Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Farmer Geddon

Bring the Pope to Justice:

Hitchens is still on the case....

Quote:
Detain or subpoena the pope for questioning in the child-rape scandal? You must be joking! All right then, try the only alternative formulation: declare the pope to be above and beyond all local and international laws, and immune when it comes to his personal and institutional responsibility for sheltering criminals. The joke there would be on us.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236934
Judders Lady...

Why not just be sensible...

The pope did not witness and cannot provide any evidence regarding the victims or the crimes. He, like anyone else involved - can only supply evidence about what he did or what he has been lead to believe happened.
This means he is not a 'material' witness to the crimes but it is what the court knows to be 'Hear say' and it counts for nothing in a court of law.

It is time they got a court order to seize any files held in the papacy's custody. That would be the real action and eye-opener.

Love Lynne.xx

 
Farmer Geddon

The same can be said about the "Gospels":

The gospel writers did not witness and cannot provide any evidence regarding the victim of the crime they write about. They, like anyone else involved, can only supply evidence about what they did or what they have been lead to believe happened.

This means they are not a 'material' witness to the crime. In fact it is what the court judges to be; 'Hear say' and it counts for nothing in a court of law.

It is time we got a court order to seize any files held in the ascertainers' custody.

That would be the real action and eye-opener.
Dave B

Lucifers Duck wrote:
The same can be said about the "Gospels":

The gospel writers did not witness and cannot provide any evidence regarding the victim of the crime they write about. They, like anyone else involved, can only supply evidence about what they did or what they have been lead to believe happened.

This means they are not a 'material' witness to the crime. In fact it is what the court judges to be; 'Hear say' and it counts for nothing in a court of law.

It is time we got a court order to seize any files held in the ascertainers' custody.

That would be the real action and eye-opener.



Judders Lady...

Two words... HOLY SPIRIT look up what the Spirits work is in a believer.

The Gospels have nothing to do with the pope and the reason for this thread.

Love Lynne.xx  
Farmer Geddon

Quote:
"Two titans of the religious spectrum famed Atheist Christopher Hitchens and esteemed Catholic apologetic Dinesh D'Souza clash in public debate at the University of Notre Dame.
Sponsored in part by The College of Arts and Letters: The Henkels Lecturer Series, The Center for Philosophy of Religion and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts."


(Although personally I don't think D'Souza can be called a "Titan"... to me he's just an irritating wee midge)!



Link
Delrick53

Re: Bring the Pope to Justice:

Lucifers Duck wrote:
Hitchens is still on the case....

Quote:
Detain or subpoena the pope for questioning in the child-rape scandal? You must be joking! All right then, try the only alternative formulation: declare the pope to be above and beyond all local and international laws, and immune when it comes to his personal and institutional responsibility for sheltering criminals. The joke there would be on us.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236934


I take it no-one bothered to access all the links I provided to the evidence available, and why far more evidence isn't, on the Beeb MB's ?

Diocese Secret Files ? Why, under Canon Law, Catholic Clergy can tell lies to the police (and they have done, hundreds of times) ?

And much more ?

Please, as someone who spent a significant part of his life investigating cases of child abuse, either take it seriously, or say nothing.
Judders Lady...

Re: Bring the Pope to Justice:

Delrick53 wrote:


Please, as someone who spent a significant part of his life investigating cases of child abuse, either take it seriously, or say nothing.


Social workers were never much use when making investigations.
Otherwise the Catholic priest would never have got away with it for so long, would they?

As you investigated, why was it allowed to go on for so long.
You must have had a case where the priest was accused?
Or did you not investigate as a police officer?

Love Lynne.xx

Delrick53

Re: Bring the Pope to Justice:

~xx~ Jesus' Lady... ~xx~ wrote:
Delrick53 wrote:


Please, as someone who spent a significant part of his life investigating cases of child abuse, either take it seriously, or say nothing.


Social workers were never much use when making investigations.
Otherwise the Catholic priest would never have got away with it for so long, would they?

As you investigated, why was it allowed to go on for so long.
You must have had a case where the priest was accused?
Or did you not investigate as a police officer?

Love Lynne.xx




Lynne,

You may not be aware of this, but different parts of the world have different laws !

I worked under Scots Law.

The only case I was involved in that involved a religious paeodophile concerned a Baptist lay-preacher. He was described as a 'pillar of the community' by those who thought they knew him.

His victims were his daughters, and he was very sincere when he used scripture to explain and justify his offences - Lot was his favourite - he considered that mankind was spiritually dead and claimed he was doing 'God's work' by attempting to produce 'purity', meaning children that he produced with his daughters (he failed, thank goodness), even though the abuse started when they where pre-pubescent !

Most of the cases I was involved with were simple, straightforward, 'family' cases, but at least half involved 'Christians'. I say this because in court the accused swore to tell the truth on the Holly Bibble. The others didn't give evidence.

Remember the time please. Child abuse in all it's forms has only become an international phenomena in the last 15-20 years. I've tried to explain this elsewhere, and have compared it to the investigation of rape cases at the same time.

There were also local rules to be followed - In my force all suspected abuse cases uncovered by the police, medical staff, or other non SWD people had to be passed on to the SWD. Some police officers considered that this meant their job was done (I didn't). But it was all one way, because with cases coming to the attention of the SWD, all they had to do was 'consider' informing the police (and they NEVER did), meaning that the first knowledge we had of a case of abuse in some cases came from the mortuary or the A&E Dept.

This is all very different from the situation the RCC finds itself in today, although the parallels between the 1970/80/90's SWD in the Lothians and the RCC are very obvious - Don't tell the police !

Did the Vatican know the scale of the problem ? Yes, and the evidence for this is there for all to see.

Did they inform the secular authorities ? No, see above.

Did they actively conspire to protect the abusers ? Yes. see above.

Did they therefore cause other children to be abused ? Yes, see above.

The two reports into the abuse in Ireland MUST be read to understand the scale of the problem, and why it is the worst example to be made public (so far).

I attempted to explain much of the above at the BBC, but Vatican sympathisers and defenders had much of my evidence removed, even though it came from Vatican, court, and government sources.

If the Met police in the recent past was 'institutionally racist' (and it was), then the actions of the Vatican and it's diocese were 'Institutionally abusive' towards children, and the current Pope was/is at the centre of it all.

It's his signature that's on the documents demanding absolute secrecy. It was he who gave the percentage of Catholic clergy who were paedophiles (before anyone else had even thought about it). It was he that demanded that all suspected cases be sent to the Holy Office (were he was No. 1) for disposal.

Finally, when Colm O'Gorman, the man who started the whole Irish scandal by demanding justice, saw the prosecuting team for the criminal case against Father Fortune, he got another shock. The crime of male rape didn't exist, and Fortune was being charged with buggery. This is defined (under Irish law) as a consensual act between two males, so as far as the law was concerned, O'Gorman and all the other victims had consented to their own rapes, even though they were all children at the time of the offences.

It was also discovered that Fortune had been 'outed' as a paeodophile while he was still in the seminary (all the documentation was discovered). More allegations followed, some from Fortune's own colleagues. Two bishops simply moved him around Ireland, and of course, Fortune was only one of hundreds.

Am I anti-Catholic ? No. I am anti any institution that operates like the Vatican, and as I keep reminding the Vatican Defenders, the victims, hundreds of thousands of them, are all Catholic too, and it's they who are demanding justice.

We should all be supporting them.

And don't forget Lynne, in Ireland at the time of these offences, the police, the social workers, the lawyers, the judges, the teachers, and the politicians were all Catholic. The supreme authority was the Church, and it operated under Canon Law - a law that supercedes all others.

Ireland was a paedophiles paradise, and there are many countries where this is still the case, and that's where we'll find today's priestly paedophiles.
Dave B

Excellent post, Delrick.

As I said before it takes actual involvement with such cases to be fully knowledgeable - rather than working on media filtering, rhetoric and hype and what people say in conversation as opinion with no factual basis.

Excellent article on denial in the New Scientist. Though specifically about science based scams and false defences it might also cover some of the techniques used by the authorities, particularly the religious ones but including the secular/political, to misrepresent and cover their backsides.
Judders Lady...

Re: Bring the Pope to Justice:

Hi Delrick,

Delrick53 wrote:


Lynne,

You may not be aware of this, but different parts of the world have different laws !
Quote:

I worked under Scots Law.

The only case I was involved in that involved a religious paeodophile concerned a Baptist lay-preacher. He was described as a 'pillar of the community' by those who thought they knew him.

His victims were his daughters, and he was very sincere when he used scripture to explain and justify his offences - Lot was his favourite - he considered that mankind was spiritually dead and claimed he was doing 'God's work' by attempting to produce 'purity', meaning children that he produced with his daughters (he failed, thank goodness), even though the abuse started when they where pre-pubescent !



