A letter in this week's 'Church Times' implied the Rev Vennels had been aggresively and unfairly questioned .... hmm ... couldn't help thinking the writer was making some comparason to Our Lord's trial ... Really? She got off lightly compared to some of her victims, I thought.
A letter in this week's 'Church Times' implied the Rev Vennels had been aggresively and unfairly questioned .... hmm ... couldn't help thinking the writer was making some comparason to Our Lord's trial ... Really? She got off lightly compared to some of her victims, I thought.
But I will pray for her.
Just read the letter. I didn't really sense an allusion to the trial of Jesus, but otherwise, yeah. The mawkish bewailing of "kicking someone when they're down"(*), not to mention the claim that the questioning of Ms. Vennels was "almost as shocking" as the wrongdoing revealed at the post office.
(*) A phrase, in my experience, usually used for pleading on behalf of someone you have a pre-existing bias toward, rather than as a disinterested call for compassion.
(Assuming this is the letter that opens with "The events that unfolded...")
Rev Vennells could probably do with some moral support (as could the victims of the scandal, of course), no matter where it comes from.
The fact that she is, according to the Guardian, a *vicar*, and that she *gives sermons* (the press never seems to get Anglican terminology quite right) doesn't excuse her from her behaviour, though.
Comments
But I will pray for her.
Just read the letter. I didn't really sense an allusion to the trial of Jesus, but otherwise, yeah. The mawkish bewailing of "kicking someone when they're down"(*), not to mention the claim that the questioning of Ms. Vennels was "almost as shocking" as the wrongdoing revealed at the post office.
(*) A phrase, in my experience, usually used for pleading on behalf of someone you have a pre-existing bias toward, rather than as a disinterested call for compassion.
(Assuming this is the letter that opens with "The events that unfolded...")
The fact that she is, according to the Guardian, a *vicar*, and that she *gives sermons* (the press never seems to get Anglican terminology quite right) doesn't excuse her from her behaviour, though.