The Wrong Sort of Scrutiny for Miss England

Meet the new 'Miss England' and the two women she beat in the final to achieve the title.

Rachel Christie is the first black Miss England, a fact which is apparently cause for celebration.

Not everyone is celebrating, however. One of the finalists came forward to publicly object to the fact that Christie got just nine public votes, whilst she herself received 2,013.

Now, to be completely fair, winning the public vote is only a guarantee of reaching the final fifteen, after which a professional panel does the judging. It also seems that last year's overall winner received a similar number of public votes to Miss Christie.

A letter written to The London Paper by 'AP' read:

How come we've never seen an analysis of previous Miss England votes, but when a black girl wins for the first time, all of a sudden the investigative reporters are out in force?

Proof, if any were needed, that this country is still extremely racist. What a shame for Rachel Christie.

My answer would be, the Miss England contest is never scrutinised to the level it has been this year.

However, because a black contestant won, we are all supposed to celebrate, see this as positive and a huge step forward for England.

Question it, however, and you are an evil racist.

Sorry, but scrutiny works both ways.

Christie was not the most attractive woman in the contest - not even the most attractive 'ethnic minority' contestant.

Therefore it is fair to ask whether or not her win was a politically correct decision, particularly with the amount of spin the 'first black Miss England' angle has received.

It is also fair to ask whether or not the voting system is fair as it currently stands.

If you can't question something which is heavily hyped just because the winner is black, then we open ourselves up to a whole new type of discrimination.