It was a surprise to see Ryan Giggs win the Personality award on the BBC last night. There has been a great deal of discussion about that on the radio today, mostly bemoaning the fact that big Man Utd vote would have clinched the award.

Not convinced about that. He certainly has been a role model for any aspiring footballer, much better than Rooney or Ronaldo or Henry. He lives well and keeps himself fit and tries hard all the time and doesn’t cheat, as opposed to the three I’ve mentioned (that last bit about cheating doesn’t yet apply to Rooney). He perhaps should have been in the lifetime achievement category, but Seve Ballesteros quite rightly won that one.

The issue with Giggs is more complex when you think that it is supposed to be an individual award, and yet Giggs is part of arguably the best team around during last year, and Jensen Button was driving a car that had a whole team behind him. What chance an single athlete (admittedly with a team behind her too, but not actually helping her to perform- and that is crucial) ?

The real travesty was the team award. The England Cricket Team !!!! For what ??? Winning a tussle between them and one other team ?? The Ladies Cricket Team did that too, and several other things too and should have been far worthier winners.

The programme is in danger of degenerating into an England male back slapping festival (and yes, before anyone comments, I know Giggs is Welsh). There haven’t been too many women who have won the award and there have bene plenty of potential candidates even beyond the obligatory Paula Radcliffe (who does deserve a mention when she’s fit).

Should Giggs have won ? He is a worthy winner, but there was an opportunity for excellence of an individual to be applauded and that was missed.

I cannot believe that all the people who have come out of the woodwork are telling the truth.
Tiger is right to withdraw from competition for a while. He may return for the Masters, but whenever he does, the spotlight will be intense, and it won’t just be on him. Sadly, the tabloids won’t play ball. They never do. He’ll have to behave impeccably on the course (given the recent criticism of some of his antics) and even more so off the course.
I certainly wish him well, and hope that time is given for him to rebuild his life.

Once we get past the rather ignorant ‘you’re coming up to your busy time of the year’ joke, I find that I ask myself the question in the title every year.
I have a dread of Christmas primarily because the phone call from the undertaker makes someone’s Christmas a nightmare, and as minister you walk right into the thick of it. You also have the responsibility for all the worship services and have to come up with something original for that Watchnight service when all the C & E’s arrive (Christmas and Easter attenders) and expect a jolly old time for all.
I was in one church where the minister had just been told that the baby scheduled for baptism on Christmas Day had just died. How could he enjoy Christmas ?
The folk in the pew just don’t get it. They are focussed on the fun of Christmas (the sad bit is when they have to pay for it but that’s usually in the New Year), and there is no reason why they shouldn’t be, of course. We clergy are stressing the love of God and we fervently hope that something of that love will actually percolate down into the hearts of the gathered people.
Christmas for clergy usually begins on Boxing Day when we can de-stress and relax.

Having performed a couple of adult baptisms today, it proved to be a highly emotionally charged situation. Clearly, it had been a longed for experience and meant a great deal to all concerned. There was even a relative who had offered some holy water from Lourdes to be used in the sacrament. Special.

What happens when you face a pastoral decision that conflicts with your personal integrity ? When you’ve worked out your theology of baptism, say, and that emergency phone call comes ? Which gives first ?
I’ve generally taken the view that when the call comes, that’s when I find myself compromising my theology. I respond to the need. But a recent case has me wrestling with this situation again. A multiple phone call stressing the immediacy of the need almost demanding that I go and do the baptism as soon as, when the reality is that the emergency (though keen) is not as immediate as the pressure implies.
There is a part of me that is angry at being pressurised like this, and another part of me that wants to respond positively…. If only the emotional blackmail hadn’t been applied (for that’s what it feels like).
All of this rolling on the back of the death of an uncle, whose funeral I had just been at.
I can remember my Diploma in Ministry group of three where each of us would have responded differently. One would have asked the baptisee to wait a little. One would have been battering down the door ready to do the baptism, and me in the middle.
Not an easy place to be pastorally or theologically….

No, they should not.
There is no doubt about the hand-ball of Thierry Henry and no amount of excuses will cover up what has been a smear on a very talented career.
There should not be a replay and there should not be action taken against Henry as an individual.
What should happen, but won’t because no one will have the courage to do it, is that France should be eliminated from the World Cup and Ireland reinstated.
It will only be as a result of a national censure will such cheats truly get their come uppance.
In a sport, there should be true sportsmanship and things like diving (simulating !!) and foul language directed at referees will go on as long as the perpetrators are seen to get away with it. The likes of Rooney with his language difficulty should bring the wrath of Football Federations down on the team.
Individual sanctions won’t work, as has been seen with the Arsenal player who clearly dived in the Celtic match. Money spoke then, but should not be allowed to.
When will the powers that be finally act to rid the sport of such blatant cheating ?

Caught the X Factor this week to see what all the fuss was about. The Jedward thing is all the rage apparently. It’s fact that they can’t sing. they can look good on stage but flattery can deceive, and it clearly has with them. I understand that they have ruthlessly gone back on singing agreements with other contestants to make them look bad, and even Cowell hopes that they won’t win.
He clearly wanted to stoke up interest in the programme (successfully) and had the chance to get rid of them last night. They quite clearly were abominable, while the other girl sang (which I thought was the point of the programme), really sang her heart out. Like Strictly, it’s quite clear that the so called entertainment factor is what is being looked for rather than real talent.
Cowell needs to get some backbone and get rid of the rubbish rather than strategically getting rid of the real talent. He didn’t want the blame of taking out the trash.

Politicians are a devious and nasty bunch at times.
Charles Clarke remains quiet in the press until the Government has a little front page news coverage and seems to be in bother. At which time, he opens his mouth with pronouncements that only serve to undermine colleagues and raise his own profile. The man seems to personify all that nasty and untrustworthy about politics at the moment. Or am I the only one who sees through his posturing ?

Come on Beeb. Let’s have a bit more thought about the quality of guests on your programmes. The Turner Prize winner (which should have been a warning in itself) looked quite ridiculous on Have I got News for You as well as on the Newsnight Arts section.
The more bizarre you are seems to give you entry to the Beeb at the moment….

Without wishing to give any credibility to the BNP by giving them publicity, for Nick Griffen to talk about the ‘bear pit’ after appearing on the programme speaks volumes. He has been exposed as the non-thinking racist bigot he is and what he stands for is anathema to democracy. He cannot have it both ways, as he clearly wants to. Had he an ounce of integrity, he would have walked away from the programme and said nothing.
Was the BBC right to have him on ? Technically no, because his party doesn’t currently have a constitution so they didn’t qualify. Had they done so, then the Beeb had their hands tied.
They can surely get a better quality guest than the BNP. And a huge cheer for Bonnie Greer who had their number very early on and treated them with the contempt they deserve.