Tim Farron: Hypocrite

Ron Olden

NB – This essay does not constitute an endorsement or condemnation by the Libertarian Alliance of any candidate in the present General Election. SIG

If I hadn’t known better I’d imagine that reports of the existence of Tim Farron were ‘fake news’.

He’s finally said that he doesn’t think Gays making love is a ‘Sin’. He still however appears to believe that being Gay is a ‘sexual disorientation’ (sic) caused by some sort of chemical malfunction of the brain.

He says he’s been refusing to answer the ‘Sin’ point because he didn’t want to discuss ‘theology’. But most of us don’t see the question as ‘theological’. We see it as a matter of whether people should be able to live their lives in private without being looked down upon by the likes of Tim Farron judging them as ‘sinners’ according to standards he himself determines, or seen by him as having become ‘disorientated’ owing to brain malfunction.

He is, in any case, lying about ‘theology’. The reason this question came up in the first place is that Tim is known to have all manner of controversial ‘theological’ attitudes, which, now that he is ‘liberal’ leader, he likes to keep secret. If he hadn’t been discussing them, then how would we know about them?

He is, for example, in favour of disestablishing the Church of England. That may, or not, be a good idea, but it’s hardly non-controversial.

This U-Turn on Gays, of course, has nothing to do with the imminent General Election. But if Tim thinks this will be winning him votes, he can forget it. No one is going to be satisfied with this smarmy death bed conversion. And no one who thinks Gay Sex is a sin is going to be impressed that Tim is now attempting to conceal his own attitudes.

There’s nothing evil about thinking Gay Sex is a sin. Just be honest about it, and stop trying to be all things to all men.

Simon Hughes of the Lib Dems fought one of the nastiest, spiteful, homophobic, by election campaigns ever, against Human Rights Campaigner Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey in the 1980s. It later turned our that Simon himself is Gay, and when he got elected there he was denouncing homophobes!!

He lost his seat however in 2015, but is now trying to make a come back.

If anyone is thinking of wasting their time voting Lib Dem, I suggest they consider the Conservatives instead. The Tories legalised Gay Marriage (Tim voted against the final reading of the legislation), and have, for decades, had far more Gay MPs than the Lib Dems.

What Tories don’t tend to do however is parade around, making moral judgements on the private actions (and even privately held opinions), of others. For us, ‘it’s live and let live’. The question only comes up when people stand for public office, and even then only if they are suspected of hypocrisy.

So much for the Lib Dems. ‘Hypocrisy in Action’. 


  1. Farron lacked the “balls” to defend the Christian message. You could respect a believing Christian who stated that he bore no personal ill-will towards others, but was bound to bear witness to Christian teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Instead, his milquetoast Christianity believes whatever the latest fad insists upon.

  2. Yes the Tories are fine…

    …except that they are quite happy to censor and criminalise precisely the kinds of material that homosexuals (and other sexual minorities) are likely to enjoy.


    And Labour is of course no better.

    They blessed us with the law that gave rise to this:


    Truth is, they are all lousy and will throw anyone under the nearest bus to get a good headline in the tabloid press.

  3. This is the same theme as a previous discussion, in which (if I recall correctly) it was asserted by various people that homosexuality is considered a sin by Christians. I’m still waiting for somebody to explain the Biblical basis of this integration, or provide some convincing exegesis to that effect.
    Having read the Bible I recall nothing that actually spelled this out.

    What I’m getting at is that when you hear a Christian tell us that homosexuality is a sin, what he is doing is expressing a social view, not a religious view. It is not the Christian position that homosexuality is a sin, but it is the position of very many people – including myself, as it happens – that homosexuality is a very bad thing. The difference between myself and Mr Farron is that I don’t dress up my disapproval in religious or theological garb in a vain effort to afford my views some credibility. I am able to just say what I think.

    [quote]”He says he’s been refusing to answer the ‘Sin’ point because he didn’t want to discuss ‘theology’. But most of us don’t see the question as ‘theological’. We see it as a matter of whether people should be able to live their lives in private without being looked down upon by the likes of Tim Farron judging them as ‘sinners’ according to standards he himself determines, or seen by him as having become ‘disorientated’ owing to brain malfunction.”[unquote]

    The old privacy line that you put forward here is actually a bogus argument, at best a form of special pleading, since none of us can lead lives that are entirely private. Even our most private actions have public ramifications. To give an extreme example (in order to clearly illustrate the point): if I murder somebody in my own home, I doubt the police will accept my plea that “An Englishman’s home is his castle and you should jolly well mind your own business”.

    • Whatever any of us might think about active homosexuality, it is a choice that has wider implications when followed in sufficient numbers. It is not just a private matter. It is a matter of public policy. The laws against homosexuality were intended to protect the institution of marriage by deterring homosexual acts in public places. This in turn was intended to ensure that we have a healthy replacement birth rate, and therefore a healthy society. You are free to agree or disagree with this, but don’t tell me that dislike and disapproval of homosexuality is just simple-minded bigotry. That is to misrepresent the case.

      We should also reflect carefully on the consequences now being visited on us due to what people like Mr Olden consider ‘freedom’. We now have homosexuality publicly-expressed, with same-sex couples walking round holding hands and kissing. I find that disgusting, but tolerable. Worse, we also have public displays of organised homosexuality in gay pride parades. These are an affront to any normative man. They challenge the very basis of healthy living. It’s not right, and it’s not freedom either. Freedom is self-determination, not libertinism, and requires a sensible social contract between people in society, in which we each accept our role. Once we lose sight of what we are and why we’re here, we just become like rootless animals and may as well go back to living in jungles and caves and eating and copulating with everything we see. We’re supposed to be a civilisation. But as with female enfranchisement, I think there is nothing to be done, and we will have to grin and bear it now. The genie is out of the bottle.

  4. Thank you, Ron. It’s good to see you back here after several months’ absence. Five stars from me, at any rate.

    I was going to add more, but I’m in the late stages of a major (major!) essay about diesel cars.

  5. I think Mr Webb above is right to say that sin is an old Christian idea that needs to be defended by a Christian, or even by an atheist.

    Sinners are not particularly looked down upon, as the creed holds we are all sinners. A hypocrite is not a non-sinner but one who holds they do not sin at all [which flouts Christian dogma, viz. that we are all sinners], or one does not do certain sins [more likely]. So some of what Ron says above is inept.

  6. You couldn’t get further poles apart than myself and Liberal Democrats, or Tim Farron – but contrary to this article, I think the way he was treated is the true shame and disgrace.

    In fact, I would even go as far to say that a force of “liberal tyranny” or fascism looms over this country and the kinds of situation where he is forced, after relentless questioning, to conform with the perceived norms of liberal orthodoxy.

    I’d also not consider it all that wild to suggest that homosexuality can be caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, whether that be naturally occurring or via phthalates that are leaking into the environment from plastic products.

    As for whether the act is “a Sin” – that is up to Mr Farron, and does not directly equate to any positions he has upon “gay rights” and “equality”. I heard in a radio debate that he has consistently supported these “freedoms” – and the one time he abstained from voting was because the measures being proposed did not go far enough.

    I am not religious, but for those who are and believe same sex relationships are a sin against God, the classic position and rhetoric of “Condemn the Sin, love the sinner” is not all that unreasonable of a position to hold.

    That, in this “tolerant” and “modern” Britain, somebody cannot hold those views and must be forced into submission to liberal orthodoxies in order to continue to have a career or be able to “get votes” – despite his actions and voting records being very much in favour of “gay rights” – is the worrying thing as far as I’m concerned.

    That the Tories have allegedly “led the way” on homosexuality, “even legalising gay marriage”, is not particularly a badge of honour for a supposedly “Conservative” party that is supposed to uphold “tradition”, to “conserve” what are said to be the kinds of structures in society that have proven to be successful and provide foundations for stability.

    As is usual for the useless Conservatives, they have capitulated, weakly, to the shibboleths of another religion – which is the general religion of leftism, socialism, cultural Marxism of ‘modern’ ‘progressive’ society….that “progresses” to some untold “utopia” of “equality”.

    Like is stated in the article about Tim Farron, the purveyors of this stuff are themselves “looking down” upon transgressors of their own ‘faith’, for their own ‘personally held’ world views – and threatening to casting them out as sinners, until they duly repent.

    And if they don’t repent, don’t toe the line, their careers will be effectively over, despite the “personally held” transgression not even manifesting itself in actual policy positions.

    Both sides are to me just as hypocritical, judgemental and theological as the other.

Leave a Reply