|
Hello John.
I am interested by some of your comments - and as you seem to purport to dealing in facts and proof, I'm firstly curious about a couple of facts....
How many genuine signatures were there on your petition, when it was submitted?
You state that the '...act was repealed in part due to our petition.' Where is your proof that that is the case? I am referring to something from the Government Department that dealt with the matter - obviously it would need to state categorically that your petition was in part instrumental in the changes that were made, to qualify as unmitigated proof. I'd be interested to see this - particularly when combined with the information about the number of valid signatures you had on the petition. It would be interesting to see how many signatures you need on a petition to have an effect on Government legislation. I have read the piece on your site where you state that the 'Government have replied to your petition...' However in reading said 'reply' it does not state anywhere within its contents that the Government action was specifically in response to your petition. It looks like a standard response to me. Perhaps you have some other proof it was your petition that had a direct effect?
This next query is not so much about a fact - more about your opinion. I have had a look at your site (a quick look I will admit) - at a thread about your petition. I note that one poster on that thread (anonymous naturally) stated that they think 'anyone who is rational would have no problem with outlawing ministers who talk to god as this is clearly a sign of a delusional mind.' Whilst I appreciate that you are not responsible for the views of those who post on your forums, I would be interested in your views on this, as presumably this is someone who signed, or at the very least agreed with your petition. We have clear laws in this country again discrimination on grounds of Religion and Belief - I would have thought suggesting 'outlawing a minister who talks to god' would breach those laws.
And whilst on the subject of Law and 'rules' - your comment about the SNU 'never exposing the frauds as they are run by such people' is also rather inflammatory. I do not know to which people particularly you are referrring - you may well be right in your view in some instances, however you are commenting on a body which is part of a recognised religion in this country. We live in a multi-cultural and multi faith/belief country - which not only includes Spiritualism, but many others usch as: Sikhism, Christianity, Rastafarianism, Catholiscism, Islam, Hinduism, the Baha’i faith, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Greek Orthodox, Wicca, Paganism, or Zoroastrianism. I wonder whether, bearing in mind the Terms and Conditions of posting on this EDP site, that such views would have been accepted and allowed by the Moderators if they had been expressed about members of a Governing or organising body associated with one of those other religions.
Finally in response to your comment about Paul's remark about 'tars and brushes' - that if he is a real Medium then he should have nothing to fear from you. I have read the post, and I cannot see any indication that he feels he has anything to fear from you - perhaps you over-estimate yourself? I believe his comment (and he is not here at the moment, so I cannot ask him yet, but I will) was making the point - to use my own analogy here - that if you give a bigot a broom, they will quite likely sweep away anything of value, along with the dross.
Regards,
Pat
Paul & Pat
Please feel free to email us
& visit our web site below
|