Sunday, October 11, 2009

Cherie Blair lies about Ian Paisley

One is always inclined to believe the worst of one's religio-political opponents. If they are renowned for their bigotry, it makes sense to keep the coals hot with a few apocryphal stories to justify one's own bigotry.

Cherie Blair has told a packed Town Hall at the Cheltenham Literature Festival: "From beginning to end Ian Paisley never shook my hand. His wife would but Ian Paisley wouldn't because I was Catholic. Of course, Tony wasn't (Catholic) at the time.."

And so, she says, Dr Paisley would regularly shake hands with Tony Blair because he was not (then) Roman Catholic, while she was perpetually snubbed because of her faith.

It is not clear what her motives may be for this outrageous lie. Playing to the audience in Cheltenham by stirring up some anti-Protestant feeling seems a little strange. Cranmer knows for a fact that Dr Paisley shakes hands quite regularly with Roman Catholics - be they constituents, ministers of religion or politicians - and does not manifest such petty discourtesies as Cherie Blair avers.

If Dr Paisley could bring himself to shake hands with Bertie Ahern (a Roman Catholic) and share a joke with Martin McGuinness, the former IRA chief-of-staff turned Sinn Fein peace-maker, then shaking hands with Cherie Blair would present him with no problems at all.

Perhaps she is simply saddened that she never got to venerate the great man.

Cranmer is delighted that the Paisleys have hit back via The Guardian. Quite what Mrs Blair believed she was accomplishing with this nonsense is a complete mystery.

55 Comments:

Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 October 2009 at 11:37  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Ian Paisley may have refrained from shaking hands with Mrs. Blair
for reasons other than religion.
Judging from the photograph who knows what the consequences could be of any physical contact at all!
Clicking of the heels and a slight bow might be a safer option.

11 October 2009 at 11:48  
Blogger lemin said...

Your Grace, you missed an equally important matter in the reporting from the Guardian:

"During her speech to the literary festival Blair switched targets from Ian Paisley to the Catholic hierarchy. Although a devout Catholic she questioned the Catholic Church's position on abortion."

devout Catholic indeed...

The QC said there was "a difference between preventing a life and destroying a life" that its leaders should recognise."

her 'moral compass' is just as dodgy as Brown's - perhaps that should be of no surprise - because the only religion that these delusional characters uphold is Marxism.

I had harboured a hope, that when the Pope accepted Tony Blair into our midst, his Holiness had in mind 'a cunning plan' ie - he could set a global example to other politicians by being in a position to formally excommunicate him. if the Blairs go on like this, i presume it will not be too long before my hopes will be vindicated.

As it is, to true Catholics, Blair's conversion is an embarrassment and a liability.

11 October 2009 at 12:08  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Maybe Rev. Paisley didn't press skin with her because he mistook her for a letterbox? An easy mistake to make.

As for the unflattering photo Your Grace conjured up - the expression is reminiscent of a dead goldfish. Who'd want to shake hands with that?

11 October 2009 at 12:19  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

I understand your plight lemin
about being mortified with embarrassment at the Blairs but
the Pope's 'cunning plan' is pure fantasy on your part. He will never be excommunicated or even
rapped over the knuckles ..too
valuable politically, at the moment at least.The true Catholics are all inhabiting the bottom rung of the ladder and will just have to cope with favours for the influential as they have done for thousand of years.Not Christianity as I understand it!

11 October 2009 at 12:23  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Tut, tut, Cranny.

The fact that you are really a 21st-century man is betrayed by your shocking misuse of the apostrophe, as follows:

'Cranmer is delighted that the Paisley's have hit back...'

How the mighty have fallen.

11 October 2009 at 12:24  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Anabaptist,what an arid and boring existence you must lead to bother with such trivialities.

11 October 2009 at 12:38  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Anabaptist,

Quite right, and corrected. His Grace was a little pressed for time this morning.

11 October 2009 at 12:42  
Blogger lemin said...

Sydneysider - i was being tongue in cheek about the Pontiff's 'cunning plan' - still if the Blairs keeps spouting one heresy after another, Benedict might be left with little choice though as you say i sincerely doubt it.

it is not so bad for a Christian to be at the bottom rung of the ladder, after all isn't it written that the 'meek shall inherit the earth' and that "the gates of heaven are narrow" etc etc..

keep well

11 October 2009 at 13:02  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 October 2009 at 13:02  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Sydneysider, what kind if life must you lead, if you can find the time, energy or interest to comment on my boring trivialities.

11 October 2009 at 13:12  
Anonymous Mea culpa said...

Your Grace, I hope you will forgive me for this extremely catty comment: maybe he wouldn't shake hands with her because she gave him the creeps. She does me ... I wouldn't shake hands, wouldn't even want to stand next to her, and if she spoke to me I'd want to go and wash thoroughly before having a quiet lie down in a darkened room to recover.

11 October 2009 at 13:13  
Blogger The Lakelander said...

Gnostic: an easy mistake to make. I keep seeing post boxes that look exactly like Cherie.

I wouldn't blame Dr Paisley for not shaking hands with Cherie. He was probably playing safe and keeping both hands on his wallet.

11 October 2009 at 13:15  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

I wish you would use another name.The real Mackenzie has wit and intellect. You have neither!

11 October 2009 at 13:16  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 October 2009 at 13:22  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Of course you failed to notice that Paisley never shook hands with McGuinness and of course if you looked a bit closer you would see that he has some very particular views about who he should and shouldn't shake hands with.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/7286100.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/7286100.stm


But of course you would rather take the opportunity of calling Cherie Blair a liar without having proper evidence. A Christian or a man with a shred of decency would apologise - but I'm not holding my breath.

11 October 2009 at 13:25  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 October 2009 at 13:27  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

See also

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ian-paisley-to-avoid-symbolic-parting-handshake-837042.html

11 October 2009 at 13:27  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tory Boys Never Grow Up,

Refusing to shake hands with terrorists would seem to be a wholly justifiable expression. There is no apology to be offered because none is due.

But you purposely omit the point of the post. Cherie Blair specifically accuses Dr Paisley of refusing to shake her hand because she is Roman Catholic. Since Mrs Blair is not a terrorist (reformed or otherwise), he would have had no problem shaking her hand. There would have been no 'symbolism' in it.

11 October 2009 at 13:43  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

@ the imposter McKenzie
This obsession with Australian pricks must stop.Try to elevate what's left of your mind.I suggest reading a book with a few big words.

11 October 2009 at 13:44  
Blogger Don't Call Me Dave said...

I wonder who taught Cherie Bliar to lie?

11 October 2009 at 13:53  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why should he shake hands with Cherie Blair ? She has no official function beyond using Downing Street as her lawyer's chambers.

That Dr Paisley did not accord her official status is quite right; that she seeks to vilify Protestants is symptomatic of her state of mental health.

Once the reign of darkness ends the real truth of the Blair-Brown Years will spill forth into the media including the role of ady Macbeth after the demise of John Smith

11 October 2009 at 13:56  
Anonymous Philip said...

Mrs Blair does seems to have it in for those who hold Christian values on things like abortion - including the RC leadership.

If the Constitution ("Lisbon") is ratified, this woman could become our First Lady of the EU State we find ourselves in.

11 October 2009 at 14:32  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

She is part of Labour and that equate to lies, lies ,lies.

I am totaly with you on this one

11 October 2009 at 14:35  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 October 2009 at 14:42  
Anonymous One Flew Over The Cuckooboro's Nest said...

It must all be a huge misunderstanding.

Oooowhoooo ooohwhooo ooohwhoooo! Yack yack yack yack yack ooowhooo ohwhoooo

11 October 2009 at 15:16  
Anonymous LurkingBlackHat said...

Cherry Blair QC found to be lying again.

I am shock, shocked I say.

11 October 2009 at 15:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace.

It is not unknown for wives of ex presidents/prime ministers to make these strange outbursts of flagrant untruths.

The most violent and powerful nation on Earth, which has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has serving in its government, in the office of 67th Secretary of State, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, who made the most bizzar claim that she had landed in Bosnia 'under heavy fire'. when in fact nothing could have been further from the truth.

11 October 2009 at 16:00  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

The cuckooboro nest thing is funny! You're much better when you're on a bender McKenzie .Sobriety makes you too liverish!

11 October 2009 at 16:20  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 October 2009 at 16:31  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

This excessive crippling display of modesty is most unconvincing
McKenzie.Your uncharacteristic poetic response makes me nervous...
the next thing I know you'll want to kiss and make up...and I'm drawing the line on that one!So let's shake hands and put an end to
this skirmish until our next punch up!

11 October 2009 at 16:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paisley did not shake hands with Ahern until April 2008 having refused to do so until there was peace in Northern Ireland. It is quite likely that he did not have any contact with Cherie Blair after that date.

11 October 2009 at 17:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I meant April 2007 - but the point still stands

11 October 2009 at 17:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tut, tut, Cranny.

The fact that you are really a 21st-century man is betrayed by your shocking misuse of the apostrophe, as follows:

'Cranmer is delighted that the Paisley's have hit back...'

How the mighty have fallen."

Execrable Anabaptist! No wonder thy sect standest condemned in His Grace's 39 Article's. Surely thou knowest that the so-yclept 'rule's' of Orthographie and punctuation were exceedinge fluid in the XIVth Centurie; as any Folio of the Bard displayeth divers style's.
Fie on't!

11 October 2009 at 19:05  
Anonymous woman on a raft said...

Given that she was at the Cheltenham Literature Festival and has an autobiography out, I should say she was telling any old story which would help shift copies.

Next she'll be carrying on about how she and John Lennon were an item in the Cavern Club days, but she couldn't go to Hamburg as she had to write the European Declaration of Human Rights single-handed because nobody else had the faintest idea of what to put down.

Is Your Grace sure that isn't Heather McCartney Mills in the picture?

11 October 2009 at 19:12  
Blogger Death Bredon said...

No doubt that Mr Paisley was giving Mrs Blair the benefit of the doubt -- a gentleman does not "shake hands" with a lady.

11 October 2009 at 19:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it about time something new happened like aliens making first contact or something? Everything seems to be getting so repetitive. Can't you have a word Your Grace? Maybe this is why we only live for 70 odd years or so.

I mean what has Cherie Blair got to say to the Cheltanham Literature Festival? There again if you want a bit of fantasy fiction then who else better than her? Maybe it was just a Hilary moment of desperation. Sometimes when you have three or four different ideas fighting in your head, it all comes out wrong.

I remember this one particular moment in my life when I said something completely out of sync with what I was thinking. I was about 19 at the time and with a head full of, well, nonsense really. Anyway I was daydreaming in work, and this woman was talking to me. I was paying zero attention to what she was saying but at the same time I was making random acknowledgements. Anyway, it turns out she was telling me about some bloke who she thought was odd or something, and I was agreeing it seems, even though I had no idea who or what she was rambling on about. Suddenly she focused my attention and said "how do you mean". I was put on the spot immediately, and the emergency chemicals somehow produced fragments of the conversation in my mind ready for me to reply. The trouble is that I had already been digging my self in deep by agreeing that this bloke was weird, and now I had to produce some kind of supporting statement. And that's when it happened. I made up this complete fabrication on the spot about how this bloke is weird because he lurks around places. I couldn't believe I was saying it. Even to this day it amazes me. It was a lesson to me about the nature of one's own mind and the dangers of day dreaming, slipping out of vigilance. To think that there was some bloke in the world who I have no idea about, and that I could have started a chain reaction of doom!

There is a bible quote somewhere that says we should watch our tongue or something. God this is true! It is not beyond the realms of impossibility to say something without the full volition of your own cognitive functions playing their usual part.

He who is without sin cast the first stone! This story kind of puts me in a glass house, so to speak, so I can slightly appreciate that she may have looked across that town hall and drifted off into a sea of dull uninspiring waffle, and suddenly found herself in need of some kind of supporting statement...and Bam! it just popped out like a fart in a taxi cab.

11 October 2009 at 19:55  
Blogger Iain said...

I wouldn't want to shake your hand either, dear, and it's nothing to do with you being a catholic.

11 October 2009 at 20:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Captain, a vessel was nearly decloaking off the port bow!

What colour was it?

Well, it looked, sort of, well, p, no I don't know!

11 October 2009 at 20:57  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

That Bliar woman; wasn't it she who invented the internet?

11 October 2009 at 20:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

I'd like to shake her firmly by the throat.

11 October 2009 at 20:58  
Blogger David Vance said...

Archbishop Cranmer,

I do enjoy your musings and think they frequently show excellent insight however I feel that to suggest Martin McGuinness is "Former IRA Chief of Staff turned Peace Maker" ignores a more fundamental truth - namely the many murders the IRA carried out whilst McGuinness was a leading light. Consider the atrocity at the cenotaph at Enniskillen. What role, one wonders, did the Butcher Boy play in that? How many innocents in Londonderry were slaughered either by or on the command of the Butcher Boy? Has he shown repentence? Has he provided the police with details of those involved? No. He is a monster with blood on his hands and that Paisley embraced him showed his own apostasy. At one point, I understand heretics were burned.

11 October 2009 at 22:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have been listening too much to the BBC! They are biased don't you know?

11 October 2009 at 23:17  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

coming late to this post I see that your communicants have made all the best jokes.

So I will refer to a point raised by lemin earlier.

'During her speech to the literary festival Blair switched targets from Ian Paisley to the Catholic hierarchy. Although a devout Catholic she questioned the Catholic Church's position on abortion.

The QC said there was "a difference between preventing a life and destroying a life" that its leaders should recognise'.


When I read this, it was clear to me that she was distinguishing between contraception and abortion, and questioning the Church's view on contraception. It could be that the Guardian has put the spin on it to say that she was questioning the Catholic Church's position on abortion.

Remember she is one who claimed to carry around her 'contraceptive equipment' (sounds like a howitzer but maybe it's just strong garlic)

11 October 2009 at 23:28  
Anonymous John Knox said...

It once used to be common courtesy that a man should not take the initiative to give a handshake to a lady.

It may well be that Mr Smith did not shake Mrs Blair's hand on occasion for reasons of courtesy and didn't think twice about it.

11 October 2009 at 23:49  
Anonymous Ron Todd said...

Not that I agree with her politics

But am I the only person that fancies her just a little?

12 October 2009 at 06:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron Tiodd - you and Kermit.

12 October 2009 at 07:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron Todd

That's not even remotely funny?

I see the government are having a car boot sale with the nation's assets. How much to do the Queen?

12 October 2009 at 08:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Brown will not sell any assets from north of the border I hope you notice. As for Mr Paisely, I have listened to his debates with Rc'ers and in every one I have heard his argument has proved the best but he is a man whom will shake hands with RC'ers and even invite them to his home for tea, he is a jolly decent bloke but gets a bad press for his 'whatthe world terms' outspoken views. a great man in my opinion and I have great respect for him, if onloy the CE had a paisley instead of a bunch of compromisers.

12 October 2009 at 10:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't worry about Cherie telling lies against Paisley cos Paisley has told plenty of porkies himself about never sharing power with the IRA.In fact I thought that Cherie and the Paisleys would be great friends given Ian's lauding of Dana's (sang for the Pope Fame)faith, and his discussions on matters of faith with Tony,swapping theological books etc with him.Paisley only believes on himself and anyone who massages his big ego is his friend.If that's a decent person then I'm the Pope of Rome.

12 October 2009 at 11:20  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

It might do Slotmouth some spiritual good to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

Her biggest personal problem is a lack of humility - something everyone is a better human being for possessing. She takes after her husband (or vice-versa?)

12 October 2009 at 11:32  
Blogger Owl said...

I remember 1969 rather well and Paisley's rants against the civil rights marches. I could well imagine that he was the major cause of the return of the IRA. At that time the RCs in NI had no protection against the house burners and some group had the fill the vacuum. I wouldn't like to shake the hand of Mrs Blair or Paisley. Mind you, on a good note, I think Paisley is slightly less hated than Cromwell in Ireland but not by much.

12 October 2009 at 16:41  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

'Cherie Blair lies about Paisley'?


Cherie Blair lies about everything - as we have all seen.

12 October 2009 at 17:13  
Anonymous southwood said...

Good on ye, your grace. Cherie Blair. Not exactly a dignitary.

12 October 2009 at 20:27  
Anonymous William said...

Perhaps the Big Man should have shaken her hand, I'm sure she would have only suffered a minor fracture.

My one personal encounter with the Big Man was on my wedding day in the 1970s. He had come into our reception by mistake - he was attending another wedding. He approached me, shook me by the hand and said "Congratulations!" He didn't shake my wife's hand.

Perhaps he is of the generation that doesn't consider it proper for a man to shake a lady's (or even Cheri's) hand.

BTW, he would have had no way of knowing whether I was a Protestant or Roman Catholic.

15 October 2009 at 12:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older