Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Embryo row rages in backyard of Catholic MP



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 March 2008
AS SHOPPERS in Livingston scurried towards their cars to escape the cold, you would expect the future of embryo research to be far from their minds.
But people leaving the Almondvale centre in the West Lothian town were yesterday only too willing to share their views on a subject that has dominated the headlines this week.

Most appeared to agree with their local Labour MP, Jim Devine, who earl
ier in the day accused Cardinal Keith O'Brien of a "lack of insight" after his outspoken attack on the government's plans to create hybrid embryos to further research into diseases like multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Mr Devine, a Roman Catholic, said he will vote for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill – against the beliefs and wishes of Cardinal O'Brien, Scotland's most senior Catholic.

In his Easter Sunday sermon, the cardinal attacked what he called "Frankenstein" experiments and branded the proposals a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life".

Mr Devine will not be taking up the cardinal's call to oppose a bill the churchman called "not just evil, but crazy".

And yesterday, Mr Devine suggested most constituents – many of whom have seen the devastating impact of diseases like Alzheimer's – also side with the scientists.

"I'm a bit concerned at the language in particular Cardinal Keith O'Brien has been using when he talks about Frankenstein monsters. That does suggest to me a lack of insight and understanding into what this process is all about," he said.

Asked whether he agreed with the Labour peer and celebrity scientist Professor Lord Robert Winston that the Catholic Church was guilty of "overblown" speeches on the subject, he said: "I think it is. I have just checked my e-mail and I have had three e-mails – one is asking me to oppose the bill and two others to support the bill.

"In former mining communities, there is a disproportionately high number of young men with multiple sclerosis. People on a daily basis see these individuals going about the communities and the disabling impact that the illness is having not just on them but on their families and their communities."

He said he was prepared to disobey his Church, concluding: "At the end of the day, I make up my mind. I'm very clear the government is correct and proper in the direction with this bill. At the end of the day, individuals have the right to re-elect me or not."

He also invoked the memory of the Celtic legend Jimmy Johnstone, who died two years ago after developing motor neurone disease, despite trying to find a cure in America.

In doing so, Mr Devine triggered more wrath from the Catholic Church, which branded his comments "disingenuous" and "unnecessary".

Keith Forsyth, 44, is one of those constituents who has been directly affected by degenerative disease, his grandmother having had Alzheimer's. Mr Forsyth, who is a member of the Church of Scotland, supports the research under strict conditions.

"As long as it's only used in medical research, I would go along with it. To an extent, I agree with the cardinal, as there is a danger this could be the thin edge of the wedge. But I am behind it if it can lead to a cure for Alzheimer's"

Jennifer Bain, 24, added: "If it's going to help people find a cure then I don't see anything wrong with it."

Janice McFarlane, 56, said she was unsure about the research. "I suppose I have fairly mixed views on the subject.

"I would like to see progress on research, but I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of mixing human and animal. The danger is we don't know where it's going."

A spokesman for the Catholic Church last night rounded on Mr Devine. "It's a bit over-emotional of Jim Devine to keep talking up the medical prospects in front of people who suffer these diseases," he said.

"And it's certainly unnecessary to consistently refer to the late Jimmy Johnstone, suggesting the actions of the Church have hindered cures."

WHAT THE BILL SEEKS TO DO – AND WHY
THE government plans to expand the scope of embryo research by updating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

The new legislation would allow scientists to create human-animal embryos for research. Scientists say the work is needed to advance the understanding of complex diseases, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease.

If the legislation is approved, scientists will be able to combine animal eggs with human nuclei, which can be grown into stem cells. These stem cells can then be harvested and used for research that could result in new therapies.

The bill was introduced because of a shortage of donated human eggs.

Experts say that using human-animal mixes rather than human eggs to get the stem cells makes sense, because the process is less cumbersome and yields better results.

But opponents say this is tampering with nature and is unethical.





The full article contains 833 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 March 2008 10:23 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

25/03/2008 01:01:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

psycho,

St Kilda 25/03/2008 01:01:35
Jim Devine dazzles us all with his scientific approach to the issue -stats based on three e mails and citing the tragic case of Jimmy.Jim was always a trite too ambitious for his own capacities -one wonders what his next target might be.Gordon requires some urgent assistance for sure
3

donald,

glasgow 25/03/2008 06:27:07
Jim Devine Celtic Unionist and Loyalist Brit Nat.
4

Wee Hugh,

Glasgow 25/03/2008 07:37:21
Well Done Jim, you'll soon get a job! When you get to the pearly gates I hope the leader of the Labour Party will come out to meet you, to lead you safely home!
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 08:02:25
I note that the critics can't actually fault his argument, so they pick at his method or personality. How pathetic.

The man happens to be correct. And the proof of that isn't how many of his constituents have seen past the cardinal's ignorant scaremongering, it's that he's telling the truth, whereas the Catholic Church is lying.
6

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 08:07:30
Jim Devine has obviously wrestled with ...the opinion polls before arriving at this decision.

Still, he can't have his cake and eat it...if he believes in the Christian faith , I don't think the strictures of Catholicism are consistent with his outlook...he should get a catalogue of the myriad of protestant faiths which better accomodate his flexible approach to these matters.
7

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 08:11:50
#6 Oh really? Can you point me at where, precisely, in Catholic doctrine, the practice of splicing cells together is regulated?

Or are you suggesting that the cardinal can just make up doctrine as he goes along?
8

Dave Scott,

St Albans 25/03/2008 09:01:20
As I heard it from a doctor friend of mine, before this furore built up, the issue is the animal hybrid aspect not the withholding of cures for sick people.

The core issue is whether the cell cultivation HAS to be done using animal media. the answer is that there are quite a few other ways that the cure research can still be done with human tissue - even excluding embryos.

The argument which is generating heat between people is not the real issue. The research CAN be done without resorting to animal-human genetic interface. UK can still be at the cutting edge, it just doesn't need to take this route.

MY guess is that there's a hefty amount of £££££££££££££ riding on this which is why some protagonists want to narrow it down to 'religious types against healing' vs 'scientific types lack ethics'.
Let's just lay off the over-simplification and explore the issues and alternatives. It's not beyond the wit and wisdom of people to arrive at a win-win scenario AND permit freedom of conscience in any vote ... but let's do it with proper information and assessment of risks and not just 'emotional bluster' vs 'cerebral bluster'.

Personally, I think any human-animal engineering will allow more diseases to cross an already fairly narrow threshold - e.g. CJD / BSE
9

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 09:12:01
#8 An admirable approach. I think the challenge is that most people do not have the knowledge or understanding to make a choice here. As with most things medical and scientific, the model we use to deal with that in this country is 1) to elect "lay" representatives, and pay them well to enable them to take the time to examine the evidence in such issues and come to a conclusion; and 2) invest in high quality training and education to equip our brightest minds with the knowledge and understanding necessary to reach sensible decisions.

For me, we are left with a choice of trusting the scientists whose training we have paid for, and the politicians and civil servants whose consideration we have paid for, against trusting an unelected, self-appointed set of self-declared irrationalists, who present no scientific evidence to support their view, but rely simply on emotional and moral arguments.

That choice is made even more stark by the bald fact that the latter group has shown itself to be willing to lie publicly to try to put its view across.

For me there is no contest.
10

It's me!,

25/03/2008 09:24:18
How dare the Cardinal and his ilk say people, including children he claims to love and protect, say that science should not progress to prevent or cure horrible diseases. He has benefited from medical science but would deny further progress to others. And all because he says he has faith. He is welcome to his faith and I will join him if he can prove to me what he believes in does actually exists. If not it remains nothing more than superstition and medical science should progress.
11

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 09:25:07
So many matters which are considered by Parliament are beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of the population.
We have to put our faith in the democratic process that whatever emerges will be for the best.
If we disagree with any legislation that emerges, for example some might disagree with abortion, then we come back to the rule of law and just have to get on with it until (if ever) the law is changed again.

Render unto Caeser the things that are caeser's, but in our own lives we can as individuals maintain and nourish our own moral perspective regardless of what course Parliament takes.

We live in a secular country and should not expect the will of Parliament to reflect any moral ideas...only the greatest good for the greatest number, which isn't a moral position at all.
12

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 09:35:05
#11 Very good points. I would just want to add that, should a woman disagree with abortion, there is no circumstance where she should ever be forced into having one, and the law is as clear on that as it is on enabling those who do agree with it to act accordingly. The issue for cardinals and their like is that they want to deny women the right to choose.

I have to say that if this issue is judged according to your quite accurate final sentence - the greatest good for the greatest number - then the Bill should be passed.
13

 Ayrshire Scot™,

25/03/2008 09:57:03
8. The reason animal cells are being used is that is is hard, or at present not possible, to culture some human stem cell lines using human zygotes. The cells created are not animal-human "hybrids" but have 100% human nuclear DNA - a human nucleus is inserted into an animal cell from which the nucleus is removed. Therefor use of animal cells opens new research avenues, and may well accelerate progress in current areas of research.

This bill extends regulation to inter-species cellular research, and introduces a specific legal restriction stating that only zygotes from a human egg and human sp-erm cell can be be implanted in a womb - thus, restricting any research or use of stem cell research from this route to cell culture. This bill also updates regulation to extend the same regulations, restrictions and protections currently applied to human cells taken from human foetuses to cells created using this technique.
14

Gina Gibson,

Wales 25/03/2008 10:22:29
Cardinal O'Brien has shown himself to be a complete HYPOCRITE.
He is demanding that MP's be allowed a free vote on this issue and when a Catholic MP decides to do exactly that, the cardinal accuses him of breaking ranks:-

"Mr Devine triggered more wrath from the Catholic Church, which branded his comments disingenuous and unnecessary".

So much for allowing MP's a "FREE VOTE!!"
15

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 10:29:22
14

A free vote means free from the whip...not free from lobbying dear.
16

Allan(handofgod137),

No voices in the sky! 25/03/2008 10:34:13
Why does the media keep giving the idiot O'Brien keep getting the publicity he so obviously craves. He bases his life on the teachings of people who thought god was talking to them, now of course we realise that those who hear voices are paranoid schitzoprenics.
17

sam the god,

25/03/2008 10:36:03
The MP’s should go out into their constituencies and get a random selection (town centre not near any religious buildings) of people and ask them what their views are. From that random selection they can the vote accordingly. The MP’s should remember they are there to represent the constituents views not their own.
18

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 10:40:11
#15 What the Catholic Church practises in its attempts to force adherent MPs to follow its line may not be a whip, but it is a lot more than lobbying. #14 is absolutely correct to identify this hypocrisy from the cardinal. The church has repeatedly associated its desire for Catholic MPs to vote in accordance with its declared view with the MPs personal expression of faith. They have indirectly said "if you are a Catholic, this is how you should vote".

In truth, an MP's first loyalty should be to his/her constituents; second to his/her party; religion should not come into it.
19

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 10:42:31
#17 Not quite true. We elect MPs to act on our behalf, but it is not their role to vote according to perceived public opinion on every issue. Instead, we pay them to take the time to examine the evidence in every issue - something that most people have neither the time nor the facilities to do - and to come to a conclusion based on that evidence and on the greater good.

Public opinion can be misinformed, and MPs should not follow misinformed opinion.
20

Bascule,

25/03/2008 10:44:39
The Catholic church?
Haven't they gone away yet?

I seem to remember a time when a rational presentation of the arguments, and facts, could be read in a quality newspaper thereby offering the reader an opportunity to engage in an informed debate - with themselves and their conscience if with nobody else.

Could the last doctrinaire believer to leave the building please switch off the light?
21

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 10:45:36
18

A "free vote" means free from the parliamentary whip.

It doesn't mean free from lobbying? whether from the Cardinal, Greenpeace, Outrage, or any other organisation.

That is all part of the democratic process and should be celebrated.
22

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 10:57:40
#21 You've just repeated the same point. I think it needs to be recognised that the sort of lobbying Greenpeace and Outrage do does not come packaged as "God says this is what you should do", or even "unless you do this, we will use our power to condemn you in the eyes of millions".

It's a classic reason why religion and politics don't mix.
23

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

25/03/2008 10:58:44
Oh aye...ah kin jist see it noo...they've bin daen this abroad fir years ye know...gawd knows whit thiv bin up tae in they labs in China...run like a leopard?...leap like a kangaroo?...its aw startin tae make sense noo.....Olympics is it...'drug testin?'...get yer wee 'foreign gene detectors' oot an fire them up thats whit ah say......
24

sam the god,

25/03/2008 12:20:09
#23 Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen

Hello Doreen you asked where I was on one of the weekend articles well I got back late yesterday having been out shooting deer (freezer will be full once I butcher them) also hosed down a couple of foxes that were in beside the lambs good weekend out.
25

A McBay,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 12:20:28
21#

"A "free vote" means free from the parliamentary whip.
It doesn't mean free from lobbying, whether from the Cardinal, Greenpeace, Outrage, or any other organisation."

We all have the right to lobby. But it is certainly neither a "free vote" nor "lobbying" if as an MP you are simply obeying a different whip, in this case the Vatican.

The Catholic Church expects its adherents to be loyal and threatens them with withdrawal of communion if they do not conform to its doctrine. That is their right, I suppose, but that doesn't sound like a "free vote" to me. So why isn't the Prime Minister or First Minister is entitled to expect his Cabinet colleagues to be loyal and vote in accordance with the manfesto pledges on which the Government was elected, and which it presented to the people to elicit their votes? MPs are elected on a party ticket, not a religious or church one, so it is not unreasonable for party leaders to demand similar loyalty, is it? Or is there one rule for the Church and another for the Government?

What is the electorate to do come elections and hustings? Should we believe that a candidate will stick by his party's manifesto? Or should we believe a candidate will just decide his own superstitions override party policy, and any other considerations like reason, rationalism etc?

Should we be asking MPs to disclose their religious interests? After all, they have to disclose to us if UK plc gives them two tickets to Murrayfield, or a bottle of Scotch at Christmas. If we can see the need for that level of disclosure of mundane trivia, why shouldn't MPs be asked to disclose religious persuasion that could impact on weightier matters?

26

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 12:53:00
#25 I think the idea of disclosure of religious interests is probably the wrong path to go down. People should be free to hold whatever beliefs they choose. Where perhaps action could be taken is in reinforcing the responsibility of an MP to act rationally in the interest of his/her constituents, rather than to act irrationally on the basis of a personal belief.

Although it would have direct bearing on this case, one key step towards that aim would be the separation of church and state.

On the international stage, it is high time that we got over the idea that the Vatican should be treated as a country. It gains far too much power from this legal anomaly. And the West is compromised in its opposition to a global Caliphate by its acceptance of a globally powerful Pontificate.
27

Duncan in Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 25/03/2008 12:53:40
#26 Sorry: "Although it WOULDN'T have direct bearing..."
28

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 13:48:29
I think there are more urgent cases deserving of compulsory disclosure.

There is a longstanding association in Scotland between Freemasonry and Law Enforcement. There have been moves to compel Scottish judges to declare at the outset of any legal proceedings whether they are freemasons and for witnesses in the case to do likewise.

But the judiciary has always resisted this seemingly harmless proposal....it will come eventually.

Anyway, Cardinal O'Brien has a perfect right to enter the debate and declare The Church's position. It is for MPs , whether Catholics or otherwise, to decide whether to attach any weight to that or whether to ignore it altogether.

You people who are suggesting that the Cardinal, as representative of around 20% of the country should remain silent in this matter need your heads looked at.

Are you all Stalinists at heart? Or does that only come into play when the Catholic Church is concerned?

We live in a democracy and the cardinal is doing no more than exercising his democratic rights...if you are against that, why not go live in Zimbabwe where you will feel much more at home with the political process.
29

Media 1,

cape town 25/03/2008 13:58:07
The great thing about religion, is that the bible tells us god murdered 2.6 million people! You know, religion is a personal thing and its important to some people. The problem comes in when your religion changes from personal to organised.
Thankfully, we wont have organised religion in 20 to 30 years, because the mindset of the masses will change whilst we adapt to our new status as Galactic Colonial Masters. Remember the ships all those years ago? Well, its the same thing, only now in space as opposed to the Earth's oceans. And these journeys will begin soon, at the speed of the light! Robots like C3PO and R2D2 will be reality, as will clones and cloned computer type human forms! We will realise that the bible is an ancient nonsense book and we will encounter other life forms who dont know a darn thing about Jesus, why would they?
So no matter what the church attempts to do now, their demise is on the cards in the not so distant future, which is great, really great news for future generations of human, cloned human, cloned human and computer, not to mention hologram species.
30

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 14:11:21
29

The trouble about living without God , or even the idea of a God, is to consider what humans get up to when they reject the idea of a deity altogether.

As soon as you do that, all bets are off...anything goes.

By nature we are all selfish beings, and when push comes to shove, we are naturally inclined to the view 'devil take the hindmost'.

Even if there is no God, the moral values espoused in the gospels - not the old testament which is a load of old codswollop - but the actual teachings of this Jesus , son of a carpenter and feared by the Romans and The Jews, who was as a matter of historical fact executed are the glue which hold us together as human beings.

Do we want to reject all that ? It has been tried, Hitler, Stalin,Mao Tse Tung... what tends to happen is that as a species we start tearing each other apart.

So even if you're a non-believer, there are cogent reasons to prefer that the "myth" of Christianity continues.
31

Media 1,

cape town 25/03/2008 14:28:13
Patrick

I hear what you are saying, and as we kmow it makes sense until the effects of religion on the species is studied in depth.

I am an athiest, but I am also a person who unlike most religious folk have nothing against homosexuality, contraception, abortion etc. I also understand the importance of good citizenship and law abiding behaviour, I need no god to keep me on the straight and narrow.
Now we know the Old Testament is a nonsense, but it exists. We also know that the new testament was written a very long time ago by various people with various accounts on what life was like back then. We get to read stories that may or may not be real, it depends on what you are looking for I guess.

Hitler was not an athiest! There is plenty of proof that he was god fearing. Nevertheless, I find it odd that you mention the names of athiests as if they created a world of horror different to the world that the god fearing white house created at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the world that the religious Johnstone created in Vietnam, or the world that the god fearing Bush and Blair created in Iraq, or the world that the god fearing Osama Bin Laden created in New York in 2001, or the world that the god fearing Israeli and Palestinian leaders have created for decades. What about the god fearing popes of old who tore the world apart and committed the most heinous crimes against humanity.
Perhaps we should look at the history of this religiously active world and remember that so far, its been one problem after the next with death and destruction at every turn.
Perhaps scrapping religion may help us, and when you consider the evil we have had to endure at the hands of these so called religious people, its worthwhile considering a change dont you think?
32

Doh,

25/03/2008 14:37:34


Did any of these MPs stand as Catholic candidates?

As someone of R4 Any Answers said, imagine the outcry if an Ayatollah was giving instructions to Muslim MPs
on how to vote.
33

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

25/03/2008 14:45:59
24....Hi Sam love...och aye...beats sh*ggin the wife eh?....eftir aw...naebuddy admires yer big bad weapon merr thin yersell laddie....thats fir sure...ahm willin tae bet thit you hiv tae 'adjust' yer scants eftir ye've emptied baith barrels intae some beastie eh boay?
34

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 14:47:55
#28 Oh dear. You started out quite sensibly, but I'm afraid you are beginning to sound very familiar.

If you think there is a case for people to declare their membership of Freemasonry, then you cannot logically oppose the case for people to declare their religion.

But here's the problem with your defence of O'Brien: firstly, he has called on Catholic MPs to follow his guidance. Not to vote with their conscience - to vote with his. That is not a simple expression of views - that is an unelected person intruding on the democratic process.

Second, and even more important, O'Brien does not represent 20% of the population! He represents himself alone. He is unelected, and his views are not based on the views of ordinary Catholics, but on his organisation's aims and objectives.

Finally, your accusation of Stalinism and comparison to Zimbabwe is offensive, misplaced and unreasonable. This is not an anti-Catholic argument. It is an argument in favour of truth. This man is lying top promote his own brand of ethics. He is trying to subvert the democratic process by pressuring MPs who profess his faith. He deserves nothing but opprobrium from anyone who values democracy and fairness.
35

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

25/03/2008 14:51:50
It is an anti-catholic argument.

You can rabbit on all day mate, but it's perfectly clear actually.
36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 15:03:28
#35 Pathetic, and disappointing. You cannot defeat the points I have made so you hide behind the false flag of anti-Catholicism.

And where does that leave the thousands of Catholics who agree with this Bill and disagree with the Cardinal? Will you brand them anti-Catholic too?
37

sam the god,

25/03/2008 15:08:57
#33 Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen

Doreen.
Gave the wife a good seeing to when I returned which she enjoyed.
To put you straight as I know you have limited knowledge where firearms are concerned it was a rifle I was using at the weekend this only has one barrel and I did not have to adjust my scants. Just remember the gun is just a work implement used to kill my own food and vermin control. Unlike you I am prepared to kill my own food rather than pay someone else to do it for me. Doreen are you a true vegan?
38

Why can't I use my usual name?,

Glasgow 25/03/2008 15:59:31
#36, nothing wrong with a bit of anti-Catholicism... after all the RC Church is plenty anti-lots of other things. What's good for the goose, etc. As long as it doesn't degenerate into threats and persecution of individuals.

I don't know why we bother listening to them... (answer: we don't, we just read/hear about them in the press and jump to the false conclusion that it must therefore be important).

Let's hear some more from Bishop Devine on favourite subject of homosexuality!
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

25/03/2008 16:06:39
#38 Ah, good old Joe Devine.

I sent an email to the Catholic Media Office the day afterwards, asking them if Joe Devine spoke on behalf of the Bishops Conference and, if not, when Cardinal O'Brien would be publicly rebuking him for speaking out of turn.

I actually got a reply - although by accident. The lady who works at the CMO was forwarding the email to someone else, and accidentally put my email address in the To: field.

Which means that I know they received it, but I have had no response. Ho hum.
40

Artemis,

25/03/2008 16:31:25
#2 - Jim Devine MP used to be a nurse. Admittedly it was a long time ago, but it probably gives him more of a clue about the issues involved than being a Bishop gives the Bishop.
41

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

25/03/2008 17:52:30
37...Why Sam sweetie pie...when did I ever say that I was vegan?....

If its just a 'Work implement' then why do you keep boasting about it love...I mean...I've got this terrible image of you on the front of some hunter's porno mag 'Real men and their weapons'..bowlegged buck naked riding yer wee rifle like yer home on the range...stetson at a jaunty angle......

Anyway back to the topic...aye that Bishop Devine...heard he likes a bit of 'Sydney' with the same name....goes oot tae a local karaoke...rhinestone cloak, stetson and chaps...warbling "Old rugged cross"...folk keep taking 'im fir Stanley Baxter tho!'
42

 Ayrshire Scot™,

25/03/2008 18:17:11
39. Duncan

all the comments from yesterday's thread on this are gone. I was trying to follow the gay agenda today - did the gym and egg whites, and got as far as taking over local governments, but forgot the rest... can you repost it please.
43

sam the god,

25/03/2008 18:33:17
#41 Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen

Doreen per your comments if that is what floats your boat glad to have been of some assistance you could not imagine a better person!

“I've got this terrible image of you on the front of some hunter's porno mag 'Real men and their weapons'..bowlegged buck naked riding yer wee rifle like yer home on the range...stetson at a jaunty angle”
44

Aiken Head,

25/03/2008 20:20:28
#30

It is the most amazing coincidence that these Christian historical events are so similar to a collection of myths that were circulating between 2 and 6 thousand years ago.

It is even more amazing that so few people doubt that the wonderboy existed and that the events occurred, given the complete lack of any valid historical evidence. I suppose the cunning early Christians burned all the books that mentioned their hero, along with all the useful ones, so that the tale would rely on the faith (in the NT) alone.
45

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

25/03/2008 20:51:51
43...My dear chap...thought you would like that...bet if it existed, you'd be sure to take out a subscription...wife wae the polaroid at the ready...'Readers husbands' eh?...mink troosers at yer ankles..
46

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 25/03/2008 22:19:16
#13 Ayrshire Scot

Thanks for your clear and concise explanations of the process. I've learned more from your posts over the last few days than from the content of the articles.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.