Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
That was very much then, this is very much now. In 1869 and 1920 you couldn't move for God botherers, 98.odd% of Paddies n Welshies were signed up to one of methodist/RC/CE. Fast forward to 2022, English parishes are all grouped into benefices of 6 or 7 parishes with one rector for the lot, and the 7 parishes between them can barely fill one pew in one church, any Sunday outside of Xmas. So what do they want with them?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
Depends where. Plenty of tour companies went in and out of the exclusion zone on a daily basis. Workers at Chernobyl work on a 14-day rotation and stay in Chornobyl town. Driving a tank through and even loitering for a couple of weeks shouldn't cause any problems.
Actually digging yourself in in the Red Forest is probably a bit stupid though.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
In practice, if we disestablished the buildings' titles would be vested in the local diocese. It would be the endowments that the state would seek to claw back (as happened in Wales).
I would point out that for the last 85 years, since 1936 (in practice) churches have been maintained by congregations so I think your claims about 'ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe extortion' is at best an exaggeration. Very few churches in their current form date from the pre-Victorian era anyway.
Yebbut the ones we actually want didn't make it all the way through from C12th to 1936 without money being spent on them. Due credit will of course be given for the net proceeds of all them village fetes, 1937-2023.
What adjustment will you make for (a) tithe payers who were members of the congregation and (b) inflation?
BBC bosses have readvertised the job of political editor after being unhappy with the choice of candidates to replace Laura Kuenssberg in one of the most influential roles in British journalism.
Following weeks of interviews and an extensive recruitment process, the corporation had produced an all-female shortlist for the role, with ITV News’s Anushka Asthana and Sky News’s Sophy Ridge believed to be the final two candidates. An announcement on which of them would get the job had been expected to coincide with Kuenssberg stepping down last week.
Instead, the BBC political correspondent Chris Mason is now the favourite to land the role after bosses quietly began inviting fresh applications for the job. The recruitment page for the role of political editor has been reopened until Tuesday, although there has been no acknowledgement of this from senior staff or formal announcement from the BBC encouraging fresh applications.
Mason is widely liked across the BBC but one media industry executive pointed out the BBC could be about to reject “an all-female shortlist of brilliant women” in favour of a man.
Reopening applications will allow Mason to send in his CV – but will also make it possible for anyone else to apply and is a public sign that executives are not content with the existing range of candidates. In recent days, there had been speculation that BBC executives were unhappy with the process and were seeking other candidates for the role.
I wonder if Isabel Hardman would be considered an option? Or whether she would fancy it. She comes across as completely non-ideological. Someone who just tells you what is going on.
The fact such a plum role is short of applicants rather sadly tells its own story. Did the BBC initially insist on an all woman shortlist?
Hardman is not quoted in the betting. Here are Star Sports' prices:-
Chris Mason 9/4 Anushka Asthana 5/2 Sophy Ridge 11/4 Alex Forsyth 7/2 Sam Coates 9/2 Paul Brand 11/2 Faisal Islam 8/1 Adam Fleming 9/1 Lewis Goodall 10/1 James Landale 12/1 Pippa Crerar 12/1 Ros Atkins 16/1 Beth Rigby 20/1 Emma Vardy 20/1 Nick Watt 20/1 Nick Eardley 33/1 Jonathan Blake 40/1 Ione Wells 50/1 Gary Gibbon 66/1 Others Upon Request
That looks quite a big overround.
AA would be my choice if I were the Beeb.
Why ? I’ve not really seen a lot of her work.
She's crisp and intelligent and runs on a low cliche quotient.
I like some of the other possibles too but I'd go with her.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
I think somebody said it can only be tolerated, let alone supported, in the abstract. Ie if you could truly viscerally appreciate what it really is, what actually happens, then you'd not only say NO, you'd reject all arguments to the contrary, however seductive or seemingly rational.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
In practice, if we disestablished the buildings' titles would be vested in the local diocese. It would be the endowments that the state would seek to claw back (as happened in Wales).
I would point out that for the last 85 years, since 1936 (in practice) churches have been maintained by congregations so I think your claims about 'ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe extortion' is at best an exaggeration. Very few churches in their current form date from the pre-Victorian era anyway.
Yebbut the ones we actually want didn't make it all the way through from C12th to 1936 without money being spent on them. Due credit will of course be given for the net proceeds of all them village fetes, 1937-2023.
What adjustment will you make for (a) tithe payers who were members of the congregation and (b) inflation?
We'll just take the fabric and call it quits.
Look let's just bug out and call it even, okay? What are we even talking about this for?
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Hear the words I sing War’s a horrid thing So I sing, sing, sing Ding-a-ling a ling.
Is that satirizing the genre of antiwar songs?
It’s Baldricks war poem from Blackadder goes forth.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
That was very much then, this is very much now. In 1869 and 1920 you couldn't move for God botherers, 98.odd% of Paddies n Welshies were signed up to one of methodist/RC/CE. Fast forward to 2022, English parishes are all grouped into benefices of 6 or 7 parishes with one rector for the lot, and the 7 parishes between them can barely fill one pew in one church, any Sunday outside of Xmas. So what do they want with them?
In Cannock there are three benefices. None have more than three churches in them, and one has just one church.
I'm not totally convinced your knowledge of the Church of England is as thorough as you might like to think it is...
As for your other comment, you didn't really address either part of the question. If you take the fabric, do you repay the cost of maintenance for the last 85 years? If not, what adjustment will you make for the fact the majority of the money even under the Tithe Acts will have come from the congregation?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
However, pretty much every PCC I've been involved with would be more than relieved if they could offload responsibility for the buildings onto someone with the resources and knowledge to do it professionally.
Remember the parish council (a rare lapse in research by the writers) in the Vicar of Dibley? There are places that dream of having that much talent in one room.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
That was very much then, this is very much now. In 1869 and 1920 you couldn't move for God botherers, 98.odd% of Paddies n Welshies were signed up to one of methodist/RC/CE. Fast forward to 2022, English parishes are all grouped into benefices of 6 or 7 parishes with one rector for the lot, and the 7 parishes between them can barely fill one pew in one church, any Sunday outside of Xmas. So what do they want with them?
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Talking about decision making and anti-war songs, S-O-R-R-Y by the Proclaimers is a standout. Well, I say anti-war, it is by implication. It's more anti-journalists-tubthumping-for-war. Very powerful musically, deliberately discordant, it moves me every time. I have never checked to see whether they had a particular person in mind when writing it, but I have my suspicions.
BBC re-advertises for £260,000-a-year role as it reconsiders all-female shortlist to succeed Laura Kuenssberg
The BBC has re-advertised for the £260,000-a-year role after interviewing shortlisted candidates including Anushka Asthana, the ITV News political editor, and Sophy Ridge of Sky.
Pippa Crerar, of The Mirror, and the BBC's Alex Forsyth were also thought to be in the running.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
Depressingly hard to disagree. FWIW I'm reading a history of Vienna at the moment (by Scottish Nationalist MP Angus Robertson). The French occupation of Vienna by Napoleon seems to have been quite a cordial affair, with the Viennese treating the oocupiers as social equals and Napoleon eventually withdrawing with elaborate indications of respect. But the comments are from people in high society, and I wonder how the ordinary solders and Viennese population interacted. Also, the sense of "our guys vs their guys" seems to have been much weaker in the early 19th cnetury, when people in Central Europe will have got used to their national identity being traded around by rulers according to fortunes of war.
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
What about the Heath and Regents Park? Doesn't that work for you when you're here in NL?
The Heath does - for a walk. But it's the sense of enclosure which is what is different. I have horizons there. I have always loved being near the sea. In Naples - which is urban to the nth degree - it was a 5 minute walk down to the sea. If I had to end my life I would go into the sea, not bloody Dignitas.
And you can stare at the sea for hours. It is never ever boring.
I've done *alot* of walking around this country. And whilst I know what you mean, scenery becomes a little boring after a while. The great thing about London is the sheer variety, both in views and the people. This can be seen in (say) a seven-mile walk along the Regents Canal from Mile End to Paddington, seven miles along the Thames Path, or seven miles south from Greenwich.
If you want boring, try walking around Loch Long. Three days just to end up a couple of kilometres from where you began ...
I agree re London walks. They are interesting. But I never find scenery boring because there is so much to notice - the plants, the trees, the light, the shadows on rocks, the animals etc.
One of the things I was told by an old gardening hand was to walk round your garden every single day and simply look closely. You'd think that there would be no change from day to day but you'd be wrong. And learning how to really see has been a blessing. And once you start doing it there is so much to observe. Partly because of my asthma I rarely walks for long periods without stopping. But also because I am always seeing all sorts of things up close - even the beauty of a gorse bush - or moss or lichen on a stone- or the pattern of a dry stone wall or ferns growing out the ground or a wall.
Honestly I could bore you all for hours about it. Don't worry. I won't.
Wow, you’ve got a huge garden, Cyclefree.
Ha!
It is huge but those photos are not of it. The first was taken on a farm I visited recently. And the second of the ferns is on a local path nearby.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
The North Africa campaign in WW2 has the reputation of having been a 'clean' war. I've heard a number of anecdotes to that effect and can add one from my Dad's war experience.
He was wounded at Tobruk and taken by ambulance along the coast road to Alexandria where he boarded a hospital ship for South Africa and full recovery. Since much of the road was held by the Germans he assumes they allowed a Red Cross vehicle through. I remember him saying to me once that it was probably down the individuals on the check points at the time. Some were better than others but if it was one of Rommel's troops you had a decent chance of civilised treatment.
Sounds cocsistent with what I haveread about the NA campaign. Of course fighting in the desert is almost as civilian free as fighting in the Atlantic. But if you read say Beevor or Hastings on the 1944 Normandy fighting, there was atrocity and to spare, from all sides.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
That's a stretch, don't you think? I really doubt if either (a) people who feel there's still a worrying amount of Covid are doing so because of Brexit or (b) whether decisions by French, German or Chhinese tournists about where to go on holiday are based on a study of the foreign media.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
Our COVID restrictions on travel were quite strict and overly bureaucratic and tests were expensive compared to abroad. I travelled during the restrictions and found this was the case. That has all gone. That would seem a plausible reason for the change.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
However, pretty much every PCC I've been involved with would be more than relieved if they could offload responsibility for the buildings onto someone with the resources and knowledge to do it professionally.
Remember the parish council (a rare lapse in research by the writers) in the Vicar of Dibley? There are places that dream of having that much talent in one room.
Although when I suggested to one PCC where as the organist I was ex officio member that we should move to a French model where the state maintained the church and we just used it, the response was negative. This was for two reasons:
1) The government is pretty shit at looking after buildings. They will spend thousands on processes and not actually, y'know, get anyone out to clear that blocked gutter or fix a broken window, so the fabric would go into a poor state very quickly;*
2) It's their church, not the government's, thank you very much.
And that was in a scenario @IshmaelZ imagines to be typical of the CofE where about 15 people met up in one of a benefice of six churches.
*They had refused to close the churchyard to new burials for this reason, even though there had been none in it since 1964.
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
There were many who last week criticised Biden for calling Putin a war criminal. I wonder how many of them would still hold to that criticism now they have seen what the Russians have been doing in Ukraine?
Unfortunately Biden did make several other huge gaffes which imply he should just not speak ever, and delegate his entire job to younger underlings, and retire in 2024
Is your dislike of Biden based on your secret love of Trump or just ageism based on your fear of getting old ? I suspect you are what, about 59? That is assuming publicity material has not made you out to be a little younger, as the picture suggests maybe closer to mid 60s perhaps? Authors and journos have a habit of pretending they are younger than they are do they not?
Embrace your old age and oncoming superannuation! Be proud that you are almost a pensioner Leon!
Cicero - The importance of Kadyrov just sums up the utter incoherence of Putin's Russia. He wants a European, Christian 'true' Russia where nonetheless he relies on a Muslim warload and troops to go and kill slavs on his behalf. I think it is undisputed that a disproportionate number of the Russian frontline forces are from the remoter parts of the country and probably disproportionately Islamic.
I wonder just how much of a gung ho hero Kadyrov really is though. That video of him praying was shot inside Russia. If he steps one milimetre inside Ukraine I hope someone will be there to take him out.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
In practice, if we disestablished the buildings' titles would be vested in the local diocese. It would be the endowments that the state would seek to claw back (as happened in Wales).
