http://www.christian.org.uk/news/red-cr ... l/?e130215

This man's traditional view of marriage is his business and NOTHING to do with the Red Cross. Clearly yet another charity hijacked by militants.

18 years this guy was a Volunteer, would love to know what type of volunteer work he did, if it was to raise funds, wonder if the Red Cross will return all the money he raised I think not.
Its little wonder why we are seeing less people volunteer to help fellow mankind when we read of things like this, think I stick with doing volunteer working for the Cats Home, least the cats do not mind what race, faith, colour, sex preference etc I am, well not yet do you Sooty, Ginger & Blackie

I don't give to foreign aid charities because they all seem to be fraudulent in the aid countries.

Even this morning it has been reported that 30% of the Ebola charity funding has gone missing in the affected countries and that accounts for hundreds of millions of pounds.

_________________
Lets be careful out there !

I am quite shocked to see it is 30%, would expect to see it a lot higher than that, 30% is very low, if it had been food aid or items which could be sold on, expect the figure to be more like 30% getting to end use.

Today topics such as this are difficult/impossible to respond to without leaving oneself open to accusations of hatred, homophobia, intolerance, etc. etc. even though none is intended. But the other side are free to engage in as much bigotry and hatred as they see fit.

Clearly the Red Cross isn't being very charitable towards Mr Bryan Barkley; neither towards anybody who holds similar opinions to those of Mr Barkley. In fact, the Red Cross appears to have been reformed from an organisation that is motivated by compassion to meeting the needs of the desperate, to an organisation dedicated to enforcing political bigotry. From a Red Cross (of love) and compassion to a Red (Marxist) Cross (anger) of hatred of all that is good and true.

The question arises: What is the point of a Red Cross that no longer knows the meaning of 'charity'? Instead of administering love (charity), and compassion, it is declaring hatred of the normal and natural?

I would like to know much more about this case

If this guy has been banned simply because of his beliefs, then it does seem harsh and excessive

However, if this action has been the result of an event, or series of events where his views have been disruptive or caused offence, then I would argue the Red Cross would be justified

As usual, this report contains very little balance and I for one will not criticise this chap or the Red Cross without hearing both sides of the story

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/column ... -Hedgehogs
Seems pretty clear cut to me - and to Anne Widdecombe.

According to this news report, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnjGAsp9AX0
Mr Barkley in no way identified any links between himself and the Red Cross when Mr Barkley held up the sign saying “NO Same Sex Marriage”. The first link that Jon provides to this report also shows a photgraph of Mr Barkley holding up his sign, and no mention of the Red Cross can be seen anywhere on Mr Barkley, or in his sign. Which all implies that the Red Cross is acting as self-imposed judge, jury, and executioner over the private thoughts of anybody associated with the Red Cross – even when not on Red Cross business. This situation also suggests that the Red Cross is being driven by a dangerous political agenda; an agenda which takes priority over compassion and charity.