EASTER NOT BANNED BY PC COUNCIL SHOCK



Please don't bother Always Hope this weekend with tales of Brent Council banning Easter, plausible though you may find it (guess which newspaper website has been trumpeting this one today?). It's true that it looks like a group of churches in Willesden won't be having their Easter march because they haven't complied with the council's health and safety protocols. But then, a headline in the Daily Mail saying "church fails to submit procession application in good time" wouldn't have quite the same impact, would it?

Father Hugh MacKenzie who, according to the Mail, is "defiant", is adamant that the procession cannot proceed on the pavement alone, although if the picture above is anything to go by, it's difficult to know why. It would certainly be preferable to the solution offered by Cranmer, who declares "it's the Queen's Highway", so "just go out and march". All well and good, but it should be noted that the churches aren't asking Brent for permission to walk down the road, but for the roads to be closed to motor traffic. "Just march" sounds like a recipe for a major RTA incident to Always Hope.

The most sane take is provided by this blog's publication of choice, the Church Times, who note, that far from the council banning something that has been taking place for years (as both Cranmer and the Mail assert), the churches are trying to revive the march "after several years without one". A very polite council "spokesperson" points out that the process of getting a traffic order takes at least five weeks, and if the churches would perhaps like to give them a bit more notice, they will be happy to get the march going next year.

So there you have it. Easter hasn't been banned, just deferred for another year.

Comments

Ray Barnes said…
Well it always has been a moveable feast!
April 15, 2011 at 9:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be
Read more