General Discussion (16)

If there’s something of interest in the news that’s not covered in one of the topic threads, or you have a question to ask, a comment you’d like to make about anything under the sun, more or less, this is the thread for you.  

However, please check first, to ensure that you haven’t missed a topic thread or another thread where it would be appropriate to post your comment, as the GD discussion threads fills up very quickly.

Readers, all too often, go straight to the General Discussion thread to post news that is already the topic of a thread or to ask a question that is already being discussed elsewhere. So, do your Sherlock Holmes – at the very least check the side-bar – before posting here, please and thank you! Your “news” may simply be a different angle on a subject already under discussion, so do, please check before posting your comment here. OR it would be helpful if you could check out the most recent thread on that subject, in case it is still open. In which case, your comment would be best placed there. Example: if your news is about the Mass or the SSPX, scroll or check the archives to find the most recent thread on that topic. If there is no thread still open, then it’s safe to post on the GD thread.

Feel free, also, to share your favourite spiritual reading books, prayers and devotions on this thread. Whatever. Enjoy!

To read previous General Discussion Threads, click on the links listed below.

(1) click here (2) click here (3) click here (4) click here (5) click here
(6) click here (7) click here (8) click here (9) click here (10) click here
(11) click here (12) click here (13) click here (14) click here  (15) click here   

71 responses

  1. A bit of light relief to start this new discussion thread:

    (Hopefully this is not inappropriate).

    We are potty training my young daughter (aged 2) right now. At a recent saturday mass we attend she suddenly advised me “Daddy, I need a pee”.

    Praising her for alerting me, I scooped her up and made straight for the toilet at the side door. However, when we got there, she decided that in fact she did not need a pee after all, so we just went back to our seat.

    Later during the mass, a lady was making her way down the side aisle and turned to go through the door to the toilet. At which point my daughter, who had spied the woman, boomed in the loudest voice imaginable “THAT LADY IS GOING FOR A PEE.”. She even pointed right at the poor woman, just incase there was any ambiguity as to whom she was referring.

    I don’t know who wanted the ground to swallow them up more, me or the poor lady in question!

    • Gabriel Syme,

      That is, indeed, comical – no wonder showbiz folk say they are wary of working with children or animals!

      However, there’s a more serious point to be made here, and I hope you don’t mind if I do just that 😀

      Not only because of their unpredictability, but also for reasons of modesty, I think it’s important to choose language very carefully when teaching even the smallest children the most basic things. After all, that’s what the sex-education “experts” do. They deliberately familiarise children with crudities – resources that I’ve seen include instructions to name the sexual organs and list them on the board, for children to learn, when there is absolutely no need to do so, but the purpose is to break down “inhibitions” so that the children will think and speak freely about bodily and sexual matters. They are saturated with this sort of thing, both at school and via the media. All the more important, then, that they learn modesty in all things, including language, at home and that from the earliest days.

      It might seem “picky” but I know mothers who teach their children to simply say that they “need to go to the toilet”, and when they meet with unwillingness (often because of a sense of embarrassment, everyone will know why… etc) they explain that some people go to the toilet just to wash their hands or fix their hair. It’s also likely to be less distracting for others in the pew, if a child asks to go to the toilet rather than spell out what they plan to do when they get there!

      Thinking ahead, with the inhibitions broken down, and a toddler daughter becoming an older/teenage daughter with different “toilet” issues, it would be unseemly to hear her, as we hear others, dishing out the reason for a toilet visit at that stage in her young life. “Too much information” as they say these days!

      I do hear children around me whispering for permission to go to the toilet during Mass, and I think nothing of it. If they were giving more detail, I’m not sure I’d be able to get my concentration back!

      Anyway, please do not take this as a personal criticism – there will be plenty reading this who think I’m just being a prude again, but I thought I would throw it in for your consideration.

      • Editor,

        I think it’s important to choose language very carefully when teaching even the smallest children the most basic things.

        I agree, personally when discussing such business I usually just ask her if she needs to “use her pot”.

        Her great precision surprised me and was part of what I found comical, but of course I would not expect her (or any child) to offer such detail beyond the age of ~2.

