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 June, 2012

Sabbath



29 June, 2012

Muslim pair who laughed as they raped woman they 'came across' in British town centre have sentences CUT because they are not 'dangerous'

Two men who laughed during a horrific 'gang rape' of a drunken woman have had their sentences slashed after three senior judges ruled they were not 'dangerous'.

Rezgar Nouri, 27, of Preston, and Mohammed Ibrahim, 24, of London, were jailed indeterminately after being convicted of assaulting the 24-year-old in Preston last June.

Sitting at the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Hooper, Mr Justice Silber and Mr Justice Hamblen heard how the men 'came across' the woman before taking her to a flat where Ibrahim pinned her down while another man raped her.

After that, Ibrahim raped her before Nouri 'grabbed' her and 'dragged' her into a bedroom where he raped her, judges were told.

But today, despite the evidence, they ruled at the Royal Courts of Justice there was 'insufficient evidence' that Nouri and Ibrahim should be defined as 'dangerous'.

They said Judge Anthony Russell QC had been wrong to decide that 'imprisonment for public protection' was necessary and hand down a jail sentence which gave the men no automatic right of release.

They allowed the men's appeal against the imposition of an indeterminate sentence and instead handed each a 12-year term.

The court earlier heard how the woman had become separated from friends - when she was 'quite drunk' - in the early hours after visiting a number of bars and clubs, the court heard.

The judges were told that she 'came across' Nouri, Ibrahim and a third man in the town centre and went to Nouri's nearby flat with them.  Her next recollection was of waking up naked with the three men nearby before the horrific ordeal began.

When it was over the woman left the flat before realising that she had left her phone behind. She was allowed back in.  Nouri then pinned her down and raped her again before 'pushing' her out of the flat, judges heard.  Judges said the woman was found in a 'very distressed state' shortly after she left the flat and police were called.

Mr Justice Hamblen said that before 'imprisonment for the public protection' could be imposed, courts had to be satisfied that there was a 'significant risk' to the public of serious harm through the 'commission of further specified offences'.

He added: 'There was insufficient evidence to justify the finding of dangerousness made and an imprisonment for public protection should not therefore have been imposed.' Both men admitted rape at Preston Crown Court in November 2011.

SOURCE






Historian David Starkey branded a 'racist' and a 'bigot' after saying Rochdale sex gang had values  'entrenched in foothills of the Punjab'

Truth is no defence, apparently

Historian David Starkey has once again provoked controversy after speaking out about the Rochdale child exploitation ring who raped vulnerable teenage girls.

The broadcaster was branded a 'racist' and a 'bigot' following a heated exchange with a journalist yesterday at a panel event at Wellington college in Berkshire.

He incensed audience member journalist Laurie Penny, when he said the sex gang, who were jailed last month for grooming white girls for sex, had values 'that were 'entrenched in foothills of the Punjab or whatever it is.' He added that the gang needed to be 'inculcated in the British ways of doing things.'

Miss Penny, 25, who writes for the New Statesman, later joined him on a panel discussing Britishness and accused Mr Starkey of 'playing xenophobia and national prejudice for laughs.'

As she spoke the audience shouted 'keep going, keep going' as she moved on to speaking about about his tax status.

Once she had sat down, the historian walked over to her, jabbed his finger in the columnist's face and declared 'I will not be lectured to by a jumped-up public school girl like you.'

As Miss Penny continued speaking, Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas think tank stood up and told the journalist who has written for The Independent and the Guardian, that she was a disgrace to both women and the left.

The Sunday Times reported that following the heated exchange, Tim Novia, the chaplain of Wellington college took to the stage to prevent the situation escalating, following by Miss Penny's boyfriend James Brown.

On her Twitter page, Laurie Penny ‏@PennyRed later wrote: 'When you call a racist a racist, you get attacked. I don't care. I wasn't going to let him stand there being a bigot without calling it out.   Because ultimately, David Starkey is a troll, and that's what trolls do.'

Last month, days after the men were convicted, Mr Starkey declared that the Rochdale sex gang were 'acting within their cultural norm.'

He has also made several comments in the past which have courted controversy.  After the riots last summer on Newsnight he blamed ‘black culture’ for the trouble and claimed that parts of Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech had been right.

The British historian's comments led to around 700 complaints to the BBC, while Labour leader Ed Miliband branded the remarks 'disgusting and outrageous'.

The interview was later cleared by the TV watchdog.

Miss Penny last made headlines two months ago when she was saved from oncoming traffic by Hollywood heartthrob Ryan Gosling and tweeted about it on her Twitter page.

SOURCE







House of Lords reform: Nick Clegg's crazy plan is a pay day for has-beens and never-wozzers

Lib Dem proposals for elected 'senators’ will give the Upper House the upper hand, sighs Boris Johnson

Oh, for heaven’s sake. Look at the state of the world, and the sheer urgency of the issues we should be discussing here in this rare and sacred columnar space. The eurozone continues its slow dance of death, British troops are being killed in Afghanistan, trade union militants are triggering strikes with a minority of their members – and I have to write about the proposed Clegg reform of the House of Lords!

Of all the subjects that crowd my teeming brain, this is not the one that I would normally choose. I could be singing a hymn of praise for my old chum Gove and his brilliant new Gove-levels (and bring back the S-level, while you are at it, Michael). I could have loaded up my surface-to-air batteries and discharged them against the crackpot plan to force the poor people of west London to cope with tens of thousands more eardrum-jangling, kerosene-belching flights into Heathrow.

We could now be discussing Ed Miliband’s hopeless and intellectually dishonest speech about immigration; or how you can cut taxes and raise more money from rich people like Jimmy Carr. I could have given you my theory about the phenomenal success of this new porn novel called Fifty Shades of Grey, and the challenge it poses to us feeble members of the male sex, and the general conclusions we are obliged to draw about the chronic and appalling human interest in bondage, submission and government all round.

Any of these themes is potentially more juicy and more relevant to our lives – and yet I have no choice. I must tell you about these blasted reforms of the Lords, because I have just been made aware of some of the details, and the blood runs cold. An absolute disaster impends. It really seems to be the case that the Coalition (actually the Lib Dems) wants to push on with a system of elected “senators” – 300 of them – to replace the present Upper House. These people will apparently draw a full parliamentary salary, they will have all the usual researchers and correspondence units, and they will luxuriate in power for a full and unchallengeable 15-year term! The whole thing will cost about half a billion pounds over five years, according to the Labour peer Lord Lipsey.

It is all completely unnecessary. Somehow, time and custom has produced a House of Lords that works. Their lordships are a vast, gentle and liver-spotted repository of wisdom. When you listen to their debates, it is transparent that they are not sharp-elbowed creatures. They betray no particular anxiety to make their name or to suck up to the whips. They may take the odd power nap and they may not all be in the first flush of youth. But they seem, on the whole, to have the interests of the country at heart.

The Upper House has soldiers and airmen and scholars and lawyers and scientists and film directors and heaven knows what – many of whom would not dream of seeking election on a party-political ticket. Week in, week out they beaver away, revising and improving the legislative Horlicks that they get from the Commons; doing nothing much, as the old analysis has it, and doing it rather well.

They have tended for a long time to be more representative of society than the Commons – there are more people from ethnic minorities, there are more women, more disabled people. It is probably true that there are more bishops in the Lords than there are in the population at large, but who cares? There’s nothing like a bishop or two to add a touch of class and restraint to a revising chamber. They still have a few of the less obviously inbred hereditaries, in a gesture not just to the ancient roots of the institution but also to the fundamentally different nature of the Lords. It is crucial to the success of the Upper House that it is somehow at a distance from party-political machines, and above all that it is at one remove from the electorate.

Now the Lib Dems are proposing that voters should have a new type of politico – a “senator” – with his or her own direct mandate and constituency. This will be confusing for the voters, who will be wondering whether they should be writing to their local councillor, their MP, their Euro-MP or their senator; and it will be even worse for the egos of these bozos. Consider for a second who is likely to seek election to the Lords/Senate. People who have never made it to Parliament; people who have been flung out of Parliament; has-beens; never-wozzers; people who can see the opportunity to avenge their rejections by finding an alternative route to power. Once ensconced in the Lords they will remain there for three solid parliamentary terms, swanking, swaggering and using the headed stationery for their shopping lists.

Suddenly, the politically thrusting characters of this country will work out an alternative career structure, a new way of achieving ministerial office. And if they decide to take on their green-benched colleagues in the Lower House, as they inevitably will, who will be able to shut them up? A direct mandate is a powerful thing. Look here, mate, a senator will be able to say to a poor old MP, you were elected by 70,000 people. I have 570,000 people in my constituency – and I don’t have to worry about them kicking me out. The whole beauty and balance of the present system would be wrecked. We accept the idea that the Lords is the “Upper House” only because the Commons – being elected – has the real primacy and the real democratic legitimacy. These reforms would undermine that primacy, and the status of MPs – already bashed by the expenses business – would become positively Lilliputian.

The Prime Minister was completely right when he said that reform of the House of Lords was something the government should consider in its third term. This plan is a bunch of tidy-minded Lib Dem nonsense. It would create a new, grandiose, expensive and unnecessary class of political hack. It would turn Parliament into a chronic feud between two types of elected representative. Clegg’s scheme needs to be liquidated, vaporised and generally terminated with extreme prejudice.

SOURCE





America the non-racist country

by Jeff Jacoby

I HAVE A DREAM, said Martin Luther King in 1963, that someday "on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." King was a prodigious dreamer, but even he might have found it hard to imagine that thousands of those listening to him that day would live to see a black pastor elected -- unanimously and enthusiastically -- to lead the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Rev. Fred Luter Jr. after his election as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination with its roots in slavery

It was in Georgia before the Civil War that the Southern Baptist Convention had been born, in large part to ensure that black and white would never sit down together, at the table of brotherhood or anywhere else. Beginning in 1845 as a breakaway from the anti-slavery Baptist churches in the North, the Southern Baptist Convention would grow into the nation's foremost Protestant denomination -- and one of its most racist.

Well into the second half of the 20th century, Southern Baptist preachers defended Jim Crow and preached white supremacy. In a notorious 1956 address, the renowned Dallas pastor W.A. Criswell condemned the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education as "idiocy," "foolishness," and "a denial of all that we believe in." After he was elected SBC president in 1968 Criswell renounced segregation. But most Southern Baptist churches remained all-white, and it wasn't until 1995 that the denomination publicly resolved to "unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin" and to "apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime."

Last week, a gifted and charismatic black minister from New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, the Rev. Fred Luter Jr., was chosen by acclamation to lead the Southern Baptist Convention. Luter is not the first African-American to head a largely white Christian denomination in the United States -- the Rev. Geoffrey Black has been president of the United Church of Christ since 2009, for example -- but he is the first to head a church that was founded in support of African bondage and white racism.

To borrow an analogy suggested by Luke Hill, a blogger for the Catholic journal Commonweal, imagine that the First Vatican Council had solemnly pronounced Slavs inferior human beings condemned by God to lives of servitude. Then imagine such a Catholic Church, with its long history of anti-Slavic bigotry, electing Karol Wojtyla as the first Polish pope. That is roughly what the Southern Baptist Convention has done in elevating Luter to its presidency. A renowned Southern Baptist theologian describes Luter's election, with good reason, as "the most significant event to happen in our history since our formation."

It is certainly a big deal for Baptists. But for most Americans, what could be more unexceptional than the disappearance of racism as a significant bar to black achievement?

We live at a time, after all, when a black president lives in the White House and a black justice sits on the Supreme Court. When the success of black supermodels and Fortune 500 CEOs is taken for granted. When celebrity magazines and websites routinely chronicle the lives of black athletes, entertainers, and movie stars. America today is nothing like it was in 1963, when King could only dream of black civil equality and the death of Jim Crow. The pervasive racism he confronted is primarily a historical memory now, while King himself is in the American pantheon.

Yet there are still those who insist that America is steeped in white racism -- who even now can look at American public life and see anti-black animus everywhere.

"Over the course of the Obama presidency," writes The Atlantic's senior editor Ta-Nehisi Coates, "I have become convinced that no single force exerts a greater pull on his presidency than white racism." He has no intention of putting away the race card. "I can only stop talking about racism when it ceases to be a significant force in our politics."

Ah, but racism has ceased to be a significant force in our politics, as it has ceased to be a significant force in American life generally. Racist comments can occasionally be heard, of course, and there are always exploiters of white guilt to milk them. But as thousands of delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting, emotionally cheering their new black president, have just demonstrated afresh, America's racist past is dead and gone.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



28 June, 2012

Teenage brothers in line for damages after judge ruled British social workers had caused ‘havoc’ in their lives

British social workers are very hostile to prospective adopting parents because once the child is adopted it is out of their power.  So they do their best to chase away people who want to adopt -- unbelievable though that may seem.  It has got so bad that the Prime Minister has told them off about it

Two boys who were left stuck in the state care system for more than 13 years won the right to compensation yesterday.  A High Court judge ruled that the failures of social workers had caused ‘havoc’ in the lives of the brothers and had done them irreparable harm.  One was moved between 96 foster parents and the other lived with 77 foster families – a total of 173 between them. Both suffered abuse.

Each is likely to claim damages of up to £100,000 from Lancashire County Council, whose social workers left them to float repeatedly from one foster home to another after they failed to secure the adoptions by new families that the brothers were supposed to have.

Mr Justice Peter Jackson said in his ruling that the way the boys’ lives were supervised ‘amounted in reality to permanently looked-after disruption’.

The brothers, known in court as A and S, now 16 and 14, were taken into care in 1998 when A was two and S six months old. Their parents had separated, their mother abandoned them, and their father committed suicide a month later.

Social workers tried to place them with an aunt, a single mother of six children, but the plan failed. In March 2001, more than three years after they were taken into care, the boys were given legal orders that freed them for adoption.

But social workers did not find new adoptive families. Instead, the boys were allowed to drift through the care system with no one responsible for them.

Mr Justice Jackson’s judgment at the High Court in Liverpool said: ‘The boys have had major placements, emergency placements, temporary placements, respite placements and respite for respite placements.’

The boys, the court found, were by 2008 ‘deeply distressed and disturbed and showed formidably challenging and sometimes violent behaviour’.

Their lawyer, Antonia Love of Farleys Solicitors, said: ‘This is one of the most shocking cases we have come across of children being failed by the care system.’

The judge called for a review to check whether others were similarly trapped in the care system.

Ministers want social workers to do more to get children adopted. Around 65,000 are in the care system, living in children’s homes or with foster parents, but only 3,000 were permanently adopted last year.

New rules will stop social workers using race rules to block mixed-race adoptions or to use other pretexts, for example that would-be adoptive parents smoke or are too old, to stop children winning new homes.

SOURCE




Racism is 'hardwired' into the human brain - and people can be prejudiced without knowing it

There have long been findings to this  effect but it is interesting to see it coming out of neurology.  Categorization is an important human survival skill

Racism is hardwired into the brain, say scientists - and it operates unconsciously.  The same circuits in the brain that allow us to see which ethnic group a person belongs to overlap with others that drive emotional decisions.

The result is that even right-thinking individuals make unconscious decisions based on a person's race.

Brain scans have proved that interactions with people of other ethnic backgrounds set off reactions that may be completely unknown to our conscious selves.

The finding may force researchers to think about racism in entirely new ways.  It's possible, the researchers say, that even right-thinking, 'egalitarian' people could harbour racist attitudes without knowing.

The chemicals involved in perceiving ethnic backgrounds overlap with those for processing emotion and making decisions, according to new research.

And the findings published in Nature Neuroscience could lead to fresh ways of thinking about unintended race-based attitudes and decisions.

Dr Elizabeth Phelps, of New York University, and colleagues reviewed previous brain scanning studies showing how social categories of race are processed, evaluated and incorporated in decision-making.

They showed a network of brain regions called the the amygdala, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex are important in the unintentional, implicit expression of racial attitudes.

The researchers said the brain areas themselves - as well as the functional connectivity among them - are critical for this processing. ‘Evidence from neuroscience has been vital in clarifying the nature of how intergroup cognition unfolds.

‘Moreover, the neuroscience of race has been useful in pointing the way toward the type of new behavioural evidence needed to answer questions of not only what happens when intergroup cognition is at stake, but whether and how change is possible in real human interactions.

‘How to use this knowledge from brain and behaviour to further extend basic knowledge and to drive applications is the obvious next generation of questions that we must pose.

‘If good people who intend well act in a manner inconsistent with their own standards of egalitarianism because of the racial groups to which 'the other' belongs, then the question of change takes on new and urgent meaning.

‘This urgency requires that we attend to the evidence about how our minds work when we confront racial and other group differences.

‘Thus far, we have obtained modest evidence about these processes as they operate in our brains, unbeknownst to our conscious selves. The question of what we will do with these insights awaits an answer.’

SOURCE






Grow up: Life Has Trade-offs

Anne-Marie Slaughter's eye-catching Atlantic article, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All," is being greeted with a certain reverse snobbery. We've been reminded that the choices and challenges of women with advanced degrees are hardly typical and not the sort of thing that should divert us from the problems of the middle class.

Perhaps. But there are millions of women in the upper middle class and the culture they create and reflect affects everyone. Besides, Slaughter deserves some credit for honesty. As she recounts in the piece, when she mentioned to a friend that she was considering writing that women can't have it all, the friend was adamant: "You can't write that. You, of all people." Slaughter explains: "... such a statement, coming from a high-profile career woman -- a role model -- would be a terrible signal to younger generations ..."

Slaughter, the "first woman director of policy planning at the State Department," had been one of those reliable soldiers in the "mommy wars" who had assured young women that, of course, they could have a satisfying career, a high income, a loving husband and 2.5 ego-gratifying, low-maintenance children whose problems wouldn't intrude when they "sipped champagne" at a "glamorous reception" hosted by President and Mrs. Obama. But she has discovered that the "have-it-all" catechism was a lie. Even with a supportive husband who was willing to "take on the lion's share of parenting ... (while) I was in Washington," she found that she didn't want to be away from her two teenaged sons, particularly when one was having trouble in school.

"Want" is the critical word here. Slaughter made a choice, as adults do. She writes, "I realized that I didn't just need to go home. Deep down, I wanted to go home. I wanted to be able to spend time with my children in the last few years that they are likely to live at home, crucial years for their development into responsible, productive, happy, and caring adults."

Slaughter's wants mirror those of other women (high-earning and otherwise). A 2007 Pew survey found that among working mothers with children 17 and younger, fully 79 percent said that they would prefer part-time (60 percent) or zero (19 percent) work outside the home. Only 21 percent said they would choose full-time employment while their children were young. This was down from 32 percent who preferred to work full time in 1997.

Despite endless repetition by Democrats and feminists, the idea that women earn less than men for the same work is fiction. Single women without children earn just as much, and sometimes more, than comparably qualified young men. Women earn less (over their whole careers) because they choose to. And they choose to because they place more value on child rearing than on money or status.

A better feminist would applaud women for this and stress the incomparable contribution mothers make to society. Instead, feminists define progress as the "first" woman this or that and the degree to which a woman's life parallels a man's. Feminists have been missing what's best about womanhood for decades.

They keep up a relentless drumbeat for "better" (by which they mean government-subsidized) childcare and fret that men don't have to make the same trade-offs. But as Anne-Marie Slaughter found, most women don't want more opportunities to farm out our children. Slaughter wasn't even satisfied to have her own husband be the principal parent. She wanted the kind of relationship with her sons that only time -- and lots of it -- can allow.

Most mothers feel that way, and unlike feminists who find this truth to be embarrassingly retro, we freely affirm that we want to be there for the first words, the first independent ride on a two-wheeler, the Little League games, the school plays, the violin lessons, and the thousand little private jokes, shared confidences, and other intimacies that are some of the sweetest parts of life.

We've seen some of the women who are described as "having it all." We see the glamorous careers, the attention and the prizes. And perhaps we feel a twinge or two of envy. But it's an illusion. Something has to give. Too many exhausted women blame themselves for not being able to be Ruth Bader Ginsberg, June Cleaver and Sally Ride all at the same time. They've been lied to about life, mostly by feminists. Slaughter discovered the truth in time. Many don't.

SOURCE






The Bank of Dave: How one man, struck by the plight of firms unable to get loans in his home town, came up with a unique solution

A comment on the frozen-with-fear British banking system

It is, if you like, a story of Dave and Goliath – one man’s attempt to take on the giant high-street banks he says are helping destroy towns such as Burnley in Lancashire. And, so far, Dave Fishwick is winning.

Dave is a self-made millionaire, the owner of a company that manufactures and sells minibuses, so it is fair to say he has no problems getting credit on his own behalf. But when banks started refusing to lend money to his customers, Dave knew he had a problem, too. Local firms could no longer buy his vehicles.

‘The lending dried up almost overnight,’ he says. ‘It was killing their businesses and damaging mine.’

So he took the most practical approach possible – and decided to go into the credit business himself.

The Bank of Dave was born. Today, hundreds of businessmen and women hold accounts at his modest town-centre shop, marking a return to the sort of old-fashioned, face-to-face banking that the big operators have mostly chosen to leave behind.

‘The banks were turning down committed people who needed investment,’ he says. ‘They were destroying this town. You mention Burnley down South and people just think of the riots in 2001.

‘That’s nonsense. Burnley’s going through a tough time, like most of the country. But there’s a lot of decent, hard-working people in this town and they’re the people I wanted to help.’

Rachel McClure was among them. She needed £7,500 to revamp the front of her flower shop, Garlands Florist, last year. The business was in profit and she had a good credit record, so expected that a loan would be a formality.

The clincher, surely, was that Rachel’s bank manager had spent a day working at the shop to see more of local business. The bank had issued a press release trumpeting its ‘caring’ initiative and printed pictures of the smiling manager holding a bouquet of flowers.

She was astonished, then, when her application was refused. Dave stepped in, got to know Rachel and her business and lent her the money. The new shop front is now finished, business has improved and Rachel has never missed a repayment.

Meanwhile, her old ‘caring’ bank has told her that any future loan inquiries should be directed to its head office .....  in Glasgow.

Dave is an energetic, straight-talking 41-year-old. Born into a poor but hardworking Burnley family, he left school at 16, making his first million in his 20s. He is passionate about his home town – and determined to prove that it is possible for a bank to be fair and still turn a profit.

When he lends money, he charges 8.9 per cent to borrowers with a good credit record and investors make five per cent on their savings. They are not the cheapest loan  deals on the market but, unlike the big banks, Dave is at least lending, the rates allow him to give savers  a good return and his profits go  to charity.

At the Bank of Dave, which opened in September, only one borrower has defaulted so far. Savings are pouring in and there is a waiting  list for investors. The bank is taking in about £25,000 a week and giving out about the same in loans. The £10,000 accrued in the first six months has been divided equally between five local charities.

Dave gets to know all his customers and gives them advice, just like bank managers used to do. ‘Banking is not rocket science,’ he says. ‘The banks have been ripping people off for years. They used to have a responsibility to serve their clients. Now they just serve themselves. It’s like a private club.

‘They gambled away billions of pounds of our money and we bailed them out with billions more. And they still pay themselves obscene bonuses and refuse to lend money to businesses fighting for their lives. It’s disgusting. When the banks lend, they turn £10 into £20 without doing anything. But if it goes wrong, they are bailed out by the taxpayer and the rest of us have to take the hit. How is that right?’

The Bank of England base rate – the interest rate that the Bank of England charges banks – has been 0.5 per cent since March 2009 yet small businesses can pay more than 25 per cent for loans, even more for unsecured ones and an eye-watering 3,000 per cent for ‘pay-day’ loans.

Meanwhile, savers, who always suffer when the base rate is low,  are receiving as little as 0.05 per cent interest, with an estimated £100 billion sitting in accounts paying nothing at all.

Dave resolved never to lend money his bank didn’t have and to guarantee every penny of his customers’ deposits personally. He believed he could achieve his goal with ‘hard graft and a bucketful of common sense’.

He is not trying to compete with the big banks on large-scale finance but he does believe that there is a need for genuine community banks.

Burnley has some fine Victorian buildings and a few pockets of prosperity. But the atmosphere on the streets and in the cafes is gloomy. Many of its high-street outlets, including TJ Hughes, Miss Selfridge and HMV, have closed in recent years, and in March a proposed £40 million development was scrapped because of a lack of interest from retailers.

In the nearby village of Sabden, Keith and Christine Turner, an experienced caterer, run a cafe called Sanwitches, a name that nods at the ancient tales of sorcery on nearby Pendle Hill. They started the business after Keith was made redundant from his job in local government. At first it was a struggle. The couple needed more space and equipment. They asked their bank for a loan but were turned down. They went to the Bank of Dave and were lent £8,500.

But as well as the money, they were given advice on marketing and advertising their high-quality food. Dave took them out to local business parks where he encouraged them to offer office lunches and conference meals.

And when a large construction project began nearby, he suggested the couple take tea and bacon sandwiches to the builders to encourage them into the cafe. It worked.

‘We couldn’t have done it without the loan and Dave’s advice,’ says Keith. ‘It’s opened our eyes to what can be done. When the bank turned us down we didn’t know whether  we would be able to carry on with the business.’

Although customers call the business the Bank of Dave, and although it offers banking services, Dave is not allowed to call it a bank. This is because he is still waiting for a bank licence, which can take years to obtain. Without it, he cannot use the word ‘deposits’ and can talk only about ‘achieving five per cent on savings’.

‘The bankers who gambled away billions of pounds of our money have got off scot-free, and yet I can be taken to court if I call my business a bank or use the word deposits,’ he says, exasperated.

Obtaining a bank licence is a numbingly complicated, time-consuming and expensive process. Only one has been granted in the UK in the past 100 years, to Metro Bank  in 2010, which was backed by an American bank with more than $50million of assets.

The legal restriction explains the slightly eccentric sign above his premises that says ‘Bank on Dave!’, a slogan rather than a name. The business’s official name is on the window: Burnley Savings and Loans. So is a slogan referring to the banks of yesteryear: ‘Captain Mainwaring old-fashioned values.’ (Mainwaring, from Dad’s Army, was a notably cautious bank manager in the fictional town of Walmington-on-Sea.)

‘Our customers couldn’t care less what we are called,’ says Dave. ‘They know they are getting a fair deal. Our computer doesn’t say no.’

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

**************************



27 June, 2012

British PM is right to want to limit the welfare state

Several of David Cameron’s most recent interventions have come about as a result of an apparent rush of blood to the head. He ill-advisedly taunted the French, by trying to woo their wealthy to come here and pay taxes to prop up the NHS. He got into an undignified row with Argentina’s President.

Then, in Mexico for the G20 summit, he read about Jimmy Carr’s tax wheeze and quickly condemned the comedian’s alleged immorality. The PM would have been better stopping to think first. Does he really want to start pronouncing on individual morality in cases where no law has been broken? Is he prepared for every Tory minister and donor to have their affairs examined by the press? This one, I suspect, isn’t over by a long way.

As a Tory MP put it to me over the weekend: all in all, it isn’t very Prime Ministerial.

But this latest stuff on welfare came from somewhere. Cameron and his advisors have clearly wargamed it. So what are they up to? I had four immediate thoughts.

1) Cameron must have finally started to work out he’s in considerable trouble, with voters, his MPs and the Tory-inclined parts of the press. It will take much effort to woo people back but being tougher on welfare, as the polls show, is probably the easiest place to start. Clegg won’t let him do much more on benefits, so he wants to stress that he would go further if he was unshackled.

2) He seems gradually to be coming to a realisation that the Coalition may not go the distance (I think it won’t see out next year, but let’s see). Either way, better, as some Tories have been saying for some time, to be ready with the makings of a manifesto.

3) There are going to have to be more, as yet unspecified, welfare cuts, according to George Osborne’s own numbers. So the the Government must prepare the ground. That is surely preferable to repeating the Budget experience, where the ground went so unprepared that even when the Government was in the right (equalising tax treatment, via the so-called Granny Tax) it still got stiffed by a public backlash.

4) The Number 10 machine seems to be in a bit of a mess. Even though this welfare push was planned, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone involved that it would be taking place on the same day as the launch of Alistair Darling’s cross-party Save the Union launch in Scotland. This is one of the most important developments of Cameron’s premiership. The Tory leader is desperate to see Salmond defeated and the break-up of the UK averted, so why create a clash rather than giving Darling and his colleagues a clear run in media terms? Labour seems slightly baffled by this cock-up, but has decided not to cause a fuss. It seems to come down to basic poor logistical planning and a lack of nous in the upper reaches of the Number 10 operation.

But so much for the process, what about the content? Here, Cameron deserves praise for making an important and carefully considered speech. A Prime Minister calling for the start of a national debate generally sounds pretty pitiful, but the Tory leader is right that a proper examination is needed of what is expected in terms of welfare provision.

Since the modern concept of the welfare state was launched on the back of Beveridge (elements obviously date from earlier reforms) it has grown like knotweed. If William Beveridge had known his reforms would lead to there being housing benefit available to the under-25s one suspects he would have been appalled. The state is going beyond basic provision and agreeing to a crazy set-up in which some young adults think the state must pay for their housing (having paid for their education and guaranteeing them health care), something that would never occur to many other people battling on low salaries to get a foothold on the property ladder and pay a mortgage. It is also a huge subsidy of the rental market, meaning the taxpayer subsidises landlords.

Cameron used the following example:

    "Take two young women living on the same street in London. One studied hard at college for three years and found herself a full-time job – say as a receptionist – on £18,000 a year, or about £1200 take-home pay a month. She’d love to get her own place with a friend – but with high rents in her area, the petrol to get to work and all the bills, she just can’t afford it. So she’s living at home with her mum and dad and is saving up desperately to move out. Then there’s another woman living down the street. She’s only 19 years-old and doesn’t have a job but is already living in a house with her friends. How? Because when she left college and went down to the Job Centre to sign on for Job Seeker’s Allowance, she found out that if she moved out of her parents’ place, she was automatically entitled to Housing Benefit. So that’s exactly what she did. Is this really fair?"

No.  Cameron cited another example:

    "We inherited, quite simply, a mess of perverse incentives, mind-numbing complexity and real unfairness. Take a couple living outside London.

    He’s a hospital porter, she’s a care-worker. They’re both working full-time and together they take home £24,000 after tax. They’d love to start having children – and they know they’d get some help from the state if they did so. But with the mortgage and the bills to pay, they feel they should keep saving up for a few more years. But the couple down the road, who have four children, haven’t worked for a number of years. Each week they get £112 in income support, £61 in child benefit, £217 in tax credits and £141 in housing benefit – more than £27,000 a year. Even after the £26,000 benefit cap is introduced, they’ll still take home more than their neighbours who go out to work every day. Can we really say that’s fair?"

Again, no.

The Government has already embarked on ambitious welfare reforms, which include the Universal Credit. One hears dark warnings that the computer system won’t work. The consequences of it not working would be calamitous and set back by years the noble cause of welfare reform, which IDS and his Minister of State Chris Grayling have done so much to trumpet.

But Labour can’t avoid these questions either. If it ends up back in office it will be confronted with the same depressing reality. Incredibly, the welfare bill, including pensions, is consuming a third of what the Government spends. Despite years of attempted reform under Blair, the system still creates perverse anti-work incentives. And as the polls show, the part of the population which doesn’t claim welfare but pays for it is losing patience rapidly.

Some of the growth in welfarism is down to changes in the British way of life. The loosening of family bonds, the fracturing of informal networks which existed when relatives lived within minutes of each other rather than 100 miles apart, hasn’t always helped.

As Alessandra Galloni recounted in a superb piece for the Wall Street Journal recently, in troubled southern European states there is “an unheralded social safety net.”

    "An army of older family members are helping younger generations make ends meet during the region's crippling economic crisis. Half of all abuelos, or grandparents, in Spain take care of their grandchildren nearly every day, and 68 per cent of all children under 10 in Italy are looked after by their nonni when not in school or with parents, according to official numbers. By way of comparison, 19 per cent of preschoolers in the US were taken care of primarily by grandparents while their mothers worked in 2010, according to Census Bureau figures."

In Britain we have supplemented the weakening of the family with a burgeoning culture of entitlement which encompasses the worst abusers of the benefit system, out-of-control bankers and even egomaniacal footballers.

On welfare, what is needed is a calm, reasoned discussion about what can be done. There needs to be a reliable safety net, to ensure those most in need are looked after. But beyond that all the effort should be shifted to encouraging work, self-reliance and fraternity. Cameron and his ministers are making a decent start.

SOURCE





Evil British Social workers 'considered sending African boy to Congo for disturbing and traumatising exorcism because his parents claimed he was possessed by evil spirits'

Social workers have been accused of 'misguided political correctness' after they considered sending a boy in their care to the Congo for a 'deeply traumatising' exorcism.

Bosses at Islington Council in north London considered sending the African boy to the Democratic Republic of Congo because his mother claimed he was possessed by evil spirits and needed 'deliverance'.

An expert has claimed that Islington council officials were 'mindful to agree to the request' for exorcism, which it is claimed involved starving children and sometimes beating them.  The boy's family, who were from Africa, had claimed an exorcism was necessary because he was possessed by 'kindoki' or evil spirits.

The child's mother no longer has responsibility for him, and he had been taken into care by Islington Council.

The local authority paid an expert over £4,000 to travel to Africa to investigate the possibility of an exorcism as they were worried the family's 'sensibilities might be affected'.

Dr Richard Hoskins, an expert in African religion, completed the trip and advised the council the boy should not be exorcised as the rituals can be 'violent...deeply disturbing and traumatising'.

Dr Hoskins has since told how the case - which Islington Council later dropped on his advice - highlights how British officials do not tackle abuse when it is 'masked behind multiculturalism'.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Dr Hoskins told a conference yesterday: 'We fear to tread where sensibilities might apparently be affected.'  'This problem is about the underlying failure to tackle abuse when it is masked behind multiculturalism.'

Dr Hoskins added that officials do not challenge the mistreatment of children when it is committed under the guise of 'religious or cultural practices'.

Dr Hoskins visited Kinshasa, the capital of DRC, in 2005, where he met the grandparents of the child.  The grandparents claimed the boy had been 'infected by sorcery' in the UK which would 'destroy them all'.  Church officials in Congo also claimed that the evil spirits would lead to 'strife, illness, divorce, hardship, poverty and death' if not dealt with.

The ritual would have involved depriving the boy of food or fluids for three days in order to 'cast out' the evil spirit.

Although Dr Hoskins was assured the boy would not be beaten, his investigation found evidence that other children who had been exorcised suffered violence and were left 'scared and traumatised'.

Islington Council acknowledged to the Telegraph that they had paid Dr Hoskins to go to Africa, but said they did so on the recommendations of a judge.

A spokesperson said: 'It is a normal process in care proceedings to assess the extended family when a child has been removed from parental care,' a spokesman said.

'Dr Hoskins was instructed to meet with extended family members to assess their belief that a child of the family was possessed by spirits. This was on the instruction of the Family Court during care proceedings.'

A spokesman for the Department for Education echoed the findings of Dr Hoskins, adding: 'It is not acceptable for councils to be considering this. These services can be extremely traumatic.

'We are tackling all forms of child abuse linked to belief, including belief in witchcraft or spirit possession.  'Such abuse is rightly condemned by people of all cultures, communities and faiths.'

SOURCE






Mollycoddling your children could give them depression, say experts studying the rise in mental health problems

Over the past 30 years, our culture has become more obsessed with pursuing an elusive human state called happiness.  We are convinced it offers an antidote to depression and other mental health troubles.

This butterfly chase has culminated in David Cameron’s annual ‘happiness survey’, which asks 200,000 householders questions like: ‘Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?’ — at a reported cost of £2million.

But some experts think this emphasis is wrong, and say the pursuit of happiness has created the problems it was designed to protect against.  Young people now expect easy success as an emotional human right, and crumble into suicidal depression when faced with adversity.  Indeed, suicide among teenagers and young adults has increased three-fold in Britain since 1970, according to figures from the United Nations.  Young people from the most affluent and protective backgrounds are the most at risk.

An increasing body of research suggests that pursuing happiness can prove futile at best.

Last year Yale University found that adults who followed tips in magazines on how to be happy often felt worse — due to disappointment at the ‘you can be happier’ promise proving hollow.

But a review of happiness studies by Nicholas Emler, a professor of psychology at Surrey University, concludes that we seem born with our personal level of self-esteem pre-set for life. No amount of self-help books can change it, he says.

Many experts believe what really matters is resilience — the ability to take life’s knocks on the chin, pick yourself up and carry on.

A leading expert in the study of resilience, Professor Michael Rutter of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College, London, believes adversity is like a vaccine — a bit of it when people are young can build up defences for later.  ‘There is evidence that stress can cause strengthening in some people,’ he says.

This also has a physical effect, he adds, as exposure to emotional pressure can make the body’s nervous and hormonal systems more resistant to stress.

The U.S. National Institute on Aging has followed thousands of people from young adulthood into old age. It found those who maintained a grittily positive view of life were fitter and healthier in their older years.

In Britain’s older generation we see this in the ‘Blitz spirit’, the belief that adversity breeds strength.

Psychologists Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatte, of the University of Pennsylvania, have come up with the concept of ‘resilience coaching’.

In their 2002 book The Resilience Factor, they reject the idea that ‘positive thinking’ can beat adversity and say we need to learn ‘accurate thinking’ instead.

This idea has reached the political arena, with Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham recently urging Mr Cameron to scrap happiness surveys and focus on helping people cope with life’s troughs, especially in the recession.  ‘Resilience is the bottom line,’ he declared.

Resilience teaching is already on the curriculum at 46 state schools in Hertfordshire.

One child to benefit is an 11-year-old I’ll call Adam, who suffered serious bullying at the primary school he left last year.

His senior school, Longdean in Hemel Hempstead, is coaching him to fight back — by learning to have the strength of character to become immune to it.  He is one of 6,000 mainly 11-year-olds who have received 18 hours of resilience lessons per year since 2007.

He believes it’s made a real difference, saying: ‘I have learnt how to bounce back from the bullying, and I have even been helping my friends with this kind of thing.’

'The courses aim to teach children mental habits so they respond to pressures positively. If a pupil fails a test, they may think: ‘I’m not good enough.’  They’re encouraged to adopt resilient thoughts instead, such as: ‘Which bits did I do OK at? Where can I improve?’

Lucy Bailey, who runs the scheme, says: ‘Our aim is not to help people be happy. We’re trying to help young people lower their risk of becoming clinically anxious and depressed.’

Parents’ eagerness to protect offspring from harsh realities can leave them sorely vulnerable, she says.  ‘Children who unexpectedly commit suicide often come from supportive families and have good school records, but have never come across adversity before.  'When they do, whether it’s romantic troubles, academic failure or problems with parents, they don’t have the skills to cope.’

The U.S. Army launched a course to strengthen soldiers’ resilience two years ago, after psychologists said increasing numbers were returning from Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder.   Rates of suicide were rising, too.

One element of the programme is called Hunt The Good Stuff.  This teaches troops to notice all the good things rather than the negatives — even small things like a colleague holding a door open for them.

Military psychologists say this small but fundamental change of attitude can be a great help when something deeply traumatic happens in combat.  Major General Don Dunbar, who implements the programme, says: ‘This is not some namby-pamby, feel-good kind of experience. It is about survival.’

U.S. Brigadier-General Rhonda Cornum visited Britain to spread the teaching, including to pensioners.  Cornum, who was assaulted by Iraqi forces in 1990, has studied what makes some people more resilient than others, and leads the $125million emotional fitness regime for the U.S. military.

She is coming to Britain again to help the Young Foundation with its  scheme to instill a sense of ‘grit’ in young people.

The think-tank is also piloting a support service for over-65s suffering isolation, mild anxiety or depression.  The aim is to get them to help each other boost their sense of resilience.

Will these courses make a difference? The London School of Economics studied 4,000 pupils in Hertfordshire — those who took resilience lessons for a year and those who didn’t.

It found the course lowered levels of anxiety and depression and raised academic attainment.

But not everyone is convinced.  As Lord Layard — the economist who set up the independent Action for Happiness movement to promote well-being — puts it: ‘The problem with the word “resilience” is that it has a slightly dour sense to it and comes from handling adversity.’

And some researchers say there is a genetic element to resilience —  gene 5-HTT appears to help buffer people against the effects of adversity, controlling how much of the ‘feel-good’ chemical serotonin circulates in the brain.  A third of the UK population has a form of the gene. So is it pointless teaching resilience to this group?

Professor Rutter thinks not. He says the gene may make them more sensitive to what happens in their environment, positive and negative.  The key point to remember, he says, is that there’s been too much focus on ensuring children never experience stress: ‘Stress is part of what is normal.

'Parents should ensure it is part of growing up by letting them experience risk and adversity, while trying to protect them against excessive stress.

‘In this way, children can learn how to cope with challenges, to take responsibility, to develop their self-control and to reflect on their experiences objectively, rather than being overwhelmed by them.’

SOURCE





'War on drugs' is fuelling HIV epidemic

This is simply logical.  Needle sharing would plummet if you could get all your gear legally.  It could even come in single-use pre-packaged shots from your local pharmacy

A pressure group that includes six former presidents has called for the United Nations to acknowledge that "repressive drug law enforcement" is driving an HIV/AIDS pandemic.

THE global "war on drugs" is forcing users away from treatment and into environments where the risk of contracting HIV is high, the Global Commission on Drug Policy (GCDP) argues.

In a report published on Tuesday, the panel urges the UN to "acknowledge and address the causal links between the war on drugs and the spread of HIV/AIDS and drug market violence".

It also presented evidence that aggressive law enforcement policies created barriers to HIV treatment.

"The public health implications of HIV treatment disruptions resulting from drug law enforcement tactics have not been appropriately recognised as a major impediment to efforts to control the global HIV/AIDS pandemic," it argues.

The GCDP is a panel of politicians, writers and businessmen that advocates decriminalising drug use by those who "do no harm to others".

Members of the GCDP include six former presidents, four of whom are from Latin America: Mexico's Ernesto Zedillo, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ricardo Lagos of Chile and Colombia's Cesar Gaviria.

It was Gaviria who led Colombia when police gunned down the notorious drug-runner Pablo Escobar in 1993.

Other supporters include the European Union's former foreign policy chief Javier Solana and George Shultz, the who served as US secretary of state during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

The report accuses the US, Russia and Thailand of ignoring scientific evidence about the relationship between law enforcement policies and HIV rates "with devastating consequences".

The increased availability of drugs worldwide proved that the strategy is failing, it says.

"The war on drugs has failed, and millions of new HIV infections and AIDS deaths can be averted if action is taken now," it concludes.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



26 June, 2012

British PM to axe housing benefits for feckless under 25s as he declares war on welfare culture

Radical new welfare cuts targeting feckless couples who have children and expect to live on state handouts will be proposed by David Cameron tomorrow.

His bold reforms could also lead to 380,000 people under 25 being stripped of housing benefits and forced to join the growing number of young adults who still live with their parents.

In a keynote speech likely to inflame tensions with his deputy Nick Clegg, the Prime Minister will call for a debate on the welfare state, focusing on reforms to ‘working-age benefits’.

Among the ideas being considered by Mr Cameron are:

 *  Scrapping most of the £1.8 billion in housing benefits paid to 380,000 under-25s, worth an average £90 a week, forcing them to support themselves or live with their parents.

*   Stopping the £70-a-week dole money for the unemployed who refuse to try hard to find work or produce a CV.

*    Forcing a hardcore of workshy claimants to do community work after two years on the dole – or lose all their benefits.

Well-placed sources say Ministers are also taking a fresh look at plans to limit child benefit to a couple’s first three children, although Mr Cameron is not expected to address this issue directly tomorrow.

Speaking exclusively to The Mail on Sunday, Mr Cameron said: ‘We are sending out strange signals on working, housing and families.’

He argued that some young people lived with their parents, worked hard, planned ahead and got nothing from the State, while others left home, made little effort to seek work and got a home paid for by the benefits system.

‘A couple will say, “We are engaged, we are both living with our parents, we are trying to save before we get married and have children and be good parents. But how does it make us feel, Mr Cameron, when we see someone who goes ahead, has the child, gets the council home, gets the help that isn’t available to us?”’

‘One is trapped in a welfare system that discourages them from working, the other is doing the right thing and getting no help.’

Asked if he would take action against large families who were paid large sums in benefits, he replied:

‘This is a difficult area but it is right to pose questions about it. At the moment the system encourages people not to work and have children, but we should help people to work AND have children.’

His plan to axe housing benefit for the under-25s will have exemptions for special cases, such as domestic violence, but he said: ‘We are spending nearly £2 billion on housing benefit for under-25s – a fortune. We need a bigger debate about welfare and what we expect of people. The system currently sends the signal you are better off not working, or working less.’

He also favours new curbs on the Jobseeker’s Allowance, demanding the unemployed do more to find work. He said: ‘We aren’t even asking them, “Have you got a CV ready to go?” ’ A small minority of hardcore workshy, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000, could be forced to take part in community work if they fail or refuse to find work or training after two years.

The Prime Minister wants to show he is committed to radical policies, but his speech could exacerbate strains with Coalition partner Mr Clegg, whose Lib Dems oppose drastic welfare cuts.

It follows the row over plans to revive O-levels and will fuel rumours the Coalition could end long before the 2015 Election. ‘As leader of a political party as well as running a Coalition it’s right sometimes to make a more broad-ranging speech,’ said Mr Cameron.

A Government official said: ‘Decent folk are fed up with the increasing abuse of the welfare system. Responsible people who work damned hard, often on low incomes, to support themselves, are sick and tired of seeing others do nothing and live off the state.

‘Labour threw ever greater sums of money at the problem and made it worse. If we want to encourage responsibility we have be bold enough to tackle these issues. We suspect some of those who refuse point-blank to seek work are working on the black market and claiming fraudulently.’

But a Labour source said: ‘It is easy for rich Tories with big houses to have grown-up children at home while they find their feet. It’s different if you live in a tiny council flat and your daughter is a single mum.’ Ministers said curbs on housing benefit for the under-25s, had helped slash the welfare bill in Germany and Holland

SOURCE





Unfit, scruffy, high-handed and corrupt: Britain's worst police need fixing - and if it takes a railwayman to get them back on track, so be it

A once exemplary police force lies in ruins after 13 years of constant Leftist "reforms".  Getting it back on track will not be easy

Tom Windsor is the man who will be undertaking a radical shake-up ofpolicing, if the Home Secretary gets her way.  On Tuesday Mr Winsor will be grilled by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee  on his application for the £200,000-a-year post of Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

The former rail regulator is a brave choice – as he would be the first civilian in the post. Previous incumbents have almost always been former chief constables.

But where they may have succumbed to the temptation to go easy on their former colleagues, Mr Winsor might be less reticent.

Of course, he does not know policing like a former chief officer with more than 30 years’ policing experience, so, Tom, here are a few suggestions .

1. Look Like Business

The police are far more likely to gain the respect of the public – law-abiding and criminal  alike – if they look like they mean business.

A scruffy officer who climbs out of a Smart car with no cap  or helmet to distinguish them from a traffic warden is hardly likely to strike fear into the hearts of hooligans or command authority when dealing with  the public.

Image is important and yet police leaders have let standards slip, preferring not to take on those who look a disgrace in their uniform.

And they are always looking for the cheap option when it comes to police vehicles. When I was a constable and we roared up in our Rover 3500 with creases in our trousers, clean boots and caps in place, people took notice. It made us feel confident and  it gave the public confidence  in us.

2. Be Fit For Purpose

Recruits are tested to see if they are fit enough to become constables – then are never fitness tested again. This is a nonsense when police careers can last up to 40 years.

Too many officers are more likely to catch a cold than catch a criminal because they are unfit.

The Police Federation has always argued that if there are to be compulsory fitness tests, officers should be able to keep fit in work time. But companies do not allow their workers time off to keep fit. Maybe some senior officers are worried they might fail the test.

3. Serve The Law-Abiding

Many of the problems confronting the police are caused by bad attitudes, whether it’s high-handed traffic officers lording it over motorists or response-team officers dealing with their tenth burglary of  the day who show no compassion for the victims.

The minority who are unprofessional undo all the good work done by the majority of officers. Too much concentration on league tables has resulted in not enough effort being put into providing a high-quality service.

4. Iron Out Corruption

In the mid-Seventies there was a surge in recruitment and standards slipped. Ten years later, as some of these officers began investigating serious crime, we saw cases where officers stole drugs, invented evidence and were paid by criminals to sabotage cases. The Metropolitan Police was forced to set-up an anti-corruption unit. We are approaching ten years since the last surge in recruitment and the police need to prevent a repetition.

Taking action would be seen as an admission of a problem that some senior officers would rather deny.

5. Put The Public First

The Chief Inspector of Constabulary chairs the Senior Appointments Panel that vets applicants for the most senior ranks in the police.

On his advice, the Home Secretary appoints the two most senior police officers, the  Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Currently police chiefs who put their communities first  and Home Office directives  second are likely to come off worse. Mr Winsor has a golden opportunity to ensure those  who put the public first get promoted.

6. Prioritise Serious Crime

Police success to a great extent is measured by the overall number of crimes solved as a proportion of the total committed in their area.

Minor crimes that are easier to solve, such as shoplifting, count just as much under the existing  system as  solving a complex  rape case.

This gives the police an incentive to concentrate  on those ones that are easy to solve rather than the ones that are important to victims. Crimes need  to be ‘weighted’ so that solving a complex and serious crime counts more than a minor case.

The overall detection rate will go down, which politicians won’t like, but it will focus minds on the crimes that really matter to the public.

7. Care About Victims

In some cases, particularly rape, the victim refuses to relive the ordeal by giving evidence  in court. Many victims simply want to be believed and taken seriously by the police and given appropriate care.

Unless the police get a conviction, however, they don’t score a point on the performance league table and so they tend to write off cases where the victim is reluctant to go to court. Overall satisfaction with the police needs to be taken as seriously as the conviction rates.

8. Tackle Drug Abuse

A drugs offence is recorded only if someone is arrested. The more action the police take, the worse the problem looks, something neither politicians nor police chiefs want. But problem drug users, who need money to fund their addiction, commit a lot of burglary and car crime. The proportion of criminals  testing positive for drugs, complaints of ‘crack houses’, and drug-dealing must all be recorded, as measures of tackling problem drug use.

