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.
The idea that someone could look at Russia right now and say "hmm, maybe what's needed is a dictator" boggles me. It's the stupidest thing I've read on here (and I was here for when HYUFD claimed that you couldn't get from London to Cambridge without entering Essex).
The M11, the main road route from London to Cambridge, goes through Essex
The A10 does not.
So you can choose to go into Essex or not. Literally nobody thinks you can't possibly go through Essex, and only one person, you, thinks you HAVE to.
When Samuel Pepys went from London to Cambridge, a favorite journey for him, he almost always went one of the Hertfordshire routes, which had a number of alternatives. Curiously he never chose the M11, though on one occasions he diverted to Audley End, near Saffron Walden in Essex. And IIRC once via Epping Forest.
He actually stayed in Epping on one such journey, as he notes in his diaries
That must have been a full page!
It was there that he was famously castigated for not being a Tory which sunk him into depression leading to him burying his Parmesan to protect it having been given warnings of war with Scotland.
Netherlands, you mean?
Was a HYUFD dig…..
Sorry, have read too much about the naval history of that era, with Charles II, James VII & II, Pepys, and De Ruyter and the little affair of the Medway.
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.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
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
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
Scots born Australian Eric Bogle wrote a few good anti war songs. As well as And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda, he also wrote The Green Fields Of France “ oh how do you do, young willy mcbride do you mind if i sit here down by your graveside and rest for a while in the warm summer sun i've been walking all day, and im nearly done and i see by your gravestone you were only nineteen when you joined the great fallen in 1916 well i hope you died quick and i hope you died clean oh willy mcbride, was is it slow and obscene did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest and did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind in some loyal heart is your memory enshrined and though you died back in 1916 to that loyal heart you're forever nineteen or are you a stranger without even a name forever enshrined behind some old glass pane in an old photograph torn, tattered, and stained and faded to yellow in a brown leather frame did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest the sun shining down on these green fields of france the warm wind blows gently and the red poppies dance the trenches have vanished long under the plow no gas, no barbed wire, no guns firing down but here in this graveyard that's still no mans land the countless white crosses in mute witness stand till' man's blind indifference to his fellow man and a whole generation were butchered and damned did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest and i can't help but wonder oh willy mcbride do all those who lie here know why they died did you really believe them when they told you the cause did you really believe that this war would end wars well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame the killing and dying it was all done in vain oh willy mcbride it all happened again and again, and again, and again, and again did they beat the drums slowly did the play the fife lowly did they sound the death march as they lowered you down did the band play the last post and chorus did the pipes play the flowers of the forest”
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.
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.
Eric Bogle also wrote “My Youngest Son Came Home Today” about Northern Ireland. My youngest son came home today His friends marched with him all the way The pipes and drum beat out the time While in his box of polished pine Like dead meat on a butcher's tray My youngest son came home today My youngest son was a fine young man With a wife, a daughter and two sons A man he would have lived and died Till by a bullet sanctified Now he's a saint or so they say They brought their young saint home today Above the narrow Belfast streets An Irish sky looks down and weeps At children's blood in gutters spilled In dreams of freedom unfulfilled As part of freedom's price to pay My youngest son came home today My youngest son came home today His friends marched with him all the way The pipe and drum beat out the time While in his box of polished pine Like dead meat on a butcher's tray My youngest son came home today And this time he's home to stay
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)
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
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.).
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.
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
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.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
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.
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 ...
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.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle, and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
Is there any pressure to come to the aid of Ukraine on the government? Much more of Bucha and I can see that demand in many countries, even this one.
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 "inside" a church, C of E or not, since the mid-C19. (Apart from CHurchill etc.).
You sure of that? If so, how is 'burial' defined? Plenty of examples of ashes being interred inside a church e.g. those of Stanley Baldwin.
The Somerset and Frome MP David Warburton - suspended by the @Conservatives from the parliamentary party following allegations about his conduct in the #sundaytimes -has been admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from severe shock and stress, according to his wife Harriet https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1510618374883225610
Mental health is a serious issue and sadly is becoming very common
Maybe give him some space
What about his alleged victim?
This smacks of the Prince Andrew defence. "The Falklands War changed me..."
He has been admitted to a psychiatric hospital which requires serious mental health issues, sectioning, or suicide tendency
He must face justice in due course but as with all mental health issues nobody benefits from lack of understanding
I suspect the MP in question has checked himself in to some private facility. It strikes me as rather convenient on the day his alleged behaviour, or should I say, and let's not forget, his alleged criminality is busted by the Sunday Times.
I take nothing away from anyone struggling with mental health issues, but in this instance, colour me skeptical. Didn't Keith Vaz take a similarly convenient route when he found himself in a spot of bother?
Even if he did I just do not understand how pilling onto him helps anyone
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
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.
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
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
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 "inside" a church, C of E or not, since the mid-C19. (Apart from CHurchill etc.).
You sure of that? If so, how is 'burial' defined? Plenty of examples of ashes being interred inside a church e.g. those of Stanley Baldwin.
Quite right. Of course cremation wasn't a thing during the big mid-Victorian sanitary reforms and establishment of separate cemeteries. But intramural interment even of ashes is still pretty unusual for the average punter so far as I am aware. And of course Churchill was buried in the village churchyard enar Blenheim - my slip there. Replace with 'Royalty etc.'
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
That's strange.
I was looking at the results from last time, the Diaspora' voted 96.24% for Orban. which would normally be considered overwhelming. by adding there votes he increased his vote% total form 47.36% to 49.27% which seems a big impact.
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
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
Pretty much the whole of history and moral philosophy have passed you by, haven't they? Where do you think Lutherans and RCs stand on same sex marriages, and why do you expect a religious belief system to privilege "human rights" over divine ordinances?
Hungary shows what happens when politicians are hell bent on weakening democracy and are allowed several election cycles to do this.
The opposition finally decided to combine forces but too late when the dice were totally loaded against them . For this reason the Tories must be removed from office at the next GE before they do even more damage to the country .
After their voter suppression legislation , attack on the right to protest , next will be human rights . Labour, Lib Dems , Greens must work together to remove this cesspit government .
"In September 2021, Russia has adopted a state technical standard for digging and maintaining mass graves amid wartime. It took effect on Feb 1st 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 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
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
The Roman Catholic church is the largest church in France, Spain, Italy, Poland and even Germany now. Greece is Orthodox.
Currently the Church of England is a broad church encompassing Anglo Catholics, liberals, right through to evangelicals. End it as the established church and the Anglo Catholics would move back to Rome and the evangelicals to become Baptists, Pentecostals etc. The Roman Catholic v evangelical divide would dominate as it does in most of the rest of the Christian world, including Africa and Latin America, leaving the Anglican church as a minority liberal church.
If you think the Church of England is anti gay marriage and abortion, you wait until a resurgent Roman Catholic and Baptist churches use their energy to press their case in the political arena as they do in the USA for instance or Italy. They really are anti gay marriage and fervently anti abortion. The Church of England however at least allows gay clergy now. The Roman Catholics don't yet even allow women priests!
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.
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
How shore are we that these elections are 'Free and Fair'?
Leon said: » show previous quotes On this, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the brainwashed Russian people seem to be foursquare behind Putin and his New Patriotic War, and all the active dissident elements - mainly the net-savvy young - have either fled already, or been silenced by brutal repression
The only hope is a palace coup, but as the elite are all implicated that seems unlikely.
That leaves three more likely outcomes. 1. Russian is so heavily defeated we can actually enforce regime change as the people DO turn against him as they starve to death. 2. A terrible “peace” which leaves Russian with a sort of victory which is then followed by many years of Cold War. 3. A total all out west-v-Russia/China war which probably destroys half of human life.
Sometimes, a benevolent, stable dictatorship is what a political situation screams for. I fear Russia has reached that point. But good luck finding a benevolent dictator who both is effective/successful in turning Russia into a liberal democracy and stays benevolent during the decade or two that it will take.
Yes, what's needed to remedy that is a way of removing the benevolent dictator. Some sort of system that periodically takes the views of the largest number of people into account. There would need to be safeguards, such as expressing your opinion in secret, and everybody being allowed to only have one say.
If only there were such a system.
So clever and funny. The whole point of the post is that a Russian democratic election at the moment will not yield a nice, cuddly Russia.
That's democracy, Kyle.
And the point is that democracy is not always the answer.
Although it usually turns out to be the least-worst answer (as per Churchill).
But you make a good point: apparently even Navalny is pretty full-on a Russian nationalist and probably would agree with the principal of attacking Ukraine, although maybe he might have been more likely to decide the risk was not worth the reward than Putin.
Navalny is a nationalist who has argued that invading Ukraine would and will be a disaster for Russia.
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
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
Pretty much the whole of history and moral philosophy have passed you by, haven't they? Where do you think Lutherans and RCs stand on same sex marriages, and why do you expect a religious belief system to privilege "human rights" over divine ordinances?
Basic reading comprehension seems to entirely passed you by doesn't it?
Try pointing to something in my post that your reply has even a tiny bit of relevance to?
Hearing that no results will be announced until all seats have finished counting, which doesn't exactly give a warm feeling imho, and I don't remember that being the case in previous elections.
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
How shore are we that these elections are 'Free and Fair'?
I think they are generally considered to be free but not fair.
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.
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.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
This is the most confusing element of the whole operation. Before all this, there was some credibility to Putin's assertions about wanting to protect the rights of Russian speakers in Eastern Europe. But that does not exist any more. Ruskiy Mir now looks more like psychopathic poundland colonialism. Like some sort of terrifying wife beating uncle that everyone tries to avoid.
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
Umm there are loads of European countries where the Roman Catholic church doesn't dominate (and the Lutheran church is also not the established church).
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
Pretty much the whole of history and moral philosophy have passed you by, haven't they? Where do you think Lutherans and RCs stand on same sex marriages, and why do you expect a religious belief system to privilege "human rights" over divine ordinances?
Basic reading comprehension seems to entirely passed you by doesn't it?
Try pointing to something in my post that your reply has even a tiny bit of relevance to?
Like I said "every resident" my arse"
Every resident is entitled to all the services on offer.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your posts have been a real education to all of us, and I wonder if there's another thing to come out of this war: Russian speakers in places like Estonia are ashamed of the behavior of colinguists. Maybe Russia doesn't just create Ukrainian identity out of this, but solidify Estonian and the like.
I think it is distinct possibility. The "Ruskiy Mir" is essentially Fascist in principle, and in practice, and of course this is why so many educated Russians have fled since February 24th. Certainly the number of Russian speakers who identify as "Russian" has fallen a lot here.
Is there any pressure to come to the aid of Ukraine on the government? Much more of Bucha and I can see that demand in many countries, even this one.
Certainly not separate from NATO, and the Estonian government is doing as much as it can. On a per capita basis it is contributing 200 times more than the UK, and taking in more refugees as an absolute number.
I think there are three things to watch: the first is any move to overthrow Lukashenka in Belarus; the second the fate of Kadyrov in Chechnya, his loss would cripple Putin; and the third would be problems in the armed forces of Russia itself.
As far as the overall military position is concerned, at the moment the Russians are still advancing in the East and holding on in the South, but if the Ukrainians begin to push back then the situation could get very brittle quite quickly. The Russians are struggling to find troops as it is, and if the losses in the north are really in the 22,000+ range then the situation is very bad for them. More NATO kit for the Ukrainians could tip the balance to the point where Russia is simply unable to continue the fight. That could be a period of maximum danger for the West, but equally few governments survive that kind of defeat.
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.
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
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
No it doesn't. The PCC has the right to access it for the purpose of maintaining it as a place of worship for the community, but they don't own it. The freehold is held by the corporation sole in the person of the incumbent, but they hold it in qualified fee, i.e. they cannot sell or transfer title.
In the real world, of course, you are right, as was established in Camomile Street (1990) that the ownership is de facto vested in the parish which is administered on behalf of its parishioners by the PCC. However, the structure as it stands has definite implications for any change of ownership. As in, would make it extremely difficult.
What about Rolf's Two Little Boys as an anti-war song?
Not for me. Too sentimental and the overall message is ambiguous.
Rolf on small children? Really?
Yes I suppose there's that as well. But it wasn't known at the time. Got to number one, I think. Introduced on TOTP by ... well I don't know since we don't hear it now. Which is ok by me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Depends what the Crown in Parliament ordains dunnit.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Copy and paste from blackadder. Called a "low effort post" in the trade.
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
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.
Didn’t Pergamon Press translate and publish a lot of Soviet Bloc content? They were the Ceausescus’ English-language vanity publishers IIRC.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Comments
If only there was similar resolve in Germany.
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
“ oh how do you do, young willy mcbride
do you mind if i sit here down by your graveside
and rest for a while in the warm summer sun
i've been walking all day, and im nearly done
and i see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
when you joined the great fallen in 1916
well i hope you died quick
and i hope you died clean
oh willy mcbride, was is it slow and obscene
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest
and did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind
in some loyal heart is your memory enshrined
and though you died back in 1916
to that loyal heart you're forever nineteen
or are you a stranger without even a name
forever enshrined behind some old glass pane
in an old photograph torn, tattered, and stained
and faded to yellow in a brown leather frame
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest
the sun shining down on these green fields of france
the warm wind blows gently and the red poppies dance
the trenches have vanished long under the plow
no gas, no barbed wire, no guns firing down
but here in this graveyard that's still no mans land
the countless white crosses in mute witness stand
till' man's blind indifference to his fellow man
and a whole generation were butchered and damned
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest
and i can't help but wonder oh willy mcbride
do all those who lie here know why they died
did you really believe them when they told you the cause
did you really believe that this war would end wars
well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame
the killing and dying it was all done in vain
oh willy mcbride it all happened again
and again, and again, and again, and again
did they beat the drums slowly
did the play the fife lowly
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus
did the pipes play the flowers of the forest”
My youngest son came home today
His friends marched with him all the way
The pipes and drum beat out the time
While in his box of polished pine
Like dead meat on a butcher's tray
My youngest son came home today
My youngest son was a fine young man
With a wife, a daughter and two sons
A man he would have lived and died
Till by a bullet sanctified
Now he's a saint or so they say
They brought their young saint home today
Above the narrow Belfast streets
An Irish sky looks down and weeps
At children's blood in gutters spilled
In dreams of freedom unfulfilled
As part of freedom's price to pay
My youngest son came home today
My youngest son came home today
His friends marched with him all the way
The pipe and drum beat out the time
While in his box of polished pine
Like dead meat on a butcher's tray
My youngest son came home today
And this time he's home to stay
AA would be my choice if I were the Beeb.
Not for me. Too sentimental and the overall message is ambiguous.
Congratulations on your 50,000 posts!
Also rumours of 5% lead for Fidesz and 121/199 seats, we will see.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2005/4-november/news/uk/church-ownership-stays-uncertain
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
The bigoted anti-human rights C of E already excludes people from marrying on the basis of sexual orientation, so they can go to hell. "every resident" my arse
I was looking at the results from last time, the Diaspora' voted 96.24% for Orban. which would normally be considered overwhelming. by adding there votes he increased his vote% total form 47.36% to 49.27% which seems a big impact.
Russian tanks feared to be radioactive after passing close to Chernobyl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XMAiURcYXw
The opposition finally decided to combine forces but too late when the dice were totally loaded against them . For this reason the Tories must be removed from office at the next GE before they do even more damage to the country .
After their voter suppression legislation , attack on the right to protest , next will be human rights . Labour, Lib Dems , Greens must work together to remove this cesspit government .
"In September 2021, Russia has adopted a state technical standard for digging and maintaining mass graves amid wartime. It took effect on Feb 1st 2022."
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1510169194465271812
Currently the Church of England is a broad church encompassing Anglo Catholics, liberals, right through to evangelicals. End it as the established church and the Anglo Catholics would move back to Rome and the evangelicals to become Baptists, Pentecostals etc. The Roman Catholic v evangelical divide would dominate as it does in most of the rest of the Christian world, including Africa and Latin America, leaving the Anglican church as a minority liberal church.
If you think the Church of England is anti gay marriage and abortion, you wait until a resurgent Roman Catholic and Baptist churches use their energy to press their case in the political arena as they do in the USA for instance or Italy. They really are anti gay marriage and fervently anti abortion. The Church of England however at least allows gay clergy now. The Roman Catholics don't yet even allow women priests!
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.
Try pointing to something in my post that your reply has even a tiny bit of relevance to?
Like I said "every resident" my arse"
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
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.
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.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
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.
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.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/03/chris-mason-new-favourite-become-bbc-political-editor/
I think there are three things to watch: the first is any move to overthrow Lukashenka in Belarus; the second the fate of Kadyrov in Chechnya, his loss would cripple Putin; and the third would be problems in the armed forces of Russia itself.
As far as the overall military position is concerned, at the moment the Russians are still advancing in the East and holding on in the South, but if the Ukrainians begin to push back then the situation could get very brittle quite quickly. The Russians are struggling to find troops as it is, and if the losses in the north are really in the 22,000+ range then the situation is very bad for them. More NATO kit for the Ukrainians could tip the balance to the point where Russia is simply unable to continue the fight. That could be a period of maximum danger for the West, but equally few governments survive that kind of defeat.
More here if you're really interested:
https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ffdd147bb3/content/pages/documents/cba2f216182c55d5debfc9df787530d2255e0bbe.pdf
In the real world, of course, you are right, as was established in Camomile Street (1990) that the ownership is de facto vested in the parish which is administered on behalf of its parishioners by the PCC. However, the structure as it stands has definite implications for any change of ownership. As in, would make it extremely difficult.
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.
War’s a horrid thing
So I sing, sing, sing
Ding-a-ling a ling.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
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.
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.
I like some of the other possibles too but I'd go with her.
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.)