"Silly, gay and stupid". A policeman's thesaurus? I hope not.

'Silly, gay and stupid': Police inspector's extraordinary outburst at boy, 15, as he used anti-terror law to stop him from taking pictures at military parade


Worth listening to the video at the end of this. I'm sure there are some great police officers out there and I've met some amazing ones, but too often (not most of the time, but too often for my liking) I see members of the police force that fit into this strange category of personality (see video for what I'm talking about). They should not be allowed to do their job.

Not only are they nowhere near smart enough (as the basic vocabulary of the officer on the recording suggests, coupled with his inability to justify his actions), but their presence suggests the force is desperate to attract recruits (which I don't believe they would be THAT desperate). I think it more likely to be that some undesirables routinely slip through net of the so-called "psychological" tests. I mean, just look at my last post on the Stanford Prison Experiment and that creepy policeman in riot gear in California.

One thing is for sure, compensation for the boy and an apology isn't enough. Unnecessary maltreatment with an unashamed homophobic tone cannot be tolerated - this police officer should have been sacked.

The "Gaystapo". This is what happens when Churches try humour...

... nobody gets them.


At least I hope Alan Craig made this simple mistake of trying humour. I certainly hope that it isn't Christian humour - their "rock" music is bad enough.


Here's an excerpt of a post he made on his blog today:

I accused Stonewall et al of fascist-type intolerance. I note they recently awarded Melanie Phillips their Bigot Of The Year Award. Whatever you think of her views, she argues rationally, reasonably, includes factual evidence and incites no-one to violence (it’s known as public discussion within a liberal democracy), yet she has been subject to this Nazi-style pillorying and demonisation.


This was of course, in reference to his recent article in The Church of England Newspaper on the "Gaystapo" and their unrelenting assault on "English" and "Christian" society (apparently the two concepts are inseparable even today).


I think the poor guy mixed up his words a wee bit, though.


He says he accused Stonewall of "fascist-type intolerance".  Now it's been a over 18 months since I was at the University of Sheffield (which has pulled an advertisement of a Biblical Studies MA from the CofE Newspaper's website), so my critical thinking may be a little rusty, but shouldn't he have written "intolerance of fascism"?


In his original article, he compared Winston Churchill to his own "side", as if they are the champions against a fascist movement, like he was.


Now I get what he's trying to say -  that the 'gaystapo' is intolerant of Christian views (a bit like a child saying, "well yeah we hate gays, but they hate us too"). This would have had the effect of cancelling out the argument, a bit like the chicken and the egg argument.


However, unlike the chicken or the egg, we know who cast the first stone, as it were. There was no "book of gay" decreeing "thou shalt not worship Jesus, Mary et al." There was the Bible, though. So in keeping with Craig's style of argument, I say to him:


YEAH WELL, YOU STARTED IT!