What is in Kelvin's Head?

Last year’s predictions (2020) – how did I do?

31/12/2020

Well, thank you for asking.

Here’s what I predicted for 2020 and here’s how I did.

Scotland will not vote for Independence in 2020

Scotland didn’t.
Prediction accurate.

No progress for those hoping for Equal Marriage in the Church of England.

There was none.
Prediction accurate.

Narrow Democrat victory in American election – country as divided as ever – widespread belief that the election was rigged.

Well, there was a Democrat victory in America. It wasn’t as narrow as it initially appeared but the country is as divided as ever with widespread belief that the election was rigged.
Prediction substantially accurate.

Scottish government proposals on reforming the Gender Recognition Act go through largely as proposed in consultation document.

I’m sorry this didn’t happen and I’m sorry that trans people are at the epicentre of the latest culture war. The Scottish government’s proposals on Gender ID were pragmatic and sensible and no-one has come up with any better proposals on how a gender recognition certificate should be issued. (Statutary declaration by individual whilst criminalizing false or misleading declarations).
Prediction inaccurate.

Limited agreements at COP talks but derided as too little too late.

No COP.
Prediction inaccurate due to covid.

UK leaves the EU and is subsequently unable to agree a substantial deal.

Well, the UK did leave the EU and just about managed to agree a substantial deal though not a very good one.
Prediction mostly inaccurate.

No trade deal with the USA

No trade deal with the USA.
Prediction accurate

Yvette Cooper will become the leader of the Labour Party.

Missed this one but I note that Rosemary Hannah correctly tipped Starmer in the comments.
Prediction inaccurate.

Stock market lower at the end of the year than it is today. (FTSE 7,542.44)

FTSE at 6470.
Prediction accurate.

Increasing visible support for LGBT Roman Catholics from within the Roman Catholic Church.

This was the one that most people seemed to think bonkers. I actually had in mind something quite local which didn’t happen due to Covid but which I think might happen next year instead. However, the Holy Father came through for me – “Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions” and in recent days we have had – “Head of German bishops, self-described conservative, calls for change”. Stuff is happening in the RC church. It is a long journey but there’s change in the air. Prediction accurate.

Overall – not bad, considering…

2020, predictions, Predictions 2020

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