Bad posts

Speaking of the worst blog posts of all time, which I wasn't but I am now, check out this from Ruth Gledhill. The gist of the article is that the Church of England have finally made the wise move divesting from Caterpillar- few people would argue this is a bad move as Caterpillar notoriously adapt their bulldozers to making them super efficient at knocking down Palestinian houses. Gledhill however, is not impressed; "As an Anglican myself, this decision provokes anger and shock in me, allied with shame and embarrassment. Have 2000 years of anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and the horrific death toll of suicide bombings in Israel taught us nothing?"

It seems Gledhill, everybody's (least) favourite religious correspondent, has somehow lost all ability to distinguish between the chap pictured on the left and the lad pictured on the right. And what makes this oversight all the more humorous is that in the next post Gledhill writes,

"Some of those who have taken the trouble to comment on my previous blog have questioned whether my objectivity as a news journalist has been compromised by my taking Israel’s side against the action of the Church of England General Synod in backing disinvestment from Caterpillar. I would argue not. I have always been strongly pro-Israeli but as a news reporter it is easy to leave those views “outside the door” when covering Middle East affairs."

If studying literary theory at Cliff taught me anything it taught me that leaving views "outside the door" is NEVER easy!

Comments

[john skinner]

Phil - I utterly agree with you. I too have had a go back at Ruth telling her that when I was a Times journalist we never dreamt of displaying our own opinions. Our task was to set out the facts for our readers and allow them to make their own minds up.

It was a thoroughly laudable decision by Synod to pull out of their Caterpillar portfolio. And your two adjacent pics tell their own story.

Thanks
John Skinner

[Turbulent Cleric]

I am sure that the bulldozing of houses is of dubious legality re international law. You are right to point to the distinction bewteen the suicide bomber and the boy whose howm is destroyed. I can only think that such destruction increases the circle of hatred and violence.

The C of E decision is welcome if overdue.