The creeping dictatorship of the Left... 

The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Education Watch, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Recipes, Australian Politics, Tongue Tied, Immigration Watch, Eye on Britain and Food & Health Skeptic. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). See here or here for the archives of this site.

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.


30 August, 2013

Australia:  More multiculturalism in Melbourne:  African Muslims jailed over violent Vic taxi robbery

The brave Mr Farah

The brave Mr Hersi

The brave Mr Muse

TWO men have been jailed for the violent robbery of a Melbourne taxi driver which a judge described as degrading and chilling.

Husni Mohamed Muse, 23, of Carlton, and Abdi Mohamed Farah, 30, of Preston, robbed cab driver Ravinder Singh at knifepoint in Carlton in December 2011.

When Mr Singh attempted to run, Muse chased after him, wrapped a belt around his neck and dragged him back to the taxi.  The men then told Mr Singh they would kill him if he tried to run.

The two were found guilty in the Victorian County Court last month of armed robbery, false imprisonment and making a threat to kill.

They both pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining property by deception relating to the later use of Mr Singh's credit card.

Victorian County Court Judge Gerard Mullaly on Monday sentenced both men to three years and nine months in jail, with a non-parole period of two years.

Judge Mullaly said it was not clear how much was stolen, but said Mr Singh was traumatised by the ordeal. "The whole experience was frightening, the use of the belt was degrading, the threat was chilling," he said.  "Taxi drivers are entitled to get through their shifts ... without being subject to violence."


Fuller report here.  The above was only one of two taxi robberies committed by the charmers above

The latest black "game" in America

The game was called "point 'em out, knock 'em out," and it was as random as it was brutal.

The object: Target an innocent [white] victim for no other reason than they are there, then sucker punch him or her.

But on this day in Lansing, there would be no punch. The teen-age attacker had a stun gun. He did not know his would-be victim was carrying a legally concealed pistol.

The teen lost the game.

The 17-year-old in gym shorts approached his target. The 28-year-old Lansing man was waiting for his daughter at her school-bus stop at REO Road and Ballard Street.

It was May 29, and a nice day. Temperatures would reach 79 degrees. It was partly cloudy, fairly gusty.

The teen had two friends nearby - dropped off by a third friend in a van after they scouted their target. They knew what Marvell Weaver was going to do. They had discussed it.

Weaver approached his victim from behind, a black KL-800 Type Stun Gun in his pocket. It is capable of generating 1.8 million volts.

He passed him and turned back, pressed the stun gun into the victim’s side. Again and again, and … nothing. It had fired earlier when testing it, he would later tell police.

“The button was like stuck down … or something. I don’t know what caused it not to work,” according to a transcript of Weaver’s statement.

The intended victim moved quickly, pulling his stainless steel .40-caliber Smith and Wesson. It had a full 10-round magazine, and was worth about $900 police estimated.

He shot Weaver in his buttocks as the teen turned to flee.

“It happened so fast I wasn’t sure. I just know something was shoved into my side. I wasn’t sure if it was a knife, if it was anything,” he told police.

Weaver ran, sat down across the street, his leg going numb, bleeding. Pleading.  “‘I’m sorry, please don’t kill me, I don’t know why I did that, I’m high you know, I just wanna go home,’” the teen told the man who had just shot him.

The man called 911. He told the dispatcher the teen was "terminally wounded" and that he was a concealed pistol holder.

"Did you shoot him?" the dispatcher asks, sounding incredulous.

A witness told police the man stayed by the teen and appeared supportive and non-threatening.

The teen was hospitalized with a non-life threatening injury. At first, Weaver said he merely removed the stun gun from his pocket to look at it and the man shot him. He later confessed to the attack, records show.

Police asked for an attempted robbery warrant. The prosecutor authorized a lesser charge, illegal possession of a stun gun, a maximum two-year felony. A plea-bargain conference was scheduled for last Wednesday, but postponed until Sept. 4. The teen is free on bond.


Former GMTV presenter is set to win senior role in David Cameron’s Cabinet reshuffle 'because she is northern'

Probably true.  The English neurosis about social class and accent rivals the American obsession with race.  A Northern English accent is very unprestigious so it calls for affirmative action

A former GMTV presenter is set to be a big winner when David Cameron reshuffles his government to bring more women into his Cabinet, it emerged today.

Esther McVey, who also worked on Children's BBC in her television career, is likely to win a promotion to a senior role, in part because she is 'northern', sources have said.

The 45-year-old, who became Conservative MP for Wirral West on her native Merseyside, is currently Minister for the Disabled.

But sources inside Downing Street have admitted she is likely to be promoted because No 10 'love putting a northern woman up on television to speak for the government', the Daily Telegraph reported today,

Meanwhile it has also emerged that the son of Iraqi refugees is also to get a top job from the Prime Minister.

Born in Baghdad to Kurdish parents who fled to Britain, Nadhim Zahawi, Tory MP for Stratford-on-Avon, made his fortune co-founding pollster YouGov.

Both he and Ms McVey are seen as good with the media and comfortable attacking Labour and defending the government.

Last month the Prime Minister gave his strongest hint yet that his shake-up of ministers expected shortly will dramatically increase the number of women at the top table.

Three years into the coalition, he insisted he now has a ‘much bigger talent pool’ to draw on to fulfil his promise that a third of jobs would go to women.

Childcare minister Liz Truss is tipped for promotion to the Cabinet as is Health Minister Anna Soubry, who was also a former TV presenter.

Only four women are full members of the Cabinet – Home Secretary Theresa May, Culture Secretary Maria Miller, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers and International Development Secretary Justine Greening. Baroness Warsi, senior foreign office minister, also attends Cabinet.

Mr Cameron revealed he would use the opportunity to fast track women elected in 2010 to the upper levels of government.  He said: ‘What I’ve done is consistently try to change the Conservative party. We went from 17 Conservative women MPs before the 2010 election to 48 women MPs.  ‘That’s still not enough out of just over 300, but it’s progress.’

Mr Cameron has faced criticism for his failure to promote women in the past, amid claims he left two female Cabinet ministers in tears when he sacked them in last September’s reshuffle.

In 2009 he promised that at the end of his first term as Premier he wanted a third of all of his ministers to be female.

A mini-reshuffle of junior ranks was called off ahead of MPs heading off on their six-week summer recess in July.

A wide-ranging shake-up, including changes to the Cabinet, is now expected in the autumn.


It's a deadly weapon... if you're a fly! British shop asks woman to show ID to buy a FLY SWAT

A 33-year-old mother was asked for ID when buying a 99p plastic fly swat - because staff feared it could be used as an 'offensive weapon'.

Nicola Butcher visited her local hardware shop to buy the flimsy utensil when her kitchen became plagued with flies.  But she was stunned when the assistant refused to sell it to her unless she produced her driving licence or passport.

The till - at Home Hardware, in Romsey, Hampshire - flashed up a warning sign, which indicated the fly swat was classified as an 'offensive weapon'. It means bosses considered the swat as dangerous as knives, fireworks, and lighters, which can only be sold legally to over 18s.

Mrs Butcher - mum to two-year-old daughter India - said: 'The fly swat is a flimsy piece of plastic - certainly not an offensive weapon.  'I’d like to say it wouldn’t hurt a fly but that’s probably the only thing it could come close to hurting.  'I could swat somebody with it using all my strength and I doubt it would leave even the slightest of marks or bruises.'

Mrs Butcher, who was recently made redundant from her project manager job at insurance firm Aviva, took the request for ID as a compliment.

She said: 'The number of flies has rocketed in the hot weather and unfortunately some of them have made their way from my garden into my kitchen.  'I broke my old fly swat from overuse and went to the local shop to buy a replacement.  'I only expected to be in the store for a couple of minutes but it turned into a bit of a drama at the checkout.

'The shop assistant - who was in her fifties - told me a warning had flashed up telling her the swat was an "offensive weapon" and she should check the customer is over 18.

'I thought she was having a laugh but she invited me round the other side of the till to show me the screen.  'We were both laughing and joking but she asked if I had my driving licence or passport on me, which I thought was ridiculous.

'I’m 33 years old and think I look my age but I did take her request as a compliment. In the end I had to get my driving licence out.

'How can an innocent plastic fly swat be an offensive weapon? What is the world coming to when you can’t buy a fly swat without producing ID for it.

'I can understand why you would ask for ID when you were buying fireworks, alcohol, or a high voltage electric fly swat - but not a cheap plastic one.

'The shop also sells spades and frying pans which would cause much more damage if I smacked somebody over the head with one of them.'

Lindsey Waude, the store’s assistant manager, said: 'We think it might be an error on our till system.  'Sometimes it flashes up that something is an offensive weapon, but our guy who does the computers has been on his honeymoon for three weeks.  'I’m sure the member of staff asked for it in jest.'



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



29 August, 2013

Black RNC Speaker: ‘Evil Is Our Enemy Whether It Wears a White Face or Not’

Robert Woodson, founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, said if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were alive today, he would not just talk about justice for Trayvon Martin, he would also pray for other victims of violence who are not minorities.

“We should not wait for evil to wear a white face, before we get outraged. Evil is our enemy whether it wears a white face or not,” Woodson said Monday at the Republican National Committee luncheon to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

“If Dr. King were alive today, he would not be just talking about justice for Trayvon Martin,” Woodson said, “but he would also give a prayer for the 18-year-old man, for this little baby that was shot in the face by two black kids, or by the World War II veteran, who was beaten to death for $50 or the Oklahoma player who was killed.”

Woodson referenced the case of an 18-year-old man in Georgia who is accused of murdering a 13-month-old baby by shooting the baby in the face during a robbery attempt.

De'Marquise Elkins is currently on trial for the fatally shooting 13-month-old Antonio Santiago while the baby was in his stroller in March.

Woodson was also referring to Christopher Lane, the Australian baseball player who was fatally shot while jogging in Oklahoma last week, and the brutal beating of 88-year-old World War II veteran Delbert Belton. Three teenagers – two of them black are suspected in Lane’s death, and two black teens have been arrested in Belton’s beating.

“We should pray for the families of these fallen people as we do Trayvon Martin,” said Woodson, who is often referred to as the “godfather of the movement to empower neighborhood-based organizations.”

Woodson has been a social activist since the 1960s, when as a young civil rights activist, he developed and coordinated national and local community development programs, according to his group’s website. He also directed the National Urban League’s Administration of Justice division in the 1970s, and later served as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Woodson also challenged the black community to be honest about black politicians who he said are using “those who sacrificed” for “corrupt purposes.”

“We must be honest about those black politicians who are standing on the shoulders of those who sacrificed and then use that position for corrupt purposes. We need to call them out, because they are moral traitors. They are moral traitors, but we’re silent about that,” he said.


Black racism starts young

A shocking video has emerged which appears to show the racially motivated bullying of a three-year-old white girl by her five-year-old black neighbors.

Two clips uploaded to Facebook and entitled 'When white people pi** black people off', show a heartbreaking scene - a little Minneapolis girl trying to play with another group of girls who are encouraged to hit, push and verbally abuse the toddler at the encouragement of an older boy off camera.

Outraged viewers quickly seized upon the videos as evidence of racism and unleashed a torrent of threatening calls at the parents of the bullying children - who had no idea the incident had been filmed, let alone posted online and rushed to apologize to the equally clueless parents of the victim.

In the videos, which have been watched with horror by over 250,000 people, a little girl is seen sitting on a plastic bike as two older girls yell, 'you ugly' at her.

Identified as Mackenzie Peterson, the toddler, who is sitting on her small tricycle  is seemingly spat at by one of the girls, who has been indentified as being a neighbor and five-years-old.   Another girl grabs Mackenzie's hand and begins to hit her with it.

'Why you hitting yourself? Why you hitting yourself', the older boy filming, identified as the 12-year-old brother of the girls, asks.

Beginning to cry loudly, the bullies leave the toddler in the middle of the street in her tricycle and another clip shows the girl off her trike and still attempting to play as one of the girls says 'hit her hard and slap her head like this.'

In a wrenching scene, little Mackenzie attempts to share a toy with one of the older girls, but the older boy interrupts and tells her to 'throw it on the ground' - which she does, causing the girl to cry and run to pick it up.

But as the three-year-old bends down to pick the toy up the other girls rush over to hit her.

Initially, the video was traced to a Facebook page for someone named Ray Wright, but that page has now been taken down and since revealed to be a fake account set up by the 12-year-old boy.

While the video mentions the race of all the parties involved, at no point is any racial language used by the bullies towards the little girl.

However, the problems began when the video began to spread virally across the Internet, leading to the parents of both children being identified.

Shocked and angered people began to make threatening calls to the father of the 12-year-old and younger girls, who has been identified by the MailOnline as 'Eddie' to protect his identity.

Viewing the video for himself, Eddie walked across to his neighbor Shawn Peterson to explain and apologize for his children bullying his daughter, which he had no idea about.

'I wasn't happy with the video, obviously,' said Mackenzie's father, Shawn Peterson, to MyFoxTwinCities. 'I am disgusted with it.'

Explaining that the first he heard that hundreds of thousands of people had seen his daughter being bullied on the Internet was when Eddie told him, Shawn said that he trusted his neighbor to do the right thing.  'He's taking care of it. Trust me,' Shawn told FOX 9. 'He's a good father and everything like that, so I'm not worried about what he's doing over there.'

Refuting claims online from outraged viewers that his children were racially bullying Mackenzie Peterson, Eddie said that is not what his children are brought up to think.  'I honestly don't know where it comes from. We don't teach that in our household,' Eddie, the father of the girls involved, said. 'We're not racist, none of that.'

Eddie and Shawn said that their children usually play together and added that the incident had been blown out of all proportion.

'She's not that way. You can see she's -- they're -- clearly getting coached through the whole situation,' said Eddie about his five-year-old girl. 'When I saw it, I was disgusted with the video -- very disgusted.'

Eddie said that his 12-year-old son was being disciplined for his role in the affair, with his Internet and television privileges being taken away.

And while both fathers have said that the matter is in hand, police did confirm they stopped by to check on the situation, but left satisfied there was no larger issue.


Why is it suddenly taboo to say mother should stay at home with their babies?

My most vivid memory of my childhood is hovering outside our smart Kensington sitting room, which I was forbidden to enter, as my mother, a dressmaker, fitted garments to a series of rich clients.

‘Just a minute, darling,’ she’d say on the rare moments she popped out to get some more pins, in answer to any query of mine. ‘In a minute. We’ll see.’ And somehow my request would get forgotten, always second place to her work.

My mother always had scant interest in me as a child and I was brought up pretty much entirely by au pairs until I was eight, after which I was left to fend for myself.

True, my father was sometimes around, and what a wonderful father he was. But it wasn’t the same.  Father was working himself, teaching life-drawing at the Royal College of Art.

It was my mother I wanted. I was an only child and I wanted her to make my tea, to care for me, show an interest. Not always, just sometimes.

That’s not to say Mother was all bad. If she had been a slightly distracted older friend or relative, she would have been fine. But as a mum? I’m afraid she wasn’t much good.

By the early Sixties, her neglect of me had deepened. By now, Mother was really interested only in her career. Indeed, she had been made Professor of Fashion at the Royal College of Art, a post so unusual for a woman that it merited a front-page story in the Daily Express.

Then, when I was 13 and after a series of pretty serious rows between her and my father, she left home for good. Father and I had to fend for ourselves.

My childhood had been so dreadful, and I felt my mother’s neglect so deeply that, to be honest, it was a bit of a relief when she left. At least I knew she was gone for good — none of this halfway house, being there one moment, abandoning me the next, which made me feel so insecure, so unstable.

These are the memories I draw upon in my role as an agony aunt. And whenever I am asked about working mothers, I remember myself sitting outside that living room for hours on end, kicking my heels against the chair on which I sat, desperate for some attention from Mother.

I thought of that sad scene last week, when I received a letter from a young pregnant woman who had just been headhunted by a top firm. They wanted her to start work as soon as possible.

Should she hand the baby over to her husband as soon as it was born, she asked? He was happy to be a house husband. She was keen to do it, but her friends had advised her not to. What did I think?

As an agony aunt of more than 40 years, I’ve often had letters on these lines and my reply has been the same, as it was last week.

Don’t go back to work straight away. Give the baby a chance to bond with you, for just a few months of your time at the very least, to give it a firm footing in life. Of course, you should stay home. A child needs its mother — certainly for the first precious months.

But my answer was met with waves of abuse. I was accused of not being ‘a feminist’. I was ‘mad’. I was ‘a relic from another time’.  ‘It’s time to kick this agony aunt to the kerb,’ wrote one blogger. She declared that my advice was ‘kneejerk Fifties backwash’ which reeked of ‘vestiges of another time’.

People emailed me personally. ‘Your advice patronises and belittles the role of both parents,’ wrote one. ‘You show no knowledge or compassion for the role that a parent performs for a baby.’

Another damned me for writing a ‘biased, patronising, parent-hating piece’. The furore took off online, spread to Radio 4’s Today programme, where I attempted to defend myself, and has since been the subject of fierce debate.

It’s all been rather enlightening, to put it mildly. It’s shown me just how much the landscape has changed for working mothers today.

When I was young, mothers were made to feel guilty for going back to work at any time during their child’s formative years. But these days women are made to feel guilty if they don’t go back to work straight after having a baby.

One young mum who visited me recently with her nine-month-old said she was made to feel awful by her contemporaries for staying at home with the baby. People were always asking when she was going back to work.

But, as she pointed out, she’d found there was nothing as fulfilling and absorbing as looking after a baby. Although it was more demanding, it was far more interesting and fulfilling than her job, and beat working in an office hands down.

Indeed, the reasons I set out for encouraging the mother to stay with her baby for a year were simple and, I thought, reasonable.

This little mite would have been living inside its mum’s body for nine months and, like all babies, would be extremely bewildered and disturbed to leave the comfort of her cosy womb into a world outside.

Having your mum around closely for the first few months of life, rather than being left in the sole care of your father, effectively a complete stranger, is crucial. Lord knows I felt the full force of this myself, when my mother effectively abandoned me for her career.

The memory of the loss of my mother — for it was a loss, as profound as any grief — has shaped my own parental style, too. I simply refused to leave my son Will, who is now a father himself, and managed to sneak in hours as a freelance writer when he was asleep.

I didn’t want my baby to feel the neglect I did. But, more than this, I didn’t want to break the instinctive, intuitive connection with my child.

All devoted mothers will know what this feels like. Not long after my son was born, I remember having a party for a few friends at home. As he lay in a carrycot on the other side of the room, I had the all- powerful feeling that a piece of myself was lying over there.

I couldn’t bear to be separated from him for even a few minutes — that was my flesh and blood over there. It was the most extraordinary experience, and I couldn’t get enough of it.

But while my husband was totally besotted by our little chap from day one, there certainly was no such personality sea-change in him.

Obviously, there are times a mother must be separated from her child. And if a women tragically dies in labour, I’m sure any father would do a brilliant job of raising baby.

But if there was a choice, how many of us could argue against the intrinsic, biological bond between mother and child? Isn’t the kindest, most humane and positive approach to let baby be around you, Mummy, with your familiar smell, sound and touch?

Shouldn’t you gradually ease him or her into a brand new life until they are old enough to fully comprehend that dad is just as much ‘home’ as mum?

In my full advice to the pregnant woman who asked if she should go straight back to work, I said once the baby was old enough to feel just as secure with its father as with its mother, she could go back to the office — if she could bear to do so.

Indeed, most mums feel a real tug to stay with their children for longer than a year. Indeed, many can’t bear to give up the job of mothering until the child actually leaves home.

No wonder, then, that in a study of national happiness it was found stay-at-home mothers are more likely to think their lives are worthwhile than women who go to work. They tend not to suffer from boredom, frustration or feelings of worthlessness.

They certainly won’t ever feel that regret that some career women may well experience when they look back and realise that, however much they love their children when they’re older, they’ll never be able to re-capture those rapturous early months with their baby.

Despite the maelstrom of criticism I have received, my thoughts aren’t anti-women. I’m not anti-women working. I’m not anti-men, or anti-parent — or even anti-feminist.

I am one thing: entirely pro-child. After all, it is the helpless little child who is the one who is most often ignored when we begin to shout about women’s rights.  So despite the criticism, despite the brickbats of the past week, I still feel the same as I ever did.

When I hear of mothers going straight back to work after having a baby, I wonder, if they can’t bring themselves to look after their tiny, helpless baby in those precious early days, why on earth do they bother having children in the first place?


British badger cull activists target farmers with campaign of intimidation... and cause death of a cow after setting herd loose

Too bad if cattle get TB, apparently

Animal rights activists fighting the badger cull were yesterday accused of causing a cow’s death.  A farmer says extremists set his herd loose, leaving one animal to wander on to a busy road where it was knocked over by a van.

The incident, on a large cattle farm on the edge of the cull zone in Exmoor, west Somerset, is being investigated by police.

Protest groups are alleged to have carried out campaigns of intimidation as the badger cull began yesterday.

The locations where shooting has started have not been made public, but licences were given for two pilot culls in west Gloucestershire and west Somerset, with 5,000 badgers to be killed in six weeks.

Police have increased night patrols in the area, fearing violence between opponents and armed marksmen.

The National Farmers Union reported numerous ‘intimidatory’ actions against its members.  One 70-year-old widow, who lives near Minehead, Somerset, has received threatening phone calls late at night despite not running a farm since her husband died.

The farmer who lost a cow, who asked not to be named due to fear of attacks, said the culprits left anti-culling stickers on the open gate to let him ‘know their motives’.

Lists of farmers in culling areas, with addresses and phone numbers, have been posted online, as have details of a firm that leases 4x4 vehicles to the companies in charge of the cull.

Stop the Cull, a peaceful protest group, put the details on its website so activists could ask farmers not to allow culling on their land.

The tactics resemble those of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, whose campaign against scientists and companies at a Cambridgeshire research site was likened  to ‘terrorism’ by a judge who  jailed seven members in 2009. 

James Small, Somerset NFU chairman, said farmers across the county had experienced intimidation, whether or not they were taking part in the cull.  He said: ‘There have been late-night phone calls, people knocking on the door claiming to be from the Government and even sabotage on the farms.

‘One said his gate was left open and a cow was hit by a vehicle. He’s reported this to the police, but everyone is trying to keep a low profile and get on with the operation.’

Gloucestershire NFU chairman Charles Mann added that farm gates had been left open and some members had torches shone at their bedroom windows at night.

The cull is an attempt to tackle a huge rise in cases of bovine tuberculosis, causing more than 305,000 cattle deaths in the past decade.  Farmers say it is the only way to stop the disease, which is transmitted by infected badgers urinating on grass eaten by cows.

The trial will take place over four years and is predicted to cut bovine TB by 16 per cent. Defra and Natural England have concealed the identities of the two companies in charge, in case of reprisals.

Animal rights groups, which have gained support from guitarist Brian May and Dame Judi Dench, say badgers should be vaccinated.

Last week, the NFU was granted a High Court injunction banning protesters from approaching farmers’ homes, premises and cull sites.

While most protesters will carry out peaceful patrols of culling zones, some have said they will run near marksmen, forcing them to put down their weapons.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



28 August, 2013

Liberals’ Quest to ‘Rehabilitate’ (brainwash) Christians

Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s EEOC commissioner – a lesbian activist who supports “plural marriage” – has called the clash between religious liberty and unfettered sexual license a “zero-sum game,” meaning that someone wins and someone loses.

Guess who loses in Feldblum’s book? She has “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win” and candidly admits that liberals “want to revolutionize societal norms.” She believes that “gay sex is a moral good.”

She’s not alone.  Here’s the latest example of Feldblum’s words in action. The Oregonian reports: “A same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding in January but were refused service by a Gresham bakery have filed a complaint with the state, alleging Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation.

“Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries’ civil rights division will investigate to determine if the business violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. …

“Rachel N. Cryer, 30, said she had gone to the Gresham bakery on Jan. 17 for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake. She met with the owner, Aaron Klein.

“Klein asked for the date of the wedding and names of the bride and groom, Cryer said.  “‘I told him, “There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel,”‘ according to her complaint.

“Klein responded that his business does not provide its services for same-sex weddings, she said.

“‘Respondent cited a religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry,’ the complaint says. …”

“‘We are committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether there’s substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination,’ said Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian. …”

Mr. Avakian then revealed what he views as a “fair and thorough investigation”: “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he said.

Here’s the kicker. Read it closely:  “‘The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate,’ Avakian said. ‘For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.’”

George Orwell much?

Get the not-so-thinly-veiled threat? Christians have a right to own a “successful business” in Oregon, so long as they don’t, well, be Christian – so long as they shelve their faith and submit to our ever-”progressive” government’s anti-Christian demands. “The goal is never to shut down a business,” but either you abandon the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic and dutifully observe postmodern sexual relativism, or government will shut you down in a Sodom and Gomorrah minute.

Brad, Rachel, Laurel and the rest of you left-wing bullies need to get this straight (so to speak): The godless left has been trying to “rehabilitate” Christians for over 2,000 years. We haven’t caved yet. What makes you think we will now? Those of us who wish to remain obedient to God will not – indeed, cannot – accommodate you and play along with your sin-centric “gay marriage” delusion.

Ain’t gonna happen.  Ever.

Look, you have every right to dress up in two wedding gowns or two tuxedos, get pretend “married” and play house to your hearts’ content. You do not have the right, however, to force others to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs, thousands of years of history and the immutable reality of human biology to engage your little fantasy. No amount of hand-wringing, gnashing of teeth, suing Christians or filing charges against those of us who live in marriage reality will make us recognize your silly so-called “marriage equality.”

Rather than trying to compel these Christians to participate in their counter-Christian mock marriage, all Ms. Rachel and Ms. Laurel had to do was take their business down the street. There are, no doubt, many bakers who share their worldly sexual morals (or lack thereof).

Imagine if a Christian came into a “gay”-owned bakery and demanded a cake with these words: “Homosexual behavior is shameful: Romans 1:27.” Think the left would be clamoring for charges against the baker if he refused? Me neither. In fact, I’d be the first to defend his right to “discriminate” against the Christian.

Or what if some anti-gun nut printing service refused to produce flyers for an NRA rally? Shouldn’t they have that right?

Or if some hippy bed and breakfast owner refused to host a conference challenging global warming alarmism. Shouldn’t he have the right to operate his business in accordance with his sincerely held beliefs?

Of course he should.  And so should Christians.

But … But … discrimination! “Homophobia”!  I know. Cry me a river.

Seriously, lefties, give it a rest. So-called “sexual orientation” laws are nothing like laws prohibiting racial, age, disability or gender discrimination. Those qualities are based on neutral, immutable characteristics. Even liberals admit that “sexual orientation” is based on “fluid” feelings and behaviors. It’s about what you do, not who you are. It’s about what you believe and who you choose to have sex with, not the color of your skin.

Ken Hutcherson, an influential black pastor from the Seattle area, put it well: “It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.

“Don’t compare your sin to my skin!” he demands.

Some things never change.  Other things do.

Today’s liberals seek to “rehabilitate” Christians to their way of thinking under penalty of law. Liberals of old just threw us to the lions.  I guess that’s what they mean by “progress.”


Islamic TV channel fined £85,000 by British watchdog for broadcasting hate preacher's saying it was 'acceptable to murder anyone who disrespected Mohammed'

An Islamic TV channel has been fined £85,000 after it broadcast a hate preacher to instructing muslims to kill those who insult Prophet Mohammed live on live television.

Broadcasting watchdog Ofcom reprimanded Al Ehya Digital Televison, which runs the Islamic channel Noor TV for allowing its presenter to tell viewers it was their duty to murder non-Muslims  during a phone in show.

The channel broadcasts both in the UK and internationally mostly in Urdu but also English and Punjabi and is aimed at young British Muslims.

The offending show was broadcast on May 3 last year and featured the presenter Allama Muhammad Farooq Nizami taking phone-in from audience members around the world.

Mr Nizami answered questions about a wide range of issues and personal conduct relating to Islam and Islamic teachings.

But following a question from a Pakistani caller asking what the 'punishment' should be for those who disrespect the Prophet, his answer was that they 'should be eliminated.'

Speaking directly into the camera Mr Nazimi said: 'One has to choose one’s own method.

'Our way is the peaceful way but when someone crosses the limits, faith-based emotions are instigated...The mission of our life is to protect the sanctity of our beloved Lord.

'May Allah accept us wherever there is a need [to kill a blasphemer]. We are ready and should be ready at all times [to kill a blasphemer]'

The regulator judged that these comments were 'likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder.'

It also said it was concerned that young people watching the show could become 'radicalised' or take 'violent and criminal action as a result of watching videos of Muslims with extreme views.'

It considered the remarks to be so inflammatory they could have inspired a repeat of the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gough, who was killed after Islamic clerics condemned his film which criticised the treatment of Muslim women.

In its ruling, Ofcom criticised Birmingham based-Al Ehya for not taking the comments seriously enough after concerns were initially raised by the broadcast watchdog.

Noor TV has however remained defiant and has not broadcast an apology for the comments, instead opting to broadcast a 'clarification' six months later.

Ofcom said: 'The Licensee [Al Ehya] has not at any point broadcast any form of apology for, or condemnation of Mr Nizami’s remarks, and neither on air nor in correspondence with Ofcom has the Licensee expressed its unequivocal regret that these comments were broadcast.

'The Licensee regretted only in its submissions that the presenter’s comments "may have been misinterpreted" and that he expressed his own political views during the programme.

'Taking all these factors into account, Ofcom was concerned that the Licensee has still not recognised the gravity of the statements made by Mr Nizami.'

But despite this the regulator decided only to give Al Ehya a third of the full £250,000 fine which it could have enforced because it said it wished to protect the station's right to 'freedom of expression.'

In it's judgement it added: 'If any financial penalty was to be so high that its effect would be to close a service down, then it might be a disproportionate interference with the Licensee’s and the audience’s right to freedom of expression in particular and exceed the purposes of imposing a penalty.

'Ofcom therefore carefully took this point into account and carefully weighed it in reaching its decision on the proportionality of the financial penalty.'

The fine announced today, comes three years after Al Ehya was fined £75,000 for appealing for viewers to donate money in return for 'prayers or the receipt of a “special gift” of earth from the tomb of Prophet Mohammed.'

Al Ehya Digital Television were not available for comment on the matter.

Last December Radio Asian Fever, in Leeds, was fined £4,000 for breaching broadcasting rules in programmes involving a presenter called ‘Sister Ruby Ramadan’.

She told listeners homosexuals should be beaten and tortured, adding: ‘Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.’

Takbeer TV, based in Nottingham, has been found in breach of the code twice in 18 months for programmes which denigrated a minority Muslim sect.


White Non-Asians?

For all those who think affirmative action always hurts white people, think again.

When auditors from the Department of Labor analyzed the hiring practices at VF Jeanswear’s Winston-Salem, North Carolina plant in 2006, they unearthed a problem.

The bean counters who for federal contracts parse exactly how many people of which gender and ethnic group can be working in any given company based on community demographics found evidence of mass discrimination — against white people.

In what most people would call a great example of a company reaching out to vulnerable members of a community who need work, VF had hired dozens of Montagnard refugees from Vietnam, people persecuted for their Christian beliefs in their home country, in its plant. The company even went so far as to translate employment forms into Vietnamese and hire interpreters to help community members apply for positions. To the government, however, this was a crime because as the Department of Labor noted in its 2011 case against VF, about 45 percent of its employees in the job group analyzed at the plant in question in 2005 were Asian compared to about 2 percent of the community qualified for the jobs.

The company also hired a larger percentage of Latinos than it should have based on demographic information. It hired about the same percentage of blacks given their representation in the community, but where it really failed was in not hiring enough white people. Whites made up about 8 percent of the job group analyzed but comprised 62 percent of the population qualified for that type of position. Perhaps recognizing the folly of suing a plant for not hiring enough white people, the Department of Labor created a new name for white victims, “non-Asian.” If you have not heard of this ethnic group before, you are not alone. The federal government doesn’t recognize a “non-Asian” racial category.

Seeking to compensate victims of the refugees’ sinister plan to have VF hire more of their friends and family, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) sued the company in 2011 in a case that is still ongoing.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the company’s employee referral program, which the Montagnards frequently used to recommend family and friends of the same ethnic background for open positions. The company did not control who submitted referrals, but the fact that the referrals were so lopsided toward one ethnic group was a problem for the government as the outcome of the process inevitably led to a disproportionate number of Montagnards receiving and accepting job offers based on the population as a whole.

Administrative law judge Kenneth Krantz earlier this month found that “The ‘non-Asian’ category upon which the Plaintiff has proceeded is neither a race nor an ethnic group, either by regulatory definition or as used in common parlance” and found in favor of VF — seven years after the plant whose hiring practices are under scrutiny in the lawsuit closed. The OFCCP is appealing the decision.

Jimmy Powell, an attorney for Womble Carlyle in Greensboro, North Carolina, representing VF, called the lawsuit “the worst example of bureaucratic bullying that I’ve ever encountered.”

He’s right.  The government couldn’t use existing categories of race to sue VF so it made up a new aggrieved ethnic group — “non-Asian.” Worse, it is suing a company for helping a group of vulnerable members of the community that taxpayers were at the same time paying to help relocate, educate, and train for jobs.
If this were an isolated incident it would be a terrible example of government overreach. But it is not. It’s how the OFCCP operates. Read through its press releases for more examples of how the government uses the hiring audit process to bludgeon companies to settle cases for millions based solely on statistics and not actual discrimination.

They will make you think the OFCCP exists solely to inflict cruel and unusual legal punishment on companies large enough to have federal contracts. Add it to the list of departments that should be defunded immediately.


British judge orders Muslim woman to remove burkha during court appearance then bans her from entering plea after she refuses

A judge told a Muslim woman she must remove her burkha in court before she can enter a plea after she refused to reveal her face.

Judge Peter Murphy said the principle of open justice overrode the 21-year-old woman's religious beliefs, and warned there was a risk a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her.

The woman, from Hackney, east London, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, appeared before Blackfriars Crown Court today charged with intimidating a witness.

She said she cannot remove the veil in front of men because of her religious beliefs.

Judge Murphy told her: ‘It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant.

‘While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount.  ‘I can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain.’

He added: ‘It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant.  ‘The court would have no way to check on that.’

Her barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil at all while men were in the room.

‘In front of women, it is not an issue’, she said. ‘It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face.’

Ms Burtwistle suggested herself, a female police officer or a female prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that it is the same person as in the police arrest photos.

Prosecutor Sarah Counsell added that the police officer in charge of the case was content that he recognised the defendant while she was in the burkha.

But Judge Murphy rejected the suggestions, saying: ‘It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with.

‘Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has.

‘In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that’s going to come first.’

The judge added: ‘There is the principle of open justice and it can’t be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not.

‘I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues.’

Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.  It will be heard again on September 12, when the defendant is expected to enter a not guilty plea and go to trial.

The defendant is alleged to have intimidated a witness, in Finsbury Park, north London, in June.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



27 August, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in New Mexico

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a Christian photographer’s ability to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even when doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs. As Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elane Photography, explained: “The message a same-sex commitment ceremony communicates is not one I believe.”

But New Mexico’s highest court, deciding an appeal of the case, today agreed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and ruled against Elane Photography, concluding that neither protections of free speech nor free exercise of religion apply.

Elaine and her husband Jon, both committed Christians, run their small photography business in Albuquerque, N.M. In 2006, she declined the request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that by declining to use its artistic and expressive skills to communicate what was said and what occurred at the ceremony, the business had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The commission ruled this way based on New Mexico’s human rights law, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations (“any establishment that provides or offers its services … or goods to the public”) based on race, religion and sexual orientation—among other protected classes.

Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gays and lesbians, but only of such a same-sex ceremony, based on the owners’ belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. New Mexico law agrees, as it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages. Additionally, there were other photographers in the Albuquerque area who could have photographed the ceremony.

Groups supporting Elane Photography filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The Cato Institute argued that, under the First Amendment, photographers have freedom of speech protections against government-compelled artistic expressions. The Becket Fund argued that New Mexico’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the “free exercise” of Elane Photography. The Alliance Defending Freedom—the lawyers defending Elane Photography—also argued that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause protects their client.

Today’s decision highlights the increasing concern many have that anti-discrimination laws and same-sex marriage run roughshod over the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Thomas Messner, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has documented multiple instances in which laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as laws redefining marriage, already have eroded religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Indeed, earlier this year, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held an entire hearing on conflicts between nondiscrimination policies and civil liberties such as religious freedom.

In a growing number of incidents, government hasn’t respected the beliefs of Americans. Citizens must insist that government not discriminate against those who hold to the historic definition of marriage. Policy should prohibit the government—or anyone who receives taxpayers’ dollars—from discriminating in employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting against those who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

We also must work to see marriage law reflect the truth about marriage. If marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage—that it is the union of a man and a woman ordered to procreation and family life—would be seen increasingly as an irrational prejudice that ought to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.


Why Was Enoch Powell Condemned as a Racist and Not Charles de Gaulle?

by Daniel Pipes

The French and British empires historically had different premises, with the former (in the Roman tradition) focused more on culture and the latter more on race, hierarchy, and family. This difference took many forms: one finds meals of bifteck-frites in tiny towns in the former French colony of Niger but little English food even in the cities of neighboring Nigeria. Léopold Senghor of Senegal became a significant French poet and cultural figure whereas Rabindranath Tagore of Bengal could never transcend his Indian origins.

Charles de Gaulle was Time magazine's man of the year in 1959, the year he delivered his anti-Arab remarks.

Likewise, French and British politicians responded to the initial post-World War II immigration of non-Western peoples to their countries in characteristically different ways. Charles de Gaulle, arguably the most important leader of France since Napoleon, focused on culture while Enoch Powell, a rising star in the United Kingdom, emphasized race.

Here are their speeches on the topic, starting with de Gaulle (1890-1970), who spoke on March 5, 1959:

"It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are still primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion.

Don't tell me stories! Muslims, have you gone to see them? Have you watched them with their turbans and jellabiyas? You can see that they are not French! Those who advocate integration have the brain of a hummingbird. Try to mix oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. After a second, they will separate again.

Arabs are Arabs, the French are French. Do you think the French body politic can absorb ten million Muslims, who tomorrow will be twenty million, after tomorrow forty? If we integrated, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, would you prevent them to settle in France, where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-The-Two-Churches but Colombey-The-Two-Mosques."

Enoch Powell (1912–1998), a conservative British politician, gave his "Rivers of Blood" speech on April 20, 1968, in which he predicted disaster because of large-scale immigration of colored people to the United Kingdom. He began by noting what was taking place: a

"total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3 ½ million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. … Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre."

In addition to ending immigration, Powell called for re-emigration, or the return of immigrants to their countries of origin.

"If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration."

He also wanted to end what he perceived as favoritism toward immigrants:

"all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. … This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow citizen and another."

On this topic, Powell soared rhetorically:

"There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right over their heads."

Finally, Powell inveighed against integration.

"To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible."

And on to the finale:

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

This speech effectively ended Powell's once promising political career.


(1) These two statements have much wider support today than when they were delivered, 54 and 45 years ago, respectively.

(2) At the same time, no major politician today would dare speak as directly as these two did back then.

(3) Islam, today's emphasis, is nowhere even hinted at. De Gaulle spoke of "turbans and jellabiyas," not Shari'a and honor killings. Powell referred to "marked physical differences, especially of colour," not Islamic supremacism or female genital mutilation.


Progressives and Blacks

Walter E. Williams

Sometimes I wonder when black people will reject the patronizing insults of white progressives and their black handmaidens. After CNN's Piers Morgan's interview with the key witness in the George Zimmerman trial, he said: "Rachel Jeantel is not uneducated. She's a smart cookie." That's a remarkable conclusion. Here's a 19-year-old young lady, still in high school, who cannot read cursive and appears to be barely literate. Morgan may have meant Jeantel is smart -- for a black person.

Progressives treat blacks as victims in need of kid glove treatment and special favors, such as racial quotas and preferences. This approach has been tried in education for decades and has revealed itself a failure. I say it's time we explore other approaches. One approach is suggested by sports. Blacks excel -- perhaps dominate is a better word -- in sports such as basketball, football and boxing to such an extent that blacks are 80 percent of professional basketball players, are 66 percent of professional football players and, for decades, have dominated most professional boxing categories.

These outcomes should raise several questions. In sports, when have you heard a coach explain or excuse a black player's poor performance by blaming it on a "legacy of slavery" or on that player's being raised in a single-parent household? When have you heard sports standards called racist or culturally biased? I have yet to hear a player, much less a coach, speak such nonsense. In fact, the standards of performance in sports are just about the most ruthless anywhere. Excuses are not tolerated. Think about it. What happens to a player, black or white, who doesn't come up to a college basketball or football coach's standards? He's off the team. Players know this, and they make every effort to excel. They do so even more if they have aspirations to be a professional player. By the way, blacks also excel in the entertainment industry -- another industry in which there's ruthless dog-eat-dog competition.

Seeing as blacks have demonstrated an ability to thrive in an environment of ruthless competition and demanding standards, there might be some gains from a similar school environment. Maybe we ought to have some schools in which youngsters are loaded up with homework, frequent tests and demanding, top-notch teachers. In such schools, there would be no excuses for anything. Youngsters cut the mustard, or they're kicked out and put into some other school. I'm betting that a significant number of black youngsters would prosper in such an environment, just as they prosper in the highly competitive sports and entertainment environments.

Progressives' agenda calls for not only excuse-making but also dependency. Nowhere is this more obvious than it is in their efforts to get as many Americans as they can to be dependent on food stamps; however, in this part of their agenda, they offer racial equal opportunity. During President Barack Obama's years in office, the number of people receiving food stamps has skyrocketed by 39 percent. Professor Edward Lazear, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-09, wrote in a Wall Street Journal article titled "The Hidden Jobless Disaster" (June 5, 2013) that research done by University of Chicago's Casey Mulligan suggests "that because government benefits are lost when income rises, some people forgo poor jobs in lieu of government benefits --unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability benefits among the most obvious." Government handouts probably go a long way toward explaining the unprecedented number of Americans, close to 90 million, who are no longer looking for work.

This is all a part of the progressive agenda to hook Americans, particularly black Americans, on government handouts. In future elections, they will be able to claim that anyone who campaigns on cutting taxing and spending is a racist. That's what Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said in denouncing the Republican 1994 call for tax cuts. He said, "It's not 'spic' or 'n****r' anymore. (Instead,) they say, 'Let's cut taxes.'"

When black Americans finally recognize the harm of the progressive agenda, I'm betting they will be the nation's most conservative people, for who else has been harmed by progressivism as much?


Gov. Christie Signs Discrimination Into Law

Despite his “concerns about [the] government limiting parental choice on the care and treatment of their own children,” Governor Chris Christie signed into law a ban on ex-gay therapy for minors, thereby committing an outrageous act against both the people of New Jersey and his own Catholic faith.

Buying into the standard gay activist talking points, Christie explained that “on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards,” because of which he felt this government intrusion into doctor-patient relationships was justified.

As for Christie’s personal views, he stated that, “I've always believed that people are born with the predisposition to be homosexual. And so I think if someone is born that way it's very difficult to say then that's a sin. But I understand that my church says that, but for me personally I don't look at someone who is homosexual as a sinner.”

New Jersey is now the second state to sign a ban on “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) for those under 18, even with parental consent, following California (surprise!), although the California bill has already been challenged in the courts.

On a practical level, this means that a 17-year-old girl who was raped at the age of 14 and now feels a repulsion towards men and an attraction towards women cannot seek professional help to get to the root of her feelings, even if her parents back her decision.

That same young woman, however, would be allowed to seek professional help to develop her lesbian identity, even without the backing of her parents.

This is equality under the law? This is tolerance? This is a victory in the war against bigotry and discrimination?

And if this same young woman lived in California and was convinced that she was actually a boy trapped in a girl’s body, she could now choose to use the boys’ bathroom and even play on the boys’ basketball team, without any scientific diagnosis required.

In fact, it would be perfectly legal for her to undergo hormone therapy to help make her more masculine, soon to be followed by sex-change surgery. Yet if she said, “For many reasons, I’m uncomfortable with my same-sex attractions,” it would be illegal for her to receive counseling. What kind of madness is this?

Gender is now entirely subjective, based on nothing more than one’s personal perceptions, while sexual and romantic attractions are allegedly innate and immutable. Put another way, you are not necessarily born male or female, despite the biological and chromosomal evidence, and you can change from male to female. But you are born gay, and you cannot possibly change to straight.

What about all those who claim to have changed sexual orientation?

They are to be vilified, mocked, discounted, and silenced. In fact, they can be freely discriminated against, as Grammy Award winner and gospel superstar Donnie McClurkin just learned when Washington DC Mayor Vincent Gray disinvited him “from performing at a concert commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 civil rights March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream.’”

Why? Because he broke one of today’s biggest PC commandments, namely, “Thou shalt not be ex-gay,” which McClurkin is, which means that being gay is not innate and immutable. (This would have to be admitted, at least for some people.)

Yet the McClurkins of this world are now ignored (and worse) while testimony from someone like Brielle Goldani (born a male), which was apparently fabricated based on a movie script, helped push the New Jersey ban through.

What about the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating clearly that SOCE is harmful and destructive? It doesn’t exist.

Christie relied on a study conducted by a task force appointed by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2007 which concluded that “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.”

Yet this task force consisted entirely of gay activist psychologists and their allies, which would be the equivalent of asking Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to head a study of whether racial discrimination against blacks existed in America or asking Al Gore and Greenpeace to investigate whether man-made global warming existed.

In fact, gay activist bias in the APA has become so extreme that no less a figure than Dr. Nicholas Cummings, a past president of the APA, has become an outspoken critic of the attack on SOCE, arguing in a recent USA Today editorial that, “A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.”

Dr. Cummings states that he personally helped “hundreds” of homosexuals change their orientation to heterosexual while helping many others “attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle.” (Cummings, it should be noted, is a self-described life-long liberal who supports same-sex “marriage.”)

He writes that “contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment.”

He adds that, “Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.”

Gov. Christie has now become party to government intrusion on doctor-patient relationships, thereby serving as a useful pawn of the gay activist agenda, perhaps to his temporary political gain.

But when common sense and compassion prevail again, Gov. Christie’s decision will only serve to stigmatize and shame him.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



26 August, 2013

Sick Britain again

A businessman who confronted a burglar raiding his premises appeared in court yesterday accused of attacking him.

Andrew Woodhouse, 43, was chasing thieves off his property when he claims one of them 'came at' him with a wooden stick.

Father-of-five Woodhouse allegedly used the stick to injure the man's legs before holding him down while his wife called the police.

But when officers arrived they arrested Woodhouse and held him in a cell for 18 hours.

He appeared at Newport Crown Court yesterday charged with grievous bodily harm with intent which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Andrew Taylor, defending, said: 'Mr Woodhouse apprehended two of the burglars at his tyre depot.  'It happened after two or three men decided they were going to remove a large quantity of diesel from his premises.

'Mr Woodhouse has been interviewed by police and has provided a full explanation about what happened.  'There is a CCTV recording of the incident and we are waiting to see the footage.'

Woodhouse denies the charge and was given bail until next month.

A Facebook page has been set up in support of Woodhouse, of Abergavenny, South Wales with more than 2,000 supporting him.

Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon, near Abergavenny, when his burglar alarm went off at about 12.30am.  The alarm is fitted to his business premises on an industrial estate a mile from his six-bedroom £350,000 home.

Woodhouse drove to his business premises where the alleged assault happened.

His wife Lisa said her husband was prepared to go through the legal process to clear his name.  She said: 'But I fail to see where there was any intent on Andrew's part.  'He didn't intend to get up in the middle of the night to assault anyone. All he did was protect his property.

'People may think he took the law into his own hands but what was he supposed to do, stand by and watch?'

Woodhouse employs six staff including two of his sons at the family business, which was set up 20 years ago.

The firm has lost £15,000 in recent years to thefts of diesel and tools.

Two fuel thieves who stole £50 worth of diesel from Woodhouse's premises on the night of the alleged assault have been dealt with in court.  Timothy Cross, 31, and Kevin Green, 52, took two jerry cans of diesel from Woodhouse's tyre depot in Abergavenny.  Cross and Green both admitted theft and were fined £75 by Cwmbran magistrates.


Stop and Frisk Doesn't Target Minorities, It Protects Them

New York City seems on the verge of making the same mistake that Detroit made 40 years ago. The mistake is to abolish the NYPD practice referred to as stop and frisk.

It's more accurately called stop, question and frisk. People were stopped and questioned 4.4 million times between 2004 and 2012. But the large majority were not frisked.

The effectiveness of this police practice, initiated by Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 1994 and continued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is not in doubt. The number of homicides -- the most accurately measured crime -- in New York fell from a peak of 2,605 in 1990 to 952 in 2001, Giuliani's last year in office, to just 414 in 2012.

Nevertheless, the three leading Democratic mayoral candidates in the city's September primary all have pledged to end stop and frisk. And last week, federal judge Schira Scheindlin, in a lawsuit brought by 19 men who have been stopped and frisked, found that the practice is unconstitutional and racially discriminatory.

Bloomberg has promised to appeal, and several of Scheindlin's decisions in high-profile cases have been reversed. But the leading Democratic candidates for mayor promise, if elected, to drop the appeal.

The two leading Republican candidates support stop and frisk, but their chances of election seem dim in a city that voted 81 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.

What riles opponents of stop and frisk is that a high proportion of those stopped are young black and Hispanic males. Many innocent people undoubtedly and understandably resent being subjected to this practice. No one likes to be frisked, including the thousands of airline passengers who are every day.

But young black and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic males are far, far more likely than others to commit (and be victims of) violent crimes, as Bloomberg points out. I take no pleasure in reporting that fact and wish it weren't so.

This was recognized by, among others, Jesse Jackson, who in 1993 said, "There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it's somebody white and feel relieved."

You can get an idea about what could happen in New York by comparing it with Chicago, where there were 532 homicides in 2012. That's more than in New York, even though New York's population is three times as large.

One Chicagoan who supports stop and frisk is the father of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year-old girl shot down a week after singing at Barack Obama's second inauguration. "If it's already working, why take it away?" he told the New York Post. "If that was possible in Chicago, maybe our daughter would be alive."

Chicago and New York both have tough gun control laws. But bad guys can easily get guns in both cities.

The difference, as the New York Daily News's James Warren has pointed out, is that frequent stops and frisks combined with mandatory three-year sentences for illegal possession of a gun mean that bad guys in New York don't take them out on the street much.

Stop and frisk makes effective the otherwise ineffective gun control that Bloomberg so strongly supports.

An extreme case of what happens when a city ends stop and frisk is Detroit. Coleman Young, the city's first black mayor, did so immediately after winning the first of five elections in 1973.

In short order Detroit became America's murder capital. Its population fell from 1.5 million to 1 million between 1970 and 1990. Crime has abated somewhat since the Young years, but the city's population fell to 713,000 in 2010 -- just over half that when Young took office.

People with jobs and families -- first whites, then blacks -- fled to the suburbs or farther afield. Those left were mostly poor, underemployed, in too many cases criminal -- and not taxpayers. As a result, the city government went bankrupt last month.

New York has strengths Detroit always lacked. But it is not impervious to decline. After Mayor John Lindsay ended tough police practices, the city's population fell from 7.9 million in 1970 to 7.1 million in 1980.

Those who decry stop and frisk as racially discriminatory should remember who is hurt most by violent crime -- law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods, most of them black and Hispanic, people like Hadiya Pendleton.


Just because red carpet wasn’t rolled out, don’t call it discrimination

Canadians routinely bend over backwards to people who are new to or rough with English. It’s simply unfair to cry “discrimination” when just once things don’t turn out perfectly.

Hai Xia Sun is doing just that after her experience at a Richmond, B.C., McDonald’s.

Sun didn’t get what she ordered. She wanted to correct the mistake but says the manager sent her away saying, “You don’t understand English … The line is long. I want to serve other people.”

Sun has the Chinese Canadian National Council on her team now — their executive director labelling the experience “unacceptable.” Now Sun doesn’t just want a simple apology. She wants a written one from the franchise owner, the manager and she wants it made out to all Canadians who aren’t native English speakers.

And that’s where this gets out of hand. Not having witnessed the event, we don’t know the details. Perhaps the manager was a jerk to her.

McDonald’s will likely deliver some sort of apology — along with some gift certificates — because that’s what customer-service savvy companies do. Even when it’s unclear who is in the wrong.

But for this to be blown up into a story of discrimination borders on a shakedown.

Here’s a little predicament I’m hoping the CCNC can help me with: I lived close to the Spadina Chinatown in Toronto for years. I frequently went to the various shops there. On many occasions when I asked for assistance the shopkeeper didn’t understand me. Sometimes they’d get their son or grandson to help, but just as often I’d be left to myself. There were even times when I was smirked at. Did I make a fuss? Did I even think to cry discrimination because I wasn’t served in English in Canada? No. I just sucked it up.

Now, are the various Chinese associations in this country going to issue a written apology to not just me but all native-born English speakers for the decades of crummy customer service we’ve received?

Sun, who has lived in Canada for 10 years and whose son suggests McDonald’s solution should be to hire Mandarin speakers, is pushing her luck. It’s a bit much to cry foul because just once we didn’t roll out the red carpet for her when she made chopped liver of the language of Shakespeare. She was treated like how the rest of us would be if we lived in a foreign country. When I spent a summer in Mexico I didn’t speak Spanish. Some residents spoke English and others didn’t. That was entirely my problem to deal with. So I stepped out the door everyday wearing my big-boy pants and didn’t cry about it.

Canada’s obsession with glorifying balkanized mosaic-style immigration, as opposed to the American melting-pot approach, has had terrible results. It makes newcomers think that not only are they entitled to endless accommodation from English-speakers, but that they have a discrimination case on their hands when they don’t get it and they should not be expected to return the favour.

Canadians are caring neighbours. All city dwellers know what it’s like to help a lost tourist or newcomer with abysmal English find the address they’re seeking. We’re patient. We’d never leave them stranded. The bottom line is the manager should probably have been nicer to Sun, but she should also brush up on her English. If she can’t properly order a coffee without it turning into a national scandal, how does she expect to accomplish anything else in society?


Australia:  Privacy legislation could have a `chilling effect' on freedom of speech

UNLESS the federal government abandons or radically changes its plans for a new way of suing for privacy, publishers and broadcasters face years of legal uncertainty that will have a "chilling effect" on free speech, media lawyers have warned.

"Privacy can be as wide as you want it to be," said Justin Quill of Kelly Hazell Quill.

"Even if this is never used, its mere existence will have a chilling effect and will lead to news editors taking out facts from stories for fear of being sued," he said.

His concerns are in line with those of media lawyer Nic Pullen of HWL Ebsworth, who was worried about uncertainty because the planned civil action "will hand everything over to the judges".

In 2008, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that the government should enact a privacy tort, but should not state clearly which areas of life would fall within its scope.

"Clear lines demarcating areas in which privacy can be enjoyed should not be drawn in advance," the commission's report said.

It recommended that the new cause of action should arise whenever there is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy and a serious invasion of privacy takes place that is considered highly offensive.

The commission favoured "leaving it open to the courts to determine when a reasonable expectation of privacy exists".

This "should not be limited to activities taking place in the home or in private places".

But the ALRC said it was in favour of what it described as "the narrower view" of the circumstances in which "a public act can be private". An example was when Britain's Mirror newspaper was found to have breached the privacy of model Naomi Campbell, who had drug problems, by publishing a picture of her on a street outside Narcotics Anonymous. The paper had to pay more than pound stg. 1 million in legal costs.

Mr Pullen said he was worried about the government's proposal because he believed it would be almost impossible to define "privacy" in a way that eliminated legal uncertainty. He said the government's priority should be to determine whether there were enough infringements to justify a new legal action. It should focus on trying to confine the definition of privacy to those areas considered appropriate, and only then should it turn to the question of defences.

Mr Pullen's concern comes soon after Privacy Minister Brendan O'Connor said the new civil action would contain a "public interest" defence for the media.

Mr Pullen and Mr Quill both dismissed the significance of the defence. Mr Pullen said the track record of the judiciary on free speech suggested that the defence was unlikely to be effective.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



25 August, 2013

"Diverse" care of the elderly in Britain

Two healthcare assistants who abused elderly female patients on the geriatric ward of a hospital were jailed today.

Akousa Sakyiwaa, 38, was convicted of four counts of ill-treatment and neglect of patients on Beech Ward at Whipps Cross University Hospital in Leytonstone, east London, between February and April last year.

Sharmila Gunda, 36, was found guilty of one count of neglect and one count of assault by beating an elderly patient in her care following a trial in June.

Sakyiwaa, of Leytonstone, was jailed for 12 months while Gunda, of Ilford, was given a five month prison sentence at London's Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Fellow healthcare assistant Annette Jackson, 33, of Hounslow, west London, was given a two month suspended sentence and ordered to complete 100 hours unpaid work after being convicted of one count of ill-treatment or neglect.

Delivering his sentence, Judge Timothy Lamb QC said the women's actions had 'damaged patient trust' in the NHS.

Addressing the defendants, Mr Lamb said: 'In short, by your offending you have let down your colleagues, you have damaged patient trust and you have undermined the quality of care for the elderly and vulnerable at Whipps Cross.'

The three women were charged following a Metropolitan Police inquiry into the hospital after a student nurse acted as a whistleblower.

The women would physically and verbally abuse patients, often telling them to shut up, as well as handling them in a rough and aggressive manner, police said.

Sakyiwaa, of Leytonstone, Jackson, of Hounslow; and Gunda, of Ilford, were responsible for looking after elderly female patients with various physical and mental conditions including dementia.

June Evans, who is wheelchair bound, was the only patient still alive or well enough to come to court to give evidence against them. The other patients are too ill or suffer from dementia.

In a statement read to the court, she said: 'Since the incident that took place last year I have completely lost trust in the health service.  'I lost faith in my GP, the ambulance service and hospitals in general.'

Ms Evans discharged herself from the hospital following the assault and was in a state of distress when she had to return to Whipps Cross for further treatment.  'I wanted to die,' she said. 'I thought why couldn't I have a heart attack and end it.'

Sakyiwaa was found guilty of holding a bed sheet over 87-year-old Joan Massett’s head and telling her she was dead.

She pushed Ms Massett’s breasts in another incident and forcefully twisted her mouth which was both 'demeaning and completely unnecessary'.

Sakyiwaa shouted at 88-year-old patient Elizabeth Toussaint to force her to sit in a chair and slapped Louise Hodges, 92, after cleaning her, the hearing was told.

Jackson was found guilty of one count of neglecting patient Barbara Jones, while Gunda was found guilty of one charge of neglect and one charge of assault by beating June Evans.

Jurors heard the healthcare assistants were arrested after a student nurse Lucy Brown whistleblew on them following a placement on the ward last Spring.

John McNally, prosecuting, said: 'The conduct complained of simply had no place on any ward. It cannot be justified.'

Snaresbrook Crown Court heard 92-year-old Lily Oliver was admitted to the ward on March 27, 2012, suffering from septic arthritis in her left knee.

Mr McNally told jurors: 'She was bed bound and extremely frail and it is the expert’s professional opinion that she suffered from dementia and wasn’t able to make her own decisions.

'During the time she was on Beech Ward she was under the care of Akousa Sakyiwaa.  'Lucy Brown described Akousa Sakyiwaa as being extremely rough with Lily Oliver.

'In the course of one encounter Lucy Brown noted that when Miss Oliver’s bandages were removed Miss Oliver said ‘mind my leg.’

'After that Akousa Sakyiwaa grabbed her left knee with both her hands and pushed it towards Lucy Brown.

'This caused her to scream in pain and turn pale before falling silent. That, we say, is what constitutes ill treatment for that count.'

Opening the case, Mr McNally said: 'The prosecution case is they variously ill treated patients either by positive actions towards them or by failing to look after them when they should have.

'The defendants worked on a geriatric ward and were trusted to provide the most basic tasks.

'There is little doubt some of these would have been unpleasant and that elderly and demented patients could be obstructive.

'However, this factor only serves to highlight the vulnerability of these patients and outline the fact that providing care professionally was the responsibility of each defendant.

'An entitlement for proper care should not be a matter of chance given at the whim of the carer.'

The court heard the ward has since closed down following a Metropolitan Police investigation into alleged abuse.

Barts Health NHS trust, which runs the hospital, apologised to patients following the verdicts and stressed it had a 'zero tolerance approach' to any form of neglect or ill-treatment.

In a statement, the trust said: 'We apologise unreservedly to the patients of Beech Ward and their families for the indefensible failings in their treatment during their time in our care.

'There can be no place under any circumstances for such behaviour in our trust or in the wider NHS.'

It added that following an internal disciplinary investigation all three women had their contracts of employment terminated.  It added: 'We take a zero tolerance approach to any form of neglect or ill-treatment of our patients and applaud the student nurses who showed courage and integrity in raising the alarm.

'It is the duty of every member of staff to report such behaviour and we will actively encourage and support this through our whistleblowing policy which is made clear to all staff on day one of their employment with the Trust, with ongoing reminders to existing staff during regular statutory and mandatory training.

'Moreover, we will take action against any member of staff who turns a blind eye, or fails to take immediate and appropriate action, if they witness any form of abuse or negligence.'

Barts Health NHS Trust was issued with three formal warnings last week after inspectors found 'unsafe' conditions at Whipps Cross including filthy maternity wards and water placed out of the reach of elderly patients.

The trust had 'failed to protect the safety and welfare of patients' and must now make 'urgent improvements' following unannounced inspections in May and June, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) said.

Following the sentencing, Detective Sergeant Tammy Dempsey, from the Met's Community Safety Unit in Waltham Forest, said: 'These three women had a responsibility for the welfare of those who were under their care.

'The public and families of these elderly patients have a right to expect that they will be treated with respect and looked after in an appropriate manner.

'Gunda, Jackson and Sakyiwaa let everyone down and it's right that they have been found guilty at court.

'I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who had the courage to come forward and report these offences and give their evidence in court.'


Black racist murders Australian sportsman

THE teenagers charged over the murder of Melbourne man Chris Lane will be isolated from one another and other inmates in an Oklahoma jail as long as they are there.

District Attorney Jason Hicks said yesterday that it could be months or longer before the three - James Edwards, 15, Chancey Luna, 16, and Michael Jones, 17 - would face trial. It was too early to say whether they would be tried separately or together.  Their next hearings are in October.

It comes as Edwards, who has been charged with first-degree murder, posted racist tweets saying he hated white people in the months before the shooting.

Edwards posted statements on his Twitter feed including a comment on April 29 where he tweeted "90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM".

Edwards also weighed when George Zimmerman was acquitted over the death of Trayvon Martin.

"Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol sh*t ima keep sleepin sh*t! #ayeeee."

"Woods" is derogatory slang for white people. The feed also contains tweets glorifying violence, guns and gangs.


More commentary here


A young white male was walking to his car on a city street late at night on August 12 when he was confronted by a trio of black individuals. They shot him dead. Police have arrested three people and charged them with first degree murder. But some in the victim’s family can’t understand why the shooting is being called a failed robbery when they say the evidence suggests something possibly more sinister: a hate crime.

David Santucci, 27, had just started his new job as a nurse. According to his family, “he was an awesome guy…he wanted to be a missionary…he wanted to help people.”

The murder happened in Memphis, TN less than two weeks ago. Santucci was killed by a single 9mm shot through his heart. To its credit, the Memphis police department apprehended the suspects in less than fifteen minutes. Various reports say that all three suspects made statements that implicated them in Santucci’s murder. And they’re calling it a robbery gone wrong.

Miguel De Diago is one family member who doubts this killing was a failed robbery. He’s the the brother-in-law of David Santucci and told TheBlaze some stuff just doesn’t add up.

The first and foremost question in De Diago’s mind: If this was a robbery, why did his brother-in-law still have his wallet, car keys, and cell phone? Nothing was taken from him. And witnesses confirm that.

Murder suspects

Since the killing, Miguel has worked tirelessly to track down the good Samaritans who rushed to the aid of his brother-in-law as he lay bleeding on the sidewalk. He managed to track down the first three to get to David’s side, Taneshia,  Sharae and Brittany. Arriving first on the scene, Sharae tried to apply pressure to the wound in order to stop the bleeding. Brittany searched through David’s phone and tried to call a family member, and Taneshia held David Santucci’s hand and led them all in prayer.

In addition to the fact that Santucci was still in possession of his phone and wallet, Miguel says witnesses told police that the car drove past David, stopped and backed up. One of the suspects (Mario Patterson) got out of the car and walked toward Santucci, fired a shot and ran back to the car, jumping into the driver’s seat and speeding off.  Miguel also says the police told him that the 9mm shell casing was found 10 feet from the body — an indication to him that the shooter was not at close range as would typically happen with a robbery.

Miguel told TheBlaze that he tracked the alleged shooter, Patterson through his Facebook account — an account now deleted.  He said the page had numerous photos of Trayvon Martin, and he wondered if it’s possible the shooting was a revenge killing for the Zimmerman verdict.

So why call it a robbery? Miguel wonders if the killing is being labeled as such because of the neighborhood’s proximity to Beale Street, the biggest tourist attraction in downtown Memphis. (Elvis Presley’s family home of Graceland is a bit outside of town.) If Beale Street becomes riddled with crime and killings with no explanation, Memphis tourism could suffer considerably.


How to Survive as a Jew in antisemitic Sweden

Shut up and fade into the woodwork.  1930's Germany all over again

On April 26 of this year, I was on a train with my five-year-old son Charlie. We were on our way to spend shabbat with friends in the city. You see, our town, significant in the history of Swedish Jewry, shut its synagogue in the late 90s. All that remains now is a plaque stating that there was once Jewish life here, while we are left with an hour-long train ride every weekend to attend services.

 My son was wearing his kippah as we got on the train. He loves his kippah. He is not yet old enough to know the dangers entailed in wearing it, for this is a fact from which I have tried to protect him. But April 26 would change all that.

There was a gentleman sitting in our reserved seat. An Arab, maybe fifty years old, listening to music. Apologizing for the inconvenience, I asked him politely for our seat. He got up, inspected my son, and then leaned over me, saying: You people always take what you want. You need to learn.

He then walked straight into my son, causing him to fall over, and took the seat behind us.

We sat. Hiding my trembling hands from my son’s sight, I picked up Shabbes for Kids and started to review the week’s Torah portion with him. We hadn’t progressed as far as a page before the man stood up and screamed:  Quiet! I don’t want to hear that! You take what you want and never think of others! Shut up!

He stamped his feet, grunting and glaring at my son. Fighting tears of rage, I assured Charlie that the man was just grumpy and tried to turned the episode into a game, one that required us to remain super quiet for as long as possible. I even managed to coax a conspiratorial smile out of him.

But even this failed to appease our tormentor, who spent the rest of the trip repeatedly kicking the back of my son’s seat. At one point I glanced around our compartment: there were four other people there, four adults witnessing a single mother and her five-year-old child being attacked by a grown man. They did nothing. I tried forcing them to meet my gaze; but they just turned away, put on their headphones, stared at their screens, ignored what was happening in front of them.

I did not summon the railway police. I did not scream back at the man. I know better. I know that the only way to survive as a Jew in my country is not to be seen as one. Not to be exposed but to shut up and fade into the woodwork. I’ve known this for quite some time. Unfortunately, my son knows it now, too.

In your fascinating and informative article you mention that ritual slaughter, kosher as well as hallal, is under threat in Europe. Well, in Sweden kosher butchering was outlawed in 1937 and has been illegal ever since. The threat is not a threat but a reality—for me as, on a much graver scale, it had been for my grandparents, forced into hiding in a Sweden silently collaborating with the Nazis throughout the world war. The next threat on the horizon is a ban on even importing kosher products, compelling me and many of my friends to smuggle kosher meat from Israel on our return trips from that land.

By contrast, halal slaughter is not banned in Sweden. My government, when asked about the disparity, replies that the methods of slaughter in Judaism are uniquely barbaric.

“Barbaric” is also what I was called just this past June. As a political adviser to a Swedish party, I was debating the anti-circumcision bill that had just been proposed by another, right-wing party in our parliament, and things got heated. The bill called for a general ban on all circumcision unless medically prescribed, and it enjoyed much bipartisan support. During the debate, I outed myself as a Jew, only to be informed that what “we” were doing to our children was inhumane and barbaric, and should be summarily outlawed. I did my best to maintain my composure, but ended up crying in the courtyard—not for the first time, or for the last.

In your essay you mention that Jewish religious and cultural activities in Western Europe are everywhere on the rise. This, too, is not my reality. What I see is that the Holocaust wing at the Jewish Museum is crowded with visitors, while the synagogues are empty. I see cute Woody Allen-ish activities being promoted, and actual Jewish life being banned. The dead, suffering Jew is glorified; the healthy, active Jew is vilified.

There are 20,000 Jews in Sweden, a country of close to nine million. As for Muslim immigrants and their children, they, as you point out in your article, amount to 10 percent or more of the population: perhaps as many as a million people, fifty times the number of Jews. Still, I would not say that demography is the only threat to Jewish life in Western Europe, and maybe not even the biggest one. What frightens me most is that my government is proscribing Jewish life. Yes, by outlawing circumcision, banning kosher slaughter, and telling us forthrightly that the only way to avoid being harassed in the streets is to distance ourselves from Israel, they are reinventing the conditions of the Eastern Europe past that brought our community to this country in the first place. This is what is driving us out: one by one, bill by bill.

In the “Comments” section following your essay, I noticed a debate among readers over the perceived harshness of your article. I am writing to you because I do not believe it was harsh enough. I value Jewish thought, but I crave Jewish action. More than I need eloquent eulogies, I need people—the same people who so passionately debate our future in Mosaic and elsewhere—to help me fight.

We in Sweden are still here, but we are feeling lonely and forgotten. We want a strong Jewish community in the Diaspora. We want to live. We are fighting every day against the pressure to turn us into plaques on the wall of former synagogues or into exhibits in guilt-wallowing museums. We need the help of our kinsmen.

My son no longer wears his kippah in public. Now he does what the men at my shul have done for years. He carries it in his pocket, donning it only when we are safely within the iron gates. Guarded and hidden from the world.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



23 August, 2013

Some psychopathic diversity in Britain

A sadistic teenager who tried to impress a girl with a homemade horror movie showing him butchering a mouse escaped jail today.

Andre Yankey, 19, called himself a 'mouse killer' as he used a power tool to slice the rodent open and drill into its eye.

The personal trainer said on camera the mouse would be 'terminated with The Blade of Doom' as he tortured and eventually killed it.

During the 90 second clip Yankey boasted: 'This is what happens when a mouse comes into my house.'

But Yankey landed himself in trouble by sending the film to a friend, who was so traumatised by what she saw that she called the RSCPA.

Yankey appeared in the dock at Westminster Magistrates Court today after he pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal on July 31.

'The video shows Mr Yankey using a handheld grinder to purposely injure and torture a live mouse stuck to an adhesive trap,' Wendy Gutteridge, for the RSPCA, told the court.

'Mr Yankey is seen brandishing a handheld Dremel multi-tool, he faces the camera and explains how he is a mouse killer.

'He says: 'Mice want to f****** coming into my house, they get terminated with the Blade of Doom'.'

Yankey then cut open the mouse and drilled into its eyeball, causing blood to spurt out across the room, the court heard.

'The mouse is clearly still conscious and is frantically struggling to free itself,' Ms Gutteridge added.

'Mr Yankey is clearly seen to be enjoying himself, saying 'grind that bitch, cut that bitch right open'.

'After around one minute and 15 seconds, the mouse ceases to move any further.'

Ms Gutteridge said blood stains were found on the walls on Yankey's house, and his trainers were ruined during the killing.

He was found out when he sent the video to a friend, Virginie Lambertucci, via social media Whatsapp on January 28 this year.

Ms Lambertucci was so repulsed with what she saw that she called the RSPCA and blocked Yankey's number in her phone, the court heard.

'She was so traumatised by the video she was unable to sleep, and sent the video to the RSPCA,' Ms Gutteridge added.  'She was so distressed and sickened by the video that she told Yankey not to contact her again.'

Yankey was arrested on February 5 this year and admitted torturing the mouse when he first moved into his west London flat in 2010.


Christian Girl Guide leaders defy decision to drop God from pledge

A group of Christian Girl Guide and Brownies leaders risk being expelled from the movement after publicly refusing to drop God from their traditional promise.

The organisation announced earlier this year that it is to replace its traditional pledge with a new wording, removing references to “God” and “country”.

In one of the biggest changes in the movement’s 103-year history, the promise to “love my God” is to be scrapped and replaced with a pledge to “be true to myself” and to “develop my beliefs”.

The group’s patriotic commitment to serving their country is also to be changed to a pledge of allegiance to the “community” in the new promise which comes into force on September 1.

It provoked controversy in some quarters but Gill Slocombe, the Chief Guide, said the new wording should make it easier for the organisation’s 550,000 members to make the promise with sincerity.

But now a group of leaders from Harrogate, North Yorks, have signalled publicly that they plan to defy the leadership and continue to use the old pledge at the groups which meet in their church.

Hazel Mitford, who runs the Guide group at St Paul’s United Reformed Church, in Harrogate; Jayne Morrison, the Brownie leader and Alison Ellison, who runs the Rainbow group for younger girls, announced that they will encourage all girls and leaders in their groups to continue to use the original promise.

In a joint letter with the church’s minister, published in the Harrogate Advertiser, they voiced “dismay” at the change and insisted the movement should keep “God at its core”.

But Jem Henderson, a volunteer leader, who is an atheist has accused the women of forcing her to take the old promise, against her conscience.

She is being supported by the National Secular Society, which campaigns against religion in public life. Last year the group successfully won a legal challenge against the use of prayers before council meetings, triggering a national debate about the role of faith in modern Britain.

Miss Henderson, who describes herself on her blog as a “post punk, feminist poet”, said: “The pack leader’s insistence on keeping the old promise excludes me and any atheist girls from the troop, or asks us to lie when making the promise, something that surely goes against the Guiding principles.

“This demonstrates that the new promise is just for show, and that the Guiding movement, at least in Harrogate, is still excluding people from secular walks of life.”

Mrs Mitford declined to comment last night but her letter sets out the women’s stance. “The spiritual aspect is recognised in girlguiding and ‘God’ has been part of the promise since it was founded,” they said.

“The divine is fundamental to everything it stands for. No one need join Girlguiding, so removing the reference to God in the interests of inclusivity removes much of what we stand for."

They added: “Girlguiding has God at its core and anyone who has issue with this is free to start their own organisation.”

Last night a spokeswoman for Girlguiding confirmed that only the new pledge will be recognised and signalled that the rebel leaders could eventually be forced out if they did not comply.

She said: “The members decide to take the promise and to commit to Guiding values, they need to absolutely sure that they believe those values and if they cannot they need to consider their membership of Guiding.”

She added: "It is not September yet so we will cross that bridge when we come to it. We will be working closely with local guiding to make sure that all our members understand what the new promise means to them.

"There will be no alteranative promise as our members made very clear in the consultation that there would be one promise for all."


Woman who has baked cakes for hospice for the last 23 years told to stop for safety reasons - despite NEVER receiving a complaint

Britain's "elf 'n safety" obsession again

A Good Samaritan has been told she can no longer make cakes for the terminally ill after a hospice said her baking breached food safety rules.

Maggie Molyneux, 64, was stunned when she was banned from donating her home-made pastries for the patients and their loved ones after 23 years without any complaints.

The diktat has been imposed by Isabel Hospice in Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire.

It has being launched despite the fact that the hospice has not received one complaint about cakes made by volunteers for more than two decades.

Mrs Molyneux's husband John said he was furious when they got a letter ordering her to stop baking.

The shocked couple were told that the cakes would be baked in a 'controlled environment' by kitchen staff from now on.

Mr Molyneux, 66, said: 'They are doing away with a 23-year tradition of cakes being made by the local community for the hospice.

'When I called them about the letter, they told me they had never had a single complaint about these cakes.  'It's 23 years' of unblemished cake-making being brought to an end.'

Mr Molyneux said that although his wife did not want to make a fuss, he was 'incensed' by the harsh new rule.

The latest clampdown has been ordered by Helen Dodd, director of the charity, in a bid to eliminate health risks to patients.

Although volunteers are no longer allowed to provide cakes for the hospice, they can still bake them to be sold at cake sales and fundraising events.

Mrs Dodd said: 'For many years we have been grateful to our volunteers who have baked cakes for the patients at our in-patient unit in WGC.

'It is with great reluctance we have taken the decision to discontinue this practice, and in future to provide cakes baked on our own premises by our caterers.'

She added: 'The reasons behind this decision are complex.  'But essentially we need to control the environment in which food is produced and to know the provenance of all ingredients used, as well as working within certain guidelines.

'Whilst this may seem extreme, it must be remembered we are caring for people who may have a suppressed immune system or other complications caused by their illness or treatment and it is, therefore, essential we do everything in our power to ensure their well being.


Stop donating to the RSPCA, says Clarissa Dickson Wright

Clarissa Dickson Wright, the cook and countryside campaigner, has called for people to stop donating to the RSPCA until they give up their political agenda.

The charity has “lost its way” and now “leaves a bitter taste in the mouth” as it pursues prosecutions against people they suspect of animal cruelty, the star of Two Fat Ladies said.

Her comments follow the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to take up the role of vice-patron and add to the deepening row over whether the charity, which is funded by donations, has become too politicised.

People should stop donating until the charity returns to helping domestic animals, she said, adding: “They have got plenty of money.  “I think that it would do them no harm if people stopped donating and told them why they had stopped to see if they changed their threatening policies.”

There have been calls for the RSPCA to be stripped of its prosecutor role following allegations, which it denies, that it has increased the number of cases brought to court in order to boost fundraising.

In the past two years the number of convictions has almost doubled, despite no rise in complaints to the charity's animal cruelty telephone hotline.

Dickson Wright, a former barrister who in 2009 was convicted of attending an illegal hare-coursing after a private prosecution by an animal charity, said that money given in good faith to the RSPCA was being spent in the wrong way.

“The charity was set up, and very well set up, for the protection of domestic animals,” she said.  “Now they spend money that comes from people who in many cases are hard pushed to come up with it, old ladies and things like that, in prosecuting hunts, prosecuting people who they think are trapping foxes, people who are keeping out rabbits.

“They are not concentrating on what they should be doing, on what they do well. It has been taken over by the politicos at the top.”

Dickson Wright, who said that foxes are “essentially vermin” and rabbits are responsible for the majority of landslides, added: “I think they set out to do good and they should get back to what they are supposed to be doing.”

A champion of country sports, she knows people who have been refused rescue animals because they support hunting, and respectable men who have had their doors knocked down by the police at 4am on the say so of the charity, she claims.

The cook, who once received death threats from animal rights campaigners, added that former donors have written to her expressing their disillusion with the RSPCA.

“I got endless correspondence from little old ladies,” she said. "They told me that they had known idea that this is what they were using their money for, rather than rescuing donkeys or saving dogs, and they wouldn’t have wanted them to use it in this way.”

The RSPCA deny that they are becoming politicised, and say that they have been prosecuting people for cruelty to animals since they were established in 1824.

"On a daily basis, our inspectors see unimaginable cruelty to animals across the country. In the vast majority of cases they provide advice and guidance but in a tiny minority of cases - less than 2 per cent of the complaints of cruelty dealt with by them - legal action is necessary," a spokesperson said.

"Our inspectors receive the overwhelming support of the public for this work. To suggest these hard-working officers are pursuing a political agenda is frankly offensive to the work they are undertaking."

Dickson Wright's comments were supported by the Countryside Alliance, who claim that the animal welfare organisation has become, under its current leadership, "a political campaigning organisation with a militant animal rights agenda which is using the prosecuting system as a weapon to promote its political campaigns"

Executive chairman Barney White-Spunner added: “It is wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on political prosecutions and campaigns which do little, if anything, to improve animal welfare. I am sure those people who donate or leave legacies to the RSPCA don’t expect their money to be wasted on playing political games.

“People should consider whether their money would be better used by other animal charities or even the RSPCA’s local branches which are self-funding, separate charities that continue to focus on their role in rescuing neglected and abandoned animals.”



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



22 August, 2013

Our American story: Divorce, denial and the death of God

On Christmas Eve 2011, I opened our front door to find one of my teenage daughter’s friends, sobbing. Her parents had divorced months before, and her dad wasn’t around. Her mother started bringing men home regularly to spend the night. The girl told her mom that having the men around made her feel uncomfortable. Her mom kicked her out of the house. On Christmas Eve.

This could be a single story of one young girl and the fall-out of one divorce, but it’s not. It’s becoming Our American Story: adults who do as they wish with little regard for the child, divorce, cohabitation, children with a revolving door of adults in their lives, no longer a family but a group of people with tenuous ties to each other, their community, their faith.

There are plenty of statistics that bear out that this American Story is the norm (the CDC report here and a report from the Institute of American Values here.) How did it become Our Story?

Mary Eberstadt takes on the tangled threads of faith and family in How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization (Templeton Press, 2013). Despite the title, it’s not simply a book about religion (or lack thereof); Eberstadt makes it clear that faith and family are undeniably linked. She uses the visual of the DNA double-helix strand: religious commitment and participation as one strand, strong and healthy families as the other, with ladder-like bars holding the two together. With the collapse of one, she argues, the inevitable happens: the breakdown of the other..