9. Work When Needed

The shift system does not put most officers on duty when the demand for police services is at its highest. Community officers often work Tuesday mornings when most people are at work and response teams are often on duty on Sunday mornings when most troublemakers are at home nursing hangovers. The times  of day when crimes occur need  to be analysed and officer numbers should be matched to  the demand.

10. Put Feet  On The Street

Increasing numbers of officers are being used in specialist and plain-clothes squads,  leaving fewer officers to respond to emergencies and to carry out community policing. Police effectiveness relies on the support and co-operation of the public and if the police do not respond when we call them or we never see them on the street, we are going to stop calling them.

It’s time to get back to basics and put feet on the street.

SOURCE






Denial of religious support for Christians in the U.S. military

Although the U.S. Military fight and die to uphold freedom, high-level military chaplains report they are increasingly being denied freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. There is also alarm about the negative effects on troop morale over the undoing of the 237-years’ practice of providing traditional religious support for U.S. soldiers.

“We were promised that we would see no change - very little change,” says Col. Ron Crews, alluding to a two-star officer’s assurance that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal would not impede the ministry of military chaplains. That promise, he says, has not been kept.

Col. Crews, executive director of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, was speaking at a panel along with military chaplains and religious freedom activists during the 2012 National Religious Freedom Conference in Washington D.C on May 24.

The panelists agreed that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and other policies have made it difficult, if not a punishable offense, for military chaplains to read passages of Leviticus, pray aloud in the name of God at a soldier’s funeral, or preside over traditional services.

Col. Crews recounted an interchange in 2010 between Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a military chaplain. While Adm. Mullen was briefing the troops on what the repeal might look like, the chaplain asked if those with “biblical views that homosexuality is a sin [would] still be protected to express those views?”

Adm. Mullen reportedly responded, “Chaplain, if you can’t get in line with this policy, resign your commission.”

Another chaplain’s promotion was unexpectedly rescinded, said the colonel. The reason: forwarding an email sent by a fellow chaplain that was critical of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. Due to this action he was told he would need to be “more closely supervised.”

Yet another chaplain wished for his chapel to be considered “sacred space” and not used to officiate same-sex marriages. He was told that despite his wishes, his chapel would be “sexual neutral territory.”

After Chaplain (Major General) Douglas Carver, the U.S. Army’s Chief Chaplain, called for a day of prayer and fasting “in keeping with your religious traditions,” the Military Religious Foundation (MRF) “wanted him fired,” said Col. Jacob Goldstein, a panelist and senior U.S. Army Jewish chaplain. He added that despite the MRF’s claims that this was offensive to Jewish people, “this fasting follows in our tradition.”

Chaplains are not the only ones feeling pressure. Veteran’s Affairs officials told veteran honor guards that mentioning God in prayer was not acceptable. It took a Temporary Restraining Order from U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes and four months of litigation for the name of God to again be permissible.

Four months was not soon enough to prevent heartbreak to the widows of the fallen. Lisa Ward, the widow of a war veteran, made a promise to her husband - in the event of his death, he would receive the full burial ritual. But arriving to bury her husband and fulfill her promise, she was told the full burial ritual was against federal government regulations. The ritual mentioned God.

“I can’t redo my husband’s funeral,” she said with tears in her eyes.

One federal official, speaking on behalf of the Houston National Cemetery, said that prayers must be “inclusive.” Another asked a veteran to submit his public prayers in writing for approval. Finally, a judge ruled, “In this country, we don’t tell our pastors how to pray.”

But these legal victories do little to reassure believers. Kelly Shackelford, a panelist at the National Religious Freedom Conference and president and CEO of Liberty Institute, said, “The speed at which we are falling is much quicker than I have ever seen,” referring to the amount of religious freedom complaints that his office receives.

Shackelford’s office is the largest non-profit law firm in America, which deals solely with defending religious liberty. Still, there are too many cases for his office to handle. Over a period of ten years, he says he has experienced the most change in the past year and a half.

More religious freedom complaints are piling up. But Shackelford said that his office can’t provide any help unless people are willing to take a stand and work through a litigation process. He ended his talk declaring, “We need to stand in a Christ-like manner, but whether we stand or not is not an option.”

SOURCE






U.S. Military criticized  for political correctness

The U.S. military is guilty of political correctness toward domestic Islamic terror, according to a congressional report made public Wednesday that concludes al Qaeda is using U.S.-based Muslim radicals to plan mass casualty attacks.

“Homegrown radicalization is now the vanguard of al Qaeda’s strategy to continue attacking the United States and its allies,” said the report on domestic extremism by the House Homeland Security Committee. The report was based on several hearings held by Committee Chairman Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican.

The report said evidence of the threat comes from recordings made public in Pakistan by the core al Qaeda terrorist group, as well from an English-language magazine produced in Yemen by two American jihadists. Additional evidence came from an American suicide bomber in Somalia who urged Muslims to wage “jihad in America.”

The report said Islamist extremism is “the No. 1 terrorist threat to this nation.”

Of particular concern, according to the report, is the threat posed by radical Muslims to U.S. military communities. The terror threat to military communities is “severe” and growing. It includes the use of “insiders,” such as Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of carrying out the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.

The report faulted the U.S. military for “political correctness” toward Islam, which the report called a “potentially devastating development” for the security of troops and their families.

The Obama administration “chose political correctness over accurately labeling and identifying certain terrorist attacks appropriately, thereby denying Purple Heart medals to killed and wounded troops in domestic terror attacks,” the report said.

The report stated that the June 2009 shooting attack by a U.S. Muslim convert, Carlos Bledsoe, on a U.S. Army recruiting office in Arkansas highlighted homegrown terrorists’ targeting of military facilities.

“Bledsoe specifically targeted the U.S. military to avenge what he believed was its mistreatment of Muslims,” the report said. “He also had traveled to Yemen and was radicalized to al Qaeda’s violent Islamist extremist ideology.”

Despite the evidence of terrorist ties, Bledsoe was tried in a civilian state court rather than under federal terrorism charges.

“In another glaring instance of al Qaeda-inspired homegrown terrorism, the government also neglected to indict Maj. Nidal Hasan on any terrorism-related charges, considering the case to be an example of ‘workplace violence’ despite his reported email communications with the operational leader [of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula], the since-slain American terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki,” the report said.

Based on the hearings on the domestic Islamist terror threat, the committee concluded that radicalization of American Muslims remains “a real and serious homeland security threat.” The report also found that Muslims in the United States are not cooperating enough with law enforcement in countering the threat.

Significantly, the report stated that the U.S. government needs to “confront the Islamist ideology driving radicalization.”

The report also warned that Islamist terrorists are being created in U.S. prisons as the result of a policy of permitting radical Muslim clerics to lecture in prisons or to distribute jihadist materials.

The report also said that in Somalia, more than 40 American Muslims were radicalized and recruited by the Al-Shabaab group, an al Qaeda affiliate, and may pose a direct threat to U.S. national security.

More HERE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



25 June, 2012

Are Leftists the real bullies?

“Bullying” is a great Leftist theme at the moment. It’s an excuse for censorship. If you criticize homosexuals you are a bully; if you look cross-eyed at a black you are a bully and if you preach the Bible you are CERTAINLY a bully.

So it should be no surprise that the real bullies are Leftists themselves. Thuggery is never far beneath the surface with them. The story below from Australia is illustrative. There has been a Left-run government there since 2007. Julia Gillard is Prime Minister of Australia

The recent announcement by Julia Gilliard of a nationwide review on workplace bullying was so well received, it was almost disturbing– it seems that the culture of harassment and standover tactics within Australian places of employment is so ingrained and accepted that the detractors of this government initiative were few, and their criticism at relatively low volume.

Quite recently, the story of Darrell Morris began to generate buzz within Australia's social media circles, despite the apparent reluctance of mainstream media to become engaged in the hierarchical warfare of our public service departments.

By his supervisor’s own admissions, with the evidence collaborated by formal reports, Morris had been consistently “performing well” in his role with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He's worked in the Canberra–based department for the better part of a decade. A quiet but conscientious man, he admits that this is the only job he has ever wanted to do, and he relocated his wife and very young family to the ACT on finishing university specifically to cater to this career.

A fairly typical Aussie guy, Darrell forfeited his weekend rugby games and essential time with his kids in order to advance his employment– putting in the extra effort that is an unspoken requirement of being a ’good employee’ in this country.

It was during late 2009 and early 2010, while on leave with out pay working for Liberal Senator Helen  Coonan, that unfounded accusations of sharing classified information were leveled in Morris's direction. While DFAT issued him with a ’letter of regret’ over the incident, the subversive harassment continued and union officials report that the tone in meetings and other forms communication become between Morris and his superiors became increasingly hostile.
 It was last year, 2011, that Darrell Morris first took medical leave for severe depression. While ComCare, the relevant workers compensation providers, declared his workplace a significantly contributing factor to his illness, they have a ’no fault’ policy and no blame was laid, or compensation sought.

Morris's return to work in late 2011 was plagued with accusations of poor conduct from senior staff members and inflexibility within his senior management in regards to providing a safe and secure work environment– every employers ethical duty of care to those in their employ.

Currently on his second round of medical leave for depression, the DFAT has instructed Morris that his claims of stigmatization are invalid and further claims will result in disciplinary action. On his return to work, he will be blocked from receiving any training or promotion within the Department for a period as yet undetermined– it could be as long as three years.

While stating that a blanket ban on individuals returning from medical leave is ’policy’, no formal evidence of such a policy existing has been presented, despite numerous requests.

On this story breaking in the social medias, the general reaction from readers was subtle disgust overladen with a cynical acceptance that this conduct is to be expected within Government departments and all layers of bureaucracy, not only within our country's capital but in our state departments as well– those employed within our public sectors often work under a cloud of silence and passive aggression.

Transparency in workplace practices is always welcome, and Gilliard’s review of workplace bullying is timely, significant and valid. But it needs to focus its attention on sectors that are publicly known for using discrimination and stand over tactics– the Government’s own recruitment, advancement, internal complaint handling and ethical practice policies in particular.

Is that even possible, with the current culture of terrified silence that surrounds the topic; when people are too afraid to put name to their experiences for fear of covert retribution? When the best advice anyone within the public sector can give Darrell Morris is to change jobs, change departments, walk away and don't make a fuss?

Results of the review, due out in October, may provide a clearer picture– But don't go holding your breath. Given the current atmosphere, it may take more than one government review board to break the covert ranks of conspiratorial silence that surrounds this bizarrely underground, curiously Australian phenomenon.

SOURCE





Truth about Britain’s feral youth: Small core of youngsters commit staggering 86 crimes by age 16

Which means that permanent incarceration of recidivists would hugely reduce crime incidence.  Instead, recidivists are routinely released, if they are locked up at all

A tiny band of delinquents who commit around 86 crimes by the age of 16 are responsible for the majority of youth offending, according to a study.  It also found that nearly half of juvenile offences can be traced back to a small number of thugs who make up less than 4 per cent of the teenage population.

The research by Cambridge University has been hailed as a ground-breaking study into Britain’s feral youth as it suggests for the first time that it is not opportunity which makes the thief, it is morality.

While the majority of schoolchildren know the difference between right and wrong, it was a tiny minority of 3.8 per cent of teenagers who were judged to have no morals that committed 47 per cent of the 16,000 juvenile crimes studied.  This small group was responsible for the most serious property crimes such as burglaries, robberies and car theft.

Many of them were serial offenders who had begun committing crime before the age of 12 and were considered ‘highly versatile in their criminality’, regularly committing acts of violence, vandalism and shoplifting.

Researchers studied 700 teenagers over five years from the age of 12 to 16 in Peterborough, which was chosen for its average size, crime level and social make-up.

Youngsters were asked about their attitudes to crime and what offences they had committed, which was cross-checked with police and school records.  A lack of moral compass, rather than the opportunity to commit crime or social background, was revealed to be the most important factor in youths breaking the law.

The research, which is the most comprehensive study of youth crime in Europe, found that teenagers who avoided crime did so not because they feared the consequences or lacked the chance, but because they saw it as wrong.

Of those surveyed, the 16 per cent most ‘crime-prone’ group who admitted having the weakest morals, being impulsive and short-sighted and having no self-control were responsible for 60 per cent of the 16,000 crimes reported by those surveyed, with the average racking up 86 crimes between the age of 12 and 16.

The 16 per cent most ‘crime-averse’ group who were judged to have the strongest values, accounted for just 0.5 per cent of the crimes reported.

The research also offers some insights into last year’s riots and why some young people went on the rampage in some areas while others did not.  It suggested that certain urban environments provide triggers for crime where there is weak social cohesion and lack of community spirit.  City centres, retail outlets, entertainment venues and rundown housing estates where no one is likely to intervene provide easy targets.

While deprived areas with a ‘higher level of social disadvantage’ and low levels of moral education tended to be the most crime-prone.

Professor Per-Olof Wikstrom, who led the Cambridge study, said: ‘The idea that opportunity makes the thief – that young people will inevitably commit crime in certain environments – runs counter to our findings.  ‘Rather, only the “crime-prone” become vulnerable to said opportunities when taking part in environments with a moral context that encourages or at least does not discourage crime.’

He urged the Government to put more emphasis on teaching children the difference between right and wrong.  ‘In prevention we need to focus on developing policies that affect children and young people’s moral education and cognitive nurturing, which aids the development of greater self-control, and policies that help minimise the emergence of moral contexts conducive to crime,’ he added.

The findings could have profound implications for policing with under-17s being responsible for 23 per cent of recorded crime nationally.

Yesterday academics around the world praised the report.  Professor Michael Gottfredson at the University of California described it as ‘among the most significant works in criminology in decades’, while Professor Robert Sampson at Harvard University near Boston Cambridge Massachusetts said the research was a ‘breakthrough’.

But Camila Batmanghelidjh, the founder of Kids Company, cautioned against branding some young people as amoral.  She said: ‘Society is lecturing children and young people about how well behaved they should be but it’s not behaving in a way that warrants respect. It’s a given that it’s a good thing to teach right from wrong, but really where children observe it the most is in experience: it’s “have you looked after me?” and “do you do what you preach?”’

Graham Beech, the director of the crime reduction charity Nacro, said: ‘In my view the key to preventing crime by the small number of young people who are most likely to get entrenched in crime is to get in early, instil positive attitudes and teach them how to solve their everyday problems in a better way.’

SOURCE






Britain's Stasi cops a setback

The exhaustive record keeping of the Stasi  was legendary

Police will have to destroy mugshots of innocent people following a landmark case brought by a 15-year-old.  The boy went to court after being told his image would be held until he reached 100 – even though no charges were laid against him.

The High Court ruled yesterday that retaining photographs of suspects who have never been charged was a breach of their human rights.

Police forces will now have to trawl through their records deleting images, including those of people cleared at trial.

The teenager from Peckham, South London, was arrested on suspicion of rape in April 2009 but no charges were brought when a witness failed to confirm an offence took place.  When he asked to have his details removed he was told the mugshot could be retained until he reached the age of 100. He was 12 at the time.

The second claimant was a cyclist from Chelsea accused of assaulting a police community support officer who stopped her riding on a footpath in April 2007.

The 60-year-old, who was described as of good character, had DNA samples, fingerprints and photographs taken but the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge her with any offence. When she complained, the Metropolitan Police refused to delete her record.

The force’s policy, which is based on the Home Secretary’s code of practice, is to retain mugshots for a minimum of six years, although this can be extended indefinitely. Scotland Yard argued that it was necessary to keep the photographs to prevent crime and disorder.

But Lord Justice Richards said the policy drew ‘no adequate distinction’ between those who are convicted and those who are either acquitted or not even charged.

The judge, sitting with Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, concluded: ‘I am not satisfied that the existing policy strikes a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and meets the requirements of proportionality.

‘In my judgment, therefore, the retention of the claimants’ photographs in application of the existing policy amounts to unjustified interference with their right to respect for their private life and is in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’

The judge granted the force a few months to revise their policy.   Home Secretary Theresa May now has two weeks to lodge an appeal on the ruling, which has implications for all police forces.  The courts have already ruled that it is unlawful to keep innocent people’s fingerprints and DNA indefinitely.

But Lord Justice Richards said the Met would not have to delete details of the teenage boy’s alleged offence from the police national computer.

Yesterday John Wadham, general counsel for Equality and Human Rights Commission, which backed the test case, said: ‘There is no good reason why the police should hold on to information about people who have not committed any crime.’

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We are urgently examining the implications of today’s ruling.’

SOURCE





Cowardly British firemen shown up by teenager

Once it would have been a simple job for a fire brigade happy to do its bit for the community.  Not any longer. When Diesel the cat refused to come down from a 60ft spruce tree, he was stuck there for five days – because of health and safety rules.  The local fire and rescue service feared its officers would be ‘putting their lives at risk’ if they tried to rescue him.

In the end it was a 15-year-old boy who came to the cat’s aid – without the benefit of the fire brigade’s ladders, safety nets or cranes.

As Diesel’s mews trailed off into silence and his owner feared he would die from dehydration, Kyle Watkinson simply climbed the tree and brought him down yesterday afternoon.   Kyle, a keen climber, said: ‘It wasn’t hard and it isn’t even the worst tree I have climbed. I was scared for the cat but never for myself.

‘I am happy to have saved Diesel, but would like to send a message to the firefighters and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that they should be helping animals in trouble.

‘They said it was too risky – but I just can’t see how, when I’m a 15-year-old boy and I got up and got the cat down with no bother at all.’

A border dispute between English and Scottish firemen only added to the problem, while an animal welfare charity said it was also unable to help.

Diesel’s owner Adele Harland thanked Kyle, but criticised Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue for refusing to even attempt to save her 18-month-old cat.  Mrs Harland added: ‘If I had gone out and tied Diesel to a tree the SSPCA would be here quickly enough, wanting to prosecute me for cruelty. But when I ask for help to get him down a tree, they don’t want to know.’

Diesel got stuck 60 feet up the spruce tree last Tuesday evening.

Mrs Harland, a nursery worker in the Borders village of Foulden, rang the local fire brigade, but was told it wasn’t its policy to rescue cats from trees. The SSPCA said the same thing.

The Northumberland Fire Service initially agreed to come out, but then said it could not sent a team across the border.

Mrs Harland spent four nights helplessly listening to her cat’s terrified cries before the weakened moggie went quiet. After a tree surgeon tried and failed to reach Diesel, a  spokesman for the Borders fire service gave the following statement: ‘The cat has been up nearly a week now.  ‘The cat was too high for the tree surgeon to reach and he was not going to put his life at risk by going any further.

‘Similarly, we are not going to put the lives of our firefighters at risk. The SSPCA are of a similar opinion.’

But help was on its way. By chance a  friend of Kyle’s mother, Margaret Muir, had emailed her after hearing about Diesel’s plight.  Mrs Muir, 38, said: ‘We have never met the people involved, but I called Kyle and we got straight in the car. I would never have put my son at risk if I thought he couldn’t do it, but it was fine. He wants to be a doctor but it seems he might have a back-up career as a firefighter now.’

A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue said: ‘We advised the owner of the cat that we have a policy of not putting the lives of operation crews at risk unnecessarily.’

Mike Flynn, of the SSPCA, said: ‘We explained to the owner of a cat in the Berwick-upon-Tweed area that as a tree surgeon was unable to reach her cat and the fire service was unable to assist, unfortunately there was nothing further we were able to do.’

Disgusting wretches, all of them!  -- JR

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



24 June, 2012

Children of lesbian couples are NOT affected by lack of male role models, claims controversial new study

This pro-Lesbian study is ludicrous.  The authors have obviously never heard of the Rosenthal (experimenter expectation) effect.  Their close involvement with the people involved over no less than 26 YEARS could only have provided ENORMOUS opportunities to inculcate experimenter expectations into their subjects.  I don't believe it is going too far to say that  the experimenters BRAINWASHED their subjects into giving the "right" answers.  The whole thing is a joke scientifically. 

I can't believe that any of the researchers were psychologists.  That they were feminists would however provide an excellent fit.  Feminist respect for science or indeed evidence of any kind is negligible 

A new paper contradicts claims that children of same-sex parents are prone to experience psychological problems as adults.

The U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) examined how the lack of a male role model affects the children of lesbian couples.

Using the testimonies of 78 teenagers, researchers in Amsterdam and California determined that neither the presence nor lack of a father figure affected their gender development or their psychological well being.

The findings shed light on a highly debated subject and follow hot on the heels of the University of Texas' widely criticised study published last week.

Led by Henny Bos of the University of Amsterdam and Nanette Gartrell of UCLA's Williams Institute, the NLLFS is the first and only study to have recorded the progress of children from same sex couples since conception.

Dr Gartrell explained to MailOnline: 'Our [study] is an in-depth, longitudinal, prospective (meaning it is happening in real time, not asking questions about events that occurred 30 years ago) study of PLANNED lesbian families (meaning that the mothers were OUT, IDENTIFIED AS LESBIAN before the children we have been studying were born) that began 26 years ago.'

The investigation kicked off in 1986 and has spawned many sub-papers, the most recent of which looked at the 39 girls and 39 boys as they turned 17.

The teenagers were asked whether they had grown up with male role models and if so whether that person was a biological father, a grandfather, a cousin, teacher or even friend.

Of the 78 participants, 38 indicated that they had indeed enjoyed the influence of an important male role model in their lives and of these, roughly half were boys and half were girls.

Given ten adjectives that described typically feminine traits and ten that reflected those we've come to understand as masculine, the teens were asked to rate each word as it pertained to their own personality and character.

The results showed that the presence of a male role model did affect the way a child developed its own gender traits.

Another exercise asked the subjects to rate buzzwords that described feelings such as anxiety, depressed, angry or curious and found again, that whether or not they had a male role model did affect their mental health.

As Dr Gartrell put it to Buzzfeed: 'The adolescents are doing very well.'

Dr Mark Regerus of the University of Texas, however, was sceptical about the Dr Bos and Dr Gartrell's findings and based his criticism on their study candidates' backgrounds, 87 per cent of which are white and about 57 percent middle-class.

He told Buzzfeed that he doubted whether such a small sampling of 'of largely well-educated, mostly-white women' could truthfully represent lesbian families nationwide.

Though the NFFLS team were reluctant to compare the two they did point out the importance of the length of their study and how closely they had managed to follow the parents and children by visiting them at home and recording development with 'with paper, pencil, and tape recorders.'

Dr Regerus' report on the other hand looked at 3,000 children whose parents had at one time or another been involved in a same-sex relationship but who were not necessarily in one now or even identified themselves as gay or lesbian.

In contrast, though half of the parents in the NFFLS study who had started families together in 1986 had since divorced or split up, they were all still co-parenting and providing as stable an environment for the children as possible in such circumstances.

SOURCE





At last, a British politician who's brave enough to tell the truth

There is a vacuum at the heart of British public life where truth and bravery should be. On almost every subject there is a shortage of honesty and courage.

Before the last election no political party thought that voters could be trusted with the truth about the dire state of the public finances and the profound sacrifices necessary to put them right. None of the three party leaders is currently telling the truth about the European Union.

If we want to control immigration or cut red tape we need much more independence from Brussels.

No politician is prepared to say unpopular things about the need for considerably more airport capacity, nuclear energy or toll roads.

None thinks we are ready for tough choices about the kind of investment in infrastructure that is necessary for our economy to flourish once again.

One of the explanations for this is that we live in an age when our leading MPs are all quite young.  During their years on planet Earth they’ve spent little time beyond planet politics.  Few have run businesses, commanded men in uniform or worked with the real people in the real world.

They know how to listen to a focus group or interpret an opinion poll, but then today’s politicians are not leaders but followers —afraid of bold decisions or taking risks.

This didn’t matter when the economy was strong. Now things are going wrong we need a different kind of politician.

One Cabinet minister is increasingly standing apart from the crowd. Yesterday, this newspaper revealed that Education Secretary Michael Gove wants to bring back O-level-style exams.

Although this brave proposal is popular with parents across England, it is not uncontroversial. It takes us back to a system that separated academically gifted children from those with different aptitudes.

But I would argue that the abolition of O-levels in the Eighties was actually an early sign of the culture of dishonesty in our national life.

Britain fell into the grip of a dishonest kindness. We started to hand out good exam results like sweeties — regardless of whether pupils had really learnt anything at school.

We told ourselves that it didn’t matter whether parents spent their time working with their children or just letting them lounge in front of the TV.

We allowed school-leavers to think that a life on benefits was socially acceptable when it’s actually a place where they would easily rot and never fulfil their potential.

The statistics that poured out of the schools system suggested that all was well, however.

Like tractor production data from the old Soviet Union the latest exam grades were always better than last summer’s.

We were told to rejoice but employers and universities saw through the big lie. They complained that the children graduating from Britain’s schools lacked basic literacy and numeracy skills. Britain started sliding down the international league tables that compared the abilities of children in China, Germany, Korea and Britain.

Michael Gove is the first Education Secretary to say that enough is enough. He has said he’s not afraid to preside over a drop in exam grades. They’ll look less good, he concedes, but they’ll be more honest.

The teaching unions that have presided over the ‘All Must Have Prizes’ system will fight him tooth and nail. They want to protect their jobs-for-life regime where bad teachers are rarely sacked but are instead allowed to damage countless pupils’ life chances, year after year.

Gove is undeterred. He’s ready to close down a system where children who can’t manage their times tables are studying for exactly the same exams as those who are on track to study physics at Oxbridge. Meanwhile, the questions in exams have become preposterously silly.

In one science exam 16-year-olds were asked if they should look at the stars through a telescope or a microscope.

Another test asked: ‘What part of a rider’s body does a riding hat protect?’

Like Labour, the Liberal Democrats are said to be worried about the return of a two-tier educational system, where some children get O-levels while others study allegedly inferior CSEs — or whatever the less onerous exams system envisaged by Gove might be called.

This is nonsense. Britain already has an education system that is getting more unequal by the day.

Those children who are doing best have parents who spend hours with them at home, helping them to study and learn.

If they can’t afford a private education these same parents will often move homes or jobs in order to get their children into schools that use honest exam and traditional teaching systems. We all know the stories.

Meanwhile, children who are floundering fall further behind.

The compassionate politician who cares about equality of opportunity won’t accept this status quo, and will point out that the current system is dishonest. It puts children with very different abilities through the same sausage machine and then pretends that those who get ‘F’ or ‘G’ grades have still passed.

Michael Gove wants academically gifted children to be stretched by studying O-levels.

He wants other children to have a more appropriate educational experience, albeit an equally rigorous and demanding one.

This Government’s investment in high-quality apprenticeships and a new generation of technical colleges is early proof that it is serious about restoring the standing of vocational education.

This is a big moment for David Cameron. It is rumoured that he hasn’t yet approved Gove’s plan.

Nick Clegg has already reacted angrily to the plan to restore O-levels. But the truth is that, technically, he has no powers to prevent it. No new laws are needed for Michael Gove to restore honesty to the exam system.

The Prime Minister should tell the Liberal Democrat leader that the Education Secretary will get his full support — and that unless he wants to destroy the Coalition, he should let Mr Gove get on with the great task of rebuilding our education system.

Michael Gove’s performance is leading some Conservatives to ask whether he could be a future party leader.

That talk may be premature but there are still good reasons to take it seriously.

My hunch is that the British people are ready for a principled politician who stands more in the mould of Margaret Thatcher than of Tony Blair.

They may not always agree with truth-telling politicians like Thatcher and Gove but, in challenging times, they respect their conviction — and their authenticity.

If Michael Gove can succeed in the education portfolio, a bigger role awaits him.

For many people he can appear a bit bookish and sometimes a bit confrontational. But as well as an accomplished minister he has a powerful life story. He wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his Scottish mouth, but was adopted at an early age into a middle-class family.  His father ran a fish processing business in Aberdeen.

Michael Gove recently spoke movingly about the love that his adoptive parents have given him.  ‘I’d never want to search for my natural parents,’ he said, ‘as I would never want to give my mum the impression that her love for me was not enough or not complete.’

He has become a crusader for adoption reform so that children do not languish in care homes but get the same opportunities he enjoyed.

He is also a crusader for Press freedom. He wants to pull back powers from Europe. He supports lower taxes and a tough approach to crime.

One day, some time in the future, this brave politician might well be the kind of leader that the Conservative Party chooses and the nation craves.

SOURCE







Cutting the experts’ apron strings

Jennie Bristow answers your questions on how to be a subversive parent and stand up to ‘supernanny’

"You’ve said that to raise children, we have to see ourselves as adults first. In an age when many adults don’t do that – remaining ‘kidults’ - does this mean they are not raising their children properly?"

There is a genuine problem with the extent to which adult authority can become weakened through successive generations, and I do think we saw a bit of that in last year’s riots. Parents feel de-authorised by a culture that dictates how they should use persuasion rather than discipline to attempt to control their children, and makes them doubt every spontaneous action. In addition, the message that parents aren’t up to the job is transmitted directly to children via schools and popular culture, so this just fuels the sense of infantilisation.

However, growing up and rising to the occasion aren’t rocket science; people have been doing this throughout history. So it’s a real mistake to say that society should deal with the problem of the ‘kidult’ by adapting to it, through treating parents even more like children (and thus infantilising them further). Far better to recognise the role that official intervention has played in creating this problem, and to start to cut the apron strings…

SOURCE






More of that wonderful British multiculturalism

Violent refugee was jailed for at least 26 years today for stabbing his girlfriend 57 times

Somalian Zakaria Mohamed, 29, was on probation when he killed television recruitment consultant Amina Adan, 32.

He had assaulted her twice before during their year-long relationship, but magistrates put off sentencing him so he could take part in a domestic abuse programme.  But she took him back and he killed her with three knives and shards of glass from a broken mirror before the counselling sessions were implemented, the Old Bailey heard.

Judge Anthony Morris said he did not know why the sessions were not prioritised before Mohamed served an unpaid work element of a community order.  Mohamed pleaded guilty to murdering Miss Adan on November 6, last year, at the home they shared in Walworth, south London.

After a row, drunken Mohamed went home, dragged her down the stairs by the hair, beat her unconscious, kicked and stamped on her and began to stab her.

After police arrived, Mohamed threatened to kill them and had to be subdued with a Taser gun.

Miss Adan, who was brought up in Kenya, was described as being hard working and popular at the Al Jazeera news network where she worked in human resources.

Judge Morris told Mohamed: 'You are a controlling and domineering man and Amina was frightened of you and you sought to control her with violence.  'I am satisfied this was a punishment for her standing up to you.  'This was a savage, brutal, sustained and premeditated attack in which you clearly intended to kill.  'It was clearly a totally senseless killing in which you deprived a hardworking young woman of her life.'

Mohamed had been in breach of a community order and a deferred sentence at the time.

He came to the UK in 2002 on a forged Dutch passport. His request for asylum was turned down but he was given indefinite leave to remain in 2007 under an amnesty.

In April 2011, he pleaded guilty to battery on Miss Adan and was placed on a community order which included a domestic abuse programme.  In May, 2011, he punched Miss Adan in the stomach and went on the run before being arrested in July.  In September, he was convicted of the assault and on October 20, of breaching the order.

On October 20, Camberwell Green magistrates deferred a likely prison sentence until January 20 this year, so he could take part in the programme.

Judge Morris said he was surprised the programme had not been implemented first.  He said: 'It would be more important that they should have prioritised the domestic violence programme.

'This was not something the probation service were not aware of because he committed another offence, and it became even more urgent he should embark on this programme.  'Unfortunately, for reasons I do not fully understand, that programme had not been started fully.'

Prosecutor Timothy Carey told the judge the Ministry of Justice would be holding a review into the case because the murder took place while Mohamed was subject to probation.

Miss Adan's sister, Hanan, said in a statement: 'We will probably never know why he could possibly act in this way to another human being. It is something we will never forgive or forget.'

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



22 June, 2012

A British woman who thinks that  clothes make the man

I don't think this woman is wise.  As I am nearing 70, I too am a serious sartorial offender, despite spasms of fashionability in my earlier days.  Anne heroically puts up with my largely absent dress sense but her patience does occasionally earn rewards.  I bought a new suit (charcoal grey with a faint chalk stripe) to take her to  Die Wiener Philharmoniker when it came to Brisbane.  And she has other occasional triumphs.  Patience and forbearance is needed with us old guys!

Baggy corduroys with worn patches; faded short-sleeve shirts; dingy, threadbare jumpers and exploding trainers. Glance at most older men in the High Street and this is what you will see.

And could these decrepit garments not only make them look past it, but be the real reason why older men fail so spectacularly when it comes to forming new relationships with their female peers?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece in the Mail pondering why older men are such emotional cripples — born out of eight years searching for a man after the death of my partner.

Among the many letters in response were a few from older men themselves which particularly piqued my interest. They claimed that the real divide between older men and women is not their emotions, but their attitude to clothing. While older men are comfortable in their decades-old outfits, women, forever fickle and changeable, always have to be buying something new.

And this difference of opinion causes a distance between the sexes. It might sound flippant, but I think these men have a point. My respondents intended this as a criticism of women, of course — yet it says something not too savoury about older men as well and the pitiful way they will go on wearing the same ancient clothes year after year.

For while men view women’s obsession with fashion as vapid, women see men’s sartorial reticence as, at best bad manners and, at worst, unattractive. My ex-husband Neville Hodgkinson, 68, is a case in point. He was once so smartly turned out. Now it’s a very different story.

At a family funeral three years ago, he arrived wearing a suit that looked both strangely familiar and weirdly old-fashioned. Dark blue, boxy and double-breasted, it was too tight and slightly spivvy-looking.

‘How long have you had that?’ I frowned.  ‘Don’t you remember, you helped me choose it,’ he said.

We had been divorced for more than 25 years at that point. And his excuse for still wearing it? ‘Well, it was ahead of its time when we bought it,’ he said. It turns out that since our separation, Neville never buys any new clothes if he can possibly help it. Our two sons, Tom, 44, and Will, 42, have tried to shock and bully him into getting himself up-to-date, but to no avail. They now say he is ‘beyond redemption’.

It seems he is typical of the older man who will cling onto clothes bought decades ago, rather than face the ultimate horror of going into a shop and choosing new ones. When I pressed him for his reasons, he said: ‘I hate shopping for clothes almost more than anything else in the world, and it’s nothing to do with money. There has to be an absolute necessity to buy something new before I will even enter a clothes shop.’

Very many of my male friends share Neville’s view. The other day, one of them, also in his late 60s, turned up at my house in a 30-year-old mac that made him look like something out of an episode of Seventies detective series Columbo. When I suggested he might get a new one, he said: ‘But why? This one is still in perfect condition. What’s wrong with it?’

He, too, said that his only suit was one bought in the Eighties. ‘But it is an Ermenegildo Zegna,’ he added proudly, as if that made it all right.

So many men do not seem to realize that even the sharpest Italian suit will eventually go out of fashion. To them, fashion stands still, and it’s a major reason why women — who stay up-to-date with trends — find it so difficult to connect with older men. If they persist in wearing shabby old-fashioned clothes, what does it say about their minds?

For me, and most of my women friends, outdated clothes indicate outdated attitudes and a reluctance to take on board new ideas. All of which is terribly off-putting. Even older celebrities are not immune from looking shabby and scruffy when they are off-duty.
I once met Chris Tarrant, the supersmart host of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, at a party... In short, he looked like a tramp

I once met Chris Tarrant, the supersmart host of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, at a party. He was in ancient torn jeans, those all-too-familiar dirty exploded trainers and dingy, once-white T-shirt. In short, he looked like a tramp, and we all know he could afford several shops full of new jeans. But he, like so many older men, apparently prefers to hang on to his existing ones.

Yet while today’s older men seem to be getting shabbier and more ill-dressed than ever before, the very opposite is happening with older women, whose fashion sense seems to improve with each decade.  One woman friend was informed by her 30-something daughter that she had just reached her fashion peak — aged 67.

A new book of photos, Advanced Style, pictures women in their 80s and 90s looking fantastic and proving that there is no age limit when it comes to flair and style. The author of the book, Ari Seth Cohen, now says he has so many images on his website of women aged 80 and over looking wonderful, he hasn’t room for any more.

There is even a successful fashion label, The Old Ladies’ Rebellion, aimed specifically at the 70-plus woman who wants to look ‘a bit rock ’n’ roll’.  Nobody could possibly produce a book of octogenarian men looking fantastic or launch a fashion label aimed at this age group.

In fact, I can think of only one very old man who is well-dressed: the 91-year-old Duke of Edinburgh. He emerged from hospital recently looking totally appropriate in smart-but-casual tweed jacket with jaunty hanky in the pocket, plus shirt and tie.

Any other nonagenarian coming out of hospital would be in a nasty anorak and old sweatshirt. So is there something about Phil being Greek [He is actually German  -- a  Battenberg] that allows him to look dapper into extreme old age?

Whatever the reason, there is no denying the slump of disappointment when you go on a date with a man wearing an outfit older than your children.

SOURCE




Regulating Political Speech

 John Stossel

It's presidential season, so again pundits are indignant that money is spent on politics. Spent by corporations! And rich people! Because the Supreme Court allowed that, "2012 will be a miserable year," says The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne
2012 may be miserable -- but if it is, it won't be because corporations spend on politics. And anyway, they have a right to spend.  In politics, money is speech.

The very first amendment that the Founders chose to add to the Constitution couldn't be more clear: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ... ."

Yet most people support laws against political speech -- when they don't like the speakers.

Asking government to regulate political speech is a poisonous idea. Politicians naturally think that people who challenge their power should be restrained. Sen. John McCain led the majority who championed "campaign finance reform" that, among other things, forbade anonymous donors to run ads in the crucial weeks just before elections (when most voters finally pay attention).

My ABC colleagues loved McCain-Feingold. Some conservatives think journalists like the law because it exempts media corporations. But I think it goes back to our gut instinct that corporations are bad and rich people spending money to influence politics is very bad.

But political (and religious) speech is exactly what the Founders were eager to protect when they wrote the First Amendment. It has been nice to watch the Supreme Court overrule McCain-Feingold piece by piece.

In 2008, a court ruled that TV ads for a nonprofit corporation's critical documentary about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated McCain-Feingold. When the Supremes overturned that ruling, saying that corporations and unions may fund political ads, the mainstream media were so upset, they sounded like there had been a coup.

The New York Times said the decision "strikes at the heart of democracy." The Washington Post quoted someone saying it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions."

Please.

The swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, was right to say: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."

He also said, "Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it."

The American Civil Liberties Union agreed, but most progressives condemned the Supremes for "judicial activism." I thought progressives favored free speech. I was wrong.

People's stance on free speech often depends on whose ox is gored. In condemning the decision, the offended progressives engaged in amazing mental contortions. It "was wrong because nothing in the First Amendment dictates that corporations must be treated identically to people," said the editorial in The Washington Post. Don't progressives realize that corporations (and unions, which also had their speech rights protected) are associations of individuals -- individuals who have rights? Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was mocked when he said, "Corporations are people." But Romney was right.

One need not be a fan of corporations to see that restricting anyone's speech is dangerous. One government lawyer said that even corporate-funded books favoring candidates could be illegal. That should scare progressives -- the Federal Election Commission put an anti-Bush book written by George Soros under scrutiny. Laws limiting speech have been used more often against radicals than against the corporate establishment.

But the progressives' campaign goes on. The Supreme Court right now is revisiting this issue because Montana's Supreme Court ruled that Montana can ban corporate spending on state politics. Sens. McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse filed a friend-of-the-court brief claiming that allowing corporate speech would bring a "strong potential for corruption and perception thereof."

Right, as though politicians don't routinely constitute a "potential for corruption" all by themselves.

It is shameful that leftists let their hatred of corporations lead them to throw free speech under the bus. There is a smarter way to get corporate money out of politics: Shrink the state. If government has fewer favors to sell, citizens will spend less money trying to win them.

SOURCE




Australia: Qld. conservative government renames and amends Civil Partnerships Act in parliament

SAME-sex couples will no longer be able to enter into a "civil union" in Queensland - they will be known officially as registered relationships.

Under a further change to the previous government's controversial law, the Newman Government will rename the Civil Partnerships Act, the Registered Relationships Act.

The amended, and renamed Act, which was introduced to State Parliament tonight, does away with state-sanctioned ceremonies for people entering into registered relationships.

It also makes it easier for couples to "de-register" their relationship by removing the requirement they go through the District Court, and instead can apply to Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Despite outrage over the proposed scrapping of state-endorsed ceremonies, Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie insisted that the amendments did not "prohibit a couple from holding a private ceremony".  "The ceremony does not affect the legality of the registration process," he said.

Mr Bleijie told Parliament that the changes will see the process become "simplified" and "less onerous", and will "more accurately reflect the purpose and objectives of the act".

Premier Campbell Newman revealed last week that the changes were made to appease Christian churches who were "offended" by a marriage-type ceremony for same-sex couples.

The civil unions issue is believed to have divided the LNP after the party spoke of possibly repealing the legislation during the election campaign.

On Monday, Deputy Speaker Mark Robinson told ABC Radio he personally believed the LNP should have repealed Labor's law to reflect the concerns "of the large majority of Queenslanders".

Gay rights groups have expressed relief the Government did not overturn the legislation but criticised the abolition of state-sanctioned ceremonies.

Some turned to Twitter to suggest the watering down of the laws have made the process akin to registering a pet dog.  "I marry (or wed) my beloved. I register my dog," one wrote.  "Registered relationships ... next you get a little plastic tag to wear and an ear tattoo," wrote another.

Labor MP Jackie Trad used Twitter to describe Mr Bleijie's stance as "just unbelievably heartless".

SOURCE




An Australian Aborigine debunks the do-gooders

Brad was a self-help guru, who found fortune and fame peddling a bunch of easy answers to a gullible people.  Although simply a character in The Simpsons, like many other characters from that beloved cartoon, it is not hard to find people in real life who could play that same part.

Like Jack.

After his recent appearance on Australian Story, Jack Manning Bancroft is riding a wave of public adoration.  Touted as everything from a future Indigenous leader, to an Aussie inspiration, overwhelmingly, the feedback coming in from his TV appearance has been extremely positive.  If you listen to the viewers, he's achieving huge success with Indigenous youth, turning the tide of low expectations and bringing high profile supporters and donations to disadvantaged Aboriginal kids.

At least, that's what Australian Story told them to swallow.

Jack runs an outfit called AIME - Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience.  He teams Uni students (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) up with Indigenous students, to mentor them through High School, for around an hour a week (it must be an action packed hour..).  It is supposed to assist with raising the rates of Indigenous students finishing Year 12, and encourage more Indigenous students to go on further, to University studies and a brighter future.

The outfit is funded by both Universities and corporate sponsors (such as Rio Tinto & Google), no doubt as they feel it is a worthwhile cause.  Even Thorpey is on board, and he's putting his money (well, to be technically correct, the money of his donors) where his mouth is.

But I can still hear that nagging little cartoon voice of Lisa Simpson.  You see, like Brad Goodman, Jack Manning Bancroft and AIME are peddling a bunch of easy answers.

In operation for almost 8 years now, you may be surprised to know that AIME does not operate in a single remote area.  Heck, they don't even operate in the Northern Territory, Western Australia or South Australia.  You may be surprised to find that in Victoria, they've chosen to work with schools that not only have some of the lowest percentages of Indigenous students in the state, but, they've also chosen schools that are some of the most expensive and prestigious.  Schools like Scotch College (who do give two scholarships a year to boys from the N.T), Trinity College and Xavier College.  Melbourne Grammar School is also on their list, as is Parade College.  Looking at the list of public schools that they work with, it appears the maps past Hampton Park are not in existence.  A shame really, as if they were to talk with the Principal at say, Bairnsdale Secondary College in Gippsland, they would find that not only are there schools with a high percentage of Indigenous students, but, that those same students would benefit from any help on offer, as they are some of  the neediest and lowest performing in the state.

It is much easier to mentor a young affluent white boy from Scotch, who identifies as Indigenous, than a struggling black kid from the sticks who doesn't dare dream as big as finishing High School with a passing grade.  It is much nicer to sit down and discuss the merits of various Universities and the trivialities of campus life with a young kid in a crisp, smart uniform than to try to elevate the aspirations of a child whose parents don't care enough to ensure he is well fed, let alone well dressed and bathed.

For eight years, it appears Jack has deceived himself, and, the rest of us.  He's told us he's making a change, and, more importantly, he's Closing the Gap.

He is not.

Instead, he has created a divide.  Widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots.  While the wealthy Identifiers are improving their outcomes from good or great, to fantastic, the neediest have lost ground.  Hell bent on convincing ourselves that things are improving, we place people like Jack on a pedestal.  He tells people what they want to hear, and asks only that you throw money his way in return for his good deeds and innovative ideas.  Like the citizens of Springfield, we can't get enough of our Brad Goodman and his easy answers.

I don't doubt that there have been some hard luck kids who have been helped by AIME.  I also don't doubt that they've done some good work as a result of their programs.  Heck, I don't even doubt that some of the kids they've helped have had dark skin.  What I do take issue with, is allowing what appears to be a genuine fear of failure to dictate your policy and programs, resulting in the help again going not to those most in need.

Let's say Joe Average decides to start an organisation to help Aboriginal children.  Joe wants to be able to get donations coming in by the bucketload, so, he looks around the other organisations who claim to do the same thing as him, and makes his pitch even better than theirs.  Red Cross say they will lift literacy rates by 10%  among 5-12 year old Aboriginal children by 2015.  To get more donations than Red Cross, Joe markets his organisation to potential donors as being ready, willing and able to take that number to 25%.

This is where things get tricky.  Instead of working harder or smarter with old theory, or implementing some new, previously untried revolutionary program to work with struggling kids, Joe simply takes his half-baked organisation to selected areas, excluding any schools with kids that have consistently poor outcomes or a high percentage of low-income earners as residents.  He works with a small group of children who identify as Indigenous (often several generations removed from a single full-blood ancestor), offering nothing new or exciting, but, simply uses their natural progress to fiddle with the averages and achieve his goals on paper.

We're a nation that likes facts and figures, but, we're a population that likes them spoon-fed to us.  We certainly seem to prefer it when someone else tells us what conclusion we are meant to draw from statistics and percentages, if our current mindset is anything to go by.  Indigenous specific statistics are no exception.  In the twenty years from 1986 to 2006, the Indigenous population doubled.  While part of this is attributed to natural rates of procreation, the Australian Bureau of Statistics states that this staggering increase is also due in part to people identifying as Indigenous where in previous counts, they did not.

The boom in our numbers has been great for those trying to 'Close the Gap'.  All of a sudden, gains can be made, by little more than a tick in the box.  We can all reassure ourselves that we're going forward, not backwards, because the statistics don't lie.  As a percentage, we have more middle income and high income Indigenous households than ever before.  As a nation, we've made serious ground when it comes to preventable childhood diseases ravaging Indigenous youngsters.

But that's when you look at the nation as a whole.  When you take the statistics and break them down, you see the real picture.  Urban Indigenous populations are making all the gains.  The remote communities make little gain, none, or in some cases, are going backwards.  While their often fair-skinned, urban counterparts are achieving on par in almost all areas with their non-identifying peers (the gold standard we apply when we speak of a Gap), the improvements of which we so often speak and celebrate are just not being delivered to those who need it the most.  Those who were struggling then, are most likely to still be struggling now.  My experiences with remote communities have done nothing but strengthen this conviction.  The overwhelming poverty, dysfunction and suffering remains at the same levels year after year for many remote communities, but to hear the city slicker fauxborigines speak, we're doin' fine.  We hear self-appointed Elders constantly tell us the importance of Welcome to Country ceremonies and demand their performance as a mark of 'respect', yet never think to question why they have placed so much focus on a shallow tokenism, when children are being abused and neglected. 

Instead of helping their poorer, blacker cousins, often, the fauxborigine exploits them for their own gain. 

We are allowed to get upset when intellectually impaired children are excluded from across the board testing (Naplan) in an effort for a school to post an artificially inflated score.  It is unquestionably wrong for a school to discriminate against disabled children in order to appear as though their students are outperforming their expectations. Why are we so afraid to apply the same logic when discussing Aboriginal students?  At present, should you dare to point out that disadvantaged, dark skinned Aboriginal children are being excluded in much the same way from programs such as AIME to keep their success rates high, you will be denounced loudly by every fauxborigine with a Twitter account.  Accusations of racism if you admit to being non-Indigenous, and, a perpetrator of lateral violence if you happen to be black like I am.  Personally, I despise a term like lateral violence being levelled at me by someone with pale skin.  The term implies that the accuser and myself are on an equal footing, when clearly, we are not.  I cannot hide what I am, they can and do.  Even if they have 'identified with their culture practically from birth' (a readily coined phrase by many in the 'Industry'), it makes no difference.  They demand every Caucasian person in Australia admit that they are the beneficiaries of White Privilege, yet refuse to accept that simply by virtue of their own pale skin, they too are the recipients of this very same Privilege.  Hypocrisy at its finest.

During his TV appearance, Jack compares himself to an Undercover Cop, with regards to his Aboriginality.  He explains that people cannot tell he is Aboriginal just by looking at him (just as one cannot tell an Undercover Cop in plain clothes is a Police Officer), and because of this unique position he holds, he is able to permeate the various layers of society and discover racism across all walks of life (and of course, is personally offended by it - give me a break).  Lucky him.  I don't know a single black skinned and obviously Aboriginal person who wouldn't mind trading skins for a day so he can really learn what it's like.  Perhaps then he will stop making ridiculous and insulting statements and realise just how good he has it.

Overhearing a racist joke or comment is so far removed from being rejected dozens of times for rental properties or jobs for no other reason than the way you look.  Seeing an Aboriginal person be refused service by someone who just served you without problem is light years away from being the person denied that simple courtesy again and again.   Having two people in primary school call you a name after you told them you are Aboriginal is a walk in the park compared to having that label applied to you almost every day, and that label sticking with you long past the days of the schoolyard, without having to utter a word about your heritage to anyone.


I hope Jack will decide to prove me wrong and start working with impoverished and remote Aboriginal communities.  It will be much harder than working with the kids from a private school, but I can promise you that it is infinitely more rewarding, and I warn you that it will at times, break your heart.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



21 June, 2012

Hey, Man-Hating, Nerve-Grating Feminists: Good Fathers Are Irreplaceable

Doug Giles echoes below many of the things I have said about the "Daddy's Girl" phenomenon.  Fathers can be very good for daughters

I have two twentysomething daughters who’re currently taking over the planet. When these female charges popped out of their mommy’s womb, this thing called “responsibility for their upbringing” hit me like a Jackie Chan punch.

