Saturday, 7 November 2009

Pro-abortion conference gets rough ride in pro-life Ireland

Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland has sent me the following report:
"A conference in the National University of Ireland intended to promote access to abortion as a human right didn’t entirely go according to plan Thursday when the audience gave speakers a rough ride.

"The event, entitled Global and Local Human Rights Perspectives on Abortion was organised jointly by the Irish Family Planning Association and the university's Irish Centre for Human Rights.

"Roughly 100 people, mostly of student age, turned–up to listen to the five abortion advocates attack Ireland’s pro-life laws and call for access to abortion to be recognised and a human right. Each speaker made her presentation without interruption and received polite applause but once the floor was opened for questions, however, it was clear that a substantial section (if not most) of those attending the meeting was pro-life.

"The meeting began with Ms Eileen Fegan, a former law lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast, outlining efforts of the pro-abortion lobby to liberalise abortion law in Northern Ireland. She argued that recent health department guidance on abortion lacked clarity and claimed the law could not be applied properly. The pro-abortion lobby had sought to have the Abortion Act extended to Northern Ireland last year but had been blocked by the efforts of Northern Ireland politicians.

"Without explaining her assertion, Ms Fegan claimed that sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act were breaches of human rights standards. Speaking with frustration at the lack of progress, she asked: "How can one move forward in this situation?

"Natalie McDonnell, a legal consultant for the Irish Family Planning Association and a practising barrister, said that the IFPA had been calling for some time for guidelines on the law in the republic of Ireland. She said that there needed to be guidance on the application of recent court decisions to article 43.3.3 of the constitution that prohibits abortion.

"Ms McDonnell also cited the criticisms of Ireland by various UN human rights committees which have become notorious for pressuring states across the globe to liberalise abortion. However, she failed to point out that such bodies have no legal authority to pursue such an agenda and no international treaty recognises access to abortion as a human right. She concluded by speaking about the case of ABC v Ireland due to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights on 9th December. Three women with the assistance of the IFPA claim Ireland's prohibition on abortion breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Ms Joanna Erdman of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme at Toronto University, Canada, compared grounds for abortion in various national laws. She too relied heavily upon statements from UN committees and said that Ireland was the only member of the Council of Europe which allowed abortion to protect a woman's life but not her health. She argued that life and health were indivisible rights but made it clear that she supported the complete decriminalisation of abortion.

"Ms Christina Zampas, senior regional adviser and legal adviser for Europe for the Center for Reproductive Rights, spoke of how human rights standards could be used to widen the accessibility of abortion. While Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the rights of all sections of the “human family” without any distinction and regardless of status, she asserted that it did not recognise the right to life before birth since Article 1 states refers to “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

"Most of her argument, however, was again draw treaty monitoring bodies such as the committee set-up to oversee the implementation of Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Such committees, she said, had repeatedly called for penalties for abortion to be removed from national laws. She complained that Ireland imposed some of the strictest penalties for abortion in Europe, if not in the world.

"The final speaker was Ms Aminata Touré, former chief on gender, culture and human rights for the United Nations Population Fund and a past director of International Planned Parenthood Federation in her native Senegal. Believing she was speaking to a friendly audience she spoke candidly about the importance of using the Maputo protocols and the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal number five on maternal mortality to widen access to abortion in Africa.

"In a departure from the scheduled programme time for questions was left to the very end of the meeting. Then one after another, members of the audience began to denounce the human rights centre for organising a biased event whilst pretending to be neutral on the issue of abortion. In an attempt to redress the obvious imbalance, Professor William Schabas, the centre’s director and chairman of the meeting, said that he would allow time for people to put opposing views but he soon became impatient. One member of the audience wanted to know if public money had been used to fund the event. Another, apparently a member of the university’s staff, felt compelled to apologise to the students present for having been subjected to a one-sided panel of speakers and wanted to know why representatives of post-abortion groups like Silent No More or Rachel’s Vineyard had not been invited to take part. A graduate from the NUI law faculty criticised the faulty reasoning of the speaker from the IFPA and argued that her comments where not representative of the opinion of constitutional lawyers in Ireland.

"With no visible support among the audience both the speakers and the conference organisers were clearly frustrated and sat uncomfortably as the points they raised were refuted.

"Despite his efforts to speak Professor Eamon O'Dwyer, the university's professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology, had been passed over by the chairman. When Professor Schabas called and end to the questions and began his concluding remarks, Professor O'Dwyer interrupted him. At first Professor Schabas refused to give way becoming increasingly irritable. Finally when Prof O'Dwyer persisted he was allowed to speak. He began by explaining that he had been member of NUI for 33 years and had been part of the university’s governing body. He said that such a 'charade' would not have taken place during his time. He spoke about the 1983 referendum and Ireland's maternal mortality record which is recognised by the World health organisation as the best in the world and spoke of his experience working in as a doctor in Africa.

"Professor Schabas clearly stung by Professor O’Dwyer’s comments and was audibly emotional when he resumed his concluding remarks. When yet another pro-life member of the audience who hadn't been allowed to speak from the floor interrupted, Professor Schabas called the meeting to an abrupt halt."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday, 6 November 2009

I'm at the 4th Int'l Pro-life Congress, Saragossa, Spain

I have come to Spain for the fourth International Pro-life Congress in Saragossa in Aragón. The Catholic News Agency reports that I shall be among speakers from 14 countries addressing some 1,000 delegates, and a rough translation of the theme is "awareness: a symphony for life".

The meeting starts tomorrow and ends on Sunday, when I shall be concluding the congress by speaking about policies for a European pro-life agenda.

I'll be saying that the British and Spanish prime ministers are promoting the lie that pro-lifers want to impose their religious beliefs on society. In fact, the pro-life movement represents humanity’s consensus on the right to life as reference to international human rights agreements shows clearly.

I'll say: "This is world war three and it’s primarily a war on the unborn and on parents as the primary educators of their children." I shall criticize church leaders who appear to have imbibed the spirit of the age. Catholic authorities in my country co-operate with the government in providing schoolchildren with access to abortion and birth control. At one Catholic school, a nurse used a plastic model to show children how to put on a condom. Pupils were given a card saying where to get free contraceptives and morning-after pills. It also had the address of a website which told young people where to get abortions.

Church leaders are failing to teach the prophetic message of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on the transmission of human life, with a false distinction being made between church policy and church doctrine on this matter. With reference to recent events, I say that the pro-life movement must work to ensure that the same thing does not happen in the Church with Evangelium Vitae which sets out Catholic teaching on the sanctity and inviolability of every human life.

I shall end by calling for a radical change in the policy for nominating bishops throughout Europe. I'll call for an end to the nomination of bishops who do not have a sustained and genuine track record of fidelity to Catholic teaching on human life and how it is transmitted.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Compulsory sex ed is government exploitation of schools

The government has announced today that it will implement the recommendations of the pro-abortion SRE Review Group for sex education throughout all Key Stages (age 5-16) of the education system. Mr Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, issued a ministerial statement.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, told the media earlier today:
"We condemn this exploitation of the state-controlled school system by the government to deliver its anti-life policies to children, by-passing parental involvement.

"The government is removing the right of parents to protect their children from the explicit promotion of abortion and sexual health interventions in the latter stages. This will be exploited to pressure more schools to deliver government-style sexual health interventions. In recent years, these have been characterised by obscene and lurid presentations. These are the classroom equivalent of 'advertorials', promoting sex and birth-control products. They send the message to children: 'do whatever you like - just be sure to avoid or abort any pregnancy'.

"In today's statement, Mr Balls pays lip-service to the ethos of religious schools, but does not give them an opt-out from its SRE agenda. He demands that school governors should deliver the 'core entitlement' of the government's agenda, putting the onus on governors to find ways of reconciling this with their school's ethos.

"Mr Balls is bullying governors to help him enforce policies which are against the ethos of their schools, against the moral and religious values of their institutions, against the welfare of their pupils, and against the rights of parents."
SPUC has responded to the government's announcement by publishing a critique of government sexual health interventions for schools The document is being sent to all secondary schools, alerting them to the impact of the kind of SRE lessons that the government says children are 'entitled' to receive.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

University debate exposed the euthanasia lobby's duplicity

On Monday evening Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, debated at University College London (UCL) against assisted suicide. The motion before the UCL Debating Society was: "That this House would legalise assisted dying". Speaking along with Anthony was Dr Peter Saunders, director of the Care Not Killing Alliance. Speaking in favour of the motion was Sarah Wootton, the pro-abortion veteran who now heads the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) (which now trades under the euphemism "Dignity in Dying") and Dr Simon Kenwright, a gastroenterologist.

Anthony tells me that Sarah Wootton claimed the VES:
  • only supports "assisted dying" (in reality assisted suicide) for terminally-ill, mentally competent patients
  • does not support "assisted suicide on demand"
  • will never support non-voluntary euthanasia.
Anthony countered these claims by pointing that:
  • the VES supported the legal campaign of Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis (MS), which is not a terminal illness. The VES also supported the case of the late Daniel James, who was paralysed (not terminally-ill), whose parents took him to Switzerland for assisted suicide
  • Sarah Wootton wrote recently in The Guardian that the VES does not campaign for assisted suicide, yet qualified that in her debate speech by adding "on demand"
  • the VES supports the law in The Netherlands, which entails non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The VES also supports the ruling in the case of Tony Bland, which allowed non-voluntary euthanasia.
Sarah Wootton tried to counter Anthony's rebuttals by claiming that:
  • Debbie Purdy's type of MS is a terminal one, though one which may not kill her within a year
  • the VES didn't support the Daniel James case
  • the Bland case was very different, because it was about keeping severely brain-damaged people alive, and the Bland judgment is now the current law under the Mental Capacity Act.
She also tried to address the issue of the law in The Netherlands, but her answer was too indirect to make it worth describing. (In any case, the VES's website claims that the situation in The Netherlands is good.)

Anthony says that Sarah Wootton's defences are false:
  • There is no indication that Debbie Purdy is terminally ill. People with MS and societies representing them are forced frequently to correct media statements that MS is a terminal illness.
  • According to Lord Joffe's assisted suicide bill (which was backed by the VES), terminal illness "means an illness which will be likely to result in the patient’s death within a few months at most".
  • For legal purposes (such as life insurance), terminal illness means that "life expectancy is less than 12 months".
  • Sarah Wootton has played this game before: in The Guardian she claimed that the VES "campaign[s] for the choice of assisted dying for the terminally ill within strict safeguards." In the very next sentence, she wrote: "...for the choice of assistance to die for those who are suffering, competent to make the decision and are already dying." Yet "terminally-ill" and "dying" are two different terms. To be dying is to have hours or days to live - to be terminally-ill is to have up to a year to live. And, according to Sarah Wootton's definition of "terminally ill", Debbie Purdy - who will almost certainly live for many years more - is already dying! Edward Turner, a board-member and spokesman for the VES, accompanied Dr Ann Turner, his mother, to her assisted suicide at Dignitas. Sarah Wootton, again writing in The Guardian, again falsely claimed that a degenerative disease (in Dr Turner's case, progressive supranuclear palsy) was a terminal illness.
  • The VES said that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was right not to prosecute the parents of Daniel James, who assisted his travel to the Dignitas suicide centre in Switzerland. Sarah Wootton has argued that a benefit of legalising assisted suicide for the terminally-ill would be that "requests for help to die could be expressed openly to doctors" by non-terminally-ill people like Daniel James. So it is clear that the VES believe it is right that non-terminally-ill people like Daniel James should be free openly to request assisted suicide and their family obtain it for them with impunity.
  • In the debate, Sarah Wootton said that her organisation was founded in 1935 - clearly referring to the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. If, however, her organisation - which has traded under the euphemism Dignity in Dying since 2005 - does not (as she claims) campaign for euthanasia, then what organisation does she represent? The one founded in 1935 or a new one founded in 2005? The VES/Dignity in Dying is a member of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies. Other members of the federation include organisations in other countries also called the "Voluntary Euthanasia Society", and others called the "Hemlock Society" (named after the poison most famously taken by Socrates, whose suicide was ordered as capital punishment). If the UK's VES/Dignity in Dying doesn't campaign for euthanasia or assisted suicide, why is it part of the federation? And why did it support the campaign of Debbie Purdy, who has made clear that she is campaigning for assisted suicide? And if the VES doesn't support the practice of suicide, why did Sarah Wootton write, after the Law Lord's judgment in favour of Debbie Purdy, that: "We will now all have the freedom to take the decision to end our lives"?
  • The judges in the Bland case ruled that a totally vulnerable, non-dying, innocent human being should be intentionally starved and dehydrated to death - in other words, non-voluntary euthanasia. One of the reasons that the VES campaigned for the Mental Capacity Act is because the Act reflects the Bland judgment.
Anthony adds:
"The more Sarah Wootton opens her mouth or puts pen to paper, the clearer the duplicity of the VES's campaign becomes. And considering that she is veteran of the pro-abortion lobby - which has lied, repeatedly, for 40 years about the indisputable humanity of the unborn child, about illegal abortion figures, and about abortion's damage to women's physical and psychological health - I am unsurprised."
So, in conclusion, I'd just like to say: "Congratulations, Anthony!" 

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

Apparent double suicide case should be investigated

The BBC has reported the deaths of Dennis and Flora Milner of Newbury, Berkshire and their alleged suicide note.

Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media this evening:
"The police should investigate the circumstances of this couple's apparent suicide to establish whether any other person was involved in the deaths. We would like them to look into issues such as possible social or financial pressures the couple might have been under. We will be writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) urging him to ensure that the matter is fully investigated. It seems anomalous that the dead couple expressed gratitude to doctors for keeping them alive for 'at least 25-30 years', when it is reported that they didn't want to become dependent on the care of other people.

"Naturally, the information that is publicly available is limited. The BBC's report did not state whether the couple themselves gave any reason for ending their lives. The couple apparently said they thought suicide was a 'human right', but not why they wanted to take this step.

"We will look carefully at the reporting of this suicide to see whether it is being conducted in line with guidelines for journalists which are designed to help avoid copy-cat suicides by vulnerable people. If people think that they can make a splash in the national media in this way, it could encourage others to kill themselves as a way of highlighting their pet cause - which would be a tragic and probably futile exercise.

"The National Suicide Prevention Strategy seeks to reduce the incidence of suicide, and guidelines for journalists have been issued to minimise the negative impact of reporting".
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

My talk to the Catholic chaplaincy at the University of London

Last night I spoke to 30 very attentive and supportive students at the Catholic chaplaincy to the University of London.

I pointed out that supporters of abortion and human embryo research depicted pro-life people as religious extremists. Last year, in a letter to MPs about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (now passed into law), Gordon Brown mentioned religious objections five times. In 1990, when the old Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was being debated, SPUC sent medical models of a 20-week unborn child to politicians and some MPs said it was in bad taste. Similar models could then be seen at the Natural History Museum but there were no complaints.

I said that, far from being extreme, pro-life people simply sought to uphold, for example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child which says:
“the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
I told the students that even some of the people whose work we oppose agree with us on the humanity of the embryo. Dr Stephen Minger, a scientist working to create human-animal hybrids, last year wrote in The Scotsman:
“The fact that [hybrids] have been derived using what was originally a cow egg in no way mitigates the fact that they are human”.
Baroness Warnock's 1984 inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology had conceded:
"… biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive. However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken in order to allay public anxiety.”
In other words, they had no rational, ethical basis for a decision but they took one anyway. Lady Warnock last year conceded that the thinking behind embryo legislation was utilitarian. She now argues in favour of euthanasia, suggesting that some have a duty to die.

Anti-life measures led to the idea that disposing of certain human beings was a service to others. They caused an erosion of rights, such as medics' objection to taking part in abortion and parents' rights to care for their families. I pointed out that an article in Psychology and Health in 2005 said that between 10% and 20% of women will experience severe negative psychological complications after abortion. I also described the horrific process of abortion.

I recalled Pope Paul VI's warning in part 17 of Humanae Vitae that, once artificial contraception became tolerated, governments might favour the most effective methods and even impose them on people. The fulfilment of this prophecy could be seen not only in China, but in Britain with the government's policy of providing schoolchildren access to abortions without parental knowledge or consent and in the co-operation with that policy by the Catholic Education Service in England and Wales.

I concluded by quoting Mother Teresa who, when accepting her Nobel prize, said:
"[T]he greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion”.
I expressed the conviction that her view would prevail over the values of President Obama, another Nobel laureate, who has called for abortion on demand to be legalised throughout the world.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday, 2 November 2009

Court should rule in favour of life in Baby RB case

The BBC reports that the father of "Baby RB", a disabled boy, is opposing attempts by a hospital trust to deny life-sustaining treatment to his son. The trust argues that Baby RB's quality of life is so low due to congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS) that it is not in his best interests to be kept alive.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications mananger, told the media this afternoon:
"Whenever there is doubt about life-sustaining medical treatment, everyone should act with a presumption in favour of life. The value of a person's life, and the protection due to that life, should never be judged according to opinions about the person's quality of life. An ill or disabled person's life should never be regarded as not worth living. Doctors should not confuse the possible burdens of a medical intervention with the priceless worth of a person's life."
Janet Thomas of No Less Human, a group within SPUC which represents disabled people, also told the media this afternoon:
"Some children who contracted polio in the 1950s were left unable to breathe independently and had to spend the rest of their lives in an iron lung. There was no question in the 1950s of the poor quality of life of polio patients who could not breathe independently affecting their entitlement to treatment to help them continue their lives. A well-known example is John Prestwich MBE, who was paralysed at the age of 17 from the chin down, and has spent all his life in an iron lung. He now usually uses a much lighter turtleshell device, which does the same job and enables him to be more mobile.  Why should not Baby RB have access to modern technology in the 21st century and lead a life as normal and happy as he is able? The fact that an individual's life would necessarily be short does not justify our deliberately killing him. In fact, it could be fairly argued that the shortness of life demands special care to make the most of that brief life."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Study confirms truth that abortion hurts women

British Victims of Abortion (BVA), SPUC's sister group which helps women hurt by abortion, has welcomed a new study which confirms that abortion is bad for women.  The study, by Professor David Fergusson and his team at the department of psychological medicine, university of Otago, New Zealand, found abortion can put women at increased risk of mental health problems. Margaret Cuthill of BVA told the media today:
"This study reinforces the work of  Dr. Vincent Rue who established post-abortion trauma as a type of post-traumatic stress disorder.

"What we at British Victims of Abortion hear in the counselling room confirms the truth of Professor Fergusson’s results.

"There has been 40 years of abortion in this country alone. The majority of research that has been accepted has been by pro-abortionists denying that abortion has any significant long-term consequences to the woman. Now, at last, we have acknowledgement of these negative consequences from a pro-choice, atheist, rationalist scientist (Prof. Fergusson). British Victims of Abortion applauds Professor Fergusson.

"Abortion-providers, and abortion promoters such as the Family Planning Association (FPA), will deny the research's validity, because it conflicts with their political agenda and threatens their livelihoods.

"Professor Fergusson's study will be a useful tool in our challenge to our country's abortion-biased culture. It will add to the voice of our ‘Silent No More Campaign’ http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/snm/ where women and men are now speaking out publicly about these negative effects."
BVA operates a helpline 0845 603 8501 offering support to those struggling in the aftermath of a personal abortion experience.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Rise in teenage abortions means government should scrap sex ed plans

The government should scrap its plans for compulsory sex and relationships education in primary schools in the light of the rise in teenage abortions. New Department of Health figures reveal a steep rise in the number of abortions among 14 and 15 year olds in the last two years.

The rise in teenage abortions is a direct result of the government's obsession with providing abortion to schoolgirls without parental knowledge or consent. The government is indulging its obsession by establishing sexual health clinics outside schools and by using school nurses and careers advisors to provide access to abortion. The government's latest move is to introduce children to an adult life of sexual activity and abortion by making sex and relationships education compulsory from the age of five. This is state-sponsored child abuse. It's vital that parents take a stand against government authorities whose policies lead to usurping parents' rightful role.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Professor criticises government's sex-ed programme

A leading economist has criticised the British government's sex education programme. Dr David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, yesterday took part in a debate in London organised by the Institute of Ideas. SPUC's Sam Forsdike was there and his report is on the web here.

Dr Paton told the meeting that, over the past 10 years, the government had spent £250 million on developing a programme to provide information on sex, including contraception and abortion, and to link schools to sexual advice clinics. While the rate of pregnancies in under-18s had fallen, pregnancies among under-16s, sexually transmitted diseases and teenage abortion rates had increased. There was no evidence that the investment of so much money to drive down teenage pregnancies was achieving its aim. Easier access to birth control, including the morning-after pill, had not helped reduce teenage pregnancies and may have encouraged children to have sex at a younger age. In the Netherlands, sex education started later than in the UK, they had no statutory curriculum, and that country had lowered its rate of teenage pregnancy.

He said parental involvement in sex education made it more effective. Sex education professionals thought there was nothing wrong with sex as long as the person felt ready for it and used a condom. They failed to talk about abstinence. Dr Paton said parents should be able to withdraw their children from classes that they thought inappropriate.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy