The London Blasts: Media Review

FOUR YEARS ON

DAY 66: 11 September 2005

Contents

Remembrance

The Ken Clarke Effect

9/11

REMEMBRANCE

Letters to the Sunday Times (page 20):

I write in strong support of the bishops’ suggestion that grieving British Muslims would be welcome in St Paul’s for a memorial service (Church row over bomber families, News and Editorial, last week).

It is not for the government or for anyone else to say who should or should not come.

There seems incidentally to be no “row” within the church as you imply; there is agony for the relations, British Muslims and British non-Muslims involved. Anyone can see how difficult it will be for the latter to kneel down beside the former, now or later. But what a wonderful gesture of reconciliation this immediate inclusivity would be making, as the bishops concerned are saying.

I should add that I do not know either of the clerics who are advocating this; nor I trust am I likely to be dubbed just another trendy bishop.

John Bickersteth
Former Bishop of Bath & Wells

If this year is considered too close to the event to invite the families of the London suicide bombers to a service of commemoration, by which year would it be considered appropriate, I wonder? If this matter is quietly dropped now, is it likely that it will be permitted to resurface? Will the grief and anger of the families subside to the extent that they will eventually invite the families of the perpetrators to a service? Once a course of action is settled on it is so difficult to undo the momentum of the action and its direction. The British people have an opportunity to do something worthwhile and memorable, not just for Londoners and for the victims and their families, but for the world, whatever people’s religion.

This is the best time to look to the future and to promote, if not forgiveness, then at least some sense of understanding of what the perpetrators and also the other families have been going through.

Sue McPherson
Colchester, Essex

Your editorial 'Well-meaning but wrong', disagreeing with the bishops’ desire to invite the families of the bombers to the service, misses the crucial point. If they are to be faithful, the bishops can do no other, for the gospel is not just about reconciliation, it is its heart and soul.

Were the “service” to be organised by the government and to take place in a secular building, one could understand that political imperatives and the desire not to upset people would prevail, even though those to be excluded (the families of the bombers) were in just as great emotional and spiritual need, if not more so.

The kind and degree of reconciliation taught by Jesus is indeed offensive to human hurt and hate and pride, but that is his gospel.

I often despair at the lack of wisdom of the world in some of our senior clergy; but on this occasion I believe they got it absolutely right.

Rev’d Campbell Paget
Brenchley, Kent

 

THE KEN CLARKE EFFECT

In the Conservative Party leadership contest, Ken Clarke, who was firmly against the war on Iraq, and who has spoken out strongly in recent days, has made up ground on his main rival David Davis, so that the odds are now reckoned 50:50 between them.

What is extraordinary, and unremarked upon, is that a firm stance against the war has not damaged Mr Clarke's position. Far from it. Unfortunately for him, currently polls seem to demonstrate that a Conservative party led by Mr Clarke would be beaten by a Labour Party lead by Gordon Brown.

Liam Fox, another leadership contender, rebuked Kenneth Clarke for his anti-war stance:

' "It's time to stop going back again and again over the arguments about whether we should have gone to war in Iraq," Dr Fox told The Sunday Telegraph. "We did. It was three years ago. We can't change the past." '

'If we keep on arguing about the rights and wrongs of what happened, all it will do is undermine the efforts of our troops on the ground in Iraq.'

'He added: "We know that some commanders have said that their men have asked them if they still have the backing of the people back home. I think we should send them a clear message that they do - and that we are proud of the fact that they are helping to build a democracy in Iraq in the face of extremist forces who are determined to destroy it." '

Malcolm Rifkind, who also opposed the invasion, has an interesting article in the Independent on Sunday, page 24, calling for a continuation of the occupation, in other words undermining. Sir Malcolm's main contribution to the contest and perhaps his primary purpose in standing, seems to be as a spoiler candidate.

That Iraq should be a matter of lively debate in the Conservative leadership contest, yet not figure in the Blair-successor debate in the Labour Party, is quite extraordinary.

9/11

Also extraordinary is the lack of editorial or other comment on the anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks. The events that are said to have changed the course of history are unmarked.

JNV welcomes feedback.