Dramatic West Pier Photo

The Argus reports this dramatic picture of Brighton's West Pier covered in snow by Toby Smith has just been awarded silver in the 152nd International Print Exhibition Awards hosted by the Royal Photographic Society.

Ministers Living on Animal Farm

The Telegraph today highlights new stories emerging from the Government regarding high profile ministers profitting from second, third, or fourth homes at the tax payers expense, though it is clear no parliamentary rules have been broken.

The new stories emerging are all too reminiscient of Animal Farm, the classic political allegory on communism by George Orwell. In terms of justice and morality, the Cabinet ministers problem isn't the fact that they are claiming vast sums in expenses at the taxpayers expense - the problem is that the same ministers are so moralistic towards those who are affected by their policies.

Alistair Darling, as Secretary of State for Social Security and now as Chancellor of the Exchequer has been strident in cutting benefits for the long term sick, unemployed and those on incapacity benefit in general. Talking with a friend of mine on incapacity benefit who suffers a mental health condition, these benefits have been cut by as much as thirty pounds a month, at a time when living costs in terms of heating, water, electricity and food are going up.

Now, you may think state benefits a good thing. You may think them a necessary evil, you may think them a bad thing. However, Darling and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, both promote frugality and fiscal rigour to us while benefitting greatly from the expenses that MPs can claim on additional homes, renting them out to tenants and making as fast a buck as they can.

The PM, and his Cabinet colleagues are using their parliamentary privileges as much as they humanly can, profitting off homes bought at the cost of the public purse. The same people then preach a strict, draconian policy to people on benefits, the unemployed, the long-term sick, incapacitated, more or less employing the rather puritan, Victorian language which blames the poor for their situation and makes it clear that if people want state support, that really, they should work for it.

Well, it is high time that those who do struggle week in week out, to pay the bills, to put food on the table for themselves and their children, who find themselves getting into debt in the face of rising costs of living, and all those who pay into the public coffers and have to listen to this Cabinet's constant moralising on work and benefits, to say to these ministers, "Practice what you preach!"

Nobody Expects the Spanish In-Procession!

Beautiful pictures courtesy of The Telegraph, as penitents begin processions for Holy Week in Seville, Spain. I think we need to think about this for Western Road next year.



Nobody expects the Spanish In Procession!



Go on you Spaniards! Process with all your hearts! God bless 'em!



"My penitential hat is considerably more pointy than yours.

"Oh right, yes, that's just like you to point that out."



"You're not from 'round here are you?"

The New Archbishop of Westminster

We have a new Archbishop of Westminster! Archbishop Vincent Nichols will lead the Church in England and Wales, succeeding Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor.

I like him. He speaks truth gently but firmly and doesn't quibble about saying things that ruffle feathers. I saw him on Channel 4 news and the interviewer quite aggressively asked him some questions and went straight for the gut with the AIDS/Pope/Gays/Condoms issues that the media love to discuss when it comes to the Church. He answered the questions well, with humility and generosity and actually spoke in defence of the Holy Father, something we've not been hearing from our Bishops in a while.

The following is the text sent by the Archbishop to the Birmingham Post on the ghastly HFE Bill:

"On Tuesday night the House of Common refused to change the 24 week limit on abortions. Not even the vivid pictures of a human being stretching, yawning and smiling in the womb convinced the majority of a need for change. So the deliberate killing and dismembering of innocent human beings will continue. Not surprisingly the vast majority of NHS doctors refuse to carry out such abortions. They are left to the profit making private sector. A brutal reality in a brutal world.

The Government’s argument in favour of these abortions was based on scientific evidence. Its logic is clear: if a baby is not viable outside the womb, it may be killed. Nothing else matters.

Earlier, on Monday evening, Parliament extended its 1990 decision that a human life, in its first fourteen days, in limited circumstances such as IVF, could be created, used and destroyed for the benefit of others. Now it will be legal for human life in its earliest stages to be subjected to a wide range of selective testing, experimentation and intermixing with animal DNA, eggs and sperm.

