Comments: George Pitcher to leave Lambeth Palace

Well I nominate Riazat Butt for the role, who would be much more suited to the ABC's endgame.

Posted by A J Barford at Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 10:34pm BST

Let's be Frank: selling Williams to the media was always going to be a loser. When the base product has no redeeming features any attempt to make it look better is bound to fail

Posted by Mike Homfray at Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 10:37pm BST

There are a couple of jobs open at NewsCorp--he could try there.

Posted by Charlotte at Monday, 18 July 2011 at 5:36am BST

And what was the joke that cost him his job?

Re: Sunday Express article. It will take more than relevant comments from bishops to get people back to church. They are necessary but generate thanks rather than support.

Posted by Dave at Monday, 18 July 2011 at 11:51am BST

Poor George! I suppose - even though he didn't get ecclesiastical preferment for his recent job with the ABC - he must now be perceived to have attained the pospective title of 'Loose Canon'. Perhaps he is now seen to be a possible threat to the stability of the Church of England?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 18 July 2011 at 11:52am BST

Some very good comments on this at

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Monday, 18 July 2011 at 12:36pm BST

Oh no! The day ++Rowan's comments in the New Statesman were reported was about the only day in the last year when I've woken up to a C of E news story that made me think 'Well at least we're in the news for something other than being sexist or homophobic.' And speaking up for people who are experiencing hardship seems like something we should be doing as a church.

Posted by Cathy at Monday, 18 July 2011 at 5:06pm BST

An Episcopalian wants to know:

What is the strange animal sitting on top of George Pitcher's head in the photograph at the top of the article Simon links to on

Or is it a new style of the wigs worn by English lawyers? Perhaps a wig for clergy who work for the ABC?

Inquiring American minds, etc.

Posted by jnwall at Monday, 18 July 2011 at 8:51pm BST


Perhaps it's a wild March Hare?

Posted by Dave at Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 9:59am BST

So what's this all about? The ABC must have known that his editorship of the NS would draw the fire of the Conservative Party. He isn't the first and he won't be the last to do so. That's part of the job description, or should be. He is after all an adult and knows (or should know) the way of the world. Many outside party politics welcomed and applauded the article and its sentiments. So is the ABC blaming George Pitcher for getting him into such a scrape?

Or is it the joke? In which case the ABC shows himself to be petty minded, lacking a sense of humour and acting like a child. I think the image of him taking Christin Odone 'roughly over the canapes' rather amusing and no doubt she did too.

Colin Slee's postumous revelations about the CNC machinations over the Southwark nomination show the ABC as someone who seems in serious danger of becoming a manipulative control freak. This report just seems to confirm this impression.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 10:06am BST

Nobody can say that Pitcher's brief tenure hasn't been interesting. A searching resume comes from The Independent's Jerome Taylor in his "Who will rid us of turbulent PR man George Pitcher?":

Posted by A J Barford at Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 11:02pm BST

"seems in serious danger of becoming a manipulative control freak"


No danger. Already done.

Posted by Malcolm French+ at Wednesday, 20 July 2011 at 5:12am BST

'"seems in serious danger of becoming a manipulative control freak" ?????? No danger. Already done.'

Malcolm, when you read the article about the C of E's national fee schedule, don't you get the impression 'manipulative control freak' describes the entire centralised C of E bureaucracy? I don't know what it's like in the Diocese of Qu'appelle, but in the Diocese of Edmonton we don't even have a diocesan fee schedule, never mind a national one!

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Thursday, 21 July 2011 at 9:00am BST

You have a good point, Tim. In Qu'Appelle, I think the only set fee we have is the surplice fee for clergy doing services in parishes to which they are not licensed.

Posted by Malcolm French+ at Thursday, 21 July 2011 at 5:41pm BST

The points here on fees are a complete distraction from the main topic, and reflect a problem within the Anglican Communion - that the easy assumption to make is that we are all the same and operate under the same constraints. Fees in the Church of England are an issue with General Synod, and wide representation, rather than with dictatorial leadership. Arguments from ignorance are rarely compelling, as The Episcopal Church knows only too well. Let's not compound the felony ...

Posted by Mark Bennet at Thursday, 21 July 2011 at 11:54pm BST

'Arguments from ignorance are rarely compelling'

Not quite sure whose arguments you're talking about here, Mark.

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Friday, 22 July 2011 at 6:35pm 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.