Leave those kids alone

Another politicalcorrectnessgonemad story, yawn, how original, but sometimes you just can't help it...

'A KISS is just a kiss. But not if you are a vicar helping a class of ten-year-old children with their long division.

'In Staffordshire, a vicar has been forced to step down as the chairman of governors of a school after he kissed a girl on the forehead in a maths class.'

(read the rest)

Note that after the police and social services decided that, yes, it is still legal for a school governor to be fond of children (having spent exactly how many person hours on the case, one would like to know) it was the good old C of E that went into spineless mode and forced Mr Barrett to stand down. Lichfield diocese is evidently well supplied with Scribes and Pharisees.

I do adore that word 'inappropriate', ever the mask of compassion on the face of arbitrary authority. 'What did I do wrong?' 'Absolutely nothing at all, but unfortunately you were inappropriate, so we have no choice but to punish you.' Tear off the mask and it's straight out of Kafka.

I've warned Frau Grumpy, in case she does anything that finishes her career before it's started. Worryingly, she thinks kids like to be touched. Should I inform the Bishop?

This is the Word of the errh...

Changing the subject completely, Mr Grumpy read one of the lessons in church on Sunday. This is a verse from it:-

'As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.' (Ezekiel 34:12)

But not quite, because we have long since ditched the sublime King James Version. Here's what we got in the New Reviled Standard Version:-

'As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.'

Leaving aside the literary merits of the changes, why has the shepherd gone forth and multiplied? You're there before me, but just in case you need a hint, here's an extract from the preface to the New Despised Standard Version, by Bruce M. Metzger on behalf of the Committee of translators:-

'The mandates from the Division [of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ] specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict.'

Which is being interpreted, we wanted to translate accurately but we were told we had to be PC.

The high point of this idiocy is reached in the story of Christ's entry into Jerusalem, where the quote from Psalm 118 with which the crowds hail Jesus is no longer 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' (as it still is in the liturgy - how much longer?) but 'Blessed is the one...' (see Matthew 21:9 and Mark 11:9). In Luke's version (ch. 19:38) we still have 'Blessed is the king who comes..'. Doubtless we must await the next revision to see this corrected to 'monarch'.

By the way, Grumpy re-singularized the shepherd, and hasn't had any complaints so far.

Goo goo goo

I wish I could come up with something a little more inspired, but really the only possible description of this one is political correctness gone MAD...

Can anyone offer me a legal opinion as to the amount of compensation I could claim for the 47 years of trauma I've suffered due to invasion of privacy in the maternity ward?

"Study examines hate crime effect"

Great news for those bereaved, maimed or traumatized by the hate criminals of 7 July. £100,000 is going to be spent on finding out exactly how bad you feel! So long as you belong to an ethnic minority.

And you never know, a couple of quid may be left over to study the effects of verbal abuse and minor assaults.

Or am I missing something here?

PC Plod

Today Mr G turns his ire on the writer of a letter in the Independent...

"Sir: So Graeme McLagan ("Shootings at record levels as teenagers turn to guns", 11 May) tells us "It is incredibly hard for the police to predict when, and under what circumstances, black gunmen will use their firearms". Worrying as this prospect is, I am at least slightly reassured by the knowledge that white gunmen are so safe and predictable."

Actually it's not really fair to single out someone who has made what actually is a neat point given the mindset he shares with most Indie and Guardian readers. But let's look at that story again. There were 49 shotings in London in April alone - compared with 12 in April last year. 35 were "black on black", including two of the three deaths.

What this means is that for young black males in London other young black males are a far more deadly threat than neo-Nazis and racist coppers put together.

As George Orwell wrote about Stalin's crimes, it's true even though the Daily Mail says it's true. Unlike, say, the murder of Stephen Lawrence, it's not a truth that lends itself to easy liberal moral posturing. But come on, these are young lives being meaninglessly thrown away. There's no simple solution, but there's no solution at all so long as we keep our heads buried in the sand for fear of infringing PC etiquette.