Stephen of York

A thread for discussing the next Archbishop of York. Stephen Cottrell.
«1

Comments

  • I'll start with the negative stuff: I do not know of any.

    Now for the positves. I met Stephen when in the days before he was a bishop and serving as Wakefield Diocesan Missioner and living in Huddersfield. Our parish church was chosen to be one of those in the diocese which would pilot the Emmaus Course, which Stephen had a hand in writing. I can remember the gracious way that he took on advice that one of the units of the course needed more work to be effective.

    A humble man. I expect him to do well in his new role in York. Welcome back up north.
  • He was Bishop of Reading, and is very warmly remembered in this area. Last year I heard him talk about the Psalms and he was great.
  • I suppose you could say that he's a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading and he could have publicly refused it and said that Jeffery John should still be appointed. Almost certainly wouldn't have worked, but it might.

    You could also say that he's a straight, white man who took the place of a women (widely expected) as Archbishop of York. You could say that he should have publicly refused the position and said it should be given to a women. Might not have worked, but prob would have.
  • A woman was widely expected to be the next AB of Y? Hadn't heard that rumour.
  • I suspect that the next Archbishop of York will be female, but probably it's 2 or 3 years too early for any of the likely suspects to have sufficient seniority to take the role on: only a couple of ladies have been diocesans since 2015, and a few more in the year or so.
  • ryandavies wrote: »
    I suppose you could say that he's a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading and he could have publicly refused it and said that Jeffery John should still be appointed. Almost certainly wouldn't have worked, but it might.

    Stephen Cottrell was one of the people who supported Jeffrey John for the position of Diocesan Bishop of Reading. When Cottrel was suggested John had already withdrawn himself from the role.

    You could say that Cottrell is a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading. But that would not be a fair reading of the facts.
  • The real opposition to Cottrell is emerging from the usual suspects.

    Christian Concern (Basically the name used by one man and his mates) has tweeted:

    "Is this who you want as the next #archbishopofyork ? This is the same @CottrellStephen who told members of the clergy that they could leave the @churchofengland if they did not endorse #samesexmarriage"

    Well, yes it is.

    Christian Concern also offered this:

    PRESS RELEASE: The newly appointed #ArchbishopofYork @CottrellStephen
    has previously shown he has no respect for Biblical truth on human sexuality and marriage.

    I am one Evangelical Christian who is Concerned that Christian Concern claims to speak for me. They don't. I have just got back from talking with other Evangelical Anglicans who were very pleased with the appointment of this Anglo-Catholic to take on the position at this time.

    *Asking Hosts* We may need a sub-thread in Epiphanies to discuss this aspect of the new ABY appointment. Please advise.
  • balaam wrote: »
    ryandavies wrote: »
    I suppose you could say that he's a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading and he could have publicly refused it and said that Jeffery John should still be appointed. Almost certainly wouldn't have worked, but it might.

    Stephen Cottrell was one of the people who supported Jeffrey John for the position of Diocesan Bishop of Reading. When Cottrel was suggested John had already withdrawn himself from the role.

    You could say that Cottrell is a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading. But that would not be a fair reading of the facts.

    No, it wouldn't be fair, I agree.
  • ryandavies wrote: »
    I suppose you could say that he's a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading and he could have publicly refused it and said that Jeffery John should still be appointed. Almost certainly wouldn't have worked, but it might.

    You could also say that he's a straight, white man who took the place of a women (widely expected) as Archbishop of York. You could say that he should have publicly refused the position and said it should be given to a women. Might not have worked, but prob would have.

    Every job I've ever taken meant someone else didn't get it. That was completely out of my hands. Had I refused the job I would have had no say in which of the other candidates got it. That was out of my hands too.

    This argument is one of the most mean spirited I've read on the Ship.
  • It's always a good sign if you can get "Christian" "Concern" outraged by your appointment. Even better if you get a couple of nutty parishes (Jesmond?) trying to leave the church over it.
  • What I've seen of him has been good. I hope the position doesn't go to his head.