        On the plus side, from a parental point of view – “forewarned is forearmed”, as they say!

        • Gabriel Syme,

          On reading over my comment, I must thank you for not ticking me off – I’ve just re-read it and it comes across as cheeky-through-to-arrogant as if I’m instructing you on how to be parent! I really didn’t mean to do that, but having lived for a long time in the north of England, I got used to these graphic descriptions of why people were going to the loo, and although I don’t mind us importing lots of stuff from south of the border, I’d prefer to not import that rather crude custom!

          I take the points you made in reply – and, again, thank you for not taking offence. Some would say that your response shows your charity, others might say it’s all about blogging experience…

          • thank you for not ticking me off

            Not all all Editor.

            Thinking about it more I think its important to note that the language skills of a bright 2 year old are much more advanced than their social awareness/experience and neither do they have any concept of being crude.

  2. I have been informed that the (retired) Lord Gill PC is to give a lecture in April, as follows:

    Title: The Consequences of Vatican II
    Location: Hillhead library, Glasgow
    Date and time: Thursday 12th April, 5.30pm

    Sadly the early time (and it being mid-week) means I am unlikely to make it, but its interesting to see such a topic pop-up.

    I understand Lord Gill was educated by the Jesuits at St Aloysius, so I wonder if he will be forthright about the disastrous fallout of the Council, or if he will spout Jesuitical waffle?

    I suspect (hope) it might be the former, given the talk is not being hosted by the Archdiocese (or by Lord Gill’s former educators in particular).

    In any case, I suspect the modernist luvvies of Glasgow will turn up (to fawn over themselves and their supposed great openness and humility).

    • Gabriel Syme,

      There is no way in this world that the Jesuits would have invited Brian Gill to address any topic on their premises, were he not of the same fold as themselves. He was (not sure if he still is) a member of the Una Voce Scotland (UVS) committee and fitted right in with them – that is, he would do or say nothing to upset the hierarchy applecart (or as RCA Victor so aptly dubs them, the “lowerarchy”) and as long as the bishops would permit the occasional TLM, all was well with the UVS world.

      I couldn’t write a book about Brian Gill but I could write a pamphlet. I’ll put it no more strongly than that…

      • Editor,

        There is no way in this world that the Jesuits would have invited Brian Gill to address any topic on their premises, were he not of the same fold as themselves.

        The talk is not on Jesuit or Archdiocese property, which is why I think his message may not be popular in those quarters.

        I had not heard of Brian Gill before and had to google his name to find out about him. For example, I did not know he was a Judge or connected with Una Voce.

        • Gabriel Syme,

          Apologies for reading that too quickly – I saw “Lecture” … “Glasgow”… “Jesuits/St Aloysius” and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

          I still wouldn’t bet on Brian Gill saying anything that would make him too unpopular. I’d love to be wrong but I’ve never forgotten the report in the Catholic press about his warm praise for Cardinal O’Brien at the annual Mass for lawyers and this despite being, at that time, in regular receipt of our newsletter and 100% in support of CT, or so he led us to believe. I removed him from the mailing list after reading that report (in the light of another disappointment, not for publication right now) – and I wrote to him privately to explain why.

          In any event, anything worth saying is next door to being pointless at this stage. For one thing, he’s retired – a major criticism of some of the dubia cardinals: why not speak out when their words carry some influence? And things are just so bad now that one retired judge in a city like Glasgow, not exactly in the media spotlight, speaking in a library… weekday, 5.30pm when some folk are still at the office… well… I rest my case. Not exactly going to set the heather on fire, is it?

          Still, interesting to know about – so thank you for posting that information.

    • Ertyghiiikkgg

      There are some interesting tweets, but I can’t see any apology from anyone except a vague reference to “religious leaders” and the mention of some “right wing” people. I take it that’s the reference to the Britain First people.

      There’s nothing there that hasn’t been said by people on social media already, so I don’t see the big deal. I’m not on Twitter and I think it’s a weird way to communicate, so maybe I’m missing something, but since you ask for views, my is “so what?” LOL!

    • WF,

      I think what paved the way for PF’s false notion of mercy was John XXIII’s opening speech to Vatican II, in which he gave mercy a most un-Catholic, false meaning. PF is the other bookend, the consummation of an evil begun in 1962.

      • RCA Victor,

        Hear, hear. That was a shocking speech of Pope John XXIII – I can never understand why people let him off the hook for the damage caused by V2 when he started the ball rolling with that insulting speech. So, well said, you!

      • Follow this notion down the Rabbit Hole.

        By judicial use of Mercy and Accompaniment and of course ‘CONSCIENCE’……one could construe that Abortion etc is OK according to one’s conscience!!!

        This is coming folks like a No. 64 bus says ‘Auchenshuggle.

    • Cardinal Burke “alluding to Fatima”????????? Shouldn’t he be screaming it from the rooftops! The headline was enough for me – I didn’t bother clicking on the link!

      As for who will be the next pope – give us time to get over this one, LOL!

      • Another amazing kite being flown just now is ‘what if Benedict outlives Francis’!.?…….as Frank Carson the late comedian would have said ‘it’s a cracker’!

        • That’s the first I’ve ever heard or thought of that! What WOULD happen!

          Except we had that before when Benedict resigned and there was a conclave so I presume the same would happen again.

          • Some ‘experts’ think that Benedict would come back part time, while they sort things out…total mess…I blame him for deserting his post and ushering in this Jesuit Pope.

  3. If anyone clicks on the second link they will see Cardinal Sean O’Malley (remember him, AS IN THE Pope and the Barrose caper..)…..being ANOINTED by (SO CALLED) HOLY OIL from a divorced female Scottish protestant minister at some service.


    In business and politics, there is such a thing as Succession Management…this is what we are seeing now..the VAT PACK are simply no longer Catholic.

    • St Miguel,

      … “they” have not been Catholic EVER… no real Catholic could do and say the things these prelates are doing and saying. Trust me. I really am trustable on this 😀

      • Yep, but what is MORE alarming is the vast number who have pretended for decades to believe.The no longer feel that they have to pretend any longer, it just a cushy career for most with the same back stabbing as any other corporation. I now believe that the Church of Rome today is no longer Catholic.

        • St Miguel,

          We’ve been saying for decades that it is a mistake to listen to what the bishops say – watch what they DO has been our constant mantra.

          Talking a good orthodox talk and then selling rags like The Tablet (which attack Catholic morals, marriage, sanctity of life etc) in parishes, cathedrals and “Catholic” bookshops, allowing public dissenters to address audiences of priests and teachers on Catholic premises, defending dissenters undermining the Faith and Morals in the media blah blah – i.e. the contradiction between what they say for public consumption and what they DO, has demonstrated for a very long time that the bishops of the UK are about as Catholic as the nearest Imam.

          I don’t agree with you that the “Church of Rome is no longer Catholic” since you refer to Christ and His Church. I’m getting a tad fed up saying this to you, St Miguel; you seem to have a problem with medium term memory. If you mean that the prelates inhabiting the Vatican are no longer Catholic then – blankety blank – say that but do not infer that Christ has abandoned His Church. That’s heresy.

          I do sympathise about the memory problem, don’t get me wrong. I haven’t noticed too much difference as I’ve grown older but I do have a bad memory. And I do have a bad memory… 😀

  4. Now let us see what Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider are going to now. Not much I bet.

    I also believe now that only Divine Intervention will have to take place. The rotten wood has to fall and make way for a new plantation.

      • Just dawned on me that Athanasius seems to be absent on this blog. I have always been interested in his views on all the threads.

        Is he OK ?

  5. Posting this here as the most recent “transgender” threads are now locked to new comments:

    We have surely reached peak absurdity with this madness. The Times reports that a “transwoman” (i.e. a mentally ill man) in the labour party is in danger of losing his post after he posted tweets attacking another “transwoman” (i.e. another mentally ill man) in the labour party.

    The man’s crime? Saying the other man was not a woman.

    A leading transgender activist and Labour Party official is facing possible expulsion after online comments that she made about the party’s first transgender women’s officer.

    Miranda Yardley, 50, who was born male and underwent gender reassignment nearly ten years ago, said she had no regrets after posting four tweets in February about Lily Madigan, 20, questioning her status as a woman.

    I know politicians are typically self-serving, amoral and incompetent snakes, but how even they can deal with this nonsense with a straight face, I don’t know.

  6. Roberto de Mattei puts to rest (once again) the false notion of a “Pope Emeritus”:

    “Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.

    Cardinal Brandmüller rightly judged as unintelligible the attempt to establish a sort of contemporaneous parallelism of a reigning Pope and a praying Pope. “A two-headed Pope would be a monstrosity,” says Cardinal Brandmüller, who adds: “Canon Law does not recognize the figure of a Pope Emeritus” (…) “The resignee, consequently”, “is no longer Bishop of Rome, not even a cardinal.”

    • RCA Victor,

      That is a very useful article indeed. I kept thinking this one is the most important, then that one, but I settled on this one because it just sums up the removal of the key reason for having the Church at all – the salvation (from Hell) of souls:

      “The notion of the Church contained in the tortuous article 1 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium stands out [as different from the Tradition], presented as “a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race,” without any mention of the supernatural end of the Church, that is the salvation of souls, the one thing that justifies her existence.”

      That’s it in the proverbial nutshell!

  7. N O T I C E . . .

    MargaretUSA has emailed the following request for prayers – read the time with the time-gap between America and here in mind. I presume 4/16 refers to yesterday…

    Please ask the CT family to pray for my mother Helen. She fell & broke her left hip today (4/16); surgery is likely tomorrow. She really needs prayers.
    Sending hugs to everyone.
    In Christ the King,

    I have replied to assure her of my own prayers for her mother – please remember Helen in yours.

    Thank you.

    • I will pray that MargaretUSA’s mother Helen is comfortable, has successful surgery and makes a good recovery.

    • RCA Victor,

      WOW! That makes chilling reading. I extracted this paragraph to highlight, although I was spoilt for choice…

      Pope Francis states that “the ‘truth-idol’ imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart.” Is the Gospel obscured or falsified by truths taught by the Magisterium of the Church – which are drawn from that Gospel?

      That is exactly what he’s up to, in that nonsensical talk of “truth-idol” – using the Truth to undermine the Church’s authority!

      How much longer are we going to have to suffer this pope! He’s only 82! Could live for another ten years! Lord, please help us!

    • RCA Victor,

      I agree, another scandal indeed. I am afraid of every time Pope Francis opens his mouth to speak, confusion abounds with almost every word he utters.
      “Truth idolatry” is this his objection to Catholic Doctrines in the Deposit of Faith?

      Well, Vatican II plus Pope Paul’s New Mass concocted by Archbishop Bugnini and 6 Protestant Ministers have been an unmitigated disaster. Massive defections of priests and nuns from religious life. Too few men entering seminaries. Dwindling congregations attending the Novus Ordo Mass. Secularism is running rife.

      In Canada take note of the numbers of closures of Catholic Churches, due to, too few priests …. need I say more?

    • John,

      Feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel was on 26th April, on the traditional calendar. Yesterday was the Feast of St Joseph, Spouse of Our Lady & Patron of Workers.

      Another example of the “mess” [Pope Francis’ word!] in the modern Church. We’re getting so we can’t tell what day of the week it is, or, more accurately, what FEAST day it is!

      PS, we don’t promote the America/Britain etc Needs Fatima people since they do not tell anything like the full truth about Fatima.

    • Thank you for that RCAVictor, simple and profound. It puts in to words what I have been thinking for a long time.

    • RCA Victor

      Call me a nag if you will, but this would have been more appropriately posted on the current Papa Francis thread (Evil in the Vatican – etc…) because it is likely to be lost here. Anyway, that’s my anti-General Discussion prejudice showing again…

      That is one very interesting interview, and let’s hope he is right about the cardinals move quietly and discreetly to organise a special conclave. Thank you for alerting us to it. As I said above…

    • WF,

      I missed this post from you – possibly because we’d already posted a topic thread on it – see the “Evil in the Vatican etc” thread.

      As you say, this would never happen to Islam or any other pagan religion, but we’ve become used to this blatant prejudice and discrimination. Doesn’t help when it is actively promoted in the Vatican itself. Totally shocking.

  8. Here we go again . . . after Cardinal Nichols’ non-consecration of England to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 2017, when he failed to mention ‘England’ in the consecration prayer – it seems that the bishops are up to their old disingenuous tricks again with the proposed 2020 ‘re-dedication of England’ as Mary’s Dowry. Although the event is being hailed as a re-dedication of England, a deeper look into the Dowry Tour website has revealed this paragraph:-

    “The re-dedication in 2020, unlike the dedication of King Richard II in 1381, WILL NOT BE THE GIFT OF THE COUNTRY OF ENGLAND, (emphasis mine) but the personal gift of the faith of the people of England to the Mother of God, to seek her help in building a strong spiritual foundation for the New Evangelisation”

    What is the phobia around our bishops consecrating or dedicating this nation and actually naming it? Why do they feel that they can only consecrate / dedicate those who have the ‘gift of the faith’? Our Lady asked for the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, She didn’t say that She only wanted the Russian Catholics to consecrate themselves . . . . In any event, by 2020 I should imagine the amount of people who actually have the ‘gift of the faith’ in England will be virtually non-existent.

    Is this going to be another lost opportunity?

    • WF,

      To answer your closing question – yes it will be another lost opportunity.


      Because Cardinal Nichols et al have about as much Catholicity in their souls as the nearest rabbi or imam. Or for that matter, the nearest Scots bishop. That’s why.

  9. You’ve hit the Big Time, Editor: Fr. Clovis mentions his speech to Catholic Truth in this Remnant interview (ff to 16:20):

    • RCA Victor

      WOW! Theresa-Rose had put the link to the Remnant page with this interview, on the “Evil in the Vatican” thread but I hadn’t managed to view it yet – just did though, and thank you very much for alerting us to the mention of our Conference. Father was a pleasure to be with – we thoroughly enjoying his visit and it’s great to hear him mention the Conference in his interview with Michael Matt. Thank you for that!

  10. Rorate Caeli reports that Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos has died. He was 88.

    Grant unto him eternal rest o Lord,
    and let perpetual light shine upon him,
    May he rest in peace

    • Thank you for that sad news about Cardinal Hoyos, Gabriel Syme. It was he who repeatedly pointed out that the SSPX is not in schism and that those who claims so do not understand the situation.

      May he rest in peace.

  11. One of our readers emailed me a copy of his message to Radio 4 where, in a discussion about the royal wedding, one of the presenters said: “religious marriages are from a more censorious age”. Jim wrote:

    I’ve been married for 31 years, we are Catholic and married in a Catholic church.

    At work in the construction industry we can’t use step ladders in case we fall off… we can’t use sweeping brushes because if dust rises we might get cancer…. we have a lockable steel box to hold a half pint tin of paint, the box is that small you can’t put the paint brush in beside the deadly paint.
    I’m finished for the day, off to the Co-op for my evening meal will have to pay for a carrier bag 5 pence…. I’m driving a diesel car…etc…etc…etc….

    Where ever did you get the idea that religious marriages were from a more censorious age…???


    • There is no ban on using step ladders on construction sites, simply a requirement that the risk is properly assessed, which seems entirely sensible given the number of deaths and serious injuries each year when using ladders.

      Dry sweeping similarly is not banned, but since it can result in inhalation of harmful substances better options should be considered.

      Securing harmful substances, including paint, is also just sensible and good work practice.

      And if you want to avoid paying for a carrier bag, get a bit more organised and take one with you to the shops. It really isn’t very hard.

      I suppose in a similar vein I could point out that when I was a kid anyone could buy cigarettes from a vending machine outside a lot of shops, age was very rarely checked in pubs, school teachers were still allowed to beat children on the buttocks with a piece of wood based purely on their own discretion and racial discrimination was not an offence.

      All in all, as a society we have made a lot of progress since my youth and should be proud of it.

      • Andrew,

        You have missed Jim’s point – or perhaps you agree that “religious marriages are from a more censorious age” and that we are living at a terrific time of wonderful freedom where we are not being beaten with PC sticks at every turn?

        Knowing zilch about the construction industry, my money is with Jim. We are inundated with daft rules and regulations (the plastic bags nonsense is one great example) and with people looking disapprovingly down their noses at us if we so much as “idle” the car engine for a couple of minutes to drop off or pick up a passenger, I think a very good case can be made for arguing that WE are living in an extremely censorious age. Unless you hold the permitted views on same-sex “marriage”, abortion, contraception, divorce and “remarriage”, transgenderism and all the rest, then we are out of step with the (recently) received “wisdom” of our very PC, promiscuous, permissive, anything-but-tolerant society.

        Maybe you get Jim’s point now?

  12. I’m kind of surprised the Pope’s comments to Juan Carlos Cruz haven’t been commented on here. For the overwhelming majority of Catholics I know they represent a huge and very welcome step forward to accepting people as they are and not attempting to take God’s place in sitting in judgement. Although I don’t for a minute expect them to be welcome on this site.

    • Andrew,

      You mean the meeting where Pope Francis tells a homosexually active man (“gay”) that: “God made him gay and his sexuality “does not matter”.” ?

      Why would we comment on that?

      Are you saying that, because what the Pope says is in direct contradiction to God’s moral law, that homosexuality is one of the four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, we wouldn’t expect a Pope to give it his blessing, that we ought to have commented on it by now?

      But why? This pope has made clear that he accepts every religion and none, every aberration, especially homosexuality, and that the only people he disdains are traditional Catholics.

      What is there to say? What’s new?

      But here’s a point: why not take YOUR disdain for us and blog elsewhere? I’m increasingly sick of ignorant Catholics (who are, in fact, Catholics-in-name-only) coming on here and spouting their drivel, insulting the bloggers here. And all in the name of “acceptance”, “diversity”, “equality” blah blah.

      Catholics-in-name-only who are in favour of promoting sin are welcome to READ this blog but we are not interested in your opinions – on anything. NOT remotely.
      To come on here and promote heresy and immorality begs the question, why? Why come on here where you know you are talking to authentic Catholics; we don’t want your nonsense, so who are you talking to? And what the heck are you talking about – you’ve lost us… Please, take your business elsewhere. We don’t want it.

  13. Please see this from Coalition For Marriage: You can a response to the Dept of Education here:-

    Respond to consultation: oppose a same-sex marriage test for teachers

    Dear marriage supporter,

    Draft Government guidance will see schools in England assessed on their support for same-sex marriage. This will greatly strengthen Ofsted’s hand in policing political correctness. Initially this guidance will apply to independent schools, but the approach will inevitably be extended to all schools.

    This is the greatest threat we have faced since same-sex marriage was legalised. It is vital that it is faced down and defeated.

    Please respond to the consultation today. You do not have to provide any personal information if you do not want to. The key question to respond to is question 7, which is on page 3 of the online response form. The consultation closes on 5 June.

    Our short guide to responding to the consultation is below. There is more background detail in our new briefing. You can also read the key piece of the draft guidance, paragraph 20, here.
    Respond today

    Yours sincerely,
    Colin Hart
    Coalition for Marriage (C4M)

    The consultation closes on Tuesday 5 June, at 11.45pm.
    You can respond online.
    Question 7 is the key one to respond to: “If you have comments on the advice in relation to the Quality of Education standard (Part 1), please insert them here”
    Some suggested comments for question 7 are below. You may wish to use one or two of these comments.
    Specify that your comments relate to paragraph 20 of the draft guidance.
    If you feel able to respond to other questions, please do so.
    Your response will be far more effective if you use your own words.

    Suggested comments:

    Say that the Department for Education is acting as if Parliament has outlawed belief in traditional marriage.
    Say that the draft guidance breaks promises made by Government ministers that teachers who disagree with same-sex marriage will be respected.
    Say that teachers will be gagged. Even teachers who give views for and against could fall foul of this approach.
    Say that the draft guidance is deeply offensive. It implies that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is like being racist.
    Say that this guidance will further encourage Ofsted to ask intrusive questions of schoolchildren, as has already happened in Jewish and Christian schools.
    Say that in a democratic society people should be free to disagree.
    Say that same-sex marriage is a political issue that schools should treat in a balanced manner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: