Boris caught on the hop

An enjoyable little video of Boris being confronted, on his bicycle, about Rape crisis centres.

Boris: knocking one off on Sunday morning for alleged £250,000 "chicken feed"

Er.....A weekly article for the Telegraph, that is. From the BBC's Hard Talk:

It's chicken feed. I think that frankly there's absolutely no reason at all why I should not knock off an article as a way of relaxation. I write anyway, I happen to write extremely fast. I don't see why on a Sunday morning I shouldn't knock off an article - if someone wants to pay me for that article then that's their lookout and of course I make a substantial donation to charity.

Just while you're trying to stop your head spinning (understanding any outburst from Boris is a bit like having one's head stuck inside a washing machine while it's on fast spin) let me point out that the "chicken feed" he refers to is the alleged £250,000 a year he receives for his Telegraph articles on top of the, presumably "half chicken feed", £140,000 mayoral salary he gets.

I find this all very depressing. It is very tiresome indeed that the Mayor of London reckons that a quarter of a million pounds - more than ten times the UK average salary - is "chicken feed" and is, furthermore, happy to declare that to the public.

It is hard to decide what attitude brings forward such a statement. Is it the "I'm an arrogant toff with loads of dosh but at least I am honest and open about it and people love me don't they? - or at least they love my lovely hair don't they?" attitude?

Or is it the "I really don't know what I am saying: I just open my mouth and all sorts of nonsense falls out. I really couldn't care if anyone objects to it, because we've got the next few elections sewn up anyway" attitude?

Or...are there any other attitudes that could be behind this? I am genuinely anxious to find out.

Could it be the "look, of course it is lots of money, but if I call it 'chicken feed' people earning £20,000 a year won't start thinking I am a pompous arrogant twit because they will believe that it doesn't mean a lot to me and therefore they shouldn't worry about it" attitude? (Sorry that one is rather obscure, but I am hauling a whole variety of foreign objects up the flagpost here so stick with me and let's see if any of them get saluted). That is, the "Keep calm and carry on - nothing to see here attitude but oops it doesn't quite work but who gives a monkeys? - I certainly don't, I am not going to run for a second term and there's a cabinet job with my name on it and I've got the Camster by the short and wotsits" attitude?

I think we should be told. But we may never know.

Freedom for prats!

For my sins, I regularly watch (and read the sub-titles of) the London BBC TV news at very close quarters. That's while I am doing my stint on the treadmill at lunch time.

Today I was treated to Boris Johnson being very dictatorial to the London Assembly in respect to MLA (Member of the London Assembly) Barmcake of the BNP.

Barmcake (aka Richard Barnbrook) was invited to the regular Queen's Garden Party as an assembly member. He's entitled to one guest. Anyone in their right minds who has a partner as beautiful as his partner, ballerina Simone Clarke, would take her - right? Wrong. Very perversely indeed, Barmcake is choosing to spend the afternoon with his party leader, Nick Griffin.

Boris says this is making a "political stunt" of the garden party. I say the more you call it a stunt, Boris, the more it will become one.

The BNP is a legal political party. Barmcake is an elected assembly member. He has the right to bring which ever guest he chooses to a garden party.

Let Barmcake and Griffin get on with it, say I. If they are so desperate for publicity that they do this - good luck to them.

I have always thought that the more the BNP are subject to the glare of the spotlight, the more ludicrous they appear. If people see the preening, twitching Griffin at the Garden Party they will see what a complete prat he is. Result. They will also see what a complete prat Barmcake is wanting to take his party leader to a party instead of his ballerina partner.

No doubt a lot of time is going to spent speculating as to whether Griffin would meet the Queen at this event. Don't be so daft. Most people see her from a distance of 300 yards at these events, enough to bow and scrape at her distant figure, and the Royal Family have 1000 years of experience at avoiding people they don't want to meet.

Boris: "I am an exhausted volcano, I am a defunct man"

Well, choosing juicy Boris quotes is like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? He is interviewed in the Times today.

Boris' bill

I think the bill for £400,000 for Ian Blair's pay off should go directly to Boris.

Given the Lond Mayor's £200,000 per year weekend job writing drivel for the Telegraph, he could pay this off in two years.

Is this ad the biggest waste of money ever?

This ad (below) really is the most bizarre thing. It was the rapid response from the McCain campaign after the Presidential debate last night. But for the end voice-over, I suspect it would qualify for Obama to say "I approve this message". It basically shows clips of Obama saying he agreed with Senator McCain. And that's meant to make him unqualified to be President? How bonkers is that as a line of logic? It actually emphasises how reasonable Obama is and contradicts the point about him being partisan in his approach.

This McCain ad is more likely to decrease McCain's popularity, not increase it. That is underlined by watching the tape of the CNN broadcast of the debate which had an audience reaction line at the bottom. Whenever McCain said "Senator Obama doesn't understand" (which he said repeatedly), the graph dropped right down.

Despite being asked several times to address Obama directly, McCain didn't look at him once and only once addressed a remark to him. Most of the time he looked away or at the monitor, even when meeting Obama at the beginning.

The cut-aways of McCain's reactions showed him bristling and smirking. He looked like an angry old man - his body language and demeanour seemed to be saying "It's obvious that I have vast experience and I know best - why on earth is this whippersnapper even allowed on the same stage as me?"

One answer which McCain gave ought to make Americans very afraid. When asked what he would do about the extra spending caused by the bank bailout, he suggested a government spending freeze on everything except defence, veteran affairs and entitlements. This once again underlines the impulsive, overly gung-ho character of John McCain. As Obama said, perhaps a scapel is needed, rather than a hatchet.

Cameron sidelines Boris

David Cameron has sidelined Boris Johnson amid fears the maverick Tory could steal the limelight at the party's annual conference next month.

London mayor Mr Johnson has been relegated to a brief 15-minute slot during "snooze time" after Sunday lunch.

The move will be a bitter blow for the outspoken politician who dreams of succeeding Mr Cameron and becoming Prime Minister.

Tory Party chiefs are determined he will not upstage Mr Cameron despite his huge popularity in the party.

They have denied him the chance to make a keynote speech at the Birmingham conference.

A Tory source said: "He will not be the darling of the conference. There will only be one star of the show and that's going to be David Cameron."

Sunday Mirror

Boris jacket button storm

It is fascinating that Boris Johnson reckons he 'took a stand' by looking untidy at the Olympic flag handover ceremony:

Chinese officials ordered Boris Johnson to smarten up at the Olympic handover ceremony, he revealed yesterday.
The Mayor has faced criticism from Chinese commentators for leaving his jacket button undone at the event, an oversight which they say is disrespectful at a formal occasion.
He hits back in an article yesterday and says that officials had pointed at him to follow other VIPs and do up his jacket.
But after checking there was no protocol, Mr Johnson decided against it.

Two caveats to this story:

Johnson wrote his article in the Spectator - presumably for money - so there was an element of singing for his (multiple) supper here.

...and perhaps this story should be taken in the same light as Boris' revelations about a huge secret stash of wine at City Hall, which eventually turned out to be a modest consignment from Peter Dominics.

A body blow for Boris

Although lacking the drama of the Ray Lewis resignation, Tim Parker's departure from the London City Hall team is perhaps more of a blow to the Boris project.

The media storm created by this news has been limited. I agree with Jeremy Hargreaves that Londoners are unlikely to be shocked to the core by it. Taxes going up, traffic stopping or rubbish piling up in the street might cause Boris' poll ratings to plummet. But 'bums on seats' shifting around are unlikely to trouble the man on the Clapham omnibus.

But if I was in Boris' shoes, I would be feeling pretty shocked. I doubt whether he will be that shocked. But he ought to be.

It all goes back to an old theory about Ronald Reagan. Let me say up front that I was no fan of Reagan's politics. Of course, not. But he was a charming fellow. He managed to glide through his presidency, glad-handing all who came before him. The theory was that he knew how to delegate. He knew which decisions to take himself, which to delegate, how to keep the right distance from those he delegated to and, above all, he chose his appointees well. That was the theory. So he could be nice Mr Reagan, spending his time making sure his tie was perfectly tied and charming all before him, while the dirty work was done by a highly talented team. I might mention in passing, however, that Ronald Reagan was Governor of California for eight years before he was President. So he had top-notch experience of running what would be the tenth largest economy in the world, if it were a country.

So when Boris walked into City Hall, his first choice seemed to be to follow the Reagan route, no doubt aided by some helpful suggestions from Team Cameron. He started bringing in a talented team and delegated, albeit in an....er......interesting way.

Beginners to the art of delegation often think that it involves simply choosing experienced staff and telling them to do tasks. Of course, it is devilishly more difficult than that. It involves endless subtlety and judgment.

For example, it is a good thing to be extremely familiar with the tasks you are delegating. So, when Boris delegated planning to someone (Simon Milton? Ian Clement?) he did it knowing not the first thing about planning. Oh, I take that back. He knew that it involved balsa-wood models.

So Boris broke the first rule of delegation. Know what you are delegating. That is, really know it. Never delegate anything you don't understand. It will end up biting you in the proverbial.

Boris then broke the second rule of delegating. Know what you have delegated and to whom. And make sure they know what you have delegated to them. It has to be crystal clear. Written down. Worked through in detail. No wishy-washiness.

Look at this for an example of classic wishy-washiness of the first order courtesy of a Labour group press release quoted in Dave Hill's write-up of Boris' first Assembly question time:

The new Mayor of London Boris Johnson appeared today not to know who is making critically important decisions on his behalf. When asked if it was appropriate that he should delegate strategic planning decisions to an unelected, unaccountable adviser, Mayor Johnson insisted he had not. Yet since he was appointed two weeks ago, Ian Clement - one of Boris Johnson's deputy mayors - has been writing to London Assembly Members saying 'the Mayor has delegated his planning decisions to me'.

Planning is a fiendishly complex business. To simply toss this key role over to someone in the first few days of an administration, without knowing the first thing about the subject, is utter madness.

The Tim Parker departure really does blow a major hole in the whole Boris delegation strategy. Parker was meant to become London's "Chief Executive". The idea was, no doubt, that Boris would swan about charming everyone, while Tim Parker would get on with the heavy lifting in the background.

But now he has gone. Oh dear. And his departure has allegedly been put down to, among other things, a bit of a faux pas by Boris. That faux pas was in the area of, you guessed it, the art of delegation. Oh dear.

Boris thought he would delegate chairmanship of Transport for London to Parker. Then, he belatedly had second thoughts (which is absolutely infuriating for anyone who looks for some form of order in the administration of London). Presumably, Boris realised that (a) he'd be leaving himself (Boris) with very little to do and (b) Parker would run Transport for London like a business. After all, Parker is a businessman who amassed a multi-million fortune by making tough cost-cutting decisions. They don't call him the "Prince of Darkness" for nothing. Sadly, the thing about running public services, as opposed to a business, is that your "shareholders" are also your customers. So if you cut costs in all but benign ways or ways beneficial to the customer, you end up being voted down at the next shareholders' meeting (in this case an election).

So, to sum up, Boris' attempt to be Ronald Reagan has failed. He has, in simple terms, completely and utterly bolloxed up his first attempt at delegation.

If this were a computer game called "Delegator", the large words "GAME OVER" would now illuminate the face of Boris as he stares blinkingly into the console. A total wipe out.

So what is left? Well, dear old Boris can now start again. Hire some people with a little more experience of public services and make sure they are properly vetted.

But all these lessons for Boris are being learnt at the expense of London's taxpayers.

The other choice for Boris, and one which I think he will inevitably have to make, to a large extent, is to actually get his hands dirty. Yes, actually get involved in the detail of transport and planning himself. He'll enjoy it. But I forsee some mistakes along the line. They will, no doubt, be entertaining for Boris watchers, but sooner or later, Londoners will stop laughing.

New Borisisms

I am still not entirely sure what one calls classic Borisisms. Is it Borisisms? Or Borisms? (A similar dilemma to: Is it (or indeed was it) Obamamania or Obamania? - I think the latter won over).

Or should it be Borisinalia?

Doing a quick google, it seems that "Borisisms" wins. There is a list of 20 here. So I don't know why I bothered to wonder about it now. Sorry.

Any road up, Decca Aitkenhead's 100 days article in the Guardian, entitled Capital Charmer throws up three new Borisisms which I thoroughly enjoyed. I have attempted to categorise them below:

Category: WTF?

I'm sticking to our general desire to reduce CO2 by 60% by 2025. And, you know, you're going to see some really fantastic things on cycling. I would say to people, add that adjective - I mean, no, cycling's not an adjective, it's a participle - add that participle, OK? It's going to be clean, green, safe - and cycling.

Category: Getting one's head round really big stuff

...you know what planning's like, it's mega stuff, you've got to look at big balsa wood models of new developments...

Category: No, that's not a good idea, Boris

"Oh, incessantly", he laughs, when asked how often he and the Tory leader, David Cameron, talk. "We're scarcely ever off the phone. In fact I'm going to ring him now. Let's ring Cameron." Let's not, his aide interjects.

100 days of Boris and his massive U turn on school playing fields

In the Guardian, Matthew Taylor and Dave Hill reflect on 100 days of Boris as Mayor of London.

The overall picture is "the jury is still out", that Boris is genuinely charming and:

He is bright enough to pick up anything but his attention span is short and detail bores him.

Interestingly, Tony Travers from the LSE is quoted as saying that the Ray Lewis affair may not have done Johnson any harm:

The over-riding impression is of Johnson standing by his black deputy, which helps to negate accusations of racism that were made during the campaign.

Steve Norris, now on Team Boris, says that it is too early to get a clear impression of Boris' administration is all about. One wonders why? Most administrational changes give us at least a few clues in the first 100 days.

Apparently David Cameron is making sure he doesn't get too close to Boris. If it all goes badly wrong it will be portrayed as "Boris being Boris".

I like this observation from an official:

...Johnson keeps meeting people at parties and "with little more than a slap on the back and a proclamation that 'Cripes, we could really use someone like you', offers them a job." Opponents argue this informal appointments process has led to a purge of women and ethnic minorities from the top jobs.

One hopes that a little more thought went into the appointment of Rosie Boycott as "food champion". I hope Boycott is able to follow up on some of the concerns of Councillor Alexis Rowell of Belsize Liberal Democrats, who envisages a vast network of home growers being necessary across London.

This fortnight's Rotten Boroughs in Private Eye reports that, despite pledging to to stop the sale of state school playing fields in 2004, Boris has now allowed the sale of playing fields at Holland Park Community school to make way for the building of 72 residential units with parking.

What Boris actually said on the subject in the Telegraph in 2004 was:

The trouble we have - and it is one of the few things in politics which makes me almost wild with anger - is the sale of the playing fields, above all the sale of the playing fields in state schools.

Quite a U-turn, then. One for Liberal Conspiracy's Boris Gaffopedia. I'll get onto it right away!

Boris spills the beans in his column!!!! (over-egging warning)

After the Ray Lewis cock-up, Boris Johnson had an ideal opportunity to explain himself. His column in the Daily Telegraph today.

So I rushed to read the Johnson outpourings. What explanation would he give for appointing Ray Lewis? What checks were done? Why the shambolic press conference last week?

I was agog.

Sadly, the importance of the Ray Lewis affair was eclipsed by something much more important which Boris had to write about.......the men's tennis final which he attended, of course, as part of his "civic duties".

Of course. Ken Livingstone never attended in eight years as Mayor. But Boris sees it as very important for him to sit in the Royal Box.

So, briefly recapping: The past week has proved that Boris is incompetent in basic matters of management, but - BUT (and it's a big BUT - I have to admit) - he can wear a pink stetson handsomely and can brilliantly position his derrière in one of the seats of the Royal Box at Wimbledon.

Well done Boris!

Boris drops his hot potato

Boris Johnson has dropped the Narey inquiry into Ray Lewis. I can understand the argument that taxpayers money shouldn't be spent investigating someone who is no longer Deputy Mayor. It is worth noting, however, that this implicitly means that Boris has reversed the statement he made on Friday which was that he would reinstate Lewis as Deputy Mayor if he was proved to be innocent of the charges made against him.

I suspect that this latest development may have been hastened by the further revelation that Lewis must have known that the Church had suspended his right to be a minister, given that he appealed against the decision.

I think Boris' latest decision is welcome in human terms for Ray Lewis, who should be allowed to get on with his youth work at grassroots level. I don't think he or his family deserves any further pain or embarrassment regarding allegations if they are in the sort of twilight zone between:

a) Allegations which ought to be taken to the police

and

b) Allegations which would be serious enough to preclude someone from being a Deputy Mayor.

Having said all that, I can't help but thinking (because I am a cynic, after all) that there was one very powerful motivator in Boris' decision to drop the inquiry. That is, that he was starting to have nightmares (the shots of him at the Wimbledon Men's finals suggested that he had some missed sleep) about the cleanliness of the washing which would have emerged from a full inquiry into the past of his recently ex-Deputy Mayor for Young People.

Boris: The collected cock-ups

Liberal Conspiracy is maintaining a list of the gaffes and controversies of Mayor Boris Johnson.

'Boris: The Wheels are falling off already" - Mail

Mind you, it's only two months since they said that Boris was having the "last laugh".

Apparently not:

The Tories suffered an embarrassing setback last night after Boris Johnson was forced to sack his deputy for lying about his past.
Ray Lewis, a charismatic community leader, was dumped after what looked like a catastrophic misjudgment by the new London mayor.
A torrent of allegations about Mr Lewis, covering sexual misconduct, financial wheeler- dealing and physical abuse of pupils threatened to tarnish the Tory success story.
Mr Johnson had tried to defend his deputy, but was forced to backtrack after it emerged that Mr Lewis had wrongly passed himself off as a magistrate.
The announcement capped a day of chaos that was in danger of tainting David Cameron, following lurid tales of Mr Lewis's time as an Anglican-priest.
The Tories had hoped that Mr Johnson had shed his reputation for blunders, and had become a serious politician committed to the responsibilities of his office.
But the controversy over Mr Lewis will revive fears among MPs that Mr Johnson is a liability who could derail what was beginning to look like the Tory leader's triumphant march to power.
Just two months ago, Mr Cameron embraced Mr Johnson as a symbol of the newfound popularity of the Conservatives.
Critics pointed out that Mr Cameron was also an enthusiastic backer of Mr Lewis' work as a community leader, praising him as an 'inspirational leader'.
But there were signs that his office intervened to end the crisis after the Ministry of Justice said it had no record of Mr Lewis as a magistrate.
Last night Mr Johnson's reputation for taking risks was seen as a growing liability among Tories uneasy about the way he is running his administration.
His decision to call a press conference on Thursday with Mr Lewis was seen to have backfired, after it became clear he was not aware of the scale of the charges against his deputy.

Sympathy for Boris?........................................nah!

Updated

It seems hard to believe, but yesterday I swallowed two bits of Conservative spin, hook, line and sinker.


The Tory spin was delivered by one Boris Johnson about Ray Lewis:

These allegations did not stop him from becoming a JP. They did not stop him from becoming an outstanding and respected prison governor.

It turns out that Ray Lewis is not and never has been a Justice of the Peace. He was recommended as a Justice of Peace. Ah. In his statement yesterday, Lewis said that those who drew a distinction, between being a JP and being recommended to be one, were members of the "hair-splitting convention". That's obviously not justified. In his statement the previous day Lewis actually said: "I have never knowingly done anything that would be inconsistent with my position as a Justice of the Peace." It really is remarkable bluster to accuse of hair-splitting people who point out the fundamental difference between "my position as a Justice of the Peace" and "my position as someone who has been recommended to be a Justice of the Peace".

Secondly, Lewis was not a "prison governor" as Johnson stated. It turns out that he was a warder of sufficient seniority to be on the same grade as some prison governors.

Linda Jack has written well about this. I don't agree that Boris deserves sympathy here, though. Lewis certainly deserves sympathy. He carried out a "misdemeanour" many years ago but he has worked hard to do his bit for the community. His life and that of his family is now, if not in ruins, near to it. And all because of a stupid mistake by Johnson. Johnson over-promoted him. If Boris had stuck to the constitution of the Greater London Authority and selected one deputy mayor from the assembly, they (Johnson and Lewis) would not be up to his neck in this mire. Boris could have simply appointed Lewis as head of a working party or as an informal ambassador or as an adviser. Such a lowish profile would not have attracted all this furore.

Some say Johnson meant well and deserves sympathy. Come off it, Johnson is intelligent enough to know he wasn't taking on a job as parish clerk for Stackton Trestle. He was egotistical enough to put himself up for the job as Mayor of London. And now it is blindingly obvious that he doesn't even understand basic recruitment practices - a fundamental skill for any manager of a large organisation.

Let's not forget that it was the Conservative party as a whole, led by Cameron and Duncan-Smith, as well as Johnson, who got themselves worked up into a corporate lather about Ray Lewis. They went over-the-top and now they are, quite rightly, paying the price. I am not sure that Mr Lewis deserves to be caught up in all of this, though.

Thanks to Alex Wilcock for the info about the deputy mayor role.

Boris - hoist by his own petard

Only last Tuesday, Boris the jokey lounge-bar ranter (as opposed to Boris the joke Mayor) , writing in his £250,000 year Telegraph column, bemoaned all the checks that have to be gone through before employing people to work with young people:

...anyone who wants to help with grassroots sports coaching must go through an enormous Criminal Records Bureau procedure, and submit to 6in-thick files dictating exactly how the children can be exhorted to do better without hurting their feelings.

...That paragraph makes Boris look very silly now. We find that it seems that Boris presided over very scanty checks on Ray Lewis, detailed below by the Evening Standard. The Norfolk Blogger has further details which suggest that Lewis took tips in CV-writing from Jeffrey Archer. This would all suggest that those who feared that Boris was a bumbling incompetent, unfit to lead a large organisation, were right.

The Evening Standard unpicked the various checks on Lewis, or lack of them, yesterday afternoon before Lewis resigned:

A City Hall spokesman insisted that the Mayor and his officials were satisfied Mr Lewis had been adequately checked, and repeated the claim that he had been vetted as a magistrate. (But the Ministry of Justice said firmly that Lewis had not been appointed as a magistrate).

"Boris appointed a man who had been vetted as a magistrate, a prison governor, who had set up a charity and worked with children. He has been through the strongest vetting process outside of MI5," said the spokesman.

The Evening Standard has learned his employment status at City Hall meant he was eligible for a criminal records bureau check - but one was not carried out because officials accepted that he had already been cleared for earlier employment.

Crucially, officials also declined to take the opportunity to request an "enhanced" check. That would have revealed details of his arrest over an allegation of deception. It would have potentially given the Mayor information about other concerns relating to Mr Lewis's previous conduct.

Mr Lewis served as a junior prison governor in 2000 and 2001, but this was before the criminal records bureau was set up. His background would have been checked in some form by prison authorities, but it is unknown how extensive vetting would have been.

He would have been subject to a standard criminal records bureau check in his post as head of the Eastside Young Leaders Academy in Newham, but this would only have revealed any convictions - which he does not have - rather than details of any arrest or other unproven concerns.

Has Boris just made his first two big mistakes?

If the allegations against Ray Lewis prove to have sufficient truth and substance for him to stand down from his post as Deputy Mayor, it could be that Boris' big mistake #1 was appointing Lewis in the first place and that his big mistake #2 was not suspending Lewis pending the inquiry.

There is something which doesn't quite add up about this story. Two bishops have come forward, including one within London (the Bishop of Barking) and the Bishop of Chelmsford, who has said:

Between 1999 and 2005, Ray was placed under the formal disciplinary structures of the Church of England, and his ministry was restricted. This was because a misdemeanour of such seriousness had been committed that in the opinion of the Archbishop, the person concerned should not exercise his ministry for the time being.

I note that the bishop used the word "misdemeanour" without the word "alleged". I presume he had his statement checked by someone with legal knowledge before issuing it.

Therefore it seems remarkable that the bishop is going on record about a "misdemeanour" when Lewis says that he didn't even know that he had been disbarred from ministering in the Church of England. Very strange. (It is even stranger to consider that the decision to restrict Lewis' ministry was, the bishop says, taken by the Archbishop.) I would have expected there to have been some sort of documented inquiry and evidential process within the Church of England for the bishop to be able to use the words "misdemeanour" and "seriousness" without qualification.

Despite the bad press they get, I really don't believe that Church of England bishops go round looking for trouble for the sake of it.

If His Grace has such a powerful case, how come Mr Lewis was able to become a Justice of the Peace? How come he was appointed Executive Director of Eastside Young Leaders Academy in 2002, well after the period of the allegations from the bishop? How come he was appointed a prison governor? How come he was appointed Deputy Mayor of London? (I suppose the latter appointment might be explained by shambolic incompetance on the part of Boris Johnson but even then, one would expect some standard background check by London administration officials prior to appointment.)

Those are four posts which Mr Lewis has held which, I would have thought, have meticulous background checks prior to appointment.

(Mr Lewis also became the darling of the Conservative party and Iain Duncan-Smith, in particular. I am not sure I would expect rigorous background checks prior to that particular sort of canonisation.)

If the claims from the bishop are "complete rubbish", as Lewis has said, then why hasn't he been reported as starting legal proceedings against the bishop?

It is all very rum indeed. Either the bishop is talking "nonsense on stilts" and is in for a massive legal action against him or Boris has just made two very big mistakes which could haunt him for years.

....Is this the same Boris?

On April 18th, Boris Johnson urged people "to take a risk" and tackle trouble-making thugs.
He claimed the chances of being stabbed in retaliation for challenging a thug were "microscopic".

75 days later on July 2nd, Boris Johnson urged teenagers to "walk away" from trouble to help reduce knife crime.

This wouldn't, par chance, be a case of saying one thing to get elected and then another once power is thrust on one's shoulders and reality sinks in, would it?

Perish the thought.

Should London's Mayor be earning £4.98 a word for this lazy bovine scatology?

Today we get evidence in the Daily Telegraph of Boris' well paid weekend job. What a joy it is! Every word is worth the £4.98 which Boris gets paid for it. Not. It is entitled: "If sitting on our backsides were a sport, we'd be world champions". (Boris will be on a float leading the Gay Pride March at the weekend - but I am sure that is a coincidence).

What a wise man he is. Here's 15 quids worth:

We invented football

Strictly speaking the Chinese did actually, or at least the ball-kicking generic game originated in China. I earned nothing for looking that up in Wikipedia.

Here's an expensive (£105) little quip:

...we were beaten by Croatia - and let me remind you that when I first joined this newspaper, Croatia didn't even exist.

Well, strictly speaking it did. It was part of Yugoslavia.

And how about this stonking 259 quids worth?

We should summon up our courage and tell our ballooning children to put down their beastly PlayStations and go and play outside. We should encourage them to walk or cycle to school. We should stop the sale of school playing fields. We should finally abandon the ethic of "all must have prizes".

What lazy generalisation! Typical Telegraph cack. At the weekend I saw 30 kids battling through a gruelling Biathle - 9 year-olds doing 1000 metres, followed by 200 metres swim in the sea - through the waves and over the big stones on the beach, followed by another 1000 metres. No "balooning children" there.

And what about schemes like "Go Kinetic" and walking buses which are already encouraging kids to walk or cycle to school in droves? And has Boris tried to sell off a playing field recently? It is nigh on impossible for a governing body to do it. "All must have prizes" - lazy generalisation again. I have been to state school sports days where there are the rankings and prizes for winners but also encouragement for all children regardless of ability.

...anyone who wants to help with grassroots sports coaching must go through an enormous Criminal Records Bureau procedure, and submit to 6in-thick files dictating exactly how the children can be exhorted to do better without hurting their feelings.

That's lazy B/S. CRB checks are not vastly time consuming and does Boris actually want criminals teaching children? Of course not, so how the heck would he check for criminals? Does he have a magic alternative method? "6 in-thick files..hurting feelings" - lazy nonsense. It doesn't happen in the real world.

All in all, I think Boris has reached the stage where he needs to stop being flattered by the Telegraph's cheques and properly enter the real, serious world. ...Devote himself entirely to the most powerful directly elected job in Britain and stop purveying lazy, rubbishy nonsense in the Telegraph. It reminds me of that stage you reach when you are getting out of a boat and have one foot in the boat and one foot on land. The boat starts floating away from the land inexorably. You reach the point where you have to decide whether to stay in the boat, get onto land quick, or fall in the water. Boris has reached that point with his "journalism". If he was offering serious, well-researched opinions, it would be different. But he is actually offering nothing more than the ill-informed meanderings which can be overheard in any lounge bar in the home counties after 10.30pm on any night of the week.