Hull City in the Premier League

Yesterday was one of the most enjoyable days of my life.

Hull City AFC - my hometown football team that I have supported since a kid - won promotion to the top flight of English football for the first time in its 104 year history after beating Bristol City by a goal to nil at Wembley yesterday. And I was lucky enough to be there, among 37,500 others. It has been a remarkable season, and I've been fortunate enough to go to quite a lot of games, both home and away.

Hull has famously been dubbed the biggest city in Europe never to have had a top flight football. Apparently that was drummed up by some journalist who wanted to describe how awful the team was after a game when the club was close to dropping out of the football league altogether. Whether accurate or not - that piece of football trivia is now obsolete.

10 years ago, the club was at the bottom of Division Three, in financial administration and locked out of its own football ground. Yesterday, all that became a distant memory as thousands of us dressed in black and amber went absolutely barmy when referee Alan Wiley blew the final whistle at the home of football.

The stunning winning goal, a volley from the edge of the penalty area, was scored by Dean Windass, Hull born and bred, 39-years-old, a former pea packer. In footballing terms, he's an old age pensioner. Sports writers in today's Sunday papers have had a field day in scribbling about "a fairy tale", Windass scoring for his home town club to send it into the Premier League for the first time ever. At the end of the match, "Deano" sprinted from the bench (where he had been substituted) towards us. But all he could do was collapse to the ground and weep with emotion.

For a fan, the goal (scored just before half time) was sensational. But from then on, watching the match was agony as time and time again Bristol City had chances to score an equaliser. But we went absolutely mental when that final whistle went - a moment I will never forget. When I first started going to matches at the club's old, run down Boothferry Park, I paid £6.50 to watch a standard of football bordering on the horrific. Yesterday, I paid £65 to watch City win at Wembley - fantastic.

It was a great day out. Two of my friends came down to Kettering on Friday night and we travelled to London yesterday morning. After hanging around the King's Cross/St Pancras area to soak up the atmosphere as Tigers fans arrived on trains from Hull, we made our way to Wembley Park station. It was a friendly atmosphere, with both sets of fans mingling. After a pint it was time to go through the turnstiles. "Breathtaking" is the word I would use to describe the first glimpse inside the stadium. The face of a young boy when he climbed the steps and looked out over the pitch for the first time said it all.

Today I've made my way back up to Hull to continue the celebrations for the rest of the Bank Holiday weekend. Tomorrow, there's an open top bus of the city, giving a chance for the fans to see the players close up.

It will be a minor miracle if we manage to stay in the Premier League next season, but for the moment, we all just want to savour and celebrate the moment. Teams like Manchester Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool will be entertained at the Kingston Communications Stadium next season. Bring it on!

HFE Bill Committee stage

As you will know, yesterday and today there were heavy defeats for the pro-life lobby in parliament.

Tonight, amendments to lower the time limit for social abortions have been comprehensively defeated. This blog thought it was the wrong approach to go for such amendments. The reasons were clear: many of those in support of a reduction in the time limit are also in favour of liberalising the law for earlier abortions. Movers of several of the amendments tonight to lower the time limit are self-confessed pro-choicers, such as Nadine Dorries. The closest vote was an attempt to lower the time limits for social abortions to 22 weeks. This would have hardly made a difference if it was passed anyway in saving lives. Instead, attention now turns to the third reading where rumours suggest that moves to further liberalise the law (such as the removal of the need for two doctors' signatures) could be tabled. Let us pray that these are resisted. If not - then the numbers of abortions are set to increase still further well past the 200,000 mark.

For clarification, here are the results of the votes tonight:

To cut the time limit for social abortions (bearing in mind that abortion is still legal up to birth if the unborn child has a "severe" handicap) to:

12 weeks - Ayes 71 Noes 393
16 weeks - Ayes 84 Noes 387
20 weeks - Ayes 190 Noes 332
22 weeks - Ayes 233 Noes 304

A move to require women seeking an abortion to be offered advice and counselling (again moved by a pro-choice MP) was defeated by 173 to 309.

It is clear from these votes that abortion laws have no chance of being made stricter in the current parliament.

The most concerning thing about the debate on abortion tonight was that the deputy chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, Claire Curtis Thomas, is quoted by the BBC as saying she believes in a woman's right to choose. I missed her speech, but if this quote is the case, then surely she must resign from her post with immediate effect? This illustrates how warped many MPs' views on abortion is. She pushed for a reduction in the time limit but said she was still pro-choice. She has tonight exposed her own position on the floor of the House. There have been other suggestions over the years that she is not fully pro-life. This makes her position in the APPLG a farce and she should either resign or be removed from the post as soon as possible.

I've been off and at home for the last couple of days and watched most of the debate yesterday on the issues of human/animal hybrids and saviour siblings and have been watching/catching up with today's debates on the removal of the need for a father and amendments to the abortion act. An amendment to ban the use of admixed embryos was defeated by 176 votes to 336. An attempt to ban the creating of saviour siblings was lost by 342 votes to 163 whilst an amendment by Iain Duncan-Smith against the removal of the need for a father was lost by 217 to 293.

Three Roman Catholic cabinet ministers – the defence secretary, Des Browne, the transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, and the Welsh secretary, Paul Murphy - voted in favour of the unsuccessful attempt to ban hybrids. The majority of the shadow cabinet - including the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, and the shadow home secretary, David Davis - also backed the ban although David Cameron voted against. Paul Murphy and Ruth Kelly voted to ban saviour siblings as well as the amendment against the removal of the need for a father.

Yesterday, the debates were conducted very amicably with some technical scientific points being explored. There's obviously a few MPs from both sides of the argument who were in the House throughout the debate on the two issues. Regular interventions were made by Dr Evan Harris, the leader of the pro-choice, pro-embryo research, generally the pro-killing young innocent human beings in the Commons. He butted in on almost every speech made by an MP and gave a lengthy speech full of speculative hopes about the possible benefits of human animal hybrids. Bucking the trend of a lot of Conservative MPs is John Bercow, member for Buckingham. During the Second Reading and yesterday, he made numerous interventions and seems to be the Tory allis of Dr Harris.

I actually thought that yesterday, very few of the speakers on the so-called "pro-life" stance were particularly telling. I would pick out Edward Leigh, who moved the admixed embroys ban. He said: "We believe that the move is a step too far and should therefore be banned. Indeed, the Government support the contention that some things are so ethically dangerous that they should be banned.

"The public have been misled—cruelly, in many cases—into thinking that such research could lead to early and useful cures by exaggeration, misinformation and hyperbole.

"We should ban what 21 other countries have banned. No other country in Europe is going down this route yet. In terms of embryonic research, we will almost be like a rogue state.

"My conscience tells me that an embryo is not a thing. It has been fertilised, and I believe that human life begins at conception."

Sir Patrick Cormack was one of the MPs both today and yesterday to tell it how it is: the moves in the HFE Bill are just plain wrong. This evening, in support of IDS's amendment, said:

"When I entered this House in 1970, if somebody had told me that nearly 40 years thence, the House would debate the need for a father, I would have thought that that person had taken leave of his senses. What we are talking about is the natural order of things, and I make no apology for standing up for what I believe to be the natural order of things.

"It is one thing to defend and advance the proper human rights that, for instance, the people of Burma, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham stands up with great vigour, are completely deprived of. It is another thing entirely to extend and distort that concept of human rights, so that some people in this place are afraid to say—many outside this place are afraid to say—that it is a natural thing for a family to consist of a man and a woman who have children, and who give those children a natural and a proper home.

"When I listened this afternoon to some of the surreal exchanges that took place, I could not help but remember the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, who said:
'If the law supposes that…the law is a ass'."

One of the most profound points of the whole two days was made by Sir Patrick. It is one that we, as Catholics, will all agree to: "... we should not, out of a misguided concept of equality and fairness, pretend that there is an automatic right for anyone to have a child, regardless of sex."

I've been impressed by Geraldine Smith (Lab) who voted against the whole bill at second reading last week and has remained an opponent of her own government's bill. It was interesting to see today how health minister Dawn Primarolo continually rejected interventions by Mrs Smith, who was literally sitting behind her, because she obviously knew she was in for a pasting from one of her own colleagues about, what the backbencher rightly sees as the need for a father for a child.

In an passionate intervention earlier today she said: "To most people outside the House, the right hon. Gentleman [IDS] is simply talking common sense—they must wonder why we are even having this debate. Is it any wonder that people think politicians are out of touch with ordinary people when we have such debates? It is nonsense to suggest that we should not take into account the need for a father. We are not insisting that single women or lesbians do not have IVF treatment; the only thing we are saying is that there should be a father figure somewhere, who may be a grandfather or another relative. Many single parents depend on father figures, whether they are grandparents or other relatives. It is just pure common sense, and the fact that we are even debating it is ridiculous."

I think this was one of the strongest points of the whole two day's debating.

In her speech, she said: "I cannot see what harm is being done by saying to a lesbian couple or single woman who goes for IVF treatment, “For the welfare of the child, can you consider the need for a father? If there is not a father, is there a potential father figure?” Even having that discussion must do some good, and must make people think.

"... this is about common sense and what is in the best interests of the child, and it is also about saying that fathers have a role to play."

One of the shortest, and best, speeches in favour of the need for a mother (and father) clause was made by DUP MP Iris Robinson.

Here it is in full: "I speak tonight saddened by the approach taken by right hon. and hon. Members who wish to airbrush out the role of fatherhood. I notice that there are many grins on faces, but I stand by my faith and the word of God that man was created in the image of God and that woman was created from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet and companion. That is the natural progression of procreation.

"I am so sorry that hon. Members are abusing my position as a Christian and that they will not listen to me or give me due respect. I ask where the rights of the Christian people of this country are, because they have spoken. A recent poll reported in the press here showed that 80 per cent. of people recognise the need for the traditional family. Hon. Members can all breathe sighs of relief or indignation, but I am telling the House that the word of God says that procreation is through a man and a woman. We are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and to bring the rights of lesbians above all others in this country. It is a shame, and hon. Members ought to hang their heads in shame." Amen to that.

I think the father debate today was the most significant of the whole lot. As I warned at Christmas, this vote today now means that in our society in legal terms, the makeup of the family is no longer exclusively headed by a mother and father. This is simply sickening.

It has been interesting to see MPs, not only from the same side of the house but also sitting next to each other, vociferously disagreeing with their "honourable and right honourable friends". It's refreshing to know that, on some issues, party politics does not play a part. That said, Sky News reported earlier today that Labour whips were going round saying vote for the status quo on abortion, in particular, to allow Gordon Brown to breath easier given the pressures on her in recent weeks.

But what the votes on all these issues show is clear - this is the most anti-life parliament ever. Let us urge as many Catholics and pro-lifers as possible to get involved in their local political party - whatever their political persuasion - in an attempt to get elected and repeal this hideous law that now seems certain to become law.

This is a sad day for our country.

HFE Bill 2nd Reading coverage

According to reports, there are nine Labour rebels in the "noes" list above.

Out of the speeches from the "pro-life" side (I err on the side of caution in calling all who spoke or voted against the bill completely pro-life because I do not know all their voting records, early day motions, comments etc and I know for a fact that some are dodgy on abortion especially) I thought the pick of them were from David Burrowes, Iris Robinson, Claire Curtis-Thomas, Gereldine Smith, Alistair Burt and David Amess.


Summaries of each of these speeches are to follow in installments. First up is Mr Amess (Con, Southend West), a loyal and self confessed pro-lifer. In a debate on a hidious bill like this, you need someone who speaks passionately and with a strong voice, slags off the government, and is not afraid to label himself as a pro-lifer (which others did as well).

He started with: "The Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, described it as “flagship” legislation. I can now well and truly see why this Government are on the rocks, because the Bill is deeply flawed."

"We are being asked to take so much on trust—but where has trust got us in the House, given what Tony Blair told us about the weapons of mass destruction, not to mention so many other things?"

Then came a joke which I don't quite know how he got away with, but one that I found funny for obvious reasons, not least because I am still registered as a constituent for Hull East: "I do not claim to be an expert in the natural sciences, but if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) can be bulimic, there are clearly many aspects of the human body that I do not understand. None of us should hide behind a façade of scientific objectivity."

Continuing, he said: "The Bill deserves to be opposed on Second Reading, because the principles enshrined in it are unjust and contrary to human rights.

"There is no prospect of the Bill’s being amended to a state in which it might protect the rights and welfare of early human life. The Government intend to quash any saving amendments. What right does this House have to impose an arbitrary social experiment on the lives of thousands of unconsenting children?"

He said the bill reduces the status of the human embryo to a commodity to be abused, which thus dehumanises all human beings. Mr Amess also condemed the saviour siblings element of the bill and called the proposal to allow scientists to create embryos that are half-human, half-animal "a radical violation of human dignity".

Concerning the removal for the need for a father, the Tory MP said: "At present, infertility clinics have to consider the need of a child for a father. The law should give recognition to fathers and encourage them to take responsibility for their children. The Bill needs to recognise the natural right of a child to a father and mother."

In conclusion, he had a poignient but straight forward explanation of what is commonly know as the "slippery slope": "I believe that the public are being fed the same false hopes as they were in 1990. In 1990 the arguments were all about human embryo research. In 2001 they were about embryonic stem cell research. Now, we are told that the creation and destructive use of human-animal hybrid embryos will lead to cures for diseases. I fear that that will not be the case. The answers to parliamentary questions given by the Minister’s Department reveal that since 1990 there have been no such cures derived from human embryo research or embryonic stem cell research. I see no reason to believe that we will get any cures from so-called admixed embryos."

Putting his cards on the table, Mr Amess added: "Yes, I am a pro-lifer, so if I am going to err, I will err on the side of life. I believe that the message the House needs to send out to the scientific lobby is that it should forget about these unethical proposals and concentrate on adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells, which represent areas of research that have resulted in a number of cures. I hope that hon. Members will vote against this deeply flawed Bill."

HFE Bill: 2nd Reading

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was tragically read a second time tonight by 340 to 78.

I've watched most of the debate and intend to blog on some of the speeches tomorrow. One of the most concerning things to come out of today's debate was the following exchange just before the division:

Geraldine Smith: I want to ask the Minister about birth certificates. Will we reach a position in which two mothers appear on a birth certificate, but no father? How will a birth certificate be worded if two lesbians have a child, and one of them appears on the certificate as the second parent? What will the certificate actually say?

Dawn Primarolo: It will say that one is the mother and the other is the parent

There then followed shouts of "it's a disgrace" particularly from the Conservative benches. I would have shouted the same.

More coverage to follow. In the meantime, here are the 78 names worthy of being published on this blog tonight:

NOES

Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Beith, rh Mr. Alan
Benton, Mr. Joe
Binley, Mr. Brian
Bone, Mr. Peter
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burt, Alistair
Campbell, Mr. Gregory
Cash, Mr. William
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Conway, Derek
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Davies, Philip
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr. Jeffrey M.
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Drew, Mr. David
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Durkan, Mark
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Farrelly, Paul
Field, Mr. Mark
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Gray, Mr. James
Green, Damian
Gummer, rh Mr. John
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Hayes, Mr. John
Hemming, John
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hunter, Mark
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacNeil, Mr. Angus
McCrea, Dr. William
McGrady, Mr. Eddie
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mudie, Mr. George
Paisley, rh Rev. Ian
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Robinson, Mrs. Iris
Robinson, rh Mr. Peter
Rowen, Paul
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Simpson, David
Smith, Geraldine
Spring, Mr. Richard
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, David
Teather, Sarah
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Walker, Mr. Charles
Weir, Mr. Mike
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wilshire, Mr. David
Wilson, Sammy
Winterton, Ann
Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Tellers for the Noes: Daniel Kawczynski andMr. David Amess

May 7

Today is my birthday. I'm 23 years old. Oh bother, I'm getting on!

As blogged on this day last year, I have the awesome pleasure of sharing my birthday with the feast day of St John of Beverley, who is, geographically, the nearest saint to me as well as St John Fisher, who of course was born in Beverley.



Fittingly, this morning, I got in the car and made the short trip to the historic market town about 10 miles from my home in Sutton-on-Hull for 9.30am Mass at St John of Beverley RC Church. Fr Roy Lovatt started Mass by saying that St John of Beverley is not on the universal calender or the national calender for feastdays. Fr said that he had a decent shout to be on the universal and said the fact he doesn't even appear on the national was a "scandal". Naturally, I agree. As this blog has said before, it's shameful how little we know or are even bothered about our nation's saints.

Fr Roy said that at one point in England, St John of Beverley was the most revered saint behind Our Lady. "We certainly haven't forgotten him", Fr said. He went on to explain how St John was a popular figure, with people following eager to listen to him and deepen in their faith. He was particularly popular with the young, something that was celebrated both this afternoon and on Sunday at St John of Beverley RC Primary in the town. Today, a Mass was due to take place there for the kids followed by a tea party outside. On Sunday, there is a St John of Beverley day. There's going to be lunch and tea, wine, activities and games for the children and entertainment. This is how local saints should be celebrated. It's fantastic to see the word "feast" being put into practice. What a great opportunity to emphasise to young Catholics how important their patrons are.

Back to this morning's Mass, St John remains an important figure both in the heritage of the town and in the faith. People still make a visit to the church named after him for these very reasons. Once, the premier places of pilgrimage in England were Canterbury and Beverley.

St John is one of the patrons of the Diocese of Middlesbrough. He was Bishop of Hexham and, later, of York. He was born in the village of Harpham, East Yorkshire. At a young age, he moved to Canterbury to be educated by St. Theodorus, the archbishop, and St Adrian. He then went to St. Hilda's, Whitby, where he became a Benedictine monk. He became the Bishop of Hexham in 687. He liked to take time out for long periods of contemplation, especially during Lent. He would take a poor person with him each time and would serve them each day. On one occasion at the beginning of Lent, he took a dumb young person, who couldn't say a word and who had scabs and scales on his head, without any hair. On the second Sunday of Lent he made the sign of the cross on his tongue, and loosed it. Then he taught him to say "Gea", which meant "yes" in Saxon, followed by the letters of the alphabet and so on. The youth miraculously obtained his speech.

This story is why he is the Patron Saint of the deaf. St John is attributed with several other miracles, involving the blessing of Holy Water. John became the Bishop of York in 703 and was present at the synod of the Nidd in 705. He had a monastery built at Beverley which he used as his retreat centre. In 717, he retired there and died on 7th May 721. His relics are at the magnificent Beverley Minster. As I said at the beginning, his shrine was for centuries one of the most popular pilgrim centers in England. He was canonized by Pope Benedict IX in 1037. King Henry V's victory at Agincourt was attributed to the aid of him and Saint John of Bridlington. Other kings also took his standard into battle and asked for his intercession.

After Mass there was a cup of tea followed by exposition. I then was invited by Sue, Fr Roy's wife, into the house for tea and cakes and caught up with the family.

For lunch, I went to The Altisidora pub in the picturesque village of Bishop Burton. It's years since I've been there - we used to go often when I was younger. They do magnificent food. I had steak and chips. You pass through the village on the Hull to York road. Bear it in mind if you're ever up that way.

Talking about saints, I once again have to hold my hands up to a truly terrible performance in terms of bringing you more 40 martyr reflections. Eastertide is running out and I've got no chance of finishing the series by Sunday. I suppose I will just endeavour to do them as and when I get the chance.

Radio Humberside phone-in

Yesterday, for the first time in my life, I took part in a radio phone-in. I am on holiday this week back at home in Hull and was driving around the city on a couple of errands when the issue of abortion was mentioned on BBC Radio Humberside. It was one of the topics being discussed on the daily "Soapbox" show within the context of the news that MP Nadine Dorries today announced she would be tabling an amendment to lower the time limit for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 in the upcoming Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

The programme is usually presented by Blair Jacobs but yesterday, veteran regional TV and radio presented Peter Levy was standing in. Peter presents Look North in Hull, the BBC regional news programme up here. He is know for attempting to grill people on the most trivial of issues. But, actually, he wasn't too bad with me.

I rushed home and had a quick look at the Dorries story on the internet. Then, shaking like a leaf and praying the Hail Mary at the same time, I rang up and explained what I wanted to talk about. Within five minutes, the station rang me back and wanted me to go on the show. I declared an interest at the beginning of the radio call to the show as a National Executive Committee of SPUC and an active member of the local SPUC branch when I'm at home. I think they sounded quite pleased that I was representing an organisation that had a local branch.
Unfortunately, I can't find the programme on "listen again" on the BBC Humber website so you can't assess and constructively criticise my performance. But here are the main points (from memory) that I managed to get across:

Nadine Dorries says on record today that she is in favour of a women's right to choose to have an abortion despite wanting to cut the upper time limit. This attitude is quite a widespread view of MPs at the moment. The UK parliament at present is what we would call the most anti-life parliament ever. In principle, the reduction of the time limit for social abortions is desirable but, in the present political climate, is not a practical step towards reducing the number of abortions because such a proposal (even if it were passed) is likely to be "traded off" in the HFE Bill with a move to liberalise the law on abortion (e.g removing the need for a doctor's signature, allowing nurses to perform abortions) thus resulting in more abortions which we don't want. Such a move would therefore defeat its own objective.

I was asked to clarify what SPUCs position on abortion was. I said we were against abortion at all costs, except when the mother's life is in danger (the direct intention here is to save the life of the mother and not to kill the child - although this is a likely consequence of such action but is not intended).

A couple of questions were put to me: one about the scenario of a teenage girl who gets pregnant and "dosen't have much of an option" other than abortion; and one about society's attitudes.
I said that it was society that doesn't give girls alternatives to abortion and presumes that she should have an abortion. We have got to such a dire situation as a consequence of the growing disrespect of human life in the last 40 years. The sexualisation of our culture has resulted in teenagers becoming more promiscuous and getting into such situations where an innocent human life is the victim. This culture should be combated in our schools with abstinence education, teaching the value of abstaining from sex before marriage.

Peter Levy agreed that the 500/600 a day figures were significant and mentioned pictures of the feet of a baby born prematurely at 21 weeks that appear in today's newspapers. He put it to me that these images make our argument stronger. I agreed but said that the status of the human embryo and its genetic makeup is a sound enough argument against abortion. I went onto describe that the embryo was a "genetically new and genetically complete human being" that is separate from its mother. All the characteristics of that person are defined from the moment of conception - the colour of their eyes, skin, hair etc. All the baby has to do now is grow and develop ready for birth - just as a child grows into adolescence and adulthood.
At the end of the call, which lasted for around five minutes, I was kicking myself about the things I didn't say and the stuff I didn't explain in enough detail. The reality of phone-ins is that you only have a limited amount of time and can therefore only focus on a couple of subjects, particularly in such a wide topic as abortion.

As soon as I heard that "abortion" was being discussed on the programme I started to think of excuses for not ringing up - I couldn't come up with any. Our Lady helped me through it and the Holy Spirit guided me in the things I said and, hopefully, with the tone I took. I strongly encourage anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation - however much or little you are involved in the pro-life movement - to make that phonecall and put pro-life points across with the help of the Lord. You never know who you might influence or convert...

Pro-Life chains

Last Saturday, 11 members and supporters of SPUC's Hull branch lined a roadside for nearly two hours on one of the main approaches into the city.

Banners with two slogans, "Women deserve better than abortion" and "Abortion kills children and hurts women", were read by hundreds of car drivers and occupants. As I described in the preview piece, I don't particularly like doing this kind of thing - but it's got to be done. Whatever the reaction people when they spotted us and our whilst driving at 30/40 mph, the issue of abortion would have accompanied them and played on their minds as they picked up their shopping basket and went around Asda or whatever. Getting people thinking about the issue and getting rid of the notion that it's a taboo subject can only be a good thing.

The reactions of drivers, as expected, was mixed. Most of them looked curiously at us as if we were some kind of nutters, others wound down their windows and told us where to go, some did obscene gestures but a fairly sizable minority gave us the thumbs up and bibbed their horns. Two reactions that stick out and were particularly heartwarming were:

• the middle aged, well dressed driver who made a point of slowing down and doing the thumbs up to each of us holding a placard


• the car full of young lads that bibbed, cheered and waved from both sides of the carriageway on their way to and from the nearby retail park (I think this was a positive reaction although it's difficult to fathom out sometimes)

It is usual practice to inform the police of the time and location of a lawful protest. Naturally we did this. So I wasn't concerned when a police car pulled onto the path and asked for Peter, the organiser of the chain. The two officers were very pleasant and said they were aware that we would be there. They said they had received a phone call from a motorist saying they had "narrowly missed" one of us. The officers said they could see we were in an orderly fashion and said it was well within our rights to stay as long as we wanted to. They concluded that the phone call was malicious - someone who didn't agree with what we were doing. It was great to see the police deal with the incident so calmly. In my limited experience, they are usually very good. When I used to take part in the chain at Sheffield's Meadowhall, officers from South Yorkshire police turned up just to ask if everything was going well and to check if we'd had any problems. A society that kills 6oo unborn children a day cannot really be called democratic, but, it's such a blessing that we can speak up on any public highway (within reason) against injustice when so many countries don't have this right.

The pro-life chains were replicated across the land between 11am and 1pm to mark the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act.