Saturday, 8 December 2007

weekend collection

In the Guardian Zaki Cooper says Some of the staunchest supporters of Christmas come from other religions.

Also, Pankaj Mishra argues that a public conversation about Islam should not be avoided, in A paranoid, abhorrent obsession.

The Times has Jonathan Sacks writing that The battle to teach moral values is won at school.

In the Daily Telegraph Christopher Howse writes about Trevor Beeson’s new book, Round the Church in Fifty Years, in an article titled Bringing life back into the parishes.

Giles Fraser asks Which party really wants a divorce? in the Church Times.

Andrew Brown argues at Comment is free that Civilisation is safe.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 10:51am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Opinion
Comments

Ref. G. Fraser: There are 2 ways the marriage analogy does not fit the present case:

(1) You can't be divorced from someone who was never in the marriage in the first place - ie an uninvited guest or johnny-come-lately who turned up later and refused to go away. Edward Gorey has a gory picture-book to illustrate this point.

(2) There are in any case not just 2 parties, let alone two stereotyped or polarised parties, in anglicanism or in Christianity in the first place. Many of the best thinkers refuse to identify themselves along party lines, and are happy to accept the best of all parties and reject the worst of all.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 1:23pm GMT

One of the themes from this weekend's columns is around dialogue and that civilizations are founded on culture and education, nor military prowess or intellectual rigidity.

Hat tip to http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/ , who have referred us to a website that compares the bible and koran content: http://www.bibleandkoran.net/

For those who are tired of the anti-intellectual, black and white impositional theology might want to the move "The Golden Compass".

Not surprisingly, there are some who purport that the movie and stories upon which it is based are anti-religious e.g. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/12/04/1196530637037.html

No, but the movie does bring home the lessons of tyranny with theological justifications. There are some who try to dumb down the bible, just like they try to dumb down God; those who hate wisdom love death (Proverbs 8:36).

One of movie’s themes is fighting thinking that tries to reduce everything to black and white. We know there are narrow minded theologians who try to simplify Christianity and thus the world into "saved" and "unsaved". Giles Fraser quite nicely describes their divorce mentality - "Think our way and subscribe to our theology and reward system or we will walk away."

Such thinking is the antithesis of what is required to fulfill the covenant of peace for all the peopleS of all the nationS. Some find the idea of a colourful diverse Creation an anethema and that puts them outside of God's reconcilation imagery, where Jerusalem abounds in colour e.g. Isaiah 61:10 "…my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels." Or Revelation 21:10-23 "...Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal... The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst… the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.”

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 1:55pm GMT

Re C Shell posts:

You can't have a successful marriage when the vows state for better or for worse, and your superior agenda is that you get the better and your spouse gets the for worst.

If Christianity was meant to marry humanity back to God the Christianity failed because it made humanity for the worst and sought to be above its wife' conundrums.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 5:04pm GMT

I think Giles Fraser gets it all just about right.

This isn't about the Bible. Its about power and control. And about manipulation of people through their fears and anxieties.

Christians are always tempted by the sin of pride to turn a religion into a purity cult. Carey, Akinola, Duncan, Mimms, et al. have succumbed to that temptation.

Posted by: JNWALL on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 5:10pm GMT

Quote I think civilisation rests on firmer ground than the purported good sense of the BNP. Unquote

Descants? Variations?

I think following Jesus of Nazareth rests on firmer ground than the narrow and closed thinking of so many conservative campaign believers. ???

I think being an Anglican believer rests on more gracious and more peaceful ground than the simple Anglican realignment conservative prohibitions - of inquiry and questioning, of dialogue across our differences, of forbidding us to agree to disagree, and of forbidding us to come together in common prayer and Eucharist - will allow us to presume. ???

I think being a progressive believer rests on a more wholesome religious and ethical foundation than closed presuppositional continuities with (revised modernist) traditional readings of the scriptures (pretending to be very old), plus closed appropriations of church traditions (ditto) - we are blessed in both the continuities and the discontinuities. ???

I think another cognate for genuine religious and ethical Anglican discipleship is open-ended modern discernment. ???

Posted by: drdanfee on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 5:25pm GMT

Christopher: I hope you don't mean that gay people are "johnny come latelys" in the Church: we have always been there, you know.

Posted by: Fr Mark on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 5:34pm GMT

Meanwhile, in other news, the Diocesan Convention of San Joaquin (California) has just passed resolutions accepting ++Venables' offer. They have declared themselves as a Diocese to be outside the Episcopal Church. They have joined the Province of the Southern Cone. According to these resolutions, all clergy in the Diocese are now clergy of the Southern Cone, even the twelve who voted against the resolutions. If they wish to remain in the Episcopal Church, the Bishop will have them removed from their churches and defrocked.