It’s a chicken-or-the-egg riddle, whether the disintegration of the family came first or the collapse of traditional Christian faith did. (For the purposes of this book, Eberstadt focuses solely on Christianity, since she is concerned here with Western culture.) Too closely intertwined to make a call, Eberstadt does pin a date on the collapse of this double helix: 1960.

Why 1960? Why did God stop mattering at that point? Why did the family falter?

    "The underlying and underappreciated quantum leap toward irreligiosity in the 1960s, one can argue, owed most of its force to the approval in 1960 of the birth control pill, which would change relations between the sexes – that is to say, with the natural family – as never before."

Whether one “likes” the Pill or not, Eberstadt is firm: the Pill and the associated sexual revolution are the “linchpin of change in Western religiosity.” What’s the fall-out? Fewer marriages, fewer children, fewer children growing up in intact (biological parents married to each other) homes.

How does this affect Christianity? Eberstadt argues that the collapse of the traditional family is an “unseen engine of secularization”: People don’t like to be told they are doing something wrong. If you go to church on Sunday and hear a sermon condemning cohabitation or artificial birth control – which you practice – you’re probably going to be unhappy. Maybe you won’t go back. Eberstadt points out that Christianity has a message – core precepts that it is compelled to teach. The more people in “broken and frayed homes” take offense to traditional Christian teaching, the less likely they are to transmit the faith to the next generation, the very faith that helps hold families together, Eberstadt argues. The two strands of the double helix continue to unravel.

Didi Martinez, a young journalist makes a telling plea in a piece called “A Millenial’s Appeal To Parents”:

    "We are a thriving generation, but a hurting one as well. Whoever says that parents are not an essential element within a child's life and development is a fool. We have lost a desire for tradition, we have lost a desire for permanence, we have lost a desire for automatic respect, and have become more secular in our lifestyles -- glorifying temporary and frivolous things that will only lead us to become more unhappy when it's all gone. Let us mend our relationship. Lead us back."

“So what?” one might say. If folks want to live together, have kids with multiple partners and not go to church, why should we care? Why should we care, as Didi Martinez puts it, that we have a “hurting generation” on our hands? If we are interested in a healthy society, where children are given the best opportunity to flourish, know a sense of place and purpose, we must care. Philosophy instructor at Calvin College, James K.A. Smith, says this:

    "A healthy, flourishing society depends on structures and institutions beyond the state. Even the economic life of a nation cannot be adequately (or justly) fostered by just a couple of “spheres” (as Abraham Kuyper called them) like the market and/or government. Societal health requires a robust, thriving civil society, with all kinds of “little platoons” working creatively and in common, without being managed by the apparatus of government or constantly seeking the permission of the state.

    Opportunity, for example, requires the foundation of a home and family that provide security, support, and an education in virtue…

    In short, if our society wants to foster upward mobility and economic stability—the good features of the American dream—then we need to call into question the dogmas of secularist progressivism."

Eberstadt’s thesis is plain: The success of Christianity relies on the success of the traditional, nuclear family and vice versa. While we must acknowledge the many single parents who are striving under difficult circumstances to live their faith and raise their children well, we must also recognize we are in a calamitous state, affecting not only family and faith, but also the economy, the culture, politics: society itself.

Eberstadt, in her book’s notes, reminds the reader that from Genesis to the Pauline letters, marriage is meant to be a fruitful and protected state. She speculates that the Judeo-Christian call to protect family and marriage is also a way to protect society at large. To “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) is a rejoinder not just for family life, but all of culture.

Do we care? I know one person who does. The girl on my doorstep, sobbing over the fact that her mother chose a succession of men over her on a cold Christmas Eve.


Men's bonuses are higher than women's because women know that money isn't everything

By Cristina Odone

Glamour magazine's summer issue is dedicated to boosting its (female) readers' self-confidence. Sandwiched in between photos of Jessie J and tips on the best summer skirts to buy, its key section focuses on how to ask the boss for a raise.

Glamour knows its readers. Most women between 20-45, from all walks of life, share a secret: they lack the will, and sometimes the gumption, to rise to the top in their profession. Yes, there are Alpha females who stop at nothing to further their careers; they park their kids with childminders and then boarding schools to get them out of the way of their work; and see their partners and friends in terms only of whether they can further their ambitions. But the majority is not like this.

The statistics prove it. They are dire, as we found out today: women lose about £150k over their lifetime because they lose out on bonuses. Some of this is down to myopic and misogynist bosses who cannot reward female talent. These men (and women – who can be far more cruel to female colleagues) should be shamed into changing their ways. At the same time, those women who would dearly love a bonus and simply fail to ask for it, should be taught – by school, as well as glossy magazines – how to be assertive.

But the main reason women lose out on bonuses is because they are too family-centred to care about bonuses, salary raises, even promotions.

You'd never know this category existed, by watching TV or listening to the radio.  Alpha females so dominate the airwaves that their message of invincible womanhood overwhelms the chorus of the majority. Yet, as I found out in researching What Women Really Want for the Centre for Policy Studies, most women would rather give up that bonus for a few extra days off with the family. They would prefer to have a government that supports their choice to raise their own children, rather than one who pushes them out to work – where they may or may not earn a bonus.

Yes, the stats look bad – but most of  the women behind them know that a bonus is not everything in life.


Boris Johnson to revisit Australia

CITY Hall, home to the Greater London Authority, is a glass edifice on the south bank of the Thames in the shadow of Tower Bridge. The leaflets in racks against the wall are similar to those one would find in a mid-sized town; London may be one of the world's great financial and cultural hubs with a population of eight million people, but it's a mixture of the grand and parochial. Johnson has presided over the kind of dream events that usually only occur once in a lifetime - the Olympics, the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, a Brit winning Wimbledon - and give plenty of lustre to the job.

I'm ushered up to the top floor and the man himself swings into view, clutching a helmet, fresh from a briefing about a 160km charity bicycle ride the following weekend.

Johnson is shorter than I expect but the hair is boy-band magnificent. His most recent biographer, Sonia Purnell, who worked with him at The Daily Telegraph's Brussels office, claims the messy locks take work; that he actually wakes up every morning with a neat side parting.

"Where will Boris sit?" I ask as his press secretary ushers me towards a long table and then realise I'm being over-familiar. I start to apologise but Johnson is at my elbow, full of genial good humour. "Ha ha," he booms in his distinctive public school tones, "call me whatever you want!"

Getting down to the nitty gritty of the interview, I ask what it's like being mayor of London. "It's the best job in British politics by miles and I feel increasingly morose that I've forsworn the idea of standing again," he responds emphatically. "As the date draws nearer, like all people who love their job, I'm starting to think 'oh no', but it probably is the right thing to do to give another three years of real effort and then pack it in."

He won't be drawn on what he plans to do next, except, he says, firmly on message, to put the full weight of his support behind Cameron.

Johnson's brother Joseph, seven years his junior, was recently appointed as head of the Number 10 policy unit. As the eldest, Boris has always done things first and in many respects Jo Johnson has journeyed in Boris's slipstream, with a similar career in journalism and stints in Europe. What if his brother were to become prime minister first?

"I think it very likely and I think he'd be brilliant," he responds robustly.

"So you're not like the Miliband brothers then?" I ask, referring to Ed and David; the former is leader of the Labour Party, a position his older and more experienced sibling was widely expected to win.

This provokes an instant rebuke. "Absolutely not," he says, "we don't do things that way, that's a very left-wing thing ... only a socialist could do that to his brother, only a socialist could regard familial ties as being so trivial as to shaft his own brother. I mean, unbelievable! Only lefties can think like that ... they see people as discrete agents devoid of ties to society or to each other, and that's how Stalin could murder 20 million people."

OK, I reply, somewhat perplexed; weak social ties are not something one usually associates with the Left.

What about amoral familism, I suggest, naming a sociological term for a right-wing phenomenon of fierce loyalty to the family at the expense of society. When I offer the Sicilian Mafia as a prime example, Johnson lights up with enthusiasm. The Mafia turns out to have been an early interest. "That's a very interesting point and when politicians talk about the primacy of the family there's no doubt there's a bit of that going on," he concedes.

"The Godfather is a classic text, a great political text," he continues, claiming it made a profound impact on him when, at the age of 13 or 14, he bought a copy of Mario Puzo's novel for 10p at a village fete.

As a child, Johnson says, he read everything he could lay his hands on, but had a light-bulb moment at the age of 10 when an aunt gave him a copy of Charles Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle. "It was such an obvious explanation for how things were and it was intuitively right," he says of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Another explosive text was The Iliad. Johnson is known as a fine classics scholar and says Homer's tale has had the greatest ethical influence on him of any writing, "though probably not in a good way". He identifies with the hero Achilles. "You've got Agamemnon, who is the titular chief, and he happens to be there through some constitutional accident, and there's Achilles, who's really the natural leader." The Iliad, he continues, "has the blinding intensity of the sun at noonday".

It's been said that for Johnson the classical world is still very much alive (a large bust of the fifth-century BC Greek statesman Pericles dominates his office), so if he could go back to ancient Rome, I ask, would it be to the republic or the mperial era?

"Which would I choose? Which is the more glorious? That is a wonderful question," he says. "The differences between the two were not as great as you might suppose. I'd want to be there at the transition; the greatest story of all would be to see Rome from the death of Julius Caesar in 44BC to the death of Augustus. That would be amazing, the programmatic event in our civilisation."

So, are leaders born or made? There's a pause. "I think that we're all accidents of upbringing and genes, and a combination between the two." Another pause. "Hard to say."

In the case of his own family, Johnson says, the psychological profile is straightforward. "I was the eldest, then 18 months after I was born, my sister Rachel appeared, and ever since my life has been a constant struggle for resources and attention."

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born in New York in 1964 to British parents. His mother, Charlotte, is an artist; his father, Stanley, an author and former member of the European Parliament, is an expert on environmental issues. In 1970, Stanley Johnson wrote a book titled Life without Birth: A Journey Through the Third World in Search of the Population Explosion, in which he exhorted others to avoid the errors of his procreating ways. "Act now. Act now. Oh God! ... How can I face the row of small blond heads bobbing over the cornflakes knowing I am statistically accountable for the burdens they will add to society?" he wrote.

Alongside bobbing blonds Boris, Rachel - a writer and former editor-in-chief of The Lady magazine - and Jo, there's Leo, an environmental consultant and the family's only non-Tory. The children were brought up in Brussels and England and encouraged to compete with each other from an early age: who could read The Times leader best, who could run fastest, who had the fairest hair. Boris was the leader. When as a small child he was asked what he wanted to be he said, "the world king".

He won a scholarship to Eton, where he was a high-achieving if lazy student, and at Oxford he hung out with a raffish upper-class crowd, was a member of the elite Bullingdon Club and president of the Oxford Union. Although Johnson may seem the epitome of solid English upper-middle classness, his ancestry includes a Turkish great-grandfather, the Ottoman politician Ali Kemal Bey, Jewish forebears on his mother's side and, further back, descent from George II. His wife, Marina Wheeler, is half Indian. He describes himself as a one-man melting pot and is a firm advocate of immigration.

I mention the latest political clash in Australia over asylum-seekers. With the federal election in full swing during his visit, Johnson says he'll "be careful not to intrude", then launches into praise of an open-door policy. "I think 40 per cent of Londoners were born abroad; immigration's been the lifeblood of London, Australian immigrants included. What you want is people who are ambitious and have energy, and a city like Melbourne benefits hugely from that."

"Including people in leaky boats?" I venture. "Yes, they've got a lot of balls."

The Romans let everyone in, he continues, and that's what made them the greatest civilisation on earth. "But if you want to live in London, there are certain things you've got to sign up for - gender equality, freedom of speech, religious freedom." Immigration scaremongering makes his blood boil. "I mean, for Christ sake, who do they think founded this city? A bunch of pushy Italians!"

Did I know, he continues, that with 250,000 French residents, London counts as the sixth largest French city on the planet? A thought suddenly strikes him. "I bet I'm also the mayor of one of the largest Australian cities in the world. Yes, in returning to Melbourne and Sydney I am simply returning to my own country, because, I'm proud to say I'm probably the mayor of the eighth biggest city in Australia!" (For the record, there are about 200,000 Australians in London, bringing his fantasy Australian town in at No 12, slightly smaller than Hobart and just beating Geelong.)

The latter is apposite as it was at Geelong Grammar that Johnson had his first taste of Australia as a 19-year-old teacher of Latin, English and PE. He returned briefly in the early 1990s as a guest lecturer in European thought at Monash University.

Alongside mooching in Melbourne's bookshops and watching St Kilda play, he says he enjoyed banter with the "lefty intelligentsia" at the Monash campus. There were robust debates about Aboriginal art, he says, "and whether it was superior to the Sistine Chapel - and there was a strong view that it was. Then we had an argument about the [Australian] republic, and they were all convinced that there was going to be one," he recalls.

I ask if he can provide details of his sparring partners. "I think I'd better not embarrass them by mentioning any names," he chortles.

Does he favour a republic?

"Of course not," he snorts, and he's returning to Australia to collect on a 20-year-old wager. "One of them will definitely remember that he bet me $100 that Australia would be a Republic in the year 2000," he says. "And he is yet to cough up, so I'm coming to claim my hundred bucks."


Repressing women is sharia's raison d'etre

Four is the number at the heart of the violent counter-reformation that confronts our Western values. Four is the number of wives the Koran says a man may have. No such latitude is afforded to women. Osama bin Laden, above all a man of the Koran, took his full quota of wives, a luxury not available to most Muslim men. He was 17 when he married his first wife, who was also his first cousin. She was 14. While this was in accordance with historical custom, in our culture it would have been statutory rape.

Her name was Najwa Ghanem. She had her first child at age 16. Her second at 17. Her third at 19. By the time she was 21 she was the mother of four. In 1982, when bin Laden was 25, he married again, to a woman with a doctorate in child psychology. They had one child. He married a third time, a marriage which produced four children. Then a fourth time, and another three children. All up, 19 children from four simultaneous marriages. In our culture, that would be bigamy.

The cult of personality and mythology that grew around bin Laden masked the real menace, and real cause, for which he stood. Because when you scrape away the layers of rhetoric of such jihadists, or those who rationalise their actions, it is evident their primary concern in seeking to impose strict sharia is to control and constrain women's freedom. This is the core cultural impact of sharia.

Though sharia is embraced or tolerated by most Muslim women, it is unforgiving, even dangerous, towards those who defy the control allowed to husbands, fathers, brothers. This is not confined to the wild Wahhabist fringe that bin Laden inhabited. The constraints on women imposed daily by sharia are imposed on hundreds of millions of Muslim women by hundreds of millions of Muslim men.

In this context, the whole concept of Islamic holy war has been in part an expression of sexual repression and sexual oppression. Bin Laden was not a great warrior. His greatest asset was inherited family wealth, which he used to buy influence among warlords, fund recruits and support his greed for women.

After money, his most valuable asset was the pipeline of men willing to murder innocents in the name of Allah. Like all activists willing to murder, his terrorist cell was able to cast a very long shadow on a very small budget. Thus the concept of al-Qaeda was, and remains, a viral, self-managing movement which justifies murder and intimidation by invoking the Koran, a deeply contradictory document. The self-styled religion of peace is a self-styled religion of war.

Al-Qaeda's harsh and anti-democratic version of Islam was irrelevant in the Arab spring earlier this year, when tumult against oppressive regimes rocked Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and Kuwait. Women took to the streets. In Egypt the unemployment rate for young women is almost 60 per cent. They have a huge stake in reform. But when a steering committee of 10 prominent Egyptians was set up to fill the vacuum left by the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, women were conspicuously absent.

Not just sexual inequality, but sexual repression, is a structural problem in the Muslim world. Millions of young men cannot have a girlfriend and are unable to find a wife because they are unable to find a job. A glimpse was provided on February 11, during the anti-government demonstrations in Tahrir Square in Cairo, when a blonde, attractive American network TV journalist, Lara Logan, was set upon and sexually assaulted by a throng of men after she was separated from her bodyguards. It took a wedge of Egyptian soldiers half an hour to extract her.

Whether the Arab spring translates into greater democracy and greater rights for women remains unknowable. In Egypt, the most organised political group is the Muslim Brotherhood, which wants strict sharia.

And the last time a regime was toppled by people power in the Middle East, on the streets of Tehran in 1979, it was led by left-wing students and many women. But their victory soon gave way to theocratic oppression, a long night which has not lifted after 32 years.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



21 August, 2013

British Police forced to scrap 'barmy' plan to not arrest shoplifters who take goods under £50 after business owners branded it a 'looters' charter'

Plans by police in London not to arrest shoplifters who take goods worth less than £50 have been scrapped after being branded a ‘looters’ charter’ by shopkeepers.

Police in Hammersmith and Fulham – home to the Westfield shopping centre, Britain’s worst shoplifting hotspot – said that the radical scheme would allow them to focus on more serious offences.

Officers told businesses and town hall bosses they should deal with low-level crimes themselves rather than calling 999.

But representatives of the West London council and retailers reacted with fury.

Greg Smith, deputy leader at Hammersmith and Fulham Council, said: ‘Anyone who steals is a criminal – full stop. They will face the full force of the law in our borough.’

Conservative MP Michael Ellis, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, added: ‘Such a policy would be akin to a looters’ charter.’

Scotland Yard admitted that  a sergeant in the borough had made the suggestion during a meeting with council officials and business leaders.

A pilot scheme was due to take place across Hammersmith and Fulham and would have meant shop assistants and security guards apprehending suspected shoplifters with less than £50 worth of goods themselves rather than calling for police assistance.

But the Metropolitan Police insisted this was not official force policy and dismissed the plan as unworkable.

Mr Smith added: ‘We are pleased that the local police have rejected this barmy idea.’


Librarian wants to stop boy who loves books from reading so much

All must have prizes?

A LIBRARIAN is out to stop a nine-year-old boy who loves books from continually winning a reading competition.

Tyler Weaver won the six-week-long "Dig into Reading" event run by Hudson Falls Public Library in upstate New York by completing 63 books from June 24 to August 3, averaging more than 10 a week, The Glen Falls Post-Star reports.

He has consistently been the top reader since kindergarten, devouring 373 books over the five contests, according to his mother, Katie.  "It feels great," Tyler told the Post-Star.

But library director Marie Gandron said Tyler "hogs" the contest every year and he should "step aside."  "Other kids quit because they can't keep up," Ms Gandron said.

Ms Gandron plans to change the rules of the contest so that instead of giving prizes to the children who read the most books, she would draw names out of a hat and declare winners that way.

She said she has an "attitude" about the contest because several years ago a little girl came in claiming she had read more than 200 books. Her mother backed her up, but it was discovered the girl was lying.

Tyler said this uproar has made him "a little bit angry."  "How would it even be a contest if you just picked a name out of a hat?"

KatieWeaver said if Ms Gandron takes an alternate approach to the contest next year, neither of her sons will participate.

"I don't see the downside of Tyler winning five years in a row. I think people should be proud of him, especially a library director," she said.


Antisemitic poison in British churches

During the years which preceded the Second World War Political and Religious meetings were being held throughout Europe during which Jews were condemned as a danger to society. Little was done by Christians to stop this teaching which incited the hatred which enabled the mass murder of men women and children to take place. Ordinary men who before the war were upright members of the community joined such units as Battalion 101 who were reservist Police officers and who became the most violent killers in history. Within five short years those men in that battalion, who numbered less than 500, originally defenders of communities, became the murderers of 83,000 Jews. They, who had families of their own, stripped and shot women and children at point blank range and the local Clergy watched. This happened for many reasons but one reason was that people were afraid to do anything to oppose such violence. If you were caught helping Jews you would be arrested and taken to the murder camps or executed on the spot, as were your family.

On Sunday the 25th of August the Greenbelt Christian Youth Summer Camp being held at Cheltenham Racecourse will host Reverend Lucy Winkett the Chair of the Amos Trust who will launch, on behalf of the trust, the Kairos Britain network of Churches. This network, which is also being launched in other countries around the world is targeting Israel as an oppressive unjust and racist nation who give no rights to the Palestinians. They condemn Israel and call out for Justice for Palestinians but they ignore the rights of Israel to defend herself and to live on land rightfully her own. They call for what they describe as an end to oppression and injustice by Israel but refuse to address the oppression of Christians in Gaza or the removal of Human rights of women and young men or the summary executions in HAMAS governed areas. They don’t condemn the firing of 29,000 rockets which have been fired at Israeli communities since 2000 or the suicide bombings which are now being prevented by the security fence. They don’t address the increasing teaching of hatred in Palestinian Arab schools. I could go on but I think I have made my point.

Greenbelt are also hosting a number of other speakers who are anti-Israel, one of whom Mark Braverman who calls Zionism Racism. This conference attended by the big names in Christianity such as Graham Kendrick and Steve chalk are inciting our youth to hate in the same way as European Church leaders did in the years preceding the Holocaust. This incitement is no less subtle and neither is it in any way less dangerous.

The difference between now and then is that we are not going to be rounded up and shot for standing with Israel and speaking out when the rest of the Church is condemning her. So why aren’t we? In every genocide there are victims, perpetrators, bystanders and rescuers. Many Christians in Holocaust were classified as bystanders because of the real threat of being murdered alongside Jews. So today why are many in the Christian community bystanders when there is no threat except that of words from those fuelled by antisemtism?

We are conditioned to believe that by attending a conference or a meeting held by a pro-Israel speaker and giving our money to support such ministries that we are doing all we can to help Israel. We are conditioned because this is how it has always been done and we go home satisfied that we have done the work that God has called us to do. We have actually become by-standers even by-sitters unless we put the knowledge we gain from such meetings into real action. Why aren’t we rallying at Greenbelt or New Wine or any anti-Israel meetings? Why aren’t we gathering together to pray at such events and show these groups that their teaching is heretical and inciting hatred.

The first part of the definition of Hate Speech is “Speech which generates fear on the part of an individual or group” I believe the Jewish community here in the UK are not as much fearful of the anti-Israel meetings as they are of the apathy within Christendom which allows these meetings to take place without a challenge.

I have written to the BBC who will hold their Radio 2 good morning Sunday programme at Greenbelt when this network is launched to point out that we will be attending because there is another side to the story, but they have not replied. I know the Jewish community have asked Greenbelt to allow them a speaker but that has been denied.

As you know Fathers House/Christians for Zion is taking a bus from North Wales to the Greenbelt event on 25th but I am only aware of one other group who is joining us and that is a car full of passionate believers from Northamptonshire. I am however aware that if there is a Charismatic speaker at a conference in London or Manchester the meeting will be full. Why is this the case, it easier to sit in a conference and enjoy the meeting and do nothing except listen. Is it also because Greenbelt are launching this on a Sunday and all the Israel supporters will be in Church on a Sunday and unable to attend? Is it because it is too far? Is it because it takes us out of our comfort zone? If so then we have become bystanders/by-sitters.

The launch of the Kairos Britain Network a week on Sunday will, I am sure, see many Churches join but few if any in the conference will oppose it. Britain can only boast of 13 who are considered Righteous Amongst the Nations (those who rescued Jews during the War) compared with such as 4,767 in the Netherlands and we in Britain did little to help Jews escape the terrors. I know God wants us to help the Jewish people, in fact Yeshua encourages us to do so in Mathew 25 when He says, and you visited me in prison, clothed, fed and helped me because you did it for one of these my family.  

Ezekiel 36 makes it very clear that God is gathering the Jews back to the land He promised them, not for their sake, the scripture points out, but for His Holy name. Greenbelt and their speakers are denying Gods Holy name and the people within our Nation are being blinded by such organisations from seeing God in action and being faithful to all His promises. 


Australia: Tougher parole laws go to Vic parliament

VICTORIA'S parliament will this week debate tougher parole laws while the latest review of the state system may be released as early as Tuesday.

Previously announced changes, including making breaching parole a crime, will be debated in parliament this week, while a review of the state's parole system by retired High Court judge Ian Callinan may also be released as early as Tuesday.

Premier Denis Napthine said the state would have the toughest parole regime in the country.

"We'll be debating further toughening of parole laws in Victoria to make it very clear that we will have the toughest parole conditions in Australia," Dr Napthine told reporters on Monday.

"There is no doubt that there needs to be improvements to our parole processes.  "We make no apology for making it very clear that parole is a privilege not a right."

Among the measures being debated in parliament are making breaching parole an offence and giving police greater powers to deal with those those who breach parole.

The government has already made it mandatory to put violent offenders back in jail if they are convicted of a serious crime while on parole.

The crackdown follows about 13 murders by parolees in recent years, including the Jill Meagher case, with the families of victims among those calling for greater transparency and accountability by the parole board.

Dr Napthine met with Ms Meagher's widower Tom last week to discuss his concerns about the Adult Parole Board of Victoria.

Helen Wicking, whose daughter Joanne was killed by a parolee in 2010, says victims of crime need to have a stronger voice in parole decisions, and called for stronger surveillance once prisoners are released.

Steve Medcraft, president of People Against Lenient Sentencing, says he hopes to see a degree of transparency introduced to the parole board.

"I would hope that we get a clearer insight into the workings of the body and more involvement from people affected by the decisions," he said.

The board's decisions are made in an administrative rather than a legal setting, meaning prisoners are not entitled to legal representation and hearings are not open to the public or media.

Two of the four reviews of the state's parole system - suppressed during an inquest - examine 11 cases of offenders alleged to have murdered people while on parole.

The issue goes back before State Coroner Judge Ian Gray on Tuesday. He last week lifted the suppression order but the Department of Justice sought a stay while it considered an appeal.

Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews said the Callinan and other reviews should be made public.  "There needs to be an open process. It needs to be transparent."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



20 August, 2013

Is your birth control pill controlling YOU? New book claims hormonal contraception is a tool to suppress women in society

Stupid feminist conspiracy theory

A new book has claimed that the Pill is in fact the tool of a capitalist patriarchy intent on altering and suppressing femininity.

British author Holly Grigg-Spall has written 'Sweetening the Pill: Or How We Got Hooked on Hormonal Birth Control' and believes that a number of studies proves her point that contraception is in fact controlling women.

She adds that women’s unquestioning acceptance of such powerful medications is in some ways a submission to a culture steeped in hatred of the feminine.

A book review by Vice magazine writer Kelly Bourdet reveals that while Ms Grigg-Spall was on birth control she felt a distance between herself and her ‘femaleness'.

Ms Grigg-Spall said: ‘Over the years [of being on the Pill] I felt no connection between my self and my body, between my self and the world around me, between my femaleness and myself.’

A 2011 study of women both on and off hormonal contraception found that the medication did affect a woman's memory.

Both sets of women were shown photos and told a story about a car accident involving a young boy and his subsequent hospital visit.

Women on the pill remembered more of the emotional aspects of the story - the boy being hurt, what happened to him at the hospital - while the women who were not on the Pill were more likely to recall the details of the scene - what things looked like and where they were placed.

Ms Grigg-Spall argues that if memory contextualises our past experiences and governs our future behaviour and understanding of the world, then a drug that alters it in even a slight way might have far-reaching consequences.

Indeed, the changing testosterone levels in a woman’s body has been shown to affect women’s choice of sexual partners and mates.

A 2012 study revealed that women on hormonal birth control - which suppresses naturally occurring testosterone - were attracted to men with lower testosterone levels.

However when women went off of the Pill, and their testosterone levels increased, their attraction to their feminine partners decreased.

Reviewer Kelly Bourdet agrees that the evidence does show that the hormonal contraception has powerful and life-altering side effects.  And she adds that it’s fair to wonder whether a drug that could alter our choice in long-term partners is 'too powerful for comfort'.

But the reviewer says the anti-Pill activist's argument has its flaws. She says that it presumes that a woman is 'somehow entirely defined by her hormones, lack of hormones, or artificially achieved level of hormones.

'That a woman couldn’t possibly use her brain to decide to alter her hormones and that the hormonal levels once believed to rule women's behaviour in such a way to make her nervous, emotional, and hysterical, once suppressed, rule her in an entirely different way.'


Norway Christians hanging on (just) to Biblical teachings

Norway's first woman pastor to enter into a same-sex civil union will quit her ministry to protest against the discrimination gays and lesbians face within the Lutheran Church, she said in an interview published Wednesday.

"It has become untenable for me to represent a Church where parts of it are still quite exclusionary," Hilde Raastad told the daily Aftenposten.

In 1997, she became the first woman pastor in Norway to tie the knot in a civil partnership with another woman.

Ten years later, the church officially authorized the ordination of gays, but gave bishops and clerical authorities in charge of recruitment the right to refuse a ministry to a person living in a same-sex civil union.

Raastad said she had been refused several positions even though she was sometimes the only candidate, and said she had sent a letter to Oslo Bishop Ole Christian Kvarme asking him to annul her ordination.

"I consider homophobia a sin," she told Aftenposten.  "A local church can't pick people by the colour of their skin or their ethnicity. In the same way it can't exclude or judge people by their sexual orientation," she said.

"It has been a burden to feel the disapproval of my superiors, to see that they consider my love a theological problem and that I live a life that would lead to sin and perdition," she added.

Questioned by the paper, the bishop, a conservative who is known for his opposition to the employment of homosexuals in the Church, refused to comment on the contents of the letter which he said he had yet to read.  He said he would likely meet with Raastad in person to discuss her complaints.

Norway has allowed gays to marry in church since 2009. Church and state were officially separated last year.


Nine-month ordeal of men taken to court after catching migrant burglar on their roof as British police waited on the ground

Crap British justice again

Two men were dragged to court for apprehending a Romanian they caught burgling their business.

A nine-month ordeal ended for Steven Iliffe, 54, and son Daniel, 26, yesterday when a judge threw out the case against them.

They had begged police to go on a roof to arrest career criminal Petre Ilie.  But officers were barred by their superiors, via their radio, due to health and safety rules.

Eventually, the father and son, both former soldiers, went on the roof themselves to tackle the armed man.

They were stunned when the police later arrested them on suspicion of attempted murder – and later charged them with the lesser offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Yesterday, the pair said they were considering legal action against Leicestershire Police.

Mr Iliffe senior said he had suffered a heart attack in a cell triggered by the stress of his arrest at their scrap metal business in Hinckley, Leicestershire, last December.

He added: ‘We had suffered a string of burglaries and went up onto that roof only because the police had refused to do so.’

He said he grabbed Ilie by the shoulder and ‘walloped’ him once to the chest to restrain him, while his son admitted striking the intruder on the hand with a wooden roof baton to try to dislodge an eight-inch metal roof bolt from his grasp.

Mr Iliffe junior is said to have struck the suspect again before the pair managed to drag him off the roof and down a ladder to police.  But a PC waiting on the ground claimed to have seen them carry out a ferocious assault.

Leicester Crown Court was told yesterday that Ilie, 39, already had ‘a number of convictions for burglary, failing to surrender and breaching court orders’ in the UK under the name Christopher Tudor. In 2010 he was deported but sneaked back into the UK. He was then arrested again alongside the Iliffes.

Father-of-four Ilie admitted burglary with intent to steal and the attempted burglary of a nearby business earlier that night.  He was sentenced to 26 weeks in jail and deported for a second time on his release in March this year.

The Iliffes’ trial had been for the judge to consider a defence application to throw the case out as an ‘abuse of the court process’.

The application hinged on a  decision by the UK Border Agency to refuse permission for Ilie to be returned to the UK to give evidence because he was a ‘flight risk’ – having been deported twice – and might disappear in the UK.

The Iliffes claimed they could not have a fair trial if Ilie could not be cross-examined.  The judge agreed and granted the application.


Australia: Challenger in Prime Minister's electorate opposes Islam and wants mosques banned

Representing an evangelical Christian party that regularly criticizes Islam

A CANDIDATE for the Prime Minister's seat of Griffith has put outlawing the Islamic faith front and centre of her election campaign, branding it a "religion from hell" and claiming that building mosques in Australia is "high treason".

Sherrilyn Church of the Rise Up Australia Party says her top policy priority in the election is to ban the building of mosques in the electorate, south of Brisbane.

Ms Church - a small-time citrus farmer from Crows Nest on the Darling Downs - said her primary concern for the electorate was "the Islamisation of the city by councils giving permission for mosques to be erected".

"Basically, I see Islam not primarily a religion but a system of law because to the Islamic mind the existence of a mosque in an area means they believe that Sharia law applies and the Islamic flag must fly - now that is high treason in a sovereign nation," she said.

"Islam is a legal system before it is a religion. We have freedom of religion but their religion is illegal.

"We are multiethnic, but we are not multicultural, because that's where the law comes into it.

"The people in the mosque can be as charming and pleasant as your best Australian but there is also those elements, as you know across the world, where young men are recruited to jihadist training camps from these mosques.

"A lot of people consider it to be fine. A lot of people also consider that having gay marriage is fine."

Ms Church, 61, said she believed the Muslim faith and democratic citizenship were fundamentally incompatible.

"This question is asked of all Australian citizens when they stand before the governor or to become citizens. They have to declare that they will come under our system of law, and our flag.

"If you're going to say; 'no, I'm going to hold to the laws of the Koran', I would say `pack your bags, get on the next plane and go home'.

"Our laws are totally and utterly contrary to the law of the Koran. There are some religions that didn't come from heaven, they come from hell."

Ms Church's platform has proven unpopular within the local Islamic community, which has two mosques in the Griffith electorate at Holland Park and West End.

The views only damage hard-fought steps to integration with the southside community according to Islamic College of Brisbane chairman Mohammed Yusuf.

"It's a very sad thing that because of ignorance and people trying to gain cheap publicity with these things they do so much damage," Mr Yusuf said.

"It really annoys us when people who through their own ignorance or for their own political gains, say things which are damaging. It's not in the best interest for anyone.

Mr Yusuf said that Christianity and Islam were fundamentally the same and the Sharia is compatible with Australia life and "does not affect anybody else".

"There's punishments and penalties for certain things -- adultery or stealing and all that -- under Sharia law that apply in Islamic states, not Australia so there's no way the Muslims are going to say I'm going to introduce that here.

"The majority of the things we talk about for Sharia law are already in existence here -- we follow what applies to us, what does not apply we refrain from and don't practice."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



19 August, 2013

Spanish double standards: With Gibraltar besieged, what about Spain's own Rock - their colonial outpost in Africa

Blockade Ceuta!

Colonial grandeur still dominates the skyline. An old cannon points its weather-beaten barrel across the Strait of Gibraltar. Up on the huge rock above, the sleepy ancient fortress is still manned by the Armed Forces. Down below, locals and tourists seek shade in the little cafes or head for the beach.

It’s easy to forget that just a couple of miles down the road is the heavily fortified frontier that cuts this contented little peninsular off from the rest of the continent. But as far as the locals are concerned, this is their patch of soil. They say they will never be forced to hand it over to the vast, brooding nation to which they are attached by a narrow bit of land. That would be, well, completely undemocratic.

‘We are Spanish to the death!’ says retired fisherman Andre Leon, 77, sitting beneath a tree in the centre of Ceuta, the resolutely Spanish territory on the northern tip of Morocco, where he was born and bred.

It’s a nice enough spot, with ancient monuments and air-conditioned shopping plazas. And it neatly illustrates the ocean-going Spanish hypocrisy to be found on either side of the 18-mile stretch of water separating Europe and Africa.

For, just across one of the world’s busiest seaways, we find the 30,000 British citizens of Gibraltar enduring threats, siege conditions and even physical abuse from a clapped-out Spanish regime mired in a slush-fund corruption scandal. The centre-Right People’s Party hopes to divert the attentions of a disgusted Spanish electorate by shouting the oldest war cry in the book: ‘Give us back Gibraltar!’

Yet try to point out Spain’s own string of post-colonial possessions on the African coast, such as Ceuta — clearly visible on Gibraltar’s horizon — and the response is a furious outburst of sanctimonious shrieking, table-thumping and general spilling of Rioja. ‘That is completely different,’ declares Spanish officialdom, citing a 15th-century legal technicality.

You only need to spend a few days, as I have this week, on both sides of the strait to realise Spain isn’t just in breach of both the letter and spirit of European law with its current harassment of Gibraltar. It’s also guilty of the most brazen double standards. In short, Spain wants to have its paella, eat it, get someone else to pay for it and thump anyone who argues.

Little wonder the people of Gibraltar are preparing the warmest of welcomes for the Royal Navy frigate, HMS Westminster, when she docks on Monday as part of a routine exercise.

‘As soon as someone spots her on the horizon, we’ll have boats out to greet her,’ says Gareth Gingell from a local community action group called The Defenders of Gibraltar.

Foreign Office mandarins and high-brow British commentators may wince at the vulgar jingoism of it all. Why should a tiny tax haven be allowed to sour Britain’s relations with Spain?

As one Guardian columnist put it this week, places like Gibraltar are nothing more than ‘Churchillian theme parks of red pillar boxes, fish and chips and warm beer’.

Gibraltar yesterday unveiled designs for a new £20 silver coin featuring Churchill and the words ‘We shall never surrender’ (it had been planned for months).

This is a place so wedded to the British way of life that two juggernauts leave Britain every day just to stock the Gib branch of Morrisons. This week, the Gibraltarian government announced production of the world’s first stamp commemorating the birth of Prince George.

Yet such patriotism is scoffed at by sophisticated, Europhile bien-pensants for whom it is always ‘silly old Britain’ rather than her adversary that is clinging obsessively to the past.

This is the classic, arrogant perspective of the grand appeaser who has not had to endure hour after hour, day after day, sitting in 30c heat at the whim of a latter-day mini-Franco in the Spanish foreign ministry. Many of the people I find queuing stoically at the frontier happen to be Spanish, since Gibraltar employs 10,000 people from a part of Spain with more than 30???per cent unemployment.

Edward Macquisten of the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce points out that the region has Gib to thank for one in six jobs. Spain is punishing its own.

In recent days, though, Madrid has ordered its commissars on the Gibraltar border to make life as miserable as possible for that pesky rock, with its full employment, its fish and chips, its low taxes, its photos of the Queen and its squeaky-clean little government.

This week, I have watched a perfectly fluid border-crossing turn into a five-hour traffic jam, with one arbitrary click of the fingers from a cross-looking man in a comedy moustache and green Guardia Civil uniform.

‘This is an utter disgrace. Get Rajoy [the Spanish Prime Minister] to suffer this,’ says Manuel Abad, 43, a Gibraltarian ship agent, waiting in a queue of mopeds stretching as far as I can see. The next scooter in the queue has Spanish plates and a Spanish rider. ‘Sack Rajoy!’ she shouts in Spanish.

Few have suffered as badly as Wayne McKay, a 37-year-old call-centre manager. Two weeks ago, he was beaten up by four Spanish policemen and thrown in a Spanish cell, and now awaits two charges of assault, after riding his bicycle up the wrong lane to Spanish passport control.

An exaggeration? Not when I listen to his patient, detailed account of the beating — right down to the Arabic tattoo between the shoulders of a  policeman called ‘Jesus’, who stripped off his shirt before administering the first blows.

Five generations of Wayne’s family have been policemen in Gibraltar, and he has never been in trouble in his life. Now, he is a nervous wreck, as he prepares for his day in (a Spanish) court.

Yesterday, Gib’s chief minister Fabian Picardo assured me that Wayne has the full support of his government. ‘You can see much of what happened on video,’ he says, describing the Guardia Civil as ‘storm troopers’ reminiscent of the Turkish police in the classic film Midnight Express. In Madrid, the government has threatened everything from a £43 toll for crossing the border to the closure of Spanish airspace to British planes and even a ban on ships refuelling from Gibraltarian supply barges.

Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy also declared he was joining forces with Argentina’s Malvinas-mad President Cristina Kirchner to form a Brit-bashing double act at the UN — until it turned out he’d forgotten to discuss it with her.

At a more local level, Spain has resorted to diverting excess sewage to a Gibraltarian tourist spot. ‘Four years ago, they built a storm drain, and instead of sending it out into the bay they pointed it towards Western Beach,’ says Mr Picardo.

There has to be some sort of excuse for all this. Even the imploding administration of Mr Rajoy cannot admit it is bullying Gibraltar for the hell of it. So it has had to manufacture various trumped-up charges. For years, Madrid has been insisting that border checks are crucial to combat cigarette smuggling into Spain — although this hardly explains why there are five-hour queues to get into Gibraltar, as there were yesterday morning.

In the past few days, though, Spain has come up with an entirely different excuse. And it is one that is gathering sympathy and support in Spain. ‘This is a  violation of EU and international law!’ thundered the Spanish foreign ministry, following this month’s construction of an artificial reef by the Gibraltar authorities.

Supported by Greenpeace no less, the reef has been built to help replenish and protect dwindling fish stocks. Angrier than a ton of beef charging down the cobbles of Pamplona, Mr Rajoy and his ministers have railed at this ‘attack on the environment’.

Though Spain is happy to pump the contents of 10,000 lavatories into the path of Gibraltarian swimmers, it professes outrage that 73 blocks of hollowed-out concrete should be dumped on the ocean floor. Worse still, it claims, this is jeopardising the livelihoods of countless Spanish fishermen who earn their living in these waters. Compensation, Britain, por favor!

On the Spanish side of the border, I find considerable local sympathy for these claims, even from Spaniards who depend on Gibraltar for their livelihood.

There is just one problem with the Spanish argument. It is complete and utter codswallop. For I find that over the last few years, the Spanish department of agriculture and fisheries has installed no less than 25 identical artificial reefs along this Andalucian coastline. What’s more, it received an EU grant for three-quarters of the £11 million cost. ‘The only difference between their reefs and ours,’ says Mr Picardo, ‘is that the EU paid for the Spanish reefs. We paid for our own.’

What’s more, the only sort of  fishing affected by the new reef is  raking the sea bed — which is illegal anyway. And only one Spanish fishing boat is known to fish this area.

So, here we have it. Spain is punishing 30,000 Brits and thousands of Spanish workers for creating a marine sanctuary — just like its own — which may stop one fisherman from breaking the law.

It is beyond a joke. It is worse than ‘sabre-rattling’, as Mr Picardo described it recently. It is pure banditry. And it is entirely right that the British Government has finally ignored the feeble, hand-wringing, ‘don’t-upset-the-Spanish’  wing of the Foreign Office.

Instead, David Cameron has told Spain that Britain will not tolerate these threats, that Gibraltar has an inviolable right to self-determination, and that Britain is studying Spain’s behaviour for potential breaches of EU law.

Both he and Foreign Secretary William Hague have repeatedly condemned recent events, condemnations which, in the past, might have come from an ambassador or a junior FCO minister.

Spain is starting to get the message, aware its threats and sanctions will not stand up to legal scrutiny.

Just six weeks ago, I was here in Gibraltar after a Guardia Civil patrol boat fired plastic bullets at a blameless Gibraltarian on a jetski.

Back then, everyone here was moaning that the British Government was ‘not doing enough’.  Not any more.

‘David Cameron has been staunch on this,’ says Dominique Searle, editor of the Gibraltar Chronicle newspaper. ‘I can’t think of the last time the British Government was held in such high regard.’

In Britain, Jim Dobbin MP, Labour chairman of Westminster’s All-Party Group on Gibraltar proclaims cross-party unity on the issue.

Fabian Picardo has been touched by the response from Britain — especially Mail readers — and shows me a card he received from a little girl from London called Lucy, enclosing £10 of her pocket money. ‘There’s no address, so maybe you could ask her to get in touch so we can thank her,’ he says.

While I’m having a cup of tea with the battered Wayne McKay and his family, the view is the same. ‘If Cameron walked down Main Street, we’d shake his hand,’ says Wayne’s father, Peter, a former teacher.

He says the current situation is the worst since the days when the fascist Spanish leader General Franco closed the border completely.

‘This place was like a glorified Alcatraz back then. The only way to show my pupils the wider world was to take them on a ferry to Morocco. I’ll never forget when they all lurched over to one side of the bus. It was the first time they’d ever seen a scarecrow!’

Like everyone here, Peter asks how Spain has the temerity to attack Britain’s ‘colonial’ presence in Gibraltar while Spain sits on several chunks of Morocco — despite vocal protests from the Moroccan government.

In Ceuta, you can’t move for Spanish flags, Spanish road signs and Spanish police. It is impossible to find a single one of the 78,000 citizens who believes they should be Moroccan. And, interestingly, all seem sympathetic to Gibraltar.

‘If Gibraltar goes back to Spain, then we’ll have to go back to Morocco,’ says Ismail Abdel Krim, 42, a mechanic (of Moroccan descent) from the poor district of Los Rosales.

Back on the Rock, another traffic jam stretches into the distance. Horns honk. I can hear several babies screaming their heads off at various points in the queue. Every time queues like this happen, the local tourist trade suffers another body blow.

What’s the answer? Ask the FCO mandarins and they will call for calm and dialogue. Gibraltar’s UKIP MEP, William (Earl of) Dartmouth, has another idea. ‘The Queen has not been to Gibraltar for almost 60 years,’ he says. ‘Her presence would show that we  mean business.’

Mr Picardo insists: ‘She needs no invitation to come to the most loyal part of her realm, and she would  be assured of the warmest welcome anywhere in the world.’

Besides, it was not long ago that King Juan Carlos of Spain made a visit to Ceuta.

There is not the faintest chance of the Queen dropping by here any time soon — though next month’s National Day would be a good moment. If she did, the Spanish border would doubtless be slammed shut for days.

But it would probably be worth it just to hear what nonsense the desperate Mr Rajoy and his hypocritical sidekicks cook up next.


British Treasury 'could slash stamp duty WITHOUT losing money by gaining income tax and NI from stimulated housing market'

Stamp duty could be slashed to help struggling homeowners - and the government would not lose a penny, an analysis has found.

Campaigners say the cut would stimulate house buying and building, creating more jobs and raising the amount received from income tax, national insurance and VAT.

The unfair tax on property transactions is blamed for suppressing the housing market and causing slow-down in the number of homes being built.

More than a million jobs are dependent on the housing market - and fewer homes being built means fewer jobs and therefore fewer people paying income tax and NI.

Now consultants Walbrook Economics have estimated that the decline in transaction volumes has cost the Treasury £1.3billion in lost income tax and NI.

VAT receipts will also be affected by the reduction in economic activity and the consultants' estimate us that the decline in transactions has reduced VAT receipts by £1.75billion.

This compares with the £4.2billion raised from stamp duty charged on residential property in 2011/12.

Last night the Taxpayers' Alliance said the figures proved that stamp duty could be cut, and the Treasury would not lose money.

As well as stimulating more money raised from other taxes, more people would be paying the reduced stamp duty rates - pumping more into the Treasury coffers.

The pressure group's chief executive Matthew Sinclair said: 'Stamp duty is an unfair double tax that stops young people buying a home and starting a family, discourages elderly people from downsizing and makes it harder to move to new places for new jobs.

'The government could cut stamp duty with a limited impact on the amount of money going into the Treasury's coffers, as lower taxes would encourage more people to move and therefore increase the number of transactions being taxed.

'Politicians should seize this golden opportunity to reduce the burden and make things easier for the hundreds of thousands of people looking to buy or sell a home each year.'

The fall in housing activity is believed to have cost 80,000 construction jobs and between 80,000 and 100,000 associated positions in other trades.

Sales of residential properties are free of stamp duty up to the value of £125,000 and attract a 1 per cent tax between £125,000 and £250,000.

But rising house prices mean that more and more purchasers are paying at the higher rates of 3 per cent applied to homes worth between £250,000 and £500,000.

A rate of 4 per cent is charged on those valued at up to £1million, 5 per cent on those between £1-£2million and 7 per cent beyond that point.

More than a quarter of home buyers are now paying stamp duty at the higher rates of 3 per cent or more, meaning they are losing out to the tune of more than £7,500 when they move home.

The TPA , which has launched a Stamp Out Stamp Duty campaign, set out three proposals designed to simplify stamp duty and reduce the burden on home buyers.

One idea is that instead of paying the stamp duty rate on the whole value of the house, they should only pay the rate on the value above the threshold. This would work out as a significant tax cut.

Another is to double the thresholds, so that nobody would pay the duty on homes worth less than xxxx - compared to xxx now.

The third idea is to halve the rates, meaning everyone would pay half as much as they do now.

The TPA say that each of these proposals would provide a substantial economic stimulus at little or no cost to the Exchequer.

They called on the Chancellor to act now to reform stamp duty - saying now is the perfect time because the economy is finally showing some signs of recovery.


Number of British 'workless' falls by 400,000 in three years after benefits cap, changes to incapacity assessment and more retirees taking jobs

The number of workless people has plunged by 400,000 since the last election, figures show.

A minister claimed that the government’s welfare reforms were behind the fall in the number of those either not in work or not even looking for a job.

Much of the reduction is down to a fall in the numbers of people inactive because of long-term sickness.

The 166,000 fall has happened because the government is reassessing everyone on incapacity benefit.

There has also been a decline in the number of people describing themselves as retired as more and more over-65s take a job.

Employment minister Mark Hoban said the government was tackling worklessness because of the damaging scar it can leave on communities, with children growing up not knowing a culture of work and risking becoming dependent on benefits themselves.

‘Our welfare reforms are working,’ he said. ‘Choosing a life on the dole when you’re fit to work is not an option.

‘That’s why we introduced a cap on the amount people can receive in benefits, and have increased the support we give to jobseekers who are willing to do everything they can to realise their aspiration of getting back to work - while getting tough with those who try to game the system.

‘Worklessness has fallen dramatically under this government and is down by almost 400,000 since the election, and that’s good news for the individuals and for society. Worklessness not only holds back the economy, but also damages the prospects of our young people who should be learning about work and aspiration from family and friends.’

Worklessness is defined as a combination of the number unemployed and the number classed as inactive (neither working nor looking for work).

The fall in worklessness from 11.9million in 2010 to 11.5million now has helped keep the unemployment figure high, because more people are now looking for work.

The biggest factor in the decline was fewer people inactive because of long-term sickness - down 166,000.

There was also a 162,000 fall in the number of retired, largely because the retirement age for women has been rising as it’s brought in line with men.

Another 90,000 is accounted for by a fall in the number of people who described themselves as ‘looking after family and home’.

This includes a range of people such as lone parents on income support who are now moving onto jobseekers’ allowance or into work when their youngest child is school age.


Stopped by police and branded a paedophile... for hiking with my son: WILL SELF reveals moment an innocent ramble became a nightmarish tale of modern Britain

No 11-year-old child should have to see his parent treated like a criminal for no reason whatsoever. And no Englishman enjoying a ramble with his son should face examination by police at the roadside on suspicion of being a sexual predator.

Astonishingly – and I find it difficult, some days after the event, to comprehend that I am writing this now – this is what has just  happened to my son and me.

From the quintessence of a blamelessly British pursuit to an invitation to step inside a squad car, complete with WPC specially selected in case my boy had to be taken into protective custody, all following a ‘tip-off’ from a high-vis jacketed private security guard; can there be a more disturbing parable of the Britain we have become? Let me set out events for you to decide yourself.

My own father was a great walker. When I was a child, he’d take me on long rambles through the countryside – mostly in England, but also with forays into Wales and Scotland. It was my dad’s own proud boast that he and my uncle, as young men, had once walked right across Dartmoor in 24 hours, equipped only with the clothes on their backs and provisioned with ‘a few squares of chocolate and an apple each’. With this background, it isn’t surprising that I’ve become a keen walker in my turn, favouring high mileages and with a somewhat idiosyncratic approach: I like to walk from my house in South London quite long distances into the country, savouring the slow change, over a couple of days, from the hurly-burly of urban life to the relative peace of the countryside.

And it’s no surprise either that my own four children have also become walkers; my youngest son in particular has become not just an enthusiastic pedestrian, but a passionate one.

Three years ago, when he was aged nine, we walked for six days and 86 miles to a friend’s house in Wiltshire; last year, over eight days we walked 116 miles to another friend’s farm in Worcestershire; this year we went for the big one and covered 283 miles in 14 days from our London home to some friends’ house near Whitby in North Yorkshire.

While he’s had my example, these particular itineraries were all my son’s own idea; he may find doing 20 miles a day – and not necessarily through the most picturesque landscape – a bit of a slog, but the sense of achievement he gets from walking is tremendous.

We’re already planning next year’s long-distance walk – and this despite a disturbing and troubling encounter we had this July, when we were 11 days out from London.

Dressed in full rambling gear and boots and with my boy carrying his special walking staff, we’d left in the teeth of the heatwave and headed up the Lee Valley, then through Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire to Huntingdon, then on to Peterborough.

We revelled in the subtle changes of flora, fauna and landscape that you only notice when you move that slowly; and we also enjoyed discussing the vernacular architecture, and even the minute alterations in local accents.

We stopped for the night at B&Bs or pubs and everywhere we went we talked to people about their locale and their lives. In particular, we talked to farmers about the prospects for the harvest. I cannot recommend strongly enough this as a way of bonding with your children and teaching them about the countryside.

In particular, we enjoyed the five days we spent walking across the flat fenlands and then the Lincolnshire Wolds. This vast and very agricultural country sees little in the way of tourism – let alone walkers – in its hinterland, and yet the people couldn’t have been friendlier and more open. The great time we had in Lincolnshire makes what happened to us in Yorkshire – a county known for its rambling tradition and thriving holiday industry – still more ironic.

Crossing the great span of the Humber Bridge on a drizzly morning, we had a long day ahead of us in order to reach the village of North Dalton where I’d booked us into the Star Inn for the night.

All went well until in the late afternoon we reached Bishop Burton near Beverley, and, looking at the map I saw that we might save ourselves a half mile or so – and a weary trudge along a main road – if we cut through the grounds of the agricultural college. We approached the security guard on the main gate, and while my 11-year-old hung back – the rain had cleared by now, it was a hot afternoon and he was understandably tired – I explained the situation.

The guard was entirely unsympathetic. He said it was private property and there was no public right of way.  I said this was fair enough, but I could see from the map that there was a track leading right across the grounds, it would help us a lot, and obviously  we weren’t the sort of people – being long-distance walkers – to bother any livestock.

But the guard stuck to his guns, and staring me straight in the face said that it was out of the question: There were under 18-year-olds at the college. The insinuation that I might pose some sort of threat to young people – in a word, that I might be a paedophile – was underscored by his eyes then sliding to my drooping son. He was being absurd and offensive.

I began to remonstrate, saying I was with my own child, and moreover I also teach at a university. But when I saw another guard coming over to back up his beleaguered colleague I thought: life’s too short to argue with jobsworths in high-vis jackets. And so my son and I went on.

Two hours later, we were toiling along the verge of the B1248 about five miles north when we were passed by a police car and police van in convoy. They did a U-turn and swept up beside us. The male officer got out and asked me to step into his vehicle and answer a few questions. Shocked, I told him I’d rather not. I said we were walking all the way from London to Whitby and that stepping into his car would rather ruin the purity of the experience.

He said he understood, but that he still had to ask me some questions because they had been called by a ‘concerned member of the public’, who had said that he was ‘worried’ about the child that was accompanying me. It immediately occurred to me that the security guard at Bishop Burton College was responsible for this, for here it was again: the insinuation that a man out walking with an  11-year-old must have abducted him.

I soon finessed from the officer the information that yes, indeed, it was the Bishop Burton jobsworth who had put in the call, an alert that necessitated the calling out of a woman officer from over 30 miles away in order to attend, since there was a presumption that a child might have to be taken into custody.

The officer took my photo ID – a press card, as it happens – and phoned my details into the Police National Computer. He had already recognised me from the television: he’d seen me on Shooting Stars, and he saw the absurdity of the idea that I would deliberately approach a security guard, in full walking equipment, while abducting a child.

While we waited for the PNC to respond, we chatted. I asked the officer whether the Tazer he had holstered in his belt was useful and he explained that it was, particularly since they were so low on manpower he now often had to attend scenes of potential violence by himself.

As if to underscore this, his radio squawked at that moment. He listened for a moment then said that there was a man armed with a knife threatening people in a pub a few miles away. The woman officer in the van had already left, and understanding fully where his real priority lay, the male officer bid us good evening and departed. We went on, and in due course we reached North Dalton – but the half-hour we spent thanks to the security guard’s call had cost my child his supper, while his refusal to let us walk through the college grounds (I noted as we passed that the northern entrance was completely unguarded), had meant exposing the child to the real danger in the countryside: not rambling paedophiles, but speeding cars.

After receiving Will Self’s complaint about the actions of their security guard, executives at Bishop Burton College seemed intent on protecting the college from possible claims for compensation, despite Mr Self’s assurances he was merely seeking an apology.

In a letter dated August 12, human resources director Kate Calvert wrote: ‘I understand that the guard observed you in a village north of Bishop Burton ..... It was now around 7.30pm to 8.00pm and you had also told the guard you were from London and clearly did not know the area ..... He was concerned. He is adamant that in alerting the police he acted in good faith and out of concern for both of your safety.’

She informed Mr Self he must set out any grounds for appeal within ten days of receiving her letter. In a subsequent letter, the college’s  vice-principal Bill Meredith said  he was sorry if the writer was disappointed by the college’s response and added that he was  ‘of course at liberty to take the matter up with the police’.

Mr Self says he declined, not wishing to waste more police time.

Last night a spokesman for the chief executive of Bishop Burton College, Jeanette Dawson, said: ‘It is our understanding that the member of staff called a non-emergency number out of  concern for two people who were still a long way from their intended destination some time after their initial encounter.

‘We investigated the complaint promptly and thoroughly and when Mr Self appealed, the matter was reviewed by a senior member of staff who found nothing to add to the investigation.’

Far from acting as some sort of local hero, the guard had abused a child himself, in particular by exposing my son to the spectacle of his father – who was guilty of nothing – being grilled by the police on the roadside as if he were engaged in a perverse activity. I put these points to the human resources director at Bishop Burton College, Ms Kate Calvert, and she said she’d look into it. I explained that I wasn’t looking to have the guard punished for his malicious tittle-tattle or his wasting of scarce police time, and that I’d be happy with a simple apology from the man concerned.

None was forthcoming: on the contrary, Calvert and her boss, vice-principal Bill Meredith, closed ranks in order to protect the guard, writing back that in fact the man had had a second encounter with us after he’d knocked off for the day, overheard me saying we were heading for North Dalton, and knowing how far that was, he called the police in his capacity as a private citizen purely out of ‘concern’.

Of course, whether or not this is true, it was contradicted by what the policeman had told me – and I know who I’m more inclined to believe. I don’t doubt that Ms Calvert and Mr Meredith have acted in this way because they fear me suing the college – such is the mad culture of litigation we seem to be snarled up in nowadays. But I never had any intention of doing this: all I wanted was an apology I could show to my son, so I could explain to him that while abuses like this may occur, Britons still understand that walking in the country with your son is not a suspicious activity and nor should it be treated that way.

You may, quite reasonably, think I’m getting too hot and bothered about this – but I don’t think so. In two full weeks of walking through the beautiful English countryside, experiencing the joy of its nature and the goodwill of its inhabitants, this episode remains an ugly blot.

The time was that you could live your whole life in Britain having no more contact with the government than buying a stamp at the local post office. Nowadays, there are no local post offices, and everyone with a uniform on thinks he or she is the appointed representative of the over-stretched arm of the law. If this guard really did see me and my son a second time and was concerned for us, why the hell didn’t he talk to us himself? That would be the act of an honest citizen – calling the police is the behaviour of a craven sneak.

And then there’s the behaviour of Bishop Burton College.

You might imagine that, preoccupied as they are with turning out the farmers of the future, a case such as this would focus their minds marvellously. Personally, if I wanted to teach agricultural students about how to develop a better relationship with the rest of us, I’d make sure there was a public right of way across the college grounds – just as there is across much of Britain’s farmland. Then there’s the paedophile hysteria that seems to warp people’s reason; we all know where sexual assaults  on children mostly occur: in closed communities – schools, families, churches, and, yes, colleges.

It’s true enough that in 2011, 532 British children were abducted –  but of those abductions a mere  72 were by strangers (needless to say, my son and I bear a strong family resemblance).

The vast majority of abductions by family members involve estranged foreign parents removing them abroad – not indigenous ones taking them for a walk in the Yorkshire Wolds. Then again, during that same year there was a far more devastating threat to British children: 2,400 of them were killed on the roads –  a ten-year high.

At Bishop Burton College, they seem happy to go along with a car-friendly countryside – they list on their website a new car park as one of their exciting campus developments – but countryside friendly to walking parents and children seems to concern them rather less.

Oh, and their advice to me should I wish to take the matter further after they rejected my complaint? Why, take it up with the police, of course – but no, Mr Meredith. That’s your staff’s style, not mine.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



18 August, 2013

Multicultural nurse in Britain

A nurse had sex with a patient after romancing her over a meal at a tapas restaurant while she was being treated for a mental breakdown, a tribunal has today heard.

Kenneth Ngobele quizzed the woman, a manic depressive, about her sexual history and her attitude to Nigerian men, it is alleged.

Ngobele later took the woman to a La Tasca restaurant and told her 'You know I want to f*** you', the Nursing and Midwifery Council was told.

'Patient A' met Ngobele while she was being treated at Basildon Hospital in Essex following a mental breakdown.

The vulnerable woman initially kept the alleged affair secret but eventually revealed all to health workers at a clinic.

Ngobele was working as a deputy charge nurse at the time of the allegations in 2009.

It is claimed he met up with the woman after she was discharged from the hospital and twice visited her home for sex.

He also threatened to release confidential information about the woman to her employer unless she met with him, the panel heard.

In a statement, Patient A said: 'Kenneth questioned my quite heavily about my sexuality, the number of sexual partners I had had, whether they were relationships, whether I had introduced them to friends and family or whether they were one-night stands.

'As we were walking, he asked me what kind of men I liked, questioned my sexual preferences and was being quite flirty.

'I was in a really bad way and suicidal at the time.

'My stay at the hospital was two nights. It looked to me as if Kenneth was avoiding work as much as possible and then trying to come onto me.

'Kenneth came into the female-only television room to come and sit with me.

'Kenneth said, "I'm a nurse, I can go anywhere".

'Kenneth stated that he had been studying me and he had noticed that I interacted with men very well.  'I remember feeling really freaked out by that statement.'

Just as Patient A was due to be discharged, Ngobele told her she would no longer be his patient and they could meet safely, she claims. He also wrote down his phone number in her diary.

'He was staring at my body in a really sexual way,' added Patient A. 'Kenneth said that as soon as I get out, he wanted me to text him.'  When they met up for the first time, Patient A said she was feeling 'really manic'.  'One way it expresses itself is I become promiscuous', she explained.  'I knew that sex was on the cards.'

Describing their meeting at La Tasca on June 14, she said: 'Kenneth paid for everything. I remember him saying, "You owe me" and said it in a sexually aggressive way.  'As soon as the door closed, it became really aggressive.'

The pair then met up again on July 7 and again had sex but Patient A then began refusing to answer his calls.

During an internal interview with trust bosses, Ngobele at first admitted some of the allegations.

But soon 'his assertions began to shift, with him creating an alternative scenario', the panel was told.

Tope Adeyemi, for the NMC, said: 'It is submitted that all of the registrant's conduct was sexually motivated and constitutes a gross breach of his privileged position.'

Ngobele was sacked following the investigation. He denies all the charges he faces at the NMC hearing.

If found guilty of misconduct he could be kicked out of the profession.


Another triumph of British bureaucracy

A sick toddler died in hospital after he was denied a potentially life-saving test because it was ‘not normally done’ at weekends, an inquest heard yesterday.

Doctors did not give two-year-old Dylan Brown a test for heart disease.

They said he showed no symptoms of heart failure and they believed he was suffering from a virus. But the toddler later died after suffering three cardiac arrests in hospital.

An expert said his treatment would have been different if the echocardiogram (ECG) test had been given.  It would have revealed Dylan’s underlying heart problem and would have meant he was given a different drug.

But his consultant paediatrician, Dr Nagi Barakat, told the inquest the test ‘was not done because it was the weekend and they are not normally done at the weekend’.

And Dr Shankar Sridharan, the heart specialist who said Dylan’s treatment would have been different if the ECG had been given, also said there was no clinical evidence at the time to suggest the toddler needed this test.

Coroner Lorna Tagliavini said Hillingdon Hospital in Uxbridge, West London, had not failed and said Dylan was treated ‘appropriately’.

But his family said ‘big mistakes’ were made and blamed out-of-hours shortages. After the inquest, his grandfather, who asked not to be named, said: ‘The whole NHS just closes up shop at 5pm on Friday and doesn’t open up again until Monday morning. It is disgraceful: don’t get sick at the weekend.

Dylan was admitted to Hillingdon Hospital with breathing difficulties and cold-like symptoms on Wednesday, May 9 last year.

He was vomiting and his heart was beating quickly but staff thought he was suffering from a virus and did not give him an ECG test, which uses soundwaves to create a picture of the heart. He had an underlying muscle condition which was diagnosed from his birth and had undergone an ECG a year earlier.

West London Coroner’s Court heard that another ECG after his admission at Hillingdon would probably have revealed the new problem in his heart.

But it was not performed and by the time doctors realised his condition was critical – four days after his admission – he was suffering heart failure.

By the Saturday, the day before he died, his heart was racing and his eyes were puffy, which can be a symptom of an underlying heart problem. But he was still playing in his cot and showed no signs of heart failure.

Dr Barakat said: ‘The following day [Sunday] when I came in to see him, he looked very unwell. His liver was enlarged and his heart rate was very high. It was then I realised something needed to be done urgently.’ 

Dr Barakat tried to arrange for Dylan to be taken to a hospital ‘set up for intensive care’ but the toddler went into cardiac arrest while he was on the phone and was put on a ventilator to help him breathe.

Dylan suffered two more cardiac arrests and Dr Barakat said the decision was taken to stop his ventilator.

Dr Sridharan, of Great Ormond Street Hospital in Central London, said an ECG would have helped but insisted there was no reason for staff at Hillingdon to have ordered one, based on Dylan’s symptoms. He said: ‘It doesn’t matter if it was the weekend or not, from the evidence, there was no need for an echo.

‘That for a cardiologist is a very frightening thing because if I had to do the diagnosis again, given the information we had, I wouldn’t have done anything differently.’

A post-mortem examination showed the toddler’s heart was enlarged and his lungs had a viral infection that contributed to his death but did not cause it. The cause of death was given as heart disease. The coroner recorded a verdict of death from natural causes.

Dylan’s parents Kirk, 35, and Tara, 31, from Uxbridge, made no comment after the hearing.

The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Trust offered its condolences to Dylan’s family and said it hoped they would be reassured by the inquest’s findings.


U.S. Air Force Veteran Relieved of Duties for Disagreeing with Homosexuality

A 19-year veteran of the Air Force said he was relieved of his duties after he disagreed with his openly gay commander when she wanted to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality.

“I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk told Fox News. “We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.”

The Liberty Institute is representing the Christian airman in case the Pentagon decides to retaliate.

“Are we going to have a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for Christians so we don’t get harassed for our beliefs?” attorney Hiram Sasser asked Fox News. “Here’s a guy who wants to have his religious liberty and serve in the military. He shouldn’t have to believe in gay marriage in order to serve.”

A spokesperson for Lackland Air Force Base public affairs told Fox News Monk was not punished and that he was simply at the end of his assignment.

"They did have a disagreement, but supposedly, they agreed to disagree," the spokesperson told Fox News. "But the wing commander said there was no punishment.

Monk has served as a first sergeant at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio since 2011. He recently returned from a deployment and discovered he had a new commander – an open lesbian.

“In one of our first meetings, she was talking about her promotion and she mentioned something about a benediction,” Monk told Fox News. “She said she wanted a chaplain but objected to one particular chaplain that she called a bigot because he preached that homosexuality is a sin.”

“She then said, ‘I don’t know what kind of people actually believe that kind of crap,’” Monk said, recalling the meeting. “I knew I was going to have a rough time in this unit and I would have to be very careful what I said.”

That moment came when Monk was called in to advise the commander on a disciplinary matter involving an Air Force instructor accused of making comments objecting to gay marriage.

The instructor was investigated and the members of his trainees were asked if the instructor had slandered homosexuals and whether he created a hostile work environment.

Monk said he quickly determined the instructor meant no harm by his public comments – comparing the United States with the fall of the Roman Empire.

“He said in spite of our differences, we can’t let that happen to the United States,” Monk said. “He then used homosexual marriage as an example – saying that he didn’t believe in it – but it doesn’t matter because he was going to train them the same way.”

Seven people filed complaints about the remarks. It then became Monk’s job to advise the commander on disciplinary action.

“Her very first reaction was to say, ‘we need to lop off the head of this guy,'” Monk said. “The commander took the position that his speech was discrimination.”

Monk suggested she use the incident as a learning experience – a way to teach everyone about tolerance and diversity.

“I don’t believe someone having an opinion for or against homosexuality is discriminatory,” Monk told Fox News.

From that point, Monk said he was told that he wasn’t on the same page as the commander and if I didn’t get on the page they were on, they would find another place for me to work.”

“I’m being chastised about what’s going on,” he said. “I’m told that members of the Air Force don’t have freedom of speech. They don’t have the right to say anything that goes against Air Force policy.”

Monk, who is a devout evangelical Christian, said he met with the young instructor and told him that he was fighting for him.

“He was really concerned,” he said. “He said he felt like he was on an island – that he couldn’t be who he is anymore. He didn’t understand why somebody would be offended.”

The instructor was eventually punished by having a letter of counseling placed in his official file.

Monk soon found himself in a very similar position after his commander ordered him to answer a question about whether people who object to gay marriage are guilty of discrimination.

“She said, ‘Sgt. Monk, I need to know if you can, as my first sergeant, if you can see discrimination if somebody says that they don’t agree with homosexual marriage,’” he said. “I refused to answer the question.”

Monk said to answer would have put him in a legal predicament.

“And as a matter of conscience I could not answer the question the way the commander wanted me to,” he said.

At that point, Monk said that perhaps it would be best if he went on leave. The commander agreed.

“I was essentially fired for not validating my commander’s position on having an opinion about homosexual marriage,” he said.

Monk said he is brokenhearted over the way the military has treated him.

“If this young man would’ve given a speech and said he was good with homosexuality, we wouldn’t be here,” he said. “The narrative is that you cannot say anything that contradicts Air Force policy.”

He said in essence, Christians are trading places with homosexuals.  “Christians have to go into the closet,” he said. “We are being robbed of our dignity and respect. We can’t be who we are.”

Monk said he is scared to speak out – and understands that he could face severe penalties.

“They will make this about me but I have an impeccable record,” he said. “I stand on my own two feet. People have to know what’s going on.”

And he’s also doing it for his three teenage sons.  “Every night after dinner we read the Bible together,” he said. “I tell the boys we’ve got a lot of stuff going on in this world and we need people to stand up. My boys know what I’m going through. They are looking at me – wanting to know how I’m going to handle this.”

He said the Monks have a “family ethos.”  “The Monk family will be strong in mind, strong in soul, they will have strong character and strong work ethic,” he said. “That is the ethos of our family. That’s what I hope they see in me.”

And more importantly, he hopes his young sons will see “a man who stand upright and stands for integrity.”


Christian Family-Owned Gun Parts Firm Wins Reprieve From HHS Mandate

A federal judge in the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday that was requested by a Michigan gun parts manufacturer seeking an exemption to the Obama administration's Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive mandate.

Noting that there was a similar case pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals, the Department of Justice decided last week not to defend the administration against the lawsuit filed August 5th by Trijicon, Inc., a Christian family-owned firm that manufactures high-quality optical gun sights for the military and law enforcement.

The company has 257 full-time employees.

“Without an injunction, plaintiffs will imminently be forced to include abortion-inducing items in their health insurance plan in violation of their religious beliefs, thereby suffering irreparable harm to their constitutional and statutory rights to freely exercise their religion, ” attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the company in its legal battle against the mandate, successfully argued in their motion for the preliminary injunction.

“For right now, the government is enjoined from enforcing the mandate against our client, so it’s a tremendous victory for Trijicon,” Alliance attorney Jeremy Tedesco told CNSNews.com.

“The company’s new health plan starts Sept. 1st. Without this injunction, our clients would be facing exorbitant fines or be forced to pay for abortifacients and not be able to exercise their religious beliefs according to their consciences.”

The HHS mandate would have triggered a $100 penalty for each employee per day if Trijicon refused to cover abortifacients in its employee health insurance plan.

“Trijicon and its owners hold the sincere religious belief that life begins at conception/fertilization, and that any method that functions to prevent or disrupt implantation of a fertilized human embryo is morally wrong and results in the wrongful taking of a human life,” the lawsuit noted.

“Accordingly, for many years Trijicon has instructed its health insurance provider to not include coverage for the voluntary termination of pregnancies in its health insurance plan for employees….Trijicon believed that this exclusion covered abortifacient items like Plan B, ella, and others.”

Trijicon president and CEO Stephen Binden, who owns the company with his five siblings, said that his father, Glyn Bindon, “began this business with the intent of treating our employees and customers in a way that represented his strong Christian faith….We are simply trying to retain the culture and values we’ve always promoted here at Trijicon.”

And since the mandate “violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,”  the company’s attorneys argued, “Trijicon is likely to succeed on the merits...

"The most striking obstacle to Defendants’ assertion of a compelling interest is that the government itself has voluntarily omitted tens of millions of women from the Mandate….But Defendants still refuse to exempt Trijicon," the lawsuit pointed out.

Alliance attorney Matt Bowman  told LifeSiteNews that the Obama administration has become increasingly reluctant to defend the HHS mandate in court since July 19th, when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Hobby Lobby a temporary injunction against its enforcement.

“The [Trijicon] suit joins an ever-growing number of legal challenges to the mandate, a component of Obamacare that forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties. It is currently losing in court nationwide.” Bowman said in a statement.

In 26 of 32 cases directly considering requests to block the mandate, "courts have issued orders protecting religious freedom, sometimes even without government objection,” he said.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



16 August, 2013

Portland, Oregon: Media and Cops Cover Up Black Mob Attack of Convenience Store Clerk

I saw a news report yesterday evening that had more details to this story.

What happened was: A group of "people" tried to pass a bad check as a convenience store. The clerk refused to accept it. They left and came back with a gun and forced the clerk to apologize. He apologized and they viciously beat him anyways.

The below link refers to this story but offers no details. The TV news reports I saw last night gave no description of the perps. Just looking at the details of what happened I can guess at the "description". I will bet anyone any amount of money I'm right.

It says in this newspaper item that the police have released no details, though there were more details on the TV news report, of course the reporters were on the spot interviewing the clerk but they didn't ask him to describe the attackers. I'm not sure what's going on here but when the news and police are being shifty about details like this it always involves black perps.

You have violent attackers with a gun running around and our "boys in blue" and "watchdog media" are more concerned with protecting the sacred cow of racial political correctness than public safety. It's like a broken record, happens over and over.

P.S. Because the store was called Jesusito Market, the victim was likely Hispanic.  And here's the story
Reported assault at North Portland business under investigation

By Everton Bailey Jr. | ebailey@oregonian.com

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on August 12, 2013 at 10:11 P.M., updated August 12, 2013 at 10:13 P.M.

The Oregonian

Police are investigating an assault reported at a North Portland market Monday.

The incident was reported about 8:50 p.m. at Jesusito Market at 7000 N. Interstate Ave., and a male employee was injured.

Details of what caused the incident and descriptions of any suspects have not been released.

Anyone with information is asked to call Portland police.

-- Everton Bailey Jr.

Thanks, Everton Bailey Jr. You whited out the gun, the mob, and the descriptions. Why bother “reporting” at all? This is the journalistic equivalent of a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich without the bacon, lettuce, or tomato. There's just two slices of bread, and not even any mayo. My reader gave me more meat than you did!

I guess that gives you something to brag about, at the next National Association of Black Journalists convention!

Skeptical readers, take note: In  Volunteer Slavery, Jill Nelson’s account of her travails as an overpaid, privileged, affirmative action writer at the Washington Post, working for “white boys” like Ben Bradlee, she bragged about engaging in such racially-motivated deception.


"Multicultural" policeman in Britain

A Met Police officer leaked details of plans to arrest hate preacher Anjem Choudary to his wife while she was working for MP George Galloway, a court heard today.

Detective Inspector Mohammed Afiz Khan, 46, from Yorkshire, is accused of passing confidential information to his wife Aisha Ali-Khan while he was at the helm of the Muslim Contact Unit - part of the force's Counter Terrorism Command.

Ali-Khan, 33, who worked as the Bradford West MP's parliamentary secretary, is said to have asked her husband to use his position to investigate the source of a string of e-mails and obtain personal details.

In addition to the alleged leak concerning the radical Islamist cleric, Khan is also accused of obtaining CCTV footage from South Yorkshire Police without a valid reason.

The couple appeared together to face the charges during a brief hearing at Westminster Magisrates' Court.  Khan, dressed in a grey suit and blue striped tie, and Ali-Khan, wearing all black, stood together as they confirmed their names, ages and addresses during the brief hearing.

The two defendants were charged last month following a Met probe into alleged wrongdoing.  Khan is accused of improperly accessing the CCTV between March 16 and April 30, and of leaking details of Mr Choudary’s arrest on May 22 last year.

Ali-Khan is accused of asking her husband to commit misconduct in a public office on August 24 last year.

Judge Arbuthnot freed the pair, both of Keighley, West Yorkshire, on unconditional bail. They are due to appear at Southwark Crown Court on August 28.

Ali-Khan, of Keighley, West Yorkshire, is accused of two counts of encouraging the commission of offences. Khan is accused of two counts of misconduct in a public office and four counts of breaching the Data Protection Act.

Neither defendant entered any pleas to the charges.


Why does the BBC sneer about Britain's recovery but go crazy if Euroland's corpse so much as twitches?

Oh, joy it is to be alive! That was my instinctive, and admittedly sleepy, response on hearing the BBC radio news early yesterday morning. Listeners were informed that ‘the recession in the Eurozone may have ended’. Another bulletin told us that ‘there was modest growth across the Eurozone area’.

Time to crack open the champagne? Not quite. It turns out that this trumpeted growth was very modest indeed — just 0.3 per cent in the second quarter. Though Germany and France did enjoy growth, output fell in Italy, Spain and Holland.

However, on Radio 4’s Today programme, a decidedly excited Evan Davis tried to convince a Greek and a German businessman that the recovery was ‘sustained’. Both were unimpressed. The Greek pointed out that in his country unemployment stands at nearly 28 per cent.

Still, why be downbeat? Over on the BBC website, a headline declared emphatically that ‘the Eurozone comes out of recession’. Whoosh!

Alongside was a story proclaiming that ‘Britain’s unemployment falls by just 4,000’. ‘Just’ is a loaded word. It implies that things should have been better.

Could you imagine a BBC headline reading ‘Eurozone grows by just 0.3 per cent’? I can’t. We were baldly informed in another of its news bulletins that ‘the Eurozone is returning to growth’. There’s very little evidence that it is.

The BBC responded more favourably to a single piece of not-particularly-good news about the Eurozone than it has over recent weeks to a slew of positive statistics about the British economy.

When figures were released three weeks ago showing that the economy had grown by a healthy 0.6 per cent in the second quarter, the BBC website news piece attributed the view to George Osborne that Britain was ‘on the mend’ and made no judgment of its own.

An accompanying piece by the Corporation’s in-house doomster Stephanie Flanders was strikingly judgmental. It was full of caveats and reservations, some of which were perfectly sensible taken individually, but collectively they amounted to one long moan.

Since then we have had a fusillade of good economic stories which have often been treated with scepticism by the BBC. Manufacturing in June performed more strongly than in any month since 1992, and exports have soared to an all-time high, with all the growth accounted for by exports to non-Eurozone countries.

House prices in most parts of the country are rising sharply, while car sales in July increased by 12.7 per cent compared with a year previously. According to a survey of senior businessmen, confidence is higher than it has been for several years.

Some sort of mini-boom may be under way. Of course it could all go phut in a few months. My suggestion is certainly not that the BBC should hang out the bunting. These are still early days. And despite all the recent heartening news, output is still below where it was before the crash.

But it is impossible not to contrast the BBC’s enthusiastic treatment of the Eurozone’s ‘recovery’ with its reluctance to believe that George Osborne’s medicine can really be working.

Is the difference accounted for by the Corporation’s inbuilt prejudice in favour of the euro and the Eurozone, and its suspicions of a Tory-led Government whose economic policies it has constantly criticised?

And might it be that some at the BBC, which was once at the forefront of the bien pensant conviction that we should join the euro, can’t bear the thought that the British economy should be taking off while much of Euroland is still struggling?

If there is any other explanation for yesterday’s extraordinary behaviour by the Corporation, perhaps someone would be kind enough to tell me what it is.

The truth is that if we had been part of the euro, we would still be in the sick room along with Italy, Spain and Greece. Unlike them, we have been able to devalue because we are not locked into a single currency.

At best it can be reasonably said that Germany and some other northern European states (though not Holland) are showing slight growth while the southern European economies are still in a critical condition from which it is hard to say how they can recover.

If this can be described as a happy new dawn, then blow me. All that can be honestly said is that the Eurozone as a whole is doing a little less badly than it has been over the past 18 months. And I haven’t even mentioned the parlous state of some banks in Germany, Italy and France.

I would be the first to cheer if the Eurozone really were experiencing an uplift. Much as I deprecate the political gameplan of closer European integration that is driving this crazy experiment of a common currency, I don’t want to see large parts of Euroland permanently mired in depression.

For as long as they are, Britain’s recovery is likely to be held back, even if there are encouraging signs that an increasing proportion of our exports are going to non-Eurozone countries.

The BBC may be unable to see it, but the British economy appears at last to be stirring into action.  And, much as the Corporation yearns for it to be otherwise, Euroland is not.


Surgeons and dentists with HIV to be allowed to operate on patients after ban is lifted by British Government

NHS staff infected with the Aids virus will be allowed to carry out operations and other invasive procedures for the first time.

A ban which has been in place for more than 20 years is to be lifted by the Government, which says it will not put patient safety at risk.

The ban was imposed because of fears that if an Aids-infected surgeon or dentist cut themselves during certain types of operation, it could result in the patient becoming infected.

Surgeons, dentists, midwives and nurses with HIV will be able to work normally providing they are taking drugs that eradicate the virus in the bloodstream.

In another move, from next year, people will be able to buy HIV self-testing kits that are currently illegal for home use.

England’s chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, said science had moved on and it was time to scrap ‘outdated rules’.

She said lifting the operating ban on healthcare staff would bring the UK into line with most other Western countries.

An estimated 110 staff working in the NHS would be affected by the change, based on the numbers of Britons with HIV.

From next April, anyone with HIV wanting to carry out surgical and dental procedures would have to go on a confidential register and have three-monthly testing to ensure they were complying with treatment.

Prof Davies said: ‘We’ve got outdated rules. At the moment we bar totally safe healthcare workers who are on treatment with HIV from performing many surgical treatments, and that includes dentists.’

She said modern anti-retroviral drugs enabled people with HIV to lead normal lives, adding: ‘With effective treatment, they are not infectious.’ The risk to patients was ‘absolutely negligible’.

About 100,000 people in the UK are living with HIV, although experts say a quarter of those infected do not know it. In 2011, there were 6,000 new diagnoses of HIV in the UK.

Prof Davies said changing the rules would help remove some of the stigma of the disease and encourage healthcare workers who believed they could be at risk to get tested because their careers would no longer be on the line.

Although they are under a professional obligation to get tested in such circumstances, she admitted ‘a few’ might not do so for fear of the consequences.

Under the new rules, healthcare workers with HIV will be allowed to undertake all procedures if they are on effective combination of anti-retroviral drug therapy.

They must also have an undetectable viral load of HIV in their system, and must be regularly monitored. Public Health England will set up a confidential register holding data on infected workers.

There have been four cases worldwide of health workers infecting patients since 1992, with no cases in the UK. None of the workers was on drug treatment at the time.

HIV was no longer a killer disease, Prof Davies said.  She added: ‘What we need is a simpler system that continues to protect the public through encouraging people to get tested for HIV as early as possible and that does not hold back some of our best healthcare workers because of a risk that is more remote than being struck by lightning.’

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, said: ‘Allowing healthcare workers living with HIV to undertake exposure-prone procedures corrects the current guidance which offers no more protection for the general public but keeps qualified and skilled people from working in the career they had spent many years training for.’

British Dental Association scientific adviser Professor Damien Walmsley added: ‘Dentists in the UK comply with rigorous infection control procedures to protect both patients and the dental team against the risk of transmission of blood-borne infections.’

Sir Nick Partridge, chief executive at HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust, said: ‘Advances in medication have transformed what it means to live with HIV, and it’s great to see regulations starting to catch up.

‘People diagnosed in good time can have full, healthy lives, and effective treatment dramatically reduces the risk of the virus being passed on.

‘So long as the right safeguards are in place, there is now no reason why a dentist or a midwife with HIV should be barred from treating patients, or why people who would prefer to test at home should be denied that chance.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



15 August, 2013

Religious people are 'less intelligent', says University of Rochester paper

This claim has been tossed about for quite a while so the comprehensive study below is very welcome.  It should go a fair way towards settling the question.  And what is shown is clear enough:  Just over 5% of the variance in religious attachment is explainable by intelligence.  In other words, IQ DOES influence religious attachment but only to a trivial degree.  There are almost the same number of high IQ religious people as there are high IQ non-religious people.  IQ is unimportant to an  understanding of religion.  Personality and cultural factors are presumably the main drivers

In fact, cultural factors could also be the drivers of the slight relationship between IQ and religion.  High IQ people probably stay longer in the educational system and the educational system is broadly unsympathetic to religion.  So high IQ people are exposed to more anti-religious messages and might in consequence be less inclined towards religious observance -- JR

RELIGIOUS people are less intelligent than non-believers, according to a review of 63 scientific studies, but not for the reasons you might think.

Miron Zuckerman led a team at the University of Rochester who found "a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity" in 53 out of 63 studies.

But the group found that it wasn't because intelligent people "know better" but often because they are better placed to offer themselves the psychological benefits offered by religion.

"Intelligent people typically spend more time in school - a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits," the researchers write. "More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs."

The paper, published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, quoted a 1916 study which found that, "58 per cent of randomly selected scientists in the United States expressed disbelief in, or doubt regarding the existence of God; this proportion rose to nearly 70 per cent for the most eminent scientists."

"People possessing the functions that religion provides are likely to adopt atheism, people lacking these very functions (e.g., the poor, the helpless) are likely to adopt theism," the researchers wrote.

The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations

By Miron Zuckerman et al


A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from ?.20 to ?.25 (mean r = ?.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.


More "diversity" in British nursing home care

An elderly man died three days after an agency nurse left him lying on the floor with a broken leg, a tribunal has heard.

Sarah Msika failed to spot the pensioner was injured when she visited his home near Norwich, Norfolk, it was claimed today at the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Msika allegedly left the patient’s incontinent wife lying in her own faeces in the kitchen propped up against a table leg.

Healthcare assistants found the couple lying ‘in the same positions’ on the floor later that day and rushed them to hospital.

The elderly man died three days later while his wife passed away six months after the incident.

When Msika visited the couple on August 3, 2011, and did express concerns about the absence of food and the smell of urine in the house.

David Clark, for the NMC, said: ‘On that visit both Patient A and her husband, Patient B, were siting in chairs and behaving normally.

‘Msika visited the couple again on the following day, and was met with a very different scene.  ‘She found both Patient A and Patient B on the floor in different rooms. Patient A was in the kitchen, sitting partly propped up either against a table leg.

‘Her husband Patient B was in the living room and he too was on the floor.

‘He said that he was alright and he would get up in his own time.

‘She (Msika) did not carry out an investigation, she didn’t check for injury, she didn’t ask him if he was injured in any way.’

It later emerged that the elderly man had fractured his leg, the hearing was told.

‘The registrant then went into the kitchen and dealt with Patient A,’ said Mr Clark.

‘She made some attempts to clean the patient and she went and got some clean clothes for her.

‘It is our case that those attempts were inadequate and what she did was effectively leave the 79-year-old woman, half-sitting, half-lying on the kitchen floor in her own faeces’, Mr Clark said.

Later that day, healthcare assistants visited the couple, finding them in the same positions on the floor, the tribunal heard.

‘Very sadly, the male patient - the husband - suffered a pulmonary embolism and died shortly after the event on August 6’, Mr Clark said.

Patient A died in January 2012, the panel heard.

A ‘relatively brief’ police investigation was mounted, but no criminal charges were brought against Msika, the hearing was told.
If she is found guilty of misconduct, she could be suspended or struck off. The hearing, at the Nursing and Midwifery council, continues

If she is found guilty of misconduct, she could be suspended or struck off. The hearing, at the Nursing and Midwifery council, continues

Msika, who is attending with her mother, admits leaving the couple on the floor, failing to call for assistance, failing to recognise Patient B had a broken leg and failing to escalate the situation.

She denies leaving Patient A sitting in her own faeces, failing to adequately documenting the incident and not communicating to her colleagues that the couple remained on the floor.

If she is found guilty of misconduct, she could be suspended or struck off.


Thieves and fraudsters must NEVER be jailed: That's the advice from British Leftist  ex crime adviser

Serial thieves, pickpockets and fraudsters should never be jailed, a former Government sentencing adviser declared last night.

Professor Andrew Ashworth claimed even repeat offenders with dozens of convictions should be spared the ‘pain’ of a prison term.

He said locking up thieves and fraudsters and ‘condemning’ them to prison was an ‘abuse of State power’. Instead, he argued, they should be fined, given community service and forced to pay for the damage they have caused.

The controversial comments in a pamphlet for a penal reform group were condemned as ‘extreme’ and ‘callous’ towards victims by crime prevention campaigners.

Prof Ashworth, now an Oxford University law professor, said jail was ‘disproportionate’ for what he called ‘pure’ property offences, including theft, handling stolen goods, criminal damage and fraud.

Depriving someone of their liberty for an offence that ‘only’ targeted property was unfair, he claimed, arguing that jail should be reserved for violent and sexual crimes.

He described the theft of £250 worth of clothes from a store as ‘in the overall scale of things...not  serious harm’.

Prof Ashworth was chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel for three years under Labour when there were repeated criticisms that policy was going soft.

His comments came in a pamphlet for the Howard League for Penal Reform, which calls for fewer criminals to be jailed and a rise in the age of criminal responsibility, currently ten in England.

‘We should be reserving our most severe form of punishment for our most serious types of offending,’ said Prof Ashworth.

‘Should someone be sent to prison and deprived of their liberty for an offence that involves no violence, no threats and no sexual assault?’ He said this was ‘an abuse of State power’.

The professor added: ‘Instead, the priority should be to deal with such offences in the community, giving precedence to compensation for the victim and, where the offence is sufficiently serious, imposing a community sentence.’

The result of such a policy would be more than 25,000 fewer criminals sent to jail every year, most for theft and handling offences.

Peter Cuthbertson, director of the Centre for Crime Prevention, said: ‘These extreme recommendations are callous towards victims and show a complete ignorance of the facts.  ‘Only an ivory tower academic who started out determined to reduce prison numbers whatever the evidence could reach this conclusion.

‘Theft is not a “minor offence”. Victims can find their lives  transformed by fear. Making a promise to thieves and fraudsters that they will never go to prison is ridiculous.

‘Already the courts bend over backwards to give criminals  community sentences and fines which fail to protect the public. Prison protects the public.

‘More prison places and longer sentences would be better for  victims and most likely to turn these thieves’ lives around.’

Last year, around 91,000 serious and repeat offenders, including  thousands of thieves and other property criminals, escaped jail.

Frances Crook, chief executive of the League, said theft and fraud victims were losing out as too much priority was given to jailing criminals rather than returning stolen property and compensation.

She backed fines, compensation orders and community sentences over jail ‘which produce a much lower rate of reoffending at a fraction of the cost’.


Battle of the Sexes

Women make only 77 cents per each dollar made by males. Outrageous! Sex discrimination!  So say advocates of government-enforced "equality."

But they are wrong. Women today are rarely victims of salary discrimination.

If they were, market competition would punish bosses who discriminate. A company that hired women who were "underpaid" by other companies would have a cost advantage, allowing them to lower prices, and they'd quickly take business away from the "sexist" competition. Since those female workers provide the same value for less, entrepreneurs who hired only women would get rich!

Warren Farrell, author of "Why Men Earn More," dug deeper into reasons why women are paid less and found that it's women who make discriminating choices. Women are more likely to choose a well-rounded life than their workaholic male peers.

"Many women say, what do I want? Do I want to make $200,000 a year, or do I want more personal time? Time with my children? More spiritual time?"

He found that even female business owners are more likely to favor flexibility and proximity to home. Men are more likely to chase higher earnings by working longer hours, traveling farther and taking dangerous assignments. They are paid accordingly, though they may not be happier.

In her recent book, "Lean In," the chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, urged women to put in the extra effort that enables workers to jockey for position in business.

She says: "At Facebook, we hosted a senior government official, and he had these two women traveling with him who were pretty senior in his department. And I said to them, sit at the table, come on, sit at the table. (But) they sat on the side of the room."

Sandberg's been criticized by feminists for this common-sense message. The critics claim she "blames the victim." But most women are anything but victims. Making a different choice, choosing a less career-driven life, may be why women have more friends and live longer.

Many women don't want "corporate success," though it's politically incorrect to admit it, says Sabrina Schaeffer, executive director of the Independent Women's Forum.

"I don't think that most women want what Sheryl Sandberg wants," Schaeffer told me. "In some recent studies, only 23 percent of women said that they would prefer to work full-time, let alone (have the) sort of CEO quality of life that Sheryl Sandberg is living."

Regardless of what many women prefer, America now is stuck with laws based on a feminist view that only discrimination accounts for differences between women and men -- and that government must use regulation to "correct" those differences: affirmative action, subsidies for female-owned businesses, Title IX rules that require equal money for women's college sports, etc.

Instead of trying to change sexist male institutions by force, Sandberg's book suggests that women change voluntarily.

"Sandberg picks up on some very sensitive gender differences," says Schaeffer. "She says, look, women don't negotiate their salaries. I was one of those women. My brother told me he negotiated every salary he had. The fact is, once you're aware of that, you can do things."

If they do, women might very well overtake men in business -- but they will have to give something up to do it.

Psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Amen, author of "The Power of the Female Brain," conducted the biggest brain-scan study ever done -- 46,000 scans -- and found that "female brains were dramatically more active. Women are really wired for leadership. ... If it wasn't for this thing called children that derails their careers ... they really make great CEOs."

Amen says women are "better with things like empathy, intuition, collaboration, self-control." Since leadership isn't all about bellowing and frightening people, those are useful corporate skills.

They are also useful skills for managing a household full of children and promoting family life. We should respect both choices.

Politicians and "equality" feminists should respect reality: Differing choices come with differing rewards -- and different salaries.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



14 August, 2013

In Britain, little brother is watching you too

A seven-year-old child and a pensioner aged 99 are among thousands of people deemed 'threatening' enough to have their personal details stored on secret council databases, it emerged today.

Authorities are keeping vasts files on citizens who are said to pose a potential risk to their staff.

But included on the so-called 'cautionary contacts lists' (CCL) was a man who 'pulls faces', a seven-year-old girl highlighted for 'verbal abuse', and a 91-year-old man previously demonstrating threatening behaviour.

A council even flagged children aged one, four, seven and nine on its files because 'the tenant is very abusive'.
Database: An investigation discovered authorities held files about potentially dangerous residents - including children as young as one and a 99-year-old pensioner. (Stock picture)

Database: An investigation discovered authorities held files about potentially dangerous residents - including children as young as one and a 99-year-old pensioner. (Stock picture)

An investigation found notes between colleagues warning about people who present a 'risk' - including those threatening physical or sexual aggression, residents with dangerous dogs, and some with criminal records.

The probe also discovered numerous errors contained within the records.

Scores of Britons at either end of the age spectrum - including many not yet old enough to attend school - were put on council lists, according to details obtained by the Press Association.

It comes after a barber in Cornwall said he was placed on his council’s CCL for using a megaphone to warn motorists of traffic wardens.

Andy Blackwell, from Liskeard, was issued with a letter from his local authority in January after his alerts were said to have been a threat to traffic wardens’ 'health and safety'.

Cornwall Council said the CCL was 'an internal system which aims to protect council staff from potentially harmful situations'.

In some instances, files have been kept for decades - occasionally dating back to when clients were small children. Others are kept without notifying clients about their inclusion on the list.

A Local Government Association spokesman said: 'Recording instances where staff have been subject to unacceptable behaviour - including physical assaults, threats of violence, intimidation with dangerous dogs and even inappropriate sexual behaviour - is an important part of ensuring our employees can go about their daily work without fear or harassment and the public is protected when we are aware of a risk.

'However, councils recognise there needs to be a common-sense approach to how they make staff aware of any perceived risks and any information will be routinely reviewed to ensure it is proportionate.'

Here are examples of some of the reasons why some authorities keep this data, which can include names, ages, addresses, notes on behaviour and criminal convictions:

In Calderdale, latest figures show there are 102 people on its list, between the ages of 12 and 73, for reasons including Asbos, intimidating behaviour, and threats with weapons.

At Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, more than 200 records relate to 168 individuals. The authority said that, in some exceptional circumstances, people could be entered on to its Employee Warning System without being informed; for example, for those with mental health problems that could be made worse by the notification.

In Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, some people have been left on the Adult Social Care register of violent incidents for dozens of years - including one man who has been on it for 23 years - almost half his life - while another has been on it since the age of seven - around 16 years earlier.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council’s 'warning marker' list features three entries for a 'dangerous/loose pet'.

Wolverhampton City Council’s list includes three clients in their 80s, who staff are warned are 'potentially violent, verbally abusive or not to be visited alone'.

Derby City Council said there is no centralised corporate register of service users, but said some departments mark their files or systems to state a client could be potentially violent. It provided figures from Derby Homes, an arms-length management organisation with the city council, whose database included a 94-year-old.

Darlington Borough Council’s Corporate Potential Risk Indicator System (CPRIS) features more than 300 people, from a 10-year-old with 'violent or threatening associates' to a 92-year-old who poses a risk of 'verbal or written abuse of threats' to council staff.

Among the people entered on Luton Borough Council’s 'warning register' was a resident who had got involved in a spat with a pest control officer. The council said pest control staff did not enter the client’s property again, having been sworn at and verbally abused on a previous visit.

There are just over 50 people on Medway Council’s CCL, including a 22-year-old tenant with an 'aggressive son'.

Northumberland County Council’s adult services department holds a list featuring nearly 250 people, of whom five are aged over 95. The authority said hazard warnings assigned to service users or carers 'are not always attributable to aggression or abuse and could be related to other threats or dangers'.

Warrington Borough Council’s neighbourhood and community services directorate CCL contains nearly 200 files, including five children - the youngest being 14 - and three clients in their 80s for posing unspecified risks to staff or others.

In Wiltshire, the council said a decision had recently been taken to abandon its central Employment Safety Register in favour of local services keeping their own records.

Councils were asked to provide details of their internal systems or registers for the past two and a half years.

This included council house tenants, social services customers and other members of the public who had previously come into contact with officials.

Just over half of the 150 authorities contacted by the Press Association said they kept a CCL or similar, while three - Durham, Surrey and Tower Hamlets - refused to disclose the information.

In North East Lincolnshire, the council has more than 150 records for people - including those barely a month old.

Children aged 10, eight and five and three babies aged less than six months were all added due to reasons including a 'risk of violence' or 'physical aggression', according to the council’s statistics, while a nine-year-old was included on the list due to previously being 'violent to staff'.

Some of the risks presented to staff are disclosed in Portsmouth Council’s hazard files, in which one staff member was 'pricked by a (drugs) needle' when attending a property in Havant, while staff have also been advised against visiting one client while working alone due to him 'regularly answering the door with no clothes on'.

In another note kept on file, staff were warned about a man who had previously become so aggressive that he threatened to burn down council offices.

Police were later informed and the man volunteered a sword to them, which he kept at his home.

In York, more than 300 people featured on its register - including a 14-year-old who 'made verbal threats over the phone that he intends to kill anyone who he comes into conflict with', as well as a man in his mid-50s who 'can pull faces that appear aggressive' when he has been drinking.

Others have armed themselves with weapons, including a machete, while the presence of dangerous dogs have also caused concerns for some council staff.

Kirklees’s list includes a 91-year-old and an 82-year-old who have both demonstrated 'threatening behaviour and verbal threats' - neither were notified of their inclusion on the list, the authority confirmed.

Others were included for making 'serious unfounded allegations'.

Data from Barking and Dagenham Council showed how children aged one, four, seven and nine have been flagged on its database where 'the tenant is very abusive', while a 90-year-old is described as potentially 'violent and aggressive'.

A council spokesman later said its own records relating to children were 'errors', as the system only records details on adults.

He said: 'Warning notes exist so we can protect frontline staff by providing a record to alert them to potential dangers when visiting a property. People mentioned on the list have not necessarily been notified.

'However, housing services is currently reviewing the way we deal with warning notes with a view to making this process more transparent.'

Essex Council said that, while it did not hold a CCL, it did keep a record of incidents. Information disclosed by the authority shows that two 93-year-olds have markers for 'consistently verbally threatening' and for being 'violent to staff or other professionals', while a 99-year-old is said to have also been violent.

The authority also has markers on more than 20 children - including nine under-fives - for being 'violent to staff or other professionals'.

It said: 'We have recognised a need for a register as part of our health and safety strategy, and will be developing a suitably robust and compliant process in the coming years.'

Most councils said it was policy to notify people of their inclusion on the CCL, with the option of appealing over the decision.

Others, however, said doing so could further ignite tensions between the two parties.

Many also said they reviewed their databases regularly, although some disclosed examples of clients being left on file for decades.


Teddy Roosevelt's Warning about children

TR himself had 6 children

Roosevelt left the White House in 1909 and was at the pinnacle of his renown a year later when he toured Europe. One journalist wrote at the time, “When he appears, the windows shake for three miles around. He has the gift, nay the genius of being sensational.” TR addressed a massive audience in the school’s grand amphitheater. The crowd included academicians, “ministers in court dress, army and navy officers in full uniform, nine hundred students,” and another 2,000 “ticket holders.”

The former president was introduced that day as “the greatest voice of the New World.” And hiding in the shadows of his remembered-as-the-man-in-the-arena-speech is a long since forgotten rhetorical rebuke to the ideas promoted in the current issue of Time:

"Finally, even more important than ability to work, even more important than ability to fight at need, is it to remember that chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. It was the crown of blessings in Biblical times and it is the crown of blessings now. The greatest of all curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility. The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children so that the [human] race shall increase and not decrease. If that is not so, if through no fault of the society there is failure to increase, it is a great misfortune. If the failure is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done."

That’s right. Theodore Roosevelt told the French that they needed to keep having babies.

At the time of Roosevelt’s speech, France was a major world power. Today—not so much. There is enough blame for such decline in global influence to go around, but the increased secularism of Europe, with its penchant for socialized everything, has certainly played a role.

Now more than 100 years later, there is an even greater threat to their cherished way of life. If only the French today would rediscover Teddy’s advice and reverse the birthrate trend—they might have a fighting chance. But such is the mindset of secularism, it is all about self and “fulfillment.” Issues of family, not to mention progeny are secondary, if thought about at all. Marriage is deferred—even eschewed. Children are planned—or better, planned around. And over time the birth rate in Europe has fallen far short of what is needed to keep up with the various demands of the future. In other words, the nations are aging. There are fewer children, yet more grandparents—a trend that will continue and accelerate.

It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman to keep a nation’s population stable. The United States is drifting away from that. Canada has a rate of 1.48 and Europe as a whole weighs in at 1.38. What this means is that the money will run out, with not enough wage-earners at the bottom to support an older generation’s “entitlements.”

But even beyond that, the situation in France also reminds us of the opportunistic threat of Islamism. It is just a matter of time before critical mass is reached and formerly great bastions of democratic republicanism morph into caliphates. In the United Kingdom the Muslim population is growing 10 times faster than the rest of society. In fact, all across Western Europe it’s the same. The cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam are on track to have Muslim majority populations in a decade or two. A T-shirt that can be seen on occasion in Stockholm reads: “2030—Then We Take Over.”

A few years ago, Britain’s chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, decried Europe’s falling birthrate, blaming it on “a culture of consumerism and instant gratification.” “Europe is dying,” he said, “we are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it.”

The Rabbi was right, and so was Teddy.


Nursery kids denied a kiss and a cuddle in Britain

Rising numbers of nurseries ban physical contact to stop paedophilia accusations

Thousands of toddlers spend a whole day without a kiss or a cuddle at nursery to protect staff from paedophilia accusations.

A rising number of nurseries are banning physical contact with children after the conviction of paedophile nursery worker Vanessa George.

Some staff even face the sack for simply comforting toddlers distraught because they miss their mothers and fathers.

However, child development experts are increasingly concerned at the move towards ‘no-kissing’ policies, and claim the lack of contact threatens the well-being of children.

They warn that denying young children affection can have a devastating impact on their development, their happiness and their stress levels.

Penny Tassoni, president of the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, said: ‘It is actually the duty of anyone working with young children to offer physical contact.

‘Young children who are not with their parents are likely to produce a stress hormone known as cortisol. Having access to a hug or even holding a hand of a key person can help to reduce anxiety.

‘Policies that are draconian in terms of not allowing children to be reassured are not fit for purpose as they ignore children’s right to being nurtured.’

An investigation by daynurseries.co.uk, a leading online guide to day nurseries and nursery schools, found that the kissing  of children was being banned  by a growing number, with workers facing disciplinary action if they disobey.

Others tell staff not to cuddle children for all but briefest period, because to do so could harm their independence. The findings will concern parents who entrust their children to nurseries to allow both mother and father to go to work and are likely to reopen the controversy over whether nurseries are the best place to bring up children.

One parent told an online forum: ‘The thought of a small baby in a nursery going all day without a kiss from someone makes me quite sad.’

Vanessa George was jailed for an indeterminate period four years ago after sexually abusing children in her care in Plymouth and swapping images of the abuse with two other paedophiles.

But the daynurseries.co.uk investigation found the fear of being accused of paedophilia was having a chilling effect in nurseries across the country, particularly for male staff.

One nursery manager said: ‘I tell my staff not to kiss children and explain the reasons for it, to protect them from any allegations. Children naturally come to you for a kiss and a cuddle, and we always turn to the side so that they can kiss our cheeks.

Nurseries are drawing up strict rules. For example, the policy of Twinkle Star Day Nursery in Portsmouth says: ‘Children are encouraged to be independent; therefore prolonged periods of cuddling and sitting on practitioners’ laps is discouraged.

In Barnstaple, North Devon, Ladybirds Day Nursery’s policy says: ‘While some contact is  unavoidable (nappy changing and toilet training), there are other activities, often instigated by the children themselves, that we explain is not appropriate.

‘This includes any form of kissing on cheek, forehead or lips when a parent is not present.’

But Sarah Steel, managing director of the Old Station Nursery chain, said cuddles were important for young children.

She added: ‘All the evidence around attachment theory and the guidance in the Early Years’ Foundation Stage supports close physical contact with the youngest children and the importance of contact for all children.

‘A good, confident practitioner would know exactly what was appropriate, and less experienced staff need to have good role models.’


Pauline updated

Pauline Hanson is an Australian conservative  politician who has always spoken freely about race.  She has as a result been disowned by the mainstream conservatives and has no political power.  She does however have influence in that lots of Australians agree with much of what she says.  Illegal immigration is a red-hot political issue in Australia and she has been an immigration critic for a long time

IT WAS once the most famous fish and chip shop in Queensland.   Behind the counter was one of Australia's most divisive political figures - a woman regularly accused of racism and xenophobia.

Today, it is a migrant success story, run by a Vietnamese couple who came to this country 20 years ago. Pauline Hanson says she hopes to pop in one day, say hello and pick up a few dollars' worth of chips. It's a scene few would have imagined in 1996.

Almost 17 years ago, the newly elected member for Oxley used her maiden speech to launch a fierce and polarising attack on Asian immigration and multiculturalism. She told the nation it was "in danger of being swamped by Asians" and that "they have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate".

Controversial and unapologetic, Ms Hanson found her short stint in federal politics often drew shouts of rage and cheers of support alike.

"I don't dwell on that, I know who I am as a person," she said.  "To call me a racist is just ridiculous. To be a patriotic Australian and care about the country, that's not racism. That's patriotism."

Today, Thanh Huong Huynh and her husband Huong Van Nguyen quietly smile as they take orders for crumbed cod and prawn cutlets from many of the same people who helped Ms Hanson storm to power in the '90s.

The couple say they bought the Ipswich business, which has changed hands several times, two years ago.  They also say they know little about the One Nation founder, other than that she was "very famous".

Locals are still prickly about their former local member - who is currently running for a NSW Senate seat - and are reluctant to put their name to any description of her, positive or negative.  Many businesses fear alienating the migrant community, as well as those still wary of multiculturalism.

One exception is David Banfield, who has owned the nearby dental clinic for five years.  "Things have changed mate - for the better," said Mr Banfield, who noted that his wife was Vietnamese.

While he disagreed with Ms Hanson's "anti-immigration stance" at the time, he said she "seemed to be the person that would get things done".

Ms Hanson said she wished the new owners of her old shop "all the best".  "I think it's wonderful - good luck to them," she said.  "That's what Australia's all about - is to come here and make a life for yourself and become Australian and start up your own business."

She adds that she hopes to meet them.  "If I'm up there in the area again I'll call in and get some fish and chips off them," she said.

But Ms Hanson is still reluctant to back down from one of her more recent controversial comments.  "Yes, I did say that I wouldn't sell my house to Muslims," she said.

"And I have grave concerns and I see what's happened in other countries around the world and I, like a lot of other Australians, do not want to see our culture changed, I do not want to see the introduction of Sharia law."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



13 August, 2013

Britain is awash in "diversity"

A glamour model and escort called Lady Jet Black British Barbie was spared jail today after admitting to racially abusing and spitting at an Asian taxi driver.

The 32-year-old, who appeared in court with a totally shaven head, assaulted Ramin Sasani, 25, outside David Lloyd Leisure Centre in Chigwell.

During an earlier hearing , the court heard that Barbie had called the cab driver rude when he didn’t thank her after she paid the £4 fare.  She then become hysterical and leant in through the door of the cab and attacked him. She had to be pulled back by a passer-by.

Mr Sasani said the model had shouted: 'You are a f*****g immigrant, go back to your own country you f*****g Paki.'  He added: 'She shouted "If you call the police I’m going to tell them you tried to rape me." She then spat at him in the face.

The model, from Woodford Green, whose name was Natalie Springer until she changed it six years ago, was prosecuted under the name Jet Black British Barbie.

After pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to racially aggravated common assault, she was sentenced today at Chelmsford Magistrates court.  She was given a one year community order, which includes a requirement that she must carry out 200 hours unpaid work.

After passing sentence, chair of the bench, Paul Jee, said: 'This was a nasty offence with a number of aggravating features. People were present, the victim was operating a public service, it had an on-going effect on him and spitting is a nasty thing to do.  'It is humiliating and there is a risk from disease being transmitted.

'However, this was an isolated incident and you wish to apologise to the cab company.'

Representing her, Stuart Cowan, said : 'You would have read how she makes her living and may not agree with it, but she pays her taxes.

'She has lived at the bottom of society and does not want to return there. She has a nice place to live, possessions, and a life style which agrees with her.'

He said that the taxi driver had refused to deliver her to the doors of the leisure centre instead, stopping at the gates and 'snatched the money out of her hand.'

But he said that she accepted that what she did was 'wholly inappropriate'.

She had claimed at an earlier hearing that she was provoked by the cabbie calling her 'a n****r'. And she claimed that at the time she was tired after working all night, and was annoyed at the way he didn’t thank her when she handed over a £10 note.

But Chelmsford Magistrates had ruled that she was not provoked and that Mr Sasani had not called her a “n****r.”  He denied he snatched the £10 note from her hand or said 'No-one likes you anyway, n****r'.

Barbie admitted grabbing and shaking him, spitting, and shouting that she would claim he had raped her.

She also told magistrates she had nothing to hide about her work as a glamour model in the adult industry and in escorting.  She said she was regarded as 'a bit of a celebrity' and she shaved her head as a personal campaign against slavery and racism.

A regular church-goer, she denied she was a violent person and said she lived a quiet life in her village adding : 'I don’t class myself as a racist person.'

She said she had not felt comfortable with Mr Sasani because he had stared at her in the rear view mirror and asked questions about what she did.

'I obviously get naked for a living and do have guys who fancy me but if I am paying someone I just want a job done. I’m professional and I expect people to be professional,' she had told the court.

She had added : 'I have had racism in the past. I have been called an orangutan, a c**n, a spade, but that particular day when I was called a n****r that was the cherry on the cake. I was very tired from the night before. I was pre-menstrual. That’s why I reacted that way.'

Following the hearing, the model was told she must also pay £620 legal costs, £60 victim surcharge, and £250 compensation.


British woman, 20, is jailed for 18 months for accusing innocent man of kidnapping her, tying her naked to a lamppost and raping her in three-hour ordeal

A 20-year-old woman has been jailed for making up a false report claiming she was kidnapped, tied naked to a lamppost and raped.

Aleisha Worrell lied to police that innocent Sean Hibberd had abducted her for a brutal sexual assault.

A court heard how Mr Hibberd, 35, was held in custody for nine hours for 'intimate' physical examinations in the rape investigation.

But Worrell confessed she was lying after detectives discovered her evidence was 'full of holes'.

She said she wanted revenge on Hibberd because he was 'harassing' her boyfriend in a neighbourhood feud.

Worrell told officers she had been abducted by a masked man before being tied to a lamppost.  She claimed she was raped and left for three hours before being released.

Prosecutor David Pugh said Worrell contacted the emergency services last December saying she had been abducted.

Mr Pugh said: 'She claimed he had taken her to a road junction where he stripped her and himself, raping her as she remained tethered to the lamppost.

'He had then dressed and left her tied up for three hours before returning to free her.

'She then claimed that she had been dizzy when she had arrived at the police station after he had injected her with something after the alleged rape.'

Mr Hibberd was arrested at 2.55am and underwent investigation. He was 'intimately examined' by a female police doctor at Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales.

Police spent 14 hours investigating the allegations before realising she had been lying because her story was 'full of holes.'

The court heard that not only was the area well lit but there were workmen nearby who would have had a clear view.

When confronted Worrell broke down to say: 'It’s all lies. I made it up because Sean was harassing me and my boyfriend and the police did nothing to him.'

Worrell’s lawyer Clare Fear said: 'She is extremely sorry for the effect on Mr Hibberd and appreciates the severity of her position.'

Worrell, from Merthyr Tydfil, admitted perverting the course of justice and was sent to a young offender’s institution for 18 months.

Judge Eleri Rees told her: 'The wider issue is that you made the position of those who have truly been raped much more difficult.

'Make the most of the assistance given to you and the education available and you will come out more mature and more sensible and will never offend again.'


Britain's ‘Porn Block’ Will Block More Than Just Pornography

Jim Killock, from the Open Rights Group, originally criticised Cameron’s ‘porn block’ on the basis that it was an attack on our online freedoms, and that illegal material could be better tackled with better policing.

However, Jim Killock was recently obtained new information from several ISPs, suggesting that Cameron’s default ‘opt out’ ban will ban far more than just hardcore pornography.

From his conversation with these ISPs, Killock explains that every internet user will be confronted with a check list of categories, all of them automatically ticked, meaning that they will be automatically blocked. Not only will this list include pornography, it will also include violent material, extremist and terrorist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking, web forums and esoteric material.

Now that’s a pretty hefty list and it means a lot of online content will be censored automatically. Some of these categories are extremely suspect. For example, what would ‘web forums’ and ‘esoteric material’ include exactly? They’re such broad categories that it could mean, unfortunately, that a lot of information becomes unavailable to us. Critics of Cameron’s porn filter were worried that it would pave the way to more censorship and lead us down a slippery slope where the government could ban pretty much anything it wanted, so long as it deemed it ‘immoral’ or ‘inappropriate for children’. It seems that this is exactly what is happening…

Jim Killock argues that, although people will always be able to ‘opt in’ to this material at any point, people are likely to stick with these defaults. There is a choice involved, but the first choice is instantly preferred because it is automatically ‘chosen’ for us. This is why our digital freedom is being violated. Killock goes on to maintain that Cameron is using a tactic known as nudge theory, an idea in behavioural science which says that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestion can achieve non-forced compliance. The theory states that this kind of tactic is far more powerful than direct legislation or enforcement.

Killock was quoted on his website as saying, “The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there’s not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website’s audience.” Indeed, a consequence of this censorship, which was also true of the block just against pornography, is that responsible members of society will be discriminated against for the sake of ‘protecting children’.

This is unjust. Even if there were evidence that the block could prevent children from accessing these websites, it would still be unjust. There is a solution which both protects our liberty and protects children – that is keeping government regulation away from the internet, but to increase police funding to prosecute those who distribute illegal material.

All of these problems can also be avoided if customers have an active choice, which the ISPs originally suggested. This would mean there being no default ban, allowing customers to say whether they want the filters or not. In this scenario, whether children can gain access to this material will depend on the choice of the parents. Responsibility should be in the hands of the parents, not in the hands of the government.

The Open Rights Group has started a campaign against Cameron’s proposals.


Australia: Workers lodging claims over lookism, Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission reveals

Looks matter and hoping otherwise is pissing into the wind

WORKERS are lodging discrimination claims based on their looks, as bosses prize beauty over brains during job interviews.

Selecting and promoting workers based on their appearance - or "lookism" - has joined racism and sexism as forms of workplace discrimination, warns a University of Sydney report to be launched today by NSW Supreme Court judge Elizabeth Fullerton.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission revealed yesterday that dozens of workers have claimed discrimination on the grounds of weight, tattoos, hair style or even body odour.

In the past five years, 96 workers have alleged discrimination on the grounds of appearance - such as being "ugly" or blonde.

Another 107 people lodged discrimination claims on the grounds of obesity, 10 on being underweight, and 17 on their height.

Body odour was the grounds for two discrimination claims, hairstyles for 38 claims and 22 claims related to for tattoos and piercings.

A spokeswoman for the commission said she did not have details of how many cases succeeded.

Dress for Success, a charity that supplies low-income women with donated suits and office attire for job interviews, yesterday said first impressions not only count - but are key to - landing a job.

A third of the Dress for Success managers interviewed by the university researchers reported that at least half their clients had suffered discrimination based on their clothing.

"I think many employers want employees with less tats and piercings, and clothes that are more modest than current fashion dictates," one manager stated.

"Some use it as a screening tool in an economy when they have so many applicants.

"Business casual attire is accepted but a neat appearance is paramount - an amazing outfit on a dishevelled person won't too."

The founder of Dress for Success in Sydney, Megan Etheridge, said women could help overcome discrimination by dressing for the job - preferably in a suit.

"It's important to help women understand that being excluded on the basis of appearance is a very real issue," she said.

The researchers cite an Australian study that found good-looking men command an $81,750 salary, compared to $49,600 for men with below-average looks.

The researchers also interviewed job placement agencies who warned that employers would "look you up and down" and make a hiring decision before listening to "what comes out of your mouth".

One of the authors, Dr Diane van den Broek, said suits gave a message that "I'm ready to work".

"If you go dressed in your own personal taste you could be too bright or too frivolous or too sombre," she said.

Professor Richard Hall, professor of work and organisational studies at the University of Sydney business school, said appearance was prized above performance in the hospitality and retail sectors.

"Boutique hotels and certain retail stores have a distinctive presentation not just with their infrastructure, but the style of staff," he said.

"Personality and looks are seen to be much more important than previous experience or their qualifications to do the job."

Australian Retailers' Association executive director Russell Zimmerman said stores wanted staff to fit their image.

"Let's take a Just Jeans or Jeans West, I don't think they'd want my 85-year-old mother serving there - or she'd have to be pretty funky ," he said.

"In the retail environment you cannot force people to wear particular types of clothing unless you're prepared to supply it."

Mr Zimmerman said employers needed to spell out their dress requirements at the stage of the interview.

Lawyer Kamal Farouque, principal of employment law at Maurice Blackburn, yesterday said "lookism" could be hard to prove.

He said workers outside Victoria could claim discrimination on the grounds of disability, which might cover appearance such as scars or birthmarks.

"Employers generally are not so daft to say they reason you didn't get a job is because you've got a scar or a birthmark or you're not good looking enough," he said.

Carole Haddad, the owner of Corcorz hair salon on Brisbane's South Bank, said her staff's presentation was crucial.

"Absolutely, how could it not have an effect on our customers?" she said.  "Our staff work so closely with our clients, things such as hygiene are so important."

Ms Haddad said the way potential staff presented at interviews was "shocking."  "And I think it is getting worse," she said.

"All of us have bad hair days but there must be basic standards. Things like well-groomed nails make a big difference."

Ms Haddad said she didn't mind her staff having tattoos, but preferred facial piercings were kept to a maximum of two.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



12 August, 2013

A country so corrupt it would be better to burn our aid money

Nigeria is not quite the most corrupt country on earth. But according to Transparency International, which monitors international financial corruption, it is not far off — coming a shameful 172nd worst among the 215 nations surveyed.

Only countries as dysfunctional, derelict and downright dangerous as Haiti or the Congo are more corrupt.

In theory, Nigeria’s 170 million-strong population should be prospering in a country that in recent years has launched four satellites into space and now has a burgeoning space programme.
Frankly, we might as well flush our cash away or burn it for all the good it's doing for ordinary Nigerians

Frankly, we might as well flush our cash away or burn it for all the good it's doing for ordinary Nigerians

Moreover, Nigeria is sitting on crude oil reserves estimated at 35 billion barrels (enough to fuel the entire world for more than a year), not to mention 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

It also manages to pay its legislators the highest salaries in the world, with a basic wage of £122,000, nearly double what British MPs earn and many hundreds of times that of the country’s ordinary citizens.

No wonder the ruling elite can afford luxury homes in London or Paris, and top-end cars that, across West Africa, have led to the sobriquet ‘Wabenzi’, or people of the Mercedes-Benz.

Yet 70 per cent of Nigerians live below the poverty line of £1.29 a day, struggling with a failing infrastructure and chronic fuel shortages because of a lack of petrol refining capacity, even though their country produces more crude oil than Texas.

And that poverty is not for want of assistance from the wider world.

Since gaining its independence in 1960, Nigeria has received  $400 billion (£257 billion) in aid —  six times what the U.S. pumped into reconstructing the whole of Western Europe after World War II.

Nigeria suffers from what economists call the ‘resource curse’ — the paradox that developing countries with an abundance of natural reserves tend to enjoy worse economic growth than countries without minerals and fuels.

The huge flow of oil wealth means the government does not rely on taxpayers for its income, so does not have to answer to the people — a situation that fosters rampant corruption and economic sclerosis because there is no investment in infrastructure as the country’s leaders cream off its wealth.

Corruption in Nigeria is endemic — from parents bribing teachers to get hold of exam papers for their children through clerks handed ‘dash’ money to get round the country’s stifling bureaucracy to policemen taking money for turning a blind eye.

It is at its most blatant, perhaps, in the oil industry, where 136 million barrels of crude oil worth $11?billion (£7.79 billion) were illegally siphoned off in just two years from 2009 to 2011, while hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies were given to fuel merchants to deliver petrol that never materialised.

Whether the country is ruled by civilians or soldiers, who invariably proclaim their burning desire to eradicate civilian corruption, it makes absolutely no difference.

The military ruled Nigeria between 1966 and 1979 and from 1983 to 1999, but if anything, corruption was worse when they were in charge since they had a habit of killing anyone threatening to expose them.

It is estimated that since 1960, about $380 billion  (£245 billion) of government money has been stolen — almost the total sum Nigeria has received in foreign aid.

And that even when successive governments attempt to recover the stolen money, much of this is looted again.

In essence, 80 per cent of the country’s substantial oil revenues go to the government, which disburses cash to  individual governors and hundreds of their cronies, so  effectively these huge sums  remain in the hands of a  mere 1 per cent of the Nigerian population.

Political power is universally regarded as a chance to reap  the fortunes of office by the ruling elite and its families and tribes.

The most egregious example was President Sani Abacha, a military dictator who ruled in the Nineties and accrued a staggering $4?billion (£2.58?billion) fortune by the time he died of a heart attack while in bed with two Indian prostitutes at his palace in the nation’s capital, Abuja, in 1998. Abacha’s business associates did nicely, too — one of them deposited £122?million in a Jersey offshore account after selling Nigerian army trucks for five times their worth.

Public office is so lucrative that people will kill to get it. Nigeria has 36 state governors, 31 of whom are under federal investigation for corruption.

In one of the smallest states, a candidate for the governorship occupied by one Ayo Fayose received texts signed by the ‘Fayose M Squad’ — and it was clear the ‘M’ was for ‘Murder’ when they stabbed and bludgeoned a third candidate to death in his own bed.

By the end of its term of office, the British Government will have handed over £1 billion in aid to Nigeria.

Given the appalling levels of  corruption in that nation, this largesse is utterly sickening — for the money will only  be recycled into bank accounts in the Channel Islands or Switzerland.

Frankly, we might as well flush our cash away or burn it for all the good it’s doing for ordinary Nigerians


Obama administration using housing department to compel diversity in neighborhoods

In a move some claim is tantamount to social engineering, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is imposing a new rule that would allow the feds to track diversity in America’s neighborhoods and then push policies to change those it deems discriminatory.

The policy is called, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It will require HUD to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.

"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.

Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.

Daily politics news delivered to your inbox: sign up for our newsletter

Specifics of the proposed rule are lacking. Now published in the Federal Register and undergoing a 60-day comment period, the rule, "does not prescribe or enforce specific” policies.

But one critic says it smacks of utopian idealism.

"This is just the latest of a series of attempts by HUD to social engineer the American people," said Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute. "It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50's and 60's. They tried it again in the 90's when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.”

Some fear the rule will open the floodgates to lawsuits by HUD --  a weapon the department has already used  in places like Westchester County, N.Y., where mayors and attorneys representing several towns, like Cortlandt, are writing HUD to protest burdensome fair housing mandates that go far beyond those agreed to in a 2009 settlement with HUD.

One letter written by Cortlandt town attorney Thomas Wood expresses a common dilemma.

"Cordlandt is mostly residential and has only a few vacant parcels that could be developed for commercial use," he writes. "In order to stabilize the tax base amongst the most affordable in Westchester County, the Town Board needs to encourage the development of commercial property for commercial use."

Rob Astorino, the Westchester County Executive, recently said, "What they are trying to do is to say discrimination and zoning is the same thing. They are not. Discrimination won't be tolerated. I won't tolerate it. Zoning though, protects what can and can't be built in a neighborhood."

Also troublesome to critics is that the HUD secretary, in announcing this proposed rule, blamed poverty on zip codes – rather than other socio-economic factors that studies have shown contribute to poverty.


Parents' anxieties keep children playing indoors: Fears about traffic and strangers leading to 'creeping disappearance' of youngsters from parks

Paranoid parents are responsible for the 'creeping disappearance' of children from parks and streets, a charity warned yesterday.

Anxieties about traffic, stranger danger and a host of other fears mean record numbers of children are being forced to play indoors.

Half of adults played outside at least seven times a week when they were growing up - but less than a quarter of children are allowed as much freedom today.

Yet two in five youngsters say they are desperate to spend more time outside, according to a survey by Play England and its counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The findings suggest parents are playing a significant role in the lack of activity that is creating an obesity epidemic among the current generation of schoolchildren.

Child experts have also warned youngsters' development is being stunted by over-protective parents who prevent them experiencing the rough and tumble of outdoor play.

Play England director Cath Prisk said: 'It's up to all of us to turn around the creeping disappearance of children from our streets, parks and communities.  'One hour a day playing outside could make a major difference to 'every child's health, to the number of friends they can make and, most of all, to the fun they can have', she added.

Some 53 per cent of parents blame their reluctance on letting children out of their sight on the danger posed by traffic, while 40 per cent fear their child will be snatched by a stranger.

Over a quarter worry their neighbours will look down on them if they allowed their children to play outdoors unsupervised.

The same number thought noise would upset people in their neighbourhood.

A third of adults and a fifth of children said a lack of suitable 'community space' hampered opportunities to play.

Concerns have been raised about the number of playing fields being sold off by consecutive governments. Many are snapped up by developers to build homes.

The siege mentality among families is also having a devastating effect on social cohesion.

Two-fifths of adults said children playing outdoors improves community spirit and nearly half believe it helps families to get to know each other.

Nearly two-thirds of adults admitted they would feel confident enough to let their kids out if others were.

A total of 3,000 adults and children were questioned for the poll, which was released to coincide with Playday today, the national day for play in the UK.

Play Wales director Mike Greenaway said: 'We need to recognise the importance of providing children with time, space and freedom to play in their own way.

'We need to support them and recognise that for their health, wellbeing and long-term development, children need playful places and opportunities to play outside.'

Other research has shown just a quarter of children travel to school alone now, compared to 86 per cent in 1971.

A third of youngsters have never climbed a tree or built a den and one in ten cannot even ride a bike.

The NHS has also reported a huge drop in the number of outdoor injuries among children. But indoor incidents, such as repetitive strain from playing on computer too long, have soared.

Sociologist Professor Frank Furedi said it was a myth that children preferred to spend all their time 'inhabiting their digital bedroom'.

'Every time kids get the chance to be outdoors they immediately jump at it and almost see it as something aspirational,' he added.

'The idea that children go out and make their own friends is just not known anymore. Now it's sleepovers and play dates done under parental supervision.'


Australia: Law requiring Muslim women to remove burqa to prove their identity to police introduced to WA Parliament

A NEW law that would require Muslim women to remove a burqa or niqab to prove their identity to West Australian police has been introduced to the state's parliament.

The legislation was drafted in specific response to public outcry about the case of burqa-wearing mother-of-seven Carnita Matthews, who had a conviction of knowingly making a false statement quashed.

Ms Matthews was originally given a six-month jail sentence after being found guilty of falsely accusing a senior constable of forcibly trying to remove her burqa when she was pulled over while driving in Woodbine in Sydney's southwest in June 2010.

She was later acquitted on appeal after the prosecution could not prove she was the woman who signed the statement while wearing the garment.

As part of WA's Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Amendment Bill, the law will require "a person to remove headwear or do other things to facilitate the officer being able to confirm a person's identity".

Officers will also get explicit powers to detain a person while they comply.

It will apply to an item of clothing, hat, helmet, mask, sunglasses or "any other thing worn by a person that totally or partially covers the person's head".

The WA parliament will be told the law was in direct response to the NSW case. 

"Having regard to that case, the government has taken action to ensure that similar injustices do not occur in Western Australia," Attorney-General Michael Mischin said.  "The amendments provide a explicit power ... where the subject person refuses to remove an obstruction that is preventing the officer from being able to identify the person's face."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



11 August, 2013

"Diversity" in a British nursing home

A care home worker is facing jail after being convicted today of neglect over an elderly resident who was left on the floor for an hour after he collapsed.

Jackie Ndoro, 38, was caught on CCTV sleeping at the care home in Bedfordshire where 86-year-old Albert Riches, stayed, when she should have cared for the elderly patient.

Mr Riches, who has since died, suffered from dementia and Alzheimer’s and was prone to falling after a series of mini strokes and having had an operation for a broken leg.

But as he collapsed and called for help, he was ignored by another of the home’s night shift workers who tapped his leg and then swept around his body.

Jackie Ndoro, of Bodmin Road, Luton, came into the room and fetched a wheelchair.  The two care workers pulled Mr Riches up by the scruff of the neck and then 'dumped him on a wheelchair', Luton crown court heard.

Prosecutor Isabel Delamare said the two workers should have used a hoist to lift Mr Riches into the chair, but it was in another room and they could not be bothered to fetch it.

The jury has been told that the police are still hunting the the second care worker who swept around Mr Riches because she did not answer bail.

However, Jackie Ndoro was on trial accused of neglect of a person who lacks of capacity on the night 22 June, 2011. She was described as of previous good character.

Judge Barbara Mensah bailed Ndoro for probation to prepare a pre-sentence report.  The judge told her: 'In my view this case crosses the custody threshold. It is a very serious matter. The case of neglect is so serious I have in mind a custodial sentence.'

Ndoro and her colleague had been under suspicion by the manager of The Limes Home in the High Street, Henlow, Bedfordshire because of concerns he had about their work.

They worked first as agency staff, before being taken on as full time workers on the night shift at the care home, which had been open for 18 years and home to 23 residents. It is owned by Joan Wilkinson and managed by her son Kevin.

Prosecutor Delamere explained: 'It became clear to Mr Wilkinson that after the night shift was over the area was not as clean and tidy as it should be. There was a smell of urine and there seemed to be a lack of bedding.'

Mr Wilkinson installed a CCTV camera in the lounge.

The prosecutor added: 'Mr Riches had become prone to falling over following mini strokes. He was elderly and frail and in need of constant care and attention. He was no longer capable of looking after himself.'

The CCTV recording showed Mr Riches walking round the lounge before falling on the floor. He was heard to say 'Help me' and groan. The other woman did nothing to help him and tapped his leg. She swept her broom around him before the women pulled him into the wheelchair.

'The CCTV showed Ndoro sitting down at 1am,' according to prosecutor Delamere. 'She sat in a chair and did some paperwork. Her feet were up and she was sleeping under a blanket between 1am and 5am.'

After seeing the secret footage, Mr Wilkinson interviewed Ndoro the next day who said she had only been 'resting her eyes.'

Both women were dismissed for gross misconduct and the local authority and police were informed.

Giving evidence, Ndoro admitted she fell asleep during her shift, but denied she neglected Mr Riches.

She told the jury one of the behaviour traits of the resident was that he would put himself on the floor. 'I knew he was vulnerable but I didn’t think he had fallen, I made an assumption that he put himself on the floor and I should not have made that assumption. But I did care that’s why I got the wheelchair.'

Asked about going to sleep, she said: 'I admit I did sleep on the job and that was wrong. I was supposed to do my checks at 4 am and I did not go, I accept that.'

She also agreed that records of the night shift made no mention of the resident on the floor, or of her not having done the 4am checks.

But she denied she had 'shown a complete disregard for the safety of the residents.'

Ndoro is due back for sentence on September 6.


A feast of diversity in Britain today

A woman flasher is being hunted by police after she exposed herself to a car full of young children outside a supermarket.

The woman apparently approached the children’s mother who was sat in her car and then 'became argumentative' in the Asda supermarket car park in Cape Hill, Smethwick.

She then unzipped her black three-quarter length jacket revealing her naked body to the woman and her four children, aged 13, 12, 10, and four.

Chasing the woman down, the 33-year-old victim managed to take two clear pictures of the flasher which police are releasing in a bid to trace the offender.

Sgt James Proffitt, of West Midlands Police, said while it was the first time he had ever heard of 'a lady flasher' the crime was being treated as a serious sexual offence, which had left the children’s mother shocked.

'The woman had no regard for the young children who were exposed to this kind of behaviour,' he said.  'This is a very serious crime and we would appeal to anyone who may know this woman to call us.

'Why the woman did this still remains unclear and this is now an opportunity for her to contact us and explain.'

The incident happened at about 8pm in the Asda supermarket car park in Cape Hill, Smethwick, in the West Midlands, in July.


The false rape claims keep coming in Britain

A 42-year-old woman who falsely accused a taxi driver of raping when she didn't have enough money to pay for her fare has been jailed for 20 months.

Angela England made the allegation when her partner Jacqueline Scott left her in the car to get money from a cash machine, but did not return.

Her claim that she was driven to a nearby school and raped was disproved by CCTV footage and the taxi's tracking device.

Mold Crown Court heard the driver was later arrested in front of his colleagues while waiting in a taxi rank with other drivers.

He was forced to strip naked at a North Wales police station for an intimate and 'embarrassing' examination.

Richard English, defending, said he was an 'entirely innocent' party who was the victim of Ms England's anger towards her partner. He said the accusation was not borne out of malice towards the driver, but was an attempt to make her partner feel guilty about leaving her in the car and not returning.

Following the accusation, the driver had to endure verbal insults from customers who called him a 'rapist' and a 'bloody foreigner'.

The court heard that clients who knew about the allegations threw their money on the ground rather than handing it to the accused.  As a result of the false claims, his license was suspended and he lost about £2,000 in earnings.

Mr Philpott, prosecuting said the taxi driver was held in a police station for 18 hours. 'He could not sleep or eat during this time because of his anxiety. He was unable to work when he was released and could not face people for at least a week.

'Fortunately his boss was very helpful and accepted what he said because he trusted him. His licence was taken away and while he was on bail he had no income and could not work as a taxi driver.'

The mother-of-two from Manchester pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice in May last year.

She said she had tried to improve herself by training as a nurse but had a history of abusive relationships which had caused her to self-harm and attempt suicide.

'She recognises the awful harm she has caused and has apologised to him by letter and through this court,' said Mr English.

Robert Philpott, prosecuting, said: 'Ms England was working at a hotel in North Wales with her then partner Jacqueline Scott.

They finished work early and at 3.15pm joined a 60th birthday party celebration in Llandudno where they stayed until 11.10pm when they moved to the Cross Keys pub and stayed until 1am.

'The journey was uneventful until he stopped near Mochdre and said the fare would be £16. Ms English had £10 and her partner had no money,' said Mr Philpotts.

While he was keen one of the ladies should go and get money from a cash machine the result was that Scott got out of the car and walked the short distance back to their home.

About 25 minutes later Ms English appeared at their home looking dishevelled and made the allegation that she had been raped.

Mr Philpotts said: 'It is his good fortune that the taxi company have tracking devices fitted to their vehicles.”

Recorder Greg Bull QC said: 'False allegation of rape is a terrible thing which effects not only the person against whom you make the accusation but it effects the prospects of women genuinely raped from receiving justice in their case.

'I accept in your case this allegation was made not out of malice to the taxi driver but to cause disruption to your partner. You resented the fact she had walked off.'

The starting point for a prison sentence was three years, but the judge said he reduced it to take her guilty plea into account and to reflect her psychological difficulties.


Muslims peaked in the Dark Ages. But since then?': Richard Dawkins embroiled in Twitter row over controversial comments

Richard Dawkins has  provoked anger after he claimed Muslims have contributed almost nothing to science since the Middle Ages.

The outspoken biologist and atheist wrote on Twitter that a single college at Cambridge  University had won more Nobel Prizes than all the world’s Muslims.

His comments sparked fury on the social network where he was accused of disguising his ‘bigotry’ as atheism.

But last night the 72-year-old best-selling author of The God Delusion refused to apologise for his remarks.

The row broke out after he commented: ‘All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.’ He responded to the barrage of ensuing criticism by telling his 782,000 followers: ‘A statement of simple fact is not bigotry. And science by Muslims was great in the distant past.’

In response to one Twitter user who pointed out that Muslims had been responsible for algebra and ‘alchemy’, Professor Dawkins replied: ‘Indeed, where would we be without alchemy? Dark Age achievements undoubted. But since then?’

He sought to justify his controversial observation by adding: ‘Why mention Muslim Nobels rather than any other group? Because we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science.’

One angry Twitter user hit out  at the remarks telling the author: ‘You absolutely disgust me.’

Writer Caitlin Moran added: ‘Think it’s time someone turned Richard Dawkins off and then on again’. Channel 4 News economics editor Faisal Islam questioned Dawkins’ ‘spurious use of data’.

Writer Owen Jones told the professor: ‘How dare you dress your bigotry up as atheism. You are now beyond an embarrassment.’

But some users noted that the criticism of Professor Dawkins was in marked contrast to that when he has made comments about Christianity

One wrote: ‘Dawkins spent the best part of 10 years attacking Christianity and not raising an eyebrow.  He now turns that same eye on Islam and uproar.’

An Emeritus Fellow at New College, Oxford, Professor Dawkins appeared to try and appease his critics by saying that Trinity College also has more Nobel Prizes than any country in the world except America, Britain, Germany and France.

The Cambridge college has 32 Nobel laureates, whereas only 10 laureates are thought to have been Muslim.


'This case is crackers. It is the height of nonsense': British prosecutors slammed by judge

A judge has called the Crown Prosecution Service 'crackers' for pursuing a £7.49 criminal damage claim against a retired Army captain.

Timothy Hallam, 55, who is said to have sawn the top off a wooden fence post in a long-running dispute with neighbours Alan and Carol Smith in Thurgoland, near Barnsley, is due face trial next month.

But district judge John Foster said the decision to prosecute Mr Hallam was 'the height of nonsense' and questioned whether the CPS was in touch with what mattered to the public in a time of austerity.

Sitting at Barnsley Magistrates Court, the judge said: 'I cannot believe - even given the vagaries of the Crown Prosecution Service these days - that it wants to proceed with this case against a 55-year-old man of exemplary character.  'It is crackers. The CPS really needs to get some sense of what is important to the public.

'This is a dispute between neighbours. It was a fence post before he cut the top off it and it is still a fence post.  'The neighbour is £7.49 out of pocket. It is the height of nonsense.'

The Smiths are believed to have filmed Mr Hallam chopping the top off the fence post with their CCTV cameras.

Mr Hallam said the case arose from a long-running dispute with his neighbour over rights of access and encroachment.

Prosecutor Chantel Lowery-Green said it was impossible to prove whose land the fence post was on, and said it was felt Mr Hallam had to be prosecuted because of a chance of further trouble.

She said the boundary dispute was due to be sorted out at county court.  'A way out of this would have been to offer Captain Hallam the chance to be bound over to keep the peace.  'I understand he will not accept a binding over because he says he was in his rights to cut the top off the post. We will have to list it for trial.'

Now Barnsley Central MP Dan Jarvis has waded into the row, saying the CPS needed to clarify the issue to assure the public that the correct decision had been made to prosecute.

He said: 'Given the current pressures on the public purse and the comments made by the judge, it is right that questions are asked about the wisdom of pursuing a case of this nature which has presumably come at significant expense to the taxpayer.'

Mr Hallam was granted unconditional bail until the trial on September 12.

A CPS spokesman said following the judge’s comments they would reassess the case before proceeding with the prosecution.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.




9 August, 2013

Yet more "diversity" in Britain

A surgeon ‘lied and lied and lied’ to a woman with a brain tumour by claiming he had removed it, a tribunal heard yesterday.  Emmanuel Labram told the woman he had successfully removed the entire growth when he had removed only a tiny sample for a biopsy.

After lying to her he convinced her not to seek further treatment for two years after the operation by insisting she was absolutely fine.  By the time the woman decided to seek private treatment for her problem, the lesion on her brain was inoperable.

Yesterday a Medical Practitioners Tribunal hearing was told Mr Labram had repeatedly lied to the patient, identified as Patient A, after carrying out the operation at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in September 2008.

Craig Sephton, QC, for the General Medical Council, told the hearing: ‘It is difficult to understand why Mr Labram initially told the patient and her husband that he had completely removed the lesion when he must have known that no such thing had happened.  'He then lied and lied and lied in order to cover up his initial failure.’

The misconduct hearing was told that after lying to Patient A he forged and falsified documents and also lied to medical colleagues.

Labram, 58, who qualified in Ghana in 1981, even sent letters to the patient’s GP telling him that no further treatment was necessary, it was said.

The hearing in Manchester was told that Patient A had fallen ill on holiday in November 2007, experiencing double vision, and booked an appointment with her optician.

She was then referred to the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary where an MRI scan revealed she had a tumour about one inch in diameter in her brain.

The woman, who saw Labram to discuss her options for treatment in June 2008, told the hearing: ‘My first questions were, “Is it accessible? Is it operable?” and, “Is there anything you can do about it?”

‘He said, “Oh yes. That’s the only way to find out”, so I was confident the surgery would go well and I would find out what was causing the double vision.’  She added: ‘I was under the impression that he was going to remove the tumour.’

After the neurosurgeon operated in September 2008 he told her that he had removed 100 per cent of the tumour, she said.  ‘He said, “It’s all gone”. He said it was just calcium deposits. That’s how he described it,’ she told the hearing.

Mr Sephton said: ‘Mr Labram gave Patient A’s husband a vivid description of how he had removed the tumour. In fact he had not excised the lesion at all.’

The hearing was told that Labram had removed only four tiny hard pale fragments when he knew the tumour was an inch in diameter. In his medical notes he simply recorded that ‘biopsies’ of the tumour had been taken.

Mr Sephton said there was no explanation as to why Labram had told the patient he had removed the entire tumour.  ‘The only explanation is he was being dishonest,’ he said.

‘There is no clinical justification not to tell the truth to Patient A or her GP. Mr Labram acted dishonestly in asserting what he knew was not true.’

In January 2009 the surgeon is said to have altered a pathology report and sent a forged copy to his patient in order to conceal the fact she might need further treatment.  Two months later he failed to tell Patient A that another MRI scan she had had showed the tumour was in fact unchanged.

The GMC claims he did not tell her this because he wanted to conceal the fact he had not removed the lesion in the first place.

Labram then changed his stance after a third MRI scan, telling Patient A and her GP that the lesion had returned, when he knew there had been no change.

He again changed his tune in May 2010, now telling Patient A that he had not known the tumour was present when he operated on her and giving her another doctored pathology report, the panel heard.

Patient A raised concerns about her treatment and the medical director at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary ordered an investigation.

When asked about his actions in 2011, the surgeon allegedly continued to lie to bosses, claiming ‘he did not want to cause further stress to the patient’.

‘He was given the opportunity to come clean about the lies he had told and elected to not do so,’ said Mr Sephton.

Labram, of Aberdeen, faces 11 allegations relating to his conduct.

After a failed application to be voluntarily erased from the medical register, he withdrew from  proceedings and is not present or represented at the hearing.

He is currently able to work within the UK subject to conditions that keep him closely monitored by a professional regulator.

If found guilty of misconduct he could be struck off the medical register.  The hearing continues


'Career criminal' walks free after two-month manhunt because his 'wanted' picture contaminated evidence

A criminal who was hauled to court to face robbery charges after a two-month manhunt has walked free after a judge ruled the 'wanted' picture of him issued by police had contaminated evidence.

Detectives had released a mugshot of career criminal Anthony Morrison, 32, when he was wanting for questioning over a £20,000 robbery at an Adsa supermarket.

But witnesses due to testify against him at his trial told police they recognised his face after seeing the wanted picture - despite all the robbers wearing balaclavas during the raid.

On the first day of the planned trial, prosecutors said there was 'huge potential for contamination' in the evidence against him.

Apart from the eyewitnesses, whose identification of Morrison was 'contaminated', the only other evidence was that his DNA was found on a distinctive jacket linked to the robbery.

But prosecutors said there was no evidence that Morrison was wearing the jacket at the time of the attack, and he could have worn it previously.

Simon Parry, prosecuting told Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court that he would offer no evidence against Morrison, adding: 'Suspicion isn't enough.'

Morrison, who had previously been jailed for six years for conspiracy to rob, was suspected of being one of four men armed with a sledgehammer and handgun who had attacked security guards filling ATM machines at Asda in Oldham, Greater Manchester.

One of the guards was punched twice in the face during the raid in 2011, while another heard one of the robbers shout 'Just shoot him'.

The thieves made off with a cash box containing £20,000. Suspects Jason Butterworth, 33, and Michael Ford, 34, were arrested but Morrison fled to Spain in December 2011.  The following July he called police from Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam to say he wanted to give himself up.

Arrangements were made for him to board an aircraft to Manchester because officers were legally unable to go to Holland to escort him back to Britain.

Morrison agreed to be arrested by officers when he arrived at Manchester Airport but when he touched down at Terminal One from his EasyJet flight he fled before he got to passport control.

While officers were waiting in Terminal One, he forced his way through a locked door into Terminal Three and disappeared into the crowd before escaping in a taxi.

It was then that police issued his mugshot in a wanted appeal.

They failed to track him down until nearly two months later, when he arrived at North Manchester General Hospital with a bullet wound to his chest.

Morrison staggered from the passenger seat of a BMW, which drove away as he was helped by paramedics outside the hospital on August 26 last year.  It is not known who shot him, why or where.

Speaking at court, prosecutor Mr Parry said: 'Firstly, the main priority for everybody concerned is that they had to save his life. It wasn’t until later in the year that he was arrested.

'On November 12 last year he was arrested, answering “no comment” to questions. The only evidence in the robbery case centred around a very distinctive jacket that had his DNA on the collar.

'Initially the offenders were described as having their faces covered by balaclavas and the victims said they couldn’t identify the men due to this.

'But about a month before Morrison was arrested, the victims said they had seen articles in the press and recognised him, despite the fact he wore a face covering.

'There is huge potential for contamination. Many articles said he was the man responsible for the robbery and then the victims gave a statement saying they recognised his face only after his picture had been released.

'Aside from this identification, the only evidence is his DNA on the collar of the jacket. There is no doubt the offender wore that jacket. However our expert confirms that it is not possible to tell when that was.'

Mr Parry said Morrison was an acquaintance of those convicted of the robbery and said he went to the gym with Butterworth, so it was not possible to confirm when he had worn the jacket.

That meant the only evidence was witnesses' identification of Morrison, which was 'contaminated.’

Mr Parry added: 'The prosecution aren’t confident relying on the evidence. There is an overwhelming likelihood that the identification is contaminated.

'His DNA is bound to be on the getaway car as he goes to the gym with the other offender. He said he has been in the car plenty of times and he has worn that jacket and it is likely that he has.

'But can we say he was the last person to wear it? No, we can’t. For that reason, I offer no evidence. Suspicion isn’t enough, your honour.'

Morrison's family smiled and gave the thumbs up as he was found not guilty by the judge.

Judge Jonathan Foster QC said: 'I don’t know enough about the case. It’s not for me as a judge to intervene or make any further comment.

'If there is not sufficient evidence to go before a jury, it would be wrong for that to now take place. That is my position.'

Defending Morrison, Imran Shafi said: 'It comes as no surprise that the prosecution have taken this view.'

Ford, of Middleton, was jailed for nine and a half years in August last year after pleading guilty to robbery. Butterworth, also of Middleton, was jailed for six years, eight months.


ACLU: Not renting to couple likely violates Iowa law

Why queers want to force themselves on others rather puzzles me.  It does them no credit.  It violates the 1st Amendment protection of religious practice anyway

On Tuesday, KCCI brought you the story of a couple who said a business declined to rent its venue to them for their wedding because they were a same-sex couple.

Lee and Jared toured the Gortz Haus after losing their first choice for their wedding when the Hotel Pattee suddenly closed its doors. After the tour, the couple was told the venue couldn't be rented.

Gortz Haus Gallery owner Betty Odgaard told KCCI the "decision is based on our religious beliefs. We want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand that comes from our faith, our convictions. I think we should just stand by that no matter what."

Legal experts said the stand likely violates Iowa Code, specifically chapter 216.7.

"We have a civil rights statute that states 'There can be no discrimination against people based on their race, religion, national origin, color, creed, gender identity, sexual orientation or religion," said Randall Wilson of the ACLU of Iowa.

Wilson said that according to the code, the couple should not have been denied because the business is a public accommodation.

"They are not serving a private club, closed group of people. They actually invite the public to come in and take advantage of their services for a fee. Any place that does that is a public accommodation," said Wilson.

Chuck Hurley is an advocate who has fought against same-sex marriage in Iowa as vice president of The Iowa Family Leader.

He said believes despite what is in the code, Odgaard should be able to stand by what she said are her deep religious convictions.

"The issues here conscious protection is hallowed by our founding fathers. We've had that in this country for over 200 years. We ought to be able to respect people's sincerely held beliefs and not force them to participate in something against their conscience," said Hurley.

There are exemptions to the Iowa Code for a religious institution; however that does not cover a business being housed inside an old church.


Political cortrectness killed Hasan's victims

Finally. Four years after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and perpetrated the bloodiest massacre ever on an American military base, the self-confessed jihadist's court martial proceedings began this week. Have you forgotten?

Americans obsessed over the O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias trials. Gun-control lobbyists turned Newtown, Aurora and Tucson into national awareness-raising, fundraising and legislation-promoting campaigns. But where are the celebrity lobbyists and high-profile advocates for the victims of bloodthirsty Muslim vigilante Nidal Hasan?

The White House, which downplayed the terrorist mass murder as "workplace violence," exacerbated national apathy for his evil acts. Our soldiers deserve better. Here are three facts you've probably forgotten — or never knew — about the Fort Hood terror spree.

—Fourteen victims fell on Nov. 5, 2009, not 13. Thirteen of our U.S. military personnel died in cold blood at the deployment center. But the death toll was actually 14. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, was pregnant when Hasan shot her during the first round of gunfire. At a military Article 32 hearing in 2010 (analogous to a civilian grand jury hearing), a survivor of the Fort Hood shootings testified that Velez cried out, "My baby! My baby!"

In his opening statement on Tuesday, Hasan (acting as his own lawyer) apologized to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life.

—The victims were all unarmed. Soldiers inside the deployment center were and are forbidden from carrying weapons — either issued weapons or personal arms — on base. When Hasan commenced his shooting spree by shouting, "Allahu Akbar," several brave men and women in uniform used chairs, tables and their own bodies to try to stop him. But it wasn't until a courageous, armed civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberley Munley, arrived on the scene with her 9mm Beretta that Hasan's rampage was interrupted.

In a gunfight outside the deployment center, Munley wounded Hasan — who was able to return fire and shot her in the hand, thigh and knee. While she lay on the ground, Hasan kicked away her weapon. Another armed civilian police officer, Mark Todd, was able to fire at Hasan five times and brought him down.

Gun-control zealots led by the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence exploited Fort Hood to argue for even tighter gun restrictions. But it was a 1993 Clinton administration gun-control directive banning most military personnel from carrying their arms for personal protection that facilitated Hasan's massacre except under very limited circumstances. Despite the death of 13 soldiers and the wounding of more than 30 at Fort Hood by a jihadist who warned his superiors that Muslim soldiers posed a specific threat, gun-free military base policies remain in place.

—Hasan's military colleagues were more concerned with being accused of discrimination than with ridding our military of this known, deranged Islamic radical. In 2007, two years before he carried out his homicidal plan, Hasan laid out his murderous means, motives and Koranic inspiration for all to see.

His PowerPoint slide presentation to fellow Army doctors was titled: "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." Hasan warned: "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." And: "We love death more then (sic) you love life!" As first reported by Pamela Geller, Hasan carried an official calling card with the designation "SoA (SWT)" — for "Soldier of Allah" and "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala" (Islamic for "Glory to Him, the Exalted").

Hasan told his superiors he was not alone among Muslim soldiers who believed they "should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly."

He reminded the Army of the fatal 2003 fragging attack on American soldiers in Kuwait by Sgt. Hasan Akbar (who was sentenced to death but remains alive while his case drags on in appeal) and the desertion case of Lebanon-born Muslim Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun.

A Joint Terrorism Task Force had been monitoring Hasan's communications with jihad spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki all along. But the military was not notified. Even without that information, military officers expressed concerns privately that Hasan might leak classified information to terror groups if he were deployed and that he was capable of committing a fragging.

Yet, they were prepared to deploy him anyway and did nothing to remove him from his job. One email from an Army investigator before the Fort Hood massacre fretted: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."

Instead, 13 soldiers and one unborn child were slaughtered and paid with their lives for our country's reckless political correctness and bureaucratic fecklessness.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



8 August, 2013

"Diverse" teenager jailed for five years after holding hotel staff at gunpoint during separate armed robberies

A 15-year-old boy who held staff at two separate London hotels at gunpoint and demanded cash in two armed robberies has been sentenced to five years in a young offender's institute.

Ayuub Mohammed threatened receptionists with a handgun at the Arriva Hotel in Bloomsbury and the Howard Winchester Hotel in Argyle Street within the space of just four hours in February.

Blackfriars Crown Court heard that Mohammed arrived at the Arriva Hotel on Swinton Street at around 11pm on February 27, pulled a gun from his pocket and demanded cash from the hotel receptionist.

He hit a hotel worker with the gun and ordered him to open the hotel safe.

The receptionist gave Mohammed a small amount of cash before forcing a hotel guest to hand over £180 in cash and a mobile phone.

The court heard that at 3am on February 28th, Mohammed entered the second hotel, the Howard Winchester, and asked a receptionist to search for room availability.

He then pulled out the gun and threatened staff, again asking for cash.  But he left the hotel empty handed when the receptionist attempted to grab the gun.

Following a police investigation, Mohammed was eventually arrested and charged in June.  He pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery and two counts of possession of an imitation firearm, and was sentenced to a total of five years.

Detectives believe that he was not working alone and appealed for anyone with information to get in touch.

Investigating officer, Det Con Dawn Bolitho, said: 'Despite his young age, Mohammed was willing to target these two hotels and commit serious offences for his own personal gain.

'What this sentence shows is that the law will fall heavy on anyone using guns to commit crime and intimidate people.'


Private eyes spy for the British State: Public officials spend YOUR millions on snoopers

Councils are using millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to hire private detectives for  snooping operations.

Dozens of town halls, several quangos and even one central government department used the investigators to check on both members of the public and their own staff.

Officials spent nearly £4million in two years on covert surveillance, background checks and other intrusive investigations by private eyes.

The startling scale of the use of private eyes by state bodies came as it emerged investigators employed by a fire brigade fitted a GPS tracking device to the family car of a 999 call centre worker.

Anthea Orchard, 35, was put under investigation by West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Services who suspected her of moonlighting while on sick leave.

The private eyes they employed telephoned her with fake offers of work in an effort to lure her into a confession – but were rumbled when she traced their telephone number on the internet.

Mrs Orchard – who insists she has done nothing wrong and was not working illicitly – was also tipped off by neighbours who saw investigators acting suspiciously outside her Bradford home.

She has now left her job with an £11,000 payoff after agreeing not to sue the fire authority for ‘unnecessary surveillance’ and intrusion into her private life. Critics said the case exposed the worrying extent of state snooping by unregulated private investigators (PIs).

In recent weeks the so-called ‘secret’ hacking scandal has revealed how ‘shady’ private eyes employed by blue chip companies, law firms and celebrities hacked, blagged and stole private information.

MPs are demanding the publication of a list of 102 firms and private individuals who engaged corrupt private eyes which is being kept secret by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency.

There is no suggestion any of those PIs engaged by councils and other public bodies have acted unlawfully. But they show how the private investigation industry has extended its reach deep into the public sector.

Lord Justice Leveson was warned about the use of private investigators by councils, law firms and others during his inquiry into the Press, but did not investigate them or mention them in his final report.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who has conducted an inquiry into PIs, said: ‘I am concerned that the use of PIs seems to be becoming more and more widespread.

‘This is a worrying trend. The Government must put forward its announced regulation for private investigators as a matter of urgency.’

Nick Pickles, director of pressure group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘Private investigators have been able to hide in the shadows for too long, even when they’re being paid with taxpayers’ money.

‘The fact that numerous public bodies think it is acceptable to use private investigators to snoop on their own staff should send a chill down the spine.

‘As the lengths that some private investigators will go in their work becomes abundantly clear, there’s a risk of a ‘‘see no evil, hear no evil’’ culture emerging around snooping.

‘Far more could be done to rein in who is allowed to launch surveillance operations and making them responsible for the investigators working on their behalf.’

Freedom of Information requests by Big Brother Watch revealed some £3.9million of taxpayers’ money was spent on private eyes over two years. That included 37 councils, several quangos and the Department for Transport.

Among the activities investigated by council-sponsored PIs were fly-tipping, blue badge fraud, fake insurance claims and housing fraud. They were also used to investigate parties in care proceedings.

In addition, several councils used PIs to probe fraud allegations against staff accused of stealing from their employer or faking sick leave.

The Department for Transport said it had used PIs to probe driving test fraud and fake personal injury claims.

The NHS litigation authority used PIs to examine insurance fraud, and the Legal Services Commission for debt collection. The Marine Management Organisation used PIs to conduct ‘fisheries surveillance’. The Food Standards Agency said they were used for an ‘internal discipline investigation’.

Laws due to come into force next year will see shady private investigators face jail if they fail to abide by new regulations. All investigators will be registered, forced to pass a national qualification, and undergo background checks before they are granted a licence.

Operating without a licence will be a criminal offence punishable with a six-month jail term and a £5,000 fine.

Mr Pickles said the use of the tracking device to snoop on Mrs Orchard was a ‘staggeringly heavy-handed and intrusive response’. The mother of two, who lives with construction manager husband Gareth, 37, and children Ashleigh, five, and Haydn, two, returned to work last October after taking maternity leave.

While off she had started a part-time balloon decorating business. Shortly afterwards, she was off sick with stress and began to receive suspicious calls from would-be customers asking her to take on work.

She checked her Audi A6 car and found a GPS tracking device had been fitted underneath.

She said: ‘I have never felt as scared in my life, I couldn’t go out, couldn’t do my shopping. It stopped me doing anything.’
‘The whole situation has made me very ill. It was horrible to think someone was watching us.’

The emergency call handler was given a letter informing her she was under investigation. On October 31 she was signed off sick due to stress, depression and a recently diagnosed condition, hypothyroidism, which can cause symptoms such as tiredness, weight gain and aches.

‘As soon as I booked sick, I refrained from work. My husband took over the reins of the simple stuff but I didn’t work with the balloons. I took the website down and didn’t think of doing any more.’

Within days she began receiving ‘funny phone calls’ trying to get her to take on work. But searching the internet for the number brought up the private investigator.

She then found the tracker device which was attached by magnets and fitted with a SIM card to allow her every movement to be monitored. ‘This is an infringement into my family life,’ she said.

‘The whole situation has made me very ill. It is not right that public money is being used in this way. It was horrible to think someone was watching us.’

Mrs Orchard, who is now working full-time on her balloon business, added: ‘I haven’t been a mum during all this. It has affected the whole family. I’ve lost what was basically a £30,000-a-year career.’

She said the private detective agency was Nottingham-based Riding Commercial Investigations, operating under the internet name ‘localpi’. The West Yorkshire fire service refused to comment.


Again:  Daughters need their fathers

Like all human relationships, it does not always work out well but when it does it is a lifelong  source of strength to the daughter

Sitting in the garden as the sun gradually sets, I look over the rim of my wine glass into a pair of cornflower blue eyes - and feel as if I might burst with happiness.

As Richard and I chink glasses, we talk about the forthcoming weekend. There's talk of sailing to the Isle of Wight, plans for a picnic aboard his boat, and even - if I'm brave enough - a spot of waterskiing.

I counter with the suggestion of a more sedate trip to the cinema and a meal with friends. We bat ideas back and forth. How will we fit it all in? There's so much to do - and every single thing is alive with tantalising excitement.

As we talk, I feel myself falling more deeply in love with Richard - but when his hand gently slides over the table to take mine, my joy is bittersweet. There's one person who is missing from my life, who I would love to share my happiness with: my dear, beloved father.

Sadly, I can't because Dad died in April at 98. Yet although he may not be here to enjoy the moment, the truth is I have no doubt he knows and approves.

You see he was very much a part of  making this wonderful thing happen. In many ways he helped engineer it. He opened my heart to love. It was his last - and most precious - gift to me.

In the last months of his life, aware that his health was failing, Dad was determined to leave nothing undone. When it got to the time that he'd no longer be here to look out for me, he wanted to know there'd be someone to help make me happy.

I hope Dad knew how much I loved him - I'm sure he had no idea just how much I'd miss him. Neither did I. But he seemed to know that falling in love would help me fill the gaping hole he'd leave in my life.

He knew my heart had been broken by my ex-husband, who cheated on me while I battled breast cancer in 2008, and that I was terrified of dating again.

But Dad insisted I was far too young - at 'just' 54 - to give up on love. How right he was.

He and I had always been close. But in the last two-and-a-half years of his life, we became even closer because he came to live with me. It happened after Dad, a widower of 15 years, fell and broke his hip in June 2010. He was then 95, and had lived independently, around the corner from my house in Winchester, since my mother had died from cancer in 1995, aged 77.

Apart from the odd twinge of arthritis, Dad was outrageously hale and hearty. He'd even played golf until well into his 90s, so I never imagined him becoming weak and needy, and never planned for it.

'Two years after Dad moved in with me - I took the first daring step. I agreed to go on three dates: one with a man chosen by a friend; one by my younger daughter; and one by Dad'

But after the operation to replace his shattered hip, it was obvious he couldn't live alone. He needed a walking frame to get around, and couldn't manage stairs. So, he came to live with me, a decision - although I did not realise it at the time - that proved to be one of the best of my life.

At the time I was in the throes of a painful divorce, after discovering that my husband, who ran a gardening business, had been having an affair with one of his clients.

What made the betrayal hardest to bear was that it happened while I was receiving cancer treatment. I felt so frightened and vulnerable that looking after myself and my daughters - Ellen, then 18, and Elise, 17 - was hard enough. Looking after Dad, too, was the last thing I needed, I thought.

But, as I gradually discovered, it was Dad who ended up looking after me. Not physically, of course. He was so frail that he needed carers to help him morning and evening. But I spent hours on end with him.

Perhaps because of his great age and closeness to death, he exuded a huge wisdom. It was almost as though all the lessons he'd learnt through his long life were being passed on to me.

His eyes lit up when I came into a room. And I knew, as far as he was concerned, I was eternally young and beautiful - his precious little girl. Enveloped by Dad's love, I could feel my confidence seeping back.

But I was too terrified of getting hurt again to consider dating. It seemed much safer to stay single.

As the months passed, Dad tentatively broached the subject. 'Darling, you can't live your life on the sidelines for ever,' he would say.  And he was right. I thought of how when Mum died, Dad - at the grand old age of 86 - took up ballroom dancing and instantly found a whole new social life. He didn't want to marry again, but he enjoyed escorting his new lady partners to lunch.

One of the wonderful things about living with Dad was having the time to talk. Because we knew his days were numbered, our conversations took on new depth.

He talked a lot about falling in love. I'd always known he'd adored Mum and would do anything to please her. They met through friends in the summer of 1943, and married when Dad - a flight lieutenant with the RAF - was posted to Normandy in the wake of the D-Day invasions.

'She was a wonderful woman - far too good for me, you know, love,' he told me. 'She made me the man I am.'

He and Mum had been so happy and, as I listened to Dad, I found myself becoming almost envious.  On top of that, I wasn't needed so much at home. Ellen was already at university. Elise was about to follow. I could see my life closing in.

And so last summer - two years after Dad moved in with me - I took the first daring step. I agreed to go on three dates: one with a man chosen by a friend; one by my younger daughter; and one by Dad. I wrote about what happened in this paper. It was frightening, but I felt I'd broken through a huge barrier. Thanks to Dad's example, I'd managed to jump into the unknown and trust that I'd be fine.

I really liked the man Dad had picked for me: Derek Hooper, 59, who ran a home maintenance and gardening business. Dad loved the way Derek knew his way around a U-bend and plunger, but I could see he wasn't right for me.

Although Dad was disappointed, he was delighted I'd taken that first baby step. 'Now it's time to get out there and enjoy yourself,' he urged.

So, last November, I signed up with a dating website called Encounters. Dad had never heard of internet dating, but when I explained what it involved, he was instantly enthusiastic. 'Wowee, what a brilliant idea,' he enthused. 'Fast and no messing about.'

And he was right. On signing up, I was instantly bombarded with emails from potential suitors. It was very flattering.

And that's how I found myself, three weeks and several phone calls and emails later, standing in the car park of a country pub as the most drop-dead gorgeous man lifted his  sunglasses to smile hello.

We'd brought our dogs. Snuffling unashamedly around each other, they proved the perfect ice-breaker. I knew from our phone calls that, like me, Richard was 54 and had two daughters in their early 20s, whom he adored.

He was an accountant and, after separating from his wife some years ago, lived alone in Gosport. But as we talked, we realised we had so much more in common than we would ever have guessed - for example, we'd both studied at Oxford University at the same time.

And, in so many ways, Richard reminded me of Dad, not least because of his obvious adoration of his daughters, whom he described as the 'apples' of his eye.

Richard, who was only the second man I'd met from the website, was bright, witty and fun.  Swapping  recollections of essay crises and dire college discos, I found myself almost weeping with laughter. He was the first man I'd ever met who asked as many questions as I did. And he actually listened to the answers.

When at the end of our mud-spattered walk, Richard asked if he could see me again, I didn't hesitate.

Back home, Dad noticed the instant change in me. 'You've got roses in your cheeks,' he smiled. He was right. As I looked in the mirror, I could see my eyes  were sparkling and my skin was  glowing again.

But while I liked Richard immensely, that just made me all the more scared of getting hurt. Staying at home with a bottle of wine and a DVD box-set of Breaking Bad seemed much safer.  'Honestly, Dad, it's just too frightening,' I told him.

He looked concerned. 'But darling, most of the things we're scared of never happen,' he said. 'Let fear stop you doing something and you'll end up doing nothing.'

I knew he was right. After all, I'd  survived breast cancer. After being diagnosed in 2007, I'm now in remission. What on Earth could be more frightening than that?

Suddenly I felt pathetic for choosing to bury myself at home when Dad would give anything to be out enjoying everything life had to offer.

He had always been a live wire. Impetuous (he proposed to my mother after just four meetings), energetic and endlessly enthusiastic, in his eyes glasses weren't just half full - they were positively brimming over. He believed in getting stuck into life, and never looking back. I imagine it's an attitude common in his generation of men, who saw friends die.

Ever since my marriage ended, my brain had been stuck on rewind as I picked over all that had gone wrong - torturing myself with regret. Dad claimed he  could barely even remember my ex-husband's name, let alone think he was worth talking about.

In so many ways, Dad had even more reason to be sad and regretful than I did. He'd not just lost my mother,  but my sister, who died in a car accident, aged 26. Now he wasn't even able to get out any more. But he never looked back.

'What's the plan today?' he'd ask every morning, and look equally  enthusiastic whether it was a visit from his chiropodist or simply a snooze with the newspaper.  I needed some of that positivity, and so I agreed to go on a second date with Richard. I knew it was make-or-break.

Apart from my natural fear of being hurt, I had another very good reason to be anxious. I had written a book, Take Me Home, about living with Dad. I'd also gone into detail about dealing with breast cancer and the breakdown of my marriage.

When I wrote it, I'd never imagined I'd be dating again and wanting to impress a stranger. I squirmed in horror as I visualised Richard stumbling upon the book.

In one fell swoop he would discover everything, from my mastectomy to the night I spent in a police cell after confronting my husband's girlfriend.  I realised I'd have to tell him all about it myself. Sitting over a glass of wine in my local pub, I watched his face carefully as the words spilled out. I'd no idea how he'd react.

But when I finished, he took my hand. 'I'm so pleased to know you,' he said. And then he kissed me. And that's how I knew it was all going to be all right.

Dad was desperate to meet Richard. And Richard was curious about the 'other man' in my life. We had been dating for five weeks when I nervously introduced them to each other.

I watched the way Richard instinctively leant in close to my very deaf father to talk to him, and Dad's reciprocal smile of appreciation.

I watched him enthusiastically build up Dad's woodburner, and rush to make him a cup of tea, and I knew I'd found a man like Dad, who didn't just grab life with both hands but was also kind and caring.

'He likes to be happy,' said Dad, approvingly. 'And if he makes you happy, that's all that I ask for.'

And then in March, Dad became ill. A bad cough turned into pneumonia, and he was admitted to the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester.

The doctors couldn't predict the outcome but warned us to prepare for the worst. And while there were days when Dad seemed to rally and we hoped he would come home, he gradually became increasingly frail.

I'd dreaded this moment for so long. But, strangely, I felt I was ready. And I know that was a lot to do with the fact that Dad really had done his job. He'd helped open my heart to love.

He'd watched my first faltering steps back into the dating world and knew I was ready to move on.

Dad died peacefully in hospital in the early hours of April 19. I was bereft. Suddenly there was no one to buy  custard creams for any more, no one to rush home to, and no one who needed my love and care quite as much as he did.

I was frightened that losing Dad would put a strain on my relationship with Richard. I wouldn't have blamed him if he decided to call it a day.  But, thankfully, it has brought us  even closer.  When I cry, he knows he doesn't  have to try and make it better. He just has to take my hand, and the sadness will pass.

Richard and I have been dating for seven months now. My girls, now 20 and 21, approve of him, and his daughters seem to like me. It's very early days but - whatever happens in the future - I know I will owe it to Dad.

His unstinting love helped me heal.


Sydney Muslim sheikh admits sending abusive letters to dead Afghanistan veterans' families

A man accused of sending abusive letters to the families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan has formally pleaded guilty in a Sydney court.  Man Monis, who also uses the name Sheik Haron, sent the letters between November 2007 and August 2009.

A court has previously heard the letters criticised Australia's involvement in Afghanistan and labelled the soldiers murderers.

Monis sent letters to the families of seven soldiers killed in action, as well as one man who died in the 2009 Marriott Hotel bombing in Indonesia.

Bree Till received a letter in March 2009, less than a fortnight after her husband Brett died in Southern Afghanistan.  It opened with condolences, before becoming abusive.

"This man accusing my husband of being a child killer whilst dictating how I should raise my children," she said outside court today.  "The fact that there was any question as to whether this was right or wrong, that was difficult."

Monis has pleaded guilty to 12 counts of using a postal service to offend on the grounds of recklessness.

His co-accused, Amirah Droudis, has also pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting Monis, after she sent an item of mail in May 2008.

Monis gained notoriety by chaining himself to a railing outside a Sydney court in 2009 in protest against the charges he was facing.

In February, he also lost a High Court challenge to the charges, after claiming they were unconstitutional.

The case had been seen as an important test of the implied right to freedom of political speech in the Constitution.

Monis left court today with two fingers in the air, signifying the peace sign.  [Maybe!]



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



7 August, 2013

So unjust it makes you want to spit ....

British police on the side of the crooks once again

When librarian Elaine Perry was threatened in the street she called the police. Guess what? The cops arrested her instead.

Not only that, but to add insult to injury they hooded her, taped her legs together and bundled her into a van in front of a crowd of jeering onlookers.

She was kept in the special ‘spit hood’ for 15 minutes. It was removed only when she began hyperventilating.

Her ordeal began when she remonstrated with parents whose children were constantly sounding a car horn. After she was threatened by the children’s mother, who has a string of convictions for everything from assault to affray, Miss Perry dialled 999.

But the officers decided she was in the wrong. ‘I have never been in trouble before, yet I was treated like a criminal,’ she said. ‘I had no idea the British police could use this type of hood, which would not have looked out of place at Guantanamo Bay.’

I don’t suppose many people had any idea the Old Bill were hooding suspects. Neither did Chichester Magistrates, either, by the sound of it. When Miss Perry, 57, appeared in court accused of threatening behaviour and assault, she was cleared of all charges.

She now intends to sue Sussex Constabulary. Let’s hope she takes them to the cleaners. This isn’t the first time police have decided to arrest a victim of crime, not the perpetrator.

The civil court might like to take time to consider the Twitter account of one of the officers who subjected Miss Perry to this degrading treatment.

It gives a valuable insight into the calibre of some police recruits these days. PC Katrina Saunders can be seen pulling a soppy face and, in response to a tweet about the introduction of tasers, wrote: ‘Yeaaaah taser taser taser!!! :-)’

We’re not talking The Gentle Touch here, are we?


Charity cakes given the all clear: Homemade bakers told they can sell their wares without falling foul of elf 'n' safety

At long last sense prevails

The quintessentially British pastime of selling homemade jams and cakes at the village fete to raise money for a good cause is as old as the hills.

But when European guidelines on food hygiene were introduced it sparked panic among the self-appointed health and safety police.

They issued strict new guidance which saw the pots of homemade gooseberry jam and chocolate cakes disappearing from community fundraisers.

But now the food watchdog in the UK has handed every keen cake baker and jam maker a reprieve which should see village fêtes offering home produce once again.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has ruled that volunteer cooks and charity groups who occasionally prepare food for community events are not covered by EU laws.

So that means they no longer need to possess a food hygiene certificate before they are allowed to offer their wares for sale.

In black and white, the ruling states: ‘There is no rule banning the sale of homemade cakes at school fêtes or other community events.’

The new FSA guidance comes just days after schoolgirl Georgie Hippolite, 12, was banned from selling homemade cupcakes to her schoolmates at an end-of-term charity event.

She was told he could not offer from for sale because the baker - her mother, Kirsty Hippolite, 39 - did not have a food hygiene certificate.

James Stewart, headteacher at her school, the Cowes Enterprise College, said a health and safety adviser had told them not to accept home produce as they could be liable if someone fell ill.

But the food watchdog now says that most charity and community organisation provide food less than once a month and do not need to register their activities.

Only groups that serve hot food regularly, deal with the under-fives or the elderly or are involved in large scale events need to be registered.

Scout and Guide groups as well as bring-and-buy sales, Women’s Institute events and village fêtes are also cleared to sell their produce without registering.

The move has been welcomed by professional chefs and amateur cooks alike who have called it a ‘a refreshing injection of common sense.’

Mrs Hippolite, a mother-of-five from Cowes on the Isle of Wight, said: ‘Hurray. Hurray. Thank goodness for that. I am very pleased about that.’ ‘Selling homemade cakes and jams to raise money for good causes is a traditional British pursuit and something that should be applauded to banned.

‘I was stunned when my daughter, Georgie, was told she could not sell the cupcakes I had baked. It was a Mary Berry recipe - for goodness sake!’

She said: ‘It is a refreshing injection of common sense and I welcome it wholeheartedly. It make children self-sufficient to bake and also instils a sense of social responsibility if they are baking for charity.’

Prue Leith, restaurateur and judge on BBC’s Great British Menu, said: ‘It’s the best news that has come out of the FSA for years.’


The cowardice of the modern British emergency worker once more

When Bert Hendy dialled 999 for help for his dying wife he didn’t expect a visit from the bomb squad.  But the first paramedic to reach his home called in explosives experts after spotting a wartime shell on the pensioner’s mantelpiece.

Jean, Mr Hendy’s wife of 63 years, had died before the ambulance arrived but her body was not moved for another four hours while the bizarre incident unfolded.

Accompanied by police, the explosives experts examined and photographed the device before eventually taking it away to a police station.

The couple’s son Steve, 62, said: ‘This was typical of mum – causing such a drama. In a way it was a fitting finale – she certainly went out with a bang.’

He said his mother, 81, slipped into unconsciousness shortly after waking up last Sunday.  ‘By the time paramedics arrived, mum had sadly passed away,’ he added. ‘But while he was here, the paramedic noticed the nose cone of this bomb on the mantelpiece.

'He kept picking it up and looking at it and then said to us that he thought it was live and he was going to have to call the police.  'We couldn’t believe it. Mum had just passed away and all this was going on around her.’

Mr Hendy, 85 and a former Navy officer, was given the First World War British shell ten years ago in Hotton, Belgium.  He was visiting a graveyard in the town where his brother, Fred, 19, was buried after being killed in the Second World War.  Steve said: ‘He drilled the shell and ground it so it would fit on this plinth.

‘At no time did any of us think it could be live – it is 100 years old. It’s one of his pride and joys and had just been sitting there for years.’

Police have now returned the nose cone to Mr Hendy’s Bristol home and issued him with a certificate saying it is safe.

A police spokesman said: ‘At around 8.15am on Sunday, July 28, we were informed by the ambulance service that they had found some sort of World War One device. We attended the property in Allerton Crescent and took photos of the object.

‘At 12.30pm the Explosives Ordnance Disposal advised us that they were happy with the object and it could safely be removed to the local police station.’


Christian church evicted from NYC restaurant for preaching against same-sex relations

The Gallery Church in New York City claims it was booted from its $25,000-per-year rental space in a local restaurant for preaching Christian messages that included sermons against same-sex relations and marriage.

The church pastor, Freddy Wyatt, said in a story reported by The Blaze that “this particular sermon series struck a nerve in the neighborhood. There was an enormous amount of backlash. … The restaurant said that if it had only been a couple of phone calls [it received] it would have been one thing – but it was more than that.”

On the church’s online blog, Pastor Wyatt said that services had only been held at the new rental space for a couple of months, before owners of the restaurant that was hosting the congregation asked them to leave.

He wrote: “The restaurant that was hosting us had received significant backlash from the neighborhood for hosting a Christian church in their space. The backlash came before the sermon was even preached … Our church was sobered by the persecution and responded with grace and gratitude. … We were given a short two months to find a new space. Not an easy task.”

The church paid the restaurant about $150 each Sunday to hold services at the facility – for a total of about $25,000 each year, the pastor said, in The Blaze. Roughly 10 attended services, and most stayed and paid to eat at the restaurant when church wrapped for the day, the pastor said.

“Yet, disassociating from a Christian church was more valuable to them,” the pastor, said, in his blog posting.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



6 August, 2013

A confession of a British racist

False Civil Rights  History

Ann Coulter

During his otherwise excellent commentaries on race in America, Bill O’Reilly, host of the No. 1 cable news show, claimed on Tuesday night that the one person who tried to help African-Americans more than any other was … Robert F. Kennedy!

No one laughed. I guess that’s what they’re teaching these days at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. (I can’t wait to hear how Ted Kennedy helped eradicate drunk driving!)

According to O’Reilly’s Bizarro-World history, Bobby Kennedy was “the guy who was really concerned about African-Americans” and “who really DID SOMETHING. … He went in with the federal government and he cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South.”

Although this myth has been polished to perfection by the Kennedy PR machine (requiring all Kennedy stories to illustrate either courage or adorableness), it is simply a fact that helping blacks was not the Democrats’ priority. Even the ones who wanted to, such as Bobby and John Kennedy, couldn’t risk upsetting the segregationists, more than 90 percent of whom were Democratic.

The job of actually enforcing civil rights and desegregating Southern schools fell to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

Five years after Eisenhower had shown the Democrats how its done by sending federal troops to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., President Kennedy and brother Bobby still dragged their feet in helping James Meredith enter the University of Mississippi.

On Feb. 7, 1961, Meredith wrote a beautiful letter to the Department of Justice, describing his inability to enroll at the University of Mississippi, He wrote:

“Whenever I attempt to reason logically about this matter, it grieves me deeply to realize that an individual, especially an American, the citizen of a free democratic nation, has to clamor with such procedures in order to try to gain just a small amount of his civil and human rights, and even after suffering the embarrassments and personal humiliation of this procedure, there still seems little hope of success.”

The full letter is worth looking up. I would venture to guess there are not many college applicants of any race who write this well today. (You know why? Because Americans don’t read anymore. You watch cable news and fill your heads with nonsense history and false facts.)

In response to Meredith’s eloquent letter, Bobby Kennedy did nothing. And that’s how Bobby Kennedy “cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South”!

Remember: This was seven years after the Supreme Court had already handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education — a ruling expressly endorsed in the Republican Party platform, but not the Democratic platform, I might add.

But Democrats were in the White House, so Meredith had to take his case to the Supreme Court. Liberals were engaging in their usual massive resistance to court rulings they don’t like and neither Bobby nor John Kennedy would dare try to stop them.

You will notice that the Freedom Rides and civil rights marches all took place under Democratic presidents. It was the only way to get Democratic administrations to intervene against their fellow Democrats.

In June 1962, a federal appellate court ruled that Meredith had been denied admittance to Ole Miss because of his race and ordered the university to enroll him. (At least that’s how the two Republican judges voted; the segregationist FDR appointee dissented.) But one old segregationist on the court — who had not even sat on the case — kept issuing stays to prevent enforcement of the ruling.

Only when these illegitimate stays were appealed to the Supreme Court did Bobby Kennedy’s Justice Department finally weigh in, asking Justice Hugo Black, the circuit justice, to lift the stays — nearly two years after Meredith had written to the Department of Justice asking for its help.

Needless to say, Justice Black came down on Meredith’s side in a matter of about six seconds. The full court had already decided the school segregation issue years earlier in Brown.

But the state still would not admit Meredith to Ole Miss.

With a showdown inevitable, President Kennedy, on the counsel of his trusted attorney general, Bobby Kennedy, wrote a letter to the segregationist Democrat governor of Mississippi, Ross Barnett.

These were JFK’s stirring words on behalf of the constitutional rights of black Americans, redeemed with the blood of American patriots:

“White House, September 30, 1962

“To preserve our constitutional system, the Federal Government has an overriding responsibility to enforce the orders of the Federal Courts. Those courts have ordered that James Meredith be admitted now as a student at the University of Mississippi.”

So basically, his hands were tied. It reads like a letter from a Republican administration explaining why it’s forced to comply with a gay marriage ruling. (JFK’s weasel-word letter is also worth looking up.)

Yes, eventually the Kennedy brothers sent the National Guard to force the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith. It wasn’t hard to figure out what to do: Eisenhower had sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation back in 1957 against a much more tenacious segregationist (and Bill Clinton pal), Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas.

But in the rest of the South, schools remained segregated as long as Bobby Kennedy was attorney general and either JFK or LBJ was in the White House. (LBJ on the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”)

Black Americans may say hosannas to Bobby Kennedy, but they would have to wait for Richard Nixon to become president to win the promise of Brown v. Board.

Within Nixon’s first two years in the White House, black students attending segregated schools in the South declined from nearly 70 percent to 18.4 percent. There was more desegregation of American public schools in Nixon’s first term than in any historical period before or since.

It was not an accident that Nixon launched his comeback in 1966 with a column denouncing Democrats for trying to “squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.” It’s also not an accident that James Meredith was a Republican. (You’d know all this if you had read Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, but you were busy watching TV.)

Crediting Bobby Kennedy for the great work he did on behalf of black Americans would be like calling Harry Reid the country’s greatest champion of the unborn. Sure, Reid says he’s pro-life, but he dare not act on it lest he upset the rest of his party. It was the same with Democrats and civil rights.

If you want to say something nice about Bobby Kennedy, remind everyone that he proudly worked for Sen. Joe McCarthy.


Was the Fort Hood gunman left unchecked because of political correctness?

Victims of mass shooting which killed 13 and injured 32 sue U.S. government over claims military failed to tackle soldiers' radicalisation

Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre are suing the U.S. government for allowing a jihadist soldier to rise through the ranks unchecked because of 'political correctness'.

Major Nidal Hasan, 42, is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder for after launching an attack at the Texas Army post in November 2009.

And on the eve of his trial, which is due to get underway on Tuesday, 148 victims and their relatives are launching a legal claim against the government for $750million (£491 million) for failing to prevent the killings from happening.

It is alleged military chiefs under the George W Bush and Barack Obama administrations allowed Major Hasan to progress through the ranks despite his increasing jihad extremism because of 'political correctness'.

Reed Rubinstein, the lawyer acting for the group, told the Sunday Telegraph that Major Hasan w as awarded 'preferential treatment' because of his 'ethnicity and his religion'.

He said: 'The rules on the conduct of military officers were ignored. He was a terrible physician and had no business treating soldiers.  'Yet, because of where he came from, and how he prayed to his god, they promoted him and set him loose and ignored his open, very obvious jihadism.'

Mr Rubenstein added that the group wanted the government to meet 'its responsibilities to those harmed by its negligence' over Major Hasan.

Major Hasan doesn't deny that he carried out the November 2009 rampage at Fort Hood, one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

The attack occurred in a building where hundreds of unarmed soldiers, some about to deploy to Afghanistan, were waiting for vaccines and routine checkups.

Hasan walked inside with two handguns, climbed onto a desk and shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' - an Arabic phrase meaning 'God is great!' - then he fired, pausing only to reload.

There are dozens of witnesses who saw it happen but military law prohibits him from entering a guilty plea because authorities are seeking the death penalty.

If Hasan is convicted and sentenced to death there are likely years, if not decades, of appeals ahead. He may never make it to the death chamber at all.

Ahead of his trial, the Army psychiatrist spoke to the American media for the first time last week and said that the U.S. government is at war with Islam.

In the past, Major Nidal Hasan has only spoken via telephone with Al-Jazeera, the transcript of which is evidence in his upcoming trial.

'My complicity was on behalf of a government that openly acknowledges that it would hate for the law of Almighty Allah to be the supreme law of the land,' Hasan said in the lengthy statement released to Fox News on Saturday.  He then says in reference to a war on Islam, 'I participated in it.'

'I would like to begin by repenting to Almighty Allah and apologize to the Mujahideen, the believers, and the innocent. ... I ask for their forgiveness for participating in the illegal and immoral aggression against Muslims, their religion and their lands,' he said in the statement.

He has twice dismissed his lawyers and now plans to represent himself at trial. He's suggested he wants to argue the killings were in 'defense of others' - namely, members of the Taliban fighting Americans in Afghanistan. The trial judge, Col. Tara Osborn, has so far denied that strategy.

Thirteen officers from around the country who hold Hasan's rank or higher will serve on the jury for a trial that will likely last one month and probably longer. They must be unanimous to convict Hasan of murder and sentence him to death. Three-quarters of the panel must vote for an attempted murder conviction.

No active-duty U.S. soldier has been executed since 1961.  The last man executed in the military system was Pvt. John Bennett, hanged in 1961 for raping an 11-year-old girl. Five men are on the military death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, but none are close to being executed.


How a Gypsy invasion of France sparked an explosion of crime -- leading to  revenge attacks on them

Two young tourists stroll lazily across Place Sainte-Opportune in Central Paris, using a map to navigate the quiet backstreets linking the Louvre with Notre Dame Cathedral. Halfway across the picturesque cobbles they are approached by a group of teenage boys, who appear to be the children of Roma gipsies. There are eight of them, smiling manically and blowing kisses.

The tourists, both American men in their 20s, attempt to wave the beggars politely away. But the youths refuse to leave: instead, they crowd closer. Within seconds, the two men are surrounded. Hands grab at their pockets, or reach for their rucksacks. Voices are raised and a scuffle ensues.

It takes perhaps 20 seconds for the confusion to clear. By that time, the shocked Americans have been relieved of their bags, which lie torn open on the pavement, surrounded by personal belongings. At least one camera has been stolen, along with a wallet. Mobile phones are missing. A pair of designer sunglasses lie twisted in the gutter.

Police are called, but the criminal gang is long gone. A detective shrugs apologetically as the victims dust themselves down and gather what remains of their belongings. We can safely assume that their summer holiday has been ruined.

The incident occurs at breakfast-time, at the start of another busy day in France’s capital, where the Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe and other famous attractions draw 16 million overseas visitors each year.

In August, when most locals are on holiday, the city centre is almost entirely given over to tourists, who form long queues outside museums and cathedrals, or sip coffee or ‘vin blanc’ on pavement terraces.

Yet as this ugly altercation last Friday suggests, a very different foreign invasion is now  threatening the bonhomie that these international tourists so enjoy.

In recent years, with the EU’s relaxation of travel restrictions across mainland Europe, hundreds of thousands of Roma gipsies, mostly from Romania and Bulgaria, have travelled west in search of a better life.

As many as half a million are estimated to be living in France, according to the European Roma Rights Centre. And many of them have chosen to take up residence in vast shanty towns that have sprung up on wasteland in the suburbs of Paris.

Each morning, a small army of women and children leave these illegal camps and catch trains into the city centre, where many spend the day trying to exploit, harass and steal from tourists.

Some sit begging by cashpoints — often with babies on their laps. Others tour the streets pretending to be deaf, dumb or otherwise disabled, and seeking donations for fictitious charities.

A few pick pockets. Others — like the group which struck in Place Sainte-Opportune — ‘swarm’ passers-by, using the ensuing confusion to brazenly steal from them.

Last month, an organised gang of gipsies upped the ante, attacking two minibuses full of Chinese visitors stuck in traffic as they travelled from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, stealing thousands of euros in cash.

Two months earlier, an immigrant ‘Fagin’ called Fehim Hamidovic was sentenced to seven years in prison for masterminding one of the biggest ever child pickpocketing rings. He was found to have sent 500 young gipsy girls onto the Paris streets each day, threatening them with beatings, cigarette burns to the face and even rape unless they stole the equivalent of £250 a day.

Now it should be stressed that these criminals represent only a small fraction of the Roma now in France, many of whom are decent, law-abiding citizens. But these high-profile cases, taken as a whole, are sparking a widespread social shift in attitudes across the country.

In short, hostility to the Roma is contributing to the re-emergence of the racist Right in France, so much so that the country’s National Front party is on the verge of taking a lead in national opinion polls.

The past fortnight has seen tensions spill over. Several violent ‘revenge attacks’ by demonstrators carrying baseball bats, iron bars and petrol bombs have been reported at Roma camps.

Meanwhile, even mainstream politicians have begun using inflammatory language to exploit widely-held public concern about immigration.

Only last month, for example, a member of parliament, Gilles Bourdouleix, made headlines after a visit to an illegal Roma encampment in the town of Cholet in Western France, where he is also Mayor.

In front of several journalists, Bourdouleix cast an eye around the squalid location before announcing that perhaps Adolf Hitler ‘did not kill enough’ Roma gipsies during the Holocaust.

The comment seemed especially chilling in light of the ugly thread of racism that runs through France’s modern political history. Untold numbers of Jews perished here during the Nazi occupation, many of them thanks to the Vichy regime and its anti-Semitic supporters.

Two decades later, during the Algerian War, scores of Arab immigrants protesting against the French authorities in Paris were killed by police officers in what became known as the 1961 massacre.

Such extreme attitudes to minorities have been a stain on the French character. Now, with the National Front gaining strength by the day, the European Union’s insistence on freedom of movement across borders means that such prejudice is again rearing its head.

To understand why the Roma have become the Far Right’s favourite whipping boys, you need only spend a few hours in central Paris. One morning this week, I saw more than a hundred gipsy gang members at work within a couple of square miles.

Small groups could be seen at every tourist spot. Some were even begging outside the city’s police headquarters, and a few attempted to stop people passing the Palais de Justice, France’s High Court.

‘They’re everywhere, they behave with impunity, and everyone — particularly visitors — has to be incredibly careful not to become one of their victims,’ said Michael Graham, a British expat living in Paris.

‘The latest scam I’ve seen is they see a tourist sitting at a café with their mobile phone out, so they go over and pop a clipboard down on the table with some message or petition on it about a disability charity.

‘When the person tells them to go away, they scoop up the clipboard and take the phone, too. It happens all the time.’

Begging is illegal in France. Yet French police seem powerless to stem the rising tide of lawlessness. They arrested 1,769 minors for street crimes in Central Paris last year, but admit that represents only a tiny proportion of the active criminals shoehorned daily into a few miles of the city.

‘Welcome to Europe’s open borders,’ an exasperated senior police officer told me this week. ‘All of these kids are ultimately members of gangs from Romania and Bulgaria. They pitch their caravans on the outskirts of town.

‘Hundreds of them are trying to steal — and they’re becoming increasingly confident in how they do it. We can barely touch the kids because they’re considered too young in the eyes of the law.’

Recent infighting in Sarkozy’s former Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party, along with the failure of Hollande’s Socialists to kick-start the country’s ailing economy, has left a gap in the market for the far-right National Front to surge in popularity.

The party, which currently has two MPs in the National Assembly, was founded by the convicted racist and Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has for years vilified Muslims, backed the burka ban, and recently made headlines by describing gipsies in Nice as ‘smelly’ and ‘rash-inducing’.

Despite — or perhaps because of — his extreme language, the most recent opinion poll put the National Front on 21 per cent, equal first with both the UMP and the Socialists. That support, if mirrored at an election, would make the party — now run by Le Pen’s daughter Marine — kingmakers in negotiations for a coalition government.

Little wonder, then, that politicians from mainstream parties have begun using similarly inflammatory rhetoric to discuss immigrants.

Last month, Christian Estrosi, a UMP MP who is also the mayor of Nice, was threatened with prosecution for inciting racial hatred against the Roma by saying he ‘wanted cameras everywhere’ to monitor ‘these criminals’.

A short train ride from central Paris is the crime-ridden suburb of St Denis, home of the international sporting venue Stade de France.

Last Saturday night, a small group of gipsies who live by a canal in the shadow of the stadium, were attacked by a large group of residents from a nearby housing estate. Three were hospitalised, and one remains in intensive care.

‘We were drinking and listening to music,’ recalls Mario Marin, who lives in the camp with his wife Beatrice and three children.

‘A man pulled up on a scooter and asked us to turn the music down. It didn’t happen, and half an hour later a gang of 20 youths from the estate arrived with baseball bats and iron bars and started smashing up our cars. The police did nothing to catch the attackers. They didn’t care.’

Today, their cars and caravans remain on the street, their windows broken.

Laurent El Ghozi, spokesman for the Romeurope group which represents the interests of the gipsies in France, says there have been dozens of similar unreported attacks around Paris in recent weeks, many involving the use of petrol bombs.

A mile away from Marin’s home is a larger ‘Bidonville’, or shanty town, on a patch of wasteland between two dual carriageways. The place looks as if it might belong in the Third World. Houses are made from plywood and tarpaulin, or are tents pitched on wooden pallets. Rudimentary pit toilets are surrounded by corrugated iron walls.

Not long ago, Claude Capillon, the local UMP Member of Parliament, led a march to the site behind a banner reading ‘Expulsion Now’. He blamed its 300 residents for an upsurge in muggings and petty crime. Days after the march, a petrol bomb was lobbed into the camp.

‘The police never came,’ says a resident who gives his name as Nelson Blondel. ‘Every night, more of us have been attacked in the streets here. How many have been arrested for these crimes? None.’

Blondel looks up towards the Stade de France, looming in the background. Built for the 1998 Football World Cup, it’s supposed to be symbol of national unity.  ‘When I look at the France of today, unity is the last thing I see,’ he says.

One thing seems indisputable: there is a worrying collision of ugly forces at work here. And you don’t need to be a pessimist to believe that these violent flashpoints will only get worse as the political rhetoric escalates, and the cracks in this troubled nation grow ever wider.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



5 August, 2013

More "diversity" in Britain

A bodybuilder who was banned from squeezing men’s muscles or asking them to do squats has targeted more young males, a court has heard.

Akinwale Arobieke, 52, approached well-built men in Manchester city centre, Trafford and Bolton and touched their arms or shoulders, prosecutors allege.

Mr Arobieke denies any wrongdoing and says he is being set up by ‘vindictive’ people who know about his history of offending.

He was jailed for five years in 2003 for 15 charges of harassment and on his release he was given a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).  It bans him certain specific activities, including feeling a person’s muscles or getting them to carry out ‘squats’ in public.

He has since been jailed three times for flouting the SOPO, and is now facing a further string of breaches at Manchester Crown Court - offences he denies.

Prosecutor Michael Brady told the court: 'The complainants in this case are all young men whose physical appearance and build hold a fascination for this defendant.

'Mr Arobieke has had, and continues to have an interest in body building.  'His interest extends beyond that which is legitimate and manifests itself in a way that we say is criminal.'

It’s alleged that between April and June 2011, Mr Arobieke approached a 19-year-old man in Manchester and ‘bumped into him’ before striking up a conversation.

The man, now 20, told the jury Mr Arobieke followed him along the street and up towards the Triangle shopping centre in the city centre.  The alleged victim told the court: 'He stopped in front of me and held out his arm, because I had stopped answering his questions.

'He opened his rucksack which had different body building magazines and started showing me pictures of them and asking if I knew who they were.  'He asked if I could do particular poses.'

The man told how the defendant touched him on the shoulder and bicep, and said it was a ‘very uncomfortable experience’.

More than year later, the man said he was approached by Mr Arobieke again several times, in St Peter’s Square.

Mr Arobieke, who was defending himself, denies he ever met the man in the street and said there was no CCTV evidence that he approached him or followed him in St Peter’s Square.

Arobieke, formerly of Liverpool, denies eight breaches of his sex offences prevention order.


Christians lose out to atheists for senior jobs as religious people are 'held back from top positions' in Britain

Christians are less likely than atheists to be promoted to top jobs, official figures show.

Nearly a quarter of people with no religious belief live in homes headed by someone with a senior executive position or a job in one of the professions.

However, well under a fifth of Christians work in the best-paid and most influential jobs or are married to someone who does.

The figures also show high levels of senior and professional employment among the Jewish and Hindu communities.

The breakdown of employment and religious belief, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from the 2011 census, comes as campaigners claim it is becoming harder for Christians to get to the top.

Barrister Andrea Minichiello Williams, a member of the Church of England’s General Synod, said: ‘If you hold views that are contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy you are seen as potential trouble.  ‘This is a real phenomenon. Christianity is now a bar to appointment or promotion.’

But others believe the Christian majority are being out-paced by more ambitious religious groups.

Economist Ruth Lea, of the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said: ‘Jews and Hindus are proportionately so much more successful than Christians. The driven people tend to come from minorities.

'Christians are the majority group, and they do not seem so ambitious and hard working.’

Miss Lea, who is an Anglican, added: ‘There doesn’t seem to be any discrimination here. What these figures say is that if you are determined you can make it.’

The number of people claiming to be Christian in England and Wales fell by 4million in the decade to 2011 to 33million.

Of these, two thirds only go to church for weddings, baptisms or funerals. However, those with no religion rose 45 per cent to 14million.


Nigel Farage attacks culture of political correctness amid growing sacked dinner lady row

UKIP leader Nigel Farage today attacked a culture of political correctness he believes is “terrifying” people from causing offence.

He said ordinary people are losing their jobs over fears of doing something accidentally wrong in the workplace.

He was commenting after school dinner lady Alison Waldcock, 51, was sacked for serving seven-year-old Muslim pupil Khadija Dar roast gammon.

She forgot his dietary needs when she asked him if he wanted the food and when the youngster said yes.

The headteacher of Queen Edith Primary School in Cambridge swept the plate away from the pupil just as she was about to tuck in to the lunch.

The girl's parents were told about the mistake and complained to the school's catering firm.

Ms Waldock, a dinner lady for 11 years, was then suspended and later dismissed.

Muslim groups have come out in support of Ms Waldock saying innocent mistakes should not be punished.

And during a discussion with Ms Waldock on ITV’s Daybreak programme this morning, Mr Farage said: “It's outrageous, isn't it?  “We've all made mistakes in our lives and in our jobs, and I can imagine 250 kids coming through chattering, it's noisy, you've got time pressures on you, and mistakes get made.

"The reason that Alison's been sacked is that we're so terrified in this country of causing offence to anybody, particularly the Muslim religion."

And he told Ms Waldock, who was on the same programme: "I wonder had gammon been given to a vegetarian child, whether you would have been sacked, I suspect probably not."

He denied he was jumping on a political bandwagon, saying: “No, I think it's important, because I think actually what's been happening with this whole politically correct agenda is lots of decent ordinary people are losing their jobs and paying the price for us being terrified of causing offence.

"There was nothing malicious or deliberate in this, and this isn't just Alison, this is happening to scores of people every month up and down the country, she's just got the courage to come and talk about it."

Inayat Bunglawala, founder of campaign group Muslims4UK, told the same programme that the sacking, for a one off mistake, was, on the face of it, an overreaction.  He said: "If mistakes are made, then we'd expect employers to resolve this in a sensible manner.”

However, he added: “I am a bit concerned that a leader of a political party would seek to make capital out of this, because it is a minor issue, it does need resolving, I'm concerned by Nigel saying that people are becoming overly sensitive to Muslim communities, I think that makes it a far more divisive issue than it needs to be."

Mr Farage said: "We want to all live and work together as one happy community in this country, and your attitude towards this, frankly, is very refreshing."

Ms Waldock said she was still considering whether there was anything else she could do to challenge her sacking.

"It's something I'll have to think about, because it's my livelihood," she said.


This is not Peace It is Pure Nazi Ideology

Abbas tells the truth, but those listening pretend not to hear

Imagine if any political leader would say: "No blacks will be allowed to live in my state". He would be denounced correctly, as a racist, a bigot.

That does not seem to include Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Arab leader of Ramallah, who on the verge of the new "peace talks" in Washington just declared: "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands".

This is not "peace", but pure Nazism, it is ethnic cleansing. And instead of the expression "final resolution", Abbas should have said what he really means,  "final solution".

Addressing a session of Arab League in Doha, Qatar, Abbas in 2011 declared that “when an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is established, we won’t allow the presence of one Israeli in it”.

A Palestinian Arab State on Western Eretz Israel would be “jüdenrein”, or cleansed of Jews. A state founded on the ethnic cleansing of every single Jewish man, woman and child.

How can you call "peace" a deal in which hundreds of thousands of Jews surrender to expulsion or to becoming refugees like "lambs to the slaughter"?

Can you imagine if Benjamin Netanyahu instead of Mahmoud Abbas would have pronounced such a statement? What would have been the world reaction?

And Abbas said it in front of the long European noses. He proclaimed his Nazi intentions while in Cairo. Lady Ashton, the ridiculous EU foreign chief, was present.

But we must thank Mr. Abbas, because he said clearly that the "State of Palestine" and the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria are exclusive. Israel would have to uproot all the Hebrew towns in order to pave the way for this "peace", which is in fact the new apartheid that he hopes will come into existence upon the ruins of the "settlers'" homes.

What Abbas said is the same message repeated from the Palestinian Arab mosques and streets: "Idbach al Yahud !" (Slaughter the Jews), "Mauwt al Yahud !" (Kill the Jews), "Falastin baladna, al Yahud kalabna" (Palestine is our homeland, the Jews are our dogs).

The PLO Covenant rejects the idea that Jews have any “historical or religious ties” to the land, since “Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality”.
Isn't it pure Nazism?

PLO’s Article Six declares: “The Jews, who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion (usually dated as the mid-19th century) will be considered Palestinians”. In other words, 98 per cent of the existing Israeli Jewish population must be banished like, like the 8.000 Jews of Gush Katif. Or killed, like the Fogels of Itamar.

The PA's mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ikremah Sabri, and the Palestinian chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, issued decrees authorizing the killing of Arabs who sell property to Jews and forbidding Muslims from burying them in Islamic cemeteries. Not even Nazi Germany in the 1930s knew this level of anti-Jewish pathology.

Or take the 'refugee' question. The PLO manifesto claims that the“Palestinian personality” is an “innate, persistent characteristic that does not disappear . . . and is transferred from fathers to sons” (No. 4). And what if all Palestinians had emigrated, or had become refugees from the land? They would still belong to “Palestine” along with their male descendants. Forever. This is like the Nazi “Drang Nach Osten” and “Blut und Erde”.

Abbas and other PLO terrorists are asking Israel and the United States to expel all the Jews, from the youngest to the oldest, so the Hebrew people will be stained by their presence.

If you assume that Area A and Area B are no longer negotiable, which is not true, note that 60 percent of Judea and Samaria is already free of Jews. And with the exception of the Jewish city of Hevron, there are no Jewish citizens in the big Arab cities, Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkarem, Qalqilia. And also in Hevron, the city of the Patriarchs you have "Area A" (or H1), the jüdenrein part of Hevron.

To return to the "peace talks", what are these all about? The division of Jerusalem? Maybe, but only in a suicidal end game. The 'return' of the 'refugees'? Certainly not. These talks, like all the previous ones, are about the percentage of Jews of Judea and Samaria to be ghettoized, deported, killed and expelled.

The "State of Palestine" would be the carbon copy of Hans Frank's General Government in Poland. Two thirds of the nations of the world, represented in the United Nations, support the establishment of a state that would be, by definition, the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



4 August, 2013

Another example of anti-white discrimination

A retired white is emboldened to speak out:

I would like to add my comment regarding blacks discriminating against whites. Once Affirmative Action took hold at many companies, whites not only lost out in promotions, but suffered a loss of income as well.

In my case, I was discriminated against by a black supervisor at an airline I worked for back in the late 1960s. I applied for a position that was a union job that paid several hundred dollars more per month than my current position. All the workers in that position were black. I would have been the first white male in that position. I never got an interview for the position and was told by my supervisor that I was over qualified for the job. I not only lost ten of thousands of dollars in wages, but lost out on a better pension, which would be three times higher than what I'm receiving now, plus a better health plan for union retirees.

Blacks have been catered to for many years and no matter how much the government or company does for them, it is never enough. I'm tired of their BS about racial discrimination. That line was an excuse in the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, but after 1965, more than two trillion dollars has been spent on helping them through President Johnson's Great Society programs. They have been on a gravy train ever since.


Black bigot who forgets that the KKK were Democrats

In an interview with the Daily Beast published Friday, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) suggested Tea Partiers are the "same group" who fought for segregation during the Civil Rights movement.

“It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police. They didn’t care about how they looked," Rangel said.

Because of this, Rangel said the Tea Party could be defeated using the same tactics employed against Jim Crow.

"It was just fierce indifference to human life that caused America to say enough is enough. ‘I don’t want to see it and I am not a part of it.’ What the hell! If you have to bomb little kids and send dogs out against human beings, give me a break,” said Rangel.


Massachusetts "weeding out" foster & adoptive parents who won't support children's LGBT identities

It's now official policy in Massachusetts: Adults holding traditional values will no longer be allowed to adopt or be foster parents.

On May 15, 2013, the Boston Bar Association held a forum with the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Mass. Commission on LGBT Youth. The DCF speakers confirmed that they are "weeding out" adoptive and foster parents who are not willing to wholly accept and support LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender) self-identification by a child in their care.

The general topic of the evening was the growing number of LGBT youth needing foster care. The hour-long event can be seen on YouTube. (Video credit: CatchoftheDay Video News.)

The shocking admission of the DCF's discriminatory policies towards parents holding traditional values comes in the last few minutes of the video.

Summary of major points at the forum

Erika Rickard, Vice Chair of the Mass. Commission on LGBT Youth and herself a foster parent, called attention to the urgent need for "supportive" foster parents for LGBT youth (who, she estimates, make up about 20% of youth in foster care in the state). The Commission is working in conjunction with the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) to find them "safe, welcoming, and affirming homes."

Pointing to their high levels of rejection by their families, DCF wants to be sure these youth are placed with adults who completely accept the child's self-identification as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. They have found that many adults who say they're OK with sexual orientation and gender identity issues before the child is in their home then change and don't give "proper support."

Every social worker in the Massachusetts DCF system now has LGBT issues training (first reported by my MassResistance blog in 2005). The DCF also now runs a mentoring program for foster and adoptive parents. The 8-hour course includes discussion of sexual orientation, gender identity, and trauma understanding. One DCF staffer, Jody, hopes to have the True Colors Out Youth Theater group (part of the Theater Offensive) perform at every regional office as part of staff training. She recommends that the group PFLAG (Parents Families Friends & Allies of LGBT People) speak to all foster parents on how they can show their acceptance and support.

Jody recruits foster parents. She emphasized that the foster parent has to be able to support whatever develops with the child, for example, if he comes out as gay, or learning disabilities become obvious.

The question was asked, "Can transgender people be foster parents?" The answer: "We [at DCF] are not considering your sexual orientation or gender identity. It's about your fitness." You can't have a criminal background; you must be able and willing and have the means to support a child. "Gender identity is not at all a factor." Rickard (co-chair of the Commission on LGBT Youth) repeated that foster parents need to be ready to accept whatever may come with the adolescent. The DCF staffer said that the non-discrimination policies within the DCF apply to foster families as well as staff.

The youth panelist said there's a need for foster parents who don't question the rightness of being gay. Just "passive acceptance" is not enough. One attendee asked if there is a difference between abusive homes, non-supportive parents, or parents who just ignore the LGBT issues presented by the child. The DCF staffers Michelle and Jody explained (in the last few minutes of the video):

Foster parents who may hold more traditional values and who "age out" of the system makes this change to supportive homes easier. "It gives us an opportunity to train folks in a different way of thinking and being more accepting." (Ten hours a year of LGBT-sensitive training is required of foster parents.) The DCF is "setting new expectations; we are weeding out some of the ... destructive behaviors that are occurring" in the foster homes. Sometimes these are very "subtle" but "a case has to be built." Further, "now that the climate is changing," DCF wants the youth to understand that the DCF will not accept this kind of behavior from a provider or caretaker. LGBT-ally liaisons in each foster care office can fill in gaps if some social workers are not doing their job adequately to ensure this policy. This "re-education" of staff and foster parents is ongoing.

We have documented in past years how the DCF (formerly the Department of Social Services, DSS) was moving in this radical direction. In 1994, the Office of Child Care Services (overseeing adoption) issued a regulation (though not law) that a placement agency must "not discriminate in providing services to children and their families on basis of ... sexual orientation." Lesbians and homosexual men have been allowed to adopt ever since. As long ago as 2000, the DSS urged parents to accept homosexuality or bisexuality in their children, asking: "If the adolescent has identified a sexual orientation of gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, has he/she disclosed this information to a parental figure or trusting adult? If so, has the adolescent received an appropriate, receptive and supportive response?"

The MassResistance blog reported on "LGBT youth issues" training given to about 1,800 Mass. DSS employees in 2004, including those working in adoption and foster care. The radical National Gay & Lesbian Task Force led the training sessions (funded in part by the leftist Tides Foundation). Also at this time, the DSS set up a group home specifically for "out-of-home youth" identifying as "transgender" in Waltham, MA.

So now the radical evolution of the Mass. Department of Children and Families adoption and foster care department (and adoption agencies it works with) is complete. LGBT adults – singles or couples – have a hugely disproportionate chance of receiving an adoptive or foster care placement.

Even more discriminatory (as the May 2013 video confirms), you need not bother applying to be an adoptive or foster parent in Massachusetts if you hold traditional values – and would wish to dissuade your child from "identifying" and behaving as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Such attitudes are now considered "destructive behaviors" by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You won't even get past the screening process. Only those "straight" adults who are LGBT "allies" will make it.


Private detectives to need licence in UK

Another choke on the flow of information

Operating as an unlicensed private detective is to be illegal in England and Wales, the home secretary has said.

The Home Office said it wanted to "ensure rigorous standards" in an industry where "rogue investigators" had been infringing privacy.  Those who break the new rules - to be rolled out from autumn 2014 - could face up to six months in jail.

MPs earlier said police had linked 100 firms or individuals to investigators who had obtained information illegally.

Anyone can currently set themselves up as a private investigator, regardless of their skills or even criminal convictions.

But under the Home Office's plans, investigators will be licensed by the Security Industry Authority after completing a training course and passing a criminality check.

The new regulations do not extend to investigations carried out in relation to publishing legitimate journalism.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: "It is vital we have proper regulation of private investigators to ensure rigorous standards in this sector and the respect of individuals' rights to privacy.

"That is why I am announcing today the government's intention to regulate this industry, making it a criminal offence to operate as a private investigator without a licence.

"Anyone with a criminal conviction for data protection offences can expect to have their application for a licence refused."

Firms could be barred from being licensed if they have been involved in offences including:

Unlawful interception of communications, such as phone hacking
Accessing data on computers without permission
Gathering personal details by posing as someone else, such as blagging information from a call centre

The Home Office said that all contractors would need to be licensed and the maximum penalty for failing to comply with the new rules would be six months in jail.

Tony Imossi, president of industry body the Association of British Investigators said the proposals were a "good start" but did not go far enough.

The government's long-awaited decision to regulate private investigators will go some way towards controlling who carries out private investigation work. But the question is - will it help define the line, often blurred in practice, between what is legal and illegal?

Even the so-called "blue-chip" clients of PI firms say it can be hard to ensure the information they ask for has been legally gathered. Sometimes PIs use illegal methods to track down the information they need - and then apply legally to obtain it.

But it's unlikely regulation will quell the current accusation that not enough has been done to investigate clients known to have commissioned rogue private investigators.

Settling old scores, some in the media see this as a case of double standards in which law enforcers went after media phone hackers but not corporate commissioners of private eyes.

Publishing the list of clients who used the Operation Millipede PIs would help establish who was using investigators and why. But Soca and the police remain resolutely opposed.

The move was welcomed as a "positive step" towards protecting people from unwanted surveillance by privacy campaigners.

"For too long private investigators have been allowed to operate in the shadows," Big Brother Watch director Nick Pickles said.

It comes as pressure mounts on the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) to release the names of more than 100 companies and individuals potentially linked to rogue private investigators who were convicted of obtaining information illegally.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has published a breakdown by business sector of clients linked to the jailed investigators, but has not named them individually.

Chairman Keith Vaz said the identities of the firms and individuals had been held back from the report so as not to "compromise" any investigations by the police or information commissioner.

Eight of the clients on the list were used as evidence in prosecutions under Operation Millipede, an investigation that led to the conviction of four private detectives for fraud last year. A further 94 were judged as potentially relevant to the case, but not used as evidence.

"When we publish our report into private investigators, we would like to be in a position where we publish the entire list," the Labour MP added.

Meanwhile Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, said: "I have a lot of sympathy with those who say, if there are big companies and organisations that are using private investigators to find information about individuals and organisations, they should be open about it."

The clients include 22 law firms, financial services and insurance firms, accountants and two celebrities.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



2 August, 2013

An Imaginary Village invented by Real Bigots

Just as a unicorn is a legendary creature existing only in fairy stories, so are many ‘Palestinian’ villages. But this reality doesn’t stop malign agenda-driven groups from using fantasy as a stick with which to beat Israel, and in the process pulling the wool over the eyes of many well-intentioned, but naïve and uninformed, people.

Prime examples of two such groups are Australian Friends of Palestine and GetUp. So it comes as no surprise that the former used the vehicle of GetUp to petition Foreign Minister Carr – himself no great supporter of Israel – to help save a village they falsely claim belonged to Palestinians from time immemorial.

The Petition claims:

    “The Israeli Civil Administration in the Occupied West Bank of Palestine has distributed maps of locations /areas in Susiya, near Hebron in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Fifty one (51) structures are included indicating that demolition is likely to occur in the very near future, the exact date to depend on the result of an appeal to the courts. If demolition takes place, not only it will more than 100 people be displaced and made homeless, but community buildings funded through international aid programmes, may be demolished. These include a clinic funded by Action Aid Australia, as well as solar panels, shop, a community center, a structure used to store sheep’s milk prior to sale, granaries and shelters for sheep and chickens.”

The source for their information is B’tselem, which, under the guise of human rights, uses foreign government funding to advance their political agenda, thereby undermining the democratic process. For example, in 2011, 72% of donations to B’Tselem came from foreign government entities.

Naftali Balanson, of NGO Monitor reports:

    ”These political NGOs are also active in promoting false allegations of “war crimes” and “racial discrimination,” which are uncritically repeated by the international media, European diplomats, and UN officials, as part of demonization campaigns…Israeli NGOs also benefit from the misleading label of “civil society” groups in order to advance the Durban Strategy based on delegitimisation campaigns targeting Israel. As with the Goldstone report, the Israeli NGO network was central in the UN’s politicized report on settlements.”

Journalist Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu writes

    “The latest chapter in the Palestinian Authority’s re-invention of history is taking place in Susiya … less than half an hour from Be’er Sheva, the capital of the Negev.

    The Arab strategy: An Arab family erects a tent, illegally, near the archaeological site of the ancient town of Susiya. As time passes, the tent becomes a makeshift structure, which expands into several structures. With the support of extreme left-wing activists, the ‘ancient’ town of ‘Palestinian Susiya’ is invented. This makes for a great human interest story, but for one setback – the ‘ancient Palestinian Susiya’ never existed. It shows up on no records.”

Until 1983, when Jews returned to the area after a 1,500 year exile, none of the land in the area was registered as owned by anyone. Nor, when the Jews established Susiya, did Arabs live there or in the ruins of the old Jewish city of Susiya, uninhabited since the 6th century. It was only when the Civil Lands Authority issued stop-work orders against projects funded by the EU intended to support Palestinian Authority claims to land where they never lived, that the left-wing movements and the Palestinian Authority reinvented history, claiming-

    “The Palestinian village of Khirbet [ruins of] Susiya has existed in the South Hebron Hills at least since the 1830.”

The International Solidarity Movement claims:  “The residents of Susiya include more than 30 families, who were all evacuated from their homes in the old Susiya village and forced to relocate 200 meters to the southeast, in 1986,”

It is a lie. They never lived there, not in 1830 and not in 1986 and not in 1996.


Pakistani racism in England

Pakistani Ahmed

An Asian amateur footballer has been sent to prison for subjecting a referee to a 20-minute racist rant as he was being sent off.   Wasar Ahmed, 23, told Ian Fraser: ‘I’m going to break every white bone in your white face.’

As other players and spectators looked on in shock, Ahmed raged: ‘I’m going to burn your white house down and kill your wife and kids – I know where you live. I’m going to come and find your house.’

After the game finished, Ahmed stood near to Mr Fraser’s car and stared at him as he got in.

He was arrested soon after when the referee, who has 30 years' experience in officiating at matches, went to a police station and made a formal complaint to officers and the East Lancashire Football League.

Mr Fraser, 48, told police he had 'never known anything like it before, felt intimidated and was left extremely shocked.'  He said he feared further trouble because of the threats.

At Burnley Crown Court, jobless Ahmed, from Burnley, admitted causing racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress and was jailed for eight weeks after a judge said referees were entitled to protection from badly behaved footballers.

After the case Mr Fraser, a father-of-two, of Barrowford, Lancashire, said: 'I think this sentence has to be a deterrent to other sports people who abuse match referees and then assume they can get away with it.

'I am very thick-skinned but there was no way anyone could tolerate this - especially when someone launched into the threats he made against me and my family.

'Someone having a verbal attack at me is normally off the cuff but this went on for so long and it was coming from a young lad who was vile in what he was saying. I just can’t believe he would go to such length all for a game of football.

'I have been refereeing since I was 16 and I’ve played an awful lot of football but I’ve never heard anything as bad as what he was saying. 'Referees should be respected but if people see the Premier League players swearing at referees then it cascades down to matches at amateur level likes ours.'

The incident took place last December when Mr Fraser was referring a match between Daneshouse FC and Prairie Utd.  Striker Ahmed, who played for Daneshouse, became angry when he felt Mr Fraser should have acted over a throw-in during the match.

The referee, who was being paid £22 to referee the match, asked him for his name.  But Ahmed refused and swore again instead calling him 'mother f**ker' and telling him to 'f**k off.'

In court Miss Silvia Dacre, prosecuting, said Mr Fraser had to get Ahmed’s name from his team manager, after refusing to re-start the match until he was given it.  She said Ahmed remained on the edge of the pitch and threatened Mr Fraser who said the game would not start again until the player was removed.

Ahmed later said he could not remember exactly what he said but admitted he had lost his temper.

It was also revealed he was in breach of a 32 weeks suspended prison term for assault.

Defence lawyer Richard Taylor said: 'The defendant doesn’t dispute that he lost it. He was upset and frustrated and says he had let his team mates down. He was very sorry and he regretted that.  'He accepts that his behaviour was very poor - but I do believe he’s learned his lesson.'

Judge Graham Knowles QC told Ahmed: 'This was a quite outrageous, deeply offensive profoundly unpleasant attack on a man who was just doing his best as a referee. He and others are entitled to protection.

'This incident went on for 20 minutes or so and you had opportunities to calm down and at the very least not make things worse - but you made it worse.'

Ken Inkle, chairman of the East Lancashire Football League, added: 'I can’t remember any incident like this ever taking place on the pitch in our league. Daneshouse FC have now withdrawn from the league, which was probably for the best.'


The decayed standards of modern life in Britain

Ambulance services have 'blacklisted' certain households and paramedics are told to wait outside until police turn-up if they fear they will be attacked.

The London Ambulance Service has a register of 226 addresses where staff are believed to be at risk of physical violence while the North East has a list of 236 properties.

Greater Manchester Ambulance service confirmed it had a similar register - although it couldn't confirm numbers - and West Midlands said there were some cases where police back-up would be sent.

Campaigners said the inhabitants only had themselves to blame if their health deteriorated while ambulances waited outside.

But there are concerns that children and other innocent patients living at the addresses who needed urgent medical help could be put at risk.

John Lister, of London Health Emergency, which campaigns against hospital closure and for improved NHS care said: 'I don't think it's fair for people to abuse ambulance workers.  'If there is a record of that I don't see any reason not to take it seriously.

'There is a risk that patient's care is being affected by the people in the building, but then why should we expect ambulance staff to put themselves at risk?

'If there are 200 addresses in London then it doesn't sound like it is a widespread problem.

'The ambulance staff take a lot of chances for us generally and I don't see any reason not to believe them if they say there is a problem.'

Figures obtained from a Freedom of Information request showed that London Ambulance Service have 226 addresses on their 'at risk' register of which 32 are in Leytonstone, East London. [A minority area]

The North East Ambulance Service has previously said it has 236 homes on a similar list where ambulances will not attend without police back-up.

Athar Khan, operations manager at the London Ambulance Service , said: 'It alerts the staff before they get to the address of the risk factors and actions they might need to take.

'We take things into consideration. The address, the name of the individual and the physical location.

'The diagnosis given in terms of illness and the access to that property whether we can get in quickly and get out quickly.'

Figures show that around 163 staff across the NHS are attacked by patients or relatives every day.

There are now around 60,000 assaults a day, a three per cent increase on the previous 12 months.

Paramedic Leo Nakhimoff was hit in the head and arm with a fence panel, after he and two colleagues went to treat a drunk patient who had collapsed in a relative's garden, in January last year.

He said police officers who were called to help were attacked and injured, along with another paramedic.

'When you're going about your daily job treating patients you don't expect to get attacked with a fence post - it was completely unprovoked.' He said.

'It affected me quite badly at the time and I questioned whether I wanted to continue working as a paramedic. It's now at the back of my mind when I get called to similar incidents.

'At the end of the day, we're here to help people and we don't want to be in fear of being attacked.'



Detroit recently became the largest city in American history to declare bankruptcy. The production envy of the world a mere 50 years ago, Detroit has become a dying, fourth-world hellhole. There are many reasons being bandied about by talking heads and propagandists in the mainstream media for Detroit’s collapse. They always leave out one politically incorrect fact.

Predictably and laughably, liberals are blaming conservative governance in Detroit even though Detroit has not had conservative leadership since Jimmy Hoffa was getting fitted for his concrete shoes. On the other side, conservatives are blaming liberal, big-government policies for Detroit’s bankruptcy. While liberals are completely wrong, as usual, conservatives don’t have the guts to tell the rest of the story about Detroit’s 50 year collapse. Why? Because most conservatives are self-incarcerated in the prison of political correctness and have not the fortitude to break the chains that silence them from speaking the entire truth.

So what is the truth about Detroit that has conservatives petrified to mention? Detroit is 82.7% black and, since 1967 has elected radical, anti-white, corrupt leaders. Blacks in Detroit, like blacks in America, are far below normal achievement measurements while committing out-of-control crimes.

George Will came close to breaking his PC chains today on ABC’s This Week show when he said:

“Can’t solve the problems because the problems are cultural. You have a city, 139 square miles. You can graze cattle in vast portions of it. Dangerous herds of feral dogs roam in there. You have 3 percent of fourth graders reading at the national math standards. Forty-seven percent of Detroit residents are functionally illiterate. Seventy-nine percent of Detroit children are born to unmarried mothers. They don’t have a fiscal problem, Steve. They have a cultural collapse.”

Say it, George! Come on, I dare you! Who has a cultural collapse? Which culture? Must be the 7% cracka population.

And as expected, liberals immediately feigned shock and offense that Will even hinted that black voters are responsible for electing corrupt black leaders who have killed Detroit over the past 50 years. Libtard extraordinaire Kathleen vanden Heuvel said:

“I find that really insulting to the people of Detroit. I think there’s a serious discussion about the future of cities in a time of deindustrialization. But in many ways, Detroit has been a victim of market forces, and I think what Steve [Ratner] said is so critical. Retirees and workers should not bear this. And it should not be about greedy public unions and fiscal responsibility.”

Oh no! Let’s not insult the morons who elected white-hating, corrupt morons by telling the truth about their moronic actions! Why, that’s racist!

Let’s face it, Detroit is bankrupt and destroyed because producers (mostly white) started the exodus from Detroit after the 1967 race riots when they saw they were no longer welcome or safe there. Generation after generation of black corruptocrats were elected by black government dependents and took their piece of the Detroit pie before going off to prison. Businesses left after they found they couldn’t hire productive employees. To be fair, offshoring of jobs didn’t help Detroit but blame that on corrupt labor unions. Those people called “workers” could be found in other states and countries where businesses didn’t have the same stifling government and union restrictions placed on them. Labor unions are just as dangerous as big government. Both are the creation of corrupt liberals.

The majority of the residents in Detroit are pitiful and pathetic. Completely at the mercy and dependence of producers. How can any city expect prosperity when half the adult population is illiterate? Here’s what happens:

There are many liberal cities in America who don’t come close to the fiscal malfeasance, crime, violence, etc of Detroit. Madison, Wisconsin, Austin, Texas, Pittsburg, PA to name a few. So it’s not all liberal cities that are collapsing. Just those with a majority black population. But because conservatives refuse to speak the entire truth, one has to look to blogs for the truth. But that’s nothing new.

Black people in Detroit will never better their surroundings as long as the government is there to ensure their sustenance through welfare, food stamps, Section 8, etc. Americans, all Americans, must be allowed to work or starve again. Fear and hunger is a fantastic motivator. Government programs have imprisoned much of black America and sapped their ambition, self-pride, self-reliance, responsibility, while destroying the black family. The results are as ugly as they were predictable.

There is no shame in being born into poverty but there should be great shame in not working to move out of it. Government welfare programs will not raise anyone from poverty but will chain them there. There is not one thing wrong in working in fast-food or cleaning. If one works hard, they will eventually move to the next level. Sure, they may never be rich (or they may be) but they will have the pride of knowing they have made it on their own.

Black people in Detroit will never better themselves while they are protected by the shield of political correctness. The PC concept that black people can never be criticized for any reason is ridiculously stupid. And dangerous. The people of Detroit should elect leaders who will look around and ask how Detroit got to where it is now? They must question what must be done to rise above it? And then they must, for the first time in the lives of many, start working on what will rebuild Detroit from the ashes of political correctness and liberal politics.

AWD has very little faith that this will happen because America under Obama is following the same path of Detroit. Liberals, nor Republicans (but I repeat myself), will ever shut off the spigot of Obama government money until there is none left to spread around. Then the rebuilding process can begin.

Big government and labor unions destroy everything they touch. Neither will be part of the equation that will return America to prosperity. Once both are dead and gone, Americans will return to doing what we do better than anyone in the world….create wealth.

And political correctness must be sent to the trash can of history….just like Detroit.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



1 August, 2013

BBC attacks Humphrys for telling the truth on welfare: Corporation bosses accused of Left-wing bias after criticising respected Today presenter

The BBC was accused of ‘blatant Left-wing bias’ after bosses attacked one of their most respected journalists for a programme exposing the truth about the bloated welfare state.

The BBC Trust concluded that the TV show examining the Government’s welfare reforms, written and fronted by Radio 4 Today presenter John Humphrys, breached rules on impartiality and accuracy.

The ruling criticised the programme for suggesting the welfare state was in crisis and that there was a dependency culture in which some claimants preferred life on benefits to working.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith reacted angrily to the ruling, telling the Daily Mail last night that the programme had been ‘thoughtful’ and ‘intelligent’.

He contrasted it to most of the corporation’s ‘biased’ and negative coverage of his attempts to cut the benefits bill, the subject of frequent complaints by the Government.

The programme, The Future of the Welfare State, featured Mr Humphrys going back to his working-class birthplace in Cardiff, where one in four working-age people is on some form of welfare handout.

The BBC2 production suggested Britain was going through an ‘age of entitlement’, and featured claimants, including a couple on £1,600 of benefits a month, who thought ‘living on benefits an acceptable lifestyle’.

In a newspaper article to accompany the programme, Mr Humphrys wrote about evidence of a ‘dependency culture that has grown steadily over the past year’ and a ‘sense that the State owes us a living’.

But following a complaint from a poverty charity and an unnamed individual, the BBC Trust launched an inquiry into the documentary.

The Trust, which governs the broadcaster, chided the programme-makers for not backing up assertions with statistics.

It complained that viewers would have concluded that the Government was targeting benefits that were responsible for leaving the ‘welfare state in crisis’ and creating the impression that ‘despite the anecdotal testimonies of jobseekers heard in the programme that there was [a] healthy supply of jobs’ that claimants could have taken.

The Trust warned that ‘judgments reached or observations made are still required to be based on the evidence and should not give the appearance of presenting a personal view on a controversial subject’.

Its report claimed that because of ‘the absence of sufficient complementary statistical information to underpin contributors’ accounts, viewers were left unable to reach an informed opinion and the accuracy guidelines had been breached’.

Mr Duncan Smith condemned the ruling, complaining about the corporation’s coverage of a court ruling yesterday against opponents of cuts to housing benefit to people in social housing with spare bedrooms.

Coalition MPs were dismayed when the BBC devoted almost half an hour of a radio phone-in programme with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to complaints about what Labour has misleadingly called a ‘bedroom tax’.

Presenters read out messages from listeners saying Mr Clegg was ‘finished as an MP’ and condemning the coalition as a ‘betrayal’, and put through a caller who asked how he slept at night.

The Work and Pensions Secretary said: ‘We are now in the disappointing position where we are frequently compelled to complain to the BBC about the biased nature of their reporting of government reforms.

‘Watching the reporting today about the Government winning a High Court judgment on the spare room subsidy has once again left me absolutely staggered at the blatant Left-wing bias within the coverage.

'It was as if the BBC thought the High Court had made a terrible decision, instead of effectively upholding the status quo. It’s almost an insult to the courts.

‘And yet here we have the BBC Trust criticising John Humphrys – one of the organisation’s most lauded and respected journalists.

'I watched John’s programme and found it to be thoughtful, intelligent and quite clearly borne out of the real-life experience of the individuals he encountered.

‘John is undoubtedly a robust broadcaster, as I have encountered many times myself, and I don’t know anybody who thinks he is in any way biased.’

A BBC Trust spokesman said: ‘A number of allegations were made about the programme, and we have not upheld all of these. We have not upheld a complaint suggesting John Humphrys was personally conflating opinion with objective facts.

‘The Trust considers each complaint with considerable care and on the basis of what was broadcast. In this case we found no evidence that The Future State of Welfare was advocating government reforms and we judged John Humphrys’ presentation to have been based on professional judgment, not personal opinion.

‘Although we found that the programme did include an appropriately wide range of voices, some statistics were omitted which we believed ought to have been included to help viewers to reach an informed opinion.’

The spokesman added: ‘We are satisfied that our coverage of today’s housing benefit ruling was fair, balanced and impartial.’


Stay-at-home mothers are the happiest: Women who don't return to work suffer less from feelings of boredom and worthlessness

Stay-at-home mothers are more likely to think their lives are worthwhile than women who go to work, a study of national happiness suggests.

They tend not to suffer from boredom, frustration or feelings of worthlessness, according to the research on Britain’s wellbeing.

Full-time mothers gave the value of their lives a score of eight out of ten, compared to 7.8 for people in work.

Data also revealed that married people are significantly more contented than cohabitees and much happier than single or divorced people.

The findings will add further pressure on the Government to change the treatment of married couples where only one partner works. Couples with a full-time mother pay higher taxes in Britain than in almost every other western country and lose out badly in the benefits system, particularly over tax credits.

And the Coalition’s drive to get more mothers to work has produced even more disadvantages. Under a new policy, parents will be given up to £1,200 a year for each child under the age of five to help with the cost of childcare – but only if both parents are in work.

Yesterday’s report from the Office for National Statistics on personal well-being, ordered by David Cameron, looked at the happiness of people who are economically inactive – the class into which full-time mothers fall.

While those who stay at home scored the worth of their lives higher than those who go to work, scores for happiness, life satisfaction and anxiety levels were broadly the same.

The ONS figures do not include a breakdown that reveals whether men or women at work are the happier. Nor is there any data to show the difference in contentment between full-time mothers who are married or cohabiting, and those who are single parents.

But the findings do show that married people and cohabitees are much happier than single people – which suggests that married or cohabiting stay-at-home mothers feel their lives are more worthwhile than working people.

The official endorsement of the benefits of marriage over other relationships comes at a time when Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne have failed to make good on repeated promises to bring in a tax break for married couples.

Campaigner Laura Perrins, who earlier this year accused Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on his radio programme of betraying stay-at-home mothers, yesterday made a fresh call for an end to Government ‘prejudice’.

‘I speak as a stay-at-home mother,’ she said. ‘I know that if you choose to stay at home with your children it is a worthwhile job. It is now clear that many mothers feel the same. The Government should not be denigrating those who stay at home.

‘Being a full-time mother can be challenging, but it is satisfying and worthwhile. It is obvious that all mothers do not want to work.’

Patricia Morgan, an author on family issues, added: ‘If we really want to take happiness seriously, as Mr Cameron advises, why don’t we promote the things that make us happy? Why can’t we support marriage, and why can’t we give married couples transferable tax allowances to help stay-at-home mothers?’

The findings are based on a survey of around 165,000 people, who were asked how satisfied, worthwhile, happy or anxious they felt about their lives.

A total of 77 per cent gave their satisfaction levels at least seven out of 10 – a year-on-year rise of 1.2 per cent. Some 81 per cent rated their lives as worthwhile with a score of seven or more, while the average value for life satisfaction rose from 7.4 to 7.5.

The ONS said last year’s Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, Olympics and Paralympics may also have raised peoples’ spirits.

‘All of those could potentially have influenced people’s assessment of how well their life is going and how they feel overall and generally raise their spirits,’ said spokesman Dawn Snape.

Unemployment has also been falling since late 2011 and job vacancies rising since early 2012.

The well-being measures have shown that unemployment is a major cause of disenchantment and unhappiness.


British police won't hand stolen caravan back to couple to protect human rights of the travellers living in it

A couple whose £30,000 caravan was stolen have been told a traveller family now living in it cannot be removed because it would breach their human rights.

Kathleen McClelland and her partner Michael Curry spent their life savings on the top-of-the-range camper and were devastated when it vanished from the secure site where they kept it.

When police eventually found the 26ft-long Bailey Louisiana caravan 18 months later, its owners were told a traveller couple and their two young children were living in it only ten miles from their home in Surrey.

Their initial relief turned to outrage, however, when the police said they had ‘no lawful powers’ to get it back.

They were told their only option was to begin costly civil proceedings against the family, which they say they cannot afford.

Mrs McClelland and Mr Curry had spent £10,000 improving the £20,000 caravan, including putting in a widescreen TV. They bought the vehicle on hire purchase – and still have to make monthly payments of £250 for the next two years.

Hospital ward clerk Mrs McClelland, 68, said: ‘Why should we have to pay for someone else to live in our brand new caravan? That was for our pleasure in our older years.

‘The police said that removing the family would breach their human rights and that they would have to be rehoused before it could be seized. We spent all our retirement money on that caravan because we thought it would last us a lifetime. We’re absolutely devastated. It seems as though no one cares about our human rights.

‘I’ve worked all my life and saved up, surely I have the right to enjoy my retirement? When that caravan was stolen, our right to a happy retirement was stolen.’

The couple, who live in a semi-detached home in Tongham, Surrey, were in between insurance policies at the time of the theft in 2011 so were not covered for a payout.

In an apologetic letter, PC Karen East of Hampshire Constabulary told them the matter was out of the force’s hands. It read: ‘Unfortunately it has transpired that we have no lawful power to recover the caravan. It will be the responsibility of you as the owner to start civil proceedings against the current occupier.’

The letter added: ‘I sincerely apologise for this decision and I am sure that you feel the onus has been put back to you but my hands have been tied due to police powers.’

Last September police located and identified the caravan in Hook, Hampshire, after interviewing a suspect for an unrelated offence. But because officers did not have evidence that the current occupier knew the caravan was stolen when he allegedly purchased it, he could not be prosecuted and the force said it was unable to seize it.

Mr Curry, 53, who gave up his job as an HGV driver after being diagnosed with diabetes, said the police refused to reveal the caravan’s exact location.

‘I just cannot comprehend it,’ he said. ‘If I was stopped by the police and it turned out my car, which I had brought in good faith, was stolen, it would be confiscated and I would lose my money.’

Mr Curry said they bought the caravan in 2007 and would use it for family weekends away in Cornwall, Cumbria, Scotland and the south coast. It was stolen from a secure storage site in Crookham, Hampshire, after thieves disabled the alarm and cut through a wheel clamp and lock.

When the caravan was eventually found the couple were asked to provide proof of ownership, a logbook and photos.

They learned that the family found living in the caravan had taken it all over the country before temporarily settling down ten miles away from them.

Mr Curry said: ‘Apparently they had a receipt for it and had paid a guy £300 in a pub for it.  ‘They had no proof apart from a handwritten note on a scrap of paper, while we had everything proving it was ours. If they wanted a caravan, why not save up for it like we did?

‘I have lost all faith in the police. It seems that they have completely let us down and turned their backs on us.’

A Hampshire Police spokesman said: ‘A 22-year-old man from Hook was arrested and interviewed on suspicion of theft, however there was insufficient evidence to prove he had been involved in the theft, or would have known the caravan was stolen when he bought it. He was released with no further action.

‘We have no police powers to seize the caravan and have advised the owners to seek civil action in order to recover it.’


Australia:  Court-ordered parole, suspended sentences may be dumped as Qld.  gets tough on criminals

CRIMINALS currently walking free from court face being sent to jail and others locked up for longer amid Government concerns crooks are being let out too early.

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie told The Courier-Mail offenders who made no attempt to rehabilitate were being released, and he was not afraid to change the law to better protect the community.

The Government is looking at dumping court-ordered parole and suspended jail sentences which would see Queensland's prison population of about 6000 almost certainly increase.

Mr Bleijie said offenders were being given too many chances and judges could soon lose the power to decide when criminals are released from jail.

Highly placed sources told The Courier-Mail that the Attorney-General had lost faith in court-ordered parole, suspended sentences and the system's ability to deal with recidivist offenders.

Of the 53,952 prisoners sentenced in Queensland courts in the past three years, more than 41,000 received a wholly suspended jail sentence or received court-ordered parole.

Mr Bleijie admitted there were problems with the system.

"I am certainly questioning whether court-ordered parole and suspended sentences still have a place in our legal system," he said.

"I'm well aware of concern and anger in the community over offenders committing more crimes after either walking straight from court or getting let out of jail on court ordered parole."

Privately, prison boards and police have lamented the fact they have to release some prisoners into the community on court-ordered parole.

Sources say a 25-year-old man went from "maximum security to the street" this year, despite Corrective Services staff and the Parole Board believing he should not be released on the parole date set by a judge. Within a week of being released, the Gold Coast bikie was charged with allegedly firing a gun inside a taxi, attacking two drivers and a police officer.

Court-ordered parole is a release date set during sentencing by the sentencing judge. It can include immediate parole, which means an offender is sentenced but walks free straight away.

Under the current system, the Parole Board has no say on an offender's release if they are on court-ordered parole unless they commit a criminal offence in jail or there is an imminent risk.

Criminals aged between 18-24 years are causing the greatest headaches for policy makers, with internal Corrective Service statistics revealing 70 per cent of the cohort will return to jail at least one more time before they reach 35 years.

About 300 offenders a month are suspended and returned to prison for breaching their parole. In 2011-2012, the two regional Parole Boards suspended or cancelled 3548 court-ordered parole orders because offenders committed another offence or breached their parole orders.

Mr Bleijie said some offenders knew how to work the system. "For some, court-ordered parole means they just have to wait their sentence out, without even trying to rehabilitate themselves," he said.

"If offenders were only eligible for parole and had to prove themselves to the Parole Board, it might motivate them to rehabilitate and change their offending behaviour.

"We're committed to getting tough on crime and people who think they can get away with repeatedly thumbing their nose at the law.

"We are not afraid to change laws if they will better protect the community."

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman disputed Mr Bleijie's claim court-ordered parole was not working and asked how the Attorney-General would know given he scrapped the Sentence Advisory Council.

"The more you say no more second chances the more you push up recidivism," Mr O'Gorman said.

He predicted the judiciary would not be happy about any moves to limit their sentencing options.

Police Union president Ian Leavers said the Parole Board should be able to overrule a

court-ordered parole date if they thought a criminal should remain in prison.

"(It should be) until the Parole Board is satisfied they should be released or until they've served their full sentence, whatever comes first," Mr Leavers said.

Yesterday, Mr Bleijie ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against the sentences of three young offenders, aged 16, 15, and 12, who took part in a violent crime spree on the Gold Coast last year.

The 15 and 16-year-olds, who committed robberies, received two years probation and 40 hours community service. The 16-year-old driver received 18 months probation and was disqualified from driving for six months. No convictions were recorded.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



Examining political correctness around the world and its stifling of liberty and sense. Chronicling a slowly developing dictatorship

BIO for John Ray

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And the command in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuals should be put to death makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in Romans chapter 1 that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Children are the best thing in life. See also here.

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms.

You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans