Think of the kiddies

How about this for logic. Christians can’t give help to the poor little children because they are too busy fighting gay marriage!

Honestly, can he get any lower?

A tweet from last night. This needs no further comment other than it is very sad, attention seeking behaviour.

Yes he can!

Fur Q

 

 

The tweet below is now deleted (of course) but good old Richard Carvath likes to go against popular opinion. Just remember that a whole class of school children have just been murdered in the USA.

Richard Carvath always reminds me of this:

the only difference is that Chris Morris is hugely talented and Richard Carvath isn’t.

 

More of the same old shit

I really don’t know why I keep an eye on Richard Carvath. It’s not like I expect him to produce anything sensible or constructive. Anyway, here’s another set of homophobic tweets that I’m sure will soon be deleted (so we better keep a copy here.)

I see dead people

Another shit storm

I told you he wouldn’t learn. Straight out of the 1950’s, Richard tells us how it should be. Shame I didn’t get a copy of his tweets for ths one.

Taken from http://carvath.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/in-a-civilised-society-pc-fiona-bone-and-pc-nicola-hughes-would-still-be-alive/

In a civilised society PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes would still be alive
Posted on September 18, 2012

My condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the Greater Manchester Police officers Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes (pictured above) murdered earlier today while responding to a routine report of burglary.  If you read the many press reports about this appalling double murder, you will notice that most of the write-ups specifically make mention of the female gender of the murdered officers, despite the fact that simply by stating the names Fiona and Nicola it is obvious that they are female [and not to mention that their gender is also obvious from the photographs published of them].  Why are journalists so keen to state the obvious?  Why has the press emphasised the fact that Fiona and Nicola were female?  The reason is because the press is keen to imply what we all intrinsically know and feel in our hearts – namely that these murders are all the more horrific precisely because the officers were female.  Women are naturally weaker and more vulnerable than men and they ought not to be involved in dangerous frontline policing (or soldiering): it is barbaric.  If we were a civilised society we would not permit or tolerate our women to undertake frontline policing.

It disgusts me that Bone and Hughes were sent out to respond to a burglary.  Look at the photo of Nicola Hughes above; she was a little girl who should never have been a police officer at all.  What kind of a society are we that we send out such young, small women to investigate burglaries, patrol our streets and respond to violent criminals (most of whom are men much stronger and harder than them)?  A sick society is what we are, sending the weak and vulnerable to do men’s work.  Women doing our frontline policing is wrong not only for the sake of the women involved but also for society’s sake, because we are all less safe when we have women rather than men trying to protect us from violent criminals.  The sad truth is that in a civilised society the female Fiona Bone and the female Nicola Hughes would still be with us, because if we were a civilised society we wouldn’t permit our women to engage in frontline policing at all.

All my tweets

Richard regularly deletes all his tweets. He are some a saved for him.

View all your tweets on one page.

richardcarvath

loaded 32 out of 37 tweets

• Anyone for a dance? http://t.co/ac4TcsW3 Humanists are such a miserable bunch. Lighten up guys and live a little. Love 2 u all. Do cheer up. Aug 23, 2012 
• Well, the humanists’ euthanasia idol is dead. It’s no wonder they’re tweeting hysterically. Guess I’ll just get on with my life. Goodnight. Aug 22, 2012 
• @cuntoftheday @TonyNicklinson Hmm… is this a greater honour than Stonewall’s ‘Bigot Of The Year’ Award? Profane insults are pathetic. Aug 22, 2012 
• If @RichardDawkins put as much time and energy into helping others as he does whinging about God he could yet be a useful member of society. Aug 22, 2012 
• Christians change the world 4 the better, but atheism will only ever b a minority pursuit because slagging off other people achieves nothing Aug 22, 2012 
• The hateful and profane abuse recently directed towards me on Twitter (re TN blog) reveals the true nature of atheism/humanism. Aug 22, 2012 
• The Humanists’ TN idol is dead, forcing them to find another. I’m sticking with The Resurrection And The Life – death is no problem for Him. Aug 22, 2012 
• Re this most recent Twitter storm, my abusive detractors should realise that insulting me won’t bring their TN idol back. Aug 22, 2012 
• I may do a FTLOTN #2 blog in reply 2 @RichardDawkins recent attack on me. We’ll have 2 c; my time is precious and RD is rather insignificant Aug 22, 2012 
• @RichardDawkins He isn’t yet cold in the grave and you are already after your next victim. Proof he was a pawn to you and nothing more. Aug 22, 2012 
• @TonyNicklinson My condolences to the Nicklinson family. Aug 22, 2012 
• To @RichardDawkins etc: Love to all my atheist, humanist and evolutionist enemies. Shocked by your attempt to exploit @TonyNicklinson death. Aug 22, 2012 
• RT @CConcern: Tories set to lose support from millions of churchgoers over same-sex marriage plan http://t.co/WotbwD9y Aug 20, 2012 
• @RichardDawkins I say: http://t.co/kpS0PobF For the Love of Tony Nicklinson. Aug 20, 2012 
• RT @wwwAbort67couk: A cot about to be given to a mother who chose life for her baby http://t.co/8Rte2kFm Aug 20, 2012 
• Richard Carvath blog about the @TonyNicklinson Tony Nicklinson Case: http://t.co/kpS0PobF For the Love of Tony Nicklinson. Aug 20, 2012 
• @paulebowen Dear me, Lord Denning! Let’s be clear about what you seek my learned friend: nothing less than to legalize murder. Never! Aug 16, 2012 
• @paulebowen @TonyNicklinson Hard cases make bad law, + u seek 2 fundamentally alter murder law (way beyond DP), which only Parliament could. Aug 16, 2012 
• @paulebowen @TonyNicklinson You won’t get a different result on appeal and you know it. Stop tormenting your client. Aug 16, 2012 
• http://t.co/x9UgKqsl Quick comment on Hague’s 5 million donation to the Syrian rebels. (Mohammed says “Thanks very much infidel William”) Aug 10, 2012 
• http://t.co/dgH6ilzD Contrast DC Stephen Oake with DC Stewart Cameron; one was stabbed to death and the other… Aug 10, 2012 
• Hate 2ba spoilsport, but when London Olympic Games fairytale is over, it’s back to reality when we r told the financial cost. #BrokenBritain Aug 10, 2012 
• http://t.co/m2To5bNC Goodbye Louise Mensch. Aug 06, 2012 
• RT @wwwAbort67couk: Our response in the Huffington Post… http://t.co/yXThnVJp Aug 06, 2012 
• EXCLUSIVE: http://t.co/0YOD9Bwj A police officer comments on @gmpolice corruption. Jul 26, 2012 
• RT @StewartCowan: It’s a sad, sad day for Scotland. http://t.co/QQIIR8Cy Jul 25, 2012 
• @sussex_police will not prevail against @wwwAbort67couk with their attempt to intimidate and suppress peaceful and legal pro-life supporters Jul 17, 2012 
• RT @lccsa: Christian protesters charged by police over displaying graphic anti-abortion banner: Andy Stephenson and Kathryn… http://t. … Jul 17, 2012 
• In the popular video http://t.co/TUmUtVCn I said “In 2012 we can expect significant elements of the Manchester vice trade to be eliminated.” Jul 17, 2012 
• RT @spucprolife: John Smeaton: David Cameron pits himself against the #prolife movement http://t.co/mIirvpQr Jul 16, 2012 
• http://t.co/HxIjIlQU Friday 13th gangster incident on Palatine Road in Northenden. Read the statement sent to @gmpolice Jul 13, 2012 
• http://t.co/2dxDx47Y Not Giving Up On Love. Sophie Ellis-Bextor. Jul 03, 2012 

tony-nicklinson-richard-dawkins

Taken from http://carvath.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/tony-nicklinson-richard-dawkins/ in case it gets deleted from his blog.

Richard got called a lot of names for being a dick. Will he ever learn… no.

