Tuesday, 29 January 2013


Upon the Ruin and Conquest of Britain

Gay Marriage and Britain’s loss of Grace
I always find it very moving to read the words of St Gildas from his work De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae – On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain:

“WHATEVER in this my epistle I may write in my humble but well-meaning manner, rather by way of lamentation than for display, let no one suppose that it springs from contempt of others, or that I foolishly esteem myself as better than they; for, alas! the subject of my complaint is the general destruction of every thing that is good, and the general growth of evil throughout the land;- but that I would condole with my country in her distress and rejoice to see her revive therefrom.”

St Gildas wrote these words in AD 540 as the pagan barbarians pressed ever further into Britain. Using the imagery from the prophets of the Old Testament he saw the trials and tribulations of the Roman-British Catholics after the withdrawal of the Roman legions as God sending plagues and heathen invaders to punish His people for not obeying His laws. Perhaps then it is not surprising that, on the day a ‘Conservative’ Prime Minister announced a bill to legalise so called same-sex marriage, Britain entered into a triple dip recession.

21st Century Sodom and Gomorrah
David Cameron, like Barak Obama, says he is a Christian and has a Bible; but do they ever open their Bibles? Neither are Catholics of course but surely they know the teachings of Christianity and Sacred Scripture on homosexuality, it is quite explicit. As Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, so we call Cameron and Obama. How dare they clam to be Christian and ignore Christian values; how dare Cameron use weasel words like he ‘passionately believes in marriage’ only to propose a perversion of marriage. The letter his office is sending in response to pleas to stop this grotesque development says that enabling same-sex couples to get married will strengthen – not weaken – family ties: what utter hypocritical nonsense. However, he had better beware for God will not be mocked.  The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah in the 21st Century is amplified throughout the world by the broadcasters - and their sin is mortal.

It’s not only Britain that’s in trouble but the whole of Europe is in desperate straits, led by those who have sought to impose strident secular beliefs and materialism at the expense of their mortal souls. There is more to existence than shallow secularism; there is a deeper reality but it is being ignored. Instead the governments of the West are brainwashed by those in the media with vested interests who are pushing its peoples into ever more liberal and secular laws that are contrary to Natural Law. Why is it that suddenly all over Europe and America we have this push for so-called ‘Gay’ marriage? What is going on, are there forces behind the scenes? The alternative media will say it’s ‘Common Purpose’ or some other perverted cult, or even lizards in human form, or the Masons.  However the alternative media are not really interested in whether Gay marriage comes about or not. But perhaps there is a kernel of truth in this (apart from the lizards, at least literally).  I believe there is something behind all these hideous developments - and it is Satan.

The Barbarians at the Gates
Have no mistake: Satan wants the family, he knows that marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and he wants it undermined. The Family has been the very basis of a successful and stable society, a safe place to bring up children. A Gay marriage (like civil partnerships before it) will deprive children of either a mother or a father. Lucifer’s pulpit has been in the front room for decades now, and also in children’s bedrooms for many years and what have we got? A dysfunctional society that doesn’t know right from wrong.

The TV and the Great Deceiver
For almost ten years now, CUT has tried to point out the relationship between the TV (particularly as provided by the BBC and RTI) and the destruction of moral values. We have argued that there is a clear relationship between the TV and abortion, the TV and strident homosexual progress, the TV and the sexualisation of society and children, the TV and violence, bad manners and a general disrespect of others, the TV and anti-Catholic rhetoric. But perhaps the most important point is this: if you watch the TV and more importantly pay the licence fee you are part of the problem. Would you make donations to Stonewall or the IPPF’s advertising fund? No? Well, if you fund the BBC it is as good as doing just this. The BBC are extremely good at brainwashing people into accepting the aforesaid perversions whilst saying they are merely debating social issues, when in fact they are intervening and leading the processes of moral decay.

