Thursday, July 03, 2008

Ray Lewis - a tale of two advisers

It is curious indeed that when a perfectly good and honourable man is misrepresented and falsely accused of racism, Mayor Johnson demanded his resignation immediately. There was no evidence, a host of honourable people defending his integrity, and every fair-minded Conservative believed he was treated appallingly. It was clearly a media-driven, leftist, politically-correct agenda exaggerated out of all proportion.

But still the man had to go, for fear of contaminating the Boris brand; for fear of endangering Project Cameron and of compromising their present sustained polling euphoria.

James McGrath, the Mayor’s political adviser, simply stated that Caribbean immigrants should go home if they did not like London. The Mayor insisted that Mr McGrath was not a racist, but his view was that his continuing employment would be a distraction and provide ‘ammunition’ to the Mayor’s critics. And so he was exiled to Australia, tarnished for life as a possible racist.

But follow this with accusations of financial and sexual impropriety, and Mayor Johnson’s deputy, Ray Lewis, is awarded a full independent inquiry (at whose expense?). Cranmer is not impugning guilt or seeking to prejudice a hearing, which should, of course, be conducted in accordance with all the principles of natural justice, and niether does he have anything at all against Mr Lewis. But for spurious accusations over racial sensitivities to merit dismissal while evidence-based accusations of sexual and financial impropriety merit an inquiry is perverse.

While the evidence against Mr McGrath was scant, there is indeed a prima facie case against Mr Lewis, and it comes not from some leftist media witch-hunt, but from the Bishop of Chelmsford who has issued the following statement:

Ray Lewis, London’s Deputy Mayor for Young People, was ordained in the Church of England in 1990, and served in the Parish of St Matthew, West Ham in the Diocese of Chelmsford between 1993 and 1997. After this date he moved to Grenada in the Diocese of the Windward Islands, where he ministered until 1999, after which he resigned from ministry altogether.

Between 1999 and 2005 Ray was placed under the formal disciplinary structures of the Church of England, and his ministry was restricted. This was because a misdemeanour of such seriousness had been committed that in the opinion of the Archbishop, the person concerned should not exercise his ministry for the time being.

The Diocese of Chelmsford is happy to co-operate with the enquiry which is being set up by the Mayor of London.


It is unequivocal: ‘a misdemeanour of such seriousness had been committed’, which can hardly be set aside by an independent inquiry. And this man is now a role model for black youth?

Of course there can be forgiveness and redemption, but actions also have consequences which limit options. This is what Mr McGrath discovered. Yet Mayor Johnson is standing in solidarity with Mr Lewis essentially because of the good the man has done in turning around the lives of many young people living on the margins of society.

That's very nice of him. One wonders why the Mayor did not stand by Mr McGrath for the good he did to the Conservative Party and the Mayor's own campaign.

James was his friend, faithful and just,
But Boris says he was unwise;
And Boris is an honourable man.

Whilst it may be true that Mr Lewis was not aware that he was on the ‘Lambeth List’ (which is itself somewhat Inquisitorial and lacking natural justice), and whilst it may be true that he was unaware that he had been barred from ministering in the Church of England (which Cranmer finds more than a little incredible); and whilst it may also be true that he was oblivious to any accusations of sexual impropriety which may or may not be on his file, it is more than a little odd that none of this emerged years ago, while Mr Lewis was being fêted by David Cameron and lauded for his outstanding work among black teenagers.

Still, Ray Lewis is by many accounts an honourable man - so are they all, all honourable men - and Cranmer is not sure if he smells a martyr...

And yet...

Why was Mr Lewis so selective and deflective in his biography?

Since the above link will soon disappear, the biography is reproduced:
_______________________________________

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has today announced the appointment of Ray Lewis as Deputy Mayor for Young People. Ray has considerable experience working with young men in particular as Director of EastSide Young Leaders Academy. A former prison Governor, Ray Lewis and his team take boys with potential who are nevertheless heading down the wrong path and literally help turn their lives around.

During his campaign to become Mayor of London, Boris Johnson found the work of Ray Lewis and his team inspirational. Now as Mayor of London, Boris is delighted that Ray will join him in his new administration. Commenting on the appointment, Boris Johnson said:

"I have a huge amount of respect for Ray Lewis and what he has achieved. I want to build on his success to deliver real change for young people in London both now and in the future. Ray's dynamic but strict approach has given countless opportunities to hundreds of young men in London and helped raise their aspirations as a result. He has helped them achieve more than they ever hoped possible and now I want to spread that magic across London.

"We face a wave of violent crime amongst young people in the Capital. Kids are killing other kids. Ray will be part of my team who will work night and day until we put an end to this tragic trend.

"Working with voluntary groups across the Capital, we will make a real difference to the lives of young people and their families. Londoners need action on this issue, and I won't rest until we deliver it".

Ends

Notes to Editors

Please find a biography of Ray Lewis:

Ray was born in Guyana in 1963 and attended schools in Walthamstow. He began his career working as an administrative officer for the Civil Service before becoming a Clerk in Holy Orders for the Church Commissioners in 1990. During this time he gained a degree in Theology & Pastoral Studies from Middlesex University.

After working at HM Prison Woodhill, Milton Keynes, Ray became Executive Director of Eastside Young Leaders' Academy in 2001. He is also a Trustee and Governor of the Petchey Academy in Hackney and a Justice of the Peace.

____________________________________

Why does Mr Lewis not quite ‘do God’?

He clearly refers to himself as ‘a former prison governor', yet there is no mention of his being a former Anglican vicar, which he evidently is. Is he ashamed of this? There is an elliptical reference to his being ‘a Clerk in Holy Orders for the Church Commissioners’ (what?), but no mention of his ever having been an Anglican clergyman in London or the West Indies.

Why not? It was a decade of his life – a quarter of his earthly existence; a third of his working life just airbrushed out. Of course, Cranmer could perfectly understand if Mr Lewis were ashamed of the Church of England...

or is it that the Mayor’s office does not ‘do God’?

And if not, is it any wonder that allegations of sexual and financial impropriety are considered less serious than allegations of racism?

15 Comments:

Blogger Miss Snuffleupagus said...

Timing is key in this Your Grace. Certainly when it comes to the Mayor's own reputation with regard to sexual impropriety, it would seem that crimes committed in the past, are not remembered in the present.

McGrath did what he did, now. Having said that, I did find myself pausing to frown when he was dismissed. It seemed odd. And then I remembered the Mayor's own reputation when it comes to race. If the Mayor did not have such a reputation, I do not believe McGrath would have been treated as he was. Boris had to distance himself from McGrath because of his own silly mistakes of the past. In fact those same mistakes are no doubt partly why Boris appointed Lewis.

But your post is interesting. What is Lewis hiding? He may be honourable, but he is clearly hiding something.

3 July 2008 at 23:07  
Blogger Tomrat said...

Whatever Mr. Lewis' relationship with God is, and whatever he's done in the past with regards to his personal life is his own business; if it had legal implications it should necessitate legal proceedings only; the witch-hunt that the CoE has begun, which considering the timing, should be considered nothing more than leftist propaganda from its compromised upper eschelons of power.

You are right though - this one rule for a white man and one rule for a black man is pure politicking on Team Cameron and Boris' part, they are so desperate to come to power in the next general election; They should have given both men their full support.

What really annoys me about this is that accusations of racism never extended to Ken Livingstone, despite association with various anti-semites, comments made by himself, and derisory comments he made regarding his Jewish constituents ousting him from power. The contempt the left have for playing by any sort of rule book is absolute.

4 July 2008 at 08:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have great sympathy for James McGrath and do not believe he should have been sacked but yours is a foolish, perhaps even mischievious post.

The obvious difference between the two situations is that there was no dispute as to fact in the McGrath case whereas Ray Lewis vehemently disputes the allegations made against him. Obviously, if these are found to be true, he will have to go. Had James said, "Look Boris, Wadsworth is making this up - I said no such thing" then Boris would not have sacked him.

4 July 2008 at 08:48  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Hmm..

'Anon 8.48' originates from host97.conservative-party.org.uk.

As all readers and communicants know, His Grace does not usually respond to anonymice, but since this one is not so anonymous as he/she thought, His Grace shall respond.

Mischievous: 'troublesone but not malicious'
Foolish: 'lacking good sense or judgement'

If you do not believe that James McGrath should have been sacked, why do you then justify the dismissal by asserting 'there was no dispute as to the fact'?

What fact?

That Mr McGrath effectively told immigrants who do not like it here to return whence they came? Is that 'racist'? Is it racist to tell Abu Hamza to go back to Egypt because he believes this country to be 'a toilet'? Is it racist to tell those who wish to live under Shari'a to go to a country which practises it?

'Racist' has become the cry of every ethnic group which does not like having its own words thrown back at it. 'Racist' has become a cheap jibe directed at any white man who happens to criticise any non-white man for anything.

The 'fact' is that both Boris Johnson and David Cameron stated publicly that Mr McGrath was not racist. They should therefore have stood by him. His comment had no malicious intent. Yet the mere appearance of the remotest possibility that what he said might be interpreted as being racist was sufficient to remove him from office.

That is a lack of judgement. If politicians are to live in fear of people mischievously misconstruing their every word or imputing dishonourable and malicious intent, they shall never say nor write anything. Quite how what Mr McGrath said justified his sacking, while Mayor Johnson is on record of having written an awful lot more that may be similarly construed, is puzzling indeed.

There is therefore much 'dispute' about what Mr McGrath said, as there appears to be in the case of Mr Lewis.

His Grace may occasionally be mischievous, but 'foolish'? No.

4 July 2008 at 10:24  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

McGrath departs the stage in "disgrace," but does that avoidable political suicide bring us anywhere closer to the truth? Consider the following ...

***********************************

"Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy!"
Robert Mugabe, Irish Times, 15 December 2000.

"The only white man you can trust is a dead white man."
Robert Mugabe, Unsourced. Undated.

***********************************

Africa for the Africans... at home and abroad!
Quotation of Marcus Garvey

***********************************

"Kill the Boer, Kill the [White] Farmer."
Peter Mokaba (ANC)

"If you don't like crime, get out!" <<<----------<
Charles Nqakula, Black member of Parliament, addressing whites South African complaints in the South African debating chamber.
NB: This has been posted on YouTube; search 'Charles Nqakula'

***********************************

Balaam [Jesus] is raised from the dead and being punished in boiling hot semen. Those who mock the words of the Jewish sages and sin against Israel are boiled in hot excrement.
The Jewish Talmud, 57a Gittin.

"To sexually violate a girl is permitted if she is over three years of age."
The Jewish Talmud, Yebhamoth 11b.

"All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
The Jewish Talmud, Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.

"God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all
nations."
The Jewish Talmud, Seph. Jp., 92, 1.

... ad infinitum.

***********************************

White 'men'? Christian 'men'? Can we truly consider ourselves MEN ... whilst we continue to force the McGraths of this world to grovel?? While we ourselves grovel like slaves?

Can you not see the mental prison you have been herded into? Are truly so blind? Stupid?

Men? Or are we little more than silly, snivelling, gutless little White Boys?

What are we ... truly? Who has drenched our collective brain-cells with irrational guilt, shame, and self loathing?

You know who it is ... you know who they are ... but you seem too gutless to confront them. Try asking why this is so, whilst looking at yourself in the mirror.

The McGrath episode is shameful, disgraceful, and comical; and sums up the collective mental illness that is Britain today.

Get off your knees ... for God's sake ... and grow up!

4 July 2008 at 10:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Your Grace aware of this abomination: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html ?

4 July 2008 at 14:03  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

"is it any wonder that allegations of sexual and financial impropriety are considered less serious than allegations of racism?"

Of course not. That is exactly so - and it arises directly from the unprincipled, weak-minded, moral vacuum that we misguidedly call Parliament.

Observe the behaviour of our legislators and learn. This is hardly surprising - given the standards of personal behaviour which we see every day in the Houses of Parliament.

4 July 2008 at 14:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like we may be dealing with a bullshit merchant and it is increasingly looking like Boris Johnson has shown bad judgment again...

4 July 2008 at 19:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"James McGrath, the Mayor’s political adviser, simply stated that Caribbean immigrants should go home if they did not like London."

Your Grace, if the report in The Times online by Mr Rod Liddle is to be believed Mr McGrath's 'offence' has been unwittingly exaggerated by you.

Mr Liddle gives the following account:
"What precisely happened was this: during the course of their conversation, Wadsworth quoted the unsubstantiated and frankly risible comments of a more prominent black journalist and supporter of Ken Living-stone, Darcus Howe, who had said that with Boris as mayor of London many black Londoners might decide to return to the Caribbean. What do you have to say to that, Wadsworth inquired. McGrath, in exasperation and some irritation, replied: “Well, let them go if they don’t like it here.”"

The differences are subtle but significant:
1. In version 2 the phrase "go home" with its ridiculous and nonsensical implications for black British subjects born in the UK and whose parents may have been born in the UK, does not appear;
2. Version 2 makes it clear that the context of Mr McGrath's remark was the pretentious assertion by Mr Darcus Howe (a professional 'race baiter') that following the democratic election of Mr Johnson as Mayor, black Londoners would feel tempted to "return to the Caribbean" (if applied to British born UK subjects a patently ridiculous and nonesensical remark; see point 1 above).

A shameful business...

von Hayek

5 July 2008 at 00:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does Mission Impossible throw anti-semitism into it?

"To sexually violate a girl is permitted if she is over three years of age."
The Jewish Talmud, Yebhamoth 11b.

Wrong.

I shan't bother looking up the rest of the garbage you spouted.

5 July 2008 at 10:59  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Wrong Anonymouse? Then why don't you explain exactly where and why you think Yebhamoth 11b has been quoted incorrectly? Perhaps the translation "sexually violate" is wrong?

Perhaps I should have written "to have sexual intercourse with?"

We shall assume you have accepted the other three Talmudic quotes are indeed correct.

Let's have the truth now. Because you have nowhere left to hide. That little game has ended. Tens of thousands of people around the world are busily dismantling your myths one by one. We shall not stop until both your will and your misplaced sense of supremacy disintegrate and you beg forgiveness and turn to Jesus, after burning your filthy Talmud.

You see, it's quite simple; considering all the negativity you are communally responsible for, you simply cannot be God's chosen people!

And its inevitable. As America's influence dies, so will yours. You cannot be the world's bully for much longer.

*********************************************

Considering the ever-increasing surge of seriously disturbing accusations being levelled at our old friends, the Zionist Jews, it is rather curious indeed that their direct responses have been so remarkably distant and detached.

Now please don't misunderstand. We are all well aware that they're screaming "anti-Semitism!" at the top of their shrill little voices at those of us who seek to expose the truth about them and their very curious history.

Nothing too surprising about that, of course. And not only that, but they're lobbying their pet governments in the West (the EU will be a great help to them) to introduce ever more ingeniously-contrived 'Hate Crime' laws to prevent legitimate researchers into the Jewish Problem from communicating their shocking findings to a wider audience.

Speaking the truth is becoming increasingly criminalized. Anyone and everyone who speaks in negative terms about the Jews must be trussed-up and gagged by any means possible.

Now this situation will strike a lot of people as downright unfair, especially as we have far more important genocides and massacres to purge from the poison stream that is our communal conscience (Stalin's purges, the Armenian genocide, Cambodia's Killing Fields, and the Ukrainian Homodore, etc.).

It's not odd at all, however, that the Jews would like to see all opposition to them crushed; that's only to be expected. But the really curious thing that is awakening suspicions among even some Liberals, is that these extremely broad, blanket responses --- You dirty anti-Semite!*#! --- are their SOLE weapon of choice against us.

This limited technique of theirs works fine when the opposition against them is patchy, insufficiently motivated and improperly informed. They can push for censorship on the grounds that ignorant bigots are spreading lies about them just because they're a minority race of people who are simply misunderstood. And for a long, long time now, that's worked well for them. But lately, things are beginning to change. In the face of a absolute firestorm of lurid accusations swirling around about them on the internet, one thing is increasingly obvious by its total absence: any effort to directly engage their accusers face-to-face.

The Jews simply WILL NOT discuss specific allegations.

Quite Juvenile really ... and almost certainly indicative of guilt.

Thanks and Hat Tip to ... Phaedrus!

Remember, if you don't like the truth ... then stop living the LIE.

5 July 2008 at 12:13  
Blogger Cranmer said...

His Grace would like to politely remind communicants that comments which are off-topic and irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread will be deleted.

He shall now ponder the relevance of The Talmud to the unfortunate case of Ray Lewis.

He is open to representations, both for and against...

5 July 2008 at 12:27  
Blogger Miss Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace
I disagree. The sacking was not the result of a lack of judgement. The Conservatives are a team. I feel certain that if McGrath's skills were highly regarded, and if the Conservatives felt that he was indispensable, then they would have stood by him.

As it is, his comment was untimely, (at the start of Boris' reign), and it comes on the back of Boris' own silly race mistakes.

I do believe they used a hammer to swat a fly, but I can understand why they did it. This is a democracy. They need the people's approval.

What it proves is that McGrath just wasn't that good, and they didn't care about him. Had he been worth his weight in gold, they would never have sold him down the river.

Your Grace, I would have thought that you would be pleased to see that the Conservatives are working as a well-oiled machine, instead of bickering and sniping at each other without any idea of their chosen direction. This sacking should inspire you, not discourage you. It only proves all the more, that the Conservatives will win the next election.

5 July 2008 at 12:35  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Your Grace [05 July 2008 12:27] ... I take your point, but what I have tried to do is point to the "Canvass," "Tapestry," or "back-drop" against which the McGrath episode (and many others like it) has taken place.

I included the Talmud references to demonstrate that many who do hold, and who have held high office in Britain are presumably fully familiar with, and therefore, worshipful of, a book that many know to be deeply offensive to both Christianity and Christians.

This liberal tolerance of enmity expressed towards "the white man's religion" and "white men generally" has encouraged if not invited an extremely distorted set of ethics and has also encouraged a destructive self-loathing amongst white males. Surely these two conditions help to explain why Mr. McGrath was trapped into resignation, and why Boris did not have the b*lls to stand by him in public?

Or ... would we rather simply hold up our hands and say ... "nobody is to blame?" It's just one of those things. Really? This story isn't new ... it has been cooking for several decades, and has been calculated. At some point we must be ready to say, enough!

Censorship only plays into the hands of those whose long-term cunning far exceeds the understanding of the average person.

Good Lord, today and on another thread, I have already highly recommended and praised a book written by Jonah Goldberg! That isn't a Hindu name is it?

5 July 2008 at 15:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WHEN YOU DEPART FROM THE WORD OF GOD YOU GET EVERY MAN DOING WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES.
AND THE ENSUING CHAOS!!!
VANITY, VANITY ALL IS VANITY!

10 July 2008 at 18:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older