I am aware that scottish law is different.
I failed to see his connection to Lot. His daughters tricked him and they were not children. Still did not excuse for what they did.
Quote:

Most of the cases I was involved with were simple, straightforward, 'family' cases, but at least half involved 'Christians'. I say this because in court the accused swore to tell the truth on the Holly Bibble. The others didn't give evidence.


I am not sure why they would have done any different in a christian country. It means very little to take an oath. People put it on firms but it means little to some.
Quote:

Remember the time please. Child abuse in all it's forms has only become an international phenomena in the last 15-20 years. I've tried to explain this elsewhere, and have compared it to the investigation of rape cases at the same time.


Girls were married of at young ages so child abuse was really never an issue till we passed laws and stopped much of what was done in ignorance. It is only since laws were passed anyone could do anything about it.

Quote:

There were also local rules to be followed - In my force all suspected abuse cases uncovered by the police, medical staff, or other non SWD people had to be passed on to the SWD. Some police officers considered that this meant their job was done (I didn't). But it was all one way, because with cases coming to the attention of the SWD, all they had to do was 'consider' informing the police (and they NEVER did), meaning that the first knowledge we had of a case of abuse in some cases came from the mortuary or the A&E Dept.


Failings right the way through the departments, then?
Probably, the child frightened into silence. How did you cope with investigating such cases? It must have taken it's toll on (((you))).
Quote:


This is all very different from the situation the RCC finds itself in today, although the parallels between the 1970/80/90's SWD in the Lothians and the RCC are very obvious - Don't tell the police !

Did the Vatican know the scale of the problem ? Yes, and the evidence for this is there for all to see.


We know that things were not handled correctly.
But the silence was the problem.


Quote:

Did they inform the secular authorities ? No, see above.

Did they actively conspire to protect the abusers ? Yes. see above.

Did they therefore cause other children to be abused ? Yes, see above.

The two reports into the abuse in Ireland MUST be read to understand the scale of the problem, and why it is the worst example to be made public (so far).



I believed it was the reputation of the Church they sought to protect so
really should have been charged with concealment and aiding the criminals to commit the crimes.

Quote:


I attempted to explain much of the above at the BBC, but Vatican sympathisers and defenders had much of my evidence removed, even though it came from Vatican, court, and government sources.

If the Met police in the recent past was 'institutionally racist' (and it was), then the actions of the Vatican and it's diocese were 'Institutionally abusive' towards children, and the current Pope was/is at the centre of it all.

It's his signature that's on the documents demanding absolute secrecy. It was he who gave the percentage of Catholic clergy who were paedophiles (before anyone else had even thought about it). It was he that demanded that all suspected cases be sent to the Holy Office (were he was No. 1) for disposal.

Finally, when Colm O'Gorman, the man who started the whole Irish scandal by demanding justice, saw the prosecuting team for the criminal case against Father Fortune, he got another shock. The crime of male rape didn't exist, and Fortune was being charged with buggery. This is defined (under Irish law) as a consensual act between two males, so as far as the law was concerned, O'Gorman and all the other victims had consented to their own rapes, even though they were all children at the time of the offences.

It was also discovered that Fortune had been 'outed' as a paeodophile while he was still in the seminary (all the documentation was discovered). More allegations followed, some from Fortune's own colleagues. Two bishops simply moved him around Ireland, and of course, Fortune was only one of hundreds.

Am I anti-Catholic ? No. I am anti any institution that operates like the Vatican, and as I keep reminding the Vatican Defenders, the victims, hundreds of thousands of them, are all Catholic too, and it's they who are demanding justice.

We should all be supporting them.

And don't forget Lynne, in Ireland at the time of these offences, the police, the social workers, the lawyers, the judges, the teachers, and the politicians were all Catholic. The supreme authority was the Church, and it operated under Canon Law - a law that supercedes all others.

Ireland was a paedophiles paradise, and there are many countries where this is still the case, and that's where we'll find today's priestly paedophiles.


I guess we can see that so many more people than the priest are guilty of allowing children to be abused and hurt. As for the BBC protecting the RCC brigade I find that offensive. I missed the commotion but I will have a look for anything you have written that hasn't been removed.
Poignant to say the least, to see the truth about the RCC covered up.

Love Lynne.xx
IvyOwl

Quote:
Girls were married of at young ages so child abuse was really never an issue till we passed laws and stopped much of what was done in ignorance.  It is only since laws were passed anyone could do anything about it.


Slightly off topic I know. But I wonder when the laws of consent were first passed in the Britsh Isles? There was the case of Fanny Blair. In 1785 in County Armagh one Hegan(various spellings) was accused of violating the 11 year old Fanny, tried and hung. The circumstances were suspicious and it is thought he was in fact innocent. Neverthe less it would seem that the law was in place.

Thanks for your informative post Delrick. Truly shocking  and unbearably sad. That it went on so long and involved so many innocent young lives is appaling. That the pope knew about it and did nothing is sheer wickedness!

IO
Judders Lady...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Love Lynne.xx
Dave B

Mornin' IO.

In older times a girl might be betrothed almost from birth and married as soon as she reached menarche, at whatever age that occurred.

But she would have educated and trained, prepared, practically and emotionally, for that time from an early age.

Sex may not have been seen as the almost dirty thing that it became in more recent times, to be treated in a furtive, shameful manner. Childbirth may have been a matter that involved all the females in the family.

In some cultures fertility was something to be proved, even through premarital intercourse, before the marriage would be fully sanctioned.

This may have fostered a far more relaxed attitude towards sex that reduced its value as a "reward" to strive for.

Though the over randy male, with no self control, has probably been a problem from time immemorial!
Delrick53

Lynne,

I'm not talking about Victorian Britain or the Dark Ages. I'm talking about Britain up to and including the 90's :

No such thing as 'male rape'.

Married men could rape their wives.

Rape victims often 'asked for it'.

And worst of all, child abuse in all it's forms was not a significant problem !

All the above have their roots in your Bible, and you must know that.

The lay preacher/Baptist/paedophile said something to me that sent me scurrying back to my bible, something along the lines of "If God didn't want the purity of a sexual father/daughter relationship, why didn't He say so in the Bible ? There is no commandment relating to father/daughter relationships". This was part his official statement Lynne, and I have a copy of it somewhere.

We know that Christian Fundamentalists have used scripture to justify genocide, murder, and much more, and all in the 20th century. So why not child abuse (in ALL it's forms) too ?

The same can be said about all the various holy books. I listened recently to Christians, Muslims, and Hindus justifying their hatred for each other by using their books (in Bangalore Province).

I had become friendly with the Mother Superior of and Edinburgh Convent (I worked with some of her nuns in an outreach project for the homeless), and I asked her about the Pastor's defence. She was probably one of the most decent and honest people I've ever known. Her answer ? She didn't have one.

We see something different with the RCC. Paramount was/is the protection of that church from 'scandal'.

Last night I read some documents (they're online) from the early noughties produced by three US diocese - Chicago, Cincinatti, and Los Angeles. They were the responses to the scandals that were emerging in Boston. You'll find them on this link :

http://richarddawkins.net/article...stand-trial?page=5#comment_461031

The LA link is in post 205

Most decent people will state that all abuse allegations be reported to the police first. As the above links show, the RCC disagrees.

Sackings, resignations, restrictions (within the church), and redeployment was/is sufficient.

I disagree for a number of reasons, and one of the main ones is that there is no record of these paedophiles outside the church. So how are they monitored ?
How many thousands of priestly predatory paedophiles, dealt with 'in house' over the last 50 years, are still abusing ? Where are they ? They can't be on any sex offenders register, because the police were never involved.

For the RCC to retain any credibility in these matters, ALL information relating to these men must be handed over to the authorities. But as we see from the LA White Paper, the RCC will resist this absolutely, and will use Canon Law and 'confidentiality' to protect it's paedophiles.

Incidentally, a few weeks ago I mentioned on the BBCMB's that Scots Law may be more amenable to a case against the Pope. Seems I was right, as a case is being seriously considered by senior Scottish law officials. Not a civil case, but a criminal case, using recent stated cases as a precedent ('Operation Ore' is one).

One of the crimes being considered is 'conspiracy'.

Never heard of this in the media ? Perhaps we need a couple of high profile Scots to say something about it. Gordon Brown's available.

If anyone's interested, the Scottish legal publication 'The Firm' has details. Just use the search facility on the front page.
IvyOwl

Thanks for the link Lynne but it was the age of CONSENT I was musing on ..not that of marriage.

Hello Dave,

Quote:
In older times a girl might be betrothed almost from birth and married as soon as she reached menarche, at whatever age that occurred.


True and it still goes on in some parts of the world. However did this ever apply to us lower echelons (I'm assuming you are not of the aristocracy lol)? It was to do with land and property forging alliances and so on.

Quote:
But she would have educated and trained, prepared, practically and emotionally, for that time from an early age.


