I’ll soon be off to Greenbelt, a Christian festival that I really love attending every year. Thousands of people gather at Cheltenham for music, performances, worship, talks, debates and much more. I love it.

That’s why I was particularly excited when Greenbelt endorsed my pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia earlier this year. As some of you know, I walked from Birmingham to London, giving talks and joining in worship on the way, before joining in the Pride march the day after I arrived. 

If you’re going to Greenbelt, you can find me speaking about my pilgrimage, and answering questions, at 9.30 on Monday (not a great slot for those who like to stay up late chatting at Greenbelt!). I’ll also be participating in the “OuterSpace” (LGBT-focused) worship at 11.00pm on Sunday night.

Also, I think my book, The No-Nonsense Guide to Religion, will be on sale in the Greenbelt bookshop.

And I’m pleased to say that my colleagues from the Christian thinktank Ekklesia will also be at the festival, involved in a number of panel debates and other events.

I’m really delighted to have been asked to speak about my pilgrimage by a number of different groups. I’ll soon have given more talks since the walk than I gave on the walk. I’ve spoken to Courage (a gay and lesbian evangelical group) and at the Student Christian Movement Theology Summer School. I’ve now been invited to speak about the pilgrimage to student groups in Sheffield, Warwick and Southampton, and at churches in Cardiff and Leeds.

I hope these talks will help me and others discern where to go next in terms of the issues and possibilities that came up on my walk. Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

Greenbelt’s a great place to catch up with old friends and meet interesting new people. I look forward to seeing some of you there.

During last year’s general election campaign, Nick Clegg said that the Tories’ economic policies could lead to riots in the streets. It seems that Clegg was more accurate in his predictions about the Tory policies he is now implementing than he was in his claims about how Liberal Democrats would behave in government.

When I mentioned this on Twitter a few days ago, I was accused of making excuses for the rioters by blaming the Tories. It’s been hard to talk about the root causes of the riots without being accused of supporting the rioters. David Cameron attributed the events of the last week to “criminality pure and simple” – a convenient way of avoiding any responsibility.

I wonder how anyone manages to tackle a problem without considering the causes. Do these people invite a plumber round when the sink is blocked and then take offence when he starts talking about the cause of the blockage. “The cause of the blocked sink?! I want to defeat the blocked sink, not make excuses for it! Whose side are you on?!”.

Right-wing columnists have been having a field day, using the situation to peddle viciously insulting messages about single parents, benefit recipients, working class people and anyone else they don’t like. Melanie Philipps in the Daily Mail attributed responsibility to “a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society”.

A number of them have responded to the riots with sweeping assertions about people they know nothing about. Christina Odone wrote in the Telegraph that “the majority of rioters are gang members”. How can she possibly know that?

Max Hastings literally dehumanised the rioters in the Daily Mail, writing that “They respond only to instinctive animal impulses – to eat and drink, have sex, seize and destroy the accessible property of others”. I cannot accept that this is true of any human being, even those who readily engage in violence and intimidation. But even if it were possible, there is no way that Hastings could know the details of the rioters’ psychology. 

He also claims to know the details of their everyday lives. His most bizarre assertion is, “They do not watch royal weddings or notice test matches” (I don’t watch royal weddings either, Max). He goes on to insist that “The notions of doing a nine-to-five job… are beyond their imaginations”.

This claim seems to be in tension with the screaming headlines about the apparently respectable jobs of several of the rioters. Several youth workers, a trainee accountant and an estate agent are among the accused. This fact also undermines the assumption behind the online petition calling for rioters’ benefits to be removed.

Right-wing columnist Alison Pearson, who has made a career out of stirring up class hatred towards people poorer than herself, joined in the guessing game. Writing in the Telegraph, she asked “How many [of the looters] come from homes without a father? I reckon we can guess the answer.” Pearson’s columns are based on guessing. Some of us would rather wait for the facts.

At least she didn’t advocate murder on national television, unlike Kelvin Mackenzie. “All we hear about is these scumbags on the street,” he said on Newsnight, “Shoot them. I would be in favour of shooting them.”  

The attitudes of these professional right-wing ranters – most of whom are far removed from the riots – bear a marked difference to the approach of some of the rioters’ victims.

Ashraf Haziq, who was mentioned by David Cameron after he was mugged by people pretending to help him, has said he “feels sorry” for his attackers.

Abdul Quddoos Khan, whose two brothers were murdered in Birmingham, says he spent Wednesday night persuading other young Muslim men not to resort to violence and revenge. He said, “I am angry but violence won’t achieve anything except make another mother and father lose their child. What good would that do?”

Given that those of us who talk about root causes are accused of siding with the looters, let me make clear that I oppose the violence, intimidation, trauma, devastation and destruction of livelihoods that have been taking place in the last few days.

Indeed, I think I’m far more consistent in my attitude to looting than the likes of Max Hastings and Alison Pearson. I oppose violence and looting by young, poor men in hoodies and I also oppose violence and looting by respectable middle-aged people in suits.

I oppose the corporations who have looted the treasury through their tax avoidance, the bankers who assaulted society through the financial crash and the arms dealers who profit from selling weapons to tyrants. I oppose Cameron, Clegg and their gang of thugs who are launching a daily assault on the poorest members of society with their vicious cuts to public services and the welfare state.

David Cameron said “The root cause of this mindless selfishness is.. a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society”. Clearly, in Cameron’s eyes, selfishness and a lack of responsibility are traits that are acceptable only among the rich.

———-

This blog post appeared as my latest column on the website of the thinktank Ekklesia. To read more of my Ekklesia columns, please visit http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/hill.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, appeared on Radio 4 this morning and was asked about the underlying causes of the recent riots. He attributed them to a “sense of entitlement” among young people who were showing the effects of a lack of discipline in school.

When Johnson was a young person, he attended Eton, the most elite school in the UK, before making the natural progression to Oxford University. At Oxford, he was part of the Bullingdon Club, a gang of upper class yobs. Other members included David Cameron.

For Johnson to criticise young people who have a “sense of entitlement” shows either a staggering lack of realism about his own past or a reckless level of public hypocrisy.

Blaming a lack of discipline conveniently ignores the realities of economic and social injustice. The gap between the richest and poorest has got gradually worse over the last forty years and Britain is now more unequal than any other western country, with the exception of the USA and Portugal. The coalition government is slashing services on which the poorest members of society rely, while managing nothing more than feeble criticism of bankers’ bonuses and corporate tax-dodging.

None of this excuses the violence, intimidation and looting that have taken place over the last few days. None of it should stop us condemning the horror of ordinary people suffering the effects of riots that have seen small businesspeople’s shops burnt down and their livelihoods potentially destroyed. To tackle this situation effectively, we need to look at roots causes.

Boris Johnson prefers to criticise a “sense of entitlement” while being part of a party, and a political trend, that has spent the last three decades destroying any sense of social solidarity and defining success in terms of possessions and personal status. He condemns a lack of restraint while calling for a cut in the top rate of tax, which applies only to the richest one percent of the population. He attacks thuggery, but supports a government that consists of a gang of thugs launching a daily assault on the poorest members of society.

Next month, Boris Johnson will welcome one of the world’s largest arms fairs to London, where representatives of some of the world’s most brutal regimes will stroll round the Docklands viewing sophisticated weaponry. Then we will see the reality behind his condemnations of violence.

As the MPs’ questioning of the Murdochs came to an end this afternoon, there was a clear reminder that some politicians’ have not overcome their fear of Rupert Murdoch.

Louise Mensch (formerly Louise Bagshawe) threw the Murdochs a lifeline by suggesting that hacking was common at British tabloid newspapers. She admittedly threw in some soundbites about Rupert Murdoch resigning, before telling him she admired his “immense courage” for carrying on with the hearing after being hit by some sort of custard pie by a member of the public now identified as the activist Jonnie Marbles.

I suspect that News International’s victims may feel that being hit by a custard pie is a relatively minor problem compared to the trauma that some of them have been through.

The danger is that the headlines will now focus on Murdoch being “attacked”, rather than on his appalling answers to the politicians’ questions.

On BBC2, Andrew Neil said soon after the incident that Wendi Murdoch (Rupert’s wife) will be seen as the “hero of the hour” for pushing the pie back into the protester’s face and shouting “I got him!”. Some of those who stood up to Murdoch in the past – in the days when both Labour and Tory leaders were still bowing to his wishes – showed rather more courage than that demonstrated by heroic resistance to an individual with a pie.

Neil also suggested that it could have been something “worse” than a custard pie and questions will be asked about security. But it’s precisely because of security that it could only have been a custard pie.

Rupert Murdoch, undoubtedly one of the most powerful people in the world, was threatened this afternoon not by the aggressive physical attack that this pie-throwing will be presented as, but by being questioned persistently in public in a way that must be a novelty for him.

Not all the MPs were as challenging as they might have been, but some did brilliantly. Under questioning from Tom Watson in particular, Murdoch made clear how he sees his power. He consistently denied knowing anything, in some cases claiming not even to know the names of key people. He appeared to laugh when Watson suggested that he should know what was being discussed about his papers in the British Parliament.

Murdoch basically implied that he is too important to keep track of lawbreaking in one of his British papers. At this moment when he might have been accepting responsibility at last, he only made clear once again the contempt in which he holds Parliament and the public.

This is about power and accountability. It’s not about custard pies.

Just over two weeks ago, I finished walking from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I kept a daily blog during the walk, but posted it on a site specifically about my pilgrimage, rather than here.

My blog during the walk, as well as my thougths afterwards, can be read at http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

Having (mostly) recovered from the walk, I’ll now be blogging here more regularly again.

I am about to undertake a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I will walk 160 miles from Birmingham to London, between 16 June and 1 July.

There’s relatively little about my walk on this site, but a lot more – including details of events along the way – at the dedicated sit for the pilgrimage, http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

That site will include a daily blog for the duration of the pilgrimage. I hope you’ll follow my progress there, and I’ll be blogging here again once the walk is over.

You can also keep up to date on the walk by “liking” it on Facebook. See http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Walk-of-repentance-for-homophobia/172048302829171.

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please feel free to email me at symonhill@gmail.com.

I’m delighted to report that the starting venue for my pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia has been confirmed. I will begin with a talk at Carr’s Lane Church in central Birmingham on the evening of Wednesday 15 June. I will then begin walking from there the next day.

I will then pass through towns and cities including Coventry, Leamington Spa and Oxford before arriving in London on 1 July, the evening before Pride.

I am very grateful to Carr’s Lane for their hosting offer, and to my friend John Cooper for his help with arranging it. I’m very pleased, partly because it’s great to have another venue confirmed, but also because the starting venue is particularly significant. A number of individuals, churches and groups in the Birmingham area have been really supportive and encouraging, so are likely to help in promoting the event.

I admit that on the whole I have found it harder than I hoped, or even expected, to find churches willing to host talks in some of the places I am visting. In a few places, there have been supportive individuals who have told their church about my pilgrimage and found that there has been more oppositon than they had hoped.

By confirming the talk at Carr’s Lane, I am of course announcing not only the starting venue but also the starting date. It’s just over two weeks before I’ll arrive in London, meaning my initial estimate that the walk would take around three weeks has turned out to be a bit inaccurate.  I hope the slightly shorter time won’t lead anyone to conlude that the walk is less meaingful!

There are now three events confirmed for my pilgrimage, all in city centre churches. The other two are in Oxford (Sunday 26 June) and London (Friday 1 July).  I am very close to confirming with one other church, and still talking with a few others. I am also pleased to have received an offer from a church that may not be close enough to the likely route. I am working out whether it will be feasible to vary the route in order to visit them.

For more news on my pilgrimage, please visit http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

If you’ve received a leaflet from the ‘No to AV’ campaign, you may have noticed a map of the world showing that only three countries use the Alternative Vote system. But there are lots of things the map does not show.

The rightness or wrongness of AV does not depend on how many countries use it. Nonetheless, I admit that the experience of other countries is relevant to the debate.

However, the map is just one of many misleading items to feature in the leaflet. While it accurately depicts the countries that back AV, it fails to tell us how many use First-Past-the-Post (FPTP).

Many thanks to James Elford, who contacted me via Twitter to send me a link to a more detailed map. This one shows that FPTP is used by only a few more countries than AV. You can see it at http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=7166.

I admit I haven’t examined this map in detail or checked its categorisation of each country’s electoral system. But I accept its general point about the misleading nature of the map used by the No campaign.

A yet more detailed map would show us how many more countries use forms of proportional representation. I would much rather have a proportional system than either FPTP or AV. But the referendum is not asking us whether we want AV. It is asking us to choose between AV and FPTP. This is a very different question.

 Last Sunday, I walked to church. What makes this unusual is that the church in question was six miles from my home and I would usually travel by train or tube.

Walking there was a great experience, not only because it helped me to get in training for my pilgrimage in June, but because it was great to see so much of London in such nice weather and to remind myself of how good it feels to walk relatively long distances.

I’m sorry to say that in over six years of living in London (in four different parts of the city), this is the first time that I have walked from home to central London. I had a satisfied feeling as I arrived at places to which I have never previously walked from home – London Bridge, St Paul’s Cathedral, the First Out cafe in New Oxford Street and finally Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, where the minister Simon Perry gave a helpful sermon about violence in the Old Testament.  

This is the church that will also mark the end of my pilgrimage for repentance for homophobia this summer. I will speak at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church on the evening of 1 July, the day before Pride. By that point, a six-mile walk is unlikely to feel like a long distance. While my training is now progressing more rapidly, I’m aware that I really need to pick up the pace before I begin the pilgrimage from Birmingham in around two months’ time.

I’ve just read an article about pilgrimage by Adam Weymouth in the March issue of Third Way. He is walking from England to Jerusalem, which makes Birmingham to London sound rather feeble by comparison. I was struck by his description of the realities and benefits of pilgrimage:

“I saw the destination as a framework, a crucial part that would distinguish the journey from a directionless wander, in the same that an artist fixes his [or her] ideas within the confines of the canvas. But in engaging with that painting, with that line on the map, spaces are created that allow much deeper ideas and experiences to emerge.”