No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.

Yes, this is largely a damage limitation exercise in order to look as though Gove is actually in charge of things. In actuality he is the worst secretary of education for a very long time.

The syllabus in the UK is largely developed by subject specialists, not politicians. Having said that Michael Gove, the current secretary of state for education has attempted to put his imprimatur on one or two subjects, particularly English. He has essentially removed any books from the syllabus not written in Britain (Of Mice and Men has been removed for example), his interference has been treated with derision by those with some knowledge of the subject.

The other thing he is famous (infamous?) for is distributing a signed copy of the King James bible to every school in England and Wales. Not for nothing is his nickname Pob.

A far better quotation is:

Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.

This is extremely restrictive in that it frames things in terms of a single god and only in belief. The more common atheist position is:

2b. I lack belief in the existence of gods.

While your 1. hides the existence of the asymmetry between theism and atheism, every theist I have ever come across believes in a single god or particular pantheon of gods and either lacks belief in the existence of other gods, actively disbelieves in them or thinks they are a misattribution of the god(s) that he worships.

Is a misunderstanding of what agnosticism is. Theism and a-theism (not the privative alpha) are about belief, gnosticism and a-gnosticism are about knowledge. It is perfectly possible to lack belief in god(s), i.e. be an atheist while at the same time not being certain that god(s) do not exist, i.e. agnostic.

The DWP is run by a politician, Ian Duncan Smith, to whom the aphorism "How can you tell a politician is lying? His mouth moves" applies in spades. He is also not very bright as well as being incompetent. The government of which he is a member is one of the most ideological we have had in decades and cares little about actual evidence for the policies.

As are several others including the minister for Health (who believes in homoeopathy) and the minister for work and pensions (who faked his own CV) and the minister for local government (who looks as though he has eaten his way through the output of a pie factory). But all of the ministers in this government simply ignore any evidence which runs counter to their ideology.

Not a real biggie, just a replacement for Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Child Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits, Housing Benefit for the whole of the UK population. I mean how hard can it be? Given your obvious talents I am sure you could knock something together using a few Excel macros by next Tuesday.

One of the things about this is that it is being driven by an ideologue who doesn't give a toss about evidence, not quite the person who thinks all government sponsored software development but pretty close.

My wife's relatives come from the Barnsley area of West Yorkshire, mine from around Castleford in the same county. Thatcher's policies were a disaster for these and many other areas of the country outside of the London metropolitan region. They were directly responsible for the increase in unemployment from around 1.5 million to 3.5 million and the loss of jobs for a generation.

Look at the reports in the press and the broadcast media, notice how few come from the North of England, Wales or Scotland.

Could you have a watch face like this one

Except if you read the legislation it will take a 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament to change the law.

You can actually provide a causal warrant to show that he openly helped bring down the USSR? Impressive.

Again, I presume you can justify this. Its an assertion I have seen a number of times, but I have never seen anything that would count as justification. As for "judging" him, this is the wrong word. "Criticising" would be better.

So another geriatric ultra-conservative in exactly the same mould as Benedict and John-Paul II. Cynics might say he has been elected in an attempt to halt the decline in Catholicism in Latin America, one of the sects most important regions. Otherwise the only place in the world it would seem to be growing is Africa. How relevant is it in the developed world? What percentage of Catholics actually attend mass each week? How many Catholics solely practice "natural" birth control methods or have issues with gay marriage? Oh, and interesting to see that this supposed bastion of morality has no problem, again, with someone who has cosied up to a fascist regime.

The only newspaper in the UK with a right wing bridge column. Noted for its trenchant attitude to the EU, the ECHR and its science-savvy journalists. (The latter is meant as sarcasm by the way).

Isn't this the tactic the Behe tried in the Dover-Kitzmiller trial? At which it was pointed out that his definition of science was so broad that it would have included astrology as a science. Perhaps this is what needs to happen here, someone needs to show what the consequences of the legislation will be, besides yet another court case and people pointing and laughing.