I must confess to dismay at these developments. Some of them – such as ‘saviour siblings’ – are known to be of therapeutic value. Others - such as admixed embryos and true hybrid – are to be permitted purely on the basis of possible future benefits. I found to vote on true hybrids particularly distasteful, as it could result in genuine 50-50 hybrid mixes of human life with animal life.

These decisions take this country further than most down the road of minimal regard for human life. This is not something of which we can be proud. Indeed future generations may well wonder why we still supported such late abortions and why we started down these roads of hybrids at all.

Two important consequences flow from these votes on embryology. The first is the need for strengthened regulatory authorities. There was a sense in the debate that Parliament was ‘passing the buck’. A legislative framework may have been agreed. But it still requires fundamental interpretation as every new step requires licensing. In the case of embryo screening and selection for ‘saviour siblings’, for example, this must be done for a ‘serious reason’.

What does that mean? Will we find ourselves in the same situation as a ‘hair lip’ condition being sufficient for an abortion? We need a strong regulatory authority if such ‘saviour siblings’ are not going to be used for more than bone marrow or cord blood donations. After all even these are invasive treatments on a child, without that child’s consent and not in the least for the advantage of that child.

The task of these regulatory bodies must be to ensure that scientific pragmatism is always counter-balanced with ethical considerations. They must not be dominated by scientific interest. Rather, the ethical duty we owe to early human life, especially in its first 14 days, needs to be an essential part of these considerations along with stringent scrutiny of claims of possible benefit from the use of that life. If not, then early human life will become unprotected ‘fair game’ for any use at all. Indeed it could be argued that we are there already!

The second consequence is that, in the aftermath of these decisions, attention must not be taken away from other avenues of research and activity which are known to be producing therapies already. Adult stem cell work, work with umbilical cord blood and the production of pluripotent stem cells do not involve the destruction of embryos and are all ethically acceptable. Some are producing cures right now.

The Catholic Bishops of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have made a significant financial contribution to this research in the last week. The adventure of seeking further understanding down the roads now permitted by law must not deprive this more fruitful research of proper and sustained funding.

We must also build up cord blood banks. Britain is 13th in the European league of national cord blood banks, yet it is accepted that such banks would remove the need for ‘saviour siblings’

We always have to remember that because something has been made legal it does not thereby become moral. The relationship between the law of the land and the moral code is complex. The two are not to be confused. Sources of moral reflection and judgement are not particularly to be found in parliamentary debate. This is why we need a National Bio-ethics Commission so that the wisdom of philosophers and moral theologians, using rational ethical argument and the light of revealed truth, a wonderful gift of God, can be brought to this task. But Parliament itself is not a reliable moral tutor.

Indeed, this was virtually admitted this week by Harriet Harman, Labour’s Deputy Leader, when, in stating that marriage has little relevance in public policy, she explained that it is not for the Government to say that it would like everyone to be happy. Yet the very task of ethics and moral thinking is precisely to help us in our search for happiness. In saying that this quest for happiness has little ‘public policy bite’, she is indeed saying that ethical considerations are of little concern.

This makes less surprising the defeat of the need for fathers in considerations for IVF treatment and the consequent down-playing of the role of fathers in general. Individual choice is not a sure road to happiness in a family, nor indeed for our human community as a whole.

But let’s return to the 14 days. At present this is a crucial point of protection for human life under the law. But how long will it last? Who will be the first to say that by extending this limit to 20 or 30 days so much more would be learned? Yet the counting of these days will still go back to day one – the moment of fertilisation. After all, that is when it all begins – you and I, and every human life."

Happy Birthday to Sir Alec Guinness

Sir Alec Guinness was, as none of you who know him don't need to be told, one of the greatest actors of the 20th Century. To most people, he is Obi-Wan Kenobi, the sagely Jedi who tutored Luke Skywalker in the ways of the force. A lot of people also know him for his various roles for director David Lean - Fagin in Oliver Twist, the Colonel in Bridge on the River Kwai, supporting turns in Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, and (ack!) A Passage to India. Others will know him for his portrayal of John Le Carre's George Smiley for BBC, and more discerning film fans will note his hilarious unique and quirky Ealing comedies like Kind Hearts and Coronets or The Ladykillers. A very few may know of his stage work, where he expertly played everything from Shakespeare to Shaw to modern playwrights.

Sir Alec and I first crossed paths when I watched Star Wars as a kid. I didn't think much of the film, nor its sequels to be honest, and Sir Alec wasn't really remembered for that reason. But then I fell in love with Lawrence of Arabia, where he played the key supporting role of the cultured but duplictious Prince Feisal, and since then he's been an absolute favorite of mine.

Guinness is one of a select few actors - John Wayne, Audrey Hepburn, Peter O'Toole, Cary Grant - whom I will actively seek out a film of just for their presence alone. What makes him special? His ability as a chameleon - to play any part, transcending national, class, and even racial and gender boundaries - witness his eight performances in Kind Hearts and Coronets. And his amazing voice.

I have to date seen 26 films with Sir Alec in them, more than any other actor I can think of. In honor of what would have been his 95th birthday, here is my evaluation of his screen performances:

Alec's Performances:

Great Expectations (1946, David Lean; with John Mills, Valerie Hobson, and Martita Hunt) - Herbert Pocket - A mite disappointing in my estimation, and it definitely suffers from the inevitable attempts to compress a Dickens tome to a two hour movie. Alec makes his first major screen appearance as Herbert Pocket, and sadly is nothing to write home about - although his rather green initial turn is among the least of the film's problems. Film: 7/10 Performance: 2/5

Oliver Twist (1948, David Lean; with John Howard Davies, Robert Newton, and Kay Walsh) - Fagin - A pretty good movie, though I can't stand to read Dickens so I can't comment on the novel. Alec's performance as Fagin is wonderfully disgusting - it's easy to see why it was perceived as an anti-Semitic stereotype, his very broad Jewish accent, the make-up with the hook nose, etc. - he's almost unrecognizable. Film: 8/10 Performance: 5/5

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949, Robert Hamer; with Dennis Price, Joan Greenwood, Valerie Hobson) - The D'Asconye Family - My first impression was... meh, pretty good but nothing to get worked up over. Alec's eight performances are amusing for the most part, but honestly I wasn't that impressed by it - however, his talent manages to avoid it being little more than a gimmick. Also, the movie dragged in spots, although when it was going it was going quickly. Dennis Price is fabulous too. Needs a rewatch. Film: 7/10 Performances: 4/5

The Lavender Hill Mob (1951, Charles Crichton; with Stanley Holloway, Sid James, Audrey Hepburn) - Henry Holland - Easily the best of the Ealings I've seen. Very short, lots of stuff going on, amusing characters, interesting plots. Stanley Holloway is wonderful and nice early cameos by Audrey Hepburn and Robert Shaw. Alec is at his comic best here as the mild-mannered criminal schemer. Film: 9/10 Performance: 5/5

Man in the White Suit (1951, Alexander Mackendrick; with Joan Greenwood, Cecil Parker, Michael Gough) - Sidney Stratton - Interesting film which actually tries to say something, satirizing big business, labor, and pretty much everything else. Not up to some of the other Ealings, however. Alec is generally amusing although it's not one of my favorite performances or films. Film: 7/10 Performance: 4/5

The Card (1952, Ronald Neame; with Glynnis John, Valerie Hobson, Petula Clark) - Denry Machin - A fairly light slice of fluff with Alec as a glad-handing, endlessly cheery young man who charms his way up the social ladder almost by accident. Nothing to write home about in spite of the great cast; Alec's performance is solid as usual but he's not able to add too much to the fairly light material. - Film: 6/10 Performance: 4/5

The Captain's Paradise (1953, Anthony Kimmins; with Celia Johnson, Yvonne DeCarlo, Charles Goldner) - Captain Henry St. James - Not an Ealing film, but very much in the same spirit. Either way it's one of Alec's absolute best comedies, a wonderfully dark attack on masculine ego and a just plain funny film in its own right. Alec gives one of his very best performances, getting to live out the masculine fantasy of having two very different wives (the wonderful Celia Johnson and Yvonne DeCarlo) in different ports to support his varied needs - until, of course, it all catches up with him. Lots of fun, with a wonderfully out-of-left-field ending that will have you rolling in the aisles. Film: 9/10 Performance: 5/5

The Prisoner (1955, Peter Glenville; with Jack Hawkins) - The Cardinal - A stuffy social/psychological drama which doesn't quite transcend its stage roots, and doesn't make a lot of points that haven't been covered, and better, in other films and plays. It's worth watching, however, for its powerful performances by Alec, as the dedicated Cardinal with a fatal weakness, and definitely Jack Hawkins, who has never been better than here. Film: 6/10 Performance: 5/5

The Ladykillers (1955, Alexander Mackendrick; with Peter Sellers, Katie Johnson, Herbert Lom)- Professor Marcus - This is one of those movies that I love if I'm in the right mood, though I haven't watched it in ages. A very good dark comedy, not necessarily laugh-out-loud funny but still amusing in a perverse way. Sir Alec is marvellously grotesque in this movie, with his Alastair Sim hair/make-up, his maniacal grin, and that wonderfully menacing voice and spastic mannerisms. Just a fun performance to watch. For a bit of self-indulgence, I shall not that I based my performance in my High School Musical ("I'm Sorry, the Bridge is Out") off of Professor Marcus (and voice of Prince Feisal). Film: 8/10 Performance: 5/5

The Swan (1956, Charles Vidor; with Grace Kelly, Louis Jordan, Agnes Moorehead) - Prince Albert - This film is pretty much a routine costume drama, notable mostly for being Grace Kelly's last film. Alec does what he can, but his part is poorly written and uninteresting so he's not up to much - at least not until the very end. Film: 5/10 Performance: 3/5

Bridge on the River Kwai (1957, David Lean; with William Holden, Jack Hawkins, Sessue Hayakawa) - Colonel Nicholson - One of my favorite performances and films of all time. Perhaps it isn't as flashy as some of his other performances, but Guinness played Colonel Nicholson perfectly - his stubbornness and twisted sense of pride, his humanity and vulnerability, his blind sense of duty and confusion in the chaos of war. The end of the movie, where he realizes the ramifications of his actions ("What have I done?"), is one of the most brilliantly subtle bits of acting in film history. Film: 9/10 Performance: 5+/5

The Horse's Mouth (1958, Ronald Neam; with Kay Walsh, Michael Gough, Renee Houston) - Gulley Jimson - Guinness' funniest film aside from Lavender Hill Mob. The only performance I would definitely put above this is Kwai, and maybe a few others if I were in the right mood. Lovely supporting cast, particularly Michael Gough and the great Kay Walsh, but it's Alec's show all the way - his Gully Jimson is one of the funniest characters ever created, allowing Alec to utilize all of his talents of voice, mime, expressions, everything imaginable. Oh, and he wrote the screenplay too. Film 8/10 Performance: 5+/5

Our Man in Havana (1959, Carol Reed; with Ernie Kovacs, Burl Ives, Maureen O'Hara) - Jim Wormold - Starts out as a fun spy-spoof in the vein of the best of the Ealing comedies, then makes an abrupt U-turn into a dark and serious thriller in the last half hour, without much success. Alec seems unable to cope with the change of character - however versatile an actor Alec is, a hard-boiled tough guy he is not - and it's the supporting cast which does most of the heavy lifting as a result. Film: 8/10 Performance: 3/5

Tunes of Glory (1960, Ronald Neame; with John Mills, Denis Price, Susannah York) - Major Jock Sinclair - A fantastic character study about the clash of wills between two tough-minded military officers on a remote army base in northern Scotland. Uniformly strong performances, with Alec giving one of his very best turns as Jock Sinclair, a deceptively chummy man who turns out to be an egotistical bully. However, it must be noted that he is matched, and perhaps even bettered, by John Mills, an actor I ordinarily dislike, as his much more sympathetic rival. Film: 8/10 Performance: 5/5

Lawrence of Arabia (1962, David Lean; with Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn) - Prince Feisal - A smallish part, but very well-played. Guinness's accent is a bit dodgy, but he does a nice job of investing Feisal with a combination of dignity and weary cynicism. This is a part very well-suited for Guinness's talents, and I personally have to think that this performance, along with Yevgraf Zhivago and maybe Marcus Aurelius, is the basis for his being cast as Obi Wan Kenobi. Film: 10/10 Performance: 5/5

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964, Anthony Mann; with Sophia Loren, Steven Boyd, Christopher Plummer) - Emperor Marcus Aurelius - An overlong, overbloated historical epic, with Guinness's brilliant performance as the tragic Emperor Marcus Aurelius being arguably the sole reason for watching. He's miles better than Richard Harris in the part, at any rate, although to be fair Gladiator is considerably better as a whole. Film: 6/10 Performance: 5/5

Doctor Zhivago (1965, David Lean; with Omar Sharif, Julie Christie, Geraldine Chaplin) - General Yevgraf Zhivago - While Yevgraf is a small part, and arguably inconsequential to the story, he somehow manages to stand out despite very limited screen time - particularly for his wonderful monologue about World War I. I think most of the credit should go to Robert Bolt's screenplay, with Guinness giving a wonderful amount of gravitas and dignity to what's essentially a glorified cameo appearance. Film: 8/10 Performance: 4/5

The Quiller Memorandum (1966, Michael Anderson; with George Segal, Senta Berger, Max Von Sydow) - Pol - I don't understand why this film seems to be so highly acclaimed, it's a boring-as-hell spy film that takes a pretty good cast and an interesting story and turns it into rubbish. Alec plays the spy-master Pol, and it's basically a cameo: he's in three brief scenes and flits in and out of the story doing little of import. Film: 4/10 Performance: 2/5

Caesar and Cleopatra (1974, James Cellan Jones; with Genevieve Bujold, Ian Cuthbertson, Noel Willman) - Julius Caesar - A rather dry and static made-for-TV adaptation of the shaw play. Guinness, Genvieve Bujold and the rest of the cast give creditable performances, but they're done in by the limitations inherent in the format. Film: 5/10 Performance: 4/5

Murder by Death (1976, Robert Moore; with Peter Sellers, Peter Falk, Maggie Smith) - Bensonmum - A wonderful, endlessly funny detective spoof - very much in the vein of Clue - with a wonderful ensemble cast playing spoofs of some of literature and cinema's best-known detectives. Alec's role as the blind butler is a fairly minor turn and he's one of the least remarkable performances of the film, but considering the talent around him that's almost to be expected. His final scene, where the murder is repeatedly "solved" and his identity(identities) revealed, is Alec at his absolute best, however. Film: 9/10 Performance: 3/5

Star Wars (1977, George Lucas; with Mark Hammil, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford) - Obi-Wan Ben Kenobi - I think Star Wars and its sequels are okay but nothing special. I do think that Alec, despite his clear distaste for the role, was the best choice for Obi-Wan, and the character is perfectly suited for his talent. Film: 6/10 Performance: 5/5 No additional comments on Empire or Jedi, where he had miniscule cameos.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1979, John Irvin; with Michael Jayston, Bernard Hepton, Terence Rigby) - George Smiley - As much as I'd love to give a glowing review of this acclaimed miniseries, I must admit I found it rather convoluted, stuffy, dry, and even dull in spots - not really my line of country. It must be said, however, that Alec is absolutely perfect for the role of George Smiley, the experienced spymaster who skillfully and methodically tracks down a mole within MI6. Not one of his better films, but one of his very best performances. Film: 6/10 Performance: 5/5

A Passage to India (1984, David Lean; with Judy Davis, Peggy Ashcroft, James Fox) - Professor Godbole - This is a brilliant movie, IMO, on a par with "Lawrence" as Lean's best film, but the casting of Guinness as the Indian mystic Godbole is just off. The make-up job is reasonable enough, but he's nothing more than a caricature; he looks and sounds like a Muppet. I don't think he's bad enough to be truly offensive, but it seems like Alec was just tossing this performance off. He has one nice moment with Peggy Ashcroft at the train station - but it's a wordless, thirty-second scene, which says a lot. A pity, as the character of Godbole was significantly expanded from the original novel just for him. Film: 10/10 Performance: 2/5

Burn!

As a follow-up to yesterday's review of The Battle of Algiers, here is my IMDB comment on Gillo Pontecorvo's later film Burn! (referred to by it's Italian title Queimada).

Sir William Walker (Marlon Brando sporting a ridiculous blond wig) is a British agent sent to the sugar-rich Portuguese island of Queimada in the mid-19th Century. Walker's mission is to incite the island's slave population to revolt against their Portuguese masters, in order to open the island for British colonization. Walker manipulates humble porter Jose Dolores (Evaristo Marquez) into helping him rob a bank; this kick-starts a series of events in which Dolores becomes the head of an island-wide slave revolt. However, Walker has also manipulated the white landowners into declaring independence, and Dolores and his black colleagues are side-lined by the new government, which immediately opens trade relations with British sugar companies. Ten years later, Walker returns, this time accompanied by British troops, to find that Dolores has incited another revolt - and Walker is forced to put down the very revolution he started.

Queimada! is Gillo Pontecorvo's big-budget, ambitious follow-up to The Battle of Algiers. The movie seethes with the anti-colonialism and barely-restrained anger of Pontecorvo's masterpiece, but is seriously flawed in a number of important areas, which balance out the film's fascinating story and political themes.

Pontecorvo's film certainly conveys its message very well. Walker's actions to methodically secure the island are simply fascinating. He manipulates every group on-hand, focused solely on his expedient political goals. As in today's foreign policy, actions are undertaken for short-term victories, even if they backfire in the long term. Walker incites a black slave rebellion, then keeps it under control by convincing a group of white landowners to seize the capital city - an easy victory which gives Queimada a "presentable" government. Nevermind the part Dolores and his blacks played in the revolt; although no longer "slaves", their "liberation" results in their being even worse-off than before - even though the new government improves infrastructure and builds up the country - leading to a new revolt by the same rebels. Finally, when the government proves ineffective, they are disposed of by the very people who propped them up - and British soldiers intervene directly in the conflict, escalating the brutality. Though successful, these policies are also counterproductive - by burning the sugar cane forests to root out rebel forces, the British destroy the very reason they came to the island - to monopolize on its sugar. Thus, this imperialist war becomes nothing more than an exercise in pride and brutality.

All of this rings true. It is certainly pertinent to today's situations in Iraq and Afghanistan (if not as much as it was to the contemporary Vietnam conflict), showing that the more things change, the more they stay the same. On this level, the film is mostly successful.

However, the film's primary failure is in its direction. Pontecorvo's static, unemotional cinema verite style worked well with Battle of Algiers; the use of non-actors in key roles enhanced the film's realism. Pontecorvo employs the same techniques here (although the supporting cast is fleshed out with a handful of British and Italian character actors), and yet mostly fails. This is because Algiers was a relatively modest docudrama set within one city; Queimada is (or tries to be) a large-scale historical epic, and the static visual style and direction cause many of the film's major set-pieces to falter. Most of the film's action, both political and military, happen off-screen; usually, we only learn about the effects afterward. What we do see are brief snippets, which vary in effectiveness. The movie has its share of visually stunning sequences - the march of the slave army, the execution scenes, and Walker watching the massacre of rebels through an eyeglass - but on the whole, the effect is underwhelming.

The movie also lacks strong central characters. Algiers had Jean Martin's coolly professional Colonel Matthieu and Brahim Haigag's Ali La Pointe, who goes from street punk to principled revolutionary. The equivalent characters in Queimada, Walker and Dolores, are cartoonish by comparison. Although his actions are fascinating, Walker himself is not a well-drawn character; he effectively stands for the ideas he represents, but nothing more. Brando's performance is surprisingly subdued, but his wig, accent and the screenplay undermine his best efforts. Evaristo Marquez's Dolores is similar; he is more of an idea than a character, and unlike in Algiers, the casting of a non-actor does not work. In this case, it simply undermines the character. Neither character has much depth or development through the picture, and thus neither is really interesting. The supporting cast is made up of even more cartoonish stereotypes, and hardly worth a mention; only Renato Salvatori as the hapless President of Queimada makes any impression.

For all its ambition, Queimada! is something of a disappointment. Although it makes its points broadly and well, as a movie it doesn't quite work. It is ultimately one of those films that is more interesting than entertaining.

Rating: 6/10 - Use your own discretion

Dawkins Calls Pope 'Stupid'

The ineffably wise, knowledgeable and profound theologian, Professor Dawkins

Courtesy of The Telegraph

Professor Dawkins, the prominent biologist and atheist, said that Benedict XVI would have blood on his hands if his beliefs were followed by Catholics around the continent.

Speaking at a university in Spain, he said: "I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim. If people take his words seriously he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people."

Prof Dawkins, 67, was speaking at a press conference at the University of Valencia after having been awarded an honorary degree. He also urged people to think for themselves on the subject, adding that the more they did, the less they were likely to believe in God.

Dawkins, mate...

1. Pope Benedict XVI believes that if men and women lived in accordance with Church teaching, in a monogamous relationship that respects the sanctity of marriage, in service of each other and their families, that the HIV/AIDS crisis would be greatly reduced.

2. Pope Benedict XVI believes that condoms promote sexual promiscuity and that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease spread by sexual promiscuity.

3. Therefore Pope Benedict XVI believes that the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa, far from being worsened by Church teaching, would, in fact, be reduced. There is nothing 'stupid', 'ignorant' or 'dim' in what Pope Benedict XVI believes, nor does the Pope have 'blood on his hands', since if men and women took his words seriously, sexual promiscuity and therefore the rate of HIV/AIDS infection would decline drastically.

All this is coming from a man who donated vast sums of money to a bus advertising campaign for the British Humanist Association with the slogan, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." This is a slogan which is 'stupid', 'ignorant' and 'dim'. Why?

This is why...

1. As long as God 'probably' does not exist, it is not a conclusive, immutable or provable fact.

2. There remains therefore the stark possibility that He does exist. Scientifically speaking, this possibility cannot be even empirically calculated or verified.

3. If God does not exist then death for each human being, one can assume by the slogan, is the end and there is no life beyond or after death. If God does not exist then death is still something of deep concern to the human psyche for there is no future beyond death and the human person is extinguished utterly. Death has been a great worry for generations of men and women and the absence of God has not eradicated the fear of death. Therefore, death itself, is still a 'worry'.

4. If God does exist, the slogan connotes that there is something to worry about should His existence be a reality.

5. If God does exist, and the 'worry' described in this slogan concerns Death, Judgment, Heaven, Purgatory or Hell, then the slogan has misinformed countless souls into error in suggesting that there is no God and no Judgment at the end of our lives. If men and women followed the advice of the slogan and lived by its moral relativism and heresy and departed from this life in final impenitence, then the slogan has possibly contributed to the damnation of countless souls spending eternity in Hell. Who, then, has 'blood on his hands', Professor Dawkins, if He does exist? And if He does exist, how many people is your book, 'The God Delusion' leading into error, heresy and possibly damnation, Professor Dawkins? I'd say it was 'thousands, perhaps even millions of people.'