A real opera

I went to the opera on Tuesday - a Glyndeborne touring production in Canterbury with singers I'd heard of, and some of whom were so old that I'd actually heard them before  It was Nozze di Figaro - which is the first opera I ever saw at Covent Garden - in their da Ponte season in 1980? 81?  I used to listen to it all the time, but it's such a long time since I saw it.   The first half was a bit irritating as we had been bought the last two tickets by dear Anna T. and these were in a box above the stage from which one couldn't see more than one-third of the stage, or the surtitles.  In the second half we slid over to a couple of spare seats I'd noticed in the slips... which were marvellous in comparison.

The production was interesting, the singing was good and the fact that I knew it so well meant I really, really appreciated it and engaged with it.  When the Count finally sings "Contessa, perdona" I had tears in my eyes.   What seems to have happened in the twenty years or so since I last went to proper opera on a regular basis (i.e since I met Mark and so on...) is that acting has become extremely important - and there is no question of someone walking on, singing their aria and then standing about like a lemon.  It does make a tremendous difference to one's engagement with it.  Obviously there was operatic acting 20 years ago - but it wasn't so ubiquitous.  Or perhaps it is just David Grandage's productions?  The style was clever - 70's costumes in crumbling Moorish palaces.  The Count's costumes were especially louche and fab - the Contessa wore floating kaftans.

I should have  made M listen to it a bit before we went - I don't think he really got into it.  But then again, neither would the LO probably...perhaps one just has to accept that one can't turn "to share the rapture" with people as much as one would like...there will always be spaces in between in any sort of intimacy, and that too is desirable, although occasionally it can feel a bit lonely. 

What's God like?

This is a question that everyone who believes in God has to ask themselves.  I answered it to my satisfaction years ago - an answer that was based on the fact that I had experienced something - an enveloping, awesome, powerful darkness.  I experienced it more than once - I think it's some sort of ultra-conscious state when one ceases to be conscious of the material world and is - very briefly - with God - in eternity.  It was an unfrightening darkness, it had no negative element - when I became materially conscious again I was filled with a sense of love and thankfulness - but I didn't feel that during the brief experience.  On the occasions I've had it, I've longed to experience it again.

On the more superficial level - when it comes to day to day trying to do what you think God prefers, one takes the Gospels as a guide, tries to turn the other cheek (abysmal failure usually!), to be kind to widows and orphans (mercifully few around) and so on.  I tend to believe in a God-form that I've created from my own nature - a forgiving, liberal God, who would read the Guardian if He/She ever got around to it.  This is a God whose ultimate judgement of me will, I hope, be kindly and understanding, will recognise the struggles I've had to be a better person, and will admit me to some positive new state of ultra-consciousness when I die.

This morning I woke at 5.00 am - and found myself worrying: suppose I'm wrong? - suppose all the fundamentalists who believe in an angry, vengeful God, who sends people to Hell, are right?  If this was the real God - and not just their personal projection of God - what hope would there be for me? In terms of the Old Testament I can't find much comfort, I have either broken or derided a great many of the Biblical laws - I haven't killed anyone, and never really stolen more than stationery...but apart from those saving graces, I'm pretty much destined for Hell.  If it exists and is occupied.  That gave me a terrible feeling of despair - that nothing I could do would make it right.  Of course this isn't true: there is repentance and forgiveness - and above all redemption through Jesus.  In theological terms these are the remedy for Hell!  

But what about those people - those fundamentalists who really believe in Hell, in punishment, in their own deep-rooted sinfulness?  They are surely already in a Hell of their own making - they are imprisoned in an anxiety that any mild lust or covetous or malicious thought, will not go unpunished.  I suddenly felt something I had never felt before - a great compassion for those people - who are not living a full and abundant life because they are terrified of what might happen in the afterlife if they do. What an absolute misery this must be for them.  No wonder they have to have a go at the rest of us as we go about, blithely enjoying the God given pleasures of the world and human society - they must resent our casual attitude very much.

Tories & rent boys - child abuse & "paedophilia"

All those beautiful Greek words for it - pederasty - from pais erastos - desired (lusted after) boy,  paedophilia - love of boys (or children - same word in Greek - girls didn't count). I have decided not to use these words - child abuse is the appropriate one.

The revelations that come from the N. Wales abuse victims don't speak of love or tenderness - or even the kind of desire that one would associate with that.  There is no sense of relationship - just use... no tenderness, but rape.

I cannot even begin to speculate on the history of rent boys - but no doubt where there's a demand there's usually a supply.  Someone will have contributed a book of "queer history" which will focus on their history - it may be spoken of with pride, but the "suck your cock for sixpence, guv'nor" idea of a chirpy, free-spirited rent boy may be a tad on the idealistic side. Perhaps there are 14 year old boys who are making a bit of a career of it.  We used to live next door to a retired rent boy in London (he didn't know we knew) - I over heard a very loud telephone conversation which boomed through our bedroom wall one morning - and he said (inter alia) "When I was a rent boy, we wanted to make something of ourselves - now it's just all about money."

One has to pause to wonder what depths someone could come from if becoming a rent-boy was a step up on the ladder...

So, if we accept that, for whatever reasons, there is a steady supply of willingish rent boys in large cities (I can only speak for London) - why would anyone want to trek out to North Wales to find unwilling sex with amateurs?   Well, maybe the majority of the users were locals - say the Chester MP Peter Morrison - so they weren't going far.  Were they inviting chums from London to join them?  Was the unwillingness part of the attraction?  It was fresh meat rather than the jaded, over accomplished services of a "professional"?

Then we return to the vague idea that somehow London rentboys are free-booting independent contractors -  clearly they were mostly not, clearly there were rings, men who supplied.  The magnificent case of the Committal proceedings where a man who was part of a paedophile ring supplying boys to various people, claimed "you can't touch me, I supply the ______  ______ " and further reporting on the matter was suppressed by a D Notice (this was from a comment on one of the posts I've removed).

The fact is that there was some very nasty stuff going on - people like Edwina Currie knew about Peter Morrison - but no one said anything even though it was illegal.   What did they think?  That those boys had chosen that path - that it was a "lifestyle choice"?   That it might be better than some of the alternatives?  They they were doing them a favour in employing them for a tenner?  Perhaps some of these things may even be true in some of the cases.  But the fact that something so thoroughly illegal and immoral was going on alongside the business of government does not seem to have bothered people enough to do something about it.  Evil flourishes when good (men) do nothing - arguably many of the people who knew about it weren't good.

Tory child abuse cover up "like the Nazis"

This is the rather dramatic opinion of my friend A - who is famed, as a former BBC journalist, for having such opinions and stories to back them up.  Of course it is an hysterical viewpoint in some ways.   The Nazis had widespread control of large swathes of Europe - child abusers in the Tory party do not.  Speaking out against the Nazis was a suicidal policy - speaking out about Tory child abuse probably isn't... but it is nevertheless being suppressed.

A cited the case of the government scientist, David Kelly, who died in mysterious circumstances shortly after having displeased the government (a Labour government incidentally).  His somewhat outrageous view is that  similar things may happen now to people who upset the apple cart over this affair.  He believes Steve Messhums was paid a handsome sum to re-cant; he thinks it inconceivable that no one ever showed him a picture of his abuser in the last 20 years... and that he misidentified him... He also speculates that SM will meet a sticky end.

So far, so repressive.  But the difference from the Nazis is instructive - and almost more shocking.   Firstly - for most of the last 20 years the Tories have not been the ruling party - so why wasn't this dug up before?   Secondly, it is only a tiny handful of leading Tories who have been allegedly involved in child abuse - and some of them, such as Ted Heath are dead.  Surely the rest of the party - which I assume is not involved in child abuse? would naturally be revolted by this and want to bring the guilty to justice?  Perhaps they really think it is a matter for the police - but the police were most helpful in assisting the cover up last time - so when David Cameron suggests that if anyone knows anything they take it to the police, he's potentially setting  the same old carousel in motion.  But what else can he say?  That he's going to hold a public enquiry?

I would love to see a Leveson type enquiry that would bring the suspects to Westminster for questioning... then we could see who all the suspects were - and get them to reply to the evidence.  However, that isn't going to happen.   There has been so much covering up and muddying the waters that it would be very difficult to ascertain anything.

At the base of this is the fact that certain rich, powerful people have no respect or care for the weak and vulnerable - and see them as objects for use, rather than humans of equal value to themselves.  In this they are exactly like the Nazis, the fact that this view is not widespread throughout society makes it even more damning that they have been allowed to carry on like this in secret and been covered up by official bodies.  Why did Waterhouse refuse to reveal the names?  Did he think everyone would stop, having been sufficiently frightened - or was he leaned on?  Or did he have some sympathy for the perpetrators?  Or did he think society would be undermined, that the Tories might lose popularity?... And why do I have to wait until they are all dead before I can write freely about them?   People are sickened that Savile got away with it for so long - they won't be happy to see the revelations about this lot after they're all dead.

In a very bizzarre way this cover-up is worse than the Nazis - because there's really no excuse for it - except that it would embarrass people. A small handful being protected by a larger handful - doing something that there is no political justification for.  There is no over-arching ideology that the people of Britain have been swayed by, child abuse is not happening to give us a greater sway in the world - yet we seem almost as powerless as Germans in the 1930's to combat it.

Tory Child abuse rumours

There were 3 posts about this which were surprisingly popular - until I took them down.  

I took them down because I heard Lord McAlpine (who I hadn't mentioned in them)'s solicitor talking about the law of defamation on the PM programme last night. The thing that upset me is that he said repeating rumours could result in legal action.  Now, I didn't write about Lord M, and the man I wrote about hasn't been mentioned much - although there has been a prodigious bit of rumour swirling around him.   Perhaps he is lying doggo - hoping it will all blow over and there will be another D-notice or injunction supported cover-up like last time.

I spent yesterday evening in a gloom (there was another factor) and woke up this morning feeling very angry.  How dare I be told what I could and couldn't write?  This has never happened to me before.  I wasn't writing  anything salacious, or giving any details - because I didn't know any.  I did want to discuss more widely why these rumours arise and why we are so interested in them and what we want out of them.  It is also true that I deeply dislike, distrust and despise the Tory party (pace individual "good Tories").  I would be delighted to discover that the abuse and the cover-ups were enough to bring them down.  But, solipsistically, what really upset me was being told that there were limits to what I could write publicly - and that I certainly could not write my inner thoughts in public if they concerned a public person.

I can see that were I a well-known writer I would not want rumours of my sexual pecadilloes (historic) to be revealed in the press - even though I've done nothing that any sexually adventurous woman of my generation probably hasn't done or tried. But would I take out an injunction (if I were wealthy enough)? I don't think so.  I'd do a frank public interview and discuss the rumours and what I thought about them and hope to be convincing enough to change people's minds about me, and if that didn't work, I'd have to live with it.

Lord M has finally given the interview (I had forgotten the rumour about him, because he doesn't register on my radar much).  He has been distressed and disgusted, and on the whole, I think if he'd come out and said this twenty years ago it might have had more effect, or indeed if someone had tried to get Messhams to identify his abuser earlier this might have helped too...it should have quashed the rumours at the time.   So why don't public people adopt this tactic?   Why do they think lying doggo is a better one?  Perhaps it does work most of the time - it seems to work for the man I wrote about, but arguably it may work well for him because he may be completely innocent.

I do know one thing about Lord M though - during the 80's when I worked at Lazards, his family firm were clients.  One of our directors was quite chummy with him.  Lord M used to invite said director to (charity?) boxing matches at the Cafe Royal I think.  Well, to be accurate I know he did this on at least one occasion.   This is all legal and above board, but perhaps I won't be the only person who thinks the glorious tradition (dating to Byron and beyond) of upper class men watching young fit working class men beating 7 bells out of each other, is not entirely attractive or without an element of the homoerotic/paederastic.  The Ancient Greeks would have understood this very well, English people are shy of admitting it.

Gloom returns

So after a week of not worrying about it, the putative agent did not get back to me.  I sort of knew that.  But I told myself I would call her at 4.00pm this afternoon, and then I just couldn't face it.  So now I feel miserable, tearful and generally awful.

God, I haven't felt this miserable for ages... I could have put myself out of the misery by calling her (probably), but it was fear of her not saying anything positive, of saying "no" - of rushing her into a negative response.... so where am I?

I feel desperate - need comfort, M offered to take me out to supper - but we can't afford it as usual...And anyway, all I can think about is how wretched I feel.

And yet, as I often point out to myself, nothing has changed objectively...I have still got two well-written novels, I have not actually been turned down by the agent (yet) and in fact she probably won't - I think if she were going to she could have emailed me this week and said so.

M is being gloomy and has also convinced me that high powered lawyers will be tracking me down to sue me for defamation, since apparently repeating rumours is a form of defamation.  Oh God.  I have taken down the blogs.

Defamation - famous Tories and sex

OK - I've been scared into it.  I have taken down the 3 blogs that referred to rumours about a former Tory cabinet minister... I don't suppose we need D notices any more - the libel laws, the super injunctions etc. have taken over.  Although arguably, if a cabinet minister is using underage boys, that would not really be a matter of national security - would it?

Interestingly, the rumours I was writing about focused around someone whose name has not been mentioned in the mainstream media.  Perhaps lying low is the smart thing to do.  It will probably all blow over... although not until the enquiries are over.

Meanwhile, Cameron pulled off some fancy footwork with Philip Schofield didn't he?  By suggesting that the paedophilia cases could set in motion a wave of homophobia, he carefully suggested that gay men were the chief perps. of paedophilia... was that deliberate?  Or just a heat of the moment distraction technique?  We will never know.

It all stinks - and the fact that I have been scared into removing my blogs is not the least stinking thing.  I was not generating rumours, but discussing existing rumours - and apparently that too has legal implications.

Well, I shall retreat from the wider world and instead focus on personal  minutiae and wondering if my putative agent will ever ring.  

Alex Katz and the American Dream

Last night I went to the Turner Contempt to hear a talk or rather a "conversation" about Alex Katz's work... as it was the day after the successful re-election of Barak Obama one was anticipating something rather zingy - but as two of the main participants Bonnie Greer and Sarah Churchwell had been up all night reporting on it for ITN, their contributions seemed a bit lacking in "joined up thinking" (Churchwell delivered her notes at a breakneck speed, Greer was too tired to contribute much beyond her notes she'd written on the train).  However, there were some interesting points made, especially by the artist Merlyn James - who discussed Katz's work.

The points that struck me were that (a) Katz's work is about relationships, he shows people's relationships, and some of the hollowness there - his pictures look incredibly glamorous, a great deal about style and surface - but the underlying relationships don't seem close.  He particularly looked at one painting of a man and a woman, he's looking at her, she's looking down and away - behind them is the sea with a little jagged reef of black rocks - the couple divorced shortly afterwards; he mentioned other examples of Katz's uncanny ability to suggest things that had not yet happened.

The idea of the "American Dream" did not come into use until 1930's - i.e. the Depression - it encompassed the idea of a "good education" which came as something of a surprise to me.  Churchwell insisted it was possible to get an excellent education (I asked a question about how Americans might be taught better history) in the US if you lived in the right area and paid high property taxes - which is great for someone like her,  Bonnie Greer was apparently bussed to the same school... she seems to have unconsciously proved my point - that American education is very good for the elite... She gave a snub about the products of English education...heigh-ho!  I guess some people like to "win" rather than discuss.  She certainly didn't answer my question about how to get more historical understanding into Americans.

I liked what she said about Gilead - rapidly becoming one of my favourite books... how it traced the history of American radicalism from 1851 when Iowa was the heart of American radicalism, participating in the underground railway which hid runaway slaves etc.  to 1956 when it had lost that sense of its past - and how when Eames was gone they would re-build the old church that had seen all this.

Merlyn James made the point that McCarthyism had made it impossible for artists to depict work in any way - that sort of thing stank of "socialist realism" and nobody would sell it.   It made me realise that there could be a simple narrative of that time... the Depression may have heightened awareness of a "better world" - expressed cosily in the "American Dream" or in the aspirations of Socialism - McCarthy comes along and squashes all the socialist stuff - and people get left with the hollow, and economically naive idea of the "American Dream".  It may have been realistic in the 40's-70's, but once they started exporting the jobs abroad, it has become incredibly naive to think the American Dream will ever be possible again...

There was a comment from Churchwell about the "British Dream" - but we didn't get to develop that one: I was thinking that this is not a feature of European culture - the Germans have been known to have dreams, which got them into a lot of trouble.  Henri IV wanted every peasant to be able to afford a poule au pot once a week - and in Britain we had "homes fit for heroes" and "Now build the Peace" - I think in Britain we are too individualistic to have a collective dream - although we came close to it with the NHS - we do have a sense of the common good though which is still hanging on in some places, although we don't really believe it when the Tories try to appeal to it...

I would have liked to hear more from Bonnie Greer - but I was glad of Merlyn James.  There was a good deal about The Great Gatsby - which I clearly ought to re-read.  I will have to excuse Greer and Churchwell since I don't think either of them were thinking straight.  I felt so much more could have been said - but there wasn't time, and it wasn't really a conversation either..

Not Leon Brittan at all?

[Originally written in 2012 - now relevant again.  There is a very interesting anonymous comment that should be read too]

Why do rumours congregate around certain people?  You might say there's no smoke without fire, but why Leon Brittan?   Why not instead, Peter Morrison - the former MP for Chester and Deputy Leader of the Conservative party - who has already been named as involved in the Bryn Estyn business and is dead, and therefore unable to put out an injunction...  Is it because we want action, we want movement, and we want things to happen.  "Dead Tory MP was paedophile" isn't quite as exciting a headline as we would get if a living politician was implicated.

Also, there is the fact that the former victim has not quietened the speculation by saying "but anyway, he's dead now."   And of course, the BBC has reported that the "senior figure" is vehemently denying the rumours/allegations etc and Rod Richards - another Welsh Tory has said in today's Daily Mail  "Peter Morrison and another..."

It's commonly said that Labour Politicians get involved in financial scandals, while Tories get involved in sex scandals.  Leon Brittan resigned from the European commission after a fraud case - in which he does not seem to have been implicated, and was subsequently ennobled: nevertheless, he seems to have had the bad luck to be implicated in both types of scandal.  It is at times like this that one wishes Private Eye had an archive on the web.  It is at times like these that one is irritated by the rumours, and vaguely aware of having read something, somewhere, but can't quite remember what, that left one with a bad feeling about a person.

Peter Morrison died aged 51 after a fairly active life as a user of rent boys - who would then have been underage - and probably of younger boys too.  He wasn't the most prominent of Tories - apart from being Thatcher's PPS.  He doesn't look particularly sinister - just a stoutish, ruddy man who obviously has sensual appetites, could be gay, but one wouldn't be surprised to find him pinching bottoms and winking roguishly at a Constituency Cheese & Wine Party either.  The revelation in the Daily Mail of his involvement doesn't get Leon B off the hook yet.  Although I have a soft spot for William Hague (due to his ability to rile Tony Blair at PM's Questions) the fact that he seems to have been in charge as Welsh Secretary during the Bryn Estyn investigation (and cover up) adds another element - there have been questions over Hague's sexuality too.  If he is implicated in a cover up over this matter, these questions will no doubt be revisted.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, but unfortunately, because of the way attitudes have changed in the last 40 years, some people are still living in the age of discretion/secrecy that used to surround homosexuality.  When people talk about a "Gay Mafia" they are reflecting the fact that when it was not permitted to be gay, loyalties and affinities were discovered, - which resulted in people protecting each other - regardless of the crime.  This "huddling together for warmth" can be seen in any minority group - it doesn't necessarily lead to the covering up of crimes, and the protection of the guilty, but can certainly create a sense in those outside the group that they are sticking together and plotting and caballing.  Might a gay man who was only interested in reputable equal relationships with other men nevertheless cover up something more dodgy, like paedophilia, because the perpetrator was a friend, a member of his protective group?

A propos this issue, one thing I have noticed, about virtually all the Tory politicians who are, or have been reputed to be, gay, is that those who are married never have children of their own, or usually, any children.  Curiously there used to be rumours that Gordon Brown was a paedophile.  For some reason, I never entertained these rumours as anything more than malicious - God knows who started them, he had enough enemies it seems.  The fact that he married and had children whom he clearly loves, seemed a very final nail in the coffin of that particular rumour.

Leon Brittan - what do you want?

[Second in the original series of 3 posts about LB from November 2012]

It is clear from what happened on this blog yesterday that there are a large number of people idly trawling the net, seeking evidence to prove rumours.   The net contains no answers - only fuel for speculation.   My husband asked me crossly "Did you look at his Wikipaedia entry?" - "Yes - and curiously it doesn't mention that he is a practising paedophile."  Although he (my husband) has a PhD and doesn't really believe in the net as the best source of facts - he has touching faith in Wikipaedia.  But, to quote Auden, just as "a penny life will tell you all the facts", Wikipaedia will give you plenty of facts, but nothing of the essence, the emotional/spiritual side of a person.

When you, the readers, put Leon Brittan's name into Google and reach this place, what are you hoping for?  Confirmation?  Details of the abuse? A denunciation? A middle-aged man's tear stained memories of childhood misery and degradation? Or do you hope this blog can deny it - say it was rubbish, that during that period he was on a  3 year trade mission to Tierra del Fuego and nowhere near the Bryn Estyn (sic?) Home?  [Sorry - the Elm Guest House!]  Or are you simply looking for something new to say about it all?

Why am I writing about it?  Nothing we do to the culprits can restore the childhood innocence of the men they damaged.  Even if we name the guilty men and strip them of their public honours, how can we help their victims?  Yes, there's a certain pleasure in revenge - it is good to see your enemy's body floating past you down the river - but when it's gone past, you are still left with your unhappiness and trauma.  Even if we were to "string 'em up" "hanging's too good for them"... what then for the victims?

The real problem of paedophilia is that it's about power, like rape - and the urge amongst humans to gain power over each other is something so innate, that to eradicate paedophilia we will have to re-program the human race. Yes, you or I have never done this... but we probably have had an urge to power in other situations, to humiliate or best someone, to take revenge.  These desires might make us behave badly in other ways.  How do we stop it?  How do we stop it?  The remedy for change is within us individually, to become aware of our urges to dominate others and eradicate these urges or channel them into more constructive ends.  The good will try to do this, the not so good will say it's rubbish, can't be done, it's human nature etc. etc. I'm not defending paedophilia - just saying, it's one extreme of poor human behaviour.  This returns us to the idea that human nature is essentially bad (sinful?)... and what can we do about that?   Interesting where these arguments lead you.

Child abuse rumours - Leon Brittan? - censorship

[Published in November 2012 - withdrawn when people began to mutter about defamation]

Well, the Savile business seems to have flushed a few other issues out.  The North Wales children's home business was investigated a decade or so ago - in secret.  "lessons were learned" etc. etc. but no action was taken.  It is now being widely bruited about that a "senior conservative politician" has been named in connection with this scandal - hence the censorship of the outcome of the investigation?

I am now wondering whether the politican involved was Leon Brittan - there were rumours that he was a paedophile during the 80's - like all these rumours, one is too far from the source to know whether it has any veracity. I am now guilty of the usual internet crime of sticking an unsubstantiated opinion up.  Since I posted this this morning, this post has had the most hits in one day, and is approaching most hits ever.  I don't think this is a good thing, because it isn't about something that's true - only a rumour.    It hasn't been said that the politician was a Cabinet Minister - it may turn out to be someone who was "senior" in a less obvious way - a treasurer or chairman of the region - part of the party structure rather than someone so public.  A little light research reveals that all the other sources of this story are blogs of varying degrees of credibility.  It is hard to separate what people strongly believe from what is factually accurate sometimes, the levels of outrage and conviction are high - even if the evidence is ?  What?  Rumour and hearsay - but they turned out to be true about JS.

Looking the Tory Cabinet of the 1980s there were any number of people who might have been creepy enough to be molesting children as well as buggering the UK economy.  Candidate for most creepy?  Well, Keith Joseph obviously, and Norman Tebbit; LB might have to be up there though.   If it were him, would that harm the career of his protegee Nick Clegg?  Can his career be any further harmed?

It will be interesting to see who this politician is, since I am sure the name will come out sooner or later.

I have been reading Nick Cohen's excellent book on censorship, You can't read this book - and while I don't suppose my blog is widely read in government circles, I have carefully edited this post since this morning.

Fanfare

In the spirit of blowing one's own trumpet, I posted again about Conscience on Facebook - and this time received all necessary plaudits from most of the nice friends - and even a youtube trumpet link!  "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqmKfT8yIJ4&feature=related" which is the fabulous Purcell Sound the Trumpet which I can thoroughly recommend as early morning music.

And now, I am going back to bed.

Prostate cancer & assertive atheism

This is a topic intermittently on my mind, because of my dear cousin S.  Because he has adopted a calm, faithful approach to the disease, and because I am a less intrusive interlocutor than I might appear to be from this blog, I do not know what his official prognosis is.  He is hoping to do a retreat at Minster next year - I am hoping to see them there. Since we are all praying for him, we just have to have faith and hope, but it is difficult to maintain these in the face of increasing development of bone cancer.   I believe people have come back from the brink from worse states, so I hope he will too.   However, the faith can be shaken.

There is a local couple I feel ambiguous about - I feel I have quite a lot in common with her, but I'm sure she doesn't feel the same. Her manner is abrasive, "direct" is how she puts it, but there are other less complimentary descriptions.  He has recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer - it was caught early, he responded well to treatment and now everything seems hunky-dory - so he can continue his career of being mildly patronising to me and others (he assumes because he is in a small way of being a property developer that he will inevitably know more about any local issues than me or Mark).  This cheery pair are really very nice in many ways (I tell myself) but we just don't "click" - the fact that they are very assertive atheists of course may be a factor (although it doesn't usually bother me).  Anyway, because of my reticence in questioning Strat I took the advantage of distance and questioned her about his symptoms, since like a good partner she is now very knowledgeable about prostate cancer.  "Oh, well, basically he's fucked!" she said.  No beating about the bush of course.

If this was (Catholic) fiction, the "fucked" character would go on to miraculously recover thanks to the use of prayer, novenas, relics and the intercession of St. Vincent de Paul - or someone... while the secular character - well, it would be too melodramatic to have him die of secondaries - perhaps he would simply go his merry way, unaware of God's grace and mercy.   Unfortunately, this will not be resolved like fiction, and we have a longer, slower wait for an outcome.

Assertive atheism is interesting.  If every time some one said to me "I don't believe in God, it's all bollocks, Darwinian evolution- cosmology blah, blah. It's a trap to fool us" I replied simply "I believe in a God who is outside time and space and created the laws of physics and evolution, which I also uphold, and I also believe that Jesus was God in a human form and that he rose from the dead - probably in accordance with quantum theory..." I would of course be regarded as a nutter and a religious maniac, yet I would simply be stating my beliefs without proselytizing.  I might even be shunned - when all I am saying is: God and the laws of physics are not incompatible - a scientific attitude towards the development of the universe does not preclude belief in God...unless you want it to, but please don't bully those of us who can't share your atheism.

Irony - in buckets

Perhaps it is too late, and my apparent boasting about my life has turned away 1,000s of blog readers - but for some reason I awoke this morning, anxious that my last few posts had seemed a bit "full of myself".  I grew up in a traditional British household (in some ways) where "showing off" was severely discouraged.  Arguably this may have led to a slightly depressive underestimation of my own abilities and talents during a large part of my adult life.   Now, eventually, I have just about come to admit that much of what I know and think and can do is actually quite interesting (even if occasionally veering to the nutty or solipsistic), however, whenever I allow this confidence to appear on the page after a day or so I feel retrospectively embarrassed that I might be accused of "showing off".

So, whenever I write about what a raging success I am, this is done with irony.  However, as the emoticon has yet to become a convention of English punctuation, I am not inclined to spell this out to the intelligent reader, who I hope is drawing their own conclusions.