I didn’t slough off my role in their lives onto my wife, my church, public school, day care, relatives, TV, or “the village.” I didn’t expect any of the aforementioned to fill my boots chiefly because … they can’t.

Living in Miami, I knew I would have to pony up and become a major player in my little ones’ lives if I wanted them to escape being part of the local teen chum slick. In other words, I was going to have to be a dad in the traditional sense of the word.

Here’s a little FYI for slack-jawed sperm donor baby daddies out there: A lack of mental, physical, and spiritual input from you, dad, will exponentially boost the odds that your youngster will grow up to be more lost than an AK-47 under Holder’s oversight.But you probably don’t give a crap because you’re the type who wears sunglasses indoors. It’s always sunny in Doucheville, eh?

Now, the man-hating feminists would love for us all to believe that a dad’s role in his daughter’s life really isn’t that important and that a father can be easily replaced by extra mothers, or public school, or some government program; however, the facts speak to the contrary.

For instance, when a little girl has a loving dad in her life who is a provider, protector, hunter, and hero, research shows that said lucky lady is going to turn into one amazing woman. Yep, when a great pappy is in the house, these are the kinds of reports you hear:

* Toddlers securely attached to fathers are better at solving problems.

* Six-month-olds scored higher on tests of mental development when their dads were involved in their lives.

* With dads in the home, kids managed school stress better.

* Girls whose dads provide warmth and control achieve higher academic success.

* Girls who are close to their fathers exhibit less anxiety and withdrawn behaviors.

The good news doesn’t stop there. As little darlings mature and plow into puberty and beyond with dads who’re worth their salt at their sides, these young women show these not-too-shabby traits:

* The likelihood that daughters engage in premarital sex, drug use, and alcohol plummets when their dads are involved in their lives.

* Girls with doting fathers are more assertive.

* Daughters who feel that their dads care about them and feel connected with their dads have significantly fewer suicide attempts and fewer instances of body dissatisfaction, depression, low self-esteem, substance abuse, and unhealthy weight.

* Girls involved with dad are twice as likely to stay in school.

* A girl’s self esteem is best predicted by her dad’s loving affection.

* Girls with fathers involved in their lives have higher quantitative and verbal skills and higher intellectual functioning.

* Girls whose parents divorce or separate before they turn 21 tend to have shorter life spans by four years.

* Girls with decent dads are less likely to flaunt themselves to seek male attention.

* Fathers help daughters to be more competent, more achievement oriented, and more successful.

* Girls with involved fathers wait longer to initiate sex and have lower rates of teen pregnancy. Teen girls who live with both parents are three times less likely to lose their virginity before their sixteenth birthday.

* 76 percent of teen girls said their fathers influenced their decisions on whether they should become sexually active.

* 97 percent of girls who said they could talk to their parents had lower teen pregnancy rates.

* A daughter from a middle-class family has a fivefold lower risk of out-of-wedlock pregnancy if her father lives at home.

* Girls who live with their mothers only have significantly less ability to control their impulses, delay gratification, and have a weaker sense of right and wrong.

* Kids do better academically when their fathers establish rules and exhibit affection.

(The above bullet points were taken from Meg Meeker’s book, Your Kids at Risk: How Teen Sex Threatens Our Sons and Daughters .)

Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers out there who are living their lives in the grand masculine sense of the word. No matter what the man-hating, nerve-grating feminists yammer, you are irreplaceable in the grand family scheme of things. Therefore, stay your traditional course and watch life pay you back in spades. Salute!

SOURCE





The Government Insists on Cutting Us Down to Size

Mayor Michael Bloomberg ignited a firestorm of debate with his proposal to ban super-size sugary drinks in New York City. Critics bashed his nanny-statism, but supporters like first lady Michelle Obama hailed his courage.

Nationally, just 24 percent of American adults think the ban is a good idea, while 65 percent oppose it. This response is similar to the high level of opposition found for efforts to impose so-called "sin taxes" on soda and junk food. People never like it when the government picks winners and losers, and they are especially resistant to having the government determine what foods we should eat.

Those who advocate sin taxes or plans like Bloomberg's often express frustration that voters don't seem to realize the seriousness of the nation's obesity problem. However, the facts suggest that the American people are well aware of reality. Sixty-two percent recognize that exercise, diet and lifestyle choices have a bigger impact on someone's health than health insurance and medical care. Nearly half consider themselves overweight. Eighty percent see childhood obesity as a serious problem.

To some, numbers like that should naturally translate to support for government regulation to fix the problem. They simply can't see other possible solutions.

Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman writes in The New York Times that there are only three options in the obesity debate. The first is to do nothing. The second is better nutritional education. "The final option," he says, "is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations." This approach is consistent with the way America's political class likes to frame every debate as a choice between doing nothing and letting the government do it.

In the case of nutritional issues, most Americans see a fourth option, one that is consistent with traditional American values: Let individuals make their own choices, and then let them bear the burden or reap the reward of those choices. That's the reason Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that health insurance companies should be allowed to offer discounts to non-smokers.

The same logic applies to other lifestyle choices. Sixty-three percent think insurance companies should offer discounts to individuals who exercise regularly. By a 54 percent to 34 percent margin, Americans think those who eat healthier also should be eligible for insurance discounts.

With such an approach, people who exercise and eat better would not only end up feeling better, they'd save money along the way. Those who don't take care of themselves would pay extra for the right to do so. People would quickly see which behaviors help them save money and how much other behaviors really cost. It would lead to a much healthier nation and a much healthier relationship between individuals and the government.

Ultimately, Bloomberg's ban on large sugary drinks highlights the gap between the American people and their political leaders. Most Americans are looking for ways to change the system so that they can make their own health care choices rather than have decisions imposed on them. The political class wants to make those choices for us. That's the key question in the health care debate. Who do you trust more with important decisions: the government or the people?

SOURCE





Fixing Britain's Keystone Kops

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, is proposing Tom Winsor as HM Inspector of Constabulary – the regulator of Britain's police service. Naturally, a lot of people are alarmed at this prospect.

In the first place, nobody expects that Winsor would conduct the regulation of the police in a genteel manner. He has a reputation for speaking his mind, and uttering a few sharp words when he thinks people aren't doing their job properly. That is certainly what he did at the Office of Rail Regulation.

Then of course there was his two recent reports on the police, in which he proposed a radical programme of reform, major changes in pay and conditions, and a demand that police officers shed their 'clock in, clock out' reputation with the public. He's not a man to take prisoners. It's partly down to his recommendations that 30,000 police came out on the streets to protest about their pay and pensions.

Police bosses, of course, argue that Winsor has no history or experience of policing. But maybe that is exactly what the police service needs, someone coming to it from outside who can see it from the point of view of the public, and of managerial and economic efficiency, rather than being bound up in the status quo.

One of Winsor's criticisms of police recruiting is precisely that officers start on the beat and have to to work up to the higher ranks, steeping them in the status quo – when really we should be recruiting intellectually able managers straight into the higher, managerial ranks such as superintendent. And usually it is only a police insider, an existing chief constable, who has come up in this way who gets to regulate the whole system.

Sure, the Chief Inspector has traditionally been more than just a regulator. Part of the job has been to advise senior police officers on difficult issues such as public order and the policing of large events, policy on terrorism and suchlike. Winsor, with no past day-to-day involvement in such issues, might not be the best person to advise. But again, maybe we need a police regulator who is not poacher and gamekeeper at the same time. Perhaps the advisory job needs to be done by someone else, or through some other mechanism, so the regulator can get on with regulating.

A public monopoly which starts people on the lowest rank, and through which people are promoted on the basis of longevity and clubbability as much as on brains and skill, is an outdated concept. If ever there is an example of producer capture, the police service must be it.

That is why I am so looking forward to Dr Tim Evans's talk to the ASI's Next Generation Group tonight. He goes even further than Tom Winsor, arguing that the only way to change the nationalised-industry culture in the police, and make them properly responsive to the public's demands, is to introduce competition and privatization.

SOURCE






What the Victorians could teach today’s social workers about helping today's British problem families

Eric Pickles's observation on Sunday that the welfare state’s ‘problem families’ were ‘fluent in social work’ exposed the damage that many social workers do by teaching their clients how to play the system.

He confirmed the idea many of us have about social workers — that they see their main duty as helping the feckless milk the welfare state for every penny, rather than weaning them off dependency.
Eric Pickles has exposed the widespread abuse of the social services and is right to say problem families need to take more responsibility for their actions

Eric Pickles has exposed the widespread abuse of the social services and is right to say problem families need to take more responsibility for their actions

It seems hard to imagine now, but it is not so long ago that social work was a noble calling and its practitioners were widely respected and admired for the role they played in the lives of the poor.

The Victorians who followed this vocation, in an age before the welfare state had begun corrupting society, would have been profoundly shocked by the present state of their profession.
Squalid

In mid-19th century Britain, poverty of a depth incomprehensible to us existed in a country that was the richest in the world.

Ghettoes of people lived on the edge of starvation in squalid rooms without sanitation rather than submit themselves to the workhouse.

Industrialisation had tempted many of the country’s agricultural population to migrate to towns in search of higher wages.

When there was plenty of work they could live tolerably. When demand fell and they lost their jobs, they were on their own.

In the countryside, a more structured society ensured the poor usually had work — whether on the land, at a time when agriculture was labour-intensive, or weaving on hand looms in their cottages — and the gentry cared for them when they fell on hard times.
Boys from the Barnardo's homes: It seems hard to imagine now, but it is not so long ago that social work was a noble calling

Boys from the Barnardo's homes: It seems hard to imagine now, but it is not so long ago that social work was a noble calling

But in the most deprived areas of cities, the middle classes had moved out, not wishing to be outnumbered by the poor, and the traditional support systems had ceased to exist.

As a result, middle-class reformers — some of them evangelists, others motivated by social conscience rather than religion — began missionary work among the poor.

Their intention was not to trap people in dependence upon charity, but to help them to support themselves — however unpromising their circumstances.

The unofficial ‘regulator’ of the private charities helping the poor was the Charity Organisation Society. When families came to ask for help, it sent people to talk to them and to seek to understand their circumstances before offering assistance.

While researching a book on mid-Victorian society, I discovered numerous examples of the distinctions that were drawn between the deserving and the undeserving poor.

In the early 1870s, for example, a widow asked for money to buy a pair of boots for her ten-year-old son, so he could go out to work and support the family.

After investigations by the social worker, it was discovered that the widow was a denizen of her local pub in the East End of London.

She was told that if she wanted her son to have boots, she should stop drinking and save up to buy them.

Charitable grants were often given to abstemious men to buy tools so they could pursue a trade and become independent.

One of the Victorians’ guiding principles was laborare est orare — to work is to pray.

Above all, highly motivated men and women who undertook social work set out to befriend the poor.

They did not see them, in the Soviet-style language of modern social work, as clients.

That word implies an unequal relationship. Victorian social workers felt it was their duty to approach the poor as friends and to do what a friend would do — guide them away from charity and towards self-reliance.

One of the greatest social workers of the late 19th century was Octavia Hill.  In the 1850s her mother ran a co-operative in Holborn, London, where women who would otherwise be in the workhouse, or in brothels, made toys.

Octavia, then a teenager, helped out, and became intimately acquainted with the hard and often squalid lives the women endured.  Mrs Hill would invite the women to her house one evening a week for a sewing circle. This had the practical benefit of teaching them to make and repair clothes, to ensure they and their children were dressed respectably.

However, it also set them an example. The Hills were not rich, but they lived in domestic order. Mrs Hill would talk to her sewing circle about the benefits of hygiene, the value of thrift and the importance of living life honestly and prudently.

Her close contact with the poor was used to promote improvement and self-reliance, not to teach them how they might lead a life of dependency.

Later, Octavia Hill would persuade the art historian and social reformer John Ruskin to use part of his inheritance to buy three houses in Marylebone — then a deprived part of London — which she renovated and let at a low rent to poor families rescued from squalor.

Octavia put the tenants in charge of cleaning and maintaining the properties, and found they would thrive on responsibility.

She ensured they paid their rents by encouraging saving for times when work was scarce.

She would help find work for those who, despite their best efforts, could not find it themselves — even if it meant employing them herself on her ever-expanding estate of properties.

She continued her mother’s principle of not merely superintending her tenants, but befriending them.

She took a close interest in their personal development, ensuring the children had a playground to take exercise in, arranging singing classes for them and taking them on excursions. As a result they grew up with a glimpse of civilisation, and a sense of the possibility of their improvement.

Other philanthropists dealt with different aspects of social breakdown by similar means.

Charles Dickens, in the late 1840s, persuaded the richest woman in Britain, Angela Burdett-Coutts, to fund a home for fallen women at Shepherd’s Bush, where, again, they were shown examples of self-reliance and respectability.

Some women relapsed: but others, having shown they could learn basic skills of housekeeping, were rewarded by having places found for them in service in the colonies, with their passage paid for.

Again, the purpose of charitable help was not to entrap, but to liberate.

Thomas Barnardo took orphaned boys into his refuge in Stepney in the early 1870s and taught them to make brushes, to chop and sell firewood or to shine shoes for a living.

Girls, many of whom would have become child prostitutes, were admitted to his ‘village’ of cottages in Essex, where they learned the skills required to go into domestic service.

Barnardo had fallen foul of the Charity Organisation Society when, new to London in the 1860s, he opened a soup kitchen in the East End. The COS complained this was an indiscriminate form of charity, and people would take free soup and spend their money on drink instead.

That, too, demonstrates the Victorian determination to ensure only the most deserving benefited from charity: not just to see that precious funds were spent where they could do the most good, but to deter spongers from embedding themselves in a life of idleness that would, all too easily, lapse into vice or crime.

The modern welfare state (which costs us a staggering £205 billion a year) has lost sight of these values — values which, in the end, enrich society by maximising the numbers of those who contribute to it.

It is hard to imagine a modern social worker lecturing the poor on the benefits of thrift, cleanliness, education or self-respect: but then, as the welfare state will provide all the feckless need, perhaps they think there is no point their doing so.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



20 June, 2012

Sons and fathers

I am putting the story below up partly because I too am one of those awful old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon types who do not express feelings of affection easily.  Whole generations of Anglo-Saxons have lived like that and it is not good.  Fortunately, I did pay a visit to my own father six months before he died and did so to tell him that I appreciated him. And I did.  So there is some faint hope for me I suppose.  My son is a better man than I am in that regard as he generally signs his emails to me with "Love".  Maybe there is a generational improvement going on

When did you last have a good old yarn with the man who made you? More importantly, when did you last tell him that you love him? Have you ever summoned up the courage to tell him that?

I love my dad but I’m not especially close to him these days – neither geographically nor emotionally. This makes me quite sad when I think about it, so I try not to. We live 17,000 kilometres apart and we speak just a few times a year – my bad on both counts, I’m ashamed to admit.

I feel guilty. And it was partly guilt that compelled me to fly around the world for his 70th birthday celebrations last month. (Well, that and the fact that I was best man at a mate’s wedding the week afterwards.)

Mum asked me to say a few words after the dinner she had organised for Dad. I am often asked to give speeches these days; I guess it has become my party trick. But this one was different. This one was difficult. How do you say in front of 100 people what you haven’t ever found the words to tell a person face to face? How do you convey genuine gratitude rather than clichéd platitudes?

Blokes being blokes, we tend not to be very good at having man-to-man heart-to-hearts. Fathers and sons can go years, sometimes lifetimes, without
discussing anything deeper than the footy. And then, when it’s all too late, we can go years, sometimes the rest of our lives, regretting our silence.

So here I was with an opportunity to give a living eulogy, to tell my dad all the things I’d never told him. I didn’t give a very eloquent speech. The lump in my throat made it difficult to get my words out. But it was honest and it was an honour.

Emotion. I get that from my dad. If I were any more sensitive I’d come out in a rash. Thank goodness metrosexuality reared its neatly coiffed head when it did because now a man’s willingness to have a good cry is considered a strength instead of a weakness.

My dad taught me how to be a man not by instilling a sense of alpha male machismo and forceful dominance, but simply by embodying what it is to be a good bloke. A real man is defined by what is in his head and his heart rather than in his pants or his wallet. My father has never told me how to live — he’s showed me. He doesn’t preach; he practises.

Which is ironic, given that he does, in fact, preach for a living. He is a vicar. Setting an example is more effective than dictating one. It is easier for a father to have a son than for a son to have a real father. Although he is four inches shorter than me, my dad is someone I will always look up to.

When I got married, Dad conducted the ceremony. My bride was weirded out by this. I could understand that but I wouldn’t have it any other way. My parents are the Pictionary definition of fidelity. They’ve been married for 44 years, stuck with each other through thin and thinner, and it’s made them stronger.

One of the most important things a father can do for his son is to show him how much he loves the boy’s mother. My dad has certainly done that. I plan to do the same when the time comes. Because family is everything – even when a prodigal son like me decides to move to the other side of the world.

In some respects, my old man was the original new man. He could cook before it was fashionable — or even socially acceptable — for men to possess any culinary skills more advanced than being able to microwave a meat pie. As kids, we always looked forward to Tuesday nights when Dad made dinner. But then he’d get in trouble with Mum for using all the ingredients she had bought to last for the rest of the week.

Mum was always the one who told us off when we were young, but Dad was the more influential disciplinarian. He rarely raised his voice, which meant it had all the more power when he did. His was a quiet authority — he kept us in check with a look rather than the back of his hand.

Now more than ever he seems to read the timbre of any situation perfectly, knowing when and how to step in and when to just leave things be. That’s the wisdom of a lifetime of experience and observation.

In other respects my old man is old school. He uses the antiquated vernacular of a bygone era and I have never heard him swear. He writes long letters with a fountain pen. He wears a shirt and tie every day, even though he’s been semi-retired for five years. He’s a man of routine. He believes there’s a right way to do everything. There is nothing remotely slovenly about him.

Telstra ran an effective advertising campaign recently that plucked at the heartstrings: “Time to call your mum.” It resonated especially with me. Because I’m so self-absorbed, I rarely find the time to call my parents. That’s why I had to go back for Dad’s birthday. I didn’t just need to tell him that I love him; I needed to show him how much. And I feel better for doing it, like I’ve removed that distance that I had allowed to build up by not returning his beautifully written letters and increasingly plaintive voicemails. And the gnawing sense of ever-present guilt has subsided too.

But less about me, more about you. How’s your relationship with your old man? When was the last  deep-and-meaningful you had with him? I say it’s time to call your dad. Tell him what you’ve always wanted to tell him but have never quite found the time, or the words, or the opportunity to say. Tell him you love him.

It doesn’t matter if you talk to him once a day or once a year: do it today. You’ll be glad you did.

SOURCE






A homosexual activist embraces conformity where one he stood for liberty

A sign of the pressures to conformity imposed society-wide by political corectness?

One of the less commented-on aspects of the gay marriage campaign has been its taming of Peter Tatchell. For decades, Tatchell was a thorn in the side of both the establishment and the squarer sections of the gay rights movement. A permanently outraged queer, he railed against the hypocrisies of politicians and priests and also against what he called the “sharp-suited middle-class professionals” of the modern gay movement, who were obsessed, as he put it, with “cuddly issues like gay marriage”. How times have changed. Now Tatchell is on the frontline of that cuddly issue, loudly agitating for the right of gay men and lesbians to get hitched. The deviant has been domesticated.

With just one day to go before the Government’s consultation on same sex marriage closes, Tatchell is pulling out all the stops to ensure the “legalisation of same sex civil marriages”. He is coordinator of a campaign called Equal Love and has become the go-to man for media outlets who want a firm-voiced advocate of gay marriage. What a turnaround! Ten years ago he wrote a brilliant, blistering assault on gay rights activists who demanded the right to marry, denouncing their desire to “embrace traditional heterosexual aspirations” and slamming them for having “succumbed to the Blairite politics of conformism, respectability and moderation”. He railed against the “career campaigners” who had “infused the gay movement with their own cautious respectable values”. They “crave acceptance and advancement”, he said, which is why they forefront “safe, cuddly issues like gay marriage”.

In that 10-year-old article, Tatchell made a very good point about equality – and it is testament to the shrinking of the political mindset in the succeeding decade that it is virtually impossible to imagine anyone making the same point today. He said equality was not the most important value in the world. Indeed, he said it was a shame that “equality has become the unquestioned political objective [of the gay rights movement]”. He argued that “accepting mere equality involves the abandonment of any critical perspective on straight culture. In place of healthy scepticism, it substitutes naive acquiescence. Discernment is surrendered in favour of compliance.” Looking back at the birth of the gay liberation movement in the early 1970s, he said: “There were no calls for equality; our demand was liberation. We wanted to change society, not conform to it."

Indeed. Essentially, the aim of the radical gay politics once promoted by the likes of Tatchell was to liberate homosexuals from the purview of the state. The gay marriage campaign represents the precise opposite: it is about winning state recognition of gay relationships, pleading with the state to sanctify homosexual living arrangements. Where once gay activists fought to get the state out of their lives – out of their bedrooms and their bars – now they are fighting to get it back in, calling for it effectively to say: “Your relationships are valuable.” The demand for liberation has given way to the plea for state recognition. That even Tatchell has been won over by what he once described as the “politics of conformism, respectability and moderation” shows just how unquestioned today’s so-called equality agenda has become.

There is something bigger taking place here. We haven’t only lost one of Britain’s more colourful radicals to the all-consuming vortex of political conformism. More than that, the taming of Tatchell speaks to a broader diminishing of the ideal of liberation and its replacement by the safe, grey politics of identity and recognition, where every political campaigner (certainly not just gay ones) now basically leaps up and down and asks the state to give him the thumbs up of official approval. The gay marriage campaign will end up expanding the remit of the state, granting it the authority to overhaul an ancient institution, redefine our relationships, and rebrand us all as “partners” rather than husbands or wives or lovers. That such a campaign is being spearheaded by those who once sought to eject the state from private life is ironic, and sad. How about fighting to get the state out of marriage, and letting communities decide for themselves what this institution means, rather than inviting it in to remake marriage in its own PC image?

SOURCE





Up to half of the British 'jobless' may be working in the black economy as thousands forfeit their handouts

Almost half of jobless people told to do unpaid work are opting to forfeit their handouts instead.  The figures show that many benefit claimants are working in the black economy, according to employment minister Chris Grayling.  They would rather give up their welfare payments than forego their undeclared earnings, he said.

‘I sat through an interview with a young man in a job centre who was working for a few hours a week, below the benefit threshold, at a local nightclub,’ he told the Mail. ‘But he’d missed the previous week’s signing-on interview, and was told he’d be losing a week’s money as a result. He just shrugged.  ‘No one just shrugs if they lose a week’s money, and they’ve got no other means of support. But proving it is easier said than done.

That was one important reason why we introduced a month’s full-time activity in the community for jobseekers who are clearly not pulling their weight, or working in the black market.’

Official figures show that 29 per cent sign off jobseeker’s allowance rather than turn up for unpaid work. A further 17 per cent fail to start their placement and lose their benefits in consequence.

The analysis covered 3,190 people in May, June and July last year.
‘We know there are people out there who are working on the quiet while on benefits,’ added Mr Grayling.

‘In 2010/11, people who were working while pretending to be unemployed in order to claim benefits cost the taxpayer an estimated £243million, including £94million in jobseeker’s allowance.’

Ministers have announced a major expansion of the scheme – dubbed slave labour by Opposition MPs – that will mean as many as 70,000 people a year can be referred to a mandatory work activity.

The system of sanctions is also being tightened to make sure people cannot simply sign off benefits and sign on again a few weeks later in order to avoid their placement.

The mandatory work activity scheme is separate to unpaid work experience for private firms, which has also been controversial and subject to legal challenges.

Job centre staff have been given powers to force those on out-of-work benefits to take unpaid posts.

Those who appear unwilling to look for work can be referred to the scheme at any stage, even on day one of their claim.

The placements are typically with charities or involve some kind of community service, such as helping to maintain parks.

Those who refuse to take part, or agree but then fail to turn up without good reason, have their £67.50-a-week unemployment benefit stopped.

‘I’ve met people who freely admit to having been feckless and lazy, but who have found a working environment to be enjoyable and rewarding, and have started to take the whole job search process seriously as a result,’ Mr Grayling said.

‘We don’t force people to do commercial activity – but we are absolutely willing to make people do community work if it will help their job search.

The less people do while they are unemployed, the more remote they become from the workplace. Sometimes it is because they are lazy and don’t care.

‘More often it is because they lose confidence in their ability to find work, and they stay at home and become more and more depressed and fed up.  ‘Most people on benefits do not want to be there. It is only a minority who can’t be bothered.’

Labour’s work and pensions spokesman Liam Byrne said: ‘This announcement does nothing for 99 per cent of Britain’s jobless.’

SOURCE






Australia: HIV positive dentist claims Dental Board of Queensland 'contravened his human rights' by preventing him from conducting 'exposure prone dental' work

A human right to infect people with AIDS?  This is an offensive politically correct absurdity

A DENTIST who is HIV positive claims the Dental Board of Queensland has "contravened his human rights" by preventing him from conducting "exposure prone dental" work.

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in a just published four page written decision, has given the green light to the dentist, know only as "M", to take action against the Board under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

QCAT senior member Clare Endicott said she was satisfied M be given an opportunity to establish if his complaint was a "contravention of his human rights."

"M is a dentist who is HIV positive," she said.  "The Dental Board of Queensland has directed M not undertake exposure prone dental procedures in accordance with one of its policies.  "M contends that the application of that policy contravenes (the Act) and as a result constitutes unlawful discrimination.

"This case involves very grave matters with implications that could have wider consequences than those immediately affecting the parties."

QCAT has already ruled the conduct of the Board in this case did not constitute "unlawful indirect discrimination", but has yet to decide if it was "unlawful direct discrimination."

The Board had submitted the application by M was "vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance and an abuse of process."

Ms Endicott said the Board conceded it had discriminated against M, but submitted it was exempt from consequences under sections of the Act.

She said M opposed the Board's application to bring an early end to proceedings, saying he wanted to adduce evidence to refute the reliance of the Board's "statutory defences".

"Both M and the Dental Board should have the opportunity to have their arguments about this complaint considered by the tribunal," Ms Endicott said.

"The implications (of this matter) have a bearing on how the instrumentalities of the State, including the respondent Board as well as this tribunal, conduct themselves when dealing with the rights of individuals."

"I am satisfied that M must be provided with the opportunity to have a just determination of his complaint which alleges a contravention of his human rights."

On March 12, Ms Endicott refused an application by the board to bring an early end to the proceedings.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



19 June, 2012

Divorced men a good catch: report

Do divorcés make better potential partners than men who have never married? A New York news station reported last month that divorced might be the new single. According to WABC-TV, perennial bachelors might soon be pitied in the same way that single women over the age of 40 often are.

In the past, divorce was a red flag for many women, a sign that the man involved would come with the baggage of a previous marriage. These days, almost a third of marriages end in divorce. As Samantha Jayne, director of private matchmaking agency, Blue Label Life, points out, eliminating divorced men from the equation can make finding a partner that much harder, especially for women in their early 30s and older.

According to dating coach Jane Roder, there's now more of a stigma attached to 40-something bachelors than there is to divorcés the same age. "My personal view is that the older a man is, if he's single and never been married, he's perceived as having commitment issues," she says. "The single man who's never committed, there's a perception of – why not – why hasn't he done that? Especially in a place like Melbourne, where's there's an excess of women," she says.

Divorced men might have proven that they can commit, but for many men, when it comes to marriage, it would seem that once is enough. Just over half of men who divorced in 2000-2002 could expect to remarry, with some resolving never to do so again after the dissolution of the first marriage, for various reasons. "Hopefully they're not hung up on the past but there is a possibility that they haven't let go of the previous relationship," says Aiken. "There may be financial issues because of the divorce and they're not as stable or secure as they once were," he says.

Then there's the not-so-small matter of children. A divorcé might get the green light, but kids are often a deal-breaker. "It's a big consideration," says Roder. "It depends on the individual. Love can conquer many barriers and many people do it, but it is easier for divorced people without children, I think." If you're wanting kids of your own, it's important to establish early on if a divorcé with kids from a previous marriage is willing to have more children, she says.

Kylie*, 38, married a divorcé, with whom she now has three children. "I think they're better (divorcés) the second time around," she says. "The only catch in my situation was that he also had a three year old, and I had to deal with the ex-wife. After getting used to things, it was all good. We are very happily married."

The reason for the divorce, and how  the situation has been dealt with, are other factors to consider. "If he'd cheated, I definitely wouldn't have gone there," says Eve of her divorcé. It's also important that the divorcé has moved on fully before entering another relationship. "The most important thing is that those people have left that relationship and that it's respectful," says Roder. "If they're fighting and still angry with somebody, that's the issue more than anything else because it's a sign that it's unfinished business," she says.

According to Jayne, not being the first woman to walk down the aisle with their husband-to-be is still a major deterrant for some women. "Sometimes people get hung up on it, they think, 'I don't want to be that second wife or second husband'" she says. "I think women tend to worry more about it, they have this fairytale idea of what their future husband should look like and what his life experience should be. I don't think men are so concerned, if kids are involved it's an issue but generally men are fine with it."

The experts interviewed in this story agreed that divorce isn't actually the issue, rather, it's whether or not that person is willing and able to commit again. "What I say to single people is that everyone comes as a package," says Aiken. "Some people will be divorced, others will have kids, others might be widowed or they might come with an overinvolved mother. What you've got to do is you've got to stop and think, what are my deal breakers, and what are things that I can embrace," he says.

"It's not about divorce, it's if someone's emotionally available," says Jayne. "A man could be divorced with a lot of emotional baggage or a man who'd previously never married could have the same amount of baggage," she says. "A lot of clients say, I don't want to be with a divorced man because he's fallen in love with someone else. It's all about a person's beliefs."

SOURCE







The data is now in:  Study claims kids do better with heterosexual parents

CHILDREN with straight parents are wealthier, healthier and happier than those with gay parents, a major study has found.

The finding runs counter to years of study that says there is no difference between the offspring of gay parents and married couples.

The American study assessed 3000 young adults aged 18-39, including 175 children of lesbians and 73 children of gay men.

Children with gay parents tended to end up with less money, poorer mental health and were more likely to be on welfare or jobless.

Lead researcher Associate Professor Mark Regnerus, from the University of Texas, said the study found children "appear most apt to succeed well as adults ... when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day".

Prof Regnerus said there was "far greater diversity in the experience of lesbian motherhood (and, to a lesser extent, gay fatherhood) than has been acknowledged or understood".

Children of lesbian mothers had poorer outcomes than those with gay fathers, and similar experiences to those from stepfamilies and single parents.

Gay groups have hit back at the findings, saying the research is flawed because it compares the lives of children whose parents had gay relationships - which may have lasted for as little as four months - with the offspring of stable, long-term married unions.

Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich said studies "show that a stable and secure upbringing is what makes all the difference to a child's future, not the gender of their parents".

"This study is an argument for allowing same-sex parents to marry and provide their children with the security, stability and recognition marriage brings," Mr Greenwich said.

Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, said he was sure there were "many good gay parents".

But Mr Wallace said the study highlighted the "consequence of breaking biological truths". "There is a selfish agenda here, and gay parenting has to be opposed in the interests of what we hold up as in the best interests of children in our society," he said.

But Cath Mok, mum to Dougal, 5, and Maisie, 8, with partner Helen, said gay families were "just like everyone else".

"We deal with the same day-to-day issues, the same joy and the same struggles," Ms Mok said.

SOURCE





British Christian GP fighting for his job had prayed to God for a challenge

Dr Richard Scott was given a warning by the General Medical Council after he told a suicidal patient that Christianity may offer help and he is now fighting to keep his job.

Dr Richard Scott was frustrated with his lot. Despite having a flourishing GP practice and happy family life, he felt that he was not making a difference. So he turned to someone who had always helped him in the past.

“I asked God to send me a challenge that would resonate with people,” he says, “to make them see the importance of faith.”

God listened. Within the year, Dr Scott was locked in a battle with the General Medical Council after he suggested to a suicidal patient in August 2010 that religion might do more to help him than medication.

He also found himself fighting for his own life, after being diagnosed with bowel cancer.

Though Dr Scott has undergone painful surgery, radiation and two rounds of chemotherapy, the cancer, he says, has been the least of it.

What upsets him most is the realisation that it has become dangerous today to express Christian beliefs in the workplace.

The GMC, which regulates standards among medical professionals, issued Dr Scott with a warning last March. He had, it claimed, “overstepped the line” when, in a consultation, he urged his 24-year-old patient to give Christianity a chance.

“The man was depressed, and had left his own faith. So I told him, 'You may find that Christianity offers you something that your own faith did not.’ His mother complained that I was forcing my religion down his throat.”

In finding that Dr Scott pushed his religious views on his patient, the GMC warned that if any further complaints are made about him, the GP of 28 years’ standing risks being struck off the medical register.

His appeal against the official warning was quashed last Thursday, after a four-day hearing that his counsel, Paul Diamond, called “Stalinist”.

From his home in Margate, Kent, Dr Scott said: “It was as if I had stepped into a secret court, with the witness, Patient A, never appearing. He was allowed to give evidence over the telephone, and remained a faceless accuser.”

This proved, he says, “the GMC’s bias against me — and any doctor who wears his Christian faith on his sleeve”.

The same council that allows doctors to promote the healing effects of homoeopathy, chiropractic and reiki, also known as palm healing — which are all unsupported by Western, evidence-based medicine but are backed by belief systems — has banned the mere mention of faith and prayer in a consultation.

Yet, as Dr Scott points out, the medical impact of prayer has been proved in a number of scientific studies.

“Christians recover 70 per cent faster,” he says. “They’re also less likely to get depressed. In America, medical schools have even introduced spirituality and health courses because they recognise the significant role of faith as part of therapy.”

So, too, do the GPs at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate. Posters and leaflets at the surgery — which is described in its literature as “expressly Christian” but accepting of patients of all faiths — advises that “if you don’t want to talk about faith, let doctors know”.

The doctors, who include Dr Scott’s wife Heather, do outreach work connected with alcoholics, drug addicts and suicides, and rely on prayers and Bible readings in their mission. The practice, the GP points out, takes its name from the healing pool mentioned in the Gospel of John.

Dr Scott, 51, worries that his case is the latest in an alarming trend that points to the marginalisation of Christianity. Whether it is about abortion or gay marriage, the Christian perspective is under fire from the authorities.

“Look at the GMC,” he says. “It is made up of the great and the good. It is a pillar of the establishment. Yet can they claim to speak for the majority of people in this country? No. More than 70 per cent of Britons, when asked if they believe in God, said yes.”

The former missionary doctor and father-of-three believes that Christians must keep their faith “in the closet” or risk punishment.

“I got off lightly,” he admits, “as I still have a job. Other Christians suffered far more. The electrician who dared display a palm frond in the window of his van was fired; and the nurse who prayed for a patient was suspended.”

Dr Scott believes that efforts to eradicate Christianity’s presence in public life are growing. Before the tribunal hearing, he was vilified in the media as a Bible-thumping zealot; that alone, he says, will intimidate other doctors who dare to infuse their medical work with Christian charity.

By upholding this ruling, he believes the GMC has set a precedent, making it a disciplinary offence to bring faith to work.

Will the midwife who opposes abortion or the doctor who opposes assisted suicide be forced to go against their conscience and participate in procedures they believe to be wrong?

“I fear,” says Dr Scott, “that more and more, the answer will be 'yes’.”

What is it about the Christian mindset that causes such hostility in today’s liberal society? One reason, I venture, is that our culture prizes individualism, and we have grown accustomed to being able to sleep with whom we want, give birth when we want, and even snuff out life (our own, or an unborn child’s) as we see fit.

Dr Scott agrees that Christianity challenges this self-regard by accepting taboos and cherishing principles that the contemporary “anything-goes” culture has rejected. However, as he point out, such moral absolutism when professed by Muslims is somehow acceptable, but in Christians smacks of imperialism.

Dr Scott fears, too, that religious charities and organisations that run hospitals, schools and hostels for the homeless are being squeezed out of the public arena.

Just as Roman Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down because they refused to place children in their care with homosexual couples, so Christian hospices will be forced to shut if they oppose euthanasia, and Christian hospitals to close if they refuse to perform abortions.

It is a bleak scenario — and totally different from the welcome that Dr Scott received in India and Africa during his years as a medical missionary. While he and his wife worked in Tanzania and Kenya, they found themselves loved and respected because of, rather than in spite of, their faith.

“As Christians, we were seen to bring education and medicines, but also an important ally against the witchdoctors who were causing extraordinary violence and misery among the Masai.

"Even when we were unable to save a life, or a limb, the family would offer us a slaughtered cow in gratitude.”

No slaughtered cows here — though his struggle has brought Dr Scott hundreds of letters and emails of support. He takes comfort in these, especially in messages from atheists.

The British sense of fair play is offended by censorship, especially when its victims are targeted for their beliefs. When a woman cannot wear a cross, or her colleague a hijab, it is not only believers who cry foul.

Are Britons cross enough about this to fight back? “Yes,” Dr Scott is adamant. “I think people are fed up of watching their countrymen being bullied by the thought police.”

The GMC and other authorities, he says, ignore that Britons like to live in a civilised country — one in which everyone is free to have their say — at their peril.

SOURCE




Britain's Fascist social workers again

The Argentinian dictatorship took children away from Leftists so we see the company they are in

SOCIAL workers want to seize a baby as soon as it is born because they are concerned about the mother’s violent links to the English Defence League.

Durham County Council has told Toni McLeod she would pose a “risk of ­significant harm” to the baby. Social workers fear the child would become radicalised with EDL views and want it put up for adoption immediately.

Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was notorious as “English Angel”. The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner.

However, her cause has been taken up by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who, despite his loathing for the EDL, raised it in the Commons. He contrasts her treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his ­children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him.

He said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.

“I am very strongly opposed to the EDL, which I believe to be a racist organisation, but I do not think we should remove all of the children of the people who go on their demonstrations, however misguided they may be.”

Mrs McLeod has posted racist abuse on social networking sites but denies being racist. She claims she is no longer active with the EDL and has never been charged with violence against children.

Social workers have told her husband Martyn he would be unable to care for his child because he is a full-time soldier just back from Afghanistan.       

Mr Hemming, who chairs the Justice For Families campaign group, said yesterday: “This case is one where the ‘thought police’ have decided to remove her baby at birth because of what she might say to the baby. I wonder what the baby’s father is thinking when he fights for a country which won’t allow him to have a child because of what the child’s mother might say.

“Toni now accepts she was wrong to have gone on EDL demonstrations but freedom of speech means nothing if people are not allowed to say things that are thought to be wrong.”

Mrs McLeod wants to move to ­Ireland for the birth to avoid England’s social services. Rifleman McLeod, 31, plans to request a transfer to Northern Ireland so he can be with his child.

Durham County Council told Mrs McLeod on Friday her unborn baby was being placed on its child protection register. Last month, a judge ruled that her three other children, who have different fathers, should be permanently removed from her care.

The Sunday Express is unable to give details of the judge’s explanation for legal reasons.

Documents seen by the Sunday Express reveal social workers are worried about Mrs McLeod’s previous alcohol and drug misuse, her “aggressive behaviour” and her alleged “mental health issues” .

They concede she is no longer involved with the EDL but believe she is now involved with a splinter group, the North West Infidels. The social worker’s report states: “Toni clearly needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through either the EDL or break-off group in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops.

“Toni has been a prominent member of the EDL. They claim they are a peaceful group, however, they have strong associations with violence and racism.”

Mr McLeod said: “Toni would never harm a child.”

The council said it was unable to comment.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



18 June, 2012

In defence of fathers

It might perhaps be noted that there are some moves afoot in Britain to remedy the appalling situation described below.  In  Australia it has already been for some years  the default assumption in the divorce courts that children will spend equal time with both mother and father  -- and Britain could be moving in that direction.  Individual circumstances may of course move court orders away from the default assumption but Australian courts have been fairly resistant to that.  A strong case has to be made to deviate from the default assumption of shared parenting.

A year ago today, David Cameron wrote an article for this newspaper, damning feckless and absent fathers. “We need to make Britain a genuinely hostile place for fathers who go awol,” he said. “It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink-drivers, people who are beyond the pale.”

Like thousands of other fathers, I snorted with derision and contempt when I read it, and have felt too angry to respond to it until now. Unmeasured public rage can be facilely dismissed as a kind of madness…

Dear Prime Minister,

You seem to be unaware that the principal reason that fathers become estranged from their families is that the family justice system is institutionally gender-biased. A father has to fight bitterly to get what is automatically awarded to mothers, and if he has no money he cannot even do this. Fair outcomes are reserved for people like me, who can afford them. Fathers get pillaged of their assets, and are then told that they cannot have their children overnight because their bedsits are unsuitable. They get accused of sexual or physical violence so that they cannot see their children for months while the accusations are dilatorily investigated.

Then judges reason preposterously that, since the children have got used to the situation, this should not be disturbed, and will decree that the father is now entitled to even less time. A mother is never punished for disobeying court orders, in case this upsets her and her distress impacts on the children. A father’s distress will be used against him to show that he is unstable. The children’s distress at losing their father does not count, and their stated preferences are ignored.

Mothers often try to move long distances away to ensure that contact is in fact impossible, and children find themselves saddled with a stepfather of whose existence they may have been previously unaware. Cases are adjourned over and over, for months, and are heard by different judges at each sitting. Cases are investigated by people from a body called Cafcass, which is underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, chaotic, unaccountable, does not do long-term studies, and simplifies its tasks by following anachronistic gender stereotypes.

In the meantime, the father loses physical and emotional touch with his children; he loses all hope; the stress and despair make it impossible to concentrate on his work. He finds that the more his children are withheld from him, the more maintenance he has to pay. The children are what he loves most and are his reason for living. Some men may spiral down into mental illness, alcoholism or even suicide. One charity used to keep a book of suicides called “The Book of The Dead”.

Mr Cameron, I condemn feckless fathers as strongly as you do, but you appear unaware that by far the majority of relationships involving children are dissolved by mothers. A statistic I have read recently stated that it is 83 per cent. I look forward to your article next Mother’s Day.

The biggest social scandal of our time is the absolute lack of justice for fathers, and the cruelty to which they and their children are routinely subjected by a legal system that is capricious and out of touch with the way we live now. These days, Mr Cameron, fathers push buggies, make meals, change nappies and spend hours watching awful children’s programmes just for the sake of the cuddles. The only thing we can’t do is breastfeed.

You are a father of young children, and I hope you never experience the horrors that come from a failed marriage. It is a Kafkaesque nightmare of injustices and double-binds. As you get demoted to the status of distant relative, you will find that your relations also lose your children, too. Most of my letters of support have come from women who are desperate on their brothers’ and sons’ behalf, or from grandmothers who have not seen their grandchildren for years.

Mr Cameron, the treatment of fathers in this country amounts to a contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to a family life, and our court procedures contravene the right to a fair trial. If I could raise the necessary money to take cases to the European Court, I would give up years of my life to do so. Some day, somebody will.

Yours truly, etc
Louis de Bernières

I have been very lucky, Louis de Bernières writes

I have had the good fortune to have come to an understanding with my ex, and to continue to be a part of her family. We separated two years ago – after 10 years together, and two children: Sophie, four, and Robin, seven. My ex now lives in the village next door, and we have shared residence, which is working very well. This Father’s Day, I will be working, giving a talk at a literary festival. Then I shall rush back in time for bedtime and presents (I hope) at my ex’s house. My ex is very good about observing Father’s Day.

For a time, though, I had months of the most extreme despair after our personal fiasco blew up in our faces, and this has given me the determination to fight on, not for myself, but on behalf of the tens of thousands of fathers who do not have my public profile or financial means.

The fact is that fatherhood has changed. My own father was not a “hands-on” father, as he admits himself. His generation was not allowed to be, and didn’t know it was possible. I remember the slight awkwardness if he bathed us when our mother was out. He was still a wonderful father, and the important thing is none of us doubted that he loved us deeply and would have endured any hardship for our sakes. His ability to quote appropriate bits of Shakespeare is undimmed by age, and he still writes poems for each of us.

I admired him hugely as boy. He had been through the Italian campaign on the Gothic Line, and my mother assured me that he was “as brave as a lion”. He had medals to prove it, and a “Mentioned in Despatches”. His fathering skills included an ability to bark like a sergeant major, and so he had no discipline problems with us. After leaving the Army, he spent his life working for charities, and continued to do so unpaid after he retired. I am mystified as to why he never received an honour when many undeserving people have received them, such as donors to party funds. My father devoted his entire life to the service of others, for a part of it at the risk of his own life.

Of course, when I was a teenager I thought my father was an old fascist. “Fascist” was the word that my useless generation employed to dismiss anyone who didn’t blame “society” for everything. When I grew to maturity – quite recently – I understood that my father was one of those who laid his life on the line to save us from Fascists, to conserve those freedoms that we take for granted and are always in danger of losing.

My father was not interested in sport, and mother taught us cricket. It was with my father, however, that I cut logs, mixed concrete and laid slabs. He taught me how to use the carpentry tools that I still love to use. He encouraged my fanatical model-making, and was spectacular at it. Most importantly, he was interested in literature, in politics, in moral issues, in religion, in history and what could be learnt from it.

His creativity and intellectual engagement are the explanation for my vocation as a writer. Well done, Pa, it’s been a life well-lived. See if you can beat your own father past 96. And thank you with all my heart.

SOURCE






Churches Challenge British Government Over Same-Sex Marriage

The British government was headed for a bruising showdown on Tuesday with Anglican and Roman Catholic Church leaders over Prime Minister David Cameron’s contentious plan to legalize same-sex marriage, presaging what some clerics called the most serious rift between church and state in centuries.

Two days before a deadline for public responses to the plan, the Church of England and Roman Catholic bishops insisted in public statements that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Mr. Cameron, who leads a coalition government with the junior Liberal Democrats, has described himself as an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, going beyond existing laws covering civil partnerships, which were introduced eight years ago.

In some ways, the debate here mirrors arguments in the United States swirling around President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage.

The proposal to legalize same-sex marriage threatens not only to provoke a clash with Christian and Muslim leaders, but also to divide Mr. Cameron’s Conservative Party, adding to political woes that have been building over policy reversals and accusations by his critics that the Conservatives are too close to the rich and powerful.

It could also deepen strains within the coalition, since Mr. Cameron has said Conservative lawmakers may vote on the proposal according to their consciences, while the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, wants all of his party’s legislators in Parliament to approve the proposal.

In its statement on Tuesday, the Church of England said, “Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which includes, for many, the possibility of procreation.

“The law should not seek to define away the underlying, objective distinctiveness of men and women,” the statement continued. “The church has supported the removal of previous legal and material inequities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships. To change the nature of marriage for everyone will deliver no obvious additional legal gains to those already now conferred by civil partnerships.”

The bishop of Sheffield, the Rev. Steven Croft, said the government plans represented a “really, really fundamental change to an institution which has been at the core of our society for hundreds of years and which for the church is not a matter of social convention but of Christian doctrine and teaching.”

Roman Catholic bishops in England and Wales said in a statement, “In the interest of upholding the uniqueness of marriage as a civil institution for the common good of society, we strongly urge the government not to proceed with legislative proposals which will ‘enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.’ “

The positions taken by the churches drew a scathing response from gay rights activists, like Ben Summerskill, the head of an advocacy group called Stonewall, who accused the Church of England of orchestrating a “master class in melodramatic scaremongering.”

He accused church leaders of promoting a belief that “this is somehow the biggest upheaval since the sacking of the monasteries” in the Middle Ages.

With church attendance falling in Britain, only one in four marriages is conducted in a church.

The question of same-sex marriage is only one of the many gender- and sexuality-related issues confronting the Church of England, which has admitted female priests but is still embroiled in a bitter dispute over their ordination as bishops.

The broader international Anglican Communion, moreover, is riven by a dispute over the question of ordaining openly gay bishops.

A British government official, speaking in return for customary anonymity, said Mr. Cameron’s proposals, foreseeing the introduction of civil marriages for same-sex couples, would not force religious leaders to conduct marriage ceremonies in places of worship.

Referring to “the government’s view that marriage is one of the most important institutions we have got,” the official said the proposal “makes very clear that no religious organization will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages as a result of our proposals.”

SOURCE




Dubious "Charities" in Britain

Many years ago, in a terrifying third world city, I and a colleague were looking for a safe place to stay. We didn’t want much, just a compound in which to hide from the local gang militias, have access to clean water, reliably electricity and a good phone link.

It chanced that we heard that such a place existed, owned by a charity. We went round, introduced ourselves and said that, if they would put us up, we would arrange for our office in London to donate to them what we would normally have paid for a good standard hotel.

We were in need, though not desperate. We wouldn’t have been much trouble, and there was space. Other journalists had, so far as we knew, stayed there recently. But the local representative of the charity turned us down flat. Maybe he didn’t like our paper, or me. That was his choice. But what astonished me most of all was that a charity would so breezily reject several hundred pounds, possibly more than a thousand if we stayed any length of time, in return for services that would have cost a tiny fraction of that.

I was told the charity didn’t need our money. They were already on the government payroll, and did not really rely on individual donations any more.

Since then, I have never given so much as a bent penny to the charity involved. I have also known what most people don’t know, that many major British charities are in fact semi-nationalised organisations. It is seared on my memory and so I often forget that other people don’t know this.

So I am particularly grateful to Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs, who has produced a fascinating pamphlet ‘Sock Puppets: How the Government Lobbies Itself and Why’ which can be found by going here

Its basic points are these. That many (but please note, by no means all ) British charities (some very major ones) get millions of pounds from central and local government; that the rules which used to ban them from engaging in political lobbying have been greatly relaxed, so that almost anything short of direct party political propaganda will probably be passed by the Charity Commission; and that in effect, British government money, ostensibly spent on good causes, often ends up being used to lobby the government to do things it wants to do anyway.

As Mr Snowdon rightly points out, these tend to be minority causes, not great popular movements. These need no lobbies to get themselves son to the political agenda.

