MISSION STATEMENT ... To celebrate where it's deserved! ... To take the Michael out of institutions and individuals where it's deserved! ...
Recently I had occasion to prepare my gravestone epitaph:
GENE...
Educator, Novelist,
Humanitarian and Humorist
- TO KNOW HIM WAS TO LOVE HIM -
Rest in Peace
....... But while I am still walking the earth do not hesitate to contact me at:
bobbyslingshot8@gmail.com
Benedict XVI arriving at Edinburgh Airport in September 2010 (CNS)
We republish the following blog, originally published on September 20, 2010, to mark the fifth anniversary of Benedict's papal visit to Britain
How does one sum up the papal visit in a few words? A survey of the four days, event by event – four days which began (so far as I am concerned) in anxiety which quickly turned to relief and ended finally in euphoria – simply can’t be done in less than the length of a short book, and I have only 400 or 500 words for this post, though in the print edition of the paper which appears later this week I shall be given more than double the space for an extended version of it, in which I shall look also at the very interesting coverage of the visit by the secular media. That aspect of the visit will have to be briefly summarised here by the words of Dr George Carey in the News of the World: “he came, he saw, he conquered”.
The richness, volume and sheer variety of the teaching the Pope gave us, and its perfect suitability for each of its many very different audiences, ranging from his intellectually hugely impressive address to the leaders of civil society in Westminster Hall to his call to that enthusiastic audience of schoolchildren to aim at becoming saints, was astonishing. And perhaps the first thing that needs to be said is that this was above all a personal triumph for the Holy Father himself. What came over consistently was the huge warmth, the seemingly inexhaustible loving kindness of the Pope’s gentle but nevertheless powerful personality. After all the caricatures, the man emerged.
Despite his intellectual impressiveness, which was evident throughout, everyone now knows that this is no withdrawn, scholarly rigorist, incapable of relating to people or understanding their lives: this alleged coldness, it was widely claimed, was what explained the supposed lack of enthusiasm about the visit, even among Catholics.
Well, we will hear no more now about his purported lack of charisma, an assessment invariably followed with a comparison, to Pope Benedict’s disadvantage, with John Paul II. Pope Benedict is, we have now all seen, hugely charismatic: but his charisma is of a different kind, less dramatic, less forcefully energetic than that of Pope John Paul.
Of course; they were always very different men: but Pope Benedict has all the charisma he needs, and in both the senses given by the Oxford Dictionary: 1) “a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others” and 2) “a divinely conferred power or talent”. For, in the end, let us never forget that what we have witnessed has come from God, whose presence has been very close throughout not only to the Pope himself but also to all who were praying for his success – protecting, inspiring, allaying our fears and in the end fulfilling all our hopes.
On my Medjugorje pilgrimage back in August I did some serious self examination.
And hey! I didn't come out so bad. Okay some issues - who doesn't have any?
This is what I found:
One or two - or maybe three or four traces here and there of self aggrandisement. Oh! well! At least I'm being honest.
Now, I do sometimes overindulge in alcohol. Usually during school holiday time in the Good Yarn. But hey! I'm a writer. So many great writers have liked a tipple: F Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Jack Kerouac, Brendan Behan, James Joyce, Jack London... I'm in good company.
Then of course there is the odd incidence of lack of charity. Witness the goading and mickey-taking of the Church of England Busybody. But, it's usually just rollicking good fun.
Detterling I'm on a roll at the moment. The Assisted Suicide torpedoing was terrific. I feel just as good as when Pope Benedict vanquished the New Atheists.
Also things are so different in teaching at the beginning of this new academic year. Last year I was on a downer but this year I feel great. I'm on the home straight. January 2017 is in sight. Glorious retirement and the time and opportunity to concentrate on my career as a writer! People say I exude bonhomie and in the staffroom I am dispensing advice in avuncular fashion to our new cohort of teachers. (And by the way the new HT is proving a fine captain of the ship.)
There is nothing you can do to derail me Detters.
Your ears must have been burning last Friday night. What a celebration we had in the Good Yarn! The Assisted Suicide vote of course, but also we celebrated your latest banning from Opinion Forum. You were quite rightly banned for naming names. Despicable!
We also celebrated you being called a pseud on Opinion Forum a couple of weeks back. Now, in all my long career I have never been called a pseud. It's a terrible thing to be called. You should reflect on this seriously.
Protesters stand outside the Houses of Parliament in London as MPs debate the Assisted Dying Bill (PA)
Parliament is unlikely to debate another Bill on the issue for years to come
I’m sure I wasn’t the only one shaking when MPs voted by a majority of 212 against assisted suicide this afternoon. The implications of the vote were enormous. For a moment it had seemed as if Britain was about to become a society in which suicide was prescribed on the National Health Service as a “remedy” for terminal illness.
