A turbulent priest

Just when you thought that the Church of England was slipping into managerial mediocrity, a surprisingly splenetic rant in the Telegraph this morning from Peter Mullen, the Rector of St Michael’s, Cornhill and Chaplain to the Stock Exchange. He is not a follower of the Rowan Williams’ school of muddled thinking. Read the entire column, but here is a taster:

“We might have expected the Church to resist the decay, but instead it has connived with the destructive sexual and social revolution begun in the 1960s. Back then, I voted for homosexuality to be decriminalised. But this meant “between consenting adults in private” – where “between” meant two, “adults” meant men over 21 and “private” meant behind locked doors. I did not foresee the obscene and coercive “Gay Pride” pantomimes that now disfigure our high streets.

Who would have thought we would live to see the Bishop of Hereford fined £47,000 and made to attend a re-education course because he refused to employ a practising homosexual in his diocese’s youth services? How long before I am carted from the pulpit to the nick for preaching that sodomy is not morally equivalent to Christian marriage?”

Shrewd Bill is still Slick Willy

A fascinating column from Clive Crook in the FT today, on Bill Clinton’s play of a joint Clinton-Obama ticket. After setting the context (Obama ahead in elected delegates after Pennsylvania but not enough to settle the nomination), he comments

This swirling uncertainty is the context in which Bill Clinton’s recent claim that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unstoppable must be understood. It was an extremely shrewd political manoeuvre. It asserts a presumption, nothing if not bold, that Mrs Clinton is still the senior partner. It nominates Mr Obama as the Democrats’ presidential candidate in 2016 – and he is young enough for that to make sense. And it issues a summons, cynical as this may be coming from the Clintons, to party unity. This way, the Clinton campaign is saying, the party can come together, front both its favourite candidates (two for the price of one, three if you count Bill) and maximise its general election prospects.

Trouble in Tibet

Some things don’t change, and this remains true of China. However hard the West seeks engagement, and despite the clear importance of China in global economic terms (see this week’s Economist Special Report), we remain in different worlds. Nothing has pointed this up so starkly than the unfolding violence in Tibet, and the response of China, caught between what it probably would like to do (Tianmen Square Mk. 2) and still may, and what it can, given the Beijing Olympics. In FT.com, Richard McGregor reports:

A dispatch from Xinhua, the state news agency, over the weekend, called the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader a “master terror maker” who had willed his supporters in Lhasa to stage violent demonstrations.

“Now the blaze and blood in Lhasa has unclad the nature of the Dalai Lama, it’s time for the international community to recheck their stance towards the group’s camouflage of non-violence, if they do not want to be willingly misled,” the Xinhua report said.

Such hectoring missives typify the Chinese response, which has been to place the protests firmly in the context of the wider sovereignty dispute, the most sensitive issue for the ruling communist party.

With the Beijing 2008 only months away, and a US Presidential election campaign gathering steam, what is now happening in Lhasa and elsewhere in Tibet will have much wider repercussions, whether the Chinese like it or not. Meanwhile the Dalai Lama walks a difficult line:

“The Tibet nation is facing serious danger. Whether China’s government admits or not, there is a problem,” he said at a press conference at Dharamsala, India, on Sunday. “(But) the Olympics should not be called off.”

Ireland’s call

Not a good afternoon for Irish rugby fans (me included) yesterday at Twickenham. It is not so much the loss of the game to England (which was always on the cards) but that change is needed. The entire Six Nations campaign has been if not a disaster then a great disappointment. Whether the IRFU will have the courage to take the actions necessary, who knows. I am not convinced, notwithstanding the announcement that there is to be a detailed review.

Philip Browne, the IRFU’s chief executive didn’t look happy at the press conference, next to Eddie O’Sullivan, and rather too much management speak (what is an ‘optimal structure’?),

“The IRFU share in the disappointment with the outcome of this year’s RBS Six Nations championship from an Irish perspective and will be undertaking a detailed review of our performance. Our objective in this, as always, will be to ensure the Irish rugby team has in place the optimal structures to allow it to perform at the highest international levels into the future.”

There’s a lot to be done before the All Blacks in early June.

The curse of the BlackBerry

A rather depressing article in The Sunday Telegraph, about the world of work. Once work was work, and home was home, but now no longer, or not for a lot of people, if a report by Continental Research for Mitel is to be believed.

Getting away from work is growing harder, with more than half of companies encouraging staff to check their emails while on holiday. Businesses are taking advantage of mobile gadgets such as the BlackBerry to ensure that workers are never out of touch. But critics fear that the blurring of the line between work and leisure time is putting employees under strain.

For the lawyers who work for us, the BlackBerry is still a status symbol. Although they may be ubiquitous in the City, we do not give them out to everyone. Consequently the day IT produce one, you know you have made it (well, think you have). Which makes it all the more puzzling for my team that I handed mine back some two and a half years ago, fed up with the endless email traffic, and the invitation to discourtesy that BlackBerries offer. Not a meeting passes without someone playing with one under the table. I’m with Jim Norton, a senior policy adviser at the Institute of Directors, who is reported as commenting: “Anyone who works 100 per cent of the time will not be working very effectively.”