Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

The of Northern Ireland is facing some severe criticism after an reveals that 52 works of art purchased with taxpayers money have gone missing. The missing artworks are valued at £28,000.

The Council is also unable to determine the wherabouts of another 56 artworks, jointly purchased through a partnership scheme; and the report notes that more than 70 pieces from the Council's collection were judge permanently lost in the 1990s and susequently written off. These write-offs include paintings by TP Flanagan and Neil Shawcross. The Audit Office has criticised the "poor management" of another art collection, comprising 346 works purchased as part of the Partnership Purchase Scheme (PPS), resulting in a missing 56 pieces.

The Council's : they are still looking for the missing works of art and will "exhaust every avenue of opportunity."

An additional finding, that about one in seven works in the whole PPS collection -- and no less than 77 artworks in the combined Arts Council and PPS collections -- were purchased from artists employed at the time by the Arts Council, will raise questions in some minds about a culture of patronage or favoritism at the Arts Council.

Something approaching a debate on food ethics is breaking out in various comments on our discussion of foie gras. Stephen G has name-checked the distinguished Australian philosopher who is currently a professor of bioethics at Princeton. I'm glad to see Singer's name enter the fray here because his ideas merit very serious consideration by anyone interested in these matters.

Singer's book, , first published in 1975 but updated since then, is sometimes called "the Bible of the animal welfare movement". The underlying moral principle defended and developed in that work is devastatingly simple, and Singer is careful to acknowledge that he is not the first to propose it (it goes back to 1892 book, Animal Rights). Animal Liberation began as an essay in The New York Review of Books in 1973. See for Singer's reflections on how the landscape of the animal rights movement has changed since then.)

Singer summarises the philosophical view he defends there as follows:

Species is, in itself, as irrelevant to moral status as race or sex. Hence all beings with interests are entitled to equal consideration: that is, we should not give their interests any less consideration that we give to the similar interests of members of our own species. Taken seriously, this conclusion requires radical changes in almost every interaction we have with animals, including our diet, our economy, and our relations with the natural environment.

The fuller ethical implications of that view are explored in a subsequent work, , first published in 1979 (second edition 1993). In 2001, he also pursued a fascinating , published in Slate magazine, with the legal philosopher and judge Richard Posner on whether human beings have an ethical obligations to animals.

Singer's conclusion, of course, is that animals (and all sentient beings) do matter -- in the fullest moral sense -- and that human beings do not have a free hand, ethically speaking, to use and abuse animals as they see fit. This view seems obvious to most people today (whether they are vegetarians or carnivores), but it was not always so. In the 13th century, argued that human beings have no moral obligations whatsoever in respect of animals: animals, he said, have merely a utility value and no intrinsic value: God created animals for humans and we are, thus, free to use the for food, clothing, sport, or any other purpose we choose. One doesn't have to be a , like Singer, to recognise that Thomas's argument is difficult to defend today.

That's a rather old picture of David Jenkins, dating back to his controversial tenure as Bishop of Durham. In those days, he was the embodiment of the unbelieving bishop in the Church of England, as he climbed into pulpits and about the physical resurrection. Jenkins' scepticism about the resurrection of Jesus seems almost quaint these days, with other church leaders questioning even the existence of God. Not long ago, I interviewed , the former primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, who told me how he had become an agnostic while leading his denomination and how he had experienced very little trouble within the church when he wrote and talked about his loss of traditional faith.

But poor old David Jenkins is now back in the news -- this time for . Before you run away with yourself and imagine the octogenarian bishop mouthing the F word in his homilies, the offending locutions (which have earned him a ban from a couple of churches) are "bloody" and "damn". One can only imagine what those parishes would have made of a visit from the Reformer , whose language was famously coarse to the point of scatological lewdness.

Interestingly (Ok, for me anyway), Bishop Jenkins's two alledged swear words may have religious roots. "Bloody" is thought by some to be derived from "By Our Lady" (though it may just as easily be a reference to the reign of "Bloody Mary" and her religious persecutions), and "damn" is plainly related to "damnation". I had thought the last time "damn" outraged an audience was when used it in 1939. As for "bloody", this is the favoured swear-word of Ron in the Harry Potter series, but raised the ire of the earlier this year, when they required its removal from an advert by the Australian tourist board. It is, after all, the Aussie's profanity of choice. Odd, perhaps, that the term should be acceptable in a children's movie, but not in an advertisement targetting adults.

A more basic question to ask is this: what is a "bad" word, in any case? Actions can clearly be "good" or "bad" -- they can be morally evaluated by some ethical code. But what makes a word "good" or "bad"? Similarly, someone might even point to another person and say, "She is a good person", or "He is a bad person" -- again, a judgment based on a pattern of behaviour. But what makes a word "bad"? Given that one culture's bad word is clearly another culture's advertising slogan, there are no objectively bad words; these words simply function as part of the taboo systems of particular cultures at particular times. But taboos come in and out of fashion, and fashions change. Nevertheless, those taboo words - because they are taboo words -- have a rhetorical power that is not lost on great writers, or former bishops.

Tony O'Neill, head chef at Belfast's , was subjected to the full force of Andrew Tyler's rhetorical skill on today's Sunday Sequence. It was Tony's first time on the radio, and it must have felt like a baptism of fire. Or, perhaps, like standing in front of an enormous hairdryer on full power mode.

He told us his restaurant would be looking again at whether to include foie gras on its menu; until then, customers can have it served up for about £12. I can understand why Northern Ireland's would wish to include such an ostentatiously exclusive dish on its menu. Hotel guests are picked up from the airport by a highly polished black Bentley, and the bar boasts the (£750 a glass). After the programme, Tony told me that only seven bottles exist in the world and the Merchant Hotel's bottle has yet to be opened. (Though may challenge their claim to the world record.) In any case, I've asked Tony to let me know if the Merchant reconsiders its foie gras policy.

A couple of ethical considerations emerged during his encounter with Andrew. First, the position of the UK and Ireland seems logically untenable. How can it make sense to ban a type of production (force-feeding) while permitting the sale of the produce (foie gras)? That's like banning torture in Britain, while permitting the judicial use of evidence obtained through torture elsewhere. Come to think of it, that used to be the UK's position as well, until the House of Lords last December. Somehow I doubt that the House of Lords will be making a similar intevention in respect of foie gras.

Second, those non-vegetarians who believe fois gras (or, for that matter, veal, caviar, or eggs from battery hens) is unethical, because the method of production is unacceptably brutal, probably need to reflect on the logic of their position -- given that a meat-based diet involves sanctioning some level of suffering by animals. When I put that point to Andrew Tyler of , he said, in effect, "I'd rather meat-eaters were inconsitently less cruel to animals than consistently more cruel".

I'm back from holiday and readying myself for this week's Sunday Sequence. I eased back into the way of things by presenting Evening Extra, Radio Ulster's drive-time news programme, on Thursday and Friday. Mark Carruthers, the regular presenter (with Karen Patterson) generously gave me very useful advice about how to handle what is an extremely fast-paced news programme; and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, once I'd worked out how not to bump into the "furniture" (the transitions, breaks, links to weather, travel and sports news, etc.).

This Sunday we explore the ethical case for prohibiting the production and sale of the French delicacy , following the city of to ban the delicacy in restaurants. That decision was supported by animal welfare groups, since the method of producing foie gras is tantamount, in their view, to a form of . Our discussion tomorrow will widen the debate to include both veal and lobster. The idea of a European-wide ban on foie gras will clearly not win much support in France, where the delicacy is something of a national treasure. Britain and Ireland both ban force-feeding; but they permit the sale of imported foie gras. Is that position ethically consistent? There is another question of ethical consistency worth raising for non-vegetarians who oppose foie gras: Doesn't all meat consumption involve causing suffering to animals? How much suffering is acceptable? If foie gras is unethical because of the quality of suffering it involves, what about the other meat, fish and foul that make it to the dinner table?

Also on tomorrow's programme: Is it time to routinely test for HIV with or without the consent of patients? That proposition clearly raises issues for civil libertarians, but it was discussed at the recent in Toronto as a possible measure to deal with the quite shocking fact that 90 per cent of those carrying HIV (across the world) do not know they are carriers. In the UK, it is reckoned that of those with HIV are unaware of their infection.

Quite a few listeners have texted Talk Back programme to suggest that today's thwarted terrorist attacks are "pay-back" for Britain's support of the US in the war against terror. Some were more pointed still: Tony Blair's support of George Bush's foreign policies opened the door to attacks of this kind. Others suggested that the Prime Minister's policy on Lebanon is partly to blame.

The Home Secretary, , has told us that the were in connection with an investigation over some weeks and months. If so, we can rule out any suggestion that the events in since July 12th were a motivating factor in the terrorist plot that has been thwarted today.

Nevertheless, few would doubt that Britain's support of the United States in the war against terror will have attracted the interest of the kind of people willing to carry out .

For his part, President Bush says the plot is a that "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom". (The President might have been better advised to use the term "Islamist", rather than "Islamic".)

The hidden shield of the security services has thankfully been successful in this case. Yet, even though the plot was uncovered and an attack averted, the across the UK (including airports in ) is a reminder of the capacity of terrorism (even a failed terrorist operation) to unsettle and disrupt a nation. The of the plot is now beginning to emerge, but this is nothing by comparison with the death-toll we would be reporting had the operation succeeded. Nevertheless, we now face increased security at airports, with new worries about carry-on luggage and concerns about whether passengers should be permitted to bring fluids on board any flights. That must bring some satisfaction to those behind this terrorist operation; just as they will, no doubt, claim a victory every time they disrupt normal life and add to the public's .

The Belfast Telegraph that one of its own columnists, , was one of the who today stormed the Derry offices of the American defence and weapons manufacturing company Raytheon. According to the Telegraph:

An American flag was also set alight and a glass door smashed as debris rained down from a second floor window and littered the area outside. A banner was unfurled from inside the building, reading: "Raytheon has been decommissioned". A dozen more people protesting over the deaths of Lebanese civilians remained outside, with placards bearing anti-war and anti-Raytheon slogans.

An update on the controversial Hunger Strike commemmoration rally to be held at the GAA's Casement Park grounds on Sunday. The GAA's Antrim County Board chairman, John McSparran, has that the event will go ahead as planned, despite a recent ruling by the GAA's Central Council that the rally is inconsistent with the organisation's Rule 7a (which prohibits the use of GAA facilities for "party-political" purposes).

The ball is now in the Central Council's court, to mix sporting metaphors. Will they discipline the Antrim Board for its decision? There is some suggestion that the Central Council imposed a fine of £15,000 on the Antrim Board in 2001 after a rally marking the 20th anniversary of the hunger strikes was also permitted at Casement Park.

I sympathised with the listener from England who called Talk Back today to express complete disbelief at the story of the flower bed with the hidden political message.

Ulster Unionist MLA Sam Gardiner told us that he has looking into complaints about a flower bed in Tannaghmore Gardens in Craigavon which apparently looks suspiciously like the Irish flag. To be fair to Mr Gardiner, even he confessed to slight embarrassment at having to look into this matter, but clearly he hasn't as yet developed the fine art of humouring a constituent in private.

He rightly pointed out that some people in Northern Ireland get a little "colour conscious" during the summer months. Just the other day, you may recall, we carried a debate about B & Q's decision to give employees the option of wearing a jacket featuring a marking its support of the British Olympic team.

But a public debate about the colour of flowers in a flower bed really is beyond ridiculous. If the person who made the complaint really wants to get angry about something, why not turn on the television and watch the latest news report about Lebanon or Iraq? It's completely potty.

An appalling of what war does to human beings.

An invitation-only cross-community dinner party held at Belfast Castle last night became a One of the guests was who served just under eight years for planting a bomb in a Shankill Road fish shop in 1993, which killed nine people.

The evening was the culmination of the three day Greater New Lodge Community Festival, which included serious dialogue about dealing with Northern Ireland's past, but two other guests walked out when they recognised Sean Kelly at the dinner. Alan McBride, who lost his wife and father-in-law in the bombing, told me today that he would not have attended the dinner if he had been told in advance that the man who killed his wife would be in the room.

Irene Sherry, one of the organisers of the dinner event, told me today that she did not know that Sean Kelly would be attending, but defended the invitation extended to him and explained that invitations had been given out to both parts of the community. Perhaps lessons may be learned from this episode about how to approach the very raw emotions clearly exposed when victims encounter perpetrators.

Sean Kelly, like many others who engaged in political violence in Northern Ireland's recent past, from both parts of our community, has been released following the Good Friday Agreement and is free to live and work as a member of our community.

One practical consequence of the Agreement -- which was supported by a large majority of the Northern Ireland population -- is that the relatives of victims may accidentally encounter the person responsible for the death of their loved one. They may pass one another in the street, or notice one another in a pub, or cross each other's path at a sporting event. Plainly, those chance encounters can unearth the past and bring back very painful and vivid memories for victims.

Here's the of the draft resolution, currently being discussed, that might bring secure a ceasefire in Lebanon. The on the UN's map separating Israel and Lebanon has worn thin of late, and a key difficulty with the current text, for Beirut, is that it does not require an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territory of Lebanon.

Other issues will remain -- and we talked about some of them on today's programme with the former and current chairmen of , who were disagreeing about whether that organisation's recent call for a ceasefire in the region is tantamount to taking sides in the conflict. Former chairman Chris Hudson believes the argument Oxfam has deloped in favour of a ceasefire breaches its neutrality, while his successor Tony McMullan believes the organisation's stance is both balanced and necessary in the circumstances.

Principally, what is implied by "ceasefire"? Is it merely a cessation of military activity? Or does a ceasefire also, for example, place restrictions on the organisational activities of Hizbullah personnel within Lebanon?

We devoted quite a long segment of today's Sunday Sequence to a discussion of the biblical story of the destruction of Sodom (which is told in ). This was in response to a number of comments to the programme from listeners outraged that some contributors to recent Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú programmes (Sunday Sequence, The Stephen Nolan Show and Talk Back) have used the word "sodomite" as a synonym for gay and lesbian people.

The theologian David Tombs, from Trinity College Dublin, explained that the so-called "sin of Sodom" has to do with attempted gang rape and injustice (), rather than consensual sex between people of the same gender. David McIllveen, from the Free Presbyterian Church, disagreed and argued that homosexuality is what brought God's wrath on the city. P.A. Mag Lochlainn, from the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association, couldn't understand why Lot would try to persuade the baying crowd of aggressive men in this story to take his teenage daughters instead of the visiting angels if Lot understood the men of the city to be "homosexual". (And they probably were teenage daughters, notwithstanding various artistic renderings over the years, such as of Lot and his daughters fleeing Sodom.)

Our discussion explored the genesis of the term "sodomite" -- sometime in the 11th century -- and how the Hebrew and Greek texts of the relevant passages should be translated today. It's not often a general radio audience is offered such a sustained , with discussion of the languages involved. The only thing we could agree on, I suspect, is that a sodomite is a resident of the town of Sodom (just as an Israelite is a subjuct or citizen of the ancient nation of Israel). But it does seem clear that many people (both gay and straight) are offended by the term "sodomite" when it is used, anachronistically, to refer to gay and lesbian people today.

The resonance of a particular word can, of course, change across time. Take the word "Christian", which began its life as an insult in the city of Antioch and was subsequently taken up as a term of identity by the very group it was originally intended to offend. Or the term "Methodist", used mockingly at first of members of John Wesley's Holy Club. A couple of years ago, the UK government decided, after consultation with the gay and lesbian community, that the term "homosexual" should official documents, since this term had acquired a disagreeable resonance (the prefered term now is often "LBGT" -- lesbian, bisexual, gay and trans people or communities). Similarly, the term "queer", which is often used as a term of abuse, is being welcomed by an increasing number of LBGT people as a term of identity.

Some people will dismiss all of this as political correctness. But what is political correctness to one person is simply correctness to another. And surely we should all be concerned about how the words we use are heard by those groups implicated in the choice of a word -- especially if a word (like "sodomite") causes hurt or offence to others.

I'm still reflecting on Lot's part in all of this. A righteous man, according to the Old Testament -- uniquely so, in fact -- and yet he offers his teenage daughters to a crowd of men intent on gang rape. His response may tell us much about the attitude of men to women and girls in the ancient world. But why don't people talk more about the sin of Lot?

A republican to be held at the Casement Park on 13 August will be addressed by Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams and jointly compered by Sinn Fein MEP Mary Lou McDonald and Toireasa Ferris, the mayor of Kerry (also from Sinn Fein). But, Peadar Whelan from the National Hunger Strike Committee, which is organising the event, told me on today's Talk Back that the commemoration is non-party political.

The General Council, on the other hand, meeting on Saturday in Dublin, determined that the rally would breach the GAA's rules which prohibit "party-political" events in GAA venues and facilities. The Antrim Branch of the GAA disagree and have given the green light to the commemoration. Few would deny that there is a political aspect to this commemoration, but can the argument be made that the event is not "party-political"? After all, as Peader Whelan said today, the rally was not organised by any political party, even if its speaker list happens to include only speakers from . It's been a week for interesting logic on Talk Back, hasn't it?