Dear Bob
I've seen your previous post regarding Brian Haw and the campaign against Socpa. I have admired and to the best of my ability supported the heroic stand Brian, you and others have taken in the opposition to an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. However, as George Orwell wrote if freedom means anything it is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. That cuts both ways. It is the right of Gay people to tell religious people what it is wrong religion and it is the right of religious people to say to Gay people what is wrong with their life style. Tonight I saw a more ethnically diverse group of people demonstrating in front of parliament than I think I have ever seen before. That engagement with politics is unusual. I also saw a lot of overwhelmingly white people getting into an undignified shouting match with members of various ethnic communities who at least are expressing what are obviously there own opinions. I feel divided by the issue. On one hand we have white people shouting down largely non-white demonstration as ignorant, or to use your term bigots. Obviously there are bigots on both sides of the fence, but I felt very uncomfortable with the situation. We are talking about the state legislating about freedom of sexuality versus freedom of religion, something in both cases Britain has avoided in the historic past doing for a number of reasons. The most important being is how do you legislate religion or sexuality? The ambiguity of course favours the 50% of the House of Commons MP's who are Lawyers, but the legislation is almost designed to cause a rumpus between the two groups. I have an awful feeling that a good old fashion divide and rule situation has been deliberately created. This begs the question who would want such a situation and why? If the Gay community want to launch a campaign against people of faith then this will be a disaster for all concerned. It was not people of faith who campaigned for anti-Gay legislation like Section 28, but New Labour fund finaciers like Brian Soulter. Funny how the Gay lobby are not on his case - I wonder why?

Faith

You missed the point...................

Did you or did you not have the appropriate SOCPA paperwork filled in?

If not, how come you were allowed to protest?

Why were you not arrested for being a threat to the nation?

Did you have a cunningly disguised bomb hidden in your candle?

I have no objection to you protesting about something, its healthy for democracy to do so, I dont agree with your narrow minded approach and your selective use of the bible / koran to justify your opposition.

I think that the only people who after a 'divide' situation appear to be the crowd outside of parliament / the bogots feverishly penning letters to the dialy mail.

Gay people should not be denied any rights for being... well.... gay just as you should not be denied any rights for being religious, which you are'nt.

Just because some dusty old book claims somewhere, in one or two obscure sentences, that its wrong to be gay does not mean that should be the case or indeed law.



~So, anyway did you have SOCPA paperwork or were you arrested?

"poor sinner"

Had you been born in Saudi or Pakistan, my guess is that you would now be a muslim.

Religion is not innate, its cultural and its learned and, quite honestly, in light of scientific progress its irrational as well.

Gay people are to be found in every culture, and the more religious that culture, the more repression gays seem to experience.

Surely it is for your God to do the judging, your job as a Christian is to love others as christ loved you.

Get on with it, and get off your broken high horse.

BTW, did you have permission?

Point of information in response to Poor Sinner. Brian Souter IS a "person of faith". At the time of his campaign against S28 repeal in Scotland, that's where he drew most of his support.

Either you have scuttled away or you cannot post cos your banged up in a nick......

..............I want to know DID YOU GET PERMISSION FOR YOUR DEMO????

Try asking the question 17 times in a row. Even if he doesn't give a straight answer, we'll all get an inferred answer.

It would appear that these 'harmless' religious types can just come and go as they please, I mean, when has a committed religious person ever carried out a crime against society..... sorry, sarcasm is getting the better of me here.

So how do we go about holding the absolutely unbiased Met police to account for not going in and removing all of their candles and placards in the dead of night?

Does anyone out there know if they got permission or how to find out?

Some scientists believe we have what is referred to as a “God Spot” on the brain, which they say is responsible for the notion of spirituality or religious belief. Perhaps that is true. It would certainly explain why people from every corner of the world create a belief system based on a higher spiritual power.

So perhaps religion is innate after all…….?

BTW, can anyone show me a religion that has traditionally accepted homosexuality as normal? Maybe they cannot help the way the feel, just as homosexuals cannot help the way they feel.

This should be possible under the Freedom of Information Act. They claim to subscribe to the law...

 http://www.met.police.uk/foi/

You can fill out a form online asking for this information here:

 http://www.met.police.uk/information/metric/index.htm

but you may find that they invoke the following sentiment: "we will make as much information available as possible. However, we must also make sure that certain information (for example, that which is used for operational purposes) is restricted and protected where appropriate."

 http://www.met.police.uk/foi/introduction.htm

They continue:

"Information concerning police investigations

Police investigations are conducted with due regard to the confidentiality and privacy of victims, witnesses and suspects. Such investigations may also frequently involve the use of policing tactics or techniques that, if widely known, would hinder the ability of the police service to prevent and detect crime. It is further recognised that the release of information concerning current investigations may compromise any subsequent court proceedings.

For these reasons the police service will, in most cases, seek to apply an exemption to prevent the release of information concerning investigations when requested under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

Whilst adopting this general position, there is full recognition that in some cases there will be significant and compelling issues of public interest that require the disclosure of information. However, to override issues of personal privacy and possible harm to individuals involved in the investigation, this public interest must be significantly more than mere curiosity or interest in a particular investigation."

However if nobody was arrested and there are no current proceedings you might think it worth a go.

Another think some people might think worth a go is asking for records they police have on them. It'll cost a tenner but might produce something to frame up and put in the bog..

From the same website:

"Under the Data Protection Act 1998, you already have a statutory right to have access to personal data we hold about you on computer or in a structured manual file (i.e. on paper). You also have the right to expect us, as the data controller, to ensure that data is:

* processed fairly and lawfully
* obtained for specific and lawful purposes
* adequate, relevant and not excessive for that purpose
* accurate and where necessary kept up to date
* not kept for longer than is necessary
* processed in accordance with the rights of the data subject
* kept secure
* not transferred abroad unless to countries with adequate data protections laws.


Where we are the data controller, you are entitled to be told whether we hold data about you, and if we do:

* to be given a description of the data in question
* to be told for what purposes the data is processed
* to be told the recipients, or classes of recipients, to whom the data is or may be disclosed

You are also entitled to a copy of the information with any unintelligible terms, acronyms or codes explained. You will also be given any information available to us on the source of the data. The data will be in its latest form.

If you wish to apply for access to your personal data, you should follow the instructions on our Website www.met.police.uk/dataprotection "

Have fun.

How stange it is that some people who normally support the ideals of free speech, toleration, and freedom to demonstrate turn all spiteful, intolerant, and opposed to free speech when anyone has the temerity to stand against the current PC fad of believing that homosexual militants must be supported at all costs.The evident bigotry in this debate always comes from those who brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with them.

Of course the protest was registered - the Met had to allow it, they cam hardly be suspected of supporting it considering the lengths they go to when trying to support homosexual attacks on Christians.

The protest demonstration was about the Sexual Orientation Regulations. These pretend to be outlawing discrimination against a completely unproveable concept - orientation. In fact, they are designed to force anyone providing goods or services, free or for payment, to endorse homosexual activity. No Christian wishes to know about or discriminate against another person on the grounds of their so-called sexual orientation, but we do not wish to be involved with their homosexual activity.

A printer who cannot be dragged through the courts for refusing to print for the BNP will not be allowed to refuse an order from a "Gay" organisation. Where's the "equality" in that? In fact, these Regulations are full of exemptions - for homosexuals. Adverts can carry "Gays only" lines but NOT "No Gays." Charities cannot discriminate against homosexuals, but they can discriminate against heterosexuals, and so on.

Throughout, there are rights given to homosexuals which do not exist for any other group in society. This is "Some animals are more equal than others," legislation.

Worst of all is the harassment offence. A Moslem cannot come to my church and them go off and sue us in court for an affront to his dignity - but a homosexual will be able to. Furthermore, they are being given huge financial inducements to manufacture complaints -even getting official financial and legal assistance to do so.

This legislation is against the rights to freedom of relion and freedom of speech, and is all a part of this Government's steady stream of repressive laws. What a shame that those who normally oppose such laws have been blinded into supporting this particular one.

Because I will go on telling Christians that this is not legitimate law and they should not conform to these Regulations, I will face criminal charges. Do you people really support the criminalisation of those who try to exercise their rights of free speech?