This post is about a 2005 “Allman v UK” court case you probably haven’t read about yet.
Transgenderism is gender fraud. Fraud always has victims.
On and off, Gagged Dad and I have blogged on this website about his court case against Cornwall Council, and the facts behind it, for almost four years now. Judgment was at last handed down on 28th April 2017.
The blog posts that tell Gagged Dad’s story-so-far, are all together in one place now. The title of the earliest of those posts in the entire series, which first broke the news story, before it turned into a court case, and which told it simply, and (the High Court has confirmed) truthfully, as near as dammit, was
Gagged Dad has posted the following comment on
I would like to thank the 21 who wrote to the judge and the 17 who attended the hearing, of whom four or more, three of them journalists, addressed the court. I would like especially to thank Stephen Green for his coverage before the hearing, in Christian Voice.
CORNWALL SOCIAL SERVICES WANTS A SECRET TRIAL IN GAGGED DAD CASE
Please act now. Hearing is on 23rd October 2015.
Question 1: Should social services separate a child from his mum or dad, when mum or dad openly opposes a government policy that he or she considers to be morally wrong?
Question 2: If social services does this, and that parent sues the council under the Human Rights Act for interference with his family life and discrimination on the grounds of his beliefs, should the trial be held in secret?
For them to attain marriage equality with the rest of us, people who identify as bisexual, must immediately be allowed to practise “different sex bigamy”. The governments of the world (if indeed they still be plural) must all immediately allow each self-identified “bisexual” person to marry two spouses, one a husband, the other a wife.
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 Change.org, 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 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.
Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse
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.
Readers who appreciate this post may also appreciate:
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another,  UKSC 32
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 post 1,273 more words