The Blessed Martyr Giles

It is possible to have some sympathy with the part-time protesters outside St Paul’s. They may be naïve and incapable of forming a coherent alternative to that which they term evil, but they are right to be angry. The anger is justified when we consider that those who had to foot the bill for the utter financial mismanagement of our economy are facing recession, fast vanishing pensions and growing unemployment. Meanwhile so many who have caused so much harm go on their merry way whilst continuing to pay themselves massive amounts. This is sin.

It is far more difficult to have sympathy for Revd Dr Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s and icon of the progressive church, who has just resigned. He is neither naïve nor incapable of coherent thought.

The Blessed Martyr Giles, Patron Saint of the Grandiloquent Gesture

To the acclaim of progressives in the media Grandstanding Giles welcomed the protesters and warned the police off. According to many he was a true representative of Christ. Giles later agreed that the protesters should move on. Now that the Cathedral seem to be taking steps to ensure that they move on Giles has decided to make another gesture, resignation announced via Twitter.

The Dean of the Cathedral issued a statement on the resignation praising Fraser for his “humanity and humour.”

This is the same Giles Fraser who labels conservative Anglicans as ‘homophobes’ and ‘extremists.’ In his view traditionalist Anglicans opposed to homosexual marriage are, “narrow minded Puritans seeking to impose their joyless and claustrophobic world view on the rest of the church.” Despite being lauded for his humanity Fraser seems incapable of grasping that it is possible that those who disagree with him might be both sincere and thoughtful.

Fraser wants to appear tolerant and be Christian at the same time but Christianity is not primarily tolerant. In the most important aspect of life Christianity, thankfully, is unashamedly intolerant. Christianity, based on the Bible, defines what is right and what is wrong and refuses to change its standards to accord with the spirit of the times. Where the Church does get it right is that it forgives when a person repents of wrongdoing, even bankers and Canons.

But it is not the patronising intolerance towards any who differ from him displayed by Fraser which is most troubling. His self-righteous arrogance may be annoying but it is not fatal. What is much more serious is his open denial of much of Christianity. As well as denying the immortality of the soul Fraser takes dead aim at the soteriology held by those ‘extremists’ he so despises.

This is his view on the atoning death of Christ:

“For too long, Christians have put up with a theory of salvation that has at its core the idea that God requires the sacrifice of his own son so that human sin can be cancelled. “There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin,” we will all sing.

“The fact this is a disgusting idea, and morally degenerate, is obvious to all but those indoctrinated into a very narrow reading of the cross.”

True, such is the awesome magnitude of what happened on Golgotha that there is more than one way of approaching the complexity of what happened on the cross, but for a purported leader of the church, and especially a leading light of the Inclusive Church, to indulge in such intemperate language would indicate that Fraser is more interested in playing to the gallery than engaging in theological debate.

Slovenly Language = Foolish Thoughts

George Orwell was probably the 20^th century’s greatest craftsman in the English language. Writing in 1946 on Politics and the English Language he observed of the language that:

“It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

George Orwell - The 20th Century's Greatest Exponent of the English Language

Slovenliness of language and foolish thoughts go together, and they have consequences.

Slovenly language leads to foolish thinking. The use of the term “fundamentalist” is not a description but a means of writing off the views of any who are out of step with establishment thinking. I believe in God, think homosexual practice is a sin, therefore I am a fundamentalist whose views can be dismissed out of hand. The fact that I also have a beard only goes to prove that I am a fundamentalist.

In wider society the use of “phobia” as a descriptor for any who are out of step with progressive thinking is a clear example of that “slovenliness” of language which “makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

On BBC Radio 4 news yesterday an interviewee insisted that the MP’s who rebelled against the party whips and voted for an EU referendum were not democratic, not principled, not people who had thought out their position, rather they were “Europhobes.” Slovenly language, foolish thinking.

His accent indicated that English was his first language and as he was a professor we should presume he was not uneducated. But as a professor he was in a position to influence many who in turn would be in positions of influence in schools, government, churches etc.

Homophobe, Islamophobe, even Francophobe (as though distrust of the French was anything but rational.) Once someone who disagrees with a progressive position is diagnosed as suffering from some form of mental disorder there is no need to listen to their point of view or engage them in enquiring dialogue. The phobic becomes a non-person and the progressive can remain undisturbed in his complacent cocoon, secure in his own moral righteousness.

That this form of slovenly language leading to foolish thoughts is prevalent in progressive discourse is no surprise. Slovenly language leading to foolish thought facilitates the urge to totalitarianism inherent in progressive politics.

The two most evil political systems of the 20^th century, soviet communism and German national socialism both argued that to disagree with their obviously morally as well as socially and economically correct systems was to be insane. The asylums of soviet Russia were an intellectual gulag.

In this both systems followed the lead of that darling of progressive thought, Jean Jacques Rousseau. His elaboration of Diderot’s theory of the General Will led directly to the Great Terror and has been used by oppressive regimes ever since. According to Rousseau if the general will was not accepted the people would have to be  “forced to be free.”

Diderot wrote that “We must reason about all things,” a sentiment with which we could all agree. But he went on to write that whoever refused to seek out the truth as defined by the general will had renounced the nature of man and “should be treated by the rest of the species as a wild beast. This stood to reason as once truth was discovered to refuse to accept it is “either insane or wicked and morally evil.”

In Britain progressive forces with a clear conscience attempt to force us to be free. The only truly acceptable views are those which are progressive. To express a view unacceptable to the progressive conscience is to lay oneself open to the possibility of being accused of a “hate crime” and even liable to prosecution. To take a position at odds with acceptable ideologies is to be phobic. Virtue is imposed on the unenlightened, whether they like it or not.

Slovenly language leads to foolish thought, leads to slovenly language leads to… But it’s all much more than just language.

Look Out! He Has A Clipboard And Isn’t Afraid To Use It

Even bampots should feel free to protest. The Occupy London protesters may be self-regarding and sanctimonious, faulty in their analysis and confused in their solutions, nevertheless, if they feel strongly enough they should camp out in St Paul’s and shout to their heart’s content.

And They Want To Set The World To Rights

What is much less acceptable is the behaviour of the Chapter of St Paul’s. Initially the protesters were welcomed, they enabled the church to demonstrate its ‘right on’ credentials.

However, the protesters stayed. Visitor revenues fell. Lo and behold along came a health and safety inspector who decreed that it was too dangerous to allow services to continue whilst the protesters were encamped. As a result the services at St Paul’s today were held behind closed doors.

I would urge the protesters not to give in to the moral blackmail of the Chapter.

The protesters argue, quite plausibly, that there is no danger posed by their encampment. Their presence is peaceable and they have no intention of blocking the exits in the case of a catastrophic fire. This is something the possibility of which clearly keeps the Chapter awake at nights, St Paul’s having a long history of catastrophic fires. After all you never know when the Luftwaffe might return.

In ancient Rome Christians met in secret because they faced the very real prospect of being a lion’s lunch. In England Anglicans such as Latimer and Ridley braved the fire for their faith. In Scotland the Covenanters met in the hills because of the all too real prospect of imprisonment, torture and death at the hands of Episcopalians. The Christians of China met in secret because they faced concentration camps. The Christians of the Confessing Church faced the might and hatred of the Nazi state and risked everything, and sometimes paid with their lives, for the necessity to preach and live the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Chapter of St Paul’s crumble before a health and safety man armed with a clipboard.

The protesters may well be bampots, but at least they have convictions.

Clearing Up After Elephants

Genius is not merely a matter of being bright, there are many exceptionally clever people who are not geniuses. A genius is the person who helps us see the world differenly.

"I'd Rather Be A Clown"

Picasso was a genius, after Les Demoiselles D’Avignon we could never look at things as before. Tracy Emmin is one more in a long line of art school graduates who produce a frisson of excitement amongst intellectual poseurs and a yawn in the other 99.999% of us.

Louis Armstrong was a genius, the opening bars of West End Blues are not just sublime music they make us hear things differently. John Cage is a musical chancer who has made a comfortable living peddling unlistenable compositions, the snake oil salesman of the musical world.

Albert Einstein was a genius, after his theory of general relativity we could no longer think in Newtonian terms about time or space. Richard Dawkins is a biologist who employs predestinarian evolution to demonstrate that he is a superior being and the coolest guy on the planet.

However, no matter how much of an impact the work of a true genius has their ideas are gradually replaced. Even Einstein’s work is no longer sacrosanct but is adjusted, tweaked, even denied. The world moves on, especially the intellectual world.