Even so, it occurs to me as remarkable that increased spending on foreign aid, which is dubious in itself and also widely unloved, is a successful cause, whereas nobody much is defending the armed forces from cuts, and much of the treatment of men badly injured in wars is met through genuine charitable donations.

I quite like some of the organisations he picks on (such as those which campaign for better public transport), but I did laugh at his brief history of the ‘Child Poverty Action Group’ which wrote in 1965 to the then premier, Harold Wilson about ‘at least half a million children in this country’ who were ‘in homes where there is hardship due to poverty’.

Billions of pounds of welfare spending later, the same CPAG now speaks of 3.8 million children living in poverty. All that time, and all that money, and ‘child poverty’ has increased sevenfold and more. Or perhaps something else has happened?

I’ll leave you some other figures from Mr Snowdon (he provides references) . The ‘voluntary’ sector employs more than 600,000 people. Between 1997 and 2005, the income of Britain’s charities almost doubled, from £19.8 billion to £39.7 billion, with the biggest growth coming in grants and contracts from government departments (state funding rose by 38% in the first years f this century, while private donations rose by 7%).

27,000 charities depend on the state for more than three quarters of their income, more than a third of the sector’s total income - £12.8 billion in 2007-8) came from the state.

By the way, you will be pleased to know that most British charities remain small organisations which take no cash from the state. The problem is confined to the big organisations. Yet even among the big organisations some – for example the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Donkey Sanctuary – are wholly independent of the state (so why, I ask, does the RNLI irritatingly use metric measurements for wave-heights in its advertisements? Feet, please).

My advice on charities is to check before giving. Do they take government cash? If so, how much? It will be in their accounts, though not always as obvious as it ought to be. And do they engage in propaganda? In which case, is it propaganda you don’t mind helping to support?

But in general, be aware of the fact that many very important lobbies are in fact funded by the government, so that it can lobby itself to do things it wants to do, but which you may not want done. I am not sure ’charity’ is the right name for such organisations. Mr Snowdon has done us a valuable service.

SOURCE






>b>The Left’s Blur

by GABRIEL GARNICA

As someone who once suffered from extreme nearsightedness and astigmatism, had laser surgery and now, after nearly 15 years, beginning to relapse into some blur once again, I know a thing or two about blur.  The dictionary defines blur as the condition of being indistinct, hazy, or obscure. Most of the time, normal people try to avoid blur, so they wear glasses or have surgery to correct it.  Most of the time, we would be suspicious of anyone who favored this condition, wondering why anyone in his or her right mind would want to perceive things in such a state. In fact, we might even wonder if said person was insane or simply hiding something.

One of the Left's favorite tags is profiling, which it defines as the unfair habit of lumping people together based on some biased and sweeping notion that members of a given group are "all alike". The Left preaches that profiling is wrong, intolerant, evil, dangerous, and its ever-popular accusation, hateful. While it is certainly true that lumping people together without any rational justification is wrong and harmful, communicating distinctions inherent to specific, relevant traits and facts in relation to a specific situation or action is not only not wrong but, actually, useful.

For example, while it is obviously wrong to assume that a bank robber is Hispanic without any evidence thereof ( bias), it is useful to communicate that, in fact, the person who happened to rob the bank on First Avenue and Norton Blvd today at 3pm was Hispanic, for the sole purpose of helping authorities find said person. This, along with that person's physical characteristics and what he was wearing, for example, would and should be legitimate examples of acceptable profiling. Profiling is also used in constructing a composite representation, visual or psychological, of a targeted person.

The Left will argue that the above examples are not examples of profiling because profiling occurs when generalizations and assumptions are made about a person or a group of persons based on biases and subjective perceptions of that group. However, that definition of profiling is only its latest, politically hijacked version. The original meaning of the world profiling is to outline or represent something or someone. We must remember that the Left loves to hijack and twist words for its purposes and agenda, and this is no exception.

Despite its distaste for lumping people together, however, the Left conveniently does the very same thing when convenient to that very same agenda. For example, the Left will lump legal and illegal immigrants together and call illegal immigration issues "immigration" issues to expand, manipulate, and frame the debate on its terms and for its benefit.  As a proud and legal immigrant, I resent this form of profiling by the Left, as it actually increases discrimination against all immigrants in the long run by encouraging anti-immigration people to blame all immigrants for the actions of illegal ones. Without getting into the whole separate issue of whether illegal immigrants should be called "undocumented", it is clear and obvious that the media tends to use the term "immigration" as synonymous with illegal immigration because this form of profiling happens to favor its biased political agenda.

Similarly, we find that Left will be critical of any efforts to categorize, arrange, or describe various groups as potential terrorists yet, whenever it is convenient or practical, as it often is, these same members of the Left will call religious people terrorists for daring to proclaim and defend their beliefs and conscience. In the first instance, the Left will argue that such profiling is both unacceptable and evil.  In the latter case, however, that same Left will applaud and agree with the characterization of such religious groups as terrorists. Thus, we once again see that the Left blurs the distinctions between most religious groups and radical Islamic extremists who actively and aggressively seek the destruction of America. We also see how the Left conveniently blurs the distinction between criminals and their background, conveniently ignoring any mention or reference to said criminals' racial and cultural background lest prejudice set in.

Likewise, we see how the Left blurs the distinction between women who agree with their positions and those who do not, recently wailing incessantly about the so-called Right-Wing War on Women despite the fact that most and increasing numbers of women do not believe that such a wide-scale assault against women's rights and agenda actually exists. Why bother with statistics and polls which show that their Right-Wing War on Women is not legitimized nor accepted by most Americans including the very women the Left pretends to be defending when one has bigger fish, conservative fish to fry.

On the other hand, that same Left will fling the most vile accusations, mockery, and slanders specifically against conservative women such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Backman, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Romney, clearly targeting and distinguishing between such women and their liberal counterparts.  Simply put, the Left will blur distinctions between women when convenient yet profile and target any distinctions between women it finds useful to its agenda.

Finally, and most harmfully, the Left will blur the distinction between this great nation and the numerous nations that seek to emulate it. It will blur this country's great accomplishments and people and tacitly condone race-baiters and radicals whose hatred for this country is palpable. Thus, we repeatedly and consistently see how the Left's blur is selective, tending to increase when convenient and decrease as practical as well.

As discussed above, a blur intentionally manipulated to further one's radical agenda is pure hypocrisy, cowardice, and fraud. The Left stands as the epitome of such intentional blur, incessantly and annoyingly hiding behind its blurred perception of the world while pretending to champion carefully selected and targeted groups. The irony is both delicious and despicable.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

**************************



17 June, 2012

Getting "Daddy's girl" wrong

From the report below, it would seem that some people see a "Daddy's girl" as weak and dependant.  I am not going to rule that out as being true in some cases but all the cases I have seen have been quite the opposite  -- the inimitable Samantha Brick being the best-known case in point.  The adverse cases referred to below may be ones where the girl's affection for her father was not fully returned.  That would indeed be very sad and damaging.  The lady in my life was a Daddy's Girl and it needs a very strong woman to put up with me -- so that speaks volumes, I think

Just a final thought  -- maybe right or maybe wrong:  Perhaps it needs a strong man to cope with strong woman.  Samantha Brick's husband is clearly no shrinking violet



This week, like 900,000 odd people, I tuned in to watch episode one of Being Lara Bingle. I also jumped on Twitter to see what the reaction was. Because I’m a #wordnerd.

What I found interesting was the reaction that came to the surface about “The Daddy’s Girl Dynamic”.

During the show, Lara talked about losing her father, and described herself as a “Daddy’s Girl” – her father was her special person before passing.

She also talked about a lot of the “scandals” she has been involved in, and pondered whether things would have been different if her Dad had been around to guide her, during those difficult times. Or perhaps even pull her into line.

Missing your father – whether at 24 or 82 - is totally understandable. So is the idea that she would look up to him. People do that with parents. Some do it for their whole life.

Yet the girly revelation of a woman still needing her father to guide her, seemed to anger a lot of men on Twitter.  Now there’s nothing wrong with a woman of 24 wishing she could speak to her Dad.

But many people believe the dynamic of a “Daddy’s Girl” to be dysfunctional. Women might not like to date a “Mummy’s Boy”, but men don’t dig a “Daddy’s Girl” much either…

Why?  “Being a Daddy’s Girl, isn’t attractive, because whether their dad is here with us or has passed, it means a woman is still a bit of a ‘lost little girl’ looking to have a man guide and direct her, not able to take responsibility for her own life and actions,” said reader Damien.

“What it seemed to touch on, was the concept that women who still need a dad/father figure, to guide their life basically have issues.”

My workmate Sarah said: “I’ve seen it with my own friends. Women who idolise their father, to the point that no man lives up to him, never seem to meet someone or have very tumultuous relationships. They are always talking about their Dad or wanting too much attention, which in some ways keeps them like a child.”

So I guess Daddy’s Girl is not really so different to Mummy’s Boy. And for both sexes, a partner who needs or desires to be led or taken care of emotionally by a parent tends to turn people off.

But before we turn into the parent police, is this really so bad?

SOURCE





Trust me, you can't trust this lot with any more powers

Britain as the new East Germany

When the Coalition came to power two years ago there was at least hope that Labour’s ever-expanding Stasi state would be thrown into reverse.

Nick Clegg and his colleagues, in particular, prided themselves on their civil libertarian credentials. Both the Lib Dems and the Tories appeared to be united in their opposition to the unwarranted extension of surveillance into every crevice of our private lives.

Sadly, those hopes have been comprehensively dashed. The Government is so in thrall to the internet giant Google that it turns a blind eye to the outrageous wholesale harvesting of our personal details for commercial gain.
Under the new proposals, police will not be able to access users' message content, but will know who was contacted, when and by what method

Loss of freedom: Police will be entitled to know the address of every email we send or receive, every website or social networking forum we visit, and the number and identity of everyone we speak to on the telephone

Now it proposes giving the police blanket authority to spy on our phone calls, texts and emails. As usual, the justification is that only by having access to our confidential communications can the police and security services keep us safe from criminals and terrorists.

Up goes the cry of the tyrant through the ages: Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

The Home Secretary Theresa May suggests scandalously that anyone concerned about granting the police new powers to trawl through our private correspondence is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ who would cheerfully condemn children to abuse at the hands of paedophiles.

‘I don’t understand why some criticise these proposals,’ May writes. ‘By trying to stop the police having access to this tool, they are risking both justice and public safety.’

When May comes out with such simplistic, sentimental, intelligence-insulting drivel it almost has one hankering for the halcyon days of her hopeless Labour predecessor ‘Jackboots’ Jacqui Smith, who displayed a cavalier, almost criminal, disregard for our hard-won freedoms.

As a sop to those of us who consider any extension of the surveillance state to be a gross intrusion into our privacy, May proposes to remove the rights of Town Halls and other agencies to snoop on our emails, phone calls and internet activity.

That’s big of her. These powers should never have been granted in the first place and should have been rescinded as one of the very first acts of an incoming Coalition Government allegedly committed to upholding civil liberties. They shouldn’t be used as a bargaining chip in a cynical putsch to expand the right of the state to pry into every aspect of our existence.

If May gets her way, the police and security services will ‘only’ be entitled to know the address of every email we send or receive, every website or social networking forum we visit, and the number and identity of everyone we speak to on the telephone. We are assured they won’t know the contents of those communications.

'Whenever you give any agent of the state extra powers, they will always, always abuse it'

So that’s all right, then. Into the middle of this sensitive political debate plods the recently installed Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Bernard Hyphen-Howe.

‘Trust me,’ he writes in a newspaper article designed to terrify us into agreeing to his demands.

‘I don’t say this lightly, but in a significant number of cases, access to communications data is a matter of life or death.’

Translation: give me what I want or you’ll all be murdered in your beds. Hyphen-Howe cites the examples of Soham killer Ian Huntley and Milly Dowler’s murderer Levi Bellfield, who were both convicted using evidence obtained from texts and phone calls.

His implication is that without the police having access to their mobile phone records, they may have escaped justice. This is deliberately disingenuous, to say the least.

The reason Huntley evaded capture for so long was because of negligence on the part of Humberside Police, who failed to inform their counterparts in Cambridge of his suspected criminal activity.

Surely the fact that both were caught and convicted would seem to prove that sufficient powers exist  already.

The police are at liberty at any time to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to carry out surveillance on a named suspect. In the year 2010-11, they were granted permission for 398 such operations, so they’re hardly fighting crime with one hand tied behind their backs.

I’ve always assumed the Funny People routinely bug and spy on suspected terrorists as a matter of course, with or without a warrant. That’s what they’re there for. No one is too concerned when the subjects of such surveillance are genuine bad guys.

What’s wrong with this latest attempted land-grab is that both the police and the security services would be tempted to go on speculative fishing expeditions against all and sundry.

Hyphen-Howe broadens his argument to suggest that any new power wouldn’t just be confined to terrorists, organised crime and paedophile rings. He says it would be used to ‘tackle criminals whose activities affect the wider community, such as repeat burglars and drug dealers’.

If he was serious about tackling everyday crime, including drug dealers and burglars, he’d reopen a few police stations and put some proper coppers back on the beat.

The most likely outcome of granting the police more surveillance powers is that even more officers will be withdrawn from the streets and will spend their time trawling pruriently through the internet alongside colleagues who currently spend all day gawping at grainy CCTV images.

Inevitably, much of this information will fall into the wrong hands, or be sold on by bent coppers to private investigators and blackmailers.

If you still think what the police are seeking is reasonable and proportionate, ask yourself this: would you like a copper on permanent duty in your house demanding to inspect all your letters and emails, sifting through your bank statements and medical records, vetting your friends and recording details of your phone calls? That, in effect, is what this amounts to.

The police and politicians pretend that what they are proposing is benign and in our best interests. Unfortunately, experience teaches us otherwise. The state is obsessed with acquiring and storing private information. Police already hold millions of DNA samples belonging to innocent people which should properly have been destroyed.

Whenever you give any agent of the state extra powers, they will always, always abuse it.

Trust me, says Hyphen-Howe. Why should we, Bernard?

SOURCE






Judge wants to gag British government minister

A most interesting commentary on the mentality of the judge concerned.  Is a judge with a glass jaw the right man to decide on censorship?  Is he up to the job?

The judge leading the probe into media behaviour threatened to quit after he was publicly criticised by a Cabinet Minister, senior Government sources claimed last night.

Lord Justice Leveson phoned Whitehall’s most senior mandarin and demanded that Education Secretary Michael Gove – who claimed the inquiry had created a ‘chilling atmosphere’ towards freedom of speech – should be gagged. In the angry call to Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, the judge claimed that if Ministers were not silenced, his inquiry, set up to investigate phone-hacking by Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, would be rendered worthless.

He also summoned Mr Gove to give evidence to the inquiry to explain himself. An alarmed Sir Jeremy informed David Cameron of the judge’s ultimatum.

Government insiders say they were convinced Leveson was prepared to resign in protest unless Ministers stopped passing comment on his inquiry.

‘Our clear impression was that he was spitting tacks with Gove and was ready to resign unless the  Minister was told to shut up,’ said one source.

Other insiders insisted Leveson did not threaten to walk away from the inquiry, but they confirmed the phone call to Sir Jeremy – and that Leveson said Ministers such as Mr Gove should not speak out.

‘Leveson said that if this was going to continue with Cabinet Ministers offering opinions while the inquiry was in its early days, he would have to question whether the inquiry had any value, bearing in mind it was using public money,’ said the source. ‘He did not threaten to resign.’

A spokesman for the inquiry said: ‘Lord Justice Leveson is conducting a judicial inquiry and, in that capacity, will not comment on prospective press stories outside the formal proceedings of the inquiry.’  The spokesman refused to make any further comment.

Downing Street, Mr Gove and the Cabinet Office, where Sir Jeremy is based, all refused to comment.

The extraordinary row erupted after Mr Gove gave a speech to political journalists at a House of Commons Press Gallery luncheon on February 21.

He argued that the Leveson Inquiry had created a ‘chilling atmosphere’ towards freedom of expression and any attempt to tighten regulation of newspapers could result in ‘a cure worse than the original disease’.  Mr Gove was concerned about groups with vested interests ‘fettering’ the press.

He conceded that illegal activity  conducted by some sections of the media had to be ‘vigorously policed’ but said Ministers should not be  panicked into over-reacting to the phone-hacking scandal.

He appeared to have riled Leveson with pointed comments accusing ‘the Establishment, the great and the good and judges’ of joining forces with celebrities who wanted to muzzle a free press.

Mr Gove said: ‘When an undoubted wrong has been done there’s a desire to find a judge, a civil servant, a representative of the great and good, inevitably a figure from the Establishment, to inquire into what went wrong and to make recommendations about what might be put right.  ‘It’s a natural thing for politicians to do but sometimes there are dangers associated with it.’

He added that there was a danger of regulation being imposed by ‘judges, celebrities, and the Establishment ..... all of whom have an interest in taking over from the press as arbiters of what a free press should be.’

An enraged Leveson immediately instructed his officials to compile a full report of Mr Gove’s comments. And within 24 hours, he phoned Sir Jeremy to protest.

The Cabinet Secretary informed  No. 10 and Mr Gove. Cabinet sources say neither Mr Gove nor other Ministers were ordered to keep quiet about the Leveson Inquiry. However, few have spoken out since his indignant phone call.

But the bitter feud between Mr Gove and Leveson was evident when the Education Secretary, a former journalist at The Times, owned by Mr Murdoch, gave evidence at the inquiry on May 29.

A defiant Mr Gove repeated the arguments he made at the Commons Press Gallery, almost word for word, to the evident annoyance of Leveson.

The judge insisted new rules were needed to curb media excesses, while Mr Gove strongly defended Mr Murdoch and said journalists were ‘exercising a precious liberty’ when they wrote articles.

A clearly irritated Lord Justice Leveson snapped: ‘Mr Gove, I do not need to be told about the importance of freedom of speech, I really don’t.’  He was ‘concerned’ by Mr Gove’s view that ‘unacceptable’ behaviour has ‘to be accepted because of the right of freedom of speech’.

But Mr Gove stuck to his guns, insisting attempts to stamp out wrongdoing could make things worse.

SOURCE






Typical of British social services:  Never take children away from ferals -- only from decent families

It's the Marxism they learn in social work courses:  The Bourgeoisie are evil and the lower classes can do no wrong



Collette Elliott treasures the simple rituals of motherhood — the Saturday mornings when her three daughters clamber onto her bed for a cuddle and a chat, and the Sunday evenings spent watching a DVD together.

She celebrates their birthdays with parties, and still kisses her youngest tenderly after a bedtime story each night.

These rituals are not unusual, yet to Collette they are at once precious and disconcerting, so alien are they to the childhood she knew. For her own mother was as distant and neglectful as Collette is devoted and doting.

Maureen Batchelor was an alleged prostitute who spent Collette’s early years flitting between men, failing to feed her daughter properly and often seeming to forget her existence.

But while Maureen’s conduct as a mother was shocking, it is not as shocking as the fact that social services knew what her vulnerable daughter was going through.

So enraged is Collette by what she believes is their negligence that she is now taking legal action against Birmingham social services for failing to take her into full-time care, in what is thought to be the first case of its kind in Britain.

They were alerted to her mother’s behaviour when Collette was just two months old, and concerned enough to put her into care on two occasions before she was four.

Reports seen by the Mail show that they believed Maureen had been cautioned for soliciting men, and was proving to be an incapable mother. But when approached by the Mail, Maureen denied ever having been a prostitute.  Social services also allegedly knew about her criminal boyfriends, her brushes with the law and her occasional homelessness.

They heard from Collette’s foster mother how Collette had said her mother hit her — yet still decreed Maureen was the best person to care for her. Against all odds, 34-year-old Collette is now happily married and trying to heal the scars of her blighted early life. She and her mother, who still lives near her in Birmingham, are estranged, but her situation today couldn’t be further from her chaotic early life.

Collette was so psychologically damaged by the age of 18 that she tried to kill herself. It was to be the first of 12 suicide attempts over more than a decade of suffering from clinical depression.

It was only last year, after a session with her psychiatrist, that she decided to find out what exactly had happened to her by reading the social services files relating to her childhood.

‘I felt sick as I read them,’ she says today. ‘Suddenly everything slotted into place, and I felt utterly betrayed. I hated my mother.’  Collette’s fury at Maureen was equalled only by her anger at social services.  ‘They let me down,’ she says. ‘There was page upon page of reasons why I shouldn’t be left with my mother, yet they seemingly ignored them.’

Despite managing to turn her life around so admirably, Collette remains troubled. Even now she suffers panic attacks and nightmares that she is back in her mother’s care.

She says: ‘My legal action is about social services being held accountable for the terrible mess my life became, and admitting that they should have cared for me better. It’s about making sure this never happens to anyone else, too.’

Collette also hopes to force a change in the law so the police can press charges against Maureen.  ‘They’re saying it happened too long ago, but the scars inside will never fade,’ she says.

Sitting in her neat two-bedroom terrace house, Collette sheds frequent tears as she shares her disbelief at the contents of the 600-plus pages of social services reports she has by her side.

Meanwhile, upstairs, her three daughters, aged 15, 12 and four, are getting ready for bed.  Pictures of the girls with Collette and her husband, Scott, 29, line the walls of their home.

‘Becoming a mother made me realise how awful my own childhood was,’ says Collette, who refuses to call Maureen her mother. ‘I am determined to keep my girls safe, happy and protected in a way I never was.’

Collette was just two months old when she first came to the attention of Birmingham social services. In November 1977, her health visitor reported her failure to thrive. Maureen was feeding her daughter a diet of pasteurised milk, potatoes and gravy, and Collette was often taken to hospital with infections.

Social workers described the council maisonette where Collette lived with Maureen and her boyfriend as ‘bare, cold and dirty’.   At five months old, Collette weighed only 10lb. Social workers began visiting regularly: in reports they described Maureen as irresponsible and manipulative. By the time Collette was a toddler, Maureen had had known liaisons with five men.

When social workers visited, she refused to let them in, and a neighbour allegedly saw Collette wandering the streets, crying for her mother — although the police concluded she was ‘playing out of doors’ and there was no real cause for concern.  ‘Maureen apparently shut me out because she was in the house with a man,’ says Collette.

In January 1979, when Collette was 18 months old, social services made her the subject of a three-year supervision order, and she was placed in a children’s home in Birmingham.

She says: ‘One social worker found prospective adoptive parents for me and argued it was detrimental for me to go back to my mother, but her bosses disagreed.’

Collette was returned to her mother on a trial arrangement in April 1980. Six months later, she fell out of her mother’s bedroom window and fractured her skull.

By then Maureen’s latest boyfriend was living with them. Two of his children from a previous relationship were in care, and he had served jail sentences for theft.

After that relationship, Maureen married Harry Price, in 1981. But that same year a neighbour reported her for soliciting, claiming men were turning up at her home at all hours of the day and night.

Collette, who was four, recalls Maureen bringing men back to their home and having sex in front of her: ‘I sat in a chair while Maureen had sex on the sofa.’

When Collette asked who her father was, Maureen was dismissive.
‘She said I was conceived during an affair, but I think my father was a client. She said he was half-Asian, and always called me a “Paki”.’  Maureen’s parents — Collette’s grandparents — refused to intervene in the chaos, and Maureen’s six siblings severed contact with her.

In March 1982, Maureen was arrested for fighting with a neighbour and charged with causing criminal damage. She was fined, and the police discovered she had previously been cautioned for soliciting.  Collette was then placed with a foster mother. Maureen was allowed to visit regularly, although the reports say she rarely did.

Social workers acknowledged that Maureen’s lifestyle was having a damaging effect on her daughter but claimed they did not have the concrete evidence needed to make permanent changes.

Incredibly, their solution was a six-month rehabilitation programme in which Maureen would visit Collette several times a week at a neutral location until she felt able to look after her again.

In reality, these visits rarely happened, leaving Collette to savour her first taste of happy stability in the care of foster parents that summer.

‘My foster parents had a big garden where we picked daisies. My foster mother took me to Sunday School and gave me mints in the car on the way, which seemed like such a treat,’ she recalls.
‘I didn’t want to go back to Maureen. She’d go for weeks without seeing me, saying she’d been ill or couldn’t afford the fare to visit.’

It seems incredible, then, that by the end of 1982 Collette had been placed back with her mother. By then, Maureen had left Harry and married her current husband, Peter Batchelor, with whom she had a son in 1983 and a daughter in 1985. Collette felt even more neglected. ‘She’d tell me I didn’t belong, and that she wished I’d never been born,’ says Collette.

Her social services records contain no notes for the next two years, so it is impossible to know exactly what happened. But Collette’s memory of that time is, she says, vivid.  She claims that Maureen hit her regularly with her fists, a slipper or broom handle.

‘I was told to go to my room by 6pm every night, and I wasn’t allowed books or a bedroom light on. I was so hungry I ate tissue paper.  ‘I used to wet myself because the bathroom was downstairs and I was too scared of running into Maureen.’

‘Maureen lavished attention on my brother and sister. She bought them toys and gave them sweets, but I was made to eat my dinner outside, even in winter.’

Collette says that in 1985, when she was eight, she showed her teachers her bruises. They contacted social services, who requested a meeting with Collette, Maureen and Peter.

‘I told them Maureen was beating me but she denied it. They sent me home, and that night I was beaten more than ever. Maureen took me out of that school the following week.’

In 1987, Collette’s records report bruises to her knee. Although child abuse procedures were seemingly put in operation, Collette doesn’t remember social workers visiting her after that, and assumed they’d given up on her.

In May 1992, when she was 14, Collette took matters into her own hands. She went to see a social worker, reporting that she had been bitten and hit by her mother, and wanted to go back into care. Rather than investigate, however, it seems the social worker told Collette she could see no evidence of injuries, and advised her to speak to a teacher.

‘I felt I’d reached the end of the road,’ she says. ‘I was covered in bite marks and bruises, and the people who were meant to be helping me didn’t care.  ‘I thought about calling the police, but if social workers didn’t believe me, why would they? I ran away a few times but I had nowhere to go, so I always went home.’

Collette left school at 16, moved in with a boyfriend in Birmingham and began studying nursing at college.

Maureen seemed less interested in her daughter by then — a fact which outsiders might assume would have come as a relief. Instead, missing the unhealthy control her mother had always exerted over her, Collette felt lost and confused.

She dropped out of college, got a job as a care worker, and at 18 was so depressed and confused that she swallowed a bottle of pills that Peter took for a heart condition. Maureen didn’t visit her daughter in hospital, where she had her stomach pumped and was placed under the care of her local mental health authority.

Collette was prescribed antidepressants and fortnightly therapy sessions. Two days later, she left hospital and went back to live with her mother and Peter.  She returned to her job as a care worker and, a year later, in December 1995, met the man who was to become the father of her two eldest children at a social club.

She moved into his home in Birmingham, but the relationship was troubled from the start. Collette says her partner was domineering and controlling, but by then she felt anything was better than living with her mother.  Their first daughter was born in March 1997, and their second daughter three years later.

Motherhood proved both therapeutic and traumatic for Collette, who would lock herself in the bathroom with the children for hours on end, irrationally fearing they would be taken away by her mother.

Her relationship with the girls’ father ended eight years after it began, in 2003, amid claims he’d been unfaithful to her. Four years later, when she was 29, a full-time mother and living with her children in her own home in Birmingham, Collette met Scott Elliott, then aged 24 and a window cleaner. They married soon afterwards.

‘He was kinder than any man I’d met before,’ Collette says. ‘My daughters loved him, he understood me, and he was stable and level-headed.’  Their daughter was born in November 2007.

Yet for all this new-found domestic stability — she and Scott have been married for five years and live happily with Collette’s daughters — she remained in the grip of an unshakeable depression for three further years.  Between the ages of 18 and 32, Collette overdosed 12 times on antidepressants and painkillers.  ‘It wasn’t a cry for help — I wanted to die,’ she says.

For reasons she cannot explain, but which probably have everything to do with the ties that bind children and abusive parents, Collette was sporadically in touch with Maureen until 2010, when her psychiatrist suggested she should sever contact so she could finally move on with her life.

‘So I called Maureen and told her I wouldn’t be in touch again. I told my daughters and they understood — they knew she hadn’t been a good mother,’ she says.

Collette then decided to investigate her past, in the hope that understanding it would help her move on. But nothing could have prepared her for the shock she felt last May on reading the extent of her mother’s neglect in the social services records.

A friend suggested she confront social workers about their role in her upbringing, and Collette is now suing them.

She also wants a change in the law so her mother can be charged with abuse. ‘I don’t want her to go to prison,’ she says. ‘I just want some acknowledgement that she did wrong.’

Last night, Maureen denied ever abusing or neglecting her daughter, and said she had never worked as a prostitute. She added: ‘Collette is round the twist. She’s doing this for a compensation payout.’

A spokesman for Birmingham City Council said it was unable to comment on individual cases.  Collette still lives in the same neighbourhood as Maureen, now 58, and Peter, 70, a retired mechanic.

She last met her mother at a family funeral in April, but says it was not the ordeal she’d anticipated.  ‘We didn’t speak. I looked at her and felt nothing,’ she says. ‘I realised she could no longer hurt me. In some ways, what she did made me stronger.’

With that, Collette wipes the tears from her eyes and goes upstairs to kiss her daughters goodnight.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

************************



15 June, 2012

Enoch was right!

When most people hear the words ‘Enoch Powell’ they think of the phrase ‘rivers of blood’. It was Powell’s misfortune — partly self-inflicted — that his monumental contribution to political ideas should still be eclipsed by a phrase that he never uttered, misquoted from the speech that still defines him.

Powell was born 100 years ago this Saturday, in a terrace house by a railway line in a suburb of Birmingham, the only child of two teachers.

In time, he would become the most brilliant classical scholar of his generation at Cambridge, the youngest professor in the British Empire, the youngest Brigadier in the Army, an MP, a Cabinet Minister and, in his re-invention as a tribune of the people, one of the most loved and hated men in Britain.

He was, in own words, ‘born a Tory’ — by which he meant he was born with a natural reverence for the institutions of this country, notably its constitution.

Yet he would fight a war with that party that was partly responsible for it losing two general elections in 1974, because his highly intellectual view of what a Tory was, and what a Tory should believe in, was at odds with the pragmatic, centre-left doctrine of Ted Heath, whose nemesis Powell became.

Because of his famous — or notorious — speech on immigration, delivered in Birmingham in April 1968, Powell’s wider achievements have been largely ignored. He served in the Cabinet for just 15 months, but his influence on politics and political thought is greater than that of any other Member of Parliament in the past century.

It was Powell who, in 1957, predicted that excessive State borrowing would bring economic decline. Long before Milton Friedman, the free-market champion who won the Nobel Prize for Economics for demonstrating the link between an expansion in the supply of money and higher inflation, Powell explicitly outlined that argument.

In the Sixties, he mocked the use of prices and incomes policies (with which the government tried to control inflation by limiting increases in wages and prices). He also ridiculed the scape-goating of trades unions for ‘causing’ inflation by demanding big pay rises.

He deplored the waste of public money on nationalised industries and urged what he called their ‘denationalisation’, using the funds freed to pay for tax cuts to encourage economic growth. He also understood that if Scotland had a separate parliament, it would inevitably soon become a separate country.

Almost 45 years ago, before Britain made its successful application to join what was then called the Common Market, Powell warned Britons they would lose the power to govern themselves. Equally presciently, from the moment a single currency was mooted, he pointed out that countries joining it would be stripped of their economic sovereignty — and, if it were to function properly, would lose the right to have their governments determine the exact nature of their public spending.

And, in an age when it was more or less compulsory for Conservative politicians to worship America, and America’s influence in the world, Powell repeatedly made clear his distrust of U.S. foreign policy, believing it would cause more conflicts than it prevented.

He had first seen what he considered to be America’s heavy hand in diplomacy when, as a staff officer, he attended Churchill’s meeting with Roosevelt at Casablanca in 1943.  Nothing he saw subsequently made him feel any better about that country.

Yet all these ideas — ideas now espoused with fervour by politicians, and not just those of the Right — remain clouded by the controversy over Powell’s views on what his critics call ‘race’.

In fact, although Powell made many speeches on immigration, he never made one on race: because he was not a racist, and therefore the matter would have been irrelevant and intellectually absurd to him.

He had served in India during World War II learned Urdu and Punjabi to a high standard, loved Indian culture, and said he would have been quite happy to live and die there. He was devoid of any idiotic ideas of racial superiority. However, when as shadow defence secretary he made what he called the Birmingham speech — the Rivers of Blood speech to almost everyone else — the Left seized upon his words in a fit of self-righteous panic, and engaged in one of the most revolting orgies of grand-standing in our political history.

His fellow Conservatives attacked him in order to try to distance themselves from any taint of racism. Socialists attacked him in an attempt to destroy the moral reputation of the Conservative Party.

I knew Powell well for the last 15 or so years of his life — he died in 1998, and he asked me to write his biography. During many long conversations, he never expressed a trace of regret at having made the speech, except in one particular.  ‘If I had quoted Virgil in the original (Latin),’ he said of the ‘River Tiber’ phrase that came to distinguish the speech, ‘I shouldn’t have caused so much trouble.’

He may not have regretted what he said on that fateful day, but he came to realise that his use of a vivid classical quotation had derailed his otherwise conventional political career.

He had warned that if the Labour government’s anti-discrimination Race Relations Bill became law, it would allow the immigrant community to ‘agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens’.

 The apocalypse was in sight.  ‘As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”,’ he said.

The allusion was to the Sibyl’s prophecy in Book VI of Virgil’s Aeneid about Aeneas’s return to Rome: ‘I see wars, horrible wars, and the Tiber foaming with much blood.’

Part of Powell’s problem was that hardly anyone in his audience, or who read reports of the speech, had his titanic intellect or his subtlety of mind. Crucially, the speech was made without prior warning to his fellow shadow cabinet members, even though it had discussed the Race Relations Bill two days previously.

Outraged on this count and by the provocative content, Ted Heath sacked him from the shadow cabinet, and Powell’s messianic role in our politics was thereafter conducted from the backbenches and, thanks to his prolific journalism, through the columns of newspapers and magazines.

The Bill was why Powell made the speech: but he was at pains, in the speech itself and later on, to insist that he was doing so in his role as the MP for Wolverhampton South-West. His constituency had witnessed an enormous influx of immigrants in the preceding years.

He stressed that it was not only his white constituents who expressed their resentment at the scale of immigration: the small number of immigrants who had originally come to Wolverhampton in the Fifties had expressed their worries, too, because of the breakdown they perceived in community relations as a result of the barely restricted flow.

Powell had no objection to immigration. He had a profound one, however, to immigration on so large a scale, because it meant immigrants found it impossible to integrate.  He had witnessed the disaster of multiculturalism on the sub-continent (such as problems between different religions in India) and had no wish to see communal strife here, but he feared mass immigration would cause it.

Chiefly, he felt compelled to speak on behalf of his constituents. One had told him of his wish to emigrate and see his children settle overseas. He quoted him as saying: ‘In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.’

Powell continued: ‘I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?  ‘The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so .... I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else.’

He spoke, too, of communities following customs ‘inappropriate in Britain’; of the strain placed on housing, health, social services and education provision by the influx.

Most inflammatory of all, there was his reference to a little old lady who had excreta pushed through her letterbox by the immigrants who surrounded her.

Powell perhaps was disingenuous in expressing shock and surprise at the effect his speech had. He had warned the editor of his local newspaper, the week before he delivered it, that the speech would ‘fizz like a rocket’.

But I am certain he believed his stature in his party was too great for Heath to sack him, and he never contemplated that the speech would end his front-bench career.

Yet his dismissal had some positive consequences. The most direct of which was an Immigration Act in 1971 that responded to some of his concerns, by limiting the number of people from the Commonwealth who could apply for a British passport.

More than even that, his return to the backbenches gave him a freedom to expound ideas that helped break the destructive post-war consensus, and — not least by Margaret Thatcher’s own account — laid the foundations of what came to be called Thatcherism.

Powell, in league with his friend and admirer, the Labour Left-winger Michael Foot, derailed the joint attempt by the Wilson government and Heath’s opposition, to reform the House of Lords in 1969, which would have made it entirely the creature of the House of Commons.

That same year he began his high-profile crusade against British membership of the Common Market: his arguments were widely ignored then, but are now accepted as having been right by millions who used to discount them.

Mrs Thatcher developed her economic policy directly from Powell’s critique of the Heath government’s massively inflationary spending programme between 1970 and 1972.

But above all, as part of the Conservative Party’s internal opposition between 1970 and 1974, Powell demonstrated a towering integrity and commitment to principle that no other senior politician has ever come near.

‘Too often today,’ he had said shortly after the Birmingham speech, ‘people are ready to tell us, this is not possible, that is not possible. I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our own doubts.’

He refused to fight the February 1974 election for the Tories, on the legitimate grounds that Heath had broken virtually every promise of his 1970 manifesto. He went on to advise electors to vote for a party that promised a referendum on our continued membership of the Common Market — which meant voting Labour.

Even today, old television footage of the moment when he uttered this view, in a speech in Yorkshire three days before the election that Heath would lose, has the power to electrify.

‘Judas!’ a heckler cried.  ‘Judas was paid!’ Powell retorted, in an instant. ‘Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!’

Having quit the Conservatives over Europe, Powell was invited to stand as Official Ulster Unionist candidate in South Down. He did, and won. He spent the rest of his parliamentary career (until 1987) as an Ulster MP.

Powell was a man of conspicuous moral greatness, something that, alone, made him unsuited for politics, because it meant he could not keep what he perceived to be the truth to himself.

He had a gift denied to most politicians, which was of making prophecies that were right.  He was right about Europe; right about the single currency; right about economic management; right about Lords reform; right about devolution; right about American imperialism; and, with even Trevor Phillips, the figurehead of the Equalities Commission, now arguing that multiculturalism has failed, right about that, too.

Fourteen years after his death, and almost half-a-century after he sat in the Cabinet, his influence on political thought is not only undiminished: it continues to grow.

SOURCE




How absence of a loving father can wreck a child's life: New study shows relationship with both parents is crucial

This reinforces the comments I have often made (e.g. here) about the immense emotional strength it gives a daughter to be a "Daddy's girl".

A father's love is as important to a child’s emotional development as a mother’s, a large-scale study has confirmed.

Examining the cases of more than 10,000 sons and daughters revealed how a cold or distant father can damage a child’s life, sometimes for decades to come.

The review of 36 studies from around the world concluded that his love is at least as important to youngsters as that of their mothers.

Researcher Professor Ronald Rohner said that fatherly love is key to  development and hopes his findings will motivate more men to become involved in caring for their offspring.  ‘In the US, Great Britain and Europe, we have assumed for the past 300 years that all children need for normal healthy development is a loving relationship with their mother,’ he said.

‘And that dads are there as support for the mother and to support the  family financially but are not required for the healthy development of the children.  ‘But that belief is fundamentally wrong. We have to start getting away from that idea and realise the dad’s influence is as great, and sometimes greater, than the mother’s.’

His conclusions came after he examined data from studies in which  children and adults were asked how loving their parents were.

Questions included if they were made to feel wanted or needed, if their  parents went out of their way to hurt their feelings and if they felt loved.  Those taking part also answered questions about their personality. These ranged from ‘I think about fighting or being mean’ to ‘I think the world is a good, happy place’.

Tallying the results showed that those rejected in childhood felt more anxious and insecure as well as hostile and aggressive.

Many of the problems carried over into adulthood, reported the study  published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review.

Crucially, a father’s love was often just as important as a mother’s. In some cases, it was even more so. One reason for this may be that rejection is more painful when it comes from the parent the child regards as more powerful or respected.

Professor Rohner, of the University of Connecticut, US, said rejection in childhood has the most ‘strong and consistent effect on personality and development’.  He added: ‘Children and adults  everywhere – regardless of race, culture, and gender – tend to respond in exactly the same way when they perceived themselves to be rejected.’

Professor Rohner said that children who feel unloved tend to become  anxious and insecure, and this can make them needy. Anger and resentment can lead to them closing themselves off emotionally in an attempt to protect themselves from further hurt.

This may make it hard for them to form relationships. They can suffer from low self-esteem and find it difficult to handle stressful situations.

Professor Rohner added that research shows the same parts of the brain are activated when people feel rejected as when they suffer physical pain.  He added: ‘Unlike physical pain,  however, people can psychologically  relive the emotional pain of rejection over and over for years.’

His research shows a father’s input is particularly important for behaviour and can influence if a child later drinks to excess, takes drugs or suffers  mental health problems.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘This study underlines the importance of intact and stable families where both the father and the mother are committed to bringing up their children together.  ‘Successive governments have failed to recognise the fact that men and women are different and that they  parent differently.’

He criticised ministers for ‘pretending that one parent is as good as two, or that two parents of the same sex are as good as two natural parents of the opposite sex’.

This week, the Coalition announced penalties for mothers who fail to allow former partners to maintain a proper relationship with their children, including jail. A right to ‘shared parenting’ following family breakdown will also be enshrined in law.

SOURCE






Old-fashioned passbook account becomes a hit in Britain

I would take one out in Australia if it were available.  Online money seems too insecure to me -- which is one reason why I have almost all my assets in shares and real property

Everybody laughed at the Yorkshire Building Society last year when it announced plans for a new savings accounts operated solely by using a passbook.

In the days of the internet, surely nobody wanted a savings account which could only be opened and operated by visiting a branch with your passbook?

But, twelve months later, the building society’s ‘Triple Access Saver’ has become the most popular account launched by the 148-year-old mutual.

In fact, it is around three times more popular than any other instant access savings account launched by Yorkshire Building Society over the last year.

The move shows a desire among savers to return to traditional types of customer service as disaffection grows over internet banking.

Mike Helliwell, savings product manager at the Yorkshire, which has 3.3million members, said: ‘This time last year, there was some scepticism about whether - in the age of internet banking - savers really wanted a simple, traditional passbook account.  ‘The fact that Triple Access Saver has been our most popular savings account since its launch speaks for itself.

‘Customers appreciate the straightforward terms, ease of use and an attractive, competitive rate without any introductory bonus for a limited period.’

It comes at a time when banks and building societies are increasingly forcing people to go online in order to get the best deal on their savings accounts.

But this is a major problem for many people. Many do not have internet access, while others struggle to use their computer and others simply do not trust online banking.

With the Triple Access Saver, customers do not need have to remember a password or a PIN number.

They simply go into one of the building society’s 227 branches and open an account with a minimum of £100. The maximum balance is £2million.

Customers are allowed to make three withdrawals each year without incurring a penalty, and the account pays a variable interest rate, currently 2.25 per cent.

If they want to put more money into the account, or take out money, they take their passbook into the branch. Only a signature is required.

A Yorkshire spokesman said yesterday they launched the account because so many people were saying how they felt nostalgic about the days of the traditional passbook.  It tells them how much money is in their account and the details of all their transactions since they opened it.  She said: ‘People like to look at their passbook and to get it updated. They know where they are with a passbook. They can hold it in their hand.

‘People told us that they wanted a traditional account and so we launched one. Our customers did not want to have to go online to get the best deal.’ Unlike many of its rivals, Yorkshire Building Society is opening new branches, rather than closing them down.   Over the last two weeks, it has opened branches in Ilkley and Pudsey and a third one opened in Bingley this week.  Over the last four years, it has merged with three other building societies - the Barnsley, the Chelsea and Norwich & Peterborough.

When Yorkshire Building Society was founded in 1864 in Huddersfield, nobody was given a passbook. All transactions were recorded on a ledger at the branch.

It was not until people complained that they wanted their own record that the passbook - which was ‘passed’ between the customer and the branch staff - was introduced.

SOURCE




Australia:  It's ok to swear at the boss, says Labor party lapdog

"FAIR Work Australia" is an quasi-judicial body staffed by crusty old unionists appointed by a Leftist government

FAIR Work Australia has ordered the reinstatement of an employee who was sacked for telling his boss to "get f ... ed".

Security guard Craig Symes was sacked from Linfox Armaguard last year after he told his manager to get f ... ed, complained about the "f ... ing roster" and then aggressively poked a notice board - all while carrying a loaded gun.

Symes, who had worked with the Brisbane firm since 2000, cracked during a monthly meeting last December after having a fight with his wife before work. "He was frustrated with his wife and, in hindsight, should not have come (to the meeting)," FWA heard.

He abused manager Aryn Hala after being assigned to a faulty armoured van and stormed out.  Symes later apologised in writing but was sacked the next day.

FWA ruled Symes' behaviour amounted to misconduct but found his dismissal was harsh.

While finding swearing at a person was "of a different character" to swearing at an object, or as an adjective, FWA Commissioner Helen Cargill said it was "also relevant to consider the evidence that the respondent's workplace is one in which bad language is commonly used and in which ... employees may have received mixed messages about such use".

She said the swearing was not "overheard by other employees which could have undermined Mr Halas' authority".

Ms Cargill ordered the company reinstate Symes with back pay - less six weeks pay as a penalty.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



14 June, 2012

Does the male role need redefining?

I have never thought of what I should be as a man and have never tried to change myself in any way.  I guess I was just born a traditional male and stayed that way.  And despite occasional intellectual reservations, women respond well to that.  Would I have been married 4 times otherwise?  In my observation, even quite feminist women like a real, natural man.  Instinct trumps theory every time  -- JR

The mainstream media has portrayed men as animalistic buffoons for so long that we’re starting to believe our own bad publicity. But enough’s enough — it’s time to man up, gents.

In the 15 years that I have been a man — or at least tried to be — there have been many attempts to define modern masculinity: lads, new lads, metrosexuals, retrosexuals, heteropolitans, übersexuals, himbos and SPURMOs (a presumably deliberate but nevertheless unfortunate-sounding acronym that stands for Single Proud Unmarried Man Over Thirty). The marketers and pop sociologists keep shifting the goalposts of what we’re supposed to be aiming for.

I’ve got a new one. How about ‘men’? The unadorned masculine identifier, it stands for a) itself and b) no more of this bullshit. All too often — in sitcoms, in ads, in newspapers — men are portrayed pretty piss-poorly, if you ask me. And if you don’t ask me, I’ll tell you anyway, because I’ve had a gutful. The media loves nothing more than to talk us down with never-ending stories of men behaving badly. Stand-up comedians, the vast majority of whom are male, base entire routines on men losing the battle of the sexes.

But the joke is wearing a bit thin. We’re portrayed as victims — of our inflated egos, ineptitude and priapic urges. We’re presented as boorish, gonad-scratching Neanderthals who can’t multitask, cope with flat-pack furniture or dress ourselves properly. Women, meanwhile, are painted as glamorous, capable
go-getters who roll their eyes at silly menfolk before rolling up their sleeves because if they want the job done properly, they’re better off doing it themselves.

It isn’t easy to be a man in 2011. Back in granddad’s sepia-tinted day, the arrangement was simple: he was the breadwinner, patriarch, man of the house. End of. These days, it’s not so clear cut. Today’s man has to be everything to everyone while still being true to himself. He can no longer get by on just bringing home the bacon (which is a very good thing, by the way). He must be a good son, brother, mate, co-worker, lover, husband, father, provider, role model and citizen.

He’s not the man he used to be; he has to be much more than that. Easier said than done. Which is why the modern male experience is such a comedy of errors and confusion, leavened with the occasional epiphany.

In 2005 — several epochal portmanteau neologisms ago — leading advertising agency JWT (the people who claim to have coined the term ‘metrosexual’) produced a report portentously called ‘The Future of Men’, presumably so they could figure out how better to sell us stuff. Their survey of 4000 people in the US, the UK and Canada produced the following findings: many envisage a time in the future when men will be the weaker sex; women are becoming more like men; men are generally more confused and less sure of themselves; men respect women more than they used to; women don’t respect men as much as they once did; the 21st century will belong to women much more than men.

While that might sound scary, the facts all point to this being a good thing. In 2006, the OECD devised the Gender, Institutions and Development Database to measure the economic and political power of women in 162 countries. With few exceptions, it found that the greater the power of women, the greater the country’s economic success.

And so, though man has been the dominant sex since the dawn of humankind, for the first time in history, that’s changing. As Top Gear presenter and apotheosis of British laddism James May so delicately put it: “If you extrapolate all this, within my lifetime men will only be required to keep sperm at operating temperature and they will have no other functions.”

All this doesn’t mean that it suddenly sucks to be male. We’ve got to a make a choice: we either feel inadequate and give up or we respond by upping our game. Both sexes are still coming to terms with equality. Women have fought tooth and manicured nail to get where they are today and it’s made the world a better place. Now it’s our turn to respond proactively and positively. It’s time to reclaim some male pride and not be shy about it. As Heath Franklin’s Chopper Read might say: harden the fuck up, fellas.

It’s not about channelling your inner Don Draper and retreating into your man cave to pine for the good old days. It’s about embracing the challenges of being a man in 2012. Times are changing. We are on the cusp of what some twazzock from an advertising agency would call a ‘menaissance’.

If Darwin’s theory about the survival of the fittest still stands up, then we are the strongest, most competent and capable men ever to walk the earth. We’re certainly better informed and better groomed; more engaged and more emotionally intelligent. That’s not to say we won’t still forget birthdays, leave the toilet seat up or refuse to admit when we are hopelessly lost. But we are not the feckless fuckwits we’re so often made out to be.

It doesn’t matter what the marketing goons say or what ridiculous new label they try to pin on us. What truly makes a modern man is not what he wears, what beer he drinks or what car he drives. It’s how he behaves, how he treats others, the life he leads. It’s about the respect that he once took for granted, but now has to earn alongside his salary. The new masculinity isn’t a marketing buzzword; it’s simply about holding yourself to a higher standard. Be a better man.

SOURCE





Lazy and ineffective British civil servants face losing their jobs in sweeping reforms

Tens of thousands more civil servants face losing their jobs over the next three years under sweeping reforms which will see the size of Whitehall slashed by a quarter, ministers were told yesterday.

Underperforming bureaucrats will be sacked or go unreplaced when they retire under plans to reduce the number of civil servants to around 380,000 by 2015.  This is down 25 per cent from the 500,000 employed when the Coalition took over in 2010.

Ministers were briefed at Cabinet yesterday on a civil service ‘action plan’, which will bring in tough rules to strengthen the management of Britain’s army of administrators.

A Whitehall source said the document will question the generous flexitime system, which allows civil servants to amass extra time off each month, and will raise the idea of reducing the number of ‘privilege days’, such as the Queen’s birthday, which officials take off on top of bank holidays.

The plan, expected to be unveiled next week, will also call for government policy-making to be contracted out to academics and think-tanks.

Other changes will improve the quality of decision making by officials, which ministers hope will improve the quality of government in general.

The Coalition has already reduced the size of the civil service to around 440,000 people and public sector unions will be incensed that ministers want to go even further.

But the Government will fight the risk of further industrial action by arguing the cuts are vital for reducing the deficit.

The Whitehall source said: ‘This is all about how we ensure we tackle poor performance where it happens and deal with it effectively.  ‘It’s about how we can make the civil service more professional, do better with less, ensure everyone performs to a higher level, and deliver a better service all round.’

Cabinet ministers yesterday listened to a presentation on civil service reform by Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, and Sir Bob Kerslake, the head of the home civil service.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: ‘We have a civil service which is significantly smaller than in recent years, and there’s a need to address how it works and ensure it continues to provide the public services required.

‘It goes hand in hand with the reduction in staff that we have seen. The civil service is fit for purpose, but there is room for improvement.’

On Monday, Lord O’Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary, called for major reforms to Whitehall including the sponsoring of some Treasury civil servants by the City.

The spokesman for the Prime Minister said there were as yet no plans to see this vision put into practice.

SOURCE




Apprenticeships go begging among lazy British youth

Valuable apprenticeships are going begging because teenagers are too obsessed with Facebook and computer games to learn a hands-on trade, a senior motor industry boss said yesterday.

Even some teachers are turning a generation of youngsters off the ‘joy’ of making and driving real cars - especially sporty ones, he added.

The warning came from Ansar Ali, chief executive of sports-car maker Caterham at a conference of more than 300 motor industry bosses at London’s Canary Wharf yesterday.

As the UK’s booming motor industry seeks to plug vital skills shortages, unmotivated teenagers are turning away from manufacturing jobs offering hands-on skills using real ‘nuts and bolts’.  Instead they are in favour of the virtual attractions of ‘driving’ a screen car on a Playstation or over the internet, he said.

Mr Ali said: ‘‘The young generation who come in are not interested. They seem to get no joy from what they are doing. You would think people would have an interest in building real cars. But there’s a complete lack of engagement. We do struggle.   Children today just don’t seem interested in sports cars. They’d rather be on Facebook . They are more hooked on computer games.’

He told the conference that he struggled to find young people to work at his company’s factory in Dartford, Kent, creating the hand-built two-seater sports cars despite an average salary of £17,000.  And some schools are adding to the problem by demonising the motor car and the motor industry as something to be criticised rather than celebrated.

Motor manufacturers said the problem and skill shortage was most ‘challenging’ among the ‘less glamorous’ supplier and component companies.

And even BBC TV presenter Justin Webb, who was chairing the motor industry conference, admitted that sports cars are not seen as ‘cool’ among young people adding: ‘Cars at my children’s school are seen as a problem.’

Mr Ali, whose firm makes the back-to-basics two-seater ‘Seven’ sports car said that despite the recession he was struggling to find and retain motivated young employees.

The firm builds around 500 of the Seven sports cars a year, costing around £24,000 each, of which half go for export. They are available as completed cars, or in  kit-form which enthusiasts can then assemble at home in their garages.

Later he told the Daily Mail that of his 106 employees about 30 work on assembling cars and about a dozen are in their late teens or early twenties.

Training is ‘on the job’ but turnover is high. Mr Ali said: ‘The younger generation seem to get no joy from driving, from building a car from scratch, or from meeting the customers. They are disengaged. I think it’s a cultural thing.

Their virtual world is more important than the real world. It’s a real challenge for the Government, the industry and the education system.’

He stressed: ‘We do have one or two outstanding individuals. But recently we offered people tickets and the chance to go at no charge to the F1 grand prix. Only one person went.’

SOURCE




NO homosexual marriage and  civil unions also watered-down in the Australian State of Queensland

Under new conservative government

AFTER much speculation, Premier Campbell Newman has announced the Civil Partnerships Act recognising gay relationships will be retained in Queensland but couples will have to do without a "state-sanctioned declaration ceremony".

Mr  Newman said the "amendments" to the act will provide certainty for couples who have entered into civil unions and bring Queensland into line with other states.

But he said what was most offensive about the legislation to Christian churches was that the provisions of the act sought to "emulate marriage".

"There were two ways people could go about registering a civil partnership. They could simply fill out some forms, submit them, then a partnership would be registered or alternatively there was a state sanctioned voluntary ceremony," Mr Newman said.

"That was the bit that, for people in Christian churches has been unacceptable to them because it sought to emulate marriage."

He said since the act's introduction, a total of 609 civil partnerships were registered of which just 21 had held declaration ceremonies.

"We made a commitment to Queenslanders we would revisit the Civil Partnership Act and my government feels making these changes is the best outcome for everyone and now it's time to move on," Mr Newman said.

The law will change to remove the option of a state-sanctioned ceremony, without removing the option of registration of the civil unions.

The changes were welcomed by both Christian lobby groups and gay rights activists.

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays national spokeswoman Shelley Argent said the group had feared the laws would be repealed completely.

"He could have done much more damage than what he has done. And I think what he's tried to do, to be fair to Campbell Newman, he's tried to placate both sides," she said.

"It's not ideal but still it's much better than what we were expecting."

But Ms Argent said the decision to remove state-sanctioned ceremonies amid pressure from Christian groups was disappointing because the ceremonies were not religious.

"Removing the ceremony is disappointing but at least it's providing the protection that our lesbian daughters and gay sons need in these relationships," she said.

Ms Argent hoped the decision not to fully repeal civil unions was a "step forward" and would help put gay marriage on the federal agenda.

Australian Christian Lobby Queensland director Wendy Francis was "pleased" the decision pulled Queensland into line with other states.  "They have reversed some hastily put through legislation," she said.  "We now have what is equal to a relationship register so the parts of this legislation that had been mimicking marriage have been removed. For that I'm very grateful."

But Ms Francis said she would have preferred the laws be repealed completely.  "I think the legislation itself is bad legislation so when you start tampering with bad legislation it's hard to start from a fresh point of view," she said.

Christian lobby groups have been vehemently opposed to the laws, labelling civil unions a stepping stone to gay marriage.

But gay rights activists have argued that the unions are necessary to ensure same-sex couples have equal legal rights.

Mr Newman hinted during the election campaign that the LNP would act if it won power.  Former deputy premier Andrew Fraser introduced the legislation in what many saw as a blatant attempt to retain his marginal Mt Coot-tha seat.

As at May this year, 460 Queensland couples had entered into civil unions.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



13 June, 2012

She Warned Us

One of many things left out of the film "The Iron Lady" was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's warnings on the effects a single currency would have on the economies of European nations. Thatcher's premonitions place her among the great political prophets of all time.

On the single currency, Peter Oborne, a columnist for the London Daily Telegraph, writes, "Mrs. Thatcher foresaw with painful clarity the devastation it was bound to cause. Her autobiography records how she warned John Major, her euro-friendly chancellor of the exchequer, that the single currency could not accommodate both industrial powerhouses such as Germany and smaller countries such as Greece." Thatcher predicted the currency would harm poorer countries because it would "devastate their inefficient economies."

The idea of a European Union modeled on the United States was unlikely to succeed from the beginning because, unlike American states, European countries lack a common bond. There are different languages, different histories (Colorado, for example, never invaded Nebraska) and different religions, including for six decades, atheism imposed by communist dictators in Eastern Europe.

How can a European "E Pluribus Unum" be forged out of that?

BBC reporter Laurence Knight stated the obvious when he summed up Spain's financial disaster by noting its citizens during the relatively brief "good times" of the 1990s spent much more on housing and other material goods than they could afford. Sound familiar? Living within one's means was a lesson forgotten by individuals and governments, whose main preoccupation -- in Europe and America -- has been giving people what they want in hopes they'll re-elect the politicians who dispensed the goodies. That formula has contributed to an unemployment rate in Spain approaching 25 percent. Spain last weekend was approved for a bailout of up to $125 billion from the eurozone, the fourth country to ask for a loan since Europe's debt crisis began.

Knight wrote last month, "Unfortunately for Spain, it shares a currency with Germany. That means Spain can no longer simply devalue the peseta -- something that would automatically make its workers cheaper and more competitive in the world. There is no peseta to devalue."

As columnist William Rees-Mogg wrote last Friday in The Times, "So far as British opinion goes, Europe is seen as a cost to be borne rather than a loyalty to be cherished."

After all this, the "conservative" British government, still ignoring Thatcher's warnings, is proposing a referendum that, if approved by voters, would move Britain closer to the European Union. The Daily Telegraph reported, "EU leaders are discussing moves toward more integrated financial, fiscal and even political systems among the 17 countries that use the euro."

Are they mad? Why would Britain want to associate itself with governments and economies (and people) that have behaved so irresponsibly? During the Cold War, Britain did not try to integrate its economy with that of the Soviet Union. In Europe, union has not brought unity, nor can it. Does Britain want to share more of the continent's misery, or should it try instead to point its people and the eurozone states to real change with freer and more empowered individuals, not government, leading the way?

Again, Margaret Thatcher was right when she said, "A democratic Europe of nation states could be a force for liberty, enterprise and open trade. But, if creating a United States of Europe overrides these goals, the new Europe will be one of subsidy and protection."

Most profoundly, Thatcher warned, "We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels."

That is precisely the seductive siren call the "conservative" British government now hears. It is a call, that, if answered "yes" by voters will wreck Britain's struggling economy and potentially cause it to go down the drain along with most of the other economies on the continent.

Today's politicians can't pretend they were not warned.

SOURCE







Anger of Christian GP accused of discussing his faith with patient as his accuser is heard in secret

A doctor facing disciplinary action for discussing his faith in Jesus with a patient yesterday blamed 'anti-Christian' bias after his accuser was allowed to give evidence in secret.

Dr Richard Scott has spent two years under threat of an official warning after the 'suicidal' patient's mother complained about the conversation.

Yesterday a General Medical Council disciplinary hearing agreed to go ahead with the case against him, even though the unnamed patient refused to attend.

Instead, the patient will be allowed to give evidence over the telephone with the Press and public barred from being present.

Last night Dr Scott accused the GMC of displaying bias against Christians, while his legal adviser said it was another example of 'over-zealous victimisation of Christians by public bodies'.

'I do not feel like I'm getting a fair trial,' the father-of-three said outside the hearing.  'It feels like it's become almost like a secret court or secret justice which is outrageous.

'Now I can't see my accuser. We can't see his body languages or expressions which is crucial for fair justice.'

Last year Dr Scott said he was 'disgusted' by the GMC's stance when it agreed to continuing pursuing the case against him when the patient first refused to turn up to give evidence.  'The GMC have relentlessly pursued me and are determined to put me on trial,' the 51-year-old former missionary said yesterday.  'First he didn't turn up last year, now this.  'There definitely seems like there is an anti-Christian agenda here.

'This case should be thrown out, but now we have got to this outrageous situation where the whole thing is surrounded by secrecy and anonymity.' He is taking legal advice on applying for judicial review of the GMC decision to accept the patient's evidence by phone.

The case is the latest in a series of incidents in which hospitals and medical authorities have been accused of acting to suppress any expression of Christian beliefs.

Dr Scott spoke to the 24-year-old patient, described as suicidal and vulnerable, at the end of a consultation at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, Kent in August 2010.

The practice declares its Christian orientation and informs prospective patients that they may be offered spiritual guidance as well as medical help.

He is said to have suggested to the patient that they might discuss religion.

The patient is believed to have replied 'go for it' and Dr Scott told him about the 'additional help which he might derive from Jesus' and added that he might feel better if he prayed, as the patient's own religion did not appear to be giving him comfort.

The patient's mother, who had recommended Dr Scott to her son, later complained.

Yesterday an investigation committee of the GMC, sitting in Manchester, agreed to hear the patient's evidence in private over the telephone.

Committee chairman Dr Christopher Hanning said the decision had been made after considering the man's physical and mental condition.

In a statement afterwards, Dr Scott said: 'I, and every GP, should be outraged at this decision by our professional body.' He said thousands of doctors who carried out one-to-one consultations with patients every day ought to have the right to have them cross-examined if they made a complaint.

Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, which has backed Dr Scott's case, added: 'I am appalled by what I'm witnessing today.  'The GMC is convening a secret court so that it can pursue disciplinary proceedings against a Christian doctor with an unblemished professional record, despite the complainant refusing to even turn up.

'This is unheard of and many doctors will be deeply concerned with the way this is being handled by the GMC.  'This is another example of the over-zealous victimisation of Christians by public bodies. Something has to change, and soon.' The committee has the power to give Dr Scott a warning, not to strike him off.

SOURCE






Spoilt West invites its own decline

The writer below, Peter Hartcher, generally leans slightly Left, like the newspaper he writes for  -- but he has got a lot of things right below

It is easy and natural to think of the woes of the West's main powers as an economic problem. Because that's the way it is presented to us. And it is economic - at least, superficially. But if you take a step back, what we're really living through is the decline of the West.

It's not just about Spain's debts and Europe's currency, or even just about Europe. It's not just about Washington's deficits and the US recession, or even just about the US.

These are the symptoms and the locations of a common dysfunction, not driven by some remote economic force but by people and politics. That dysfunction is very human, very normal and very simple. The central driver in the decline of the West is indulgence.

This indulgence has worked through three channels. First is government spending. In country after country, political leaders have indulged their electorates and powerful special interests. They gave in to demands and pressures and expectations. They spent money they didn't have. Everyone wants more handouts and bigger subsidies but no one wants to pay more taxes. Political leaders are supposed to manage these conflicting pressures in the national interest. They did not. The deficits began and didn't stop. They piled up.

The main powers of the Western bloc, since World War II at least, have included not just western Europe and the US but also Japan. All three of these huge economies have been guilty of extravagant spending and inadequate taxing.

The pensioners and public servants and governments of Greece have had a lot of bad press in the last year or two for their indulgence. They've been roundly abused for expecting too much in welfare payments and retirement benefits and for not paying enough tax.

And it's true there has been quite a bit of wasteful middle-class welfare and ill-disciplined social welfare paid to the voters of many eurozone countries. But most of the governments of Europe have also wantonly indulged powerful special interests.

Farmers, for example. Almost half the European Union's annual budget - 47 per cent - is spent on subsidies to farmers. The Common Agricultural Policy props up hopelessly uncompetitive farmers who should have gone out of business.

But they are a powerful and organised political force, so they get paid for being uncompetitive. This is a weakness shared by Japan and the US, too, though not as extravagantly.

The most famous American subsidisation of a special interest is its wasteful spending on military programs. In the early 2000s, the US accounted for only 5 per cent of world population but just under half of all global military spending. Another way of putting it is that the US spent almost as much on defence as the other 190 countries of the world put together.

Japan's special fetish has long been construction spending. Not just since the tsunami but for decades before that. In 2003, for instance, it spent 40 per cent of the national budget on construction in what was already one of the world's most overbuilt countries.

One reason was the fact that, for a long time, the construction sector kicked back a share of the money to the politicians who decided the spending. Under the reign of one former top figure in the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party, Shin Kanemaru, it was a fixed 2 per cent cash kickback on contracts awarded - a huge pay-off.

The second channel through which indulgence was exercised was the central banks. Central banks in Japan, then the US and Europe, made money too cheap for too long. It was an indulgence. But it was a fatal one.

Central banks were granted independence from politicians for an excellent reason - most people love low interest rates and politicians love giving people what they want. But if you keep rates too low for too long, it pushes up prices and creates terrible problems. Until the 1980s, excess money went into the price of consumer goods and you got inflation breakouts.

But from the '80s onwards, something changed. Excess money started flowing into the price of assets instead - shares and real estate, in particular. The Japanese let this happen in the '80s and when the ''bubble economy'' popped, it went into a slump from which it is still recovering.

The US - telling itself it was special and different and better and, in any case, it had the genius Alan Greenspan - made exactly the same mistake. It got the same result.

Why did it do it? Greenspan, as Jim Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer sagely said, was a better politician than he was a central banker. He kept the great American party going and became a national hero for doing it, even though it was intoxicated on cheap money, until it came to its inevitable end.

The third channel was the banking sector and the high-rolling investment banks in particular. Politicians and regulators in the US, mainly, but also in Europe, indulged the fantastic profitability and the generous political donations of the investment banks.

Under cover of the ideology of the free market and its supposedly miraculous ability to reach perfect equilibrium, they created new and virulent ways of profiteering from the great gushers of cheap money flowing from the central banks. Subprime mortgage lending was one.

Of course, when it all crashed, the political leaders had to bail out the banks. And that was expensive. The cost was added to the towering public debts that the politicians had already accumulated. And so the cycle feeds itself anew.

By last year, the average public debt of the eurozone nations was 82 per cent of the size of their total gross domestic product, far above the permitted maximum of 60 per cent. In the US, the figure was 103 per cent. In Japan it was 230 per cent.

As these great Western powers grew richer, they grew flabbier and more indulgent to the point of collapse.

It's a very old story in the history of civilisations, told anew in our time.

SOURCE






Australian Prime Minister's  rejection of homosexual marriage "hurtful", say activists

SAME-SEX couples would find Prime Minister Julia Gillard's comment that a committed relationship doesn't require a marriage certificate hurtful, a marriage equality group said today.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard drew on her own relationship to defend her opposition to same-sex marriage on ABC TV last night.

Ms Gillard is not married to her long-term partner Tim Mathieson, but says that doesn't mean they aren't in a committed relationship.  "I think you can have a relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn't need a marriage certificate associated with it," Ms Gillard told Q&A.   "That's my life experience - so I'm speaking from that life experience."

Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich said Ms Gillard's comments would be viewed as hurtful by many same-sex couples.

"The Prime Minister is able to choose not to marry, however this choice is denied to many same-sex couples who desperately want to celebrate the traditions of marriage and have the legal protection, security and recognition that comes with marriage," he said.

"The Prime Minister may not want to marry herself, but most Australians value the importance of marriage greatly and as such want their gay and lesbian friends to have equal access and be treated as equal citizens by the marriage act."

Mr Greenwich said Australia is the only developed English-speaking country without a major party leader who supports marriage equality.

The AME and some clergy have also slammed an Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) video campaign that claims same-sex marriage may lead to polygamy, saying it is scaremongering.

Mr Greenwich said international experience proves there is no link between same-sex marriage and polygamy.  "This scare campaign proves the ACL has no argument left except fear. Its offensive nature will drive undecided politicians and members of the public towards supporting marriage equality," he said.

Labor MPs will be allowed a conscience vote on gay marriage when legislation is put before the parliament.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

**************************



12 June, 2012

Sam de Brito confesses that he is a slave to female looks

I wonder how common Sam's problem is?  After all, most women (except those with tickets on themselves) do find themselves a partner.  The women in my life have ranged from pretty plain to quite beautiful (though the average has been pretty fair) but it is always the ability to have an intelligent conversation with them that has been my criterion for interest in them  -- JR

 I know a woman who I reckon would date a Nazi (and probably creepy Hugh Hefner) just as long as they kept the expensive dinners, trips away and rooms with a view coming.

This woman is pretty boring, rather duplicitous and not particularly bright. In fact, her only marketable virtues are great legs and a face so beautiful it would make a priest kick a hole in a stained-glass window.

However, the most annoying thing about her is I know if she caught me after three or four neat single malts and ushered me into a nightclub toilet cubicle, I'd collaborate like Vichy France.

I could probably even fall in love with her, convincing myself she was into me for me - not my wealth, talent and good looks, oops, wrong guy, that's her boyfriend.

One of the more frustrating parts of being male - well, this male at least - is being attracted to crappy women; vacuous, venal or just plain nasty chicks.

Women have this problem, too, the much-documented female attraction to bad boys, jerks and players. But then, I often hear women say: "Once I knew what a douche he was, I wasn't attracted to him any more."

With many guys, even when we find out a woman is completely soulless, if she's hot enough, we'll still go there. Hell, if she's hot enough, we'll marry her.

Maybe - as is often my mistake - I'm confusing the personal and anecdotal for the norm, because I suffer terribly from this weakness (which is why I never go to strip clubs - far too risky).

However, I know enough men who share my breathtaking superficiality that it makes me wonder if the desire to bed beautiful, crappy people is not imprinted on the monkey minds of some of us less-evolved primates?

Good old Hefner seems to be an acute sufferer, having just last week reconciled with his 26-year-old fiancee, Crystal, after she dumped him days before their wedding. She later told US radio host Howard Stern their lovemaking lasted "like two seconds" and, staggeringly, that she was "not turned on by Hef".

Still, Hefner, 86, has gone back there and, like many, many men who have admired the wire-service pictures of the fabulously perky Crystal, I say: "Who can blame him?"

I consider all the qualities I want in a partner - compassion, intelligence, a sense of humour, loyalty, kindness - and they can be obliterated in an instant on a Friday night by a beautiful face and pair of molten legs.

Many would argue this is because men like me - who suffer from a compulsion to be with beautiful women - are insecure, that we care more about what others think of us than the heart that beats beside us in bed.

That's where I have to disagree - because it's not just about her heart, but also her legs, stomach, bottom, breasts, shoulders, neck, mouth and eyes.

I wish I was joking.

SOURCE




Enoch Powell still speaks to us today

Charles Moore reviews "Enoch at 100", edited by Greville Howard

Enoch Powell was, until the rise of Margaret Thatcher, the most famous politician in Britain. This was because of his “Rivers of Blood” speech in April 1968, in which he warned of the effects of mass immigration. No single speech since the war has caused greater controversy.

At the time, Enoch (as with Boris today, friend and foe alike referred to him by his unusual Christian name) was a polariser. He had fervent supporters and violent – sometimes literally violent – opponents. Luckily, this no longer applies. Powell died in 1998. He would have been 100 this year. The 21st century can consider him in the perspective of history.

But why should one bother? What is there to learn from a politician who, in career terms, failed, never rising higher than being minister of health?

This book, friendly to Enoch, but critical too, provides excellent answers. The speech of Powell’s which it quotes most frequently is one in which he himself addressed the question. “At the end of a lifetime in politics,” he said, “when a man looks back, he discovers that the things he most opposed have come to pass and that nearly all the objects he set out with are not merely not accomplished, but seem to belong to a different world from the one he lives in.” Yet it turns out that failure has its uses. It can make people see more clearly than success.

Enoch had a powerful mind and remarkable gifts of expression. He could think boldly about a huge range of subjects, and then argue about them with intellectual force and high emotion. The editor of this book, Greville Howard, rightly mixes essays about Enoch with whole speeches by the man himself. The reader picks up his strangely compelling tone of voice – the odd combination of eccentric professor and mass orator, of almost archaic obscurity and devastating clarity.

Here you can learn not only Powell’s thoughts on his main subjects – immigration, Europe, Northern Ireland – but also his groundbreaking ideas about what causes inflation, his bold approach to energy policy, his hostility (deranged by conspiracy theory) to the United States, his skills and deficiencies as a textual critic of ancient Greek and of the Bible, his wisdom on reforming the House of Lords (don’t!), and even the poems which he wrote each year for his beloved wife Pam, who is still alive. (Frank Field, in a touching essay, refers to “the mystery of Enoch and his so lovable Pam”. The greatest pleasure in this book is the first ever interview with Pam. She displays all the warm common sense without which her otherwise lonely husband would surely have gone off the rails.)

People used to complain about Powell’s “remorseless logic”. It is true that he had the donnish fault of believing he could conclusively prove something which had not occurred to others. But I would say that his greater fault, and yet his great virtue also, was his romanticism. His first passionate devotion was to the British Empire, especially in India, where he served during the war. After the loss of India, love spurned drove him towards a view of Britain so post-imperial that it had no room for foreign alliances and global reach at all.

He rejected the United Nations, nuclear deterrence, the “special relationship”, international human rights and, of course, the European Union. His attitude to the British constitution was rather like that of a jealous Muslim father who locks his daughter indoors whenever she so much as looks at a young man from the wrong tribe. For example, I remember him arguing, in 1982, that the realm of England could not contain the Pope of Rome, who, for the first time in history, was about to visit. Needless to say, Pope John Paul II came, and went, and the nation survived.

But Powell’s passion was a virtue as well, because political leaders should be able to feel and to dramatise the history that makes a nation what it is. In an amusing essay here, Anne Robinson recalls her formidable mother, and her firm belief that Enoch was speaking for England.

His commitment to the British nation state, and above all to the Parliament which embodied it, made him pay relentless attention to the visceral issues which lay behind the questions of the day. “Enoch was right”, taxi drivers always used to say 25 years ago. They meant, right about the dangers of mass immigration. Some of them were racists, but I don’t think most were. They had a pride in the identity of their nation and a fear when they felt it threatened. Powell spoke to these feelings, and although his language was inflammatory, he was right to raise the subject. In a well-balanced, often critical essay in this book, Tom Bower goes through the whole “Rivers of Blood” legacy. He points out that Powell’s prediction of the scale of the problem turned out to be more accurate than that of his critics.

The first words of the “Rivers of Blood” speech are: “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.” Powell tried sincerely to do this. He did it most systematically on the question of Europe. If you read his speeches of the Seventies, some of which appear in this book, you will concede that his account of what “going into Europe” meant has turned out to be factually correct (even if, unlike Powell, you support what has happened). Nowadays, people often say, in reference to the EU or the euro, that “no one ever told us this”. Powell did: it was just that not enough people were in the mood to listen. If you read this book, you will get in the mood. You will find the passions of 40 years ago strangely relevant to the problems we now confront.

SOURCE






I Hate Mike Adams

    Mike Adams
  
I love being hated. And if you don’t think I’m hated then you haven’t read my most recent rating on www.RateMyProfessor.com. For those too lazy to click the link (that means liberals), I’ve reprinted the latest rating below:

    “I hate this guy on a personal level. He is a hyper-conservative homophobic a**hole. I disagree with his beliefs in every way and have never in my life had a professor or teacher I disliked more. I have to admit he's a good professor as far as covering course material in a clear manner, but his class policy is also very strict.”

In just four sentences, this student has succinctly summarized at least six major problems with liberalism in America. They follow in no particular order of importance:

1. Hate speech is a one-way street. When conservatives speak, their speech can still be labeled “hate speech” even if it does not contain the word “hate.” But liberals can avoid a charge of hate speech even when using the phrase “I hate” as an opener. Liberal hate is well-intentioned and tends to focus on broader social goals. It isn’t the words that determine whether something is free speech. It’s the sentiment that lies behind them.

2. Everyone else is extreme. The term hyper-conservative is usually applied to people who believe crazy things like “marriage involves one man and one woman” or “it’s wrong to dismember innocent babies.” According to liberals, about 80% of the population is “hyper-conservative” for one reason or another.

3. Every disagreement involves a “phobia.” A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Liberals usually apply this term to people like me who are not afraid to say anything. Absence of fear? Irrational fear? It’s all the same in the mind of the liberal.

4. Disagreement with ideas justifies personal vilification. Note that the above-quoted student links total disagreement with ideas to maximum “dislike” for individuals. Also, note that he does so in the same sentence. The cause/effect connection is inescapable. Because he disagreed with my “beliefs” the liberal student “disliked” me more than any other teacher. The student makes no effort to give any other reason than the ideas themselves. In other words, hatred of ideas = hatred of persons. And the former justifies the latter.

5. Qualifications are of minimal relevance. Eventually, the liberal student admits I cover the material in a “clear manner” - but not until after all the other personal attacks are aired. Personal characteristics are more important than competence. That is why a liberal clings to affirmative action like a conservative clings to guns and religion.

6. Standards are a form of oppression. Maybe he was mad that my ban on laptops in class kept him from getting status updates from the Perez Hilton Facebook fan page while listening to my lectures. Regardless, the insistence that we all follow rules did not mesh with his otherwise stellar commitment to equality. Liberals think standards are fine as long as they are applied to other people. When applied to everyone, the interest in equality is often replaced by an interest in tolerance.

Oddly enough, I feel sorry for this disgruntled student - although I’m glad he helped everyone better understand the liberal mindset. But he should not have had to wait until the end of the semester to express his hatred. So I’m coming to the rescue with a new plan than will help angry liberals (please pardon the redundancy) while earning me money for guns, cigars, guitars, and ammunition.

My plan is pure genius. It’s the new “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt, which will be available in small, medium, large, and extra-large sizes. This new t-shirt will be sold at all of my speeches under the following variable pricing scheme:

$12 for conservatives

$15 for liberals

$20 for feminists

$50 for homosexual rights activists

My reasoning for variable pricing is simply that some groups are angrier than others and will get more benefit from expressing their hatred. So, naturally, they should have to pay more. If you are a liberal, feminist, or homosexual activist who is taking one of my courses then feel free to wear it to class.

The “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt will replace the need for anonymous hate speech on RateMyProfessors.com. Everyone can come out of the closet at once and start contributing to my early retirement. And that’s a cause that both Mike Adams and his haters can get behind!

SOURCE





Australia: Must not re-enact history?

The British Raj is part of Indian history and in my experience Indians are more likely to be amused by it  -- particularly by British eccentricities  -- than anything else.  And since the Indians attending the function below thought it was fun one has to conclude that only sourpusses are complaining about it

A colonial-themed event at a university has resurrected an uneasy past. The dress code on the invitation "white tie or colonial uniform" seemed innocent enough. College students arrived at St Paul's great hall dressed in immaculate black dinner suits with matching white handkerchiefs.

They were met by a team of Indian and south Asian waiters, dressed in colourful traditional cultural garments and college students dressed in formal attire, who served them Indian delicacies and curries.

It was St Paul's yearly "upscale" dinner. This time the theme was "end of the British Raj".

But within days of the grand event, ideological war broke out at the University of Sydney over whether the elite college, which is no stranger to controversy, was basking in the glory of colonialism and slavery. Before long, vicious vitriol began ricocheting across Facebook.

"I am Indian and I used to go to college. My relatives suffered in colonial India. This theme offended me and brought me to the brink of tears," one female student wrote.

"Please, can you all come to our next party? It's Mexican themed, and we'll be celebrating all the abductions and beheadings you can poke a stick at," a student responded.

"I have this turban and - what luck! - it's just your size," another provoked.

Had it not been a letter to the student newspaper, Honi Soit, from an outraged arts student, Mason McCann, the white tie event may have gone unnoticed.

"I do not think the party was a celebration of Indian culture, it was a celebration of imperialism," Mr McCann told The Sun-Herald.

"The party demonstrates a serious deep disconnect between the culture of St Paul's and the culture of the University of Sydney. I am deeply offended by it.  "They have a responsibility as a prestigious and old institution to project a positive public image to both the other students and the public, and I think that party succeeded in doing just the opposite of that."

In response to Mr McCann's letter which was published in full, Hugo Rourke from St Paul's, who as senior student speaks on behalf of his peers, wrote to Honi Soit to justify the party.  "It was a successful event, held in good taste and enjoyed by attendees and employees alike," he wrote, seemingly shocked that the event would cause such uproar.

The catering company for the event, Sodexo, were similarly taken aback by the suggestion their workers had been forced to don cultural garb.

Its state manager, Ram Devagiri, said his staff, who all have a south Asian backgrounds and work at the college full-time serving three meals a day, were having an "absolute ball" at the party and had become "annoyed" at the insinuation there were racial undertones at play.  "They are not happy that they are being dragged through this, because they actually had a great time that evening," he said.

"We didn't go out looking for a couple of Indian-looking blokes and bring them in. They work there all the time."

But when it was revealed that Mr Rourke's published response had been edited, the debate shifted to Facebook and racial vilification was exposed.

"If you can find me anyone of Indian heritage who was at all offended by the evening at St. Paul's for (Jazz Dinner Dance) I'd be astounded," one flabbergasted St Paul's student wrote.

"That's it, ban ALL the upscale parties!!" another wrote.

On Wednesday, the Student Representative Council passed a motion condemning the themed party by writing a letter to the college's spokesman, the warden, Dr Ivan Head, asking for an explanation.

"The meeting was very controversial, there was a lot of debate about it," said SRC welfare officer Rafi Alam.  "Most of the people who said it wasn't racist were white people who go to college or have friends in college, but the non-whites were quite upset about it," Mr Alam said, who has a Bangladeshi background.

It is understood that a handful of students boycotted the dinner.

Mr Alam said the party proved that "racial subtext" existed at the university.

When The Sun- Herald contacted Mr Rourke, he "had nothing to say on the matter". The warden, Dr Head, did not return calls.

Does the St Paul's party constitute discrimination? The president of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, Stepan Kerkyasharian, said that as long as there was no insistence that only people from the Indian subcontinent could serve as waiters, then what happened at the St Paul's function "would not be discrimination".

Re-enacting a period in history like the British Raj "may offend some people but I don't think the act itself constitutes discrimination or vilification".

"I think if [re-enactment] is done accurately and in good faith and the re-enactment itself is not offensive, is not intended to vilify and is not discriminatory, then one has to accept the historical reality," Mr Kerkyasharian said.

"If the message here was, 'Look, Indians are slaves … or Indians are only good as waiters' I would find that objectionable.

"But if the intent was to create this historical imagery … I wouldn't see that as deliberately derogatory or deliberate vilification of people of an Indian background," Mr Kerkyasharian said.

The popularity of re-enactment is growing and the Australasian Living History Federation now boasts 85 member organisations that specialise in eras ranging from the ancient to the medieval, Napoleonic, Victorian, US Civil War, colonial Australia and the two world wars.

The federation's secretary, Jessica Robinson, said some re-enactments had caused anger and those with particular potential to offend included the US Civil War, the world wars, the Crusades and colonial Australia.

But she is adamant that, when done sensitively, they can all be re-enacted without the performances in any way glorifying slavery, Nazism, religious hatred or the conquest of Aboriginal people.

"Our main rule is that we don't want re-enactment to be a vehicle for any kind of political ideology that someone is trying to force through in the modern era," Ms Robinson said.

Jeff Yuille is a corporal in the 2nd Virginia Living History Group, which celebrates the Confederate regiment of the same name that fought for the South in the US Civil War. Its members dress in period costume, camp out, eat period food and sometimes stage mock battles against other living history groups representing Union soldiers from the North.

Although some believe any celebration of the Confederacy is a de facto celebration of slavery and racism, Mr Yuille said his group had never experienced any protests.

Criticism of the British Raj function, he said, sounded like "political correctness gone mad" and only represented the view of a "crazy minority".  "They are reliving history," he said of the event.

Stephen Gapps is a historian and curator at the National Maritime Museum who conducted his PhD thesis on the history of historical re-enactment.  "I think some events are difficult to re-enact because of the long memories of the terrible events, particularly colonial [Australian] stuff and the US Civil War," he said.  "Some things should not be re-enacted, like events from the Holocaust," Dr Gapps added.

But he believes that if controversial topics are tackled with authenticity and sensitivity and "get people from both arguments involved in the beginning", they can be cathartic rather than divisive.

Dr Gapps said Colonial Williamsburg, an American historical theme park, represented an 18th-century landscape where slavery was common, but previously "hardly any elements of the presentation dealt with slavery".

It was decided to get black Americans involved in recreating a slave auction - a move that attracted hundreds of protesters - but they walked away from the performance saying "it was fantastic and it showed the humanity of the situation".

Holding a British Raj dinner was "fraught with danger", said Dr Gapps, because Sydney has a big sub-continental population, so it had to be approached carefully.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



11 June, 2012

Facing relegation: Why Britain's 'undeveloping' economy means the country could be about to join the Third World

The average Briton gets poorer with  every year that goes by -- and there is no end to that in sight.  The relentlessly rising number of knees under government desks does not leave enough people to do the useful things that would be needed to maintain or improve Britain's standard of living

Relegation, every football manager’s nightmare, now looms on a national scale. Countries, like football teams, can slide down the leagues, and for Britain the pending demotion is traumatic – from the ranks of the first world to those of the third.

Britain is an undeveloping economy, a submerging rather than emerging market. Not only will 2014 mark 100 years since the start of the First World War, it will also be a century since we were last an undisputed economic leader and superpower.

The signs are that this fight will be lost – and not simply because of the depressed state of our economy. More worrying are the indications that Britain is ceasing to be a developed economy and is now on course to swap places with one of the emerging economic giants.

Take our balance-of-payments problem. Britain last ran a current-account surplus in 1983. Since then, it has been in deficit. Worse, it has been borrowing money from countries such as China in order to buy goods made in, yes, China.

Then there is the steady sale of our commercial assets to foreigners. Overseas investors possess nearly £200 billion more of British assets than our investors own overseas.

Britain’s labour market is a mess – another sign of a relegation candidate. Many native workers, considered too unproductive and poorly trained to be of use, are paid beer money in the form of benefits to keep them quiet, while better qualified foreigners are recruited instead.

At the latest count, four million of Britain’s 29 million workers  were foreign-born. Two million Britons are registered as long-term sick, and 2.63 million are unemployed, using the broadest definition.

There is a permanent rumble of discontent from the customers of both State and private organisations. Public servants demand additional upfront payments, in cash or kind, before they will perform their tasks (police overtime, GP contracts).

A pseudo-competitive private sector in gas, water, railways and electricity conspires against the public, as companies conjure up ever-more inventive reasons to increase charges.

As with many countries in the developing world, there is chronic uncertainty about the authority of the State. In Britain, a separatist party is in control of a resources-rich  region (Scotland), while the potential constitutional flashpoints are many and various: Westminster versus Brussels; Ministers versus the still-new Supreme Court ......

It has taken us 100 years to reach this sorry condition. Relative decline, against the United States in particular, may have been inescapable, but our pending relegation was never inevitable.

Let no one say demotion is impossible. Had the Group of  Seven leading economies existed  in 1945, Argentina would have  been a member. But after decades of mismanagement, inflation and debt defaults, it no longer figures in anyone’s idea of the big league.

Yet Britain is in a state of denial, our leaders convinced that the economy is a winning side. The alternative is to accept that we are starting from scratch. Developing countries need a development model, and undeveloping countries such as Britain do too.

Two approaches are on offer. We could try to emulate the so-called Swedish model, with a social-industrial-government partnership and extensive public welfare, or we could aim to be an Atlantic Hong Kong, with minimum State interference, low taxes and only basic welfare services.

We must choose. It is our long-term refusal to do so that has led to our current predicament.

SOURCE




A new global elite is on the march

Comment from Britain

Have you come across “OES syndrome”? The letters stand for Overeducated Elitist Snob, and if you don’t know what that means let me draw your attention to the front benches of the House of Commons.

OES syndrome is an American term, coined by the US political scientist Charles Murray to describe the clustering of wealth, power and – crucially – intelligence at one end of the social spectrum. Murray’s new book Coming Apart: The State of White America is not as controversial as The Bell Curve, the 1994 volume in which he and Richard Herrnstein compared race and IQ. But its conclusions are every bit as alarming.

A hundred years ago, says Murray, most Americans in the top five per cent of cognitive ability had ordinary occupations. They were very clever shopkeepers, farmers, housewives and factory workers. But they didn’t somersault over their peers.

One reason is that they couldn’t marry very smart people. High intelligence was scattered evenly across America, so a gifted farm worker might have to travel 100 miles before he met a woman as bright as he was. Instead, he married an ordinary local girl, and their children, regressing to the mean, were only slightly cleverer than their schoolfriends.

The explosion of college education changed that. Universities plucked bright kids out of their home towns like a tornado and suddenly they found that they weren’t in Kansas any more. Young people hooked up with equally intelligent partners and passed on two sets of smart genes.

This mobility opened up Ivy League universities to competition from ultra-bright candidates. The old-money aristocracy at Harvard, Yale and Princeton shrank, but the average IQ at those universities soared – and with it the earning potential of alumni. The newly elite students married each other and the result, says Murray, is a hard core of Overeducated Elitist Snobs.

Members of this supercharged class don’t just separate themselves from the poor: they’re quarantined from “everybody who isn’t as rich and well educated as they are”. They also produce clever, rich children by marrying brains and money (which go together these days).

Remind you of anybody? We may tease David Cameron and George Osborne for being “toffs”, but they’re more than that. Although both inherited money, they’re also furiously ambitious academic snobs of the type Murray describes. In their meritocracy, the purpose of a superior brain is to amass money and power. Intellectual curiosity isn’t encouraged lest it jeopardise that project. Hence the anomaly of a prime minister with a brilliant First from Oxford who has never uttered a truly original thought in public.

Let’s not kid ourselves that the elitism of this Oxbridge-educated Coalition will disappear when it loses power. Labour has its own OES syndrome; so do politicians and business leaders from Palo Alto to Beijing. Free market capitalism forces the brightest people to the top. That may sound like good news, but it also creates an association between intelligence and living standards that, in the long run, will condemn stupid people to poverty.

The new marriage patterns do as much harm as good. Once bright people are taken out of the local gene pool, what does that leave? Our natural reaction is to say: “Let’s not go there.” But we really have no choice, because global capitalism is creating a cognitive hierarchy in front of our eyes – and, with it, inequalities just as cruel as the ones we thought we had abolished.

SOURCE

What the author above says is undoubtedly true but I doubt that much can be done about it or should be done about it.  It may however lead to a generation of politicians with "the common touch" (Like economics graduate Ronald Reagan) and that may help preserve social peace and realistic politics -- JR





Homosexual "marriage" has many conseqiences

Gays and lesbians can, and have been co-habituating openly for some time.  That's their prerogative, but is it right and fair to force their lifestyle on children?  This is concerning, especially when they are unable to adopt, and choose to bring children into their lives by men hiring lawyers to find female surrogates to carry their children, or women contracting for male sperm.  Lease a womb or buy an egg.

In 2007, Maryland's highest court ruled that a birth certificate could be issued  with only the name of the child's father. A number of state laws provide a way for adults to produce a child and legally be the only parent - a modern-day miracle to have children born with "no mother," at least not listed on the birth certificate.  Also, a modern-day tragedy for such children.

Under such arrangements the child would have no knowledge of one, or both, of his or her parents, begetting a life filled with questions and wondering - a life with a sparse, or no family history,  a life with a partial birthright.  How did their ancestors arrive in this great country, what were their struggles and accomplishments?  That, and other fulfilling and important information will be forever absent from their lives.

The current protection of anonymity does a disservice to children who might be left, not only with sparse knowledge of their identity, but also of their important genetic background.  This genetic information can be significant regarding health conditions that might run in one's family.  Family history is the best source for discovering traits that might be possible health problems or disorders. Incomplete information, or total lack of, which faces these often commercially transacted children, is troubling and serious. In all fairness to them, the states should end their practice of anonymous sperm and egg donation.

If same-sex marriage is made a national statute, would it make any difference in your life?  Unfortunately, children are not the only casualities.

 In a Washington Post article, David Wiegel listed several examples of how, where it is the law, "Same-sex marriage is leading to a campaign of repression and censorship against religious individuals and institutions."  He also cited examples of "college students punished for refusing to support same-sex parenting, graduate students thrown out of counseling programs for refusing to affirm homosexual sex, denials of tax exemptions for church land when the church refuses to host same-sex ceremonies, photographers punished for refusing to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies, and social work licenses threatened merely because the social worker publicly supported a state marriage amendment."

 After the same-sex mandate went into effect in Massachusetts, officials attempted to force Catholic Charities to match children up for adoption with same-sex couples. To live their convictions, and concern for the children, they stopped providing adoption services. Same-sex marriage can, and is resulting in less liberty, not more.

The act of marriage between a man and woman has been created for only one purpose and that is for the biological and historical protection of potential children and their descendants.  It has nothing to do with discrimination against "gays," since equal rights are now given by most states to couples of the same sex who want a legal or civil union, or even a blessed covenant. Indeed, the practice of discrimination is actually being used against the adopted children of same sex marriage.

But if a national law is enacted where men can marry men and women can marry women, won't others cry discrimination?  Won't those wanting polygamy insist on equal treatment? (And, this won't be the Mormons.  It has given them enough headaches, wasn't popular with them in the first place, never practiced by over 3%, and was rescinded in 1890.)  Will our society expect similar claims of discrimination from NAMBLA, the North America Man-Boy Love Association? These followers are already studying the political trail used by "gays" to reach their current status.  Might religious universities and other church organizations be required to accept membership, and even leadership positions to individuals who are knowingly members of NAMBLAthe Boy Scouts, for instance?
 Then there are other groups who might push for legalizing the abhorrent practice of bestiality. This sounds unbelievable, but it does exist in shocking numbers.  Such an anti-discrimination law could also cause every Bible believing church and synagogue in the country to lose their tax exempt status.  And, this is only a partial list of problems.

In President Obama's recent announcement of support for "marriage equality" (the new term for same-sex marriage) he insisted it "strengthens families."  He also said, "I want everyone treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we've extended rights and responsibilities to everybody." No one asked what kind of "rights?

 What if those "rights" go against Judeo-Christian beliefs?  Is President Obama asking Americans to offend their God, as many ministers and rabbis maintain?  Is this fair treatment?

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows.  Results of research regarding "The Future of Children," published jointly by the non-partisan Brookings Institution and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School agree and found that children from two-parent (father and mother) families are better off emotionally, socially and economically. (Children of co-habituating couples are also found to be negatively affected.)

So who suffers when traditional marriage is abandoned?  Many, and especially the innocent motherless or fatherless children who are clearly not "treated fairly" in this important aspect and must flounder through life with fractured roots.

SOURCE





Bound and gagged: freedom of speech and Australia's Finkelstein report

On December 29, 1819, the young Earl of Ellenborough addressed the House of Lords in defence of the Tory government’s Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill. The bill substantially increased the taxes on cheap newspapers and pamphlets. It was a controversial measure, in no small part because it was transparently directed at the government’s radical critics in the press. Ellenborough had taken his seat just a year earlier and he sought to calm his fellow peers.

The bill was not directed against the “respectable press”, Ellenborough told the House. It was targeted at the “pauper press”– cheap publications that were “administering to the prejudices and passions of a mob”. These newspapers and pamphlets “only sent forth a continual stream of falsehood and malignity”. So, he proclaimed, “in the best interests of the country” his government must extinguish the “gross and flagrant abuse of the press”. Against Whig protest, the bill passed.

Nearly 200 years later, the report of Australia’s Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation in 2012 struck remarkably similar notes. This report, commissioned by the Gillard government and written by former judge Ray Finkelstein, claimed that freedom of the press – and freedom of speech in general – has resulted in “inequality, abuse of power, intellectual squalor, avid interest in scandal, an insatiable appetite for entertainment and other debasements and distortions”. Finkelstein’s proposed solution was a regulatory agency that would enforce “standards” on newspapers, magazines and virtually all Australian news or opinion websites.

Ellenborough was frustrated by the disruptive, anti-authoritarian journalism of radicals such as William Cobbett. The spark for Finkelstein’s report was the hostile relationship between Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers in Australia and Julia Gillard’s Labor government. Both purported to be concerned with questions of taste and press ethics, yet these lofty ideas were scant cover for their true concerns: political antagonism between government and press. The same rivalry, two centuries apart.

Certainly, the similarity of Ellenborough’s and Finkelstein’s complaints obscures the great changes that have occurred in the development of freedom of speech over those centuries. The mid-20th century saw a concerted legislative push to remove the limits on expression that had built up over the past few hundred years. Blasphemy laws were eliminated. Restrictions on obscenity, from racy novels to picture postcards to pornographic films, were substantially reduced. The scope of legitimate political opinion was widened; contrast, for instance, the repressive penalties for sedition during the First World War and much freer debate over the Vietnam War or the First Gulf War at the end of the century.

Yet that liberal tide is receding. In Australia, the laws against blasphemy that were eliminated in the 20th century are back under a new guise of racial and religious vilification. “Hate speech” has filled the void of the obscenity laws of the past: a steadily increasing set of statutory rules and case law has created a “right not to be offended” which directly competes with the right to freedom of speech. The voluntary press councils that were introduced in the middle of last century to ward off newspaper regulation seem certain to become mandatory bodies in the wake of the British phone hacking scandal. With campaign finance laws and election restrictions, political speech is being regulated – “managed” – in order to suppress voices that are considered too loud.

Commercial expression is the subject of an increasing number of restrictions in the service of public policy – particularly in the field of public health. Outright bans on advertising certain products are increasingly common. The addition of privacy into human rights law has also thrown up new, and substantial, restrictions on speech, such as the UK’s “super-injunctions”, where courts now routinely place gagging orders on the very existence of a gagging order. Even anti-sedition laws have experienced a resurgence as part of the War on Terror.

Virtually everybody says they support freedom of speech. But in every single debate over the new wave of speech restrictions there have been intellectuals, commentators and activists smugly claiming that freedom of speech is not “absolute”, or that their pet issues raise no free speech questions at all. Neither the 19th century’s Ellenborough or the 21st century’s Finkelstein believed they were damaging the liberties of their subjects when they proposed legislation to target “intellectual squalor” or “falsehood and malignity”. In liberal democracies, the importance of freedom of speech has been downgraded. It is a value which is no longer central to our self-image, and one which is apparently easy to discard if other goals present themselves. The news that the international watchdog Reporters Without Borders had dropped Australia’s position on their Press Freedom Index from 18 in 2010 to 30 in 2011-12 went without much comment.

But freedom of speech is not merely one value among many.

In the US, the First Amendment of the Constitution demands that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. This apparent stridency has generated a small genre of scholarship in that country trying to define the appropriate limits – if any – of free expression. In no other area of the law is the relationship between philosophy and practice so well-studied, or so highly theorised. This makes sense. As the American jurist Harry Kalven wrote in the 1960s, “free speech is so close to the heart of democratic organisation that if we do not have an appropriate theory for our law here, we feel we really do not understand the society in which we live”.

I argue that the liberty to express an opinion is at one with the liberty to hold an opinion. In a very real sense freedom of speech defines the relationship between the state and the individual. As Benedict Spinoza wrote in the 17th century, “The most tyrannical governments are those which make crimes of opinions, for everyone has an inalienable right over his thoughts.”

It is in the battle for liberty of conscience that we find the first buds of Western liberalism. In our secular age it is easy to forget that for much of our history, religious freedom was the first, and most important, liberty. The case for freedom of speech did not sprout fully formed in the mind of John Stuart Mill as he wrote the famous On Liberty. Nor was it an innovation of the American founders as they drafted the First Amendment. John Milton – whose 1644 tract Areopagitica is commonly cited as the first argument against censorship – was drawing upon 2000 years of thought.

