord and saviour, including police officers killed in action. 


 All the troops who liberated the concentration camps and extermination camps are consigned to hell, except for the minority of Jesus Christ accepters.   All the people executed by the Nazis for saving the lives of Jews are consigned to hell, except for that minority.  


Time to mention the case of one person, Ernst Biberstein, who studied theology and became a pastor. During the Second World War, he was the commanding officer of Einsatktommando 6, which executed thousands of people. The Einsatzkommandos were a sub-group of the Einsatzgruppen, mobile killing squads, who exterminated Jews and others in the territories captured by the German forces as they advanced Eastwards. After the war, he was tried and sentenced to death but the sentence was commuted. He was released in 1958 and returned to the clergy.  


There seems reason to believe that he was a committed Christian and qualified for salvation according to the orthodox Christian view, or one view of the orthodox Christian view. There's every reason to believe that virtually all the people massacred by his execution squads and the other Einsatzgruppen were not qualified for salvation according to the orthodox Christian view, every reason to believe that virtually all the people killed in the Nazi gas chambers were unqualified for salvation, according to this deranged doctrine. There may well have been some Christian converts amongst them, but the victims were overwhelmingly Jews, without a belief in Christ as Lord and Saviour.  


Loving mothers and fathers, loving mothers and fathers who have looked after disabled children, are all consigned to hell, unless they belong to that minority of believers. And what of the fate of the disabled children themselves - are they saved or damned? The Bible gives no information about an age above which young people qualify for damnation. I know of no Christian discussions of the issue, although there must surely be some.  


And this: all supporters of the New Culture Forum are consigned to hell according to these doctrines, unless, again, they belong that minority of believers. Peter Whittle, who says that he isn't a religious man, is certainly destined for hellfire, according to orthodox evangelical belief and not just evangelical belief - unless he changes his mind, perhaps as a result of a miraculous conversion. Many, many Christians pray for that kind of thing.  


The belief that all composers go to hell is yet another consequence. So, to give just one example, Dmitri Shostakovich: hell. Johann Sebastian Bach, heaven.   All the working people who have done backbreaking and dangerous work - or backbreaking and dangerous work - are damned, including ones killed in pit disasters, in industrial accidents, all doomed - apart from the believing minority. The Christian Police Association also has this belief: 'We Believe that the Bible, as originally given, is the inspired Word of God without error and is the only complete authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.'  

On to other matters in this brisk tour of Christian theological artefacts.


A fascinating/ridiculous page   https://anglican.ink/2022/05/21/growth-decline-and-extinction-of-uk-churches/



gives 'Estimated Extinction Dates for UK Churches.'   'The Church of England and Catholics should last until the second half of the century. However, they need to take urgent action now. Stemming losses is not enough. None of us can prevent ageing! Whatever their current denominational emphases, they should put all aside to encourage members to make new disciples who can replicate themselves. Praying for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit would not go amiss either.


'Sadly, the immediate future looks bleak for the Church in Wales, Church of Scotland, Episcopalians, Methodists, and older Welsh nonconformists. They need to seriously ask themselves how they have gotten themselves into a situation where extinction is less than 30 years away.' Extinction is hardly likely to be complete extinction. There will surely be isorated Christian believers and pockets of Christian believers and larger groups, although not numerically very large. The consequence, if orthodox Christians are to be believed (but they shouldn't be believed, not for one moment) is that the percentage of people headed for hell will increase enormously - an enormous contrast with the situation in the ages of faith, when Christians persecuted ferociously Christians with different shades of belief and non-Christians but there were so many people who did accept Christ as their Saviour.



Conservative Woman and Christianity



which now calls itself 'TCW' promotes a form of Conservatism which would be rejected by most supporters of the Conservative Party, although some views promoted by the site would be accepted. I had an article accepted for publication on the site, before I knew nearly enough about 'Conservative Woman.'  It was published on January 7, 2020.




A few short extracts from the article:


The membership list of MPs is strewn with errors ... According to the list, Simon Danczuk is the current MP for Rochdale. Mr Danczuk was suspended by the Labour Party in 2015 after it was claimed that he had sent explicit messages to a 17-year-old girl. He was banned by Labour from standing as a candidate, resigned from the party and was replaced as MP for Rochdale by Anthony Lloyd in 2017 ... Currently, 131 MPs support our work in Parliament.’ The actual number is far fewer at 93. You would have thought that some of them at least would have looked at the list to find out about changes – who had joined, who had left. You would have thought that a good look at the website was an absolute priority for Lisa Nandy when she took over [as Chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East.']

The comments on one single page of the site 'Conservative Woman' from one commenter, a Protestant who calls himself 'Reformed Gentleman,' to another commenter, a Roman Catholic:

' ... you're still unhinged. I've no time for RC garbage ...'
'Are you deranged? You want to talk 'biblical' yet you cite your heretical garbage?'
'Yeah, you're still rambling, heretic. Do you ever ask yourself why you cannot derive your weird little beliefs from the Bible?'
'Subjectivist bullpoop, Catholicism personified.'
' ... there's the RC subjectivist bullpoop. Thank you, heretic.'
'You're an utter cretin. Your position is anti-objectivity and therefore champions my own view over yours ... Yikes!'
'You're a joke. Abandon the dramatics.'
'Look to your own anti-Gospel grabage (sic), heretic.'
'Wow, look at the deceitful Romanist. Bless you, heretic.'
'Tell me, Romanist heretic, where in the Bible can you find your latest wokist rant?'
'Utter drivel. What a waste of bandwidth.'
'Yes, heretic, your rambling garbage aside, we reformed know where we got the canon ...'
'Oh my. The emition (sic) is palpable. Where's your Bible, heretic?'
'Pathetic. You cowardly heretic.'



I'll give an assortment of evidence to justify the claim that Christianity is a liability for anti-woke sites, that although  woke views are in general ridiculous and harmful, they are less ridiculous and less harmful than the views of orthodox  Christian doctrine.  It's a long comment  but it could easily be much, much longer. Anti-woke people who find it too much effort to follow discussions which are thorough - nobody is forcing you to read any of this. Post your complaints if you feel inclined - if, that is, you can summon up the energy to post a one-or-two liner, probably not more, but nobody is compelled to read your complaints either ... [The remainder of the comment is provided as the last comment in this section. Not all the comments in this section are about Christianity. The material on Christianity is quite detailed - but may be useful as background information, and it leaves no room for doubt as to my reasons for thinking that orthodox Christian belief is vastly more ridiculous and harmful than the views of 'woke' people. I'm sure I can assume that all the people who signed the Open Letter are 'woke' people. ]



[The 'mocked, reviled and pelted with eggs Pastor here was protesting against a Gay Pride Event.]

From the Pastor's article: 'A video report on Sky News used the term ‘religious bigotry’ to describe our Christian testimony. Whatever happened to impartial reporting? Why did the reporter not come over to us and ask some questions? She would have found out that we are perfectly capable of engaging in civilised debate.

If the Pastor ever made use of the opportunity to have a 'civilized debate' with Sky News about homosexuality, I'd recommend to Sky News asking him for a comment on the material to be found in the Wikipedia 'List of people executed for homosexuality in Europe.'


If homosexuals loathe his orthodox views on homosexuality, it has something to do with awareness of what orthodox Christians have done to homosexuals over the centuries. They would loathe them even more the more they know about the horrific facts. Among the punishments mentioned in the article, including some from this country:

A German cross-dressing lesbian executed for heresy against nature
They were pierced in their tongues, hanged and burned; they were also charged with blasphemy.
German from Augsburg; burned in Rome with 3 heretics
From Augsburg; one burned, other 4 (all ecclesiastics) bound hand and foot in a wooden cage to starve[
both drowned in a barrel
Lesbian, drowned
Burned at Tudela for "heresy with his body"

And from the UK:

His trial was at the Old Bailey in November, where he was convicted of having "a venereal affair" with James Hankinson. He was hanged at Newgate. He was hanged with a forger, Ann Hurle - they were led out of Debtor's Door and rather than the New Drop they were hanged by a cart being driven from under them.
"Spershott's hanging was perhaps the last occasion at which was performed the folk ritual of the hangman passing the dead man's hands over the neck and bosoms of young women as a cure for glandular enlargements."
The last two men to be hanged for homosexuality in England. [1835]

Is Pastor Peter Simpson perfectly capable of engaging in civilized debate or perfectly capable of becoming evasive when confronted by harsh realities?






Paul Staines ('Guido Fawkes')


In the column to the left there's a note about my (non-left) politics. I have views on many issues which are very similar to the views of Paul Staines, for example, in regard to green issues.




This has the heading, 'Why the Green Party doesn't deserve support.'  See also the page Veganism: against.


First, some images, on a variety of subjects, all relevant to the Blog Celebrity  Paul Staines, whose site www.order-order.com  has a similar address to this page, 'ordure-ordure.' Ordure: 'excrement, dung; something regarded as  offensive.' I won't be examining a very large number of his failings here. I do concede that Paul Staines has his strengths. I only criticize Paul Staines ('Guido Fawkes,' 'Hammerhead')  the Editor-in-Chief of the outfit, not the other members of his 'team of 'campaigning journalists:' Ellie Wheatley (Reporter), Max Young (Reporter), Simon Carr (Sketch writer). I won't be mentioning any of the people who have worked there and gone on to other things.




Above, the fearsome Great White Shark. Claims that Paul Staines is someone to be feared are wide of the mark, I think. This opinion, on the Guardian page




surely gives an exaggerated view of his power and abilities:


'Right-wing blogger Paul Staines is a man with an instinct for retribution and vendetta. For almost ten years [this was published a long time ago, in 2013] he has been claiming scalps in Westminster. So who's next?'



This image, of a hammerhead shark (a 'scalloped hammerhead shark') is more like it. Paul Staines' threat level: a predator, of a very minor kind. There are no recorded fatalities from attacks by any hammerhead sharks. As I show below, Paul Staines' understanding of practical politics is minute.


Paul Staines has taken part in the bull run of the San Fermin Festival, not just once but over a ten year period. I think he's used the experience to enhance his legendary reputation (amongst credulous people and people who should know better.)



Above, a bullfight at the San Fermin Festival, Pamplona. The protective mattress of the blindfolded horse (which offers insufficient protection) is heavily soiled with blood. After this stabbing with the lance of the picador, the bull has more stabbings to face - perhaps another with the lance, certainly six more stabbings with the barbed banderillas of the banderilleros and the sword thrust of the matador intended to kill the bull - more than often, it fails to. If so, the  bull is stabbed in the spine - perhaps ten times or more.


Support for right-wing views doesn't entail support for bullfighting, of course. This is from an article on the Pamplona 'Festival' and bullfights published in the Daily Express ( 7 July, 2022):


'... the vile, annual bloodbath must end, which is why I travelled to the city to take part in a protest. On July 5, the day before the Running of the Bulls, I joined PETA activists from around the world, including many from Spain, in a colourful march to highlight the horror bulls are subjected to in this event ...'


Talking of credulity, this is  'Saint' Fermin, patron saint of the San Fermin Festival. Supposedly, lived in the third century. No evidence that he ever existed. Legend created in the 9th century. RC superstition in action. Roman Catholic masses are part of the festivities, the bread and wine transformed, supposedly, into the actual body and blood of the 'Saviour.' According to RC doctrine, this trick works just as well with supermarket white sliced bread as with the product of craft bakeries.



Above, map of Europe showing members of NATO. Missing from the map, for obvious reasons, Republic of Ireland, not a member of NATO. Paul Staines has Irish citizenship and is a resident of the Irish Republic for a significant part of the year. Spain is a member of NATO but its commitment is deficient. This is one of the NATO countries which spends much less than 2% of GDP on defence, which doesn't take its responsibilities seriously. The figure for Spain in 2022:1.5%  Ireland, of course, relies for its national security on the protection of Great Britain and the protection of NATO. The figure for Ireland in 2022: Nowhere near 2%.The figure is close to 0.2%


Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Irish Defence Forces


The police force and the armed forces are primary responsibilities of government: protection against internal threats and protection against external threats. The Irish republic has an effective police force but its defence forces are pitifully inadequate. It makes next to no attempt to contribute to collective security.  In a dangerous world, with threats from Russia and the deranged Iranian regime, which threatens the supply of oil to Ireland as well as Britain, it relies for its protection upon Britain, the United States and other countries which take seriously defence of the non-totalitarian world.



From the article




published 21 December, 2022. (Obviously, the author and the source of the article aren't to be taken as endorsing any of my opinions on this page or the wider site.)


Despite the threats to critical infrastructure such as undersea cables highlighted by the wider Ukraine conflict, Ireland’s military continues to struggle to retain staff, let alone expand its operations.

Described as ‘an island at the centre of the world’ by Time magazine in 2017, Ireland has long struggled to reconcile its increased global prominence from successful adaptation to economic globalisation with the national security problématique that accompanies this. Ireland is a global data hub and a base for many multinational technology giants. 75% of the Northern Hemisphere’s telecommunications cables pass through or near its maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Hybrid threats to global connectivity mean that Ireland is no longer an island ‘safely tucked away behind Britain’. The country’s military decline is thus a curious development, as its neutral stance imposes a problematic paradox for defence policy. Continuing public reluctance obstructs stronger EU and NATO cooperation, even if Ireland’s independent military capacity remains modest compared to other European states of similar size and wealth.

Political Neglect


Ireland has long been among the EU’s lowest spenders on defence, recently averaging just 0.2–0.3% of GDP. The Irish Defence Forces (DF) have been without adequate capabilities for tangible national defence for decades, but current regression in DF originates from a post-2012 restructuring programme driven by cost-cutting during Ireland’s financial crisis. Political acceptance of military underfunding is a symptom of a wide civil-military ‘gap’ in Irish society. Ireland is currently commemorating the centenary of its Civil War between 1922 and 1923. Post-conflict state consolidation involved reducing the military’s size and placing it under stringent obedience to civilian authority. Ireland did not introduce conscription after independence in 1922; professional forces (Permanent DF) have been its main focus since 1945. While necessary, these reforms also ensured that the military became a very distant institution in Irish society.

Awareness and understanding of military-strategic issues among wider society and within the political system is often negligible. For most Irish politicians, supporting national defence is unlikely to create much electoral reward. Vice-Admiral Mark Mellett, DF Chief of Staff between 2015 and 2021, describes it as ‘frustrating’ that there is ‘a simple reality whereby the Defence Forces is seen as a cost centre, that it consumes resources, that may well be allocated better elsewhere’. Compounding post-2012 military austerity, Ireland has not had a standalone defence minister since Fine Gael entered government in March 2011. The defence portfolio has been continually under-prioritised in cabinet – sometimes appended to the Department of the Taoiseach (Prime Minister); or delegated to a Minister of State without a vote at cabinet; or held concurrently with other portfolios. This complicates the political guidance that is vital to promote effective defence reform.


Paul Staines has gained a false reputation as a  critic of politicians to be feared, but the politicians he routinely attacks and criticizes are very often politicians whose alleged failings are accompanied by strengths. In the area of defence, British politicians often have great strengths. Compared with any politicians in the Republic of Ireland, they have towering stature. Paul Staines seems to take no account of these strengths. In the financial balance sheets he's used to, credits as well as debits are recorded. In matters to do with ethical and wider political balance, he's willing to take absolutely no interest in the credits of the people he comments on and attacks.


Paul Staines has criticized politicians in this country on countless occasions. I think the time has come for him to criticize the country where he has citizenship, Ireland. The faults of political life in this country are faults overwhelmingly outweighed by the strengths, the strengths of a country with so many reasons for justifiable pride - the part played in the defeat of Nazism alone is reason for immense pride. Then there's the part played during the cold war, the massive contribution to the Ukrainian cause, and so much else. The contribution to NATO needs to be increased, of course, but the country's contribution to NATO is far more substantial than the contribution to most member countries.


