An Early Day Motion has been tabled calling for an end to their publication in physical form.

Tom Levitt’s EDM, which has been signed by three other MPs, reads:

“That this House believes that the routine publication of Early Day Motions by the House should henceforward be in electronic form only.”

There has been a sharp increase in the number of EDMs tabled in the past decade.

In the 2007-08 session there were 2,727, according to this table of the number of EDMs in each session since the Second World War.

In the 1939‐40 session there were just 21.

They reacted 100 per session in 1951-52.

By 1985‐86 the number had reached1,261 and in 2005‐06 there were 2,924.

EDMs can be tabled by any MP and are a way for them to raise matters of local or national interest, to complain or to praise.

Among the eye-cathing EDMs this week:

Nigel Evans commemorates the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing – six signatures;

Mohammad Sarwar celebrates that great Glasgow invention, “the culinary masterpiece that is chicken tikka masala”- six signatures;

Iris Robinson demands the BBC keep Thought For The Day traditional “as part of the recognition that the United Kingdom is founded on Christian principles” – 12 signatures;

Bob Spink wants government action on the illegal slaughter of 500,000 dogs a year for their meat in the Philippines – 11 signatures.

Malcolm Bruce celebrates the International Year of Natural Fibres – 13 signatures.

Click here for a full list of EDMs.

“L’attuale codice di condotta è silente in materia di espressione di opinioni da parte di membri dell’Assembly, su questioni morali e sociali”, ha asserito il portavoce dell’Assembly stessa.
Con questa affemazione si è concluso il ‘caso’ Iris Robinson che mesi fa si era lasciat andare a commenti deprorevoli nei confronti della comunità gay (omosessualità = abominio), durante la trasmissione radiofonica di Stephen Nolan per la BBC.
Il portavoce dell’Assembly, ricordando che il diritto di libertà di espressione è un principio fondamentale di ogni democrazia, ha aggiunto: “Non sarebbe pertanto opportuno cercare di prevenire o limitare qualsiasi opinione politica espressa legalmente. Tuttavia,  i membri devono sì avere il diritto di esprimere le proprie opinioni, ma come rappresentanti della comunità, essi hanno una particolare responsabilità per il modo in cui essi esprimono tali credenze e opinioni”.

No action over Iris gay comments (BBC News Northern Ireland)
Comments made by Iris Robinson about homosexuality do not warrant disciplinary action, the Assembly Ombudsman has ruled. The DUP MLA made the comments on BBC Radio Ulster’s Stephen Nolan. Mrs Robinson said that homosexuality “was an abomination”. The Strangford representative also said with help, gay people could be “turned around”. “The existing code of conduct is silent in respect of the expression of views by members on moral and social matters,” said an Assembly Ombudsman spokesman. “The case does not warrant any further action within the terms of the code. “On one hand elected representatives must be free, within the law, to express any political opinion that they may hold. This includes opinions on moral and social issues.” The spokesman said that such freedom of expression was an essential aspect of any democracy. ‘Prevent or limit’ “It would therefore not be appropriate for the Assembly to seek to prevent or limit any political opinion being expressed legally,” he continued. “However, it is also the case that while members must be entitled to express their opinions, as public representatives they nonetheless have a particular responsibility for the manner in which they express such beliefs and views. “It is essential that in acting in the interests of the community as a whole, members are conscious of the risk of some groups in society using the articulation of those sincerely held beliefs as a reason to physically attack members of any community who also have the right to live their lives without fear of attack or hostility from others.”

Il giorno dopo la pubblicazione on line sul sito della House of Commons delle documentazioni relative ai rimborsi spese richiesti dai parlamentari, si apprende che a partire dal mese di maggio, quando sono divampate le polemiche sui rimborsi spese, essi stessi hanno iniziato a restituire somme inizialmente addebitate.
Mark Durkan e Peter Robinson sono tra i 182 parlamentari che hanno rimborsato le spese inizialmente addebitate.
Il primo ha restituito £ 1.124, il secondo invece ha restituito £ 755,  il suo collega David Simpson ne ha restituite £ 1.482, mentre Paul Goggins, restituita £ 11.680.
Le spese rimborsate dai parlamentari, da maggio ad oggi, ammontano a circa £ 500.000.
Per quanto riguarda il Gabinetto dei Ministri, la restituzione è stata pari a £ 23.443.
Gordon Brown ha effettuato quattro distinti versamenti per un totale  di £ 800 o per correggere “errori” o per “evitare dubbi” su alcuni rimborsi.
I ministri del Shadow Cabinet, hanno restituito £ 30.348.

