Semi public
People need to realise that if you put it online it's not just semi public, its completely public and it's completely permanent. You'd be better off ranting down a phone line to the local rag at least that way they won't have proof.
Facebook royal rant bishop suspended
The Bishop of Willesden has been suspended over Facebook comments regarding the forthcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The Rt Rev Pete Broadbent laid into the "nauseating tosh" generated by the royal event of the century, and suggested he and fellow republicans would do well to dodge the hysteria by pushing …
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:45 GMT Grease Monkey
Friday
You have to remember she's trade. Trade people traditionally get married on half day closing. Certainly not saturday when they could be making money. Is friday half day closing in Westminster?
BTW the taxpayer is only paying for the "security". Given the amount of security that plod put into into the student demos I don't suppose the bill will be more than about £13.49.
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 16:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Public office
True, but, is somebody who works for an organisation whose purpose is dishing out supersticious drivel about sky-fairies actually "in public office"?
I know church and state are not as separate in this country as some (myself included) might like, but I still don't see bishops and the like as being in public office, just professional, discredited bullshit-purveyors.
-
-
Saturday 27th November 2010 19:47 GMT cloudberry
the truth can hurt
Rude, insensitive, and offensive? Perhaps to those who believe in superstitious drivel about sky-fairies. However, calling belief in mumbo-jumbo just that is a small action in favour of general good, that is, in favour of humankind being gradually weaned from officially sanctioned superstition, which is what religions are, after all.
You can feel offended all you like; fortunately we have advanced far enough that you offence is no longer a sufficient basis for prosecution or for other sanctions.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 01:24 GMT Edagan
Bloodline?
Oh, do get a grip. Bloodline rule, indeed. You do know we haven't had bloodline rule in this country for a good couple of centuries now, right? You do know the Queen doesn't actually run the show any more, right?
At best, the monarchy represents a link to some of the heritage and traditions that other nations still respect about Britain. They serve as excellent and moderately apolitical ambassadors to other nations, and as a living link to our history (so to speak) they generate quite a chunk of tourism revenue. Compared to that, their cost is fairly reasonable.
That's a pretty pro position. But even putting that debatable benefit aside, there are a lot of things about Britain I'd be looking to fix before I worried about recouping the fairly minimal costs involved in maintaining the monarchy. Politically speaking, they're no concern at all: they don't rule in any real sense. Personally I'd be far more concerned about the small crowd of privileged oligarchs that we get to choose between in our 'democracy'. They're a far more real-world problem than a small group of completely disenfranchised ceremonial figureheads.
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 12:47 GMT Grease Monkey
Choice
" Personally I'd be far more concerned about the small crowd of privileged oligarchs that we get to choose between in our 'democracy'."
At least we get to choose a lizard, in order to stop the wrong lizard getting in. A much bigger concern is the house of lords who effectively have power of veto over what the elected house decides. Noticed how every successive government attempts to stuff the lords with it's own people in order to prevent the next government doing anything?
Even worse of course is the way a government can make a failled MP a lord in order to give them a position of power within the cabinet.
The house of lords is something that does need to be dealt with much more urgently than the monarchy.
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 22:02 GMT Edagan
@ Grease Monkey
"The house of lords is something that does need to be dealt with much more urgently than the monarchy."
I agree. The House of Lords needs to be tackled to make sure that the selected people sitting in it are not subject to political interference or excessive influence, so that they can carry on their exceptionally important job of making sure that party politics don't unduly damage the interests of the country.
The idea of abolishing it would, I think, be somewhat dangerous. A parliament made up solely of those seeking personal political advantage - and over such potentially short terms - would be a parliament incapable of looking at the long-term interests of the nation.
-
Thursday 25th November 2010 22:31 GMT AdamWill
Worl, not actually...
the interesting thing is that it's not that clear-cut.
Consider: if the recent election hadn't been considered to be fairly definitively a 'win' for lib-con and a 'loss' for labour, and the parties reached a consensus that labour would step down and allow lib-con to form a coalition government...imagine, instead, both lib-con and labour claim the right to form a government...who gets to pick?
That would be the Queen. That's the case both in law and practice: there's simply no other mechanism to decide. The electoral process determines the composition of the House of Commons but it does *not* decide who gets to form a government; in theory the Queen can ask whoever she damn well pleases to form a government, in practice there are precedents (aren't there always!) and tradition to follow for the most common case (whoever gets a majority gets to do it), but there is no clear common procedure for the case of no party getting a majority. The parties usually organize something among themselves to save face, but if they couldn't, the only person who would get to tell them what to do is the Queen.
It's hardly a weird theoretical case, either - it could have happened in not one but *two* countries in the most recent elections; the UK and also Canada, where there was for a while the prospect of the Liberals and the NDP claiming the right to form a coalition government while the Conservatives denied that they had the right. This was a serious plan on the part of the Liberals and the NDP and the Conservatives were adamant in their opposition. If various political maneuverings hadn't led to the eventual dropping of the coalition plan, it would have been up to the Governor-General of Canada - the direct personal representative of the Queen - to decide which side would be allowed to form the government.
So, yeah, when you improvise a representational form of government out of a monarchy without ever actually bothering to write it down and make it legal, you do get some pretty odd corner cases.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT Ken Hagan
Re: "What's he being suspended for?"
Damage limitation would be my guess. Calling the boss' deceased daughter-in-law a porcelain doll on a not-even-remotely-"semi"-public internet forum is a pretty good clue that he is a complete idiot. That being the case, the best course of action for his employer is to reduce the chances of it happening again.
He has every right to hold these views and to express them in public, but he doesn't have a *right* to be a bishop any more than I have.
-
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 16:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why during these lean times
Cant they be done with a knees up at the local after the registry office
And i bet it's us, the taxpayer, not her dad that's footing the shindig bill
Aside, I wish them best of luck once the press hound the hind legs of anyone who ever knew her, see how many take the cash and tell, the truth doesnt matter, it's the paper selling that counts
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT Paul Crawford
Basing the Bishop
"The hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist."
Great words from someone in a church that would not allow female bishops until very recently, and even then, a number left the church in disgust.
Interesting point though: Which has been worse for the UK and its people, the Queen who has her position without direct choice or consent from the people, or Tony Blair who was chosen by the people and proceeded to lie and lead us in to stupid war while enriching himself?
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT moonface
The Rev sounded pretty reasonable to me.
Is there some new form of EARist discrimination that has passed me by, which makes his comments deeply offensive!
The Rev does have a point about the hereditary principle being "corrupt and sexist".
I find it strange, that there is in the modern world, a populist desire to retain the status of Royal families and pass them authoritarian power unquestioned. Especially, in a world where science proves, that we are all pretty much genetically homogeneous and no less capable in our shared 200,000 - 50,000 years of human evolution.
Who knows, BIG EARS may be the first steps to some superior hybrid. That later proves all us Republicans, wrong!
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT Is it me?
Come back the Bishop of Durham
An old Bishop of Durham, said, before he was bishop, that is, is reputed to have said "there is no god", which did prevent him ascending.
If you belong to a club it's a good idea to at least ad-hear to the rules in public. The idea of a Republican Anglican is a bit strange, when one of the things about the church is that it has the monarch as its head, but it is a broad church, perhaps he is an antidisestablishmentarianist, which I believe is acceptable.
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT John 98
Compassion? Human beings?
The bish is supposed to do compassion and at the end of the day it is - underneath the pomp and circumstance - two human beings getting married . So he deserves to get kicked into touch by his boss for hurting two people who can't fight back.
As to the politics and the cost - if we didn't have a monarchy we'd have some politician president instead and I guess he wouldn't be able to sell the telly rights of his kid's wedding for a right royal arm and a leg.
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT Rogerborg
What a prat
For backing down, I mean. Once you're that deep in it, you might as well keep digging and see if you can find a new career at the bottom of the hole.
I bet the Gruaniad would mess themselves at the prospect of having a recanted bishop spewing forth another champagne socialist rant column.
-
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 11:36 GMT Intractable Potsherd
Oh, yes...
... after all, there is nothing else going on in the world. Yesterday, for instance: North Korea initiating military action on South Korea and Ireland putting the Euro in jeopardy with direct effects on the UK. However, at least a third of all news in the UK was about Westminster Abbey being the venue for just another wedding! Shed-loads of talking heads warbling on about how wonderful it is, statistics about how many royal occasions it has been used for, how it is more "intimate" (than what didn't seem to be said, but I wasn't paying attention). Utter, utter bollocks, but it does give the government so many opportunities to sneak in unpopular measures under the radar ...
-
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT copsewood
monarchy, church and state etc.
Of course keeping a monarchy when we are all republicans at heart is a soap opera and a mess. A majority of Australians even agreed it's a mess. But when they had a referendum over what kind of republic they wanted, they still couldn't decide which kind they would prefer. Having a politician or ex politician acting as head of state is a worse mess: just look at the USA, France or Italy. What we have is a kind of muddling through which can work out better in practice than more theoretically optimal constitutions. Besides as a soap opera the monarchy is a relatively cheap form of entertainment compared to the TV license fee.
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:02 GMT DavCrav
Liar
"According to the Telegraph, Chartres said in a statement: "I was appalled by the Bishop of Willesden’s comments about the forthcoming royal marriage. In common with most of the country I share the joy which the news of the engagement has brought."
Chartres should shut his mouth, and stop lying. I bet 90% of the country couldn't give a flying fuck about the wedding, and most of the rest are pissed off that once again we have to pay for some posh bloke to throw a party.
The fact that some jumped-up tossbag wants to get married brings me not one jot of joy; in fact, in means that I have to listen to nauseating tosh on the TV for the next five months.
-
Tuesday 23rd November 2010 22:11 GMT Will Godfrey
More disinformation
Oh do keep up reg readers. They are paying for it themselves.
The bishop is an idiot and I have no sympathy for him. Regardless of his opinions, to rant on Farcebook just demonstrates a total lack of intelligence.
... and before anyone comes out with the usual trite.
1 The queen does not own Bucking Palace, so why should she pay for it's upkeep (actually she does make quite a substantial contribution).
2 The repairs to Windsor Castle were, in their entirety, paid for out of the Queens pocket.
3 The civil list is peanuts compared to what the Royals pay in to various 'optional' causes and events.
No, I'm not a fawning royalist, I just don't see why they should be the victims of so much misinformation - which often they just take without a murmur.
-
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 13:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Yess....
Good business sense, surely?
The event should generate quite a bit in tourist money both directly (people travelling to see it "live") and indirectly (tacky souvenirs, etc). Overall it should be a good investment for the country.
As a side note, has he decided on Puss or Donkey for best man yet?
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 11:56 GMT Intractable Potsherd
And...
... I've got a big book of genetics that does back up the point.
There is no evidence of genetic transfer of psychological traits (despite what the determinist psychiatrists would have you believe). "Talent" requires more than having the requisite genes - it requires desire/opportunity to make use of them.
-
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 01:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
A European Human Rights Court Could Push A Hot Rod
..up the rectum of the Church Of England. "You fired somebody for Freedom Of Expression ? Undo all of it an express your apologies. Pay damages."
Too bad this little sucker caved in. If he really were a follower of Jesus Christ, he would be fighting now. The Bishop's just a coward on a fat monthly wage.
-
Wednesday 24th November 2010 11:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
the italians are lucky
I've lived overseas for much of my adult life, and this whole thing the fawning royalists push about the world admiring the royals is utter codswallop.
We laugh at the Italians for having Silvio Berlusconi as leader. We laugh at his racist and inappropriate remarks. We chuckle at the old man's sexual shenanigans and implausible 'innocent' explanations. We marvel at the way the Italian media is controlled to the point where little if any criticism or dissent is allowed. We're amazed at the way the Italian public doesn't seem to mind the richest guy in the country getting all manner of state freebies and handouts, and dodging taxes that those much poorer have to pay. We're even more amazed at the way he can intervene to stop various legal actions that might embarrass him.
Well, the whole world laughs at us for exactly the same reasons.
The only difference is that one day soon Italy will be shot of their source of embarrassment, and the UK won't.
If a hereditary system is really the best way to appoint important positions, with no possibility to have any minimum standard requirement, then let's apply it to surgeons too. You wouldn't trust your health to such a system, but you trust your country to it.
I'm glad I left this archaic backwater so I don't pay tax to fund this charade.
Paris, because she knows all about doing f**k all, having f**k all talent, doing nothing except shagging and parties and still having half the nation worship her as 'important'.
-
Friday 26th November 2010 19:57 GMT spiny norman
Hereditary principle alive and well
Ever wondered why the entire Redgrave family became actors, or where all those Dimblebees, Lawsons and Corens on the TV came from? And in politics, Boris, Hilary Benn, Mandleson, the Millibands. A quick search in the background of pretty much anyone at the top in any field, you'll find a close,older relative in a related one.
In the House of Lords I'd argue that hereditary peers are a better bet than anyone that would be likely to be elected or appointed. On most issues except fox hunting they wouldn't have much of an axe to grind and could just review legislation to see if it's been thought through and drafted properly - and send it back if it hasn't. Most of the nonsense legislation people complain about here wouldn't have got past a load of dozey old lords.
Paris, obviously.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
