Sexism, Synod & Sky TV.

Watching the women bishop reports from General Synod, and reading about the Terry vs Ferdinand racism case, made me want to combine the two. So, with a healthy dose of asterisks, but a slight downplaying of "industrial" language, I did. (With thanks, and apologies, to the Daily Telegraph...)

Revd Terry, 31, is accused of calling Revd Ferdinand a "w***n b****p" during a Church of England General Synod debate last year.

He says he was sarcastically repeating the words that Forward-in-Faith priest Fr Ferdinand mistakenly thought he had used.

Revd Terry is accused of an unprovoked sexist comment in a public Anglican forum, which he denies.

Today he told the House of B****ps that as the pair traded insults, he heard Fr Ferdinand say: "calling me a w***n b****p".

Revd Terry said today he was "very angry and upset" when he thought Fr Ferdinand had accused him of sexism.

He said he was "frequently" insulted whilst preaching the Gospel and had "heard it all before".

The Reform preacher said: "It's part and parcel of the game, you just get on with proclaiming the word basically."

He said he would be taunted about allegations of an affair with former fellow Reform preacher Wayne Bridge's ex-girlfriend at "more or less every synod meeting".

But he said he would "just laugh it off basically".

"I thought he was accusing me of calling him a w***n b****p.

"I was very angry and I was upset. I replied 'a w***n b****p, you George C***y." This is presumed to be a common form of homophobic Anglican rhyming slang, and unlike sexist language is perfectly acceptable. 

Revd Terry was giving evidence after his lawyers failed to have the case thrown out. They argued in court that Fr Ferdinand's "unreliability" as a witness meant the case should not proceed any further. The Archb****p of York rejected that plea, leaving Revd Terry to take the stand shortly after 2pm.

The father of two, wearing a dark suit, unusually had to be told to keep his voice up at times as he gave evidence.

During the General Synod meeting last year, Revd Terry said he and Fr Ferdinand first began trading insults when Fr Ferdinand called him a "reactionary funda********t" because a Reform preacher had not given a stole back to Forward-in-Faith.

Revd Terry, as a good Reform man, then retreated back to his basic position and turned round to face Fr Ferdinand.

"He was doing a pumping action and insinuating about Revd Bridge's missus' and me," Revd Terry told the court.

Revd Terry told his barrister George Carter-Stephenson QC that he co-operated fully with both the General Synod and House of B****ps' inquiries.

He said he did not remember the exact times he learned of the investigations but said he was "praying, reading his Bible and arranging to go in and sit down, offering my assistance basically.

"I co-operated fully with both inquiries."

It emerged today that the only person who initially complained to ecclesiastical authorities about Revd Terry was an off-duty church warden watching the Synod on Sky.

Revd Terry's QC George Carter-Stephenson said that four days after the Synod, which was watched by more than two million, a note was made saying it was "highly unlikely Fr Ferdinand or any other Forward-in-Faith staff could assist with providing statements".

On November 4, one of Fr Ferdinand's Forward-in-Faith supporters told ecclesiastical authorities "he didn't see why" he should be involved and "any ecclesiastical court can make up their own mind".

But soon after, Fr Ferdinand's public relations agent Justin Rigby began pushing the House of B****ps to charge Revd Terry, Mr Carter-Stephenson said.

Cross examining the investigating officer, the Ven David Doherty, the barrister said if Revd Terry was not charged, Mr Rigby was planning to advise his priest to take civil action against Revd Terry and take the issue to the Church Times.

This morning's session ended with Mr Carter-Stephenson applying to the Archb****p of York, Dr John Sentamu, to dismiss the case.

The barrister said Fr Ferdinand was an unreliable witness and the lip reading experts agreed it was impossible to clarify what was said at the key moment from the Sky TV footage.

He said the case was "so weak and tenuous it does not warrant it going any further".

The case continues.