Latest news with #ElectoralCollege
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Archbishop of Wales to be chosen amid cathedral concerns
The process to elect a new Archbishop of Wales has begun, after a turbulent period for the Church in Wales. Former Archbishop of Wales Andrew John announced his decision to retire with immediate effect in June following two report summaries highlighting safeguarding concerns and misbehaviour at Bangor Cathedral. His successor, who will become the 15th person to hold the title, will be chosen from the serving Welsh diocesan bishops. The Electoral College are meeting at St Pierre Church and Hotel in Chepstow, with the process taking up to three days. Ex-Archbishop was aware of sexual assault allegations 'Any excuse to go to pub' culture at crisis-hit cathedral Archbishop retires amid cathedral behaviour failings Mr John announced his decision to retire from the role with immediate effect on June 27, as well as confirming he would also be retiring as Bishop of Bangor on 31 August. It followed the publication of summaries of two reports earlier this year which mentioned "a culture in which sexual boundaries seemed blurred". The reports also found excessive alcohol consumption as well as governance and safeguarding weaknesses at Bangor Cathedral. Shortly after there were calls for Mr John, who was elected Archbishop of Wales in December 2021, to resign. The full reports have not been published but there is no suggestion the former archbishop has behaved inappropriately. Meanwhile The Church in Wales said it had created an implementation group to ensure the issues raised in the reports are addressed. Earlier this year, the former Archbishop of Wales admitted he was aware of a safeguarding incident involving a drunken sexual assault in his diocese, despite previously denying knowledge of "that sort of behaviour". After initially denying any awareness of it in an interview with BBC Radio Cymru's Bwrw Golwg, a Church in Wales spokesperson confirmed the matter had been reported to Mr John but said he had no licence to officiate, which Mr John said his comments referred to. There is no suggestion that Mr John behaved inappropriately. How will a new archbishop be elected? The meeting of the Electoral College will begin with Holy Communion at St Peter's Church in Chepstow, which is on the St Pierre estate, before college members begin confidential discussions. The successor will be chosen from the serving Welsh diocesan bishops: The Bishop of St Asaph, Gregory Cameron The Bishop of Monmouth, Cherry Vann The Bishop of Swansea and Brecon, John Lomas The Bishop of Llandaff, Mary Stallard The Bishop of St Davids, Dorrien Davies To make the decision, each of the six dioceses elects three clerics onto the college as well as three lay people, who are members of the religious community but not part of the clergy. The current bishops are also members. After a discussion and a period of reflection, the president will call for nominations and the bishops nominated must then withdraw from the discussion. A nominee must achieve two thirds of the votes of the college in order to be elected as archbishop. If, after a vote is taken, no candidate receives the necessary votes the process begins again with fresh nominations. Once the archbishop is elected, they will be enthroned in his or her home cathedral at a later date. Sexual abuse claims against former bishop and vicar investigated Exit painful amid church crisis, says ex-archbishop Calls for safeguarding inquiry into cathedral
BBC News
20 hours ago
- Politics
- BBC News
New Archbishop for Wales to be chosen after Andrew John retires
The process to elect a new Archbishop of Wales has begun, after a turbulent period for the Church in Archbishop of Wales Andrew John announced his decision to retire with immediate effect in June following two report summaries highlighting safeguarding concerns and misbehaviour at Bangor successor, who will become the 15th person to hold the title, will be chosen from the serving Welsh diocesan Electoral College are meeting at St Pierre Church and Hotel in Chepstow, with the process taking up to three days. Mr John announced his decision to retire from the role with immediate effect on June 27, as well as confirming he would also be retiring as Bishop of Bangor on 31 followed the publication of summaries of two reports earlier this year which mentioned "a culture in which sexual boundaries seemed blurred". The reports also found excessive alcohol consumption as well as governance and safeguarding weaknesses at Bangor after there were calls for Mr John, who was elected Archbishop of Wales in December 2021, to full reports have not been published but there is no suggestion the former archbishop has behaved The Church in Wales said it had created an implementation group to ensure the issues raised in the reports are addressed. Earlier this year, the former Archbishop of Wales admitted he was aware of a safeguarding incident involving a drunken sexual assault in his diocese, despite previously denying knowledge of "that sort of behaviour".After initially denying any awareness of it in an interview with BBC Radio Cymru's Bwrw Golwg, a Church in Wales spokesperson confirmed the matter had been reported to Mr John but said he had no licence to officiate, which Mr John said his comments referred is no suggestion that Mr John behaved inappropriately. How will a new archbishop be elected? The meeting of the Electoral College will begin with Holy Communion at St Peter's Church in Chepstow, which is on the St Pierre estate, before college members begin confidential successor will be chosen from the serving Welsh diocesan bishops:The Bishop of St Asaph, Gregory CameronThe Bishop of Monmouth, Cherry VannThe Bishop of Swansea and Brecon, John LomasThe Bishop of Llandaff, Mary StallardThe Bishop of St Davids, Dorrien Davies To make the decision, each of the six dioceses elects three clerics onto the college as well as three lay people, who are members of the religious community but not part of the current bishops are also a discussion and a period of reflection, the president will call for nominations and the bishops nominated must then withdraw from the discussion.A nominee must achieve two thirds of the votes of the college in order to be elected as archbishop. If, after a vote is taken, no candidate receives the necessary votes the process begins again with fresh the archbishop is elected, they will be enthroned in his or her home cathedral at a later date.
Russia Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
‘Russiagate', revenge, and the rotten core of US power
Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the 'dream' version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That's because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady 'businessman' from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of 'Russiagate' (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – 'Russiagate' was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russia. The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump's first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of 'Russiagate' and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. 'Russiagate,' in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over 'Russiagate.' In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that 'it is time to go after people,' fingered former president Barrack Obama for 'treason,' and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when 'Russiagate' was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of 'Russiagate' gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that 'Russiagate' was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused 'top national security officials,' including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Gabbard used strong language: a 'coup' against Trump, the 'weaponization of intelligence,' a 'treasonous conspiracy,' and a 'betrayal concerning every American.' Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the 'Russiagate' hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard's charges as hyperbolical. Don't fall for that deflection. Gabbard's way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old 'Russiagaters' can nitpick over her terms to their heart's content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of 'Russiagate' was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department 'strike force' has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread 'Russiagate' will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its 'elites' have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump's revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over 'Russiagate,' have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that 'Russiagate' was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It's a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than 'undermine faith in the US democratic process.' Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn't there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America's establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don't deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that's the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Vice-President election: ECI appoints Rajya Sabha Secretary General as Returning Officer
The Election Commission of India has appointed Secretary General, Rajya Sabha, P.C. Mody as the Returning Officer for vice-presidential polls. By convention, the Secretary General, Lok Sabha or the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha is appointed as the Returning Officer, by rotation. Two other senior officers of the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat are appointed as the Assistant Returning Officers. On Wednesday, the poll body said it would announce the poll schedule 'as soon as possible'. Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned from the post on Monday (July 21, 2025), citing health reasons, creating a rare mid-term vacancy in the constitutional position. The Vice-President is elected by an Electoral College, which consists of the members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Members of the Electoral College can vote according to their choice and are not bound by any party whip. According to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1974, the nomination paper has to be subscribed by at least 20 electors as proposers and at least 20 electors as seconders and has to be presented to the Returning Officer, between 11 3 p.m. on any day appointed for the purpose, either by the candidate himself or by any of his proposers or seconders. The Security Deposit for the election is ₹15,000.
Russia Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
‘Russiagate' is officially dead, but its rotten corpse has done its toxic job
Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the 'dream' version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That's because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady 'businessman' from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of 'Russiagate' (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – 'Russiagate' was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russia. The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump's first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of 'Russiagate' and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. 'Russiagate,' in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over 'Russiagate.' In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that 'it is time to go after people,' fingered former president Barrack Obama for 'treason,' and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when 'Russiagate' was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of 'Russiagate' gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that 'Russiagate' was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused 'top national security officials,' including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Gabbard used strong language: a 'coup' against Trump, the 'weaponization of intelligence,' a 'treasonous conspiracy,' and a 'betrayal concerning every American.' Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the 'Russiagate' hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard's charges as hyperbolical. Don't fall for that deflection. Gabbard's way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old 'Russiagaters' can nitpick over her terms to their heart's content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of 'Russiagate' was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department 'strike force' has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread 'Russiagate' will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its 'elites' have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump's revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over 'Russiagate,' have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that 'Russiagate' was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It's a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than 'undermine faith in the US democratic process.' Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn't there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America's establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don't deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that's the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it.
