eMail

I know that the Department switched to Outlook for its email because the old GroupWise application is no longer supported, but did it have to be Outlook? It’s all very well and all very familiar, but it really is rubbish at some things. Setting rules is a clunky business and checking alternative email accounts requires logging off the account you’re in and logging into the new one. Or so I’m told, anyway.

That means that I can’t check our generic housing finance email box and haven’t been able to for several months. In the end, I gave up and have taken every opportunity to delete references to it in any of our documentation. The trouble is, it does mean that we now have to have a named contact point, which means that during consultation periods the poor sap can be deluged by emails instead of planning their work.

I just get peed off that Microsquash applications are the default nowadays, when there has to be something out there that does the job better.

GroupWise for instance.

eMail

I know that the Department switched to Outlook for its email because the old GroupWise application is no longer supported, but did it have to be Outlook? It’s all very well and all very familiar, but it really is rubbish at some things. Setting rules is a clunky business and checking alternative email accounts requires logging off the account you’re in and logging into the new one. Or so I’m told, anyway.

That means that I can’t check our generic housing finance email box and haven’t been able to for several months. In the end, I gave up and have taken every opportunity to delete references to it in any of our documentation. The trouble is, it does mean that we now have to have a named contact point, which means that during consultation periods the poor sap can be deluged by emails instead of planning their work.

I just get peed off that Microsquash applications are the default nowadays, when there has to be something out there that does the job better.

GroupWise for instance.

Time for a rant!

The basic precept of Anglicanism, at least in the form it takes in the Church of England, is ‘let’s all sit down and have a cup of tea.’ Depending upon a vicar’s relative position concerning High Church and Low Church, the cup of tea may extend to a cream cake or a rich tea biscuit. Theology is pretty much subsidiary to the ‘let’s all be friends’ ethos. That’s why I like it and that’s why so many people in this country are CofE by culture if not by faith.

It’s comfy and warm, like an old pair of slippers and a baggy cardy: none of this Hellfire and Damnation stuff.

Every now and again, one of the dotty old bishops goes off on one. Memorably about 24 years ago, the then newly ordained Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, suggested the Resurrection was "not just a conjuring trick with bones". Three days after his consecration as bishop on 6 July 1984, York Minster was struck by lightning, resulting in a disastrous fire, which some interpreted as a sign of divine displeasure at Jenkins’ appointment.

There have been other examples, but the complete nutters are generally weeded out and by-passed before they get to be Arch Bishops.

Not so the present Archbishop of Canterbury. It has taken the church in England more than 1400 years and 104 tries to find Dr Rowan Williams and make him senior clergyman and head of worldwide Anglicanism. This is the munter who has suggested and I quote: ”An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger”. He goes on to suggest that the introduction of some aspects of Islamic Sharia into the UK are “unavoidable”.

The BBC carries the story here, probably quoting the chap wildly out of context, but I find it hard to think of a decent context to put it in. Anyone who finds it hard to reconcile their beliefs with UK law is not going to be satisfied with a halfway approach that incorporates some aspects of Sharia for some people.

By contrast, Daniel Finkelstein recently argued in the Times that as Britain welcomes minorities, they in turn should respect Britain’s Christian culture:

”Immigrants and their children in this country receive a fantastic deal. We are able to practise our religion in peace. We can openly enjoy our culture. Our colleagues tolerate our taking vacations on holy days and they even let their children be taught about some of our practices, which is most courteous, I must say.”

He goes on to say:

I'm not calling for a retreat from the tolerance and mutual respect of this country. That's the last thing I want. I depend on it, don't I?
It's just that I don't think tolerance and mutual respect come from nowhere. There's a reason why this country shows it, why we have fought for it, and died for it. I am just saying that if this country doesn't protect its own heritage and culture, how can I expect it to protect mine?”

Interesting stuff. I know whose views I prefer.

Time for a rant!

The basic precept of Anglicanism, at least in the form it takes in the Church of England, is ‘let’s all sit down and have a cup of tea.’ Depending upon a vicar’s relative position concerning High Church and Low Church, the cup of tea may extend to a cream cake or a rich tea biscuit. Theology is pretty much subsidiary to the ‘let’s all be friends’ ethos. That’s why I like it and that’s why so many people in this country are CofE by culture if not by faith.

It’s comfy and warm, like an old pair of slippers and a baggy cardy: none of this Hellfire and Damnation stuff.

Every now and again, one of the dotty old bishops goes off on one. Memorably about 24 years ago, the then newly ordained Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, suggested the Resurrection was "not just a conjuring trick with bones". Three days after his consecration as bishop on 6 July 1984, York Minster was struck by lightning, resulting in a disastrous fire, which some interpreted as a sign of divine displeasure at Jenkins’ appointment.

There have been other examples, but the complete nutters are generally weeded out and by-passed before they get to be Arch Bishops.

Not so the present Archbishop of Canterbury. It has taken the church in England more than 1400 years and 104 tries to find Dr Rowan Williams and make him senior clergyman and head of worldwide Anglicanism. This is the munter who has suggested and I quote: ”An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger”. He goes on to suggest that the introduction of some aspects of Islamic Sharia into the UK are “unavoidable”.

The BBC carries the story here, probably quoting the chap wildly out of context, but I find it hard to think of a decent context to put it in. Anyone who finds it hard to reconcile their beliefs with UK law is not going to be satisfied with a halfway approach that incorporates some aspects of Sharia for some people.

By contrast, Daniel Finkelstein recently argued in the Times that as Britain welcomes minorities, they in turn should respect Britain’s Christian culture:

”Immigrants and their children in this country receive a fantastic deal. We are able to practise our religion in peace. We can openly enjoy our culture. Our colleagues tolerate our taking vacations on holy days and they even let their children be taught about some of our practices, which is most courteous, I must say.”

He goes on to say:

I'm not calling for a retreat from the tolerance and mutual respect of this country. That's the last thing I want. I depend on it, don't I?
It's just that I don't think tolerance and mutual respect come from nowhere. There's a reason why this country shows it, why we have fought for it, and died for it. I am just saying that if this country doesn't protect its own heritage and culture, how can I expect it to protect mine?”

Interesting stuff. I know whose views I prefer.