Karl Marx was a genius, after him our understanding of human relations was totally altered. Since the mid 19^th century we see the world in class terms. During the 20^th century the concept of class dominated every area of intellectual and other endeavour. From history to comedy, from sociology to sport, Marx ruled. The church, late as usual, got into the act with class based theology; black theology, homosexual theology, feminist theology etc.

Marxism is dead and class is not everything. Margaret Thatcher, arch conservative, gained and kept power not by playing up to the ruling class but by appealing to the legitimate aspirations of the working class. Tony Blair kept Labour in power by appealing to the fears of the English middle class.

What is ignored by class warfare protagonists is that worldview or ideology is more influential. What people believe matters more than what people have. Two families, one of whom is rich and the other poor but both of whom are Christian have more in common than two families both of whom are poor but only one of whom is Christian.

The Occupy protesters, vociferously representing the 99% masses against the activities of the rich 1% are not the class warriors they imagine. They share more with the corporations they demonise than they acknowledge. What they are actually saying is “Greed is bad. I have bills, give me your money.” The protesters share the same outlook as the banks and corporations they rightly decry, that material possession are what matters. They merely disagree with how they are distributed.

The corporations themselves realise this. Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream have come out to officially support the protesters, and their support has been welcomed. Who owns the ice cream company? Neither Ben nor Jerry but Unliver plc one of the worlds largest corporate bodies. They realise the protesters and their sympathisers are a significant chunk of their market.

Last Sunday we had the painfully progressive Revd Canon Dr Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, telling the Occupy LSX protestors that they could stay in the forecourt of St Paul’s, and also warning the police off. Unfortunately for Giles St Paul’s is a money making operation dependent on tourist income and tourists don’t want to negotiate the tents of protestors. It is reckoned that St Paul’s income in the last few days has dropped by over half. The protesters have been asked to move on for ‘health and safety’ reasons. The corporation which is St Paul’s must think of the bottom line.

Calvin spoke of the Church as the spearhead of the new creation, not as the last man in the circus parade, the one who comes after the elephants with a bucket and shovel. Even if it does produce marvellous roses aping what goes on in the world is no task for the Church.

The Christian church should be the only classless society on earth Galatians 3:26-29. Unfortunately it isn’t. Marxist influenced progressive theologians are as adulterated by political power as their more conservative predecessors. Christianity has become, to a large extent, a religion of conformity, of integration into the prevailing culture.

Thankfully the Church always contains a current which is hostile to political power, that is revolutionary and truly anarchical inasmuch as it breaks with and challenges institutional power. We constitute the alternative society, the counter culture which the New Testament embodies and the world needs.

Placards ‘R Us

Nothing is too daft for those intent on aping America. It seems that London is going to have its own Occupy Wall Street demonstration. Tomorrow a group of excitable schoolchildren, professional whingers and wannabe anarchists intend to occupy Paternoster Square near the London Stock Exchange. The creative energies behind this copy cat event have dubbed it with the snappy title ‘Occupy LSX.’

The motivation behind the event seems to be to have an event. Like their American big brother the movement insists on being leaderless and emphasises non-hierarchical ‘direct democracy.’ The aims and strategies of the movement are to be decided in the midst of a process of continual, rolling open assemblies. These are an endless succession of meetings where everyone can chip in, express their concern and argue their particular position. Imagine endless Presbytery meetings with added cannabis.

What we have in Occupy LSX is a group of people who first of all decide they are going to have a protest and then only during the protest decide what it is that they are protesting about. It is the event itself and their participation in it which is important to them, not anything which may be achieved.  A neat inversion of previous protests and an indicator of their complete lack of seriousness.

Once they have decided what it is they are protesting about can we hope that they will bring forward any positive alternatives, any workable ideas? Will they create a viable alternative economic plan or just a series of witty placards? Don’t hold your breath.

Clearly for Occupy LSX what is vitally important is their image of themselves as fearless radicals struggling to protect the downtrodden. Self image is at the heart of their agenda, not the downtrodden.

In the midst of a recession spoon fed, pampered middle class youth can no longer afford afford to go on a trip to Kenya or Rio  for a gap year. This is their gap year staycation. London in a driech October with winter coming on is no place for a carnival. We’ll see how long this lasts.

Mob Rule Does Not Equal Stability

Way back at the beginning of February I wrote concerning the supposed Arab Spring,  “We can be glad that ruthless dictators have fallen. To imagine that they will be replaced by democracies based upon Western progressive values is ludicrous.” Unfortunately I have been proved correct. This was no flash of prophetic insight on my part, rather it was what was obvious to any who were willing to peer behind the progressive media rhetoric.

Stability does not grow from mobs. Progressives who dream it does are influenced by the same infantile romantic wishful thinking which causes countless nice, middle class students to wear T shirts emblazoned with the image of the murderous sociopath Che Guevara. Just because someone attacks a policeman that does not automatically make them a good person. Just because a mob tries to overthrow a dictator that does not automatically make it a worthy movement.

Throughout the Middle East there is only one nation which provides any semblance of democracy as we would understand it. Unfortunately the various revolts which have occurred and are still taking place in Muslim countries are hardly going to look to Israel for a role model.

It was argued that the Arab Spring was a move towards a freer and more humane society in the Muslim countries of the Middle East.  After all, they couldn’t be any worse than the dictatorships which they overthrew. If only that were so.

In Egypt last week we found state broadcasters loyal to the military junta urging ‘honourable Egyptians’ to help the army to put down the ‘sons of dogs’ (Coptic Christians) protesting the destruction of their churches. The ‘honourable Egyptians’ soon obliged, roaming the streets armed with rocks and sticks and, with the connivance and active participation of the police and army, attacking and even murdering Christians.

Egyptian Copts Protest Islamic Persecution

At the funerals of 17 of those killed by army and police in Cairo last Sunday night Muslim onlookers pelted the funeral procession with bricks and Molotov cocktails. The mourners were also attacked on their way home afterwards. The police failed to intervene and stop the attackers.

The Copts who constitute the oldest faith group in the country are now leaving Egypt en masse. Since May 90,000 Christians have fled Egypt, if this rate of departure keeps up a third of the 8,000,000 Coptic population will have left within a decade.

The Arab Spring has not, as predicted by progressive politicians and media, led to a flowering of democracy and an atmosphere of toleration and mutual acceptance. It has led to the unleashing of the hard line Islamist mob.

In Tunisia a television station was attacked by 300 Islamic hardliners. The station had shown the animated film Persopolis concerning the fall of the Shah in Iran and the rise of the ayatollahs and the attackers thought it disrespectful towards Islam. Their solution, they tried to burn down the television station. Cartoons and Islamic fundamentalism do seem to have an unhealthy relationship.

Also in Tunisia the university of Sousse, about 93 miles south of the capital, refused to enrol a student who insisted on wearing the niqab, the full face veil. The university was attacked by a two hundred strong fundamentalist mob wielding stones, knives and batons.

Tunisia has a long history of secularism and liberal attitudes. With the main point of tension in the upcoming elections being the place of Islam in the state it is doubtful that Tunisia is going to know stability for a long time.

Elsewhere, can we seriously imagine that Libya after undergoing such a violent revolution is going to be transformed into anything recognisable as a representative democracy?

From the French Revolution onwards it is evident that mob revolts do not lead to democracy, only to further despotic rule. Throw in autocratic Islam and you have a recipe for theocratic influenced despotism.

Enough Is Never Enough

The Church is in the midst of a war of worldviews, those holding the classic formulations  of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are confronted by those who wish to ‘revision’ the Gospel in terms of ‘progressive’ ideology. The current battlefield is sexuality and the goal progressives seek is to detach God’s blessing of sex from its exclusive association with heterosexual marriage. The push to bless same-sex relationships is no isolated issue about sexual acceptance. The decision on this issue will determine how the Church defines the Gospel.

The Christian view of marriage has always included the view that only in the reality of the mutual and total giving of self to the other implicit in the covenantal marriage vows between a man and a woman do we find that basis upon which a healthy relationship can endure and surmount the inevitable trials of married life. Marriage as defined by the Christian faith is therefore fundamental to the well being of society. This confrontation within the Church has far reaching consequences for the world.

During last century there were those who, bent on undermining the structures of society, chose as one of their battlegrounds the Christian view of marriage. They proclaimed, quite rightly, that ‘You don’t need a piece of paper to prove your love.’ Through the media and academy they assiduously propagated this emotionally laden non sequitur and as a result we have areas of our country where married couples are in a minority, where more couples are ‘living together’ than are married.

This has a consequent cost to individuals and society in broken relationships, domestic violence, children being brought up by one mother and a succession of ‘uncles,’ lower educational attainment, and a host of other problems. But never mind the underclass, our elites have the sanction of society for their own social and sexual predilections.

