My Last goodbye.

I realised yesterday that I had made no grand announcement and didn't want groups like Medway yet again.

Labour jumping to the wrong conclusion. (1)

I have indeed left the Liberal Democrats.

It was not a political decision or a disagreement or because of local issues - it was due to mundane selfish reasons.

I joined back in 2009 and supported my party proudly, stood in two local elections and a by-election, represented the party at hustings and school debates. I believe in Liberalism to my very core and truly believe Tim Farron is the leader to take the party forward.

I was deeply disappointed last year with the results. I grew up in Gillingham South and love the area as much as I love Liberalism. Whatever I say will be interpreted as sour grapes by some so it's best I say nothing more.

I have now moved out of Gillingham South to another part of Medway, a part I know very little about and it is against my belief to stand for a ward I don't live in.

A new house, new life and personal problems at home mean I need to dedicate my time and resources elsewhere. I also have another book to write which is dominating my spare time. I've got some eight months and 80,000 words to write so as you can imagine I'm more than a little busy.

I also tire of the political sniping on Twitter. Every time I made a political statement or dared to question a Labour member all I got was "The LibDems.  Blah blah" or general crap (thank god for the mute button!) and frankly can live my life without it. Man I can live without it. The sniping is one of the things I hate about politics - it isn't about issues its all about one-up-man-ship and it is all really childish. I really won't miss that.

When my subscription ran out a few months ago it made sense to let it slide.

I didn't announce it before because... Well I didn't think it was worth mentioning as being a LibDem was not my defining facet - I always thought that was being Sophie, Ollie and George's dad.... I quietly changed my bio on Twitter to just be about my writing and went about my life retweeting political comments from all parties and thought that was it. 

By the by I'm not interested in joining any other parties, sorry. 

Oh by the way, I cancelled my White Dwarf subscription too if any one is interested...

EDL, Snoopers charter and reactions to the murder of Lee Rigby

Fire damage to Grimsby mosque (taken by Gerard Tubb)

The death of Drummer Lee Rigby on Wednesday was a great tragedy and my heart, and those of the nation goes out to his grieving family and the tragic loss of a partner, father and son. I cannot imagine the pain and grief that has rocked them and the void that cannot be filled.

The nation has greeted the news with shock and anger and in some cases violence.

Twenty five minutes after the news broke the Gillingham Mosque was broken into, property damaged and a copy of the Qur’an defiled by a local man who has now been held in the custody of Kent Police. There was also an 83 year old woman held after yelling racist abuse at Muslims leaving after prayer.

I’ve now read briefly through twitter, that the EDL are in Woolwich marking the spot where the murder occurred and there has been a spate of anti Muslim violence by members of the public.

Although understandable to a degree they cannot be condoned. It is unfair to punish innocent people for an act that they themselves are abhorred by. One picture that was doing the rounds was of a Klu Klux Klan meeting saying;

You cannot say that the views of terrorists are representative of Islam any more than you could say that the Ku Klux Klan’s were representative of Christianity.

The same can be said for the racists and petty criminals who come out of the woodwork at times like this capitalising on a horrific event like this with their politics and own vendettas. The EDL, as has been discussed elsewhere on this blog, are not the chivalric nationalistic order they’d like to think they are. There is a thin line between Nationalistic patriotism and racist xenophobia.

I’m sure that the NSDAP considered themselves patriotic and full of love of the Fatherland and Fuhrer but they were also racists xenophobes making Germany for the Germans – eerily echoed in making England English. It makes me nervous to think that people have not learnt from history, especially the most abhorrent period of modern history.

I hope that others do not judge the EDL, BNP or individuals are representative of the British people. After all, the majority of people were, like me, horrified by what happened and blame the individuals responsible rather than a demographic and religious community.

There are indeed questions that need to be asked, mainly as part of the Police and Intelligence forces investigations into radicalisation and the source and other groups need to wait for their findings. Indeed I would urge the EDL to crawl back under the rock they came from and stop encouraging violence and hatred against Muslims. Whatever they feel their input is in reality it isn’t helping the situation.

Within Government too, there is a sudden tack right from Conservatives who still back the "Snoopers charter" and Labour. Mr Miliband was quoted today on the BBC News website, as saying;

If he [the PM] wants a communications bill, we'll help him get it through.

There is a thin line between national security and police state too...

It has been acknowledged that such a charter would not necessarily have stopped the attack in Woolwich it might stop future attacks. However is this worth the rest of us having our personal freedoms curtailed?

Why should the state be able to look at my internet history, or know who I have been facebooking? It is of no one's business but my own if I am sending emails to either fellow Libdems, my family, my ex girlfriend or the King of Denmark until I've committed a crime.

Emma Carr of bigbrother watch hits the nail on the head for me with;

It is remarkable for politicians to be jumping to legislation to monitor the entire country when all the evidence to date shows this horrific attack would not have been prevented by the communications data bill.

The draft bill also prohibited the authorities from looking at the content of messages and surely we should expect people under the kind of surveillance possible in this case to be having their messages read?

Indeed the monitoring of emails only works if you know for a fact that one of the individuals is an extremist other wise how would you prove that an email sent from one person to another Might contain plans for an attack? Would it not be simple for coded emails to be sent so that only the sender and recipient would know what was the true nature of the message?

We wouldn't want our telephones to be tapped without a warrant and we would want our letters examined so why is an online message ok?

I do agree with cutting back on the Radicalisation of people in universities etc... Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of a Liberal society and human rights but with any freedom it must be curtailed if it is having a negative impact on other people's freedom - as in the case of racism or sexism.

This is something that can be restricted as preaching to kill or harm those who do not believe the same as you or are different is in fact incitement to violence or even to incite a hate crime and it has no place in any modern society.

In fact I agree with Nick Clegg's comments on Friday when he stated:

A religion of peace was being distorted, turned upside down and inside out, perverted in the cause of an abhorrent and violent set of intentions.

Terrorism has no religion because there is no religious conviction that can justify the kind of arbitrary, savage random violence that we saw on the streets of Woolwich.

We have a choice to either allow that powerful corrosive feeling of fear to seep into every second and minute and hour of our lives or we can make a choice that we're not going to change our behaviour.

To give in, to tack right and towards snoopers charters and ultra nationalism is to get rid of the very ideal that the terrorists abhor the most - freedom, our liberty to live and act freely. So, yes to curtailing hatred and those who preach it no matter which side of the void they sit, and no to curtailing the freedoms of innocent people on the off chance.

Is more CCTV the answer?

As is normally the case I missed Full council Thursday night, I was selfishly spending time with my family and

E4 Comedy night - my one and only vice.

As usual I did diligently read through some tweets from those more dedicated than I and it appears one of my favourite subjects was debated, CCTV.

I know that within Liberal circles it is somewhat of a dirty word, an obvious tool of the state to oppress and supervise its' citizens. This myth of the uniformed guard sat watching you as you walk down the street, that you are zoomed in on and examined has sprung up. As I've said in the past (though apparently I've accidentally deleted this!!!) -This is simply untrue.

There will be a disproportionate amount of cameras to operators in the control room, wherever that is, and the human eye can only view so many screens and interest is only piqued by something out of the ordinary. Watching crowds is like watching an anchovy ball in the ocean - you know what they're up to but you can't pick out a single fish and nor should you!

There are strict procedures for Operators and codes of conduct, there is also a level of training that all operators should go on which teaches you these important laws and codes. One important one for liberals is that you cannot zoom or follow an individual unless you have serious concerns, otherwise that is harassment, even if they are a known shop lifter walking through a Mall.

The other is that you only zoom in on someone to identify then then zoom out and you NEVER zoom in on a private residence. It is not only a sackable offence but can cause you to go to prison. So it isn't the evil all seeing eye many think it is.

There is another myth that it is the ultimate crime fighting tool. This too is flawed.

I do not deny that it is wonderful for capturing information and providing evidence to the Police. I've lost count of how many Police referrals I've signed or captured after the fact.

Also, for the sharper eyed operative you can spot potential trouble brewing and get law enforcement there or on standby and defuse a potentially deadly situation.

It is a fantastic tool for manhunts with freeze frames replacing dodgy photo fits for the public and police.

The big problem is they have to be facing the right way, sometimes - especially at zoomed in or at night, they can be too grainy for an accurate fix.

The other thing is, in my professional opinion as an SIA trained CCTV operator with some three years of doing this job, it doesn't cut crime.

It is hard to measure crime that isn't committed. It may deter some opportunistic crimes or move it elsewhere but it won't stop it.

I've seen footage of drunken brawls that have nearly caused death right in front of a security camera. I've seen thefts, break ins at a clearly labelled CCTV establishment and worst of all, I've watched a drunk guy accidentally take his own life and not been able to do a damn thing about it.

Alcohol or drugs lower inhibitions and people don't think of consequences until afterwards. Yeah, there is a good chance if all factors are favourable, that a criminal can be caught and convicted on the strength of CCTV footage and maybe they they will learn from it but at the same time there are ways and means of getting around it and the evidence. It is up to the operator to prove that the person urinating on a police car is definitely you.

Although I applaud the effect the limited deployment in Luton and Wayfield, I think that we shouldn't herald it as the solution to all our problems just yet.

Greg Mulholland to disestablish CofE???

Imagine my surprise last night, when I was leafing through the Evening Standard on the train home, and discovered that Greg Mulholland (Lib Dem MP for Leeds North West) is taking the first steps to disestablishing the

Church of England.

Er.... Are you sure Chris?

Afraid so. If you don't believe me the whole article was reproduced in the Huffingdon post.

To go into greater detail it isn't as bad as it sounds.

One of the most divisive parts of the introduction of Gay marriage has been the fact that basically the state is perceived as ordering Religious leaders to make it so and dictating rules on what people had to believe.

One of the problems that many probably had with the proposition of equal marriage was that the state was effectively telling them that their beliefs were wrong and correcting the word of God rather than any deep seated Homophobic views or hatred. The British government has no right to tell Muslims, Catholics or even Church of England what they can believe.

I know some scions of the Christian Church still view homosexuality as wrong or sinful and although, I personally have a more enlightened approach I cannot tell them that their interpretation of the scriptures and Bible are wrong. After all the freedom to practise your own spirituality and beliefs is one of the cores of Liberalism - as long as it isn't being actively used to persecute and restrict the freedoms of the Gay community.

So we reach an impasse of what is more important - something Greg has stressed in this online press release on the subject.

He states:

I also want to make it clear that, as a liberal, I do also believe that it should be up to each faith and belief based organisation to decide for themselves what they believe marriage to mean and who it should be open to. I also do believe that the current situation, where same sex couples in civil partnerships lack some of the rights of civil married opposite sex couples (notably on partner's pension rights) is not equal or fair and must be addressed.

Which I think is something we can all agree with.

It further makes sense that you should secularise civil and state marriages and leave them as a wholly

civil/state controlled affair.

I am a little shaky on the removal of the clause that means adultery can be used as grounds for divorce but lets see how that plays out.

This isn't the end of the Church of England, nor is it a great secularisation of State and marriage, rather a way of encouraging equality for married couples, no matter what your orientation, and giving religious bodies the right to practise their beliefs and definitions of marriage as they see fit. How can this be a problem?

Religion is not as big a part of a significant part of the nation's life anymore, unless you are dying or there is a major sporting event on and for many marriage is about the committing as a couple rather than before God. Attitudes have changed as well over the last fifty years and now Homosexuality is considered, and rightly so, as the norm where as my Grandad was a policeman at the time it was illegal and was involved in arrests!

Greg's motion is something that should definitely be considered and is the best liberal answer to a groundbreaking move within politics and society to finally make people equal in marriage. It is hardly the first step in disestablishing the C of E, but giving them the freedom to practise their beliefs without interference from the State.

Letter from the Nick Clegg; Protecting the individual and press freedom

Dear Chris,

When I came into work on Monday morning I thought this week was going to be about two things. First - National Apprenticeship Week, celebrating the achievements of the million new apprentices who have started training under this government. And second - finalising the Budget for next week.

But that got rather overtaken on Thursday morning. The Prime Minister decided to pull the plug on cross-party talks on implementing a new system of independent, self regulation for the press, as proposed by the Leveson Inquiry. I was surprised and disappointed by this decision, but I am determined not to walk away from the cross-party approach.

The next big moment on this will be on Monday, when the House of Commons will vote on what to do next.

This has been a long and painstaking process – it must not be derailed.

This is going to dominate headlines over the weekend, so I’ve made my own contribution by writing an article for this morning’s Times [subscription required], where I set out the position I’ve been taking in these negotiations, and what the party will seek to do on Monday.

We need a careful balance. On the one hand, we must vigorously defend our free press. On the other, we must protect people from harassment and bullying by powerful interests in the media.

The Prime Minister is arguing for a Royal Charter, but it falls short of meaningful reform. The other option, backed by some campaigners, is a full legislative approach. I’ve always agreed with them that this approach could work, But on an issue as sensitive as press freedom, we need as much agreement across the parties as possible. So I’ve been working for a middle way, one which I believe supporters of all three parties can back.

It simply takes the Prime Minister’s proposal Royal Charter and strengthens it in five specific ways.

One: editors would not be granted a special veto over the individuals sitting on the regulatory body.

Two: whilst editors, journalists and independent members of a standards committee will hold the pen in drafting any changes to the Press Code, those changes would require the consent of the regulator’s board.

Three: under David Cameron’s proposal, when mistakes are made newspapers would decide how to apologise to the individuals involved. Even if that meant the apology for an offensive front page was just a few sentences hidden away in the paper. Under our proposal, the regulator would ensure apologies are proportionate and fair.

Four: the regulator would have greater discretion in accepting complaints from third parties. So, for example, if a domestic violence charity wanted to voice its concern over the portrayal of a woman in a story about abuse, it would be easier for the regulator to consider that complaint.

Finally, we would put in place an explicit safeguard against future governments playing around with the Royal Charter – a crucial guarantee for both the public and the press.
My article in the Times goes into more detail on all of this, if you want to read more [subscription required].

But what I’d like you to do most of all, is get in touch with your MP and help persuade them to vote for this beefed-up Royal Charter on Monday. The vote is crucial for all of us who want press regulation to really change after the phone hacking scandal. This middle way is the best chance to secure the lasting change we all want.

Best wishes,

Take-aways, obesity and Medway's Kebabgate

Sturdee's take-aways; a thing of the past?

The debate over take-aways and schools within the Medway towns has reignited after a years silence.

The first whispers began in November with a report by the BBC stating the Council will be taking over from the NHS with responsibility over public health.

Cllr David Brake (con) is quoted in Dan Bloom's article Kebab-loving Tory: Let fast food firms sell near schools as saying;
I'm in favour (banning take-aways from opening near schools) it's taking away the temptation away for youngsters to nip out of school and up at the local chippy

However new zoning laws will not effect current take-aways.

Though this seems a bit like shutting the gate well after the horse has bolted as the BBC reveals "nearly all" of Medway's take-aways are within a 15 minute walk of a school.

My God! That means kids have to walk up to a mile to a chip shop! How many newsagents that sell coke and sweets or bakeries that sell cakes and pasties are also in this net?

If we start putting out restrictions where will it end? As Cllr Irvine said on his blog recently;

From my point of view it's a slippery slope, who decides what counts as healthy and what doesn't?

Then of course there is the School itself.

In December 2011 I was proud to announce that the then Children's minister Sarah Teather had brought in steps to capitalise on Labour's attempts to make School meals more healthy which had been sparked by Jamie Oliver's frightening expose!  She stated:

School meals beat takeaways hands down on the quality of food they serve but until now they have struggled to compete on price. Getting Children into the school canteen is vital - the benefits of healthy school meals are clear

The idea that Schools would now be able to compete with take-aways and offer meal deals to kids who would find it cheaper to eat in rather than wander out and get a Sausage and chips or cod and chips (paying £2.50 ish for a foot long sausage and a huge feast of chips from a local kebabbie).

This move was slightly undone when Michael Gove took away the obligation to meet the basic nutritional standard in academies and free schools which are unfortunately becoming the norm!

On top of that there is what the schools offer at dinner time. Chips, burgers, sausages, cake, chocolate are all freely available at school dining halls. When given a choice between Veg and chips I would put a fiver on nine kids out of ten saying chips! The Take-away isn't to blame and neither are the parents. After all when you send your child into school with money for school dinners you trust them to buy responsibly.

In response to Cllr Irvine's blog, Labours PPC and blogger Tristan Osborne is quoted (in the same Medway Messenger article) as saying the state should intervene: In the same way the council has the ability to change licences for alcohol sales in our pubs for the social good.
Erm... what?

I understand this is with a motivation to do good BUT it is ultimately striking a lot of innocents too. Firstly the take-away businesses themselves who are struggling to survive in this fragile economic climate as it is, secondly adults who, may want to get Fish'n'chips at lunchtime, the kids themselves....

The basis of British law is that you are free to do whatever you want as long as your actions or speech does not encroach on the sensibilities or freedoms of others.

How is nipping out for Sausage and chips encroaching on anyone's freedoms? The state cannot dictate be it pacifily or aggressively on what you eat. It's my body and if I want to eat Bigmacs until my heart explodes so be it. Any intervention by the state on freedom like this makes the German word Verbotten spring to mind.

I grant fact that obesity is on the rise, I also admit that my body is hardly a temple but I think going after hard working caterers directly is the wrong way to go about it, as is going after the schools - after all they can only effect kids during school hours and term time.

What needs to be done is advice and education for parents who are the ones who decide what their kids eat in packed lunches and also feed them for the other 2 meals a day. This is happening with new adverts on the television encouraging better nutrition.

This is also only part of the battle. Time constraints on busy families and the need to feed kids quickly means eating whatever can be made quickly or cheaply and super market chains do sell "Bad" food cheaply and veg for a lot more. Although, this again is changing as Sainsbury's are bringing in their "Eat healthier for cheaper" with almost War time frugality to stretch a joint of beef out over 3 dinners - something I can get behind!

If Medway Council want to discourage obesity and encourage a healthier lifestyle there are COUNTLESS options available to them. I've been working on one for the Medway Libdems and although I'm not allowed to talk about it yet it will encourage a healthier regime but more to follow soon!

They need to improve outside facilities, encourage places like the Blacklion swimming pool (I know it has had a name change but it will always be the Black lion to me), Splashes and other sporting venues to be cheaper for families and kids to go to, more green spaces for children to play in and better cycle routes.

Although the youth of today is now uploading itself to the internet or sat on their Xboxes during their free time rather than being out and running free, partially because society has waged war on "lay about teenagers on the streets" and partially because computer games offer more scope than wandering the streets of Gillingham in the cold and wet or sitting down at the Strand wasting time.

There are a lot of avenues open to the council to improve health in Medway and tackle obesity (if they can get over Society's sedatary past times) and scope to further educate and advise parents and children about nutrition, avenues that do not dictate what you can and can't do and curb freedom of action, a basic human right, because it's for the social good as they see it.

Nick Clegg's speech from yesterday

Measure B passed by LA county

Aurora Snow

Precisely a month and a day late I am writing about the success of Measure B voted for in Los Angeles County.

Not heard of it?

No, nor had I until two months ago and that was through an obscure channel and I'd forgotten about it until this morning - hence the delay.

A while back I read this article by adult performer Aurora Snow and found it quite interesting.

Basically the bill is a battle of freedoms and liberties.

The Pro B wing argued that performers in the adult industry had the right over their own body and freedom from disease.

The anti B wing argued the state that the LA county was attacking the industry's freedom of speech and expression. The industry also argued that it was self regulating and that performers had to be tested regularly. Interestingly though, as Miss Snow pointed out, only for HIV, Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia with a zero need for Syphilis or Herpes or any others.

I'm personally fairly indifferent to Pornography as an industry as I believe that if someone willingly enters into the that line of work, like Miss Snow did, and they enjoy the work, moreover willing adults buy the magazines and movies then that is up to them as long as it is not invading my personal liberties or it is where minors can get at it then it is all fine. One of the fundamentals of law is that you are free to act as you will as long as you do not cause negative effects on another person's liberties and what you do behind closed doors in your own time (again, not effecting someone elses Liberties) is your private business.

However, no matter what your feelings are towards the adult business you have to respect the right of the performers to be disease free and not give in to industry pressures or bullying. It is akin to workmen being forced to remove Asbestos without breath masks and hazard suits. STDs can be deadly and those that aren't can have a really negative effect on your life and everyone has the right to work in a safe environment.

Further to that is the cultural stigma against safe sex. Anything that can add to the idea that safe sex is good for you is a bonus. Those who want to engage in casual sex with multiple partners in their personal life should really par take in safe sex to cut back on the risk to themselves and others. Miss Snow puts it perfectly when she states that when there was a slip up on set she had to contact previous industry partners and her boyfriend at the time. If the adult industry starts showing performers engaging in safe sex then surely that will transmit to those watching the movies too.

I am happy to report that the measure was passed with 55% of the vote despite some big company support for the Industry's "No" campaign shown in Gail Dine's Guardian article and is now law.

Any one working in a workforce is entitled to protection from reasonable danger by their employer and they should provide the means to make sure they are kept safe through contraception and paying for health checks.

The downside is that having been quite vocal against the Industry's preferred stance, Aurora Snow now fears that her career will be harmed. Only time will tell but in my opinion it should not be held against her and that she can continue - I unfortunately fear that her career will suffer harm but hope that an individual standing up for what they believe in will not face any repercussions on this.

Libdems must be firm over Leveson

Feldmarschall Kesselring's defence of Italy against the Allies was marked by gradual withdrawals to pre-prepared defensive lines up the peninsula.

Much like the Libdems in Coalition. We're constantly, or at least portrayed as, constantly falling back to "the final line" and giving up another pledge or stand point. It has to stop.

To quote Captain Picard; The line must be drawn here and no further with the Leveson inquiry.

Now, I know I've not read the full 2000 page report, I barely have time to read my kids a bedtime story or the copy of Darth Plagius that I bought myself for Christmas last year!

The point is, most people won't have read it but there has been plenty of debate, news reports and discussion. From all of these, I have come up with my opinion - hardly blindly following party line- and some how I have come out agreeing with Nick's statement last week.

There is a fine balance of liberties in this case and a statutory under pinning of the press, namely legislating tighter controls and redrawing the boundaries and enforcing the laws. However once that is done the Government will take a step back and a new, more powerful independent standards agency will police how the press carry out their trade.

Sound's pretty Stalinist as if the State is policing the freedom of the press and speech. However it isn't.

Tightening the press's standards will protect the liberties and the freedoms of people like you and me as well as celebrities. Look at the McCann's or Dowler's - even the families or friends of celebrities in the manner that Charlotte Church documented last week who have had their privacy severely violated on the off chance there may be a story.

This cannot be allowed to continue. The press has been carrying on like a secret police force which is illiberal.

We, as a party, find ourselves at serious odds with our Coalition partners. Maintaining this status quo and trusting that the press have learnt their lesson is just not good enough. A lot of Conservatives feel that it is.

I believe in the freedom of the press. It has worked for the last 300 years and it is important to democracy says one of our local MPs Tracey Crouch and to the probable shock and awe of regular readers, I disagree with her on this.

Yes, a free press is exceptionally important as a voice and whistle blower on the way Government carries on it's business but the press isn't free due to to the monopolies and vested interests.I'd also argue that the free press (ignoring the war years where Government control and censorship were a necessity) worked for 280 years and it has been the last twenty that have seen the press becoming more and more invasive and above the law.

Tracey went on to say At the end of the day it's about principles. Misuse of phone hacking is illegal and should be dealt with by the law, which should be tightened up. - I agree with what she says but we have differing ideas on the implementation.

Moving back to the main thrust of the post; Nick needs to stand by this principle, lead the party in a stand on this.

Not for populist point scoring, though I'm sure we could be painted as that, but because it is what we stand for and stand we must.

There is nothing in the Coalition agreement on this so we're not tied to the Conservatives on this one. Any falling back should only be as part of the cross party negotiations and legislation.

If we falter on this and back down on our guiding principles we might as hand the keys of Great George Street to Nigel Farage and UKIP and just go home.

Nick, be strong, be resolute and stand your ground on this.

The continued Page 3 debate

Page 3 defender Peta Todd, Charity worker, former model

I'm probably about to draw a lot of flak from this but....

I agree with Nick on the subject of Page 3 and the sun. Liberals can, and cannot tell newspapers what to print as long as they are not infringing on other people's liberty by phone hacking or over intrusive journalism and unfortunately Page 3 is not one of those things.

I will, however quickly remind you all that I do think that some sort of age limit is needed on topless material as it is in movies. That would be the only way to remove this feature.

Page 3 is one brick in an entire ediface of similiar things.

The blunt fact of the matter is Sex sells. Women in various states of undress can be seen selling all sorts of things from Cars, deoderant, movies, Soap operas and even security hardware and it is that which captures the male mind. Afterall human beings are still just animals with the same base desires and wants and one of those is sex and clever marketing and advertising execs are happy to draw on that when they hit the market.

Do you think that teenage boys would buy lynx deoderant if the adverts were:

Lynx Africa - Smells great and you will too?

No! They see the army of scantily clad women throwing themselves at some average looking guy and their mind links the product to the ability to get women. I can tell you - it doesn't work!

Television programmes also use attractive and or scantily clad women to get people interested. Take Big Brother for example, not only did the casting teams deliberately try to cause conflict by selecting people who would grate on each other but also a bevy of young attractive people as well. There is no way it was a coincidence that Orlaith McAllister a former runner up in Miss Northern Island, Imogen Thomas a former Miss Wales and her runner up Rachel Rice were all selected at random.
Even Hollyoaks was accused of having far too many goodlooking buxom blonde actresses in it to attract some more male viewers - a problem rectified by a plot device using a Serial killer who only attacked attractive blonde girls!

Using women as sex objects in movies has gone on for decades! I hate to admit it but even Star Wars Episode IV Carrie Fisher was told not to wear a bra under her white Senatorial robes so there was more *cough* movement as she ran around. Sharon Stone said she felt pressured to do the revealing chair scene in Basic instinct and Kirsten Dunst once made reference to the famous Spiderman kiss in the rain scene where her shirt went translucent as Something for the geeks. It has taken decades for Bond girls to be more than just eye candy, in fact Golden eye was the first one with a strong female lead (arguably A view to a kill with Grace Jones) and even in some of the follow ups like Tomorrow Never dies Terri Hatcher's character is a throw back to the old days of Oh James!

I'm not saying it is something that we should accept, far from it. In the last century we have come along way in Women's rights and equal treatment, (not far enough) and with portrayals as more than a sex object. To be honest a good proportion of men (well the right kind) already know that about women because we were brought up that way by our parents.

Modern attitudes to Women can only really be changed by education from parents and indeed schools. It is a root problem that is only contributed not perpetuated by Page 3.

As to the argument that "Torso of the week" is just harmless fun - I'm sorry but it is fairly similar (and there are those who'd say the same about Page 3). The current Moonpig advert or the intermations in the Malteser advert - yes, even the classic Diet Coke advert...
I'm not saying it's right it wrong but meet me half way and admit there is a strong similarity and motivation. Why else would there be "Hunky Fireman" calendars next to the Girlie calendars?

At the end of the day the girls are willing to pose topless, they are not forced like a seedy Axis Comfort woman. Those who wish to look at semi-naked women over breakfast are free to do so as are we who don't are free not to read it.

The crux of it for me, as a liberal is the "not causing offence to others" part which obviously means not reading such material in public and exposing minors to sexually explicit images. Many would argue that "Fifty shades" is bad but it is printed text rather than imagery. I, personally think that a similar age rating on magazines should exist in the same way as movies. Who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot read in public?

My final thoughts are that this petition is only targeting the Sun not The Star or Sunday Sport.
Also, most kids have access to the Internet on their mobiles and even with the Vodafone filter you can still summon up pornographic imagery.

It is a minefield topic but I don't see any point in regulating printed material as to what can and can't be printed- tis very Mary Whithouse. The cultural attitude to women will not be changed by the removal of Page 3 and it is down to education.

The Page 3 debate

I must admit I only caught a bit of the Page 3 debate on Twitter last night but I think I get the general gist of it, for it is an age old argument.

Basically, the pro page 3 lobby states that it is freedom of expression, a British institution, there are worse images available in lads mags etc.

The anti lobby says that it is degrading to women, brings sexually explicit imagery into the home as well as within the reach of children and is just not the sort of thing that modern enlightened human beings should be looking at.

I offer no solutions to this, only opinions and suggestions really.

Firstly, and much to teenage Chris' annoyance, I do agree with the point about the availability of the paper and the Sun's portrayal as a family paper.
(yep just heard a door slam in my head and Garbage has been cranked up- he's annoyed.)
I don't read the Sun, nor the Star or Sport (if you can read the Sport) unless I'm stood in a takeaway waiting for my order. I find it poorly written and embarrassing when trying to read Page 2's politics and Penny 22 from Gravesend is flashing herself at me. I feel judged by the proprietor in a family restaurant.

I also agree that such images should not be available in a "family" paper. I know that certain Lads mags like FHM and Loaded have an age restriction on the tills at Tesco but the Sun and magazines like Nuts and Zoo do not. Such images, and teenage Chris is definitely upset at me now, cannot appear on television before a certain hour or in a movie without a certain rating (12 or 15) do why should they be available in print to all ages?

In defence, there is the freedom of speech and publication and if you don't like it you have the freedom not to buy it. This is a little flimsy in the face of the age restrictions though.

I'd also say that, although it may be degrading and reduce women to the status of sex objects - sorry but that is how men can be wired- it can also enforce a positive Female image.

Now, hear me out on this...

If you look at models like Sophie Howard, Lucy Pinder, Lucy Collette (pictured) or others, they're all curvy models not the stick thin androgynous models of the catwalk. Also, the Sun's "no implant" policy means they are all naturally curvy.

The other thing is a lot of these girls do a lot of charity work and use their public appearances to raise public interest and money for worthy causes. Take for example all of the hard work Peta Todd has done for Help the heroes. Seriously, she's been tireless - seriously go check it out, she's an inspiration. There's also the tours as "forces sweethearts" to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's only through their wide circulation that they're able to do this.

As I say, I've got no solutions just a few considerations. I do think however that an age limit is a good idea.

A Royal scandal!

For the second time this month a member of the Royal family has been caught out in a state of undress and causing "embarrassment" to the Queen and the Royal family.

Personally I think it says more about today's culture than the Royal family. Take for example let's look at what happened to the Duchess of Cambridge. Kate was on holiday in a hot country and wanted an even tan so she did what millions of women have done and took her bikini top off. The Royal couple were in a private compound as well so hardly in Public.

Now, how is that a Scandal? The biggest scandal for me is that a member of the paparazzi got close enough with a camera to take the picture. If you're within Camera range you're within rifle range and the country could be mourning the loss of the second heir and his wife. Someone should be looking at that.

Further to this is that the photographs would not have been taken if there wasn't a demand within the Public domain. Why though? Will your life be really that enriched for seeing her topless? The same goes for any Hollywood or z-list reality "star" romping around naked?

I know the teenage boy in me is screaming at me but sorry little dude I grew up and so should society really. By even paying these pictures any attention we're encouraging mercenary photographers to be unscrupulous and invade people's privacy. Would you like someone to photograph you on holiday or publish naked pictures of your wife for the whole world to see?

I hate to reinvoke the ghost of Princess Diana but it seems as if a repentant media learned nothing. The woman's privacy was invaded at every turn completely unsolicited and now history is repeating itself and not just with Kate but with her sister Pippa. Let us be honest Pippa is a very attractive woman but she isn't a royal, nor a celebrity, just a normal human being so why hound her?

As for Prince Harry; he's what? 27 years old, single and free. Why can't he go on a lads holiday to Vegas, get a little sloshed and misbehave? I'd say that I disapprove of such behaviour but I'm only jealous!

Compared to some of his ancestors Harry is a saint. The Prince Regent's behaviour is well documented, one of Victoria's sons (I forget which one) is implicated as Jack the Ripper by some theorists (he wasn't), Edward VIII is accused of sympathy with Hitler etc...

My point being, this is nothing, nothing but an attack on a young married couple's privacy and when or if you see the pictures I hope a small amount of guilt will nag at you for being curious enough to look.

Computer game violence: Hate the player not the game

Skyrim: Fantasy Sword play

Last night I killed a man. I don't know his name, where he came from or if he had family, all I know is that he died at the end of my blade gasping for mercy as he laid on his knees.


He did start the fight to be fair, he attacked me first wielding a two handed sword and rushing out of the long grass at me as I looked for an easy way into the castle.


I should point out I was playing the fantasy game Skyrim and not wandering the streets of Rochester.


I've grown up on computer games starting with an old Amstrad 1512 back in the very early 90s when PCs only had CGA graphics (4 colours) and by the time I went to University I was susceptible to a good looking game. It was back on that first PC that I killed my first computerised German serviceman in the classic "Ace of aces" (I think) in which you fly a Mosquito fighter-bomber over Europe. Now some twenty years on I hate to think how many German Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen I have killed. Mostly it has been watching their aircraft burning and heading to the ground over the skies of Kent, or in key battles of World War Two like Dieppe, Falaise gap, Stalingrad and the Bulge in a rifle shot. There have been other games - Goldeneye on the N64 ate ALOT of time in my first year of Uni, Perfect Dark, Medal of Honour, Commandos, Sudden Strike, Age of Empires and of course the classic Grand Theft Auto.


It is a game that has attracted a lot of criticism from parent groups, members of government and well meaning people but it is a game that has also attracted a lot of fans. I've played most of the GTA games (except the newest one) and thoroughly enjoyed all of them. Yeah, they can be violent - I used to start riots in the streets, aggravate the Police - I even shot a man dead in the street because he insulted me- but it is fun. 

The point is;  for me, and all the gamers I know, the game and violence ended when I switched the Playstation off. It was a great stress relief. Nothing beat coming home from a hard day at work than opening a cold beer and taking out my wroth on the people of Liberty city with aggressive driving and lawless abandon. I'm not an aggressive person, in fact many have commented on me being a walk over who is uncharacteristically even tempered for a redhead. Also coming from a family tradition of Policing and Law meant that I would never consider breaking the law. It is escapism and fantasy, a world you can do what you want and hang the rules.

Critics would argue that these sort of games encourage violence among young people and that they become attracted by the violence of it and want to try it out in reality. In some cases the border between reality and fiction become blurred and some idiot will go out to try an enact what they have done in game.

Maybe this is true for some people, a small minority who tar the rest of us gamers with the same brush. 

I will admit that some games are worse than others. I once played Manhunt which was blamed for a murder and I was horrified at the methods of killing and the needlessness of the violence. Personally I like a good reason for combat - generally fighting the forces of evil (or good if it is a Star Wars game) rather than the helpless. Maybe the gaming industry should look at the premise of some of the games but as I'll come to in a minute, there are age ratings for a reason.

The same criticisms can be levelled at movies and even literature.  I've been weirded out by the honest Medieval savagery of the Game of Throne's books but I've not taken to rape and pillage. Violence has been part of popular culture forever - look at Shakespeare, Canterbury tales, the classic kid's film Watership Down that scarred my generation. Look at the body counts in movies like Where Eagles Dare or all the ketchup spilt in Battle of Britain. So why blame computer games when other forms of escapism are just as violent?

The last thing to say about it is that... These games have a rating for a reason. I was once introduced to one of my Mum's friends who complained to me that he'd watched his son playing a game that included beating a prostitute to death and stealing a car. He'd bought it as a 13th birthday present. It was GTA - I told him to check the rating, its an 18. I believe that it was duly taken away from him!
 So parents, you should keep an eye on what your kids are playing.

As for the rest of us? Well some of us like sports, others like good books (I do love my reading), model making (you should check out my spare room), hard drinking, clubbing, walking and others enjoy computer games. As long as gamers aren't going out and recreating games/fantasy in the real world then who are we to tell them that they cannot enjoy themselves? After all recreation and committing a crime is a conscious choice made by an adult and is not the fault of a game.

Snoop laws invading privacy

Chequered internet history?

With the Home office proposals to keep tabs on the emails we send and receive as well as our Internet providers keeping a record of what websites we visit one is forced to ask;

Why?

Also more pointedly; To what end?

I know that the Police etc could keep an eye out for would be terrorists, paedophiles and hackers but lets be honest how many actually indulge in this? I know the tired old argument that if I'm not up to mischief then what am I afraid of but...

What I do in my free time is up to me. It is my Private life.

If I want to sit at home on my laptop reading articles about Medway's past or what Mr Clegg is up to now, or stare longingly at Games-Workshop's latest model is up to me and my personal business and the state have no right to take an interest in it until it can effect the state. It would be the same if I was using the Internet to watch an absolute boatload of pornography or conduct an extra marital affair, why should the state know before my wife? Also my emails correspondence are my own just the same as the post. I don't expect MI5 to monitor my post or MI7 to police what has been said.

Not that I am having an affair nor watching porn - if I was that would be up to me.

What I do look at on the Internet, and could raise suspicion, is my well known interest in the Luftwaffe and the campaigns of the German military throughout World War II. Now all the sites I visit are Military based and have nothing to do with the bloated tumour that is Nazism however to the casual observer who just glances at the pictures on the site and not really read the content, I may appear to be a goose-stepping Nazi.

Which- again, I'm really not but there lies the danger.

I know this will all sound rich coming from me after the long protracted debate with Andrew Emmerson about Civil Liberties and CCTV but this is how I've separated it in my mind and feel free to disagree...

CCTV watches public areas and according to the strict guidelines laid down in the SIA licence individuals cannot be targeted without due suspicion. For example you're walking down the Rochester High street and you spot a CCTV camera, you are but one face in the crowd and no interest will be paid to you.
You draw a handgun and start aiming it at people - the operators may spot you, zoom in and call the police because you are breaking the law and it will no doubt be the first time you've been seen.
Alternately you hang around a post office paying particular attention to OAPs coming out with their pension money, the chances are an operator may zoom in on you to see if you are up to no good and if they're satisfied you're just loitering they must zoom back out.
You also have the right to contact any Public authority and demand a copy of ALL footage they may have of you.

With my emails and web usage it is my Private life not what I get up to in Public.

The basis of law, according to the statute books, is that you are free to do what ever you want so long as your actions do not interfere with anyone else's freedoms or do anything that someone else would consider objectionable. This was one of the legal loop holes that was used to argue for the decriminalisation of Homosexuality - what goes on between consenting people behind closed doors is their own affair.

CCTV is not allowed to look into Private residences or places and neither should the Government.

The hope that I hold, and many Libdems should feel the same, is that the Coalition has assigned Dr Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge, to the review process. I have a lot of respect for Dr Huppert and he has a proven track record of standing up for Libdem values and beliefs, including voting against the rise in Tuition fees.

So let us hope that Dr Huppert will act as a voice of reason in this affair and the Government will not adopt these invasive measures.

No one agrees with Nick. Fresh leadership needed?

After another round of Local elections the Libdems have again taken another blow. For the first time since the joining of the SDP and Liberals we've fallen below 3000 Councillors.

Control of Cardiff and Birmingham councils where they were jointly run with Plaid Cymru and Conservatives (respectively). The party were expecting 16% of the votes, the same as last year but in the North where there were fewer Conservative Council votes the anti-government vote turned against us, we lost remaining seats in 14 town halls, nine more seats in Sheffield (except Hallam- Nick's seat where we won all five!)

Many Local Liberal Democrats around the country are becoming discontent with the leadership of the party for their concentrating on National issues rather than offering support to Local campaigners. It was interesting that the information coming out of HQ was about National issues and what the Parliamentary wing had achieved in power rather than practical help and suggestions for the local Councillors who provide the party with so much substance.  Many Liberal Democrats fear that Clegg is leading the party to doom, these are the same prophets from last year but now they have two years of proof.

According to the Evening Standard (Clegg attacked as Lib-dems slump to lowest level, Nicholas Cecil, 4-5-12, p.5) a "Senior Lib-dem" has said that the party is crossing its fingers for financial recovery by 2015 to boost popularity and John Pugh MP said:
It's not just a question of economic recovery. It's giving people hope and a vision to vote for and we failed to convey that. we need to re-establish our social liberal credentials. Orange Book liberalism is proving to be electorally disastrous.

Are these calls justified?

No.

We are still chugging on quite well in other areas. Cambridge is still run by us, seats have been taken from the Conservatives including Southport & Cheadle, Brentwood as well as Sheffield Hallam. In Hull we took back 7 seats from LABOUR which we lost last year! Our aims, according to a Communique from Libdem HQ were to hold the 7 majority controlled English Councils and we have done. Surely that is a good thing?

Further to that, lets put Labour's crowing of victory into some sort of context...

* Labour lost 2000 councillors in Tony Blair’s first term in office, 1500 of them within the first two sets of local elections.
* In 1981 Labour gained 988 council seats just before Michael Foot took them to one of their biggest ever election defeats
* In 1999 William Hague won 1,348 council seats, and completely failed to dent the Blair majority in 2001 when the Tory vote share feel by 5%
 So it can be seen that although Labour have made some key gains, and congrats to their candidates by the way, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to charge to ultimate victory in 2015.

Lets calm the panic and be rational.

What does need to happen in my opinion is that HQ and Nick need to take a hard long look at what we are doing and what we are standing for.

I believe that, over time, people will come to acknowledge our unique role, the Liberal Democrats, in this government as the only party that combines responsibility on the economy with Social fairness.

I agree Nick. Unfortunately I fear that it will be someone like myself in thirty years time writing a dissertation on the Coalition for their History degree long after we have ceased to be.

I really believe in what the party stand for and I believe we have a lot to offer especially locally in Medway where we have abandoned all that Party tub thumping and ideological warfare crap that the other parties seem hell bent on and are actually listening to the people and their issues definitely backing Social fairness in the face of the cuts.

I think Nick is doing a fantastic job as Deputy Prime Minister under difficult conditions but I do agree with Andrew George MP who has said we need to focus on key Lib-Dem issues and, although it pains me to say it as I truly believe in it, abandon Lords reform. The population won't care in the long run whether we've brought in greater democracy (heck 70% of people didn't vote on Thursday!). What people care about is money and help and we need to demonstrate and plug that side more other wise my prediction of the 2015 election will genuinely come to pass.

Change at the top is not needed, the losses are still manageable however we need to take stock and redirect ourselves before it does get worse.

Is Liberalism to blame for Society's problems

Apparently so...

We've all experienced a certain amount of anti Libdem feeling (be it on the doorstep, in the form of comments or on Twitter) since the formation of the Coalition and not all of them have been warranted. Thursday, though I went up to the Mess room for the first time in a long while and got into a lively debate about politics with a couple of colleagues. I should be clear that they started it.

Both formerly voted Libdem in 2010 one had voted Tory in the past and the other Labour but is ardently anti Conservative - both felt let down. However their point was not that the Liberal Democrat party were evil (despite our current political situation) but rather the notion of Liberalism and neo-Liberalism had done some real damage to British society and politics.

It is easy to see extreme political ideologies as wrong or evil. Nazism for example is clearly wrong and damaging to society (especially non-German), Stalinism and far left/right dictatorships are more than happy to trample on citizens rights and drag a state kicking and screaming towards ITS goals and care for the few, generally at the top, rather than the many. But Liberalism, an ideology that is meant to be so inclusive of all within society and is ultimately about fairness for all and equality with a lack of state interference. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?

Well the argument that was put constructively put forward is that yes it has and not just perpetrated by the Liberal Democrats as we've been out of power since the 1920s we can only be blamed for so much - indeed the other parties are as much to blame.

I should point out that I do not necessarily agree with everything that will appear from this point onwards. I'm merely recording the conversation and giving us all food for thought.


The concern of the Government, both local and national, for every little interest group and sub sect of society means that ultimately measures that would benefit the majority of the nation have been dropped. The argument that was used was the Boris Island. North Kent would ultimately benefit from the people, bring in many jobs and with the correct transport links could rejuvenate the whole Country. Although I agreed for the most part I also stood up for the environmental damage it would cause to an area of specific beauty and importance and also for residents like me who'd find themselves living under a flight path.


Other things came to Human rights and the law. In cases like Abu Qatada and Abu Hansa, men who were trying to incite violence against civilians and average British citizens and the Government had put them under house arrest with no access to computers or telephones but could not keep them imprisoned or deport them because of their rights. At least in Prison their contact could be regulated and it was known that they were where they were meant to be. After all are we not at war with these people? Would you have let a German officer roam the streets of London as long as he didn't tell people how great Nazism was or try to contact Berlin? The same thing with secret courts. Yes there should be fair trials but if the evidence that is to be heard is secret and the Intelligence used could be detrimental in the wrong hands then why not have it behind closed doors in the interest of Public safety? We'd be sacrificing the safety of the majority for a few possible terrorists. Again, are we not at war with terror and isn't this a sensible war time measure?

Then there was the alienation of the British Working class from politics by the big three paties. It cannot be denied that voters have turned away from politics and the big argument is that people at the top just don't get it. The big three in the Coalition (Cameron, Osborne and Clegg) are multi-millionaires they've never had to struggle on the bottom of the heap. Even some MPs are detached from the reality of life for the working classes and instead have their pet projects like Free schools, Big Society, Electoral reform all of which won't make the blindest bit of difference to the working man's life and is a waste of time and money. The do-gooders who want to help everyone and re balance society so that it is fairer are losing site of the majority and refocusing on the minorities that are being left behind and so that get more of a voice than they should have. Yes there should be equality and consideration to other people's views and lifestyles but you cannot force things like employment quotas. For example one company that one of us had worked for had stated in its new influx of employees there would be no white staff as they had fallen behind (due to natural wastage) in its diversity quota. The Metropolitan Police a few years back were only hiring officers from an Afro-Caribbean background and they were more likely to get fast tracked to Sergeant over white officers. The Labour front bench MUST have 33% women at least, so even if you'd make a great minister you may not get a position based on your gender. Surely, this is active discrimination they said, surely positions should be allocated on merit and not your ethnicity. Whether or not that is the case another argument put forward was that the working families or the unemployed see immigrants getting jobs, such as the local cleaning company being made up of South Americans, Africans and Asians, and UK citizens unemployed. Though of course I honestly believe that part of the reason for that is because some people wouldn't take that sort of work deeming themselves better than that and holding out for a better job. But successive Government's attitude to Immigration has led, apparently, to this break down and it all comes from a liberal, Do gooder stance of; We must let these people come here. This coupled with the Politician's spin, in an attempt to look more liberal and helpful, supporting minority causes left right and centre which has left the majority under represented.


As I said at the beginning, I don't believe most of this but it did make me think. After all Liberalism is about everybody and Mills does warn of the "tyranny of the Minority."
It does seem that Westminster can get caught up in minority cases rather than the Majority. Week in week out an opposition MP will stand up at PMQS and say;Mrs X from my constiteuncy has been unemployed for 7 years anc cannot get a job and now the Government are taking her cat allowance from her because they've capped it at 3 cats. She has fourteen cats - does this government discriminate against Cat loving widows now?
Ok its a silly example but those who regularly watch PMQS will know what I mean. Of course anyone can use any single example to attack a case. I know of an SS judge who went to Buchenwald concentration camp and was so horrified at what he saw he order red the arrest of the Commandant for "Murdering Jewish prisoners." he also sent his adjutant to investigate Auschwitz believing that prisoners were being badly treated and executed there too. Does this mean that the Nazis were against Genocide?

It is the same for Mrs X above. A government measure that will benefit a majority of people and/or free up millions of pounds is being attacked because a minority of people will suffer from it - in this case crazy cat women. When the Government argue against it they just appear heartless and cruel - poor Mrs X!
There is also the Internationalist Liberal stance that dictates our European policy. Criticism of Europe and its many organs and processes are well known and I shan't repeat those here. What I will say is that the Liberal ideal of equal rights means and the attachment to the European Court of Human rights means that Britain is no longer the mistress of her own laws. Foreign Judges and legal experts can overturn British Law which many see as unconstitutional. How can unelected foreigners tell the British Government how to do its business? The Same is true for the EU - the arguments that Germany and France are the dictating powers and that Britain has to comply. This further alienates voters who have sympathy with other Libdem ideals and see them as a sensible opposition to Labour or the Conservatives but are not fond of Europe or the Internationalist part.

 I don't have any solutions. I take some of the criticisms on board, and I think to a degree it is clear that the majority do feel that they are maligned, whether they are or not is another story. We as a nation need to address that and readdress the balance. Minority causes attract a lot of media attention and thus politicians trying to get more and more votes which isn't necessarily the right thing to do. In some cases, like the Ghurkas, it is the right thing, in others its just a PR stunt. If anything maybe Liberalism is being taken to its extreme rather than the broad base that was suggested by Mill. Maybe we should take a step back and try to represent the Majority rather than every minority.

Conservatives against Gay marriage?

John Stuart Mill, whose philosophy "On Liberty" which forms the basis of Liberal Democrat philosophy, wrote that a majority that can get itself as "accepted” can force their will and standards onto those that aren't "accepted". This is called the "Tyranny of the Majority." and is to be treated in the same way as tyranny from above.

People are free to act as long as it doesn't affect another person's or group's Liberty and all people are treated equally.

There is due to be another Conservative rebellion over Coalition plans to lift the ban on Civil marriages for Lesbian and Gay Marriages. Opponents fear up to 100 traditionalist Conservative MPs will vote against the ban in a free vote as it will water down the traditional values of marriage.
Backbenchers have protested to the front bench ministers in private 1922 committee meetings that this is an attack on the institution of marriage.

Before I continue, I should point out that this doesn't seem to be the same homophobic legislation or beliefs of the Right that is prevalent in Republican parts of America - and although, if linked with the anti-abortion stance of Nadine Dories et-al it could be seen by some commentators that this is the Right mobilizing for the same here. Personally I don't believe that is the case here.  The Conservative party has changed a lot over the last few decades and modernized - ok they're not all like us (Lib Dems) and Conservatism is a broad church that covers a large spectra of views BUT they aren't the bible thumping puritans that make up a very vocal part of American politics - or so it seems to the casual observer from across the pond.  C

David Burrowes MP, aide to Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin has stated;

Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and a woman has historically been viewed in this country.

There are strong doubts that we need to go down this path. It would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation.

In my humble opinion I think that modern Society has ruined the institution of marriage. A few generations ago marriage was for life - I'm not saying that people should stay in a loveless, violent or otherwise detrimental marriage, on the contrary people should be free to escape marriages by divorce but quick marriages and divorces are far to common these days. It seems that marriages aren't to be worked at these days and that if its not working out you can just split. Also the number of marriages - how many celebrities are on their second or third marriages, it cheapens the whole process. Extramarital affairs are also more common and with Mobile phones, social networking sites and email make it so easy to cheat and "Role models" are seen to be having affairs and it can glorify these actions; Ryan Giggs Vernon Kay, Jason Manford etc... I'm not criticizing the freedom of the individual to act; we all have weaknesses and soft spots for people with the potential to stray, just observing the social stances.
After Germany broke the Munich agreement, Hitler said "So I signed a piece of paper, it means nothing." and marriage is the same thing. I married because my wife wanted to marry, it has in honesty made her feel more secure and comfortable but for me nothing has changed between the two of us. The same is true for others I know they're just as happy and committed as they were before. I also know heterosexual couples who have married and split within a year and homosexual couples who have been committed to each other for years in the same way as a married couple.

Why can their union not be treated in the same way as marriage? Is it not the marrying together of two people who love each other and want to commit to each other in front of their families and friends to say "I want to be with this person."

Traditionalists say it isn't the same as the marriage between a man and a woman but why? Two women or two men can love each other in the same way; perform as a couple in the same way why can't they marry legally in the same way? Why should their lifestyle be oppressed by what is considered to be "accepted" - after all we're in the 21st Century now and society's norms aren't what they were fifty years ago. I fear that David Cameron agrees with me - well probably vice Versa;

Yes it is about equality, but it is also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

Lynne Feathersone, Lib Dem equalities minister is carrying out consultation on marriage law throughout March with the aim to legislate.

100 Tory MPs to rebel against PM's plan to legalize Gay marriage, Andrew Grice, I, 17th-1-2012