    I disagree with 'positive' discrimination, every post should go to the person most suited to it, and in the case of the Church, to the one God is pointing to as the selection is made. When we go our own way and ignore God's direction it always goes wrong, until we ask for something good to come out from our errors.
  • It's always a good sign if you can get "Christian" "Concern" outraged by your appointment. Even better if you get a couple of nutty parishes (Jesmond?) trying to leave the church over it.

    I thought Jesmond had left the CoE. Or is that wishful thinking?
  • Gah. Must remember not to look at the CC fb page before bed, it’s very bad for me. I think it’s interesting that that CofE has already put out what I suppose people call a strongly worded statement in response to a statement from a “pressure group” which I would take to mean CC, though they don’t say so explicitly. https://www.churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/statement-archbishop-york-designate-right-reverend-stephen-cottrell

    Anyway, I’m pleased about the Archbishop’s appt. I have pretty high hopes for him and I hope he doesn’t let me down.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    he was a hugely successful keynote at a recent AngCaff conference in NZ. . 'nuff said!
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ... the one God is pointing to as the selection is made. When we go our own way and ignore God's direction it always goes wrong, until we ask for something good to come out from our errors.
    In real terms I'm not sure what that means. Probably a dead horse and certainly predominately another thread, but what is God meant to do apart from moving through whatever processes the processes move through?
  • Gah. Must remember not to look at the CC fb page before bed, it’s very bad for me. I think it’s interesting that that CofE has already put out what I suppose people call a strongly worded statement in response to a statement from a “pressure group” which I would take to mean CC, though they don’t say so explicitly. https://www.churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/statement-archbishop-york-designate-right-reverend-stephen-cottrell

    Anyway, I’m pleased about the Archbishop’s appt. I have pretty high hopes for him and I hope he doesn’t let me down.

    From that article: ‘What binds us together is not our views on this issue or that issue, what binds us together is our faith in Jesus Christ. We say water is thicker than blood. It is our baptism and our belonging to each other that really matters’.
  • balaam wrote: »
    ryandavies wrote: »
    I suppose you could say that he's a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading and he could have publicly refused it and said that Jeffery John should still be appointed. Almost certainly wouldn't have worked, but it might.

    Stephen Cottrell was one of the people who supported Jeffrey John for the position of Diocesan Bishop of Reading. When Cottrel was suggested John had already withdrawn himself from the role.

    You could say that Cottrell is a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading. But that would not be a fair reading of the facts.

    I think that you meant Suffragan Bishop of Reading; there is no Diocese of Reading.
  • Zappa wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ... the one God is pointing to as the selection is made. When we go our own way and ignore God's direction it always goes wrong, until we ask for something good to come out from our errors.
    In real terms I'm not sure what that means. Probably a dead horse and certainly predominately another thread, but what is God meant to do apart from moving through whatever processes the processes move through?

    While asking God to work through the processes we instigate by our own will, we can be sure that God is working through those processes we instigate by God's will. There is a difference. As you said, it's a tangent here, so here it ends.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    balaam wrote: »
    ryandavies wrote: »
    I suppose you could say that he's a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading and he could have publicly refused it and said that Jeffery John should still be appointed. Almost certainly wouldn't have worked, but it might.

    Stephen Cottrell was one of the people who supported Jeffrey John for the position of Diocesan Bishop of Reading. When Cottrel was suggested John had already withdrawn himself from the role.

    You could say that Cottrell is a straight white man who took the place of a gay, partnered (potential) Bishop of Reading. But that would not be a fair reading of the facts.

    I think that you meant Suffragan Bishop of Reading; there is no Diocese of Reading.

    My bad. The internet is an interesting place. Other than my flawed source, the only other evidence I have that Cottrell supported Jeffrey John is Wikipedia, and I wouldn't trust Wikipedia alone. Does anyone here know if Cottrell supported John?
  • kingsfoldkingsfold Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    balaam wrote: »
    Does anyone here know if Cottrell supported John?
    local webnews and the Grauniad seem to think so...

    Am I the only one reading the thread title and wanting to add "gave battle in vain"?


  • I heard him preach when he was Bishop of Reading. He started his sermon with a long period of silence after he mounted the pulpit. When at length he opened his mouth, the warmth of his words came flooding out. As far as I am concerned, his appointment to York augers well.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    kingsfold wrote: »
    Am I the only one reading the thread title and wanting to add "gave battle in vain"?

    Yes, silly ... Sepia, Sage (or Shit Green) so don't work as the first colour of the rainbow :smirk:

  • Zappa wrote: »
    kingsfold wrote: »
    Am I the only one reading the thread title and wanting to add "gave battle in vain"?

    Yes, silly ... Sepia, Sage (or Shit Green) so don't work as the first colour of the rainbow :smirk:

    How about Scarlet?
  • The praise for the new office holder is all well and good but clearly not everyone sees it in the same way. They are also permitted to express their views however contrary.

    For me, the one good thing is that he's not part of the usual Oxbridge clique with a wife who's a Doctor or Teacher Does he like football? If he doesn't it's a plus point as he's not pandering to stereotype. However, IMHO he's also a long way from the straight talking appointee with a council estate background, which is what is really needed to inject a shot of reality into the church. What is really needed is someone who has got his hands really dirty on the ground in some tough parishes not a wimp from a theological college.
  • Reading the biography on the CofE website, yes he does like football, but that's not terribly surprising in the UK He has also got council estate parish experience (even Chichester has grotty bits), and he's worked in South Yorkshire. I think the person Mark wants doesn't enirely exist, or at least not at that seniority.

    Having studied at Staggers will increase his appeal with the Anglo-Cathilic end of the church.
  • Zappa wrote: »
    kingsfold wrote: »
    Am I the only one reading the thread title and wanting to add "gave battle in vain"?

    Yes, silly ... Sepia, Sage (or Shit Green) so don't work as the first colour of the rainbow :smirk:

    How about Scarlet?

    Congratulations on being the first to get it right.

    The thread title took longer to write than the OP and first reply combined. Twice.
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    The praise for the new office holder is all well and good but clearly not everyone sees it in the same way. They are also permitted to express their views however contrary.

    For me, the one good thing is that he's not part of the usual Oxbridge clique with a wife who's a Doctor or Teacher Does he like football? If he doesn't it's a plus point as he's not pandering to stereotype. However, IMHO he's also a long way from the straight talking appointee with a council estate background, which is what is really needed to inject a shot of reality into the church. What is really needed is someone who has got his hands really dirty on the ground in some tough parishes not a wimp from a theological college.

    He did at least go to a comprehensive school, and a poly rather than Oxbridge, so I’m minded to be pleased about those things too.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    1. He has also got council estate parish experience (even Chichester has grotty bits), and he's worked in South Yorkshire. I think the person Mark wants doesn't enirely exist, or at least not at that seniority.

    2. Having studied at Staggers will increase his appeal with the Anglo-Cathilic end of the church.

    1. Experience is not the same as background.

    2. But will dissipate it in equal measure with many others. Was he know as Brenda or Ethel?

  • The praise for the new office holder is all well and good but clearly not everyone sees it in the same way. They are also permitted to express their views however contrary.

    For me, the one good thing is that he's not part of the usual Oxbridge clique with a wife who's a Doctor or Teacher Does he like football? If he doesn't it's a plus point as he's not pandering to stereotype. However, IMHO he's also a long way from the straight talking appointee with a council estate background, which is what is really needed to inject a shot of reality into the church. What is really needed is someone who has got his hands really dirty on the ground in some tough parishes not a wimp from a theological college.

    He did at least go to a comprehensive school, and a poly rather than Oxbridge, so I’m minded to be pleased about those things too.

    Yep that's ok until you realise he's a product of Oxford (St Stephen's). That's heavy Oxbridge in my book

  • Oh look, he's not an evangelical. How dreadful. And he might even be gay. Be still my beating beads.


    I rejoice in the fact that a genuine liberal (I hope and indeed believe) Anglo-Catholic has been appointed. Hopefully the Church will regain some kind of balance as a result, and might even move forward.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Oh look, he's not an evangelical. How dreadful. And he might even be gay. Be still my beating beads.

    addendum: by "beating beads" I actually meant "trembling pearls".
  • LolaLola Shipmate
    I'm in Bishop's Stephen's current diocese. I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant about lots of the things being discussed on the thread above and I find Bishops in general somewhat confusing - we seem to have a variety different types down here and I've never really sorted out in my head why or how they fit together (Google has helped with some recent questions!)

    However I have heard him preach and agree with Ecclesiastical Flipflop about the warmth - I thought he was very, very good. I seem to recollect he might have even been preaching on the subject of hell and I still felt inspired and encouraged! At the moment I do one of the sort of volunteer roles at church where you get sent a lot of emails from the Diocese and I like the ones that are written by him. I was particularly impressed by the ones he sent around the time of the trial of the Stansted 15 - the Crown Court being very close the the Cathedral it seems that several of the defendants, who were not local to the area, went there during breaks and were supported. So I like him and was pleased for him. No idea about all the Anglo Catholic / Evangelical aspect though!
  • MiffyMiffy Shipmate
    I heard him preach when he was Bishop of Reading. He started his sermon with a long period of silence after he mounted the pulpit. When at length he opened his mouth, the warmth of his words came flooding out. As far as I am concerned, his appointment to York augers well.

    Same here. I well remember those silences. Also his advice to ‘ nurture your inner slob!’ It was such a shame when he left the diocese even if it was obvious that he was destined for higher things.






  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The praise for the new office holder is all well and good but clearly not everyone sees it in the same way. They are also permitted to express their views however contrary.

    For me, the one good thing is that he's not part of the usual Oxbridge clique with a wife who's a Doctor or Teacher Does he like football? If he doesn't it's a plus point as he's not pandering to stereotype. However, IMHO he's also a long way from the straight talking appointee with a council estate background, which is what is really needed to inject a shot of reality into the church. What is really needed is someone who has got his hands really dirty on the ground in some tough parishes not a wimp from a theological college.

    He did at least go to a comprehensive school, and a poly rather than Oxbridge, so I’m minded to be pleased about those things too.

    Yep that's ok until you realise he's a product of Oxford (St Stephen's). That's heavy Oxbridge in my book

    His theological college was at Oxford, but IIRC his academic tertiary education was very far removed from that.

    What is it that you would look for in a new Abp of York, and who amongst the potential candidates meets your requirements?
  • My spies tell me that he was very effective in Chichester and is remembered by his old parishioners with mushc love and affection - not bad when you consider he left there 26 years ago. Another spy with more recent experience tells me he was a Good Thing in Chelmsford so perhaps the outlook for York is rosy.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    The praise for the new office holder is all well and good but clearly not everyone sees it in the same way. They are also permitted to express their views however contrary.

    For me, the one good thing is that he's not part of the usual Oxbridge clique with a wife who's a Doctor or Teacher Does he like football? If he doesn't it's a plus point as he's not pandering to stereotype. However, IMHO he's also a long way from the straight talking appointee with a council estate background, which is what is really needed to inject a shot of reality into the church. What is really needed is someone who has got his hands really dirty on the ground in some tough parishes not a wimp from a theological college.

    He did at least go to a comprehensive school, and a poly rather than Oxbridge, so I’m minded to be pleased about those things too.

    Yep that's ok until you realise he's a product of Oxford (St Stephen's). That's heavy Oxbridge in my book

    His theological college was at Oxford, but IIRC his academic tertiary education was very far removed from that.

    What is it that you would look for in a new Abp of York, and who amongst the potential candidates meets your requirements?

    I'd look for

    - a total lack of pretension
    - a willingness to listen
    - an acceptance across tribes that reflects an ability to lead by example
    - able to relate to the whole of life as enjoyed (or not) by the majority of people in the UK
    - someone not constrained to say he likes football just to sound trendy
    - someone willing to speak truth to power - that includes Government, hierarchy and Royal Family
    - someone who is charismatic - not in theological terms but who draws people to Christ by example
    - someone who is prepared to eat pork pies or his toast in the bath whilst listening to the radio

    Who is there? None I've seen amongst the current crew but why not go to the parishes, seek nominations, have interviews and offer the candidates for a national election instead of running it behind closed doors with a few chums?

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And how does the new Abp not meet this list?
  • A behind close doors appointment for a start, not chosen in open election. Not sure about the toast bit either
  • I don't think you can blame +Stephen for the process by which he was chosen, which is beyond his pay grade (certainly at present) to do anything about. And I'd imagine he is a shower rather than a bath man; though if I had to imagine a member of the current episcopate doing as you suggest he would be one of the likeliest. Especially if he takes note of his own advice to cultivate his inner slob.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A behind close doors appointment for a start, not chosen in open election. Not sure about the toast bit either

    That covers but one of the points you made, being the one which deals with the method of appointment rather than the qualities of the new Abp. I agree that the method of "election" of bishops. archbishops in the CoE is best described as time-honoured rather than anything positive.

    Yet your original past attacked him for not measuring up what you thought were the qualities necessary, which constituted the major points of your post. I ask again how he fails to meet those qualities.

  • I’d say, of that list, he meets points 1,2,3,5 and 7, based on what others have said here, and a little of my own experience (I’m in his present diocese and I’ve heard him speak a few times). So that’s not bad.
    What does a wimp from a theological college mean? (Wimp being a term possibly up for discussion in the living with Y chromosomes thread..) I’m not theologically educated, I’m pew fodder, but surely all priests go to theological college?
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ... the one God is pointing to as the selection is made. When we go our own way and ignore God's direction it always goes wrong, until we ask for something good to come out from our errors.
    In real terms I'm not sure what that means. Probably a dead horse and certainly predominately another thread, but what is God meant to do apart from moving through whatever processes the processes move through?

    While asking God to work through the processes we instigate by our own will, we can be sure that God is working through those processes we instigate by God's will. There is a difference. As you said, it's a tangent here, so here it ends.

    How are you sure whether you are following God's will or your own will if the choices you discern don't break the the Great Commandment? If you have two or more honorable paths, how are you sure that you are the one who knows exactly what God has directed? Wait, you are a Roman Catholic, aren't you? Okay your Church has methods it finds adequate to discern such things. But, surely you are aware that there are many devoted Catholics who are convinced that the Roman Catholic Church has been off the rails since Vatican II, and even that Pope Francis is an anti-pope. They know the real mind of God.

    When people start being sure that they can discern God's will in detail, be afraid, be very afraid. To me it is safer to assume that human will muddy things but to humbly trust that God's love and power can and will ultimately wash them clean.
  • I’d say, of that list, he meets points 1,2,3,5 and 7, based on what others have said here, and a little of my own experience (I’m in his present diocese and I’ve heard him speak a few times). So that’s not bad.
    What does a wimp from a theological college mean? (Wimp being a term possibly up for discussion in the living with Y chromosomes thread..) I’m not theologically educated, I’m pew fodder, but surely all priests go to theological college?

    Surely point 4 is essential in understanding people's lives? Point 6 refers to the voice of the prophet - surely a national leader should have that? Point 8 is a bit tongue in cheek but is a way of relating to ordinariness and mess.

    Sorry I didn't express myself clearly …. I was referring to someone who was/is lecturer in a college having chosen that route over parish ministry. They do rather tend to be a bit cloistered after a while.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    A behind close doors appointment for a start, not chosen in open election. Not sure about the toast bit either

    That covers but one of the points you made, being the one which deals with the method of appointment rather than the qualities of the new Abp. I agree that the method of "election" of bishops. archbishops in the CoE is best described as time-honoured rather than anything positive.

    Yet your original past attacked him for not measuring up what you thought were the qualities necessary, which constituted the major points of your post. I ask again how he fails to meet those qualities.

    From what I have seen he is not one to rock the boat (point 6). Surely that's a sign of conformity not an indication of radicalism? (E.g how open is he to sharing his Bishop's Palace lunches with the homeless)?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ...
    - able to relate to the whole of life as enjoyed (or not) by the majority of people in the UK ...
    Whether "essential" as you put it or not, is that possible? An Archbishop who had much to say to "power" your point 6 would hardly be likely to be sort of Archbishop who spent every Saturday night getting smashed in the back street pubs of York, throwing up in telephone boxes and brawling in the street. Not sure how charismatic an "example" that would be either.

    And is the UK homogenous enough now to be able to categorise any sort of life as "enjoyed ... by the majority of people in" it.

    Should a national leader have "the voice of the prophet"? To be prophecy, there has to be some element of imparting a supernatural wisdom that the rest of us haven't got. That's a very, very rare gift. Shouting about politics in a loud voice doesn't make a person a prophet. And who is to say that it would be to politicians that a true prophet would speak were such to arise today? It doesn't require any supernatural wisdom to be able to see most of what's wrong with the politicians we have the misfortune to be cursed with at the moment. Their faults are so blatant that it doesn't even take any prophetic endowment to say that a huge dose of moral guilt rests also upon those who vote for them, that many of the public can't escape either.

    And how would you feel @ExclamationMark about an anonymous stranger taking it upon themselves to tell you who you ought to have to lunch?

    @ExclamationMark can you name anyone who meets all the tests you lay down? Apart from having hands laid on you by the wrong people, do you even do so?
  • I’d say, of that list, he meets points 1,2,3,5 and 7, based on what others have said here, and a little of my own experience (I’m in his present diocese and I’ve heard him speak a few times). So that’s not bad.
    What does a wimp from a theological college mean? (Wimp being a term possibly up for discussion in the living with Y chromosomes thread..) I’m not theologically educated, I’m pew fodder, but surely all priests go to theological college?

    Surely point 4 is essential in understanding people's lives? Point 6 refers to the voice of the prophet - surely a national leader should have that? Point 8 is a bit tongue in cheek but is a way of relating to ordinariness and mess.

    Sorry I didn't express myself clearly …. I was referring to someone who was/is lecturer in a college having chosen that route over parish ministry. They do rather tend to be a bit cloistered after a while.

    Ah, I understand the parish ministry / lecturer bit now, thank you.
    There are loads of people's lives I can’t relate to - I’ve never been a high earning city banker / lawyer, never had enough money to go on several foreign holidays a year, I’m not a surgeon, I’ve never been homeless, I’ve never been sectioned, I’ve always had enough money to pay the mortgage, etc. The chances of me experiencing those things are limited. I’m sure it’s useful to have experienced a similar thing to someone you’re trying to minister to, but I’m not sure it’s feasible. I think it’s much more about how the minister relates to the other person - there are people who’ve had the same experiences as me whose advice and company was worse than useless (2 of these were ordained), and people who’ve had different experiences who were able to listen, to be with me and to minister (for want of a better expression) was so much better.

    (Hope this makes sense, I’m being nagged by a small child.)
  • 2 other things, initially I misread your post last night on point 4, (in my defence, your honour, it was post carol service and I may have had a beer...) as that he should have experienced life as most of the U.K. do, which wouldn’t be at all achievable! I think I may have been reacting to that, rather than the idea of relating to most people, but I still stand by my previous post about how doable that actually is.

    Also, I think so much of this is about language, and trying to be inclusive. Referring to theological colleges by nicknames such as Staggers is an absolute Grade A example of how not to appeal to people in the club.
  • If you are worried that +SC has not lived among ordinary people, I am willing to show people the house where he lived in Huddersfield where he lived whilst working in the Wakefield diocese. It's not exactly posh.
  • balaam wrote: »
    If you are worried that +SC has not lived among ordinary people, I am willing to show people the house where he lived in Huddersfield where he lived whilst working in the Wakefield diocese. It's not exactly posh.

    Having lived in some pretty grotty areas myself I would say that where you live doesn't make all that much difference to your experience of life unless it's so bad you're likely to get mugged on a regular basis.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    ...
    - able to relate to the whole of life as enjoyed (or not) by the majority of people in the UK ...
    @ExclamationMark can you name anyone who meets all the tests you lay down? Apart from having hands laid on you by the wrong people, do you even do so?
    What do you mean by this? I don't understand

Sign In or Register to comment.