Archbishop of Southwark the Most Rev Peter Smith has asked Catholics to ‘mobilise’ in opposition to same-sex marriage so we will do our bit; write again to your MP or send the ‘Speak Out for Marriage’ cards to him or her. Send a note of support to Archbishop Smith. There will be many dissidents who will be sending him contrary advice.

We ask all Prayer Crusaders to pray every day the Crusader Prayer, for marriage and that the same-sex marriage proposal will be defeated, from now until the debate and vote in Parliament on February 5.

O glorious St...(your intercessor saint)... pray for us
And for those in the public sphere
Especially those influenced by Satan’s lies
May the Lord touch their hearts bring them to repent
And  walk upon the path of truth and temperance
O Subject of the heavenly realm pray also for all led astray
Pray especially for marriage and that the same-sex marriage proposal will be defeated
And pray for me, a sinner.

Our Father

Hail Mary

Glory Be

Prayer to St Michael the Archangel

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

The Media’s preaching of hedonism has led to the
de-Christianisation of Britain

·         We are in part to blame for not challenging the hedonists

·         Are most people brain washed by the media particularly by the television?

·         It’s time  to stand up to the jeers when we talk about Christian beliefs

·         A call to fight for Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church

When one looks at the de-Christianisation of Britain the affects have been devastating in financial terms, mental health issues, emotional problems and the destruction of major parts of our society.

Children being brainwashed by the secularists

In two generations we have seen a totally changed society where very few people have a proper concept of personal morality, where valued institutions have fallen to corruption and decline and last but not least the whole media has been a chorus preaching hedonism to all it’s audience.

We now have record numbers of broken families, abandoned children and an army of dysfunctional people. Every form of sexual perversion is promoted and there is a vast billion pound industry producing pornography. Drug and alcohol abuse have reached epidemic levels. One could go on ad infenetum .

Part of the cause for this is you and I including many of the readers of this blog.

How much have we actually done to promote Christianity, in all honesty most of us will admit very little?

How many of us at our work place or during our leisure announce we are Christians and Roman Catholics?

How many of us tell people what a wonderful treasure our faith is and how it can transform people’s lives?

How many people stand up to the jeers when we talk about Christian belief to others?

We all better start doing something. It is all very well attending Mass every Sunday and days of Obligation with the occasional confession. Then we slink off into anonymity, keeping quiet about our religion to other people who don’t belong to our parish.

It is time to have courage and announce to the world what we believe, with the intention of getting recruits to the Faith. It is time to show people how happy our Faith makes us and how their lives would be enhanced if they joined us.

It is time to tell people how Christianity can heal broken lives.

It is time to challenge those who attack Christian values and show them up for the destructiveness of their evil views.

If we do nothing we are letting everyone down including our nation, but what is worse at the end of the day we are letting Jesus down.

Of course it is tough standing up for your faith, but being a Christian a proper Christian has never been an easy ride.


Thursday, 17 January 2013

The right to marry – anything and everything

The right to marry – anything and everything

In his post of 8 January Rigby asked “When and where will the sexual revolution end?” and gave some graphic illustrations. I would like to reflect on a number of the issues he raises.

But first I would like to point out that the number of people with a genuine interest in homosexual ‘marriage’ (or as I see David Cameron now calls it “equal marriage”) is astonishingly small. This point was made by Graeme Archer in a Telegraph blog. Archer is an apologist for homosexual ‘marriage’ but was happy to state that only a small percentage of homosexuals campaigning for homosexual ‘marriage’ would wish to take advantage of it: many were satisfied with ‘civil unions’, many had no interest in any sort of formal union. His point was that since the numbers were so small there was no harm in a small tweak to the law to accommodate their wishes. The true response, of course, should be to say that the “small tweak” would in practice be a legal and moral revolution which should not be undertaken precisely because the numbers “benefiting” are so tiny. Homosexuals only make up 2-3% of the population; those wishing to take advantage of homosexual ‘marriage’ are a small percentage of that – rather than being accommodated they should be told firmly to, how shall I put this politely, find another interest...

