silverfox

Sounds like an idea made up by an inept marketing department to sell T-shirts

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't get me started about the (shh) "wrong end". > I.E. anything south of Iceland. You mean the Dulwich end rather than the Peckham end edcam

BusyB, was it your father who died intestate, your father's first cousin, or both?

Yes, where there's a need. The proliferation of charity food depots around the country demonstrates this need. I'm sure you agree rather than let people starve.

It would appear there were a lot of fools voting yes then without having worked out the remit of the women bishops should they be appointed

We don't know that DJKQ. The facts here seem a bit sparse and the assumption is it's the driver's fault. if I'm correct there's a box junction at that point. Who was in the box first? Did the cyclist take reasonable care/see the driver indicating? Was she ready to brake? I suppose we'll never know. Hope he lady's okay though and I suppose we should hope the driver's not too shaken up also.

Isn't there a box junction there?

So the lady on her bike was passing cars on the inside while the cars were stationary allowing the car to turn in front of them? Or are you saying she was in front of the cars and he didn't see her?

It's 'bean' years since I had a good night's sleep. I think my duvet is too short and not enough 'leg-ume' It's enough to make your pulse(s) race

Lady on bike just got knocked off by a car cutting corner at junction between Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove... How can you cut a corner at this junction? Do you mean by the pedestrian crossings by the roundabout?

", a number were unsure what voting yes would actually mean in practice " - is this true tho? Sounds a bit fake-concern from anyone so claiming The absence og guidelines for those who didn't wish to be under the authority of a woman bishop was a genuine concern to a number of them. Only a fool would vote yes if they didn't know what the exemptions were.

You are probably right Sean that for the most part the CoE is in favour of Women Bishops (difficult not to be given its women priests). However, I've no reason to question the figures given on your link to Brother.org: "...Of 47 bishops, only 3 voted against it. Of 193 clergy in the synod, just 45 voted against. And of the House of Laity, of the 206 members with a vote, 74 said no. That?s 6% of bishops, 23% of clergy, and 36% of the laity..." These figures actually show a quite substantial disagreement between the elected representatives that would suggest the CoE is not quite as united on this issue as many assume. Although I will qualify this as in my first post, ie, a number were unsure what voting yes would actually mean in practice and further qualifications as to the remit of women bishops were to e discussed and debated at a later stage.

True, I can't disagree with that. However, you have to bear in mind that those in the CoE who voted no have not done anything wrong - no rules or laws have been broken here. It is not unusual for a religious group to be out of step with the wider society and this issue has only served to convince many that the CoE (and most other religions) are out of touch with today's world. The matter is still one of Is and Ought. There are probably a great many things different religions ought to change if they wish to be seen to be relevant to people's lives today. At the same time, if they jump to every whim and current fad they risk losing their religious identity.

I understand those concerns but as one of the people who voted no said on Newsnight last night, the CoE is the established church, not a state church. If it is to be treated as any other company employing people then yes, equality rules should be applied. However, at the moment it is specifically excluded from some of the equality legislation for the fact it is a religious body. It is an important issue and raises the question 'to what extent a secular society can dictate the form a religious body should take?' The CoE will eventually vote for women bishops once it has sorted out it's own doctrinal issues rather than in response to Twitterarti mob-rule.

No, rather there's a lot of hypocritical nonsense being spoken on this issue. Some seem to be saying a religious organisation should reflect the (non-religious) make up and views of a secular society, which appears slightly illogical to me. If the majority of society considers religion and it's rituals to be medieval claptrap and have never darkened the door of a CoE church in their lives why are they getting so upset over how the church is configured? Surely the no vote has done women a favour if you subscribe to those views?

I have to thank Charlotte W. I followed the link to that article and within a couple of seconds of starting to read that new age crap fell fast asleep. Certainly cured my insomnia.

I wonder how many of the indignant tweeters will now pull their children out of CoE schools in protest?

Do you have to soak the kidney bean overnight first?

Actually, the No Vote was a result of the voting system - three divisions of the General Synod all needed a 2/3 majority. It was the laity that didn't reach that total, partly I understand, because the code of conduct to set out the exemptions for those who didn't wish to be ministered to by a woman hadn't been decided (it was to be debated and voted for after a Yes vote). So it would appear the majority of those who voted, voted yes - but lost the vote for procedural reasons and because the laity felt they couldn't vote yes because they didn't know exactly what they were voting for because the rules governing such appointments hadn't yet been decided. The Archbishop Elect will be inheriting a poisoned chalice next spring. (edited for spelling)

I've got a load of Ash tree saplings going cheap if you're interested mynamehere.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Meanwhile, yet again I had an unwelcome encounter > with the tarmac on my way home tonight, when a guy > runs out into the street in front of me. I hit the > brakes, he's fine, I'm over the bars and hoping > there's not a car too close behind me. > > So forgive me for not being that interested in > nice interpretations of the highway code. Sorry to hear of your accident DaveR. For your information, I was taught on my cycling proficiency course that if you pull the left (back) brake slightly before you pull the right (front) brake the bike won't tip forward and propel you over the handle bars. Also, given the fears Huguenot raises, perhaps bicycles should be banned and instead cycle enthusiasts could pedal cycle rickshaws/pedicabs instead. That way they can pursue their love of cycling and contribute to the community at the same time by giving a couple of commuters who are going in the same direction a free lift.

"...I agree that it would be better if all cyclists didn't jump red lights or ride at night without lights. But as a car driver neither of these things present any risk of harm to you. Get over it..." No physical harm perhaps. However, the presumption that it is nearly always the driver's fault means I could be sued by a dangerous and reckless cyclist for his or her injuries, possibly losing my house to pay the bills.

Thanks Applespider, that TFL study was very instructive and does make the case that the majority of accidents are the fault of the vehicle driver and not the cyclist. The costs associated with such accidents are also quite disturbing. Interesting also that the proficiency test has been replaced.

It would be quite understandable for anyone involved in an accident to claim it wasn't their fault (and any lawyer worth their salt will tell you not to admit liability) so such studies must be of dubious validity. I'm pleased to read that you have passed a cycling proficiency test though.

Some fair points DJKQ. I'm not trying to say all drivers are innocent angels and no doubt there are plenty of uninsured scoundrels out there. Nor am I a cyclist hater. I am always pleased to see a cyclist look over their shoulder and give a hand signal before moving in front of traffic - it tells me that person knows what he or she is doing. Unfortunately it is very rare to see cycling skills.