It is probably just an idle wish, but I wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury might be moved, some time or other, to take notice of these and similar events happening so very far away.

Posted by: Charlotte on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 8:06pm GMT

"You can't be divorced from someone who was never in the marriage in the first place"

Funny, Christopher S: when my (Evangelical) ex was divorcing me, he presented much the same rationale. How easy (for this mindset) to say, when the going gets tough, "Well, this was never a REAL marriage!"

:-(

Posted by: JCF on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 8:07pm GMT

"...all clergy in the Diocese are now clergy of the Southern Cone, even the twelve who voted against the resolutions. If they wish to remain in the Episcopal Church, the Bishop will have them removed from their churches and defrocked."

By what authority?

And what of the laity who voted against it? Are they ex-communicated? Are they all now bereft of a church home? And the conservatives talk of "persecution"!

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 11:12pm GMT

>>>You can't be divorced from someone who was never in the marriage in the first place - ie an uninvited guest or johnny-come-lately who turned up later and refused to go away.

I agree.

The Pentecostals and other fundamentalists who glommed onto the Episcopal Church back in the 1970s and 1980s because no other church would tolerate their bizarre and unscriptural antics, a faction that makes up the bulk of the secessionists, never were Episcopalians in any meaningful way and need to go back where they came from.

Posted by: JPM on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 11:16pm GMT

If anyone thinks that I am exaggerating by saying that most of the secessionists are actually misplaced Pentecostals, please feel free to read this account from the San Joaquin diocesan blog of a visit to their cathedral by a "prophet" who will, for the amazing sum of only $150, make you a prophet, too!

http://tinyurl.com/2om7r3

For some reason, that page is no longer online, but it is available through archive.org.

This is the sort of thing one used to find only in tent revivals and the most isolated hollers in Appalachia, but now it goes on in the cathedral of none other than John-David Schofield himself.

I'm sorry, but these people are no more Anglican than Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar.

Posted by: JPM on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 12:22am GMT

"Christopher: I hope you don't mean that gay people are "johnny come latelys" in the Church: we have always been there, you know."

And of course we know that Jesus has clearly spoken out against accepting johnny come latelys, whoever they may be. He was very content to only lead his chosen people to God....... is in which book of the NT?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 7:02am GMT

Giles really does need to consider how his piece is going to be viewed. His piece comes across as narrow-minded hate speech. I am sure that is not what he intended -- but it certainly is the impression that he gives.

Posted by: Margaret on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 7:59am GMT

Margaret
I don't understand your comments on Giles Fraser's article.

The marriage analogy doesn't quite fit because we're talking about siblings squabbling over who is the parents' favourite, not of a married relationship chosen by the two participants. And at one level what we're doing is patently silly because it's just impossible for siblings to shout that the others aren't their siblings any longer. Their relationship is a given because they are all children of the same parents.

But apart from that it's nothing but the plain truth. Liberals don't want a divorce, conservatives do.
Where do you see hate in that?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 12:45pm GMT

No, Margaret, Giles' article was remarkably calm.

In my view, he should have added the quite justifiable grasphic descriptions of what your religion actually stands for, and should advocate a new beginning, free of affiliation with you and your ilk.

I wish people would stop being so wet! Conservative Christianity is a harmful religion which should be criticised and worked against at all times and in all situations. I celebrate each day I hear of someone walking away from it!

Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 2:06pm GMT

Well Margaret, in the part of the U.S. that I live the food pantries are dangerously low. Meanwhile certain people of better mind want to waste charitable monies on aligning themselves with a diocese across the globe, knowing full well that it will be costly to all concerned.

It's not hate. It's disgust. And Mr. Fraser is right on. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 2:41pm GMT

"It is probably just an idle wish, but I wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury might be moved, some time or other, to take notice of these and similar events happening so very far away."

And doesn't the rest of the statement refer to "people we do not know?"

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 9:09pm GMT

By what rationale could people in gay relationships be described as johnny-come-latelys? There were plenty of them both in 'stable relationships' and in dominant older-younger / master-slave arrangements, whether passing or ongoing - even at the time of Jesus. In fact, that was one of the aspects of Greek culture that the Jews and Christians of teh first century defined themselves against - e.g. naked exercise, and any association of sexual immodesty with the cult.

No, the johnny-come-latelys I was referring to - whose existence I certainly was not aware of when I was confirmed, and who can by no account be held to make up one of the two major parts of the anglican church (?!) are those who consider homosexual practice to be kosher christian behaviour.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Monday, 10 December 2007 at 2:29pm GMT

"His piece comes across as narrow-minded hate speech."

Margaret, I appreciate this is how you feel, but what about the article strikes you as hate speech? On this site, you have claimed that there is "apartheid" in the Church in New Zealand. To me, it just looks like a sadly necessary step to bring about fair treatment for Maori. You have not explained how this is not the case. Now, you claim that something is "hate speech" when, to me, it looks pretty benign. And, yes, I have read it as though it were directed at me. I have an idea that there is a carefully constructed myth of the "poor persecuted remnant" that is extant in conservative circles, and that serves very well to shepherd the flock into a position of fear and reaction, and which practically ensures schism, since it allows people to think of themselves ever more strongly as the suffering faithful. It is very romantic, liberals and conservatives fall for it, this idea that we are suffering soldiers on some great cause, valiantly defending the Truth against the barbarian hordes. It is also a bunch of self delusory nonsense. Now, the things you say are not helping dispel that idea for me. Please, if you honestly feel yourself excluded in the New Zealand Church because of the three tikanga, explain to this person on, literally, the other side of the planet why you feel this way, and please, explain what you see in Giles' article that can be said to be hate speech. I am not simply denying your position. I want to give credence to what you are saying. But these kind of Monty Pythonesque "'Ere, 'e's oppressing me" statements with no explanation are unhelpful, and don't lend you any credibility. I'm not denying youir claims, Margaret, just asking for clarification. Perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 10 December 2007 at 4:59pm GMT

christopher, i was confirmed on the feast of corpus christi, 1969. at that time it was clear to me that it was perfectly within the bounds of normal behaviour for a priest to be a practising homosexual. there was, to be sure, an agreement not to talk about this, but only in the same way that there had been an agreement no to talk about biblical criticism and differing christological understandings before the publication of 'honest to god'. now that we are talking about it i am surprised that homosexuality is not seen in the same way as the biblical and christological debates - something on which christians may differ, but which does not force them out of communion with one another.

Posted by: poppy tupper on Monday, 10 December 2007 at 5:22pm GMT

"and who can by no account be held to make up one of the two major parts of the anglican church (?!) are those who consider homosexual practice to be kosher christian behaviour."

That's a real problem. We just have absolutely no idea what the majority of the Anglican church thinks. It may be possible to claim that most of Africa believes homosexuality to be sinful, although even there I would like to see a secret poll on the issue to obtain reliable data.
For normal Anglicans in the pews in Britain, North America, Canada etc we have only our own preconceptions.

We only know what many but by no means all of our bishops and the major internal groups like FiF, Changing Attitude etc. believe.
As far as I'm aware San Joaquin is the first time that something akin to a proper poll was carried out.

The recent poll amongst young evangelicals in the US was fascinating for the high level of acceptance of homosexuality there.

I would dearly love to see properly founded answers to a few questions:
- do you, Anglican in the pews, consider homosexuality and stable same gender relationships to be sinful?
- do you believe it right that the church should split over this issue?
- name the ten most important problems facing the world on which your church should expend its money, time and energy, and rank them in order of importance

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 10:16am GMT

"As far as I'm aware San Joaquin is the first time that something akin to a proper poll was carried out."

And even that one may have been skewed by the very real factor that, in most parishes, the youngest members are the least likely to vote in annual meetings, where delegates to diocesan conventions are chosen.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 2:12pm GMT

Hi Poppy-

There will always be things about which people differ. These will divide into two: (1) things where they can differ and both still remnain describable as 'Christians' and (2) things where they cannot differ without one or both parties relinquishing the right to be called 'Christians'. One has to debate whether a given case is of type (1) or type (2). One could simply forego the debate and assume one or the other, but that would be dogmatic/fundamentalist.

'Honest to God' certainly marked a sea-change in *popular perception* of what the options are; but the questions of which it spoke had been live in scholarly circles for decades before that.

Do you think anyone can claim to be a Christian without justifying their claim, or do you think that there are things which would justifiably force people out of 'communion' whether they liked it or not?

What I am trying to get at is: is the term 'Christian' a term that has content or no content? Does it describe someone with a particular set of beliefs (e.g. 'atheist', 'monist', 'panentheist') or not? Where there are grey areas, who is to decide what does or does not belong in the grey areas? Of course, you have already decided without argument that homosexuality is a legitimate grey area. The question is: should this be something that is decided without argument, or something which is properly debated?

Hi Erika-
What is fascinating about the high acceptance of homosexual practice among American youth? On the contrary, that is exactly what one would expect of American youth. People tend to think their own society or subculture is normal. What we should pay attention to is the views of those who can think outside the box of their own culture, and be self-critical.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 2:15pm GMT

Christopher
correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the survey highlighted the opinions of young people within the evangelical churches in the US.

In principle and because you always set such store by scientific data, would you not support a proper analysis of what people actually believe, especially when so much is done by bishops in their name right now?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 2:38pm GMT

"Do you think anyone can claim to be a Christian without justifying their claim, or do you think that there are things which would justifiably force people out of 'communion' whether they liked it or not?"

The problem is that we're not talking about the true things that divide Christians from non-Christians, like our belief in the nature of God, Christ etc. What we are talking about is whether one aspect of human behaviour can be called moral or not. This is a fascinating point but it hardly separates Christians from non-Christians. It just makes us disagreeing Christians.

The other point is, of course, that we DO justify our different view of sexual ethics, it just happens that you don't agree with our justification. Well, we don't agree with yours.
Again, that does not make one of us Christian the other non-Christian. It just makes us disagreeing Christians.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 2:54pm GMT

"What we should pay attention to is the views of those who can think outside the box of their own culture, and be self-critical."

But Christopher, you don't do this yourself. You argue for a set of beliefs that define the Christian, for instance, but then you make it pretty obvious that, for you, the definition is very narrow and rooted in your particular subcultural beliefs. You not uncommonly begin statements with "For the Christian...." followed by some particular conservative belief about family, or abortion, or divorce, when such beliefs are patently NOT held by the entire the Christian community. You go so far as to cite "statistics" of dubious value, even "statistics" that are patently false, to support your own particular cultural attitudes. Frankly, I'm unclear as to your understanding of Biblical authority, but it also appears, as far as I can tell, to be culturally based. You have in the past considered yourself to be "countercultural" when, in my eyes, you embody the mores of Western society of 30-40 years ago. Granted these mores are ;osing influence, but they still have a great deal of power, and it strikes me odd, actually, that anyone could espouse these still powerful social mores and yet consider themselves "countercultural". To me, you are not so much countercultural as trying to preserve an older societal model. Sorry, my point in being so candid is to show the ways in which YOUR ideas are based in a particular Western cultural model, one that still has significant influence, and which you seem to assume unquestioningly.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 3:18pm GMT

christopher,

you, it seems, have decided that there are type 1 and type 2 issues. on what grounds do you do this? and if you think there has not been debate about homosexuality for decades then you need to do some homework. i don't think it is for you to decide what the content of the term 'christian' is. i see nothing in the creeds which suggests that it is impossible to be a practising homosexual and a christian. however, there is plenty of stuff in the creeds which would make it impossible for john robinson to be one, if we accepted the creeds as literal statements. it's more complex than you've even begun to discover, i think.

Posted by: poppy tupper on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 3:45pm GMT

Hi Ford and Erika-

Yes, I do very much support a statistical basis for all claims. That means I stand by all claims which are statistically supported, and these will (obviously) as a whole not match up precisely with the mores or culture of any one period or any one society.

Sorry, I didn't realise that it was the views of evangelical youth that you were quoting. But we have seen from other stats how influenced american evangelicalism can be by the surrounding culture.

Hi Poppy-
There must be two types of issues: (1) those where Christians (with imperfect knowledge) can differ and remain Christian and (2) those where they cannot. Different people will draw the line in different places, but everyone draws such a line. For example, a child-sacrificing, openly Jesus-hating satan worshipper who claimed to be a christian ought not to have their claim taken seriously, you would agree. You too therefore would draw a line, and would make the division into two. Tom Wright rightly points out that, although we agree that there are primary and secondary issues with respect to unity, we cannot assume without argument which ones are primary and which ones are secondary.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 at 1:44pm GMT

"Yes, I do very much support a statistical basis for all claims."

But, Christopher, among your statistics, you also quote as "science" the propagandistic ravings of a homophobe with an axe to grind (Cameron). When speaking of teen pregnancy and abortion and a link to sex education in schools, you ignore statistics that show the problem to be much greater in those states of the US where children do NOT receive sex ed in schools. You have made assertions of a moral decline in Western society with an accompanying massive increase in violent crime, yet ignore reputable statistics that indicate that violent crime has actually DECREASED in the past three decades. I do not believe you are dishonest, Christopher, but you pick and choose the "statistics that support your gloom and doom scenario of the decline of the West, ignore what disproves your overall scenario, and in some instances don't seem to care very much about the scientific accuracy of the "stats" you are quoting.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 at 4:23pm GMT

Christopher:
"[A]lthough we agree that there are primary and secondary issues with respect to unity, we cannot assume without argument which ones are primary and which ones are secondary."

Agreed. However, I fail to see how this present issue can be seen as primary, espcially when matters such as baptismal regeneration, the ordination of women, the real presence, the indissolubility of marriage and cetera are not.

Indeed, usury appears to be a secondary issue, despite the clear and unambiguous direction of scripture. (Actually not even secondary since nobody actually defends the scriptural view - what comes after tertiary?) Yet sexuality, where the direction of scripture is at least slightly more ambiguous and which features far less an issue in scripture, is primary.

Why? On what basis?

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 at 5:55pm GMT

ok christopher. you now say a person in a loving stable sexual relationship with a same sex partner raises the same problems for a christian as a child-sacrificing, openly Jesus-hating satan worshipper, and they ought not to have their claim to be a christian taken seriously. do you see any problems with your argument? try hard. as i said before, this is all much more subtle and complex than you seem able to begin to understand. read malcolm's post and see if you can follow that.

Posted by: poppy tupper on Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 3:31pm GMT

Hi Malcolm-
I too see uisury as often an evil thing. But you can't say the bible is unambiguous on it, because (on the contrary) it is famously ambiguous. What about the parable of the talents?

Hi Poppy-
I certainly didn't say that. I was using the satanist who called themselves a Christian as an example to illustrate the point that different people draw the line in different places. That is, your line is different from my line. Your line presumably excludes the satanist but not the practising homosexual. Mine, in accordance with my study of the thrust of foundational Christianity, excludes both.

Thus you see that I was making the very opposite point from what you thought: namely the point that not everyone does lump these two people in together, but this doesn't prevent it being true that everyone draws the line somewhere. Not in whom they welcome, but in whom they classify as a Christian.

Hi Ford-
You are wrong in what you say on my view of statistics. It is something that we may or may not accept on your unilateral evidence that one given paper is unacceptably faulty in its approach, but (1) that has no bearing on which direction (if any) we ought to revise it conclusions in; (2) existing research, however questionable - and since this is a growth area there is clearly plenty of good, less questionable research in it - 100% of the time trumps your or my man-in-the-pub ideas which have not been based on first-hand research.

In the UK gun crime is rising alarmingly as have overall crime rates. I don't know about the US.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 14 December 2007 at 1:43pm GMT

"What about the parable of the talents?"

The parable of the Talents is not about usury, as you well know, but about using our abilities for the furthering of the Kingdom. Neither is it ambiguous.

"I don't know about the US."

Yes you do. A couple of months ago, in response to your claim about the massive rise in violent crime, I posted links to two different sites that gave statistical evidence for the exact opposite. You did not respond. You also ignored citations with statistics that indicate teen pregnancy is a bigger problem in those areas where kids do not get sex ed in schools, contradicting your claim that sex ed has the opposite effect.


And your understanding of science is poor. Existing research does indeed trump "man in the pub" type statements. The trouble is that when it comes to sexuality, you do not cite existing research. You cite Cameron. There is a scientific method. It is not something I have unilaterally imposed, Christopher. The professional body to which he belonged recognized the major flaws in his "work". it was easy to Google him and find extensive critiques that show all the ways his "data" are no data at all. There are ways of gathering data that can be relied upon to give something reliable, if not necessarily all that accurate. Pubilcation then allows for criticism and fine tuning. Cameron does not follow that method. Therefore, what he does isn't science. He's not being silenced by some politically correct hierarchy. And, as to crime in the UK, prove it.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 14 December 2007 at 4:32pm GMT

Christopher, this website certainly seems to show that the situation WRT crime in England is far more complex than you seem to realize, and also address the issue of differences in reporting of crime that may affect statistics.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page1.asp

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 14 December 2007 at 6:28pm GMT

"... to illustrate the point that different people draw the line in different places. That is, your line is different from my line. Your line presumably excludes the satanist but not the practising homosexual. Mine, in accordance with my study of the thrust of foundational Christianity, excludes both."

The point, dear Christopher, is n o t that "different people draw the line at different places", but that they a l l draw the line beyond t h e m s e l v e s...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 14 December 2007 at 7:16pm GMT

Some time before, I needed to buy a house for my firm but I did not have enough money and could not buy anything. Thank God my friend adviced to take the home loans at trustworthy bank. Thence, I did so and used to be satisfied with my small business loan.

Posted by: LucyBrock on Saturday, 25 September 2010 at 7:40pm 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.