What is in Kelvin's Head?

Last Year’s Predictions – how did I do?

31/12/2016

Last year I made a number of predictions. Time to see how I did.

Following recent revelations, this will be the year that former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey finally shuts up. Expect no silly press releases on the eve of Church of England Synod. (From Carey anyway).

We’ve heard almost nothing from Carey this last year. Indeed, we’ve heard more about Carey’s pic being removed from King’s College London than from him directly. Prediction correct.

The Columba Declaration recently leaked to the press will not in fact be adopted unamended by both the Church of Scotland General Assembly in May and by the Church of England General Synod in February.

Alas, it went through unmodified. Shockwaves in Scotland. Probably the final blow to the organic unity model of ecumenical engagement in Scotland. Prediction incorrect.

Solid vote in favour of first reading of legislation for removal of definition of marriage from the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church opening the way towards a final vote in 2017.

Yes – solid vote in favour at last synod. Still don’t know whether it will get through next year at the final vote but it achieved a 66% majority in all houses last year when it needed only 50%. Prediction correct

The Anglican Communion will move back towards being a fellowship of autonomous churches following the Primates’ Conference in January. Justin Welby will do the right thing for the wrong reasons. (ie he will accept the inevitable loosening of ties that stems from the global domination fantasies of his predecessors but not speak up for LGBT friendly churches).

This one depends entirely on the point of view of the onlooker. Welby has not spoken up for LGBT friendly churches, the communion is less united than ever but there will be another Lambeth Conference. I’m calling this a draw. Prediction correct and incorrect depending on one’s prejudices.

The SNP will win a landslide in the Holyrood Election. There will be UKIP representation in Holyrood for the first time.

Well, the SNP won the election with a landslide but didn’t get a majority. No UKIP representation in Holyrood. Hurrah! Prediction largely incorrect.

The SNP will continue to work for their preferred outcome in the European Union referendum – an overall majority in the UK in favour of staying in, a massive majority in Scotland for staying in and a majority in England for leaving the EU.

Well, we can’t say whether this one was correct or not. I still think this would have suited the SNP more than any other result. However there’s no saying whether that’s what they were working for or not now. Inconclusive

The Democrats will retain the White House.

Fail! Appalling fail! Prediction incorrect.

Jeremy Corbyn will still be Labour Party leader by the end of 2016 and become a little more popular within the Labour Party the longer he is there. The Labour Party will still seem unelectable at the end of the year. No major defections along the way. (There’s nowhere to go).

I think I got this one bang on. Prediction correct.

A successful cyber terrorist attack on a major Western financial institution. (It is only a matter of time).

Hmm, when is it cyber-terrorism and when is it just plain cyber-fraud? I’m claiming this as a hit – £2.5 million stolen from Tesco bank this year and other incidents around the world. Prediction essentially correct

Amateur drone crash causing loss of life.

So far as I know this one did not come to pass but there have been some frightening near misses. Prediction incorrect.

3D printed food experiments in restaurants.

Oh yes, that happened. Prediction correct.

More major news outlets closing down the comments sections on their websites as open comments become unmanagable.

Part of a continuing trend. For example, see here. Prediction correct.

I make that roughly 7 correct and 5 incorrect. Ish. Out of 10.

New Year Predictions, predictions 2016

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

Tim

25/11/2006

Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

Reply
kelvin

25/11/2006

As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

Reply
Anonymous

26/11/2006

Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

All the very best,

Clyde Lad

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

Reply
Ali

26/11/2006

I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

“A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

Reply
Mysterious stranger

27/11/2006

I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Reply