Pregnancy advice

[Mike Davis]

I've just seen this BBC announcement of a Panorama programme:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64751800

It seems that going to a 'pregnancy advice clinic' puts on a lot of
pressure to have an abortion. Surprise!!

These clinics get their income from the NHS for carrying out abortions.
So it's hardly surprising that they may sometimes encourage their
clients to actually have an abortion. I have been trying for some time
to find out exactly how much the NHS pays these clinics for abortions
each year.

The last official figures were:
214,869 abortions were reported in England and Wales in 2021, the
highest since records began. The vast majority of these abortions
(214,256) were to residents of England and Wales. This represents an
age-standardised abortion rate (ASR) of 18.6 per 1,000 resident women
aged 15 to 44. This is the highest rate recorded.

The percentage performed in approved independent sector clinics under
NHS contract has remained consistent in 2020 and 2021, with these
clinics performing 77% of abortions, making a total of 99% of abortions
funded by the NHS. (The rest are independently private.)

I suppose I'll have to watch the programme.

Incidentally the woman and the priest who were arrested for praying
silently near an abortion clinic, were discharged with no case to
answer. At least we not quite into a 'thought police state'!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Stuart]

In article <k63nm1...@mid.individual.net>,

Mike Davis <mjd...@trustsof.co.uk> wrote:
> I've just seen this BBC announcement of a Panorama programme:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64751800

> It seems that going to a 'pregnancy advic> e clinic' puts on a lot of

> pressure to have an abortion. Surprise!!

What the news has reported is that more than 1/3 of "Crisis" centres give
advice that could dissade people from having an abortion!

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 12:57, Mike Davis wrote:

> The last official figures were:

Shocking.

> Incidentally the woman and the priest who were arrested for praying
> silently near an abortion clinic, were discharged with no case to
> answer. At least we not quite into a 'thought police state'!

No credit to the police, who pursued the case all the way into court and
departed the courtroom looking glum.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 19:09, Stuart wrote:

> What the news has reported is that more than 1/3 of "Crisis" centres give
> advice that could dissade people from having an abortion!

Which, of course, means that 66.6% of these centres do *not* give advice
that might dissuade people from having an abortion.

And, of course, we do not know how vehemently the advice against
abortion is urged. Just mentioning, "Of course, there are alternatives
to abortion" in the course of an hour-long promotion of the benefits
might qualify for the "giving advice that could dissuade" statistic, but
would hardly render the overall advice more impartial.

[Mike Davis]

On 27/02/2023 12:57, Mike Davis wrote:

> I've just seen this BBC announcement of a Panorama programme:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64751800

I had read the blurb about the program but it wasn't clear which way the
'advice' was leaning. It seems that these are all *anti-abortion*
clinics who give out a lot of misleading advice including "having an
abortion causes breast cancer" and other unquestionable lies as well as
bias.

The only good news is that only one of them seemed to have had Christian
principals (a Baptist-based clinic) but gave biassed and wrong information.

It's a shame that we cannot have this discussion based on truth and
balance on both sides, especially when Christian organisations are involved.

Please pray for all those considering an abortion.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[GB]

There's been academic research on why people have abortions. This, for
example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/

They summarise their results as follows:

"In most countries, the most frequently cited reasons for having an
abortion were socioeconomic concerns or limiting childbearing. With some
exceptions, little variation existed in the reasons given by women’s
sociodemographic characteristics. Data from three countries where
multiple reasons could be reported in the survey showed that women often
have more than one reason for having an abortion."


One implication one might draw from that is that abortions would
decrease if the 'socioeconomic concerns' were reduced. That might
require massive and sustained practical help from society to look after
the children that would otherwise be aborted.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 21:13, GB wrote:

> "In most countries, the most frequently cited reasons for having an
> abortion were socioeconomic concerns or limiting childbearing.

That may well be so, but those concerns can be equally well met by
contraception. And it's no good saying that some men forbid their wives
from using contraception because I should think that most such men would
be equally opposed to abortion.

The Christian position is that life, once started, is sacred and should
be regarded as such.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 22:33, Mike Davis wrote:

> I had read the blurb about the program but it wasn't clear which way the
> 'advice' was leaning.  It seems that these are all *anti-abortion*
> clinics who give out a lot of misleading advice including "having an
> abortion causes breast cancer" and other unquestionable lies as well as
> bias.

Good gracious!

> It's a shame that we cannot have this discussion based on truth and
> balance on both sides, especially when Christian organisations are
> involved.

Indeed.

> Please pray for all those considering an abortion.

Indeed.

[GB]

I think everybody, Christian or not, would agree that abortion should be
avoided. Even the most passionate advocates of 'Choice' cannot think
it's actually a pleasant procedure, or good (emotionally or physically)
for the women involved.

However, your comments about advice earlier in this thread imply that
advice would sway some women not to go ahead. I was pointing out that,
given that aim, it could be far more effective and compassionate to
remove the socioeconomic reasons why these women are considering
abortion in the first place.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/02/2023 09:50, GB wrote:

> I think everybody, Christian or not, would agree that abortion should be
> avoided. Even the most passionate advocates of 'Choice' cannot think
> it's actually a pleasant procedure, or good (emotionally or physically)
> for the women involved.

One would hope so.

> However, your comments about advice earlier in this thread imply that
> advice would sway some women not to go ahead. I was pointing out that,
> given that aim, it could be far more effective and compassionate to
> remove the socioeconomic reasons why these women are considering
> abortion in the first place.

I can't disagree, however I wonder what you are including under
"socioeconomic". I remember in my younger days being introduced to a
very attractive damsel and afterwards being told, in hushed tones, that
she had had two abortions. On asking the reason, I was told that she was
just too lazy to use contraception. It is difficult to see what
"socioeconomic" changes could alter that!

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:

> No credit to the police, who pursued the case all the way into court and
> departed the courtroom looking glum.

Is lying second nature to you? The case never went to court, the
charges were dropped before it got that far. I could accept that might
be a mistake on your part, but when you add "and departed the courtroom
looking glum" you made that bit up.

Pity you don't pay as much attention to commandment 8 as you do to
commandment 4.

[John]

Mike Davis wrote:
> I've just seen this BBC announcement of a Panorama programme:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64751800
>
> It seems that going to a 'pregnancy advice clinic' puts on a lot of
> pressure to have an abortion. Surprise!!

Strange, having just read your link, it would appear to me the opposite,
some of these centres, the majority of which are charities, are anti
abortion and giving false information to deter someone from having an
abortion.

> These clinics get their income from the NHS for carrying out abortions.
> So it's hardly surprising that they may sometimes encourage their
> clients to actually have an abortion.  I have been trying for some time
> to find out exactly how much the NHS pays these clinics for abortions
> each year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the centre's (not clinics, they don't carry
out abortions). are for women to seek advice, presumably referred to by
the NHS for anyone considering an abortion. I haven't watched the
programme, but their ethos should be to give unbiased advice into the
pros and cons, and ensure the woman attending have a better
understanding. If some are deliberately making false claims to deter
women from abortion, then (as I think you accede in a more recent post)
that's wrong.

> Incidentally the woman and the priest who were arrested for praying
> silently near an abortion clinic, were discharged with no case to
> answer. At least we not quite into a 'thought police state'!

I'm pleased about that. Looking at the leglislation, I'm not sure
whether they have broken the law, but part of it is being within the
zone "persistently, continuously or repeatedly". The lady concerned is
an activist in the anti abortion movement, so may well have been there
under a prohibited clause. Knowing that, would it have not made more
sense to pray outside the zone, or indeed pray as part of a group at church?

[GB]

That's (hopefully) a pretty extreme example.

My daughter, as part of her work, used to give advice on contraception
to students. She used to explain how it's accidentally possible to use
condoms incorrectly, which can result in conception. I won't go into
details, but it's very easily done!

You asked what I mean by 'socioeconomic', I had in mind women who are
desperate because they feel they could not afford to bring up (another)
child or would be unable to cope. Providing practical support could be
highly effective in changing their minds.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/03/2023 12:59, GB wrote:

> That's (hopefully) a pretty extreme example.

I'm not so hopeful. A couple of drinks too many and concerns over
contraception get forgotten.

> My daughter, as part of her work, used to give advice on contraception
> to students. She used to explain how it's accidentally possible to use
> condoms incorrectly, which can result in conception. I won't go into
> details, but it's very easily done!

I'm sure that is so.

> You asked what I mean by 'socioeconomic', I had in mind women who are
> desperate because they feel they could not afford to bring up (another)
> child or would be unable to cope. Providing practical support could be
> highly effective in changing their minds.

Surely if they were all that desperate they would be insistent upon
contraception!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/03/2023 10:56, John wrote:

> Is lying second nature to you?  The case never went to court, the
> charges were dropped before it got that far. I could accept that might
> be a mistake on your part, but when you add "and departed the courtroom
> looking glum" you made that bit up.

===========
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11758387/Catholic-woman-prosecuted-silently-praying-outside-abortion-clinic-CLEARED.html

Catholic woman prosecuted for silently praying outside abortion clinic
is CLEARED after arrest by police sparked fury among supporters who
condemned 'thoughtcrime'
By Danya Bazaraa For Mailonline - February 16th 2023, 11:34:45 am

Reacting to the verdict outside court, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce said: 'I'm
glad I've been vindicated of any wrongdoing. But I should never have
been arrested for my thoughts.'
============

Unfortunately for your self-righteous stance, it would seem that I am
not the one telling porkies.

[John]

In which case I apologise, as the report I read simply said CPS had
dropped the charges. That was true, but I hadn't realised it had got as
far as the court. Can't find that bit in the link about the policemen
departing the courtroom looking glum (just for accuracy it's not the
police who decide to prosecute, it's the CPS) so you did make that bit up :)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/03/2023 22:30, John wrote:

> In which case I apologise, as the report I read simply said CPS had
> dropped the charges. That was true, but I hadn't realised it had got as
> far as the court.  Can't find that bit in the link about the policemen
> departing the courtroom looking glum (just for accuracy it's not the
> police who decide to prosecute, it's the CPS) so you did make that bit
> up :)

Yes, I did, as a picturesque way of highlighting the fact that the
police were willing and eager to carry the prosecution through to its
end. Having seen police in other situations where charges they were
eager to prosecute have been dismissed or the defendant found not
guilty, I don't think my comment was all that inaccurate.

[Mike Davis]

On 01/03/2023 13:15, John wrote:
> Mike Davis wrote:
>> I've just seen this BBC announcement of a Panorama programme:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64751800
>>
>> It seems that going to a 'pregnancy advice clinic' puts on a lot of
>> pressure to have an abortion. Surprise!!
>
> Strange, having just read your link, it would appear to me the opposite,
> some of these centres, the majority of which are charities, are anti
> abortion and giving false information to deter someone from having an
> abortion.

Yes, I *did* post a correction!

>
>> These clinics get their income from the NHS for carrying out
>> abortions. So it's hardly surprising that they may sometimes encourage
>> their clients to actually have an abortion.  I have been trying for
>> some time to find out exactly how much the NHS pays these clinics for
>> abortions each year.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the centre's (not clinics, they don't carry
> out abortions). are for women to seek advice, presumably referred to by
> the NHS for anyone considering an abortion. I haven't watched the
> programme, but their ethos should be to give unbiased advice into the
> pros and cons, and ensure the woman attending have a better
> understanding.  If some are deliberately making false claims to deter
> women from abortion, then (as I think you accede in a more recent post)
> that's wrong.

I did watch the programme, and was shocked at the distortions reported.

>
>
>> Incidentally the woman and the priest who were arrested for praying
>> silently near an abortion clinic, were discharged with no case to
>> answer. At least we not quite into a 'thought police state'!
>
> I'm pleased about that. Looking at the leglislation, I'm not sure
> whether they have broken the law, but part of it is being within the
> zone "persistently, continuously or repeatedly".  The lady concerned is
> an activist in the anti abortion movement, so may well have been there
> under a prohibited clause.  Knowing that, would it have not made more
> sense to pray outside the zone, or indeed pray as part of a group at
> church?

I'm sure they did that too, but it's reasonable to be 'at the scene' to
pray. But then I believe that the enemy* is able to 'occupy speces' and
needs to be driven out.

(* To avoid doubt, I mean satan and his minions.)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[GB]

Sadly, as I explained before, contraception is not 100%.

[GB]

On your behalf, Kendall, I would suggest that it's quite likely that the
police would have attended court as witnesses. If they had to hang
around all morning, just to hear counsel stand up and say the case was
being dropped, they may well have looked glum. :)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/03/2023 15:22, GB wrote:

> Sadly, as I explained before, contraception is not 100%.

Reminds me of when I was in America many many moons ago, when the Pill
was relatively new. Numerous touristy shops were selling, beside the
usual postcards and things, a "Reusable Contraceptive Pill".

On closer inspection it turned out to be a large - 4" long? - plastic
capsule with a few coloured beads in it and the instructions, "Clasp
tightly between your knees and say 'No' loudly and firmly."

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/03/2023 18:01, Mike Davis wrote:

> (* To avoid doubt, I mean satan and his minions.)

The ones in uniform and with blue flashing lights on top of their cars?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/03/2023 19:16, GB wrote:

> On your behalf, Kendall, I would suggest that it's quite likely that the
> police would have attended court as witnesses. If they had to hang
> around all morning, just to hear counsel stand up and say the case was
> being dropped, they may well have looked glum. :)

Having had a few things to do with the police over the years, I am
afraid that abstract ideas like justice and fairness (or even "the law")
come a distant second to "winning" and "saving face".

[Steve Hague]

I have a friend who's a serving police officer. A few years ago he told
me about the CPA (Christian Police Association.) They meet fairly
regularly and discuss, among other things, how they can put their faith
into practice whilst doing their job. These are good people, and should
never be called minions of satan.
Steve Hague

[John]

As I said, it's not the police who decide to prosecute, it's the CPS.
There has to be more than a 50% chance of conviction, so in these two
cases I'm surprised they reached court, especially as the prosecution
dropped the charges at that point.

[John]

There is good and bad in everything, but the police have an extremely
difficult job to do, and in my opinion they do it well on the whole. Of
course there are bad apples but I'd still want the police on my side if
they had to be called out in an emergency.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/03/2023 16:17, John wrote:

> As I said, it's not the police who decide to prosecute, it's the CPS.
> There has to be more than a 50% chance of conviction, so in these two
> cases I'm surprised they reached court, especially as the prosecution
> dropped the charges at that point.

And both police and CPS took it right down to the wire before conceding
that they were wrong. Perhaps they were hoping to frighten the Christian
into promising not to do it again. Perhaps they were hoping the
Christian wouldn't be able to afford a good lawyer and would be a push-over.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/03/2023 07:41, Steve Hague wrote:

> I have a friend who's a serving police officer. A few years ago he told
> me about the CPA (Christian Police Association.) They meet fairly
> regularly and discuss, among other things, how they can put their faith
> into practice whilst doing their job. These are good people, and should
> never be called minions of satan.

I am sure that there are good policemen and women. As recent unfortunate
cases have shown, however, there are bad ones and sometimes one gets the
impression that the good ones are a minority.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/03/2023 16:35, John wrote:

> There is good and bad in everything, but the police have an extremely
> difficult job to do, and in my opinion they do it well on the whole.  Of
> course there are bad apples but I'd still want the police on my side if
> they had to be called out in an emergency.

But would they turn up? Or, having turned up, would they make any
attempt to find the perpetrator(s)? Or, if found, could they be bothered
to prosecute?

I have no confidence that the answers to any of those questions would be
in the affirmative.

[Mike Davis]

On 27/02/2023 12:57, Mike Davis wrote:
> I've just seen this BBC announcement of a Panorama programme:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64751800
>
> It seems that going to a 'pregnancy advice clinic' puts on a lot of
> pressure to have an abortion. Surprise!!

As you know, I got that wrong - which I corrected after I'd seen the
programme. It was about anti-abortion advice.

However, in the light of keeping this factual and as objective as
possible:, I have now received the following information:

********
During the Panorama investigation, 57 pregnancy centres around the UK
received a phone call from an undercover reporter. The BBC decided to
investigate three of these centres by having a woman visit the centre
with hidden cameras.

Three ‘experts’ commented on undercover footage

In the episode, three ‘experts’ then commented on the conversations that
the staff at the crisis pregnancy centres had with the women who visited
them undercover.

The first ‘expert’ was Dr Jonathan Lord, who is the Medical Director for
one of the UK’s largest abortion providers, MSI Reproductive Choices
(formerly Maries Stopes International).

A group of UK doctors have recently called on the General Medical
Council to investigate Dr Lord over a series of concerns around his
professional conduct, which included him ‘harassing’ and ‘scaring’ a
vulnerable woman facing a crisis pregnancy.

A report from the Care Quality Commission found MSI Reproductive Choies
had paid staff bonuses for encouraging women to undergo abortions.

At all 70 Marie Stopes clinics, inspectors also found evidence of a
policy that saw staff utilise a high-pressure sales tactic, calling
women who had decided against having an abortion to offer them another
appointment.

The second ‘expert’ featured on the Panorama was Katherine O’Brien, who
is Associate Director at the UK’s largest abortion provider, the British
Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which performs over 70,000 abortions
each year. BPAS has led the campaign to criminalise volunteers who offer
support to women outside abortion clinics.

The third ‘expert’ was Jo Holmes, spokesperson for the British
Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Viewers would have likely
been relieved to see that the British Association for Counselling and
Psychotherapy spokesperson was not from another abortion provider, but
unfortunately, it appeared that she was also not a neutral commentator
on the situation.

Early on in the episode, she made it clear that she likely took a
hardline pro-abortion position on the abortion issue, joining MSI’s Dr
Jonathan Lord on camera, commenting:
“It’s not a baby when you’ve got a choice, it’s a pregnancy or
unplanned pregnancy or an unintended or an unwanted pregnancy.”

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/03/2023 15:34, Mike Davis wrote:

> In the episode, three ‘experts’ then commented on the conversations that
> the staff at the crisis pregnancy centres had with the women who visited
> them undercover.

