Sunday, June 27, 2010

Black female cleric to be appointed as chaplain for Britain's parliament

This is just destructive rubbish from a unprincipled little turncoat (Bercow). It completely disrespects the role of a chaplain, who is supposed to be someone to whom people in trouble will feel able to talk and receive a sympathetic hearing. But everybody is most likely to feel at ease with someone like themselves. How many of Britain's politicians are going to feel at ease in unburdening themselves to a far-Left woman from an entirely different background?

She has led calls for the Church of England to apologise for its role in slavery and has lambasted racism in the clergy. Her views have been described as ‘radical, Left of centre’. How is such a person one with whom all parliamentarians are going to feel at ease? She could at most be a chaplain only to a small coterie

A row has broken out between two of the most senior figures in the worlds of church and state over the promotion of a female cleric.

In a significant step towards giving women clergy greater prominence, John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has selected the Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, a Jamaica-born priest, to be the next chaplain to the Commons.

She would be the first woman and the first black cleric to be appointed to the centuries-old role, which is particularly prestigious as it currently also involves being installed as subdean of Westminster Abbey.

However, Mr Bercow's historic appointment was threatened by the Very Rev John Hall, the Dean of Westminster Abbey, who was strongly opposed to such a move. The dean has refused to accept her as his deputy and has insisted that the role is now broken up so that he can appoint a different candidate, understood to be a male cleric.

Last month, Mr Hall and Mr Bercow separately interviewed Mrs Hudson-Wilkin, one of the Church of England's leading female clerics, but they have only just reached a settlement in recent days, following weeks of wrangling over the appointment.

She was on a shortlist of six names that was drawn up after interviews between candidates and representatives from Buckingham Palace, Downing Street, Westminster Abbey and the House of Commons.

A source close to the discussions said that the two men had differing opinions on the appointment. "The Speaker wanted someone with a strong and distinctive character who would be pastorally sensitive and effective working with a diverse group of people at the Commons," he said. "Rose appeared to fit the role perfectly, but the dean was looking for someone who would fulfil more of a ceremonial role. "He didn't think that she suited his needs at the Abbey."

As subdean at the abbey she would have been involved in many of the services of national commemoration held there, which, in the past, have included the funerals of the Queen Mother and Diana, Princess of Wales, as well as the Queen's golden jubilee.

The incumbent, Canon Robert Wright – who is retiring – is subdean at Westminster Abbey, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Queen, as well as being chaplain to the House of Commons. The chaplain is based at St Margaret's church opposite the Houses of Parliament.

The abbey has also been the setting for every coronation since William the Conqueror's in 1066. It is a so-called Royal Peculiar, under the jurisdiction of its dean and chapter and answering directly to the Queen rather than a diocesan bishop.


One Brit dares to condemn Black racism

And the black racist actually confirmed her racial thinking later. Her thinking is in fact perfectly reasonable but if a white politician had said something similar, all hell would have broken loose right across the country

Labour leadership contender Diane Abbott was seething after being branded a ‘racist’ and an expenses cheat by political pundit Andrew Neil. Left-winger Ms Abbott was savaged by Mr Neil on his late-night BBC show This Week over her decision to send her son James to the £12,700-a-year City of London School.

Ms Abbott, who earned £36,000 a year as a regular guest on the show alongside Michael Portillo until stepping down to fight for the Labour leadership, had defended her stance, saying: ‘West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.’

Mr Neil hit back by demanding: ‘So black mums love their kids more than white mums, do they?’

Furious Ms Abbott said: ‘I have said everything I am going to say about where I send my son to school.’

Mr Neil persisted: ‘Supposing Michael said white mums will go to the wall for their children. Why did you say that? Isn’t it a racist remark? If West Indian mums are as wonderful as you say, why are there so many dysfunctional West Indian families
in this country? And why do so many young West Indian men end up in a life of crime and gangs? ‘You didn’t want your son to go to a school full of kids who have been brought up by West Indian mums.’

As Ms Abbott repeatedly refused to reply, Mr Neil asked: ‘Would you like to make it clear that West Indian mums are no better than white mums or Asian mums?’

When Ms Abbott, squirming in her seat, replied, ‘I have nothing to say,’ Mr Neil taunted her: ‘You don’t want to do that – you still think West Indian mums are the best?’

The clash came after Ms Abbott said last week: ‘I knew what could happen if my son went to the wrong school and got in with the wrong crowd. They are subjected to peer pressure and when that happens it’s very hard for a mother to save her son. Once a black boy is lost to the world of gangs it’s very hard to get them back.’


Thousands take to the streets to mark Britain's Armed Forces Day

This would have caused some teeth-grinding among Britain's many far-Leftists. Anything that celebrates Britain is anathema to their hate-filled minds

In glorious sunshine Britain paid joyful tribute to the cream of its military on Saturday as thousands took to the streets to celebrate Armed Forces Day.

In the shadow of the Millennium Centre in Cardiff, where the main parade was held, veterans of World War Two, the Falklands War and soldiers who have served in Afghanistan marched side-by-side; age and youth united by pride in service to their country.

A 50,000 strong crowd lined the route from Cardiff Castle to Cardiff Bay to watch more than 200 march past, led by HRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall in an open topped Rolls-Royce.

It was one of 350 events which took place across the country, in cities including Glasgow, Plymouth, Nottingham and Manchester. At Wimbledon, 14 servicemen and women were applauded by the Centre Court crowd as they took their seats in the Royal Box.

In Cardiff, The Duchess of Cornwall, in bright turquoise, was clearly thrilled to be taking part. She waved and smiled happily at the crowd, many of them waving Union Flags and Welsh flags, and tapped her fingers in time to the stirring military tunes played by the band of Her Majesty's Royal Marines Commando Training Centre. As her husband climbed onto the podium at the Bay to take the salute she playfully dusted down his collar, sharing a private joke.

The Prince, Royal Colonel of the Welsh Guards and Colonel in Chief of the 1st The Queen's Dragoons Guards – both on parade yesterday – wore the ceremonial uniform General as he took his place beside two Royal Artillery Regimental Guns.

The day had got under way shortly before 11am when the government representatives – Liam Fox, secretary of state for defence and Cheryl Gillan, secretary of state for Wales – were introduced to old soldiers, several of whom had recently attended the 70th anniversary of Dunkirk in France.

The Queen sent a message of support, saying the troops operated in the "most difficult and dangerous of circumstances". "The men and women of our Armed Forces have always been admirable examples of professionalism and courage," she said. "Then as now, they perform their duties in often the most difficult and dangerous of circumstances, both at home and overseas."

In A private speech to troops and their families Dr Fox said that Islamic extremists who disrupt the homecoming parade of British troops should be “silenced”. “Let’s silence the negative voices that attack our Armed Forces but gladly enjoy the security and freedom our Armed Forces provide,” he said.

“While those who criticise our Armed Forces have a right to do so in a democracy, we too, as the moral majority, have a right to take pride in the flag of our nation, an emblem of the freedom we hold dear as the true British patriots, and the freedom that most races, cultures and faiths will aspire to.”

Peter Featherstone-Williams, 52, a Falklands War veteran, who served as a radio officer first class on-board HMS Bristol, a type 82 guided missile destroyer, was among six veterans and members of the South Atlantic Medal Association 1982 who had spent Friday night camped out on the banks of the Taff river especially to celebrate the Cardiff event.

"I cannot describe the utter pride I feel, to watch the young serving men and older veterans being clapped and cheered like this," he said as he took his place in the Bay, shortly before the Drumhead Service. "It is so important that younger generations see firsthand the unbreakable bond that unites men who have seen combat. "It doesn't matter which conflict you served in. That bond is there. And to see the public take pride in what we have done and applaud the brave squaddies of today who are still proud to wear the uniform is a wonderful thing to witness."

For Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton the highlight of the day was the fly-past by The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight – comprising a Lancaster and a Spitfire. "The BBMF is a source of national pride, an example of the nation's resilience and indomitable spirit in the face of adversity and a tangible link between the modern RAF and its illustrious forefathers," he said...

