Sunday, October 30, 2011

More from London and St Paul's

You know, it's hard to imagine how they could have handled this worse.

From the Telegraph , an unflattering exposé
One figure who is understood to have taken a particularly dim view of Canon Fraser’s outbursts is the cathedral’s registrar, Nicholas Cottam, a retired Major-General. He has, so far, managed to keep a low profile, but he is described as “the power behind the throne”, and central to convincing the dean to support evicting the protesters. ....“He runs the cathedral like an army operation and sees the canons as his troops who should follow orders and not speak out of turn,” says one insider. ....

Senior figures at the City of London Corporation had decided that the protesters must be evicted, and backing from the cathedral Chapter was the last touch needed to give it moral authority. As the fallout from the Chapter’s poor handling of the row has descended into an embarrassing debacle, it has cast the Church in an unflattering light. The canons have been accused of selling out to the wishes of politicians rather than carrying out their gospel duties to care for the poor and downtrodden. ... 
The Rt Rev Alan Wilson, the Bishop of Buckingham, said that it was not just the public who were bemused by the closure. “Cathedral deans I’ve spoken to are mystified as to why they would do it,” he said. “It’s made them look like idiots. Anyone who looks at the camp can see that it is complete nonsense to claim that it was done for health and safety.” The health and safety report published on Monday listed “rope/guy-lines” and rodents among potential dangers posed by the presence of the camp. Sources close to the Dean say that he was baffled as soon as he saw how weak the evidence was, and moved to have the building reopened as quickly as possible.... 
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has spoken out at the damage being caused to the Church’s reputation, but Dr Rowan Williams, the current incumbent of Lambeth Palace, has remained silent. 

 From the Independent:
A highly critical report into the moral standards of bankers has been suppressed by St Paul's Cathedral amid fears that it would inflame tensions over the Occupy London tent protest. 
The report, based on a survey of 500 City workers who were asked whether they thought they were worth their lucrative salaries and bonuses, was due to be published last Thursday, the day that the Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, Giles Fraser, resigned in protest at the church's tough stance. 
But publication of the report, by the St Paul's Institute, has been delayed in an apparent acknowledgement that it would leave the impression that the cathedral was on the side of the protesters. 
The Independent on Sunday understands that the decision has upset a number of clergy, who hoped that the report would prove that the church was not detached from a financial crisis that had its heart yards from the cathedral itself. The decision will fuel the impression that the wider established church is attempting to stifle debate about the tent protest, as leading members of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have failed to comment publicly about Occupy London....  

Shocked!  Shocked! There's gambling going on in this establishment!

Update:  And now the Dean of the Cathedral has resigned.  What a mess.


JCF said...

I'm all for respecting national church boundaries...

...but doesn't there seem to be a NEED for a TEC/UK?

dr.primrose said...

OT. Kim Kardeshian has filed for divorce after only 72 days of marriage. Obviously, another traditional marriage destroyed by IT and BP.

Counterlight said...

I continue to be astonished at the amazing tone deafness of C of E hierarchy. This is such a golden opportunity for them, and they are squandering it in the worst way possible. A police raid on the camp in the shadow of Saint Paul's would not settle or end anything. It would be kicking a hornets' nest (ask Oakland, ask the NYPD). A move to evict the campers would be a catastrophe, not for Occupy which would probably grow even stronger, but for the C of E which would wither in the scorn and ridicule.

JCF said...

Following dr primrose's off-topic post, w/ another (in the same league of "WTF?!?!"):

Popoid re the Why of Teh Gay: Obviously, The Devil Must Have Done It

[See what happens, when one's Three-Legged Stool substitutes for "Reason", the defective cr@p of the Magisterium? O_o]

Counterlight said...

Latest update: the chapter called off its lawyers and suspended its lawsuit.

JCF said...

But aren't the bankers (aka "The City of London") still pressing ahead w/ evictions? Bobbies swinging n' all that?

Lord, defend your servants!

dr.primrose said...

Following up on my OT comment on Kim Kardashian, Susan Russell has posted on her blog A thank you note to Kim Kardashian. She notes, among other things:

"I am not sure you can appreciate just what a gift it is to have the extraordinarily well publicized news of the end of your hysterically hyped marriage come the very week our congressional leaders are set to begin debating the Respect for Marriage Act on Capitol Hill.

"Seriously. As a marriage equality activist I cannot thank you enough for your gift of the stunning example of how the gender of the couple saying 'I do' clearly has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with respect for the institution of marriage. It is a gift -- I promise you -- that will keep on giving."

IT said...

Susan's post is awesome!

IT said...

JCF, the RC journal has retracted the article that claimed being gay was of the devil.

dr.primrose said...

A very illuminating report - Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10 - was released today jointly by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

From the introduction (p. 1):

"This study takes a hard look at the federal income taxes paid or not paid by 280 of America’s largest and most profitable corporations in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The companies in our report are all from Fortune’s annual list of America’s 500 largest corporations, and all of them were profitable in each of the three years analyzed. Over the three years, the 280 companies in our survey reported total pretax U.S. profits of $1.4 trillion.

"While the federal corporate tax code ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only about half that amount. And many paid far less, including a number that paid nothing at all."

A summary (p. 3):

"The good news is that 71 of our companies, 25 percent of the total, paid effective three-year tax rates of more than 30 percent. Their average effective tax rate was 32.3 percent.

"The bad news is that an almost equal number of companies, 67, paid effective three-year tax rates of less than 10 percent. Their average effective tax rate was zero.

"Even worse news is that 30 companies paid less than zero percent over the three years. Their effective tax rate averaged –6.7 percent."

A negative tax rate means that WE are paying THEM money even though they're reporting profits. The 25 profitable companies that we're paying the most to are shown in a table on page 6. The top three are Wells Fargo ($18 billion over the last three years), AT&T ($14.5 billion) and Verizon ($12.3 billion).

The report cites Ronald Reagan in support of its call for tax reform (p. 2):

"Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan was horrified by a similar epidemic of corporate tax dodging. 'I just didn’t realize that things had gotten that far out of line,' Reagan reportedly told his Treasury Secretary. And Reagan solved the problem, by sweeping away corporate tax loopholes with the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

"But over time, Reagan’s 1986 decision to get rid of corporate tax subsidies and make our big corporations pay their fair share has been reversed. Ironically, that reversal has been led in large part by politicians who claim to be Reagan's disciples and to oppose government subsidies that interfere with market incentives. Indeed, many of these purported fans of Reagan want to expand corporate subsidies and tilt public policy even further in favor of corporate tax avoidance."

JCF said...

Wow. Something's gotta be pretty OTT for the Popoids to retract it! O_o