BBC Bias: all the news that's fit to invent?

I woke up this morning to an interview on Radio 4 which illustrated, in a bizarre way, the problems of public ‘thought control’ we now face in this country.

The interview was ostensibly a news item about the fact that British soldiers are back on the streets of Basra, having withdrawn earlier in the year, supporting the Iraqi army. This situation has come about because, although the original operation was mismanaged and needed American intervention to succeed, the Iraqi military is now strong enough to confront the Mahdi army and other Iranian-backed elements who had been dominant in Basra and had made life miserable for ordinary citizens (especially, it might be noted, women).

The situation on the ground thus reflects the growing, though fragile, stabilization of Iraq and the increasing success in bringing the appalling violence of the last few years under some measure of control — violence which, incidentally, is largely by Muslims against Muslims, and which itself shows signs of discrediting Al Qaida’s campaign there.

None of this, however, would have been gleaned from the BBC story. I cannot be bothered to go back and produce, verbatim, what was said. You can listen yourself here if you’re quick.

The story, however, went something like this:

Interviewer: What is happening in Basra?

Interviewee 1: The Iraqi government has confronted the Mahdi army, which has adopted a ceasefire so as to remain a ‘player’ in Iraqi politics, and is not shooting at either British or American troops.

Interviewer: The Iraqi army doesn’t seem to be able to cope.

Interviewee 1: This is about getting the Iraqi army to operate effectively. The extra firepower of the British Army enables this.

Interviewer to second Interviewee: How important is this operation?

Interviewee 2: It is critical. The Iraqi army will either succeed or it will not. If it fails, the British Army will be drawn into conflict.

Interviewer: Is that failure inevitable?

Interviewee 2: It is quite likely. The Iraqi government is only one faction in Iraqi politics. It may try to fix the forthcoming election and if it does, the Mahdi Army will be back on the street with guns.

Interviewer to Interviewee 1: How seriously are British Army commanders taking this?

Interviewee 1: They are very wary. They don’t know if conditions will hold and whether the Mahdi Army will be satisfied or may fight after elections. If that happened, the British Army could not sustain their current presence as they would be mortared, shot at and rocketed.

Interviewer to Interviewee 2: If the British Army had to withdraw under that pressure it would be extremely awkward wouldn’t it?

Interviewee 2: There would be nothing they could do. They would be sniped at, mortared and rocketed, and there would be a steady stream of dead and wounded.

Interviewer: Thank you very much

Now notice what the ‘story’ has become, compared with the actual facts reported.

The facts: There is a ceasefire holding in Basra as a result of a successful military campaign. British and American troops are reinforcing the Iraqi army presence. There is an election coming up, but no one knows exactly how that will turn out, or what will happen afterwards.

The story: We are about to see the resumption of a steady stream of British casualties in Iraq. This will result from a huge increase in sniping, mortar and rocket attacks which will require another British withdrawal. This will be caused by the Mahdi Army going back on the offensive after the Iraqi government fixes the results of the forthcoming election, and this will be because the failure of the Iraqi army is almost inevitable.

The brilliant thing about the ‘story’ is that it is all possible. The important thing, which the listener may not have noticed, however, is that none of the conditions necessary for the story has actually happened yet. Of course, they may all happen — or some of them may happen and some will not. The story could go: the ceasefire holds, the elections are fine, the Mahdi Army gradually fades into obscurity, life in Basra continues to improve and there is no great increase in British casualties.

To emphasise: either outcome is possible. I will not be ‘proved wrong’ if everything the Interviewer implied actually turns out exactly that way.

The important thing is that neither has happened, yet the BBC interviewer chose to profile one as it if already had, to which I can only say, in the words of Ricky Tomlinson’s character, ‘Impartiality, my a...!’, and wonder why this is the case.

Revd John P Richardson
22 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

This England

A headline from the Daily Telegraph:

Two million Britons emigrate in 10 years

... and if you're wondering why,

Striking back against gangland ‘untouchables’ who rule by fear

Crimes by girls rise by a quarter

Khyra was stealing bread off bird tables

Riots in West London as Chelsea fans clash with police after Champions League defeat

Youth crime drive has 'no impact'

Government plans to store citizens’ phone and web records in massive database

Fathers aren't needed say MPs: Commons decides IVF babies can do without a male role model

Abortion debate: MPs reject limit cut

Embryos have souls? What nonsense

Mother fined £300 for putting bins out early

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Exam paper had answers on the back

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

An Ugley slur

I am pleased to note that an article in The Independent on 'Britain's Rudest Place Names' includes the village of Ugley. Unfortunately, it repeats the calumny that "The Ugley Women's Institute grew so tired of the juvenile jibes that they changed its name to the Women's Institute of Ugley." That is not true. It is the Ugley Women's Institute, and I have a copy of the programme to prove it.

We also have, in addition to the Ugley Farmers' Market noted in the article, the Ugley Little Fishes group, for pre-school children.

Revd John P Richardson
21 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Maltby and the BNP: up close and personal

Ed: I received this article via the Comments option on this blog in response to 'Why the BNP is succeeding'. The poster is "the Maltby resident in the article" and the author of 'Crossing Borders'. I publish the article as sent to me, on trust that the details given are factual, as I believe it is a helpful contribution to a necessary debate.

There has been a variety of instinct reactions since the recent local elections, where two BNP councillors gained seats from long standing Labour councillors in the Rotherham Borough. John Gamble has taken the Brinsworth and Catcliffe seat from the Mayor of Rotherham and William Blair, here in Maltby, from long standing Labour councillor Glynn Robinson. Headlines in local and national newspapers have ranged from “Labour Disaster”, “Damning Indictment”, “Shock Results Outcry at BNP” to even “Pride and Prejudice: The Fear Factor” in The Independent.

Obviously these headlines, as well as the results, have a resounding effect on people’s feelings and concerns for the implications. The BNP (British Nationalist Party) has long been associated with, and reported as, the ‘politics of hatred’ particularly referring to the importance of race and keeping Britain as a place, predominantly, for Britons. The mission statement of the BNP states that it exists to “secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands. We use the term to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great ice-age, and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe.” It goes on to say that these ancestors are the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and closely related “kindred people”. Perhaps then, not racist completely, but specific about which races they wish to associate themselves with?

The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term “racist” as someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly. (Personally, I would define it with only the latter part of this definition ie. that someone is treated unfairly because of their race — but that is another story) The BNP declares that they are definitely not racist as racism means “hatred of other races” and that they do not hate anyone.

The issue can all become a matter of words and definitions and consequently become even more confusing for us ordinary Maltby Residents. I went to speak with William Blair at his home and shop on Muglet Lane, to see what his views are and how they match up with the BNP’s.

Mr Blair has been in Maltby for around 20 years, coming from a farming background in Northern Ireland, then working in agriculture before taking over the shop. His wife, son and niece work in the shop with him and are well known to locals.

We sat in Mr Blair’s back garden, on one of these surprisingly hot and sunny days that we have had lately in Maltby, his pigeons fluttering in their loft behind us and his poodle dog brushing against my legs and wanting attention. I asked him if it was OK to question him directly from the BNP policies list that I had and he was fine with that. “Ask me anything you want,” he said, “I am here to help the people of Maltby and make it a better place to live.”

Because it is a personal issue, I asked first about the BNP’s disapproval of mixed marriages. “I don’t have a problem with that. If you love each other and get on happily, then that’s all that matters”, he said. This is not the BNP’s view, however. They believe in preserving the identity of all different ethnic groups and that a small number of mixed marriages, with mixed race children is ok (how small they do not say). But if it is “encouraged as it is at present by politicians and the media, then the British genotype will be endangered”. They refer to environmentalists preserving animal species in the wild, and ask why this should not also apply to people. They do also say that Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, points out that often mixed race children suffer identity problems. I assured Mr Blair that at my age there was no fear of me bringing more mixed race children into the area and he said that it would be fine even if I did. My experiences with my ‘other race’ stepsons in Maltby, has been enough, thanks!

Mr Blair agrees with the BNP’s views on homosexuality that: what people do in ‘the privacy of their own bedrooms’ is up to them, that they are not homophobic, but that homosexuality should not be “encouraged or promoted”.

He doesn’t agree with not letting “blacks and Asians” into the BNP party — I am not sure why blacks and Asians are specifically named, and neither is he — and here is yet another anomaly between William Blair’s views and those of the party he is representing.

As do many, if we are brave enough to admit it, he believes that the immigration levels into Britain have become out of control and that more forward thinking needed to have been done a long time ago. He would, as the BNP states, deport all illegal immigrants immediately — how we find them all and also the money to do that. neither I nor he are sure. Deport all who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British — again, how far back in time do we go here to determine ‘British’. Review all citizenship/residency grants to make sure they are still appropriate, that is, anyone who has been granted citizenship because they have married a ‘Briton’, need to be still married. Watch out husband — divorce me at your peril!

Attend to the needs of pensioners before asylum seekers (note here the BNP does NOT say immigrants, but I wonder if they sometimes confuse the two.)

Invest in transport, the NHS, defence, the environment. Stop sending aid to other countries until we have solved the problems with Britain. Change the attitudes of the young people to one of a work ethic and not a take for doing nothing one. Make sure all unemployed people take the jobs that are available or stop their benefits. After all, as Blair says, “We don’t need immigrants when we have all these WHITE people here who won’t work” (my capitals on ‘white’)

It appears from his own words that William Blair is neither racist, nor wishing to be devisive in any way. He wants the best for Maltby and Maltby people and intends to do his utmost to start with the basics — sorting out the litter problems by regularly putting skips in various areas of the town, repairing fences, doing something about the roads situation. He believes that a lot of the problems that residents feel are the main problems — mainly anti-social behaviour and general apathy of some — can be alleviated by attitude change and a more community based approach to life here. All sentiments that most of Maltby residents share.

People I have spoken to in Maltby quote numbers and percentages and proportional representation as the reason why Maltby now has a fairly elected BNP councillor. Some say that it because of recent changes and disruptions with the Town Council.

I asked Mr Blair why he had stood as a BNP candidate when he clearly does not whole -heartedly agree with all their policies. Why did he not stand as an Independent?

“I suppose I am 80% BNP and 20% other”, he says. “Independent candidates are either old Labour people or old Conservatives. What we need is change.”

Let’s hope that our new councillor’s change goes in the right direction, and that the change is for the better for the whole of Maltby. Time will tell.

Brenda Abou El Ola
Maltby

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

"What do women want?" I'm not sure. "When do they want it?" Now! (Maybe.)

NB: Some of the paragraph numbering referred to in the Manchester Report may be wrong. This is due to the way my software handled the files. If anyone has the right numbers, please let me know!

The news that something like half the women clergy serving in the Church of England have signed a letter which admits the possibility of postponing indefinitely the introduction of women bishops has me scratching my head in puzzlement over what exactly is intended.

My first reaction was to ask whether the letter is saying that further division in the Body of Christ would be so harmful that for the sake of the gospel it should not be risked, or simply that if they can’t have the whole ecclesiological cake the signatories would rather not have any.

Certainly the letter rejects any provision for opponents of women bishops which is enshrined in legislation, on the basis that this would undermine the unity and mission of the Church:

The price of legal “safeguards” for those opposed is simply too high, diminishing not just the women concerned, but the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole.”

However, at the same time the letter makes clear that there is nothing about being opposed to women’s ordination which ought to exclude one from the Church. Indeed, the signatories have committed themselves to incorporating such opponents into the life of the Church under women bishops:

... many of us have much experience of building trustful relationships with those unable to accept the priestly ministry of women. In the Anglican Communion overseas, women take this experience into the episcopate, which leads them to invite other bishops into their Dioceses or Episcopal areas to ordain, confirm and take other services when required. Bishops should be trusted to act wisely and behave with dignity, and all bishops should work within clear expectations and codes of practice. (Emphasis added)

In short, whilst rejecting any provisions which involve legislation, the letter accepts the notion of voluntary, but “clear ... codes of practice”. Thus this would not, as many seem to assume, be quite the same as ‘Option 1’ of the four options put forward in the Manchester Report, as paragraph 24 of that document makes clear. This envisages that under ‘single clause’ legislation,

There might, to the extent that general law permitted, still be a willingness to respect the wishes of those who, on grounds of conviction, wished to continue to receive the priestly and episcopal ministry of men (and those ordained by men). But this would be a matter of informal discussion and agreement, not the result of rights created in Church legislation. (Emphasis added)

True, there would be no legislation, but there would, according to the letter, be much more than a ‘might’ about respecting opposition to women bishops. Rather than the Manchester Report’s tentative “informal discussion and agreement” , the letter speaks of the recognition of rights in advance and guarantees their practical pastoral expression, up to and including the involvement of other (male) bishops, provided the codes of practice involved were not the subject of legislation. Certainly nothing is envisaged which might run the risk, noted in the Manchester Report, of contradicting resolution III. 2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, which asserted “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.”

The possibility of a voluntary (“non statutory”) code is mentioned in paragraph 36 of the Manchester Report. However, paragraph 39 points out why the Report itself did not make much of this:

A code can be something that is voluntarily entered in to by a group of people who commit, thereby, to observe its provisions. In that case there may be no formal sanction against non-compliance. Increasingly, however, both in secular and ecclesiastical legislation it has become common practice for legislation to mandate the making of a code. Thus for example the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007 both contain provision for the making of codes, which are subject to the approval of the General Synod, and require those concerned to “have regard” to those codes. Increasingly, the secular courts have taken the view that where bodies are required to have regard to the provisions of statutory codes of practice and fail to do so, their action may be invalidated. (Emphasis added)

The Report goes on to recognize that voluntary codes “do not create directly enforceable, legally binding obligations in the same way as a Measure, regulation or rule made under it”. Nevertheless, it clearly regards this approach as being legally fraught, and therefore opts for proposals whereby a code would be legally recognized from the outset, given that the courts may well deem this to be the case anyway.

Meanwhile, the letter itself recognizes that legal safeguards already exist to back up the application of a code of practice:

... we believe the existing disciplinary procedures are enough for women or men to be brought to account if they behave inappropriately. (Emphasis added)

However, it appeals to Christian good will, rather than legislation, as the final basis on which the Church should proceed in making provision for opponents, as well as supporters, of women bishops:

As the broken body of Christ on earth, the Church’s internal relationships should rest on trust, forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation, rather than on protection and an over-anxious reliance on the letter of the law.

What at first blush, then, seems to be a demand for the whole cake and for a recognition of only one valid theological position is actually a much more modest proposal: that opponents of women’s ordination should continue to find a place in the Church of England, with provision based on a clear code of practice, provided this is not to be the subject of legislation by the Church.

That, at least, is what the letter seems to be saying. Whether that is quite what was intended, either by those who wrote or those who signed it, I am still unsure. To return to an earlier point, the letter’s stated opposition to legislated provision is that it would diminish “the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole.” Yet the letter accepts that non-legislative provision could be made, up to and including bringing in other bishops where the ministry of a woman bishop would not be acceptable. On the face of it, then, this would appear to suggest that the problem is essentially legislation plus, as the letter says, the “language of ‘protection’ and ‘safeguard’” which, it is felt, is “offensive to women”.

Yet this last suggestion misses the point that the language is not directed (necessarily, at least) against women so much as in favour of a view of ministry, gender relationships and the Church as a community. Thus we are left with the question of why legislation must be rejected in toto, and yet the making of provision for those opposed to women bishops via a voluntary code is no great threat to the “the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church”. The strength of this position is not entirely self-evident, given that a voluntary code of practice would probably, as the Manchester Report notes, turn out to be legally binding in the event of any challenge.

Thus we are back to questions already posed by the Manchester Report in language which significantly echoes that of the letter, but which receive implicitly a different answer in the Report itself:

37. In general it is one of the less attractive features of the Church of England that it has, over the decades tended to over-legislate and over-prescribe - partly as a reflection of the complexity of its structures and partly because of a deficit of trust. It might be thought that the affairs of Churches and other Christian communities should be less hedged about by elaborate legal safeguards than those of organisations not committed to the precepts of Jesus Christ.

38. Nevertheless, even Christian communities need their rule books. There is, therefore, a judgment to be reached about the extent to which some arrangements which do not necessarily require legislative expression should, nevertheless, be given legislative form in order to provide reassurance and predictability.

The letter proposes answering these questions one way. The signatories may, however, have to accept that they need to be answered in another.

Revd John P Richardson
15 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Why the BNP is succeeding

This article from The Independent makes very important reading for all those church people who want to 'stop the BNP'.

[...] Look at the BNP's literature and you'll find that, on occasion, it points to some inconsistencies in the stance of "politically correct" liberals that are indeed hard to justify. For example, by coincidence, only a few days before going to Rotherham, I had been interviewing the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton and he had mentioned how the organiser of the English Music Festival received no Arts Council funding "because of the word English". Yet a festival of virtually any other national culture would be funded. Even if the frequency of these sort of cases is overstated, there has been an inconsistency between the acceptability of asserting Englishness compared with other national or ethnic identities.

Things may now be changing in this regard. But if it is the case that minority cultures have sometimes been given greater respect than the majority one, then it is easy for people to believe that this is symptomatic of a wider bias against what the BNP calls the indigenous British population.

Patriotism, if not allowed to express itself, will gravitate to wherever it is given a home, which right now is in nationalism. Of course, this has been a worry for some years, which is why Gordon Brown, among others, has been trying to reclaim patriotism for the Left. So far, it has not succeeded; in part, because no one has found a way of promoting national identity that is genuinely inclusive yet not utterly banal.

Those worried by the nationalist success in Everytown should take heart from the fact that everyone seems to agree that, whether they loathe the BNP or love it, most people in Maltby are not racist. The most incredible testimony of this comes from a woman who is remarkably well placed to judge such things.

Brenda Abou El Ola has lived in Maltby most of her life and married a Palestinian man in Lebanon. She's writing a book about what happened when they went back to live in Rotherham and confronted the reality of being an immigrant in Maltby.

"Put it this way," she told me, "we are perfectly happily married, but I am now living on my own in Maltby, and my husband and the two lads are renting a house in Eastwood for the simple reason that it wasn't working in Maltby."

One incident in particular explains why. "One night, my son, who was born and bred in Maltby, was walking home and a 15- year-old boy came out, drugged up or whatever, with a knife, threatening my son about my situation – 'Why don't you get you're mother to take her black Bs back to where they came from?' – and various threats on his and our lives."

Her son went into his flat and called the police, who didn't initially come, but his mother was not so retiring when he called her. "Me, being the person I am, and against my husband's and stepson's recommendations, went out on to the street to ask what was going on. He came towards me with the knife saying the same comments, and the next thing I knew, I was on the floor."

The attack broke her jaw and the next day her face was bruised and swollen so badly "I didn't want to leave the house for days, it looked so shocking". The attacker got off with nothing more than a "severe talking to", having said that he was sorry.

Despite this and racial harassment of her two stepsons at school, Abou El Ola chooses to stay in Maltby. "I like it here. I brought up my first family here and I feel at home." She thinks most of the people are good and decent, and that those who voted BNP did so for the main reason that they "have had enough of Labour and want something different".

So are the mainstream parties, and Labour in particular, ready to learn the lessons of the nationalist successes in Rotherham? It won't be easy. As Denis MacShane put it: "The difficulty is that you have to see that part of the argument that has some validity. Just because a BNP guy is saying that many people who are born and brought up here feel that there's too much foreign in Britain doesn't mean to say it's untrue. The question is how do you react to that?"

The answer, he believes, includes swifter return of asylum-seekers whose claims are unjustified, promotion of the English language, and construction of "a set of rules we expect people to abide by".

Whether he's right or wrong, to dismiss as racist the tough questions that he and others are now asking would be to repeat the mistakes that have led the BNP to victory in South Yorkshire. Unless mainstream politics finds a way of responding to the fears and desires of the voters who feel disenfranchised and afraid in a changing world, nationalist parties can look forward to even more success in the future. Read more

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

"Another one bites the dust": more dead teenagers

The newest member of the Dead Teenager's Society is Jimmy Mizen, aged just 16, apparently killed by an attacker of similar age at the bakery shop where he worked in South East London.

He joins twenty-six other members so far this year, murdered in various circumstances, often by people of similar age:

Lyle Tulloch, 15
Robert Spence, 17
Adam Paton, 17
Jack Steadman, 19
Ashley Horton, 16

Amro Elbadawy, 14
Devoe Roach, 17
Ross Davidson 19
Ryan Hyden, 19
Joshua Mitchell, 17

Nicholas Clarke, 19
Samantha Bennett, 19
Michael Jones, 18
Ahmed Ibrahim, 17
Ofiyke Nmezu, 16

Tung Le, 17
Sunday Essiet, 15
Joe Dinsdale, 17
Fuad Buraleh, 19
Christopher Johnston, 17

Boduka Mudianga, 18
Bradley Whitfield, 16
Faridon Alizada, 18
Alexander Thomas Holdroyd, 19
Henry Bolombi, 17

Louis Braithwaite, 16

I'm sorry if I sound as as though I'm trivializing these deaths. Nothing could be further from my intention. Rather, I'm trying to draw attention to the enormity of what is happening. Often these cases involve more than one assailant. Yesterday no less than five young men - or rather, older children - were jailed for just two similar murders.

The arrest rate in these cases seems to be quite high, with a corresponding conviction rate. Given this fact, I wonder how many people in our prisons currently serving sentences for murder began those sentences in their teens.

I also wonder when anyone in our political or social leadership is going to start taking this seriously. These murders are now happening on a more-than-weekly basis - something that would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. In another post today I have suggested we suffer from an inherent collective dishonesty about murder. A society which gives one person eight years for GBH and another just twice that for murder, yet calls the latter a 'life sentence', is clearly in denial about its attitude to killing. And it is easy to believe that the realization of this fact has something to do with the situation now blighting the lives of scores of individuals.

(By the way, if you think the title for this post is inappropriate, its from Queen's track of the same name, the words of which are very fitting if you allow for the fact that in real life there is no romance to gang warfare.)

Revd John P Richardson
10 May 1008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Why ‘life’ should mean life

CS Lewis’s essay ‘On the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’ begins with a comment which will make little sense to someone born in this country after 1970: “I do not know whether a murderer is more likely to repent and make a good end on the gallows a few weeks after his trial or in the prison infirmary thirty years later.” The alien concept is not hanging. Rather, it is that the person spared that fate would be expected to die in prison.

At the time of writing (in 1949), whilst there were many in society opposed to the death penalty, the only alternative being seriously contemplated in public debate was that convicted murderers would be locked up for the rest of their lives. This, it was felt, would have the same effect as hanging — the murderer would be appropriately punished by being permanently deprived of normal life and removed from society — whilst avoiding the moral pitfalls of the death penalty.

The modern relic of this is the term ‘life sentence’, regularly used in relation to tariffs imposed by our courts. It is, however, a mere left-over from a previous era, for clearly, in an increasing number of cases, it means an actual prison terms of as little as fifteen years (compare that with Lewis’s “thirty years later”).

This is of particular significance when one considers the rising number of teenaged murderers. In a single day this week, five teenagers were give ‘life’ sentences for two separate murders. However, if they serve the minimum term imposed (and there is presumably no reason in law why they should not), the oldest of them will be just 32 on his release, whilst the youngest will be 26.

By any standards, one’s mid twenties or early thirties are not ‘old age’. Nor, when you are a teenager, is one’s life expectancy a mere eleven to fifteen years (the spread of sentences in these cases). Why, then, does the term ‘life’ continue to be used in such cases? The answer is apparently straightforward: it reflects what was proffered as the alternative in the post-war debate over capital punishment. Criminals would not be hung, but they would be ‘locked up for life’. Hence, when a murderer was convicted, the sentence was a ‘life sentence’.

Yet clearly it is not. On the contrary, the typical sentence is no more ‘life’ than Nestlé’s ‘Everlasting Gobstopper’ actually lasts forever. In the case of the confectionary, however, the fiction is innocent. In the case of the criminal sentence, it is pernicious.

First, it must be observed that without the alternative of life-sentencing, it is unlikely that hanging would have been abolished. The life-sentence not only satisfied the concern of many that the punishment for murder should fit the crime, it allowed the anti-hanging lobby to gain the moral high ground in the public debate by reducing the risk of an irretrievable injustice. If the person was later found innocent, it was argued, they could at least be released and compensated.

If, however, someone had suggested that the sentence for murder should be fifteen or so years in jail, they would have been regarded as not merely joking but morally defective. In other words, the situation today would have been inconceivable, and was certainly not intended, in the years before the abolition of hanging. ‘Life sentencing’ was so-called precisely because, at the time, the words meant what they said.

Of course, it is perfectly possible to argue that fifteen years in prison is an adequate tariff for murder. The question I am asking is why we continue to use the term ‘life’ in relation to such a sentence and what is the impact of this practice?

It is beyond contradiction, in my view, that the expression is an anachronism, belonging to a past time and an earlier debate. Its continuing use, however, is both a proof of deception in the past and a continuing source of cultural self-deception in the present. As such, it is deeply injurious to our social health.

The past deception may or may not have been deliberate. I have no way of knowing whether those who oversaw the transition from hanging to custodial sentences ever intended that murderers would henceforth die in prison. It would be interesting to know, and figures must be available, what was the length of the first sentences imposed on murderers who were spared the gallows.

Clearly, however, at some point sentences that could not possibly be for ‘life’ began to be imposed on people who, in a previous generation, would have hung and whom the public was once led to expect would never be freed from jail once convicted. This was the first stage of the deception.

The second stage was that, once this principle of deliberate ‘non-life’ sentencing for murder was established, the term ‘life sentence’ continued to be used without demur from either the judiciary or (most of) the public. Irregardless of how the first deception occurred, this second, self-deception, must be addressed for the damage it causes to our society.

It is dishonest to call a thing what one knows it is not. It is a curious form of cultural dishonesty, therefore, to call a sentence ‘life’ when it is merely ‘long’, and we must ask both why we do this and what impact this has.

We do it, I would suggest, no longer simply because of the past history of the debate about hanging but for two important contemporary reasons.

First, we cannot bring ourselves, collectively, to admit that murdering someone is no longer regarded as particularly heinous. If it was, we would do something more about it.

Secondly, however, we protect ourselves from the moral challenge of punishing the wrongdoer. Continuing to talk about ‘life sentences’ allows us to feel ‘something has been done’ without the difficulty of being responsible for something about which we ourselves might feel guilty.

The problem with hanging was that the choice not to abolish it was, in the end, a personal choice for each of us about whether or not someone’s life should be taken. Equally, if ‘life imprisonment’ for murder meant that the murderer would die in prison, we would each, to some extent, be responsible for that. An increased tariff for murder would impose a moral burden on each member of society and that is something we may not be ready to bear.

At the moment, however, we have the worst of worlds. We are unwilling to admit the truth to ourselves and we salve our consciences with deceptive words. Meanwhile, our children are killing our children. To continue our present practice is therefore not a ‘neutral’ option. It is itself a moral choice, but, I would suggest, it is a choice to act immorally.

Revd John P Richardson
10 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Going up, or going down — which way for the Church in England?

Research behind an article by Ruth Gledhill in today’s Times, on the basis of which it is suggested that by 2050 there will be nearly three times the number of active Muslims in the UK as there are churchgoing Christians, has been greeted with disbelief verging on contempt by a number of commentators.

An official statement by the Church of England describes the work as “flawed and dangerously misleading”, whilst Lynda Barley, Head of Research and Statistics for the Archbishops’ Council, is quoted as saying the statistics “are incomplete and represent only a partial picture of religious trends in the UK today.”

As it happens, Benita Hewitt, the new director of the Christian Research Association which produced the original report, has described Ruth Gledhill’s article as itself being “very misleading.” Others, however, including Lynda Barley, believe that the true picture is actually positive. She says,

“These figures take no account of the rapid growth in ‘Back to Church Sunday’ initiatives that are drawing thousands back to church. Nor, being based purely on numbers in church buildings on Sundays, do they take account of the thousands joining the Church through ‘fresh expressions’ initiatives meeting in other places, on other days.”

So what it the truth? Is the Church headed for extinction, or is Lynda Barley’s optimism justified when she observes not only that there are “more than 1.7 million people worshipping in a Church of England church or cathedral each month” but claims there is “no reason to believe that this will drop significantly in the next decade”?

The first thing to point out is that the CRA’s predictions, such as they are, concern all the churches in the UK, not just the Church of England. Thus even if Barley’s confidence is entirely justified, that doesn’t mean the overall situation is rosy. However, there are reasons to believe that even the picture she gives of the CofE reflects, if not spin, a certain amount of wishful-thinking.

Back to Church Sunday, for example, whilst it certainly draws thousands on the day, has nothing like a hundred per cent retention rate over the following weeks. Similarly, it needs to be asked what exactly is represented by the ‘thousands’ she refers to as ‘joining the Church’ through ‘fresh expressions’ initiatives. According to her own figures, the monthly total of worshippers has actually “remained stable since 2000”, which would suggest that if ‘thousands’ are indeed joining the Church at other points, replacement of the core membership is currently offset by losses.

Moreover, there are other factors to take into account in assessing the strength and likely future of the churches. It may be encouraging, for example, to point to the success of some of the ‘fresh expressions’ initiatives. However, my own suggestion would be that the core strength of churches across the country is represented by those who attend conventional Sunday services. In particular, my guess is that these are the people who provide the financial backbone of the churches’ work in every denomination.

I would guess, furthermore, that it is predominantly from this group of people that other initiatives are spawned, lay helpers and officers are recruited, and new clergy called. In most instances, these will be the people who are most involved in the churches’ governing structures — their committees, synods, councils and so on — which ultimately determine mission strategies. If that is the case — and it might be a good use of the Church of England’s own resources to find out whether or not this is so — then Sunday attendance remains critical to the health of the churches.

Another factor to take into account, however, is age demographics, and especially its impact on building maintenance. Here in Ugley, due to the age of our core congregation, we have been running hard for the last eight years simply to stand still in terms of membership. New, and younger, people have joined, but we are scarcely larger than a decade ago, and that raises questions about viability. As Robin Gill has shown in his work on ‘the Empty Church’ (The Myth of the Empty Church and The Empty Church Revisited), a critical factor in determining the demise of many independent churches is the point at which repair bills become too great for the existing congregation. Up until that point, congregations can soldier on with a band of faithful members, showing little change over a number of years. It is the big repair bill which suddenly moves such a church from slow decline to sudden closure. (See this typical example which I happen to know of personally, though here a ‘rebuild’ may be an option.)

Generally, the Church of England has been insulated against these building closures, when compared with independents. One of the reasons is that the CofE can draw on a wide base of local sympathy when raising funds for repairs. As many of us know from experience, faced with the choice of losing the local vicar or the local ‘church’, many communities will opt for the former rather than the latter. However, it must be doubted whether such support can be relied on for the next forty years or more, and this may have a similarly ‘catastrophic’ effect on the Anglican church in that time (update: see this article, 'One in five churches faces being lost', here).

In deeply rural communities, the average Anglican church has quite literally a handful of regular worshippers — just four or five on a given Sunday. Even in a commuter area like that around Ugley, five years ago one in five local Anglican churches had fewer than ten people in them on any given Sunday. Imagine what decisions would have to be made in a Deanery of thirty-plus churches like ours, if, say, half a dozen with congregations in single figures were faced with repair bills they simply could not meet. It is easy to say those buildings should be closed, but how would this be achieved, what would happen to the buildings themselves, and would this not finally represent a ‘retreat from the countryside’ parallel to the independent churches’ ‘retreat from the city’ so often criticized by the Church of England?

Meanwhile, the other thing the institutional churches have in common, by and large, is an absence of any institutional intention to grow. There is much praise for ‘fresh expressions’, or whatever the denominational equivalent may be, but there is no deliberate, coordinated, intentional plan or strategy for growth such as that envisaged by the Church of England’s 1945 report Towards the Conversion of England (scroll down this blog for links to extracts from the report). Until that happens, whilst it is by no means certain the Church in this country will die, it is absolutely certain it will not see growth of the kind needed to reach millions destined for a godless eternity with the gospel of salvation.

Revd John P Richardson
9 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Someone is wrong

This is very funny on Michael Jensen's blog. You really have to have done it yourself, though ...

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Boris, the Mayoralty and Ray Lewis: Still not 'doing God'?

I was very pleased to see my old mate Ray Lewis had been appointed by Boris Johnson as a Deputy Mayor with special responsibility for tackling youth crime (though see here for a cautionary note about the title).

However, I was slightly bemused to find that although Ray is being described as a 'former prison governor' there is no mention of him being an Anglican clergyman. Indeed, I had to check more than once that this was indeed the Ray Lewis I knew when he was a student at Oak Hill, then curate at St Saviour's, Forest Gate and finally Team Vicar at St Matthew's, West Ham, just round the corner from where I lived in the confusingly named Mathews Park Avenue (one 't'), which gave the name to my own book imprint MPA Books.

Moreover, the GLA's biography of Ray seems to make it as hard as possible to detect his church role. Can you spot it here?

He began his career working as an administrative officer for the Civil Service before becoming a Clerk in Holy Orders for the Church Commissioners in 1990. During this time he gained a degree in Theology & Pastoral Studies from Middlesex University [ie Oak Hill Theological College].

As an Anglican clergyman I've described myself in various ways, but never as "a Clerk in Holy Orders for the Church Commissioners"! All this makes me wonder whether the new administration at County Hall is still going to be one that follows the Labour approach of not 'doing God'.

Meanwhile, good on yer, Ray.

Revd John P Richardson
7 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

To display this post with the comments, just click on the title.

An echo of heaven

Musing on the state of the world generally, and the Christian world particularly (see my previous post) I treated myself to a burst of the amazing Boyan Men's Choir, singing the Ukranian Divine Liturgy. This extract, a piece called "It is Fitting", will give you some idea of what they're like. There's something of a homepage here, with contact details. (Incidentally, I know it says Men's Choir, but they have one female soloist.)

Heaven, I hope, feels something like listening to this does to me.

Revd John P Richardson
6 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.
To display this post with the comments, just click on the title.

Wycliffe Hall 'Truth' Shock Horror!

Over on the Fulcrum website, conversation has once again turned to the state of play at Wycliffe Hall Theological College. A certain 'Jimbo' has posted that according to an internal college memo (and one might wonder how that got into general circulation) Wycliffe faces a "big shortfall" in this year's intake as they have "30+ leavers" compared with "14 firm acceptances of ordinands for next year with 3 more places offered dependent on selection conferences."

According to Jimbo this is "puzzling as Richard Turnbull seems to have been telling people that Wycliffe is full for next year."

Paul Eddy, a self-described ordinand and General Synod member, suggested in a follow-up post that this might be because, with Easter coming so early, registration at all colleges was a bit slow at present. Meanwhile, he added that such "negative overtones" on the Fulcrum website were "a joy to the Devil" and made a plea for a bit of editorial control, only to be put in his place by a certain Greg Yerbury with a negative overtone of his own, suggesting that Eddy get off his "high horse" and adding that "Turnbull's claim that Wycliffe was full was an exaggeration".

Personally, I don't know whether or where Richard Turnbull has claimed Wycliffe Hall is already full for 2008, but I was able to use a modern invention, known as the 'telephone', which (as its name suggests) allows one to talk live at a distance, to speak with Simon Vibert, the author of the internal memo. Simon assured me that recruiting for all colleges is, indeed, a bit slow, but that several candidates were being interviewed at Wycliffe next week. This does seem to contrast with Jimbo's implied '17 tops', but since I have no idea who Jimbo is, I have no idea what was his or her source for these figures.

That's the great thing about blogging though - so much easier to post an anonymous statement than speak to someone the story is actually about. Or am I myself being uncivil?

By the way, it is quite true that Wycliffe have cancelled their Summer School due to lack of support from North America, as was also mentioned by Jimbo. It is a shame, but as Simon Vibert says, it owes a lot to the present economic climate.

Revd John P Richardson
6 May 2008

PS: Each 'telephone' in this country has its own allocated number which can be dialled from other 'telephones'. The number for Wycliffe Hall is 01865 274200 if anyone would like to speak to Simon or another staff member themselves.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.
To display this post with the comments, just click on the title.

A friend of tax collectors, sinners - and BNP supporters?

(Please note, no comments are published on this blog unless they include a real name, not a pseudonym, and a location. J Smith or John Smith are acceptable. Janet or Janet S are not. Likewise, no location, no comment.)

What has Nick Griffin got in common with Jesus Christ? The answer, as far as I can see, is two things: Jesus appealed to the ordinary people, and he mingled with those society regarded as ‘beyond the pale’.

This is not to suggest that Nick Griffin is particularly Christ-like, but I am not going to heap on him the opprobrium usually considered compulsory at this point, because I believe the Church has got it largely wrong when it comes to dealing with the challenge posed by the British National Party.

That challenge should not be underestimated. The Party’s performance in this week’s local government elections was modest and they only gained one member on the Greater London Assembly, but their candidate came fifth in the mayoral election and in many areas BNP candidates came second in the polls. On the other hand, they faced public opposition literally from all sides. Prior to this, in the eleven bye-elections where they have stood in 2008, the BNP have polled an average 17.5% of the vote, well above the Greens on 4.7% in those constituencies or UKIP on 8.5%.

As the Bishop of Durham pointed out, however, ‘the reason the BNP can even gain a foothold in people’s affections is because many people ... feel so disaffected after the last thirty years of national politics.’ I myself became aware of this several years ago after conducting a wedding in Canning Town. Standing outside a smoke-filled community centre, I listened to the complaints of the guests about immigration, asylum seekers, housing and so on. And as I mused on how easy it would be to build support for a political party that sympathised with these complaints, I realized that the BNP already fitted the bill. All they needed was the organization to field the candidates - and now they have it.

Of course the comments I heard were racist. Of course the BNP appeals to people’s worst instincts. But here is surely both the unique challenge and opportunity for the Church. The Church is in the business of salvation, not politics, but if salvation is from real sin (and it is), we should expect it to extend to real sinners.

Our familiarity with the Gospels, both in the Church and in society as a whole, has removed the scandal from what Jesus did. One modern Bible translation even uses inverted commas when it talks about Jesus mixing with ‘sinners’. But at the time these were not inverted-comma sinners, they were people decent folk did not want to mix with, much less live next door to.

The first challenge to the Church, then, is whether it is a real haven for real sinners. So when confronted with a racist, for example, will it be radical or will it follow the crowd? Does it reach for the stones to stone the guilty offender, or does it say to the crowd (as its founder warned), ‘Condemn not, lest you stand condemned?’

And secondly, will the Church speak unpalatable truths on matters which affect those who see their salvation in the BNP? Addressing this whole issue in 2006, the Archbishop of York said that during his time as Bishop of Stepney, ‘it was very obvious that the housing policy by the then Lambeth Council was not actually favouring the indigenous population’ (the latter, incidentally, being an expression favoured by the BNP itself), adding that this had also been true of Tower Hamlets Council. Well, it was helpful that he should say so - but could not more have been made of this at the time?

It is, perhaps, significant that the second recorded problem to affect the early Church internally was an accusation of racial bias in welfare distribution (Acts 6:1-6 - the first was lying about charitable giving). If the apostles had accused the accusers of being racists, this would no doubt have also have seen the first denominational division. Instead, they listened and came up with an effective solution. Might not the Church give a lead in doing the same today when people complain about perceived injustices?

A political party which is gaining influence cannot be ‘stopped’ by telling people to vote against it. If history teaches anything, it is that the effectiveness of a movement depends entirely on its ability to gain supporters willing to devote themselves to the cause. In those circumstances, establishment opposition may have precisely the opposite effect to that intended, by strengthening what is seeks to undermine. (Look at the history of the Church itself.)

In God’s plans and purposes, politics plays a very small rôle, but in the life of the nation, the Church of England has an important part to play. Since the election results, Labour politicians have emphasised the need to listen. Support for the BNP surely teaches the need for that listening to include people like those I heard in Canning Town all those years ago. And if the Church won’t listen to them, who will?

Revd John P Richardson
3 May 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

To display this post with the comments, just click on the title.

The Manchester Report: Opportunity Knocks on Women Bishops

The Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group, chaired by the Bishop of Manchester, has now published its long-awaited report and, on a first reading, it seems generally excellent. As the saying goes, it ‘covers all the bases’, and it has done so in a way that, given the institutional bias against traditionalists (I refer not only to pressures applied on Resolutions A, B and C parishes, but to the identified lack of senior appointments), is commendably even-handed.

The Group was not asked to revisit arguments about women becoming bishops. Rather, as it its title demonstrates, its task was to prepare possible legislation to allow this to happen. However, as the Group pointed out, since General Synod has not decided how this should take place, it has had to prepare several possible scenarios. At the same time, though, this process itself has highlighted the issues General Synod will have to address when the time comes to choose.

Crucially, therefore, the Group identifies the primary issue facing the Synod as being that of comprehensiveness:

... far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses. (22, bold original)

Although the Group has indeed endeavoured to be even-handed, it clearly feels that this comprehensiveness should be maximised rather than minimised — something which many, though not all, will welcome.

Thus the report admits that the ‘clearest’ approach, with ‘the most obvious ecclesiological and theological coherence’, would be that advocated by WATCH (Women and the Church), GRAS (the Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod) and others: simply to declare that women will be bishops, and to make no provision for those who for whom this would be a problem. This would also be the one most appealing to a society where ‘discrimination’ of any kind is anathema.

However, it recognizes not only that theological objections nevertheless clearly remain amongst some, but that this has legal, practical and, perhaps above all, moral implications — in the latter case particularly regarding assurances given during the debates about the ordination of women to the priesthood. It would also contradict the position Synod itself adopted when it agreed in July 2006 that ‘those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans’ (36).

Thus, whilst the report does not dismiss outright the ‘winner takes all’ approach (that is for General Synod to decide) it correctly points out what this would entail.

It is more dismissive, for reasons its sets out, of some of the proposals making provision for continued objection, including allying objecting parishes with the Diocese of Europe, bringing them under the care of a particular religious society with its own bishops, or creating numerous ‘peculiar jurisdictions’.

Instead, it considers first the creation of new, special dioceses within the existing provinces — one for York and two for Canterbury. Because parishes which opted into these dioceses would not be geographically contiguous, the result has been described as ‘akin to “Gruyère cheese”’. Given that most of us cannot spell Gruyère, let alone correctly identify it in on the cheese board, this is already being referred to as the ‘Swiss cheese model’ — an epithet which is likely to stick.

However, in presenting this and other options, the Group once again correctly identifies a crucial issue: in this case, the extent to which, if any provision is to be made, it needs to be (a) innovative and (b) legislative. Interestingly, the ‘new diocese’ approach is seen as involving ‘the least innovation’ (52), given that dioceses are a familiar Anglican structure. The necessary legislative provisions are then set out in an Annex (C) to the report.

This section is followed, however, by a detailed consideration of four ‘variations on a theme’, which constitutes a third, ‘middle ground’, approach, with each variation introducing a greater degree of legal provision. It is typical of the report’s strengths, however, that it specifically cautions against seeing this automatically as the ‘Goldilocks’ option:

It is a traditional Church of England reflex to look for the middle ground and by characterising the various versions of this approach in that way we are conscious of the risk that, if only subliminally, we shall appear to be weighting the arguments in their favour. That is not our intention. (70)

Let us hope the members of General Synod take note!

In three of the variations, the diocesan bishop would delegate oversight to a ‘complementary bishop’, in the fourth, responsibility would be transferred. In order of legislative enforcement, the first variation would involve a statutory ‘code of practice’, the second would retain Part II of the 1992 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure in the legislation, thus allowing the legal provisions of Resolutions A and B to continue under the code of practice, the third variation would add more legislative force to the second, making the delegation itself mandatory, whilst the fourth would transfer responsibility to the complementary bishop.

The pros and cons of these variations are briefly presented. The report also includes a consideration of Canon A4, which has been seen in the past as being somewhat contradictory to the church’s present position on women clergy. Interestingly, the report concludes, following advice, that ‘the legal significance of Canon A 4 is ... essentially historical’, relating strictly to ordinations carried out using the Book of Common Prayer, and addressing only the seventeenth century concerns of Puritans and Roman Catholics. The accuracy of this conclusion is for others to decide, but it certainly cuts a Gordian Knot.

The one real disappointment I felt in the report, however, is its presentation of an alternative Canon. Whilst it rightly identifies that this would be necessary, its own suggestion (103) gives insufficient recognition to the position of those who do not accept women as priests and bishops.

What, then, should be the response, particularly from those who would have a problem with women bishops? The report recognizes that the latter fall into two categories — Catholics and Evangelicals — whose objections are on quite different grounds (62,63).

As one who moves between these groups, I hope that both would be positive towards the report and grateful to the Group’s members. For Catholics, the best option is clearly the ‘Swiss cheese’ — a separate diocesan structure, which to an extent would formalise what currently exists under the provisions of Resolution C. If I were entirely in that camp, that is the approach I would advocate.

The real challenge, however is to what I will call ‘J6 Evangelicals’ — those of us who believe the 1977 National Evangelical Anglican Congress expressed the proper mind of Anglican evangelicalism in the resolution of that designation:

We repent of our failure to give women their rightful place as partners in ministry with men. Leadership in the church should be plural and mixed, ultimate responsibility normally singular and male. (The Nottingham Statement, London, CPAS 1977, J6)

As the Group implicitly recognizes, this category may be much wider than the membership of Reform. However, it seems to me essential that, having take part in the consultation process (see Annex F for a list of participants), Reform now engages with this report and decides quickly its preferred option. The right choice, in my view, would once again be the Swiss cheese.

Indeed, that is the option I would also urge on WATCH and their allies. That may be surprising, not least to them, but if they are not to be granted the whole cake (which, as the report recognizes, will renege on earlier promises, raise legal questions and once again result in ejections from the Church of England) it is the choice least like the present confused situation. Put another way, it is the closest to a clean break that doesn’t involve an actual break.

There will be those who will argue against the ‘new dioceses’ answer on the grounds that the church must maintain geographical unity. They should be careful, however, not to use principle as a mask for ambition. Twice in my ministry, I have ministered on the edge of a diocese, which meant that we had almost nothing whatsoever to do with our neighbouring Anglican parishes. It made no difference to us or, as far as I am aware, to them. Boundaries must exist for the sake of administration, and the legalised ‘holes’ this will create in dioceses will be little different from the current practical holes created by churchmanship.

Failing that, however, the obvious next option is transferred oversight to a complementary bishop. This would be better than the other variations on that theme, as involving the greatest clarity and legal provision. Sadly, one must say that the track record of the last fifteen years means that a ‘code of practice’ arrangement on its own simply cannot be trusted.

The worst thing would be for Reform simply to stand aloof from this process of deciding on options, particularly since the ‘new diocese’ option offers the possibility of a radical re-engagement with episcopal structures. There is, however, one glaring problem! If the new diocese is set up on the basis of a blanket ‘objection to women bishops’ it would include both Evangelicals and Catholics, requiring mutual submission to the same bishops and entailing mutual support in ministry. The report recognizes the difficulty:

... Conservative Evangelicals have put it to us that it would be crucial for one or more bishops within the new dioceses to be Evangelical. Whether that would in fact be sufficient to make the new structures stable is not entirely clear. (63)

My ‘worst case scenario’ is that hostility towards Anglo-Catholics will allow Reform to adopt an indifference towards the new arrangements which is really a disguise for a dislike of bishops and the structures of authority, mutual accountability and cooperation which they represent. Given the choice between perpetuating the present, somewhat confused, arrangements in a new guise and the clarity and opportunity offered by a new diocese, J6 Evangelicals must choose the latter. After that, it may be up to them to decide how to work with those whose Anglicanism derives from a very different historical and theological tradition.

Clearly, work remains to be done, but the Bishop of Manchester’s Group has surely laid out the viable options. The opportunity is there to move forward, and to quote Lady MacBeth, ‘If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well it were done quickly.’

Revd John P Richardson
29 April 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

To display this post with the comments, just click on the title.

Rowan Williams and debt

It was good to hear Rowan Williams this morning on Radio 4 addressing the issue of debt and questioning the wisdom of our present system which encourages it.

I started posting on this issue in May last year and have been running a bit of a theme on it for some time under the heading "The Debt Disaster", including posting links to my article on 'Losing Interest' about the Church's historical opposition to usury, which I ori