(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

After the prolonged spectacle of the Dean and Chapter of St Pauls making asses of themselves over the Occupy London protests, I'm heartened by Giles Fraser's integrity (though I'm appalled that it's become necessary for him to do it, and I cannot think what the Chapter have been thinking, other than that they're running round like headless chickens in an unnecessary panic).

Despite the icon, I might note that Cramner, no bleeding heart liberal to say the least, broadly agrees with me.

Of course, I always wondered how long Giles Fraser could stick it at St Pauls...

Comments

[liadnan]

Broadly agree, though if a shoe that is already in the air on the other side of the river drops in a way that I think it won't I may revise my views. If that's opaque enough.

He is friends with friends of mine, I am not sure we entirely hit it off when we met but that's a personal thing.

Cramner rather seems to have changed sides. Or maybe not, dunno. There are of course a multiplicity of sides.

[clanwilliam]

I'm wondering about that shoe, too. He would be a rather good fit over there.

[liadnan]

Decision is already made, just not public pending CRB, administrivia, etc, according to la Gledhill and confirmed by other sources. So it won't be causal either way but will look it whatever anyone says.

[tree_and_leaf]

Ah, I see you've seen that too...

[liadnan]

+London now weighing in http://www.london.anglican.org/NewsShow_15637

[tree_and_leaf]

Yeah, I wondered about that, although I also heard a rumour that the appointment there was complete bar CRB-ing so I would have thought GF would have handled resigning differently if he was going to be moving on imminently. I don't know, though.

He'd be a much better match for Southwark than St Pauls, though.

[liadnan]

I gather it is thought, in the strong sense of "thought", that he wanted it.

[clanwilliam]

Although the best comment has to be Rev Richard Coles on Twitter (he's clearly the Brian Cox of the CofE): Giles Fraser for Mayor of London!

[tree_and_leaf]

Much better than St Paul's, as I say, I'd been expecting something to blow up between him and his colleagues. Just not quite that.

Arrgh

[liadnan]

Oh do shut up Damien you spiteful little turd

Re: Arrgh

[tree_and_leaf]

What a nasty little man he is. The blood-crazed ferret nickname is really a bit of an insult to the mustelidae...

Do you think he counts Cranmer (also a peculiar man, though less consistently noxious) as a leftie? The mind boggles.

Re: Arrgh

[liadnan]

Dunno. He and Cramner did have a run in once. Mind you DT once had a run in with John Hunwicke of all people, before Thompson decided to start praising him as an adornment.

I really have had it with Thompson.

Re: Arrgh

[liadnan]

m/n re His Grace. Always get that wrong.

Re: Arrgh

[coughingbear]

Goodness, that's exceptionally poisonous even by his standards.

Re: Arrgh

[serriadh]

Arsholes scramble to the their Torygraph blogs en masse

Re: Arrgh

[tree_and_leaf]

What a ghastly man!

[em_h]

Our cathedral here continues to be very supportive of the protests (and is now providing them with electricity, among other things), but I've been a bit entertained by the Dean issuing press releases and doing many media interviews which effectively say, "You know, not that we're comparing ourselves with, oh, some other cathedral that may be in a similar situation, not at all, we just felt we had to say that we love having these people here. Not that I'm suggesting that, say, some other cathedral doesn't. I'm just sayin', you know?"

[tree_and_leaf]

It would be rather hard to resist the temptation...

[em_h]

I walked through the Occupy Toronto camp today, on my way to a meeting at the diocesan office; I hadn't realized how huge it was. It seems extremely well-organized, though, and quite clean for a giant impromptu campsite.

Sadly, despite the cathedral's repeated expressions of support, it's sounding as if the city may order them evicted. If that happens, I hope we can at least get a decent Anglican presence out to say, "This is our cathedral, and therefore our park, and we want them to stay." Not that this would have legal weight against the city (who ultimately control the park beyond, I believe, a few metres immediately surrounding the building). But at least it would make the statement.