An eye for an eye and a cake for cake

Why Tesco should resist pressure to discriminate against Asher’s bakery


The old maxim, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, was intended to restrain the lust of the outraged for vengeance, in order to prevent an escalation of conflict.

Earlier today, 719 people had signed a petition at, urging Tesco to punish Asher’s Baking Co Ltd, for having discriminated against a Mr Gareth Lee (whose occupation is said to be being activistly homosexual), in the matter of the decoration of a certain cake.

One cake.

One of a growing number of what the media have taken to calling “gay cakes”, mind you, so many of these “gay cake” staged court cases have there been, the world over.

Not only does the “support gay marriage” political lobby represent a belief that appears to pass the Maistry test nowadays, it also seems to pass the “pastry test”.  It is good for earning a few bob of pocket money, provided a gay activist like Mr Lee can still find a baker somewhere in the world who is opposed to same sex marriage and who hasn’t yet wised up to this particular hackneyed method of ambush, so repetitiously deployed in today’s culture warfare.

AshersThe 719 petitioners implored Tesco to retaliate, by doing a bit of discrimination of its own, against Asher’s.  Forever, if they had their way, I dare say.  By not buying from Asher’s any of the thousands of cakes or other products that Tesco might otherwise continue to buy from Asher’s, if it didn’t start a bit of discrimination of its own.  Not “a cake for a cake” proportionate vengeance.  Every single potential future cake order not to be placed with Asher’s, as a punishment for Asher’s not having sold one particularly controversial cake, on one particular occasion!

Fortunately, shortly after the “all future cakes for one cake” nuclear-scale vengeance petition was started, what I call a “don’t be silly, Tesco” petition was started, appealing for calm and business as usual, not the escalation of the discrimination wars the other petition was urging.  Fortunately, in the time the earlier petition had gathered 719 signatures, the counter-petition had gathered 5,516 signatures.  When I signed it, I gave my reason that I would find it inconvenient to stop shopping at Tesco.  The truth is, I probably won’t boycott Tesco, even if Tesco does heed the 719, and ignores the 5,516.  I’ll probably just feel guilty about not boycotting Tesco, and wear a hoody, and visit Tesco at night, hoping nobody recognises me, rendering unto Tesco, the things that are Tesco’s, since it is the only shop in town that is still open at midnight.

Leave a comment

Filed under General chit-chat, Law, Persecution of Minorities, Punning blog post titles, Righteousness, Satire and humour

Je suis James.

John Allman:

In the experience of Gagged Dad and others, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse that they have survived other people want to hear.

Vitriolic verbal abuse is typically heaped (even some on this blog) upon those who out themselves as “ex-gay” as Gagged Dad and James Rhodes have done, even when (as for both men) their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and in any case were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps ongoing child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves.

Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimonies of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses, on an equal basis with those who remained in homosexuality.  Many people HATE former victims of underage homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing them of “hate speech”, because they out themselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as James Rhodes and Gagged Dad have done.

Any ex-gay survivor who goes public can expect a lot of hate mail, if Gagged Dad’s experience is anything to go by.  James Rhodes should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who wish to insist that James should tell his story, using politically correct language of which they approve, in order to document what he endured, and has survived.

Please follow me New-Twitter-Bird-Logoon Twitter – and please follow this blog too.

Originally posted on UK Human Rights Blog:

Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court

James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another, [2015] UKSC 32

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.

The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.

View original 1,273 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Homophobic, Human Rights, Law, Persecution of Minorities, Reblogged

No platform for gay cakes!

Why the Ashers Baking Co Ltd were always doomed, and (I’m sorry to say) deserved, to lose their court case

GayCakeThe judgment handed down on Tuesday this week, in GARETH LEE -v- ASHERS BAKING, is attracting a lot of reportage and comment, much of it dumbed down, or even spiteful.

Yesterday, I was all fired up to take a strident pro-freedom of conscience stance on this case myself, putting me firmly into one of the two opposing camps battling it out in the comments following the various media coverages and blog posts.  As I read the judgment, my heart was changed, and my entire stance changed by more-or-less 180 degrees.

Please follow me New-Twitter-Bird-Logoon Twitter – and please follow this blog too.

The facts of the case are as follows: An individual ordered a cake, decorated with the slogan “support gay marriage”, from a baking firm whose owners supported the contrary “oppose gay marriage” political lobby.  The bakers then reneged on the contract, because, they admitted, they wished (to use the appropriate term) to “no platform” the plaintiff, for reasons of their own lately-discovered consciences.  (I have sympathy with them on this.)

The plaintiff sued for discrimination on the grounds of his and their clashing political views.  Political discrimination, uniquely in the United Kingdom, is unlawful in Northern Ireland, for particular historic reasons that apply only in those six counties of the United Kingdom.  Incredibly, the defendants brazenly tried to deny their political discrimination in their pleadings!

The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants had discriminated against him on grounds of his so-called “sexual orientation”.  “Sexual orientation” is a hypothesised biological attribute of an individual said to be the cause of homosexual behaviours.  Christians who believe the bible should not believe that “sexual orientation” actually exists, or at very least should believe that it is not the cause of homosexual behaviour.  That is because the bible teaches a markedly different hypothesis as to the cause of homosexual behaviour, which is no less “scientific” (i.e. empirically testable) than the much younger “sexual orientation” hypothesis, a social construct that masquerades as an independently measurable biological attribute of an individual human organism.

money_love_scaleThere was a trial, and the court found that the defendants had discriminated against the plaintiff on both grounds.  A certain amount of sophistry went into the reasoning whereby “sexual orientation” discrimination was found to have occurred, alongside the glaringly obvious political discrimination practised by the defendants.  Most of the online debate homes in upon this minor detail, ignoring that the defendants would have had to pay damages to the victim of discrimination, even if (as I believe) politics was the only reason for their discrimination.  Other comment focuses upon obiter dicta about the bakers’ firm not having been a religious organisation, which might have mattered if the court had found only indirect discrimination, rather than direct.

An intelligent blog post by Archbishop Cranmer about this case is to be found here, but it is sensible to read the judgment itself before commenting.

The way this action was defended was all wrong. The defendants should have admitted liability for their blatant direct discrimination against the plaintiff on the grounds that his political beliefs (“support gay marriage”) were the opposite of theirs (“oppose gay marriage”), but denied discrimination on the grounds of his sexual orientation, which I regard as a quite bizarre finding of fact, as (apparently) does Alasdair Henderson, blogging here.

That would have left the court only with the task of deciding quantum of damages. The defendants could have made an offer to settle the claim out of court for a modest sum of money, on the basis only of political discrimination, not sexual orientation discrimination, which they denied.

This was always a case that the defendants couldn’t win.  However, both sides wanted a trial, and publicity, each competing with the other to be the greater “victim”, in the court of public opinion, using trial by media.  The Christian Institute paid for this ridiculous show trial.

The Christian Institute, and the Christian Legal Centre, the two main court case political activist groups, need to choose their battles, and how to fight them, more wisely.  They could do a lot worse than contacting Gagged Dad, and offering to give him some help with his court case, A v Cornwall.

Continue reading


Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Homophobic, Human Rights, Law

Does someone you love hate you?

Implacable hostility often isn’t mutual.

It is a myth promulgated by a cliché, that implacable hostility on the part of one of two separated parents towards the other, must necessarily, or even usually, be reciprocated.  Most parents who separate manage to consider their children’s interests, alongside their own emotions.

Ricky Dearman speaks fondly of Ella Draper!

In the court’s judgment in Re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding), the Hampstead Witch Hunt case,  at paragraph 63, Mrs Justice Pauffley wrote:

  1. Mr Dearman was taken in evidence to the entire series of sexual and other allegations made against him. He denied there was truth in anything suggested. He does accept that the breakdown of his relationship with the mother both at the time and subsequently was acrimonious. But, said Mr Dearman, “There are two sides to the story. I’m not perfect. I’m a decent guy and a good father.” Of the mother, he said this – “When Ella is not doing crazy stuff she is a really beautiful person.”

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, General chit-chat

The Good Friday Agreement and the election that Jesus lost

9th May 2015.

This was my final post during the Parliamentary election campaign period, before the polling stations opened on Thursday.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Political

Children screaming to be heard

Vote “Let every child have both parents” on 7th May in North Cornwall.


Please follow me New-Twitter-Bird-Logoon Twitter  …

… and please obey your conscience when you vote on 7th May.


The 40 years-established registered charity Families Need Fathers (FNF), for which I designed the above poster by adapting an existing FNF poster, is not permitted officially to endorse the political party “Let every child have both parents”, or any other political party.

Watch a Head of School lie to the police, falsely claiming that there is a court order excluding a father from his four year-old son’s school Christmas play:

“Now we see the violence inherent in the system” :-)

[Monthy Python and the Holy Grail]

Both parents.  Every child.  Wherever possible..


The registered political party “Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women Who Love Them)” (J4MB), which owns the above poster, does not officially endorse “Let every child have both parents”, or vice versa. There is no J4MB candidate in North Cornwall.  There is no “Let every child have both parents” candidate in any of the constituencies in which there is a J4MB candidate.  However, this coincidence is not because of any pact or alliance between the two parties. 

“Let every child have both parents” was not a gendered issue in 1959, and there is no need to present it in a gendered manner today.  (It’s a powerful poster though.)

Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel

1 Comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Human Rights, Law, Men's Rights, Pro-life

Let every child have both parents (my general election manifesto 2015)

North Cornwall Constituency Parliamentary Election, 7th May 2015

Men make lousy mums …

… but, then again, women make lousy dads.


Follow @JohNew-Twitter-Bird-Logon_Allman



The 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, Principle 6, declared:

“The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding.  He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.”

Both parents.   Every child.   Wherever possible.

Continue reading


Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Law, Political