Thanks for that information, Mike. Why am I not surprised that the BBC
is so biased?

Of course that does not excuse anti-abortionists providing false
information (as per your original post), but finding that the whole
programme was intended to disparage the anti-abortionists and push the
pro-abortion viewpoint is just what one would expect from the Beeb.

[John]

Depends on the circumstances. If I was burgled or had something stolen
then no, they simply don't have the resources to do it anymore.

If I was assaulted in the street and injured, yes. Finding the
perpetrators and prosecuting would depend on the actual evidence against
them, but if clear enough then I would expect a prosecution certainly.

If the police weren't bringing offenders to justice, you'd expect the
court rooms to be empty wouldn't you?

[John]

Mike Davis wrote:
> On 01/03/2023 13:15, John wrote:
>> Mike Davis wrote:
>>> I've just seen this BBC announcement of a Panorama programme:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64751800
>>>
>>> It seems that going to a 'pregnancy advice clinic' puts on a lot of
>>> pressure to have an abortion. Surprise!!
>>
>> Strange, having just read your link, it would appear to me the
>> opposite, some of these centres, the majority of which are charities,
>> are anti abortion and giving false information to deter someone from
>> having an abortion.
>
> Yes, I *did* post a correction!

You did, I only skim read it when I made my reply, so I shouldn't have
posted without reading it properly. Sorry Mike.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/03/2023 23:00, John wrote:

> Depends on the circumstances.  If I was burgled or had something stolen
> then no, they simply don't have the resources to do it anymore.

Why not? More money is being spent on the police than ever before. If
crime is rising, then someone is not doing their job.

> If I was assaulted in the street and injured, yes.  Finding the
> perpetrators and prosecuting would depend on the actual evidence against
> them, but if clear enough then I would expect a prosecution certainly.

Unless you were a woman who had been sexually assaulted.

> If the police weren't bringing offenders to justice, you'd expect the
> court rooms to be empty wouldn't you?

They are - apart from Christians being persecuted for thought crimes, or
criminals being given slaps on the wrist. I'll agree that there is the
occasional high-profile crime that the police simply don't dare to ignore.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11577685/Shocking-data-reveals-huge-number-investigations-failed-police-identify-suspect.html

And that is despite victims providing rock-solid evidence that the
police can't be bothered to follow up. Of course, part of the problem
could be that the police have become discouraged when they do arrest
criminals and liberal judges let them off more or less scott-free.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11760711/Four-ten-repeat-knife-offenders-spared-jail-UK-courts-accused-ignoring-two-strikes-rule.html

[Adam Funk]

On 2023-02-27, GB wrote:

> There's been academic research on why people have abortions. This, for
> example:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/
>
> They summarise their results as follows:
>
> "In most countries, the most frequently cited reasons for having an
> abortion were socioeconomic concerns or limiting childbearing. With some
> exceptions, little variation existed in the reasons given by women’s
> sociodemographic characteristics. Data from three countries where
> multiple reasons could be reported in the survey showed that women often
> have more than one reason for having an abortion."
>
>
> One implication one might draw from that is that abortions would
> decrease if the 'socioeconomic concerns' were reduced. That might
> require massive and sustained practical help from society to look after
> the children that would otherwise be aborted.

David Barnhart (Methodist pastor):

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They
never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike
the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t
resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically
correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy;
unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare;
unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and
religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good
about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining
relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them,
because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and
advocate for them without substantially challenging your own
wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social
structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are,
in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love
Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners?
Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups
that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown
under the bus for the unborn.


--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/03/2023 14:55, Adam Funk wrote:

> David Barnhart (Methodist pastor):

It never ceases to amaze me just how much rubbish someone can spout just
because he wears his collar back-to-front.

[GB]

On 24/03/2023 20:45, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/03/2023 14:55, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> David Barnhart (Methodist pastor):
>
> It never ceases to amaze me just how much rubbish someone can spout just
> because he wears his collar back-to-front.

Which way round is yours these days?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/03/2023 12:53, GB wrote:

>> It never ceases to amaze me just how much rubbish someone can spout
>> just because he wears his collar back-to-front.

> Which way round is yours these days?

a) I belong to the plain clothes division of the clergy. (ie. in my
tradition we don't wear dog collars or gowns or any other distinguishing
mark. Many non-conformist denominations are the same.)

b) Wearing a dog collar is not a guarantee that the person will spout
rubbish, but given that those who do wear such collars are educated to
degree level and beyond, it is astonishing that any of them can still
come up with such nonsense.