The spineless ArchBish of C, speaking with forked tongue

 

Why not copy ‘a campaign’ kicked off by one newspaper – iNews, since you ask – and make it their own, suitable for the Monday morning breakfast! So thought The Times chiefs, and so thought Auntie B’s “staff”, and thus ‘sewage’ is the attention grabber in this morning’s compilation of the MSM front pages (link).

If you’re more military-minded: there are reports about ‘the government’ going to ‘investigate’ possible Chinese balloons flying over the British Isles while the Pentagon confesses they haven’t got a clue. well, that’s what the DT’s online front page is mostly concerned with at 6am.

 

I was quite intrigued by this headline in the DT: “MPs threatened me over gay marriage, says Archbishop of Canterbury”, so I took a closer look. It wasn’t about MPs trying to prevent the CoE to provide official ‘blessings’ to gay couples: nah, it wasn’t that! Here’s what happened, allegedly:

“The Archbishop of Canterbury claims he was “threatened with parliamentary action” in an attempt to “force same-sex marriage” in the Church of England.” (paywalled link)

According to this article, the Labour MP Ben Bradshaw had this to say:

“He seems to be claiming to the conservative African churches that the baby steps taken last week to tackle homophobia in the Church of England are being forced on him by Parliament, while telling Anglicans here, the majority of whom support same-sex marriage in church, that he and his fellow Bishops can’t go further because it would alienate the Africans.” (paywalled link)

Interesting, isn’t it: the ArchBish speaketh with forked tongue, depending on his audience. There’s more:

“He also appears to blame the pressure to stop discriminating against gay and lesbian Anglicans on the ‘secularisation of the West’ when it is people of faith within the Church of England who are leading the calls for change. I wish the Archbishop would say what he really believed and stick to it, rather than saying different things to different audiences.” (paywalled link)

Meanwhile, there was a ‘secret’ Brexit meeting of ‘cross-bench remainers’. It was so secret that everybody knew about it and that it was reported in yesterday’s Observer. This morning, there’s  a whole slew of articles and opinion pieces in the DM, e.g. here, listing all the Labour ‘Big Beasts’ who attended. Steven Glover in his article today has this scary information (my emphasis):

“Sir Olly was recently linked to a top job with Labour. If he takes this up, he will be able to work cheek by jowl with the party’s foreign affairs spokesman, David Lammy, another passionate Remainer who was at the Ditchley shindig. […] Was the Ditchley gathering a stitch-up by the British Establishment in one of its periodic fits of funk? Despite the inclusion of apparently unapologetic Leavers, was its true objective to devise ways of easing us back into the EU? Were Brexiteers present playing the role of Stalin’s ‘useful idiots’?” (link)

‘Sir Olly’ is of course the architect of Ms May’s nearly successful attempts to keep us in: Oily Robinson. There was another top mandarin present, the one sacked by Kwarteng when he was Chancellor for a few days, Sir Tom Scholar. Scary, innit, how they smooch up to Labour. You can find more details about the attendees here.

In their editorial, the DM writes that calling those two ex-civil serpents ‘non-political’ is’ risible’ and observes:

”Otherwise, it was the usual suspects; Remainer business chiefs, a few shadow cabinet ministers and, naturally, Lord Mandelson, without whom no anti-Brexit bash would be complete. All in all, a smug assemblage of arrogant Establishment figures who think they know best.” (link)

It’s rather ironic that Labour looks to be a ‘smug’ part of the self-same ‘arrogant establishment who thinks they know best’: wasn’t this one of their beloved labels for Tories? Isn’t the Labour Red Top, the Daily Mirror, happily indulging in using such labels? On their print front page today they howled that ‘calllous Tories’ cut support for 10,000 NHS ‘heroes’ who have ‘Long Covid’ – scroll down here if you must.

Of course, I did the online equivalent of buying the rag and checked out their online edition. Under the same screaming headline I read (my emphasis):

“Long Covid victims’ lives have been ruined by symptoms that include chest pain, brain fog, headaches, joint pain and depression. But NHS staff off work with Long Covid will be put on half pay for six month from March 1, and face losing their jobs after that. Some NHS Trusts have already fired staff with Long Covid, mainly those, like our two case studies, with a short length of service at the time they fell ill.” (link)

Blimey – I had no idea that the bosses of some NHS Trust were Tories! Aren’t they supposed to be Common-Purpose indoctrinated Labour henchpeople? Perhaps there was ‘guidance’ from the DHSC Tory Boss, about callously withdrawing support from ‘NHS Heroes’! Why weren’t we told?

Nah – let’s throw all economical and financial considerations out of the window when our MSM can work up a froth concocted from ‘smug Tories’ and ‘NHS heroes’. It’ll be so much better under Labour, especially when we recall who invented the creeping, silent tax raises while proudly declaiming that income tax hasn’t been raised, of course not!

I leave you with ‘Coronation News’. The Times reports that “King’s fleet won’t sail to mark coronation” (link, paywalled). Oh dear! What about ‘tradition’? We learn that such fleet reviews were a staple during Queen Victoria’s times, but the tradition of a coronation fleet review only started with King Edward VII in 1902, continued for George V in 1911,  George VI in 1937 and for Queen Elizabeth in 1953. That review “involved nearly 200 ships, one of the largest such events of the 20th century.” (link, paywalled)

Some of those ships were from other countries, but even so, I suspect the Palace and the RN would rather not show how pitiful our current First Service has become. But who knows! This sentence left me puzzled: “Neither Buckingham Palace nor the Ministry of Defence denied that there were no plans for a naval review.” (link, paywalled). I

If they denied that there were ‘no plans’, doesn’t that mean there are plans? So there are plans? Please help me out! Perhaps there’ll be a mini-review, with one ship each of the current RN fleet ‘representing’ our maritime might’? 

That’s all I have for today. It’s a dispiriting start to the week, with a spineless ArchBish to sewage, Rejoiners and Remain civil serpents, ‘callous Tories’ and NHS ‘heroes’.  Be prepared for more ‘no news’ in the next two days. They’ll be buried under a torrent of ‘Valentine’ stuff because our MSM love producing acres of mawkishness. Have a good day.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email