What music does he want played at his requiem?

He might like walking goats but he is just being silly threatening like this:

Keown said last week the cathedral would be demolished “over my dead body”.

“I would be in there chaining myself to the building to stop that and I know lots of other volunteers would come in to do that,” he said.

What are the chances that a benevolent god would cause an earthquake to demolish the remains of the Cathedral and iron out a few mindless protestors at the same time?


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • peterwn

    If he an others want to save the Christchurch Cathedral – they should get out there and start fundraising the cool $100M needed and stop squarking about the Church Authority’s decision. It is that simple. It is not his cathedral, it is not the Council’s cathedral – it belongs to the Anglican Church. The Church unfortunately is between a rock and a hard place on this. Incidentally building a cathedral is generally a 100+ year plan – the original Christchurch cathedral was built remarkably quickly by world standards no doubt because of the wealth and prosperity generated by the Canterbury settlement.

  • thor42

    Agreed, he’s bloody stupid. 
    I’m sure the big circular window could be saved and put into a new cathedral, but that’s as far as it should go.
    These keep-the-building types should consider whether they would want the possible deaths of hundreds of people on their consciences (if the cathedral were kept, then collapsed in a quake). 

    • Kthxbai

      Even better if the keep-the-building types could be sued if their actions led to any subsequent deaths.

    • Ciaron_A

      The rose window was destroyed.

  • Gazzaw

    Sometimes I wonder whether Europe would have been rebuilt yet if the town planners of Warsaw, London, Rotterdam, Berlin et al had been such self interested, procrastinating parish pumpers as the dorks in Christchurch.

    • grumpy

      Exactly,and overseas experts, involved in such projects, claim that the rebuild would be an awful lot easier and cheaper than the dodgy claims of the CoE.

      Note the Bishop refuses to release her engineering advice.

  • Bloketinakapuna

    …and besides – the Church has Billions of riches in artwork, property, liquid funds all supplied by the churchies to the church in a tax free environment – so if they want their property fixed and don’t have insurance… they should put their hand in their own pocket and fund the re-build themselves from their tax free existance.

    There – solved the problem…. next issue…

    • peterwn

      Bloke….   It is the Diocese of Canterbury, NZ that is the ‘owner’, not the Vatican. It does not have valuable art collections, etc.  It has investment funds and some investment property, but these are generally in trust to provide income for specific purposes such as ministry, social services and overseas missions. To force the Diocese to cut back in these areas (assuming it was legally possible) to pay to rebuild the Cathedral would be considered by most to be a far larger scandal, than controlled demolition of the cathedral is claimed to be. Selling off parish churches to pay for rebuilding the Cathedral is not on. As it is the diocese is needing to go through a protracted process of negotiation with parishioners and congregations with a view of rationalising church properties in the city, probably meaning selling some church properties and using the proceeds to reinstate and extend others.

      In any case it is the Diocese’s money and it is not open for outsiders to dictate how it allocates its money.

      If people think the City and government should control the future of the cathedral site, the answer is to offer to purchase the site at a price that the diocese would not refuse.

      Otherwise get out there and start fundraising the $100M needed. Otherwise shut up.

      • johnopkb

        “the answer is to offer to purchase the site at a price that the diocese would not refuse.” That would be about $1.50 at the moment

      • grumpy

        The Council HAS offerred to take over the cathedral..  Engineering evaluations differ widely as do the prospects of repair.  The Council has poured millions of ratepayer’s dollars into this building but have been completely shut out of any discussion by a church hierarchy imported from overseas.
        Overseas experts claim the cathedral CAN be repaired at a cost of about 20% of that publicly released by the CoE.

        There is a styrong suspicion that the Anglicans need the insurance money and that the decision to demolish has not been made for proper reasons and the engineering information (which has not been made public) has been selectively interpreted.

  • Roscoe

    What? “The council has poured millions into the cathedral building”?  when and how much – surely there is only one place these funds can come from and it is the ratepayers?  Again the council gaily hands out money to whoever with no consultation and no approval.   Can anyone enlighten me on the facts here please.

    • grumpy

      Christchurch Councils for years have put ratepayers money into the Cathedral, this has always been supported by ratepayers.

      I realise that Aucklanders may find that strange, not having any architecture that means so much to it’s citizens.

      • Gazzaw

        And have the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim & agnostic ratepayers been keen to subsidise the Cathedral as well? Anyone ever asked them?

        You’re displaying your provincialism Grumpy with the attempted kick in the goolies in your last para.

      • grumpy

        Gazzaw, the importance of the cathedral to Christchurch has fuck all to do with religion.  Unless you live there you wouldn’t know.

      • Gazzaw

        Not exactly what your bishop said to Yardley today. Totally out of touch with the people of Chirstchurch & Canterbury. She only seems to want to talk to God & HER diocese about the issue.

    • grumpy
  • ConwayCaptain

    the council has offered to take over the cathedral???  Is this NZs version of Henry V111 taking over the monasteries???

    He did it to get at the money, if they do it, it will be to pour money into a bottomless pit

    • grumpy

      Nevertheless, they have.  Even Bob’s previous rival, Gary Moore, has lashed out at the Bishop for the shameful way the council has been treated.

  • back to the original question:

    ..’the wall’..?..pink floyd…?

    [email protected]

  • ConwayCaptain

    When the Brits arrived in ChCh the area was known by the local Maori as “The Shaky Plains”.  The first cathedral was to have been built of wood but the first Bishop said that it had to be built of stone like in the UK!!!!

    So atishoo atishoo we all fall down!!!!!

  • AnonWgtn

    Of course you could rebuild the whole of Christchurch if you could assuredly stop the bloody ground from shaking.

    All these increasingly stupid people, supported by incompetent media, rave about European cities after the Second World War are right, but they are not in an Earthquake ravaged situation.

    They were man made destructions not natures.

  • Steve (North Shore)

    The TAXPAYER will pay for anything they wish. TAXPAYERS pay for everything else so what is $100M? Just keep milking those who will pay without question