Tony Nicklinson and Richard Dawkins
Posted on August 23, 2012
Last week Tony Nicklinson failed in his attempt to legalize murder.  I wrote about the Nicklinson case in my previous post three days ago (Monday 20th August), and it seems I was in the nick of time because just two days later Mr. Nicklinson’s death-wish was finally fulfilled: Tony Nicklinson died of natural causes yesterday morning (Wednesday 22nd August).  My condolences to the Nicklinson family.  Militant atheist and humanist Richard Dawkins decided he didn’t like my views on the Nicklinson case, and so the pro-murder Professor proceeded to publish a brief article yesterday, just hours after Mr. Nicklinson’s death, to ask his readers if I had “…set a record for smug nastiness?”  Dawkins must’ve been composing his attack on me yesterday at much the same time as the British Humanist Association was preparing to pitch to the press in pursuit of a new Nicklinson to exploit; for after Dawkins published his article about me yesterday, on the very same day that Nicklinson died, Dawkins later tweeted that: “BHA lawyers now seek someone with similar case to the tragic Tony Nicklinson to continue the fight.”  At the very instant Mr. Nicklinson ceased to be useful, before his corpse was even in the coffin, the humanists of the pro-euthanasia lobby were already hunting their next victim.  In the wake of Dawkins’ article, an anti-Carvath Twitter storm erupted as Dawkins’ disciples began to rant furiously in response to my pro-life remarks in favour of the legal status quo as maintained by the Nicklinson verdict.  It was clear that for some people Tony Nicklinson was elevated in death to the status of an idol worthy of hero-worship, and thus my earlier reasoned criticism of him was simply not to be tolerated.  Despite Tony’s death being the very thing his worshippers most wanted, the celebrations would have to wait because there was work to do defending the honour of the Nicklinson legacy from the ‘nasty’ blogger opposed to their hero’s murder agenda.  Recent hate-tweets variously insult me as: “retarded;” an “idiot;” “a fucking idiot;” a “moron;” a “cretin;” a “numpty;” a “delusional bigot;” a “fucking maniac;” a “sociopath;” a “psychopath;” “small minded;” a “warped mind;” “a fucking crackpot, with no mates;” having a “bronze-age mentality;” having “bronze-age superstitions;” a “senseless sanctimonious half wit;” “one sick individual;” “a nasty piece of work;” a “horrible little man;” “a pathetic little man;” a “vile excuse of a human being;” “a disgrace of a man;” “a terrible person;” “a vile human being;” “a vile man;” a “hateful religious bigot;” a “disgusting religious fundi;” a “clueless sick bastard;” “a loathsome toad;” “this shit;” “a disgusting piece of shit;” a “fuckpuppet;” “disgusting;” “that weasel;” a “bigot;” a “troll;” “an attention seeking troll;” a “cunt;” a “cock;” a “nasty prick;” a “horrible prick;” a “dickhead;” a “twat;” a “rotten misguided condescending first class twat;” “an absolute turd;” “Cunt of the Day;” “Plonker of the week;” a “scumbag;” a “hypocrite;” “a Tory;” a “Conservative tosser;” a “typical politician;” and “truly evil.”  These hate-tweets reveal the shameful level of the opposition and the depraved nature of those who support euthanasia.  As a pro-life political activist I’m well acquainted with this sort of flak from humanist enemies: it’s par for the course.  I never allow pathetic and profane insults to cause me grief, and such insults only serve to remind me that my mission is all about saving other people out of the hands of hateful humanists hellbent on eugenic murder.

The article Richard Dawkins wrote about me has betrayed just how insignificant Richard Dawkins really is.  Despite huge TV exposure and regular indulgence by the popular media, the level of Dawkins’ influence and the number of his hardcore devotees are actually tiny.  At the peak of national and international media interest in Tony Nicklinson’s death, and though the internet is a global medium, established celebrity author Dawkins’ article about me resulted in no more than an additional 5,500 views of this blog in the 24 hours following publication.  That’s how weak the Dawkins brand is in reality.  Atheism is a minority pursuit.  Richard Dawkins won’t ever be bigger than John Lennon, and he has no chance whatsoever of being bigger than Jesus.  The delusion of Richard Dawkins is a folly which leads only to death, but Jesus is ‘The Resurrection and the Life.’  My advice to Richard Dawkins and his disciples is this: Choose Life.

Richard Carvath a master debater

Oh dear, Mummy has let Richard Carvath go online unsupervised. He’s been looking at porn (again) but purely for research purposes of course!

 

Taken from http://carvath.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/rumour-king-of-soho-actress-katie-k-to-debate-richard-carvath-at-oxford-university/

Rumour: King of Soho actress Katie K to debate Richard Carvath at Oxford University

Posted on August 27, 2012

 Well, what can I say?  There have been more than a few rumours [and lots of lies] going around about me in the past few years, particularly on the internet, and I have come to accept that political activists like myself are constant targets for the Guardianista rumour mill in this internet age.  Whether it’s gay journo Adrian Tippetts getting his knickers in a twist over me, or Richard Dawkins or Sunny Hundal having a pop, I seem to draw a lot of fire from the other side.  The fact is, the socially conservative political views I espouse are sexy, and so I find myself in demand for debate: kinky liberal-lefties really want to connect with me 1-2-1.  Last week I had the latest BBC request in my email inbox, and I get all sorts of requests for information or appearances, from academic researchers to the Daily Mail to the Cambridge University Conservative Association.  Professional journalists know I’m a good, reliable source of information on various subjects and I regularly give journos free tips behind the scenes (rather than seek the limelight).

As for me debating pornography and censorship with Katie K (pictured above) at Oxford University, I have to say I’m willing to give Katie a go if she really wants to get it on with me.  Katie appears in the Paul Raymond biopic King of Soho (set for release in 2013) alongside Steve Coogan, Anna Friel and Stephen Fry; as one of the most prominent young women currently active in the British pornographic trade, I suppose the self-styled‘Bad Girl of Britain’ Katie K is a worthwhile opponent for me in an Oxford debate; Miss K epitomises and is able to articulate the porn trade’s views so perhaps an Oxford Uni debate timed to coincide with the King of Soho release next year is not such a silly idea.  And whilst Oxford Uni might give it the go-ahead, I have to say right now that public debate with euthanasia advocates Beth and Lauren Nicklinson is probably more important, though less likely to happen than with Katie K.  We’ll just have to wait and see…

When pro-life does not equal pro-life

Richard Carvath has tweeted a link to one of his old blog posts that (a) hasn’t been deleted yet, and (b) still has comments. He’s quite proud in his tweet that he declared Breivik sane over a year ago. Given that the were only ever going to be two outcomes I won’t be asking for the lottery numbers from him.

Anyway, the point is that Richard Carvath wants the death penalty. You read correctly, our loveable Christian fundaMENTAList pro-life Richard “think of the babies” Carvath flips from pro-life to pro-death in an instant.

I’m particularly interested in his killing of mothers of newborns if they are murderers. That’s got to be vote winner.

Reproduced from http://carvath.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/mass-murderer-breivik-is-evil-not.html

TUESDAY, 26 JULY 2011

Mass murderer Breivik is evil, not insane
Whenever something really horrific like the Norway bombing and shootings happens, there is speculation about whether people like mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik are simply insane. According to recent media reports, there is the possibility that Breivik will plead insanity, and we await to hear what psychological assessments are made of him by whichever ‘experts’ are called upon to give their ‘professional opinion.’

Going off what I’ve read about the man and his actions in the press, my view is that Breivik is not insane – but rather evil and depraved. I think Breivik has a sound mind – i.e. he understands the consequences of his actions, and he knows that murder is morally wrong – but his mind is a depraved mind, which works in tandem with an evil heart. In his mind he knows full well that murder is wrong, but in his evil heart he wanted to carry out those murders regardless.

When Breivik carried out the bombing and shootings, his actions were premeditated and they required a high degree of intelligent planning and preparation prior to their execution (as well as a sound mind during their execution). Breivik knew exactly what he was doing and why, and he committed those murders in cold blood and sound mind.

Most murderers and other serious criminals are not insane – they’re simply bad people with evil minds and evil hearts. I strongly dislike the concepts in many modern legal systems of ‘insanity’ and ‘diminished responsibility’ which lawyers play with and which often lead to acquittals or lesser charges or softer sentencing for very serious crimes.

In a truly just criminal justice system, no Judge should have any involvement in diminishing the responsibility of a criminal such that the very nature of their murder crime is actually changed to a conviction other than murder. To do so is to falsify the status of the crime that was committed, insulting both justice in principle and the victim in practice, and allows the murderer to do the proverbial – namely get away with murder.

If a person has committed murder – no question – the person should be convicted of murder – not something else – and it is only at sentencing that mental state should be considered in mitigation. Mental state should not be used to determine whether a criminal is prosecuted or not, and it should not be used to alter the crime itself. If a person commits murder, they ought to be considered guilty of murder and convicted of murder whatever their state of mind at the time.

Ahh, but what I hear you say are we to do with the woman tormented by years of domestic abuse who just ‘snaps’ one day and plunges the kitchen knife into the man and kills him? Well, she should still be convicted of murder, if at the time of the stabbing incident the woman was neither provoked nor acting in self-defence at that moment. The years of torment are a matter for mitigation at sentencing, but ought not to be used to deceitfully ‘diminish responsibility’ and convert a murder crime into a manslaughter crime.

The true definition of murder is intended homicide, and the true definition of manslaughter is simply unintended homicide. We need to return to these true definitions in our criminal justice system (as well as restore the death penalty as a sentencing option for murder). If somebody deliberately kills another person they should be convicted of murder, not something else, and their state of mind or any other circumstances should not be used to distort the true nature of the crime of murder.

‘Mental Illness’ is nowhere defined in British law. It is a meaningless term. In practice in the British criminal justice system today, it means what the authorities want it to mean, at their whim, and the application of the classification to any particular person is to serve the purposes of the authorities, whether the person in question really is ill or not (and often relating in particular to whether the person should be in custody or not). ‘Mental Illness’ is a very convenient way for the authorities to deal with awkward cases that occasionally confront them, because once a person is classified as ‘mentally ill’ – whether they are or not – then that person effectively ceases to have any legal rights and the authorities can then dispose of them however they like. For the British criminal justice system, getting somebody classified as ‘mentally ill’ – even if the person is clearly quite sane – is their licence to ‘Get Away With Murder’ and deal with that person however they like, and in ways that would be completely unlawful otherwise. How, you might ask, can something like that happen? Well, all you need is a bent psychiatrist or a bent psychiatric nurse to write a fabricated report on a person – it’s easy as pie for the criminal justice system to set somebody up if they want to. Yes it’s serious criminal malfeasance but sadly it does happen. There are plenty of bent coppers, and plenty of bent workers in police partner agencies – such as amongst social workers and the like.

Aside of the formality of the criminal justice system, to defame another person with the assertion that they are ‘mentally ill’ when they manifestly aren’t is an increasingly common smear used in ordinary life today. The number of times I myself have been described as ‘mentally ill’ by anonymous enemies on the internet over the last couple of years probably runs into the hundreds (not to mention the more sinister private emails I receive). One is ‘mentally ill’ if one believes in Jesus; practising Christian faith is held to be ‘mental illness.’ One is ‘mentally ill’ if one expresses any criticism of homopervuality. One is ‘mentally ill’ if one expresses any orthodox and traditional socially conservative position in public. One is ‘mentally ill’ if one is radically culturally different.

Because there is no objective definition of ‘Mental Illness’ in law, it doesn’t matter what a person does or doesn’t do or what a person says or doesn’t say in the presence of a psychiatrist or a psychologist, because in the context of assessment, literally anything by act or omission can be deemed symptomatic of one form of mental illness or another. And if a person is classified as ‘mentally ill’ or being considered for such classification then psychiatrists know that they can make up whatever they like anyway because a person so classified instantly becomes the victim of wide-ranging legal prejudices simply on account of the classification. The whole business of ‘mental illness’ is a dark and murky area of the British criminal justice system today. It is a vehicle to enable murderers to get away with murder – their responsibility for murder supposedly diminished so that murder is somehow transformed into another type of crime altogether – and it is also a very convenient tool in the hands of the police, their partner agencies and the courts to deal with problem people who are not mentally ill but who are easier to process if everybody pretends that they are.

I believe Breivik is bad – not mad – and he is clearly guilty of murder. I believe that the only proper sentence for Breivik ought to be the death penalty for the murders he has committed out of a sound mind and an evil and hateful heart.
POSTED BY RICHARD CARVATH AT 18:41
LABELS: ANDERS BEHRING BREIVIK, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, MANSLAUGHTER, MENTAL ILLNESS, MURDER, RICHARD CARVATH
5 COMMENTS:

isitfoggy26 July 2011 22:05
I’m still struggling with your “life for a life” attitude Richard. I fail to see how this makes the world a better place. It doesn’t work as a deterrent – in some countries people are queuing up for execution.

Here’s a conundrum for you: a pregnant woman murders somebody. Does the woman face the death penalty? What about the unborn child? Does she give birth first…? Child has no mother…?

Reply

Richard Carvath26 July 2011 23:11
I believe capital punishment is a deterrent to violence. You don’t quantify the potency of deterrence by the number of crimes that continue to take place, but rather by the absence of those crimes which do not take place (and which are not of course measurable).

If the death penalty is restored and used judiciously I believe we will eventually see a reduction in the murder rate and a less violent more civilised society.

And deterrence is not the only issue with restoring the death penalty for murder: it is also a matter of justice. In those cases where a murder occurs – undeterred by the capital nature of the crime – though the death penalty was not a deterrent in that particular case, it is certainly the just conclusion.

As to your hypothetical ‘conundrum’…

Murder is not a crime commonly committed by pregnant women. However, if a pregnant woman commits murder, the woman is guilty of murder and the unborn child she carries in her womb is innocent. I would therefore advocate that if the woman is sentenced to the death penalty for her crime of murder, the execution would not take place until after her child is born. The child would then be brought up either by the father, other relatives or adoptive parents.

Any time a guilty murderer is executed they will have innocent relatives who will be affected by their death.

Just like the innocent relatives of the murder victim.

It is within the power of the person contemplating murder not to kill somebody, and therefore not to make their victim’s relatives suffer, and also not to make their own relatives suffer by their murder conviction and subsequent death sentence – and the suffering of all the people affected by a murder is entirely the responsibility of the murderer.

If a pregnant woman commits murder (and knowing it to be a capital offence) and is subsequently executed then she alone is to blame for her child not having his actual mother to raise him.

The murder victim’s child doesn’t have his mother to raise him either.

Reply

isitfoggy27 July 2011 07:34
What is your proposed execution method?

Do you envisage public executions?

Reply

isitfoggy27 July 2011 09:42
Had another thought. The threat of execution doesn’t really work against suicide bombers does it.

Reply

Richard Carvath27 July 2011 17:11
I’m not in favour of public executions.

The British way was that we used to hang people. Done properly, hanging is a quick and efficient method of execution. I suppose I favour hanging, but I’m open to other methods.

So-called ‘suicide bombers’* are not deterred by the possibility of execution. If they kill themselves in their act or murder then they are beyond human justice, and if not then they can be executed like any other murderer.

* I dislike the term ‘suicide bomber’. I agree with the man known as Rabbi Moshe, now in the USA – the former head of Mossad’s hit squads – who says, “Don’t say suicide bomber! Say homicide bomber!”

These bombers are evil terrorists and murderers – not martyrs dying for a good cause.

Martyrs die for their cause, they don’t murder for it.

Reply