BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Doc
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 01:29 PM

Thanks Fred, me too

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 02:16 PM

If it hadn't been for Pete Broadbent minding home and child we'd have been short of a dancer at Flowers of May bookings (I remember teaching Sarah to dance Hindley at short notice at St Neot's festival one year).

I haven't seen them since Pete became a bishop, but all best wishes to him and family!

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 04:46 PM

thanks,Fred, I have signed it

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 03:03 PM

I've just found the following blog about the Bishop of Willesden, which ought to be of interest to those who are currently the guillotine blades.

Our man clearly has a lot more going for him than just outspoken criticism of royalty. And it sounds like he's more in touch with the original message of Jesus Christ than most members of the cloth.

You can read the original blog here http://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2010/12/support-biking-bishop.html . You can also support an on-line campaign at the same place. He'll certainly get my support.


Support the Biking Bishop!

Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, was asked to withdraw from public ministry after the Daily Mail publicised his Facebook comments about the forthcoming royal marriage. His remarks were pretty forthright in his typical fashion and reflected what many people thought when they heard the news. My personal view is that he deserves support. As a self-proclaimed Christian Socialist and anti-racist he quickly backed and circulated the unity declaration put together by Bent and Harrow Unite Against Fascism opposing the EDL's attempts to divide our community. Now it is our turn to support him.

The bishop, who rides a bike around the area or uses public transport, as any good greenie does, is a breath of fresh air.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 03:16 PM

just what have they stopped this bishop from doing/ What does his suspension stop him from doing?

I'm a spiritually earthbound soul. i watch these guys on tv during worship holding out their hands as though the blessings of the Lord were being showered on them, and I'm intrigued - never ever experienced any feeling like that.

On the other hand, I get angry when people call England a secular society. the way we have a NHS and try to care for our most vulnerable, and don't practice capital punishment seems to me we have absorbed the Christian message better than most.

SO I don't feel entitled to say what a bishop should be doing. But on the other hand, I think he should at least have the same rights as the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 01:30 AM

"Gee, thanks, Daddy-O" ~~ West Side Story

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 05:15 AM

'Keep da change, kid!'
          Jimmy Cagney

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 04:34 AM

Back on track indeed, please, Doc John. But forgive me if I just take a few words here to thank Alan Whittle for his kind words of support and appreciation. Many thanks Al

And all best regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 04:29 AM

Let's get back on track for a bit! I was criticizing the hypocrisy of the Anglican Church which is quite happy to accept very unpleasant homophobia and misogeny in its ranks - behaviour which would be criminal elsewhere - while at the same time condemning a bishop who expresses republican views - which, fortunately for many of us - is not. The church's behavior to me is compounded by the fact that he was effectively suspended by his immediate boss, the Bishop of London, whose views on green issues are hypocritical to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 04:29 AM

Certainly, Tim. I utterly withdraw my unwarranted assumptions, and am happy you have accepted my apology ~~ though I don't quite see why you call it 'conditional'. I assure you it is entirely unconditional. Now please may we start again at Square 1!

Best regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 04:26 AM

With all due respect Mandotim, can I say i think you miss the point? I sincerely congratulate you for being useful and productive - my own life is neither at this point. MGM has confided to us (as his cyber friends) that his own life and circumstances are somewhat limited by age and infirmity.

This is a guy who has paid his dues many times over. At one time, he tells us he played piano in a night club for the late ruth ellis - how Anglo film noir is that. Presumably he could do 'lift' music if he wanted to. (Personally i have always dreamed of making into the lifts!)

now I wouldn't be caught dead singing an unaccompanied traditional song. And I had to leave Mudcat for a while - because I really do detest the direction the folk revival has taken. When I first noticed folk music in the 1950's - it was an exciting aristic movement like Rock and roll and Surrealism. It came at you through the radio - bands like the Kingston Trio and The Limeliters and Lonnie Donnegan really bit you on the bum - so different was it from the bland pop stuff.

To me, it lost its way when it lost its two geniuses (Dylan and donovan) at the start of the 70's and became a dreary curator and revitalizer of all the rubbish in Cecil sharp house. However , horses for courses. the traddy thing captured a lot of peoples imaginations and an awful lot of folk poured lifetimes of artistic effort into that vision. And artistic effort should always be respected.

What got me to leave and made things unbearable for me on Mudcat was a bloke called Folkiedave - who kept saying - name names - who are you criticising. And I am not criticising individuals - Ithink the whole movement took a wrong turn into a blind alley. But it doesn't mean I don't respect the people who have made that committment to trad music. I respect their effort. I like many of the people on a personal level.

You have criticised and disrespected a valued Mudcatter, and the music it has taken him a lifetime to create. His waspish, sharp as a tack witticisms are something that dozens of magazines have had to pay good money for, and now we get it for free. And we are privileged that its what he brings to the table.

Now, be nice to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 03:41 AM

Mthe GM; I accept your conditional apology. Your claim of a misunderstanding is, I'm sure, true from your point of view. Far from being churlish, I've been away from my computer and haven't had a chance to look at your comments until now. Perhaps another apology for your unwarranted assumptions above? You need to understand that some contributors here have useful and productive lives, and can't afford to spend all their time on social networking sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 02:24 AM

Thank you, John. I am actually not called 'Gum'; you misread my Mudcat nickname, above: a shortening of my full name, Michael Grosvenor Myer. And the word Joe used was 'churlish', not 'childish'.

But thanks indeed for weighing in on my side. I clicked on when the thread came to the top again, hoping that Mandotim [not 'Mango'] might have been man enough {and GENTLEman enough, LoL} to have accepted my apology. But some hopes. As you say, this does seem to demonstrate that he is indeed the more 'churlish' of us. Perhaps he may yet have better recollections after all, apology-accepting-wise; but I am not holding my breath. He clearly is a churl rather than a gentleman, I fear.

You might be interested to know that I lived at 12 Helena Road, next to Gladstone Park, for the first 3 years of my life, after which we moved to Hampstead; but I have not, to my recollection, been back to Willesden since, though a 28 bus I used to catch in my teens from Golders Green to visit family in Maida Vale went past Willesden Green Station.

Best regards and thanks again for your support,

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,John from Willesden
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 01:44 AM

I am new to the Mudcat Cafe, I found it when I inherited a flute recently and was googling to try and find out something which would teach me to play it. Then I got interested in this one as I live in Willesden and RR Mr Broadbent is our "suffragan". It is an interesting sequence, I think they are called threads is that right, and I have quite enjoyed this barney that has been going on between Mr Mango and Mr Gum I think they are called though it hasnt got much to do with the bishop. As I see it Gum says Mango got the wrong end of some stick and apologised and Mango still kept on quareling so Gum quareled back again, and then Mr Offer who seems to have some sort of Mudcat athority said they were being childish, so Gum apologised again but Mango hasnt said anything. So I suppose this shows Mango is the most childish one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 07:19 AM

Only on weekends

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,round&round
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 06:25 AM

With my hips kind of swivelly and swervy.
I adore being dressed in something frilly

That's you is it then Mr A Whittle lol

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 04:57 AM

'You both are sounding a bit churlish....'

To quote rogers and hammerstein in the Flower Drum Song

'I enjoy being a churl!'

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 03:52 AM

Dear Joe: Indeed. Sorry. I had not intended to return to this thread as I said above: but someone told me about your polite note, so I thought it would be civil to respond to it.

I offered an unconditional apology to Mr Mandotim yesterday at 01·51 pm for having clumsily used a throwaway adjective intended to apply to a sesquipedalian statement, but which he had misunderstood as intended to apply to him personally, which could not have been further from my intention. He did not see fit to accept this apology, but continued contentiously; and I admit that I, probably foolishly, rose to this challenge.

I now repeat this apology; I assure him yet again I intended no personal attack, and that I have every respect for his academic position and achievements ~~ as I have for all academic activity. (My dead darling first wife was also an academic with a considerable academic publishing record.)

I hope Tim will now see fit to accept my apology in the spirit I intend, and leave this pointless wrangling, which I am finding somewhat wearing. I must say I think it would be, to adopt your happy locution, somewhat 'churlish' of him not to do so.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 02:47 AM

Dear Mr. Mandotim and Mr. MtheGM:

Please attempt to maintain an air of civility. You both are sounding a bit churlish....
Thank you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,the farmer
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 02:37 AM

This thred ha s got high-jackd by 2 men fihting out a sort of privte war about critics or somethig. Couldnt we all just get back to the bishop and the royal wedding wich is what we are3 suppose to be talking about isnt it

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 03 Dec 10 - 12:50 AM

'You expect the recipients of your vitriol to accept it with good grace. Let's see if you can do the same.'
I'll take that as a 'no', then...

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 05:41 PM

It was the name I called boring, Mandotim [whoever you may be: ashamed of our real name, are we?] ~~ not you. Your reply is not gracious. It is the response, not of a bore, but of a boor. Anyone can be a critic, can they? Then let's see you get taken on as one by any reputable publication, big gob. You might not care for my singing; your privilege: but when you have a body of published critical, feature or scholarly work on folk & theatre & literature to compare with mine, in publications comparable to The Times, The Guardian, Folk Review, Plays & Players, The Teacher, The Republic {Indiana}, The Glasgow Herald, English Dance & Song, Cambridgeshire Life, Early Modern Literary Studies, The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, The Continuum Encyclopedia of British Literature, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, The Irish Press, Cambridge Review, TES, Cambridge Insider, Varsity, Cambridge Evening News, Notes & Queries {Oxford UP}, Record Mirror, Melody Maker, The World of English {Beijing}, Folk Music Journal {EFDSS}, Acoustic Music, Folk Roots, Folk Music In School {Cambridge UP}, Folk News, CAM, The Oldie, Private Eye ... then you might just about be entitled to pass comment on my writerly bona fides. Till then, button your stupid lip, you conceited little jackanapes.

Any response you endeavour to make to this will be labour in vain. I shall not open this thread again. Do not try to contact me elsewhere; any PM from you will be deleted unread; as will any email if you take the trouble to follow up any of my links. Or any letter to my home address, which you could easily find as I make no attempt to hide my identity, as do you, behind a fatuous cognomen.

You can sing & play, you say ... well then, my little man, go away and play with yourself.

MGM

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 04:38 PM

Michael; quote; 'instead of I can't even remember your ballsachingly boring academic's name for the same phenomenon'. Remember? Like most critics, you seem to have a problem accepting responsibility for what you say.
It's not that I don't like your singing and playing; it's just not very good. It's out of tune, lacks rhythm and dynamics, and is frankly boring. I don't mind bad music generally, as long as it has some soul, some passion. Yours has neither, and isn't technically good enough to be played in elevators either. See? Anyone can be a critic, you don't actually have to be able to do anything constructive at all! (Incidentally; this is not abuse. It's criticism. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about your attempts at music. You expect the recipients of your vitriol to accept it with good grace. Let's see if you can do the same.)
I told you my links are on Mudcat; if you want to find them and apply your fine critical faculties to them, then put some work in. (Although I still think you should spend less time on here and more time learning to play and sing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 02:50 PM

go to work on an egg.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 02:02 PM

Of course the week after the election Major got up in parliament and said, well I didn't have plans to raise tax at that point. but now I have.
and all the time he was riding side saddle with Edwina Currie.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 02:00 PM

I feel I owe it to myself, mind, Tim, to add that I am sorry you don't like my singing; but yours is not the only opinion in the world. Two of my videos have been linked on Cat threads, by Crow Sister {'Fanny Blair'} & by Brian Peters [who added 'Thank you Mike' ~ 'Banks of Green Willow']; neither of whom, I would add, is known personally to me. I have, too, a CV of folk-club residency, cassette & CD making by reputable label {Brewhouse, who also do Dick Miles/GSS' records}, plenty of scene gigs, &c. So sorry if you don't care for it. Still, can't, as they say, win 'em all.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:51 PM

···It's not that easy becoming a senior, much published academic either; yet you saw fit to ridicule me for that. ....

No I didn't, Tim. I wouldn't dream of such a thing. I have every respect for the academic world. I fear you have genuinely misunderstood something I said & we have got at cross-purposes. Please quote back to me what I said that gave you this impression of ridicule, which I assure you was entirely unintentional: & I genuinely, even before that, unconditionally apologise and withdraw it, whatever it was. It certainly doesn't represent my opinions.

I am afraid I have no idea who you are. My name is not concealed. My nickname is simply a form of my name, with no disguise, & anyone who follows link to my u-tube gets my name. But who you are I have no idea, nor what is your academic post ~~ nor how to find your link on mudcat, either, for that matter. So please come out into the open as to who you are, please. All I have to go on is your Catter nickname. PM me if you don't want to put it on the thread.

Again, I regret inexpressibly if I have appeared in any way to belittle your academic or professional achievements, for which I have nothing but respect & admiration. I must say I wondered why you suddenly turned so abusive: again, there is genuinely some misunderstanding.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:12 PM

Michael, have a look for the link, it's here on Mudcat. Why should the performer do the critic's work for them?
On the subject of becoming a critic; it's not that easy becoming a senior, much published academic either; yet you saw fit to ridicule me for that. Stings when you get it back, doesn't it? I don't see critics as failed anything; I see them as parasites on the artistic community, and at that they are generally successful. Most feel qualified to criticise that which they are unable to do, and know little or nothing about. Judging by your musical efforts, I find it very difficult to believe your status as a music critic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 12:22 PM

Oh, dear ~~ weary, routine, reflex denunciation of the critic: o-ho-hum. Probably whistling down the wind in the face of such predictable idiocy, but just about worth recalling here what I wrote on an earlier thread on 'music critics; do we need them?'

···"I happen to have been a critic, folk [records books concerts festivals columns interviews features obits] and theatre, for many years, for Times, Guardian, Folk Review &c &c; and so would obviously not appear objective. But there is one point whose hash needs settling by someone within the trade: and that is the idea that a critic tends to be nothing but a 'failed whatever-it-may-be' — as if one had an ill-received gig, and said to oneself, 'darn it then, if they don't like me I'll go and be a critic & that'll show 'em!'; whereupon one walks into the office of a national paper & says, 'Hi, I've come to be your folk critic'.
Believe me, it just ain't that easy to convince an Arts or Literary Editor that you are the man he wants for the job, build up connections, gain membership of NUJ or Inst of Journalists... If you don't believe me, just try setting up as a critic for a reputable journal or programme, just like that, and see where it gets you. Of course, there are blogs and chatrooms and all sorts of outlets to express one's opinions, just as there were always newsletters; but that's not quite the same, is it? Becoming an actual, recognised·in·the·fields of both press & of medium·reviewed, Critic·with·a·cap·C isn't quite as simple as that."

Not going to convince these two who appear to have had a cerebrectomy, despite one of the pair's remarkable recollection of my nearly 40-years-ago published work. But just thought it worth repeating on a thread with, as one of them points out, has 'critic' in the title.

Which reminds me: when is the one I requested to do so going to let me have that link so that I can give the same appraisal to his work that he gave to mine? ··· which, incidentally, was so delicately phrased that it got deleted by Joe·or·clone before I even had a chance to respond. But that wasn't 'criticism', of course: perish the thought!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 11:16 AM

Mandotim. I haven't come across that one before, but I do remember that Beethoven once called a critic a double barrelled arsehole.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 11:11 AM

Re Critics in general (part of the subject of the thread, in case we'd all forgotten;
"It is impossible to think of a man of any actual force and originality, universally recognized as having those qualities, who spent his whole life appraising and describing the work of other men.

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
My thanks to a good friend for reminding me of the quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 08:50 AM

Some Joe or clone seems to have deleted the posts that last one of mine was replying to before I could even get it online. Never mind ~~ leave mine there, please. They'll know what I mean even if no-one else does.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 08:47 AM

Wow, Fred. Thank you. That must be the greatest compliment I have ever received.   That play was The Splendour and Death of Joaquin Murieta by Pablo Neruda, performed in the theatre of Churchill College, Cambridge. My review appeared in The Guardian of 4 March 1974.

36½ years, I make that. You have remembered a throwaway line from a review I wrote 36½ (count them: thirty-six-and-a-half) years ago.

You might not like my singing ~~ ouch, yaroo, you rotters! now I won't sleep all night! ~~ but by hell you remember what I write. {Law of Unintended Consequences, eh Tim? & no Chaos Theory about it.}

And I hope you both admire my filing system.

And I hope it keeps fine for you...

Best regards to you both

♥♫❤Michael❤♫♥

PS You say you can play & sing, Tim. Can I have a YouTube link or whatever, please to judge for myself. You had mine

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 07:31 AM

It certainly wasn't the culture of those who whinge in lieu of envy.

Born in England.
Born in Ireland.

Born with a system of government where you can have all you want and complain about it or work hard and get a bit more. If somebody has something you don't, have you ever thought that they earned it? I never apologised for being comparatively poor, so be buggered to apologising for getting on since.

The culture that entranced me is that of opportunity for those who can and a landing pad for those who can't. Other than the world cup, (and I have at least heard of The Turner prize and the forthcoming royal wedding,) I would need google to discuss the other things you mention. The only Anne Widecombe I have heard of is the ex Tory politician.

Does culture mean watching the telly then? I hadn't realised! Too busy quaffing my best verve and getting my ivory tower repointed to worry about chippy buggers who go through their sorry lives feeling sorry for themselves, blaming anybody who isn't in their position.

Oh, and whilst we are on the subject of mis spelling, Irelad????   (Once you start being pedantic you can't stop, so also, God has a capital G, even for we irreligious heathens.) You can't misspell whiskey or whisky. The difference is, many years ago, a marketing decision. (Oh, and Irish tends to be smoother in general. I find Bushmills doesn't burn as badly going down as some more peaty ones from geographically very close by.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 06:46 AM

' just by being born in The Western world, you have won the lottery.'

Oh absolutely. And born in England is the golden ticket. Just imagine if my grandparents had stayed in Irelad - I'd be mispelling whisky - putting an 'e' in it, dancing jigs, god knows ....

but meritocrarcy......I reckon you've been clog dancing Willie and someone stamped on your head.

I wonder which aspect of our culture has you so entranced....celebrities in the jungle, Ann Widecombe's tango, the recipients of the Turner Prize, the jeremy Kyle Show, England's performance in the World Cup, the news that Peter Andre and Katie are still friends....the Royal Wedding...?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 06:19 AM

Never said there had been a redistribution of wealth.

Just that since 1948, we have been a socialist society, each contributing for the whole. Our taxes have been spent on social infrastructure, healthcare has been universal and there is the will, even if not always executed properly, to protect the more vulnerable in society.

Bugger all to do with politics of envy, just socialism working, financed by capitalism. In other words, it works. It could work better, and interfering in health and social care these days, I do get angry that people have been failed.

But that isn't because hard work and enterprise doesn't work. Far from it. It funds what we have. We have something many people forget...

Meritocracy.

Oh and constitutional monarchy, which, in case anybody needs educating, is NOT monarchy.

treasure it and remember that just by being born in The Western world, you have won the lottery.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 05:52 AM

Ah yes, the cultural revolution...the great leap forward. I was very enamoured of a Maoist girl who ran the college magazine. I only really came to terms with our irreconcilable differences after I'd written this song about her:-

http://www.myspace.com/folksingerbigal/music/songs/Trish-34489993

have no fear I have no desire to better you in argument, Mike. I have admired your work and wit for years, and I know only too well you are more sure footed in debate and use of language than I could ever aspire to be.

As for Steamin willie's contention that the socialist dream has been realised and fair distribution of wealth is with us now - you hit him your piano and I'll grab his wallet.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 04:58 AM

"I've told you before, there is no such Law"

forsooth. Bloody cheek!

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 04:56 AM

Another point, Tim: philological or perhaps semantic.

There is no limit to the number of terms one is permitted by law to use for any referent. If I choose to call something a Law of Unforeseen Consequences, whose referent you perfectly well comprehend, instead of I can't even remember your ballsachingly boring academic's name for the same phenomenon, that doesn't discount its phenomenal existence. The spectacle of a man of your intelligence thinking he has absolutely indisputably knock-down put my argument right out of court because I use a universally accepted & perfectly apprehensible term for something for which you have a personal preference for another name, worries me much more than any thought of the shame and disgrace that would beset me if I happened to meet the Queen, & bowed my head slightly as that is the recognised courtesy. {I have, actually, several times met Prince Edward, back in the days I was Cambridge theatre critic for a national paper and he was a student actor. I didn't bow to him ~~nor he to me: but I thought at moments that he might be going to!}

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 04:31 AM

I was taking interest in the latest banter till I read the bit about abolishing Monarchy being akin to abolishing slavery. Then my eyes started getting heavy.

Oh, and getting chippy about some notion that royalty reckon they are better than everybody else. Really? Strange that interviews I have read and seen seem to have the common theme about the responsibility rather than the fun?

Sorry but the old "Why can't I have what others have got?" and "in a fair society I would have it all without having to work for it" crap keeps rearing its head. I am trying to remain objective here, but the anti monarchy debate seems to be mingled with the utopian workers' revolution and they are different ideas entirely.

One is a fair subject for debate, the other is romantic tosh that is hard to imagine, especially as the vast majority of the country's voters are more concerned about mortgage interest rates, savings interest rates, whether their telly can get 1080i and whether it is ecologically sound to buy South American fresh asparagus at Tescos.

The dream of Kier Hardy has been realised as much as it ever can. Wake up and realise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 04:17 AM

Tim: So was Darkness At Noon ~~ so what?

Nobody is talking academically Well, yes, actually you are. You are an academic; I happen to be a journo. Call it Chaos Theory [academic name] or Law of Unf Cons [journo-speak] ~~ but just don't let it bite you in the bum! & remember the indispensable advice of Hilaire Belloc: "And always keep a hold of Nurse, For fear of finding something worse!"

····Watching adults bow and curtsey (both physically and metaphorically) before a bunch of useless, overprivileged, undereducated and morally bankrupt Royals; doesn't that make you a little uneasy about how our society works?····

Nope.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 03:27 AM

Michael; a couple of small points from an academic perspective; I've told you before, there is no such Law as 'the Law of Unforeseen Consequences', it's just lazy journo-speak. One of my research areas is non-linear complexity theory; 'chaos theory' in the same lazy style. Politics is run on the flawed principle that a given action will produce a given result. The world outside politics knows that this is not so, and therefore expects more and different results.
There is evidence from other societies that our form of democracy may not be ideal, but we stick with it; why? This flawed thinking extends into why we have a monarchy. Looked at objectively, the monarchy is the vestigial remains of a totalitarian system of government which was decisively rejected by revolution and civil war. It serves no political, economic or governmental purpose, but retains enormous, unaccountable and largely malign influence over the social mores of our country. It also costs a fortune, money which could be better spent. There are many successful democracies around the world which manage perfectly well without a monarch, and others who have a monarch with a much reduced constitutional standing. The problem in this country is the bowing and scraping that is expected (even demanded) by 'protocol', which is another name for 'making sure the plebs know their place'. Watching adults bow and curtsey (both physically and metaphorically) before a bunch of useless, overprivileged, undereducated and morally bankrupt Royals; doesn't that make you a little uneasy about how our society works?
One last point; Tale of Two Cities isn't a great academic reference; last time I was in the library, it was under 'fiction'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:19 AM

& don't forget Citizen executioner's guillotine blade landing on all those other Citizens' necks.

Have you read 'A Tale Of Two Cities'?

∴Liberté Egalité Fraternité = hedzoff in La Place de la Concorde; ∴The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics = bullets in the head in the Lubianka; ∴The People's Republic of China = the Cultural Revolution & Tienanmen Square.

EQUAL societies, the lot of them...

♥Michael♥

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 12:31 AM

... and I forgot to mention that his students paraded him thru the streets first, in a dunce's cap & without his trousers.

Because it was a People's Republic, dontcha know!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 12:22 AM

& moreover, Al, as for 'embodiment of all our inequalities'; well, they are expensive, but then, so is the maintenance of any presidency; & they are 'constitutional', even if some of them think too much of themselves, like that late unlamented moocow Margaret ~ tho not I should say Anne, for example, or Zara, both of whom have achievements which they could only have gained by their own work & talent who-so-ever they had been.

But 'inequalities', now. How successful have attempts to create 'equal' societies been? "Come, Comrade" says the guard opening the cell door in the Lubianka in 1936. "Coming, Comrade" comes the reply. &, boom, in goes the bullet, from 'Comrade' #2's pistol into the back of 'Comrade' #1's head...

Have you read 'Darkness at Noon'?

A dear friend of mine called Wu Ningkun was persuaded to return from his fine academic post at the Univ of Chicago's English faculty to "help with building our Socialist paradise". Then, with the approval & encouragement of the equality-adoring Chairman Mao, his own students denounced him to the Cultural Revolution & he spent the next 20 years of his life in prison...

Have you heard of Tienenman Square?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 11:42 PM

..."step in the right direction", you say, Al. Trouble is, no one can ever be quite sure which direction a step is going to take. Even the abolition of slavery carried some disagreeable FX for the freed, as we all know ~~ disoriented ex-slaves turned out on their own resources; KKK; persistence of Southern attitudes up to & beyond Luther King & Rosa Parkes, leading to lynch-law &c. I am not saying slavery shouldn't have been abolished: it should never have existed in the first place; so when it came to 1865, they could only start from where they were. & not all the effects were benign. One must always allow for the law of Unforeseen Consequences, mustn't one? & do you really think royalty the same sort of abuse as slavery which should never have existed? Oh, come now... The ones who want abolishing are the ones living in tax havens with 95%, or whatever it is, of the country's wealth, who I agree with you really are an abuse. Tho it occurs to me to wonder who, in your ideal society, is going to be able to buy the Turner collection, all at once or piece by piece, when we do sell it!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 09:25 PM

I think we all enjoy the pageantry and all that showbiz side of it. I had a mate who worked for the ministry of defence and he used to buy all the plastic helmets that look like burnished steel. Fair does - they put on a decent show.

You ask what i would replace it with. And I felt a bit like Neil Kinnock in 1992 when Bill Naughtie had him squirming - how are YOU going to pay for these programmes Mr Kinnock. We know the tories have NO plans to raise tax.

Of course the week after the election Major got up in parliament and said, well I didn't have plans to raise tax at that point. but now I have.

Obviously I don't know what would replace royalty. i just know - like the abolition of slavery - it'll be a step in the right direction. Its the physical embodiment of all our inequalities. Kinnock knew whatever he spent tax money on, the poor would get more of it than if the tories had their kicking boots on.

similarly I feel that we shouldn't be grabbing money from the poor and defenceless - we should be getting it off the people who have 95% of the country's wealth. and flog the Turner Colection and rent out Balmoral, before you start robbing the poor.

as you say - no one gives a bugger what we think - so it matters not a jot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 11:49 AM

Well OK right back to you, Al. But tell me [who, I repeat, doesn't care that much one way or the other, except that I quite enjoy the traditional pageantry on telly] ~~ what alternative do you suggest? ~~ starting from here, remember, because it's the only place you can start... & taking note also of the majority will for their maintenance, toffee-nosed aristos or no, which I really do believe to be the case, & none of you has come back with a convincing counter-argument or statistic to dispute or disprove; & which as democrats you have no biznis to disregard.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan whittle
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 11:37 AM

Well allright Mike, but surely to god you recognise they are aristocrats - brought up to believe in their innate superiority. And whatever the public persona - that's what they believe. their ancestor went to the scaffold to uphold that principle.

Do you know the old CS Lewis saw - I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable. Tell me that Gladstone was haunted by Parnell's ghost on the eve of his death, and I believe you. Tell me that Gladstone met Queen Victoria and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I know you are lying.

I suspect CSL was making a more serious point, but it says something that the high water point of improbability is set the reverential code of behaviour that we accord this lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 10:04 AM

"Bloody 'ell, MtheGM, haven't you anything better to do with your time?", asks theleveller<<<

Bit of a nerve, eh wot, theleveller? What biz of yours how I choose, in my 79th year, well retired & not all that mobile, to spend my time? & I can't anyhow see I have contribd more to this thread than you or several others.

I was disputing as to whether the majority wish the royal institution [as to which, let me say again, I am personally more or less indifferent] to continue or to be abolished; which latter many here would appear to favour, and just will not be told that they are in a small minority: & I extrapolated from that that anyone with any pretension to believing in democracy should respect this vastly in-excess-of-their-own majority view. My surveys were all on that topic. I take your point that such polls have their shortcomings; but such as they are, I put them to you and challenged you to find one with contradictory results. Your MEN survey, as to who should pay for the wedding, is not on the same topic at all, & its results were not the least surprising. As it has been publicly stated that the families of the bride & groom will pay for the wedding, that is a dead issue. Security is another matter: as I have pointed out, all sorts of necessary security has to be paid for from the public purse. I myself had much rather that less of my taxes had gone on policing those ill-behaved fire-extinguisher-flinging children last week; but that's the sort of thing the police are for, so the costs must be met ~~ just as must those for the education of your children, but not mine because I have none. Now don't wilfully misunderstand, please, & come back at me with an accusation of grudging it: I don't; I fully appreciate all our dependence on an educated next generation. I am simply pointing out the facts of the matter, but you don't always strike me as all that much on·the·ball when it comes to grasping just what is the point at issue.

Hope your snow-clearing activities have cleared your mind somewhat.

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: theleveller
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 09:29 AM

Bloody 'ell, MtheGM, haven't you anything better to do with your time? Anyway, you don't seem able to follow the thread of this discussion – what I was disputing was your statement that the majority of people wanted to watch the wedding and were prepared to pay the cost. You have provided no evidence to that effect.

Now, working on a regular basis with research organisations, I tend to be very sceptical of research as there are always so many variables to consider (composition of sample. size of sample, wording of questions, timing etc.). What is usually proven is the old adage - that most people use research like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination.

That said, I have been pointed towards one piece of research that would appear to contradict what you were saying:

From The Manchester Evening News

....the poll also revealed apathy towards the Royal Wedding – as well
as anger at the thought the taxpayer might end up paying. Only 15.2
per cent said the bill should be met through the public purse, with a
massive 84.8 per cent saying it should not.

And more than half of people (60.8 per cent) said they were not
excited at the thought of next year's nuptials.
around a quarter said they would sit at home and watch the entire
event on TV and another 30 per cent said they would carry on with
their day as normal and watch the highlights on the news.

Just over a third said they would try to avoid coverage of the wedding
and less than 5 per cent said they would leave the country so they
could escape the blanket coverage.

We also asked readers what they thought of media coverage of the
announcement of the royal engagement so far.

Sixty per cent said it was 'way over the top' but a third said the
coverage was in line with public interest while nearly six per cent
indicated that they 'can't get enough' media coverage of the royal
wedding.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1371862_royal_weddi

Make of it what you will.

Oh, and as for "Do you not realise that your attitude is identical to that of the curmudgeon who says, "I haven't got any children; why should I pay to educate yours?"

No, nothing like. You simply can't compare an unecessary "bread and circuses" event with the education of a future generation. Totally fatuous.

Right, off to contend with a couple of feet of snow. Have fun ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 08:55 AM

The point is Les, he didn't say it in public. Or at least, he didn't expect it to become public...

Regarding the point Mandotim makes about the old people who reckon The Queen should be the last.. Many newspapers had a sense of decorum up till recently. Can you imagine what the Edward & Mrs Simpson bit would have done for the idea of Royalty now?

The media see them as a soap opera and so their value as an institution is devalued accordingly. By that reckoning, perhaps they are becoming more irrelevant?

However, as I said above somewhere; the alternative is somebody who wants to be the chairman of the board. We should count our blessings before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (Do I mix metaphors? Does the Pope shit in the woods?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 08:18 AM

I thought this might stand repeating:

I think it is important to remember what special skills the royal family have brought to ........ erm ............. erm ....... oh yes how about diplomacy?

Check Prince Andrew's views on various bits of the world in the Wikileaks stuff:

"To the cheers and laughter of foreign businessmen, the Duke of York is said to have ridiculed Americans for having no understanding of geography and called French business practices corrupt. He even supposedly branded UK anti-fraud investigators idiots."

Before you agree with him, remember this is supposed to be diplomacy!

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 03:09 AM

Don't forget; monarchies have been deposed before, and doubtless will be again. The usual reason for their demise is conspicuous decadence and enormous, undeserved wealth, plus hard times for the general populace. Read your history folks; this country has a fine tradition of deposing or disciplining those who purport to rule. It just needs the right conditions. The decadent buffoon who is due to succeed may just be the catalyst. I was talking to a group of very elderly people this week; a very conservative group who had lived through (and in some cases fought in) the Second World War. They were chatting about this very subject, and expressing their admiration for the Queen and how she has behaved over the years. One of the group said 'Great woman, but she should be the last, the current lot are no use', and the entire group agreed. That's my point; I believe that the institution of monarchy will be seriously weakened by Charles's succession, and may not survive for long afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:39 AM

Eyup, the armchair revolutionaries are awake again..

Nurse! Nurse! Where's their medication?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:12 AM

Yes ~~ & Will Wordsworth greatly regretted his "Bliss was it in that dawn" sonnet when the Reign Of Terror took over, didn't he? ···

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 05:01 PM

So we let them stay there - knocking back the champagne and eating Royal Dutchy sausages.

Remember old Bill Wordsworth talking about the French Revolution:-

          Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
          But to be young was very heaven!--Oh! times,
          In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
          Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
          The attraction of a country in romance!
          When Reason seemed the most to assert her rights

There was a time when Englishmen weren't all stick in the muds. And when we accept this gang of twits and twats as our leaders and representatives - we really aren't fit to be the inheritors of Bill and his like.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM

"No serious party has ever stood on an 'abolish the monarchy' platform "

My point exactly, Tim. Of course they haven't ~~ it would be throwing the election before it even began. Why else do you think they haven't? Don't be so naive, for heaven's sake.

"No such vote has taken place and the Establishment in this country will fight tooth and nail to make sure it never does."

How? never heard such fatuous arguments, Tim. Do you think there wouldn't have been a party to fight the platform if it had ever had the remotest chance of success? Puhleeze!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:18 PM

Dick: Do LISTEN ~~ no-one is trying to deny you that right. BUT I say you show yourselves not to be real democrats if you persist your views should prevail, as to the necessary maintenance of the institution as well as to its survival, so long as the majority want it so ~~ as I think I have demonstrated above with at least 2 posts, they do. If you persist in trying to thwart the will of the majority (e.g. by trying to avoid your share of the the inevitable costs of the institution) because it happens not to fit in with your views, then that is not being 'democratic' in any meaningful sense I can think of.
bullshit
we have not said that our views should prevail, we have said [ with varying degrees of force] that we find it tedious to vomit making

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:11 PM

That's precisely my point; in democratic terms, the monarchy is wholly illegitimate; opinion polls sample a small proportion of the electorate, which is manifestly not a democratic election; if it were, we could run elections very cheaply by running focus groups in and around Westminster. Whether or not the monarchy is imposed is moot; that has never been tested in an election. No serious party has ever stood on an 'abolish the monarchy' platform ('Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, for Pete's sake!), and therefore we don't actually know what the 'expressed will of the majority' is. We can guess; but we don't know. How much of the current monarchism dies with the current Queen? Individual MPs have been elected though; remember Willie Hamilton? As a member of the Disloyal Opposition, I will keep expressing my distaste for this feudal anachronism, and refusing to be the 'subject' of an unelected, illegitimate institution.
With reference to the cost; ever heard of the principle 'no taxation without representation'? I've never been offered the chance to vote yea or nay to the monarchy, so why should I be taxed to pay for it? If the vote occurred, and the majority said yes, then I go along with the democratic decision. No such vote has taken place, and the Establishment in this country will fight tooth and nail to make sure it never does. I'm with Oliver Cromwell on this one, I'm afraid; I wouldn't tug my forelock, even if I had one, and I don't defer to anyone simply as a function of an accident of birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

Tim: I take all these points. But the point at immediate issue is as to whether all should bear the necessary expense of the institution, SO LONG AS IT DOES EXIST. That was the point of my comparison with those who objected to paying for other people's children's education. So long as the institution exists by the expressed will of the majority, it is surely the duty of all democrats to take a share in maintaining it, even those in favour of its abolition (as nobody denies them their undisputed right to do). I trust you will not argue that it is somehow being imposed on us against most people's will: that cock really won't fight, you know.

I have no interest in the succession. I haven't that much interest in royalty at all, I repeat; except that I happen genuinely to enjoy the concomitant pageantry ~~ a part of "Tradition", which all of us here love, don't we?; and that I happen to have the temperament which believes that the best place to start from is where you happen to be ~~ which I appreciate is not one shared by all, or even many.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM

MtheGM; I fully accept that non-royalist views are a minority, even more so those who hold the view that the Royals should be abolished completely. Your point about democracy is worth challenging though; surely in a healthy democracy it is the duty of those in the minority to put forward an alternative view, so that democratic process can decide the way forward. That's what is happening on this thread. It's irrelevant whether those opposing the monarchy are a majority or not. Your view seems to be that the minority should simply accept the view of the majority, and keep quiet.
There will be a watershed in that regard; much of the respect for the monarchy is bound up with the present Queen. When she dies, there is a great deal less respect for the heir apparent, after his reprehensible behaviour over the years. (Perhaps the reason why she won't abdicate). What will happen then is a huge PR and patronage effort from those who stand to gain from Charles's succession; a lot depends on whether the public will see through the hyperbole and accept a foppish, ineffectual adulterer as their Sovereign. Would you be in favour of a referendum about whether Charles should succeed his mother at that point? As a professed democrat, you should be, but we both know that our lords and masters will never let that happen. Where is democracy then? Opinion polls are one thing, elections are another; why not elect our Head of State? Call them a Monarch if you like, but make sure they have the support of the majority before giving them a life of luxury in perpetuity.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM

Dick: Do LISTEN ~~ no-one is trying to deny you that right. BUT I say you show yourselves not to be real democrats if you persist your views should prevail, as to the necessary maintenance of the institution as well as to its survival, so long as the majority want it so ~~ as I think I have demonstrated above with at least 2 posts, they do. If you persist in trying to thwart the will of the majority (e.g. by trying to avoid your share of the the inevitable costs of the institution) because it happens not to fit in with your views, then that is not being 'democratic' in any meaningful sense I can think of.

& I am getting tired of saying that I do not particularly LIKE Royalty & do not wish to 'wallow in escapism' ... I am not going to repeat all that bit, please look back at my previous post addressed to Mandotim for my attitude to that aspect of the subject.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

I am a Democrat, but I have no interest in Royalty.
"But I am a democrat; which I regret to say, for all your saying, you-lot are NOT" your quote.
Michael we have a democratic right to say that this crap makes us want to vomit, just as those people who like Royalty have a right to wallow in escapism , no one is trying to deny them their right, but we have aright to criticiseand mention how we think it is a waste of money, and that the money might be better used in other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:31 PM

Dear Tim: Let me say again I an NOT a Royalist. The only reason I am, marginally, in favour of their survival is the Unforeseen Consequences likelihood which comes with much change just for the sake of it: the getting rid of Royalty in France & in Russia was/were not spectacularly successful!

But I am a democrat; which I regret to say, for all your saying, you-lot are NOT. I am happy you have your different views, and that mine are not, as you say, shared by everyone. But do please realise that, as I honestly think I have demonstrated with my poll posts above, yours are the minority views; & at least have the humility, & the democratic instincts, to recognise the fact.

I take your point about education being a majority benefit for which all should pay: but Royalty and its concomitant pageantry, as I say I have shown by the polls, & the present attitudes of the media (to which all of you vociferously take exception ~~ but they are in biznis & wouldn't publish it all if it didn't sell becoz so may WANT it), bring a great deal of pleasure to a considerable majority, who contribute as much to its cost as the minority who would prefer to be without it; & who should therefore pay up with as good a grace as they do for education if they are the democrats they [you] claim to be.

And of course I can say I am not trying to shut you up. I am enjoying this thread immensely. Aren't you!

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:02 PM

Different logical premise, MtheGM; education has a tangible value to society and the economy, and it is reasonable to expect society to share the burden so the benefits can be realised for the good of all. For example; a childless individual may be paying for the education of the doctors and care workers who look after them in their childless dotage. Royal families and their assorted hangers on do not have any tangible value (beyond rather inferior entertainment) as far as I can see, and indeed the nature of Royal-led patronage in this country could be regarded as a hindrance to progress in our society. It is therefore reasonable to hold the view that society should not share the burden of maintaining their lavish lifestyles. Why not accept that you and your fellow Royalists have one point of view, but it is not shared by everyone? I accept that you hold your view; I don't agree with you, but I'm not trying to shut you up; can you say the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM

I do not like pageantry, ceremony, ritual of any sort but this is a personal opinion rather like my not liking sprouts or opera; and OK some people do like these things and I'm glad we're all different. The problem occurs when we look at the function of the pageant and who pays for it. A circus parade is harmless and if you don't like it you don't pay to watch it. But much ceremony has a sinister function being designed to intimidate, overawe, exclude or terrify. Witness those grim parades of weapons and missiles in the USSR a few years ago. Or witness much church ceremony with the clergy wearing strange robes, chanting and performing pseudo-magic.
Most, I regret to say, have already have accepted the 'I haven't got any children why should I pay for yours' attitude in 'I didn't go to university, why should I pay for you', and our universities are now the world's most expensive. The difference here is that in the first statement the speaker will have already benefitted from education him or herself and is just paying into the pot which may benefit him or her in the future. In the second the speaker may indeed benefit from the education of another person at university. Nobody benefits from the millions we waste on royalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:42 AM

And just in case you missed it in ordinary type, let me repeat this question for leveller & the rest of you-lot in bold:~


Do you not realise that your attitude is identical to that of the curmudgeon who says, "I haven't got any children; why should I pay to educate yours?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:23 AM

... and here are just a couple more I googled. Still thin I am making arrogant sweeping statements?

=========
Hundreds of M.E.N readers and website users had their say.Our poll showed a majority in support of the royal family with only 40 per cent saying they believed the monarchy should be abolished.
================================================
        •        MORI On-Line interviewed a representative quota sample of 804 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain.
        •        Interviews were conducted by telephone on 18-20 August 1998.
        •        Data are weighted to the profile of Great Britain.
        •        Where percentages do not add up to exactly 100% this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of don't knows or to multiple answers.
        •        An asterisk (*) indicates a figure below one half of a percent.
Q1 Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?
 
%
Republic
16
Monarchy
75
Don't know                                                             9                                                         
==================

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:06 AM

Oh, don't be so thick, leveller: it isn't worthy of you. Of course I haven't personally done a survey; but you know as well as I do that every survey that has been held, of which there have been many, greatly upholds the wish for the continuation of the royal family in its present form. Stop this head-in-sand stuff, it ill becomes you.

Here's an example which came up after a v brief google:~
=====
····MOST young people would keep the monarchy, despite over half of them saying that the Royals do not provide value for money.

Nearly 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds would keep the Royals and overall only 16% of people would vote for a republic.

A poll of 1,004 people, commissioned by Discovery Channel ···
=====

Now let's see you find a poll with a different result, supporting your view.

Do you not realise that your attitude is identical to that of the curmudgeon who says, "I haven't got any children; why should I pay to educate yours?"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 10:29 AM

"But more people want that £8m spent on this specific purpose than don't"

Ah, so you've done a survey of the entire population, have you? Can we have the exact results Mr Arrogant-Sweeping-Statements?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:33 AM

Nauseating Tosh

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:29 AM

OK republicans I think you have far too much fun with this unkind wind up.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:22 AM

Yes, theleveller. But more people want that £8m spent on this specific purpose than don't. & they are contributing just as much to the sum as you are. So how about that, then, Mr Self-Righteous Democrat? Let's see you Houdini yourself out of that one.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:59 AM

"But aren't you lot of holier-than-thou denouncers of most people's pleasures interesting yourselves with the utmost officiousness and impertinence in theirs, just!?"

Well there are lots of things I'd like to do for my own pleasure but no-one seems prepared to cough up £8 million so I can have a few hours vicarious amusement - so why the fuck should I have to pay for anyone else's? Officious? Impertinent? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:23 AM

I suppose that we could travel down to the Capital and stand around in the rain for hours with a plastic Union Jack on a plastic stick ... but, speaking personally, such an experience ranks about number 10,232,612 on the list of things that I would like to do before I die!<<<<<

Purely out of interest, Shimrod [& I do genuinely mean precisely that], why on earth do you imagine any of us should be remotely interested in your priorities regarding entertainment. But aren't you lot of holier-than-thou denouncers of most people's pleasures interesting yourselves with the utmost officiousness and impertinence in theirs, just!?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 05:17 AM

I think it is important to remember what special skills the royal family have brought to ........ erm ............. erm ....... oh yes how about diplomacy?

Check Prince Andrew's views on various bits of the world in the Wikileaks stuff:

"To the cheers and laughter of foreign businessmen, the Duke of York is said to have ridiculed Americans for having no understanding of geography and called French business practices corrupt. He even supposedly branded UK anti-fraud investigators idiots."

Before you agree with him, remember this is supposed to be diplomacy!

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 05:01 AM

London pageantry is as far away to me as American glitz and television is the only medium that I would get to see either if I wanted that of course, which I don't. I would rather the healthier get togethers of villages when the community mucks in (pardon the pun!). I am not for hunting in any shape or form but on Boxing Day the Beaufort Hunt team with small children on their ponies go through the village town of Thornbury Nr. Gloucester and the red coats are impressive to watch and everyone seems to be out with all kinds of working dogs. If I do tune in to a 'Royal' occasion it is mainly to see the horses if anything. And to sneak a little look at 'that dress'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 04:42 AM

Hi Joe,

Thanks for that. I have no objection to pageantry per se, but somehow that American glitz seems a lot healthier than our peculiar upper class rituals. You should also remember that all of this dressing up and 'poncing about' (to use the venacular) is largely London based. Up here in't North we have to watch it on't telly (or not watch it as the case may be). I suppose that we could travel down to the Capital and stand around in the rain for hours with a plastic Union Jack on a plastic stick ... but, speaking personally, such an experience ranks about number 10,232,612 on the list of things that I would like to do before I die!

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:47 AM

Right, Joe. Rockettes are marvellous. So is The Trooping Of The Colour, especially when they march to The Old Grenadier ~~ the one that ex Brigade of Guards trumpeter Howard Evans used to play with Carthy & Kirkpatrick's great Brass Monkey ensemble; along with Battle Of The Somme and Shebeag & Sheamor, one of the most beautiful tunes ever composed.

I say again ~~ those who don't like it, stay away, switch off, read a book or go to sleep. You all must have some 'interests'. Try costing out some time how much they cost and who pays. You might get a big surprise.

And to think I've been denounced on this thread for being 'intolerant'! LoL...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:27 AM

Shimrod, you may be right about British royal pageantry being a waste of money and an expression of class superiority. Maybe you'd be better off with American pageantry, like the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall in New York. I saw them and the Macy's Christmas parade on Thanksgiving in 2000 - a very nice dose of pageantry, and no class conflict involved whatsoever.
But hey, pageantry is fun....tacky, perhaps, but fun.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 09:26 AM

Patsy, you are right. Quote from the news:

A leading bishop has been criticised after denouncing the upcoming wedding of Britain's Prince William and Kate Middleton, saying the marriage will only last for seven years.
The Rev Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, attacked what he described as the "nauseating tosh" surrounding the engagement and likened the couple to "shallow celebrities".
He said the royal family was full of "broken marriages and philanderers" and expressed disappointment that the wedding would cost the public "an arm and a leg".

In my humble opinion (not being a Royal subject, see above), it is not the office of a clergyman to predict the failure of any marriage, particularly if his judgment is based on a family record. That is rude and primitive and runs afoul of the occidental and Christian image of humanity, which gives anyone the chance to amend.

From the political point of view, it would be even more of a disaster if the Royals or the clergy showed a flawless image, so that even more people would be deluded into believing their fate in safe hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:00 AM

"I have nowhere denied you any right to the opinions you hold". Sorry M. Your postings here and on other threads have shown a complete intolerance of all who oppose the monarchy.<<<< Fred McCormick
====
No, Fred. I am 'intolerant' of no-one's right to hold any views, on the monarchy or anything else. I myself have, as I have often said, no particular interest either way in the monarchical institution, tho I think the traditional parades & ceremonies can make good tv from time to time.

But what I am 'intolerant' of is those who would deny to those {as I say, I am sure any survey would establish them as a considerable majority, so anyone with pretensions to being a democrat should have more respect} who do enjoy the fact, the activities, the tradition, of the monarchy, the right to this legitimate enjoyment; or to the media, in a country with a free press, to cater fully for these widespread tastes. As I have said, that seems to me mean-spirited. As is likewise to grudge some of the inevitable side-effects of such public provision. And I repeat that I think the expression of your dislike of such tastes, coverage, provision, as something that makes you "want to throw up" is a peculiarly offensive and distasteful choice of locution ...

... as it appears was my injunction to you in a previous post, which I thought would be recognised as being intended light-heartedly as part of that flyting which is in the Mudcat tradition; but which you took amiss: so clearly a misjudgement on my part; for which, realising that, I have no hesitation in apologising for and begging your pardon. You are not a booby and I hope you will remain.

~Regards~

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:38 AM

Exlnt, that really raises the tone of this ...erm discussion

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:33 AM

I'm not a big fan of Royalty apart from reading about early Kings and Queens which I do I admit find facinating, anyway having said that I am indifferent to what the Royal family are doing now in the words of Katherine Tate 'not bovvered'. However, the remarks coming from the Bishop were impolite and ill-mannered, no excuse. Who the heck is he to put a time limit on anything it's none of his damn business. This is typical C of E bad-manners. It's not the first time one of them has opened his fat gob, they tend to tell little children just before the Christmas break that Santa isn't real great for the parents of tearful little ones. If I was Wills I would punch him on the nose.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:26 AM

MtheGM; how about 'I'm feeling a little bilious'? Is that 'gentlemanly' enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:17 AM

I accept your point SW but here we have a paradox: if you really want to change the system and feel you can, there's little point in grumbling into your pint or contributing to these theads; you have to join the establishment, risk the charge of hypocricy, and try to change it from within. Did our goverment listen to all the stop the war protesters? The biggest upheaval in Britain was started in parliament itself by a relatively small group.
And Fred, another paradox. If the monarchy and peerage were to be abolished, do you think they would go willingly and sacrifice even a small part of their privilages and wealth. She would just be the Former Queen with her fortune, houses, income and servile staff still. As good old Oliver said: 'We will cut off the king's head and the crown with it'. You cannot separated the institution and the holders of the office. The Queen, who monarcists tell us is very experienced and wise in the ways of the government and the world, expected the public to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire and took 30 years to see that she should really pay income tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:01 AM

"unworthy of anyone with any pretension to being thought a gentleman". Wrong again, M. I am not a gentleman and have no pretensions towards being thought of as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:59 AM

"I have nowhere denied you any right to the opinions you hold". Sorry M. Your postings here and on other threads have shown a complete intolerance of all who oppose the monarchy.

You have, on several occasions equated the wish of myself, and several other posters, to end the monarchy, as left wing. It is nothing of the sort. It would be the logical step of any country faced with such an outmoded institution.

You seem to think that I and those other posters are somehow motivated by hatred of the incumbents of the monarchy. Wrong! I hate the institution, and I hate unjustified rank, wealth and privilege. But the kings, queens, princes and princesses of this world are there by accident of birth, nothing more. The holders of those things are thus a source of irritation to me, nothing more. I reserve my hatred - and my vomit - for the office, not the holder, and for the pomp and pageantry and wanton waste of public money which are associated with that office.

As for "piss of u big booby". If you cannot see what is so patheticly childish about making a remark like that, it can only be because you have sunk so low, that you are incapable of realising how low you have sunk.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:43 AM

'MtheGm takes his ball home.....what next, threatening to tell teacher that someone said 'vomit'? '

I don't need to take any ball home, Tim, nor tell anyone except you & Fred that I find the hyperbolical threat of vomiting, throwing up, &c, in this context a peculiarly vulgar, distasteful locution, unworthy of anyone with any pretension to being thought a gentleman. YMMV, naturally; but if it does, & you can't even see the grounds of my objection, then I do feel genuine pity for you.

Regards as ever

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:35 AM

Had 6 peasants in the garden again today... At least that's what I call them when in ironic mood. Poor blighters will all get shot. And no, not by us - we just feed them when they come to the garden.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:25 AM

Earlier up the thread Joe Offer said: "For us in the colonies, British pageantry is fascinating."

For the record, Joe, many of us in Britain find much of this pageantry to be baffling and irrelevant! We are still a very class ridden society and I, for one, think that much of the pageantry is really about mystifying and overawing the 'peasants' so that they will know their place. Unfortunately for the British ruling class the world has moved on and there are now a sizeable minority of 'peasants' who are no longer overawed.

Nevertheless, this thread just goes to show that there are quite a few British peasants who are still willing to let themselves be dazzled and bamboozled!

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:21 AM

my should have been many above

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:19 AM

Though OT, Leveller, I think that is amongst many reasons why my (included a failed attempted me) prefer to just try to be Christian and see ourselves as non denomination...

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:11 AM

As the monarch is the head of the church of England, he's in a tricky position but I admire his courage in speaking out about this unspeakable institution. Ironically, some prominent members of the C of E oppose having women in positions of authority i.e. bishops, so acknowledging Liz Windsor as head of the church is, in itself, hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:07 AM

MtheGm takes his ball home.....what next, threatening to tell teacher that someone said 'vomit'?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:04 AM

Personally, I wasn't going to mention my ginger fetish, but there you go....

Amazing how many call Charles for being an adulterer. How many mates have some people got? One in five married men apparently, and one in seven married women.

Those who decry Charles for being dragged into a marriage he didn't want (his love being a left footer and that would never do for the establishment thirty years ago.)   Does this mean you are going to go through your address book and delete 20% of your mates?

What the Bishop doesn't take into account (getting back to the thread) is that he sees himself as relevant to the people whereas, due to the fact few people are religious, he is only relevant in his job as being part of the establishment, so he was slagging off the only institution that gives him the right to wear silly headgear and waffle sanctimonious twaddle in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 02:55 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:39 PM

That depends on how you define a good going over.
maybe I wouldnt touch a whisker on her beard either, JUST GIVE HER A BUNCH OF FIVES.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 04:56 PM

Quote by Dick Miles
Fergie deserves preferential treatment, I would give her a good going over
Unquote

Bloody hell Dick, you must think a lot of yourself. She wouldn't even touch a whisker on your beard, let alone letting you give her a good going over.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 04:37 PM

Booby, I thought that was BRITNEY SPEARS, or Dolly Parton, has Fred had a change of sex, heaven forbid.what is the folk scene coming to
   personally i would put all the royal family in the stocks with the exception of Fergie,
Fergie deserves preferential treatment, I would give her a good going over, then I would make sure she had to read budgie the little helicopter, till she begged for mercy

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 04:03 PM

Tim: You, & Fred, & anyone, can think what the hell you like. Can you not get it that it is just that reference to vomit, to throwing up, with which Fred in his exquisite taste & moderation chose to initiate a thread on this forthcoming occasion, & to which he remains devoted & dedicated, to which I took, & take, exception? I have not 'abused' him, except to call him a booby because I thought him a booby. {If you call that 'abuse' then I fear the Mudcat is unsuited to one of your refined and exquisite sensibilities}. I hope I am not finding you one too. If you don't want to be thought so, please lay off about the VOMIT ~~~ please. I find it exceptionally distasteful.

I know no-one any apology, and am profoundly uninterested in your opinion on the matter.


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:55 PM

Actually, Tim, if you go back and read Michael's post, you'll see he said that *most* ordinary people would enjoy the day, not all...

He's more than likely correct, whether you like it or not, I'm afraid, so maybe you owe him an apology?

;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

MtheGM; irrespective of left or right, your name calling of Fred was unpleasant and uncalled for. I haven't seen any semblance of an argument from you in support of your view that no-one should consider the Royal Wedding a vomit-inducing waste of time and money, beyond fatuous statements that ordinary people will like to watch it. I'm an ordinary person, from a long line of ordinary people. Some of us will watch it, and others won't. I won't, and I find your arrogant assumption that you understand the views of all us 'ordinary people' patronising in the extreme. You are fully entitled to your view, and so is Fred. I suggest you accept that, and stop the personal abuse. If you want to win an argument, name calling is generally only effective in the school playground; in adult discourse it tends to indicate an inability to assemble a decent case for your point of view. I think you owe Fred, and the list, an apology.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM

Dick ~~ Marx & Lenin, whom I name as exemplars likewise, have been dead longer than Ewan. Such influences live on amongst 'the 10-million lone voices crying in the wilderness'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:35 PM

I suspect, Fred, that this last of yours, 03.20, crossed with my last, 03.19. I really don't think my denunciations of the taste of your OP comments are fatuous or facetious. I have nowhere denied you any right to the opinions you hold; or if I appear to have done so it was inadvertent. It was your instant auto-reflex of "want to throw up" that made me, in my turn, WTTU. As I said before, they 'rattled my cage' in the sense of disgusting me profoundly.

& you cannot deny that your initial response to my moderate injunction to you, which you relayed to an audience on your own admission as a good joke, was met by you with the hoity-toity keep-your-distance-I-shan't-even-lower-myself-to-converse-with-the-likes-of-you reaction of any prim·&·fastidious maiden aunt.

I think denunciations of my mental & physical state are in any way facetious because they are facetious. Go on; deny it: I dare you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM

who is paying for this wedding?
Royal wedding: marriage will cost economy £5bn
Prince William's wedding to Kate Middleton will cost the economy £5billion by creating consecutive four-day weekends in April, businesses have warned.   
what has MacColl got to do with this , he has been dead twenty years.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

Good God. Is MTHEGM on overtime or what? Fear not, I credited you with the booby reference, and a lot more besides.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:20 PM

Great heavens to Betsy! While I was composing my previous missive, the MGM sneaked another on in. Except this time, there was not one single fatuous reference to yours truly. Is this a record?

"facetious denunciations of my physical or mental state"

What makes you think that such denunciations are in any way facetious?

Anyway, I totally agree with Les. As long as the majority of people go along with the idea of a royal family, then the rest of us will just have to go along with it. What I object to is the fact that immediately anybody questions the need for such an archaic system, they are buried under a heap of fatuous and facetious denunciations.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

Actually, Les, I have said before that my animadversions are not aimed particularly at you, whose comments are reasonable and moderate: I am sorry that you feel that what I have to say about the lefty consensus is a cap which fits you ~~ it is you who have assumed that, not I who have said it.

Yes, Fred, I was referring to your OP on that other thread. Can you really not see the offensiveness of denouncing what you know, & admit, will be of interest and pleasure to most ordinary people, as something that immediately "makes you want to throw up". I am sorry; I think it in the most appalling of taste; patronising; hyperbolical; toffee-nosed & holier-than-thou... It does indeed rattle my cage in the sense of disgusting me profoundly.

But thanks for sharing my moderate description of you as a Gr8 Big Booby with a fine folky audience. Hope you gave me due acknowledgment.

I reciprocate your best wishes, Les; and do genuinely express as much to you, Fred. Hope that won't make you want to throw up...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM

You are correct M, it wasn't very funny. I wish I had written something funnier and more thoughtful but this is Mudcat, not The Open University.

I don't really know what this is about:

"Trouble is, you lot of the uncontradictable lefty consensus, the phenomenon of what Kingsley Amis memorably epitomised as "a chorus of 10 million lone voices crying in the wilderness"

I accept the democratic right of people to have the royal family we have doing what they do. I simply think its wrong but until the majority think otherwise and plan for change that's what we have.

As for the wedding of W & K, the press are saying all the things they said about C & D and as we all know C was a lying adulterer.

I hope W & K have a long and happy marriage. But let those who are royalists look to the history of the current royal family before they abuse people like me.

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM

My God, have I rattled M the GM's cage! All I said was that the prospect of another royal wedding makes me want to throw up. That is perfectly true, but not half as much as the sycophantic ramblings of some of the monachy's supporters do.

The sad part of all this is that I have yet to find anybody anywhere on the planet who can give me a single sensible reason for retaining such an irrational institution. And I'm not counting arguments along the lines of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Actually it's the rest of us who are broke, partly through the policies of her majesty's loyal government, but partly also through having to finance the monarchy.

Oh sorry I forgot. There is one valid reason for the monarchy's continued existence. It keeps the plebs in their place. And as long as the plebs are kept in place, they are denied the ability to question the monarchy.

BTW 1. This afternoon, on my way back from the carolling in the Royal Hotel in Dungworth (no, the irony of that one was not lost on me either), I listened to Radio 4's File on Four. It was about declining standards in care homes, and the miserable condition that some of our old folk are kept in, because the government is so strapped for cash that they can no longer afford a proper system of social care inspection. Grand ennit. These are people, most of whom came through the privations and hardships of the second world war, thereby saving us from fascism, and we cannot afford to keep them in decent comfortable living conditions. Yet we can spend millions on such an outdated useless institution.

BTW 2. I sang a couple of anti-monarchist songs at my local folk club the other night, and quoted that bit about "piss off U Big Booby". I don't think the audience has stopped laughing yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 02:53 PM

Why, of course, Les. Your wit was devastating: why that's me demolished for sure. ~~ & so well judged, in that if I didn't find it amusing it would denounce me as a pathetic party pooper with no sense of humour.

Julian Fellowes {now Lord Fellowes, one must say, I believe} has a very good bit in one of his books about a character who is "the sort of person who insults you, and then says, Oh dear, can't you take a joke!."

Trouble is, you lot of the uncontradictable lefty consensus, the phenomenon of what Kingsley Amis memorably epitomised as "a chorus of 10 million lone voices crying in the wilderness", I couldn't give a flying one if you think I have a sense of humour or not. I still think the bits Les quotes to show how sick I am are cogent arguments in support of my thesis that you are all theoretical democrats and lovers of humanity ~~~ just so long as the demos obligingly agrees with you; and not a step further.

So how about some cogent arguments back, scaredy-cats, instead of facetious denunciations of my physical or mental state.

Can't think of any?

Tough titty.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM

I would respond by doing :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 02:40 PM

I thought Nurse, nurse was an appropriate response to this:

"But o-dear-me, that won't do for the lefties either; all we get are sarcastic, sour, envious cries of 'nice to be able to afford it'"

"what would all you o-so-superior toffee-nosed lot over there on the left have to sneer at & threaten to throw up about, eh?"

"But the popular will won't do for the fastidious on the left, who love hoi polloi so dearly ~~~ except when they just don't want to listen to those who know so much better than they do what is fitting and non-vomit-inducing!

Oh, shut up, the lot of you ~~ it's you who make me want to throw up."

How would you respond?

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

"Nurse, nurse Ms not well

L in C# "

My apologies if I misunderstood your quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 01:35 PM

Mr Itus,

please, I am not getting personal - I have responded to things either said about me or about people I am accused of being like.

Show me where I have been personal with out good cause.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 01:23 PM

You are obviously not a royal fan then Les in C#

You are entiltled to your opinion, but stop getting personal with people who don't agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM

I was with you most of the way Willie until:

"I am of course interested in the character of the calming influence on Prime Ministers each weekly meeting. "

"We have a Monarch for reasons of tradition to to ensure anybody who wants to be top dog can't, and that is a good thing. "

This is simply undemocratic. Charles, a calming influence? He is a liar and adulterer and a fool. Top dog? An elected person, currently Dave, who will be chucked out by the people just as Gordon was.

I think I may have said this before. Inspite of all the rubbish spouted about us above - I wish Will and Kate the luck I would wish any couple. They have nothing of any conscequence to offer and they have as much chance of surving as a couple as anybody else - probably a bit less going on royal family records.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' WIllie
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 12:55 PM

MtheGM compares the security cost with the security costs at football matches.

Just for the record, the police decide what they need and send the bill to the club. Football clubs pay for the police presence.

Like I said above, I won't be watching it. Not because I am anti this or pro that, but because as a bloke, I am not a wedding watcher any more than a soap opera watcher.

I don't have any animosity towards the couple and as he is a future monarch, I am of course interested in the character of the calming influence on Prime Ministers each weekly meeting. (The nearest thing to power. Think about the good bits here, we have one person who has listened to the concerns and plans of Prime Ministers all the way back to Churchill. The continuity alone is invaluable.)

Also, in case Joe Offer and others are bemused by this froth appearing on the beards of arm chair socialists, the vast majority of The UK are Royalist as hell come a wedding or funeral.

Grishka can rest assured that we don't have a Monarch, we have a constitutional Monarchy. The difference being we are not governed by a king or queen, we are governed by an elected Parliament. We have a Monarch for reasons of tradition to to ensure anybody who wants to be top dog can't, and that is a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM

Get A LIFE...

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 12:24 PM

Many people want to witness some "glamour" from time to time. Princes, pop stars, soup opera characters (!) or actors, all the same. Fortunately, it's hosanna and crucify in quick succession, so that the damage is limited.

What is special about royalties is that they are actually trusted (by a minority) to guarantee the welfare of their nations. This attitude can be felt as nauseating, particularly when fostered by persons who know better, or should. However, I doubt whether this would change much if the European monarchs were deposed, being deprived of most of their power now already.

Grishka (spent a couple of years in UK and Oz, otherwise lived in several republics, two of which take pride in having executed their former absolutistic monarchs.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 11:28 AM

""So what if the nuptials are on several tv channels?: there are plenty more; or try playing a dvd.""

Amen to that!

And in addition, the government has made it a bank holiday, so anybody who can reach Kent will be able to spend the day at the Good Intent, as it is Sweeps Festival weekend.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 11:15 AM

Nurse, nurse Ms not well

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 11:01 AM

No public money is spent, except in necessary security. I don't start threads about how football makes me vomit because it takes so many police to monitor crowds to, from & in the grounds. Or say I shall throw up if one more state visit occurs which has to be policed. Or go on about how we must abandon all ceremony from the Changing of the Guard to the Lord Mayor's Show because they all have to be policed. It's largely recovered in tourist attraction anyhow, which will apply to the wedding too.

As to the wedding itself ~~ both families have declared that they will between them be responsible for the necessary outlay. But o-dear-me, that won't do for the lefties either; all we get are sarcastic, sour, envious cries of 'nice to be able to afford it'; as if it wasn't the tradition, in all classes, that weddings are a bit special, & to lashed out on ~~ often, due to social expectations of members of the parents' own part of society, beyond the means of those paying out the sums required to the detriment of their own families ~~ which will not be the case here.

I repeat: when it comes to lefties, nobody can get anything right; they operate the King Of Catch 22's.

As to domination of the media: newspaper proprietors & tv executives are not fools. If there wasn't the overwhelming demand from the majority of the populace for all the [what I agree & admit is] largely overblown nonsense, which I avoid to a considerable degree, & so can you, they wouldn't provide it. & then what would all you o-so-superior toffee-nosed lot over there on the left have to sneer at & threaten to throw up about, eh? & what would you do then, poor things! But the popular will won't do for the fastidious on the left, who love hoi polloi so dearly ~~~ except when they just don't want to listen to those who know so much better than they do what is fitting and non-vomit-inducing!

Oh, shut up, the lot of you ~~ it's you who make me want to throw up.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 08:26 AM

QB to QC:1!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 07:14 AM

"I really do find it peculiarly mean-spirited to grudge them these simple pleasures"

I guess you mean the simple pleasures people get from watching rich irrelevant people get married? I don't grudge(?) anybody that - I am simply appalled by the rubbish that the press have written about nearly all Royals for decades.

"Why anyone should consequently feel like vomiting I genuinely can't make out"

I repeat, because this is my position:
"On each occasion loads of public money have been spent and acres of nonsense have been written about the people involved - almost none of which have contributed to the general well being of anybody but themselves. Yes they support charities - don't most of us."

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:49 AM

I am 78: I remember George V's Silver Jubilee, the Abdication, the Coronation of George VI, weddings of HRH {later HM} Lillibet & Philip[√] & Margaret [Her·Royal·Harridan] & Tony A-J[X]. I don't get particularly worked up about the weddings myself, tho I like the tradition of the ritual & think it makes agreeable tv. But many people do enjoy the build-up, background, whole thing as an "occasion".   I really do find it peculiarly mean-spirited to grudge them these simple pleasures. Me, I just turn those pages of the paper over; though as my post, about how the Middletons' vicar was out of touch in thinking that the whole country was as thrilled & delighted as he was, shows, my eye is occasionally taken by a headline & I read a bit further. So why the hell shouldn't I? Why anyone should consequently feel like vomiting I genuinely can't make out. So what if the nuptials are on several tv channels?: there are plenty more; or try playing a dvd.

Anyone who can't manage that much evasion of the occasion truly is a big booby.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:47 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:29 AM

Yes I can see it might be a source of conflict with a gay bishop. The bride might be wearing a better dress than he was. Perhaps they could solve this thorny problem by getting together before the cereomony - to make sure they don't clash.

Just kidding Les. The good people of Lincolnshire have always been on the ball when it comes to fashion. I remember when Rock Around the Clock first came to the Regal in Boston. We didn't slash the cinema seats, but some of us did the hand jive pretty frantically - I can tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:20 AM

I am leaving the Cof E alone this time.

As for Royal Weddings? Well I am 64 and I have been around to see Princess Anne (2), Charles (2) Edward, his other brother and several 'minor' royals. They all loved each other? No, Charles (1) was clearly a lying adulterer. Him, his family and the press drove that poor woman mad.

On each occasion loads of public money have been spent and acres of nonsense have been written about the people involved - almost none of which have contributed to the general well being of anybody but themselves. Yes they support charities - don't most of us.

It doesn't make me physically sick but I kind of think the press would learn, well no I don't really.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:58 AM

Joe, Southward Cathedral is rather a special place because of the Dean, The Very Rev Colin Slee, who died very recently. His Guardian obituary states: '(He) was one of the most courageously outspoken liberals in the Church of England - almost alone among senior churchmen; a close friend of Desmond Tutu; a doughty defender of another friend Jeffrey John, the theologian who was denied a bishopric in the Church of England in 2003 when conservative evangelicals launched a campaign against his appointment on discovering he was gay; (His) combativeness cost him a bishopric himself...inside the Church of England, where safer candidates less likely to rock the boat by speaking out against the church's prejudices against women and gays were prefered; (Somewhat paradoxically, some might say, he was very much) an orthodox priest in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, insistent on following the proper form in prayer and dress.' (quoting Stephen Bates).
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, by the way, is now Dean of St Albans, and a very popular and well respected man too.
For those not familiar with the C of E's complex structure, the Dean only rules the cathedral so that 'undesirables', such as women and gays, can be safely promoted to the post of dean. The bishop rules the diocese and most of the clergy in it: some diocese are 'minority' friendly while others are not. Mind you, you have to pick your minority carefully!
Ring, ring... this is the Church of England. Press 1 for woman and gays in all posts; press 2 for women and gays in all posts except bishops; press 3 for women in all posts but not gay.....etc. Well not quite yet but we're getting there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:57 AM

LOL Al. My one daughter lives in Lincoln at university. So I suppose she will have been to more than MacDonalds. However she did spend the whole of last year in the Netherlands. The other has been on holiday to France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
You are so right, they need to see the world.
Not being a yellowbelly like you Al, I know what you mean about yellowbellies :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:42 AM

Well, then Les: it wasn't aimed at moderates like you; but at the doctrinaire likes of McCormick, I repeat, who can't, by his own admission, contemplate the occasion without his first reaction being "wanting to throw up". Do you, as a republican ~~ a perfectly respectable, not even particularly left-slanted belief, tho obviously one I don't happen to share ~~ wish to be associated with such crassness & vile taste? Some innocent couple have got engaged, so he wants to vomit. Charming, I'm sure... Look at his idiotic post of 0214 pm yesterday, about how he is being victimised because people are interested and he is forced to know it's going on.

I thought ~~ & this is my real point ~~ that left-wing people believed in democracy. But only, I repeat, so long as the majority accept and agree with all their assumptions. If I were a gambling man [which thank the Lord I'm not, Sir], I would bet any money you like that any respectable survey would find more people who agree with Arthur itus's daughters [16 & 19; young but by no means infants] than with McCormick & all his hysterical, tasteless, up-throwing like.

I say again ~~ diddums, McCormick; you silly fellow.

Hope it keeps fine for you.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:00 AM

I cannot speak for all republicans, a stupid idea, but I guess most republicans, and I am one, are in general as happy as anyone else that two people love each other. That's it really.

Why we have to put up with this:

"Predictable, of course, that the usual lefty suspects are kicking up in the usual sour envy of anyone's better fortune than their own. Their trouble is that they fail to realise that, tho in theory they love humanity, & wish it well just so long as it adopts policies & social arrangements of which they are permitted by their authorities [Marx; Lenin; Castro; Lloyd & MacColl...] to approve, they don't actually like people very much ~~ largely because most of us, despite all their self-righteous blandishments, just won't play the game of Life according to their rules, chiz chiz!"

Is beyond me

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:32 AM

I'm not sure the comments go together MtheGM. I am no royalist but

Still, I would guess quite a lot of people are, if not {like me} actually "delighted", at least moderately pleased that two apparently agreeable young people love one another enough to undertake a lifelong commitment.

For sure I would hope they find genuine friendship and genuine true lasting love.

I would wish that on anyone but the alternative lust, I would not wish on my worst enemy. I hope things work out for them..

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:12 AM

Let's be honest Les, in Lincolnshire people get excited about the daily bus arriving. you can't expect the rest of the country to be quivering with excitement like you are out in the fens.

perhaps its time to show your daughters the greater world. Take them to Lincoln. I bet they've never had a MacDonalds.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 03:06 AM

Yesterday's Times quotes the Middletons' parish vicar as saying that, 'like the rest of the country he was "thrilled and delighted" by the engagement'.

Reading this thread, & that previous one when the engagement was announced (started by one McCormick with the charming assertion that he "wanted to throw up" at the news {& then got all hoity-toity & refused to engage in dialogue with me when I called him a big booby ~~ ah diddums!}), I can't help feeling that the Revd Mr Gadsby somewhat overstates the case.

Still, I would guess quite a lot of people are, if not {like me} actually "delighted", at least moderately pleased that two apparently agreeable young people love one another enough to undertake a lifelong commitment.

Predictable, of course, that the usual lefty suspects are kicking up in the usual sour envy of anyone's better fortune than their own. Their trouble is that they fail to realise that, tho in theory they love humanity, & wish it well just so long as it adopts policies & social arrangements of which they are permitted by their authorities [Marx; Lenin; Castro; Lloyd & MacColl...] to approve, they don't actually like people very much ~~ largely because most of us, despite all their self-righteous blandishments, just won't play the game of Life according to their rules, chiz chiz!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 02:11 AM

I think the Anglican Church is quite varied with high churches and low churches. Personally I prefer simplicity over ritual (except for what may b called a ritual by some which is the communion) . Whatever, it has to be an each to their own... But I think (and it happens in a lot of cases abd across denominations) there has to be recognition that those of us persuaded towards Christianity we all seek the same Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 09:03 PM

Doc John says, "But then the Anglican Church has little to do with Jesus." I've seen indications that may no longer be the case. Since participation in the Church is no longer socially required, the Church has been able to focus on the business of religious faith, rather than the business of power and requirement. Micca, that pagan, took me to Southwark Cathedral and gave me the opportunity to talk with a delightful (female) canon there. Ian C. gave me other chances to observe the Church of England, as did Bill Sables (unwittingly), and I had a chance to observe the Church of England at Whitby. I was favorably impressed.

Still, I kinda like the idea of a royal wedding. For us in the colonies, British pageantry is fascinating. I imagine the event will cost far less than an ordinary movie costs nowadays, and yet it will be an event remembered for a generation. It should be great for tourism - which may well be the only viable business enterprise remaining in the British Isles. [I don't really mean that, but it might be interesting to see what kind of a response a remark like that will garner.]
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:24 PM

Well my daughters are enthusiastic about the wedding. 16 and 19.

So yes this Bishop can go FH

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:19 PM

I'm seriously considering doing what I did to avoid the wedding of Chuck and Di. When that was in progress, I was thundering south through France, on my way to Greece. With a lorryload of aluminium can lids for a canning factory at Corinth.
I've retired now, but I can still escape abroad, can't I?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:18 PM

Good convince a few of the need for a Republic?

No, not many I guess

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:14 PM

Where do SW and one or two others get the idea that we will have anything more than a cat in hell's chance of ignoring the great occasion? There'll be union jacks everywhere you look and every town, village and hamlet in the country will be awash with para-military parades.

The newspapers will be full of it. It will be broadcast simultaneously on BBC1, BBC News24, ITV, Sky News and myriads of other channels. Every pub in the land will be showing it on tv. The radio news channels will be choked to the vent with royal news coverage. It will be the number one talking point of all the empty headed numbskulls who normally have nothing else to fill up their lives but celebrities and reality tv.

It will come streaming down the internet, and the likelyhood is it will come oozing up through the floorboards and down the chimney. If the truth were known, I won't even be able to take a bath without royal wedding water pouring out of the taps.

You will have about as much chance of avoiding this event as Winston Smith had of avoiding Big Brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:39 PM

When they criticise the government or the establishment they are popular with the masses but uncomfortable with their bosses, who represent the establishment anyway.

Can't see what the issue is here. He doesn't have to watch the wedding on the telly if he doesn't want to. I won't either although my wife will. That's why although we don't watch much telly, we have two anyway.

I'll be in my ivory tower, counting my gold as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: GUEST, RIchard Bridge on 56k
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:04 AM

From what I read the suspended bish was bang on the money in most of his comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 08:54 AM

They are all wankers!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 08:51 AM

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, including nauseating tosh.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 07:58 AM

It was ever thus

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 07:37 AM

I absolutely agree with the Bishop. I wonder why it is that, when it's permanent open season for criticising scroungers, pregnant teenagers, benefit frauds, and people who resist the lunatic cuts of this axe wielding, state demolishing government, one word against such a totally archaic system of undeserving patronage and privilege results in yells of "treachery" and "treason", and "off wiv 'is bleedin' 'ed".

They'll be bringing back fox hunting next.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 06:31 AM

Jesus in our sense of republicans/democrats Conservatives/Labour/Liberal would have been none. Assuming he was who I take him to be, his only party could have been the kingdom of heaven - it would not be earthly politics.

Subject: BS: Bishop Suspended Indefinitely
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 06:16 AM

An English suffragen bishop has been effectively suspended indefinitely - despite much support - for referring to the forthcoming royal wedding as 'nauseating tosh'. So a church that allows viscious homophobes and misogynists (quite illegal in other areas of society) won't tolorate republicans. He was suspended by his immediate boss, the Bishop of London, who a little while ago said that buying a car or taking foreign holidays was a sin, while being driven around his diocese by his chauffeur and frequently flying the Atlantic. I don't remember ever reading about Jesus commenting specifically on republicanism but he had rather a lot to say about hypocrits. But then the Anglican Church has little to do with Jesus.
Reaction from Beardie: as you might expect.

---

Doc John - I altered the thread title in hopes of making it more specific. -Joe Offer-