Or Scottish false accusers at it like Cliffords.

Goodness me, Lucifer must be cackling with joy.

the lines are being blurred...and the so-called 'disgraced" (who decides if you are disgraced?..what is the criteria ?) Cardinal O'Brien correctly says in the Torygraph:

"If he is being judged on what he did in 1980 well of course the rules were a wee bit different then - in all aspects of society as to what we did with allegations of child sexual abuse 20 or 30 years ago."

this is the absolute truth and applies to : the police, the public, politicians, civil service, media, social workers, the church and the pub, yet the church is being singled out for criticism.

However now every person who was hit upon with an unwanted (?) advance has become a 'victim' no matter what their age.

which means basically everyone.

hedda wrote:
the lines are being blurred...and the so-called 'disgraced" (who decides if you are disgraced?..what is the criteria ?) Cardinal O'Brien correctly says in the Torygraph:

"If he is being judged on what he did in 1980 well of course the rules were a wee bit different then - in all aspects of society as to what we did with allegations of child sexual abuse 20 or 30 years ago."

this is the absolute truth and applies to : the police, the public, politicians, civil service, media, social workers, the church and the pub, yet the church is being singled out for criticism.

However now every person who was hit upon with an unwanted (?) advance has become a 'victim' no matter what their age.

which means basically everyone.


If talking about adults complaining about being 'hit upon', only a sado would want to present themselves as a 'victim'...

O'Brien who has now admitted homosexual liasons (perhaps illegal/pre-1980 Scotland) was also an arch hypocrite, in preaching against such activity - whilst engaging in it himself. His admission makes these matters indisputable and, rarely, has 'disgraced' been more apt.

Ben 9 wrote:
O'Brien who has now admitted homosexual liasons (perhaps illegal/pre-1980 Scotland) was also an arch hypocrite, in preaching against such activity - whilst engaging in it himself. His admission makes these matters indisputable and, rarely, has 'disgraced' been more apt.





Nobody took any notice of the pre-1980 law on homosexuality because it was unjust and that is why it was changed.
If nobody was attacked,I dont see what the big deal is.

I do worry about our relentless habit of blurring the truth and exaggerating facts. Much though I adore the hypocrisy of an anti-gay God botherer being exposed as a hypocrite, nothing I've read in the biased media has him admitting gay behaviour. Yet. It's all a rather vague "inappropriate" behaviour waffle.

I've always loathed the word inappropriate. It reeks of Victorian kant.

Ben 9 wrote:
O'Brien who has now admitted homosexual liasons (perhaps illegal/pre-1980 Scotland) was also an arch hypocrite, in preaching against such activity - whilst engaging in it himself. His admission makes these matters indisputable and, rarely, has 'disgraced' been more apt.




"to live outside the law you must be honest". Bob Dylan

as said by another poster, hypocrisy is not illegal and one tenent of the Catholic Church, love or loathe it, is forgiveness for your sins which I presume includes priests, The Pope and hopefully sinners like moi.

JK2006 wrote:
I do worry about our relentless habit of blurring the truth and exaggerating facts. Much though I adore the hypocrisy of an anti-gay God botherer being exposed as a hypocrite, nothing I've read in the biased media has him admitting gay behaviour. Yet. It's all a rather vague "inappropriate" behaviour waffle.

I've always loathed the word inappropriate. It reeks of Victorian kant.

The word "inappropriate" has been starting to get on my nerves lately too.

Obviously, there are probably somethings practically all of us would agree are "inappropriate", but other than that, who gets to dictate to others what is 'appropriate' and what's not, or what we should think is "appropriate" or what's not...?

Definition of "inappropriate"... judging the morality of yesterday by the values of today. Also "pointless". We could go on forever about how women ought to have the vote. They do. Get over it.

I am annoyed that people have great sympathy with gay married men who have a sham marriage, such as the rugby player Gareth Thomas (who has somehow become a hero for cheating on his wife ) yet will not extend the same understanding to(single) priests.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I am annoyed that people have great sympathy with gay married men who have a sham marriage, such as the rugby player Gareth Thomas (who has somehow become a hero for cheating on his wife ) yet will not extend the same understanding to(single) priests.

Yeah, it's the same sort of thing really...

Both were living a lie, one pretended to be against homosexuals, the other pretended to be straight (or thought he was) and (perhaps) led his wife and family up the garden path in the process...