john 3 v 20-21

'for all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. but those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.'

it came as no surprise to me this morning that this apology was printed in the Guardian - eventually.

as I have already said here that Jonathan Aitken's article was a defamation of the character of Elaine Storkey, and now we have it in black and white that what was printed was a lie. A lie.

the question should now be raised - why did Richard Turnbull not immediately write to the media to refute the content? I would have expected a letter to CEN at least. Of course not, what was I thinking? The only place that Jonathan Aitken could have got his information was from someone at Wycliffe Hall, most of whom are prevented from speaking to the media.

Who? I'll leave you to your own speculation. I wouldn't want to be considered libellous now, would I?


dave williams said...


And speculating away, you certainly are doing. An intelligent Christian like yourself might consider the following possibility

1. Turnbull did do something. He contacted either the Guardian directly and gave a correction which they published. Or he/Storkey spoke to Aitken who then contacted the Guardian and sorted it out. Maybe, just maybe neither of them, despite their mistakes are into hanging people like Aitken out to dry and suggested a discreet apology

2. Maybe, just maybe, Storkey and Turnbull are attempting to use the college's grievance and discipline procedures to resolve their differences. Maybe, just maybe neither of them particularly want Aitken, Mcgrath, Jody or whoever continuing a long, tiring, distracting from the Gospel battle in the media over the soul of the college that maybe, just maybe they both care about.

Of course that is just my attempt at speculation. It is of course possible that either one of them is a complete monster and is deliberately putting falsehood out and about to damage the other. But I would hope that you could at least entertain the possibility that there is another side to the story before you rush in with a big bag of rocks!

jody said...


who did Aitken get his information from in the first place, as he wasn't present himself at the meeting? an answer that question would be good, perhaps Aitken can enlighten us?

I suspect we won't get an answer.

I would have thought Turnbull's main thought should have been with Elaine, if he knew that this was an untrue allegation and if he didn't want to be linked with them.

Elaine Storkey was maligned and in danger of losing her job and, I guess her 'home' in a lot of senses. I think that she is probably the most vulnerable in this situation, being the research fellow, rather than the Principal. In this sense I think the more people to question the appearance of victimisation, the better.

with regards to entertaining the idea that there is another explanation. believing the best of someone doesn't mean opening yourself up to be continually battered by their bad behaviour, or allowing secrets to perpetuate the situation.