Grayling's Real Objections Revealed & HoL's Response

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on April 5, 2010 at 16:23

I'm sure Justin can share some insights on the thinking behind the shadow cabinet minister's thoughtful statement.

For myself, I'm not that keen on Croc shoes. Could we have perhaps a shoe barrier. After all, it is footwear that goes against my deeply held fashion beliefs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on April 5, 2010 at 16:43

I've just turned to the Bible (as I often do in times of moral uncertainty) and Leviticus chapter 11 has proved very useful. I proposed that no one who eats rabbits, hare or jellied eels should be allowed to take part in site discussions but those who eat locusts and grasshoppers should be welcomed with open arms. (There is a worrying bit about not gathering the fallen fruit of a vineyard but I did that a long time ago)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on April 5, 2010 at 17:19

Thanks Michael. Those are helpful contributions. Looks like we might be working towards some seriously useful adjustments to our terms.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on April 5, 2010 at 21:40

Like Michael I turned to the Bible, to 1st Samuel and John's Gospel.
Seems we may have to ban any couples called David & Jonathan or Jesus & John Wellbeloved.
It's going to be tricky - some Spaniard called Hay-sus is bound to object.

I think it might be better if Hugh keeps the cup & saucer but gets out of his striped pyjamas if he wants to turn HOL into a Bedless Breakfast establishment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on April 6, 2010 at 0:58

Leviticus is always helpful but I have some problems bringing its interpretation into the 21st century. We can put some questionas here for HoL to ponder, meanwhile perhaps some advice will follow from Conservative Central Office, as they have been so thoughtful in the past. For example:

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims this applies to Welsh but not Scots. Can you clarify?. Why can't I own Scots? Is it to do with this devolution stuff? Can we just go to neighbouring wards, that would save a lot of time and unnecessary polluting travel?

Also: My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot when working. Could we use HoL to arrange the get-together so the whole town can stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Or should we just stone them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14).

Leviticus is not the only essential reference of course. Exodus gives me many useful yardsticks for organising my life, but some of them do clash a liitle with silly minority opinion. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, no-one will tell me what would be a fair price for her - can I find out on the Internet?

And I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself? Could I get help from the Council?

Back to Leviticus, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate, thank g-d I don't have to think about that. Can we now include bicycle thieves on the checklist?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on April 6, 2010 at 6:59

Well, looks like we're going to have a useful list. I'm wondering if the thing to do mightn't be to submit the findings of out own Grayling Review to his office with a view to helping him and his team frame legislation in the event that he becomes Home Secretary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by maggie on April 6, 2010 at 12:47

Now that the election has been called I can announce that Mr Grayling is to support proposed amendments to the Equality Bill, henceforth it will be illegal to smirk at the folically challenged. For according to Kings 2:23-24 'A man was mocked by youths as he went to Bethel "Go up thou bald head. Go up thou bald head." And he turned back and looked at them and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and mauled forty two of the youths.'
There is proposed improvisation around 'two she bears', mauling by two she hedgehogs is to suffice.

Further changes are proposed. Legislation is to be tightened vis a vis the increasing problem of wives intervening in husbands quarrels. To clarify;- Dueteronomy 25: 11-12. Lo. In the case of two men having an argy bargy and one wife intervenes. If she should lend a hand and "seize the secrets" (genitals) of the opponent "then you shall cut off her hand, you shall not pity her". In order to comply with Equality laws the proposal will in the case of two women fighting include husbands who seize 'secrets', however these proposals will not apply to same sex partners, there being no secret about what is being seized. Advice is being sought on appropriate penalties such as smiting etc.

• ▶ Reply