What’s significant about the vote is not just that assisted suicide was rejected, but that it was rejected so overwhelmingly. This means that a Bill licensing assisted suicide is unlikely to darken Parliament’s door for many years to come. We have debated the issue vigorously in both chambers and the elected house has rejected assisted suicide decisively.
The lazy argument that the opposition to assisted suicide is driven by religious zealots has also been demolished. The 212 MPs in the House of Commons who gave up their Friday to vote with the their feet and walk through the No lobby were not a swarm of fanatical Bible-bashers – as funnymen like David Baddiel and Lee Hurst imply. No, they were doctors, nurses, lawyers, believers and non-believers.
The experience of both Scotland and now England and Wales demonstrates that, while legislators often feel a knee-jerk sympathy for supporters, when they examine the evidence they realise how dangerous assisted suicide is.
Only today, Ben Howlett MP said that the debate in the chamber changed his mind on assisted suicide and that he had decided to oppose the Bill. Lord Falconer’s Bill will not be allocated parliamentary time now and so campaigners have hit a legislative cul-de-sac, leaving the courts as the only viable way forward for pursuing their case.
But the latest Supreme Court ruling on the so-called “right-to-die” simply encouraged Parliament to debate the issue – which it has now dutifully done.
Our elected representatives have held the “open and honest debate” that supporters of assisted suicide have incessantly demanded. Our judiciary must remember that when the next “hard case” stands before them.
It's a throwback to when Pope Benedict XVI vanquished the New Atheists
The House of Commons has voted on the Assisted Dying Bill (PA)
Rob Marris presented his private member's Bill in the House of Commons today
MPs have voted to reject the Assisted Dying Bill introduced by Rob Marris MP.
The vote, which came after almost five hours of impassioned debate on both sides, resulted in 330 against the Bill and 118 in favour, a majority of 212.
The Bill, proposed by Labour MP Rob Marris, was based on Lord Falconer’s Bill which ran out of time in the House of Lords before the general election.
It would have allowed people with fewer than six months to live to be prescribed a lethal dose of drugs; they would have to be capable of taking these themselves. Every case would have had to be approved by two doctors and a High Court judge.
When the issue was last debated in Parliament in 1997 it was rejected by 234 to 89.
In a statement Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark, the chairman of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship for the bishops’ conference, said he now hoped that “excellent practice in palliative care” would become a focus of political action.
He said: “I welcome Parliament’s recognition of the grave risks that this bill posed to the lives of our society’s most vulnerable people. There is much excellent practice in palliative care which we need to celebrate and promote, and I hope now the debate on assisted suicide is behind us, that this will become a focus for political action.
“I am encouraged by the participation of so many Catholics throughout England and Wales in this important discussion and hope that everyone involved will continue to support calls for better quality care as life nears its end.”
Assisted Dying Bill: MPs reject 'right to die' law
HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!
We shall lift our glasses in celebration in the Good Yarn tonight!!!
Image copyrightPAImage caption People for and against the assisted dying bill were campaigning outside parliament today
MPs have rejected plans for a right to die in England and Wales in their first vote on the issue in almost 20 years.
In a free vote in the Commons, 118 MPs were in favour and 330 against plans to allow terminally ill adults to end their lives with medical supervision.
In a passionate debate some argued the plans allowed a "dignified and peaceful death" while others said they were "totally unacceptable".
Such legislation has repeatedly failed to pass through parliament.
A doctor-assisted dying bill was rejected by MPs in 1997 and attempts to take legislation through the House of Lords ran out of time before the general election this year.
The latest attempt was brought before the Commons by Rob Marris, the Labour MP for Wolverhampton South West. Under the proposals, people with fewer than six months to live could have been prescribed a lethal dose of drugs, which they had to be able to take themselves. Two doctors and a High Court judge would have needed to approve each case.
Prime Minister David Cameron was not present at the debate, but a spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has made his views clear on this issue before, he is not convinced that further steps need to be taken and he is not in favour of an approach that would take us closer to euthanasia."
Media captionRob Marris, Caroline Spelman, Crispin Blunt, Lyn Brown, Keir Starmer, Nadine Dorries and Dr Liam Fox speak for and against the Assisted Dying Bill
Opening the debate, Mr Marris said the current law did not meet the needs of the terminally ill, families or the medical profession.
He said there were too many "amateur suicides, and people going to Dignitas" and it was time for parliament to debate the issue because "social attitudes have changed".
Mr Marris added: "The law in England and Wales has not got the balance right.
"This Bill would provide more protection for the living and more choice for the dying."
Mr Marris said he did not know what choice he would make if he was terminally ill, but said it would be comforting to know that the choice was available "to have a dignified and peaceful death at the time of my choosing". Image copyrightThinkstockFiona Bruce, the MP for Congleton, said the bill was so completely lacking safeguards for the vulnerable that "if this weren't so serious it would be laughable".
Her impassioned speech concluded: "We are here to protect the most vulnerable in our society, not to legislate to kill them. This bill is not merely flawed, it is legally and ethically totally unacceptable."
The law on assisted dying around the UK
Euthanasia, which is considered as manslaughter or murder, is illegal under English law.
The Suicide Act 1961 makes it an offence to encourage or assist a suicide or a suicide attempt in England and Wales. Anyone doing so could face up to 14 years in prison.
The law is almost identical in Northern Ireland.
There is no specific law on assisted suicide in Scotland, creating some uncertainty, although in theory someone could be prosecuted under homicide legislation. The Conservative MP Caroline Spelman added that "the right to die can so easily become the duty to die" and she said the law already provided protection for the elderly and disabled.
She was one of many MPs to argue that it was difficult to determine whether someone had six months to live.
She also warned: "[The bill] changes the relationship between the doctor and their patient, it would not just legitimise suicide, but promote the participation of others in it."
Media captionJeffrey Spector's wife, Elaine, and daughter Keleigh explain why he wanted to end his life legally
In a lengthy speech, Labour MP Sir Keir Starmer told MPs about prosecution guidelines he developed in his role as director of public prosecutions, when he had to deal with a number of 'right to die' cases including Debbie Purdy and Tony Nicklinson.
But he warned that his guidelines had shortcomings without a change in the law.
He said: "We have arrived at a position where compassionate amateur assistance from nearest and dearest is accepted, but professional medical assistance is not unless you have the means of physical assistance to get to Dignitas.
"That, to my mind, is an injustice we have trapped within our current arrangements."
Media captionMichael Wenham, who suffers from motor neurone disease, believes some disabled people could feel pressure to relieve carers of the "burden" of looking after them
An emotional Dr Philippa Whitford, the SNP's health spokesperson and a breast cancer surgeon, argued that with good palliative care the "journey can lead to a beautiful death".
"We should support letting people live every day of their lives till the end," she said, and she urged MPs to vote for "life and dignity, not death".
Justice Minister Mike Penning closed the debate, saying he opposed the bill for two reasons - firstly because he didn't think it should be an excuse that "we can't control pain in the 21st century".
He also said he was against suicide because he had seen the painful aftermath of far too many.
Reactions to the vote
Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said the result of the vote showed "how ridiculously out of touch MPs are with the British public on the issue".
"With the overwhelming majority of the public supporting the Bill it is an outrage that MPs have decided to retain the current law which the former Director of Public Prosecutions, the House of Lords, and the public all believe is leading to suffering and injustice for dying people."
Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, welcomed the rejection of the legislation, saying the current law existed to protect those who were sick, elderly, depressed or disabled.
"It protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion. It acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and does not need changing."
But Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, chair of Inter-faith leaders for Dignity in Dying, said he was saddened by the failure of the bill because it dashed the hopes of those "who wish to avoid ending their days in pain or incapacity".
He said he hoped MPs would revisit the issue at a future date.
Where others stand on assisted dying
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said the bill would mean suicide was "actively supported" instead of being viewed as a tragedy.
One of his predecessors, George Carey, backs assisted dying saying that there's nothing dignified about experiencing pain at its most awful.
The campaign group Care Not Killing said the legislation was "dangerous" because it would send out a chilling message about how we value and treat vulnerable people.
While the group Dignity in Dying says the "overwhelming majority" of the public support assisted dying.
The British Medical Association, the doctor's union, opposes all forms of assisted dying.
And the Royal College of Nursing takes a neutral stance.
Detterling you write: 'You are one of the nastiest people I have never met -'
Two things. You have never met me. You were given two opportunities. Firstly when I invited you down, ten years ago in the school summer holidays, to spend a day fishing with me on the Grand Union Canal at Uxbridge. I even offered a Fortnum & Mason hamper for lunch. You declined my invitation. Then, on the 25th November 2006, you were given the opportunity to meet me at the now demolished Duke of York pub at Kings Cross station in London. YOU ARRIVED LATE BY WHICH TIME I HAD GONE HOME - AFTER ACCUSING A TOTALLY INNOCENT BYSTANDER OF BEING YOU.
Also Detters, I am not nasty. I am kind and compassionate. Witness over the years how I have consistently advised you wisely in respect of guidance re the lifestyle of your nephew. And by the way I have posted on here a couple of weeks back on how Pope Francis' nephew praises Pope Francis to high heaven for being a kind, considerate and generous uncle. Could your nephew say the same about you? Methinks not.
