BBC BLOGS - Mark Easton's UK
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Why was Dr Raabe sacked?

Mark Easton | 17:51 UK time, Monday, 7 February 2011

A controversial sacking, mutiny, resignations, appointments, threats of another mutiny and now a Christian doctor forced out for having "embarrassing" views: welcome to the strange world of government drugs advice.

As revealed on this blog last month, the appointment of Dr Hans-Christian Raabe to the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) caused at least one member of the committee to threaten resignation. It wasn't the doctor's ideas about drugs which upset his council colleague ("just say no", if you are interested), but his views on homosexuality.

Dr Raabe is a leading light in the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, dedicated to "re-establishing Christian values in society". As such, he regards homosexuality as sinful and co-wrote a paper in 2005 which claimed that there are a "disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles".

I understand that his anti-gay views led a number of other ACMD members to question the suitability of Dr Raabe for the council and today the Home Office put out a statement saying his "appointment to the ACMD has been revoked and we will be starting a recruitment campaign for a replacement GP shortly."

When I pressed the Home Office on exactly why Dr Raabe had been dismissed they sent me a follow-up statement saying that his "failure to disclose a report which he co-authored which links homosexuality to paedophilia raises concerns over his credibility to provide balanced advice on drug misuse issues and impacts on the smooth-running of the ACMD."

Well, I can see the truth of the second part of the explanation. It would hardly help the "smooth-running" of the council if it was hit by yet another round of resignations and bitterness. Nor would it do much for confidence in the Home Office's grip on drugs policy.

But it is the first part that is really interesting. Was it his "failure to disclose" the existence of a six-year-old document on a subject unconnected with drugs policy that "raises concerns"? Or was the quality of the science in the document itself so questionable as to damage his "credibility" as an expert adviser? Or is the key word here "balanced" - that his Christian views on homosexuality are too extreme for the Home Office?

Peter Hitchens, writing in the Mail on Sunday, asks many of the same questions that I wanted answered.

"He is said by unnamed sources to have been specifically asked to disclose anything about his past which might cause embarrassment to the government or the committee. I am interested as to what the official definition of 'embarrassment' is, or whether Dr Raabe could reasonably have been expected to view (his 2005 paper) as potentially embarrassing to the Home Office or the Advisory Committee."

You cannot simply sack somebody appointed to a government advisory body because he/she has strong religious views that are irrelevant to the job in hand. That would seem to be discriminatory.

Support for this view comes from a surprising quarter - the former Lib Dem MP, Dr Evan Harris. Now director of the Campaign for Evidence Based Policy, he says: "No advisor should be dismissed purely for holding and expressing entirely lawful views on another subject, no matter how objectionable."

In an article in the Daily Mail, Dr Raabe is quoted making a similar point.

"I have been discriminated against because of my opinions and beliefs which are in keeping with the teaching of the major Churches. This sets a dangerous precedent: Are we saying that being a Christian is now a bar to public office?"

Dr Harris, however, does believe the drugs minister James Brokenshire was right to revoke the appointment - he just did it for the wrong reasons.

"When it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise, no research background and no relevant specialist experience and worse still has an ideological position on drug policy that he has declared his intention to force through the Council. That's why he wasn't fit to be an expert adviser, not because of his wrong and offensive views on homosexuality."

The Home Office statement says nothing about Dr Raabe's lack of relevant experience and he says officials never questioned his "knowledge and expertise" when they dismissed him. I suspect ministers were pleased to have someone on the committee who was prepared to challenge the harm-reduction policies of the previous government as "futile" and "discredited". All eyes are now on whom they find to replace him.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 6:22pm on 07 Feb 2011, cping500 wrote:

    Surely after the weekend statement by Cameron on what the key values of British identity are, the appointee was unsuitable since he did not hold those values. (see the full text of Cameron's speech in Munich)
    Cameron did not mention respect for disability but I see it is alleged that some Labour MP is are un-Britsh in this respect. The other value he should have mentioned is respect for age.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:00pm on 07 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:


    This is a very odd story to say the least, he was never really appropriate for the position as a drugs adviser to the government, not for his values as a christian as this should have little or no relevance to the post. his views on sexuality however were very questionable to say the least. I do agree with Evan Harris on the lack of experience within the field of drugs and drug abuse, much as James Brokenshire has little or no experience in drugs policy seemily following blindly the lead of the USA in his drug management, which like the good DR can be construed very radical and very missguided and very discriminatory towards minority groups, although I wouldn't call Bolivians a minority group.

    I think its time we took a good hard look at the drugs issues in the UK as at the moment they are about as cohesive as the coalitions big society.

    Be interesting to see whom takes over this role as they will have to have a reputation that can bear the brunt of both an angry country and a backward government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:07pm on 07 Feb 2011, watriler wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 4. At 7:18pm on 07 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    Mark Easton.

    "Why was Dr Raabe sacked?"

    given that "When it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise, no research background and no relevant specialist experience.." shouldn't the questions be why was he appointed at our [taxpayers] expense, and who championed the (so obviously inappropriate) appointment?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 7:31pm on 07 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    "You cannot simply sack somebody appointed to a government advisory body because he/she has strong religious views that are irrelevant to the job in hand. That would seem to be discriminatory."
    =================================


    Clearly you can.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 8:19pm on 07 Feb 2011, Mafficker wrote:

    Casey Hardison's applications
    for permission to judicially
    review the separate decisions
    by the Home Secretary and
    the Advisory Council on the
    Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to
    abdicate power and duty
    under the Misuse of Drugs
    Act 1971 (the Act) with
    regards to alcohol and
    tobacco control papers are available here:

    http://www.drugequality.org/hardison_home_office_acmd_jr2.htm

    Ground 4 against ACMD is that they are not sufficiently independent of the Home Secretary's meddling!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 8:31pm on 07 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Mafficker Most exelent news lets hope the courts put sence before morals

    All drugs are the same just as all people are the same it is how we choose to control them that makes the differance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 8:41pm on 07 Feb 2011, Peter Reynolds wrote:

    Dear Mr Brokenshire,

    I am the Speaker of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, which is in the process of re-registering as a political party. We represent the interests of the six million regular users of cannabis in Britain.

    Usually, you and I are on completely opposite sides of the drugs debate. However, credit, where credit is due. My warmest congratulations and thanks for the decision to sack Dr Raabe. Apart from his extremely disturbing views on a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia, he is a rabid anti-cannabis campaigner with previously declared views which have no basis in science at all. It was always a mistake to appoint someone with such extreme views to what is supposed to be a scientific committee.

    We remain extremely concerned about the appointment of Sarah Graham to the ACMD. She is a self-declared ex-cocaine addict and an advocate of "magnet therapy". She makes her living out of therapy for "cannabis addicts". Most scientists do not regard cannabis as being addictive. Even those that do make it clear that any dependence on cannabis is trivial compared to alcohol or other drugs. Ms Graham is quite clearly another completely unsuitable member of the ACMD.

    If, however, the Home Office intends to continue appointing partisan individuals to the ACMD, may I request that the LCA be able to nominate a member?

    Kind regards,

    Peter Reynolds

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 8:52pm on 07 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    At 7:18pm on 07 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:
    Mark Easton.

    "Why was Dr Raabe sacked?"

    given that "When it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise, no research background and no relevant specialist experience.." shouldn't the questions be why was he appointed at our [taxpayers] expense, and who championed the (so obviously inappropriate) appointment?


    Dr Raabe is a GP. He has clinical experience at the sharp end of dealing with misuse of drugs. To say that he has no experience in dealing with drugs is therefore an outrageous lie, isn't it? The truth can be inconvenient can't it?

    In our PC world we can always expect the Gay Lobby to go off the deep end at any criticism of homosexuality. They have succeeded in making it unacceptable in public life to hold any views contrary to their own. In fact it is not so different to the totalitarian East Germany where you had to follow the party line to get a job in public life.

    From http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-gp-ditched-from-drugs-panel-over-gay-row/

    The controversy stems from the conclusion of a study, entitled ‘Gay Marriage’ and Homosexuality: Some Medical Comments, which Dr Raabe and six other medical practitioners co-authored in 2005.

    The report stated: “While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.”

    The report summarised the conclusions of other research and academic studies.

    Official reports have also considered the level of child abuse where the abuser is of the same sex as the victim.

    In 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature”.

    Given that official figures released last year showed only one per cent of the population is homosexual, supporters of Dr Raabe say same-sex child abuse is significantly over-represented.


    So was Dr Raabe sacked for disclosing an inconvenient truth that was totally irrelvant to his appointment? The answer is a clear "YES", isn't it? His concerns were not directed at the majority of the homosexual population but a small, highly dangerous and criminal portion of them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 9:02pm on 07 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    This is very strange

    When you look at it I think the only reason he could possibly have been sacked is because he wrote a dodgy report linking homosexuality and paedophilia - this would be highly embarrassing if it came to light down the road

    Arguments about religious discrimination don't wash with me - when he was appointed all of us knew his strong beliefs and ideological views on drugs, it was probably the reason he was appointed, so it doesn't make sense for the same people responsible for his appointment to sack him on those grounds

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 10:02pm on 07 Feb 2011, Tony Martin wrote:

    The really strange thing, is that everyone assumes that the report by Dr Raabe was wrong. I have no idea of the numbers but the percentage of gay men to those paedophiles who like sex with boys should match.( around 5%) If they do match then Dr Raabe is clearly wrong with his research and should be sacked.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 10:03pm on 07 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Tarquin
    I think that would depend on how those in power saw his position on drugs.
    I don't think religious discrimination comes into it. Rather the devil you know. the ACMD can't afford to loose more well experienced members over a mostly unpublished and un-establish Dr. Using his knowledge on drugs as an example I'm a brain surgeon who flies the space shuttle when needed by Nasad

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 10:19pm on 07 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    My comment at post 9 has been referred for further consideration. That doesn't surprise me but I am disappointed because my post was intended to challenge the established PC views that led to his sacking.

    4. At 7:18pm on 07 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:
    Mark Easton.

    "Why was Dr Raabe sacked?"

    given that "When it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise, no research background and no relevant specialist experience.." shouldn't the questions be why was he appointed at our [taxpayers] expense, and who championed the (so obviously inappropriate) appointment?


    The Govt were looking to appoint a GP. Dr Raabe is a practising GP. How can anyone with any credibility claim that "when it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise" when he is practising GP. It is outrageous to say that he wasn't qualified to fill the post.

    Commenting on his dismissal Dr Raabe said: “My appointment has been revoked based on the wrong perception that I could potentially discriminate against gay people – something I have never done, neither in my private nor professional life.”

    He added: “My appointment has merely been revoked as a result of my views on matters completely unrelated to drugs policy.”

    As to the controversial report itself that stated
    “While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.”

    The report summarised the conclusions of other research and academic studies.

    Official reports have also considered the level of child abuse where the abuser is of the same sex as the victim.

    In 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature”.


    The controversial aspect of the report is that it drew attention to the larger than expected percentage of homosexual cases of child sex abuse. Should that be swept under the carpet and ignored as a socially unacceptable line to take? Where would that place the victims of such abuse?

    Such matters need fair and open discussion but that is not possible in our society as anyone taking a contrary viewpoint to the established PC view is then considered to be unacceptable to hold public office.


    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 10:51pm on 07 Feb 2011, Tony Martin wrote:

    I also have seen that my post (11) is under pre-moderation. It's the protection of children that counts not the politically correct view of the Beast's Broadcasting Corporation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 11:02pm on 07 Feb 2011, Peter Reynolds wrote:

    Why such nervousness from the moderators?

    My post (no. 8, referred for further consideration) contains nothing abusive, nothing that is not already public knowledge and nothing that has not been widely published elsewhere.

    Please don't get all prissy on us. The whole point of this is debate and opinion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 11:25pm on 07 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    busby2 #13.

    disclaimer: I have never met either Dr Harris or Dr Raabe in person.

    "How can anyone with any credibility claim that "when it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise" when he is practising GP."

    my own GP, though only in his mid-thirties, is very dogmatic and (a bit) naive re proscribed substances; I believe that his strong Christian values bias his POV.

    the ACMD is tasked with dispensing advice to help shape national policy on drugs. given that Dr Raabe has not specialised (according to Dr Evans) in the matter makes his appointment to the post questionable, at the very least. (I'd like to think that Dr Raabe might have more to contribute in other areas, child protection perhaps?)

    although the UK is desperately short of qualified medical professionals, it is inconceivable that Dr Raabe could have been in any 'top ten' list of those best suited for the job.

    my questions therefore stand: why did the Home Office make the appointment (ie why did they waste our tax money), and who champions such obviously poor choices (ie who pursues an agenda which, in the long run, unmines the ACMD's role).

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 00:07am on 08 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    to Busby2

    'The controversial aspect of the report is that it drew attention to the larger than expected percentage of homosexual cases of child sex abuse. Should that be swept under the carpet and ignored as a socially unacceptable line to take? Where would that place the victims of such abuse?'

    No

    However, that is not the point - we know that many child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, as the Home Office stats used show

    Where the problems lie is the conclusions - for many decades the religious right (more notably in the US) have used this statistic to say gay men are more likely to be paedophiles, and then used to hound them out of roles with children, this has been widely discredited by psychologists, simply because a higher proportion of child abuse is homosexual in nature than the amount of homosexuals in the population does not make an adult homosexual more likely to abuse

    The key is 'homosexual in nature', broadly speaking no one disputes the figure of 20-33%, however this does not mean the abusers are themselves homosexual, reports such as the one by Dr Raabe lump in any homosexual act as being committed by homosexuals, this would apply to the paedophile priest scandal for example, who are assumed homosexual in this report for their acts, whereas the bulk of psychiatric evidence would suggest that paedophilia and homosexuality are distinct

    This is not about PC propaganda, but refuting a smear campaign, and evidence from the US shows that people are now far more likely to trust gay teachers than back in the 70s, thanks to this body of evidence (all evidence is easily reachable by search engine, Herek and Groth good places to start, I don't think I'm allowed links)

    In short, it was not the figures used but the conclusions drawn, which were clearly biased, take these comments:

    'greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles' - assumed, and widely discredited (regarding any homosexual abuse as being committed by a homosexual)

    'and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable' - clearly biased statement

    As Mark's response from the Home Office points out, if he's putting his name to unbalanced work that discredits him

    On a more political note, I don't see PC at work here, he was appointed by the government knowing full well his hard-line religious views, they clearly took exception to the conclusions drawn in the report, and surely if it can be shown to be a flawed and controversial piece of 'scientific' research based on prejudice then it is quite acceptable to dismiss him as a scientific advisor, the Home Office do not want to lean on him for strong anti-drug rhetoric if he is going to be picked apart by opponents

    The other theory relates to pressure from within the council, the proof will be in the next appointment - should the government push ahead with having a committed prohibitionist then clearly the debate is solely about that report

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 00:35am on 08 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    In reply to # 16. from jr4412

    I note your disclaimer. But the point is that he did meet the basic criteria they were looking for which was that he must be a practising GP!

    He was therefore qualified (as would be many others) and for the Govt to suggest that he is somehow not suitable because he was co-author with 6 other doctors of a report which has absolutely nothing to do with his appointment is ridiculous.

    One thing is clear that the Govt's sacking of him has drawn much more attention to his 2005 report that he co-wrote. If that was their objective, they have succeeded and I hope that those who rush to condemn him first look at his report. It was not attacking the vast majority of homosexuals but was pointing out that "there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable".

    At the very least I would expect the gay movement to investigate and to take great care to exclude such people from their ranks so that we can all be reassured. However the general response has been one of condemnation of the report which is worrying.

    I do wonder why the Govt is continuing with the AMCD. Does it serve any purpose other than to embarrass the Govt and/or make them look stupid?

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 00:47am on 08 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    jr4412
    ""How can anyone with any credibility claim that "when it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise" when he is practising GP."

    my own GP, though only in his mid-thirties, is very dogmatic and (a bit) naive re proscribed substances; I believe that his strong Christian values bias his POV."

    Much as is any GP who does not directly deal with drugs of recreational use, when it comes to it I probably know more than my own doctors and certainly a lot more then my old psychiatrist.


    The religious POV can cause bias towards drugs but again that is a modern point of view that has arose due to lack of understanding in the basics of faith and its evolution of practice and upholding and understanding of its prophecy.
    Many Christian sects believe and use cannabis as part of worship. Modern Christianity takes its standpoint from the old testament when it comes to drugs. which places the tree of life(which is believed to be cannabis) into prohibition both by god and the temples.
    Then we move on to the new testaments which See's a break in the prohibition of the holy oil which is mostly cannabis according to both customs of the time and scientific analysis of oil containers bearing the healing symbols. Jesus takes this oil and distributes it to the people against the will of the temples.
    We then have the final book revelations the book of our times, here history and time take a break as the catholic church believe this happened 1000 years ago. However Christian timelines put the book in our time along with many other religious calendars which are now coming to an end. The last revelations of this book gives the tree of life to all that need it 'Healing of Nations'. Some say it even describes the plant out of which comes the healing power of the throne of the lamb and god as having the quality of being clear as crystal referring to the crystals on the leaf and flowers of ripe cannabis.

    So i suppose its fairly important were your christianity is seated in terms of belief.

    Can have the possability of this on the ACMD :D

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 02:38am on 08 Feb 2011, BobRocket wrote:

    I think that James Brokenshire, like Sir Philip Green before him has been set up by someone in the Permanent Government who has a 'wicked' sense of humour.

    I googled Dr Hans-Christian Raabe when he was appointed, his views on a number of issues were plain to see, in my opinion James was obviously far too busy (or too far up himself) to do the same.

    Having a practising GP on the ACMD is not a bad idea, he/she is likely to have first hand street level knowledge of drug mis-use (both illicit and prescription) that some academic voices might not. As long as they understand the science (and scientific method) then their views are welcome.


    #18 busby2

    the Government doesn't need the ACMD to make them look stupid, they are perfectly capable of doing that on their own.


    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 07:20am on 08 Feb 2011, John1948 wrote:

    I wonder what 'homosexual in nature' means. In particular, if a woman acquires a girl for a man to abuse is there 'homosexual nature' in her actions in that she is getting some pleasure from the abuse of a child of her own gender? The woman may in all other respects be regarded as heterosexual and wouldn't be considered as having anything to do with the gay scene implicit in the doctor's conclusions.

    The point I am making isn't to judge one way or the other. What I am questioning is whether the evidence, taken as a whole and in depth, supports the the position and views of the doctor or any member of the ACMD. It is meant to be a science based committee and so its members should operate within scientific principles. If they don't then they become a 'forum' ie talking shop, without the authority of evidence based advice. The aim of the ACMD was to take the politics and all pre-conceptions out of the advisory process.

    I don't like his conclusions, but if the evidence supports them I would have to accept them. But if the evidence is selective and weak, I would have to challenge his suitability to be on a scientific committee. If I were on the committee and would not accept strong evidence without seeking equally strong contrary evidence then my position on the committee should be challenged.

    But in the real world ...................

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 09:02am on 08 Feb 2011, slightlyallthetime wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 23. At 09:42am on 08 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    The case - and that of the sacked football commentators recently - raises a key issue.

    Free speech has not been restored following the change of government.

    There remains a list of politically active groups who have the power to remove from employment anyone who criticises or offends them.

    The ConDem government did not instigate this situation, but it is now clear that they will take no action to remedy the situation.

    In the ongoing climate of oppression, it is difficult to justify the disunited kingdom as meeting all the criteria for a functioning democracy.


    (I say the above the without actually agreeing with the religious/social views of this individual)

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 10:04am on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    A better question why was Raabe employed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:10am on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Boilerbill
    Homosexual in nature refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behaviour in animals.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 10:31am on 08 Feb 2011, John wrote:

    @24 - "A better question why was Raabe employed?"

    One would guess because the Drugs Advisory group, for years, has been leading towards advice that neither this or the previous government liked - that prohibition does not really work and just drives to problem underground into the hands of criminals.

    But then - neither this government, nor the last, understands the concept of regulation very well. I suspect the only thing they do have left in their locker is 'Just say no'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 11:59am on 08 Feb 2011, bigsammyb wrote:

    Clearly the government wanted someone who was going to tow the party line. The present and previous governments did not like being told the truth by experts, that being its time to end prohibition and introduce regulation.

    I guess thats partly due to the massive party handouts they enjoy from the alcohol and tobbacco industries.

    But of course anyone who is an expert on this issue is going to have the same opnion, that is that it is time to end prohibition.

    So to find someone willing to say the opposite they HAD to find someone delusional who bases there opinions on moral judgements of individuals rather than on scientific fact.

    Unfortunatley in finding such a person they realised he was also a homophobe.

    Its not really surprising seeing as he bases his belief system on judgement of others.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 12:01pm on 08 Feb 2011, HardWorkingHobbes wrote:

    Anyone else think Dr Raabe turned up at the first ACMD meeting, hogged the first J, knocked over the bong and didn't chip in for munchies so the rest of the panel wanted rid of him?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 12:05pm on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    John, This and the previous Government have no regard for science or evidence based policy. Today's 'Just say no' campaign would probably include the words 'Or else...'

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 12:33pm on 08 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    17. At 00:07am on 08 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    The key is 'homosexual in nature', broadly speaking no one disputes the figure of 20-33%, however this does not mean the abusers are themselves homosexual, reports such as the one by Dr Raabe lump in any homosexual act as being committed by homosexuals, this would apply to the paedophile priest scandal for example, who are assumed homosexual in this report for their acts, whereas the bulk of psychiatric evidence would suggest that paedophilia and homosexuality are distinct

    This is not about PC propaganda, but refuting a smear campaign,


    Very interesting but where is the conclusive evidence that all paedophiles are only interested in sexual relations with children and don't have also have sexual relations with adults? If there is overlap - and I strongly suspect that there is - then it is wrong to simply say that paedophilia and homosexuality are distinct, particularly where the child is post puberty but under age.

    And we know that abuse by homsexuals is not confined to post puberty boys as this case showed all too clearly as reported in the Daily Mail.

    A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.
    Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.
    They looked after 18 children in only 15 months



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html#ixzz1DMze6qJl

    It seems that the gay movement are intent on saying there is no risk when that is not the case. In Wakefield the acceptance of that attitude led to the abuse of up to 18 children.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 12:37pm on 08 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 32. At 1:23pm on 08 Feb 2011, aborky wrote:

    I've been on many a forum, and read many a comment page, where for some reason or other a commenter has exploded over some controversial issue and taken a vehement tone only to later calm down and qualify some parts of what they've said and even apologize for other parts.

    We even have the example of for instance MPs who've taken vehemently unfriendly postures towards, say, gay issues, only to a few years later amend their tone or even admit they themselves were uncomfortable at the time with leading a secret homosexual lifestyle.

    My point being, therefore, even if his attitude to homosexuality - or indeed religion - could be somehow established as affecting his judgement as an MD who prescribes drugs, what we're talking about is one paper written six years before, something surely different from someone who's been publishing similarly themed such papers on a regular basis right up to the present.

    My own suspicion is his real 'crime' is as much to do with being a "loud and proud" Christian, an even greater offence than homophobia in the eyes of many proactive atheists.

    And as someone who takes the position the whole believing/disbelieving thing is one giant red herring, no, I can't be accused of being a religious fellow traveler.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 1:51pm on 08 Feb 2011, Norfolk Boy wrote:

    I remember when Edwina Curry was sacked for telling the truth about salmonella in eggs. It seems that the truth is out there but the PC brigade want to suppress anything that doesn't suit their closed view of what is right or upsets their sensitive friends. He has been sacked for expressing an unpopular opinion but I have not seen anything to discredit the 2005 report. If this report is accurate, and the home office figures for 1998 tend to indicate that, then the Home Office should be looking at this link and taking steps to reduce child abuse. If the Home Office is embarrassed by this report then there is something wrong with them. There is nothing wrong with people having different sexual orientations as it is their business and although some Christians take a hard line view they are not in a majority. Although there are, from the figures, a disproportionate number of homosexuals committing child abuse this does not suggest that all homosexuals are child abusers as indeed they are not.

    It seems to me that the gay lobby is trying to suppress anything that they don't like. They have, quite rightly in my opinion, gained significant freedoms to live how they want but I am sick of the 'militant' minority who want to override the rights of others rather than the majority, including friends of mine, who just want to get on with their lives.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 2:20pm on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    aborky I have no issues with this man being a Christian, what he does in his private life is his own business. Christian values have no place in Government advice, especially when that advice is used to formulate law though imo, and neither does bigotry! Law should be based on fact and evidence not religious morality or a Christian version of Sharia Law.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 3:28pm on 08 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    its official to much money in drug dealing to legalise and regulate the drug markets.
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/07/hillary-clinton-we-cant-legali

    Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

    Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

    hmmm common sense says the fastest way to do that is legalise and regulate is it not.

    throw more money at it maybe.... MOD says no we are no longer getting involved in stopping drug running we Can't Afford It.....

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/07/nacy-abandons-caribbean-warship-patrols

    The removal of this patrol will see a HUGE rise in cocaine and heroin not to mention some good old traditional cannabis.

    Time to lock your kids up. to keep them safe from our governments madness as they skip along hand in hand with the USA on world drug policy...

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 3:52pm on 08 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    34. At 2:20pm on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    aborky I have no issues with this man being a Christian, what he does in his private life is his own business. Christian values have no place in Government advice, especially when that advice is used to formulate law...
    =============================

    See my #23 above.

    Presumably what a homosexual does in his private life is of no concern to others on so called 'moral' grounds.

    Should a homosexual be denied opportunity to sit in government? Would he be told his homosexual beliefs should not be allowed to influence law?

    This guy can be stripped of his position for his religious views - but suggesting that a gay man could not be part of government or allowed to influence law would be unacceptable.

    That demonstrates quite clearly the power held by specific politically active groups.

    Democracy is not just voting, it requires other rights such as free speech, free press, freedom to organise etc. Whilst this state of affairs continues - supported by government - it must remain in question whether the disunited kingdom constitutes a democratic society.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 4:25pm on 08 Feb 2011, BluesBerry wrote:

    Why was Dr Raabe sacked?
    Good question.
    What have we got going in the UK, the thought police?
    As long as Dr. Raabe's personal opinions do not effect his current duties, he should be allowed his personal opinions. He should even be allowed to express them openly.
    As you have said: "It wasn't the doctor's ideas about drugs which upset his council colleague, but his views on homosexuality. He regards homosexuality as sinful and co-wrote a paper in 2005 which claimed that there are a "disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles".
    Why did the Home Office jump so quickly? Did they not see that they are setting a precedent. If you don't hold the right thoughts, whatever they may be, your appointment can be revoked.
    Why should Dr. Raabe "disclose a report which he co-authored which links homosexuality to paedophilia"? How does this relate to his expertise with drugs i.e. the position to which he was appointed?
    Also, in not allowing a wide disparity of views, the Home Office's grip on drugs policy could become very, VERY CONSERVATIVE because if you don't hold the right thoughts, you are up for dismissal.
    What will the Home Office do now, vet all potential hirings for religious, political, and other unrelated, potential embarrassments?
    You have said. I agree:
    "You cannot simply sack somebody appointed to a government advisory body because he/she has strong religious views that are irrelevant to the job in hand." This IS discrimination, and Dr. Raabe should challenge he "revoke". It needs challenging.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 4:41pm on 08 Feb 2011, garval wrote:

    The damaged done to the ACMD credibility by both the Labour and the Tory-Lib coalition is irreparable. First the Labour Home Office Secretaries, Jacky Smith and Allan Johnson make a mockery of the ACMD with their, frankly speaking, populist and demagogic disregard for scientific advise. And now the coalition has removed any trace of credibility the Labour government had left the ACMD with by removing the need for scientific advice from drug policy (the ACMD will no longer be required to include any scientists or doctors at all.)

    The coalition government drug policies are a shambles and a disgrace: it rejects science and appoints superstitious advisers. As if that wasn't enough, the UK have objected to the Bolivian amendment to remove the ban on coca leaf chewing from the list of illegal activities included in the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961. Hard to believe, but true: we support the ban on coca leaf chewing by the indigenous population of Bolivia, a practice that goes backs thousands of years. Despicable, really!

    We shouldn't delude ourselves thinking that there anything remotely serious about the UK stance on drug policies. We must denounce them and stop thinking that ACMD has any relevance.

    Gart Valenc
    http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 4:41pm on 08 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    35. At 3:28pm on 08 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

    hmmm common sense says the fastest way to do that is legalise and regulate is it not.


    Legalisation = greater supply = much lower prices = much greater consumption and addiction and we become a nation of junkies like China was before Mao.

    Regulation could only work if the legal price was substantially less than the illegal price. This would mean a substantial fall in price, greater consumptiona and far greater addiction, helped by the fact that it would no longer be illegal and that previously illegal drugs would then have the same legal status of alcohol and tobacco.

    Legalising drugs won't reduce criminality either! The gangs would simply go into other lucrative fields, like women trafficking for prostitution or kidnap for ransom.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 5:47pm on 08 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Busby 2 i know all this I made the government aware of this even legal medicines are at stake.

    you obviously have a really in depth knowledge of the drug trade world wide that puts mine to shame.


    Did China legalise drugs before Moa? Really wow why has no one ever read about this?

    Can you give me the average price of cannabis per ounce over the last decade year on year please I would be very interested to see the data available please include the projected pharmaceutical prices of cannabis as well during the same decade if its not to much trouble.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 6:10pm on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    John112uk...One issue with comparing Homosexuality and Religion,one is a life style choice the other isn't. Are you saying Homosexual people should keep homosexuality private and has no place in public?

    busby2...Prohibition increases drug crime and clearly doesn't work. Legalisation hasn't been tried therefore comments on whether it could be successful or not are purely hypothetical.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 6:24pm on 08 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    # 40. in reply to John Ellis

    Nice touch of irony, John!

    Can you fault the likely outcome I outlined in my posting of legalising illegal drugs and regulating their use?

    By the way, I support the medical use of cannabis in treating conditions like MS. It should be available in tablet form on prescription.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 7:51pm on 08 Feb 2011, Euforiater wrote:

    A couple of points;

    Homosexuals don't go around telling the rest of us how to lead our lives, they just stand up for their rights - and nobody criticises Christians/Muslims/Jedis or whatever for doing this, we only complain when they overstep the mark and try to force us to live by dubious morals set down thousands of years ago in a time when the world was a more violent and ignorant place.

    #23:
    "In the ongoing climate of oppression, it is difficult to justify the disunited kingdom as meeting all the criteria for a functioning democracy."
    - How can you talk about a "climate of oppression" when you have consistently argued on these blogs to continue the oppression of prohibition?

    #42
    "Can you fault the likely outcome I outlined in my posting of legalising illegal drugs and regulating their use?"
    - I'll take this one apart if nobody else minds :-)
    "Regulation could only work if the legal price was substantially less than the illegal price."
    - Actually no, people would rather buy things legally even when the prices are the same because there's no risk of arrest and the quality can be guaranteed. Imagine being a heroin addict and having two options:
    1, Pop down to the chemist for your daily fix of known strength and purity.
    2, Wait for a call to meet up with Eddie the Mule who supplies an uncertain white powder for the same cost. Frankly, it's a no-brainer.

    "This would mean a substantial fall in price, greater consumptiona and far greater addiction, helped by the fact that it would no longer be illegal and that previously illegal drugs would then have the same legal status of alcohol and tobacco".
    - The first bit I've already disproved. As for the addiction, most addicts want to quit anyway and who do you think is more likely to help them, the doctor providing the prescription or the black marketeer who earns a fortune because of that addiction?

    As for less harmful drugs such as cannabis, we already know they're not as damaging as alcohol and cigarettes so anyone who takes cannabis instead of those is doing themselves a favour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 8:03pm on 08 Feb 2011, garval wrote:


    @ busby2,

    I do think you could benefit from educating yourself about the economics of illegal markets. There are many accessible papers on the subject. You could start with these:

    G. S. Becker, K. M. Murphy and M. Grossman, The Economic Theory of Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs, NBER Working Paper 10976, 2004

    Miron, J. A., The Economics of Drug Prohibition and Drug Legalization, New School for Social Research, 2001

    Reuter, P. (Ed.), Understanding the Demand for Illegal Drugs, National Research Council, 2010[/ref]

    You can find the links to these papers on my website:

    http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    Gart Valenc

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 8:22pm on 08 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Busby2 Yes i can see your projection of thought but all models which have tried and tested this have worked and reduced harm.
    Thanks to the proliferation of cannabis in the USA they are seeing massive drops in price as the street dealers cant compete on quality or price under legal control mass production.

    When we talk about legal use of drugs the law is always left out unless we are talking illegal use why is this.
    As Ive stated many times over the years on these blogs controlled and licenced use sorts the chaff from the wheat and once separated can be dealt with severely unlike now were there are no prison places to place people unless the drug supply and control was greatly aggravated through violence.

    This is clearly shown in this story [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    I can site many many more of these stories. Not only do we have a shrinking police force shrinking prison space shrinking courts we also have pointless sentencing to a system that is over subscribed as its growing rapidly out of control and I mean out of control. Since the government decided to line crime bosses pockets with an extra 5 billion in income from the cannabis markets with the move to class B all we have seen is a huge shift to research chemicals which in turn will cause more harm and addiction and mental health problems as many of these drugs were originally part of the antidepressant class of drugs much the same a ecstasy is.

    The BBC showed on bbc3 cannabis whats the harm... the police didn't have a clue about what was required to grow personal amounts stating that 2 600 watt HPS were needed to make the plant grow. When the reality is you dont and haven't needed such equipment for a long time they catch the home growers with lack of knowledge and even then make many mistakes putting doors through. it would be interesting to see how many innocent people doors have been destroyed by would be thugs in uniform I know this may sound harsh but when snow missing from a roof or keeping guinea pigs warm is justification to breakin and terrify the occupants there is something seriously wrong.


    This in turn is destroying the credibility of the police as these stars make better news than 15 dealers being put away for 10 years between them with 20 years of for good behaviour.

    Then we move to the bit we both support the medical side this has already seen a proliferation in home production of various cannabis based medicines, vapourised oil and gel caps being amongst the fastest growing area of interest and production smoking is getting left behind as a bad habit. Now within this we have a huge issue Sativex is £125 on private prescription working out at around £375 each month not really an alternate to £30 a month to grow your own high CBD strains which are re emerging from africa. So say the grower works on 3 harvests a year they will spend £360 regardless of weight the same person treating themselves with prescription cannabis will spend £4.500. if you needed such medicine which would you do taking that both are paid for by yourself. I know which route I would take and its not the 4 figure one.

    One thing that has struck me in your original reply was the fact that you dont seem to bothered about caribbean drug routes re establishing themselves with the economic surrendering of the route to the drug trade. Should we give the money or let the drugs in ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 9:47pm on 08 Feb 2011, Peter Reynolds wrote:

    Euphoriater - you take me there.

    Busby2 - are you beginning to understand now?

    John - you are a warrior and hero for the cause.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 10:28pm on 08 Feb 2011, adecafcoffeeforme wrote:

    As a practising GP I would like to comment that Dr Evan Harris is talking rubbish (and as a doctor himself, he would know he is talking rubbish). That concerns me.

    You quote him as saying:
    "When it comes to drugs Dr Raabe has no expertise, no research background and no relevant specialist experience and worse still has an ideological position on drug policy that he has declared his intention to force through the Council. That's why he wasn't fit to be an expert adviser, not because of his wrong and offensive views on homosexuality."

    It is a fact that one member of the drug panel has to be a GP.
    How many GPs have "specialist expertise" and "research backgrounds" in this area? Virtually none. Not being an expert either, I don't know, so let's say maybe enough to count on the fingers of one hand if you're lucky (probably). The whole point of being a GP is that you are NOT a specialist! The point is that you get to know quite a lot about every area, through study and through experience. If you were a specialist in drugs, enough to do your own research, you would not have time to be much of a GP!

    If the govt want a GP, then they are by definition asking for someone who is not a specialist.

    A Google search tells me Dr Raabe has been a GP in a deprived part of Manchester for many years. Therefore he will have had a lot of experience of helping patients on drugs. Not only that, but he has taken enough interest in the matter to have an opinion and to come to the attention of those who made the appointments. So he is far from ignorant.

    No, it's not OK to assume he was not qualified. Sounds like he was.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 10:47pm on 08 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    It is a dangerous fallacy to say that the demand for illegal drugs is inelastic. The British experience in China shows that the demand is elastic. Flooding China with opium showed it was all too easy to turn the disheartened and the hopeless into addicts in a society that was falling apart. The same marketing strategy has been used by mid and low level pushers among the excluded and the impoverished in the inner cities of Europe and the USA to expand their market.

    We have seen the legal use of alcohol steadily increase over the last few decades. Policies to limit and control useage like liberalising opening hours have backfired. High taxes to limit alcohol use have been undermined by lower taxes in Europe and by illegal imports. High taxes for cigarettes has encouraged organised crime to profit from lower taxes elsewhere in Europe to import large quantities into the UK. That trade is preferrable to them as the penalities for getting caught are less than for illegal drugs.

    In conclusion, any attempt to legalise and regulate the use of illegal drugs will be undermined by laxer regulations and taxation elsewhere. Legalisation will also increase the number of users as it did in China with opium and it won't reduce crime.

    The current situation isn't great but I don't see that simply legalising all drugs offers a better solution. We should be looking at measures like prescribing illegal drugs to registered addicts under strictly controlled conditions that would take away the market of the illegal drug trade and at the same time plan to get the addicts off their addiction.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 10:51pm on 08 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    30. At 12:33pm on 08 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    "Very interesting but where is the conclusive evidence that all paedophiles are only interested in sexual relations with children and don't have also have sexual relations with adults? If there is overlap - and I strongly suspect that there is - then it is wrong to simply say that paedophilia and homosexuality are distinct, particularly where the child is post puberty but under age. "

    Firstly, no one is claiming 'all' paedophiles are solely interested in children, there are in fact terms for the different types of abusers, of those called 'regressed' (sexually attracted to adults as well) the proportion of homo/hetero is no different to the rest of the population, I referred you to studies and these explain in depth, and now I will refer you to a recent blog by Mark Chivers in the Telegraph that summarises the views of those studies rather well

    Regarding your article from the Mail - I am not saying that gay men are incapable of child abuse, in fact I just stated to the contrary, simply that they are no more likely to offend than straight men and that the view that they are 10 times more likely to offend is a load of bull

    The actions of social workers scared of a PC backlash in that case is unfortunate and shouldn't exist, but I don't believe the answer to that is to promote the long-held myth that they are any more dangerous than other adults

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 11:09pm on 08 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 51. At 11:28pm on 08 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Busby2
    We have seen the legal use of alcohol steadily increase over the last few decades.

    We have also had banned recreational drugs for the last 4 decades, you will find about 2 years before the MODA 71 was brought into enactment that the link between alcohol price, strength and consumption was broken by the government to encourage people away from drugs. only to have created a huge market that now runs out of control as there is nothing in society other than abstinence to counter the trend.

    We taxed ourselves out of the tobacco markets long ago and under EU laws we have the right to buy any product in any EU country you like as sky seems to be finding out right now with its extortionate prices compered to market competition, I smoke but i rarely by UK tobacco when i can buy it abroad in bulk for a fraction of the price its and its still had tax payed to the UK government when it was exported.

    The current situation isn't great but I don't see that simply legalising all drugs offers a better solution. We should be looking at measures like prescribing illegal drugs to registered addicts under strictly controlled conditions that would take away the market of the illegal drug trade and at the same time plan to get the addicts off their addiction.

    Busby2 could not have said that better myself that is what legislation is about control of dangerous drugs its about providing a clean safe environment to people who are struggling with the mistakes they have made, and the money saved on all this would provide world class treatment to all drug users.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 11:35pm on 08 Feb 2011, garval wrote:

    48. busby2 wrote:
    It is a dangerous fallacy to say that the demand for illegal drugs is inelastic.

    busby2, it is really disheartening to see people like you who so blatantly ignore the evidence. You are perfectly entitled to dispute the research of a nobel prize laurate (Becker) and other distinguished economics professors who wrote the papers I recommended you to inform about. But in order to do that you have to do better than just simply offering as a proof your personal opinion. Like GP Hans-Christian Raabe, you are entitled to think that people can walk on water, but that is not enough to disprove the tenets of physics, which have established that walking on water is physically impossible. I suppose you would argue, that that is a dangerous fallacy, too.

    Gart Valenc
    http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 09:18am on 09 Feb 2011, mattfrombrum wrote:

    Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Dr Raabe was not suggesting that all homosexuals were pedophiles, just that there was a higher instance of it amongst them and therefore this was a topic worthy of debate. People seem to be ignoring the obvious issue. Either the statistics he drew from are correct or they are not. If they are correct then surely it is an issue that needs looking into. If not then an appropriate academic response should be written. Yes it is right to protect minorities but it isn't right to canonise one minority at the expense of others. Most Christians and most Muslims would share Dr Raabe's concerns yet now we find that our views are no longer welcome in Britain and that we can be fired simply for stating them. I would defend peoples' right to decide to how they want to live yet I don't believe anyone has the right to force others to accept that lifestyle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 09:25am on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    41. At 6:10pm on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    John112uk...One issue with comparing Homosexuality and Religion,one is a life style choice the other isn't. Are you saying Homosexual people should keep homosexuality private and has no place in public?
    ========================

    No I'm not saying people should keep their homosexuality secret.

    I'm asking you why you think people should have to keep their religion secret (#34).

    What are you wanting - a 'dont ask, dont tell' policy for Christians?

    When Christians had power they oppressed homosexuals. Now gays have political power they are doing the same thing to Christians.

    I'm neither gay nor Christian and I feel quite content to criticise oppression of others by groups who have political power.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 09:32am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86 wrote:

    The only reason Mr, sorry, Dr Raab was hired was because it pleased the tabloids. The Mail could barely contain their excitement at the appointment and were truly livid when he was sacked, claiming he was a victim of political correctness (as apparently opposing homophobia now qualifies as 'political correctness gone mad').

    The face that he is a GP does not qualify him as an expert on drugs. My own mother is a GP - among with the majority of those who attended medical school - and would be astounded to be invited to sit on the council. He has no specialist knowledge and has merely spoken out, as a prominent Christian and MEP candidate, against the harm reduction approach.

    This is yet another example of why pandering to the right wing press results in bad, anti-evidence-based decisions with bad consequences (Jack Straw, take note).

    Finally, I don't think you can separate his homophobic views from his position on the Council. Anyone who serves the public must comply with equality legislation and consider every citizen as equally deserving of their service. This puts into question his position as a GP, yet alone an 'expert' government adviser.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 09:35am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86 wrote:

    Adecafecoffeeforme: Unfortunately a lot of people with the worst drug problems (e.g. homeless people) are not registered with GPs, so its a fallacy to suggest his experience as a GP in a deprived area makes him an expert.

    You know as well as I do that that is not the reason he was appointed. I'm sure there are any number of GPs with extra clinical knowledge/experience of toxicology and the like.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 09:51am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Jon112uk..."What are you wanting - a 'dont ask, dont tell' policy for Christians?"

    No, I would prefer it to cover ALL religion.

    Religion has no place in Government. If you want to be Prime minister, in my opinion you should keep secret your religious choice.

    Homosexuality does have a place in government, so do women, ethnic minorities et cetera.

    I do not know of a Gay lobby oppressing Christians. Catholic Christians still oppress homosexuals. Religion, in my opinion, is the problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 09:53am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86 wrote:

    jon112dk: Christians are free to voice their belief in God, water-into-wine, love-thy-neighbour etc, but certain views on homosexuality are no longer consistent with the more equal society we now live in, where people have a right to be in an open relationship with someone of the opposite sex without being discriminated against.

    No-one is discriminating against Raab because he is a christian, it is because he is a homophobe.

    Many christians have moved on from the old testament and are happy to combine tolerance towards homosexuals with belief in God.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 10:09am on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    57. At 09:51am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    Jon112uk..."What are you wanting - a 'dont ask, dont tell' policy for Christians?"
    No, I would prefer it to cover ALL religion.
    Religion has no place in Government. If you want to be Prime minister, in my opinion you should keep secret your religious choice.
    ============================

    Yep, thats what I thought you were saying.

    Frankly, I see that as no different from when (not long ago) Christians had political power and were saying homosexuals had no place in government. If a gay man wanted to be in politics he had to keep his sexuality secret.

    You are no less oppressive, no less intolerant.

    Shame you can't see that argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 10:14am on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    58. At 09:53am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86

    See #59

    I have a problem with powerful groups such as gays wanting to ban people from government because of their views. I have a problem with anyone with power using that power to silence people they disagree with.

    The big difference is that I would never call for a gay man to be thrown out of his job because I disagreed with him. I would tell him I disagreed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 10:37am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    jon112uk, I'm an explicit atheist, of course I'm intolerant of religion. That doesn't mean I am intolerant of peoples right to practice what they believe. We are secular, so why am I intolerant for expecting a clear divide between state and religion?

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 10:37am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86 wrote:

    I disagree with both jon112dk and Have your say Rejected.

    I think a politician should be as free to be openly Christian in their private life as he or she can be openly homosexual.

    I do, however, believe strongly in the separation of the church and the state, so policy decisions should remain secular.

    Where I draw a line with Christianity is where it explicitly discriminates against homosexuals. Raabs views strongly suggest that he would do so, as he went as far as to suggest that they are 'worryingly' linked to paedophilia.

    For those who suggest we need to be open about things, I have to question why. Child abusers are also more likely to be victims of abuse themselves. Does this mean we should discriminate against victims of abuse, even though the vast majority are sexually attracted to adults and not children? It is totally false logic to suggest that if paedophiles have a higher rate of homosexuality than the control population (and I say IF - I have not seen the evidence), we should question the 'homoesexual lifestyle'.

    It is also worth mentioning that the vast majority of victims of childhood sexual abuse are still female, and the vast majority of their abusers are male.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 10:53am on 09 Feb 2011, garval wrote:

    The question we all should be asking is whether drug policy should be based on evidence that have been gathered, analysed and proved following scientific principles. Or, should it just reflect popular believes and prejudices. If the latter, let it be dictated by the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, The X-factor Panel, representatives of every sect, cult and religion, and so on, and so on, and so on.

    Gart Valenc
    http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 11:05am on 09 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    all this talk about whether homosexuality is linked to paedophilia makes me wonder: are there any studies which look at the religious beliefs of child abusers? what percentage of known paedophiles are (nominally) Christian??

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 11:19am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    25. At 10:10am on 08 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Boilerbill
    Homosexual in nature refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behaviour in animals.

    --

    You say this, like it is defacto accepted 100% fact.

    As a challenge back, in reality, there is some limted observational evidence about this, though much seems to revolve around animal behaviour, pecking orders Alpha-males controlling all the females, role play and boredom.n The science needs more work, and appropriate peer review.

    Perhaps some of the advocates can next ask a Sea-lion in Antarctica, or gay penguin's in a zoo why they are 'naturally gay' ? However, as no-one can effectively talk/communicate with them, limited observational evidence is as much real comprehension of their behavior as you'll ever really get.

    Animal Homosexuality 'as in nature' is a very convinient explanation, as is the 'born gay' which defies credible explanation of the most likely causal factors being part genetic tendancy, part environmental (which includes nurture). The brain and it's decision making processes are also only starting to be understood - look up Michael Mosely on the BBC and see some of his shows - so the 'born gay' falls short here.

    Gay Advocacy Lobbies: Represent 5% proportion of the population, with a 50% size gob.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 11:21am on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    61. At 10:37am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    .... We are secular, so why am I intolerant for expecting a clear divide between state and religion?
    =======================================

    Because you are saying people should not be able to openly express their views.

    That's intolerant.

    It's no different than when Christians had power and said gay men could not express themselves. In that era, gay men had to keep their position secret and that's not right. Telling Christians they can have their beliefs but must keep them secret is directly equivalent.

    I'm not gay or Christian (or a green or socialist or a BNP voter etc etc) but I believe we should respond to things we dont agree with by saying that - not by oppression.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 11:26am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    47. At 10:28pm on 08 Feb 2011, adecafcoffeeforme wrote:

    .....

    It is a fact that one member of the drug panel has to be a GP.
    How many GPs have "specialist expertise" and "research backgrounds" in this area? Virtually none. Not being an expert either, I don't know, so let's say maybe enough to count on the fingers of one hand if you're lucky (probably). The whole point of being a GP is that you are NOT a specialist! The point is that you get to know quite a lot about every area, through study and through experience. If you were a specialist in drugs, enough to do your own research, you would not have time to be much of a GP!

    --

    Of the tens of thousands of GP's in the country, it **defy's logic**, that Dr Raabe rose to the surface with the cream of his fellow peers as the first choice. He is a ringer, that has been injected into the panel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 11:27am on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    62. At 10:37am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86

    You respond to this guys views about homosexuality/paediophilia with a reasoned argument which I fully support.

    If you were on the committee with him and shot down his views in flames I would applaud you.

    If you refuse to debate with him and demand he be sacked then we split.

    If you sack anyone you disagree with/don't like etc purely because your demographic group has power then eventually you sack will sack someone who had a genuine point to make.

    I'm utterly against the current intolerance masked under the battle cry of diversity - and getting back to my original point - it's a shame nothing has improved following the change of government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 11:30am on 09 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite #65.

    "As a challenge back, in reality, there is some limted observational evidence about this, though much seems to revolve around animal behaviour.."

    humans aren't animals?

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 11:31am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    49. At 10:51pm on 08 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    ...

    Regarding your article from the Mail - I am not saying that gay men are incapable of child abuse, in fact I just stated to the contrary, simply that they are no more likely to offend than straight men and that the view that they are 10 times more likely to offend is a load of bull

    ----

    Funny how when the statistics are against your argument, how the Gay Advocacy lobby, about turns and starts derides themas being 'bull'. Normally they are first on the bandwagon with statistical evidence illustrating their 'as in nature' homosexuality, is normal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 11:40am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite...
    There is documented evidence of homosexuality and bi-sexuality in animals, for example there are many people (animals) in the world who claim to be gay. I accept that this isn't fact,that's why I didn't state it as fact, but there is documented evidence. Anyway I just copied and pasted the statement from wiki.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 11:46am on 09 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    you can't separate State and religion. they are both overseen by the supreme ruler of this country.
    The queens appointment is considered holy as she is the head of the church of England.

    Much as no government may form without the queens say so and permission.

    Government in this since then becomes a multi faith practice being represented by all race and religious variation.

    what most argue here is the dr rab had a position that was hostile to subclass/section of society. If i were to say that all irish people support the IRA because they are Irish and as such a 3% of these peoples were dangerous bombers I would offend a hell of a lot of Irish people and be unsuitable to hold any position that then dealt with the Irish would I not ???

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 11:47am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    62. At 10:37am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86 wrote:

    It is also worth mentioning that the vast majority of victims of childhood sexual abuse are still female, and the vast majority of their abusers are male.

    --

    But, going back full circle, there is a statistical anomoly as there is a far larger proportion of homosexual child abuse, than there should be.

    In a world where 5% of the population is gay, the proportion of homosexual abuse should be roughly 5%. The fact that it is 25-30% is a huge variation from expected.

    This is an 'inconvinient truth', to use Al Gore speak.

    If homosexual child abuse was 1%, the statistics would point to something we can learn from this grouping.

    Similar to surveys on crime, ethnic origin, religion, drugs, poverty, diet ..... proving things advocacy groups don't like, as it is against their position.

    ... "the facts speak for themselves".............. !

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 11:49am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    63. At 10:53am on 09 Feb 2011, garval wrote:

    The question we all should be asking is whether drug policy should be based on evidence that have been gathered, analysed and proved following scientific principles. Or, should it just reflect popular believes and prejudices. If the latter, let it be dictated by the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, The X-factor Panel, representatives of every sect, cult and religion, and so on, and so on, and so on.

    --

    Sounds like a Jihad call, to abolish religion. Which I would be fully behind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 11:49am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    jon112uk, "Because you are saying people should not be able to openly express their views."...

    I didn't state this. I believe people who hold public office should refrain from openly expressing their personal beliefs. They should express views based on fact and/or evidence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 11:50am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86 wrote:

    68. At 11:27am on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk:

    Thanks!

    I can see your point; my concern is that as a public servant, he should be expected to serve every member of the public equally.

    I am concerned that, as an open homophobe, he would not be capable of doing so.

    If I were on the panel, I would be happy to argue with him about drug policy until the cows came home; that would be one opinion against the other.

    I would not, however, be willing to share a platform with an openly discriminative individual. I can see what's coming:

    "Does that not make YOU an openly discriminative individual?"

    As I've said, I have no problem with him being a Christian. I do, however, have a problem with him being homophobic, just as I would if he were sexist or racist.

    If he had written an article linking black people with an unpleasant trait and using it to question their 'lifestyle', there would be no doubt that he was an unsuitable member of the panel. The trouble is, as soon as the word 'christian' gets mentioned, there is automatically a barrage of complaints about freedom of speech - as if relgious views make one automatically immune from accusations of discrimination or bigotry. Quite frankly, I think that needlessly tarnishes the majority of Christians who do not hold such unpleasant prejudices.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 11:53am on 09 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Post No 3 is exactly what im talking about thugs in uniform

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcthree/2011/01/james-alexandrou-on-filming-cannabis-whats-the-harm.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 11:57am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    69. At 11:30am on 09 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite #65.

    "As a challenge back, in reality, there is some limted observational evidence about this, though much seems to revolve around animal behaviour.."

    humans aren't animals?

    --
    Sniff, sniff of the smell of double standards

    Gay in Humans = Gay is Natural = Gay in Nature = Humans are Animals

    Circular logic arguments, are not credible science, they are just a convinent way to infer an incorrect fact by saying if it is not one thing it is another. In reality, most systems are complex with muptiple input and multiple outputs - esp. the brain as the decision centre for conscious and sub-conscious behavior.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 12:14pm on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    76. At 11:50am on 09 Feb 2011, FrankieD86

    I'm afraid (and you say it yourself!) that still sounds like oppression - and also inconsistent.

    In essence - It's ok for a gay man to sit on a government committee and call for someone to be banned on the basis of their beliefs, but someone sitting on a committee and calling for gay men to be banned is completely wrong, in fact sufficiently wrong for him to be sacked.

    The only difference I can see is power - it used to be the Christians with power, now it is the gay men.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 12:26pm on 09 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite #78.

    "Sniff, sniff of the smell of double standards"

    nothing of the sort, simply saying that there's no point argueing human behaviour isn't the result of the same instinctive drives, albeit modified by religious and political constraints (ie socially engineered).

    fwiw (and going with the animal examples), I wish humans were a little less 'chimpanzee' and a bit more 'bonobo'. there's benefit in cooperation and tolerance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 12:26pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite. Dr Raabe conducted the research for the Catholic Education Research Center. We already know that the Catholic Church oppress homosexuality. I question the bias of this research.





    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 12:27pm on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    75. At 11:49am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    jon112uk, "Because you are saying people should not be able to openly express their views."...

    I didn't state this. I believe people who hold public office should refrain from openly expressing their personal beliefs. They should express views based on fact and/or evidence.
    ======================

    That's a difference of one word.

    It's still intolerant if people are not allowed to express views, beliefs, opinions, hunches, fairy tales or anything else.

    If we get down to it, it's surprising how little is 'fact' - everyone's understanding of the world is coloured by belief.

    It sounds like this guy tries to present 'evidence' which is selected and distorted by his beliefs and model of the world. But that is no different than you or me - it's just the beliefs that are different.

    How would you like it if the moderators on here decided your posts were discriminatory on religious grounds and started deleting them all? I think you should be allowed to state your position and the debate held openly and honestly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 12:28pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Jon112uk..."it used to be the Christians with power, now it is the gay men."...

    ...And women. Our last few PM's have been christians. I really dont know where you get the opinion that gay men are taking power and oppressing Chritains.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 12:31pm on 09 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    70. At 11:31am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    'Funny how when the statistics are against your argument, how the Gay Advocacy lobby, about turns and starts derides themas being 'bull'. Normally they are first on the bandwagon with statistical evidence illustrating their 'as in nature' homosexuality, is normal.'

    Ok, I wasn't going to bother correcting the 'in nature' bit, but it seems to have derailed somewhat

    The reports on child abuse refer to acts 'homosexual in nature', as in man abusing boy, male to male, ie the nature of the act is one of homosexuality

    Somebody asked about what 'in nature' meant and this then started a conversation about gay activities in animals, which was taken in the wrong context and has absolutely nothing to do with the use of the term in these studies

    I was perhaps foolish to use the term 'bull', so I apologise, I nearly regretted it at the time but I was writing in haste and was frustrated with poor arguments, so I got snappy and provided critics with a weapon

    That said, I stand by the statistics and psychiatric studies I referred to and question the assertion that 'the statistics are against my argument', they aren't, Dr. Raabe's interpretation is, and my flippant use of one word should not be used to discredit the whole argument, which is essentially made by other, far more knowledgeable, individuals and is where the focus of your opposition should be

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 12:49pm on 09 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    Also, while we're on the topic I would say I broadly agree with FrankieD on the tolerance issue

    Both gays and christians should of course be openly allowed in government

    There is of course a slight difference in that one concerns lifestyle and the other is broadly about views, one should not be allowed to force a particular viewpoint on others

    The way round this is in fact more openness - if a christian wants to vote on religious grounds (or likewise for a militant homosexual) then they have a duty to say this in their election manifesto, the debacle a few years ago where Labour MPs nearly wrecked their own abortion bill due to the high amount of Catholics within the members' ranks was appalling, they put their religious belief ahead of the party whose policies they were elected to implement, all without telling their electorates they were not on board with the views of the party they were voting for

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 1:35pm on 09 Feb 2011, garval wrote:

    74. At 11:49am on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    Sounds like a Jihad call, to abolish religion. Which I would be fully behind.

    Neil, I do not know if you are being sarcastic or not. Whatever the case, it is not a question of abolishing religion. I do not care much about superstition, so if somebody wants to believe in witchcraft, alchemy, scientology or similarly superstitious practices, good for them. The important point to remember is that they do not carry any rational weight and should not be taken seriously, and above all should not be supported with public resources or public policies whatsoever.

    Gart Valenc
    http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 1:35pm on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    80. At 12:26pm on 09 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite #78.

    "Sniff, sniff of the smell of double standards"

    nothing of the sort, simply saying that there's no point argueing human behaviour isn't the result of the same instinctive drives, albeit modified by religious and political constraints (ie socially engineered).

    fwiw (and going with the animal examples), I wish humans were a little less 'chimpanzee' and a bit more 'bonobo'. there's benefit in cooperation and tolerance.

    --

    If you are saying humans are little better than slightly educated monkey's, you are way off the mark.

    If you want some gradual introduction into the brain and how it works, try searching on the BBC for World Service 'Mysteries of the Brain', or anything pertinant by the BBC's Dr Michael Mosely. All good stuff. The brain is a little understood, highly complex organ, with multiple input's and descision centres often working together, often in conflict.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/09/100914_doc_mysteries_brain.shtml


    "Gay Human behavior is a result of instintive drive, modified by society - is little more than unsubstantiated gay propaganda.

    Genetics has an influence, in combination with the large effects of an environment (which includes nurture which is everything someone has ever learned - including the words you use to express yourself).

    "Less Chimpazee" and more "bonobo" - as ever gay advocacy groups are litering their arguments with pro-retoric and anecdotes. Why can't you just say people should be more co-operative and tolerant, than illustrating your arguement with one of the limited orservational examples of some gay Behaviour in anumals.

    Stop the navel gazing, and back to reality. You sound like John "I'm, GAY!!" Barrowman.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 1:40pm on 09 Feb 2011, Neil Postlethwaite wrote:

    85. At 12:49pm on 09 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    Also, while we're on the topic I would say I broadly agree with FrankieD on the tolerance issue

    Both gays and christians should of course be openly allowed in government

    --

    So you are in favour of allowing 'mysticism', and its related deviant practices and (crediblility short) beliefs, be a factor in the governing of this country.

    Surely the best argument ever, for a secular state.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 2:05pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite, tarquin wrote "the debacle a few years ago where Labour MPs nearly wrecked their own abortion bill due to the high amount of Catholics within the members' ranks was appalling" That is also quite a good argument for secularity in government, who are they representing their constituents or their opinions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 2:06pm on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    83. At 12:28pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    I really dont know where you get the opinion that gay men are taking power and oppressing Chritains.
    ==========================================

    They just did it with Raabe - that's what this blog is about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 2:08pm on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    85. At 12:49pm on 09 Feb 2011, tarquin

    Agreed.

    We all have biases, they need to be managed not denied.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 2:14pm on 09 Feb 2011, jr4412 wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite #87.

    I've been called many things but 'gay propagandist' is a genuine first, congratulations.

    "If you are saying humans are little better than slightly educated monkey's, you are way off the mark."

    I know, it's an insult to the monkies.

    seriously, do you think a species which spends more than $1,500,000,000,000 per annum on the means of killing one another while around half of its members live w/out adequate access to the basics (potable water, food, etc) deserves the moniker 'sapient'??

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 2:35pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    jon112uk, "They just did it with Raabe - that's what this blog is about."...

    I thought the Government removed him, are you saying the Tories and Liberal Democrats are the gay lobby you talk of?

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 2:40pm on 09 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Neil Postlethwaite " If you want some gradual introduction into the brain and how it works, try searching on the BBC for World Service 'Mysteries of the Brain', or anything pertaining by the BBC's Dr Michael Mosley. All good stuff. The brain is a little understood, highly complex organ, with multiple input's and decision centres often working together, often in conflict."

    has to be one of the most sensible statements for a while. Unfortunately for the government its basic building system is cannabinoids. unfortunately for mental health medication as well which populates many parts of the brain with unwanted receptors that create illness and imbalance while correcting one? individual part of the brain see antidepressant classes here http://knol.google.com/k/drugs-and-the-brain#

    with regards to post 50
    50. At 11:09pm on 08 Feb 2011, you wrote:
    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
    Suppression of this information is wrong.

    antidepressant and cannabinoids.
    Differential Effects of the Antidepressants Tranylcypromine and Fluoxetine on Limbic Cannabinoid Receptor Binding and Endocannabinoid Contents

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2992975/

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 3:03pm on 09 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    While we are all arguing over this staged calamity in the control of drugs and those that sit on the panel, we are being moved away from actual drug debates. Has this effected anything about the drug industry in the UK..
    No because everyone's to easily distracted from the real issues for a bit of scandal.
    This now belongs in a hello or take a break magazine now....

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 3:29pm on 09 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:

    93. At 2:35pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    jon112uk, "They just did it with Raabe - that's what this blog is about."...
    I thought the Government removed him, are you saying the Tories and Liberal Democrats are the gay lobby you talk of?
    ============================

    Them and the people who refused to work with him, yes. Some will be gay, others are not, but capitulate rapidly to avoid the wrath of the gay lobby (wimins lobby, ethnic lobby, disabled lobby etc etc etc).

    If you go back to my first post (#23) you'll see I don't accuse the ConDems of starting this latest version of oppression, but I do accuse them of failing to correct it.

    As I say, my position is that both gays and Christians (and women and ethic groups and disabled) have every right to be in government.

    Where we differ is that you appear to think discrimination on grounds of religious belief is acceptable/desirable, whilst I do not.


    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 6:10pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    jon112uk, for the record I do not think it is right this man was removed from his post because of an article he co-authored several years ago. Neither do I have a problem with his religious beliefs. As I stated before I have an issue with people in public office expressing religious beliefs. In their own time when they are not accepting tax payers money to do a job is that time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 6:24pm on 09 Feb 2011, ironjustice wrote:

    In 1973 an ‘orchestrated criminal act’ was committed which released homosexuals from the mental health act. In the group of psychiatrists who voted to have the ‘disorder’ of homosexuality removed from the mental health act were a group of closeted homosexuals. In 1973 homosexuals were not ALLOWED BY LAW to be psychiatrists so they kept their homosexuality quiet / closeted homosexuals. These closeted homosexuals had the disorder of homosexuality removed from the DSM. The vote was against the law DUE TO the FACT they were not ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE. The disorder of homosexuality MUST again be placed into the DSM because **the vote was illegal**. There MUST be a full investigation of this situation and it can be remedied when the DSM is reworked in two years. This ‘reworking’ MUST be undertaken by ALL doctors and EVERY doctor to have a ‘vote’. One doctors’ license one vote. The reworking of the DSM is NOT to be undertaken by those in the ‘tainted’ groups such as the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973 it was subverted by a group of closeted homosexuals who reworked the DSM to remove THEMSELVES from the mental health act.

    “Fryer was not alone in the APA. Because homosexuals were not allowed to practice psychiatry, Fryer and others like him had to hide their sexual preference, but they began to meet informally at APA conventions, calling themselves the Gay PA.”

    “81 Words ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81_Words

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 8:44pm on 09 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:


    75. At 11:49am on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    jon112uk, "Because you are saying people should not be able to openly express their views."...

    I didn't state this. I believe people who hold public office should refrain from openly expressing their personal beliefs. They should express views based on fact and/or evidence.


    That is exactly what Dr Raabe and the co-writers of the report did - they based their report on their interpretation of the facts and evidence which you apparently disagree with! And it was pressure from those with views like yours that led to the Govt removing him from the advisory body, despite the fact that the report was of no relevance to the work of the advisory committee.

    76. At 11:50am on 09 Feb 2011, Frankie wrote in reply to jon112dk:

    I can see your point; my concern is that as a public servant, he should be expected to serve every member of the public equally.

    I am concerned that, as an open homophobe, he would not be capable of doing so.

    If I were on the panel, I would be happy to argue with him about drug policy until the cows came home; that would be one opinion against the other.

    I would not, however, be willing to share a platform with an openly discriminative individual.


    I am very concerned that you denounce Dr Raabe as a homophobe when there is no evidence that he is anything of the sort. He was at pains to say that he had never discriminated against gay patients in any way. The report he co-wrote made it absolutely clear that the majority of homosexuals were not paedophiles.

    What is at issue is the fact that the report stated that homosexuals were disproportionately represented among paedophiles. I know that is disputed but the way to deal with that is to debate and not to stifle the debate with a modern day version of the Spanish Inquisition forcing everyone to accept the views of the gay movement as gospel.

    It is certainly true that some homosexuals are paedophiles, just as some heterosexuals are paedophiles. It is however sacrilege to suggest that the rate is greater among homosexuals even if it is true. Science and knowledge advances because we question established views but here we have a case where it is not possible to question established views without being accused of being a homophobe. It is this line of flawed reasoning that led to a council accepting a homosexual couple in Wakefield as suitable for fostering. They abused up to 18 boys aged 4 to 14 over a period of 18 months.

    In a scathing independently authored report in 2007, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council found itself the subject of robust condemnation. They had, the report concluded, left the couple free to sexually abuse youngsters in their care because of fears of discrimination if they launched an investigation. By virtue of their sexuality, the report suggested, the men were "trophy carers" who were not subject to the same rigorous assessment as others. Up to 18 children paid the price of that flawed thinking. Ask yourself who was to blame for the flawed reasoning that led to those children being abused. It certainly wasn’t Dr Raabe, was it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 9:11pm on 09 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    88 Neil

    'So you are in favour of allowing 'mysticism', and its related deviant practices and (crediblility short) beliefs, be a factor in the governing of this country.

    Surely the best argument ever, for a secular state.'

    ---

    I am a secularist, all I said was that members of a religion are quite entitled to be in government, however they are a personal belief, their religious views are only valid for use in the political debate if they are elected to do that

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 9:19pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    busby2...I may disagree with his findings, that is beside the point, I did state in post 97 that I thought it was wrong to remove this man because of the paper he co-authored. It would be unfair dismissal if it was one of us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 10:39pm on 09 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    101. At 9:19pm on 09 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:
    busby2...I may disagree with his findings, that is beside the point, I did state in post 97 that I thought it was wrong to remove this man because of the paper he co-authored. It would be unfair dismissal if it was one of us.

    Indeed.

    You wrote
    Neither do I have a problem with his religious beliefs. As I stated before I have an issue with people in public office expressing religious beliefs. In their own time when they are not accepting tax payers money to do a job is that time.

    Where the action required of a public servant contradicts their religious or secular beliefs, should they simply be required to put those views aside or lose their job? Or should they be required to refer the person to another public servant happy to carry out the service required?

    That appears to be the case if, for example, a patient asks a catholic doctor about an abortion but not in the case of a registar of marriages (appointed before the law changed to allow civil partnerships) who had a religious objection to same sex civil partnerships. The registrar lost their job although there were other registrars happy and willing to perform civil partnerships. I think that is unfair in terms of contract law and natural justice because performing civil partnerships were not part of the job description when the registrar took the job. It is also discriminatory as catholic doctors, for example, are not required to perform abortions or lose their jobs.





    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 11:38pm on 09 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    ' It is also discriminatory as catholic doctors, for example, are not required to perform abortions or lose their jobs.'

    Doctors can opt out of abortion because of their interpretation of 'do no harm', and this is perhaps somewhat of a more serious case than someone who refused to do her job because she disagreed with her client's lifestyle, particularly as in the case you mentioned she was offered another role conducive with her beliefs, which I think was fair, as like you say, the law changed - but she refused it and chose to be a martyr for her cause

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 09:02am on 10 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Busby2 "Where the action required of a public servant contradicts their religious or secular beliefs"...

    It is an interesting dilemma, but that Doctor must have been aware that his personal interests would conflict with his professional interests at some point. He must have realised this when he took the job, so I would ask him why did he take the job if he knew he couldn't fulfil his role professionally.

    "It is also discriminatory as catholic doctors, for example, are not required to perform abortions or lose their jobs."...

    One could argue there is discrimination on both sides. Again if he was aware of this type of situation arising then why did the Doctor put himself in this position. The NHS constitution clearly states it will not discriminate against anyone regardless of religion, this in my opinion is discrimination against the patient. The Doctor has a choice, he could get another job, the lady wanting/requiring an abortion may need this because of medical reasons and as such the abortion may not be a choice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:38am on 10 Feb 2011, garval wrote:

    It seems to me that this discussion about religion and discrimination is totally misguided. Either you believe that religion has any rational value or not. If one were to accept the former (it has rational validity), then so does witchcraft, astrology and tarot. In that case anybody who believes in astrology could object to performing their duties because the planets are not favourably aligned. By the same token, if one accepts that religion has no rational validity whatsoever, then those beliefs are irrelevant and cannot be put forward as a means of explaining, excusing or avoiding doing one's duty, whatever they are and wherever they are performed or taking place. As for expressing those beliefs in public, well, they deserve the same consideration that somebody saying we should all kill ourselves because the end of the world is nigh and only those who commit suicide will be rewarded, or something like it (it may sound inconceivable, but it has happened not once but several times.) Simples!

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 10:43am on 10 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    103. At 11:38pm on 09 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    Doctors can opt out of abortion because of their interpretation of 'do no harm', and this is perhaps somewhat of a more serious case than someone who refused to do her job because she disagreed with her client's lifestyle, particularly as in the case you mentioned she was offered another role conducive with her beliefs, which I think was fair, as like you say, the law changed - but she refused it and chose to be a martyr for her cause

    The opt out on abortions for doctors is enshrined in law.

    In the case of the Christian Registrar who refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies as it was against her faith, she was hounded out of her job by the gay colleagues at Islington Council. She tried to change her rotas to avoid having to do civil partnerships but homosexual colleagues complained they felt victimised by this and Islington leaders took disciplinary action against her.

    I have seen no evidence that she was offered another job at equal pay and status.

    During the dispute, gay colleagues complained Miss Ladele’s stance was ‘an act of homophobia’ and Islington officials allowed confidential information about her to be discussed at a meeting of the council’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Forum.

    Now that the boot is on the other foot, the gay movement has no conscience about putting the boot in and using the law to enforce their code of values on everyone, just like the Spanish Inquisition was used to stamp heresy of a different sort in the past.

    It is this lack of tolerance from the gay movement that I find quite unacceptable nad fascist like in its application. Only their view is acceptable and everyone must be forced to conform with their view or leave public office. The Nazis and the Communists acted in exactly the same sort of way in driving out and persecuting those who didn't agree or conform with their views. We see exactly the same happening with the dismissal of Dr Raabe and Miss Ladele.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 10:55am on 10 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    "The opt out on abortions for doctors is enshrined in law."

    "Either you believe that religion has any rational value or not."

    It seems the government think religion does have a rational value.

    Though this same Government thinks they can create growth with huge cuts in funding, increased unemployment and no manufacturing base.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 12:22pm on 10 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    106 Busby2

    'The opt out on abortions for doctors is enshrined in law.'

    yes it is

    Regarding the case of Ms. Ladele, yes there were certain issues regarding her colleagues and mishandling, for which her employers were reprimanded, but let's focus more on the legal situation which saw her lose her appeal, which is the interesting bit

    It's often claimed this is a case of gay rights 'trumping' christian ones - except I don't see how it's a right to refuse service, particularly a civil or public service, based on whatever beliefs you may personally hold - who else should she have been allowed to refuse and on what grounds? She was a public official employed to carry out a government service as set down in law, you don't get an opt out for every matter of conscience, yes there are some - such as abortion, but it would be total madness if the employees of the state could make up reasons to refuse anyone they liked their service because they disapproved of them

    That government department have a duty to provide civil ceremonies, what would happen if all the registrars, christian, muslim, jedi or otherwise decided they didn't want to do them?

    I always find it funny how these cases invariably involve the 'rights' of christians to discriminate against people with a lifestyle they disagree with, the opposing rights of homosexuals are simply to have equal access to services, and believe me if a gay person refused service to a religious person, or whoever, and wished to enforce their 'code of values' on them I'd be the first to complain

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 1:20pm on 10 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 110. At 1:34pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Tarquini always find it funny how these cases invariably involve the 'rights' of Christians to discriminate against people with a lifestyle they disagree with"

    Have to agree but are these people really Christians or are they just using the Christian banner to hide there own fears behind.

    Much like certain Islamic groups twist the Koran to their own purpose.

    how many radical clerics are denounced in the UK for their beliefs they are no different to Christians who share the same hate towards a section of society.

    I also think this is largely down to the Church forgetting its heritage and becoming politicized.

    Should Christians teach its own history as well as teach the bible?
    the first church of Christ was the Ethiopian Coptic Church, held to have been established by St Mark in AD 45. The Coptic Christians still hold strong today in the middle east were they still follow the same christian traditions that were laid down nearly 2000 years ago.
    The roots of the christian tree DR Rabid could learn a lot from such christianity so could the rest of the country.!

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 2:08pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    interesting veiw from the other side of the globe on psycosis and cananbis
    http://cannabis.hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/02/10/dr-mitch-earleywine-ph-d-responds-to-latest-%E2%80%9Cmarijuana-causes-early-psychoses%E2%80%9D-claim/

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 2:48pm on 10 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 113. At 3:02pm on 10 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    I've posted this comment three times now - nr. 31 yesterday afternoon, which took all day and night to decide; nr. 109 (above), moderated without anything which could possible offend anyone; and nr. 112, where the word 'da*n' was changed to 'darn'.

    What's the problem?

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 3:26pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    McD your a trouble maker :P

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 3:33pm on 10 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    That's a shame. I was looking forward to him making a fool of himself - and by extension prohibition - on the ACMD. I reckon that's what this is really about: the appointment was announced, few were more delighted than the likes of David Nutt&Co., knowing someone of the ilk described - Luddite, cannabis-bashing, anti-gay, 'Christian' campaigner - was sure to do the legalisation cause more good than harm; so he was quickly removed before his first opportunity to insert foot into mouth and engage clutch without ensuring brain was in gear. Darn the killjoys - I was really looking forward to that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 5:02pm on 10 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    How would you know, Mr. Ellis, having not seen the post in question?

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 5:23pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    McD twas a joke about the frustration of getting your point across, on another note i hear from good sources the ACMD ousted the DR not the goverment...

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 5:53pm on 10 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    108. At 12:22pm on 10 Feb 2011, tarquin wrote:

    It's often claimed this is a case of gay rights 'trumping' Christian ones - except I don't see how it's a right to refuse service, particularly a civil or public service, based on whatever beliefs you may personally hold - who else should she have been allowed to refuse and on what grounds? She was a public official employed to carry out a government service as set down in law, you don't get an opt out for every matter of conscience, yes there are some - such as abortion, but it would be total madness if the employees of the state could make up reasons to refuse anyone they liked their service because they disapproved of them

    That is quite an unfair comparison. As a registrar she had a duty to conduct marriage services between couples of the opposite sex, whatever their religion, race etc. That was what she was contracted for and that is what she did. It was not as though she was refusing to do something she was contracted to do when she was appointed. The terms of the contract were changed and the council and her gay colleagues made absolutely no attempt to accommodate her concerns about that. The Council broke her contract and then forced her out. That is unfair and unreasonable and contrary to natural justice.

    I would however agree with you if she had been appointed knowing full well at the outset of her appointment that she had to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and if she then objected to carrying out those duties.

    110. At 1:34pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:
    Tarquini always find it funny how these cases invariably involve the 'rights' of Christians to discriminate against people with a lifestyle they disagree with"

    Have to agree but are these people really Christians or are they just using the Christian banner to hide there own fears behind.


    Exactly the same sentiments were expressed against conscientious objectors in WW1: were they really conscientious objectors or were they simply cowards and hiding their own fears? Following the sentiments you expressed, I would assume you therefore believe that conscientious objectors in WW1 were simply cowards and not men who had a genuine conscientious objection to killing other people.

    I would have hoped that we now lived in a society that could accommodate different views based on conscience and not discriminate against them. These examples sadly show that is not the case.



    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 5:55pm on 10 Feb 2011, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    Considering the contempt this and the previous Governments held Science in, I'm more worried about his replacement, Andy Coulsons free.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 6:22pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    busby2 dont see what being gay or being Christian other than in the Christian's case (thou shall not kill) has to do with refusing to kill another human being.

    notice you said nothing about..

    "how many radical clerics are denounced in the UK for their beliefs they are no different to Christians who share the same hate towards a section of society."


    or is that different?

    busby2 I think Mathew 15 sums up the situation perfectly (KJV)

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 8:07pm on 10 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

    Actually, in all seriousness, I wouldn't be surprised if it was others on the ACMD who got the 'Christian' pushed out. Would you want to spend much time in conference with such a character? It might be fun to wind him up just to see what he comes out with, but just imagine trying to get anything serious done; ten minutes of fun for countless hours of infuriating frustration.

    Mind you, I should think analysing his way of thinking could provide long howls of truly inspiring comedy. 50/50 - should he stay or should he go now - toss a coin; no, this is a serious job, despite how its results are cherry-picked, manipulated and (dis)regarded - get rid of him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 8:25pm on 10 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    John Ellis

    I raised the analagy of conscientious objectors to get you to question your assertion when you said Have to agree but are these people really Christians or are they just using the Christian banner to hide there own fears behind.

    Many conscientious objectors were socialists and not committed Christians.

    "how many radical clerics are denounced in the UK for their beliefs they are no different to Christians who share the same hate towards a section of society."

    Radical Islamic clerics are very different. They hate all of us as infidels or unbelievers, and they also hate most Muslims as well. The Christian belief is to love the sinner but not the sin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 8:29pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Indeed they would be very comical McD but its the damage to a once credible ACMD his position would have brought, leaving the youth of our country with even more confusion on the True harms of drugs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 11:54pm on 10 Feb 2011, busby2 wrote:

    John Ellis

    My reply to your post 120 has been referred for further consideration and won't appear, presumably because they didn't like my response to your point on radical clerics. Given the censorship of ideas that challenge yours, I'm checking out of any further replies on this topic. Goodbye!

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 10:24am on 11 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    busby2 Im in no way accountable for the moderation of your posts or mine I have many thoughts censored on these forums.
    Sometimes It can be very frustrating trying to correctly word an issue in public debate.

    I know this is a toxic subject but when all is said and done Christianity does not preach or practice hate in any form from the original teachings of Jesus. The only form of hate preached is in the old testament and that was long before Jesus.

    It would be a shame if you withdrew from the debate due to feeling that my thoughts and ideals were the problem I am after all just an ordinary poster.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 12:27pm on 11 Feb 2011, McD wrote:

    "At 8:29pm on 10 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Indeed they would be very comical McD but its the damage to a once credible ACMD his position would have brought, leaving the youth of our country with even more confusion on the True harms of drugs."

    Only superficially so and in the short-term. I don't think the ACMD ever enjoyed much objective credibility and any credibility the may have once been able to muster has been gradually chipped away into oblivion by successive prohibitionist governments. The question now, if the ACMD isn't to be scrapped and replaced with a 21st century version, has to be somehow buttressing its credibility in preparation for legalisation and regulation. Probably easier, cheaper and far more effective just to scrap it and start again.

    If you're really keen on making it useful, however, one of the best things for it would be to have a clown from the last century sounding off the silly old ideas which it operated around for so long. That way its dilemma is highlighted and clarified, thus making it more easily approached and dealt with. No, I disagree: the clown they got rid of could have been an invaluable asset in moulding the ACMD into a useful organisation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 1:42pm on 11 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    the clown they got rid of could have been an invaluable asset in moulding the ACMD into a useful organisation.

    I presume your talking about Dave Nutt?
    A very sensible man that's why hes in my friends list :D

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 2:17pm on 11 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    hmmm this is not good http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355312/Forensic-Science-Service-Drink-drive-cases-hold-leading-lab-axed.html

    If they cant afford to process this what chance have we of identifying new drugs on the street???
    this will cause massive backlogs in the courts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 2:30pm on 11 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Another thing that has been in drug news groups of late is the actions of James Brokenshires objection to coca leaf chewing a century old cultural custom of use. If he says by action that the cultural use of a drug is not an argument in Bolivia then why is the cultural use of a drug in this country alright?

    By his own arguments alcohol should be added to MODA 71 along with tobacco.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 2:35pm on 11 Feb 2011, AJS wrote:

    If he was a Christian, then what was he doing as a GP in the first place?

    I would never entrust my health to a "doctor" who believed in talking snakes, virgin births, the universe being created in six days 6000 years ago or the idea that animals looking at striped poles while mating will give birth to striped offspring.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 01:26am on 12 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    The Christian belief is to love the sinner but not the sin.

    Indeed it is when it comes to an individual something I have always firmly believed in it is not our place to judge the lifestyle, however the views expressed by the DR goes beyond this and turns into prejudice.

    Have to agree but are these people really Christians or are they just using the Christian banner to hide there own fears behind.

    Lots of people use masks of self hate/loathing and take it out on other groups for what they feel are their own failings this is a common place psychological reaction within people with suppressed feelings.

    What is it radical clerics hate us or the lifestyle we represent?

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 07:47am on 13 Feb 2011, annie_mac wrote:

    ***In 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature”.

    Figures like these can easily be used by those with anti-homosexuality agenda, and of course just as easily be taken at face value by those in support of such agendas.

    But of course "face value" is far from scientific.

    For instance "homosexual in nature" refers to same-sex incidents of child abuse. For instance, where the child and adult are both male.

    It does not, however, suggest - let alone prove - that a child abuser is also "homosexual" in their sexual relations with other adults.

    Nor indeed does a willingness to suggest otherwise - to be less than scientific and fact-based - recommend someone to an advisory post on an issue which needs, above all things, people willing to face facts and remedy realities.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 4:58pm on 13 Feb 2011, Euforiater wrote:

    Quite brilliantly deconstructed, annie-mac. I've been looking around trying to find that report to see what they meant by "homosexual in nature", suspecting it was as you suggest, but my internet searching skills are not what they should be so I never found it.
    I think the real point here is that to non-paedophiles, children are simply non-sexual, I imagine paedophiles regard them as equally sexual, whether male or female. Hence a same-sex victim will probably be just as likely as a different-sex victim, allowing those who would like to prove their prejudices to use this statistic. Totally unscientific and a reason never to allow such a person on a scientific board in the first place, IF that scientific board is meant to be taken seriously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 10:50am on 14 Feb 2011, bigsammyb wrote:

    Well it is pretty obvious the government wanted a man who would puppet ther policy rather than help shape it. This has backfired now because the vast majority of experts in this field support an ending of prohibition because it is not only doesn't work but it costs billions of pounds needlessly and makes the problem far worse.

    So the question you have to ask is:-

    Is it any wonder this man is as mad as a hatter?

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 5:42pm on 14 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    Just came across this little snipit of goverment thinking and action to the use of drugs and the role of the ACMD
    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/hs-acmd-priorities-2011-2012?view=Binary

    I notice goverment departments will be taking over teh newdrugs warning system taking the role over from the ACMD using new sources of knowlage?

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 5:45pm on 14 Feb 2011, John Ellis wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.