Affirmative Beauty
Miss England 2009 Rachel ChristieBy Sarah: Maid of Albion
Given the lamentable lack of competitions where acres of pinched, pumped and painted male flesh is on public display, I seldom take much interest in beauty contests. As a result I had not particularly noticed that the 2009 “Miss England” contest was taking place, and was blissfully unaware of who the various contestants were.
Therefore, on first hearing that Rachel Christie (pictures above), the niece of the sometime disgraced, other time redeemed and always moody "black British" Olympic athlete Lindford Christie, had been voted the first ever black Miss England, I, like I am sure many others, took this to be further evidence of how brainwashed the British public have become by multiculturalism and political correctness.
Not only it seemed had the public chosen a black woman to represent the historically white nation of England, but the strictures of political correctness and inclusiveness, had meant that it was no longer a necessity for those selected as beauty queens to be in possession of any particular claim to personal beauty.
However, on further examination, it turns out that things are not quite as they first seemed. Apparently Ms. Christie was not selected as the result of a popular vote as was initially claimed. A popular vote did take place, however, that had very little impact on the eventual outcome. This became quite obvious when it transpired that, of the 10,000 odd votes cast by the public, Rachel Christie won a grand total of nine votes, placing her in 49th place in a field of 54.
It turns out that the public vote only guaranteed a single candidate a place in the final line up, it had no influence on the choice of winner or runners up. That decision was made by a panel of “professional” judges, who clearly applied different criteria to their decision as to what constitutes beauty.
It is by no means unusual that the final decision in such a contest is made by a professional panel, however, it is seldom that there is such a marked difference between the public and professional view. To move from 49th place to first place so swiftly would be a spectacular sprint, even in her uncle's heyday.
One competition organiser explained this, by pointing out that there are various factors which have to be taken into account when judging beauty, which was why this could not be left to a public vote. In effect, it appears that Ms. Christie would have been unfairly disadvantaged had she been judged on the basis of conventionally accepted standards of beauty, as a result different criterion were applied, from which she benefited significantly.
As in so many things, it appears that even when judging female beauty, those with the power have different standards (and agendas?) than the rest of us.
Given the lamentable lack of competitions where acres of pinched, pumped and painted male flesh is on public display, I seldom take much interest in beauty contests. As a result I had not particularly noticed that the 2009 “Miss England” contest was taking place, and was blissfully unaware of who the various contestants were.
Therefore, on first hearing that Rachel Christie (pictures above), the niece of the sometime disgraced, other time redeemed and always moody "black British" Olympic athlete Lindford Christie, had been voted the first ever black Miss England, I, like I am sure many others, took this to be further evidence of how brainwashed the British public have become by multiculturalism and political correctness.
Not only it seemed had the public chosen a black woman to represent the historically white nation of England, but the strictures of political correctness and inclusiveness, had meant that it was no longer a necessity for those selected as beauty queens to be in possession of any particular claim to personal beauty.
However, on further examination, it turns out that things are not quite as they first seemed. Apparently Ms. Christie was not selected as the result of a popular vote as was initially claimed. A popular vote did take place, however, that had very little impact on the eventual outcome. This became quite obvious when it transpired that, of the 10,000 odd votes cast by the public, Rachel Christie won a grand total of nine votes, placing her in 49th place in a field of 54.
It turns out that the public vote only guaranteed a single candidate a place in the final line up, it had no influence on the choice of winner or runners up. That decision was made by a panel of “professional” judges, who clearly applied different criteria to their decision as to what constitutes beauty.
It is by no means unusual that the final decision in such a contest is made by a professional panel, however, it is seldom that there is such a marked difference between the public and professional view. To move from 49th place to first place so swiftly would be a spectacular sprint, even in her uncle's heyday.
One competition organiser explained this, by pointing out that there are various factors which have to be taken into account when judging beauty, which was why this could not be left to a public vote. In effect, it appears that Ms. Christie would have been unfairly disadvantaged had she been judged on the basis of conventionally accepted standards of beauty, as a result different criterion were applied, from which she benefited significantly.
As in so many things, it appears that even when judging female beauty, those with the power have different standards (and agendas?) than the rest of us.
___________________________________
A Bequest to the Nation
Mustaf JamaSpeaking of dusky beauties, let me introduce you to this charming little chap. Mustaf Jama was convicted yesterday for his part in the murder of Police woman Sharon Beshenivsky and the wounding of a second female officer, who had both attended an incident were Jama and some other immigrant gangsters were in the process of committing a robbery.
Whilst on the run Jama had escaped to his native Somalia, but was returned following the alleged payment of “bribes” to various warlords in that lawless state.
At an earlier trial Jama's brother Yusuf and Asian gang boss Muzzaker Shah were convicted of the shootings, but the same Jury were unable reach a decision on Mustaf, thus putting the state to the expense of a further trial.
Of course the cost will not end there, all three convicted foreigners have been sentenced to a minimum of 35 years in prison. As it is estimated that each prisoner in British prisons costs us as tax payers a minimum of £40,000 a year, we will be footing a bill for well in excess of four million, even before inflation kicks in. We can add a further £1million + if or when the fourth Asian gang member, who is still currently on the run, is apprehended.
A gang consisting of Asians and Somalis seems a strange combination, as Africans and Asians tend to hate each other with a passion. However, they seem to be the two groups who we are currently welcoming into Britain at a greater rate than almost anyone else, which is somewhat troubling, given that a recent claim by a government minister that Pakistan and Somalia present a greater threat to UK security even than Afghanistan, where we are currently sacrificing brave young soldiers at a horrifying rate.
If this is true, it seems very odd that our leaders seem so intent on encouraging so many of those two countries' nationals to come in to our homeland. Whatever the truth, their priorities are clearly not the same as ours.
Whilst on the run Jama had escaped to his native Somalia, but was returned following the alleged payment of “bribes” to various warlords in that lawless state.
At an earlier trial Jama's brother Yusuf and Asian gang boss Muzzaker Shah were convicted of the shootings, but the same Jury were unable reach a decision on Mustaf, thus putting the state to the expense of a further trial.
Of course the cost will not end there, all three convicted foreigners have been sentenced to a minimum of 35 years in prison. As it is estimated that each prisoner in British prisons costs us as tax payers a minimum of £40,000 a year, we will be footing a bill for well in excess of four million, even before inflation kicks in. We can add a further £1million + if or when the fourth Asian gang member, who is still currently on the run, is apprehended.
A gang consisting of Asians and Somalis seems a strange combination, as Africans and Asians tend to hate each other with a passion. However, they seem to be the two groups who we are currently welcoming into Britain at a greater rate than almost anyone else, which is somewhat troubling, given that a recent claim by a government minister that Pakistan and Somalia present a greater threat to UK security even than Afghanistan, where we are currently sacrificing brave young soldiers at a horrifying rate.
If this is true, it seems very odd that our leaders seem so intent on encouraging so many of those two countries' nationals to come in to our homeland. Whatever the truth, their priorities are clearly not the same as ours.
So odd indeed that one can not help but question the motives behind their actions. Whatever the truth, their priorities are clearly not the same as ours.
Sarah: Maid of Albion