I would point out that for the last 85 years, since 1936 (in practice) churches have been maintained by congregations so I think your claims about 'ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe extortion' is at best an exaggeration. Very few churches in their current form date from the pre-Victorian era anyway.
Yebbut the ones we actually want didn't make it all the way through from C12th to 1936 without money being spent on them. Due credit will of course be given for the net proceeds of all them village fetes, 1937-2023.
What adjustment will you make for (a) tithe payers who were members of the congregation and (b) inflation?
We'll just take the fabric and call it quits.
Look let's just bug out and call it even, okay? What are we even talking about this for?
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
What about the Heath and Regents Park? Doesn't that work for you when you're here in NL?
The Heath does - for a walk. But it's the sense of enclosure which is what is different. I have horizons there. I have always loved being near the sea. In Naples - which is urban to the nth degree - it was a 5 minute walk down to the sea. If I had to end my life I would go into the sea, not bloody Dignitas.
And you can stare at the sea for hours. It is never ever boring.
I've done *alot* of walking around this country. And whilst I know what you mean, scenery becomes a little boring after a while. The great thing about London is the sheer variety, both in views and the people. This can be seen in (say) a seven-mile walk along the Regents Canal from Mile End to Paddington, seven miles along the Thames Path, or seven miles south from Greenwich.
If you want boring, try walking around Loch Long. Three days just to end up a couple of kilometres from where you began ...
I agree re London walks. They are interesting. But I never find scenery boring because there is so much to notice - the plants, the trees, the light, the shadows on rocks, the animals etc.
One of the things I was told by an old gardening hand was to walk round your garden every single day and simply look closely. You'd think that there would be no change from day to day but you'd be wrong. And learning how to really see has been a blessing. And once you start doing it there is so much to observe. Partly because of my asthma I rarely walks for long periods without stopping. But also because I am always seeing all sorts of things up close - even the beauty of a gorse bush - or moss or lichen on a stone- or the pattern of a dry stone wall or ferns growing out the ground or a wall.
Honestly I could bore you all for hours about it. Don't worry. I won't.
Wow, you’ve got a huge garden, Cyclefree.
Ha!
It is huge but those photos are not of it. The first was taken on a farm I visited recently. And the second of the ferns is on a local path nearby.
Here are some grapes and citrus growing in mine.
That bunch of grapes is about as big as my garden!
(Having said that, the garden, although small, was marvellous during the first lockdown. In that great Spring weather me and the little 'un would go out and just muck about.)
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
What about the Heath and Regents Park? Doesn't that work for you when you're here in NL?
The Heath does - for a walk. But it's the sense of enclosure which is what is different. I have horizons there. I have always loved being near the sea. In Naples - which is urban to the nth degree - it was a 5 minute walk down to the sea. If I had to end my life I would go into the sea, not bloody Dignitas.
And you can stare at the sea for hours. It is never ever boring.
I've done *alot* of walking around this country. And whilst I know what you mean, scenery becomes a little boring after a while. The great thing about London is the sheer variety, both in views and the people. This can be seen in (say) a seven-mile walk along the Regents Canal from Mile End to Paddington, seven miles along the Thames Path, or seven miles south from Greenwich.
If you want boring, try walking around Loch Long. Three days just to end up a couple of kilometres from where you began ...
I agree re London walks. They are interesting. But I never find scenery boring because there is so much to notice - the plants, the trees, the light, the shadows on rocks, the animals etc.
One of the things I was told by an old gardening hand was to walk round your garden every single day and simply look closely. You'd think that there would be no change from day to day but you'd be wrong. And learning how to really see has been a blessing. And once you start doing it there is so much to observe. Partly because of my asthma I rarely walks for long periods without stopping. But also because I am always seeing all sorts of things up close - even the beauty of a gorse bush - or moss or lichen on a stone- or the pattern of a dry stone wall or ferns growing out the ground or a wall.
Honestly I could bore you all for hours about it. Don't worry. I won't.
Wow, you’ve got a huge garden, Cyclefree.
Ha!
It is huge but those photos are not of it. The first was taken on a farm I visited recently. And the second of the ferns is on a local path nearby.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
The North Africa campaign in WW2 has the reputation of having been a 'clean' war. I've heard a number of anecdotes to that effect and can add one from my Dad's war experience.
He was wounded at Tobruk and taken by ambulance along the coast road to Alexandria where he boarded a hospital ship for South Africa and full recovery. Since much of the road was held by the Germans he assumes they allowed a Red Cross vehicle through. I remember him saying to me once that it was probably down the individuals on the check points at the time. Some were better than others but if it was one of Rommel's troops you had a decent chance of civilised treatment.
Sounds cocsistent with what I haveread about the NA campaign. Of course fighting in the desert is almost as civilian free as fighting in the Atlantic. But if you read say Beevor or Hastings on the 1944 Normandy fighting, there was atrocity and to spare, from all sides.
Hastings is very good on NA, and everything he wrote about it was completely consistent with my Dad's factual reports of the war there.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
MaxPB is one of the less loony Brexity posters on here, but he shows by this post that he still wants to blame the fact that Brexit really was a waste of time on those who told him it was, well, a waste of time. You have to see the funny side of it really. Brexit, the most pointless waste of time since The Grand Old Duke of York
"President Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia, who is also Moscow-friendly, has governed Serbia since 2012. He was also expected to win re-election after rallying his nationalist and pro-Russian base by refusing to join the European Union in imposing sanctions on Russia. Serbia aspires to become a member of the European bloc, but its application has stalled.
Mr. Vucic’s Serbian Progressive party, according to opinion polls, should win a majority in the national parliament but could lose control of the capital, Belgrade."
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
Otto Dix's Der Krieg, a series of 50 prints depicting his war is right up there (and influenced by of course) with Disasters of War I think. It even depicts a nun being raped by a brutish soldat which I don't think I'll reproduce, so he knew what his splendid boys were up to.
Cicero - The importance of Kadyrov just sums up the utter incoherence of Putin's Russia. He wants a European, Christian 'true' Russia where nonetheless he relies on a Muslim warload and troops to go and kill slavs on his behalf. I think it is undisputed that a disproportionate number of the Russian frontline forces are from the remoter parts of the country and probably disproportionately Islamic.
I wonder just how much of a gung ho hero Kadyrov really is though. That video of him praying was shot inside Russia. If he steps one milimetre inside Ukraine I hope someone will be there to take him out.
Well quite. The key point about Kadyrov is that his thugs are used to keep the rest of the Russian army under control. The death of Toshaev (Kadyrovs "military commander") and the loss of the Chechen tank column eliminated a source of discipline for Russian troops. Personally I think Kadyrov is simply evil and of course he knows that if he did come to Ukraine he would be the number one target. There are Chechen nationalists fighting with the Ukrainians who may try and find him and kill him wherever he is.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
MaxPB is one of the less loony Brexity posters on here, but he shows by this post that he still wants to blame the fact that Brexit really was a waste of time on those who told him it was, well, a waste of time. You have to see the funny side of it really. Brexit, the most pointless waste of time since The Grand Old Duke of York
He needs to stop conflating country with the tossers in government who caused the problems. I am as patriotic as the next person but the Tories don't mean Britain to me. I object to being called anti British but not anti tory.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
MaxPB is one of the less loony Brexity posters on here, but he shows by this post that he still wants to blame the fact that Brexit really was a waste of time on those who told him it was, well, a waste of time. You have to see the funny side of it really. Brexit, the most pointless waste of time since The Grand Old Duke of York
The Brexiteers are the worst winners in political history.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
MaxPB is one of the less loony Brexity posters on here, but he shows by this post that he still wants to blame the fact that Brexit really was a waste of time on those who told him it was, well, a waste of time. You have to see the funny side of it really. Brexit, the most pointless waste of time since The Grand Old Duke of York
He needs to stop conflating country with the tossers in government who caused the problems. I am as patriotic as the next person but the Tories don't mean Britain to me. I object to being called anti British but not anti tory.
Isn't @MaxPB the one who's showing his patriotism by buggering off to Switzerland soon?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Cicero - The importance of Kadyrov just sums up the utter incoherence of Putin's Russia. He wants a European, Christian 'true' Russia where nonetheless he relies on a Muslim warload and troops to go and kill slavs on his behalf. I think it is undisputed that a disproportionate number of the Russian frontline forces are from the remoter parts of the country and probably disproportionately Islamic.
I wonder just how much of a gung ho hero Kadyrov really is though. That video of him praying was shot inside Russia. If he steps one milimetre inside Ukraine I hope someone will be there to take him out.
I don't think there is any chance of Kadyrov going to Ukraine, too big a risk to the Russians if they lose him, and he is probably a coward anyway. The Chechen army, his men, might have been a powerful force 20 years ago, but haven't done much real fighting in 20 years and I suspect have become a bit soft/week they seem very keen to get Instagram videos, and no doubt very good at killing unarmed civilians who say the wrong thing, but fighting people armed with guns, that's a lot harder. They have/had a big reputation, so where good for intimidation, and maybe Putin believed they where good, I don't know.
There are anti Kadyrove Chechens fighting alongside the Ukrainians right now, depending on how this ends, but with Russian army depleted, I wonder if they will 'borrow' a few NLAWs and Stingers, and head home? A civil war in Chechenia, might be the end of Kadyrove, weather his repayment is any better is another question.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
MaxPB is one of the less loony Brexity posters on here, but he shows by this post that he still wants to blame the fact that Brexit really was a waste of time on those who told him it was, well, a waste of time. You have to see the funny side of it really. Brexit, the most pointless waste of time since The Grand Old Duke of York
He needs to stop conflating country with the tossers in government who caused the problems. I am as patriotic as the next person but the Tories don't mean Britain to me. I object to being called anti British but not anti tory.
Isn't @MaxPB the one who's showing his patriotism by buggering off to Switzerland soon?
And has a deep and abiding hatred for the rich, including his neighbours in Bishop's Avenue, N2.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
What about the Heath and Regents Park? Doesn't that work for you when you're here in NL?
The Heath does - for a walk. But it's the sense of enclosure which is what is different. I have horizons there. I have always loved being near the sea. In Naples - which is urban to the nth degree - it was a 5 minute walk down to the sea. If I had to end my life I would go into the sea, not bloody Dignitas.
And you can stare at the sea for hours. It is never ever boring.
I've done *alot* of walking around this country. And whilst I know what you mean, scenery becomes a little boring after a while. The great thing about London is the sheer variety, both in views and the people. This can be seen in (say) a seven-mile walk along the Regents Canal from Mile End to Paddington, seven miles along the Thames Path, or seven miles south from Greenwich.
If you want boring, try walking around Loch Long. Three days just to end up a couple of kilometres from where you began ...
I agree re London walks. They are interesting. But I never find scenery boring because there is so much to notice - the plants, the trees, the light, the shadows on rocks, the animals etc.
One of the things I was told by an old gardening hand was to walk round your garden every single day and simply look closely. You'd think that there would be no change from day to day but you'd be wrong. And learning how to really see has been a blessing. And once you start doing it there is so much to observe. Partly because of my asthma I rarely walks for long periods without stopping. But also because I am always seeing all sorts of things up close - even the beauty of a gorse bush - or moss or lichen on a stone- or the pattern of a dry stone wall or ferns growing out the ground or a wall.
Honestly I could bore you all for hours about it. Don't worry. I won't.
Wow, you’ve got a huge garden, Cyclefree.
Ha!
It is huge but those photos are not of it. The first was taken on a farm I visited recently. And the second of the ferns is on a local path nearby.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the non established Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
‘We found 18 bodies in there,’ he said. ‘They had been torturing people. Some of them had their ears cut off. Others had teeth pulled out. There were kids like 14, 16 years old, some adults.’”
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
The North Africa campaign in WW2 has the reputation of having been a 'clean' war. I've heard a number of anecdotes to that effect and can add one from my Dad's war experience.
He was wounded at Tobruk and taken by ambulance along the coast road to Alexandria where he boarded a hospital ship for South Africa and full recovery. Since much of the road was held by the Germans he assumes they allowed a Red Cross vehicle through. I remember him saying to me once that it was probably down the individuals on the check points at the time. Some were better than others but if it was one of Rommel's troops you had a decent chance of civilised treatment.
Sounds cocsistent with what I haveread about the NA campaign. Of course fighting in the desert is almost as civilian free as fighting in the Atlantic. But if you read say Beevor or Hastings on the 1944 Normandy fighting, there was atrocity and to spare, from all sides.
My uncle was badly wounded in the fighting just before Tobruk and missing presumed dead. But in fact it was later discovered he was taken by the Germans to a hospital and died there. I believe Hitler had ordered that wounded enemy be killed so as not to get in the way but that Rommel said that they should be treated like wounded Germans. I have some letters from the time but it is all quite distressing to read.
‘We found 18 bodies in there,’ he said. ‘They had been torturing people. Some of them had their ears cut off. Others had teeth pulled out. There were kids like 14, 16 years old, some adults.’”
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
MaxPB is one of the less loony Brexity posters on here, but he shows by this post that he still wants to blame the fact that Brexit really was a waste of time on those who told him it was, well, a waste of time. You have to see the funny side of it really. Brexit, the most pointless waste of time since The Grand Old Duke of York
"Brexit is like doing a jigsaw. A pointless way to pass the time until you die."
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
Hear the words I sing War’s a horrid thing So I sing, sing, sing Ding-a-ling a ling.
Is that satirizing the genre of antiwar songs?
It’s Baldricks war poem from Blackadder goes forth.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
That's a stretch, don't you think? I really doubt if either (a) people who feel there's still a worrying amount of Covid are doing so because of Brexit or (b) whether decisions by French, German or Chhinese tournists about where to go on holiday are based on a study of the foreign media.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
My conversations with actual Europeans are why I'm taking aim at the fifth columnists who revelled in making bogus comparisons to COVID across Europe and labelling their own nation a "plague island". It's those conversations that made me realise the signal boosting from 15% by other 15%ers in the media of the completely false idea that COVID is or was ever any worse here than any other major European country has unnecessarily given the UK a reputation overseas to avoid.
Honestly, one of the reasons we need to stop testing and actually halt the ONS series is to allow UK tourism to recover. Every country across the world has the same endemic rate of COVID, the only difference is that we waste time and money trying to detect it.
There's a group of people in the country who take joy from doing down the nation, during COVID they labelled the UK a "plague island" and unsurprisingly the rest of Europe noticed and now our tourist industry is struggling to recover from that label despite it being completely false.
We still get it now with people claiming that the UK had a less than good response to COVID, the reality is that it was above average. It would have been better if we'd simply stopped wasting money on testing and had lower numbers. It would have made no difference to the actual rate of COVID but we'd have had half the overall number of confirmed infections the same as the rest of Europe that didn't bother testing.
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
So was all the commentary saying it was close overseas based rubbish, or has there potentially been a late swing or a “late swing”?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
Great examples. There are so many powerful antiwar songs.
If only that sentiment - which I think deep down is what most people truly feel - could somehow dominate decision making rather than be restricted to artistic lamenting after the event.
We just don't learn. You get the odd clean war, like the Falklands, where there's severely limited opportunities for rape and torture. When there are those opportunities, it's rape and torture every bloody time, no exceptions, no "except for our splendid boys." Look at Goya's Disasters of War and accept that that's what happens, every time. Or point to an army that's had the opportunity and not taken it.
The North Africa campaign in WW2 has the reputation of having been a 'clean' war. I've heard a number of anecdotes to that effect and can add one from my Dad's war experience.
He was wounded at Tobruk and taken by ambulance along the coast road to Alexandria where he boarded a hospital ship for South Africa and full recovery. Since much of the road was held by the Germans he assumes they allowed a Red Cross vehicle through. I remember him saying to me once that it was probably down the individuals on the check points at the time. Some were better than others but if it was one of Rommel's troops you had a decent chance of civilised treatment.
Sounds cocsistent with what I haveread about the NA campaign. Of course fighting in the desert is almost as civilian free as fighting in the Atlantic. But if you read say Beevor or Hastings on the 1944 Normandy fighting, there was atrocity and to spare, from all sides.
My uncle was badly wounded in the fighting just before Tobruk and missing presumed dead. But in fact it was later discovered he was taken by the Germans to a hospital and died there. I believe Hitler had ordered that wounded enemy be killed so as not to get in the way but that Rommel said that they should be treated like wounded Germans. I have some letters from the time but it is all quite distressing to read.
Ritter von Thoma was captured at the end of Alamein fighting a rearguard action to cover Rommel's retreat. His captor was a young lieutenant, only 19 or 20.
The following day, that young lieutenant was killed.
A few weeks later, his father received a letter from von Thoma expressing his sorrow at hearing the news and his deepest sympathy to the family.
A very different type of war from what we're seeing in Ukraine.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
Like I said, I doubt all of the CofE churches would suddenly have Catholic Priests arriving to say Mass. Where would they come from anyway? Parishes are being merged in Ireland because they don't have enough priests.
And if they did, would it make a huge difference in terms of what the average parishioner gets from the experience?
Whether the church should be established certainly was a big deal in the past, but now it's not just less important than the Herring quota, it's less important than something so unimportant I can't even think of it.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
And I have news for you, but better now than when you are writing your funeral wishes in your will. It's been illegal to be buried "in" a church, C of E or not, since the mid-C19. (Apart from CHurchill etc.).
Churchill isn't buried in a church. His grave is outside in the graveyard of Bladon Church from which you can see Blenheim Palace where he was born. It is an incredibly moving grave as well. A massive plain white marble with his name inscribed on it.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
No it really wouldn't. This is just another of your delusions.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
You may not have noticed but
a) Covid is rampant, and
b) Brexit is not boosting the economy, and
c) This govt is not overrun with Liberals.
Covid is not the govts fault, but the poor management of it is. Brexit is wholly the govts fault.
MaxPB is one of the less loony Brexity posters on here, but he shows by this post that he still wants to blame the fact that Brexit really was a waste of time on those who told him it was, well, a waste of time. You have to see the funny side of it really. Brexit, the most pointless waste of time since The Grand Old Duke of York
Nah, there was a revelry in the "plague island" narrative from certain people in the UK (not including you) and the idiots in our media and international media signal boosted them and now it's hurt our tourism industry.
I work with a lot of Europeans, the stories from Europe are all the same - people don't want to come here because they think COVID is still happening and that life in the UK is still really bad with restrictions and everything being closed. They see the stupid ONS reporting with stuff like "5m infections in England" which is dutifully retwatted all over the internet by the same "plague island" arseholes without any context and stay away.
Yet if I took a random sample of swabs in France we'd probably see the same 1/10-1/15 rate of COVID across the country. They just don't bother testing for it.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
Really? I always thought that was when I out-punned you,
9:12 p.m. - NVI updates results With 23.03% of party-list votes processed:
Fidesz-KDNP still leads with 59.99%.
United for Hungary has 28.89%.
Our Home has 6.58%.
According to the election office's seat projections, this would mean that Viktor Orbán's Fidesz-KDNP would be able to retain his supermajority with 134 seats. United for Hungary would get 57 seats, and Our Home would get eight seats.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
Like I said, I doubt all of the CofE churches would suddenly have Catholic Priests arriving to say Mass. Where would they come from anyway? Parishes are being merged in Ireland because they don't have enough priests.
And if they did, would it make a huge difference in terms of what the average parishioner gets from the experience?
Whether the church should be established certainly was a big deal in the past, but now it's not just less important than the Herring quota, it's less important than something so unimportant I can't even think of it.
Worldwide there is a shortage of Roman Catholic priests yes, while there is no shortage of Anglican priests. Since 1980 the size of Roman Catholic congregation per priest worldwide has near trebled due to clerical celibacy rules and fewer working class Catholic families prizing having a priest in the family as the pinnacle of success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church
So there is likely little effect in terms of who conducts services in the buildings.
However if the church is disestablished the Pope would replace the monarch as the main head of the Catholic Church on earth in England for the first time since the Reformation. As well as the loss of the automatic right to Parish marriages and funerals etc
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
Really? I always thought that was when I out-punned you,
‘We found 18 bodies in there,’ he said. ‘They had been torturing people. Some of them had their ears cut off. Others had teeth pulled out. There were kids like 14, 16 years old, some adults.’”
Greetings from Tallinn. The weather continues cold, hovering just below freezing and with wet snow forecast. Its warmer in Kyiv, but much wetter. Spring is slowly coming, but it is still bitter out and gloves and hat are a must.
The atmosphere in the Baltic has changed.
The local defence league militia is still accepting volunteers and cyber war continues to be waged as Russian hackers battle to inflict as much damage as they can. However, the counter attacks by people like Anon have ripped open targets across Russian cyberspace and whatever defences the Russians once had now seem to be fully compromised. Petabytes of Russian data are being released.
The Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian armed forces are now able to put tens of thousands of troops into the field and the steady arrival of troops and equipment from other NATO states now means that the Baltic would be a pretty tough nut for the Russians to crack, particularly if the latest news from Kyiv is anything like accurate.
A friend of mine who was involved in the fighting north west of Kyiv tells me that the battle was more devastating than any he had ever been involved with, and he has seen his fair share of war. He described the battle as hellish and almost pitied the Russians. This is not a withdrawal, it is a devastating defeat. It is a very moot point as to whether the Russian forces will be able to regroup to press a further attack on the Donbas. Even if they do, the morale and equipment losses amongst the Russian forces will make any recovery a slow and difficult one, We expect the war to continue for some time.
Meanwhile, although the Baltic now feels reasonably secure, there is cold fury as to the conduct of the Russian army in the field. It has redoubled support for Ukraine, with craftswomen, for example, today making camouflage nets outside the Russian embassy to send to the Ukrainian army. As much kit as can be spared is being sent to Ukraine. Russian speakers have cancelled the May 9th event in Tallinn, and there is shock and horror at the news of the atrocities in Mariupol and Bucha. There are fears that Putinists could create trouble with arriving Ukrainians, especially as the flow is now coming from Russia itself where refugees who escaped to Russia are now crossing into Estonia to try to return to the Ukrainian government side of the lines.
Obviously there is considerable satisfaction about this defeat, but no sense that the crisis is easing in any way. Of course the Russian regime has now arrested senior figures in the army, FSB and Rasgvardia as Putin seeks to blame everyone but himself. Here in Tallinn the hatred and contempt for Putin is universal. there is deep gratitiude to Ukraine and a painful awarness that had the plan been different that it could have been Tallinn or Riga rather than Mariupol or Kyiv facing this barbarity. There is total determination to defy the tyrant and defend the freedom and independence of Estonia and Europe.
There were many who last week criticised Biden for calling Putin a war criminal. I wonder how many of them would still hold to that criticism now they have seen what the Russians have been doing in Ukraine?
Unfortunately Biden did make several other huge gaffes which imply he should just not speak ever, and delegate his entire job to younger underlings, and retire in 2024
You are probably right in that but this was not one of them in spite of all the criticism directed against him.
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
133 needed for 2/3 supermajority, Fidesz won 133 in 2014, 133 in 2018, current projection is 133 in 2022.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
An investigative journalist has claimed that doomed media tycoon Robert Maxwell didn't have any loyalties in an eye-opening new documentary, which delves into the last few years of his life at the helm of his financially struggling publishing empire.
The first episode of BBC's House of Maxwell, which airs on BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm, reveals that Robert Maxwell had ties to Russia's KGB and MI6, even wanting Britain's intelligence agency to fund his publishing company.
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
133 needed for 2/3 supermajority, Fidesz won 133 in 2014, 133 in 2018, current projection is 133 in 2022.
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
133 needed for 2/3 supermajority, Fidesz won 133 in 2014, 133 in 2018, current projection is 133 in 2022.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
It can't be anything but rubbish. Even if every Ukrainian in Bucha had shouted 'your brains are even smaller than your dicks' at the Russians while spraying them with polonium pellets, anything the Russians did in response would still only be a further war crime because they were committing a war crime by being there to start with.
Whatever they try to claim, there is no 'two sides' to this one. I only hope somebody makes that point to the Russian Ambassador in language so blunt even Lavrov can't weasel his way out of it.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
That's a stretch, don't you think? I really doubt if either (a) people who feel there's still a worrying amount of Covid are doing so because of Brexit or (b) whether decisions by French, German or Chhinese tournists about where to go on holiday are based on a study of the foreign media.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
My conversations with actual Europeans are why I'm taking aim at the fifth columnists who revelled in making bogus comparisons to COVID across Europe and labelling their own nation a "plague island". It's those conversations that made me realise the signal boosting from 15% by other 15%ers in the media of the completely false idea that COVID is or was ever any worse here than any other major European country has unnecessarily given the UK a reputation overseas to avoid.
Honestly, one of the reasons we need to stop testing and actually halt the ONS series is to allow UK tourism to recover. Every country across the world has the same endemic rate of COVID, the only difference is that we waste time and money trying to detect it.
There's a group of people in the country who take joy from doing down the nation, during COVID they labelled the UK a "plague island" and unsurprisingly the rest of Europe noticed and now our tourist industry is struggling to recover from that label despite it being completely false.
We still get it now with people claiming that the UK had a less than good response to COVID, the reality is that it was above average. It would have been better if we'd simply stopped wasting money on testing and had lower numbers. It would have made no difference to the actual rate of COVID but we'd have had half the overall number of confirmed infections the same as the rest of Europe that didn't bother testing.
Ironically, it seems that most of the people who run the UK down are remainers, but the effect of discouraging foreigners suits brexiteers.
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
133 needed for 2/3 supermajority, Fidesz won 133 in 2014, 133 in 2018, current projection is 133 in 2022.
Who wants to bet against Orban getting his super-majority?
BTW, wonder if Steve Bannon is sitting by his side tonight? OR is S(o)B in Belgrade instead?
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
133 needed for 2/3 supermajority, Fidesz won 133 in 2014, 133 in 2018, current projection is 133 in 2022.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
133 needed for 2/3 supermajority, Fidesz won 133 in 2014, 133 in 2018, current projection is 133 in 2022.
err, is it just me or is that suspisiass?
It's just you. Because it's not suspicious, it's stone certain.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
Hmm, I see you think it's very important to have a "ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war" and a "negotiated settlement which gives Putin a win he can sell to the Russians".
You've got a tough gig, but you need to be more subtle...
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
Yes they are showing results as they emerge so that at least is good, FPTP counted first then list. Fidesz killing it on the FPTP results so far, some leads up to 40pts, only single digit leads for Opp in Budapest.
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Looks like a landslide re election for Orban. Won't please Brussels
133 needed for 2/3 supermajority, Fidesz won 133 in 2014, 133 in 2018, current projection is 133 in 2022.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
It can't be anything but rubbish. Even if every Ukrainian in Bucha had shouted 'your brains are even smaller than your dicks' at the Russians while spraying them with polonium pellets, anything the Russians did in response would still only be a further war crime because they were committing a war crime by being there to start with.
Whatever they try to claim, there is no 'two sides' to this one. I only hope somebody makes that point to the Russian Ambassador in language so blunt even Lavrov can't weasel his way out of it.
They genuinely advance the claim - and their supporters here do too - that deaths of Ukrainians is the fault of Ukrainians for fighting back rather than just surrendering. Nothing prevents a weasel from weaselling.
We see this with the periodic 'war is terrible, so they should accept anything to stop' dodge. Fact it, some things in this world are worth fighting for, and if the Ukrainians want to fight we should do nothing to hold them back, but instead facilitate it.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
That's a stretch, don't you think? I really doubt if either (a) people who feel there's still a worrying amount of Covid are doing so because of Brexit or (b) whether decisions by French, German or Chhinese tournists about where to go on holiday are based on a study of the foreign media.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
My conversations with actual Europeans are why I'm taking aim at the fifth columnists who revelled in making bogus comparisons to COVID across Europe and labelling their own nation a "plague island". It's those conversations that made me realise the signal boosting from 15% by other 15%ers in the media of the completely false idea that COVID is or was ever any worse here than any other major European country has unnecessarily given the UK a reputation overseas to avoid.
Honestly, one of the reasons we need to stop testing and actually halt the ONS series is to allow UK tourism to recover. Every country across the world has the same endemic rate of COVID, the only difference is that we waste time and money trying to detect it.
There's a group of people in the country who take joy from doing down the nation, during COVID they labelled the UK a "plague island" and unsurprisingly the rest of Europe noticed and now our tourist industry is struggling to recover from that label despite it being completely false.
We still get it now with people claiming that the UK had a less than good response to COVID, the reality is that it was above average. It would have been better if we'd simply stopped wasting money on testing and had lower numbers. It would have made no difference to the actual rate of COVID but we'd have had half the overall number of confirmed infections the same as the rest of Europe that didn't bother testing.
I’m not sure what (if any) relevance Brexit has but there are certainly shreds of truth is some parts of that post.
We are in an Age of Irrationality here in the UK: people generally know that covid has been defanged (it’s now less risky than influenza) yet continue to behave otherwise. It has a stigma all of its own.
It’s hard to conclude that years of self-flagellation have been helpful to the cause.
You see it even on PB, among people who really ought to know better. Why not just roll back the data to a weekly/monthly update and move on rather than obsessing over numbers to the detriment of many more important matters?
Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Oh look, you joined the site at 5.21 pm today.
Normally you people are quite entertaining, but we are talking about children being tortured to death here. Please feel free to douse yourself with petrol and strike a match.
Comments
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
Actually digging yourself in in the Red Forest is probably a bit stupid though.
I'm not totally convinced your knowledge of the Church of England is as thorough as you might like to think it is...
As for your other comment, you didn't really address either part of the question. If you take the fabric, do you repay the cost of maintenance for the last 85 years? If not, what adjustment will you make for the fact the majority of the money even under the Tithe Acts will have come from the congregation?
Remember the parish council (a rare lapse in research by the writers) in the Vicar of Dibley? There are places that dream of having that much talent in one room.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/november-web-only/church-of-england-decline-theos-growing-good-social-action.html
In cathedrals 135,000 worship on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day
https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/whats-on/news/2018/10/24/cathedral-worship-statistics/
It is huge but those photos are not of it. The first was taken on a farm I visited recently. And the second of the ferns is on a local path nearby.
Here are some grapes and citrus growing in mine.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
1) The government is pretty shit at looking after buildings. They will spend thousands on processes and not actually, y'know, get anyone out to clear that blocked gutter or fix a broken window, so the fabric would go into a poor state very quickly;*
2) It's their church, not the government's, thank you very much.
And that was in a scenario @IshmaelZ imagines to be typical of the CofE where about 15 people met up in one of a benefice of six churches.
*They had refused to close the churchyard to new burials for this reason, even though there had been none in it since 1964.
Embrace your old age and oncoming superannuation! Be proud that you are almost a pensioner Leon!
I wonder just how much of a gung ho hero Kadyrov really is though. That video of him praying was shot inside Russia. If he steps one milimetre inside Ukraine I hope someone will be there to take him out.
Many people in the West have no clue about the contempt and hatred that Russians feel toward Ukrainians.
This is very widespread.
Just watch the video below.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1510659351261892614
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khokhol
(Having said that, the garden, although small, was marvellous during the first lockdown. In that great Spring weather me and the little 'un would go out and just muck about.)
"President Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia, who is also Moscow-friendly, has governed Serbia since 2012. He was also expected to win re-election after rallying his nationalist and pro-Russian base by refusing to join the European Union in imposing sanctions on Russia. Serbia aspires to become a member of the European bloc, but its application has stalled.
Mr. Vucic’s Serbian Progressive party, according to opinion polls, should win a majority in the national parliament but could lose control of the capital, Belgrade."
NY Times blog
https://vtr.valasztas.hu/ogy2022/orszagos-listak?tab=parties
16% counted I think
Have seen 8-point leads for Opp in Budapest and some 30-40 point leads for Fidesz in more rural areas.
This feels like a comfortable win for Orban to me, possibly bigger.
Well its a view.
There are anti Kadyrove Chechens fighting alongside the Ukrainians right now, depending on how this ends, but with Russian army depleted, I wonder if they will 'borrow' a few NLAWs and Stingers, and head home? A civil war in Chechenia, might be the end of Kadyrove, weather his repayment is any better is another question.
so they are releasing the numbers in increments?
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the non established Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
https://abouthungary.hu/news-in-brief/hungary-elects-2022-minute-by-minute
‘We found 18 bodies in there,’ he said. ‘They had been torturing people. Some of them had their ears cut off. Others had teeth pulled out. There were kids like 14, 16 years old, some adults.’”
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1510587311226032133?t=TppAgx49uIVYcMr0n5zwsw&s=19
Just seen seat proj with Fidesz at 133, 89-17 on FPTP, only 2 Opp FPTP seats outside Budapest projected.
So Orban is borderline 2/3 majority.
23% counted, TV projections look at variance with official site fwiw.
Opposition leader Marki-Zay trails by 13 pts in his FPTP seat.
Honestly, one of the reasons we need to stop testing and actually halt the ONS series is to allow UK tourism to recover. Every country across the world has the same endemic rate of COVID, the only difference is that we waste time and money trying to detect it.
There's a group of people in the country who take joy from doing down the nation, during COVID they labelled the UK a "plague island" and unsurprisingly the rest of Europe noticed and now our tourist industry is struggling to recover from that label despite it being completely false.
We still get it now with people claiming that the UK had a less than good response to COVID, the reality is that it was above average. It would have been better if we'd simply stopped wasting money on testing and had lower numbers. It would have made no difference to the actual rate of COVID but we'd have had half the overall number of confirmed infections the same as the rest of Europe that didn't bother testing.
Nobody cares.
The following day, that young lieutenant was killed.
A few weeks later, his father received a letter from von Thoma expressing his sorrow at hearing the news and his deepest sympathy to the family.
A very different type of war from what we're seeing in Ukraine.
And if they did, would it make a huge difference in terms of what the average parishioner gets from the experience?
Whether the church should be established certainly was a big deal in the past, but now it's not just less important than the Herring quota, it's less important than something so unimportant I can't even think of it.
Germany has refused to supply Ukraine with 100 Marder infantry fighting vehicles that the country requested last week - WELT
To make this story even worse, it turns out Germany is spending money on dismantling Marder vehicles.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1510698458746863618
@KevinRothrock
Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1510698438102597641
I work with a lot of Europeans, the stories from Europe are all the same - people don't want to come here because they think COVID is still happening and that life in the UK is still really bad with restrictions and everything being closed. They see the stupid ONS reporting with stuff like "5m infections in England" which is dutifully retwatted all over the internet by the same "plague island" arseholes without any context and stay away.
Yet if I took a random sample of swabs in France we'd probably see the same 1/10-1/15 rate of COVID across the country. They just don't bother testing for it.
https://bbj.hu/politics/domestic/elections/2022-hungarian-parliamentary-election-live-updates
9:12 p.m. - NVI updates results
With 23.03% of party-list votes processed:
Fidesz-KDNP still leads with 59.99%.
United for Hungary has 28.89%.
Our Home has 6.58%.
According to the election office's seat projections, this would mean that Viktor Orbán's Fidesz-KDNP would be able to retain his supermajority with 134 seats. United for Hungary would get 57 seats, and Our Home would get eight seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church
So there is likely little effect in terms of who conducts services in the buildings.
However if the church is disestablished the Pope would replace the monarch as the main head of the Catholic Church on earth in England for the first time since the Reformation. As well as the loss of the automatic right to Parish marriages and funerals etc
I mean what is the actual fucking point of it?
Although it can do sod all against the P5 agreed as they would veto it
Whatever they try to claim, there is no 'two sides' to this one. I only hope somebody makes that point to the Russian Ambassador in language so blunt even Lavrov can't weasel his way out of it.
BTW, wonder if Steve Bannon is sitting by his side tonight? OR is S(o)B in Belgrade instead?
We shall find out, but I suspect it will be incredibly stupid. Like, your will feel youw IQ decreasing just from hearing it.
You've got a tough gig, but you need to be more subtle...
We see this with the periodic 'war is terrible, so they should accept anything to stop' dodge. Fact it, some things in this world are worth fighting for, and if the Ukrainians want to fight we should do nothing to hold them back, but instead facilitate it.
They are trying to get there accusations in first to muddy the waters.
I don't know what to do, but sending more help to Ukraine has to be a good start.
We are in an Age of Irrationality here in the UK: people generally know that covid has been defanged (it’s now less risky than influenza) yet continue to behave otherwise. It has a stigma all of its own.
It’s hard to conclude that years of self-flagellation have been helpful to the cause.
You see it even on PB, among people who really ought to know better. Why not just roll back the data to a weekly/monthly update and move on rather than obsessing over numbers to the detriment of many more important matters?
Normally you people are quite entertaining, but we are talking about children being tortured to death here. Please feel free to douse yourself with petrol and strike a match.