Why chuck billions at wind turbines while ignoring tidal power?

We can't change the law for a cupcake queen. Daily blogger Peter Rhodes on Nigella and nut roasts.

Wind Turbine

WHEN national treasures fall out. “If I had a husband who was as hyperactive and fidgety, I'd stab him.” Columnist Liz Jones on TV chef Gordon Ramsay.

WE may all pretend to be horrified that the ceiling of London's Apollo Theatre was apparently brought down by heavy rain. But how many of us, hand on heart, have ever had a roof repaired before the rain came through?

THE Church of England's General Synod is to discuss a plan for priests to dress down on Sundays, abandoning traditional vestments in favour of jeans, T-shirts or whatever they wish. And why not? The Church is little more than an extension of social services these days, so why not dress like social workers?

“AS an island nation we have boatloads of power around us. It would be idiotic if we didn't do it.” So says Richard Reed, founder of the company proposing to build a six-mile sea wall at Swansea with tidal turbines to produce enough electricity for 120,000 homes. Actually, “idiotic” is not a strong enough term to describe Britain's reluctance to harness tidal power while chucking billions at unreliable, eyesore wind turbines producing zero electricity on calm days and bursting into flames on windy days. Who decided we should plough public money into unreliable, inefficient wind farms when we are surrounded by the guaranteed, twice-daily surges of tidal power? Forget “idiotic”. How about “deeply suspicious”? Anyone for a full public inquiry?

OF ALL the many questions John Humphrys could have put to the jihad-cheerleader Anjem Choudhury in his Radio 4 interview, one stands out. Choudhury, who repeatedly refused to condemn the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, rages endlessly about his fellow Muslims being slaughtered by British and American forces. The reality, from Iraq to Syria, via Pakistan and Afghanistan, is that most Muslims who die violently are killed by fellow Muslims in the name of Allah. Does Choudhury, by any chance, condemn that?

I SUPPOSE we will eventually have had enough Nigella nonsense, and the daily dissection of her wretched marriage to Charles Saatchi will come to an end. Let us hope this case does not lead to English law being turned upside down. Nigella complains about her “vilification” as a witness. Well, what did she expect? If an employer accuses a member of staff of dishonesty, that employee is surely going to fight back. There are many good reasons for changing the law. Doing it because we feel sorry for a celebrity who happens to have a pretty face and deliciously moist cupcakes is not a good reason.

I THINK I would have liked the old traditional Christmas festival which began on Christmas Day and lasted for 12 days. Today's festival begins some time in September with the first jingle bells TV adverts and ends straight after lunch on December 25. Any mention of the C-event after that time is frowned upon. So just one reflection before we move briskly on to New Year, Valentine's Day and Easter. How rewarding it was to attend one carol concert where the lessons were read from the King James Authorised Version of the Bible. The usual routine is a few mediocre verses from the Happy Clappy Claptrap Good News Gospel for Grinning Dimwits. But this time the speaker began: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed,” in the original words of the 1611 King James version. It is a magnificent work of great majesty. I can't believe how meekly the Church abandoned it in favour of the sort of trendy new translations that make you think book burning may not be such a bad thing, after all. That's it. No more Xmas until next September.

APART from this. Great yuletide oxymorons: “delicious nut roast.”

Comments for: "Why chuck billions at wind turbines while ignoring tidal power?"

PAUL MULLERY

Re The Church

Although not personally religious, I read with bemusement the antics of the Church in attempting to win converts which has had the opposite effect. Clerics fail to realise that when they are in the pulpit giving a sermon, the congregation is no different to students in a class listening to the teacher. What the students and congregation expect is consistency when being given so-called facts. Any inconsistency increases suspicions that the teacher is incompetent or confused which leads to disaffection and absenteeism: the students don't know what to believe so it is pointless attending.

The Church, having hemorrhaged members, changed the message to please the leavers and caused confusion with the stalwarts who also then left. Take homosexuality as a prime example. The Bible indicates that "man shall not lie with man." The rule cannot be any clearer, homosexuality is a sin. The Church has condemned this for centuries. Now just because it doesn't suit possible recruits to the Church, the message changes. Then there was the issue about women priests. Traditionally, priests have been male and the congregation have accepted that this must be the case. Then it all changes so little wonder some of the faithful object. What they accepted as correct now, apparently, is not correct.

I have no interest in the Church or have any views on homosexuality or female priests, but from a management viewpoint constantly changing the message does the Church no favours.