NI MPs give back expenses money (BBC News Northern Ireland)
The DUP leader, Peter Robinson, and SDLP leader Mark Durkan are among 182 MPs from all parties who have repaid parliamentary expenses money. Mr Durkan has returned £1,124. Mr Robinson has paid back £755 while his DUP colleague David Simpson has returned £1,482. The Northern Ireland Office minister, Paul Goggins, paid back £11,680. MPs have now repaid nearly £500,000 in expenses money since the revelations began in May. Cabinet ministers have so far repaid £23,443 in total. Gordon Brown has made four separate payments totalling about £800 either to correct “inadvertent errors” or for the “avoidance of doubt” on certain claims. Fountain pen Shadow Cabinet ministers have repaid £30,348. The latest information on repayments was published hours after all MPs expenses claims for 2004-8 were finally released by Parliament, albeit with crucial details such as MPs addresses blacked out. The publication showed that the DUP’s Iris Robinson claimed for a £300 fountain pen. In 2006, Mrs Robinson submitted a receipt for £352 – the printed receipt showed a £300 Montblanc pen, a £6 bottle of ink and £46 for perfume. However, it is believed Mrs Robinson was not reimbursed for these items. “This is because the Westminster fees office rejected the claim because they were luxury items,” said BBC NI political correspondent Martina Purdy. “The MP has so far not commented.” Other MPs claimed for a range of items including the Secretary of State Shaun Woodward for 456 tins of Diet Coke.

Dopo una lunga battaglia del Freedom of Information Act, dalle 6 di questa mattina (18 giugno) più di 1 milione di documenti stampati e ricevute scannerizzate elettronicamente, sono stati pubblicati sul sito della House of Commons.
Le informazioni pubblicate online, sicuramente di grande interesse per gli elettori,  coprono gli ultimi quattro esercizi finanziari, anche se molto dei dettagli sono stati oscurati.
Tra le spese dichiarate si può trovare un televisore LCD di Mark Durkan, cuscini e asciugamani griffati Laura Ashley di Iris Robinson,  una sedia verde con supporti in legno di Gerry Adams, una poltrona del valore di 235 £  ed un orologio costato 31,45 £ di Peter Robinson e un kit di pronto soccorso del costo di 22,5 £ di Martin McGuinness.
William McCrea nell’aprile del 2006 aveva acquistato un appartamento a Londra, ma il prezzo è stato cancellato.

Cliccate QUI’ per visionare il dettaglio delle spese dichiarate dai parlamentari.

Ulster MPs’ expenses revealed (NewsLetter)
The expenses of Northern Ireland’s MPs’ have been published.
The radical move follows a public outcry after leaks that many public representatives at Westminster had abused the system.
The information published online covers the past four financial years, although much of the detail has been blacked out.
More than a million printed documents and receipts have been scanned electronically over the last year in a major publishing operation
Expenses recorded by Northern Ireland MPs will be of much interest to the Ulster electorate.
Among the claims from our local representatives include an LCD TV by Mark Durkan, cushions and towels from Laura Ashley by Iris Robinson and a green chair with lumber support by Gerry Adams.
South Antrim MP William McCrea purchased a flat in London in April 2006, however, the price has been blotted out.
DUP leader Peter Robinson claimed for a tub chair at £235 and a clock at £31.45 among many items.
Meanwhile, Martin McGuinness claimed for a first aid kit at £22.99.

After yesterday’s broadcast of the Politics Show in which all 7 Northern Irish candidates sat on a question panel, the general consensus within the blogasphere is that the most of the candidates gave a satisfactory performance.    

That would include our own candidate, Jim Nicholson, who would admit that he is not the greatest of performers in a broadcast interview.  Diane Dodds, meanwhile, gave a terrible performance.  Some would describe it as disastrous.   

There have been plenty of negatives about the DUP. Perhaps if the euro election was another year or two later, the Conservatives and Unionists would have made much more political hay than they have so far.  Unfortunately, for the Conservatives and Unionists, the teething problems of putting together a new political force have not yet been overcome.  Lady Sylvia Hermon’s announcement was a symptom of that.    

There is perhaps one more thing which would hit Diane Dodds very hard.  It would be a discovery of unethical claims of Parliamentary expenses by her husband, Nigel Dodds.    

Alastair Darling is under pressure to resign as chancellor following adverse disclosures over his expense claims.  The criticism being levelled at Darling is that as the senior minister in charge of the nation’s finances, the position of trust and confidence will have broken down and he should therefore resign.  If Nigel Dodds, as first minister, were to be similarly scandalised, he would also face pressure to step down.   

