Wednesday, August 24, 2011

If Andy Coulson was a 'double agent', so is Chris Patten

With a revolution of 'martydom or victory' going on in Libya (not forgetting Tunisia and Egypt); civil war raging in Syria; and eurogeddon still in full swing, it beggars belief that the mainstream media is obsessing about what News International paid to Andy Coulson in 2007, after he had become David Cameron's director of communications. One might expect it from Socialists and the left-leaning press, but even The Spectator alleges incompetence on behalf of CCHQ. His Grace inclines towards the view of David Hughes in The Telegraph: 'The hysteria over Andy Coulson is getting out of hand.'

Robert Peston (BBC) broke the story (which some already knew) that Mr Coulson continued to receive money as part of a 'severance package'. His Grace has done a bit of fishing around on this, and such arrangements are not at all unusual under 'compromise agreements': the reasons may relate to taxation, or some clause to stagger payments to ensure the compromise conditions are met. So the issue appears to be that Mr Coulson was apparently serving two masters - in the words of John Prescott, he was a 'double agent being paid by the Tories & Murdoch'.

If that is the principal objection - or perception - how can Lord Patten simultaneously be Chairman of the BBC Trust and in receipt of an EU pension? He readily gave up jobs (with the Global Leadership Foundation, the International Crisis Group and Medical Aid to Palestine) which might have been perceived as a conflict of interests, but his EU pension of around £100,000 per annum continues to be paid.

Lord Patten's pension is conditional upon him doing nothing to harm the interests of the European Union. According to Article 213 of the Treaty establishing the European Community:
The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties.

In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.
Yet the Chairman of the BBC Trust is obliged to be politically impartial (indeed, Lord Patten has relinquished his membership of the Conservative Party). The Trust is tasked with monitoring and holding the Executive Board to account for the BBC’s compliance with the BBC Editorial Guidelines and other relevant codes and guidelines. Further:
The Trust will require the Executive Board to draw up and submit for approval Election Guidelines and Referendum Guidelines. Election Guidelines will include a code of practice for elections regarding the participation of candidates in items about the electoral area during the election period. Referendum Guidelines give editorial guidance in relation to coverage of referendum campaigns. The Trust will review and, when it is satisfied, approve the Guidelines, which may be subject to public consultation.
The BBC already manifests considerable pro-EU bias, but Lord Patten is perceptibly unable to address this lest he be accused of acting against the interests of the Union.

Now, Lord Patten may be an honorable man. But, as Lord Prescott has pointed out, there is the perception of a conflict - of being a 'double agent'.

Why, pray, is the media kicking up such a fuss over payments to Andy Coulson from 2007, but not batting an eyelid over the hundreds of thousands of pieces of silver still being paid to keep the state broadcaster in thrall to the EU?


Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Beautifully argued, Your Grace. He hasn’t a leg to stand on.

24 August 2011 at 11:56  
Blogger Span Ows said...

...and if he had it's just been chopped off.

24 August 2011 at 12:17  
Blogger Joshua Falken said...

Just because you receive a pension from an organisation does not mean you have any obligation to support or promote their views and interests.

I have a pension with a Tier 1 bank, but that does not stop me from campaigning to stop them ripping us all off.

24 August 2011 at 16:14  
Blogger MethodistCouncilWatcher said...

Does Chris Pattern really hold that much power within the BBC? Is he Head of News? (No), is he head of a channel (no), yes he chairs the quasi independant board that acts but he is only one voice among many.

I'm afraid what I thought would be a good post turns into a cheap political point with little substance unless I've missed the evidence that he has interfered in the running of the BBC to ensure he doesn't run counter to the clause you have highlighted...

24 August 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Because Patten is a traitor and really good religious believer.
Mustn't be NASTY to christians, like Camoron or Tny B Liar, after all ....

24 August 2011 at 17:09  
Blogger Popeye said...

Joshua Falken seems to compare the edicts of Brussels with his bank. Without appearing too pompous Sir, I must remind you that there is no other existing organisation that I know of with the despotic power of the EU. Is the Fat Controller going to jeopardise his excessive pension by rocking the boat?
If he had any honour, even a smidgen, he would resign.

24 August 2011 at 17:12  
Blogger Span Ows said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 August 2011 at 17:18  
Blogger Span Ows said...

@MethodistCouncilWatcher, did Coulson really hold that much power within the government? Was he the prime Minister? (No), was he head of a ministry (no), yes he was an adviser that acts but he is only one voice among many.

I'm afraid what I thought would be a good comment turns into a cheap quasi rebuttal with little substance unless I've missed the evidence that he has interfered in the running of the Government to ensure it doesn't run counter to the wants of Murdoch...

24 August 2011 at 17:20  
Blogger Tanfield said...

Popeye@ 17.12 - absolutely correct Sir. Patten must not only be "clean" but must clearly be seen to be "clean"
Clearly he is not.

24 August 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 August 2011 at 18:19  
Blogger Hereward said...

Given the continuing abject surrender of power to Brussels maybe there is still a double agent working in number 10.

24 August 2011 at 18:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

Chris Patten is indeed an honourable man. The highest accolade the Inspector General can give a public figure.

What is less honourable is G Tingey’s post (24 August 2011 17:09). Really sir, you come across as a ‘Father Jack’ figure. Perhaps you too are a retired priest, disillusioned with his life’s work and embittered against God...

24 August 2011 at 18:25  
Blogger len said...

Perhaps there is a conflict of interests here(Lord Patton serving two masters)or could it be three if you include Mammon?

24 August 2011 at 19:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer said ...
"The BBC already manifests considerable pro-EU bias, but Lord Patten is perceptibly unable to address this lest he be accused of acting against the interests of the Union."


If this can be evidenced, rather than merely bandied about with alactrity, to borrow a phrase, he would be entitled to seek to achieve impartiality.

24 August 2011 at 19:24  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Are you being purposely obtuse? There are numerous sources evidencing BBC bias in the matter of the EU (even in its own internal investigation). If you had bothered to Google before pompously and patronisingly declaring 'Really?', you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself. Here are just two sources:

And as for 'bandying about with alacrity', over the past few days you have now admitted calling no fewer than four people a 'bigot'. If His Grace were to include himself, it is five. It is unreasoned ad hominem, emanating from fear of the other, which is, by your own definition, bigotry.

And as for the CofE not being a 'proper church' - that was the declaration of the present Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger. Is he a bigot? Or perhaps the question is fatuous, for he will, of course, have reasoned perfectly to your satisfaction.

24 August 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger Alex said...

I think you will find Mr Mandelson was in receipt of similar European largesse, being paid £234,000 in transitional payments by the EU whilst in post as a UK minister.

The money was paid as a sweetener by the EU because his ministerial salary was less than he was paid as an EU trade commissioner.

24 August 2011 at 20:49  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Thank you for the references.

The Timesonline is interesting, though I note it is 6 years old.

The 'Bias Panel' " ... clear(ed) the BBC of deliberately trying to bend its coverage in favour of the EU ... it said that there was substance to the concern that the BBC “suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentionial bias...”"

Not overwhelming evidence but I grant you worrying none the less and sufficient for Mr Patton to address if he hasn'talready done so,without risking his EU pension.

Point of correction - I have admitted referring to Mr len and Mr Johnny Rottenborough as 'bigots'. English Viking and I are past all that. And why count yourself? Our 'misunderstanding' was some time ago now.

It's a bit naughty attributing comments of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope to me!

24 August 2011 at 22:16  
Blogger non mouse said...

Is not His Grace "Doctor Cranmer"?

24 August 2011 at 22:27  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Why can you not restrict yourself to a coherent discussion in one thread?

His Grace has addressed the comments you insist he attributed to you in another thread. Your inference was simply unfounded and wrong.

On bandying bigotry around with alacrity:

Over recent days you have called Mr Len, Mr ALLforJesus, Mr Johnny Rottenborough and Mr Hilton bigots. You have also referred to Mr English Viking and His Grace as bigots. It is interesting that you place 'misunderstanding' in inverted commas. Yes, you bandy the term around with alacrity, which may itself be adduced as evidence of bigotry.

24 August 2011 at 22:32  
Blogger Gavin said...

No, Dodo, it's a bit silly of you to effectively say "Cardinal R. was only a Cardinal when he made that statement, it's not like he was high up in the Church or anything". His comment about non-RC denominations not being "true churches" was made while he was a Cardinal, and that's quite high up in RC hierarchy, and his comment deserves to be fully debated and questioned. It is totally legitimate for anyone to ask what did he mean, how does he define the true church, etc.

24 August 2011 at 22:33  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Yes, Mr Non Mouse, His Grace is indeed 'Dr', but Mr Dodo prefers 'Mr'. His Grace has no problem with that.

24 August 2011 at 22:34  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gavin,

His Grace deeply appreciates your interjection, but Mr Dodo has just rebuked another communicant for interfering in a 'private' conversation. His Grace has no problem, but Mr Dodo clearly does. Please be sensitive.

24 August 2011 at 22:37  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Bigoted: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions

I’d like to make clear that I am not prejudiced against The Way of the Dodo. I respect his right to be a pompous fart and it does not sway my opinion of his views.

24 August 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger Gavin said...

Ooops, I am sorry, Your Grace. My above comment sort of "crossed in the post" with yours. I didn't mean to interfere. Sorry about that.

24 August 2011 at 22:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer
Actually, I did not call Mr Hilton a bigot. Re-read my post where I said his views bordered on bigotry.

Past references to English Viking I think have no need of being defended. Latterly, communication between he and I was past taking insults personally. As for you, well you recall I apologised and withdrew the allegation you were prejudiced and anti-Catholic.

I agree with you. The point being he was not the Pope at the time and was not speaking authoratively on behalf of the Church. It would be an interesting discussion; want to start the ball rolling on it?

24 August 2011 at 22:50  
Blogger Gavin said...

It would indeed be an interesting discussion, Mr Dodo. But this comment thread is not a free-for-all, for us to have our private theological conversations. This is +Cranmer's blog, and we should try and keep to the topics he raises. However, if +Cranmer will allow us to go off-topic, then I'll try and debate this with you, insofar as our bloghost allows it. It's his website, we must stick to his terms.

24 August 2011 at 23:05  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Are you seriously drawing a distinction between those you accuse of bigotry and those you say 'border or bigotry'?

For the record, you said: "On reflection, I think Hilton's concerns about Catholicism, based on a 500 year old fear of Rome, is potential bigotry."

It is the same insult, albeit qualified, which corroborates that you bandy the term about with alacrity. How many is that you say are bigots or 'bordering' on it or 'potentially' manifest it? Five? Six? Please, just stop the ad hominem insults, and reason.

And you have not yet explained why a Cardinal/Pope who is of the view that the CofE is not a 'proper church' is not a bigot, for doubtless you would aver that an Anglican who said that of Rome would certainly be bordering on being one.

24 August 2011 at 23:10  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Johnny Rottenborough

I think you'll find 'Wiki', as ever, gives a tame definition of bigotry. We all have prejudices in one shape or form we cling to. Refusing to be open to another view point and expressing such prejudices through intolerance and hatred takes this to a different level.

I count myself amongst those with certain convictions and prejuduces. I can only hope I do not repeatedly fall into those who display intolerance and hatred.

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." (The Free Dictionary)

"A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." (Meridian Webster)

24 August 2011 at 23:17  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

The explanation, as I'm sure you know, has always been Catholic doctrine. Benedict reaffirmed this.

The line of reasoning:

“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles."

That's the Roman Catholic position and always has been. Apostolic authority given to Peter, passed to each of his successors and onto Bishops and Priests.

It doesn't rule out friendship, fellowship and worshipping together between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.

25 August 2011 at 00:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer
You would be the 'b-word' if you argued Catholicism was not a proper church but that Catholics were scheming on world domination, under the rule of Satan and had to be stopped.

I think Mr Cranmer has made this subject 'on topic'.

25 August 2011 at 00:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

I'm disinclined to 'diss' the Dodo today. I was rather rude to him yesterday, but not having read his reply, if any, I'm inclined to take a more magnanimous view.

I would also like to issue a formal apology, at least in part, for calling him ''dim'' - whatever his particular problem, he is most certainly not 'dim'.

Naturally, I am aware that there are many dim people in this world, but many still manage to hold sensible, reasoned opinions. To such people, I offer my humble apologies.

25 August 2011 at 02:39  
Blogger Gnostic said...

There are any number of EUSSR spies in the Cameron camp and the real Fat Controller is none other than Kenny Clarke himself. The difference between Clarke and Patten is that Clarke is apparently selling himself more cheaply and is in a position to inflict greater damage.

How many Euroseptics are sitting on the front bench? I mean honest to goodness ones, not the political travesties who pay lip service for the sake of expediency, the media and future votes.

25 August 2011 at 07:09  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace (@22:34) is most gracious.

25 August 2011 at 08:01  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

The Church of England, as perhaps you do not know, has always been Catholic, but incorporates Reformed doctrine. This is the belief which has been reaffirmed by successive archbishops of Canterbury.

The line of reasoning:

“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,”... When the Church in England split from Rome in the 16th century, the Church of England retained the episcopal polity and apostolic succession. She did not cease being a 'proper church', and repudiates the authority of the man who presumes to speak infallibly to the contrary. This was plainly (and politely) reaffirmed by ++Rowan during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the UK last year.

That is the Anglican belief.

So, the Church of England does adhere to the apostolic succession — the ability (you kindly remind His Grace) to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.

That's the Catholic and Reformed position and always has been. Apostolic authority given to Peter, passed to each of his successors and onto Bishops and Priests.

It doesn't rule out friendship, fellowship and worshipping together between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and all the other groups.

25 August 2011 at 09:08  
Blogger Hereward said...

Euroscepticism is in short supply in government. Remember how power was going to be repatriated from Brussels? Which way did power go?

European External Action Service created July 2010.
EU arrest warrant extended with UK signing up to European Investigation Order July 2010.
EU handed control over the City.
EU given powers to oversee UK budget process, and UK fiscal policy becomes an area of EU competence.
EU budget increased to the detriment of UK economy.
And then there is the referendum lock that appears to be minus a key.

Nothing will be done to rock the EU boat but it is taking on water through its own incompetence and overarching arrogance.

25 August 2011 at 09:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Thank you for the clarification of the Church of England's position.

This issue of Apostoplic succesion is complex concerning canon law and changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI and more recent developments.

The disagreement between Rome and Canterbury centres on whether amendments to Holy Orders at the time of Edward invalidate the Anglican priesthood. The intention behind the substitution of wording, notably a lack of reference to the power of offering the Body and Blood of Christ, has, according to succeeding Popes, not just Benedict, rendered the Anglican rites invalid.

The Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission has been wrestling with this and many issues for in excess of 50 years.

The Commission was suspended in 2003 by Pope John Paul II owing to the consecration of a homosexual man in a non-celibate relationship, as a bishop in the Episcopal Church in the United States. The ordination of women, especially to the episcopacy, has repeatedly been questioned by the Roman Catholic Church leadership. Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the ordination of women "signified a breaking away from apostolic tradition and a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England." He also referred to warring parties within Anglicanism as an "unspoken institutionalism" of an "existing schism."

As we both state all this should not " ... rule out friendship, fellowship and worshipping together between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and all the other groups."

25 August 2011 at 11:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Instead of giving His Grace a history lesson - with the content of which, believe him, he is fully conversant - why do you not answer the question?

If someone (like Mr Len) were to say that the Roman Catholic Church is not a true church - it is a fraud, anti-Christ, or whatever - they would, by your reasoning be a bigot.

Yet when the Pope (or a senior Cardinal) says the Church of England is not a proper church - it is deficient; its formularies are null and void; it is a fraud, a facade (ie anti-Christ) - you quote a self-referencing authority.

You observe: "this should not '...rule out friendship, fellowship and worshipping together between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and all the other groups'." It is the Church of Rome which forbids Anglicans to take communion in your church: Roman Catholics are welcome to participate fully in the Church of England. But your constant refrain of 'bigot' (now to six people, some of them Christians) is not very friendly, is it? It is not conducive to fellowship, is it? It does not accord with the Lord's exhortation to love one's neighbour, does it? It is not very patient or kind, is it? It is hardly a manifestation of the Pauline exhortation to nurture those who are somehow 'weak' in their faith, is it?

The Church of England ordains ministers and appoints its bishops in accordance with the orthodoxy of apostolic succession. Whatever you or the Pope may say or think, it is a Catholic church. A few homosexuals or women in ministry do not alter that fact, any more than the myriad of divergent beliefs within your denomination, or the depravities of the Borgias and others who have occupied the See of Rome, alter your belief about the continuity of the apostolic succession.

25 August 2011 at 13:03  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 August 2011 at 13:34  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

‘Man with No Name’ is a real misnomer. I’ve lost count of his identities.

25 August 2011 at 13:52  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

I'm not sure why you want to keep this going or what outcome you are hoping to achieve.

If it helps, I accept my use of the term 'bigot' has, on occassions, been inappropriate although I'm not sure your calculations are accurate. I will, as you ask, endeavour to "stop the ad hominem insults, and reason."

However Mr Len's critque of Roman Catholicism (and all organised churchs, including your own) goes further than a mere doctrinal critque. Mr English Viking's abusive and derogatory comments we need not dwell on. So far as Mr ALLfor Jesus' attack on Islamic countries, mirrored to a great extent by Mr Rottenborough, I would be interested in learning your opinion about these. Intolerant? Hateful? Erudite? Reasoned?

The Pope, nor any senior Catholic official that I am aware of, attributes malign intent to the Church of England in saying it is not a "proper church". It acknowledges legitimate Apostolic succession within the Orthodox Church but calls this communion "defective". What would you have the Pope do? Act as a politician in these matters or speak the truth with the authority passed to him through Christ and St Peter?

The position of the Catholic Church is not about a "few homosexuals or women in ministry" but about the very nature of Holy Orders and especially the place of the celebrant, acting in the place of Christ, during the Roman Catholic Mass. As you know this was the significant change during Edward VI's time and the rift has deepened further by the ordination of women. This is why Roman Catholics and Anglicans cannot share communion - we do not agree on the nature of the bread and wine.

Divergent beliefs within the Church are to be expected and when these become destructive are addressed by the Pope or by Councils of the Church. The depravities of individual Popes brings shame and scandal to the Church but does not render Apostolic succession null and void nor undermine Roman Catholic doctrines.

25 August 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"I'm not sure why you want to keep this going or what outcome you are hoping to achieve."

Mr Dodo,

It is you who ask questions, then tell others that you await His Grace's reply while rebuking their interjections. And here you are now complaining that it is His Grace who 'wants to keep this going'. This is irrational behaviour.

And yes, it is now six people you have called either 'bigot' or 'potential bigot', which amounts to the same insult.

And His Grace notices, once again, that you do not answer his question, instead preferring to introduce 'evil' into the discourse, which is another moral dimension altogether.

25 August 2011 at 14:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

But you haven't answered my question about the extreme anti-Islam comments on your blog.

What specific questions of yours have I not answered? I thought I had clarified my position on the nature of Holy Orders within Anglicanism, the root being the change in Holy Orders centuries ago and the divide over "communion" i.e. the nature of the the bread and wine consecrated, blessed and broken at Mass.

I accept that for Mr Len to say the Roman Catholic Church, along with all organised Christian churches, is not a "proper church" is not bigotry. But he doesn't stop there, now does he?

Similarly, when Rome says the Church of England is not a "proper church" this is not bigotry. It is a line of theological reasoning based on centuries of Christian orthodoxy predating the English Reformation. Bendedict didn't turn to Williams during his visit and say "Your church is the anti-Christ leading its followers to hell." Now that would qualify as unhelpful, unfriendly and unloving.

Yes, I agree, some of my more hasty comments are not in tune in with the teachings of Christ nor the Apostle Paul. But then I make no claim to be a saint or an ordained minister.

I hope this now answers all your questions and that you feel able to respond to mine.

25 August 2011 at 16:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

I take it our conversation is concluded, that I have answered your questions to your satisfaction and that you have chosen not to answer mine.

26 August 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

On 25 August at 14.17, you complained to His Grace:

"I'm not sure why you want to keep this going or what outcome you are hoping to achieve."

It is you who concluded the conversation, for His Grace has no desire to 'keep this going' when some ulterior / sinister / evil / bigoted / prejudiced motive is imputed to him. With regard to any posts from other communicants by which you infer 'bigotry', His Grace refers you to his 'Bottom Line' in the right-hand column.

26 August 2011 at 13:28  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

You see, even you allow yourself to be drawn into a slanging match with Dodo, although you express yourself with far more civility than I. I shall attempt to follow your example.

Dr of what, may I enquire? Theology?


I am a bigot. I make no secret of preferring those of the same opinions, race, religion, colour, culture, etc. I am intolerant of cults and whacky religious nuts. Catholics come second only to muslims on the sliding scale of heresy/false religion/idolatry as far as I am concerned. Calling me a bigot has the same effect as calling me a racist - none.


'Pompous fart'. I like that one, very funny.

26 August 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

EV—I tried to resist but the temptation was too great.

26 August 2011 at 14:28  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Pray tell when I imputed "some ulterior / sinister / evil / bigoted / prejudiced motive" to you? I simply enquired where we were heading in our discussion. Your answer was perfectly clear and I attempted to answer your questions.

I note the content of your bottom line and can only assume the 'b-word' is regarded by you as either gratuitously offensive, irritating, unintelligent, not sufficiently erudite or a combination of all these.

26 August 2011 at 14:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

Honest of you to define yourself as bigotted and proud.

From my point of view, you are either without "mental capacity" to see the world as it is or wilfully "deaf and blind" to what is going on around you. You appear to be living in a self constructed world of demons and dragons with the idea you have been called to single handedly slay them.

Good luck on your quest and welcome back. You've been missed. No doubt our paths will cross and I hope in future we can at least be civil to one another.

26 August 2011 at 14:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Johnny Rottenborough

By your own words weak willed as well as gratutiously offensive. Still, what more can one expect?

26 August 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Way of the Dodo (14:57)—Those who throw mud can hardly complain when it is returned. BTW, have you ever stopped to wonder what kind of advertisement you are for Christianity?

26 August 2011 at 15:19  
Blogger English Viking said...


I shall attempt to remain civil at all times.

26 August 2011 at 16:36  
Blogger len said...

I think I might have mentioned this before but;
Satan attempts to draw Christians into the realm of the'flesh'Why? because in this realm he reigns supreme, this is why he is behind contentions, disputes and so on.
When we(christians)'put on Christ'and walk in the Spirit satan is rendered powerless ......I am not saying this is easy especially when one is being deliberately provoked but the Spirit of Christ is well able to deal with these situations.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.(Ephesians 6:12)

26 August 2011 at 17:52  
Blogger len said...

Welcome back English Viking.

26 August 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Johnny Rottenborough

Fair point.

26 August 2011 at 19:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Way of the Dodo (19:04)—Truth to tell, there isn’t an insult under the sun that would faze me, and ‘bigot’ just produced a wry smile. We should both bear in mind, though, that it is a privilege to post on His Grace’s blog and do our best to live up to the standard he sets.

26 August 2011 at 19:52  
Blogger English Viking said...


That's very kind of you, thank you.

26 August 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Johnny R

One can but try.

I'll attempt to employ more mocking irony in future, mixed with a touch of ostentatious loftyness .

26 August 2011 at 20:56  
Blogger English Viking said...


'phase', not 'faze',

please don't go all Yankee on me now, will you?

26 August 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

EV—It’s as English as you and I! Faze: to disconcert, perturb, disorientate.

26 August 2011 at 22:32  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 August 2011 at 23:00  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

And you are my English grama and spelin mentor!

Oxford English:
Faze means‘ to disconcert or disturb’
In origin it is a 19th -century American English variant of the ancient verb feeze ‘to drive off , to frighten away ’ and has nothing to do with the ordinary verb phase.

26 August 2011 at 23:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I'll attempt to employ more mocking irony in future, mixed with a touch of ostentatious loftyness."

Careful, people will think you're an atheist.

28 August 2011 at 09:20  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo and Johnny,

My mistake, it just looks a bit funny.

28 August 2011 at 14:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older