And so to the nub of the issue – the definition of marriage. In so far as those promoting the urgent necessity for homosexual ‘marriage’ have been able to present a unified view, their understanding appears to be that marriage is the union of two people “in love”. The consequences of the 1960s anthropological revolution with its insistence that “all you need is love” are all too clearly seen. Of course, the previously accepted definition of marriage in fact had little to do with love. Marriage was/is a public contract freely entered into between a man and a woman, consummated by an act of vaginal intercourse and open to the procreation of children. The key point was the free contract between a man and a woman. But for the homosexualists there are two key points – there should be two people (sex immaterial) “in love”. But this is an unstable definition: are those two points really of equal weight? In fact, when pushed most supporters of this revolutionary change end up saying that the key defining point of marriage is “love”. And this is where they also start to get very shirty, if not downright shifty. For if the key defining feature is “love” they have no logical grounds for restricting marriage to a union of two people (of whatever sex).

Now, it is very evident that some of the propagandists for homosexual ‘marriage’ have an agenda which goes far beyond a definition of marriage as love between two people but they certainly do not want the British public to know this until homosexual ‘marriage’ is firmly embedded in law, precisely because we get into some very murky and perverted waters indeed. Instead, the homosexualists wish to dangle before the British public a “heart-warming” vision of same-sex conjugal bliss no different from the saccharine version of heterosexual married joy so often purveyed by our shallow vehicles of popular culture.

So what are some of the consequences of a definition of marriage whose key concept is “love”?

Firstly, there is no reason – other than “prejudice”! – to restrict marriage to two people who love each other. If three, four or more people (of the same sex or whatever mixture they wish) love each other, and are freely prepared to make a public profession without coercion of their love, why should they not marry? In fact, although the contracting of a polygamous marriage in the UK is currently unlawful, being in a polygamous marriage is not – if it was contracted outside the UK. That is why even now, a surprising number of Muslim polygamous “families” who have moved to the UK are in receipt of multiple state benefits paid for each party to the ‘marriage’. The fact that any new definition of marriage is likely to be challengeable in law when it comes to the question of “numbers” has already been spotted by proponents of polygamy and polyandry: what is the betting that when the legal challenges start to be made most of them will be paid for by the long-suffering British taxpayer through legal aid?

Secondly, there has already been an insidious and wicked campaign waged by some homosexualists to lower the age of consent for sexual activity to whatever they feel they can get away with – and remember that the purpose of lowering the age of consent for some of these campaigners is so that they can pursue sex with children who are under the new age on the basis that “I had no idea he/she was so young; he said he was older and certainly looked it”. This will be linked to a new campaign to lower the age at which marriage can be lawfully contracted; yes, the parties will have to give their consent but those thrilled at the idea of marrying and therefore having lawful sexual relations with very young people will always be able to find at least some youngsters able to fool themselves that they are “in love” and are “ready” for a long-term “relationship” etc, etc.

And so we move to the joyful subject of bestiality! Homosexualists have been frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that their new definition of marriage will licence man/animal relations. But if the new key term in the marriage contract is “love”, why not?

Consider: a man wishes to marry his dog – and let us be truthful, this need not necessarily involve sexual activity, he, or indeed she, might just feel very sentimental about the dog. And it seems increasingly likely that David Cameron’s marriage legislation will drop any requirement for consummation – the subject being too difficult and too distasteful to define. But nevertheless marriage in the UK requires consent. How can an animal give consent? The answer of course is negatively. By which I mean, that over the years those interested in man/animal “love” will promote a definition of marriage which drops the concept of equal consent. The man (and as I have already noted it could be a woman) obviously has intellectual faculties well in advance of those of an animal and therefore a test of consent normally applicable to a man cannot be expected to be relevant to an animal; further, the man (it will be claimed) has emotional/sexual needs and a “right” to their fulfilment well in excess of those of an animal. These arguments will be used to develop an argument of “presumed consent” on the part of animals. If the man’s emotional or sexual attentions do not appear to distress the animal it will be presumed that the animal has given its consent to “marriage”. And if the animal benefits from this arrangement by way of being well cared for, well fed, looked after in sickness or old age and having an estate settled on it should the man die first, why should it be presumed that it has any objection to ‘marriage’? Of course, things get a little messier should the man wish to divorce the animal...

One could go further, particularly in the case of men/women who wish to have sexual relations with their animal “spouses”. Brain science is a wonderful thing. A brain scan could be made of an animal whilst it is receiving the non-sexual attentions of a proposed “spouse”. If the scan records no response or a positive response it might be assumed that the animal has given “consent” to marriage. The same principle applies to sexual activity. If a brain scan shows no response, i.e. distress, or even a pleasurable response during sexual activity then it might be presumed that the animal has given consent. Of course, if one insists on no sex before marriage things will be a little trickier!

But I trust you see my argument. A lower level of “consent” will be required of animals – if they do not show positive distress their consent will be assumed.

And by the way, Rigby in his post which prompted these reflections suggests that animal charities will jump to the defence of animals subject to the attention of “animal lovers”. I am not so sure. It is becoming ever clearer that social and political activists have seized control of many of our large and previously impeccable charities – the RSPCA springs to mind. These charities with their large incomes and extremely attractive salaries and pensions at least for their upper echelons are providing both a springboard and cover for those who previously might have pursued an activist career in one of the more overtly political organisations supported and funded by the post-1960s social order prior to the collapse of Communism in the 1990s and more generally socialism in the 2000s. (Think what has happened with the some leading children’s charities which in effect promote sodomy with adolescents via their campaigns to equalise the age of consent and to enshrine the child’s “right” to make “informed” sexual decisions.) I suspect that some animal charities will develop “animal rights” agendas in the next few years which will make the eyes of the old breed of animal liberationists water at their radicalism. Bestiality? No problem, although, strangely, the mass slaughter of animals for halal food will be swept under the carpet.

Life will be even easier for those who wish to argue their right to ‘marry’ non-animate objects. If no harm can be seen to be done to the object and if the man/woman is prepared to state publicly that he “loves” the object and his well-being will be harmed if his “right” to marry it is denied, then on what logical basis will David Cameron’s new, improved ‘marriage’ law refuse wedded bliss?

This brings me to my paradoxical final point. David Cameron may think he is tidying up an anomaly in the marriage law but in fact because of the likely vacuity of the new definition he will create a minefield of new anomalies. Will the things I have mentioned above come to pass quickly? Perhaps not but those with such proclivities will be very persistent – think of the proponents of abortion and euthanasia  – and the propensity of human rights legislation to produce perverse outcomes is all too evident. I suspect that rather than putting this issue to bed (appropriate term) and so proving his modernizing credentials, David Cameron will open a sore which will run for years.

By a Prayer Crusader

Sunday, 13 January 2013

Are Children safe at BBC or even watching the BBC?

·         The BBC’s support of the Cult of Celebrity has led to child abuse

·         Is the BBC getting away with it, regarding Jimmy Savile (and others)?

·         The BBC has destroyed childhood innocence with its portrayal of sexual themes

·         Is the BBC safe for young people and teenagers regarding the new suicide comedy?

·         We say protect your family from the BBC

Is it safe for children to visit BBC premises?
Regarding all the revelations of child sex abuse by celebrities and presenters at the BBC: should we not be asking whether children are safe to visit BBC studios and premises?  The scandals at the Corporation regarding Jimmy Savile and pop stars etc etc are very worrying. The ITV documentary has brought to light the fact that many BBC managers and producers knew what was going on but turned a blind eye, or in the words of Esther Rantzen, blocked their ears.
                It is clear that many starry-eyed children are influenced by celebrities and would love the opportunity to meet their favourite pop star or presenter etc. It was obvious from the ITV documentary that Jimmy Savile knew how powerful the cult of celebrity is and used his position to abuse as many young girls (and boys) as he could.  However, it is not just Savile; other celebrities, such as Jonathan King (in his case only boys), used their celebrity status to abuse children.
                The Pop and TV world is particularly replete with child abusers. On one hand they sexualise children by sexuality explicitly programmes and songs with raunchy Pop videos; on the other many actually abuse these sexualised, corrupted, brainwashed children. The secular  TV world is a win win platform for perverts.