I would suggest Diane Dodds would not be able to avoid being tainted by association in such circumstances.  Very few would believe that she would have no knowledge about her husband’s expense claims, particularly when she also is a politician.   

So far, 460 MPs have been investigated after 23 days.  That includes 11 of Northern Ireland’s 18 MPs.  At this rate, we can expect a further 60 MPs to be investigated by the time of voting for the European Elections on Thursday.  That would leave about 130 of them not investigated by the Euro elections.  If there is something to reveal, Mrs. Dodds will be keeping her fingers crossed that there is no disclosure before Thursday.    

Update 2nd June 2009.  Now there are only 3 NI MPs left to investigate.  Dodds still to be investigated.

Northern Ireland claims table 

Shows Nigel Dodds as the second highest claimant on aggregate but it is the breakdown which determines whether the claims were unethical.

Northern Ireland MPs so far Investigated

Peter Robinson,  Iris Robinson,  Martin Maguiness,  Gerry Adams,  Pat Doherty,  Michelle Gildernew,  Conor Murphy,  Mark Durkan,  Jeffrey Donaldson,  Gregory Campbell,  Sylvia Hermon,  Ian Paisley, David Simpson, William McCrea,  Sammy Wilson

Northern Ireland MPs still to be investigated

Nigel Dodds, Eddie McGrady, Alastair McDonnell

Yesterday, it was announced that Conservative MPs Nicholas and Anne Winterton would not be standing as MPs in their constituencies at the next general election.   

Their reason for leaving appears to be connected with the MP expenses scandal as revealed by yesterday’s Daily Telegraph.   

On January 27^th 2009, a report appeared in the Belfast Newsletter indicating that Conservative MP, Sir Nicholas Winterton, attended a dinner in Ballymena to celebrate Dr. Ian Paisley’s 40 years as an MP.  At the dinner, he was quoted as saying as follows:  

“I am concerned that the arrangement now being entered into between the Conservatives and Unionist Party and the Official Unionists (UUP) in Northern Ireland will divide the vote in marginal constituencies and serve only to let in Sinn Fein.
“Those that seek to divide are doing a disservice to the unionist cause.
“We have a duty not to turn our backs on the unionist people of Northern Ireland whose loyalty to our Queen and country I have never doubted.
“That loyalty should be honoured and reciprocated – but never betrayed.”

It was as a result of this report that I found out more about the close connection between the Wintertons and the DUP MPs including the other MP couple, Peter and Iris Robinson.  Sir Nicholas Winterton voted against the Belfast Agreement.  

After the report, I learned that the Wintertons were very much “one-off” supporters of the DUP within the Conservative Party. 

The Wintertons might be missed by the DUP MPs.  They will not be missed by very many Conservatives.

Cast your eye over some of the comments attached to the Belfast Telegraph report on Peter and Irish Robinson and you might notice something that I did.  

It was not just public disgust.  It was anger everywhere.  I believe that we are in for something of a watershed in the European Elections.  Labour will be hit by it.  So will the Conservatives.  There may even be an additional dimension to this in Northern Ireland.

Until last year, the leader of the DUP (previously named the “Protestant Unionist Party) was Revd. Ian Paisley.  This is the man for half a century managed to mix religion and politics.  He was despised by many from the Catholic community.  There was no shortage of bigotry in his speeches.  There was plenty of distortion of facts in a lot of the things he said.  Was he ever found to be dishonest?   

I am not aware of any allegations of dishonesty against Revd. Paisley. It looks very much as though he remains the non-smoking, non-drinking, bible-adherent fundamentalist Protestant.   

One of Paisley’s legacies is that orthodox Protestantism seems to form part of the DUP’s ideology.  That is apparent from some of the things that their politicians say on matters such as creationism.  I am therefore wondering if the impact of the Robinson’s expenses claims will be far greater than just a couple of weeks of embarrassment.  Will a lot of people not feel too let down to forgive or will they more easily forgive?  

One politician who may be wondering if divine intervention is going his way is Jim Allister. Allister is a chip off the old DUP bible-thumping block.  The timing of the scandal could not have been much better for Allister.  In fact, he seems to be so confident about the impact of the story on the Robinsons that he has not even named them directly in his latest post.  He also uses his post to highlight his good transparency in that his expenses are posted on his website.  

There’s only one good piece of news that would top what has already happened – An expense claims scandal against Nigel Dodds. Casting my eye over the table that I published on 31^st March, lo and behold, he is the Northern Ireland MP with the second-highest aggregate expense claim.  Hmmm.

…is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”

1 Timothy 6:10-11

Please Note: This blog was not intended to be politcal, but it’s kinda hard to miss a story like this. The scary thing is…. despite their treachery, lies, deceit and greed, the vast majority of ‘Free P’s’ and Whitewellers will turn out in their numbers to support them in the next election.

Il Daily Telegraph ha riportato che Peter e Iris Robinson  hanno chiesto per il cibo un rimborso di £30,000   come spese parlamentari, nell’arco di 4 anni. Le cifre riportate dal giornale dimostrano anche che la coppia ha chiesto il rimborso di 160.000 a copertura degli interessi pagati per il mutuo di una casa a Londra.
Mr Robinson ha contrattaccato sostenendo di aver chiesto i soldi legittimanente e che c’è una sottile linea tra chi opera all’interno delle regole e chi se ne approfitta.
Egli ha affermato di aver probabilmente speso più di quanto abbia chiesto di rimborso. Robinson e il suo partito ritengono che sia necessaria una riforma, pur nella consapevolezza che comunque non tutti saranno soddisfatti.
La richiesta di Mr Robinson, primo ministro del NI, è stata respinta da Westminster poiché già presentata dalla consorte Iris Robinson. Mr Robinson ha dichiarato che si è trattato di un errore, giustamente rilevato. E’ convinzione del Primo Ministro nordirlandese che le cifre siano state volutamente gonfiate per suscitare clamore ed è sicuro che se i parlamentari dormissero su panchine e mangiassero solo pane, ci sarebbe comunque della gente che sosterrebbe che i politici hanno troppo.
Il leader del Traditional Unionist Voice, Jim Allister, sostiene che la fiducia della gente verso i politici è stata stravolta completamente.
“Ci sono persone che fanno fatica a pagare la spesa settimanale così quando si vedono assurde esagerazioni nelle spese pubbliche, le persone per bene si sentono offese”.

Robinsons in £30,000 food claims (BBC News Northern Ireland)
MPs Peter and Iris Robinson claimed about £30,000 for food in parliamentary expenses over a four-year period, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Leaked expenses claims in the paper show the DUP couple claimed £160,000 in mortgage interest payments between 2004 and 2008.
These were claimed for an apartment owned by the couple in London.
Mr Robinson said the money was claimed legitimately but both he and his party believed the system needed reform.
“There’s a world of difference between those who legitimately claim within the rules and those who are clearly operating outside the rules,” he said.
“I’d be pretty sure that the amount that I actually spend would be more than that for which I have claimed.”
He said whatever system was introduced some people would still not be happy.
“I think if MPs slept on a park bench and starved themselves that would still be too much for some people,” he said.
MPs are entitled to claim up to £400 per month in food bills according to the Daily Telegraph.
The newspaper states that the couple each claimed the maximum in most months.
Mr Robinson, NI’s first minister, said that over the period his average weekly claim was around £70 which he said was not unreasonable for London.
The figure of around £70 for each of the Robinsons can be calculated by dividing the total claim of £30,525 by the number of days in four years (1406) which gives an average joint daily claim of around £21.
The Telegraph also reports that both Mr Robinson and his wife claimed around £1,200 for service charges on their London flat when they submitted a claim on 31 March 2007.
Mr Robinson’s claim was rejected by a Westminster official as Iris Robinson had already made the claim. Mr Robinson said this was an innocent mistake.
“Over all the years there was one inadvertent claim prepared by the person who prepared the claims and it was because both claims were put in the same envelope and sent to the House of Commons.
“It was obviously something that would be spotted and happily it was,” he said.
On the same day each claimed around £5,000 for five months’ mortgage interest payments.
This was also rejected and the reason stated was that no mortgage interest statements had been submitted to back up the claim.
It is not clear from documents whether the money was ever paid or whether the statements were submitted.
Mr Robinson said: “The claims were submitted consistent with House of Commons rules and after Fees Office advice.
“Many people hold the view that the rules for the payment of expenses should be changed.
“My party colleagues and I want reform and indeed have voted for change. Such steps are necessary in order to gain public confidence.”
He said the Daily Telegraph had “bunched the claims of my wife and I together” and given a total over four years in order to arrive at a high figure for the food expenses.
However, Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister said public trust in politicians had been “rocked to its core”.
“In Northern Ireland the added dimensions of double-jobbing and family-dynasty building, has added to the public contempt,” he said.
“Paying the weekly grocery bill is a huge struggle for many, so when extravagance, at the public expense, is flaunted, it offends right-thinking people.”

Today, Peter and Irish Robinson will be squirming in front of their copy of the Belfast Telegraph.    

All the attention will be on them for the rest of the day.  I need not say any more about that story.   

It made me think. Is there anything left?  What about the Euro MPs. If a similar system for expenses for Euro MPs was similar to that of the House of Commons, I would be in no doubt that we would see dubious claims all over Europe.   

As I researched the net, lo and behold, I stumbled upon this most interesting report in the Times last year.  The report says it all.  Somebody knows something quite explosive that is not yet in the public domain.  

David Cameron should, right now, be asking all of the existing Conservative MEPs to disclose, immediately, anything they know which could embarrass the party.  If they are not honest in their response, there is nothing further that can be done for the time being.  However, having carried out that exercise, he will have acquired the sharpest of axes.   

When the detailed news eventually hits the headlines (which I believe it will) he will be able to use it quickly and cleanly.  He would not then be blamed for letting them become elected.

With yesterday’s announcement by David Cameron of his initiative to purge the excessive claims of MPs, he has certainly demonstrated leadership and an ability to handle a crisis.   

Whether those intending to vote conservative are sufficiently impressed by Cameron’s actions, we shall have to wait and see.  The next round of opinion polls will be very interesting.   

With Cameron having done all he can and with both Gordon Brown and the Lib Dems having announced their initiatives, the local spotlight will probably now turn back towards the parties in Northern Ireland.   

The Sunday Telegraph this weekend highlighted the expense claims of Sinn Fein MPs.  History makes it unlikely that they will be damaged by it politically. For example, they never lost support after the raid on the Northern Bank.   

What about the DUP?  Last week, Peter Robinson was on the backfoot over an email sent to one of his constituents.   Previously, he displayed anger over the “Swish Family Robinson” news headlines.  He did try to gag the Belfast Telegraph over another matter.  He certainly won’t be able to do that with the Daily Telegraph.

If you thought that overt Homophobic bigotry was confined to DUP politicians, here is a wake up call.  A Conservative councillor, Mr. Patrick Clark, has publicly referred to gay people as “sexual deviants”. 

Pink news has reported Mr. Clarke’s defence of his views following his suspension for making those comments.  It is noted that Mr. Clarke bases his views on his religious teaching.  The references in the Old Testament of the Bible, to homosexuality being an abomination, will always be an obstacle to complete humanism for Christians and Jews.  

When it comes to politics, a Conservative politician or official is obliged to behave as a humanist, no matter what his or her religious beliefs.  That requires tolerance and sensitivity on matters of race, religion, sex, culture, disability and sexual orientation.  The Derby Conservative Party has, quite rightly, taken action against Mr. Clark for his comments.    

Dopo aver trattato il tema dell’omosessualità in relazione alle dichiarazioni ’scandalo’ di qualche mese fa rilasciate da Iris Robinson, moglie del Primo Ministro nordirlandese Peter Robinson, vi propongo questo articolo pubblicato da Pink News.

La Sandown Free Presbyterian Church ricorrerà alla High Court contro l’Advertising Standards Authority che l’ha giudicata colpevole di omofobia, sulla base di un inserto pubblicitario pubblicato sul Belfast News Letter.
Il giornale riferisce che l’annuncio conteneva versetti della Bibbia in cui l’omosessualità viene descritta come un “abominio”.
L’ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) ha stabilito che l’inserto pubblicitario, invita le persone “religiose”  a opporsi pubblicamente ai diritti dei gay e ai Gay Pride, respingendo il ricorso della chiesa fondato su un presunto fraintendimento.
“Abbiamo ritenuto che una parte del testo usato in relazione alla omosessualità, per esempio,” … dichiarandolo un abominio… “,” … il giudizio di Dio su di un peccato … “,” … liberare i peccatori dalla loro colpa … “,” … un motivo di rammarico per una parte della comunità che desidera essere conosciuta per una perversa forma di sessualità … “, è andato oltre a quanto possa essere giudicato accettabile dalla maggioranza dei lettori.
“Riteniamo che occorra prestare particolare attenzione, onde evitare il rischio di reati per motivi di orientamento sessuale”.
L’ASA ha dichiarato di aver ricevuto sette denunce per pubblicità offensiva, e altre sei che la ritengono una potenziale istigazione alla violenza.
Il Rev. David McIlveen, sostenendo la buona fede della chiesa, ha dichiarato di voler impugnare il provvedimento. “Va ricordato che la pubblicazione dell’annuncio si è reso necessario dopo l’esibizione di un cartello durante il Gay Pride del 2007, in cui si affermava che ‘Gesù è un gay’ – un dato di fatto che sia l’ASA, sia il revisore indipendente, hanno cercato di ignorare”.

Belfast church to challenge ruling on ‘homophobic’ adverts (Pink News)
A Belfast church has said it will go to the high court to contest a ruling from the Advertising Standards Authority that its adverts were homophobic.
Sandown Free Presbyterian Church placed the adverts in the Belfast News Letter last summer.
The newspaper reports that the ads contained verses from the Bible describing gay sex as an “abomination”.
The ASA ruled that the church’s advert, which called gay people perverts and called on “religious” people to publicly oppose gay rights and Pride events, broke their rules on decency.
It rejected the church’s appeal to have its adjudication overturned.
“We considered that some of the text used in relation to homosexuality, for example, “… declaring it to be an abomination …”, “… God’s judgement upon a sin …”, “… remove the guilt of their wrongdoing …”, “… a cause for regret that a section of the community desire to be known for a perverted form of sexuality …”, went further than the majority of readers were likely to find acceptable.
“We considered that particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of sexual orientation, and concluded that this ad had caused serious offence to some readers.
“The ad should not appear again in its current form,” the ASA ruling concluded.
The ASA said it received seven complaints that the advert was offensive, while six asserted it was likely to provoke violence.
Sandown minister the Rev David McIlveen said he was “disappointed” at the ruling and will challenge the verdict.
Mr McIlveen said: “In attempting to address their flawed adjudication they have changed the emphasis: from concept of the advertisement causing widespread offence to the advertisement causing serious offence.
“At no time did the Kirk Session of Sandown Presbyterian Church set out to deliberately offend anyone.
“It should be remembered the advertisement was prompted by the carrying of a placard in the Gay Pride parade of 2007 stating ‘Jesus is a fag’ – a fact that both the ASA and the independent reviewer sought to ignore.”
He added: “We take great exception to the council’s conclusion that the advertisement implied that homosexual people were perverted and an abomination.
“The council clearly fails to appreciate that it was the act of sodomy in which our opposition was directed.”

Last night, the Conservative Party of Northern Ireland hosted a promotional and fund-raising dinner at the Europa Hotel.  

Conservative area committee member, Tim Lewis, spokesman for business relations, introduced the speakers.  The main guest speaker was Northern Irishman, Colonel Tim Collins O.B.E.   

Tim Collins initially reminded us of the sacrifices made by our servicemen.  There were 100 soldiers killed in Iraq in 2008.  A similar number were killed in Northern Ireland in 1972.

He highlighted the achievements of Northern Ireland people in many fields including science, sport, military medicine and law and part of the reason for that which was its grammar school education system.  He attacked Sinn Fein’s failed policy on the abolition of the eleven plus. 

“I cannot think of anywhere else in the World where they replace a system having no idea of what to replace it with”, said Collins. 

He highlighted the fact that politics was the one area Northern Ireland had failed to produce greatness. In a reference to the continuing success of sectarian politics, he called the Northern Ireland political arena a “self-contained fantasy land with no hope of rising beyond the petty.”  

Making an oblique biblical reference, he made a jag at the DUP for their outspoken homophobia, “You will run into a pillar of salt. It will turn out to be Iris Robinson”, he said. 

He highlighted our central objective, which is to bring Normal Politics to Northern Ireland.  “We have to reach across the divide and do away with badges”, he said. 

He highlighted the need to maintain and nurture our special relationships with the USA and the Republic of Ireland. 

He acknowledged the political risks taken by the UUP and the SDLP to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.  He made reference to the DUP and Sinn Fein having ‘stolen the clothes’ of moderation after many years of extremism likening them to “two bears who came to the centre who can only glare at each other without being able to move forward together.”  

He spelt out the importance of detaching [toxic] labels and symbols, particularly from the point of view of the younger generation and made a plea to the UUP to let go of Ulster. “’Ulster’ is something we have to leave behind”, he said.  “If we can leave labels behind, our children will reap.”  

Jim Nicholson MEP

Tim Lewis then gave an especially warm welcome to Jim Nicholson, MEP who will contest to represent Northern Ireland on behalf of the Conservatives and Unionists.  There were cheers and a loud applause when he said “… our candidate”  

Mr. Nicholson gave a brief speech of thanks.  He highlighted his Conservative credentials and his record as an MEP going back 20 years.  He gave an indication of the challenges ahead, acknowledging and supporting the concerns of the Conservative Party in Europe. “We can add to the future of Europe.”  He emphasized the need for a “soft landing” for the newly-joined Eastern European countries that look to the EU to help develop their economies.  

Coroners Bill causes worry for some Christian campaigners

A new set of laws being debated in Parliament today could see clergy in court if they speak out against homosexuality.

The Coroners and Justice Bill could reverse a free speech clause which currently protects people who discuss or criticise sexual conduct, or urge others to refrain from it.

The Ministry of Justice has added a clause to proposed legislation which, if passed, will repeal this exception. Justice Secretary Jack Straw said there were no circumstances in which the right to freedom of speech could justify homophobic behaviour.

The government argues in reality, preachers wouldn’t fall foul of the law. But Mike Judge from the Christian Institute tells Premier, despite those reassurances ministers must keep the right to preach on the subject:

“Whether you agree that homosexuality is acceptable is almost not the issue here. The issue is should people be free to express their opposition to a certain type of conduct without fear of coming into contact with police officers and the powers of the state.”

The Bishop of Chester Peter Forster tells Premier he expects attempts to re-establish the clause, if the House of Commons removes it:

“When it eventually gets to the House of Lords we will have a re-run of the argument and probably a desire to leave in free speech. “It brings together a coalition of the more conservative Christian members of the House of Lords and such prominent personages such as Rowan Atkinson.”

Rowan Atkinson, a long-standing campaigner for freedom of expression, gave a powerful speech at the House of Lords last week backing the retention of the “free speech”.

Iris Robinson will not be prosecuted.

: 20 March 2009
IRIS Robinson will not face prosecutoin for controversial remarks she made about homosexuals.
The First lady sparkedf a huge row last year when she called for homosexuals to seek psychiatric counselling.

Row

The DUP MLA claimed on the BBC’s Stephen Nolan show that with help, gay people could be “turned around”.

Police said yesterday that after a “lengthy and complex investigation” they were satisfied no offence had been committed.

Probe

A PSNI spokesman said: “On receipt of the advice of the Public Prosecution Service and considering all of the matters raised, the Police Service is satisfied that on the occasions considered, Mrs Robinson did not commit an offence.

“As a consequence, no further police action will be taken in relation to these complaints.”

But a gay rights group said in future she should “respect the diversity” in society.

Colin Flinn, who chairs an advisory group for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered people said the current legislation needed to be reviewed.

Disappointment

He said: “While we are disappointed that a prosecution will not take place enabling the law to be publically tested, we hope that in future Mrs Robinson and others may in future respect the diversity within our society and desist in attacking our community.

Mrs Robinson claimed last year: “I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals – trying to turn away from what they are engaged in.

“I’m happy to put any homosexual in touch with this gentleman and I have met people who have turned around and become heterosexuals.”

She later sparked another storm by branding homosexuality an “abomination” and stated it was the Government’s job to carry out the word of God.

Iris Robinson will not be prosecuted over remarks that she make last year about Homosexuals. 

Reports about what she said are well documented elsewhere and I will not repeat them here.  I am not surprised that there will not be a prosecution.  I thought that when I heard there would be an investigation, thinking with my Lawyer’s hat.  That will be of little consolation to people from the Gay community who see this as an injustice.  

I wish I could say that in some way, Iris Robinson will pay a significant political price for her remarks. Most of those who support her do not disagree with what she said.  Her husband, the First Minister, Peter Robinson has since defended her remarks using references to the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament where the practice of Homosexuality is referred to as an abomination (e.g. Leviticus 18:22).  

By contrast, discrimination laws, whether about employment or Human Rights, have developed and by-passed the Bible as a moral starting point for making law.  It is as if we need a new equivalent of Charles Darwin to take religion out of the dark ages on this subject. 

For anybody who would like an authorititave scientific understanding of homosexuality, I recommend a book entitled “Why men don’t listen and why women cant read maps” by Alan and Barbara Pease, two famous psychologists.  The book is easy for a lay person to follow.  It provides a wonderful insight into the differences between male and female brain-wiring.  People I have talked to who have read the book have acknowledged the positive impact of the book on their own prejudices, not only towards the opposite sex, but towards homosexuals too.  

There are many who do not agree with the laws against discrimination, particularly DUP politicians.  Indeed, the DUP do not like Human Rights, full stop.  Last summer, they supported the Labour Party over the 42-day bill despite Labour’s failure to put a case to Parliament that a longer detention period was needed to deal with terrorism.  Last November, Sammy Wilson MLA, once again demonstrating his tendency not to appreciate the bigger picture, called for a debate in Parliament on Human Rights.  This was because he could not accept reporting restrictions in relation to alleged drug trafficking.   

More than 2 years ago, Peter Hain, then Northern Ireland Secretary, pushed through regulations on sexual orientation in order to prevent them being blocked by the DUP.  When it comes to Human Rights, the DUP is not a party to be trusted. 

Interesting timing for Fred Phelps’ bunch of loonies to be trying a second time to export their particular brand of abuse to the UK:

Preachers from the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church have said they plan to picket a London primary school which ran lessons about gay relationships.

The fundamentalist Phelps family, best known for their chants of ‘God Hates Fags’ became notorious after a Louis Theroux BBC documentary about them.

They picket the funerals of US soldiers, claiming that the military are servants of a government that permits homosexuality.

A picket schedule on their website announces they will be at the George Tomlinson School in Leytonstone next Friday at 2pm.

Around 30 parents took their children out of the school in February to protest over a week of special lessons to commemorate LGBT History Month.

The group states: “God hates the UK and the Tomlinson School fag tyranny, where conscientious parents face religious persecution for withdrawing their children on lying fag so-called history.

“This is yet another warning to the UK to repent of their manifold sins of the flesh, or perish.”

Lunacy, sheer lunacy, and there isn’t a rational argument to be had with the truly insane. As queasy as I am about people being banned from this country merely for thinking unpalatable thoughts, let’s hope the Home Office at least remains consistent with the Phelps clan (not so easy, considering how many of them there are) and stops them from entering Britain in the first place. But where do you draw the line with free speech? Rowan Atkinson would have you believe there needn’t be one as far as the law goes:

Comedian Rowan Atkinson has criticised hate speech legislation, saying that the House of Lords must vote against a government attempt to remove a free speech clause in a homophobic hatred offence.

The Blackadder actor, addressing a meeting of Lords on Tuesday, warned of creating a culture of “censoriousness” by removing free speech.

He said: “Do I think that I would risk prosecution because of jokes or drama about sexual orientation with which I might be involved if we don’t have the free speech clause?

“Not really – but I dread something almost as bad – a culture of censoriousness, a questioning, negative and leaden attitude that is encouraged by legislation of this nature but is considerably and meaningfully alleviated by the free speech clause.”

“I do not believe that legislation of such a censorious nature as that of hate speech, carrying as it does the risk of a seven-year jail sentence for saying the wrong thing in the wrong way, can ever by justified merely by the desire to ‘send the right message’.”

He cited Christian groups as being “particularly concerned” the law will be used against them, adding that “heavy-handed police intervention” had been used before in instances of groups condemning gays and lesbians.

I think his position has one key strength and one key weakness. The weakness is in the final sentence – there hasn’t been ‘heavy-handed’ police action against homophobic Christians – far from it. He goes on to say that free speech should be restricted when people attack qualities in another which are intrinsic – attacking someone for the colour of their skin is ridiculous and should be inhibited, when religion is merely a chosen belief. Well sexual orientation is intrinsic – should incitement to homophobic hatred then not be legislated against?

Except the strong point he makes is very strong. New Labour likes to legislate compulsively to enable what it likes and prevent what it doesn’t, which sends out the message that communities are not able to make these decisions for themselves. Issues such as these didn’t used to be codified, nor did they need to be to be understood to be wrong. The government shouldn’t always interfere in how communities come to manage bad behaviour, because it robs them of the ability to self-manage. It’s a problem which is adding to the atomisation of society and is neutering our culture. What to do then with the Phelps clan? Waltham Forest Council says:

“Waltham Forest council wants to promote tolerance in our schools by teaching children everyone in our society is of equal value. This is a core part of the national curriculum for all schools in the country.

“We are supporting teachers and schools in taking positive and innovative steps to develop children’s ability to respect people’s differences.”

So we essentially have a clash between diversity and free speech. The question is then whether the restriction of free speech is successful in promoting diversity, or if Atkinson is right and ends up doing the opposite. He himself says:

“The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society.”

Indeed, and it should be, but criticising someone (be it an individual or a group) for who they are is manifestly wrong. Whatever legislation gets passed must be written in such a way as to allow police and courts discretion in deciding what is hate speech and what is not. Comedy and satire for example are obviously not the same thing as incitement to hatred, and legislation should make this clear. Atkinson should for instance be allowed to make gay jokes – to lampoon, to satirise, but the moment he crosses the line Iris Robinson flouted last year (and why on earth is she not facing charges for it?) and incites hatred he should be stopped. As should the Phelps’.