BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding

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.