The 'Blooding' of the Australian Fighting Man

That time of year comes around when Nations celebrate and Remember their fallen soldiers, as so it does for Oz at the end of this week.  Every nation has its different day and its different ceremonies and its different myths. Ours is ANZAC  Day. The Australian & New Zealand Army Corps.

It was a mere 13 years after Australia became an Independent Commonwealth in 1901 that we threw in our lot with the forces of Honour and Righteousness. It was to combat an initially European political and Spiritual illness which had quickly spread to engulf most parts of the world.  World War One.  Amongst the enemies we confronted was the Ottoman Empire, and it was upon the shores of the Gallipoli penninsula in Turkey that Australia was 'blooded'.

Our soldiers did well.

They were heroic.

An enduring myth was created which unfortunately presaged the 'victimhood' sense we see all around us. We had rescued Honour from a resounding military disaster and defeat. But honour can so easily be sullied.

But by crikey, like many, we can spin a good yarn and sometimes diminish the real heroism by emphasising a 'poor me' attitude. As if the might of Germany and Turkey and all the rest were not enough, Australians seem to revel in calumnising Britain too ! 

We lost a lot of men for such a small population. They were the best of our youthfulness and vigour, and illustrated that 'larrikin' attitude that takes fun in adversity. A 'Boyishness', irreverend and a challenge to 'tall poppy' authority. The propensity by some to 'whine' in an adolescent way detracts from the mature, adult manner in which our men proved Australia's resolve. This is 'politically' encouraged from some quarters.

Australia can be proud of the reality without the myths.

Bill O'Chee dropped in for a swift few pints to give a view.

Anzac Day 2016: 

Time to end the Anzac myths

One-hundred-and-one years after the landings at Gallipoli, it is time the mythologising about Australia's role in the First World War ended.

Many of the things we have come to believe about Gallipoli - for example, that Australians bore the brunt of the casualties - are untrue. 

 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/the-hermit/anzac-day-2016-time-to-end-the-anzac-myths-20160419-goafaj.html

There is much of which we can be truly proud in the Anzac legacy. The desire to embellish history is unnecessary and unworthy.

Worse still, some of our misunderstandings are the result of the fevered jingoism of authors such as Peter FitzSimons.  A rollicking good yarn they might be, but a fair representation of history is another matter.

This is a shame, because there is much of which we can be truly proud in the Anzac legacy.  The sad desire to embellish history is unnecessary and unworthy.

More than 40,000 people gathered at the Shrine of Remembrance for the Brisbane Anzac Day dawn service last year. 

Hobart, too, has its dawn service, along with all other cities and towns. I do not attend. Although a Warrior and once a Uniformed Officer in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, I served not in the ANZACs. I respect them. I do not seek to bask in their glory.  I do attend Mass, however, in the Crypt. I pray for the souls of my comrades in arms.

Hobart's War Memorial.

That being so, here are five things worth considering about Anzac Day, and Australia's role in the First World War.

First, the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps, which lent its name to ANZAC, was not composed of just Australians and New Zealanders.  In fact, it was a very multinational and multicultural force.  When the Australians and New Zealanders went ashore, they were accompanied by troops from the Ceylon Planters Rifle Corps, Jewish soldiers from the Zion Mule Corps, and Indian Mountain Brigade, who were all part of ANZAC.

Second, Queenslanders played a significant role in the Gallipoli campaign.  The most vital of the Allied positions was Quinn's Post, since it controlled Shrapnel Valley, and therefore the beach at Anzac Cove.  Quinn's was largely defended by Queenslanders, and when the Turks exploded a mine under the Post in May 1915, it was a young lieutenant from Brisbane, Terence McSharry, who saved the position.  McSharry is largely forgotten today, but he arguably saved the entire position at Gallipoli in one morning.

Third, Anzac Day had its genesis in Brisbane in January 1916. The Mayor of Brisbane called a meeting to consider how to honour our troops. It was proposed that April 25 be made a day of solemn commemoration, and Canon David Garland, the committee secretary, put together a plan for the ceremonies. This plan was adopted by each of the other states, and became what we now know as Anzac Day. 

Fourth, while Australian and New Zealand soldiers took terrible casualties, 

the British suffered far more.   

There were 8709 Australians and 2721 New Zealanders killed at Gallipoli, but 34,072 soldiers from Britain died there too.

It also has to be put in context, however, as I reminded Bill. Britain had a population far greater than Australia's.  Being as I am both English and Australian, and far older and wiser than most, I try to be even handed in this matter.

And the Australian population was largely British. We were a very young country, politically. Our stock was British.

Finally, stories of ANZAC courage are well deserved. 

Australian and New Zealand soldiers were highly regarded for their fighting qualities. Albert Jacka, who won a Victoria Cross at Gallipoli, exemplifies the Australian courage. 

 He was in a trench with four other men when it was heavily attacked. One by one, the others were killed or wounded until only Jacka remained. The Turks then rushed the position and seven of them got into the trench. Jacka singlehandedly attacked them and killed all seven, five with rifle fire and two with his bayonet.

When the war was over, almost 275,000 of these men returned home to build a nation. The traces of war were everywhere. Nearly one in three households sent a man away, but 55,000 Australians were killed and 155,000 were wounded. 

Imagine if that happened today. In an age when we are largely untouched by war, we should spare an hour or so on Anzac Day to honour those who have served to keep our nation free. 

The First World War set out national pride in place, and the annual Anzac parade includes all the fights in which our troops have been engaged.

Australia ALWAYS acquits itself well. Our fighting soldiers are amongst the best in the world, respected and feared. As it should be.

Anzac Day is when we show our respect. For yesterdays and today's soldiers.

Drink to the Oz Warriors.

Pax.

A Most Rare Opportunity

We often get aircraft flying over the Tavern, peering down through the forest canopy trying to glimps our turrets. Hah ! We are invisible to the unGraced eye. But of course there are fine men - and women - heroes up there who see us easily. We even get aerobatic teams. Some of my customers wish they could be up there enjoying the thrills too.

And our friends at 'Vulcan to the Sky', the folk who keep the spirit of the Vulcan aircraft alive and well are offering just that experience to a dozen lucky souls very soon.

It is not usual for the Tavern to spend its time 'advertising' but here we make an exception, especially for our UK imbibers. You know how it is: someone comes in and politely asks if they can put up a poster on the noticeboard.  If it is decent, we agree to it. THIS is just fantastic.

There is only one aerobatics team that is also registered as an airline. That means that very few people will ever experience the incredible excitement of an aerobatics display from the passenger seat of a specially-constructed, high-performance aerobatics aircraft, flying in tight formation with world-class display pilots. 

That’s the astonishing, once in a lifetime thrill that we are offering to help raise money to care for XH558.

Through our contacts with The Blades, a world-class aerobatics team piloted by former Red Arrows, we have arranged for six groups of two people to each join them for a VIP day at their beautiful airfield headquarters, where you will also race a Formula 1 simulator and learn to hover a helicopter.

You will receive first class hospitality throughout the day including breakfast, a freshly-prepared 3-course lunch, and champagne and canapés. All of this is overseen by our amazing and attentive hostesses. It is truly an unforgettable event.

A total of 6 lots are available and will be offered to the top six bidders

This experience carries a reserve of £1,000 for two places.

Terms and conditions: The “day” (Thursday 26th May) will take place at the home of The Blades at Sywell Aerodrome in Northamptonshire. The experience is for 2 people and cannot be sold on again. 

Participants must normally be at least 12 years old, under 6ft 6” tall and weigh less than 20 stone. Any medical ailments must be declared on a medical questionnaire prior to flying. Highest bids will be those as seen by the deadline and correspondence will only be entered with named bidders. Proof of identity will be asked for on the day, so transfer or resale is not permitted.

To make your bid in support of Vulcan XH558 

Consider your maximum bid for 2 places over the reserve of £1,000 and send an email with the subject line ‘Once in a Lifetime Bid’ to.....

 onceinalifetime@vulcantothesky.org

 .....leaving four important pieces of information.  

Your bid in £s

Your name.

Your address.

A daytime contact number.

ENTRIES CLOSE MIDNIGHT SATURDAY 30th APRIL

All bids will remain anonymous and the Vulcan to the Sky Trust will contact the highest bidder/s after the closing date of this auction which is midnight on Saturday 30th April.Payments will be requested within 7 days of notification of a successful bid, so by 7th May.

That is quite a package for 1000 squids and upwards..

It would make a great birthday present. !! 

Sometimes a little money can buy a lot of experience. A lot of money, a lot more ! 

Drink up, but remember, 12 hours between bottle and throttle.

Pax

A Great Spot for a Prison

I had to make a decision recently as to where I should live. It was not a hard decision but there was always an option to move to the mainland: The Great Southern Continent to the north. I decided to rough it out where I was, or rather nearby. Funny how decisions so often turn out to have quite unexpected consequences. 

Take the problem faced by Great Britain several centuries ago with its criminal underclass persisting in stealing handkerchiefs and pocket watches from gentlefolk. What to do with them. .... er... the crims, not the handkerchiefs.

The Amercian colonies had provided a solution for some time but had taken their (actually Britain's) bat and ball, gone to tea and closed the doors, refusing to take any more of the King's riff-raff. Too late, some say. They had 50,000 already and the gene pool was forever established.

View from my window.

But a French chap, Rear Admiral Bruni d'Entrecasteaux  provided some welcome news of a discovery at the ends of the World. Bruni got in just before Matt Flinders and James Cook, the intrepid English sailors, but he failed to hoist his tricolour for Napoleon and France.  Well, he had an excuse. He and his officers were 'Royalists' of the old school but the crew was 'Revolutionary'! Times were changing.

He descibed a place he'd found as..... 

'the most beautiful harbour in the world, where all the ships of all the fleets can anchor in safety'.

So...the Lords in Great Britain decided to build a prison there.

Hah ! 

It was a bit of a blow for Bruni. He'd been sent to the deep south to search for a missing expedition. On 4 January 1793, Admiral d'Entrecasteaux was forced to leave the coast at a position near Bruni d'Entrecasteaux Reef (he did quite a bit of 'naming of remote parts') and sail direct to Van Diemen's Land. Yep, even before the French and the British, the Dutch had been sniffing around and had named what is now called Tasmania. They had even named Oz as New Holland ! 

In this decision the French explorer was unfortunate, for if he had continued his examination of the southern coast of New Holland, he would have made all the geographical discoveries that fell to the lot of Bass and Flinders a few years later. Then, indeed, a French "Terre Napoléon" might well have become a fact.

Many places down this way have French names still.

The ships anchored in Recherche Bay on 22 January, and a period of five weeks was spent in that area, watering the ships, refreshing the crews, and carrying out explorations into both natural history and geography. Beautemps-Beaupré, in company with other officers, surveyed the northern extensions to Storm Bay – the western extension was found to be a mouth of a river and received the name Rivière du Nord – it was renamed the Derwent River a few months later by the next visitor to this area, Captain John Hayes in the Duke of Clarence and the Duchess.

Both Bruni and his second Captain, Huon de Kermadec were to die from illnesses within six months.

But time flows like the Derwent and a Prison is what the Lords in Britain wanted and that is what they built.

I can see the courtrooms now.... " so, you hanky-thieving little git, its hanging or transportation to ten years in a beachside villa (build it yourself, of course) at the end of the world. What do you choose?".

Those thousands of prisoners did not know their luck.

Well, build they did. Few returned home. Would you? OK, they all died, but heck making it to forty in London or British West Hartlepools was rare and one might as well die on a beach by blue waters as anywhere.  And it was a long time ago.

So, I too, stay. and look out of my window.

Looking up the Riviere du Nord, under the Tasman Bridge.

Not that I sit at home all day. I have a Tavern to run.

But I do get to go down to the beach nearby. It is superb.

My windows face North and East so I get a sunrise (which admittedly I sleep through mostly, unlike my hermit-nun friend nearby who sees it from the beach each morning).

Mid-morning sees a diamond-strewn waterscape.

Now, a word, if I may..... Please do not tell anyone about this place. There are only half a million folk in Tasmania and at least half never bother to come down here. They have their own beaches.

But should you decide to come here yourself, you will be very welcome in the Tavern.

Decisions, decisions. I am quite looking forward to the consequences.

Pax

A Good Man Departs

It was a bit of a shock to hear of the passing of an old friend. I am in mourning.

Some of my customers will know of Harry. It wasn't his real name, which he prefered to keep private. Angry Harry he dubbed himself, although I never heard his voice raised in anger not heard an angry word pass his lips.

Harry was one of the Great Men of the Men's Advocacy Movement.

He was a Psychologist, like m'self, and a pretty well balanced one at that. Another Psychologist, a good mate of mine too, Bernard Chapin, dropped by to tell of his dealings with Harry.

What did Harry affect anger about? Feminism, that's what. He saw the ideology as a mental issue, as do I.

In Tribute, spend a few minutes listening to him

Bernard spoke.....

Angry Harry Gone, 

Farewell Friend

Angry Harry has passed away. He was 64-years-old and had been sick for a couple of years. I always liked the guy. We never had a single argument. 

 http://www.maledefender.com/angry-harry-gone-farewell-friend/

He was a great man and very much appreciated. Here’s his blog which is entitled angryharry.com. Please go and visit.

 http://www.angryharry.com/

I was an avid reader of the blog starting in 2001. He mostly functioned as a link aggregator, but he did have some posts on there. 

Let’s bid him the proper farewell and link to one of his pieces entitled, 

Equality Between Men And Women Is Not Achievable.

The politically-correct goal for ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is not achievable.

It is absolutely impossible.

It will never be found. It will never be discovered. It will never happen.

Indeed, the very search for ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is fuelling a never-ending war between ‘men’ and ‘women’.

The more aggressive and energetic is this nonsensical search for ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ , the more aggressive and energetic will be the war (i.e. the hostility) between ‘men and ‘women’.

To try to highlight this, notice that there is no ‘equitable’ solution even to this very simple question …

Question: Should ‘women’ have more votes than ‘men’?

For those who think, Yes, (because there are more women voters than men voters) then it follows that they also believe that those in a minority should have less of a say in what affects them.

They believe that the largest group (women) should have the greatest power.

As such, ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is already lost.

For those who think, No, (because this would be unfair on ‘men’) then it follows that they also believe that those in the majority should have less of a say in what affects them.

They believe that the individual vote of a woman should be worth less than that of a man.

As such, ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is already lost.

In other words, there is no solution to this question.

The search for ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is like a dog chasing its own tail. It will always be out of reach. And the very act of chasing it is costing us a great deal and causing tremendous damage to us.

The solution that we need to seek is not ‘equality’ – because it will never be found.

The best that can be hoped for is that people are happy with what is happening.

The best that can be hoped for is that people are happy with what is happening.

For example, if I had to answer the question, “Should ‘women’ have more votes than ‘men’?” I would say, Yes (because there are more women voters than men voters).

But I would not be saying Yes in order to achieve ‘equality’. I would be saying Yes because, currently, it seems to be the better option – for the sake of peace, if nothing else.

And this, in fact, is what all this nonsense about ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ should really boil down to.

If men and women are equally happy with whatever is the issue of concern, then, if you like, some version of ‘equality’ has been achieved.

But the state of people’s happiness actually depends to a very large extent on the propaganda that envelops them.

If the propaganda tells them that they are badly off then their happiness levels will fall and their aggression levels will rise. 

If the propaganda tells them that they are doing well then their happiness levels will rise and their aggression levels will fall.

if people want ‘men’ and ‘women’ to be happy about each other then they need – amongst other things – to do their best to destroy all those forces that seek ‘equality’

And so if people want ‘men’ and ‘women’ to be happy about each other then they need – amongst other things – to do their best to destroy all those forces that seek ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ – because these forces will, in practice, forever be creating hostility between ‘men’ and ‘women’ while in pursuit of an impossible goal!

Finally, neither men nor women need to be ‘equal’ to each other in order to be happy with each other.

Understand it, agree with it, disagree, whatever. Harry made his many points. 

Bernard made some fine and personal points too.

Another fine recalling by Dan Moore followed Bernard.  I am especially grateful to Dan. He gets the man's effect.

Many men in the 'movement' are finding it difficult to express just how much influence Harry had on the 'better tone' and shape of the men's Movement and upon individual men.

I will retain a special barrel in the Cellars for all who come in and wish to drink a toast to Harry.

I will be happy to update this post should anyone send more tributes.

Pax

The Spanish - Australian Inquisition.

The Grand Inquisitors in Oz these days are TV presenters. Weekly we are subjected to the excruciating tortures of Q & A's Tony Jones on the ABC.

Tony Jones interviews Cardinal Pell

And even the 'commercial' morning glory programmes that are supposed to waken us over breakfast have the fatuous Andrew O'Keefe pontificating on matters he knows nothing at all about and fearless in demonstrating it.

O'Keefe, some may recognise from a quiz show on afternoon TV some time back that featured a briefcase full of money. It was perhaps too much for him so he was sent to the five am slot. 

Little did we know he was an expert on Comparative Religion.

He featured recently defending Islam and rubbishing Catholicism.  Some of the points he raised had several of the customers in the Tavern groaning in pain, so poor was his grasp of either Islam or Catholicism. Take a look.

That was just the start.  He compared the thousands of attacks by Muslims to one bombing by non-Catholic, so-called Christians on an abortion centre. His chosen ally in the interview, Patrick Conron, also a Queensland media mouth  brought in the IRA as an example too of Catholic terrorists, seemingly oblivious to what  the acronym IRA stood for. Here's a hint, O'keefe and Conron..... *Republican*. Get it? Nothing to do with religion despite what the murderous terrorists said or how the media chose to spin it. 

And then Anders Brevik, a nordic nazi psychopath gets roped in as a 'Christian', too, all in order to show how Mulsims are just one of many religions to be nasty and murderous. But misunderstood, of course.

And of course, the Crusades. All those nasty, rich Catholics (there weren't any other Christians at the time) waging war on all those inteeligent, urbane Muslims who had brought so much civilisation to Europe.

Frankly you have to be a raving, gibbering drunk to perform like O'Keefe, and guess what. That is what he is. See the link that even You Tube is reluctant to let me show here. O'Keefe, falling over drunk in the street, groping a woman and spewing in the gutter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MagtXy1Exwo

But then he had to bring in the Spanish Inquisition.

Oy Vey. My life already !! 

Would I let O'Keefe into the Tavern? Of course. Until he started being soiling my carpets and being stupid. Like bringing up the Spanish Inquisition. It is one of the oldest calumnies in the book, dating back to the 'reformation'. But then he is a TV presenter and mouth, not a mind as such. But let us look at this great stain. Doug Beaumont did the honours for us.

The Spanish Inquisition: Debunking the Legends

The Catholic Church is often the victim of the same kinds of urban legends that surround the Titanic or Aspartame. Whether it is the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, chained church Bibles, or Galileo, people are being led to believe falsehood and making bad decisions based on those falsehoods. Given the gravity of the decisions being made, any intelligent person deserves to have the facts.

If there is a hierarchy to urban legends that skeptics use to try to discredit the Catholic Church, the Spanish Inquisition is probably at the top. 

http://www.strangenotions.com/spanish-inquisition/ 

It’s an easy one, because most people think they know enough about it to not ask questions, and the knee-jerk reaction to the images brought to mind of thousands being tortured or killed for their beliefs are usually all one needs to make the point: the Church is untrustworthy at best, and genuinely evil at worst.

However, it turns out most of what people think they know about the inquisition is simply not true. 

Early AgitProp

The urban legends surrounding the Spanish Inquisition span from Reformation-era England to modern-day Fundamentalism, and are unfortunately so widespread that even many Christians believe them.

It is easily forgotten just where the Inquisition stories originated. The English 'Nationalists' King Henry the Eighth and Queen Elizabeth the First had clever and ruthless 'spin doctors' who were not only adept at calumnising Catholics but foreigners too.  Their tales  of wicked foreign Catholics (especially Spanish ones) have stood the test of time. "A lie repeated" (especially a BIG lie) is a mantra as powerful in today's media as back then in the market places.

To put it up front: yes, there were abuses done in the name of the Church—some committed by members of the Church. The urban legends concern the nature and extent of the abuses, as well as who was responsible for them. Although the evils present during various phases of the Inquisition were very real, should not be defended, and have been admitted by the Church, many historical misunderstandings and falsehoods based in anti-Spanish or anti-Catholic propaganda remain to this day.

Modern historical research has uncovered facts that dismantle many of these centuries-old falsehoods. Here are some quick corrections concerning popular misunderstandings:

o The Inquisition was originally welcomed to bring order to Europe because states saw an attack on the state’s faith as an attack on the state as well.

o The Inquisition technically had jurisdiction only over those professing to be Christians.

o The courts of the Inquisition were extremely fair compared to their secular counterparts at the time.

o The Inquisition was responsible for less than 100 witch-hunt deaths, and was the first judicial body to denounce the trials in Europe.

o Though torture was commonly used in all the courts of Europe at the time, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently.

o During the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, between 3,000-5,000 people were sentenced to death (about 1 per month).

o The Church executed no one.

So, what was the Spanish Inquisition?

In order to understand the urban legend status of the Spanish Inquisition, one must first understand the Inquisition in general. Existing in various parts of Europe as early as the 12th Century, the inquisition was part of the judicial system of the Church which dealt with heresy. 

The Bible records instances where God commanded that formal inquiries were to be carried out to discover believers in false religions (e.g., Deuteronomy 17:2–5; 13:5, 17:7, 12; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:13), and this idea was put into practice in the time when the Church and state were much more closely associated than they are today. Although, as part of the Church, the Inquisition was concerned only with its own members, loyalty to the Church assumed loyalty to the State and vice versa. This may seem unfair or oppressive, but it is how things were back then.

The original Inquisition of the 12th Century concerned the Catharists who blended Gnosticism with Manichaeism and believed in two gods. Their beliefs led to potentially civilization-destroying social consequences. 

Catharists refused to take oaths, which back then meant opposing government authority. Marriage was considered sinful while secret fornication was permitted. Even suicide was encouraged. 

These were not faithful bands of “Bible Christians” or a hidden “remnant” of true believers trying to avoid the evil institutional Church. 

Eventually Europe was so endangered by this group heresy that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity.

By the late Middle Ages, the subjects of Portugal and Spain were often Muslim or Jewish, and the re-conquering of those lands created a clash between these subjects and the Crown as well as the Church. King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile thus established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 to weed out any remaining traitor-heretics (mostly focusing on converted Jews). Unlike the historical Inquisition of the Church, this Inquisition was essentially controlled by the secular government (even when staffed by clergy). It thus operated largely outside the control of the Church. In fact, when abuses were reported, Pope Innocent VIII complained to no avail.

Facts and Fictions.

Two major factors make a fair evaluation of the Spanish Inquisition difficult today. The first is that most of what we think we know about it is simply not true.  

The second is that we judge the realities of the Spanish Inquisition according to modern Western sentiments. 

Most of European life in the period covered by the Inquisition would be judged barbaric by this standard, and, ironically, the Inquisition was actually rather progressive compared to the rest of the world at the time. Here are some specific examples:

Fairness in Trials

Although the days of having court-appointed lawyers and access to one’s accusers were a long way off, at one time the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. 

There are records of people committing blasphemy in secular courts so they could have their case would fall under the Inquisition’s jurisdiction. 

Further, the Inquisition was the first to pronounce Europe’s witch hunt a delusion and prohibited anyone from being tried or burnt for witchcraft (the number of witches killed by the inquisition was less than 100 out of over 125,000 trials).

Europe was not a set of Democratic states where the will of the people ruled. Kings and Princes did, along with Queens and Princesses putting their claws in. Trials were usually secret (at high levels) and what we call 'Star Chamber'. No 'defence' lawyers; no 'evidence' and cross examination. No 'seeking the truth'. Torture and execution was the norm. At town and village level the 'law' was what the local big-wig said it was and 'trials' did not even exist as we know them. Punishments were vicious in the extreme.  

When the Inquisition found someone guilty of heresy, most of the sentences were not unfair—many simply required the performance of some penitential good works. Heretics were unrepentant threats to the state—not confused, simple folk (in fact, the Inquisition had little impact on the vast majority of people because it simply did not exist in many rural areas). 

Finally, while verdicts of guilty or not-guilty fell to the inquisitors, the use of violent punishments was up to the secular authorities.

Use of Torture

Most of the torture and executions attributed to the Church during the various inquisitions didn’t occur at all, and historians now concede that Inquisition torture chambers never existed. Torture was indeed used during some Inquisition trials (hardly uncommon for the court system of the time). The Inquisition, though, had strict rules regarding its use that put it far ahead of its time.

Torture was unauthorized until 20 years after the Inquisition began. It was first authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1252—not as a mode of punishment, but as a means of discovering truth. It was not to be used to threaten life or cause loss of limb, was to applied only if the accused was uncertain and seemed already convicted by many weighty proofs, and after all other options had been used. When it was used it was not to be used more than once, and for no more than 15 minutes. 

Unfortunately these rules were sometimes circumvented by creative readings of the rule book. Torture was most cruelly used under the pressure of secular authority (Frederick II, for instance, abused the Inquisition to persecute his personal enemies). So, while torture was used in some cases, the idea of continent-spanning torture and death caused by the Church is simply not the case.

There were no rapes, feet burning, creative torture chambers, iron maidens, etc., and reports show that between 98%-99% of all Inquisition trials did not involve torture at all. 

Compared to secular courts that decreed the death penalty for damaging shrubs in England, or disembowelment for sheep-stealing in France, the Inquisition was actually far more conservative than the secular Europe of the day.

Death Toll

No one knows exactly how many people perished because of the Inquisition, but it is thought to be  between 3,000 and 5,000 people during the 350 years of its existence. 

Some writers quote figures so wildly impossible it is amazing they have any purchase at all (I’ve seen numbers nearing 95 million—more than the entire population of the countries the Inquisition was held in!).

In 1998, Pope John Paul II stated that “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which...Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness...[I]t is necessary to know the facts exactly and to recognize the deficiencies in regard to evangelical exigencies in the cases where it is so.”

Six years later, a symposium commissioned to study the Inquisition released its findings: the total number of accused heretics put to death during the Spanish Inquisition comprised 0.1 percent of the more than 40,000 who were tried. In some cases the Inquisition saved heretics from secular authorities.

Historical vs. Urban Legend Sources

If all this is true, then where did the misunderstandings come from? Political attacks on Spain (which was being equated with the Inquisition) and Protestant propagandists (identifying themselves with the heretical “martyrs” of ages past), resulted in the publication of falsehoods that were distributed via the new printing press throughout Europe. People like William of Orange and Montanus basically set the stage for historical thinking on the Inquisition for centuries to come—the so-called “Black Legend” of Inquisition terror. Further, activists, politicians, and even artists turned the Inquisition into a symbol of religious intolerance during the Enlightenment age which followed the Protestant revolution.

In recent years, however, the Vatican opened up its secret archives for historical investigation.

There was a very thorough BBC programme about this. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhlAqklH0do

Inquisition records that were made by and for the Inquisition were allowed to be researched for the first time in history. Since then, the above facts have been generally discoverable in modern history books (whether Catholic or not). Corrected Inquisition history can be found in sources such as Inquisition by Edward Peters and The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision by Henry Kamen. Comparative secular documentaries include The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition (BBC) and the more sensationalistic The Spanish Inquisition (History Channel).

Conclusion: What Does this Say About the Church?

Even Monty Python turned bigotry into comedy.

When looking at the facts of the Inquisition, and placing those facts in their proper historical context, the picture we discover is far less terrible than is been believed. Even so, there were certainly abuses committed in the name of Christianity during the Inquisition. The question is, did the Church encourage theses abuses? The Church is most aware of her own failings and that she contains all sorts of sinners. She even knows some of them manage to work their way into positions of authority (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

But what matters for the Church, and what it should be judged by, is what it actually teaches. It would be absurd to criticize the Church for something done against what it advocates. Just as we don't judge the efficacy of a medicine by those who refuse to take it, so we should judge the Church only by her actual teachings and official actions.

Today's trial by media, presided over by leftist TV 'current affairs' hosts are a scandal. One could forgive them for being stupid, but what about all their peers and seniors, all supporting a 'Party Line' of Progressivism that denounces the good and excuses the sheer evil?  

Back in those days  they would be put to the sword as a mercy.

Pax.

Big Sister

Once it was the case that if you needed an engineer or a pilot, a chap with a Scottish accent was at the top of the short list. Trustworthy, you see. It is not often that the Scots among us become noticable for their 'issues'. Over the past few years however they have had a few 'issues' that have worried a few of us Anglophiles and we wonder just what is going on up there in the draughty highlands.

When recently they started to make noises about 'Independence' from the United Kingdoms - which the history buffs amongst you may recall was a reverse take-over with the Scottish King coming south to sit on the English throne - one could see some merit in the idea, frankly. The English could look forward to ceasing all the taxpayer subsidies for north of the border, and the Scots could look forward to unshackling themselves from the Muslim invasion down south. After all there would be few middle eastern types likely to move to Mull or Inverness. And Kirkudbright would not be a best named place for a mosque.

But what actually eventuated in the intervening few years is an unexpected rise in Untrustworthiness as the Feminists took-over.

William Wallace would be turning in his grave, had he any arms to turn himself with.  He'd do a scottish reel, he would. But now it is we in the Tavern who are reeling at the news brought by a chap with a genuine Scottish cleft stick.

Tom Peterkin sat himself down in the all-present-and-correct-for-now UK room for a Yard of Ale and told us.... about the 'Named Person' scheme that the feminists who now rule Scotland have introduced. 

This scheme 'allocates' an 'adult, approved by the State' to watch over YOUR children and 'report' upon how they are doing under your care. 

Revealed: what can happen when a Named Person reports on your children

The Named Person scheme is to be rolled out across Scotland in August but one father’s experience of the pilot rings alarm bells for its many opponents

The handwritten note on an official form read: “Mr Smith feels it is impossible to stop his youngest son from sucking his thumb as he needs it for comfort. Did not appear to take advice on board fully.”

The words, written by the two-year-old thumbsucker’s Named Person, sent a shiver down the spine of Andrew Smith [not his real name], a father-of-two young boys and a respected academic at one of Scotland’s leading universities.

 http://www.scotsman.com/news/revealed-what-can-happen-when-a-named-person-reports-on-your-children-1-4089077

Contained within a 60-page document that had been compiled about his family, the note referred to a blister which had appeared on the toddler’s thumb as a result of the childhood habit. It also suggested Smith contact his GP if the blister became “hot to touch or very red”.

Smith, whose name has been withheld to protect the identities of his children, grew more alarmed as he leafed through the document, the vast majority of which had been redacted.

The surviving extracts appeared to indicate that the minutiae of his family life had been recorded in painstaking detail for almost two years, under a Named Person scheme which has been introduced in his part of the country ahead of its final roll-out across all of Scotland in August. A separate note made by the Named Person charged with keeping an eye on the academic’s two little boys was concerned with nappy rash.

“Suggests infrequent changes of soiled nappy though difficult to assess this,” the Named Person – a health visitor – jotted down.

For Smith, the contentious scheme was redolent of a Big Brother-style snoopers’ charter. Also of concern was the tone of the notes.

No. Not Big Brother. Let's get this right.

It is Big Sister. The Scottish Leader is a female. A Feminist. 

“I felt shocked and vulnerable,” he told Scotland on Sunday. “Then I felt angry and powerless when I saw these notes made of very trivial things and constant surveillance of small things that are part of everyday parenting – a total lack of respect and confidence in the parents. You have no control over this. I maintain that the hearsay put in there is false.

“But they won’t let me correct it. I have provided them with independent accounts that show that some of those statements are false, but they refuse to enter them. So the impression is that they are trying to build a case against me.”

Another entry described the effects of a runny nose on his youngest as “crusts on his face from nasal discharge” and reported that someone, whose name had been redacted, was concerned that the child’s face “appeared to have been left for a long time without cleaning”.

Reference was made to the youngest child having a “depressed mood”, which was now “no longer a problem”.

Smith’s shock was compounded by the fact that work on this dossier, known as a Family Record, had started without his knowledge. He had only discovered its existence by accident long after the details of his home life had begun to be recorded. Furthermore, it was only after an eight-month battle with his local health board that he managed to obtain a redacted version of the document, which began to be compiled after an acrimonious break-up with his wife which led to a protracted legal row over access to their two children.

Eventually their dispute was settled out of court and his two sons stay with him most of the time while his estranged wife has access on certain days of the week. To his relief the Family Record has finally been closed.

Nevertheless, there was a bitter aftertaste as he talked about his Named Person experience at the end of a week that saw the hugely controversial scheme become one of the hot issues on the Scottish election campaign trail.

It would appear that voters are waking up to the fact that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 comes into force in four months time. 

From 1 August all children in Scotland will be allocated a Named Person to look out for their welfare. 

All 'In the Best Interests of the Children' of course. 

Now where have we heard that before. Ahh yes, that well known child specialist Mr Hitler. It has been updated and re-packaged by another Nazi, the feminazi, Nicola Sturgeon.

The Named Person will act as a single point of contact with the ability to share information with social and other services if there is cause for concern about the way a child is behaving or being brought up.

In preparation for the law’s introduction, many parts of the country, including Smith’s area, have already established a Named Person scheme under the Scottish Government’s Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) guidelines. 

Under GIRFEC, a Named Person is told to think about a child’s needs using a “well-being wheel” comprising seven “well-being” indicators known as SHANARRI, standing for safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected and responsible. Smith’s experience has prompted him to speak against it at meetings organised by those campaigning against the legislation.

“I find it sinister. I find it very creepy. I find it chilling,” he said. 

“They just hoover up all of this hearsay and then collate it into huge documents and on to databases. Under the new legislation all sorts of people have access to these databases. All they need is four or five reasons for intervention and they can hoover up information from any database and there is no control over whether this is true or not.”

The Named Person scheme has been denounced as a State Guardian system by its detractors, who claim those who act as Named Persons, including health visitors and headteachers, undermine the role of parents.

But many support it. The question is whether it is, as Smith contends, a gross intrusion into family life or a necessary and welcome initiative that will do what it was designed to do – protect children from harm.

Is having a Named Person making notes about thumb-sucking, nappy rash and emotional wellbeing a sensible precaution when families face difficult circumstances – or is it an insidious invasion of privacy?

Tragic cases like that of 11-week-old Caleb Ness, the Edinburgh baby killed by his father despite the involvement of social work and health staff, have convinced the Scottish Government that action has to be taken. Indeed, the Named Person approach has the support of many organisations within civic Scotland, including children’s charities and teaching unions, who believe it will help struggling families and prevent tragedies.

Opponents claim it is impractical. In general, health visitors will act as Named Persons for pre-school children, with head teachers taking up the mantle as they get older. But how, for example, is a head supposed to keep an eye on hundreds of pupils? And how will blame be apportioned when things go wrong?

There is also a legal challenge being taken by the NO2NP – Say No to the Named Person Scheme – campaign in the Supreme Court. The campaigners – made up of three individuals and the Christian Institute, Family Education Trust, The Young ME Sufferers (“Tymes”) Trust and Care (Christian Action Research & Education) – claim it breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

Last week, Nicola Sturgeon’s political opponents used their platform on the campaign trail to speak out against the Scottish Government’s proposals. Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson urged ministers to rethink the scheme when she met parents campaigning against it.

It has not stopped the scheme, I understand.

Whooda Thunk that old, cold and hairy Scotland would be the place to fall to feminism? 

News is coming in that the Government Act mentions 'Mother' just once and 'Father' not at all.

Just think of all those 'Jobs for the Girls', for there is little doubt that women will be most of the 'named persons' doing the secret snooping and reporting. How many children are there in Scotland?

Hmmm. Well over a million by now.

I can see it - Catholic women will be reporting on Presbyterians; Atheists on Catholics, and Presbyterians on Atheist parents. And should any asylum seeking refugee Muslims from Turkey and all points south of Kurdish lands manage to make their way to Edinbro' or Glasgow, Mrs Shakira el Mahdi will be passing the blue pencil to her husband, the local ISIS liaison Mullah's best mate, to do the dirty.

It should make for some very dark headlines.

And the taxes. All those ladies to be employed. The pages at 4 Scottish Groats a pop. If a 2 year old can have 60 pages in the 'trial' period, just wait until the scheme really gets going and careers have to be made !

Some unkind folk say that the Scots are revolting (I am part Scot, m'self) and perhaps it is time they showed us all just how revolting they can be.

I shall pour a wee dram all 'round.

Pax.

Stealing Culture

I await the day when some feminist, black Zozchial Juztitz Warrior  (SJW)  wanders into the bar and sits there frowning at their iPhone and any white barman who asks, 'What'll you have, m'dear".  It takes but a moment before the denunciations start. OK, it has happened as it happens but I still await the next time becuase I can now refer them to Bill.

Bill was in the US Room getting quite hot under the collar at the sheer gall of those usually immature demanders and blamers, shamers and bullies who try so hard and so often to decry the 'White Male'.

I happen to be a white male. And so is Bill. He wants to fight back.

I am happy to help.

It is happening in Oz as it has and is happening in the USA and the UK, in fact almost anywhere one finds English-speaking white chaps who have gone out of their way to be generous to non-white folk and chapesses. 

There is no such thing as 'thanks' in the SJW lexicon.

It is a busy evening and I have pints to pull, so I shall let Bill take the floor.

Now, I do not want to give the appearance of what Bill calls 'an insecure fascist' but I do have to point out that Rat...er....Rastafarian hair is not part of that black girl's 'culture'.  It was a 'made-up' 'religion' affected by some ne'er do well Jamaican chaps a while back in the 1930s. It is originally a Jamaican religious cult that regards Ras Tafari (the former emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie) as God.

Those (very few) Jamaican chaps considered washing their hair to be profane so they wove horsehair and straw into it. Don't ask why !

Just what the white boy thought he was doing affecting that quite ridiculous 'hairstyle' that mearly makes him look stupid and unwashed, I do not know. But heck, he is an immature lad. And he is free to look stupid.

She, the girl, has no business at all claiming the hairstyle is from her culture.

Both of them do, however, give the exceptions to the rule that 'You can't make this stuff up'.

In fine pantomime manner, altogether now.... "Oh yes you can"

Give'm hell, Bill. I'll serve the pints.

Pax.