The story moves on. Homosexuality was given state approval with the creation of civil partnerships, but for progressives enough is never enough. This morning on the Today programme we had John Bell, a folk singer masquerading as a minister, arguing for marriage. Unfortunately not Christian marriage. His progressive position is that civil partnership “took care of the business side” and what homosexuals now need as a seal on their mutual love is traditional marriage, including marriage in a church where they would get the ‘blessing’ of God.

Now you need marriage, now you don’t, now you need it again.

The current turmoil in the CofS over the ordination of homosexuals has made it clear that approval of homosexual marriage is something which will inevitably happen in the next few years.

At the recent Tory party conference David Cameron told the assembled sheep that he supported homosexual marriage because he is a conservative, and they clapped. Clearly as far as the PM is concerned homosexual marriage is integral to his political philosophy. We find the SNP government in Scotland pushing for homosexual marriage to be legalised here. As the SNP now have a majority this is likely to happen; unless of course Alex Salmond judges that the increasingly vocal Catholic vote is more important than the pro-sodomy vote. There is no CofS vote.

The pro-homosexual lobby is on a roll in Church and state.

Barth and the others of the Confessing Church spoke so clearly about the utter heresy of following the world. The Church has been given a fixed rule of faith in Holy Scripture and, therefore, is not given the freedom to change its basic moral code and its absolute salvific message to accord with worldly norms. But then John Bell and other progressives do not believe in the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

All instances where homosexuality is talked about in the Old and New Testaments vigorously oppose any and all sexual behaviour outside of the confines of marriage between a man and a woman. To go against revelation as the progressives advocate is to overthrow both Gospel and society.

However, progressives argue that Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality, (or bisexuality or transgendered or bestiality or whatever is the next trendy perversion) and therefore His silence means consent. They teach that if Jesus were alive today (presuming of course that He actually rose from the dead), He would embrace homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle out of His endless compassion for people and so should we. They tell us that the Church already has a homosexual parish minister in a civil partnership so in effect it’s a done deal.

I fear that it may be a done deal, for the moment. But just as progressives have followed Gramsci’s dictum of the ‘long march through the institutions’ and succeeded so can we, so must we.  Individual battles may be lost, the war is far from over.

First we have to recognise that it is not a matter of individual battles but a war of worldviews.

Performance Artists For World Chaos

The Coherent Position of Occupy Wall Street

Watching news coverage of the recent riots in New York by Occupy Wall Street I am struck by what is not said. Nowhere do we find the words ‘populist’ or ‘extremist,’ or ‘racist.’

Yet reporters such as the BBC’s Mark Mardell make continuing efforts to describe the rioters as a form of left wing Tea Party, and the Tea Party is usually described as a populist movement and often termed extremist and even more frequently damned as racist.

It is easy to understand why the New York rioters, unlike the Tea Party, are not described as a populist movement, it’s because they are not particularly popular.

However, ‘populist’ is also the political equivalent of the theological term ‘fundamentalist’ which has become little more than an ecclesiastical swear word denoting anyone who is slightly more theologically conservative than the speaker and so need not be given any consideration by thoughtful people. In the same fashion ‘populist’ has become a political swear word denoting people or movements from outwith the establishment who are popular yet have different views from those of the speaker. As a consequence their views need not be given consideration by serious commentators. The effects of ‘populist’ movements as they disrupt political business as usual can be seriously debated, but their views can be safely dismissed.

‘Populist’ in effect denotes those who hold political positions which resonate with the people rather than with the intellectual and media elites. The New York rioters on the other hand hold political positions which resonate with the intellectual and media elite rather than with the people.

The recent riots are incoherent cries of rage from well educated Romantic nihilists who are angry that what they see as their entitlements may be taken from them. OWS is little more than a gathering of uber-cool middle-class performance artists masquerading as a political movement. That they are now being supported by the unions tells us more about the political acumen of the American unions than it does about the intellectual coherence of the OWS protestors.

OWS Solution To World Hunger

OWS claim that they want Obama re-elected, yet they are protesting against the actions of the denizens of Wall Street, the very people who dropped their biggest ever election contribution  into Obama’s coffers. These are the same people whom Obama later bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street both have genuine grievances concerning the political and economic system such as handouts to ‘too big to fail’ institutions. The very real differences between the groups is how they wish to remedy the situation.

A widely circulated OWS ‘proposed list of demands’  calls for ‘immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the ‘Books.’’

Some people clearly haven’t been taking their dried frog pills. If any political demand could be described as extreme it would be this. Such cancellation of all debt would automatically mean the destruction of the entire global financial system and consequent untold misery and mayhem throughout creation. Yet nowhere are OWS described as extremists.

When the Tea Party held a nationwide open air protest across 40 cities in 2009 their activists didn’t block traffic, didn’t sleep on pavements, didn’t wear ski masks, didn’t fight with the police or urinate on the pavement in public. Whether or not you agree with their politics it has to be admitted that they advanced serious policy arguments which were open to discussion. They did not make strident demands that society abolish itself, instead they calmly petitioned their government. They even picked up their litter after the events. Yet they are regularly described in the media as ‘extremists.’

From news reports it is apparent that OWS is practically a completely white movement, not that its racial composition validates or invalidates its position. However, the Tea Party movement also is largely, although by no means completely, a white movement and is often accused of being either openly or inherently racist. Such esteemed political thinkers as Morgan Freeman and Samuel L Jackson have made the accusation in the last month. After all if you oppose the policies of the first black American president the only conceivable reason has to be that you are a racist.

This despite the fact that polls indicate the favoured Tea Party candidate at the next election is Herman Cain, a man who is of much darker hue than the half white Obama. If the nearly all white OWS oppose the black president Obama’s bailout of the banks why are they not considered racists?

Herman Cain - Favoured Candidate of the 'Racist' Tea Party

And no, of course the media doesn’t have an agenda, perish the thought. How could anyone be so cynical that they would think that?

Hearst Lives

A long retirement holiday, our eldest daughter’s wedding, moving house and settling in; our period of silence has been busy enough, helped by few papers, little radio or TV and definitely no internet. Meanwhile the world rolled on. Reviewing events it is apparent that in my absence the media continued to manipulate as avidly as ever.

In 1898 the USA and Spain fought a squalid little war in Cuba. Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst sent artist Frederic Remington to Cuba to supply pictures. Remington cabled home that nothing much was happening, Hearst’s reply was “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” The story, perhaps apocryphal, was certainly prescient. With insatiable rolling news demanding continual action we find events being blown up out of all proportion.

More than a century later we encounter the travellers who refuse to travel. The “travellers” in the illegal encampment at Dale Farm near Basildon seem to have adopted as their motto “Have caravan, won’t move.”

This was a nimby squabble suitable for a headline in the Basildon Bugle (or whatever the local paper is called), a local matter best left to local magistrates and illegal residents to sort out amongst themselves. Instead we find it transformed into an international circus complete with camera crews, posturing celebrities, rent-a-crowd middle class anarchists, and claims of human rights abuses. There was even a nutty French professor thrown in for light relief. Thank goodness no-one told the Dalia Lama about it.

The BBC emphasised the supposed gravity of the affair by sending in Fergal Keane, a serious journalist whom we are more used to seeing clad in a helmet and flack jacket reporting atrocities from war zones.

The “travellers” were offered alternative housing by the council but it was refused on the grounds that it was “bricks and mortar.” Seemingly it is acceptable for a “traveller” to reside permanently if he lives in a caravan which does not move for ten years, but it would be a violation of his rights and an ethnic insult to offer him an ordinary house for those ten years.

The wildest accusations went flying and were eagerly seized upon and amplified by the media. The most popular accusation being that this was an example of “ethnic cleansing.” The morally self-satisfied progressives who make such wild accusations should be forced to visit the victims of all too real ethnic cleansing in places like Bosnia and Ruanda and apologise profusely for demeaning their genuine suffering. The fact that “wicked,” “evil,” “racist” and “unconscionable,” Basildon Council had been subsidising 25 families on the illegal site with as much as £53,625 a year in housing benefit never penetrated the consciousness of the progressives and their compliant media outlets.

It is estimated that the affair will cost the council taxpayers of Basildon upwards of £8,000,000. Meanwhile presumably similar costs for the highly paid lawyers on the traveller’s side are being paid by the rest of us via Legal Aid despite the fact that some of the “travellers” are property owners back in Ireland.

The media not only report news they decide what constitutes news, and when necessary for them they create the news. It was ever thus, “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”