A tsunami of filth at the BBC
It was not CUT or Mary Whitehouse that has said this about the BBC but the Chairman of the BBC Trust - Lord Patton! For once we agree with Lord Patton, but this tsunami of filth does not stop with the behind-the-screens sexual gymnastics of BBC employees not only with each other but with children as well, and it continues to spill out into people’s living rooms with sometimes neo-porn content in programmes let alone the verbal content.

Are BBC presenters too powerful and BBC leadership too weak?
The Humphreys - Entwistle interview that finally brought down the BBC director general George Entwistle is symptomatic of the BBC’s degeneration, for it shows us that BBC presenters are too powerful and its leadership is too weak. No one should speak to their boss in such an insubordinate way. The BBC of course claims this is a virtue of the corporation but it is really symptomatic of poor leadership coupled with the power of celebrity presenters, editors and producers who have carved out their own ‘little’ empires. There they are able to inflict a sort of interrogation on anyone who goes on air. Does the type of selective aggression by the media lead to a society that is rude and angry?

Leveson enquiry and Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off
Several organisations are trying to improve the media standards and how they operate, organisations like the Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off. But before you start to cheer: are these organisations really trying to protect celebrities who may have indulged in decadent behaviours? And will they spare us from scandalous and sordid details?

David Cameron ‘this should not be a witch hunt against Gays’
Why did the PM say this when ‘Gays’ were not being mentioned? Does he know something we do not or is he just trying to protect his aim to push through same sex marriage legislation? It is interesting to note that there have been large demonstrations against ‘Gay’ marriage on the continent but this has been largely ignored by the media.
Support for BBC abuse victims (but is the BBC getting away with it?)
How quickly the BBC settled out of court with the wrongly accused Lord McAlpine! Let us hope they will be equally supportive of the many victims of child abuse by BBC employees. Therefore we say all victims of child abuse by BBC employees should be given the same amount of compensation as Lord McAlpine - £180,000 each at least. However, from the latest inquires it looks like the BBC is going to be let off scot free. Is this an example of the power of the BBC to protect itself?

Sick Suicide Comedy on BBC3
With the high levels of suicide among Britain’s young people and teenagers, the BBC’s new “Way to Go” comedy is at the very least irresponsible. There are many teenage and young people suicide hot spots throughout Britain, with Bridgend in South Wales being particularly affected. There appear to be websites that encourage youngsters to take their lives and it often done in a jokey way. It appears that the BBC have now joined in this cult with a sitcom that depicts three young men who build a machine that can kill people and offer its services for money.  The MP Mark Pritchard said in the Sunday Express “It is a sad fact that assisted dying is now regarded a ‘revenue stream’ to some foreign clinics and clearly as a matter of fun by some parts of the BBC.” This is yet another example of the unabashed depravity being paid for by the licence fee and yet another assault on the young people of Britain.

Protect your children from the BBC
Most Catholic parents believe that they are bringing up their children but that might not always be true. For if you have a TV you are allowing all manner of people access to your children. We ask parents should they protect their children from the BBC?

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

When and where will the sexual revolution end?

When and where will the sexual revolution end?

Where will the 1960s sexual revolution end? -  That is an interesting question.

Let’s imagine we have created a time machine and we can travel forward 15 years in the UK. By then paedophilia will have been made acceptable and there will be special government allowances for same sex marriages. Of course the Prime Minister will be homosexual and in a same sex marriage, and there will be strong pressure to have same sex marriage for a future Archbishop of Canterbury.

The next great step forward will be in legalizing unions between people and animals. Although bestiality would have been legalised five years previously, many want to regularize their relationship with their animal partner with marriage, preferably in a church.  Here there will be powerful voices from the human rights lobby, the homosexual lobby and the women’s movements.
The BBC will, of course, be fiercely campaigning on this issue with nightly programmes demanding justice for those having sexual relations with animals.

You can also rest assured that papers such as the Guardian would host vast numbers of letters supporting this cause.
However there suddenly occurs a serious problem. It is the animal charities; they have been strongly opposed to it. They are all debating whether the animals can give proper consent to these marriages.

Of course to the rescue comes the BBC who wheel in a large number of animal psychiatrists, psychotherapists and psychologists. They all agree that of course the animals can give consent; furthermore, the animals also want to regularize their relationships with marriage.

 Eventually the animal charities will be forced to give in and agree to the legislation. Soon after that, the government pledges legislation for a human and animal marriage Act.

This will be greeted by a standing ovation in the House of Commons.

 All a bit far-fetched, my future speculation? I don’t think so.

If we take our time machine back to, say, 1960, and showed our 1960 audience what is happening now, they would find it difficult to believe.

They would see that we have wall-to-wall pornography that children watch regularly via their computers. Homosexuality and all kinds of perversions are promoted daily on the media.

Normal married life is rapidly disappearing and people feel entitled to multiple sexual partners (often of both sexes), a lifestyle that is illustrated and promoted on every TV soap. Children as young as 4 are being sexualised by commercial interests. One can go on ad infinitum but it is all too depressing. At the end of the day the 1960 audience would be aghast and leave the time machine in horror.

But unless one does something about it the future is bleak for Western man.


Pope Benedict XVI says the Church must stand firm against 'intolerant agnosticism'


Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholic leaders on Sunday to stand up to attacks by "intolerant agnosticism" prevalent in many countries.

The message during the Pope's celebration of Epiphany is the latest in a series of remarks largely seen to be rebukes to David Cameron and other world leaders attempting to introduce same-sex marriage. He say’s "Today's regnant agnosticism has its own dogmas and is extremely intolerant regarding anything that would question it and the criteria it employs," We support the Pope fully and pray for his intentions. However, lead by an intolerant and fanatical secular media that would make any of the 1930s totalitarian propagandist proud, most of the peoples of Europe have had their wits dulled and their common sense nullified in that they support this hideous development. As RIGBY asks where will it all end?

Once again we ask everyone to write to their MPs.

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Is Paying the TV licence fee a Sin?

Is Paying the TV licence fee a Sin?

Of course the title of this blog post is a little tongue in cheek; after all, why shouldn’t a good Catholic - after a hard day’s work - sit in front of the telly?  However, it is also meant to make us think a little about the power of the television and how it’s sometimes used to undermine Christian ethics. For when you consider some of the programmes your licence fee is utilized to make, it does make you wonder. Programmes biased towards abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts, contraception, etc. The genres used to engage with these social issues in an interventionist way, can be anything from soap operas and other dramas to current affairs programmes. Some media analysts question whether this is designed to circumvent the impartiality clause in the BBC’s Royal Charter, thereby changing people’s views and ultimately changing legislation by engaging them emotionally through entertainment, then following them up with current affairs programmes. By this means the BBC can construct and guide the general flow of public opinion and debate through multi-level programming.
                When TV licence fee paying time comes around, do Catholics ever wonder what exactly they are funding? Some will say ‘Oh I only watch the news, or sport’ with sport often being cited as un-missable. And ‘I do love a good drama like the classic serial’ or ‘I like to watch documentaries’, and ‘I only watch selected good programmes, like EWTN’. However, in Britain, as in many countries where a licence fee exists, the fee also funds pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, ‘politically correct’ and often anti-Catholic propaganda. Perhaps saying ‘I do not watch bad TV’ whilst funding it is not really a good excuse.  Would you buy poison for other people even though you would never take it yourself? The licence fee also helps TV advert revenue go further, to help C4’s make series like Skins. You can of course legally watch EWTN without paying the BBC by watching ‘on demand’ or catch up as long as you are not watching as it is being broadcast live.

The TV licence fee - funding Culture of Death propaganda
If you just watch the News or documentaries, can you trust the licence fee funded BBC news to give the truth, the whole truth, and to be fair and impartial? We believe not. For example, will it give you the number of abortions that day? Even independent advert funded TV has ads for abortion companies these days. In 2011 the BBC appeared to be trying to change the law on euthanasia and assisted dying, with Sir Terry Pratchett’s documentary showing the death in a Swiss clinic of a sick man through assisted suicide.
               The BBC did report on World Youth Day in Madrid, - but only to concentrate on a mere six thousand demonstrators while the huge crowd of one and a half million youngsters who attended Mass with the Pope was ignored.
                There can be no doubt that the influence of TV, funded by viewers paying the licence fee, has radically changed society and its laws. A compulsory licence fee gives the BBC the freedom to indulge itself. Licence fee funded drama has been used to promote the legalisation, acceptance and normalisation of abortion through emotive plays and soap opera story lines. The BBC is adept at twisting any argument using various TV and radio genres to create a discussion format ‘with an unmistakeable flow of meaning.’1

The BBC Partnership with the IPPF
It may surprise some Catholics that the BBC are actually in partnership with the IPPF, left is a screen shot from the BBC Sexwise website but don’t just take our word for it see the BBC Sexwise Website. The IPPF is one of the world largest abortion providers. Therefore, paying the TV licence fee is actually helping to fund the promotion of abortion to the world. The BBC World Service Sexwise programme was set up to promote what they euphemistically call Reproduce Rights especially to third world countries.

The TV licence fee - funding the destruction of childhood innocence
            Some paediatricians are worried that the television corrupts the minds of children and causes bad behaviour. What else can the TV do but destroy childhood innocence with programmes that contain pornography, violence and story lines that promote life-styles that are incompatible with Christianity. Teachers in a Lancashire school even came out on strike because their pupils were out of control, - pushing them, challenging them to fights, and threatening to film their lessons and post the film online. Advert funded TV is just as bad.           
Sport on the telly is just another distraction, funding immensely rich sportsmen who sometimes give scandalous examples to the young.  Footballers appear to spend as much time cheating (on and off the field) and taking out gagging orders as playing football.
                Every year since the TV became the dominant media force church attendance has dropped. People have ‘better’ things to do than say their prayers and go to church. One should also ask, is the TV of any use for our pilgrimage through life and into eternity, or is it a hindrance?        
          Could it be argued that by watching TV you are making an offering - the licence fee - on the altar of the antichrist? Therefore, go that extra mile for Christ, throw out the TV. Don’t fund the promotion of abortion and all kinds of sexual deviancy which leads to the destruction of childhood innocence.

BBC personnel have been given up to £90,000 relocation package to move to Salford
When the Jimmy Savile scandal erupted many people said “I expect it’s the poor licence fee payer who will have to pick up the compensation bill to the many victims of child abuse at the BBC”. However, the BBC appears to be getting away with it, so no worries there. The poor licence payer is having to pay up to £90,000 relocation packages for BBC staff moving to the new Media City in Salford from London. So far the BBC has spent £740,846 on estate agents’ fees; £497,617 on removals; £350,000 on legal fees; £305,962 on furnishings and £1.2million on stamp duty. Staff who do not want to move from London are being given extra allowances to fund staying away during the week and coming home weekends; this is called the remote location allowance. Staff who have take this option get £3,390 a month before tax, equivalent to £40,680 a year. To date, this has cost the corporation £3.3 million. These figures are going to rise over the next decade with more departments and progammes moving to Media City. Who was it who said that crime doesn’t pay? - Merely asking the question you know. : - )
Reference: 1 MacMurraugh-Kavangh M K, Drama into News: Strategies of intervention, Screen 1997, London.