Bit of a utopian viewpoint there .... not sure about that one ....mmm maybe the practical perhaps, and bit of brainwashing!

Quote:
Sex may not have been seen as the almost dirty thing that it became in more recent times, to be treated in a furtive, shameful manner.


In my opinion Christianity has something to answer for there.

Quote:
Childbirth may have been a matter that involved all the females in the family.


Although I applaud fathers getting into the labour room (was going to say 'ward' but you might have thought I'd strayed into politics!) I still feel a bit 'iffy' about male doctors there. Long story not relevant here ....... I've got a brilliant idea for what should be part of their training

Quote:
In some cultures fertility was something to be proved, even through premarital intercourse, before the marriage would be fully sanctioned.

This may have fostered a far more relaxed attitude towards sex that reduced its value as a "reward" to strive for.


Well yes and the woman always got the blame if no pregnancy occured . She'd be cast aside while blokey carried on trying elsewhere!

Quote:
Though the over randy male, with no self control, has probably been a problem from time immemorial!


And 'over randy' women haven't been??? Wash yer mouth out with soap and water and get hold of some feminist writings   Trouble is sex/fertility is all mixed up with property. Ah well having had a pop at Christianity I'll blame evolution for this one .... If only MEN could get preggers and put those redundant nipples to good use!

Apologies for interupting this serious thread with a bit of levity. I'll beetle off now and go and do something useful like making a banner to wave at the Pope when he visits!

IO
IvyOwl

Humble apologies for interupting Delrick!

Another interesting post from you. ''

IO
Delrick53

Lynne,

The current furore concerns the Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and the Pope himself, and not really the abusers.

As we can see by the number of resignations, they admit that they were involved in the cover-ups.

In a few cases (it depends of the country), senior clergy have been charged, tried, convicted, and punished by the authorities.

Resigning (often because they have no choice) simply isn't enough. They will still be looked after by the church post retirement.

To the victims, this isn't justice. It's like a corrupt banker resigning with a golden handshake.

Everyone should read O'Gorman's book. It's called 'Beyond Belief', and it really is.

I tried to post extracts from the book at the Beeb (posts removed, and it certainly wasn't copyright infringement, because I checked). I tried to post extracts from official RCC documents dating back to the 11th Century showing that clerical child abuse was a problem then (posts removed). I tried to post extracts from official court documents in Ireland (posts removed).

Then I was banned (I still don't know why, watch this space)
Delrick53

IvyOwl wrote:
Humble apologies for interupting Delrick!

Another interesting post from you. ''

IO


Nothing to apologise for IO. I might be a big hairy ex marine/retired rugby player (I was quite good !!), but I'm also a feminist ! Couldn't be anything else with two strong, smart daughters (ask DaveB !!).

For almost 2,000 years women have been religion's main victims, and they still are.
Dave B

You made some good points there IO.

The "education" was not formal but simply that the female child would have had to do far more in the home and may have heard much more in terms of "adult talk" than most kids would now. There may have been more pragmatic advice regarding the role of the wife and mother. OK, this is in the days long before feminism! Sit down again! There would have been a similar path for the boys to prepare them for working life and fatherhood.

And this would probably be more the practice amongst the hoi poloi than the higher classes - every member in a poor family had to be "productive" in some way. Very old skeleton's of children show "spurs" on the arm muscles where the muscles attached. These are caused by heavy use of those muscles, lifting etc., from an age when there is still some plasticity in the bones, possibly from toddler age onwards.

I have lost the refs to this I looked up when looking into Anglo-Saxon life - will try to find them again.

IO, you cannot look at those times and judge them with modern values. Yes, they were not nice for some, but that was how life was then. I often wonder if all of our "advances" in rights etc. have actually improved things. But I would not like to see a return to even the Victorian times, Anglo-Saxon women had more rights in some ways than those of 150 years ago.
IvyOwl

Quote:
For almost 2,000 years women have been religion's main victims, and they still are.


Spot on there Delrick!

I'm sure your daughters have kept you up to speed!

IO
Delrick53

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
For almost 2,000 years women have been religion's main victims, and they still are.


Spot on there Delrick!

I'm sure your daughters have kept you up to speed!

IO


They do IO !

But they know my views on most things. They were surprised (but not shocked) when the most recent abortion debate was going on in Westminster, and I said that men should be the last people to be allowed to discuss the issue !!

Have you read Merlin Stone's 'When God Was A Woman' ?
IvyOwl

Quote:
The "education" was not formal but simply that the female child would have had to do far more in the home and may have heard much more in terms of "adult talk" than most kids would now. There may have been more pragmatic advice regarding the role of the wife and mother. OK, this is in the days long before feminism! Sit down again! There would have been a similar path for the boys to prepare them for working life and fatherhood.


I learnt a lot more than my mother realised from listening to her talk to her friends. We would listen to the talk while managing to appear totally absorbed in our game or reading a book, (multi tasking see) remember it and then disect and analyse it in private afterwards. I recall one particular conversation about 'misses' .... it seemed to be about babies but it was a while later before we worked out it was dead babies ie 'miscarriages'.

Meanwhile the boys were pretending to plough the fields and scatter Germans. I grew up in the fifties in rural England opposite one of the temporary US airbases. Our mothers let a lot more slip than they realised when reminiscing about the airmen they'd courted and the women who'd got caught out! Moral of the story being if you are white married to a white man it's not a good idea to get a baby from a darkie (not being un PC here that's what mum and co called them in those days!) you'd get found out!

So yes whilst the boys were doing warrior stuff we were learning about the complexities of relationships!

Quote:
IO, you cannot look at those times and judge them with modern values. Yes, they were not nice for some, but that was how life was then. I often wonder if all of our "advances" in rights etc. have actually improved things. But I would not like to see a return to even the Victorian times, Anglo-Saxon women had more rights in some ways than those of 150 years ago.


Oh I wasn't judging them just trying to understand how things came about.

So even poor people arranged who was going to marry from an early age? I didn't know that but I did realise that in AS times women had more rights than later on.

btw way I'd started to answer you about rights and modern life but it was getting a bit involved and more off topic than ever so I'll leave it for now .... just say 'I'm more or less with you there ! I really must get on with my pope banner now! In realitity bathroom curtains but I might give it some thoughts!

IO
Delrick53

Seems that Wiggie and Posh have jumped on the 'Protect the Pope' bandwagon (see relevant BBC thread), with Wiggie now claiming that any pro-'abuse victim' statement is 'anti-theist garbage'.

So I was correct when I stated that Wiggie (and a few others) don't bother to look at the evidence used in the two Irish reports, the evidence uncovered and published by Colm O'Gorman and other victims, transcripts of legal proceedings in dozens of countries, Vatican and diocese documents, and much more.

What makes them do this ?

So similar to the mother of a serial rapist, convicted after irrefutable evidence is produced in court of his absolute guilt, who claims her 'loving, kind, God-fearing son' could never commit these acts.

Pathetic.
IvyOwl

Quote:
They do IO !

But they know my views on most things. They were surprised (but not shocked) when the most recent abortion debate was going on in Westminster, and I said that men should be the last people to be allowed to discuss the issue !!


I tend to agree with you there! Pregnancy is such a big deal for the woman.  If I had magic powers (I'm given to these flights of fantasy whilts riding my broomstick) I'd make every man who wants to join in the debate pregnant.

Quote:
Have you read Merlin Stone's 'When God Was A Woman' ?  


No but it looks interesting so have added it to my wish list together with 'Beyond Belief' It's getting expensive reading your posts!!

IO
Delrick53

For anyone who's interested, the possible case against the Pope in Scotland can be found here :

http://www.firmmagazine.com/sites...ope+child+abuse&submit=SEARCH

Dated 3rd May.

Surprised EddieCaulfield hasn't mentioned this, as I believe he's something to do with legal things in Scotland, and must be aware of this story. Or is he hoping that I wouldn't find it ?

Feel free to add it to the BBC debate. I would if I could, but ......
Delrick53

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
They do IO !

But they know my views on most things. They were surprised (but not shocked) when the most recent abortion debate was going on in Westminster, and I said that men should be the last people to be allowed to discuss the issue !!


I tend to agree with you there! Pregnancy is such a big deal for the woman. If I had magic powers (I'm given to these flights of fantasy whilts riding my broomstick) I'd make every man who wants to join in the debate pregnant.

Quote:
Have you read Merlin Stone's 'When God Was A Woman' ?


No but it looks interesting so have added it to my wish list together with 'Beyond Belief' It's getting expensive reading your posts!!

IO



Sorry IO,

I have a habit of suggesting books to people (and I've been condemned for doing so - knowledge is dangerous to those who control the faiths).

The persecution of women by the Christian faith is on my short list of possible BBC threads (If I'm ever allowed back).

I have asked several RCC posters for their opinions of the despicable treatment of decent, pious Catholic women who find themselves the victims of a violent and brutal husband.

The response ?

Complete, total, and utter silence. Then again, they're all men !

Try Amazon. Many books are available there for 1P plus 2.75 P&P. I've bought hundreds this way and have only been let down once, and Amazon reimbursed me for all costs within a few days.
Delrick53

Just had a look on Amazon IO,

The O'Gorman is aviailable for 1.64 + pp, from Awesome Books. Bought loads from them and they're excellent.

The Stone is listed at 1.48, plus the 2.75, and has to be sent from the USA (often quicker than Royal Mail !).

I found the former very difficult to read, and it took me a long time. You'll discover why.
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
Mornin' IO.

In older times a girl might be betrothed almost from birth and married as soon as she reached menarche, at whatever age that occurred.

But she would have educated and trained, prepared, practically and emotionally, for that time from an early age.

Sex may not have been seen as the almost dirty thing that it became in more recent times, to be treated in a furtive, shameful manner. Childbirth may have been a matter that involved all the females in the family.

In some cultures fertility was something to be proved, even through premarital intercourse, before the marriage would be fully sanctioned.

This may have fostered a far more relaxed attitude towards sex that reduced its value as a "reward" to strive for.

Though the over randy male, with no self control, has probably been a problem from time immemorial!



Afternoon Dave,

You might have a look at the traditional 'handfasting' practised in Scotland (it led to the late lamented 'common-law' spousal thing).

Although there are those that claim Britain was 'Christian', this is far removed from the reality in many, mostly rural areas.

Demarcation of the sexes was based on practicalities, not religious dogma, and going back further, there is evidence that many of the most successful (meaning violent) warriors were women.

Ask any cop which he would rather deal with - 6 brawling males or two fighting women.

Bet you can't guess the answer.
Dave B

I did start to say the Celtic women had even more rights than Anglo-Saxons and were often warriors - but decided to leave that out!

With regard to tackling fighters: I would go for the blokes. I would feel less inhibited about using violent restraint and less worried about having my eyes clawed out!
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
I did start to say the Celtic women had even more rights than Anglo-Saxons and were often warriors - but decided to leave that out!

With regard to tackling fighters: I would go for the blokes. I would feel less inhibited about using violent restraint and less worried about having my eyes clawed out!


You'd be right Dave ! (edited, sorry again)

Invariably, when the police arrive, half the combatants will cease, and simply pose aggressively. We've all seen it - the 'hold me back someone' types. We call them 'pavement dancers' because they bounce around like shadow boxers.

It's fairly easy to get between the remainder and threaten a night in the cells.

It's very different with women. The red mist is fluorescent, and if you can disentangle nails and teeth from hair and ears, they're very likely to latch onto you like a demented cat. Impossible to reason with, and threats are meaningless.

I learned very quickly that 'I can't do that to a woman' attitude leads to scars (fingernails) and injections at the A&E (for bites). They also know exactly where to kick for maximum effect.
Delrick53

Ooops,

Sorry Dave,

Misread your reply !
IvyOwl

Delrick53 wrote:
Just had a look on Amazon IO,

The O'Gorman is aviailable for 1.64 + pp, from Awesome Books. Bought loads from them and they're excellent.

The Stone is listed at 1.48, plus the 2.75, and has to be sent from the USA (often quicker than Royal Mail !).

I found the former very difficult to read, and it took me a long time. You'll discover why.


Ah Goddess Bless Delrick, that's where I was referring to when I said I'd put them on my 'wish' list! Should have made that clear!

The job I've recently retired from was the book ordering department of a university library. I'm always happy to have books recommended to me!

I miss the books but not the petty office politics ...... such a relief to leave all that behind! Awful having to be civilised about things when I really wanted to be biting, scratching, pulling hair and hitting the boss where it would hurt!

IO Who is really a gentle kindhearted soul ....... but I've had my moments!
Dave B

"I miss the books but not the petty office politics ...... such a relief to leave all that behind!"

I still miss the challenges and creativity of my last job, badly, but not those politics.
maddddd.gif

I told my MP (Labour, lost his seat) that politics, of one kind or another, was the cause of most of the waste, evil and suffering in this world. He did not seem to believe me . . .
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
"I miss the books but not the petty office politics ...... such a relief to leave all that behind!"

I still miss the challenges and creativity of my last job, badly, but not those politics.
maddddd.gif

I told my MP (Labour, lost his seat) that politics, of one kind or another, was the cause of most of the waste, evil and suffering in this world. He did not seem to believe me . . .



And I agree with you both !!

Although I did find one or two politicians that I liked and trusted, but they were local councillors who didn't aspire to greater things.

One of my greatest achievements was investigating (in secret), arresting, and securing a couple of convictions against a millionaire Tory buisnessman (and a nasty character to boot).
He was a 'wannabe' Tory candidate, friend of the aristocracy, and golfing partner of a couple of very senior police officers (hence the secrecy). And yes, he did come out with 'do you know who I am ?' and 'I will be phoning Deputy Chief X and you'll be directing traffic tomorrow'.
All of which was noted and read out in court !!

Brilliant.
IvyOwl

Quote:
One of my greatest achievements was investigating (in secret), arresting, and securing a couple of convictions against a millionaire Tory buisnessman (and a nasty character to boot).
He was a 'wannabe' Tory candidate, friend of the aristocracy, and golfing partner of a couple of very senior police officers (hence the secrecy). And yes, he did come out with 'do you know who I am ?' and 'I will be phoning Deputy Chief X and you'll be directing traffic tomorrow'.
All of which was noted and read out in court !!

Brilliant.


   

Wonderful! That's made my day! I'd prefer it if you had added that you'd locked him up and thrown away the key but this'll do for now! Keep up the good work!

IO
Lexilogio


I'm very lucky - we don't have much office politics - although I do see it on a Regional level. It's very badly done and badly masked, but I choose to walk away and let them get on with it. I just make a note that if I'm ever in the position - I won't be hiring them.
Dave B

Trouble is, Lexi, that politics is very powerful because it is all about personal influence regardless of the needs of the organisation or people involved.

To rise above it you have to work very hard. You have to be far better at getting results (making money mostly) than the politicians, so much so that the ultimate power, especially the senior accountants and any shareholders, simply cannot ignore your successes.

But how to get there? Do you have to "play the game" to climb the ladder?

In organisations like the NHS the game is probably hardest of all. It is easy to "save" money by reducing staff and services - but that rarely improves efficiency, often the reverse. It can be difficult to find those responsible for even simple efficiency measures. Like switching the ward lights off on sunny days - the nursing staff are too busy and it is "its not our responsibility" according to the domestic staff. And, of course, admin managers never talk to mere patients.

Sorry, going off on one of my pet bonnet bees.
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
Trouble is, Lexi, that politics is very powerful because it is all about personal influence regardless of the needs of the organisation or people involved.

To rise above it you have to work very hard. You have to be far better at getting results (making money mostly) than the politicians, so much so that the ultimate power, especially the senior accountants and any shareholders, simply cannot ignore your successes.

But how to get there? Do you have to "play the game" to climb the ladder?

In organisations like the NHS the game is probably hardest of all. It is easy to "save" money by reducing staff and services - but that rarely improves efficiency, often the reverse. It can be difficult to find those responsible for even simple efficiency measures. Like switching the ward lights off on sunny days - the nursing staff are too busy and it is "its not our responsibility" according to the domestic staff. And, of course, admin managers never talk to mere patients.

Sorry, going off on one of my pet bonnet bees.


Up here the NHS is very different (it always has been), and no, we don't get extra cash, it's just spent differently !

One very significant thing is that ALL nurses have a nursing degree, and as they gain experience they move upwards. My Sis-in-Law is now a senior ICU manager. My eldest's best buddy is being groomed for management.

It's a slow process, but in the not too distant future, most managers will be medical staff (I suppose accountants will still be accountants), and it's they who will decide priorities.

Sounds like a good idea to me.
Dave B

Quote:
It's a slow process, but in the not too distant future, most managers will be medical staff
Just like they used to be.
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
Quote:
It's a slow process, but in the not too distant future, most managers will be medical staff
Just like they used to be.


Yes Dave,

And education's going the same way !

Teachers up here have never been saddled with the SATS stuff, and the 'experts' have discovered that kids respond better to the old way of teaching language and arithmetic (I hate people calling it maths !).
The teachers up here already knew that of course.

You'll be pinching our voting system next.

Even in my day, Directors of Education and 'managers' (or whatever they were called then) were teachers first. My P7 teacher became the local DoE, and he was followed by his wife, my P5 teacher !

It does seem as if 'experts' rule down south, when the real experts are those who have actually done the job.
Dave B

I cannot dispute your words, Delrick!

"expert", sounds like:
"ex" = has been + "spurt" = a drip under pressure

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum