Frank Hovis Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think he's on his own there A parallel is when Radio 1 started sacking all those useless old DJs. They did these interviews expecting to be supported by their adoring public, only to find people had been bored stupid by them for years and were glad to see the back of them. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle6344882.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashedOutAndBurned Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Batty. He'll be calling for Sharia to be integrated into British law next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moo Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 ...says the bloke who gets Lambeth Palace as a perk of the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 ...says the bloke who gets Lambeth Palace as a perk of the job. Perhaps he does not want us to look t closely into his and the churches affairs? All getting to close to the bone for their liking. The CoE has been too cosy for to long with the political estabishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Williams is an idiot in a beard who was appointed by a Catholic posing as an Anglican, who did not have the best interests of the Anglican Communion at heart. The shade of Thomas Beckett might well be looking down on Williams and spitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BROF Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 BALLS! The humiliation will stop when the criminals decide to stop humiliating the public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I read this thread title to Mrs Erat Forte and she replied "w4nk off you old cvn7" So that's Rowan told! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Perhaps he does not want us to look t closely into his and the churches affairs? All getting to close to the bone for their liking. The CoE has been too cosy for to long with the political estabishment. Yes this high ranking privy council member charged with running the Queens church, dressing up in pagan druid gear probably has a lot to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Perhaps he does not want us to look t closely into his and the churches affairs? All getting to close to the bone for their liking. The CoE has been too cosy for to long with the political estabishment. +1 I'd like to see his expense claims I expect it includes more than duck houses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thatcherschild Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Yes this high ranking privy council member charged with running the Queens church, dressing up in pagan druid gear probably has a lot to hide. You said it. Unfortunately, religion is going to be a growth industry in the next couple of years, and we're going to have to put up with a load more vacuous comments from a man whose raison d'etre is being a shepherd to a flock of weak individuals who believe in fairy stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AuntJess Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 These upper echelon types just don't get it - do they? They are there by the WILL of the people - WE the people, and they have been caught systematically draining this almost empty vessel - called the UK. What about our humiliation, huh? I'll take his 'MPs humiliation' and raise Taxpayer's financial distress.There are more of us and we've had more sh1t thrown at us, too. :angry: What a plonker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroSumGame Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think he's on his own there A parallel is when Radio 1 started sacking all those useless old DJs. They did these interviews expecting to be supported by their adoring public, only to find people had been bored stupid by them for years and were glad to see the back of them. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle6344882.ece Nicely put. Can't understand the otherwise fairly level headed guy ?? as for point 2 in italics ..... Mwahahahahahahahaha ........................................................ Absolutely brilliant. I remember that well ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 It's a truly bizarre comment for the sky fairy in chief to come out with given his entire existence and philosophy is devoted to the veneration of personal humiliation and suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightiesgirly Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Maybe he can pay all the expenses back himself, then we could all forget about it ? No? Thought not. Really ,what type of rarified air is he breathing in that ivory tower of his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOP Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The man is a lunatic! Anglican bishop and Pagan Druid? I mean WTF? I reckon he was leaned on to make that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightiesgirly Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The man is a lunatic! Anglican bishop and Pagan Druid? I mean WTF? I reckon he was leaned on to make that statement. Nah he can come up with bull$hit all on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 You said it. Unfortunately, religion is going to be a growth industry in the next couple of years, and we're going to have to put up with a load more vacuous comments from a man whose raison d'etre is being a shepherd to a flock of weak individuals who believe in fairy stories. Has always been the way with the dual function of the role. One as a branch of the Christian faith and the other as an instrument of social control and manipulation, both of which serve the elitist requirements of the empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcarrera Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I think he makes a very fair point. We all know by now that there has been abuse. Within a few weeks anyone who cares enough and can be bothered to find out will have access to the full expense details of all members. The DT's dreadfully unobjective and tabloidesque presentation of an important issue has been driven purely by a need to increase circulation. It can only achieve this goal by appealing to the worst instincts of the greedy bourgoisie. That Brogan character is utterly loathesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copydude Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Anglican bishop and Pagan Druid? I mean WTF? I reckon he was leaned on to make that statement. Snap, that was my theory about all this sudden, 'let's be nice now' stuff. The Police and the Judiciary really don't know what to do about all the public complaints. Link Fraud challenge to Home Secretary Mr Weaver alleges Ms Smith defrauded the public purse A man has appeared in court to try to start a private prosecution against the Home Secretary over her expense claims. Anthony Weaver, from Holborn in London, applied for a summons before a district judge in Jacqui Smith's constituency in Redditch, Worcestershire. He alleges she defrauded the public purse of between £116,000 and £200,000 by claiming her main residence was her sister's London house. The judge adjourned the case, advising Mr Weaver to contact Scotland Yard. "I am not going to grant or dismiss the summons," said district judge Bruce Morgan, sitting at Redditch Magistrates' Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOP Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Snap, that was my theory about all this sudden, 'let's be nice now' stuff.The Police and the Judiciary really don't know what to do about all the public complaints. Link Fraud challenge to Home Secretary Mr Weaver alleges Ms Smith defrauded the public purse A man has appeared in court to try to start a private prosecution against the Home Secretary over her expense claims. Anthony Weaver, from Holborn in London, applied for a summons before a district judge in Jacqui Smith's constituency in Redditch, Worcestershire. He alleges she defrauded the public purse of between £116,000 and £200,000 by claiming her main residence was her sister's London house. The judge adjourned the case, advising Mr Weaver to contact Scotland Yard. "I am not going to grant or dismiss the summons," said district judge Bruce Morgan, sitting at Redditch Magistrates' Court. Mr Weaver had better be careful! Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) tasked to intimidate critics of Jacqui Smith?The UKColumn was shocked to learn that a member of the public, who wrote letters and emails calling the Home Secretary a communist and criticising her for creating a police state, has been summoned for an interview with his GP. The individual, who wishes to remain anonymous, informed the Column that he was recently surprised to receive a call from his GP asking him to attend the surgery. Once in front of his doctor, Mr X was stunned to be told that the GP had received a letter from the highly secretive Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) following instructions from the Home Secretary herself. Although embarrassed, the GP understood from the communication that he was required to interview Mr X to establish his ‘state of mind’. The implications of this incident are extremely serious, as they suggest that anyone who dares to criticise the Home Secretary, or perhaps even the government itself, will be regarded as mentally ill. Clearly for Mr X, Smith’s actions were intended to be a warning and the first step in attempting to brand him mentally ill. http://elementalsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05...entre-ftac.html http://psychiatricnews.wordpress.com/2007/...essment-centre/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Privateer Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Yes this high ranking privy council member charged with running the Queens church, dressing up in pagan druid gear probably has a lot to hide. What's wrong with druids? The real ones, I mean, not those nutters who occupy stonehenge every solstice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minos Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Yes this high ranking privy council member charged with running the Queens church, dressing up in pagan druid gear probably has a lot to hide. I hate the bearded *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RentingForever Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 To be fair, the "humiliation of MPs must stop" point is just a throwaway sentence at the start of the article and doesn't really summarise his point. Ignore that first paragraph, and what he writes is actually a much more nuanced article which would probably be getting a few nods of agreement on this board - arguing that the bankers, Lords, and MP scandals are all linked by a “What can I get away with without technically breaching the regulations?” mentality, and calling for a return to integrity in public life. Here's the full article: Enough humiliation. We must move on Politics is not about what you can get away with - it's about being prepared to make sacrifices Rowan Williams The issues raised by the huge controversy over MPs' expenses are as grave as could be for our parliamentary democracy, and urgent action is needed to restore trust. It is good that all parties are recognising this. But many will now be wondering whether the point has not been adequately made; the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy. It is important to connect some of the underlying attitudes with a wider problem. In recent months, we've had a number of examples (bankers' pensions, the suspension of two peers from the Lords) of people saying when challenged that “no rules were broken”. Some of the initial responses to public anger about MPs' expenses have amounted to much the same thing. And this suggests a basic problem in our moral thinking. The question “What can I get away with without technically breaching the regulations?” is not a good basis for any professional behaviour that has real integrity. Integrity is about what we value in ourselves or our work for its own sake - what's worth making sacrifices for, what we're glad to have done simply for the kind of act it is. If I do something just because I'm told to, or if I hold back from something simply because of fear that I shall be caught out, it's a very different business. It has nothing to do with that sense of being glad to have done something. And without that sense, no one is really going to see public life as a vocation in the old-fashioned meaning of the word - a task you perform because you find yourself in the doing of it. Without that sense, we always slip back towards the shabby calculation of what we can get away with. “No rules were broken”: I may have done something that is manifestly against the spirit of the rules or regulations, but technically I'm safe, even if I haven't even begun to think through from the inside what kind of person I've been making myself; what the cost is to my moral health, the person I am. So what is it in our society that encourages this sort of myopia? We talk earnestly about the need for proper self-respect or self-esteem, yet apparently don't grasp that self-respect is just empty egotism unless it connects with that sense of being glad to do certain things because they're the kind of things they are, and because they are the way we become the kind of people we most seriously want to be. This isn't about wanting a world of smug souls regarding their behaviour with placid approval. To be glad you've done certain things is bound up with being able to see that there are also certain things you do that make you less than you could be - whether or not you get “punished” for them. And this is why better regulation - for MP's or bankers or whoever - can't be the whole answer, important as it is. Regulation comes in, necessarily, when you recognise that you can't rely as much as you might hope on people's intelligence or goodwill. But this can turn into an excuse for failing to encourage intelligence and goodwill in the first place. Exhaustive anti-discrimination provisions, for example, get enacted when authority has found reason to suspect a comprehensive lack of charity and good sense. But they can also weaken the conviction that the best foundation for fairness is an ingrained habit of respect, bound up with one's own self-respect. And, once again, they create that disreputable atmosphere of asking how little you need to do to comply. Religion-based morality is often castigated for imposing irrational and arbitrary rules on people. But the truth is that its primary concern is with how to encourage us to act in such a way that we can be glad of what we have done - and can also recognise that bad actions diminish us. Of course there is a debased religious morality that is all about the fear of punishment. But the major faiths all see our task as becoming what we are made to be and called to be - as growing in integrity, in fact, and responding to a vocation. God sees the heart, so there is absolutely no possibility of hiding what is really going on in us. And this is not a threat that we can't get away with things (“The Lord is coming back! Look busy”). It's a reminder that there is a truth about our inner moral condition that can't be spun or smoothed over. We may be only fitfully aware of what it is, but we know that it's there and that we should be concerned about it - concerned about whether we are acting as we do because of what we value. At the very least we are obliged to keep probing whether we're deluding ourselves or making it too easy for ourselves. People who can be depended on in public life are those who allow us to see clearly what they value and what they might make sacrifices for (not just what they would like us to make sacrifices for). We talk about people's vocations most readily when we see them clearly doing things that don't bring easy rewards. But if the culture is such that regulation takes the place of virtue, we shouldn't be too surprised if public figures show signs of the virus and take refuge in the “no rules were broken” tactic. We trust volunteers in various settings because we sense that they act out of gladness to be doing what they do, never mind the rewards. If we are to recover trust in our political class, we need to know something about what they're glad to do for its own sake - because, though we often forget it, this is one of the surest tests of virtue. It would be a tragedy if our present troubles spelt the end of any confidence that politics and public service could and should be a calling worthy of the most generous instincts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I read this thread title to Mrs Erat Forte and she replied "w4nk off you old cvn7" That's no way for a wife to talk to her husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Abramovitch Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 Old Holborn is going to perform a citizens arrest on the guilty MPs. June 1st, 9am, Parliament. Bring cameras He has a great website as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.