Thought Police Deployed by P.C. British Left

The steady, benign "bobby" of previous generations is giving way in the formerly free United Kingdom to a more Orwellian sort of intrusive ideological police model. Hilary White wrote last month about episodes of British police enforcing P.C. views against a teen schoolgirl, a 10-year-old boy and an elderly lady. I'm sure most British police officers are good people, but it sounds like the thoroughgoing disarmament of the British citizenry has emboldened the worst elements of the police there.

UK Police Increasingly Used to Enforce Political Correctness
14 year-old-student arrested and taken to police station after requesting move to class with students who speak English
By Hilary White

BRITAIN - A few days before his election as pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger denounced a growing "dictatorship of relativism." The pope's rhetorical device, however, is increasingly becoming the lived experience of ordinary Britons visited and questioned by police for publicly expressing politically or religiously "incorrect" views.

In October 2006, the Daily Mail reported that a 14-year-old school girl, Codie Stott, was arrested by police and detained in a cell for three hours after she asked to be moved into a group of students who spoke English in class. Stott was denounced to police for "racism" by her teachers at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester.

Codie told police that she had been placed in a group of five students who would or could not discuss the class work in English. When she asked to be moved to another group with whom she could communicate, the teacher responded, "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police." A week after the incident she was taken to Swinton police station under arrest. Codie told the Daily Mail, "They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewelry, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken."

In May this year, a shopkeeper in Manchester was threatened with prosecution under the race hate statutes if she did not remove a number of soft toys that some consider racist in origin. Moira Pickering, 62, was told by police to get rid of her stock of traditional English dolls called "gollywogs". Gollywogs, based on a children's literary character created by Florence Kate Upton, have been a staple of British children's toys since the late 19th century.

Pickering told the Daily Mail, "I find sex shops offensive, I find cabbage patch dolls offensive, but I wouldn't report them. Golliwogs have been going for years and I've always sold them. They sell very well. People are far too politically correct they go over the top."

In early April this year, a father of a ten-year-old boy was astounded when two police officers arrived at his Cheshire home to question his son for calling another boy "gay" in an email.

"I could not believe what I was hearing," Alan Rawlinson, aged 41, told media. "They told me they considered it a very serious offence. I thought they were joking at first… [T]his just seemed a huge waste of resources for something so trivial. I am furious about what has happened, it just seems the politically correct brigade are taking over."

"If somebody had called the police about something like this in my day they would have laughed - they certainly wouldn't have sent two officers out. It is completely ridiculous."

Perhaps more ominously, accusations of direct interference by police with the electoral process for ideological reasons are starting to be heard in Britain.

The British National Party, a far right but completely legal political party, is preparing a package of evidence to present to the Electoral Commission alleging that this May, West Midlands police interfered in the Birmingham local election at the behest of opposition parties. The party alleges that the police cooperated with a campaign of intimidation when they visited and questioned each of the 400 people in the Birmingham ridings who signed nomination papers for BNP candidates.

The BNP, a nationalist party opposed to non-ethnically British immigration, has been at pains recently to shed its early association with white supremacists. But its opposition particularly to Muslim, African and Pakistani immigration, and its nationalist anti-EU position, has earned the BNP the status of most politically incorrect, and therefore most publicly vilified party in recent British history.

Some observers have said that the combination of racial tensions and violence springing from mass immigration in densely crowded areas, together with a growing police and media suppression of free speech have created fertile ground for the nationalist party that excludes non-racially British members and is known for its blunt and forceful condemnations of politically correct ideology.

This backlash may explain why the BNP took 20,000 to 30,000 votes in the Birmingham area, despite police questioning their supporters, arrests of BNP party volunteers and organised "anti-fascist" opposition. Last week the BNP moved into fourth place behind the three main parties in a Parliamentary by-election in Sedgefield, County Durham, the riding recently vacated by former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

British municipal council fires employee for saying "God Bless" to homeless woman

A municipal council in the formerly free United Kingdom has fired an employee with 18 years' service for saying "God bless you" to a homeless woman with an incurable medical condition. This is the reality of Secular Humanist political correctness - it is not about tolerance or diversity. It is totalitarian in its ambitions, insensitive to suffering and utterly intolerant.

Wandsworth Council has sacked London Homelessness Prevention Officer after previously threatening "say 'God Bless' and we'll sack you"

A Homelessness Prevention officer with Wandsworth Council has been dismissed from work for encouraging a homeless woman with an incurable medical condition to look to God for help, after doctors told her they'd given up hope. Even the woman had said that she did not want him to lose his job.

Duke Amachree, aged 53 who has worked for the local authority for almost 18 years was suspended for discussing his faith with a client, and was told in an investigatory interview later that he should not raise the issue of religion at work. Not only was Amachree told it was inappropriate to 'ever talk about God', he was also told that he may not even say 'God bless'. Amachree, a member of the UK World Evangelism Church in London, was summoned to an interview as a result of a complaint made against him by a member of the public.

Michael Phillips, a solicitor working with the Christian Legal Centre, which was consulted by the worker, said: "Amachree met a client who was due to be moved out of her home because her landlord wished to sell the property. Doctors had told the client that she had an incurable illness and, as such, could only work part time. In general conversation, Amachree asked the lady why she believed her condition was incurable, and in encouragement, commented that sometimes doctors do not have all the answers. So concerned was he that the lady was in despair and without hope, he suggested she might try putting her trust in God. The lady, however, explained that she had tried religion and because she did not have any faith she was satisfied with what the doctors had told her and was able to move on. She smiled, thanked Amachree and left."

Two days later Amachree was handed a letter informing him that a service user (the lady) had made serious allegations against him and he was therefore suspended.

Phillips, who was present at the meeting today and on previous occasions, added: "Amachree's employers told him that 'God had to be kept out of the workplace'. He was accused of crossing boundaries. The issue of religion, according to the interviewer, should not be raised in a housing issue. I, on behalf of Mr. Amachree, queried this statement by asking if 'God bless' would be an appropriate comment. He was told that it would not be appropriate and that any complaint would again lead to an investigation. Today they have reached their verdict and carried out their threat of dismissing him. This is a clear manifestation of secular intolerance."

Amachree will take his employers to an Employment Tribunal. His claim is that their decision effectively 'privatises' Christian faith and is against his human rights. His case comes after a number of public sector workers have seen their employers forcing secularist views on them . The Christian Legal Centre, and its legal team has supported Caroline Petrie, the nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a patient, a Christian magistrate forced to resign over his reluctance to place children into the care of homosexual couples; a Police Officer sacked for using the internal email system to respond to blatant pro-gay advertising in his force, and a myriad of cases where Christian foster parents have been refused the opportunity to care for children on the grounds of their faith and practice. CLC has instructed leading Human Rights barrister, Paul Diamond, to take up the case.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the CLC said: "We are supporting Mr. Amachree in this case because it is absurd and unjust to think that any public body could be in a position to enforce a policy which means that you can't even say 'God Bless' . This would effectively mean that faith would become entirely privatised. A Christian cannot leave faith out of any aspect of his or her life including work ."

Authoritarian Sodomy Silences Decent British Schoolteachers

Authoritarian Sodomy suffered a partial reversal in the formerly free United Kingdom recently when North London schoolteacher Kwabena Peat was restored to his teaching position after gay allies suspended him for expressing his Christian views outside the classroom. The Christian Legal Centre represented Peat, and issued the release below.

Although the seasoned 54-year-old educator will return to his classroom in the Fall, the homosexuals and their collaborators nevertheless have succeeded in silencing him in the future, prohibiting any open discussion of the moral dimensions of sodomy or of the coercive sodomite regime that has descended on the United Kingdom, via the school order's gag order against Peat.

If U.S. Christians have wearied of the culture wars, if they're counseled to just go along with U.S. sodomites on gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, they should at least surrender without deluding themselves that the totalitarians will then leave them in peace. Kwabena Peat has seen the future, and he is now prohibited by the most depraved elements of his country, in the birthplace of the Magna Carta, from telling you about it.

Christian Teacher facing sack for expressing Christian beliefs on homosexual practice to Colleagues is re-instated after threat of Legal Action

Kwabena Peat's Story : A senior London teacher, suspended and threatened with the sack for expressing his Christian beliefs at work will be back at work next term.

Kwabena Peat, 54, was suspended after he complained that a staff training day was used to promote homosexual rights, and to marginalise and label those who disagreed with homosexual practice. His case follows a number of others which have left Christians feeling sidelined in the workplace.


Mr Peat, who is head of year at a North London secondary school, walked out of the compulsory training session along with several other colleagues. The session included a presentation by Sue Sanders, a co-founder of the Schools Out organisation which promotes a radical homosexual agenda in schools, in which she questioned whether heterosexuality was “natural”.

Mr Peat states there was no opportunity for those with a different point of view to respond. He wrote to three staff who organised the event and complained about the “aggressive” presentation of homosexual rights. His letter also referred to his Christian beliefs about the practice of homosexuality – that sex should be between a man and woman within marriage.


The recipients of the letter said they felt “harassed and intimidated” by it. Following an investigation, Mr Peat was suspended.


The committed Christian said he fully expected the training session to provide information to help teachers handle homophobic bullying, but the guest speaker had gone much further. He said: “She started promoting homosexual lifestyles and suggesting those who had objections should sort out their prejudices. She asked us ‘What makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?’ It was at that point I walked out.”


Mr Peat, supported by the Christian Legal Centre challenged the school’s employment procedures and informed the school that claiming the letter ‘harassed’ staff was ludicrous as the teachers to whom he complained about the event were all senior to him. He also told them he believed the charge ‘gross misconduct’ was disproportionate to any alleged ‘offence’ that they claimed to have taken place. The CLC instructed leading human rights barrister Paul Diamond to advise the teacher and as a result, Mr Peat told the school he was prepared to take them through Industrial Tribunal, and if necessary, to seek a Judicial Review of the Human Rights of Christian Teachers via the High Court if necessary.


The school’s appeal panel, meeting last Friday, week agreed the charge of ‘gross misconduct’ to be disproportionate, and Mr Peat will return to work when the new term commences in September.


Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and director of the Christian Legal Centre said: “Although we consider this a great victory for common sense, the School is still seeking to control Mr Peat’s views and behaviour by not allowing him to talk about what has happened, both within the school or via the media, which has been very supportive. Mr Peat was discriminated against for expressing his Christian faith and his invitation to consider Christianity was deemed ‘harassment’. What kind of society are we living in when a legitimate orthodox Christian view as expressed by Mr Peat is construed in this way?


“I am delighted that CLC has secured another success, and that Mr Peat can return to work. It must surely be deemed unacceptable that highly trained teachers should be discriminated against and face dismissal for seeking to protect children. Mr Peat simply expressed a Christian viewpoint and objected to the school undermining parental rights regarding the education of their children on sexual ethics. He should be applauded for challenging the new political orthodoxy in an attempt to protect children rather than face such harsh intimidation”.


Mr Peat is not available for media interviews in order to comply with the school’s request.

Christian Prayer is Anathema in P.C. British Health Care System

The home of the Magna Carta and Blackstone and Wilberforce continues to clamp down on its Christian remnant, according to this release from the United Kingdom's Christian Legal Centre.

A Christian nurse there was suspended from her job for offering to pray for one of her elderly patients. Not even Sharia law would prohibit a benign middle-aged woman from praying for her suffering wards. Are Great Britain's P.C. Inquisitors so drunk with their newfound power, and is the sensible majority so disengaged and apathetic, that simple decent gestures like this will be anathema from now on? Maybe so.

CLC supports Christian nurse suspended for prayer offer

A Christian nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended from her work for offering to pray for an elderly patient.

Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, is facing dismissal for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

Mrs Petrie, who is married mother of two, has been accused by her employers of failing to demonstrate a ‘personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity’ because of her offer of prayer.

She was suspended, without pay, on 17th December 2008 and will find out the outcome of her disciplinary meeting this week. She says she has been left shocked and upset by the action taken against her.

Mrs Petrie, who has been a community nurse since 1985 and is employed by North Somerset Primary Care Trust, said she had asked an elderly patient if she would like a prayer said for her after she had put dressings on the patient’s legs. The patient declined and Mrs Petrie took the matter no further.

The situation arose at the home of the patient in North Somerset. Mrs Petrie said: ‘It was around lunchtime and I had spent about 20 to 25 minutes with her. I had applied dressings to her legs and shortly before I left I said to her: “Would you like me to pray for you?” She said “No, thank you.” And I said: “OK.” I only offered to pray for her because I was concerned about her welfare and wanted her to get better.’

Mrs Petrie was initially confronted the next day by a nursing sister who said the patient had been taken aback by her question about prayer. Subsequently, Mrs Petrie received a message on her home phone from the North Somerset Primary Care Trust telling her that disciplinary action against her would be taken. She was then suspended.

Caroline Petrie said ‘The woman mentioned it to the sister who did her dressing the following day. She said that she wasn’t offended but was concerned that someone else might be. I was spoken to by my manager. She said “I’ve got a letter in one hand and an incident form in the other. You won’t be able to work until we’ve investigated this incident”.’

Following the events the elderly patient said: ‘Mrs Petrie was a nice lady, did the job properly and was quietly spoken. Personally I wouldn't want to see her sacked for something like that.’

Mrs Petrie said: ‘I have trouble understanding how offering to pray for someone could be upsetting. I feel it's a nice thing to ask and a way to give hope that circumstances can change.’ She says that she often offers to pray for her patients and that many take her up on it. She either prays with them or after she has left their home.

In October 2008 Caroline Petrie was also warned by The Trust for offering a small, home-made prayer card to an elderly, male patient, who had happily accepted it. On this occasion, the patient's carer, who was with her at the time, raised concerns over the incident.

Alison Withers, Mrs Petrie’s superior at the time, wrote to her at the end of November 2008 saying: ‘As a nurse you are required to uphold the reputation of your profession. Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that “you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity” and “you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health”.

Caroline Petrie was asked to attend an equality and diversity course and warned: ‘If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated.’

Mrs. Petrie and her husband Stewart attend Milton Baptist Church every Sunday. ‘My faith got stronger and I realised God was doing amazing things in my life. I saw my patients suffering and as I believe in the power of prayer, I began asking them if they wanted me to pray for them. They are absolutely delighted.’

Caroline Petrie has worked for The Trust since February 2008. The Christian Legal Centre is supporting Caroline Petrie in this matter.

The Christian Legal Centre relies on financial donations to run Caroline’s case and others like hers. If you are able to contribute financially to support this case we would be very grateful. http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=196

Andrea Williams, the founder and Director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: ‘It is of huge concern that Christian citizens, whose desire is to do their jobs well, are increasingly being silenced and pushed out of the ‘public square’ because of Equality and Diversity Policies. It is extraordinary, that these policies which purport to ensure tolerance are ushering in a new form of censorship and intolerance which should concern us all.’

Christian Therapist Fired for Refusing to Offer Homosexual Sex Therapy

Authoritarian Sodomy tightened its choke hold on Christian conscience in the formerly free United Kingdom this past week, when a British employment tribunal ruled that a national counseling service rightly fired counselor Gary McFarlane for declining, on grounds of Christian conscience, to offer sex therapy to homosexuals.

Can we dispense with the euphemisms here? What the Relate counseling service was demanding of this Christian counselor was that he generate revenue for the company by offering sodomy lessons to tragically confused clients. And you can be certain that the victorious corporation is tightening its vise on any Christians who remain behind after McFarlane's dismissal.

Gordon Rayner filed this U.K. Telegraph report at www.Telegraph.co.uk

Christian sex therapist 'refused to counsel gay couples'
A Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after he refused to give sex therapy to homosexual couples has lost his case for unlawful discrimination.
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

An employment tribunal ruled that the national counseling service Relate was entitled to dismiss Gary McFarlane after he said that encouraging gay sex went against his devout religious beliefs.

The decision prompted Christian groups to demand a rethink of religious discrimination laws, following a string of other high-profile cases in which courts have found against Christians who claim they have suffered as a result of standing up for their beliefs.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported Mr McFarlane in his claim, said the religious discrimination law was "in danger of becoming a dead letter", while the Christian Institute said there was a growing feeling among churchgoers that religious discrimination laws only applied to Muslims and other minority faiths.

Legal experts suggested the ruling had left discrimination laws in "a confused state" by giving the impression that "gay rights trump Christian rights" when they directly oppose each other.

Mr McFarlane, 47, brought his claim for unfair dismissal after he was sacked in March 2008.

The father of two had joined Relate in 2003 and had given relationship advice to homosexual couples in the past. But in 2006, after he qualified as a psychosexual therapist, he made it clear to his employers that his strong Christian beliefs meant he did not feel able to give sex therapy advice to homosexuals.

Fellow counsellors objected to his stance and claimed his views were homophobic, and in March 2008 he was sacked.

Mr McFarlane, of Bristol, claimed unfair dismissal against the Avon branch of Relate on the grounds of religious discrimination, but an employment tribunal panel unanimously rejected his claim, though the panel decided Mr McFarlane had been wrongfully dismissed as Relate had not followed the correct dismissal procedures.

The panel said Mr McFarlane's claim had failed because: "The claimant was not treated as he was because of his Christian faith, but because (Relate) believed that he would not comply with its policies and that it would have treated anyone else of whom that was believed, regardless of religion, in the same way."

Mr McFarlane's boss at Relate had said during an earlier hearing that he had been sacked because he made it clear that he would not abide by its equal opportunities policy, which states that all clients must be treated in the same way, regardless of sexuality.

After the ruling, Mr McFarlane said: "If I were a Muslim, this would not have happened. But Christians seem to have fewer and fewer rights."

Mrs Williams said: "The law preventing religious discrimination is in danger of becoming a dead letter. It is deeply disturbing that the mere expression of religious beliefs with an inability to give unqualified support to sexual orientation issues means that a Christian can be dismissed with no attempt to provide suitable accommodation for his beliefs."

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "A lot of public bodies seem to confuse ethnicity with religion and they feel they are able to challenge the views of Christians, but not those of minority faiths. It means Christians feel they are playing second fiddle to other faiths and the laws are not being applied equally."

Mr McFarlane was represented in the case by Paul Diamond, the barrister who also represented Nadia Eweida, the British Airways check-in worker who lost a grievance procedure in 2006 after claiming religious discrimination because she was banned from wearing a cross necklace over her uniform.

A spokesman for Relate said it had not yet received a copy of the judgement and could not comment.

Mr McFarlane's is the latest in a string of cases which have tested the law on religious discrimination. Last year Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, north London, won a claim for unfair dismissal after she was sacked for refusing to perform civil partnerships on religious grounds, but Islington council later successfully appealed against the decision.

In 2007 Andrew McClintock, a Christian magistrate, lost his religious discrimination claim after his employers refused to excuse him from ruling on cases in which vulnerable children might be placed with same-sex foster parents.