Shining One...
Why didn't Paul not ever quote any of Jesus illustrations, parables, miracles...sermon on the mount content...Lords Prayer etc...in any of his letters to the early church?
ISP
Posts by ISP
-
122Very good apologetics for honest seekers
by Shining One inare you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?
here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!
http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .
-
-
-
-
-
ISP
Oh really? And where on their site do they condone putting women in burkas, blowing up buildings, forced conversions, public executions, etc?
For folks with a priviliged background to use religion/christianity in the way they do is bizarre. But fundamentalist Islam has its problems wjich you have alluded to. I can make some allowances for the ignorance, lack of education etc that exists but the moral high ground you are trying to get does not exist. The treatment of detainees, some of which are minors, in Guantanomo Bay is a joke. So was the war on Iraq, so was the treatment of prisoners, so was the exploitation of Iraqi oil by US companies. In fact as bizarre as the web site is ...the thrust of it is not far off what Bush has come out with from time to time.
ISP
-
-
-
ISP
These guys are for real....the mentality is scary...every bit a scary as fundamentalist islam etc
ISP
-
40
Why did the WTBTS not sue Ray Franz?
by Gill inif ray franz had been lying in anything he said in both of his books, c of c and in search of christian freedom, surely the wtbts would have sued him.
why did they take no legal action against him?.
could it be that this legalistic corportion realised he had lied about nothing?
-
-
ISP
Ray pretty much had all his ducks in a row...quotations from publications, letters etc. The WTS did nothing because it would more than likely lose. It has fought legal battles in the past and makes no secret of its victories and usually tries to say they fulfilled some prophecy or other. A devastating loss maybe hard to explain scripturally.
ISP
-
-
-
-
16
Romans 6:7 - What Does It Really Mean?
by Honesty inthe convoluted jw interpretation of romans 6:7 just does not make any kind of sense at all.
after careful consideration of the scriptutre within its context i have to ask myself why i never noticed the inconsistency in the various wt publications.
i would really love to hear from some of the more outspoken jw apologists who frequent this board because they have proven that they can think for themselves and may have recieved some new light on the subject that they'll be willing to share with the rest of us.
-
-
ISP
I think the correct interpretation of it is.......... that he who has died is dead.
ISP
-
9
MI5...covered up systematic child abuse
by ISP inmembers have any evidence they should submit it to the appropriate authorities and it will be fully investigated.
mcgrath--presided over the kincora boys home for the best part of two decades and had a record of systematic, year-by-year child abuse of the most violent kind.
it will be raised again and again because it is a disgrace to the british state.
-
-
ISP
Skally,
Followed that link.........makes you think that there is a ring organising stuff like this in each country.
In this case MI5, seem to have even broken into the prime ministers house or his aides 19 times looking for documents............they knew they had been covering up the abuse. God knows if we will ever find out what was really going on.
ISP
-
42
Why were Watchtower officials (Rutherford) imprisioned in 1917/1918/1919 ??
by run dont walk in.
i though it had to do with the book the finished mystery, .
why were they imprisioned ??
-
-
ISP
It was all foretold in the Bible..............and fulfilled a dramatic prohecy....didnt you know?
ISP
-
9
MI5...covered up systematic child abuse
by ISP inmembers have any evidence they should submit it to the appropriate authorities and it will be fully investigated.
mcgrath--presided over the kincora boys home for the best part of two decades and had a record of systematic, year-by-year child abuse of the most violent kind.
it will be raised again and again because it is a disgrace to the british state.
-
-
ISP
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : First, I should like to comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Some may think it
Column 1187strange that one who has spoken as often as I have should be called at 8.14 pm on a subject that is so important to the United Kingdom. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I register a personal sadness that so many on this side of the water for one reason or another have not taken more interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I am guilty of that as, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I want to refer to a particular matter, but I hope that it will not be interpreted as meaning that I do not care about the wider and general issues involved in the agony experienced in Northern Ireland.
I address my parliamentary colleagues of all parties. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for as long as I have, or anyone who sits in the House of Commons, almost by definition is not easily shocked. We become ever more resigned to the ways of the world. However, I should like to raise two issues that greatly shock me, and I shall start with the one that shocks me least.
In an appendix to his evidence to the Royal Commission on the press in 1977, the former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson revealed that
"seven burglaries of the homes of members of my staff took place in the three months before I announced my resignation".
He continued :
"Within a week of the announcement of my forthcoming series of interviews with David Frost on Yorkshire Television, the contracts section of Yorkshire Television was burgled and papers examined". He went on :
"My political secretary has had two burglaries from her home Shortly before Easter 1977, a break-in took place in my study in my home in Buckinghamshire."
I make that 19 burglaries. In most of them nothing was taken, although in all of them papers had been rifled through. One can match all those incidents with what Peter Wright says rather sooner than one would think.
I shall not go on about Harold Wilson's disquiet about those matters, but I stress that it is an all-party affair. I was as deeply shocked when I saw with my own eyes an extremely nasty document referring to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in a personal capacity. It was marked with the stamp of the Army headquarters at Lisburn.
I do not believe that Labour or Conservative Prime Ministers should be smeared in that way. I repeat that if Wilson and Heath suffered, as did Ted Short and William van Straubenzee, certain politicians from Northern Ireland suffered much more. I admit that what happened on this side of the water was less than what happened to the colleagues of some of those in the Chamber. But politicians can look after themselves, and that brings me to the second matter which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East said, will not go away. Generically it must be called Kincora and the Wallace affair. I am utterly shocked by what has emerged about Kincora and the knowledge that vulnerable boys in the care and guardianship of the British state were repeatedly abused over a period of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East was right to say that it took place over a considerable time. That knowledge was in the hands of the intelligence services of the state but was withheld for a considerable time from the proper police services of the
Column 1188state. I repeat that, were I in the shoes of Sir John Hermon, whom I do not know, and the RUC, I should be simply livid at what happened.
I refer to an answer that I received on 21 June 1990 from the Minister of State. I make no complaint about the fact that temporarily he is not in his place. In an oral question I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
"what information his Department received concerning obstruction into the process of inquiry into alleged sexual abuse of boys and the Kincora boys home."
In his reply the Minister of State said :
"I do not believe that any relevant information was withheld from successive inquiries."
Well may my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East smile. I then asked :
"What evidence does the Minister have for that opinion? Does he share the disgust of many of us that for some reason the interests of the security forces apparently took precedence over the interests of vulnerable boys in care in a real sense and under the guardianship of the nation?"
The Minister replied :
"My opinion comes from my study of the papers on the matter. I would share the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed if I thought that the facts were as he described them. I do not believe that they were ; the RUC had information, but as Sir George Terry's report explained, that information was acted on not immediately but some years later."--[ Official Report, 21 June 1990 ; Vol. 174, c. 1105.]
Naturally, I sent a copy of the Hansard report to Colin Wallace. In all the dealings that I have had with him he has not yet brought information to me that proved in any way to be false. He has impressed, under scrutiny, some of my right hon. and learned Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). They made very careful inquiries. I intend, therefore, to put on the record Mr. Wallace's reply to the Minister. He said :
"I have just read Mr. Cope's disgraceful reply of 21 June to your question about MI5 withholding information about the Kincora scandal from police officers engaged in the Terry inquiry. Quite frankly, I think Government Ministers now treat Parliamentary questions with utter contempt and make no attempt whatsoever to provide proper answers to any queries raised by Members."
I have always been treated with courtesy by the Minister of State. He is a great improvement on some of his predecessors. Mr. Wallace continued :
"For example, the BBC's Public Eye' programme demonstrated very clearly that :
(a) Both Army Intelligence and MI5 were aware of the Kincora situation in the mid 1970s ;
(b) MI5 refused to allow one of its senior officers, Ian Cameron, to be interviewed by the police about the scandal."
I believe that to be true. Colin Wallace continued :
"(c) Although an Army Intelligence officer informed detectives on the Terry inquiry team about his knowledge of the matter in 1982, no reference to his evidence was made in the official report written by Sir George Terry, the conclusions of which were given to Parliament. Indeed, Sir George Terry even claimed that military sources had been very frank and he was satisfied that military intelligence knew nothing about the scandal."
However, Colin Wallace added :
"You will recall that on 7 June, in reply to a question from you about the Public Eye' programme, Mr. Cope"--
the Minister of State--
"confirmed to Parliament that James', the Army Intelligence officer who appeared on the BBC programme, had indeed been interviewed by the police in 1982, but that the programme contained no material about Kincora not available at the time to Sir George Terry's inquiry'."
Column 1189I am satisfied about the credentials of James. He is no particular friend of Colin Wallace--in fact, not a friend at all. He is a very Christian man ; I use the word "Christian" in the sincerest sense, a sense which I believe that I share with Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. Mr. Wallace continued :
"The issues which Mr. Cope refuses to address, therefore, are : (1) Did MI5 refuse to allow Ian Cameron to be interviewed by detectives from the Terry inquiry?
(2) If so, what were the grounds for refusal and how can he justify his reply to you"--
that is, to me--
"on 21 June?
(3) Why did Sir George Terry fail to record in his Report MI5's refusal to co-operate with his investigation?
(4) why was no reference made in Sir George Terry's report to the information provided to his officers by James', the former Army Intelligence officer?"
Those questions have to be addressed. Colin Wallace continued : "I think you will agree that had Parliament known of MI5's refusal to co-operate with the police on this issue there would have been a very justifiable outcry from many Members."
If any hon. Member thinks that I am taking up the time of the House, I ought to point out that I sent to some Northern Ireland Members--who, I believe, gave it to their colleagues--a copy of the letter because they have, as they have said, a genuine interest in the matter. Colin Wallace continued :
"The Government's behaviour on the Kincora issue is utterly deplorable."
That is his judgment. The subject will not go away. If Ministers believe that this is being dragged up just by the bloody-minded Members who represent Brent, East and Linlithgow, they should realise that a good deal more than that is at stake. Collin Wallace continued :
"There have been widespread cries of indignation in Parliament and the media over child abuse scandals such as that in Cleveland, but almost total silence over Kincora which went on for almost 20 years with the full knowledge and approval' of Government agencies. The Government should be hunted from office by every decent person in the country because of its cover-up of this disgraceful episode." This is not a party political matter. I must say that bluntly both to Colin Wallace and to anyone else who thinks so, though I do not believe that he is motivated by party political issues. I believe that this is a moral issue. I had a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster when he asked why we make such a fuss about things on this side of the water, yet when the same occurs in the north of Ireland there is a cut off. That attitude may have led to the displacement of Robin Chichester-Clark, Stratton Mills, Rafton Pounder and several hon. Members who represented Northern Ireland when I first came to the House. I can see that they came to political grief because of the collective attitude of the House of Commons. Colin Wallace made available to me his rather important letter from Mr. Miller of the Ministry of Defence. I refer to one paragraph : "You attached to your letter of 23 April seven documents which you suggested support your allegation of a smear campaign by Crown servants against Members of Parliament. As to the document which you identify as a draft of the synopsis of part 1 of Clockwork Orange, you have provided no information to indicate that its references to Harold Wilson were the work of anyone but yourself. I am aware of no substantive evidence that such drafting received any official sanction, nor that the use of such material was ever authorised. As to the remaining documents, it is not evident from them that any was written by a Crown servant with
Column 1190intent to smear Members of Parliament or that they were ever used by Mr. Mooney or any other Crown servant for that purpose. In the letter that you addressed to the Prime Minister on 12 May, you sought to justify a number of allegations by quoting from the transcript of a telephone conversation between General Leng and Mr. Penrose. In fact, General Leng has given a firm assurance to government officials that he has no knowledge of any capaign, under any codename, by Crown servants to smear Members of Parliament."
I put that on the record because it is important to the remainder of my remarks. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, I doubted whether any of those sources had been cross-checked. I realise that it is a heck of a sweat delving back into the past, but the issue and the background are such that we as a nation cannot afford to be lazy. The letter continues :
"As regards Mr. Calcutt's inquiry, contrary to the allegations in your letters of 12 and 18 May, there is no question of the Government or officials attempting to influence individuals in the way you suggest or of putting pressure on them not to give evidence to Mr. Calcutt. I have nothing to add to the conclusions of the Report made available on 14 May, to which your letter of 18 May also referred. Finally, I understand that the Home Office is currently considering the representations made on your behalf concerning your conviction, and will be replying shortly on the matters raised."
I am unaware of any substantial activity by the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and I know that, before the Calcutt inquiry was established, the attitude of the Home Office Minister was absolutely disgraceful.
How is the Master of Magdalene, Mr. Calcutt, getting on, because he seems to have much to do? I should have thought that there was some urgency about this matter.
On 10 June, Mr. Wallace wrote to the Prime Minister. It is important that the House understands exactly what he told the right hon. Lady, especially as she tells me that someone is replying on her behalf. Normally, I am absolutely reasonable about these matters. Prime Ministers cannot be expected to do everything, but the Prime Minister is in charge of the security services--I do not know who else is--and the buck stops there. I see the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) nodding. Prime Ministers have some responsibility for these matters. I am dismayed by the developments that are taking place in the modern prime ministerial role, because the awful open questions that are asked mean that a Prime Minister has to delve in and be prepared and briefed for the yah-boo of Question Time on everything that affects every Department. That may undermine Cabinet Government, but it also means that Prime Ministers may not have the time to concentrate on matters that they should be concentrating on, such as responsibility for the security services.
I remember that Mr. Macmillan, my first Prime Minister, would transfer anything that did not affect him or relate to the work of No. 10 Downing street. That is how the system should work, and that is why this afternoon I asked the Leader of the House when we shall debate the report of the Select Committee on Procedure and the scandal of oral questions and the syndication of questions. The letter to the Prime Minister says :
"I refer to my letters of 23 April and 12 May to you and to my letter of 18 May to the Secretary of State for Defence. I have now received a response dated 4 June from Mr. J A Miller, Private Secretary to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces." That is the letter to which I referred :
Column 1191"Even by the abysmal standard of past MOD answers, Mr. Miller's latest letter is perhaps the most misleading and dishonestly evasive reply I have received to date. Bearing in mind that his reply will almost certainly have been approved by your office and that of the Defence Secretary, the contents of his letter can best be described as a grotesque insult to Parliament. My letter of 23 April had attached to it two documents which contained examples of blatant smears about a number of Members of Parliament, including Harold Wilson, Tony Benn"--
and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
"Those documents also bore what is almost certainly the handwritten editing comments of Mr. Hugh Mooney, a former Information Research Department officer who was until December 1973 Information Adviser to the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland. You will have noted that Mr. Mooney's editing marks on the documents do not delete any of the smear material about either the Parliamentary Labour Party in general or the named politicians in particular."
I do not make a great party issue of this, because the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suffered as much as anyone. The letter continues :
"Referring to those documents, Mr. Miller says : It is not evident from them that any was written by a Crown servant with the intent to smear Members of Parliament or that they were ever used by Mr. Mooney or any other Crown servant for that purpose.' Bearing in mind that the above reply has been sent to me on your behalf, are you seriously suggesting that the documents bearing Mr. Mooney's handwriting were produced by some unidentified person who has no connection with any Government department or agency? Is it your view that the documents were edited by Mr. Mooney knowing full well that they were never going to be disseminated to anyone either inside or outside the Security Forces?"
I propose, when Hansard is printed, to write to Downing street asking for a reply to that question. Mr. Wallace continues : "In the light of Mr. Miller's reply and the thorough inquiries'" --that is gobbledegook ; they were not thorough--
"which you assured Parliament have been carried out into my allegations, I would be grateful if you would explain
(a) How those documents originated :
(b) How the Information Adviser to the GOC Northern Ireland came to be in possession of such documents ;
(c) Why his job required him to edit documents containing political disinformation ;
(d) What was the purpose of those edited documents ;
(e) How part of them came to be reproduced in a Conservative Party pamphlet in 1976."
Time goes on. However, as one who was here at the time and who thinks that those who are either dead or ill, as Harold Wilson now is, have rights, I care about the reputation, controversial though it may be, of a former Labour Prime Minister, and some of his friends also care. I used to talk a lot to Harold Wilson. Like the rest of us, he had his faults, but on this matter, I believe that his sustained anger was justified.We should get to the bottom of this matter because when Harold Wilson wrote his submission to the Royal Commission on the press, his remarkable mind was still fully there. I care what happened 14 long years ago and I think that I am entitled to care.
Strange business.ISP
-
9
MI5...covered up systematic child abuse
by ISP inmembers have any evidence they should submit it to the appropriate authorities and it will be fully investigated.
mcgrath--presided over the kincora boys home for the best part of two decades and had a record of systematic, year-by-year child abuse of the most violent kind.
it will be raised again and again because it is a disgrace to the british state.
-
-
ISP
MI5 that will eventually be brought to book
It hasn't so far.....what makes you so certain. This debate took place 15 years ago!
ISP