Affirmative Beauty
Miss England 2009 Rachel ChristieGiven 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 different agendas?) than the rest of us.
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 different 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 £4 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 £4 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.
6 comments:
As a British male and I might add, blessed with a real appreciation of the beauty of English Women; Jane Seymour, Cheryl Cole, Jacqueline Bisset, Katherine Zeta-Jones, Kate Beckinsale, Julie Andrews, Elizabeth Hurley - to name just a few what I see here is another PC multicultural lie being shoved down the eager throats of the liberal British public.
I'm sorry, this woman is not of pure British descent and she is not beautiful. She may be average but she is most definately not beautiful and as far as even attractive goes, I reckon Lilly Allen is prettier.
Or is it that white British males are now so insignificant on the broader scheme of things that our opinion of what is beautiful is as meaningless as our opinion of what is right or wrong.
This is as much a farce as it is a travesty and I for one will never support any kind of aesthetic contest that not only includes ugly token blacks or non-whites but also guarantees their victory in such contests for no reason other than they are not white.
I wonder how long it will be before we see a paraplaegic black woman from Bophutatskosweti winning a British bodybuilding contest for Men because it is the politically correct thing to do.
As for this other spawn of satan that shot dead a serving female British Police officer, all I have to say is hang the bastard....
40 000 quid a year to look after one prisoner? Holy crap! That's more than I earn a year! And it's certainly more than what the government gives me a year! Crime does pay it seems!
£40,000 is the average figure which everyone seems to quote, here is another article from last year giving it again.
It makes sense if you think about it, there is the cost of security, the cost of maintaining prisons and paying people to work in them, and that is before you start feeding, clothing, educating and medicating the convicts.
"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."
Pardon me, Sarah, but this is pure bafflegab! What factors, for crying out loud? Some deep, dark secret factors, unknown to the average person? Not likely! Couldn't they have the integrity to just say that the whole thing was rigged?
Nice post, Sarah.
It seems that a kind of affirmative action applies now to beauty as well.
No she isn't beautifuland beingpaced a winner is participating a lie a fraud just like poltical correctness
as for the other one, I notice in Bristol seems t be attracting a higher proportion of Somalis and with it a massive increase in crime over the last 5 years,maybe purely coincidence
he should be hung or sent back to Somalia
Post a Comment