Pornography in Parliament – So What?editor
What a bunch of virtue-signalling hypocrites are employed to report the so called news. News? There’s nothing new about sin. What’s new these days is the refusal to acknowledge sin, the determination to make sure everybody is “OK” with it, in fact, and then set a whole new hierarchy of standards before us, where sexual promiscuity is fine, even teaching it in schools is fine, but when we see a side of it that has not yet made it onto the “OK” aka “Cool” list, we find the idiots who are running the show taking offence.
So, an MP has been seen accessing pornography on his phone. So, what? Who cares? I’m not sure whether the contrived outrage of his colleagues is due to the fact that he was accessing porn, utter evil, or whether that’s OK, but he shouldn’t be accessing evil in the workplace. Not unless they can all access it. Fair’s fair.
Bunch of hypocrites. Just listen to the nonsense in the above news bulletin; they want to “change the culture in Parliament” whereas they should (by now, surely) be aware that we need to change the culture in society – urgently. We need to restore the sanctity of marriage, stop making women feel inadequate if they’re not pushing bits of paper around an office. Maybe if we encourage women to marry (a man) and stay at home to raise their children, we’ll see a decline in men who have such a disgustingly distorted view of women that they want to spend time looking at the worst of them on porn sites.
This is perhaps a message that the Pope and bishops might think about sending out, but only when they’re finished greening the planet of course.
I’ve decided to copy my recent comment from the John Fisher School thread to this one, to underline the evil machinations of the media, not just in the way they’ve pounced on this MP caught accessing porn, but in their everyday reporting of all things Catholic. We needn’t dwell on this – the real topic here is the dire state of society following years and years of legalising every imaginable sexual immorality, and then acting shock-horrified when we discover men accessing porn. Goodness me, whatever made them think of doing that! Anyway, here’s an extract from my day today, otherwise known as A Day in the Life of The Editor… 😀
BBC London reported on the teachers’ strike at the JFS today; they led with it on their lunchtime news, and again at 6.30pm. I was invited to contribute to the 6.30pm broadcast, and so…
After agreeing to be interviewed by Zoom, understanding that it would be very short – the BBC woman said the whole package was just 3 minutes, so each contributor would be limited to around 30 (ridiculous) seconds – I tuned in online just now and my piece was not included.
Of course, all I said was that it was not true to say that the author was “cancelled” because he was gay, nor is it true to say that his book only featured a gay character, that is simply not true, there were graphic sexual descriptions, entirely unsuitable for pupils in Years 8 and 9. (I knew the interviewer, Guy something, didn’t like that, he kept rephrasing his question to get me to drop those points, but I kept repeating them). I said that Catholic schools cannot permit the promotion of sexual activity of any kind outside of marriage, including cohabitation – only marriage between one man and one woman for life, is permitted.
Clearly, it didn’t chime with the usual BBC agenda. Anyway, I’ve lodged a complaint with the BBC, and hope others, bloggers and readers, will do likewise… They excused the short space of time allotted to me by saying they had to provide “balance” in their report, implying that all sides of the situation would be represented. False. Here’s what happened.
1) Usual biased introduction of Catholic school versus poor LGBTQ+ The JFS summarised to make Church look bad.
2) Interview with Education Union man.
3) Interview with parent of boy at the school, she being in a same-sex “marriage” (so, there is at least one pupil at the JFS with two mothers!)
4) Mention of the fact that some parents supported the archdiocese.
5) Graphics: lobbying group at school gates flying rainbow flag and posters.
6) Statement from the archdiocese posted on the screen at one point
7) Author quoted and pictured
Oh, yes, very balanced. Very, very, VERY balanced. Not!
Report on Catholic School on BBC London
I was asked to be interviewed by Zoom this afternoon, to explain why I supported (and indeed called for) the cancellation of a book-signing by a gay author at The John Fisher School in Purley. I took cognisance of the fact that time was short and I stuck to a very short comment, as requested. I was told this was to ensure “balance” in the broadcast going out at 18.30 this evening. Yet, there was nobody interviewed who supported the archdiocese – my piece was not included. I had broken my resolve never to agree to any interview with the BBC again (they’ve done this before) so I will not break it again. I do not want EVER to be contacted by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation again. I have absolutely no respect for this organisation, at all. Ends.
I hope you keep to your plan not to work with the BBC ever again. They obviously lied to you to get you to do the interview, so they could say they had interviewed both sides, but then didn’t use you, because they didn’t want to broadcast the truth. It’s that simple.
I found the BBC London news report 18.30pm and it is available to watch until tomorrow evening. It’s obviously biased against the Church.
Thank you for posting the link to the recording of the piece – I have just watched it and have now amended my comment above to note that the mother interviewed, is in a same-sex “marriage”, and that the reporter mentions that there were parents who supported the archdiocese. None of them interviewed, though, and my piece not included. Highly biased reporting from the BBC yet again.
Also join and support ‘Defund The BBC’: https://www.defundbbc.uk They’re more scared of DTB than individual letters.
I’ve signed up after watching the Calvin video. He speaks a bit quickly, so I’d need to watch it again to clarify some things – e.g. to click on the link to the BBC iPlayer which Josephine posted here, would I need a licence?
Below, I’ve copied the video from the Defund website, for ease of reference, i.e. those who may be tempted to skip your link… It’s also worth reading the comments underneath the video. I smiled at this one, since we have been taking it for granted that a TV licence is “normal”. See it viewed through the eyes of an American: “Man … as an American just hearing about a TV license and BBC inspectors … what the hell.
Exactly! It’s ridiculous, citing another commentator, that we have to pay to watch our legally purchased television!
I remember you suggesting this before about legally stopping paying the TV licence, but I’m not sure of one thing, even after visiting the site and watching that video. If I stop paying the licence fee, can I still record films on the terrestrial channels (3, 4, 5) and other channels such as Drama etc? We do a lot of recording, not so much watching live TV but I know recording is also banned on BBC.
I agree that the BBC is obviously biased against the Church – there’s now no question about that at all. They report so sympathetically on other religions, but they are always negative about Catholicism. They obviously didn’t want to have the Church’s teaching on sex/marriage repeated in their report, they’d sooner make the Church look “homophobic” – that is their agenda. Everyone is homophobic if they are not in agreement with the BBC biased agenda.
I think it is all spelled out clearly on the DTB website. As far as I understand it, you cannot watch any ‘live’ TV on ANY channel, without a licence – even non-BBC channels – which seems so unfair, because people might want to watch other channels and those channels don’t get the licence fee – the BBC does – but you still legally have to pay it. You can watch any ‘non-live’ TV on catch-up channels using either a TV or any other device (computer etc). The only exception is BBC iPlayer including all the BBC ‘catch-up’ channels, in answer to Editor’s query. You have to have a licence to use BBC iPlayer. So you can watch any ‘catch-up’ programmes on any other channel – ITV Hub, More4, My5 etc, as long as you don’t choose the option to watch ‘live’ programmes that are being shown on normal TV on that day, at that time, if that all makes sense. You don’t need a licence to use any of the things like Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc, etc, as long as you don’t watch ‘live TV’ via them. Also, you don’t need a licence for YouTube which has some great old black & white films on it. Also, the old movie channel ‘Talking Pictures’ has now opened a new online catch-up service, here: https://www.tptvencore.co.uk So, you don’t have to pay the licence if you stick within the rules. Depending on if you have access to other outlets, it can limit your viewing not having a licence, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But how they police all this is beyond me. I just wish the government would scrap it immediately – far easier. I also hope if the government doesn’t scrap it, that everyone would stop paying it – mass disobedience. The government couldn’t take everyone to court, and the BBC would go to the oblivion it so richly deserves.
This short video talk about the licence fee is very easy to follow. It exposes the myths and lies we are told.
Handy little video, Lily! Pity about the typo errors in the captions, but only a minor thing.
I am sorry that your contribution was not included, but far from surprised. Journalism at the BBC gave way long ago to woke activism and the weaving of narratives which facts must never be allowed to distort. I honestly cannot remember when I last partook of its output, but it was a long time ago.
Thankfully, we don’t need to rely on broadcast behemoths like the BBC any more. The network society offers us content which is often better and more informative. It will be thought by many that the danger in this is of coming to live in an eco-chamber of one’s own mind, but better that than living in the eco-chamber of north-London liberals.
Not really surprised myself, to be honest, that my piece was not included.
When I was contacted by a producer at the BBC, asking if I would agree to be interviewed prior to the visit to the UK of Pope Benedict, I initially refused, citing my previous experience with Sarah Smith, the Channel 4 reporter (who, ironically, later joined the BBC) where she doctored a pre-recorded interview to make it seem that I was saying the opposite of what I’d been saying throughout the recording.
The producer asked if I would let the presenter, Alan Little, phone me, and I agreed. He heard my experience with Sarah Smith and promised that nothing like that would happen with his package, that he prided himself on being fair to everyone interviewed. I then agreed and, sure enough, my piece was fairly edited on that occasion. He even phoned me afterwards to make sure I was happy enough with it. Later, on my return from one of Father Gruner’s conferences in Rome, I got chatting with another journalist on the plane, and during that conversation he said that Alan Little is one of the few journalists of integrity at the BBC, one of the few not scratching his way to the top, so to speak.
Anyway, unless there’s another phone call or email from Alan Little (!) I won’t be agreeing to any BBC requests. It really is institutionally anti-Catholic – no question about it.
Just another Piece on The Rotten BBC. If you don’t subsidize them DO NOT answer your Phone to unknown numbers. If you do then these are ( not always ) BBC Goons trying to trip you up .
These calls are recorded and 3 Years ago I received a call from such a Person which went something like this.
Him ” Am calling up to see what sort of Shows are your Favorite on TV ” Me ” Well I seldom watch it but my Favorite TV program is Columbo ” Him ” We now have you on tape saying that YOU watch Columbo yet don’t have a TV License ,if you don’t purchase one then we will Prosecute You ”
I had to get one . Once fooled but not again. I do not Answer my Phone to Unknown numbers.
ED it took me a few Letters to reply to your Tit a Tat with The Rotten To the Core BBC . Now I know not everyone wants to, but surely the Best way to get to these Reprobates is to STOP giving them our Money. My only regret regards the Rotten BBC is that I didn’t stop watching it 10Years ago. I neither watch ITV also as it’s just as bad if not worse. But at least they don’t Demand £160 a Year off of us.
As regards Pornography in Parliament as you say what a Load of Hypocrisy and ad Bet My Grannies Pension Book that as many Women MPs as Men watch Porn.
I know it’s a different class of Hypocrite in The Scottish Parliament but in regards to their so called Sex Education Videos. They would be as well just telling Teachers to Show Pornographic Films during this time. As probably the content in them wouldn’t be as graphic as the S.N.P. Sex Education Curriculum.
The pathetic non-entities in parliament are merely puppets whose rôle is to huff, puff and distract us from the lack of democracy so that the New World Order can be “built back better” by their globalist atheist puppet masters. The notion that there is any difference between the parties is pure pantomime. They’re all in lockstep.
I agree – all the UK political parties are hand in glove. Any seeming differences are superficial.
It is also obvious that their pretend shock at the MP caught using his phone for porn, is totally manufactured. If they were really worried about such behaviour “in the workplace”, they would try to root it out in society as a whole.
What a very shoddy bit of ‘reporting’. It isn’t made clear if the porn was accessed in the Chamber, the Library, the bar, the toilet, or even the carpark, and all delivered in that mincing tone which journalists like to employ when promulgating the received orthodoxy in relation to a matter about which most of the rest of us couldn’t give a damn, or when they suspect that a majority of the public might not agree with them.
And, unfortunately, so it is. The moral compass of the Great British public was long ago more or less permanently aligned with the prevailing viewpoints of our metropolitan elites, so faithfully and effectively peddled by the BBC in its news and drama output over many decades and at our expense. Thus you can be married (same sex if you wish) and divorced in five minutes; if you don’t do drugs you are repressed and need to get with it; and if you don’t cheer abortion on demand you are probably a Catholic or a throwback to the middle ages (whatever they were), or both. Objections to a harmless bit of fun like watching porn died with crusties like Mary Whitehouse and Malcom Muggeridge, surely?
This is what happens when individual choice, manipulated by a corrupt media, is erected as the supreme value in society. Morality then becomes basically a show of hands, today more than ever when social media impose their vice-like grip of suffocating conformity. The consequence is that character and personal integrity inevitably decline. And then we wonder why our government is corrupt and self-serving, or why those who make the laws think that they don’t need to obey them, as we saw repeatedly throughout the Covid fiasco.
Porn is bad, no mistake about it, not least for the user in whom its cumulative effects can be utterly devastating. But please spare me the feminist whining of some flibbertigibbet journalist on whom the irony is lost of calling out a single instance of porn by an unnamed member of an institution whose wicked edicts have destroyed the morality, public and private, of a nation.
Dear Editor and friends
I am in complete accord with your remarks.
Must we really expect anything less from these perfidious people. They create their own morality and attribute to it themes which they deem permissible or not (echos of the devils antics and tempting rationale to Eve in the garden)
Where is the true morality in our society today ie the fear and awe of God, the sanctity of life, the beauty of marriage between as man and a woman etc etc.
Sadly it is not among these individuals who feign outrage and promote moral evil under the auspices of progressivism, enlightenment etc. They remind me of the serpent’s temptation of us defining what is good or evil, acceptable or unacceptable and so on. We too will become like Gods.
It is like moments of these l feel utterly jaundiced at the absolute gaul of these people.
In the words of the Psalmist l pray:
“ Oh that today you would hear his voice harden not your heart”
You are right to say that “Where is the true morality in our society today ie the fear and awe of God, the sanctity of life, the beauty of marriage between as man and a woman.” That is exactly right and it’s not to be found in our society, not even within the Church, half the time. People need to remember that there will be a Day of Reckoning.
