The BBC continues to conspire to corrupt the morals of the public at https://t.co/R9q32UTHOH How can such an action be prosecuted, @JonHolb?— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019
The offence of conspiring to corrupt the morals of the public is prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. https://t.co/h4XV7pNnkB But what happens when those conspiring to corrupt the morals of the public is the state itself? @rabbisacks @rabbisacks @JonathanArkush @JonHolb— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019
Are there political philosophers capable of defining the term "morals"? I would say they come from religion and the Bible. When did Britain turn its back on its Judeo-Christian heritage? I think that would be whenever the last prosecution for this offence took place.— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019
When did Britain finally become a matriarchy? I would say when Keith Joseph was forced into apologising for criticising the morals of unmarried mothers whom he said were a threat to the human stock of Britain. https://t.co/cqeGtzr8md— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019
When did the state itself begin conspire to corrupt the morals of the public? I would say when the liberal judiciary cooked up the concept of Gillick Competence to mock and humiliate Victoria Gillick in 1985. https://t.co/gg13rmpWNm— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019
Is there any public philosopher or lawyer prepared to discuss this with me at all? @alaindebotton @microphilosophy @MelanieLatest @Scruton_Quotes @Contentions @Trad_Muslim @AlanDersh @BBKPhilosophy @PhilosophyNow @CambUP_PHILNYUK @philtalkradio @PhilosophersEye @PhilFacOx— Claire Khaw (@Theocracy4all) January 17, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment