A REPORT on the £288,000 deficit suffered after the 2008 Lambeth Conference – a gathering in the UK of Anglicans from around the world – says that income was lower than expected due to the boycott by over 200 bishops over the issue of homosexuality.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and his team will have to do better in 2018
This, coupled with poor planning, inexperienced management, and weak financial controls contributed to the deficit, a report released by the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners has concluded.
According to this report, the management team, conference structure and business practices were not up to the job, the investigation found, stating that:
The arrangements in place for the conference – [held every ten years] -were less robust than they needed to be.
Among the things that went wrong were:
• Failure to take into account the £411,000 cost of the aptly-named “The Big Top” – the blue tent that served as the principle venue for conference meetings, as well as IT support.
• Failure to anticipate the cost of internet usage by conference attendees. Rather than charging a flat fee for internet usage, the University of Kent charged the conference for individual log-ons, leading to a bill of £80,576 – more than £65,000 over budget.
Which does make one wonder what internet sites the bishops were accessing.
The report stated that “at no stage in its review did the group find any evidence of financial malpractice or dishonesty.” But it questioned the competence of the conference team, asking:
Whether the match between available skills and needs was as good as might be wished.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
“Which does make one wonder what internet sites the bishops were accessing.”
Imaginaryfriendsreunited!
March 27th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Wikipaedophile!
March 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
eGay!
March 27th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
BBC iPrayer!
March 27th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
If this is the debt for these numbers, the debt would soar with an additional 200 dumbfucks, with ideas beyond weird and accounting principles and ethics formed in some of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Must be great for the bunch of bishops who get into the House of Lords. Pick up their expenses, enjoy all the tax funded freebies and interfere with any proposals which might be helpful to the rest of us.
Is there not some link to be made by some politician of integrity between these human inadequates, piddling away on their computers cost free, and their determination to hold to their political and BBC power. Why these twats should be left to bollock the rest of us for our failings when they couldn’t organise a booze up in a brewery themselves is……………?
Any answers?
March 27th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Remigius – Hats off to you mate! Quality
)
March 27th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Remigius:
Brilliant. Too good not to be acknowledged.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I would be laughing if I thought that losses like this would put the buggers out of business, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the shortfall is likely to be made up by the government picking my pocket.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Stonyground.
Already the church has tax concessions and want more. And, these exemplars of bountiful love, are ready to force some poor country worker to repair their church because of some ancient bloody right they have. They are prepared to pursue this to the end on the grounds that they need the money and the upkeep of the church transcends everything – doesn’t matter whether you are an atheist, no money or whatever, they will go after you with the “More sorrow than in anger” approach and if you end up bankrupt – tough.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Stonygound’s daughter (Aged 12) says that the good news is that half of her class are Atheists. Some of them pretend to be to try to get out of RE class, some are confused and some don’t have many brain cells.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Stonyground.
This government has already bailed out those banks that were fiscally bankrupt, why shouldn’t it bail out an institution that is morally bankrupt as well?
Answers on a postcard to the usual address.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
“Stonygound’s daughter (Aged 12) says that the good news is that half of her class are Atheists.”
Aye there’s the rub. Is the class half null or half numpty!
March 27th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
remigius,
Sterling stuff.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Forgive me, but I really fail to see why this is here. I’ll admit that I’m American and really don’t pay attention to foreign religious mishaps that much, but isn’t poor planning for a convention leading to the promoters losing a large amount of money far from an uncommon event?
Would someone care to explain how this is an example of “those dumb religious nuts” and not just massively poor planning that would still be laughable if the organization was switched? I mean, it’d still be funny if it was the NRA and 200 important people didn’t attend because they heard they had to check all concealed weapons at the door, which failed to offset all the less than discrete connections to beautieswithammo.com or whatever…
March 28th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Sabriand.
On a previous post Buffy asked how Maths and French could be explained via a ‘Christian Perspective’. I tried my best to answer. I’ll try again here, bearing in mind that those that boycotted the Conference were mostly from Africa, and they did so because of their apparent distaste for homosexuality.
Maths: Imagine a whole. Take away the 1/3 world 1/2 wits. What do you have left? Answer. A deficit
French: C’est la vie
March 28th, 2009 at 12:46 am
remingus,
Cute joke, if you read the report you’d see it is rather of an oversimplification or the magnitude of the screw up of organization this was. How exactly does this rise above pointing out bad planning, and getting a quick chuckle? They executed a poorly planned event that was already in the hole and seeking additional funding and by the sounds of it would have at best broke even exhausting all reserve funds. What’s more surprising was the need to charge the maximum possible to the various attendees (The conference attendance fee was set at £1,970 per person, apparently in line with ‘what the market would bear’. – from the report) seems more a report of failing to properly eat one’s own.
Now personally I have no experience with the COE and don’t really at this moment want to. I’m just trying to see, with the myriad and various amusing/sickening/downright annoying examples of religious abuse of the world, how 200 people boycotting a conference on differing dogmatic views really rises to mention.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Sabriand.
Who the fuck is ‘remingus’?
If you are referring to my good self then please, at least, show me the courtesy in getting my pseudonym right!
As to the rest of your rant; I couldn’t really bring myself to plough my way through it. I saw some numbers, the odd word or two. The words amusing, sickening, COE etc.
I really don’t have the time for this shite. I could be dead in sixty years!
Get a life, or at least ask someone to reserve one for you.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Remigius,
My apologies. No offense was intended.
To answer your question, another former church man. Although it wasn’t intentional, just sloppy spelling, which I am sorry for.
Remingus http://www.nikyat.btinternet.c.....dchur.html
Remigius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigius
March 28th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Remmyjuss: Little stroppy there? Bad hair day?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:32 am
nudespaniel.
I share a house with a muslim, a catholic, a jehova’s witless and a Bolivian sun-worshipper. Every day is a bad hair day!
Sabriand. er, yeah I know.
March 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
This is an atheist blog. Isn’t it pretty obvious that when the established church screws up in this fashion that we would want to have a laugh at their expense?
March 28th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“I share a house with a muslim, a catholic, a jehova’s witless and a Bolivian sun-worshipper”
-So there is a hell!
March 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Stonyground. Ah, “there’s the rub” as my old mate Hamlet would have said. The point is that atheists, of whom I am one, are supposed to be “respectful” to “people with religious views.” Acknowledgement to Professor R. Dawkins there. One consequence of this is that scientific morons are invited on to programmes about medicine, science etc, talk utter bollocks because of the “ethical” issues and must be treated as if they knew what they were talking about. Dawkins gives an example about some twat of a bishop who lacked a basic (very basic) knowledge about idenitical twins the the cells within the body.
Until there are more people shown with the guts of Mary Honeyball, Dawkins and others they will get away with it. Why show them respect when they are ignorant and should stand or fall on their merits. There is a hell of a lot of respect shown to atheists. I have been consigned to hell a number of times by gentle Jesus’ followers. All I have done – or been guilty of – is based on words or, as I see it, free speech. The other side actually want, like the Pope who really does seem scarcely sane in his recent pronouncements, want to decide how the rest of us conduct our lives.
This is an atheist site – as is the Raving Atheist Forum in the USA – and I didn’t come here to be polite to a bunch of incompetent, freeloading, smarmy bishops. Incidentally, the Raving Atheist Forum, where I have had to abandon my comments for the moment (the spirit is willing but the time is scarce) has some contributers who are the only ones I have come across who seem able to foam at the mouth in words at outrage at the religious nonsense which surrounds us.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Broga,
Thank you, that answered my question. I however disagree with your outlook. I personally find it quite depressing. True, feigned politeness, especially in a forum among one’s peers is useless. True as well is the fact that politeness is at best feigned on both sides, and fails more often than not. However, when the rage, mockery, and justifications for why you’re right take the same shape as the other sides (they’re irrational, make no sense, at best hopelessly misguided) to the point where it’s just the other side of the same vitriolic coin, I find it hard to believe that the denizens of this forum have things any more figured out, are any more capable of being something better than just human than the other side.
I guess I’d cherry pick a quote from Douglas Adams: “People are a problem” and can’t be right without prosecuting it wrongly. I myself don’t have the answers, I can’t tell you that I in and of myself am somehow fantastically enlightened. I just would think that the people who have it figured out wouldn’t look like a different flavor of the same thing, even when they’re just among themselves. It’s not that you’re angry, and in many cases I’d say rightly so, it’s more that your solution to the difficulty only is the abolishment and somehow removal of the other side, which is the exact same as the other side’s continuous complaints about yours.
Seriously is this the best there is to be had? Not actually moving away from having to deal with this shite and progressing beyond, but just another side to the same garbage heap?
March 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I’d argue that a religious multi-national with 200 area and national managers who still can’t accept the notion of homosexuality is dead already.
Think about it – can you imagine that percentage of the senior management of, say, HSBC being such muppets?
Actually the funniest thing about this to me is that as soon as the news of British recession started the C of E had UK bishops putting over the idea that the church was full of knowledgeable folk like bank managers and accountants who could give expert debt counselling. Not on the evidence of this fiasco, or the inability of any UK diocese to break even in well over a decade!
March 28th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Sabriand,
Whatever you find depressing with me, I assure you that I find anyone who kicks off a post with this faux 19th century gentleman sentence even more so. I refer to your “Forgive me, but I really fail to see why this is here.” Let us just have a look at that, for a moment.
“Forgive me” Why should we forgive you? Say what you chose, who cares, just give the fancy airs and graces a rest. You don’t fool anyone and verge on the ridiculous. This verbal flatulance is out of place in a candid, honest, atheist discussion. The more meaningless words the more the attempt to confuse by verbiage.
“but I really fail to see” My, my! You don’t just fail to see, but you REALLY fail to see. What is the difference apart from your inability to resist the irrlevant, pointless and patronising comment. And why should we be impressed by your magisterial comment that you fail to see why this is here?
So what? If you don’t understand that then too bad. We are having a bit of fun underpinned by serious intent. I regret that the first few sentences of your post to myself are so muddled I decided I didn’t have the time – or the interest – to extract the meaning. I rarely read or write anything more than once which most be obvious from my crappy style.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Sabriand.
I thought, in fairness to you, I wanted to read the remainder of your first post. Sadly, it didn’t improve and you do have a tendency to preachify and play the smart ass. I am not familiar with the Douglas Adams quote – did you know Douglas Adams was an atheist and very witty with it? I like “Hell is other people” and I think that is Jean Paul Sartre but I may be wrong.
You see, I really am not worth your time, not only am I a slapdash, indifferent writer an can’t even be bothered to check a quote.
Anyway, gotta go for now. Darts match in the village pub tonight followed by the pub quiz. For a provincial such as myself this an exciting social event.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Broga,
I’m quite aware that Douglas Adams was an atheist, in fact I always found that he was very well spoken about it too. The quote was from one of the Hitchhikers books, from a chapter stating the difficulty of picking someone to rule the people when everyone who manages to convince people to allow them to do so should in no ways be allowed to. Sorry about the tone, such isn’t my intent.
Actually I’d want to join you were i there. I’m about 35 miles from Glacier Park, and to be honest something in that vein would be welcome (still snowing on and off here, rather rubbish for playing on the mountains).