I do wonder if those who campaigned to exclude trans women from the Women's Institute realise what the WI actually does. Do they worry that those deemed male at birth have an unfair anatomical advantage when baking the perfect Victoria sponge or reaching the low notes of Jerusalem?

All of which seems a bit unfair on Jaws, which was a reasonably low budget, well crafted film with all those qualities you see as admirable. Is its only fault that it was successful and gave rise to lesser imitations?

I'm guessing you've never seen Jaws 2.

There must be questions asked of the legal advice the WI and Guides have received. This was surely never the intention of the Supreme Court ruling.

It does seem to be more prevalent in evangelical-charismatic circles, and deliberately or not will tend to suppress or circumvent critical evaluation of a plan. Say what you will about Diocesan Advisory Committees, a vicar wouldn't get away with saying, "The Lord gave me this re-ordering vision".

As resources, I strongly recommend the New Testament Guide to 1 Peter by David G. Horrell (T&T Clark 2008). He has also written commentaries on 1 Peter - the recent ICC very detailed commentary, but at a more approachable level (and cost) one in the Epworth Commentary series (Epworth Press 1998).

A lot of Christians find it very hard to argue against something that is presented as having been a God-given vision. Part of my problem with the project is how the decision making has taken place, with one powerful individual persuading others to support what "God has told" him to do.

It is a blasphemous abomination being foisted upon the good people of the West Midlands by a very rich evangelical businessman who claimed he was "told by God" to build an "eternal wall of answered prayer", and persuaded others to contribute to his vision. Not in my name.

More specifically, shame on the House of Bishops. At every step, Synod has indicated it wants to make positive progress on LLF, only for that to be delayed and frustrated by episcopal cowardice.

It makes no sense, but I suspect is down to those who are opposed to the LLF prayers being used at all feeling more able to raise supposedly legal objections to a stand alone service, on the grounds that such a service requires a higher level of synodical authorisation. But a nonsense, all the same.

I think the Observer journalists may need to do an investigation of the reality behind this "true story".

If so, I trust it will be advertised well in advance, so that it can be a Work From Home Day for colleagues who may have serious anxiety around dogs or who simply do not share the love for those furry friends.