I've a page on this farcically deficient country: www.linkagenet.com/themes/Ireland.htm


This is an extract from the page:


There are startling gaps and omissions in the Irish nationalist view of history. The most important single omission is The Second World War - not, obviously, a minor one. According to the mythology of Irish nationalists,  nobody has suffered like the Irish, nobody has exploited others like the English. But in a conflict which was more devastating than any other in history, which inflicted suffering on a greater scale than any other, the English, and the other countries of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the United Kingdom, carried on the war against Hitler alone, for a time, with exiled groups from many countries and volunteers from many countries, including volunteers from the Irish Republic, who served in large numbers. Irish nationalism and the Irish Free State stood aside and did nothing. The IRA actively sought help from the Germans. During The Second World War, the Irish Free State was neutral. After the death of Hitler, condolences were offered from only two sources, Portugal and the government of The Irish Republic. 'The Cruel Sea' is a popular novel by Nicholas Monsarrat.' The factual claims here are confirmed by Brian Girvin in his scholarly 'The Emergency: Neutral Ireland 1939 - 1945).


'...it was difficult to withhold one's contempt from a country such as Ireland, whose battle this was and whose chances of freedom and independence in the event of a German victory were nil. The fact that Ireland was standing aside from the conflict at this moment posed, from the naval angle, special problems which affected, sometimes mortally, all sailors engaged in the Atlantic, and earned their particular loathing.


'Irish neutrality, on which she placed a generous interpretation, permitted the Germans to maintain in Dublin an espionage-centre, a window into Britain, which operated throughout the war and did incalculable harm to the Allied cause. But from the naval point of view there was an even more deadly factor: this was the loss of the naval bases in southern and western Ireland, which had been available to the Royal Navy during the first world war but were now forbidden them. To compute how many men and how many ships this denial was costing, month after month, was hardly possible; but the total was substantial and tragic.

'From a narrow legal angle, Ireland was within her rights: she had opted for neutrality, and the rest of the story flowed from this decision. She was in fact at liberty to stand aside from the struggle, whatever harm this did to the Allied cause. But sailors, watching the ships go down and counting the number of their friends who might have been alive instead of dead, saw the thing in simpler terms. They saw Ireland safe under the British umbrella, fed by her convoys, and protected by her air force, her very neutrality guaranteed by the British armed forces: they saw no return for this protection save a condoned sabotage of the Allied war effort: and they were angry - permanently angry. As they sailed past this smug coastline, past people who did not give a damn how the war went as long as they could live on in their fairy-tale world, they had time to ponder a new aspect of indecency. In the list of people you were prepared to like when the war was over, the man who stood by and watched while you were getting your throat cut could not figure very high.'


To show the gross ignorance and stupidity of Paul Staines' view of bullfighting, all I need to do is to give a link to my page on bullfighting and to give an extract from the page. The extract also gives criticism of other views of P. Staines:




 Here, I concentrate on some of his weaknesses: his support for bullfighting, his support for the reintroduction of the death penalty for some offences, in an initiative of 2011, the stupidity of some of his attitudes to safety. With this section, I launch a very small campaign against Paul Staines. Anything bigger would be a waste of my time and a waste of space. Paul Staines himself isn't a complete waste of space, far from it. His blog 'Guido Fawkes' has many strengths. I intend  to include a profile of his site on this site. There are already profiles in depth of other mainly political sites with extensive comments sections,




'GB News, other anti-woke sites and other issues'


and a long review of Harry's Place on my page on
The Culture Industry


Below, some ridiculous Mind Mush from the Guido Fawkes page. I can also show that it's loathsome - the mention of 'safety nazis,' gross misuse of the word 'Nazi, which should be reserved for attitudes and actions which led to extermination or results of similar seriousness. Does Paul Stains drive a vehicle? I don't know. If he does, does he wear a seat belt? Climbers, discussed below at length, sometimes wear a safety helmet, sometimes not. For dangerous Alpine and Himalayan climbs, they'll always wear a safety helmet. For bouldering and sometimes for very short short climbs, climbers dispense with a climbing rope but virtually all climbers use a climbing rope for longer climbs. I discuss the exceptions here, free climbers, and one free climber in particular, Alex Honnold.


This is  Paul Staines, 'Guido:'




Guido was rummaging in the attic last weekend and found his old blood spattered pañuelo and faja (the sash and neckerchief worn by the runners in Pamplona).  This week is the festival of San Fermin and the news this morning that a runner was gored to death made Guido feel a bit misty-eyed. The second week of July every year for a decade from Guido’s mid-twenties to his mid-thirties would see him in Pamplona doing the run, usually with his brother or friends.   As a veteran of some 30 runs it is fair to say it was an adrenaline addiction – partying all night and running for your life in the morning.  Hangovers clear fast when you hear the rocket fired that signals the release of the bulls.


In a sterile world of safety belts, safety helmets and safety nazis,  the Pamplona bull run is a glorious celebration of the irrational side of the human spirit.  They say that an old man who has not risked his life for his country feels less of a man than an old soldier, so to have never risked your life must be far worse.  To risk your life makes you feel more alive.  Guido prays the cloak  of San Fermin will protect los corredores who will run this week and wishes he was with them.  May God have mercy on the soul of the corredor who so vicerally [he means: 'viscerally'] lost his life: Saludo!


To appreciate just how ridiculous and overblown this is, we need to look at it with the cold gaze of a statistician. ''Pamplona bull run deaths are rare, but since 1910 when record-keeping began, 16 people have died.' This is according to the page Runningofthebulls  What's the point of the word 'but' here? 16 fatalities in this time span is rare.


In my anti-bullfighting page, I discuss the risks of mountaineering and some forms of rock climbing, the risks of battle and the risks of bullfighting. I point out that the risks of bullfighting are grossly and grotesquely exaggerated by bullfighters and defenders of bullfighting.


In the third column of the page, I discuss death in war, specifically the deaths of members of the British and American  armed forces (and others) during the First and Second World War. I begin with this:


Tristan Garel-Jones, in his Proclamation of the Maestranza Bullring  ('El Pregón Taurino de la Maestranza'):


'In the Anglo Saxon world ... they are no longer able to look death in the face. Indeed they are hardly able to pronounce so much as the word.' 


Alexander Fiske-Harrison, speaking in support of Tristan Garel-Jones:


British and American culture is 'a culture which is afraid to even think of death.'


According to Alexander Fiske Harrison, the proclamation was


calling aficionados to arms in defence of bullfighting. (' ... llamando a los aficionados a las armas en defensa de la fiesta de los toros.')


I give evidence against, but the evidence I give can't possibly be adequate. On the page, I leave out, for example, this fact. British bomber crews, all volunteers, were allocated 30 missions during the Second World War. This was a 'Tour,' but often, crew members volunteered to go on more missions, sometimes completing a second tour and even a third. What were their chances of surviving a Tour? Only 1 in 3. Two thirds of them were killed and never completed one tour. This was a staggeringly high death rate.


Paul Staines as stunt man,  with a stunted understanding of politics



'Stunt' here has to be understood as meaning 'anything unusual done for attention,' not as 'a feat of daring or skill' or 'anything spectacular done for attention.' These are meanings given in 'Collins English Dictionary.'


Guido Fawkes and the death penalty



My page on The death penalty has the heading, 'The death penalty: against, but not always.' The exceptions relate  mainly to the past. I take the view that far more Nazi war criminals should have been executed after  the Second World War. I give my reasons on the death penalty page.


Paul Staines has 'campaigned' to bring back hanging. His campaign was bad, comically bad, grotesquely bad. Why any politician should fear such a bungling person, incapable of the slightest approximation to an effective and realistic political campaign, is beyond my comprehension. He made the most elementary mistakes. He launched a petition to bring back the death penalty and of course, the petition failed. Anyone with any sense would realize that the petition would fail. Even if he had succeeded in obtaining 100,000 signatures, it would have failed. We don't decide to hang people in this country if a large number of people sign a petition.


Paul Staines obviously has a  grossly defective understanding of the checks and balances which underlie democratic polics. He obviously fails to understand that restoration of the death penalty would be an enormous task, facing enormous - insuperable - obstacles, For one, thing, it would entail neglecting urgent issues. Time given to one issue in the Hous of Commons is time not given to other issues. Paul Staines seems to have been unaware of this. If he imagined that a small number of executions each year would act as a deterrent against murder, then he was badly mistaken. (Or did he imagine that the country would executed 50 people a year or more? Did he imagine that the country would executed on an Iranian scale?) He was badly mistaken ever to have undertaken this stupid stunt. With this one error of judgement alone, he made it clear that he was a political innocent.


Political innocents often become associated with doomed causes supported by outright weirdos. I'd have to describe Julian Mann, an evangelical Christian, as deficienty in the sense department. He too has supported the death penalty. From the page




'The campaign by political blogger Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes) for the restoration of capital punishment has a strong Christian case behind it.

It is worth asking why Christian nations have historically enforced the death penalty whereas societies that are de-Christianising, such as Britain in the 1960s, tend to abolish it.

The answer lies in that society’s changing attitude to the authority of the Bible.

That is not to suggest that support for capital punishment is a cardinal doctrine of Holy Scripture. The Bible is centrally about eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins he died to bring all mankind, including those guilty of murder. But it is to argue that the Bible leans strongly towards the death penalty for murderers.

In Genesis 9, God establishes a binding agreement – ‘covenant’ - with Noah, in which famously the rainbow is the sign that God will not destroy the earth again by flooding. That covenant includes the following stipulation: ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man’ (Genesis 9v6 – King James Version).

The fact that mankind, male and female, is created in the image of God has been established in Genesis chapter 1. The institution of the death penalty for murderers in the Noahic Covenant is thus a practical moral consequence of the fact that their victims are made in the image of God. They are guilty of murdering God's image-bearers and so their fellow men have the God-given responsibility to execute the death penalty upon them.


Another error of judgement on the part of Paul Staines. He has stated that he never called for the hanging of Nelson Mandela but that he associated with people who did use the slogan, 'Hang Nelson Mandela.' Practical politicians - and idealistic politicians - would have more sense in their choice of associates, or associates they would care to mention, would be willing to mention in the public domain, if they value their reputation and their electorability. Paul Staines seems to be oblivious to such matters. 


The last hangings in this country were in 1964. For quite a long time after abolition, there were calls to 'bring back hanging.' The calls have become fewer and fewer. Occasionally, there are calls to bring back hanging in the comments sections of right wing blogs, including one or two listed and discussed on this page, but there are practically none of them.


These people don't tend to have any knowledge or understanding of the massive obstacles to bringing back the death penalty. They are likely to know nothing of the innocent people executed in error, such as Timothy Evans, or the people who could easily have been sentenced to death if the death penalty had been in use at the time, people such as the Birmingham Six, who were found to be innocent, exonerated.


These people don't tend to have any knowledge of the great quantity of statistical and other evidence which show that the death penalty is far from being a unique deterrent to murder. The 'other' evidence includes evidence of the many murderers who kill themselves and presumably have no fear of being killed by judicial execution.


From the page of the Death Penalty Information Center in the United States




States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00).


Guido Fawkes and Nietzsche


From the introduction to my page on Nietzsche, a figure with no obvious similarities with Paul Staines. The hammer in this extract is claimed by Nietzsche. The hammer here is inserted by me into the discussion of Paul Staines.


Nietzsche's 'Twilight of the Idols' is subtitled, 'How to Philosophize with a Hammer:' (Götzen-Dämmerung, oder: Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophirt.) So often, Nietzsche philosophizes with a hammer, a sledgehammer, instead of using skilfully, with finesse, but massive force  when necessary, a wide-ranging set of tools - including a nutcracker, a better tool for cracking nuts than a sledgehammer.


Nietzsche is far more varied than Paul Staines, but the two of them, in their vastly different ways, have a tendency to think of themselves as forceful, are regarded as forceful by many other people, yet are lacking in the variety of the means they employ, lacking too in 'repertoire.'


Guido Fawkes and The News of the World: Guido Fawkes and Ephemera




Above, advert for the newspaper 'The News of the World,' Dublin, 1969.



Anyone too impressed by popularity and popular journalism would do well to reflect upon the 'News of the World,' which closed in 2011. At one time, it was the highest-selling Engilsh-language newspaper in the world. Sales averaged 2,812,000 in one of the months in the year before it closed.  At one time, it was the world's highest-selling English-language newspaper, and when it closed, it  still had one of the highest English-language circulations.


It failed in its journalistic standards. It has left behind no substantial record of important journalism, in fact, it has hardly left a trace. The record of 'Guido Fawkes' will be greater, but not very much, surely.

















Ordure-ordure: some right-wing partly mistaken or badly mistaken bloggers,
including Paul Staines ('Guido Fawkes')