In carnival spirit the crowd, many of them young families, sat spellbound as veterans talked of their memories and regaled teenagers with slightly more ribald versions of World War Two ditties....

On Saturday, Edinburgh was named as the host of next year's Armed Forces Day.


The union-only protection racket

by Jeff Jacoby

THIS IS THE KIND OF THING, Charlie Baker was saying one day last week, that "makes people crazy about state government."

The Republican gubernatorial candidate was standing near the site of the University of Massachusetts-Boston's forthcoming expansion -- a 10-year master plan for at least $750 million in new construction and renovation projects. On June 14, the University of Massachusetts Building Authority had voted to proceed under a Project Labor Agreement, meaning that only workers who pay dues to a union will be hired for one of the largest building projects now in the offing. Since roughly 80 percent of the construction workforce in Massachusetts is open-shop (non-union), the PLA amounts to naked political favoritism for organized labor -- and a raw deal for everyone else. Baker condemns PLAs as unjust, and pledges to ban them in state contracts if elected.

Governor Deval Patrick, on the other hand, openly touts his success in steering lucrative construction contracts to the politically-wired sliver of trade workers who choose to belong to a union. "Take our biggest construction project, the $300 million undertaking at Worcester State Hospital," he told the Building Trades Conference in Plymouth in March. "96 percent of the construction spending is being carried out by union workers."
Something is plainly wrong when elected officials boast of excluding the vast majority of contractors and their employees from the chance to work on public projects. If the situation were reversed -- if union members were the ones being blackballed by the administration -- voters would be outraged. Is it any less outrageous when bids are rigged in favor of unions?

There is no economic rationale for these union-only deals. They are discriminatory and anticompetitive, and thus drive up costs significantly. When Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute analyzed the costs of building126 Boston-area schools, it found that PLAs inflated the winning bids for construction projects by almost 14 percent, and added an extra 12 percent to the actual construction costs. When it comes to public construction, PLAs all but guarantee that taxpayers will be overcharged. As The Wall Street Journal observed wryly in April: "Boston's Big Dig, Seattle's Safeco Field, Los Angeles's Eastside Reservoir project, the San Francisco airport, Detroit's Comerica Park -- all were built under PLAs marked by embarrassing cost overruns."

Baker describes the Patrick administration's decision to require a PLA for the UMass-Boston overhaul as "arrogant." But that doesn't really go far enough.

The primary justification for PLAs is that they preserve "labor peace." Union leaders promise not to strike or otherwise disrupt a construction project in exchange for the government's guarantee that all contractors hired to do the work will operate as union shops and that all workers will pay union dues. PLAs, in other words, amount to a protection racket. To put it in Hollywood terms, unions tell government officials: "Nice construction project ya got here. Be a shame if somethin' was to . . . happen to it."

Not surprisingly, taxpayers resent such extortion. Earlier this month, voters in the southern California municipalities of Oceanside and Chula Vista handily enacted ballot initiatives prohibiting PLAs on city-funded construction. A similar measure goes on the ballot in San Diego in November.

According to a statewide Suffolk University-7 News survey taken in March, Massachusetts residents have no use for PLAs either. Asked whether private contractors working on public projects should be compelled to hire exclusively through union hiring halls, 69 percent said No. Opposition to excluding non-union laborers from work that their taxes help fund was expressed by clear majorities of both men (77 percent) and women (61 percent); of Democrats (52 percent), Republicans (88 percent), and independents (76 percent); of whites (69 percent) and minorities (67 percent). The same was true when respondents were sorted by age or geography -- strong majorities were against union-only mandates. Even among union households, 59 percent were opposed.

If support for open competition on public projects is so unambiguous, why doesn't Patrick join Baker in renouncing deals like the one effectively shutting out open-shop contractors from UMass-Boston? With voters so opposed to PLAs, what does the governor gain -- or think he gains -- from embracing them? It's that kind of thing that "makes people crazy about state government," Baker says. That's a message he should keep hammering home.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: