If You Think The Church Is Stuck In The Eighties...

A few weeks back we were singing one modern hymn at church. I cannot remember which one, but there was a line about Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection being the events that divided history.

Except we don't act that way with the calendar. For some reason we have a BC (Before Christ)/AD (Anno Domini) split based on a miscalculation of His birth.

We take His birth as the event that divides history, from which our calendar is based.

If we really want the crucifixion and resurrection to be the dividing line in history, and convention takes these to be AD 33, then surely we should treat this as Year 1 (remember, there was no Year 0. 1 BC was followed by 1 AD - hence my amusement as the country went all gaga over the ending of the 99th year of the 20th century and the starting of the 100th year of the 20th century. The century and millennium began on 1 January 2001).

Hence, if we really take the crucifixion and resurrection as dividing history, surely we should start our calendar from then, and take 32 years off...

Have a great 1981

Maundy Thursday And Communion Frequency

I remember when I was at St Andrews going a few times to the parish church. And by parish church I mean the Church of Scotland. And sometimes there would be white cloths decked over the backs of pews as the Kirk prepared for its Communion Sunday.

Getting on for 20 years ago now, I was a volunteer with Time For God, being placed with Methodist Homes for the Aged. At one of the conferences I heard about two previous volunteers.

For one lady, Connunion was so important and so sacred that she celebrated it only a few times a year.

For another lady, Communion was so important and so sacred that she aimed to celebrate it daily.

Two Christians, starting from the same principles, and wanting to honour God and coming to completely opposite conclusions.

Often, when we disagree, we have to see what the other person is actually saying, rather than assuming they don't love God as much as we do, or maybe they don't take the Bible as seriously as we do, are not as Spirit-filled as we are etc.

I am wondering with Communion, how frequently we should take it. I did try to find a Maundy Thursday Communion service - the local Anglican parish church does one, but by the time I got home from work today I had a pounding headache and had to rest. And even cooking lamb (I felt it was kind of appropriate for today) has been put off - no appetite.

In Judaism, the festivals were celebrated annually - no more frequently, no less frequently. And the first Maundy Thursday, when the sacrament of Communion was instituted, was a Passover celebration. Does this mean that Maundy Thursday isn't just a day when we celebrate Communion, but the day we celebrate it?

Sometimes Acts 20:7 is produced as the text that backs weekly Sunday Communion - it was the first day of the week, they were breaking bread. But in Acts 2:46 the believers were breaking bread daily in their homes. Hmm, so did the early church go from daily Communion to weekly, or does Luke mean something different when he refers to breaking bread? And just because in Troas they celebrated it one Sunday, does that mean it has to be celebrated every Sunday?

There is one danger, that of finding Bible passages, ignoring what that particular section is focussing on and then looking for the umbras and penumbras, assuming that when a writer mentions X, they are referring to Y, and using that as a legalistic stick to beat others with.

More importantly than how often we receive Communion is how we receive it. I don't mean posture or style. but our heart attitude. Are we eating the bread and drinking the wine in gratitude?

One final thought - this weekend marks something greater than Christmas, and the modern Anglican Christmas marks that. One trend is of the Christmas Eve "Midnight Mass", and years ago I heard it pointed out that as we are marking the start of Christmas Day, it is in a service where we, once again, eat bread and drink wine to remember Jesus Christ giving up His life for our redemption.

Could UKIP Have MSPs?

There was a recent article in The Scotsman om whether the UK Independence Party could have an impact in Scotland.

I notice that in the June 2009 elections to the European Parliament, UKIP got 5.23% of the Scottish vote. While not enough to elect any Members of the European Parliament, parties have had Members of the Scottish Parliament elected on smaller shares of the vote.

UKIP's vote is not evenly distributed, but a breakdown by local authority area is available, and the Boundary Commission for Scotland has the breakdown of electoral regions by local authority areas.

Now, not all local authority areas remain in one electoral region - Argyll & Bute; East Lothian; Midlothian; and Moray are each split across two regions and South Lanarkshire across three. When this happens, I assume that each party's vote is evenly spread across the local authority area.

So, what would the result of the May 2011 Scottish election be if the regional vote was the same as the 2009 European?

For each region, I only list parties getting over 5% of the vote.

Begin with Glasgow, where the Scottish National Party won 5 constituencies and Labour 4.

Labour - 30.62%

Scottish National Party - 28.12%

Greens - 9.53%

Conservatives - 9.11%

Liberal Democrats - 7.17%

Labour and the Greens would each get 2 additional MSPs, while the SNP, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats get 1 each.

Hence, in Glasgow, Labour would have 6 MSPs, the SNP 6, the Greens 2, the Conservaives 1 and the Liberal Democrats 1.

Labour achieve their highest share of the vote in this region, while both the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party (on 3.97%) get their lowest share of the vote.

Next it's Highlands & Islands, where the Scottish National Party won 6 constituencies and the Liberal Democrats 2.

Scottish National Party - 29.36%

Liberal Democrats - 22.81%

Conservatives - 15.18%

Labour - 10.14%

Greens - 7.08%

UK Independence Party - 6.74%

The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives would each get 2 additional MSPs, while Labour, the Greens and UKIP get 1 each.

Hence in Highlands & Islands, the SNP would have 6 MSPs, the Liberal Democrats 4, the Conservatives 2, Labour 1, the Greens 1 and UKIP 1. The Liberal Democrats and UKIP each achieve their highest share of the vote in this region, while Labour gets its lowest share of the vote.

Next is Lothian, where the Scottish National Party won 8 constituencies and Labour 1.

Scottish National Party - 24.72%

Labour - 19.92%

Conservatives - 17.44%

Liberal Democrats - 14.43%

Greens - 11.50%

Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats would each get 2 additional MSPs, while the Greens gets 1.

Hence in Lothian, the SNP would have 8 MSPs, Labour 3, the Conservatives 2, the Liberal Democrsts 2 and the Greens 1.

The Greens achieve their highest share of the vote in this region, while the SNP gets its lowest share of the vote.

Now on to Scotland Central, where the Scottish National Party won 6 constituencies and Labour 3.

Scottish National Party - 31.80%

Labour - 29.59%

Conservatives - 10.41%

Liberal Democrats - 5.77%

Greens - 5.30%

UK Independence Party - 4.97%

Labour and the Conservatives would each get 2 additional MSPs, while the Liberal Democrats, Greens and UKIP get 1 each.

Hence in Scotland Central, the SNP would have 6 MSPs, Labour 5, the Conservatives 2, the Liberal Democrats 1, the Greens 1 and UKIP 1.

The Liberal Democrsts and Green each get their lowest share of the vote in this region.

Next it's Scotland Mid & Fife, where the Scottish National Party won 8 constituencies and Labour 1.

Scottish National Party - 29.15%

Labour - 20.90%

Conservatives - 18.03%

Liberal Democrats - 11.68%

Greens - 6.62%

UK Independence Party - 5.55%

The Conservatives would get 3 additional MSPs, Labour 2, while the Liberal Democrats and the Greens would get 1 each.

Hence in Scotland Mid & Fife, the SNP would have 8 MSPs, Labour 3, the Conservatives 3, the Liberal Democrats 1 and the Greens 1.

Now on to Scotland North East, where the Scottish National Party won all 10 constituencies.

Scottish National Party - 36.08%

Conservatives - 19.27%

Labour - 13.95%

Liberal Democrats - 11.09%

Greens - 5.98%

UK Independence Party - 5.45%

The Conservatives would get 3 additional MSPs, Labour 2, while the Liberal Democrats and the Greens would get 1 each.

Hence in Scotland North East, the SNP would have 10 MSPs, the Conservatives 3, Labour 2, the Liberal Democrats 1 and the Greens 1.

The Scottish National Party achieves its highest share of the vote in this region.

Next Scotland South, where the Scottish National Party won 4 constituencies, the Conservatives 3 and Labour 2.

Conservatives - 25.30%

Scottish National Party - 25.24%

Labour - 18.19%

Liberal Democrats - 10.27%

UK Independence Party - 6.60%

Greens - 5.86%

The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats would each get 2 additional MSPs, while Labour, UKIP and the Greens would get 1 each.

Hence in Scotland South, the Conservatives would have 5 MSPs, the SNP 4, Labour 3, the Liberal Democrats 2, UKIP 1 and the Greens 1.

The Conservatives achieve their highest share of the vote in this region.

Finally Scotland West, where the Scottish National Party won 6 constituencies and Labour 4.

Scottish National Party - 28.99%

Labour - 24.14%

Conservatives - 16.35%

Liberal Democrats - 9.82%

Greens - 5.81%

UK Independence Party - 4.94%

The Conservatives would get 3 additional MSPs, the Liberal Democrats 2, and the Greens and UKIP getting 1 each.

Hence in Scotland West, the SNP would have 6 MSPs, Labour 4, the Conservatives 3, the Liberal Democrats 2, the Greens 1 and UKIP 1.

For Scotland overall, the result would be:

Scottish National Party - 54 (53 constituencies, 1 regional)

Labour - 27 (15 constituencies, 12 regional)

Conservatives - 21 (3 constituencies, 18 regional)

Liberal Democrats - 14 (2 constituencies, 12 regional)

Greens - 9 (all regional)

UK Independence Party - 4 (all regional)

In this scenario, the SNP would be 11 seats short of the 65 needed for an overall majority - however, after the May 2007 election they chose to govern as a minority with only 47 MSPs. A coalition with the Greens would bring them up to 63.

And the only alternative - a Labour/Liberal Democrat/Green coalition - would be 4 seats behind the SNP.

Of course, in reality, the 2011 election was unusual, with the SNP winning 53 constituencies - the same as Labour did in the inaugural election of May 1999. But in 1999, Labour did poorly on the regional side of the election, and only got 3 additional MSPs (all in Highlands & Islands). In 2011, the SNP dominated the regional side, picking up additional MSPs in every region apart from Lothian.

Secondly, 2009 and 2011 are different elections. Not just for different elected bodies but from different eras. 2009 was the fag-end of an exhausted Labour government, while 2011 took place as part of a national backlash against a Conservative/Liberal Democrat government.

However, this does show that if UKIP repeats its European share of the vote, then it should get a few MSPs.

As a coda, 2009 might be electorally closer to the 2007 election, in that they both happened during a Labour government on its last legs. If we take the notional 2007 constituency results, we come up with something slightly different:

Scottish National Party - 41 (21 constituencies, 20 regional)

Labour - 40 (35 constituencies, 5 regional)

Conservatives - 20 (6 constituencies, 14 regional)

Liberal Democrats - 16 (11 constituencies, 5 regional)

Greens - 8 (all regional)

UK Independence Party - 4 (all regional)

An SNP/Liberal Democrat/Green coalition would have an overall majority of just 1.

Leanne Wood, Rhondda And Dual Candidacy

A couple of Welsh political stories - other than the reshuffle - concerning the next elections to the Welsh Assembly on 5 May 2016. Firstly, the Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood, currently an Assembly Member (AM) for South Wales Central is planning to stand in Rhondda, which is currently held by Minister for Education Leighton Andrews.

You may think that Wood is taking a risk, after all, the Government of Wales Act 2006 abolished the concept of dual candidacy.

The Welsh Assembly is elected on the Additional Members System, where Wales is split into 5 regions. In each region are between 8 and 10 constituencies, all of which elect an AM. Then 4 additional AMs are elected on party lists using the d'Hondt system in each region to make the system more proportional.

At the May 1999 and May 2003 elections, dual candidacy was allowed, so someone could be a constituency candidate and be on their party's regional list. In theory, a constituency AM could lose their seat but eemain an AM by becoming a regional one, and conversely, a regional AM could stand in a constituency and win. This is still the rule for the Scottish Parliament.

The classic example is in the Scottish Parliament, with the Galloway & Upper Nithsdale constituency. At the 1999 election, the constituency was won by the Scottish National Party's Alasdair Morgan (the sitting MP). Also representing the constituency - as a regional member for Scotland South - was the Conservatives' Alex Fergusson.

At the 2003 election, the good people still had Morgan and Fergusson representing them. But something had changed. In the constituency, Fergusson had defeated Morgan by 99 votes, but Morgan remained a Member of the Scottish Parliament by virtue of his high placing on the SNP list in Scotland South.

The May 2007 election saw another battle between Morgan and Fergusson, with the latter increasing his majority (and becoming the Parliament's Presiding Officer), and the former continuing to represent Scotland South.

One reason for abolishing dual candidacy was the interesting result in Clwyd West at the 2003 election. The constituency was won by Labour's Alan Pugh, who, obviously enough, became an AM.

In second place was the Conservatives' Brynle Williams, followed by Plaid Cymru's Janet Ryder and then by the Liberal Democrats' Eleanor Burnham. All three of them became regional AMs for Wales North - indeed Ryder and Burnham were sitting regional AMs.

There was a slight advantage for Labour in abolishing dual candidacy as in both Wales and Scotland there was a tendency for it be Labour AMs/MSPs losing to sitting regional representatives who had built up a profile locally.

One thing to note, however, is that there are other ways for a politician to build up a profile. In South East England at the June 2009 election to the European Parliament one of our Members of the European Parliament was the Green Party's Caroline Lucas. Her work as an MEP since first being elected in June 1999 gave her a high profile which helped her to win Brighton Pavilion at the May 2010 general election.

And, for the House of Commons, being an AM or MSP can help build a profile that helps a politician become an MP. The Conservatives' Alun Cairns, who won Vale of Glamorgan from Labour at the 2010 election was a regional AM for Wales South West (interestingly, this region did not contain his new cnstituency, which is in Wales South Central). Another Conservative, the Minister for Scotland, David Mundell, won Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale from Labour at the May 2005 general election while being a regional MSP for Scotland South.

The traffic isn't always towards Westminster though. At the 2007 election, the SNP leader, Alex Salmond, made his return to the Scottish Parliament after a 6 year absence by winning Gordon from the Liberal Democrats while still MP for Banff & Buchan, and then became First Minister - the post he still holds. The 2011 election saw Plaid Cymru's Simon Thomas become an AM for Wales Mid & West - he had been MP for Ceredigion from a by-election in February 2000 (caused by the resignation of Plaid Cymru's Cynog Dafis the previous month to concentrate on his duties as an AM for Wales Mid & West) until being defeated by the Liberal Democrats at the 2005 general election. 2011 also saw the Liberal Democrats' Willie Rennie - who now leads them in the Scottish Parliament - elected as a regional MSP for Scotland Mid & Fife, having been MP for Dunfermline & West Fife between winning it from Labour at a by-election in February 2006 and losing it to Labour at the 2010 election.

There should really be more traffic that way. Labour missed a trick at the 2011 election. Why not put the former Prime Minister and MP for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, Gordon Brown, top of the Scotland Mid & Fife list? Parachute former Chancellor of the Exchequer and MP for Edinburgh South West, Alistair Darling, in as Labour candidate for Edinburgh Pentlands (and high on the list in Lothian as an insurance policy), so he can lead Better Together as an MSP? Bung former Home Secretary and former MP for Airdrie & Shotts, John Reid, top of the Scotland Central list? (with former Scottish Secretary, Helen Liddell, second?)

How different would Holyrood be with Labour MSPs who have held high political office - in one case the highest political office?

And would the Liberal Democrats have such a meltdown if their former leader and sitting MP for Ross, Skye & Lochaber, Charles Kennedy, had been chosen to defend Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch?

Now, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government is considering abolishing the ban on dual candidacy, which would enable Wood to stand in both Rhondda and South Wales Central.

Rhondda itself has an interesting history. At the 1999 election it was actually won by Plaid Cymru, before losing it to Labour at the 2003 election. But it has an older history.

At the February 1974 general election, Rhondda was formed from two existing seats - Rhondda East and Rhondda West.

Rhondda West was solid Labour since it was created at the December 1918 general election. Its inaugural MP was William Abraham, who had been MP for the old Rhondda seat since the November/December 1885 general election when he was elected as a "Lib-Lab" candidate, i.e. notionally a Liberal but supported by the trade unions.

It is fair to say that Rhondda was solid Labour before the Labour party even existed.

Unlike today, when constituencies have long lists of candidates, this is an era of few candidates. Indeed, st the October 1931 general election the Conservatives and Liberals didn't contest the seat, so the sitting Labour MP, William John, was only challenged by the Communists. At the November 1935 and July 1945 general elections, he didn't face any challenger - indeed, in 1945 John was the only Welsh MP to be elected unopposed.

At the February 1950 general election, John retired, and the seat was won by Labour's Iorwerth Thomas. However, he died in December 1966, hence there would need to be a by-election.

By this stage, Plaid Cymru was making its presence felt - just as the SNP was north of the border. It had appeared on the scene at the May 1929 general election when it only contested Caernarvonshire. In May 1966, Megan Lloyd-George, who had been Labour MP for Carmarthen since winning it from the Liberals - the party her father once led - at a by-election in February 1957, died. Hence a by-election was held in July 1966 - the first since the March 1966 general election.

Plaid Cymru - like the UK Independence Party since the last general election - had had some by-election success, albeit not winning seats. Second place at Ogmore in June 1946 (albeit with no Conservative or Liberal candidates). Second place at Aberdare in December 1946 (pushing the Conservatives into third place) - something repeated in the same seat in October 1954.

Basically getting second place in seats Labour easily held. But Carmarthen changed all that. Plaid Cymru's leader, Gwynfor Evans, who had come third in October 1964 and again in 1966, won the by-election, but lost it back to Labour's Gwynoro Jones at the June 1970 general election. In February 1974 Jones held to it, with a majority of 3 votes over Evans. but Evans won it back in the October 1974 general election, before losing it to Labour in the May 1979 general election.

And in March 1967 it was Rhondda West's turn. Despite a 29% swing from Labour, and Plaid Cymru getting a higher share of the vote than in Carmarthen, Alec Jones held it for Labour.

The next Welsh by-election was Caerphilly in July 1968. Another 29% swing, a higher share of the vote than Rhondda West, but Plaid Cymru failed to defeat Labour.

That's Rhondda West. What about Rhondda East? Another fascinating seat.

Like its neighbour, Rhondda East was solid Labour during its existence. But it's when it comes to the runner-up that everything changes.

In 1929 the Communists contested the seat for the first time, getting a respectable third place behind the Liberals and pushing the Conservatives down to fourth place. In 1931 the Conservatives and Liberals didn't contest the seat, and - as in Rhondda West - Labour was only challenged by the Communists.

The by-election of March 1933 was won - predictably - by Labour, but the Communists' Arthur Horner (who would later run the National Union of Mineworkers) came less than 3,000 votes from becoming the sole Communist MP (at the 1929 general election Shapurji Saklatvala lost Battersea North to Labour).

From the 1935 to 1966 general elections - except for the Conservatives coming second at the October 1951 general election - the Communists were second in Rhondda East, until at the 1970 general election they were pushed into third place by Plaid Cymru.

And Wood becoming AM for Rhondda would be just another chapter in its unique political history.

Why My Nose Stays As It Is Today

Today is an event that happens every two years. Yep, it's Smugfest Day.

I do not support Comic Relief despite the pressure.

The first problem I have is the attitude. If you state that you choose to give to other charities, then you are a miseryguts and a killjoy. Some of us believe in giving quietly, without fanfare and regularly, by standing order or direct debit, so charities can plan. But's that being a miseryguts and a killjoy.

I am reminded of Jesus's words in Matthew 6:1-4.

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Comic Relief's gospel - and I use that word deliberately for reasons which will become clear later - is that giving to the needy should be accompanied by the modern trunpets, so celebrities can be praised by the public for doing stuff for char-i-dee.

It's not enough to be charitable. One has to be seen to be charitable and receive praise for it.

The second problem goes to the heart of the Comic Relief gospel. And that is the attitude that doing something funny for money absolves all sins.

A couple of years ago, I criticised celebrity drug addict George Michael. And one woman who overheard pointed her finger at me, and angrily told me that Michael cares about the starving children in Africa (R) (TM) and did so much for Comic Relief. How dare I say a word against him!

And I tried to explain this. In some parts of the world, crops for drugs are grown on land which could be used for crops for food. There are children who will go hungry today so that Western celebrity drug addicts can shove white powder up their noses.

Drugs wars leave children maimed and orphaned. In some parts of the world there are children who have to bring up their brothers and sisters, or whose health is permanently damaged so that Western celebrity drug addicts can shove white powder up their noses.

However, this could all be dismissed by the argument that a celebrity drug addict does stuff for char-i-dee.

Frankie Boyle's "jokes" about an autistic boy? That's OK - he does stuff for Comic Relief.

DHL? Oh, that's OK, they do stuff for Comic Relief.

Dodgy person or dodgy organisation? Supporting Comic Relief justifies everything.

The third problem is the deceit. As John Smeaton argues, Comic Relief funds organisations that promote and perform abortions.

Now, if people want to give money to abortion providers that is up to them. But an organisation giving money to them and then stating "we do not fund and have never funded abortion services or the promotion of abortions" is wrong.

There are two possibilities. Either Comic Relief genuinely does not know that some organisations it gives money to perform and promote abortions - in which case it does not research where money it raises is spent and therefore does not practice good stewardship with the money entrusted to it.

The alternative is that it does know where the money goes and chooses to deny it. In which case it is untrustworty.

But I note that the Comic Relief letter mentions it gives money to CAFOD. So that makes everything OK. Well it doesn't.

We come across this modern morality. For example, I knew a lady who, as she liked to remind people, was a "nice person" and "such a good Christian". Others would - and I agree - describe her as a "nasty piece of work". She would remind people of her little good deeds which would earn her a place in Heaven.

Reduce someone to tears by spiteful comments about a seriously ill relative who they are not sure will survive? Find it funny when something bad happens to a social inferior? That's OK - do a little good deed each day and brag that you are a "nice person".

I remember seeing a poster advertising the National Lottery. It had some disabled children at the seaside with the slogan "Fun for you. Funds for them." I don't have time to go into the Lottery now, but issues about gambling addiction and opening the door to a social acceptance of gambling (I remember the bookmakers in Hythe with its frosted windows - now gambling dens advertise openly about how much you can win) and the potentila super-casinos.

Someone objects to the National Lottery? Simple, just draw attention to the tiny percentage that goes on "good causes" and make out that what they are really saying is they don't like disabled kids having a day at the seaside.

Someone objects to super-casinos? Simple, just waffle about "regeneration" and "bringing money to the City" which can be spent on the poor and disadvantaged.

It's this attitude that one good deed for char-i-dee justifies everything.

There is a fourth issue. I was told recently that surely I can afford, on my salary, to give £1 to Comic Relief. Just a pound. Won't even notice it.

I'm sorry, but choosing to give to charities other than Comic Relief does not make you a miseryguts or a tightwad.

The Alternative Fates Of Jamie McCrimmon

Yesterday I received the latest Doctor Who Magazine and was interested by an interview with Frazer Hines, who played Jamie McCrimmon from December 1966 to June 1969, with a couple of returns in the 1980s.

One of these returns was in season 22's The Two Doctors, and Hines mentions that he could have suggested staying on, and that the then-producer John Nathan-Turner might have agreed to that.

There are two theories about when The Two Doctors is set. The first places it in the normal narrative - namely that it is set in the era of Patrick Troughton playing the Doctor. At some point when the Doctor and Jamie were travelling with Victoria Waterfield, the Time Lords sent them on a certain mission. But if the Doctor was on the run from the Time Lords? And Jamie hadn't heard the name? One way that fans have got round this is by assuming that it was the Celestial Intervention Agency sending the Doctor and Jamie, and keeping their whereabouts hidden from the High Council (with maybe the Doctor agreeing to this to avoid being caught by the Time Lords).

A second theory is that after Troughton's final adventure - season 6's The War Games, the Time Lords reunited the Doctor, Jamie and Victoria (and somehow restored Jamie's memory) and and sent them off on various missions. For me this is hard to reconcile with the sentence imposed by the Time Lords - that the Doctor's appearance would change and he would be exiled to Earth, which (from what I remember) was going to commence immediately after his trial.

Now, if Jamie travelled with the sixth Doctor and Peri Brown, then he would have to leave at some point.

The logical point to me seems to be leaving at the same time as Peri, in season 23's The Trial Of A Timelord: Mindwarp. As he saw the Doctor pretending to co-operate with the Daleks in season 4's Evil of the Daleks he would take the Doctor's actions in his stride.

In Mindwarp the Time Lords take the Doctor and bring him to the trial, leaving Peri abandoned to her fate - and as we see in The Trial of a Timelord: The Ultimate Foe her real fate is much worse than the one we see in Mindwarp. I would assume that if Jamie were travelling at this point, the Time Lords would either leave him abandoned on Thoros Beta (and in a bit of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff, he would never return to the second Doctor) or else send him back to the end of the The Two Doctors to travel with the second Doctor again.

I wonder whether, if Jamie did get abandoned on Thoros Beta, the Master would manage to send him as a witness to the trial in The Ultimate Foe along with Mel Bush and Sabalom Glitz. This could open the door to a further period of travelling with the sixth (and maybe the seventh) Doctor.

Matthew 18 Or Revenge?

I am in the process of applying for church membership. And one issue that I have been worried about is having to put down my last church. Although I did discuss the matter with one of the welcome team who said he would mention the problem to the church leadership.

The problem is that I left my old church on very bad terms, forced out. And my fear was that my church contacting the old church would lead to the old church telling my church's leadership things about me that were untrue and maybe leading to the elders going "Right. Well we didn't know that about him. Membership denied."

But, on the other hand, reading between the lines of the church handbook I think I would have a right to reply if anything was said.

I had to leave my old church in the autumn of 2011. I had missed a church event - and emailed in advanced to say why. That should have been the end of the matter.

For one of the church ministers, it wasn't. Basically, "his nose" told him that really I was making a desperate "cry for help" over a deep-seated spiritual problem - so deep-seated that not even I was aware of it.

Now, this is nonsense, but the problem is people believe gossip if it's shared "for prayer purposes".

There was a bit of an email to-and-fro, with him insistent that He Knew He Was Right. It culminated with my turning up at the church Sunday evening and him wanting to discuss my spiritual problem with me. I just told him that I did tell the truth about why I didn't attend and walked away. The following morning in my Inbox was an email from him describing me as "not normal" for my walking away and my refusal to discuss my (non-existent) problem and suggested I seek counselling for the (non-existent) spiritual problem. At which point I contacted another one of the church leadership to explain why I was going to stop attending the church.

The problem is things escalate as stuff gets shared. And after a while you find people on Facebook from the church suddenly unfriending you.

And there is one annoying attitude. That is the lack of a right to reply. There was no chance for me to give my side of the story once some confronted me about the (non-existent) spiritual problem.

I would go further. For some who shared and confronted me there was no such thing as my side of the story. The minister concerned had told them the full facts so they could pray for me. I needed to be brought to the point where I accepted that what was being said about me by him was true, the church would love to give me prayer and counselling, and it was up to me to help the church to help me. You can end up being confronted and shouting "That's not true" till you're blue in the face.

You also come across the Saddam Hussein/Weapons of Mass Destruction logic. Just as the inability to find his WMDs showed that he was very good at hiding them, the lack of evidence of a spiritual problem which is being shared "for prayer purposes" means that the person it's about is good at deceiving others - and themselves - about it.

The thing about church gossips is that they are so silky. Suddenly announcing, for example, that Peter is an alcoholic (and no that isn't what was said about me), isn't going to do anything. But the silky "Oh, you're a friend of Peter's so I'm sure you're just as concerned..", "You love Peter as well so I'm sure you'll want to pray...", "This is just so you can pray.." leaves Peter's reputation shredded and the gossiper's reputation enhanced as they were only doing it because they love Peter.

This was all behind me. Yesterday evening I get an email entitled "Praying 4 You" from a lady I'd never heard of. I was going to delete it, but decided to open it. Apparently, there is a cycle of praying for members "of the church family" and it is my turn to be prayed for next week. Ho hum, that's nice - but it's from my old church. And the minister who caused me so much trouble is one of those doing the praying.

The opportunity for him to again, share something untrue and hurtful about me, for "prayer purposes" is something I worry about. So I emailed her back to ask her to remove me from the prayer list.

And in it, I also explained why I was no longer attending there. And I named name.

I am still unsure of my motivation. Was it - as I justify to myself - following Matthew 18? After all, the minister concerned refuses to apologise so telling the church is a next step, and by naming name I am telling the church (and the next stage would be to treat him as a tax collector)?

Or was I following a baser motivation? That of wanting to hurt someone who abused his ministry and leadership position to cause me so much hurt?