I was unable and unwilling to devote further space in my ECHO column this week to engage in a game of ping-pong with the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, replying to his published letter (July 6) regarding my article about him (July 5).
But as, in that letter, the bishop refers readers to his website for his 'real views', so I now publish a full account of what actually happened.

I reported confusion in the printed media and on radio and television after a Sunday newspaper (the Sunday Telegraph) reported James Jones and the Bishop of Carlisle, Graham Dow, as saying that the recent floods were the judgement of God.
The bishops both say the headline misrepresented them - and my article also reported the bishops to that effect.
(However, reading the letters page of the Sunday Telepgraph on July 8. it was clear that the previous week's article had already 'damaged' public opinion).
I further reported that the bishops' view was that if man meddles with the climate, there are consequences.
Nowhere did I use the world judgement - just as Bishop James had not.
In other words, at this point, all my article had done was to report the intitial confusion and reported both bishops' response.
There then followed my own opinions about James Jones's previsiously expressed views on gay clergy (after the Jeffry John/Oxford Diocese fiasco in which Bishop Jones had gone on record saying Jeffrey John's appointment as Bishop of Reading would be wrong) and then, included the painful (but correct) reminder that there are a number of gay clergy in his own diocese.
I finished by giving my personal take on the so-called 'theological' views of other churchmen and public figures.
As an independent journalist I reserve the right to indulge in robust criticisism when I regard the views of others to be either misinformed or plain stupid.
I have no requirement to "respect" those views if I think they are outmoded or outdated.
What I objected to about the bishop's epistle to the ECHO was that he implied my courteous manner in speaking to his office and seeking to confirm his true views (and those apparently misrepresented in the Sunday Telegraph) was that I had indulged in some falsely fawning manner to get the information.
I am naturally polite when dealing with contacts and making legitimate journalistic inquiries.
Journalists don't have to be creeps and indulge in the politics of politics.
The inference that I had behaved in such a way is wholly uncalled for.
I had, in fact, confirmed in my article that the bishops (not least based on James Jones' Radio 4 Thought For the Day transcript which was forwaded to me) had said they had been the victims of misrepresentation.
To imply there was a single syllable of factual error in my column was also incorrect.
The bishop's haste to reply - his PA was on the phone to the ECHO within three hours of publication of my column - is interesting to say theleast.
Although I uphold the principle of the right to reply in such matters, I at least expect the reply to contain some new or 'corrective' information.
I have no time for letters which appear to have been written purely because the writer does not like what has been written about them.
Although these are valid as an exchange of opinion, in my view they fall outside the 'right' to reply.
I say this because I sense that theological subjects may well feature in future columns, and those who would deem to take issue need to know the difference between a choice to publish a response and an obligation to do so.

• Post to:
•  del.icio.us
•  Digg
•  Newsvine
•  Nowpublic
•  Reddit