Monday, 16 April 2007

Williams to visit US bishops - early press reports

Anglican Journal (Canada) Williams will meet with U.S. bishops
Episcopal Life Online Archbishop of Canterbury announces plans to visit the Episcopal Church
Both of these report that the visit will take place during the regular autumn meeting of the US House of Bishops already scheduled to take place in New Orleans from 20 to 25 September.

Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph Williams to meet liberal bishops over gays

Posted by Peter Owen on Monday, 16 April 2007 at 10:53pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments


The Archbishop of Canterbury's address to the University of Toronto earlier today (April 16, 2007) entitled "The Bible: Reading and Hearing" can be found at

www.trinity.utoronto.ca/News_Events/News/archbishop.htm

Posted by: Charles Bird on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 1:02am BST

"The reaction was a very strongly worded protest against what they see as interference, but if not that, then what? I’ve spoken privately to people in the United States and am waiting to see,” he said.

Is anyone else troubled by this quote (from the Anglican Journal article). With whom has he spoken privately? I venture a guess that it was NOT the Presiding Bishop.

Posted by: Jim Pratt on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 1:38am BST

So there was never any question of the ABC turning down the US Bishops' invitation? Delighted to hear it, but wondering how so many sources given on this site gave the completely opposition impression.

He makes the usual points about Anglican unity with his usual force and clarity -- and rightly hopes Canada and the US can do something to respect disagreement while battling against fundamentalism.

Posted by: Fr Joseph O'Leary on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 4:57am BST

Way to Go ABC!!

You see, he never intended to decline the invitation - it was just nervous people putting words into his mouth.

I await the mass outpouring of relief - and apology - from those who feared ++Canterbury would never set foot in the US and worse still who presumed to tell us he never intended to do so.

Unless, that is, you still don't believe what he says.....

Posted by: ChrisM on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 10:48am BST

Good lecture.

I like the ABC's emphasis on "LISTENING" .......

to scripture.

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 10:56am BST

I think this is all water under the bridge now, but the reason why there was, in fact, some question about whether he would accept the invitation was that he responded to the House of Bishops resolutions within 24 hours with an official statement saying they were "discouraging" but did not then, or at any time until yesterday, indicate that he would accept the invitation. This suggested that he was thinking about it. Indeed, the official word from Lambeth Palace was that the invitation was under "active consideration". If, in fact, he always intended to accept, but waited 2 months to say so, whilst, in the meantime, announcing that he was taking 3 months sabbatical and holiday, and having declined a personal invitation given to him by Presiding Bishop Schori at Tanzania on the basis that he was too busy - well, that was not making himself very clear was it? And not very polite or diplomatic either.

But no matter, he's accepted, and it is the course of the meeting itself when it happens which will show whether relations can be mended.

Posted by: badman on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 12:11pm BST

"I await the mass outpouring of relief - and apology - from those who feared ++Canterbury would never set foot in the US and worse still who presumed to tell us he never intended to do so."

I'm not at all relieved, since I wasn't at all upset in the first place. I never really cared all that much. It seemed to make sense that he would feel more comfortable among his more seemly Canadian counterparts. But, in so far as any will take my previous words as some form of indignation at what was seen to be the situation at the time, well, I'm sorry.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 12:42pm BST

ChrisM

You have my mass outpouring of relief that he is attending (already recorded on another TA post).

You do not have my apology because he has not been "even handed" in his treatment of the US Episcopal church and has neglected his "husbandly duties" to service this wife, whilst sojourning on many occassions with others on US soil in recent years and months.

Wisdom would suggest he drink from the established well, but he seems to have been satisfied by the wells of the non-established factions in the US church. Maybe ABC will find that the well of his wise wife is not so unpleasant after all?

The bigger question is will his wife want or even trust him after neglecting her for so many years, whilst partaking of so many other wells, and publicly shunning and/or denying her existence?

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 12:58pm BST

Am I the only person who sees this move by Rowan Williams as cynical manipulation? He was not invited to a regular House of Bishops meeting, where our bishops discuss more than just our relationship with the Anglican Communion. He was invited to a special three-day meeting that, I assume, our bishops expected to take place long before their regular September meeting. The Archbishop has managed to avoid the kind of discussions Episcopal bishops intended and will instead be an intimidating presence at this most crucial September meeting. The Presiding Bishop, who, I pray, had no part in this Machiavellian move, should politely tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that he was not invited to this particular meeting and his attendance, therefore, will not be welcome.

Posted by: Lionel Deimel on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 4:00pm BST

Our dilemma is not that some of us listen to scripture, and others of us do not listen to scripture, NP.

Maybe our dilemma is that when you listen to scripture, your hermeneutic frames and approaches school you to expect something which can by definition mean only one, single thing, a meaning A which is partly defined by what is not meant, null-A. As if poetry were trustworthy and revelatory of truth because we could always boil it down, simply and clearly, to something very like the consistencies of mathematics and geometry.

Listening via a one-way flow - which too much in my view tends to presume top down authorities - is typically going to be very different from listening in awareness of and responsibility for the two-way flow that is incarnate, human, fallible understanding.

Mystically, I have made quite a bit of peace with this plurality of scriptural voices, rippling out into pluralities of global village voices. My modern destiny for what it is worth nowadays is that I am alive in this era, floating in the mix of all the currents, obligated by call and history and culture to listen. More than any civilization before us, we know how many different frames, views, belief systems, and hermeneutics/methods have already existed. We know the telling difference in oxygen content between all closed and all open hermeneutic systems or approaches.

So does scripture come alive when I listen. I hear a story of God's steadfast love, in the main.

But the irreducible mystery remains, how deity can be revealed in the evolving finite, in the midst of our human dependencies (Teilhard de Chardin), in the midst of our human competencies and potentials for coming to maturity that matters despite our fallibility (later Bonhoeffer).
Listening to scripture, then, simply cannot be reduced to anything like listening only or mainly to the current conservative Anglican realignment preaching. Any more than it can be narrowed to nothing but one approach, closed, unchanged, and supposedly pristine-apostolic. Jesus is Risen Lord, now, and the Holy Spirit is doing more than inspiring believers to keep all the apostolic museum artifacts dusted off and catalogued.

Maybe we are called to take the apostolic artifacts out of the museum cases and live them, instead of venerating them as if they were in themselves divine, instead of vehicles/pointers to the divine call.

Posted by: drdanfee on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 5:19pm BST

"I like the ABC's emphasis on "LISTENING" "

NP, those of us who are not fundamentalists still believe in the truth of Scripture, in the necessity to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it, and of following it's teachings in our daily lives. We are no more given to ignoring the bits we don't like than you fundamentalists. I would argue less so, but that's a personal judgement. Why do you persist in the falsehood that those of us who do not read Scripture the way you do are faithless and have no respect for it?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 at 7:39pm BST

Lionel, you cannot expect the ABC not to have few moves of his own!

For myself, I cannot see now - nor then - what such an invitation hoped to achieve. We shall just have to wait and see.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 at 11:09am BST

Lionel

I can relate to your concerns. It parallels the naive woman hoping that the man will "respect her in the morning" to later find out that all he wanted was the conquest and had no regard to her feelings after he had scored another notch on his steering wheel.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 at 12:48pm BST

"It's good to talk !"

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 at 12:51pm BST

Ford - the reason I persist in thinking "liberals" pick and choose which verses they will obey is that there are priests and bishops teaching that people can ignore certain verses (not verses against, for example, greed but only certain other verses)

So, we have Lambeth 1.10 as the position of the church and its reading of Scripture yet we have people who have sworn oaths, among other things, to uphold the teaching of the church directly disobeying and encouraging others to do so, even if that means being dishonest. How does this have integrity? How is this "listening" to Scripture?

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 at 12:58pm BST

"there are priests and bishops teaching that people can ignore certain verses (not verses against, for example, greed but only certain other verses)"
But NP, it's not only "liberals" who do this, as you well know. Space prevents me from listing what I have listed many times in the past. Besides, the Bible is a collection of books, not verses, and what you are talking about sounds an awful lot like Bible mining and proof texting, which are not good things. Your warning bells should sound everytime someone says "I have a Scripture that proves X." That is a sure sign of Bible mining.
And
"uphold the teaching of the church directly disobeying and encouraging others to do so".
There are people teaching that the Eucharist is no more than a memorial meal, a priest is not necessary for the celebration, and baptism is merely a public declaration of faith. This is not upholding the teaching of the Church either, but they agree with you on gay people, so it's OK?

My point is there is bad behaviour on both sides. We Christians should be confronting it in all our fellow Christians, not excusing it in those we see as belonging to the same party we do while decrying it in those we disagree with. You seem unable to hear anything negative about the bishop of Pittsburgh, for instance, yet his actions in some instances certainly deserve your criticism.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 at 2:34pm BST

I agree with Lionel, that although TEC's request was answered, the HoB would have preferred an earlier visit by ABC. Beggars can't be choosers, eh...

Being so close to the deadline, will ABC's delegation use it to supervise the drafting of HoB's resolutions to urge compliance with the Dar es Salaam communique? The ABC will be looking for alternatives to his pastoral scheme, for sure.

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 at 3:17pm BST

NP said: "Ford - the reason I persist in thinking "liberals" pick and choose which verses they will obey is that there are priests and bishops teaching that people can ignore certain verses (not verses against, for example, greed but only certain other verses)"

Tripe.

The "conservatives" likewise pick and choose verses. The issue here is that the "conservatives" would force everyone to conform to their selection of verses.

Posted by: Malcolm French+ on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 at 5:54pm BST

Ford - I completely agree with you that it is not reliable to prove things from single verses! But single verses can summarise biblical teaching on a subject eg a verse which says do not lie cannot be taken to mean, it's ok to lie just because someone says that it is only one verse, I am sure you will agree.

You can take the whole bible, all its teaching on marriage, all its teaching on holy living in response to grace (eg Rom 6), all its teaching on standards for leaders and you can never get a positive justification for VGR being a bishop - can you?

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 19 April 2007 at 9:18am BST

>>>So, we have Lambeth 1.10 as the position of the church and its reading of Scripture yet we have people who have sworn oaths, among other things, to uphold the teaching of the church directly disobeying and encouraging others to do so, even if that means being dishonest.

Lambeth 1.10, which has apparently assumed the status of Holy Scripture, also forbids remarriage after divorce:

[the report]...in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

yet plenty of "evangelicals," including George Carey himself, seem to have no problem at all with serial polygamy.

(Then there's the matter of literal polygamy, to which much of the so-called "Global South" gives the wink-wink-nudge-nudge treatment.)

It's only when the fags get uppity that they haul out Lambeth 1.10.

Posted by: JPM on Thursday, 19 April 2007 at 10:51am BST

"You can take the whole bible, all its teaching on marriage, all its teaching on holy living in response to grace (eg Rom 6), all its teaching on standards for leaders and you can never get a positive justification for VGR being a bishop - can you?"

Sure you can. The New Testament teaches in the very strongest terms and in countless places the primacy of Love, and VGR has been recognized by his church as a man who loves the church and who conducts his own personal life in a loving and responsible way -- more than most of us no doubt.

Posted by: Fr Joseph O'Leary on Thursday, 19 April 2007 at 12:03pm BST

Hmmmm - so, FJOL,
Rev Armstrong in Colorado can be excused if he is found guilty of fraud if, as you say, he "has been recognized by his church as a man who loves the church and who conducts his own personal life in a loving and responsible way"

You would buy that as an excuse for him to break clear biblical teaching on the standards required of leaders??

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 19 April 2007 at 12:52pm BST

"single verses can summarise biblical teaching"

Very very rarely. Let me put it this way, would there be a Christianity if we didn't have the New Testament? I would say of course. The Incarnation is not dependent on things a group of men wrote 2000 years ago, regardless of their Divine Inspiration (in which I firmly believe, BTW). Christianity is based on Christ, not the Bible. The Gospel is not the gospels, and perhaps this is where we are tripping up. I suspect that, for you, the Christian faith and the Christian Scriptures are one and the same. I disagree. We read the Gospel "according to John" meaning this is the way John, who experienced directly the teachings of Jesus and who is inspired by the Holy Spirit, understands the Gospel. I venerate the book of his writings as a verbal icon of Christ, but what he wrote isn't The Gospel.
Paul's letters are Divinely inspired, and he explains particular issues in light of his miraculous enlightenment on the road to Damascus. But Paul didn't sit down to write a list of rules we must obey to the letter. He isn't saying "here's Christianity" he's saying "you know what Christianity is, let me be more clear....." I'm interested to know how you feel about inconsistencies in the Bible. Here's a bunch, not all of them serious and some of them plain silly, but a good many that would negate a literal verse for verse reading.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
And, BTW, how can you reconcile fraud with living one's life in a loving and responsible way? If you can't, then you've already answered your question to Fr. Joseph.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 19 April 2007 at 4:55pm BST

Ford - the point was that I cannot reconcile fraud "with living one's life in a loving and responsible way" ...... I am not the one who claims someone can do that while continuing unrepentant in sin.

( I think we agree with the danger of single verses and the importance of reading in context to see the meaning)

Posted by: NP on Friday, 20 April 2007 at 7:36am BST

I think it is telling that conservatives equate gay people living in loving, committed relationships (eg. Bishop Robinson) with those who would steal. How anyone could compare the two is truly beyond me. There is nothing at all wrong with gay people in loving relationships, but even if you believe it is wrong, how can you compare it to stealing? With that mindset, jaywalking is the same as murder - for both are against the law.

We Episcopalians have a historic chance to stand up and show the world Christianity need not be backward and intellectually insulting. I pray we will continue to so do.

Posted by: Dallas Bob on Friday, 20 April 2007 at 6:57pm BST

Well Dallas Bob - you clearly think you have authority to rewrite or cut out scriptures you do not like / agree with - who gave you that authority and when?

Posted by: NP on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 9:19am BST

NP,
Fr. Joseph's point was that, in the case of VGR, living such a life is something we ought to consider as we ponder the meaning of the clobber verses to whose literal meaning you are so attached. Such a life and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. "living one's life in a loving and responsible way", however, is exclusive of fraud, therefor the two cannot be reconciled. Simple.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 2:56pm BST

Ford - but I am sure you can see that if one is not willing to deviate from the biblical teaching, stealing and other sins are equivalent.

(incidentally, this is why I do not feel better than anybody else because I am as guilty as anyone - but not unrepentent in trying to justify any sin)

Posted by: NP on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 6:01pm BST

"this is why I do not feel better than anybody else "
In which case your repeated accusations that those who do not believe as you do are faithless, your insufferable gloating over what you see as the decline of "liberal" churches, your refusal to even acknowledge the possibility that it is narrow, judgemental Churchianity that alienates people from the Church (and I have repeatedly stated that EVERYONE I know who hates Christianity hates the representation of the faith that people like you put forward), these constitute what exactly? Sounds like superiority to me.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 7:33pm BST

NP,
I think you're not being quite truthful when you're saying that you (believe you)are as guilty as anyone.

You believe that many of us deliberately live a life that is sinful according to your reading of scripture.
I don't think that you would say that of yourself.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 7:48pm BST

Erika - you are right, according to a preacher in Palestine a couple of millennia ago, there is a huge difference between a sinner and a sinner who repents.

Ford - (you're in a bad mood with me today! sorry for irritating you) - firstly, as I have said, this terrible "conservative message" you hate so much is filling churches with old and young, rich and poor, black and white all across London in my experience, ..... so I do not know what you mean about alienation. It is true we preach "repent and believe" so maybe we alienate those who will not repent?

Secondly, Ford, I have never said anyone is "faithless" but you are falling for a postmodern lie if you want to accept even contradicting views as equally valid, not being willing to say one or the other is wrong - do you say my reading of scripture is wrong?

As to my attitude to those who teach what is contrary to scripture, what do you make of passages like 2 Tim 2: 14-26?

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 at 10:58am BST

"Warn them before God against quarreling about words" Guess we oughtta shut down TA, then! You repeatedly accuse people of "picking and choosing" what they want to believe, as though all the discussion currently going on among those who have obeyed Lambeth and engaged with gay people is merely accomodating to the world. You have never even hinted that such actions might actually be based on faith rather than searching for the popularity with the world you so obviously value. What's wrong with not being willing to tell someone else that their opinion on something that can only ever be a matter of personal belief is wrong and I am right and by God, God backs me up? I'm not saying everybody's right, in fact I think you are horribly wrong in many respects, but I don't see that you should be excluded from the community of the baptised just because I disagree with you. I may be the one who is wrong.
As to the popularity of your message, I think you should spend some time defending Christianity from those who, born into Christian families, now consider Christianity to be a "dispicable religion". There are lot more of them than the population of every Consevo church in England. If London is anything like here, I'd say they outnumber the Evos two to one.
"maybe we alienate those who will not repent"
You really don't know how this sounds to those I have been speaking of, do you?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 at 1:23pm BST

I have the same authority to cut out scriptures I don't like as David Roseberry does with Jesus's direct admonition against divorce.

Hey, since all sins are equivalent - Let's have life in prison without parole for jaywalking.

Consevatives either engage in or come dangerously close to engaging in bibilical idolatry. Episcopalians don't worship the Bible - we worship Almighty God. Our God is not so small that He can not be contained in and constrained by a little book. Scripture, tradition, and reason are all 3 key. As the Episcopal slogan goes, Jesus died to take away our sins, not our brains.

Time is on our side, though it does sometimes take 450 years for an apology (The Pope and Galileo)!

Posted by: Dallas Bob on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 at 2:49pm BST

Dallas Bob - I would not give Mr Roseberry any special exemptions either.....

Time is on your side.....have you prjoected the rate of decline in TEC numbers fifty years into the future??

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 at 8:48am BST

NP,
Have you thought that God is God, and can do anything He wants in 50 years? That perhaps He is leading the more liberal wing of the Church throught this now for some purpose? it is usually Evangelicals who speak of God as having a purpose for the individual's life, an odd thought to me, but still. Can you not contemplate that perhaps He can have a plan for groups as well?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 at 1:30pm BST

Certainly, Ford, but I doubt he is planning great growth as he has never done that before with false teaching - it looks to me that He is leading "liberals" to walk away from the AC and die slowly as a separate denomination.

The history of "liberal" CofE churches in England in the last 100 years is the foundation for my expectation of what He is doing with "liberal" churches - he has never blessed the "inclusive" message with many followers and they have only survived because of other people's financial support.

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 7:22am BST

NP,
And we know that God is primarily motivated by great growth - because he started out with one man and 13 followers?
If I use your circular arguments I could equally say that, just as the rigid majority crucified Jesus and murdered all but one of his disciples, so the liberal message is not obviously "blessed with followers".
Doesn't mean it's wrong, though!
You really will have to stop playing that number game.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 9:17am BST

Erika - are you familiar with the parable of the mustard seed?

The failed "inclusive" project now wants to claim authenticity because so few want to be included in its wishy-washy unclear message!

Erika, the Kingdom of God is certainly about growth - that is when the gospel is faithfully preached, even in England!

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 10:14am BST

"he has never done that before with false teaching "

Ever hear of the Arians, NP? They were once far more numerous than the orthodox Christians. Or the Iconoclasts? Consider that the most numerous Churches in the world are the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, granted not liberal, but I get the feeling you'd consider their teaching false.

"he has never blessed the "inclusive" message with many followers and they have only survived because of other people's financial support"

So you resent having to support struggling congregations? Well, see, the demographic may be different in different places. Please be aware that it is the evil TEC that gives financial support to a lot of other Churches, many of whom are actively seeking TEC's downfall. I asked before, NP, have you ever spent much time with people who have fallen away from the Church and now hate it with a passion? I think you ought to, and find out why they hate the Church so much. This is not an argument that you should change your message, merely that, if you truly were concerned about Evangelism, you'd try to find out how to spread your message. For instance, why is your message falling on deaf ears when it comes to gay people. Do you have any idea why gay people react so strongly against you? The argument has been made before that those who might well be attracted to a liberal message are put off by the very loud and hateful public image of Christianity, and that those who are "flocking" (odd word to use for a situation where more and more of the population doesn't attend any Church) to "your" message are those who would be attracted to an exclusivist message that enables them to feel superior to everyone else, rather like yourself.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 11:03am BST

NP (again)
"Erika, the Kingdom of God is certainly about growth - that is when the gospel is faithfully preached, even in England!"

Ah, so the Gospel will never be unpopular? "Woe when all speak well of you.."

We do need to rise above this sort of 'I say we're growing, so we're God's good guys' stuff. Especially when cold statistics make it clear that Evangelicalism is declining as rapidly as other forms of Christianity.

If the fastest growing faith numerically was (say)Islam, would that indicate to you God's intention as well? Would you convert on the grounds of numbers alone? Or is there something else which even in you reccognises that the numbers game is a red herring?

Posted by: Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 12:37pm BST

"wishy-washy unclear message!"
God loves you and wants you to live in the state of grace in which He created you, and from which you have fallen. He wants this so much that in His love for you, He came here Himself, became not just part of His Creation, but a poor, helpless part of that Creation, suffered the worst sufferings our Fallen state can throw at us, and in doing so set us free, healed the rift we had caused between ourselves and God, and redeemed His entire Creation. Follow Him and live in the new Creation. To do so, live for Him, be Him in the world, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the captives, fight the oppression of God's children. Yeah. Pretty wishy-washy message!
"Go forth into the World in peace, be of good courage, render to no-one evil for evil, strengthen the faint hearted, support the weak, help the the afflicted, honour all. Love and serve the Lord rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit." Ever so wishy-washy, that, if maybe a bit gender neutral, which you might find annoying! But it doesn't say obey or that same God will roast you for all eternity so I guess maybe it IS wishy-washy, eh? Be of good courage, NP, that means, in part, don't get all fussed up when you think you see conspiracy.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 4:09pm BST

Ford - I agree with you on grace but we have to also keep Romans 6 in mind: a right response to grace is joyful repentance and seeking after holiness

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 5:31pm BST

NP,
"a right response to grace is joyful repentance and seeking after holiness"

which is exactly what I meant by:

"Follow Him and live in the new Creation. To do so, live for Him, be Him in the world, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the captives, fight the oppression of God's children."

Posted by: Ford Elms on Saturday, 28 April 2007 at 7:07pm BST

NP,
In recent posts you have defended women's right to teach (against Paul.
You have defended someone's right to spend their money in any way they wish simply because they have paid their taxes (against Scripture's clear call for the morally acceptable use of money).

It sometimes seems to me that your call to joyfuil repentance is particularly loud when YOU are talking about MY sins.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Sunday, 29 April 2007 at 10:14am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.