Tuesday, 9 March 2010
hurrah for the Church of England!
yes indeed, say I. But Basher has posted to congratulate the Church on, he says, declining to give a platform to the BNP. Except, er, they haven't. What they have said, not unreasonably, is that the values of the BNP as currently expressed are strongly at variance with what the Church stands for, that officers of the Church, lay or ordained, should not therefore be members of the BNP, that care should be taken to avoid giving the impression that the Church supports the BNP, for example by being pictured with BNP councillors at Remembrance Day events, and that if hustings events for the forthcoming general election are proposed on church premises then church officers may choose not to invite the BNP, but if they do so then such a meeting would attract election expenses for any other parties invited, and that this should be made clear to those parties. Not quite the same thing Basher, is it? So Basher McKenzie is either lying to the electorate (not for the first time) or is sufficiently challenged in the grey cells department to have failed to understand the rather simple statement issued by the Church. Doesn't inspire confidence, does it? When Labour come to your door in Park ward ask them why they booted out the girl they had representing them, whether it was because Merriott is lazy (she is) or simple misogyny, and ask why Basher is being economical with the truth re the BNP. Then vote for the man who does tell the truth. Rob White.