JEFFREY FINDS HIS BALLS

From THE MAIL:

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark. Sources say the dean, one of the most contentious figures in the Church, believes he could sue officials under the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

COMMENT: I wonder if they'll try the same dirty tricks with Jeffrey John as the Bishop of Newcastle, Martin Wharton, successfully employed to frighten me into dropping my case against him for blatant disability discrimination. At least he won't be up against the officer in Newcastle Diocese who told a union rep that any priest who took them to court would never work in the Church of England again. Which, if my present situation is anything to go by, was the truth.

The hierarchy of the Church of England contains some of the biggest hypocrites that have ever lived. They say one thing in public and do the opposite behind closed doors. They get away with it because they believe that they are exempt from adhering to the law of the land when it comes to human rights issues. For the sake of the gospel, for the sake of the Church for goodness sake, this has to stop. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jeffrey John, who is a Christian known for his integrity and patience, will be the person who will get rid of this embarrassing corruption from the Church once and for all. One thing is for certain, a heck of a lot more of the general public will be on his side and not on the side of his persecutors. So if they win they will lose. The Church of England will be dead within a few years, it's membership will consist of a few geriatric spinsters and a handful of misogynist, fearfully closeted gay priests. Remember the last episode of "The Rev?" A prophecy is my guess.

Comments

JEFFREY FINDS HIS BALLS — 14 Comments

  1. Oh, my. It will be very interesting, indeed, to see how this unfolds.

    You’re quite right: if they win, they will lose.

    Do you think they realize this?

  2. This will be an interesting one to follow. I am intrigued as to what argument the legal team have come up with. The provisions for exclusions within the act would on the face of it permit the church to act as it has, and I’m not suer the provisions in general can be applied retrospectively. Unless they are determining to provew that the exemptions within the act itself are illegal under provisions of the Human Rights Declaration arguing for the equivalence of clergy appointments with the status of ‘being employed’. In either case he will be fighting the establishment issue rather than just the Bishops.

    PP – Bishops pensions are funded through The Church comissioners who manage the pension funds for all clergy. The contributions paid into it come from the income they manage from investments and the giving of church members. It’s a tad more complex but that’s it in a nutshell. The last tikme I looked the C of E was paying about 96% of what it pays in stipends, in pensions. Clergy seem to have a habit of living much longer than anyone expected when the funds were established.

  3. Those are pretty big ‘ifs’. It is not likely that the church would go into administration, and the pension funds are protected to an extent if it did. The assets would be realised in the first instance to pay major debtors, one of which would be liabilities for the pension funds. Disestablishment, even less likely.

  4. Now that I’ve had time to read the article properly, I think this may a bit of naughtiness on the part of the Mail. He may or may not have had a correspondence with Goodman Derrick LLP, (and there is nothing from them to say so), although the article claims this is the case, it cannot be specific to his prior nomination for Soutwark which predates the enactment of The Single Equality Act. If there are any legs in this story then I would expect it to appear somewhere in the newspapers tomorrow, (by which I mean not a comic like the Mail.) If there is truth in it, then it will cease to be of value at all, as it will simply mean he will never be considered for preferment as his motivations would now be clearly suspect and the Mail (which was hardly supportive at the time), would have ensured sufficient doubt cast on his motivation.

  5. Oh, The Mail tells the truth as much and as little as any newspaper. Petre, formerly of the Telegraph, is pretty good at not publishing until he has substantial proof.

  6. He may have proof, but it is pretty vague as to exactly what he has proof of and what any legal argument maybe. In any instance, I think his chances of prefferment are done for.

  7. Well, if he’s anything like me, he will have come to that conclusion himself and it will be why he is now prepared to get nasty. Of course, unlike me, he won’t lose the job he already has. But then, other than being gay, he is the “right sort.” That’s what makes this such an exciting development. We have the privileged attacking the privileged.

  8. ‘it’s membership will consist of a few geriatric spinsters …’

    I happen to agree with you on the main issue. Nevertheless, your comment above is deeply depressing: (a) it’s illiterate; (b) it’s deeply, grossly, ignorantly sexist.

    Please try to think instead of reactively posturing.