Gene Robinson thinks Archbishop's position 'untenable'

The Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, thinks that the Archbishop of Canterbury is in an "almost untenable" position as he tries to retain unity in the Church. He may well be right. I agree with Gene Robinson on this point. That we should all try to stick together rather than divide.

Today at mass, our parish priest said, " Don't get too upset. Just let things develop. The Good lord has brought us this far, let's see where He leads us". I'm not talking of leaving, or going off in high dudgeon. But I would like a bit more give and take.

I told a fellow parishioner that, if dinner invites were being given out, I'd be quite happy to sit alongside Gene rather than a person keen to see my views and belief obliterated. I may disagree with the Bishop of New Hampshire, but I don't doubt his sincerity, charity, and ability to rub along with those who find his position difficult to accept or to believe in.

He appeared on the Andrew Marr show today.

Italian wins gay driving ban case

One of the reasons Hitler wasn't keen on Mussolini being an equal in warmongering was that he wan't to be trusted. The Nazis thought the Italians couldn't be trusted. In fact, it went right through the German thought process. That's why the Italians were given co-belligerent status. A euphemism for being second fiddle. As it turned out, the Allies came to pretty much the same conclusion. Italians are not a people for warfare, being that they are more attuned to internal strife.

However, individual Italians can show panache, bravery, courage, all the things we think of in the battle. They can also show class. In the first Iraq conflict, an Italian officer insisted on taking his antique writing desk with him so that he could be esconced in his tent with a certain amount of comfort about him.

When it comes to being an individual in modern day Italy, it is the convuluting system of brown envelopes, regulation, and general inefficiency that one confronts. Danilo Giuffrida is homosexual. In Italy he has civil rights. However, he has also received a few civil wrongs. Certain people within authority decided they'd make his life difficult. So they put him through the hoop routine. He told doctors he was homosexual during a medical examination for military service. They then decided that he'd have to retake his driving test because of his "sexual identity disturbance".

He took them to court and won. The judge said the actions of the ministries showed "evident sexual discrimination". But that's not necessarily the problem. Of course they were way out of line, but I think it is very sneeky to undermine people in this way. It is the secretive element. It is the premeditated approach. It's almost like a cat playing with a mouse, deciding on what action to take with the hapless creature.

And if they think his "sexual identity disturbance" is reason to question his driving abilities, where does that put a lot of people? Max Mosley will be in trouble if he ever crashes a car!

How American are Americans?

I've met so many different types of Americans. All see themselves as Americans. Well, there's one I met on a boardwalk in Florida who was previously British in that she had assumed citizenship about ten years before I met her. She said "I am now an American, but I still think I'm a bit British. In fact, the local British Consul told me it wouldn't make any difference, because you can't stop being British". Actually, I think you can. You can stop being anything and start being something else. It happens all the time.

In a country that was formed by immigration, there is a grading. Some are more indigenous than others. A grand lady told me she was a Daughter of the Revolution. I was told these were women who could trace ancestry back to the founding fathers. The way she told it, there was a kind of purity about it. Others are only just becoming citizens today.

But not all Americans are as american as the most american Americans. Take Bob Hope. He was born Leslie Townes Hope in Eltham, South London. He went to the USA at the age of four and ended up as a presidential entertainer and nation's favourite. But he wasn't home grown. He became an American. Same with Jerry Springer, Cary Grant, and Ray Milland.

Some become Americans later in life, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. There's a whole variety. But the most american of all Americans are those who are aged 35 or older and are natural born citizens. A sort of Grade A Fancy! Only these can become the President of the United States of America. Maturity and native status combined.

So why all this stuff? Well, some legal eagle has again popped up with the idea that John McCain is not in the Grade A Fancy league. He's in the level just below! This is because his mother gave birth in the Panama Canal Zone. This fact is not enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen” according to an analysis by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona.

McCain is not eligible, so he says. This is even though the law was amended in 1937 to take account of such occurrences. McCain was born in 1936.

It is a load of hokum of course. Not legally, but practically so. “No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

McCain is safe. Nobody will test the law. But it still means that some Americans are not as american as all Americans should be or think they are. It's a version of primus inter pares, except the primus is far more that one, and on different levels!

Mum's police check for school run

In the "I can't believe they're that bonkers" department comes a letter of the law edict from Merthyr Council in South Wales. It is becoming self-evident that local councils up and down the country are shelving common sense and acting as craven stooges to the whims and fancies of the New Labour regime.

Jayne Jones, of Aberfan near Merthyr Tydfil, used to travel with her son Alex, 14, in the council-provided taxi when she feared he may have a fit. Because it is provided by the council, she is seen as an "adult acting as an escort who could be viewed as acting with the full acquiescence of the council and hence with its implied authority". So they are insisting she must stop going with him until she has undergone a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check. What moronic thinking is this? Of course the official couldn't comment when asked. It is all too absurd even to dream up a reply that would be deemed sane enough. Are we all to be examined in this way if we find ourselves in a similar situation? And what of Alex? Is he now to be left to travel alone, or is some caring soul from the council going to be brought in at great expense to act as a convenient chaperone?

So the foolish council insist on her getting checked in case some person in the street, who thinks suddenly that they have seen a potential molester in a cab (which they may or may not know is contracted out to Merthyr Council) and that alarm bells should be sounded at the first opportunity.

It is outrageous and we need to stop these stasi-like control freaks before they ruin the country.

Jesse Jackson goes nuts about Obama's nuts!

The nutty professor or what? No, just Jesse Jackson sounding off at the mouth. Whatever has Barack Obama done to him, except, of course, look electable? Jackson claimed Obama was "speaking down to black people" by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives. I am sure responsibility means being given opportunities to florish and to be successful without seeking handouts on every occasion.

The thing here is that Jesse Jackson is still in the old school of Democratic politics. He needs black people to see him as a "community leader" whereas Obama is going to be a leader for the WHOLE community. So Jackson gets niggled here and there.

His comments about Obama were intended to be private but were picked up by a Fox News microphone on Sunday. Fox News, eh? They get everywhere. Jesse should have seen that one coming! He believed the microphone was switched off. You don't say!

During his remarks, made in a casual conversation with another guest after finishing an interview, Mr Jackson said that Mr Obama had been talking down to black people, adding, “I want to cut his nuts out.” Not very becoming.

Barack Obama said, in a speech made on Father's Day in Chicago, that too many black men, "have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it." I'd say it was right to make an issue of the obvious, because without tackling the truth head-on, how is anyone going to help anyone? Jesse Jackson needs to get a grip. Good role models do indeed make for good citizens.

Jesse needs to thinks about the nuts he's talking, because he doesn't look like he's got the political balls at the moment!

Compensation or fine? Just business or criminality?

A waitress has been awarded nearly £60,000 in compensation after taking her drunken boss to a employment tribunal for groping her breasts. This story just epitomises why so many women hold men in low esteem. Jane Price did the right thing. She took a disreptuable boss to a tribunal because he sacked her most unjustly.

Former manager Peter Tunney asked to inspect her breasts after she had a surgical enhancement, sexually harassed her and accused her of sleeping with restaurant owner Alex Psaras. Mr Psaras then texted her. The message read, "I think it is best you don't come back to work. I did not like the way you conducted the situation. It left a bad feeling and it won't be long before you do it again."

After the hearing the pathetic Psaras said, "I sent her the most expensive text ever sent. It could ruin my whole business." I hope it does, because his attitude hasn't changed, it seems. No word of sorry.

This is another total shambles. Cases like this shouldn't go to tribunals. They should go before special industrial courts. Mr. Psaras should have been given a conviction for his behaviour. There must be a distinction between criminal activity in the workplace and business incompetence or wrong judgement. It doesn't look good if a person gets "compensation" over and above the value of the work. My guess is that Jane Price got the equivalent of five years pay. It seems a little wrong that she is seen as able to enrich herself by way of compensation (I know she never meant to) whilst Mr.Psaras and Mr. Tunny get away without any punishment.

A fairer system, in these cases, would be to award damages to somebody like Ms Price and to fine &/or imprison the likes of the perpetrators.

Anne Robinson banned from driving

The UK is in a total shambles, as Alan Sugar might say, when it comes to road safety, speed policy and driving habits. Yesterday Anne Robinson, she of the Weakest Link fame, was banned for driving under the totting up procedure. She had another speeding conviction to her name.

Her lawyer, Michael McGoldrick, came up with a pretty weak link! He said she had not seen the camera as she was disorientated by the road system on her first ever visit to Portsmouth. Come on, Mr McGoldrick, everyone knows that it is 30mph within a city centre, unless it is a dual carriageway indicating 40mph or more. And in any case, does the fact that she had not seen a speed camera mean that she can speed?

The whole system is ridiculous. The authorities are out to raise money by catching speeding motorists but make little or no effort to re-inforce good behaviour by placing quality, instructive road signs where they should be.

I think a whole new educational approach is required. We need to get away from the racing around regardless of others approach and behave a bit more decently as citizens. I would trial in certain areas roads with no markings. Let the drivers learn to be cautious, careful and considerate. Think it won't work? Well, its been done in the Netherlands and it does work.

The result will be a less stressful driving experience, but it will have its downside. The authorities will lose out on fines, the accident repair business will be upset, and the road painters will have to look elsewhere.

I'm all in favour of getting our roads back to civilisation and away from the current mayhem. Ms Robinson thought it OK because it was a Sunday morning. I suppose the magistrate listened to this weak explanation because he was going to fine her anyway. All he could say was "I am sorry she won't have a very pleasant memory of her first visit to Portsmouth".

We won't get very far with magistrates and everyone else just playing the same old record!

Methinks the moo-cow makes too much methane!

Whatever next? A cow in Argentina is carrying around a plastic tank strapped to her back to collect her gas so that scientists can study the effects of global warming. She's joined by others in this research programme, just in case they provide alternative results, no doubt. I would have thought the scientists already knew that methane isn't that great when mixed into the atmosphere. How about a load of Argentinian scientists strapping such contraptions to themselves and monitoring what they deliver to the world on an average day?

Apparently (according to the BBC) researchers say the slow digestive system of cows makes them a producer of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that gets far less attention than carbon dioxide as a potential cause of global warming. Is this news? Not to me or anyone else, I think.

My hunch is that its all the wheeze of people who should know better.

See the cow here

Will Walsingham fall foul of the new order?

Following the vote in General Synod, it seems the intention of the liberals in the Church of England is to sweep aside the Act of Synod which gave us Episcopal Oversight and to "force" traditionalists to accept women bishops. There appears little comfort for the views of Archbishop Carey, who signalled that there were two integrities of value. Without a legal framework, the traditionalists could be subject to the courts under the discrimination laws.

A test case could be dynamite for church/state relations. It may be based on a female prelate bringing a lawsuit against an incumbent and his PCC, or it could be a female cleric claiming sexual bias over an application to a parish vacancy. Either one could set a dangerous precedence.

What of Walsingham, that great shrine in Norfolk? The administrators state that -

Membership of the Association is open to all priests who are permitted to minister sacramentally at the Shrine: those of the Anglican Communion who are in good standing with their Bishop and episcopally ordained priests of Churches with whom the Anglican Communion is in full communion. The Guardians maintain the discipline of reserving sacramental ministry in the Shrine to male priests ordained by a male bishop. When necessary the Superior General of the Association (the Priest Administrator of the Shrine) will rule on admission to the Association, and in extreme circumstances may withdraw membership of the Association.

Could the administrators find themselves before the courts on charges of discrimination under the secular law? I think it a real possibility. After all, those who hissed at the Synod would not think twice about setting a lawsuit into motion!

And what of the Roman Catholic Church in England, and the Orthodox? Could they find themselves equally in the dock defending core beliefs against a strident opponent? It is not unlikely, I think, especially if a legal precedence has been set.

The Archbishop of Canterbury should endeavour to find a reasoned, thoughful, but above all godly way out of this tragedy.

There's a bat in my bra!

A young teenager from Norwich had a sensation in her bra for FIVE HOURS! Abbie Hawkins, 19, apparently felt a tingling sensation, but felt obliged to keep her mind on her work. As a hotel receptionist she needed to be poised and purposeful. Any unsightly wriggling would not be correct.

She thought it was caused by her vibrating mobile phone (which was obviously safely tucked away!) but she had second thoughts. It was all getting to her. She plucked up the courage to investigate. Wow! It was a baby bat in there. Snuggling up inside her 34FF bra. She was shocked but felt bad for removing the "cuddly" bat. "It looked cosy and comfortable and I was sorry for disturbing it," she said.

The bat was captured by one of her colleagues and released. And there the story ends. However, I think she missed an opportunity. She could have appeared on Richard & Judy. Richard would be well at home asking all manner of indelicate questions in a very delicate way. Judy would be empathising enthusiastically. The bat, bra and Abbie would be on their way. Big Brother would beckon, Sir Trevor Macdonald would mutter "and finally" and the trio could be a "brand" in no time.

But probably it was best that the bat went back to batting, the bra kept its composure, and Abbie has a tale to tell!

Vatican spells it out to the sacrament busters!

The Vatican has issued a statement following last night's vote in General Synod. It is not surprising. Those in the Church of England who put current social mores before church unity and the Catholic Faith are really acting as independent Christians.

The Vatican says -

We have regretfully learned of the Church of England vote to pave the way for the introduction of legislation which will lead to the ordaining of women to the Episcopacy.

The Catholic position on the issue was clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium, and therefore is a further obstacle for the reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.

This decision will have consequences on the future of dialogue, which had up until now born fruit, as Cardinal Kasper had clearly explained when he spoke on June 5 2006 to all of the bishops of the Church of England at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Cardinal has been invited once again to express the Catholic position at the next Lambeth Conference at the end of July.

Not only is it the position of the Vatican, but that of the Orthodox, traditional Anglicans within and without the Anglican Communion and many Old Catholics and Lutherans. In the scheme of things, its a minority belief to desire to alter the sacraments in such a manner.

Bush says sorry to Berlusconi

George Bush has had to apologise to the Italian Prime Minister for an "insulting" biography which was included in a press kit distributed to reporters travelling with Mr.Bush to the G8 summit in Tokyo. Bush calls Berlusconi a "good friend". However, I don't doubt that his staff created a reasonably accurate description of the Italian leader.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto issued an apology. "A biography of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi included in the press package used language that is insulting both to Prime Minister Berlusconi and to the Italian people," he said. Maybe insulting to Berlusconi, but a sizeable portion of the Italian people wouldn't have minded if he had spent time behind bars when he was up on corruption charges.

I'd liken the report to the curate's egg. It was good in parts!

Bushes must stay to hide gay couples

What a world! The UK went to great lengths to accommodate homosexuality. What people do in private is of no concern to others, so long as it is all consensual. However, for some this is not enough. In Bristol there is a rumpus over some bushes and the gay couples who hide amongst them.

Most visitors to a popular beauty spot would welcome overgrown bushes being cut back. But the council has had to tread carefully after being told that to some members of the gay community, the dense undergrowth was something to be protected. Removing it would discriminate against the gay men who use the area for outdoor sex, campaigners claimed.

Today most people are asking why on earth they need to go outside for sex anyway. Surely they have places to go like anyone else? In any event, public displays of sexual activity are illegal in England - for any kind of sexual preference! It's what the police call "lewd activity".

The whole point here, though, is that Bristol City Council is wasting valuable time even discussing the matter. I'd say, bugger the discrimination taunt, just cut the bushes back. Why should people lawfully walking in a beauty spot have to be confronted with such stuff.

Oh, and the PC Thought Police have been at it again, I see. Last year four firefighters were disciplined for allegedly disturbing a group of men at night by shining their torches into the bushes on the Downs. After complaints that their actions were homophobic, the four senior officers from Avon Fire Service were fined and transferred to other stations.

So illegal activity is OK but the Thought Police's brand new world must stand tall? All very sad!

Armed police held down innocent man on train and put a gun to his head!

In another story of the "If you have done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear" department, here comes one describing a disturbing day out for one young man.

As the Daily Mail reports "Guns pointing at his head, a train passenger is forced to lie face-down on the platform in a dramatic police swoop. Officers then dragged him to his feet and frogmarched him away to be searched and interrogated. Minutes later, however, he was released without charge after it became clear that they had seized entirely the wrong man."

Luckily they didn't shoot him. Dorset Police have shrugged off the incident. They don't appear that concerned. Pity. I like the stoical remark "'Inquiries into the circumstances of the arrest are continuing. No shots were fired and no one was injured." So that's OK then.

I still think all this gives us an impression of policing on the cheap, lack of proper intelligence, and a police service driven by crazy results charts. Let's remember its a service, not a bonus-led, profit-making plc!

In the comments from the Mail's report, Andy from Essex helpfully says "It's the way it has to be. Well done to the Police." If you ever find yourself face down on the sweet-smelling floor of Liverpool Street station, Andy, be sure to compliment the officers, won't you?

Toddlers who dislike spicy food branded 'racist'!

Moving on from the illiberal liberals of the Church of England, we get a further dose of those who want a more controlled society. A certain organisation, the National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care. We are here talking of three-year old toddlers. This outfit sounds decidedly creepy.

There's a terrible culture now pervading society which will not tolerate ideas and beliefs that have not been vetted and approved by the PC Thought Police. As I've said countless times, there is a whole heap of difference between calling somebody a nasty name and an innocent remark. Racist and derogatory remarks from anyone of whatever age are to be deplored and to be tackled as such. However, drawing up a Stasi-like reporting mechanism does no good AT ALL!

Here we are talking of children. Children, for heaven's sake. These social manipulators don't see a gentle and reasoned approach to changing a child's behaviour as good enough. No! They want more. They say, "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action." Even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can "recognise different people in their lives". Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide from the NCB added - "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."

These silly people suggest that a child is "racist" if it turns its nose up at spicy food. Well, my thought police friends, I've got news for you. My children turn their noses up at certain Indonesian dishes my wife cooks up "Too spicy!" my son shrieks. If you want you can come round and sort him out. I'd like to see you in action. My word, what a bunch of creepy characters.

We should all be opposed to racism, but all of us should be on the look-out for such bogus organisations as the National Children's Bureau!

The Church of England is Protestant again

"A couple of hours ago, the Church of England decisively severed itself from its Catholic roots. By voting to ordain women bishops without significant safeguards for traditionalists, it reasserted its identity as a Protestant Church. Whether it will be a liberal or conservative Protestant denomination remains to be seen. But any hope of unity with Rome and the Orthodox has gone forever." So writes Damian Thompson in his Telegraph blog.

It came as no surprise to me. I will see where we stand tomorrow, the we being the traditionalists. But I fear it's as the Rev David Houlding, a leading Anglo-Catholic, said. "It's getting worse – it's going downhill very badly. It's quite clear there is a pincer movement and we are being squeezed out. We are being pushed by a particular liberal agenda and we are going to have women bishops at the exclusion of any other view."

As I felt this morning, precious little discernment. More a view shaped to current fashion.

Alan Sugar's plane crash lands safely!

Sir Alan Sugar has been involved in a minor plane crash. More accurately, his four-seater light aircraft hit the end of the grass strip with its propeller. Sir Alan was unhurt. This is not mega news, I know, but the response by the media seems to be mega by proportion.

The BBC flag this up as - Alan Sugar 'survives plane crash'. You'd think this was some terrible accident with a jetliner going down in the middle of Manchester. Instead, it was a minor incident.

City Airport Manchester has a grass runway. Light planes tend to bounce around a bit when landing on grass. Nothing normally to worry about. The BBC hyped up the headline, but Sir Alan put the reporter right. "As far as 'life-threatening' is concerned, to put things in perspective my friend and I had as much chance of dying from the incident as we did in dying from food poisoning from the tuna sandwich that a very nice lady made us in the clubhouse whilst we waited for a mate to pick us up and take us home." Which is his way of saying there's nothing in the story.

So the headline doesn't fit the narrative. How many times have we seen that? If the media was subject to the same labelling laws as the retail sector, we might get nearer the truth in our everyday lives.

Obama to be beaten below the belt?

Politics is a tough game. It should be just on your policies alone. Possibly on your character or even your demeanour. After all, who wants a grump as President or Prime Minister?

In the USA, politicians have failed abysmally to dent Barack Obama's position. Dodgy pastors, a supposedly racist grandmother, or even his schooldays haven't turned up anything. Hillary Clinton tried. Husband Bill had a go. To no avail. Obama came through.

Now the Republican Party think they’ve found a weapon that could wound Obama. It is his own voice as recorded for the Grammy Award-winning audio version of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.”

“I think the audio version makes a much more immediate impact” than the print version of his memoir, said conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who has played audio excerpts from the book on his syndicated radio show. “It turns out to be very jarring to many ears to hear Obama talking about his youthful adventures, his attitudes on race.” Hewitt seems pleased by all this. I think it just shows how devoid of Christian charity these so-called "conservative" talk show guys really are.

Boris Johnson was quite right. We don't want antisceptic politicians. But we don't want liars, cheats, and miscreants either. After all, who has not done something, or said something crass or cazy in past times. It's not as if Obama's committed a heinous crime.

I'd suggest the Republican Party treads carefully, otherwise they may get the odd floozy popping up to say she had a night of passion with McCain. On second thoughts, that might not stop him in his tracks. But you get the drift.

Let's have a nice clean fight, boys. If it gets nasty - well, who knows what can come out of the various closets with unlocked doors?

Episcopal mayhem?

Tomorrow the synod of the Church of England votes on whether to press ahead with legislation that would allow women bishops. The proponents of this innovation are all for having no system in place for allowing traditionalists the right to opt out from having to serve under a woman bishop. This morning, Christina Rees, probably the most vocal proponent of the measure, sounded all sweetness and light when she answered questions put to her by Robert Piggott, the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent. I say answered, but she spun her way neatly out of answering the question as to why those born into a church that had a male-only clergy should change their beliefs. Instead she suggested that life would all be cosy and comfortable without any need for safeguards.

In her world of prelatial power, all that a traditionalist priest would be required to do would be to let a female Diocesan into the parish once a year to "preach, or to teach, or to open a fete. So long as she can come in". This sounds like it has not be thought at AT ALL. It is, to my mind, typical woolly nonsense. What is this notional bishop to do? Is she to robe as a bishop during the service, or attend in a simple dress? Will she address the congregation from the pulpit with warm words of delight? Or will she feel she's in need of "explaining"? What teaching role is to be assumed? And as for opening a fete, well I would think that a bit condescending!

Now, just to put my views on the line. I am a traditionalist. I am an Anglican Catholic who cannot reconcile the Sacrament of Holy Orders with anything other than a male integrity. However, at the same time, I cannot understand how the C of E could seek to ordain women as priests but not to consecrate them as bishops. In that, I agree with Ms Rees. Where I beg to differ is that forcing a woman onto a parish where there is little or no belief that she is what she says she is is farcical.

Christina Rees had Robert Piggott believe that the optio