Well said. The contrived shock-horror of the very people who have legislated to destroy “the morality, public and private, of [the UK]” is sickening. And the people they’ll interview on the streets, asking if they think this MP (whoever he is) should resign, will fall for it hook, line and sinker, and adopt the same superior tone to say “Yes! He must go!” As if then, all will be right with the world.
As Covid revealed, the public has lost all ability to reason. They are so easily led (down the wrong path) – incredible.
I agree with everyone about the pretend shock about the MP watching porn on his phone, people who are not shocked at “trans” rights and teaching four year olds they can change sex if they want without telling parents, so let them be pretend shocked if they like. I’m not fooled.
The audacity of the media and MPs to take the high moral ground on this pornography business, is really nauseating. As others have said, they are constantly peddling immorality, even encouraging very young people to be promiscuous. The media need to have someone to hound, that’s all they are interested in. Truth and goodness are the last things on their minds.
Kudos to all who have so accurately described the shameless hypocrisy here (I had to look up “Leitourgos,” I confess, and found that it means “a public minister, a servant of the state.”) I strongly suspect that there is some unseen power play involved, targeting whomever it was that was looking at porn on a cell phone, as an excuse to compromise this person and remove him from power. We should be asking questions like: has this porn viewer disobeyed the narrative, and so must be removed, or at least shamed? Is there someone more obedient waiting in the wings to take his place?
This is a favorite tactic of the communists, as we in the USA have seen countless times, most dramatically during the Senate hearings for Trump’s Supreme Court appointments. Fabricate a sexual scandal, have the media beat the public over the head with it, and voila, say good-bye to the (alleged) conservative!
But there is a deeper problem here, as Editor and others have suggested: the entire West has become a reincarnation of the fleshpots of Egypt. This has been going on for centuries, even before the French Revolution, but now it’s completely out of control. Out of control in the Church as well, which has herself become, among her human element, a homosexual fleshpot.
And given that tragic state of affairs in the Church, it would be nothing less than more hypocrisy were the hierarchy to miraculously condemn the enthusiastic affirmation of sin in our social “culture.”
Come to think of it….since hypocrisy is so prestigious these days, what are you “shepherds” waiting for?
Just as another Buffer against The BBC Extorting Money from us . When you click on the BBC News even accidentally on the Internet it will ask you to Sign up . I E put in Your Name Email Etc . They say this is to protect content from being shown to youngsters. B.S. It’s to get your Name and Email on a File that they now have proof that you watch Catch up or any of their other garbage. Sign NOTHING.
Reading the comments here about the BBC reminded me of how I would never miss BBC Question Time a few years ago, before lockdown, when it was on every Thursday night. I haven’t seen it since lockdown began but I came across this clip just now about this week’s QT and it reminded me of the bias all the time, all through Brexit and now the young man speaking against lockdown being laughed at – I’ll never watch that programme again. It’s rigged.
That’s a typical Question Time audience. I haven’t seen it either since before lockdown but I remember it was always loaded against Brexit, always, without fail. The only good thing about lockdown is that it got me out of the habit of tuning into it every week. I won’t be returning.
Well done that young man for bravely speaking up and ignoring the nasties around him. You could just see them thinking “how dare he depart from the groupthink narrative”!
The MP who was caught using his phone for porn in Parliament, has now been named. I’d never heard of him before.
Me, neither. He’s a back-bencher and yet I’m almost certain the original reports claimed the MP in question was/is a front-bencher. Once more, the machinations of the media, at work.
We might spare a prayer for this MP and his family. He’s no doubt filled with regret – we might pray that that turns to remorse, which allows God to work in the soul.
I actually felt sorry for that MP when I saw him interviewed on the news. He is obviously embarrassed at being caught and knows he’s done wrong. I agree we should pray for him and his family. It would be hard to get past something like this, especially for his wife.
I have a feeling that the superior attitude of the BBC interviewer in the video below is what Editor was referring to in her introduction. His grilling of Neil Parish is more embarrassing that Neil’s humble confession that he did wrong, IMHO. The BBC really is a sickening organisation, all in.
Mr Parish has now resigned: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-was-searching-tractors-uk-mp-resigns-after-admitting-watching-porn-parliamenttwice
And more sickening virtue-signalling from his colleagues….pure as the driven snow, all of them…
I agree about the sickening virtue-signalling. The interviewer in the BBC video posted by Bernie is typical of the double standards. If anyone was to be reported as saying that it is society that needs to be less permissive, that that is what is to blame for Mr Parish’s weakness, they’d be treated even more harshly than the MP is being treated. Everything is distorted these days. Good is treated as if it’s evil and evil is thought to be good and “progressive”.
Comments are closed.