MItchell and Webb address the conspiracy theorist nutters with this moon landing sketch. Now here’s hoping they’ll feature nutty Norman Baker and the Kelly conspiracists.

Just because it’s called a smartphone doesn’t mean it makes its users smart. CNET reports one of the latest episodes in the never ending saga of people who refuse to take any responsibility for their own idiocy and sue someone else to avoid any self-recriminations.

In this case a woman named Lauren Rosenberg claims that it’s Google’s fault she was hit by a car. Her phone didn’t tell her there wasn’t a sidewalk, and so she accidentally found herself walking in the road. It’s amazing with a brain like that she’d even worked out how to turn the phone on, never mind use it.

In a comment on this post, Tim Chesterton lived up to his white beard by saying:

what strikes me in all these comments is the short memories you people have. It’s as if Dr. Who started with Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper. There are previous comparisons to be made, too, you know!

So I thought perhaps it was time for Clayboy’s first poll. Who do you think is the Doctor’s best companion? I am only including those that I remember and rate. If you want Mel (Bonnie Langford) or Adric (Matthew Waterhouse) you will look in vain (and probably insane as well). If you want to mount an argument for why, or name someone not in my list, then please do.

I have excluded Amy Pond as too new to tell, and yes (Tim) this is probably biased to new Who, but I think the newer companions are generally stronger, more fully drawn and more interesting.

Note that you have 3 – yes three – whole votes each. Make them count.

Hey, and tell others about this one. We need votes for it to work.

A few days ago I commented on the previous Archbishop of Canterbury’s latest attempt to claim public attention. Now his witness statement has made his own words public. Ruth Gledhill (who on this issue at least has fallen out of love with the ex-Archbishop) publishes it on her blog. It is at least as bad as I feared it would be. One has to say that the Pope is a lucky man, despite all his scandals: at least his predecessors are dead from the neck down as well as up.

Let’s take a look at his own words in the witness statement:

I was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991- 2002. I was the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury and I was responsible for the spiritual welfare of 70 million Anglicans in the worldwide communion.

Note the self-inflation. The responsibilities of the ABC are rather less defined than that, and most of those 70 million (which includes a nominal half of the UK population) have their own bishops who no doubt are under the impression that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not responsible for their diocese.

I am the holder of M.th and PhD degrees. I was the Principle of Trinity Theological College, Bristol

There are times when you really hope the typo is the author’s and not the journalist’s and this is one of them. There is something quite glorious about following an educational boast with a solecism.

The facts contained in this Witness Statement are within my own knowledge. … Recent decisions of the Courts have illuminated insensitivity to the interests and needs of the Christian community and represent disturbing Judgments. The effect of these decisions is to undermine the religious liberties that have existed in the United Kingdom for centuries.

It is difficult to know whether the statement following my ellipsis is considered a “fact” by Lord Carey, but I am under the impression that he holds it to be one. Failing to distinguish between fact and opinion gets him off to a very poor start.

I am not a lawyer, but have taken an interest in these decisions. I have been advised that decisions in certain cases have made the following determinations.

Translation: “I have been co-opted by the appellant’s legal team, and I am saying what they told me to.” One of the problems I perceive here is the calamitous combination of Lord Carey’s ego and his long standing political naïvety.

I wish to dispute that the manifestation of the Christian faith in relation to same sex unions is ‘discriminatory’ and contrary to the legitimate objectives of a public body. … The description of religious faith in relation to sexual ethics as ‘discriminatory’ is crude; and illuminates a lack of sensitivity to religious belief. … The descriptive word ‘discriminatory’ is unbefitting and it is regrettable that senior members of the Judiciary feel able to make such disparaging comments.

As far as I can see, the description “discriminatory” is a finding in law. The law might be wrong, or capable of being argued to be unjust. The judge might be wrong in his application of the law as to whether a particular form of behaviour is illegally discriminatory within the meaning of the law. But to take the word “discriminatory” and try to use it as proof of “insensitivity” – precisely in the context of an anti-discrimination policy – is quite barmy.

The comparison of a Christian, in effect, with a ‘bigot’ (ie. a person with an irrational dislike to homosexuals) begs further questions. It is further evidence of a disparaging attitude to the Christian faith and its values. In my view, the highest development of human spirituality is acceptance of Christ as saviour and adherence to Christian values.

This is almost beyond parody. The existence of very bigoted Christians is swept out of sight. The clichéd expression of individual evangelical soteriology “acceptance of Christ as saviour” (which I have always thought a most unbiblical formulation, to start by accepting what you can get out of God, rather than making obedient recognition of his Lordship) is combined with a very vague “adherence to Christian values” claimed by all parties and none. I am sure that there are people of all faiths and none who would wish to claim their spirituality is “the highest development”. To have effect in the public arena, that needs to be persuasive.

This cannot be seen by the Courts of this land as comparable to the base and ignorant behaviour. My heart is in anguish at the spiritual state of this country.

Er … there seem to be some missing words there. I am, however, a little stunned that – however deeply he feels it – Lord Carey should think that the courts will or should be persuaded by considering the traumas they are inflicting on his poor old heart. What relevance does the state of his soul have to the question whether an appeal by someone else is well grounded?

In Eweida v British Airways (Sedley, Carnwath and Smith LJJ) (Elias P in the EAT) the Court of Appeal held it reasonable for judges to be unaware that Christians wear Crosses visibly around their necks as a sign of fidelity to the Lord Jesus.

The court may be rather better at reading legal documents than he is. In Eweida v British Airways, what the court actually said was that there is no evidence that Christians are required by their faith to wear crosses. It is a rather different point closer to the irony I pointed up here and here in the Shirley Chaplin case.

By letter to the Sunday Telegraph dated 28th March 2010, I wrote a letter jointly with Bishops of Winchester, Chester, Hereford, Blackburn, Litchfield and the former Bishop of Rochester expressing concern at the treatment of Christians by the Courts. I am confident that I have substantial support from those in the Church of England and other Christian denominations.

“By letter … I wrote a letter”. The grammar hints at the well considered and careful thought proceses behind this. I do hope “Litchfield” is another typo, not that he can’t remember the name of one of the oldest and largest dioceses in the Church of England. He does, of course have some substantial support. He also has some substantial opposition. It is interesting that in the case of the former letter he could only gain the overt support of five bishops, and according to the “Christian Concern for our Nation” (the group pushing this) press release the only other bishop supporting him is the recently-resigned former bishop of Rochester. That spiritual leadership of 70 million is dwindling a bit.

The fact that senior clerics of the Church of England and other faiths feel compelled to intervene directly in judicial decisions and cases is illuminative of a future civil unrest.

Ah yes, those disappearing senior clerics. Even less plausibly than the Kaiser Chiefs whinging about pushy stroppy people in a town centre, Lord Carey tries to predict a riot. It is appallingly irresponsible demagoguery and empty threats from a member of the legislature.

Further, I appeal to the Lord Chief Justice to establish a specialist Panel of Judges designated to hear cases engaging religious rights. Such Judges should have a proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues and I would be supportive of Judges of all faiths and denominations being allocated to such a Panel.

It beggars belief that this is the man complaining about discrimination, when here he wants to enshrine it in the courts. Note he does not simply ask for people who are knowledgeable about religion and rights laws. He asks for religious judges only: “of all faiths and denominations”. He does not add “and none”. The idea that only religious judges can try cases involving religion in civil and criminal courts is a piece of dangerous nonsense that cuts the essence of equality out of the heart of the law.

If he had added those two simple words “and none”, I might have believed that, despite the seriously misguided oddities of his arguments, he really wanted fairness and equality before the law for all people. But with those two words missing it is hard to believe he wants anything other than bias for people who share his views. In his earnest but mistaken pursuit of this goal, he seems not to have paused to consider the consequences.

I wonder who he thinks should judge cases of African Pentecostals seeking to drive witches out of children by means British courts would class as child abuse.

I’m grateful for Loren Rosson drawing my attention to this list of the 100 greatest sci-fi or fantasy novels of all time. (I obviously missed Stephen Carlson’s Facebook note.) These things are always subjective, not least because we all read different books, but by and large I would agree with Loren’s strictures: this list has strange inclusions and omissions.

(Since some of the graphics on the page are inaccessible to me, I may have missed some things on the list, but here goes with some further comments.)

Most noticeably, I agree entirely with Loren about the strange omission of anything by Stephen Donaldson. I would rate the first two Thomas Covenant trilogies at the top of my list – I’m yet to be convinced that the most recent sequels will achieve the same overall brilliance. I admire Donaldosn’s Gap series more than I like it – it’s the only Donaldson I haven’t really wanted to reread – and for fantasy with a lovely mix of humour and characterisation, I’m a great fan of his Mirror of their Dreams.

There are some very influential books that –on literary merit probably rightly – don’t make it to the top 100, although not all of those on the list have literary merit either. Among these omissions are any of Asimov’s robot novels, or one of the great space operas of all time, E.E. Doc Smith’s Lensman series.

Among the other very odd omissions are Wells’ Time Machine, and Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I’m not sure I would represent Michael Crichton with either Jurassic Park or Sphere. Some of his earlier and harder sci-fi like The Andromeda Strain or the Terminal Man seem to me to be better books.

Among the writers I would also have liked to have seen represented are James Blish. His Cities in Flight series, or his After Such Knowledge trilogy (loosely speaking) are creative and powerful, although my own personal favourite is Jack of Eagles. Again, I find the omission a bit odd.

What would you include or omit from your lists?

David Keen and Maggi Dawn are among those blogging the story publicised by Dave Walker today.

The website maritalaffair.co.uk has started advertising on billboards around the country. The website describes itself as ‘delivering a dating arena for extra-marital affairs’ for ‘uncomplicated adult fun’. It directly promotes and faciliates people being unfaithful to their partners, and their families and children.

I have a couple of slightly different pointers to add to what David and Maggi are saying.

First, I’ve been taking a look back at adjudications in the last year that have been upheld on grounds of offending public taste and decency. There aren’t very many, and those that have been upheld have been adjudicated largely on the basis of offence to specific groups, normally one or other minority – even people with ginger hair.

There is one possible precedent from 2009 that people might like to cite if they are complaining on the grounds of taste and decency, and that is this one for a nightclub:

Ad
A flyer, distributed in Leeds city centre for a night club, featured a collage of images including naked women and a sex toy. It was headlined “Filth THE SLUT PARTY SAT OCTOBER 10TH @ THE MINT CLUB, LEEDS”. The reverse included text that stated “£8 ENTRY TO THE FIRST 50 SLUTS”.
Issue
1. Four complainants, three of whom believed that it degraded and demeaned women objected that the ad was offensive. 2. Two complainants felt that the ad was irresponsible, because it could be seen by children.

Now while this poster doesn’t fall into the same category, it could, I guess be claimed to suggest women as a group are being stereotyped as unfaithful, and that it could be seen by children. It may, however, lack the explicitness that is needed for the ASA to rule against it consistently with their previous ruling. Offence and decency are quite slippery concepts. It seems that ASA much prefer to deal with complaints where facts rather than opinions are involved.

I find myself wondering whether there are better grounds for a complaint under section 2.2 of the code, which states:

All marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.

It seems to me that the evidence both points to infidelity as a significant factor in the breakdown of family relationships, and that the subsequent breakdown of those relationships places significant financial and social costs not only on individual families but on the wider society. This advert, it seems to me, shows no responsibility to the wider society, and it is on that basis that I suspect a complaint might be more successful.

Those who want to join the Facebook group complaining should go here.

Those who wish to complain to the ASA should go here.

I was looking for a ready typed version of the poem “The Burning Babe” for Christmas card deployment. I found it at this site. The adverts (which I’ve moved over from the far right and covered the audio clip link) focussed on that word “burning”. It is, to say the least, an unfortunate juxtaposition.

I feel compelled to offer a health and safety advisory. “Don’t burn the Baby Jesus at home”. Or possibly, in this season, that should be an Elf and Safety warning.

After some of the comments here, I have to ask:

Why is it that so many of us are always ready to explain “hate” in the Bible as hyperbole or “semitic idiom”, but when we encounter it in a blog post, assume it must be taken in its most literal, po-faced and unpleasant sense?

Mark Goodacre has some of the main links on the planned redundancy in the Biblical Studies Department at the University of Gloucestershire. The Facebook page is here.

This does not seem to be quite the same situation as that at Sheffield, where the whole undergraduate teaching of Biblical Studies was targeted. I am, however, concerned that as a subject that is generally regarded as economically non-productive, a disproportionate slice of biblical studies is being cut to deal with a situation that looks as if it was caused by poor financial planning and management.

It took me rather longer to consider whether this situation either merits the kind of campaign Sheffield saw, but I feel there is some benefit in adding my voice in favour of different and better solutions.

The people to write to are deputy Vice Chancellor Paul Bowler (pbowler@glos.ac.uk) and Vice Chancellor Patricia Broadfoot (vc@glos.ac.uk). This is what I wrote.

Dear Mr Bowler,

I am disappointed to hear that the University of Gloucestershire is making redundancies in its highly respected Biblical Studies department. Only last month the University of Sheffield puled back from an even more drastic set of cuts to a more co-operative and creative approach to the future when it became aware how valued the work of its Biblical Studies department was. I write in the hope of persuading you to follow the same course.

I have a certain interest in the future of the department. As a university you validate the training of clergy and lay preachers through WEMTC, and admit those training for these ministries in Gloucester and Hereford to a foundation degree. As the person responsible for running the training course for lay preachers in Worcestershire, your University would be one of the options for us to consider making a similar link with. Your Biblical Studies department has now overtaken Birmingham (one of our other principal options) which makes you a more attractive proposition unless you follow through your plans to decimate the department.

For myself, I have in the past been taught by Professor Andrew Lincoln, and certainly have your University on my short-list for a further part-time research degree.

As a new University you have very few departments with an international reputation. The Biblical Studies section of your Humanities department is certainly one of them. I daresay there may be others, but I have not heard of them.

Can I urge you to reconsider what looks like a short-sighted (lack of) strategy born out of financial problems, and, at the very least, initiate an evaluation of a future strategy that collaborates with and fully consults the department on drawing up a more creative plan for the future that will not injure your long-term viability or reputation.

Yours sincerely

My dear Wormwood,

How many times, I wonder, have we been through this? You are once again anxious about your patient’s good intentions, his plans to change his life for the better. I cannot remind your often enough, dear nephew, that good intentions are wonderful things.

Why, I remember one occasion when a former patient of mine was deeply affected by some story or other on the news broadcast he watched. He thought he should say a prayer for the people involved. You can imagine your old uncle’s shock. But quickly I whispered in his ear: “You can do that at your bedtime prayers.” As always, when the time for bed came, he was too tired to pray, for I had drawn his attention to the late night movie. As he drifted into sleep, I planted one further idea in his head, “Oh, well, the thought’s as good as the deed.” His bed is now with us, though he is never given the time to sleep in it.

As an aside, Wormwood, I strongly recommend you read my colleague Ragebile’s report on human news media. We have developed a successful strategy that is turning news away from information to inflammation. The idea is to keep as many people as possible in a state of anger and anxiety. There is no truth that can’t be twisted.

That insufferable prig Gabriel – I remember him from the days before we moved to warmer climes – gave us the plan by accident. So many of his announcements on behalf of the Enemy began “Do not be afraid.” At my urging Ragebile has been exploring the power of fear. Our announcements, subtle as they are, should always contain the underlying message: “Be anxious, be afraid.” You never know just how vicious the reaction will be when it comes on top of a long slow simmering pot of anger, but it is sure to prepare us a rich feast of human folly.

Ragebile is very surprised how much he has learnt about that from his patient. Imagine that, us learning something about the subtleties of manipulation from a human newspaper editor. You can see why our Father below thinks this project one worth persevering in. It gives me great hope in the human potential.

I was, before that digression, speaking of good intentions. You have heard that human saying, “the thought is father to the deed.” That is just occasionally true. However, it needs but a little nudge from you for the thought to be substitute for the deed. The Spanish have a word for it: “Mañana”.

Take the intention: “I will stop smoking”. Turn it into: “I will stop smoking when I’ve got through this stressful period.” Take the desire: “I will stop eating so much” and add to it the phrase “after the weekend. Take the patient’s anxiety about excessive drinking in the face of health advertising. Use this time of year to your advantage, and whenever he expresses the wish to cut back on his drinking, suggest that this will make an excellent New Year’s resolution. He needs first to enjoy all those Christmas parties.

Ah, New Year resolutions. What a wonderful thing they are. For the last few months of each year they become a tool for procrastination, a weapon with which we may postpone every good intention. Indeed, if you are cunning, you will find you can not simply postpone each good intention, but you can magnify it. If your patient wishes to stop smoking, you should see if you can turn this into a general wish to become fit, to go on a diet and to stop drinking as well. If he wishes to cut back on his drinking, you should try to make him plan to give it up entirely. The greater and more strenuous the intended plan, the greater the possibility of failure.

That then leads to the second benefit of New Year resolutions. For the last few months of the year they are a weapon to hold action at bay, for the first few months of the year they can be a wonderful source of strain, failure and guilt. The nobler the intention, the harder the task. The harder the task, the higher the chance of failure, and the greater the fragrant harvest of guilt.

Good intentions, my dear Wormwood, are wonderful things, as long as they never become actions. Human beings are ingenious. Why, once a patient of mine invented a new alarm clock to help people find it easier to wake up and get on with the day by gently brightening the light, and slowly bringing pleasant music up from a very low volume. I could see this being a real threat to my years of hard work. People who enjoy getting up will enjoy actually doing things. There was no way I could stop the invention. But I didn’t need to. All that was necessary was to insert the suggestion of a snooze button. At a stroke, the dynamic is changed. The sleepyhead is offered an option. He can intend to get up, but he can put off the actual deed.

It is your mission, nephew, to find the right snooze button for each of your patient’s good intentions. Tomorrow, after the weekend, in the New Year. These are the tools of our trade, the paving slabs for the broad highway to hell. I expect you to use them well. I am sure you intend to. Meanwhile, my dear Wormwood, I look forward to embracing you soon.

Your eager uncle,
Screwtape.

(with apologies to CS Lewis)