We cannot understand the importance of free expression without knowing how this vital liberty was born; how thinkers and societies throughout history have developed the idea that individuals have the right to express themselves without fear of sanction by the state.

Freedom of speech is a liberty that has been defined and refined for more than two millennia. The greatest thinkers in Western civilisation have explored its tenets and debated its foundations. In ancient Greece, the father of philosophy, Socrates, was executed for heresy. Yet his student, Plato, believed the ideal state would be one that banned all poetry which did not either praise gods or famous men. Cicero and Tacitus saw freedom of speech as the keystone of Roman liberties. Augustine and Calvin punished their fellow Christians for mere doctrinal disagreements. Spinoza, Milton, Locke, Voltaire, and Mill have all defended, to greater or lesser degrees, the right of individuals to believe and speak views of which governments disapprove. Even Karl Marx – no icon of individual liberties – was a passionate defender of press freedom. Yet the communist states that were his legacy have been among the most rigidly opposed to free expression. And it was the Soviet bloc that promoted the concept of hate speech – a concept which has spread throughout the liberal democratic world.

Our modern liberties are the result of a great dialogue within Western civilisation. Intellectual and legal developments made on one continent or in one country ricochet across the Western world. Australian ideas about political and social freedom are drawn from the history of Greece, France, the US, Rome, the Dutch Republic, and, of course, Britain.

And it is only by understanding that history that we can resolve the confusion about free speech in our time. Both ancient Rome and ancient Athens had a philosophy of free expression. But the two differed in an important way. The Athenians imagined freedom of speech as a foundation principle of their democracy. The Romans imagined freedom of speech as a foundation principle of their liberty. The difference is subtle but significant. If we believe that freedom of speech is an instrument, deployed for democratic purposes, we will find it sometimes necessary to restrain certain speakers – that is, to violate their free speech – in order to pursue a higher democratic goal. By contrast, if we believe, as the Romans did, that freedom of speech is a right held by individuals, then any attempt to restrain speech, for whatever reason, will be anathema.

These two competing ideas – free speech as a democratic instrument, and free speech as a right – have echoed through history and still define the contemporary debate.

I argue that only the Roman tradition of individual rights provides a stable and coherent case for free expression.

The reason for this lies in the intellectual origins of speech freedom – the relationship between liberty of conscience and liberty of expression. The free, morally autonomous individual is one who can construct their own identity, form their own beliefs, and pursue their own desires while tolerating the identities, beliefs and desires of others. This idea is the core of liberalism. And its foundations were first articulated in the debate over religious toleration, and later freedom of speech. In this, Rome, with its tradition of scepticism and individualism, casts a brighter light over Western civilisation than Athens.

In the 21st century, it is the very idea of freedom of speech that is now being challenged. Benjamin Constant, an early French liberal, wrote in his Principles of Politics that:

One habitual ruse of the enemies of freedom and enlightenment is to affirm that their ignoble doctrine is universally adopted, that principles on which rest the dignity of the human race are abandoned by unanimous agreement, and that it is unfashionable and almost in bad taste to profess them.

We must show there is no such unanimous agreement.

It is easy to support freedom of speech when we agree with the content of that speech. So we need to ground our support for free expression in something more than platitudes – a resilient foundation that can cope with both the pleasing and the offensive. Freedom of speech has been, and still is, one of our most vital liberties. If we discard it, we critically undermine the moral foundations of liberal democracy, and lose our basic human individuality.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



10 June, 2012

Great news for all monarchists

Prince Philip has left hospital in time for his 91st  birthday today (Sunday 10th).  There is tremendous affection for him and at his age any illness is a matter of great concern

The Duke of Edinburgh left hospital with a wave and a smile today in time to celebrate his 91st birthday.

Prince Philip shook hands with staff at King Edward VII Hospital in central London and thanked them for caring for him during this five days stay there while being treated for a bladder infection.

The Duke climbed into the front passenger seat of a Land Rover Discovery vehicle before being driven away from the hospital, with a police escort.  As he left he was asked if he was feeling better, prompting the Duke to nod.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said the Duke would be spending his birthday "privately".

Prince Philip fell ill on Monday during the celebrations for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. The previous day he had braved the elements to take part in the Thames River Pageant.

SOURCE





It's time to stop the peculiar British use of the word  'Asians'

When the events in the news about "Asians" mostly are in fact about Muslims. British political correctness dishonours fine Sikh and Hindu families who want nothing to do with Muslim barbarism and who have in fact themselves suffered from it

Is it time to stop using the word "Asian"? In recent weeks Britain's Sikh and Hindu communities have complained angrily about the use of the misleading term in reporting of the Rochdale grooming convictions of men of Muslim Pakistani descent. Headlines like “Asian grooming – why we need to talk about sex crime”, “Child sex grooming: the Asian question”, and “Grooming offences committed mostly by Asian men, says ex-Barnardo's chief” show the problem.

Obviously Sikhs and Hindus and other "Asian" non-Muslims, including Jains, Zoroastrians, Christians and Buddhists, don’t want to be associated with sexual grooming of vulnerable white girls. The vast majority of Muslims don’t want to either. The girls targeted in Rochdale, Derby and now in Luton are all non-Muslim. This is nothing new for British Hindus and Sikhs, who have complained about targeting of their girls for decades; Indians refer to the practice as "love-jihad".

Judge Gerald Clifton, who sentenced the men in Rochdale, indicated they thought the victims were “worthless” and “beyond any respect”. He asserted that one of the motivations behind this was “they were not part of your community or religion”.

This is not the first time that this has been suggested: at a Hindu Forum conference in 2007, the then Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, revealed how the police were working to clamp down on “aggressive conversions” of vulnerable girls. The following year, a blog site called "Sikh4aweek" which called on Muslim "soldiers" to "hunt" down Sikh university students during freshers week was forced to close following complaints to the police and Google. The common denominator: targeting of non-Muslim girls.

It is for the Muslim community and its leaders to decide what is behind the trend, and what to do about it; but it is time for politicians and the press to bear in mind that in the context of these sex crimes, as with violent extremism, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honour killings, the vague term "Asian" serves no purpose. Worse, it besmirches entire swathes of Britons with roots in the Indian subcontinent.

It’s encouraging to hear some brave voices filtering through the political minefield: Baroness Warsi recently hit out at the “small minority” of Pakistani men who see white girls as “fair game”; last year, Jack Straw braved criticism for his claim that some Pakistani men see white girls as “easy meat.” But the problem continues: commentators are unwilling to label the perpetrators "Muslim", opting instead to hide behind the fudge of "Asian".

Lessons can be learned from Britain's own colonial history. The Empire's attitudes towards natives may have been problematic from a modern perspective, but it was careful to distinguish between the different inhabitants of the subcontinent. In Charles Allen’s book Soldier Sahibs: The Men who made the North West Frontier, the Indian-born historian quotes the soldier Herbert Edwardes, who was dispatched to a distant corner of the Sikh Empire in the mid-18th century. He describes four main groups in a mountainous district called Banu:

"The mongrel and vicious Bunnoochee peasantry, ill-ruled by Mullicks, and ill-righted by factions; the greedy Syuds and other religious mendicants, sucking the blood of the superstitious people; the mean Hindoo traders, enduring a life of degradation, that they may cheat their Muhommudan employers; and the Vizeree [Waziri] interlopers, half pastoral, half agricultural, wholly without law, but neither destitute of honour or virtue."

As Edwardes discovered, people of the Indian subcontinent have various cultural, traditional and religious affiliations: identities are both convoluted and complex. They shouldn’t be oversimplified for the sake of political expediency. Of course we have to be careful not to label all Muslims sex offenders: but it is simple cowardice to pretend that grooming is not a problem for the Muslim community, but Asians in general.

SOURCE






Government Hostility to Religion Keeps Mounting

The Founders wouldn’t believe it. The Colorado Court of Appeals says the governor may not proclaim an official day of prayer because of a clause in the state constitution prohibiting that “any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

This novel interpretation would come as a surprise not only to the governors who have issued such proclamations dating back many years, but also to the authors of that very constitution, who declared in its preamble their “profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”

They couldn’t have intended the religious preference clause to become a barrier to state action encouraging Coloradans to seek that Supreme Ruler’s favor. Good to know that Gov. John Hickenlooper has directed Attorney General John Suthers to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which should surely overturn it based on logic and precedent.

But wait; did I say “surely”? When it comes to religion and politics, church and state, nothing is sure any more. Also headed for the Colorado Supreme Court is an ACLU challenge to parents in suburban Douglas County using their own tax dollars to educate their own children in (horrors) faith-based schools.

Meanwhile at the Colorado General Assembly we’ve seen both political parties consider divorcing the legal definition of marriage from its time-honored theological definition. It didn't happen this year, but the trend is plain. The rationale for gay civil unions was put this way by Gov. Hickenlooper: “We don’t believe we should legislate what happens inside a church or place of worship, but government should treat all people equally.”

Leaving aside the vexed question of how the law recognizes different kinds of couples, look what the governor is saying in that sentence BEFORE the comma. He implies that government’s power over you and me stops only at the church door. This echoes a theme from President Obama, whose speeches always refer to “freedom of worship,” not “freedom of religion.”

What’s the difference? Freedom of religion includes the individual right of conscience in conduct outside of church – exactly what secular theocrats are trampling on with the HHS mandate for Catholic and evangelical institutions to provide drugs for contraception or abortion, in violation of their allegiance to God.

“The Supreme Ruler of the Universe,” you see, is no longer acknowledged as a reality under the dominant liberal consensus. He, or it, is now treated as just an outmoded notion which backward folk are allowed to preach about in their sanctuaries – but to whom they must no longer render homage by public word or deed. That homage is now supposed to be Caesar’s alone.

Where is all this leading? For over a millennium and a half, ever since the Emperor Constantine in 312 A.D., Christians in Europe and eventually America have been accustomed to friendly treatment by civil government. But that is over, over there, and may soon be over with here.

The Church of State, as my Colorado Christian University colleague Kevin Miller calls it in his important book “Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally,” is setting up as the one and only religious establishment. I won’t say get used to it, because we never should. It must be fought.

But we who honor the God of the Bible had better gird ourselves, for this will get worse before it gets better. We’d better study the persecuted church, thriving in China and Africa; our own time may be coming. We must realize, as the Founders knew, that America is not in the Bible. Americans are, however. It holds vast wisdom and warning for us.

As the Constantinian settlement – itself quite unscriptural – passes away, a good place to start would be Jesus’ own rule: “Render to Caesar, render to God.” That balance, the only safe harbor for faith and freedom, was lost in Christendom centuries ago. It is now ours to rebuild.

SOURCE





The Myth of Unfair Paychecks

A difference in pay does not prove discrimination

As any debater knows, defining the issue is a major part of the battle. On Tuesday, Democrats failed to persuade the Senate to approve the Paycheck Fairness Act. What are we to conclude from that outcome? That paychecks will be unfair, to the detriment of America's working women.

That's the claim of those supporting the legislation. President Barack Obama said it would merely mandate "equal pay for equal work." Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada warned beforehand that failing to pass the bill would send "the message to little girls across the country that their work is less valuable because they happened to be born female."

On Rachel Maddow's blog, the complaint was that women are "still only making 77 cents for every dollar men earn in similar jobs," but Republicans "seem indifferent to the problem."

This is a myth resting on a deception. The Washington Post's official Fact Checker faulted Obama's claim, noting that "there is a wage gap, but it has declined over the decades -- and depending on how the data are viewed, in some cases it barely exists."

A difference, in any event, does not prove discrimination. Most Broadway theatergoers are female, but not because playwrights have an animus toward males. The gap reflects many benign factors stemming from the choices voluntarily made by women and men. Same with the pay gap.

Women, on average, work fewer hours and are more likely than men to take time off for family duties. A 2009 report commissioned by the U.S. Labor Department concluded that such "factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap."

"The gender gap shrinks to between 8 percent and 0 percent when the study incorporates such measures as work experience, career breaks and part-time work," Baruch College economist June O'Neill has written.

Statistical analysis, however, cuts no ice with some. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., ridicules those skeptics who cite such inconvenient evidence: "They're basically saying women choose to be paid less than men."

Not exactly. I didn't volunteer to be paid less than a big law firm partner or corporate CEO -- but going into journalism assured that I would be. Women don't go to the boss and request a smaller salary, but many of them make choices that lead to that outcome.

A fact sheet from the American Association of University Women (which favors the bill) acknowledges that "10 years after graduation (from college), 23 percent of mothers in our sample were out of the workforce and 17 percent worked part time. Among fathers, only 1 percent were out of the workforce, and only 2 percent worked part time." It's safe to assume that men who make similar work decisions experience similar consequences.

You could argue that oppressive social conventions saddle mothers with the main responsibility for this task. But given the drastic changes in sex roles and expectations over the past half-century, why should we assume that this one is being forced on women? If they tend to place greater importance on child-rearing than men, they will be more inclined to interrupt their careers, even at a sacrifice in long-term earnings.

Pay differences stemming from factors within the control of females are a "problem" only if you define them as one. By that logic, we need a Higher Education Fairness Act because men earn only 43 percent of all bachelor's degrees and 40 percent of master's degrees.

If universities are taking steps to discourage guys from enrolling, it's a problem that may be amenable to government action. But if the imbalance is the result of males skipping college in favor of other options, there is no social injustice to undo.

What the alleged gender pay gap reflects is the interaction of supply and demand in a competitive labor market. Even in a slow economy, companies that mistreat women can expect to lose them to rival employers.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would upend these processes, with the government and courts assuming responsibility for what each worker should be paid, according to Harry Reid's standards of justice and fairness. Every salary decision would be fraught with the dread prospect of litigation -- promoting rigid pay scales simply to minimize the liability risk.

The result would be a less nimble and efficient economy, which over time dampens productivity improvements and stifles wage growth. The effect on paychecks? Not fair, but foul.

SOURCE





A traitorous Jew whose stock on trade is lies

Peter Beinart, author of the recently published The Crisis of Zionism and editor of the Daily Beast's "Open Zion" blog, has been criss-crossing the nation on a speaking tour for months, speaking at synagogues and to Jewish student groups on college campuses. He sometimes lectures alone, and sometimes engages in "debates" with individuals whose areas of disagreement with him are limited.

American Jews are not alone in laying out the welcome mat for Beinart. Within the past week, the Jerusalem Post published an editorial welcoming Beinart into the "big tent" of "Zionism," and commending his call for a boycott of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as "well-intentioned" and somehow different from similar calls by foreign governments. In an unprecedented move, the Jerusalem Post's weekly columnist Isi Leibler was compelled to condemn his own newspaper's editorial as "idiotic."

Why are we Jews laying out the red carpet to this man? And why, in general, are we Jews so friendly and deferential to our worst enemies?

One reason is that, despite the efforts of our enemies through the ages to portray us as super-sophisticated criminal masterminds, we Jews are actually very simple-minded and naive, at least where our enemies are concerned.

Beinart professes at every opportunity to love Israel and to even be a "Zionist." He boasts that he even has an Israeli flag displayed on the wall of his six-year-old son's room. This seems to render his Jewish audiences oblivious to Beinart's repetition and endorsement of nearly every element of the Arab world's anti-Israel narrative and his overwhelmingly negative characterization of Israel as an "undemocratic" society.

Not that Beinart isn't also a clever debater. His principal tactic is to make so many false or misleading statements all at once that it is impossible to reply to or even to keep track of them all.

Inevitably, some of them will sink subliminally into the minds of his audience, if they are the least bit open to suggestion. Also in his arsenal of debating tactics are distortions by omission and false assumptions implied by his tone and the drift of his argument. These methods are especially insidious since they do not require the "lie direct" and make it difficult for the audience to examine the implied assumptions on which they are based.

All three of these tactics were much in evidence during Beinart's debate with Daniel Gordis at Columbia University on May 2. Within the space of six minutes, Beinart informed his audience that Israel's rule over the Palestinians is "undemocratic" and "South African"  in character (he avoids using the inflammatory word "apartheid" when speaking to Jews not yet fully indoctrinated in hostility to Israel); that "occupied" Palestinians are not allowed to vote, while Israeli Jewish "settlers" in the "occupied territories" are; that Palestinians are stopped at checkpoints while Jewish settlers are waived through them; that Israel is sponsoring "settlement growth" in the "remote" Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba and in Ariel, which is "thirteen miles inside" the Palestinian territories; that Israel is "paying" Israelis to move to the "occupied" territories; and that Israel's government is the obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The claim that Israel denies the Palestinian Arabs the right to vote is flat-out false. Palestinians have voted repeatedly in Palestinian elections without Israeli interference of any kind. The only reason they have not voted in the last few years is that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has refused to hold elections in open defiance of the Palestinians' own constitution, and he has continued to rule his people without any legal mandate. That is Abbas's own choice, not that of Israel or, for that matter, the Palestinian Arabs.

The claim that Palestinians are forced to submit to searches at checkpoints while Israelis are automatically waived through is equally false. As Eli E. Hertz has pointed out, Israeli Jews are routinely subjected to searches at checkpoints whenever they go into a supermarket, restaurant or post office, or get on a bus-usually several times each day. In addition, they are frequently stopped at roadside checkpoints, just as Palestinian Arabs are.

Nor does Israel's government pay anyone a single shekel as a reward for moving to a "settlement." In fact, it issues so few permits for new houses in the so-called "settlements"-actually villages and suburban communities less than 15 miles from Israel's 1949 armistice lines-that it is almost impossible for young Jewish couples with children to remain in them, much less for Israelis from within the "green line" to move to them.

Furthermore, there is no real similarity between Israel to apartheid-era South Africa. Israel has completely integrated public transportation, restaurants and markets, and has no legal restrictions on the right of the 1.2 million Arab citizens of Israel to live on or to own land anywhere in Israel. There are numerous integrated neighborhoods throughout the country, and Arabs serve as members of parliament, judges and government ministers. In fact, an Arab judge recently convicted former Israeli president Moshe Katzav of rape and sentenced him to prison. Could a black judge (of course there were none) have done that to a white president in apartheid South Africa?

There is no truth at all to Beinart's claim that it is Israel that has refused to make peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership refused generous Israeli proposals for a Palestinian state alongside Israel in 2000 and 2008. They now refuse even to talk to Israel's government without preconditions. For that matter, the Palestinian Arab leaders refused the proposal of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 for a Palestinian state twice the size of the present "West Bank" and Gaza Strip combined-which Israel accepted.

Of course the Palestinian leadership has, since 1947, refused even pro forma to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. It still refuses to do so.

But as outrageous as Beinart's outright falsehoods are, his omission-distortions and false implied assumptions are more damaging because the listener may not even be aware of them.

Beinart repeatedly denounces Israel for denying the Palestinians equal rights with Israelis, without mentioning that the Palestinians are waging war on Israel, and have been doing so continuously for the past 65 years. No nation has ever granted equal rights to members of a nation at war with them. Nor can any nation that is being subjected to armed aggression and siege afford to do so. The Palestinians have been waging a relentless war against Israelis for at least 92 years, even before the independent state of Israel was established. The conflict has been an extraordinarily brutal war replete with war crimes such as blowing up civilians on buses, street corners and restaurants, executing children as hostages, and beating infants to death. That war is still very much in progress, as Beinart and everyone who reads the daily newspapers knows full well.

Beinart's assumption that a state is undemocratic unless it grants equality of rights to everyone who lives under its jurisdiction is not valid even in relation to peaceful communities. Puerto Ricans living in their own country cannot vote for president or elect voting members of Congress, although they are subjected to the rule of the U.S government and to U.S.military "occupation." The inhabitants of the U.S.-ruled Virgin Islands are not even allowed to elect their own governor. The inhabitants of American Samoa and the Federated States of Micronesia in the Pacific region do not have the rights of American citizens, although they are subjected to the rule of Washington. And the people of these territories are not even at war with the United States and never have been. If Peter Beinart really believes that the right to vote and all other citizenship rights must be extended to every one living under a nation's jurisdiction, why doesn't he tour the country demanding these rights for Puerto Ricans, Virgin Islanders, Samoans, and Micronesians subject to American "occupation"?

Beinart describes the Jewish suburb of Hebron, Kiryat Arba, as a "remote" settlement without mentioning that it is all of 13 miles from Israel's parliament building in Jerusalem or about the same distance as Washington's Dulles International Airport is from the White House and the Capitol building. Nor does he mention that Jews lived in Hebron continuously for almost three thousand years before they were forced to leave as a result of the Arab pogroms of 1929.

Kiryat Arba is thus only a resettlement of a very ancient Jewish "settlement." The revived community was put outside the old city of Hebron only because the Jordanian occupiers had seized the old Jewish quarter of Hebron and given it to Arab merchants. The Israeli government, which actually favors Arabs over Jews whenever there are property disputes, has refused to permit Jews to return to the Jewish-owned but Arab-seized Jewish quarter in the old city of Hebron, thus necessitating formation of a new suburb for the city's Jewish quarter.

Beinart does mention that the "settlement" of Ariel is thirteen miles inside the "Palestinian territories," but only in the context of expressing indignation at Israel permitting some "settlement growth" in a place so "deep inside" Palestinian territory. He does not mention that Israel's pre-1967 "border" (actually a temporary military armistice line) nearest to Ariel is all of nine miles from the Mediterranean Sea. This would make it exceptionally easy for an Arab army to cut Israel in two in five minutes and drive the Jews into the sea if Israel were to evacuate the 20,000 inhabitants of Ariel, destroy the university campus there, and withdraw to pre-1967 lines in order to comply with Beinart's requirements for a "democratic" Israel and a "contiguous" Palestinian state

In any case, the supposedly sacrosanct "Palestinian" territory is only the area that happened to be occupied by Jordanian troops when Israel and Jordan negotiated the armistice (not a treaty of peace) that ended Israel's War of Independence in 1949. This is yet another fact that Beinart fails to mention when he so indignantly protests "permitted settlement growth" so deep inside the proposed territory of a projected future Palestinian state.

To return to our initial point, however, the warm welcome accorded to Beinart by Jewish communities and congregations throughout the country is far more worrisome than Beinart's own remarks, which would make little difference if he were not so readily admitted to Jewish communities like the Trojan Horse inside Troy. 

For example, in his introductory remarks to a debate between Beinart and David Suissa at Hollywood's Temple Israel, John Rosove, the rabbi of the congregation, not only assured his audience of Beinart's love and loyalty for Israel, but warned them in stern tones never even to question it.

By shielding Beinart from any questioning of his motives and objectives for incessantly bashing Israel, Rosove and others acting as hosts for Beinart's presentations of course give his message a "heksher" (or rabbinical seal of approval). They have accepted the gift borne by the Greeks and brought it into the temple.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



9 June, 2012

Grandad's words made Churchill and the Queen cry. How sad Beardy misquoted them this week...

This may seem a minor matter but it is eloquent testimony to the decay of the Church of England that on an important occasion   the Archbishop of Canterbury could get so wrong one of the Queen's most significant and beloved speeches.



One of my mother’s proudest possessions is a touching letter written by King George VI’s Private Secretary to her father, thanking and congratulating my grandfather on a speech he had written for the then Princess Elizabeth.

It was a speech that has been much quoted in the public prints over the past few days, the one that contained the future Queen’s ‘solemn act of dedication’: ‘I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.’

On Tuesday, the Archbishop of Canterbury even took it as his starting-point and basis for his Jubilee thanksgiving sermon in St Paul’s. As usual, however, dear old Dr Rowan Williams got it all slightly wrong. But more of that in a minute.

The letter from Sir Alan ‘Tommy’ Lascelles to my grandfather, Dermot Morrah, is dated March 10, 1947, and headed in English and Afrikaans ‘The White Train, Die Wittrein’ — the special ivory-painted, air-conditioned saloons ordered for the three-month royal tour of South Africa that year.

It opens by revealing that the draft of the now famous speech had at last turned up, having got lost somewhere between my grandfather’s typewriter and the Princess’s in-tray.
Immortal

‘The steward in the Protea diner had put it in the bar, among his bottles,’ explains Lascelles, ‘little knowing that it was itself of premier cru.’

He then piles on the praise, in language that makes my family’s hearts swell to this day.

‘I have been reading drafts for many years now,’ writes the King’s right-hand man, ‘but I cannot recall one that has so completely satisfied me and left me feeling that no single word should be altered.

'Moreover, dusty cynic though I am, it moved me greatly. It has the trumpet-ring of the other Elizabeth’s Tilbury speech, combined with the immortal simplicity of Victoria’s “I will be good”.’

I can imagine my grandfather preening with pleasure. It’s not often that we humble hacks (his day job on the royal tour was reporting it for the Times) have our work likened to the timeless words addressed by Elizabeth I to her troops on the approach of the Spanish Armada: ‘I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of a King of England too.’

But, for me, Lascelles’s letter becomes most moving when he gets on to the personal stuff about how the Queen and the Princesses, Elizabeth and Margaret, had reacted on reading the speech.

‘The ladies concerned, you will be glad to hear, feel just as I do,’ he writes. ‘The speaker herself told me that it had made her cry. Good, said I, for if it makes you cry now, it will make 200 million other people cry when they hear you deliver it, and that is what we want.’

As it happens, among those who admitted to being reduced to tears by the speech was Winston Churchill — as I learned only this week, from my colleague Robert Hardman, who is omniscient in matters royal.

Now scroll forward six decades, to Tuesday’s clunking sermon in St Paul’s by muddle-headed old Archbishop Beardie — a man I’ve long thought could do with a decent speechwriter himself.

‘What we remember,’ he said, ‘is the simple statement of commitment made by a very young woman, away from home, suddenly and devastatingly bereaved, a statement that she would be there for those she governed, that she was dedicating herself to them.’

Well, if that’s what we remember, all I can say is that our archiepiscopal memories must be playing tricks with us.

To be absolutely fair, I suppose it is just possible that Dr Williams was referring to some other speech the Queen may have made nearly five years later, before she flew back from Kenya in 1952 after hearing of her father’s death. If so, neither I nor the royal historians I’ve consulted can find any trace of it.
Devastating

It is just conceivable, too — though surely stretching credulity a bit — that the ‘sudden and devastating bereavement’ he mentioned referred to some other death than her father’s. A corgi’s, perhaps.

No, let’s face it, he was just plain wrong to say she made her ‘act of dedication’ in a moment of sudden bereavement. For the only speech he can possibly have had in mind was the beautiful and famous one written by my grandfather to mark her 21st birthday in 1947.

Certainly, she was away from England at the time (although if the Archbishop had bothered to listen to the speech on the Buckingham Palace website, he would know that she insisted: ‘As I speak to you today from Cape Town [South Africa, not Kenya, you notice] I am 6,000 miles from the country where I was born. But I am certainly not 6,000 miles from home.’)

Far from being grief-stricken over the death of the King, who still had almost five years to live, she was having a very happy time with him on the tour. Madly in love and secretly engaged to Prince Philip, she was especially enjoying her 21st birthday (apart from an understandable twinge of nerves, detectable in her voice, over having to make the first really important speech of her life).

In his own really important sermon, perhaps his last at an historic state occasion, you might think the departing Archbishop would bother to get these little details right.

But what annoyed me almost more was his claim that the Queen promised in her speech to be ‘there for’ those she governed. No she didn’t. Unlike her late daughter-in law, Princess Di, she would never say anything so vulgar or touchy-feely (except when forced to read out Alastair Campbell’s bilge in a succession of toe-curling speeches at the State Opening of Parliament).

And I can assure you that my grandfather would sooner have cut off his arm than put such a banal Americanism into his sovereign’s mouth.

What she actually promised was to devote her life to the service of those she governed. And, by God, she has kept her word so far.

SOURCE





British social workers cover up for Muslim gang of sex predators

Social workers knew for six years that a teenage mother, murdered for bringing shame on the families of two Pakistani men who had used her for sex, was at clear risk from predatory Asian gangs.

Laura Wilson, 17, from Rotherham had been groomed by a string of British Pakistanis before she was stabbed and thrown into a canal to die for informing her abusers' families of the sexual relationships.

Her killer Ashtiaq Asghar, who was 18 at the time, was given a life sentence and will serve a minimum of 17-and-a-half years after he pleaded guilty to murdering Laura in October 2010.

But it has now emerged that Rotherham County Council's social services were well aware she was at risk and had received information about certain adults suspected of targeting her from the age of 11.

Last week the council's Safeguarding Children Board published a serious case review but key passages which reveal they knew she was at particular risk from 'Asian men' had been blocked out with black lines.

The council went to court in an attempt to tried to suppress the hidden information after a uncensored copy of the report was leaked to the Times newspaper but they have now abandoned legal action.

The uncensored report confirms that Laura, identified as Child S, had dealings with 15 agencies and identified 'numerous missed opportunities' to protect her.  It states that she eventually became 'almost invisible' to care professionals.

Details hidden included the knowledge that at the age of 13 Laura and a friend had been given alcohol by men at a takeaway who then asked what she would give them in return.  She had also been referred to a child sexual exploitation project just three months after her 11th birthday.

Another censored passage reveals that Laura had been 'mentioned' during a 2009 police inquiry that eventually led to the conviction of five Pakistani men for sex offences against three underage girls.

While the published report mentioned the fact that a friend, who Laura knew when she was 10, was 'thought to have become involved in sexual exploitation', it concealed the succeeding passage which read: 'with particular reference to Asian men'.

Laura was murdered in October 2010. She was repeatedly knifed by 18-year-old Ashtiaq Asghar before pushed her into a South Yorkshire Canal, where he used the point of the knife to force her head below the surface as she fought to stay alive.

Asghar was furious after the young mother revealed details of their sexual relationship to his Muslim family and was on ‘a mission to kill’.

He exchanged a series of texts with married friend and mentor Ishaq Hussain, 22, who had also had an affair with Laura, and who the judge described as a man who regarded white girls as  ‘sexual targets, not human beings’.

In one message, sent a day before he killed Miss Wilson, Asghar wrote: ‘I’m gonna send that kuffar (non-Muslim) bitch straight to Hell.’

In another he wrote: ‘I need to do a mission.’ He talked of buying a pistol and ‘making some beans on toast’, a reference to spilling blood used in Four Lions, a satirical film about suicide bombers.

Asghar is serving life in prison after he pleaded guilty to murder and was jailed for life. Mr Hussain was acquitted of murder by joint enterprise after a retrial.

Sentencing Asghar, Lord Justice Davis told him: ‘I take the view you came under the influence of Mr Hussain who is something of a mentor to you.  'He seems to have regarded girls, white girls, simply as sexual targets. He does not treat them as human beings at all. You got into that mindset yourself.  ‘You no doubt once had feelings for Laura but treated her with contempt in the latter stages.’

In 2007, when Laura was 13, she and her family appeared on The Jeremy Kyle Show. During the programme – about out-of-control children – her sister warned her that ‘your attitude is going to get you in big danger’.

Workers at a child sexual exploitation project later sent a report to social services, but no action was taken to remove her from what became a continuing spiral of sexual abuse.

By the time she was 16, she had embarked on an affair with Mr Hussain, who was then 20 and already married.

She gave birth to a daughter in June last year, but Mr Hussain refused to accept that the child was his.

Four months later, and just days before she was murdered on October 12, she ‘shamed’ Asghar and Mr Hussain by informing their families of her relationship with both men.

She told Asghar’s mother she loved her son and ‘wanted to have babies’ by him. But Mrs Asghar was furious and attempted to hit Miss Wilson with a shoe, branding her ‘a dirty white bitch’ who should ‘keep your legs closed’, the trial was told.

Alan Hazell, Chair of the Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children Board, said: 'We refute in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that information was redacted from the published report for any reason other than to protect the interests of Laura’s daughter, immediate family and other third parties.'

In a statement following the publication of the review  Mr Hazell denied that more could have been done to save Laura.  He said: 'This is a wide ranging study which shows a very complex situation surrounding Child S and her child which made it difficult for agencies to engage with her.

'There is no suggestion that anyone could have saved Child S from what ultimately happened to her but clearly her care could have been improved.  There were chances for those agencies to be more proactive in how they dealt with the case and all agencies involved accept that and apologise that the standards of service were not as high as they should have been.

'It is vital that agencies learn from what happened here and there is clearly a commitment in Rotherham to make that happen. As the report comments, there are already many initiatives in place to ensure that services are now improved.'

Last month following the trial of nine men, mainly of Pakistani origin, who were found guilty of raping and abusing up to 47 girls - some as young as 13 - after plying them with drink and drugs Tory cabinet minister Baroness Warsi hit out at the 'small minority' of Pakistani men who see white girls as 'fair game' for sexual abuse.

She told London’s Evening Standard newspaper: 'There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game.  'And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first.  'This small minority who see women as second class citizens, and white women probably as third class citizens, are to be spoken out against.'

SOURCE






Who Will Protect the Freedom to Blog?

 Michelle Malkin

Free speech is under fire. Online thugs are targeting bloggers (mostly conservative, but not all) who have dared to expose a convicted bomber and perjuring vexatious litigant who is now enjoying a comfy life as a liberally subsidized social justice operative. Where do your elected representatives stand on this threat to our founding principles?

On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, bravely stepped forward to press this vital issue. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Chambliss decried the "harassing and frightening actions" of Internet menaces who recently have gone after several conservative new media citizen journalists and activists.

GOP Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas added his voice, telling Holder in a statement that he is "very afraid of the potential chilling effects that these reported actions may have in silencing individuals who would otherwise be inclined to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech." And the American Center for Law and Justice, a leading conservative free speech public interest law firm, announced it was providing legal representation to the National Bloggers Club -- a new media association that has provided support and raised funds for targets of this coordinated harassment. (Full disclosure: I volunteer on the National Bloggers Club board of directors.)

The ACLJ described the importance of the case very simply: "Free speech is under attack."

Chambliss and Marchant called specific attention to one terrifying tactic against these bloggers: SWAT-ting. These hoaxes occur "when a perpetrator contacts local police to report a violent incident at a target's home." Callers disguise their true identities and locations in order to provoke a potentially deadly SWAT/police response descending upon the targets' homes.

As online conservatives -- and now ABC News -- have reported, recent SWAT-ting victims include New Jersey-based Mike Stack, a blogger and Twitter user targeted last summer after helping to expose disgraced former N.Y. Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner's shady social media activities; California blogger Patrick Frey, a deputy district attorney at Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office who recently posted a bone-chilling account and audio of his summer 2011 SWAT-ting on his blog, Patterico.com; and CNN contributor and RedState.com managing editor Erick Erickson, whose Georgia home was targeted by a faker claiming an "accidental shooting" there late last month.

A common thread among these and other online targets: They all have published web links, commentary or investigative pieces related to Brett Kimberlin, the infamous "Speedway Bomber."

In 1978, Kimberlin was sentenced to more than 50 years in federal prison for drug dealing, impersonating a federal officer and a weeklong bombing spree in Speedway, Ind. The violent crimes left one victim so severely injured that he committed suicide. A civil court awarded the widow of the victim, Carl DeLong, $1.6 million. Kimberlin was released from jail in 2001, but has yet to pay up.

Investigative journalist/researcher Mandy Nagy, who blogs for the late Andrew Breitbart's Internet media powerhouse, Breitbart.com, dared to chronicle Kimberlin's lucrative business and political ventures over the past two years. Kimberlin has a large hand in two well-funded outfits, Velvet Revolution and the Justice Through Music Project, that have received funding from the likes of George Soros' Tides Foundation and left-wing activist and singer Barbra Streisand. The charitable groups have viciously attacked prominent conservative individuals and groups, including Breitbart, investigative journalist James O'Keefe and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Nagy has been hounded relentlessly online and falsely accused of wild criminal conspiracies by Kimberlin associates for blowing the whistle on his shady online network.

After providing brief pro bono legal services to a liberal blogger who refused to whitewash Kimberlin's past, conservative blogger and lawyer Aaron Walker lost his job. His employer was terrified by the thought of Kimberlin bombing his office and also fired Walker's wife, who had worked for the same firm.

Walker is embroiled in Kafkaesque, free speech-squelching litigation with serial lawsuit-filer Kimberlin in Maryland. Last week, an inept judge who admitted abject ignorance about the Internet -- and appalling apathy toward key free-speech Supreme Court cases -- essentially gagged Walker from exercising his First Amendment rights and blogging about Kimberlin. Kimberlin pulled off a snow job in court, bizarrely claiming that an independent online effort to support Walker and expose Kimberlin's past amounted to a criminal terror campaign against him. Renowned constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA is providing pro bono help to appeal the order against Walker.

National Bloggers Club President Ali Akbar was targeted for spearheading charity efforts for Kimberlin targets; stalkers publicized his mother's home, and Texas authorities are now investigating. Another conservative blogger who had the audacity to report on Walker's plight, Robert Stacy McCain, was forced to move out of his home last month after Kimberlin phoned his wife's employer and intimidated his family.

Never in the eight years that I have worked as an independent blogger have I seen such a concerted threat to the fundamental right of citizen journalists to speak their minds freely and without fear of bodily harm. As former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams points out, it is a federal violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241 to conspire to deprive someone of his "free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Members of Congress swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- all of it. Who means it?

SOURCE





Homosexuals are finally getting to  the U.S. Boy Scouts

 This could end up like pro-gay Canada, where boy scout membership dropped sharply off as parents became worried about the security of their sons' behinds

The Boy Scouts of America will consider ending its longtime opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the organization after it received a resolution by a "high-ranking" member from the Northeast.

The resolution, which was submitted in April, is "largely procedural," according to Deron Smith, spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America.

The Scouts will consider that proposal to allow local charter organizations to decide for themselves whether to accept gay members and leaders.

The resolution has coincided with a separate petition inititated on the advocacy website Change.org, which was delivered last week to the service organization by Zach Wahls, a 20-year-old Iowa Eagle Scout whose video in support of his two gay mothers went viral last year.

More than 250,000 had signed the petition demanding that the Boy Scouts end the ban on openly gay membership.

Smith said in a statement that, "Contrary to media reports, the Boy Scouts of America has no plans to change its membership policy. The introduction of a resolution does not indicate the organization is 'reviewing' a policy or signal a change in direction."

He told ABCNews.com that this is not the first such petition to amend the ban on openly gay membership and was "unrelated" to the meeting that the organization had with Wahls.

The Scouts met Wahls out "of courtesy and respect for differing viewpoints," according to Smith.

"[Wahls] is a third party with an opinion and a nice, young man," said Smith. "I had a great meeting with him and we agreed to disagree."

"We have some leaders who don't agree with us, but we don't feel like this is the place to reconcile [the ban]," he said. "They come for the greater good and feel it is more important than one single issue."

The resolution will go into a subcommittee, which will make a recommendation to the national executive board, a process that will be complete likely by May 2013.

Wahls is optimistic the measure will pass. "One, is the fact that they were even willing to consider it -- this is a really big development," he said. "It has also happened at a time when we have this level of online mobilization ... that allows real change."

Wahls met last week in Florida with Smith and other top-ranking BSA officials.

Even with the Boy Scouts' stand on gay rights, Wahls said he is still a supporter of the organization.  "Once an Eagle Scout, always an Eagle Scout," he said. "I am unwilling to quit because of a single policy. They do so many things right."

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Boy Scouts of America of America and ruled 5-4 that the organization is exempt from state laws that bar anti-gay discrimination.

The court overturned a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court to require a troop to readmit a longtime gay scoutmaster who had been dismissed.

The Girl Scouts of America has had a diversity policy and non-discrimination clause since 1980.

The Boy Scouts have been "trying to push [the issue of gays] under the rug after the Supreme Court ruling," said Wahls. "The fact that they would meet with me is a huge step."

The Change.org petition began in April when Jennifer Tyrrell, an Ohio mother of four, rallied support after she was fired as leader of her 7-year-old's Cub Scout pack because she was a lesbian.

More here

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



8 June, 2012

A vivid demonstration of the fraud of "multicultural" Britain

A casual observer opening up the current pages of Britain’s anaemic right-wing press is greeted by an unprecedented expression of optimism and positivity.

The source of all this rapture is the jubilee celebrations, which mark the diamond anniversary of the ascension of the United Kingdom’s most dutiful long-suffering monarch: Elizabeth II.

From Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, to Ed West in the Daily Telegraph, to Fraser Nelson in The Spectator, there is a palpable sense of relief, joy even, at what is deemed to represent an unparalleled display of patriotism and national loyalty, the likes of which have not been witnessed in Britain for a generation.

As a feast for the eyes and an amazing technical accomplishment, the  celebrations which began with a mesmerising pageant on the River Thames in London and continued last night with a gala concert on The Mall in front of Buckingham Palace, the events are a wonderful success.

The numbers attending have been dizzying to an extent beyond normal human comprehension: with as many as 1.2 million people lining the riverbank for Sunday’s pageant, mostly in the pouring rain.

The whole spectacle has spawned a new and surprising narrative of national unity and togetherness, which has come as a surprise and a relief to those commentators who had previously found themselves perturbed by and decrying the perceived fragmentation of British society.

Here were the public in central London, in their millions no less, unabashedly displaying and celebrating Britain and Britishness; with a Union flag hanging from every lamppost and waving from every hand, and not a sight of that hated blue-and-yellow EU monstrosity anywhere…

What a relief!

There is, however, one slight problem with this picture that no one is mentioning. A small boy tugging at his mother’s coat at the Emperor’s parade, aching to express a truth that can perhaps only find the light of day at somewhere like Gates of Vienna.

With the exception of very small numbers — that are in essence statistically irrelevant — whether you like it or not, pretty much everybody you see in the multitude gathered in London is white.

To understand the significance of this, one needs to know the demographics of the city.

Greater London, the largest conurbation in Europe, is usually divided into two geographic zones: the suburban ‘outer ring’, and the metropolitan ‘inner city’. London’s inner portion has been majority immigrant territory for some time, and as the years progress even the outer ring is approaching parity between immigrants and native inhabitants.

Thanks to publicly subsidised housing, with the exception of a few isolated pockets the centre of the city is mainly immigrant-dominated.

A visitor to the majority of the primary schools of the boroughs which lined the river down which Sunday’s pageant rowed, would see that the ethnicity which formed 98% plus of the audience for the jubilee, is represented as a rule in less than 10% (in many cases less than 5%) of the demographic makeup of the pupils of those schools.

Where then, one is forced to ask, were the parents of the rest of all these children, presumably a convenient short stroll away from demonstrating and celebrating their “Britishness”?

Why did they not seize this simple and convenient opportunity to declare themselves full, happy, and enthusiastic members of our grand multicultural society, when the vast majority of attendees had largely travelled much great distances in order to do so (according to train company reports)?

The cameras of the BBC, usually anxious to present a picture of multiracial harmony, and whose coverage of the events has been broadly panned as inane, clearly struggled in desperation to find non-white faces in the crowds.

Their failure to do so was even more stark as they linked to outside broadcasts of commemorative street parties up and down the country, particularly in places like Luton, where it was patently evident that wherever the English were in the minority only the English were doing any celebrating at all.

Where were the others? Our fellow “Britons”?

Those perfectly capable of coming out in their tens, even hundreds of thousands; for publicly funded Hindu Diwali celebrations in Trafalgar Square, or the Afro-Caribbean yearly carnival in Notting Hill (policing cost to the British taxpayer: 34 million pounds a year), or Islamic Eid “festivals” in East London; were all conspicuous by their virtual absence.

This is not an Islamic issue, or even one truly of colour or race. It would have been surprising if any significant proportion of those celebrating this jubilee weekend were Poles, or any of the nearly two million Eastern Europeans who have come to the UK over the last decade, either.

The predominant skin colour of those attending the jubilee has merely provided visual confirmation of how comprehensively the social model into which decades worth of political and financial capital has been invested in Britain has failed.

To be clear: the English (unlike the Scots or Welsh to any similar degree) were told, not outright, but tacitly and subtly; through policy, policing, changes to educational syllabi, deliberate alterations to the cultural framework etc., that Englishness — their identity — would have to be subsumed, altered, diluted, undermined, even to the point of being questioned as having any true cohesive validity.

This was a necessary evil. It had to be done in order not to alienate or marginalise the millions of immigrants arriving mostly in the English portion of Britain, who “yearned to be part of our society” and to make a better life for themselves into the bargain.

Though awkward, this essential transformation would be worth it, and would in turn bring about a fresh paradigm of nationality.

Britishness would be elevated into a new and inclusive form of meta-identity that all could participate in and be welcomed by. A mélange-identity uniting and encompassing all comers.

This new paradigm in turn would have its own founding myths, as do all attempts to unite disparate ethno-religious communities. The myth that a person newly arrived from East Africa was “just as British” as any Englishwoman who might be able to trace her family back to the Norman conquest. The myth that one could achieve, “Strength through Diversity.”

Furthermore, these myths would be reinforced by numerous means.

Television “idents” and programs for example would subtly attempt to communicate harmonious multi-cultural unity, as in this collage. (Compare in particular the ethnic makeup of those attending the faux street party at the end of this BBC jubilee ident with those in this CNN report of the genuine article.)

And thousands of farcical local council propaganda posters on buses and billboards would show a similar multitude of grinning multiracial faces, regardless of the theme. The golden rule of course being that the more outnumbered the actually English people in the photograph were, the more strained and enthusiastic their smiling had to be.

(This collection of picture exhibits shows the usual progression from the London boroughs of: Southwark, to Camden, to Newham, to Hackney, to Lewisham, to Tower Hamlets.)

This effort was so total and all-encompassing, that it was easy thoughtlessly to fall for it and assume it to be in part true. Particularly as every effort has been made, either by immigrants themselves or by positive discrimination, to advance newcomers through the professions so that they are now over-represented in medicine, media and the law.

Notwithstanding the fact, that the promotion of compulsory allegiance to this narrative has shifted over the decades from a gentle socio-political prodding, to a state of affairs where any who dare to forcibly question it in public face imprisonment.

But it was only required to force allegiance to this mind-set from natives… not, of course, from those who came; that would have been racially presumptuous and monstrously unfair. The one was supposed to magically facilitate the other.

But patriotism and national loyalty are based on the individual’s core willingness to sacrifice; and in modern Britain the balance of sacrificial expectation was set right from the start.

The state had to sacrifice to provide the benefits that would be received by the newcomer, while the immigrant was required to sacrifice and surrender, in exchange for the comforts and opportunities of their new life, well… what exactly?

In the interests of generating a nationally loyal harmony, every multicultural effort has been made to bend over backwards in the promotion of togetherness and inclusivity, up to and including the sacrifice of many essential characteristic elements of a thousand years of English and British history; right down to the abandonment of the most basic things like the promotion of our own language on the one hand, or judicial protections like double jeopardy on the other.

The children of the English, in the schools for which their parents pay through their taxes, are now compulsorily taught not the glories and accomplishments of their nation’s past, but primarily and chiefly its inequities, oppressions and “evils”.

This did not happen by chance. It was a transaction. A deal.

The accurate depiction of Britain’s majestic and impressive history for example, was to be abandoned in exchange for something. Deliberately disowning historical reality (like a thousand and one other such national cultural renunciations) was intended to provide an inclusivity that would in turn guarantee the delivery of an attached, benign and loyal immigrant population.

So where were they then: when a golden and simple opportunity presented itself for the demonstration of their new Britishness? Nothing jingoistic, or confrontational, but a four day series of events designed from the start to be achingly inclusive and multicultural.

Frankly? Our new fellow-Britons were nowhere to be seen.

When the chance arose to show how successful this theory of mutable national identity in fact was, in whose name so much has been forcibly lost, the results are startling — and, for those with an eye to the future, more than a little alarming.

The paradigm hasn’t changed. Our social engineers are either liars or fools.

People always only feel a genuine allegiance and loyalty to a place with which they have a pre-existing hereditary, historic or geographical investment.

The newcomers want no part of it, thank you very much.  Benefits? — “Yes.”  Sacrifices? — “Hmm. We’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you.”

And to be clear: the kind of sacrifice under discussion in this essay is not mounting the lip of a trench to advance into machine-gun fire in defence of your nation’s values or borders, but taking a couple of hours out your bank holiday weekend to stand in the rain for a bit with a flag.

This is the grim harvest we must expect from multiculturalism’s insistence that pre-existing identities should be encouraged to flourish rather than to adapt.

The British, and more chiefly the English, have received nothing in return for their sacrifice: of identity, of tradition, of heritage, and of culture.

They’ve been conned. Duped. The promised transaction hasn’t taken place: there will be no unity in the United Kingdom, and no guarantee of security as a result.

SOURCE






Merciless British bureaucracy

Only publicity can get humanity out of them

An 'overzealous' car park warden stuck ten parking tickets on a car parked in a hospital's disabled bay as the owner was undergoing emergency surgery.  The tickets were slapped all over the red Mini by the warden after the patient parked in the bay.

She could not move the car due to emergency surgery, but the ticket blitz came despite her showing her blue disabled badge and a note saying she was in for transplant treatment.

Parking company officials were forced to back down today after they were condemned by other patients, visitors and politicians over the coldhearted move.  One person said: 'It is a disgrace - where is the compassion?'

The woman patient - who has not been named - parked her Mini parked at a disabled bay at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff as she went for treatment after a kidney swap.

But after an emergency she was forced to stay in the hospital and she was unable to drive her car away from the bay.

The ten parking tickets - each with a £30 fine - were plastered in a mosaic across her windscreen on ten occasions from May 16 until this weekend.

SOURCE





The Real Racists

In 2008, Barack Obama won 95 percent of the black vote. Now, blacks voted in large percentages for Democrats long before that, of course, largely because of Democratic devotion to huge spending on social programs. But Obama’s election was unique.

The black community, however, was also largely anti-same sex marriage. In fact, many commentators suggested that Obama’s presence on the 2008 ballot in California allowed Proposition 8, upholding traditional marriage, to win approval – blacks showed up to vote Obama, and cast their ballots in favor of Proposition 8 at the same time.

Take the black population in Maryland, for example. Just a few weeks ago, 56 percent of Maryland black voters were getting ready to cast their ballot against a referendum granting approval to same-sex marriage. Only 39 percent of blacks supported same-sex marriage.

Then President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. Now, polls show that suddenly, 55 percent of blacks plan to vote for same-sex marriage in Maryland, with only 36 percent opposing.
And that statistic holds true nationally. Suddenly, nearly 60 percent of black Americans across the country support same-sex marriage.

So, what changed? Certainly nothing changed in the black churches, which have large opposed same-sex marriage, and continue to do so. Nothing has changed in black households over the past couple of weeks – no change in socioeconomic status, no change in household income, no change in level of educational attainment.
Only one thing has changed. Barack Obama has spoken. And Barack Obama is black.

Make no mistake: were Obama white, no such shift would have occurred. Plenty of white politicians have endorsed same-sex marriage. When Joe Biden did so, nobody expected the black community to fall into line. But when Obama did it, suddenly there was a groundshift inside the black community.
Obama made no persuasive arguments for same-sex marriage. He hardly made any argument at all. And yet a full fifth of black voters shifted their opinions on the issue when he opened his mouth.

There are 27 majority black Congressional districts in America. 26 of them have black Congressmen. There is something to the notion that black legislators have more in common with black constituents than those who do not share their experiential background – but Barack Obama does not share those experiences. He does not share common beliefs. And what’s most perverse, when his beliefs come into conflict with those of the black population, large swaths of the black population shift their views to meet his.

Why? It’s not because they’ve been convinced by him. It’s because he leads, and too many black Americans follow, no matter how they really feel about the issues.

This spells the death of deliberative democracy. Liberal republicanism is based on the notion of the non-tribal – it’s based on the idea that we vote for the politicians who best serve the country, not those who “look like us.” And more than anything else, liberal republicanism is based on the idea that we keep our politicians accountable. We are not led by them; they represent us. If they stray from the path we want them to take, it is they who must adjust, not we.

These polls should be very frightening indeed – not because a majority of blacks suddenly support same-sex marriage, which is their prerogative, but because of the reason for that shift. The reason is not rational. It is racial. And that is a serious problem.

SOURCE





Abort a Baby, Pro-Choice; Drink a Slurpee, No Choice

Sick Democrat priorities

In defending his controversial proposal to ban the sale of all sugary drinks over 16 ounces, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg boasted that, on average, New Yorkers outlive other Americans by three years. But that is only if they make it out of the womb. At present, 41% of all New York City babies are killed before birth.

To be sure, obesity is a massive problem in America (no pun intended), with very serious health complications for individuals and very real economic implications for the nation. In no way do I minimize the problem of obesity. But Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal is wrongheaded and, worse still, tragically hypocritical.

On the Today show, Matt Lauer needled the mayor about supporting Donut Day while calling for a ban on large sugary drinks, to which Bloomberg responded, “One donut’s not going to hurt you. In moderation, most things are OK.”

But what if people eat more than one donut? Or what if the one donut they choose to eat is of especially high caloric content, not to mention extra sugary?

Or what if a skinny person wants to eat three donuts, along with a 44 ounce Big Gulp? Should that be allowed? Or what if a severely obese person wants to eat just one donut, along with a 16 ounce Coke? Is that OK? Maybe people should be weighed before placing their order?

Perhaps a limit should be put on how many slices of pizza a person can eat in one sitting (in proportion, of course, to their BMI, body mass index)? Or maybe there should be a ceiling on how many pieces of apple pie someone can consume after a meal, or on how many bites of a deli sandwich he or she is allowed to ingest before having to put the rest in a to-go box? (If you’ve ever eaten at a famous NY deli, like the Carnegie Deli, you know that the size of drink you order is the least of your caloric concerns.)

What about ice cream parlors? How many scoops should they be allowed to serve per customer? And should chocolate-dipped sugar cones be banned altogether? And what about the ubiquitous street-corner vendors? Should they be permitted to sell regular-size candy bars but not king-sized? And how many of those candy-bars should they be allowed to sell per customer? Going back to the mayor’s proposal, who would actually enforce these regulations?

On a more serious note, what about the consumption of alcohol in city bars? Since there is a definite correlation between drinking and cirrhosis of the liver, should there be a limit on the kind of alcoholic drinks people are allowed to order or the amount of drinks they are allowed to consume?

And what about sexual health risks? Bloomberg is a champion of “gay rights,” apparently ignoring the numerous health risks for men who have sex with men (MSM). And when he boasts about the healthiness of New Yorkers, has he forgotten about a 2006 CDC study that reported that, “Over the past several years, increases in syphilis among MSM have been reported in various cities and areas, including Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Southern California, Miami, and New York City.” Yes, that very same New York.

All this, however, is trivial when compared to the staggering abortion rates in New York City, which have been as high as 46% in 1998 (meaning, virtually half of all babies conceived) and most recently were reported at 41%, including the following breakdown: “Specifically non-Hispanic Blacks have a 59.8% abortion rate. Hispanics have a 41.3% abortion rate. Asians have a 22.7% abortion rate. And non-Hispanic Whites have a 20.4% abortion rate.”

As New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan remarked, “If 41% of New York babies are aborted, with the percentage even higher in the Bronx and among our African-American babies in the world, it is downright chilling.”

Also downright chilling is the fact that earlier this year, Planned Parenthood honored Bloomberg with a lifetime achievement award, coinciding with his $250,000 donation to their organization after “it initially lost funding from the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity.” This is the same Bloomberg who “was sued in 1997 by a sales executive who claimed that after she became pregnant, Mr. Bloomberg urged her to have an abortion, telling her, ‘Kill it!’ and saying sarcastically, ‘Great! Number 16,’ apparently referring to the number of pregnant women at the company. Mr. Bloomberg adamantly denied any wrongdoing and settled the case out of court for an undisclosed amount.”

The suit was actually brought against Bloomberg L.P. by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which charged that female employees at the company “were demoted and had their pay cut after they disclosed that they were pregnant.” Whether the charges were true, Bloomberg’s enthusiastic support of abortion is not in question.

I wonder what the average lifespan of New Yorkers would be if the multiplied tens of thousands of babies snuffed out in the womb were factored in as living to “zero” years? And this zealously pro-abortion mayor wants to ban Slurpees and Big Gulps?

To paraphrase the thoughts of one of my radio show callers, in Mayor Bloomberg’s world, the feminists who say, “Keep your hands off our ovaries” are commendable while the New Yorkers who say, “Keep your hands off our diets” are contemptible. Put another way, Bloomberg is “pro-choice” when it comes to a mother aborting a tiny baby in her womb and “no-choice” when it comes to her putting a big Slurpee in her stomach.

God help the mayor.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



7 June, 2012

Proud to be British: Jubilee celebrations unite communities from all parts of society with sense of patriotic pride

The Jubilee celebrations may now have finished, but there is no doubt about the lasting legacy they leave behind.

With a crippling economy and world-wide instability in recent years, Britain has had little to cheer about.  But the spectacular celebrations which have taken place over the past four days have brought communities up and down the country together and installed a patriotic pride back into Britain.

People from all aspects of society have joined in the celebrations  - reflecting just how much Britain has changed and modernised during the Queen's astonishing 60-year reign on the throne.

One of those celebrating today outside St Paul's Cathedral was Yasmin Majid and her children Adnan and Misbah.  Waiting with her children in the crowd, Ms Majid was proudly decked out in a union jack head scarf, and was thrilled to be celebrating the historic occasion.  Speaking to the BBC, she said: 'I love the Queen and I love the Royal family. I just wanted to make an effort and get here and be part of the celebrations.'

More than one-and-a-half million people descended on London today to see the conclusion of a spectacular weekend.

The Queen was met with a sea of people head-to-toe in red, white and blue who gathered below the balcony at Buckingham Palace to see her.

The huge crowd sung themselves hoarse with a rousing rendition of Land of Hope and Glory and God Save the Queen as they marched to the gates of the Palace to watch the Royal Family acknowledge their affection.

If anybody was in any doubt that Britain’s love for the monarchy had waned, this national outpouring of pride soon dispelled that belief, in a week that witnessed a huge surge in popularity for the Royals, and particularly the Queen.

When she appeared on the balcony, the Queen broke into a smile - visibly pleased - and waved as the thousands of people roared with applause, some breaking into impromptu renditions of the National Anthem.

In a rare address to the country and Commonwealth this evening, the Queen declared herself deeply humbled by the celebrations.  In a message of thanks broadcast as the festivities drew to a close, she said she was deeply touched to see so many people coming together to mark the occasion in a huge outpouring of positive emotion towards the Royal Family.

Broadcasts by Her Majesty other than the traditional annual Christmas message are infrequent, but this message was prompted by the huge amount of support she has received over last few days.

She said:  'The events that I have attended to mark my Diamond Jubilee have been a humbling experience.  'It has touched me deeply to see so many thousands of families, neighbours and friends celebrating together in such a happy atmosphere.  'But Prince Philip and I want to take this opportunity to offer our special thanks and appreciation to all those who have had a hand in organising these Jubilee celebrations.  'It has been a massive challenge, and I am sure that everyone who has enjoyed these festive occasions realises how much work has been involved. 

'I hope that memories of all this year’s happy events will brighten our lives for many years to come.  'I will continue to treasure and draw inspiration from the countless kindnesses shown to me in this country and throughout the Commonwealth.  'Thank you all.'

SOURCE





A pestilential priest

Archbishop of Canterbury pays tribute to Queen's selfless service but hijacks ceremony to preach sermon on financial services greed, the environment and immigration. 

Salvation?  What's that?  Is  he even a Christian?


His congregation were not enthused

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Thanksgiving service today to bring up concerns about environmental recklessness, executive pay and immigration.

While Dr Rowan Williams, who is due to step down shortly, heaped praise on our monarch he used part of his sermon to air the liberal views he has become well known for during his ten years in the role.

The service at St Paul's was about celebrating the Monarch's 60 years on the throne and head of the Church of England.

However, Dr Williams brought up financial greed in the City, environmental concerns and launched a thinly veiled attack on a huge section of the population who are worried about the unprecedented levels of immigration in the country.

The Archbishop at first paid tribute to the Queen’s ‘ lifelong dedication’, saying it ‘is to take a huge risk, to embark on a costly venture. But it is also to respond to the promise of a vision that brings joy.’

He then used that as a springboard to enter more controversial territory, saying the challenge the Jubilee sets the nation is, as St Paul taught us, to be ‘overwhelmed by the promise of a shared joy far greater than narrow individual fulfilment, that we find the strength to take the risks and make the sacrifices - even if this seems to reduce our individual hopes of secure enjoyment.’

In full swing, he went on: 'Moralists, including Archbishops, can thunder away as much as they like; but they'll make no difference unless and until people see that there is something transforming and exhilarating about the prospect of a whole community rejoicing together - being glad of each other's happiness and safety.

'This alone is what will save us from the traps of ludicrous financial greed, of environmental recklessness, of collective fear of strangers and collective contempt for the unsuccessful and marginal - and many more things that we see far too much of, around us and within us.'

The phrase 'fear of strangers' was interpreted by many as a warning to the majority of people in the country who are concerned about the huge rise in immigration into Britain over the last decade and the pressures it has put on British society.

The head of the Anglican Church, who is due to stand down from his role, is well known for his liberal views. He turned on the City of London by calling for a Robin Hood tax on bankers last year.

The coalition Government was represented by Cabinet members, and opposition leader Ed Miliband was also present.

Other groups invited included the Diplomatic Corps, Lord Lieutenants, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Royal Household and leaders from other faiths.

When everyone had taken their seats, the Very Reverend David Ison, Dean of St Paul's, told the congregation: 'We come to this Cathedral Church today to give thanks to almighty God for the prosperous reign of the Queen and to rejoice together in this year of Her Majesty's Jubilee as we celebrate 60 years of her sovereignty and service.

'As we come together as loyal subjects from all parts of the Realms and Commonwealth of Nations, we give thanks for the blessings bestowed by God on our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth, and we celebrate the identity and variety which our nations under her have enjoyed.'

Despite his liberal views, the Archbishop did praise the Queen's lifelong dedication to country and Commonwealth. He also had words of support for the Duke of Edinburgh.

Dr Williams told those gathered: 'I don't think it's at all fanciful to say that, in all her public engagements, our Queen has shown a quality of joy in the happiness of others; she has responded with just the generosity St Paul speaks of in showing honour to countless local communities and individuals of every background and class and race.

'She has made her 'public' happy and all the signs are that she is herself happy, fulfilled and at home in these encounters.

'The same, of course, can manifestly be said of Prince Philip; and our prayers and thoughts are very much with him this morning.

'To declare a lifelong dedication is to take a huge risk, to embark on a costly venture. But it is also to respond to the promise of a vision that brings joy.'

Dr Williams highlighted how the Queen's commitment to others had brought her happiness: 'But we are marking today the anniversary of one historic and very public act of dedication - a dedication that has endured faithfully, calmly and generously through most of the adult lives of most of us here.

'We are marking six decades of living proof that public service is possible and that it is a place where happiness can be found.'

After the service, the Queen left the cathedral to a huge cheer from the waiting crowd as the bells rang out loudly. She stopped midway down the steps to wave to the public.

It's not the first time Dr Williams has been controversial.

Last year he spoke out about how society is paying for the 'errors and irresponsibility of bankers' - yet in the City it remains 'business as usual' with 'still-soaring bonuses and little visible change in banking practices'.

And in the most brazen political intervention by a head of the Church of England for more than two decades, Dr Williams questioned the democratic legitimacy of the Coalition in an article for the left-wing New Statesman magazine.

Dr Williams, who was selected as Archbishop of Canterbury in the Queen's Golden Jubilee year in 2002, has a reputation for being liberal and controversial.

Many voiced doubt before he took the role as he backed the separation of church and state in England. He has been critical of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq in political statements he has made over the years.

He was also in the reformer’s camp on both the issue of women bishops and openly gay clergy, but in the face of huge opposition from the conservative element of the church he has been forced to sit on the fence, pleasing no-one.

In 2009 he was forced to defend his controversial comments about the introduction of Islamic law to Britain.

SOURCE




The THING that this unfortunate woman encountered is a living definition of what the British call a "jobsworth"

Britain is full of them

A woman in a wheelchair who asked for a key to the disabled toilets was horrified when council staff told her to provide proof that she really had spina bifida.

Nicola Parnell, 32, visited East Staffordshire Borough Council’s customer services office to buy access to the facilities at her local shopping centre in Burton-on-Trent.

But she said jobsworth staff demanded she produce evidence of her chronic illness - despite the fact she was in a wheelchair and her body is the size of a 10-year-old's.

'She said I’d need to go home and come back with some identification; either my blue badge or a letter showing my disability living allowance.

'What more proof did she need than me being in front of her in a wheelchair? I clearly look disabled.  'My body is about the same size as a 10-year-old’s - surely that is enough proof.'

Ms Parnell claims she asked a receptionist to look for her details on the council’s computer system as she had been to the office a month earlier to update her blue badge.  'She told me she couldn’t access my details and she could no longer help me unless I had proof of my disability', she added.

'I was completely stunned and upset by what happened. I was shocked. I felt discriminated against.  'I want to raise awareness of how disabled people can be treated. I’ve never had to prove that I’m disabled before, especially just to buy a toilet key.'

Ms Parnell has now lodged a formal complaint about the incident.

A spokesman for East Staffordshire Borough Council said: 'The council prides itself on good customer service and it is unfortunate that Ms Parnell’s experience was not a positive one.

'The issue with the key has been resolved and the customer has been contacted.

'Our staff are well aware that, while there are guidelines to follow, they can, and in the majority of cases do, act with an element of discretion, as should have been displayed on this occasion.  'This message has been reaffirmed to all the staff.'

SOURCE





Discrimination against men?

Doctor, 73, 'kicked out of U.S. bookstore for being alone in children's section'.  What harm could he have been doing anyway?  One hopes that the staff members responsible have been fired



Barnes & Noble has apologised to a 73-year-old man who was kicked out of one of its stores for browsing the children's section on his own.

Dr. Omar Amin, from Scottsdale, Arizona, said he was asked to leave after a female shopper told a worker she felt uneasy about his presence.

But the man, who is a world-renowned researcher of infectious diseases, said he was buying books for his two grandchildren.

'This is an insult to all men not just to me,' Amin told Azfamily.com.  'I left the store. I was upset like hell because I've been so insulted and humiliated in public for the charge of being a man.'

In a complaint to the store he wrote: 'I did not break any rules. There was no sign posted that said men are not allowed in the children's book area.'

Amin said he had been looking for books for his five- and seven-year-old grandchildren when his phone rang.

He sat on the floor by the store's windows so he could talk to his friend, which he did quietly, he said.  But a store worker interrupted the call and told him to leave, he said.

Amin said he was humiliated when the employee 'escorted me out as a potential sex offender'.

He is reportedly now considering legal action following the May 4 incident.  Arizona State University law professor Charles Calleros told the Arizona Republic that Amin could have a case for gender discrimination.  If women without children are allowed to shop in the children's section, 'then we arguably have gender discrimination', he said.

Barnes & Noble vice president Mark Bottini released a statement on Monday apologising to the man.  'We want to apologise to Dr. Amin for a situation in which Dr. Amin was asked to leave the children's section of our Scottsdale, Arizona store,' he said.  'We should not have done so. It is not our policy to ask customers to leave any section of our stores without justification.  'We value Dr. Amin as a customer and look forward to welcoming him in any of our stores.'

Amin, the director of Parasitology Center Inc. in Scottsdale, wrote to Barnes & Noble to complain.  'It's not enough. I want my honor restored,' Amin told msnbc.com.  'I want to walk back into the store with my head held up high. I did not break any rules. My pride has been scratched.'

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



6 June, 2012

Generation X Becoming Less Christian, Less Republican; Catholic and Baptist Losses feed Religious Polarization

 Members of Generation X – the 35 million Americans born between 1965 and 1972 – have become less Christian and less Republican over the course of their adult lives, a new study by Trinity College shows. Striking declines in the number of Catholics and Baptists combined with sharp increases in the number of non-denominational Christians and those claiming no religious affiliation (Nones) show increased religious polarization in this generation, even as its political re-orientation towards the Democratic Party has been accompanied by modest growth in the number of political independents.

Born in the wake of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the Gen X-ers constituted the most Catholic generational cohort in American history, with fully one-third of them identifying as Catholics in 1990. But two decades later, approximately one out of five had fallen away from the faith. It was only thanks to the addition of approximately one million Latino Catholics their own age that the proportion of Gen X Catholics decreased to only 26 percent of the cohort.

In addition, shifts in religious identification since 1990 have resulted in the ranks of the Nones swelling by 67 percent (2.2 million persons) and those in the conservative, non-denominational Generic Christian tradition growing by 51 percent (1.8 million). Put another way, the percentage of self-proclaimed Nones increased from 11 percent to 16 percent of this cohort between 1990 and 2008. This increase is surprising since Americans have historically increased their religious identification between early adulthood and their mid-40s, as theymarry, have children, and become settled in their communities.

Those were among the key findings of a new report by Barry Kosmin and Juhem Navarro-Rivera at Trinity College, who looked at the religious and political affiliations of Generation X, whose members reached adulthood during an era when American society was much influenced by the Christian Right. The findings are important as predictorsabout the future of American society, particularly the relationship betweenreligion and politics, issues that have been front and center during this year’s presidential campaign.

The data are derived from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), a large, nationally representative sample of adults in the Continental United States. The surveys were conducted in 1990 and again in 2008, highlighting trends over an 18-year period. The 1990 ARIS involved 113,723 respondents, including 16,959 adultsbetween the ages of 18 and 25 years. The 2008 ARIS had an overall sample size of 54,461, with 6,407 respondents between the ages of 36 and 43 years.

“Generation X has shifted its allegiances to a surprising degree” said Barry Kosmin, director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC) at Trinity. “Many in this generation of Americans have abandoned their religious roots and political affiliations in adulthood. Historically and sociologically, that’s an unexpected development.”

In terms of political affiliation, Gen X-ers leaned Republican by 5 percentage points in 1990 (34 percent to 29 percent Democratic), but in 2008 they favored the Democratic Party by 7 percentage points (33 percent to 26 percent Republican) This partisan shiftaway from the GOP was even more pronounced among Generation X Nones. In 1990, Nones were evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, but by 2008, Nones leaned Democratic by more than 2 to 1 (33 percent to 15 percent).

“The fact that identification with religion declined among Generation X as they aged suggests that the secularization of Americans is not just about young people from today’s Millennial Generation abandoning religion because it has become too politicized,” said Juhem Navarro-Rivera, a research fellow at the ISSSC.  “It is also an ongoing and wider process that involves older generations in American society, as exemplified by Generation X.”

The report’s religion data are based on responses to the question: What is your religion, if any? And the political party data are based on responses to the question: Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat or Independent?

SOURCE






Muzzled Britannia

Incorrect speech by whites is punished more severely than racial violence against whites

Back in 2001, Britain's political parties signed a fantastic pledge. They agreed to say nothing to "stir up racial or religious hatred, or lead to prejudice on grounds of race, nationality or religion."

This gag order did more than keep the parties polite. Vital issues -- from massive immigration and multiculturalism to their eradicating effects on British civilization -- were officially banned. Thus, such concerns became impermissible thoughts. Not that such issues weren't already thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would have put it. But this unprecedented pledge turned "violators" into political lepers.

I thought of that elite code of cowardice this week when a London judge sentenced a 42-year-old British secretary named Jacqueline Woodhouse to 21 weeks in jail. Her crime? An expletive-laden rant about immigration, multiculturalism and the disappearance of British civilization. Not in so many words. But that was the unmistakable gist of Woodhouse's commentary one January night on the London Underground.

This same week, another London judge ordered two black girls, 18 and 19, to perform community service after a savage physical attack on two white legal secretaries. "I am satisfied what you both did, you did that night because you were fueled by alcohol," Judge Stephen Kramer said, as though tut-tutting a child's unknowing apple theft.

A few months ago, another London judge freed four Somali Muslim women who set upon a white couple, yelling, "Kill the white slag," and other anti-white slurs. The gang beat the woman to the ground and ripped out a patch of her hair. Judge Robert Brown was lenient because, he ruled, as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk.

Jacqueline Woodhouse was drunk, too, but that was no mitigating factor in her case. She harmed no one, but that was no mitigating factor, either. Judge Michael Snow invoked the "deep sense of shame" Woodhouse's display elicited, because "our citizens ... may, as a consequence, believe that it secretly represents the views of other white people."

"Thoughtcrime is death," as Orwell wrote in "1984."

And, thanks to YouTube, it becomes continuous spectacle. Woodhouse's court-deemed "victim," Galbant Singh Juttla, recorded and uploaded her display. After the six-minute clip went viral, Woodhouse turned herself in to police.

But what might she have confessed to?

I did it, mates. I said: "I used to live in England. Now I live in the United Nations."

That'll be 21 weeks in the clink?

Woodhouse said a lot of other things as she surveyed her fellow passengers, her squawky voice weirdly reminiscent of an Eliza Doolittle grown old without having met her Henry Higgins. "All bleeping foreign bleeping bleeps," she says. "Where do you come from? Where do you come from? Where do you come from?" She estimated that 30 percent of the train's passengers were in the country illegally.

Off with her head.

Expletives fly regarding England ("this bleeping country is a bleeping joke"), Pakistanis, illegals, pigs.

"I wouldn't mind if you loved our country," she said, lucid, to a Pakistani beside her.

"Long live Pakistan," he said twice in Urdu, later leading a chorus of the Pakistani national anthem.

Woodhouse then notices her "victim" recording her. "Oh, look, he's filming," she says. "Hello, government." She leans into the camera.

"Why don't you tell us your name, as well?" Juttla the "victim" says.

"Why don't you tell me where you're from?" she says.

"I'm British, I'm British, yeah? I'm British," he tells her.

"Right. OK," she says.

"So, what's your problem?" he says.

"Oh, what's your problem?" she says.

"Yeah, you should watch what you say."

"Watch what I say?"

"Yeah."

"I used to live in England. Now I live in the United Nations."

"So keep your mouth shut then."

"Why should I?"

Twenty-one weeks in jail, folks.

Why, Woodhouse quite rationally asks, "am I not allowed to express my opinions?"

"We don't want to hear your opinions," Juttla replies.

This tears it. "Why is it all right for you but not all right for me?" She's shrieking now, her voice cutting the air like a ragged-edged razor.

There is background laughter, but nothing is funny. For a few, farcical minutes, a nation's tragedy, its unmarked passing, has taken the spotlight, the lead role played by a drunken secretary because there is no one else.

"Just keep your mouth shut," Juttla says for the umpteenth time.

"Why should you open your gob and I can't open mine?"

"Because you questioned me first," he says, which isn't true. Juttla questioned Woodhouse first, asking for her name. Surely, Big Brother would want to know.

"I'm sorry," she says. "Not one rule for you and one rule for me."

Oh, yes, Jacqueline. One rule for indigenous islanders.  One rule for everyone else.

SOURCE







British-born doctor told she was 'wrong colour' to get job in Cumbria and to 'go back where she came from' by boss

Since she would have been perfectly familiar with the British language and customs and had successfully completed  her training in Britain,  there was no excuse for this

A senior doctor was told by her boss that she was 'the wrong colour' to get  a top job in nursing, a misconduct hearing was told.  British Dr Sarina Saiger, who has Indian heritage, was advised to 'go back to where she came from' rather than try to become a director of nursing in Cumbria.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council heard how Dr Saiger's boss, Bruce Skilbeck, made the remarks during a 2005 appraisal into her performance.

Dr Saiger, who has already been awarded £115,000 in damages at an earlier tribunal after being sacked in 2008, said: ‘After we did a brief resume of the work I had been doing, I remember clearly he said technically I was the most brilliant nurse he had ever worked with.

‘But I would never be a director of nursing in Cumbria because I was the wrong colour and wrong culture for the organisation.  ‘He said I needed to go back to where I came from to get a director of nursing position.’

Skilbeck, who was the director of nursing for North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust but has now retired, has been hauled before the NMC charged with two counts of misconduct against Dr Saiger which was allegedly ‘racially motivated’

Halifax-born Dr Saiger had been parachuted into the trust in 2004 to raise standards as assistant director of nursing.  She had excelled academically and harboured ambitions of going on to the top job, but was shot down by Skilbeck in the appraisal meeting on November 3, 2005, shortly after he joined the trust.

Dr Saiger added: ‘I was just stunned, I have been a nurse since 1986 and I’ve faced many things in nursing.   ‘It’s a difficult profession, but I never expected to hear that, not from someone who is supposed to be of an intellectually senior standing.’

A tearful Dr Saiger told the hearing how she was studying for her PhD and raising her son Michael while working in an increasingly hostile environment.  She said: ‘I was finding things out after the event, excluded from meetings. My PA Maria was absolutely loyal and would get me information because I wasn’t kept informed.

‘I didn’t have an office; I was working out of the back of my car. Other nurses and senior managers who were appointed after me were given an office and a desk, and access to equipment.  ‘I was actually quite lonely.’

Eventually, Dr Saiger launched a grievance against the trust, including the comments made by Skilbeck.  But a prolonged investigation delivered a ‘whitewash’ which absolved senior managers of blame, she said.  She said: ‘It was just a farce really. It completely and utterly absolved everyone and anything.  ‘They would find reasons, excuses, policies - everything I was saying was completely untrue.’

Skilbeck is also accused of violently grabbing Dr Saiger by the arm and dragging her along a corridor, on May 31, 2007.  Dr Saiger reported the incident, which left her with a badly bruised arm, to the police, but no charges were brought.

She was sacked from her £42,000-a-year post in 2008, but launched an employment tribunal case which ruled she had been a victim of a campaign of racially-motivated discrimination and harassment.  The tribunal found she had been subjected to an ‘intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.

The tribunal upheld 16 of her 27 complaints and awarded her £115,000 in damages.

Skilbeck, who is now retired, did not attend the hearing in central London today, but emailed papers to the NMC to support his case.  The hearing into his alleged misconduct continues.

SOURCE





My parents supported Enoch Powell - but that doesn't mean they were racist

Anne Robinson's very personal recollection of Britain's most controversial politician

My first awareness of the existence of Enoch Powell came, like many other things in my life, from  my mother. She was fascinated by politics: a frustrating world away from her everyday life, even though in many ways her life was extraordinary.

In post-war Britain when it appeared the rest of womankind, who had enjoyed freedom and the right to work while their men were away fighting, had been firmly returned to their domestic boxes, my mother was doing the polar opposite.

In food-rationed Britain she’d created and was running a wholesale poultry business.  Her alarming skill at money-making was sufficient to move her young family to the grandeur of a large mansion in Blundellsands, a suburb of Liverpool.

She naturally voted Tory. Not that she took any active role in local politics. Indeed she held most politicians in contempt.

But there were two exceptions: Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. A socialist and a Tory, but significantly both fiercely independent and hard to pigeonhole. She singled them out because they excelled in what mattered to her most — oratory and advocacy.

Powell and Foot’s flair, she would frequently declare, was second to none. Thus, their names reverberated around our home. The fact that these two men appeared to have little in common politically mattered not a jot to her.

They were the intellectuals of their day, with the skill to convey their views.

In the 1950s you’d have needed to have a keen interest in politics to follow Enoch Powell’s career. I was barely 14 when he first made headlines in 1958, having resigned from the government in protest at the level of public spending.

He was a rebel, or if you were looking on from our vantage point in Blundellsands, a hero — since, naturally, my mother adored Enoch even more for his magnificent display of awkwardness.

His next act of swimming against the tide left no one ignorant of his name. His immigration speech of April 1968 gripped the whole country. By then I was a young Sunday Times news reporter. A paper, which prided itself on its campaigning reputation. The paper’s condemnation of the speech was unequivocal.

Looking back, it is hard to think of a year as important politically as 1968. Every day seemed to produce a spine-tingling headline.

There were the assassinations of Martin Luther King and then  Robert Kennedy, the Paris riots, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the continuing horror of the Vietnam War, and Richard Nixon’s election as U.S. president.

The new heroes of the decade were those who’d sacrificed their lives in the name of liberty. In contrast, Enoch Powell had become a figure of hate in the world of the London glitterati. A young journalist on a liberal newspaper had no reason to challenge this conclusion.

My mother, however, was under no such constraints. She believed Enoch had had the nerve to say out loud what everyone was thinking — except for the small political and journalistic elite in which her daughter now mixed.

Significantly, Liverpool was a city with a history of immigration going back far beyond that of the Midlands and Enoch’s Wolverhampton constituency.

The difference was that Liverpool’s immigrant population, referred to unashamedly as ‘darkies’, was almost exclusively confined to the city’s ghettoes.

The idea that my mother’s rather grand area of suburbia (Liverpool 23) — where there were ‘in’ and ‘out’ drives and plentiful employment for cooks and gardeners — might become akin to the downtrodden slum areas of Liverpool 7 and 8 would have been every bit as distressing to her as it was proving to be for the long-term white residents of Wolverhampton.

To make sense of that view, you need to remember what life was like 50 years ago. The now popular idea that the ‘Swinging Sixties’ heralded tolerance and free-thinking is an almost comically lopsided picture.

Much of what was regarded as acceptable and normal behaviour would today be judged as abhorrent; not just the language of Enoch Powell.

This was the decade when young boys — my brother Peter was one of them — were shipped off at the tender age of six or seven to the harsh regimes of prep school, where corporal punishment and bullying were the norm.

For women, there was no equality of pay or opportunity. The Pill was not available for unmarried women. Abortion was a luxury for rich girls. Babies were called illegitimate (or worse) if born out of wedlock.

It was normal practice to  send unmarried mothers away to give birth, and within a few weeks  to have the babies forcibly removed for adoption.

A woman yelling ‘rape’ could expect to be disbelieved or told she was ‘asking for it’. So much so that a woman who experienced rape would not have considered it anything other than her own stupid fault. Maternity leave was almost unheard of.

In 1968, a woman wishing to rent a television set required the supporting signature of a man. Any man! A woman requiring an overdraft or applying for a mortgage needed to have the conditions read aloud by her bank manager.

The Married Women’s Property Act of 1964, giving married women a legal share of the matrimonial home, was in its infancy.

There were remarkably few female accountants, estate agents, barristers or senior police officers. As late as 1980, BBC Radio 2 had a policy of never playing two female singers back to back.

The Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised homosexual acts in private between consenting males over 21, was less than a year old. Indeed, those in the 1960s who forecast new laws against racial discrimination and sexual discrimination were dismissed as scaremongers.

'I didn’t judge my parents as racists for supporting Enoch Powell. Like many others, they felt they hadn’t come through a war to see their neighbourhood transformed and property values threatened.'

Of course the above now seems barbaric and jaw-dropping. But it’s muddle-headed to suppose that all the politicians who accepted the status quo were ‘sexists’, any more than people like my mother were ‘racists’.

Equally, expressions that now are rightly regarded as racist were used without anyone having the foggiest idea they were offensive.

I didn’t judge my parents as racists for supporting Enoch Powell. Like many others, they felt they hadn’t come through a war to see their neighbourhood transformed and property values threatened.

Of course, when re-reading today the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in full (and how many do?), there is no doubt about the odious wording it includes.

Much the same could be said of Churchill in the 1930s, when on occasions he referred to African nations as ‘savages’.

Nevertheless, after the immigration speech, Enoch was entrenched in the public psyche as a formidable, forbidding creature; his dark aura assisted by the pencil-thin moustache, the mostly unsmiling countenance and the scary black homburg hat.

It was a few years later, in the mid-1970s, that I found myself at the House of Commons interviewing him for a newspaper profile. He was famous for not having an office in the House, and our chat was conducted on one of the green benches near the central lobby.

Anyone who met Enoch Powell remembers the first occasion.  Those penetrating blue eyes and his clipped manner of speech were intimidating (even for a girl whose own mother was regarded as terrifying by most people).

The moment I mentioned ‘rivers of blood’, my tutorial commenced. The expression never appeared in the speech, he said. And he went on to explain from where the quotation ‘the Tiber foaming  with much blood’ derived —  Virgil’s Aeneid — and why, when viewed in its context, it should have hardly caused offence to any reasonable person.

It was a nerve-racking start. But the fact that he bothered to go into detail in a gentle, respectful manner convinced me that beneath the forbidding exterior he was actually courteous, kind, painstaking.

As I left, he asked if I’d bring my completed work to him to correct any errors of fact. Accordingly, a few days later I turned up at his house in Belgravia. He answered the door and led me to the basement, where we sat at a tiny kitchen table. Saying a private prayer, I handed him the finished profile. It felt like being at school again.

Thank goodness for the unexpected interruption of Pamela Powell, his wife. She bustled in with an apology for disturbing us. ‘Your lunch, Enoch,’ she said, ‘is in the fridge. There is apple pie to finish. The cream is in a jug at the top of the fridge. Do not spill the cream.’

The great Enoch Powell nodded meekly. For one who had grown up in a matriarchal home, the scene was reassuringly familiar. I relaxed. Mr Powell even smiled for the first time and then, having corrected only the grammar, said: ‘Very good. Thank you for coming along.’ I left his house much endeared to him.

In the early 1980s, I moved to Hampstead in North-West London, where Michael and Jill Foot were my neighbours, and like me besotted dog owners. We formed a close friendship to the extent that I came to regard the Foots as secondary parents.

Jill was an exceptional cook and endearingly hospitable both to young journalists and to her husband’s favourite political colleagues.

Thus to my great amusement I learned the Powells were frequent supper guests. Scholarship clearly took precedence over political views. And while Michael disagreed with Enoch on immigration, he never, ever believed Enoch was a racist.

How my mother, who had so often been ridiculed for her twin support of Enoch Powell and Michael Foot, would have enjoyed knowing there was nothing foolish in her choice of heroes.

I have one final memory of  Enoch. Shortly after I’d made the transition to television as the presenter of the BBC’s Points Of View, I dipped my toe into the world of TV current affairs.

My chance came with Southern Television, which invited me to present a programme of a  similar format to today’s Question Time. It appeared once a week in different venues along the South-East coast.

The series coincided with the First Gulf War of 1990. Enoch had ceased to be an MP. But he was still a very good booking.  It was a coup to have him as a guest on the first programme. Another on the panel of four was the Daily Mail’s Ann Leslie.

Before the start, I wandered into the makeshift make-up room to say my hellos and found them deep in conversation. Not that I could understand a word. They were speaking Swahili to each other. I left them to it.

For a relative newcomer to television, ahead of me was the tricky task of conducting proceedings from the middle of the audience with a handheld microphone. The show was live. There was much to deal with. There was much that could go wrong.

On the way to the stage, I whispered to Enoch that I remembered him saying he always made it a point to perform on a half-full bladder to keep him on his mettle. ‘I’ve taken your advice,’ I hissed, ‘I’m petrified.’

The programme began and, to my relief, we got through the first question.   Then from the middle of the audience, I caught Enoch — out of sight of the viewers at home — smiling, and to my utter astonishment he gave me a ‘thumbs up’.  It was charming. An adorable gesture I’ve never forgotten.

Yes, Enoch was a controversial figure. His language in the 1968 speech was ill judged. To come to a satisfactory verdict on any of his pronouncements, you need to read the small print.

Enoch’s intellectual force, and his pig-headedness, meant he failed to make allowances for the fact that many people would not do so.

But to ascribe racist motives to a politician simply because he used language which, for many of his listeners was normal, is sloppy logic. Enoch deserves better. My mother was right. He was a worthy hero.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



5 June, 2012

Britons turn out in droves to celebrate their beloved Monarch

On the 60th anniversary of her reign I too say:  "God save the  Queen"!  -- JR





The threat of rain didn't dampen the Jubilee celebrations on the banks of the Thames today, as one million people turned out on the streets of London to enjoy the 1,000-boat Royal flotilla.

Pageant organisers said despite the weather, the huge crowds they had prepared for had turned up to revel in proceedings.

However, the enormous numbers of visitors created chaos on tubes and trains, with packed carriages meaning passengers were unable to board.

Transport for London warned people not to try and watch the flotilla from the already packed viewing platforms. 'The Diamond Jubilee Pageant viewing areas are now full; please avoid and find an alternative location from which to view the event,' TfL said.

TfL said that they were 'coping' with the hundreds of thousands using transport links close to the river, and that they were running extra trains to cope with demand, but that they had had to divert several bus routes due to the pageant.

Overground train operators also came under fire for apparently failing to lay on extra trains.

Travellers took to Twitter to express their frustration at the services, some saying that travel operators appeared to be laying on a regular Sunday service.

But despite frustration for some revellers, most remained upbeat and determined to catch a glimpse of the spectacle on the Thames.

Among them were friends Sarankumar Chandrasekar, 22, and Suhail Vilangil, 25, who said they were proud to see London's 'greatest moment' after moving to the UK from India two years ago.

Mr Chandrasekar, who now lives in Stratford, east London, said: 'This is the greatest moment for London so it's not something you can miss.  'It's a proud moment for us to be here and see the Queen from only 50 metres away.'

Mr Vilangil added: 'We wouldn't let a small thing like rain put us off. There are so many people here who have been so friendly.'

SOURCE




This was the Britain we feared we'd lost... in full sail once more

What a fantastic, glorious, emotional, quite overwhelming spectacle. It wasn’t just that it was flawlessly executed. It wasn’t just that, as billed in advance, it would provide a sight that people would never have seen before.

It was also a triumphant restatement and reaffirmation of a Britain that people love so deeply but which so many fear may have been lost for ever.

Well, here it was still, in all its touching magnificence.  Once again, the monarchy allowed people to connect through powerful symbolism to their collective history and their identity as a nation. And what a stroke of genius it was to use the river to make that visceral connection.

An estimated one million people packed onto the banks of the Thames to cheer the Queen as the pageant of some 1,000 boats proceeded in perfect formation past the great landmarks of the city.

The monarch being rowed in pomp and grandeur up the river is an image which goes straight back to the Middle Ages.  The Thames, etched into England’s consciousness with engravings, drawings and paintings showing its central role in the life of the nation, was historically used for coronations, processions and pageants of great splendour.

Yesterday’s pageant was not just magnificent but deliberately conjured up images which connected the Queen to sources of pride for both the monarchy and the nation, as well as to the Queen’s own history.

The grand row-barge that led the procession was called Gloriana, the name given to the first great Queen Elizabeth who presided over a triumphant period in English history.

The barge which carried the present Queen was called the Spirit of Chartwell, conjuring up the home of Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister who saved Britain from tyranny and who welcomed back the new Queen from Kenya after the death of her father, King George Vl — and whose own body after his death was borne in state on the very same river.

The bells of the churches lining the route of the pageant rang out as the Queen passed by, just as they had done in medieval times — and also when World War II, in which the then Princess Elizabeth had played her own role in defending the nation, came to an end.

Putting this pageant onto river boats touched yet further deep and emotional chords. The great artery of the Thames is a symbol of the now too-often overlooked fact that this island kingdom was always a maritime nation.

How poignant and moving, therefore, to see the vast flotilla of row-boats, with their oars dipping and their flags from the Commonwealth fluttering, passing the Queen’s barge as the bells started to peal.

This beautiful and majestic river, so dearly loved by so many, was now transformed into an exquisite spectacle.

Behind the royal barge, the 50-strong contingent of ‘little ships’ which had helped defend the nation in its darkest hour at Dunkirk were, in addition, a powerful reminder of the period when the very best of the British character had been on such epic display.

And so was it not incidentally rather sad — if not emphasised in an intentionally pointed gesture — that the Royal Yacht Britannia, which the Queen loved so much and whose launch yesterday conveyed her to the Spirit of Chartwell with yachtsmen from Britannia standing to attention on board, was so cavalierly decommissioned?

For Britannia was not some kind of extravagance, as was so vulgarly assumed in philistine political circles.

It was a symbol of Britain’s maritime identity, which helped cement that identity through such symbolism — like the monarchy itself.

That’s why yesterday’s pageant was far more than just a tremendous spectacle. It’s why this whole four-day Jubilee celebration is more than just an excuse for an enormous national party. It’s why it’s more even than just a celebration of having achieved six decades on the throne.

Its real value lies in the wonderful transformative effect upon the nation of the monarchy itself, which through such events brings out once again the best in people. It does so by bringing the nation together in what unites rather than divides. As people said yesterday over and over again, it’s the coming together that’s so joyous. They suddenly find that they all have something that they share and want to celebrate together.

As a result, the nation’s distinctive identity reasserts itself in all its idiosyncrasy.

How very British, after all, that the whole thing was carried off with such aplomb yesterday in the pouring rain, with the stoical British — in their macs, cagoules and even camping out overnight under their umbrellas — refusing to allow the weather to dampen their enjoyment and determination to celebrate.

And what they are celebrating, they say, is their Queen and their country. For through such an opportunity to express their pride in their monarch, they are able to express their pride in their country.

And how! Everywhere you look there’s red, white and blue bunting, red white and blue balloons — and, of course, everywhere the Union flag.

If the emotional resonance of the spectacle tightened the throat yesterday, it was surely this unaffected pride of the people in their Queen and their straightforward but no less deep love of their country that really brought tears to the eye.

This is because there is such an enormous, latent, pent-up feeling of patriotism — that most decent and inspiring of emotions which, in our degraded public discourse, has now become all but forbidden to express for fear of  being damned as a racist  or xenophobe.

Patriotism is thus sneered at by the kind of people who unfortunately tend to dominate our culture and who lose no opportunity to be sour and mean-spirited about the monarchy and the people it so invaluably serves.

The fact is, however, that the monarchy is immensely popular. Having been through an extremely rough patch in the days after Princess Diana’s death, it is now supported by some 80 per cent of the people.

Indeed, the Queen is far more popular than any elected politician. A recent poll suggests that four times as many think she is more concerned than politicians about their own problems and three times as many believe she is more in touch with ordinary folk.

This is really quite astonishing, since she is the grandest person in the country — and, in addition, says virtually nothing in public, with her views remaining a mystery.

Yet the reason is surely obvious. Through a number of ways — such as her Christmas broadcasts, and what she says and does on her numerous walkabouts and at her garden parties and the like — she shows over and over again how deeply she feels for and cares for the people.

Politicians don’t care for the people. They merely want something from them — their vote. The Queen wants nothing from anyone. Her life really is devoted to serving the public.

In addition, people feel that the Queen is grounded. She is a country woman, rooted in the unchanging landscape of Britain and its natural rhythms.  Look at what she wears — practical clothes that never change. She demonstrably does not, and would never, bow to fashion.

She is therefore utterly, totally, eternally reliable.  She embodies authenticity  in an age of charlatanry and spin. Which all goes to show how all the talk of ‘toffs’ being out of touch is so very wide of the mark.

The deeper reason people love her — and they do love her — is that she represents a steadfast point in a tumultuously changing, often disturbing or terrifying  world. People feel that so  much of Britain’s identity and culture is being lost or trampled underfoot.

For example, the country seems to have lost to Europe much of its ability to govern itself. Its economic outlook is dire. It appears to be steadily destroying its ability to defend itself by military means. The fundamentals of education, faith and family have splintered. It no longer seems to know what its role in the world should be.

The Queen stands above all of that. She embodies characteristics that never change and that the people deeply admire.  She stands for steadfast Christian belief, duty and self-discipline. And as the embodiment of the nation, she reflects these virtues back to the nation and makes it feel better about itself.

In an era of deepening flux and chaos, to have such a ‘rock in a stormy sea’ becomes ever more important to people.  So the notion that in an inexorably changing society the monarchy becomes evermore irrelevant is the exact opposite of the truth.

The popularity of the monarchy is thus very largely centred on the personality on the Queen herself. She is simply a royal superstar.

Listen to those who have occasion to speak to her on a regular basis — Prime Ministers, the Archbishop of Canterbury — and you hear them all testify to her remarkable wisdom, keen observation and kindness.

The people see other virtues in her with which they closely identify. She is stoical, she never makes a fuss, but just gets on with it.  That’s the spirit of Britain: just getting on with it.

Through her iron sense of duty and service, she is also selfless. The nation feels loved and supported by someone who so demonstrably cares for it. This is an unconditional commitment. Unlike politicians, the Queen has never, would never, let her people down.

This is why elected presidents simply can’t compete with a constitutional monarch.  The first duty of the embodiment of a nation is to unite that nation. Anyone who is elected is necessarily partisan and divides a nation.

Of course, the popularity of the monarchy can never be taken for granted. Prince Charles and Prince William, if they ascend to the throne, will themselves have to work hard to maintain it.

People often say — only half whimsically — that they hope the Queen will never die. While she is on the throne, they feel safe. After that, they fear, the Britain they know and cherish really will disappear.

The Queen is a person of cast-iron faith — not just religious faith, but faith in her people and her country. She therefore stands for hope in the future.

It is perhaps that characteristic most of all that not just her heirs but all who aspire to rule us should learn from her majestic example.

SOURCE




Canada's War on Religion and Parental Freedom

It is perhaps ironic that legislation purporting to combat bullying is being advanced by the biggest bully of them all – government – as the progressives in Ontario are busy drafting Bill 13 to force Catholic schools to set-up “gay-straight alliance clubs” within their institutions.

The Ontario government already compels conscientious Christian parents to pay twice for their children’s education, but this latest attack on religious freedom signals an ever-growing and disturbing intolerance and totalitarianism which should be of grave concern to all freedom-loving Canadians.

Recall the case of Jessie Sansome, the 26-year-old Kitchener father of four who was summarily arrested and strip searched while his children were seized by family services and his home ransacked by armed police. The entire incident resulted from overzealous school officials over reacting to his four-year-old daughter drawing a man with a gun in her kindergarten class. No charges were laid and Sansome was freed and reunited with his children after being detained for several hours. As disturbing as this case is, comments and reaction from government and school officials after the fact exacerbate the seriousness of the situation.

Although no formal apology was ever issued, Superintendent of the Waterloo Region District School Board commented to media, “We do work hand in hand with families because we co-parent”(1). The head of the local child and family services agency, Alison Scott, also commented to reporters that “She would do everything the same way tomorrow”(2).  If ever we needed a stark example of the itchy trigger finger of the nanny state, its arrogance and willingness to unleash naked force against us, the Sansome case is it. If it seems the bureaucracy is unrepentant that’s because it is, and Bill 13 is merely an extension of this attitude, that we are the government and we have every right to parent your child as you do. How have we come to this? How is it that we have been utterly subjugated and stripped of our right to protection from the brutality of the state? Sadly, Bill 13 and the Sansome case are but two examples of the tyranny of progressivism, Marxism and statism that are consuming our once-free society.
Statists and progressives seek to utterly control and dominate every aspect of our lives

Statists and progressives seek to utterly control and dominate every aspect of our lives, be it the cars we drive, the foods we eat, the appliances we use, how much power we consume, which doctor cares for us or who we can hire if we are an employer. Even our thoughts and speech are controlled according to whichever politically correct view suits the current and temporary upstart politician looking for re-election. But when the state imposes and interjects itself between us, our children and our God, we must draw an impassable line. To utterly submit to a state that seeks to dominate our bodies, minds and spirit – as Marxist ideology seeks to do - is to surrender our fundamental freedom, morality and spirituality to suit a superficial and ideologically driven agenda. Such a mindset runs contrary to any measure of human rights and dignity, not only on a common sense or empirical level, but also according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; a document which purports to protect individual freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, expression and opinion, and freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

But as all bullies do they heap injury upon injury, injustice upon injustice on their weaker victims. Most conscientious Christian parents – as well as many non-religious ones – are deeply concerned with the abysmal state of our bloated and dysfunctional government-run public education system. Reports of under-performance within government-run schools are rampant and the level of remedial classes taken by children entering universities from high schools is reaching epidemic proportions. One has to wonder what children are learning in their first 12 years in the public school system since they are utterly lacking even basic reading, writing and math skills once they graduate to university. Desperate parents are forced to rescue their children from the public school system, in order to give them the best chance for success and a bright future, in spite of the many barriers that government puts up.

Parents who choose to educate their children privately or at home make tremendous financial and time investments. Ontario currently spends an astonishing $75B annually on education, or about $9,500(3) per student; a cost that all parents must pay, regardless of whether their children use the system or not. So on top of the criminal level of taxes that alternative education parents must shoulder – while getting absolutely no value in return – they must also pay annual private tuition fees that can run from $3,000 to $12,000 or more annually. Clearly this is a burden, especially for families of modest income. In addition, many parents spend a tremendous amount of time transporting their children to private schools since no bus system exists, and many private schools are located far away from student homes. The situation for home schooling is even worse since it requires parents to forgo working in order to spend the six hours a day teaching their children. In spite of the crushing costs, many parents, even those with modest incomes, willingly make the sacrifice since enrolling their children in the broken public system is simply unacceptable.
Why is it so outrageous that conservative, religious parents want to educate their children according to their deeply held morals and beliefs?

One has to ask, why is it so outrageous that conservative, religious parents want to educate their children according to their deeply held morals and beliefs? Isn’t this the most basic and fundamental right that every parent should have? Why must statists impose the will of a tiny – and arbitrary - minority on these parents when homosexuality runs contrary to their deeply held beliefs?  Statists and progressives detest the fact that Christian teachings have always, and always will, be fundamentally opposed to homosexuality. And rather than accepting and respecting the wishes of religious parents, progressives seek to impose their will and destroy the familial bonds and cohesion that religion brings to the homes of Christians. What’s next, forcing Muslim religious schools to teach Christianity? Or why not force homosexuals and atheists to study Christian theology? Who decides which rights have primacy?

But it is the will of the statist and progressive, to fundamental transform our society according to political correctness and collectivist ideologies. Look how politics utterly fails when managing public works – has building a road or school ever come in on budget or on schedule? Look at the horrible state of our justice system, our health system, the public schools and the economy. It seems that everything government touches is a disaster. Yet we are to trust this small cabal of temporary, politically motivated oligarchs to dictate to us how we should live, what we are allowed and not allowed to teach our children, and how we practice our religion?  Perhaps such a state of affairs was acceptable in Stalin’s Russia, in Mao’s China, or in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and look where that lead. But when similar ideologies foment in Western societies, there is cause for great concern. Are Christian parents teaching their kids to be violent, to be anarchist, bigots and haters? Of course not, rather, they are passing down the very traditions and values that have built Canada into the wondrous and tolerant society that it is. Sadly these values are slowly being chipped away as Canada is starting to resemble some third-rate tin pot dictatorship.
Ontario is a province that has already legalized bawdy houses and prostitution

Ontario is a province that has already legalized bawdy houses and prostitution. Ontario schools already promote alternative lifestyles, promiscuity, birth control and liberalized attitudes towards the traditional definition of family and marriage. The public school systems have already become little more than propaganda and Marxist indoctrination mills; capitalism is vilified, environmental hysteria, global citizenship, open borders, government and unfettered multiculturalism are promoted all with a healthy helping of liberal guilt and self loathing. To many parents, like all government programs, the public school systems have become little more than rackets and profit centres for powerful unions and bureaucrats, where children are seen as little more than chips to be bargained with at contract time. And perhaps the biggest indignity of all, we are forced to hand over a great deal of our private property, under the penalty of incarceration or worse, to pay for the stinking system. It is because of the politicizing of the school system, its unaccountability, poor performance and the ever-growing promotion of anti-family, secular and liberalized sexual attitudes within schools that force conservative and Christian parents to shoulder the enormous costs of alternative schooling. Yet the statists and progressives are loath to let go of their power over these individuals and they seek to impose their will through draconian measures such as Bill 13.

Whenever the mastermind progressives in government want to foist their latest “save the world using other people’s money” initiative they are compelled to manufacture a crisis to get unsuspecting taxpayers to go along. Bill 13 is just the latest issue du jour that gives progressives de facto justification to run rough shod over the rights of certain groups to appease special interests. The sponsors of Bill 13 would have us belief that Christians are all hard-core homophobes and that bullying of gay students has reached such epidemic proportions in private and Christian schools that only the good hand of government can rescue us from ourselves. And so the finger waving, guilt and mass hysteria rolls along in full force in spite of there being absolutely no empirical data to support the crisis claim. Charles Lewis and Colin Perkel, in their May 25, 2012 National Post article summed it up,

    “The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has also argued that there are no statistics to backup the idea that gay students need special attention. Statistics on bullying are not easy to come by. However, in 2006 the Toronto District School Board conducted a study to determine causes of bullying. The most cited reason was “body image” (38% in grades 7 to 8; 27% in grades 9 to 12), followed by grades or marks (17% and 12% respectively), and 7% in all grades noted language as a cause. The next three categories at 5% or lower were gender, religion and income.”

Church groups were feeding the poor and hungry, sheltering the destitute and saving orphans long before any enterprising politician got the idea of cashing in on the misery

Church groups were feeding the poor and hungry, sheltering the destitute and saving orphans long before any enterprising politician got the idea of cashing in on the misery. These church groups did a far better job than any government and today private Christian schools outperform their government counterparts in spite of the endless resources and near monopoly that government has over education. But the progressive’s lust for control and unfettered power is boundless, and all Canadians must act now to put government back in its rightful place. Bill 13 represents an issue that is bigger than just a small group of Christians and private schools being pushed around by a tyrannical government. It lays bare the progressive dogma that the end justifies the means, that the quest for radical egalitarian utopia justifies the use of force against anyone who dares to stand in the way of so-called progress. Christians, like the American founders, understand that rights are inalienable and God-given, that no politician, bureaucrat or special interest can bestow – or by extension take away – a person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Consequently, to the Ontario government and to the special interests that are pulling their strings we have this message; keep your hands off our kids and you will never come between us, our children, our faith and our God. 


SOURCE





How atheists misunderstand religion

It has a rightness of feeling

Many atheists despise religion because it is not true. They wonder that anyone could be dumb enough to believe such fantastical things as are found in the mythology of religion - all religions, since none are based on a scientific, post-enlightenment understanding of the universe.

While their devotion to truth is admirable, they are missing the point. People are not religious because they have become convinced of the truth of the myth. Rather, religion is about psychological nourishment; it's about feeding the human soul.

Let's consider the Christian faith. When people go to church they are told that they will live again with their loved ones who have died. They are told that they are loved by God. They are told that the wrongs that they have done to others will be forgiven. They are told that evil people will be punished and good people will be blessed and rewarded, in the next life if not in this one.

In short, Christianity fits the shape of the hole in the human heart. It provides an answer for all the features of our world that are tragic and repulsive: we are self-aware beings with unlimited ambitions but tiny, limited lifespans, we are lonely and hunger for love all our lives, we are shamed by our hurtful deeds and words but we cannot undo them, and we wonder at ruthless people prospering while kind-hearted folks are taken advantage of.
 
This message of hope is wrapped in a profound aesthetic and meditative experience, together with a community of the faithful. It is paired with an imperative to practice universal benevolence - goodwill towards all human kind. This generates an ethic of community, charity, and service that is one of the most attractive features of Christianity.

Atheists who attempt to convert religious people by attacking the truth of the mythology are practicing a futile tactic. They don't understand the human psyche. They don't understand the deep needs that drive the billions of religious people in the world. When they do, they will become better at communicating their message. That's why atheists and religious people tend to talk past each other so much. They have two very different models of religion in their minds. The atheist mind is focused on the truth claims of religion, the religious on the relgious experience.

I enjoy participating in religious experiences, even though I am an intellectual atheist. I recognize that the peace, the self-insight, the comfort that comes from religious practice and meditation and prayer makes me a happier and healthier person. It's not for everybody, but it's certainly for people like me. I despair at the tragedies of this life, and I long for a better moral ethic than is offered by the materialistic nihilism of this world. I am becoming more culturally Christian, and as I do I grow more proud of who I am. Christianity encourages me to focus my attention outward, on the needs of others, rather than selfishly mulling over all the things I am missing in my life.

If you would have told me 11 years ago that I wold be going to church again when I was 29, I would  have been incredulous. But here I am. What drives me is my sincere hope is that I may be a blessing to all who know me. If I am, I know the Christian ethic will play a part.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

**************************



4 June, 2012

Britain's barmy elf 'n' safety fears which stopped disadvantaged inner city kids from paddling in the sea

For the past 26 years, John Barclay has been involved in a charity aimed at improving the lives of disadvantaged children. The Arundel Castle Cricket Foundation was set up to help inner city youngsters escape  their everyday surroundings and broaden their horizons.

It combines cricket coaching with educational trips and, weather permitting, a day at the seaside.

John, a former Sussex county cricket captain, devotes much of his time to working with disabled children, including the partially-sighted and those with learning difficulties.

Last weekend, the charity played host to a party of four teachers and 11 young people from a special needs school in East London. Their three-day residential stay included a visit to Arundel Castle and an excursion to nearby Littlehampton beach.

It was a scorching English summer’s afternoon, spent soaking up the sun,  eating ice cream, picking up shells, looking for baby crabs and playing beach cricket. John decided to cool down by kicking off his shoes, rolling up his trousers and paddling in the sea.

He expected the youngsters to follow suit but was told by the headteacher that they weren’t allowed in the water.

When the local education authority authorised the trip, the school had to fill in a detailed risk assessment. One of the main conditions was that in the event of a trip to the seaside, under no circumstances were the pupils to be allowed in the sea.

Never mind that the water was only a few inches deep and would barely cover their ankles. Or that there were six experienced adults accompanying them — four  teachers, John and another charity  volunteer. Paddling in the sea was deemed too dangerous.

These weren’t young children. They were all aged between 14 and 16 and classified as having ‘moderate’ rather than ‘profound’ disabilities. Yet even with more than one adult to supervise every two youngsters, they still couldn’t be trusted not to come to grief in a couple of inches of water.

John said: ‘It’s not as if they were likely to be eaten by a shark. They were at more risk coming down to Littlehampton on the minibus than they were on the beach.

‘But to my astonishment I was told that because of health and safety regulations they were not allowed to do what children have done for centuries — dip their toes in the sea, maybe up to their ankles, and experience as an island race this joyous pleasure.’

John is eager to stress he doesn’t blame the teachers, who were as exasperated as he was. ‘Those teachers who work with special needs children are saints.’ And, at his request, I won’t identify the school involved.

But, like me, he despairs of Britain’s suffocating elf’n’safety culture, which is so risk-averse and paralysed by fear that it would even deny deprived children of a simple pleasure.

‘Fear is a corrosive instinct,’ he said. It is a mistake to be over-protective. In the case of these young people, it only serves to make them more vulnerable. It instills fear in them. They have got to be exposed to every aspect of life, including those which involve some risk.’

Surely the whole idea of special needs teaching is to ensure young people with disabilities, either mental or physical, can live as normal a life as possible.

So why would anyone wish to stop a party of disadvantaged inner city kids rounding off a convivial day at the beach with a paddle in the sea?

The fact is that this has got nothing whatsoever to do with the level of risk to the youngsters themselves. It is about those who draw up the rules protecting their own backs.

These people are terrified of being sued by one of those spiv daytime TV law firms if someone so much as stubs their toe or gets bitten by a baby crab. In their world, accidents don’t happen, someone is always to blame.

And where there’s blame, there’s a claim. So they are determined to ensure that if anyone is going to carry the can, it’s not going to be them.

They are the omnipotent modern-day versions of King Canute, who believe that even if they can’t legislate away the tides, they can at least make it illegal to get your feet wet.

They never stop to think through the consequences of their moral cowardice and bureaucratic belligerence. Frankly, my dear, they don’t give a damn.

Most of the examples of elf’n’safety madness which appear in this column are good for a giggle, even if they make us all despair.

But preventing disadvantaged inner city children from paddling in the sea isn’t funny, it’s wicked.

As John Barclay says: ‘What is the world coming to?’

SOURCE





In Britain it can take a newspaper article to get your garbage collected

A man whose wheelie bin was 'too heavy' to be emptied was stunned when a council worker told him to take his rubbish to the tip on a bus.

Father-of-one David Bridgman said he was given the astonishing instruction when he phoned Canterbury City Council to find out why binmen hadn't taken away his household rubbish.

After being told his bin could break the rubbish cart, he was astonished when the council worker informed him: 'You will have to get a bus.'

Red-faced council bosses have since apologised to Mr Bridgman after admitting the comment was 'inappropriate'.

The 25-year-old, who lives with his pregnant girlfriend Hannah, 24, and their 22-month-old son Harley in Herne Bay, Kent, said: 'When I saw our wheelie bin hadn't been emptied I phoned the council to ask why and was told it was because our bin was too heavy and would break the dust cart.

'I said to the woman, well what do you suggest I do with the rubbish if they won't take it away and she told me the only thing I could do was take it myself to the local tip.

'My nearest tip is a mile-and-a-half away. I don't have a car, so I said to her the only way I could possibly get there was to get on the bus.  'She replied: 'Well, if needs must, you will have to get a bus.'

'I just laughed at her. No bus driver would let me on their bus with a wheelie bin. And if the wheelie bin was too heavy for the binmen to empty, then how did she think I was going to take it with me on a bus to the tip?

'I couldn't believe it. What planet is this woman living on? What she was suggesting is so ridiculous I find it funny.'  Mr Bridgman, an unemployed carpet fitter, said: 'I told the woman on the phone there was no way I could get the rubbish to the tip and she had to arrange for someone to come round and collect it.

'I phoned back another three times that day to see what they were doing about it, but got nowhere.  'Then the next morning I woke up to find some purple sacks and been stuffed through our letter box with a leaflet saying I'd have to take our rubbish out of the wheelie bin, put it in these purple sacks and leave them out the front of the house until the next collection.

'I can't believe they expect us to leave our rubbish on the street for two weeks. There are dirty nappies and old food in the rubbish - we'll be getting maggots, rats and all sorts.  'I'm really not happy, but I don't know what else I can do.'

Larissa Laing, the council's head of neighbourhood services, said: 'We're sorry if Mr Bridgman feels that he was spoken to inappropriately and that his situation was not taken seriously when he called about his bin not being emptied.  'I have spoken to Mr Bridgman today and arrangements have been made to take away all of his rubbish tomorrow.'

SOURCE





Criminal record checks to be abolished for millions of British community volunteers

Millions of people who volunteer to help in schools, with sport or at charity events are to be freed from the red tape of criminal record checks.

Ministers are scaling back legislation to exempt more than half of the nine million who have needed to go through Labour’s ‘vetting and barring scheme’ from the need to be officially checked.

Cabinet Office Minister Nick Hurd said that, from next year, rules requiring those who want to volunteer in their communities to undergo repeated screening will be scrapped.

People are forced to have checks so they can be monitored while coming into contact with children or vulnerable adults.

But the scheme, introduced in the wake of the inquiry into the murders of Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, is widely seen to have spiralled out of control.

Town halls spent £45million last year demanding criminal records checks not only on their own staff but also on civic-minded people who gave up their time to help in their communities.

As well as school volunteers, checks are being carried out on tree surgeons, beach cleaners, park rangers and ice cream and burger van operators.

Even the Duchess of Cambridge had to undergo a check by the Criminal Records Bureau before becoming a volunteer for the Scouts.

The Government says safety should not be compromised, but the scheme is being significantly curtailed so that only those in sensitive posts or who have intensive contact with youngsters or vulnerable adults will need to undergo criminal record checks.

The CRB and the Independent Safeguarding Authority are to be merged to form a streamlined body to provide a ‘proportionate’ system of checks.

Mr Hurd said the Government planned further steps to ensure barriers are not put in the way of people who want to volunteer.  ‘People and charities have often told me of their frustration that they have to go through a costly and time-consuming process to get a CRB check often when they already have a certificate,’ he said.

‘We’ve listened and changed the legislation so that people only need to get checked once or when absolutely necessary, which will mean that more people can get involved in their local communities without the burden of unnecessary red tape.’

The Government is issuing new guidance to make it clear that volunteering should not usually be considered a risky activity requiring criminal record checks.

From next year, the Protection of Freedoms Act will improve the ‘portability’ of CRB certificates so that people can volunteer using the same certificate they have used for employment or other volunteering, he added.

SOURCE






The media's religion deficit

Big media has a bias against religion that doesn't advance the secular and liberal agenda of the Democratic Party -- the evidence is beyond dispute. Any faith attached to a conservative agenda is to be ridiculed, stereotyped and misrepresented. (Islam is a notable exception. The media appear to bend over backward not to offend Muslims.)

The Washington Post on Monday, reporting from Carrollton, Ark., uncovered an event that occurred nearly 155 years ago, and then sought to link it to the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: "On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre."

The Romney connection? "There aren't many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism -- and potentially problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country's first Mormon president."

As Carrollton, Ark., goes, so goes the nation? Would the Post question the legitimacy and faith of a Muslim candidate for Congress, or any office, because of 9/11? Do you even have to ask? Should the Spanish Inquisition reflect on a Catholic candidate?

Since Jimmy Carter announced during the 1976 presidential campaign that he was a born-again Christian, the media have been fascinated by religion, but not so much that they would labor to understand it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a devout Mormon, but Reid gets a media pass on his faith because he toes the line on the secular left's agenda, from abortion to same-sex marriage, which Reid endorsed last week. That his church teaches the opposite of the way he votes doesn't appear to concern him. Senator Orrin Hatch, also a Mormon, is running for re-election in Utah. Hatch is less scary to the media because he made friends with the late Senator Ted Kennedy, with whom he occasionally cooperated on legislation.

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a devout Catholic, opposes the death penalty, as does the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also opposes the "death penalty" for the unborn, but Cuomo challenged the Church's position on abortion in his speech at Notre Dame in 1984, titled "Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective." Why did no reporter press Cuomo on his "cafeteria theology"? Answer: because his positions on both the death penalty and abortion reflect the views of most in big media.

The questions reporters should be asking Mitt Romney are not about his style of worship or about Mormon theology, but rather, which of his Church's beliefs he thinks are connected to earthly policies and which ones, if any, he will attempt to implement should he become president.

On her Washington Post blog, Jennifer Rubin says the media has a "Mormon Obsession": "In sum, the left's obsession with Romney's faith tells us more about their ignorance of faithful people of all religions than anything else. ... Whether born of ignorance (i.e. that other faiths don't share these essential values) or rank bias or intention to paint Romney as weird, the definition of Romney as nothing more than a Mormon stick figure is pernicious in our political culture and begs the question: Why is the media entirely uninterested in Obama's religious influences, and indeed has dubbed such discussion racist?"

Journalists and media organizations should be required to take advanced religion courses so they can better understand faith, explain it accurately and ask the right questions of candidates who believe in an Authority higher than the state.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



3 June, 2012

Students at elite Oxford college refuse to hang picture of the Queen because doing so would promote ELITISM

This is just part of a long tradition of contrariness at Oxford U

Students at Oxford University have been branded 'unpatriotic hypocrites' after they refused to hang a portrait of the Queen - because she was 'born into privilege'.

Undergraduates at Keble College wanted to spend £200 on a picture of Her Majesty to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee.

But college members - whose alumni include the Duke of Kent’s grandson Edward Windsor - voted against the portrait because it promoted elitism.

Student representative Basil Vincent defended the decision.  He said: 'I think that some saw the portrait as potentially divisive.   'The general feeling was that enough is already being done to commemorate Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee.'

Another Keble student added: 'Nearly £200 to support someone who was born into a certain family is not really economical use of money.  'The Royal family do nothing but sit on their backsides and wave at people.  'They have never had to work in their lives and just live off their ancestor’s money.

'Also, we have a lot of international students and it is not fair to show some kind of political allegiance they do not agree with.'

Only 17 students voted for the patriotic painting to be bought while 54 voted against.

But the decision has angered student Alexander King, who proposed the patriotic motion.   He said: 'I proposed the motion as I felt in this Jubilee year it was important to recognise the glorious service the Queen has given this country.  'It was voted down mainly on the spurious contention that it would be divisive.

'I feel very sad that on this issue Keble has shown itself to be woefully out of touch with the rest of the British population, 80 percent of whom currently support the monarchy.”

Another student, from nearby Worcester College, said: 'I couldn’t believe it when I heard they had decided not to put up a portrait of the Queen.  'They have become a laughing stock of the university.  'How they can have the audacity to say it was rejected because she is born into a privileged family is beyond me.

'It is totally unpatriotic and very hypocritical considering the intake at Keble.  'I’d say 90 percent of the students at that college are born into rich families and have spent their lives living off their parents.'

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls graduated from the college in 1988 and former US President Ronald Reagan was elected to an Honorary Fellowship in 1994

SOURCE



Don't promote women and ethnic minorities in the courtroom just to fill quotas, says former top British female judge

Women and ethnic minority judges who are not up to the job have been appointed because of diversity targets, a former High Court judge has warned.

Baroness Butler-Sloss, formerly the most senior woman judge in England and Wales, said that there had been ‘too much enthusiasm for diversity and not enough for merit’ in the appointment process.  As a result, judges had found themselves ‘failing’ because they were ‘not able to bear the strain of the judicial process’, she said.

She told the House of Lords: ‘I have a vivid recollection of a woman judge many years ago who was a very fine pianist. She should have remained a pianist.

‘I strongly support diversity when - and only when - it equals merit,’ she said.

She added: ‘It will be very important that women - particularly those from ethnic minorities - who may not be able to bear the strain of the judicial process are not placed in a position where they may find themselves failing because there has been too much enthusiasm for diversity and not enough for merit. This is very important.’

Lady Butler-Sloss, who was head of the Family Division of the High Court and the first female Lord Justice of Appeal, made her comments in a House of Lords debate on plans to encourage more women and ethnic minority candidates to become judges.

Measures in the Crime and Courts Bill would extend flexible work hours for senior judges to help women to continue to sit on cases after they have children.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is also proposing ‘positive action’ in the appointment of judges - so that if there are equal candidates, the woman can be chosen in the interests of ‘diversity’.

Responding to Lady Butler-Sloss, cross bench peer Lady Neuberger, the former chief executive of the King’s Fund, welcomed plans for non-judges to chair selection panels for senior judicial appointments.

She said the new measures ‘should not and would not change the overriding principle of appointments based on merit’.But she worried that existing judges were appointing too many people who were similar to them.  She said: ‘We all have an inclination to appoint people who are like us’.

‘I certainly found as chief executive of the King’s Fund that an astonishingly large number of middle-class, white, rather bossy women were being appointed.’ ‘I cannot think why that should be,’ she quipped.

She added: ‘Let us be clear. We have a wonderful judiciary in this country. It is highly talented, highly independent, not always beloved of Government - nor should it be - and of great merit.

‘That is why, where the judiciary plays an even greater constitutional role than it did in the past, it is so important that the judges should not be always in the majority-or arguably ever in the majority-in appointing people to become part of their own number.’

Lady Neuberger, who chaired an advisory panel on judicial diversity under Labour, said there was a ‘real need for the judiciary to be more reflective of the community it serves’.

Around 14 per cent of judges in England and Wales are women and three per cent are from black and Asian groups.

Lady Butler-Sloss was appointed as the coroner in the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed in 2006, but she stood down from the role the following year.

SOURCE




The Harm in Hate-Speech Laws

 by David Gordon

REVIEW of  The Harm in Hate Speech  By Jeremy Waldron

In many countries, though not in the United States, laws prohibit "hate speech." Those who, in Jeremy Waldron's opinion, uncritically elevate the benefits of free speech over competing values oppose hate-speech laws; but Waldron thinks that a strong case can be made in their favor. (Waldron thinks that there are "very few First Amendment Absolutists" [p. 144] who oppose all regulation of speech; but he thinks that many other First Amendment scholars are unduly critical of hate speech regulations.) Waldron is a distinguished legal and political philosopher, but the arguments that he advances in defense of hate-speech laws, taken on their own terms, do not seem to me very substantial.[1]

Hate speech, Waldron tells, us, consists of "publications which express profound disrespect, hatred, and vilification for the members of minority groups" (p. 27). "Speech," it should be noted, is used here in an extended sense; and it is the more lasting written material, movies, posters, etc, that principally concern Waldron rather than speeches, verbal threats, or imprecations, though the latter are not excluded. Many countries ban such speech:

The United Kingdom has long outlawed the publication of material calculated to stir up racial hatred. In Germany it is a serious crime to display the swastika or other Nazi symbols. Holocaust denial is punished in many countries. The British author David Irving … was imprisoned until recently in Austria for this offense. (p. 29)

One way to respond to this would be to assess hate-speech laws from the Rothbardian position that I deem to be correct. This would make for a very short review. For Rothbard, free-speech questions reduce to issues of property rights. If, for example, someone writes "Muslims get out!" on a wall, a Rothbardian would ask, "Whose wall is it?" If the author of the message wrote on his own wall, he acted within his rights; if, lacking permission, he wrote on someone else's wall, he violated the owner's property rights. People have no general right of restraint against insult. Furthermore, you do not own your reputation, since this consists of the ideas other people have of you, and you cannot own other people's thoughts. For that reason, laws against libel and slander are for the Rothbardian ruled out. Waldron asks, If laws forbid libel of a person, why not laws against group libel as well? A more un-Rothbardian argument could hardly be imagined.

I think it would be a mistake to leave matters there. Waldron — and those like him who reject libertarianism — would be unlikely to take notice of the foregoing criticism.[2] But another line of inquiry might be of more interest to them. We can also ask how good Waldron's arguments are if judged on their own merits rather than evaluated from an external perspective.

If we ask this question, we must first deal with a difficulty. Waldron's exact position is rather elusive. For one thing, it is not altogether accurate to say that he defends hate-speech laws, though this is certainly the general tenor of his book. He sometimes confines himself to saying that there are considerations in favor of these laws: these would need to be weighed against reasons for not restricting speech.

My purpose in putting all this in front of you is not to persuade you of the wisdom and legitimacy of hate-speech laws.… The point is … to consider whether American free-speech jurisprudence has really come to terms with the best that has been said for hate speech regulations. (p. 11)

But I do not think it admits of much doubt that for Waldron the arguments in favor of these laws are decisive.

Why, then, should we restrict hate speech? The primary consideration is that it assaults human dignity. In what Waldron, following John Rawls, calls a "well-ordered society," there is "an assurance to all the citizens that they can count on being treated justly" (p. 85). But hate speech disrupts this assurance.

However, when a society is defaced with anti-Semitic signage, burning crosses, and defamatory racial leaflets, that sort of assurance evaporates. A vigilant police force and a Justice Department may still keep people from being attacked or excluded, but they no longer have the benefit of a general and diffuse assurance to this effect [of being treated justly], provided and enjoyed as a public good, furnished to all by each. (p. 85)

This goes altogether too fast. If you encounter a pamphlet or sign hostile to your minority group, why would you conclude anything more than that someone wishes you and those like you ill? Would not the hostile view be merely one opinion among large numbers of others? Why would it suffice to weaken your sense of assurance that you were an equal member of society?

Waldron, fully aware of this objection, responds that it neglects the effects of contagion. Even though the effect of an individual hate message may be small, the message signals to other haters that they do not hate alone. The accumulation of many such messages may indeed serve to undermine the assurance of the harassed minority.

In a way, we are talking about an environmental good — the atmosphere of a well-ordered society — as well as the ways in which a certain ecology of respect, dignity, and assurance is maintained, and the ways in which it can be polluted and (to vary the metaphor) undermined. (p. 96)

Waldron elucidates the parallel that he draws between hate messages and environmental pollution in this way: We see that the

tiny impacts of millions of actions — each apparently inconsiderable in itself — can produce a large-scale toxic effect that, even at the mass level, operates insidiously as a sort of slow-acting poison, and that regulations have to be aimed at individual actions with that scale and that pace of causation in mind. An immense amount of progress has been made in consequentialist moral philosophy by taking causation of this kind, on this scale and at this pace, properly into account. (p. 97)

(Waldron refers here to the well-known treatment of "moral mathematics" in Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons.)

But why does contagion operate only with bad effects? Will not the cumulative effects of a series of individual encounters in which members of minority groups are treated with equal respect generate a positive atmosphere of assurance, in precisely the same way that Waldron postulates for the amassing of hate messages? Waldron assumes without argument a quasi–Gresham's law of public opinion, in which bad opinion drives out good.

But which process, the one that produces a positive atmosphere of assurance or the one that arouses Waldron to concern, will in fact prove the stronger? One reason to think that it is the good one is this. Waldron, in response to the charge that hate-speech laws suppress legitimate issues of controversy, notes that some matters are beyond dispute; an established consensus supports them:

Suppose someone puts up posters conveying the opinion that people from Africa are nonhuman primates.… Maybe there was a time when social policy generally … could not adequately be debated without raising the whole issue of race in this sense. But that is not our situation today.… In fact, the fundamental debate about race is over — won, finished. There are outlying dissenters, a few crazies who say they believe that people of African descent are an inferior form of animal; but for half a century or more, we have moved forward as a society on the premise that this is no longer a matter of serious contestation. (p. 195)

If Waldron is right, and only a "few crazies" believe the hateful doctrine, why is he so much in fear of the malign effects of allowing these people to publish their views unmolested by the state?

To be frank, I think that Waldron at times proceeds in a very unfair way. He says, in effect, to the opponents of hate-speech laws, "You say that you are willing to put up with the evils of hate speech in order to preserve the good of unhindered free speech. But you are not, in most cases, the ones who will suffer from hate speech. Why are you entitled, without evidence, to brush aside the suffering of those whom hate speech targets?"

That is not in itself an unreasonable question, but Waldron ignores one vital issue. He is endeavoring to make a case for the regulation of hate speech. He cannot then fairly shift the onus probandi entirely to the side of his opponents, saying to them, "prove that hate speech does not much affect its victims." It is for him to show that hate speech in fact has the dire effects he attributes to it. It is not out of the question that such speech sometimes does have bad effects, but it would seem obvious that we have here an empirical issue, one that requires the citation of evidence.

Waldron so far as I can see fails to offer any, preferring instead to conjure up pictures of people who, seeing or hearing examples of hate speech, recall horrid scenes of past persecution. To what extent do people actually suffer from hate speech? Waldron evinces little interest in finding out.

If Waldron has not succeeded in making a case for hate-speech regulation, is there anything to be said against such laws — aside, of course, from the libertarian considerations that we have for this review put aside? One point seems to me of fundamental importance. Waldron presents these laws as if they limited only extreme expression of hate, e.g., suggestions that people in certain groups are subhuman or need to be forcibly expelled from society, if not done away with altogether. He rightly notes that we are not obliged to like everyone or to deem everyone equally morally worthy:

Does this [the requirement that we treat everyone with dignity] mean that individuals are required to accord equal respect to all their fellow citizens? Does it mean they are not permitted to esteem some and despise others? That proposition seems counterintuitive. Much of our moral and political life involves differentiation of respect. (p. 86)

Hate-speech laws, Waldron says, do not ignore our rights to prefer some people to others. We further remain free to criticize minority groups, so long as we do not stray into the forbidden territory of outright hatred and denigration. Waldron claims that

most such [hate speech] laws bend over backwards to ensure that there is a lawful way of expressing something like the propositional content of views that become objectionable when expressed as vituperation. They try to define a legitimate mode of roughly equivalent expression.… Some laws of this type also try affirmatively to define a sort of "safe haven" for the moderate expression of the view whose hateful or hate-inciting expression is prohibited. (p. 190)

I do not doubt that Waldron has accurately quoted from the laws he mentions, but he unaccountably fails to comment on a quite well-known phenomenon. Laws of the type Waldron champions have often been used to suppress not just vituperation but all sorts of "politically incorrect" opinions. For example, as James Kalb notes in his outstanding The Tyranny of Liberalism, "the High Court in Britain [in 2004] upheld the conviction and firing of an elderly preacher who held up a sign in a town square calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism, and immorality and was thrown to the ground and pelted with dirt and water by an angry crowd."[3]

Those wishing further examples of how these laws work in practice may with profit consult the penetrating studies of Paul Gottfried, e.g., After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State and Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.[4] Here we are dealing not with a matter of speculative psychology but of incontrovertible fact.
For Waldron, the state ought to watch vigilantly over us, ever alert that some miscreant may cross the boundaries (set of course by the state itself) of acceptable dissent from the regnant orthodoxy of multicultural society. I cannot think that such a tutelary power has a place in a free society.

SOURCE



Australia: Biased critics can't regulate

by Keith Windschuttle

THE recommendation by Ray Finkelstein that the Gillard government establish a news media regulatory body is not only the most serious assault yet proposed on press freedom in this country.

It would elevate to a position of power the one group of people most jealous of and hostile towards the news media: academics in media studies and journalism.

Finkelstein proposes a News Media Council chaired by a retired judge or eminent lawyer, with 20 part-time members. He says the council should both be, and be seen to be independent from government. On the critical question of who gets to appoint the chair and the members, without the government of the day stacking it with supporters, he proposes a committee of three academics appointed by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Commonwealth Solicitor-General.

This recommendation is a bad joke. It is virtually impossible to find three academics who are not firmly committed to the Left. For the past 25 years, appointments in media studies at almost all Australian universities have been captured by the Left. Consequently, the academic literature is essentially a political critique designed to show the news media is at fault whenever it fails to support the Left's own jaundiced view of the world. If academics from this field ever gained the positions Finkelstein envisages, they would ensure his council was composed of people exactly like themselves.

One of the major flaws of Finkelstein's report is that he bases his case for media regulation on an uncritical acceptance of a number of case studies written by media academics. He should have been more sceptical. Let me offer two examples which I believe show the shoddy quality of academic research that now passes muster in university media studies. The authors are Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University, and David McKnight, associate professor of journalism at the University of NSW. In both cases, their targets for analysis are the The Australian. Both academics were sought out by the Finkelstein inquiry, which wrote to them asking for input. Manne gave oral evidence at the inquiry's Melbourne hearings and McKnight made a written submission.

In his recent Quarterly Essay, Bad News, Manne presented The Australian's coverage of my book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History as his first proof that News Limited had become a dangerous case of power without responsibility. "Because of the decision taken by The Australian to host the Windschuttle debate, the character of the nation was subtly but significantly changed." McKnight takes a similar line. In his new book Rupert Murdoch: An Investigation of Political Power, McKnight says The Australian initiated the nation's "culture wars" by launching "a public onslaught" on the story of the "Stolen Generations" and by its promotion of The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. McKnight says The Australian put my book on the national political agenda "with a sympathetic profile of its author, several news stories and eager support from its conservative columnists and contributors. Unsurprisingly, The Australian was Windschuttle's outlet of choice for responding to his critics."

In both these cases, the authors' content analysis is substandard and deceptive. It is true that in the course of this debate I wrote several articles in The Australian in response to my critics. But here is a list of other publications which also accepted my opinion pieces: The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian Financial Review, Herald Sun, Courier-Mail, Adelaide Advertiser, Hobart's The Mercury and West Australian. Despite McKnight's assertion that The Australian carried "a sympathetic profile" about me, I can't find one fitting that description in my files. However, there were two profiles in Fairfax's SMH and The Age, one by Andrew Stevenson and one by Jane Cadzow.

ABC radio and television also gave me good coverage. Tony Jones on Lateline hosted two separate debates about my work, one with Henry Reynolds, the other with Stuart Macintyre. I went on Phillip Adams's Late Night Live and was interviewed by Michael Duffy on Counterpoint. To my delight, I also scored the hour-long morning interview on ABC Classic FM where, as well as talking about my work with Jana Wendt, I got to choose and introduce five favourite pieces of classical music. When I debated Henry Reynolds at the National Press Club, the ABC televised the entire proceedings of one hour.

In other words, rather than some right-wing conspiracy by The Australian to engage in a culture war to change the national character, the media coverage of my writings on Aborigines, in which I accused Australian historians of exaggeration, invention and corruption, was a response to a newsworthy story that virtually all major Australian media outlets took seriously. Academics such as Manne and McKnight, who use selective quotation and calculated omission in order to spin this into some dark plot to manipulate public opinion, cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Yet Finkelstein has constructed his proposed media regulation regime on the faith that the academic colleagues of these two authors are honest brokers. Sadly, it is not so. In fact, if it came to a contest between the reliability of media academics and the journalists who produce our newspapers and news broadcasts, the latter would win by the length of the straight.

Finkelstein recommends that publishers who distribute more than 3000 copies of print per issue, or news internet sites with a minimum of 15,000 hits per year, would be subject to the dictates of his News Media Council. Quadrant falls well within this range.

If Finkelstein's oppressive scheme is implemented, we would feel compelled to defend the long tradition of press freedom by engaging in civil disobedience. While I am editor, Quadrant would not recognise the News Media Council's authority, observe its restrictions, or obey its instructions, whatever the price. We hope other publishers take a similar stand.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************



1 June, 2012

Why Scots die young

There's a lot of beating about the bush in the report below so perhaps it falls to me to tell the real story. 

Scots in Scotland today are a very socialist lot.  Add to that a tradition of fighting and you have a very  "Bolshie" lot, not to put too fine a point on it. 

The hard-working and enterprising  Scots have long ago emigrated elsewhere -- if only to England but also notably to North  America and Australasia.

So having to work makes Scots resentful and in the postwar era they gradually destroyed most of their traditional industries  (shipbuilding,  floorcoverings etc.)  by constantly going on strike  -- leaving them very welfare dependant.  In many Scottish households now no-one has worked for generations.

And with nothing to do and no hope for the future, the chief entertainment for their young men  became sticking shivs into one another on Saturday night.  Glasgow (where about half of all Scots live)  is one of the world's most violent cities.  And a shiv (home-made stabbing knife) in your ribs is not good for your health or your survival

Scotland's shorter life expectancy is not just due to higher rates of smoking and drinking and a poor diet but is also the result of decades of bad political decisions, according to researchers.

The country's mortality rate is markedly higher than in other European countries, including the rest of the UK.

This has been caused by a range of factors influenced by the political direction of the last 60 years, and in particular since 1980, a study by NHS Health Scotland claims.

Scientists identified and tested a range of reasons for why those living in Scotland die at a younger age; they found no single cause.

These included migration, genetics, individual values, substance abuse, climate, inequalities, deindustrialisation and 'political attack'.

The researchers found that between 1950 and 1980 life expectancy in Scotland started to diverge from elsewhere in Europe.

They believe this was linked to higher deprivation due to industrial employment patterns, housing and urban environments, community and family dynamics, and negative health behaviour cultures.

From 1980, they attribute the country's higher mortality to the political direction taken by the governments of the day, and the consequent hopelessness and community disruption that was experienced as a result.

The study said: 'For over half a century, Scotland has suffered from higher mortality than comparably wealthy countries, and for the last 30 years has suffered from a new and troubling mortality pattern.

'It is unlikely that any single cause is entirely responsible, and there is uncertainty around why Scotland started to diverge from elsewhere in Europe around 1950.

'It is clearer that the health and social patterns that emerged from the 1980s are more closely linked to negative health behaviours (eg alcohol consumption), but these behaviours are, in turn, heavily influenced and shaped by the social, cultural and economic disruption which occurred as the political and economic policies of the UK changed from the late 1970s.'

Other factors, such as alcohol, smoking, unemployment, housing and inequality are all important, the scientists said, but require an explanation as to why Scotland was disproportionately affected.

Lead researcher Dr Gerry McCartney said: 'It is increasingly recognised that it is insufficient to try to explain health trends by simply looking at the proximal causes such as smoking or alcohol.

'Income inequality, welfare policy and unemployment do not occur by accident, but as a product of the politics pursued by the government of the day.

'In this study we looked at the "causes of the causes" of Scotland's health problems.'

The study is published in the journal Public Health.

SOURCE





Etan Patz: the case that changed America

Thirty-three years on, a man has been arrested for the murder of six-year-old Etan. But America is still reeling from that abduction

On 25 May 1979, a six-year-old boy named Etan Patz went missing on his first solo journey to school. Last week, almost 33 years to the day, New York police announced the arrest of Pedro Hernandez for Etan’s murder.

New Yorkers are greeting the news cautiously and with something like bewilderment. We’ve been down this road before. Thirty-three years of false leads and wild speculation have rendered this event so much larger than life. The disappearance of Etan haunted a generation. This was the story that changed everything. It was the abduction that came to define childhood in the years to follow. It seems almost impossible to imagine that it could, finally, be over.

It’s still possible to visit the corner of Prince and Broom where Etan disappeared so many years ago. Today the area is gentrified, with restaurants and expensive boutiques; barely a trace remains of the New York of the 1970s. Looking at the city today, it’s hard to imagine how different things were then, before its rise to become the de facto financial centre of the world.

In one sense, New York has always been a great city, but in the 1970s she was in decline. The world was changing. The manufacturing jobs that built the city dried up. Her old institutions and power brokers, the unions, the police and the democratic machine, were as corrupt as the city’s crumbling infrastructure. Huge parts of the outer boroughs became wastelands of derelict buildings ravaged by crime and neglect. Nearly a million people fled. The murder rate soared and the nation’s candidate for Greatest City in the World became its greatest embarrassment. Bankrupt and broken, the city appealed to the federal government for help. But President Gerald Ford refused, inspiring the famous New York Daily News headline: ‘Ford to City: Drop Dead.’

Things weren’t much better nationally. Watergate and Vietnam had a demoralising effect on civic life, but private life was just no escape. The mass permanent entry of women into the workforce profoundly changed the family. Marriages broke apart and parents struggled to raise their children in a world that was completely alien to the one they had grown up in.

Against this backdrop of uncertainty and disintegration, the Etan Patz case seemed to amplify a sense of growing mistrust not just in New York but across America. It became the crucible for every secret dread about what people were capable of. Over time, it took the form of an obsession with child sexual abuse.

According to Paula Fass, author of Child Abduction in America, the idea that Etan had been abducted by an adult for the purposes of sexual abuse emerged only several years after his disappearance. Sex crimes against children were not unknown, but were considered extremely rare. The first suggestion that Etan’s abduction was such a crime came in the form of a novel published by Beth Gutcheon in 1981. Still Missing was based on the Patz case, but in Gutceon’s account, the missing boy is found in the clutches of a paedophile. Over the years, the idea that Etan was the victim of a paedophile has become the standard explanation for his disappearance and the imagined motive for any child abduction after.

Only a few years later, Adam Walsh would disappear from a shopping centre in Florida and Iowa paperboy Johnny Gosch would vanish from his route, never to be seen again. In 1983, then president Ronald Reagan declared 25 May, the day of Etan’s disappearance, as National Missing Children’s day and 1,800 independent dairies decided to feature the photographs of missing children on cartons of milk. For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, the numbers of child abductions tended to be greatly exaggerated. Campaigns against ‘stranger danger’ claimed that as many as 50,000 children were abducted each year, even though the real number was nearer 300 and most of those were in custodial disputes.

With hindsight, the Patz case and the other panics about child safety that followed were probably rooted in the unsettling social changes that took place in the 1970s and 80s. But it wasn’t so easy to see then. Every story about a murder or disappearance and every milk carton seemed to mock everything Americans had ever believed about adults and children as simply wrong.

Perhaps the most extreme expression of this was so-called ‘recovered memory syndrome’, which came to prominence in the 1980s and 90s, in which therapists ‘helped’ adults and children supposedly to retrieve blocked-out memories of bizarre and depraved acts of abuse by their parents. Daycare facilities across the country were hit with unlikely allegations of bizarre ritual sexual abuse. Americans believed these things because they had lost faith in their own ability to know reality.

The disappearance of Etan Patz has cast a long shadow. Though a large body of evidence contradicts the vision of mass abductions and child abuse that arose in the aftermath of the Patz disappearance, there are still nagging fears about what might happen. What mother or father hasn’t felt the pang of doubt when letting their child do things they once took for granted? There’s always the stone-cold fear that, just maybe, if we let them out of our sight they might slip away forever, like Etan Patz.

Whether Hernandez did, as he claims, kill Etan Patz, or not, 33 years on it is worth reassessing the Patz case – not so much in its particulars but in terms of the role it came to play in redefining the relationship between children and adults. Where once adults basically trusted one another to safeguard all children, we now view all interactions between children and adults as suspect. Julie and Stanley Patz lost their young son in 1979, but a whole generation of children lost their freedom and parents lost their peace of mind. The time has come to let the climate of fear go and to let Etan Patz rest in peace.

SOURCE




Everyone loses out if children are coddled

There is little that reflects the changes in attitude to parenting so well as the game of pass the parcel as it is played at third birthday parties.

Typically the host parent manipulates the music so that each child gets a present. If it is done successfully their own child, the birthday girl, will get the final trinket. No one is a loser. It is easier that way.

Here is the big change and greatest contradiction in modern parenting: we are reluctant to do anything that might impair our child's confidence, and yet at the same time we act as if childhood is an inconvenience we cannot wait to pass.

The recent publication of Pamela Druckerman's bestseller French Children Don't Throw Food has reignited some debate among those who are concerned over parenting and child rearing methods.

Druckerman comes from New York and is amazed at how polite and well mannered are French children. She set herself the goal of finding out how their methods of child rearing differ from her own. French children are taught patience from a very early age. French parents delay rewards. They also have an underlying belief that children are intelligent and have the ability to reason.

What a contrast that is to our practice where no child is a loser. We have a preoccupation with maintaining self-esteem in our children and we are fearful they may be crushed by failure, rather than regarding it as a spur to try again. The popular "Parent Effectiveness Training" possibly should take some of the blame for this.

We seem always ready to adopt a new fad. Currently there is the popular "helicopter parenting" approach, where parents constantly hover, reassure and protect their child. Another is the "hothouse" approach, parents having flash cards in the nursery or harassing the preschool teacher to teach their child to read.

There is, however, a very sad and perhaps unique Australian phenomenon which could be called the "I can't wait until" approach. This starts very early on, in infancy, with "I can't until he is weaned onto a bottle" parenting. This is followed by "sleeping through the night" school, the "toilet trained" school, the "started day care" school and the "started school" school.

It goes on with further variations such as "I can't wait until school holidays are over and she is off our hands". Then it's "I can't wait until he has his driver's licence and I don't have to take him everywhere". It gets worse: "I can't wait until he has left school", and the final indignity, "left home".

What makes this so depressing is that it is often the same parents who constantly praise their child for every trivial achievement, making these remarks within earshot of their offspring. It makes me wince.

You can only wonder how a child interprets this. On the one hand they are told how wonderful they are for every inconsequential thing they do, on the other their parents can't wait until they have reached adulthood.

We don't appreciate childhood as a crucial and vital part of development. Instead, many view childhood as a nuisance, a period that they would prefer to ignore or hope to be over as soon as possible.

A consequence of this is that children don't see themselves as being valued. Children want to feel that they are contributing to the family, and this is something that we so often stifle. From an early age children show a desire to contribute by helping their parents with domestic tasks. For a child to learn these skills requires sustained attention, and patience, on the parent's part.

It takes time to supervise a child at the kitchen sink doing the washing up, and initially they only make more mess. However, from a child's point of view they are helping and contributing something of value. In time they will acquire these skills and with that will come a feeling of genuine self worth. It's a bit like an apprenticeship; if the apprentice is guided and rewarded he is more likely to fulfil his potential.

We don't have the time, patience or interest to encourage these early skills. Instead we take the easy approach of leaving them in front of a television.

The irony is, of course, that when they are teenagers we complain that they can't make the bed, do the washing or cook a meal.

We choose to ignore childhood because we are so time poor and preoccupied with adult issues. This causes parent guilt and one way we assuage this is by "giving everyone a prize" rather than rewarding true achievement.

SOURCE/a>




Australia:  The "yellow peril" again?

Much of the world --mainly the vast countries of India and China  -- is undergoing rapid economic development.  The raw material of that  developent is of course people  -- followed closely by steel.  Steel is needed for everything, from machinery to buildings.  And steel is made from coal and iron ore.  So the demand for those two inputs is growing exponentially. 

Providentially, Australia is relatively close to both East and South Asia.  And Australia's West coast has gargantuan reserves of readily recoverable iron ore while Australia's East coast has gargantuan reserves of readily recoverable coal.

So Australian companies are digging like crazy and will pay almost anything to get the workers who work the digging machines and do all the associated tasks.  But the demand for skilled workers willing to work in isolated areas is so difficult to meet that it is hampering the development of new mines.  Solution:  Import skilled workers.  And the Australian government has agreed to that -- issuing "EMA" permits.

Enter the unions.  And enter  people with the traditional Australian fear of "cheap" workers from China.  The result is a deeply unattractive debate.

JULIA Gillard's concessions to unions over skilled migration in the mining sector have inflamed xenophobic sentiments, sparking business warnings of potential damage to Australia's relations with its Asian trading partners.

As the Prime Minister last night strongly defended her policy of putting Australian jobs first, the mining sector complained that "racist innuendo" surrounding Labor's new Enterprise Migration Agreements had taken politics to "a new low".

Former Queensland Labor treasurer Keith De Lacy, a former Macarthur Coal chairman, said "a fair bit of xenophobia" had underpinned the debate over EMAs, while the chief executive of the Australian Mines and Metals Association, Steve Knott, likened it to the debate over the White Australia policy. And in an address to the Minerals Council of Australia's annual dinner last night, Rio Tinto managing director David Peever warned against the dangers of divisiveness.

While the opposition yesterday demanded the Prime Minister pull her backbench into line or risk alienating Asian giants including China and Japan, former federal MP Pauline Hanson told The Australian that mining sector jobs had to be reserved for Australians.

The former One Nation leader declared she had "grave concerns" about EMAs, as north Queensland independent MP Bob Katter warned on his website: "Most Australians do not believe our country should be run by foreign interests who are determined to enforce a master-slave situation and undermine our workers' wages."

The highly charged rhetoric follows Immigration Minister Chris Bowen's decision last week to allow the Roy Hill iron ore project in Western Australia's Pilbara - which is 70 per cent owned by Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting - to hire up to 1700 foreign workers for the proposed $9.5 billion mine's construction.

Despite the design of EMAs having been settled months previously, Ms Gillard told union officials last Friday she was "furious" about the Roy Hill EMA and on Tuesday she agreed to the formation of a Labor caucus committee to oversee Mr Bowen's handling of future agreements.

Yesterday, the debate took a fresh turn as business leaders and the opposition warned that Labor had opened the door to a rise in xenophobic and racist sentiment. Pointing to comments from Mr Katter and Labor MPs including Kelvin Thomson and Doug Cameron, they said the debate about foreign labour had taken a distasteful turn that was against Australia's interests.

Mr De Lacy attacked the involvement of the Labor caucus committee, declaring the government had already taken two years to work out EMAs, which can be awarded to mega-projects with more than $2bn in investment and 1500 employees. "It is just economic vandalism to fiddle with it in this way for all the wrong reasons," Mr De Lacy told The Australian.

"And the wrong reasons are: it's not as though there's people there; there's a fair bit of xenophobia involved with it. It just proves once again that the resources sector increasingly is feeling that it is being treated as the enemy. "Are we the only country in the world that treats as the enemy that sector driving the economy and driving prosperity?"

Mr Knott accused critics of the agreements of resorting to "racist innuendo" that he likened to the debate over the White Australia policy. "The embarrassing political discourse surrounding Australia's need for a targeted migration policy to address peak construction labour demands has taken politics to a new low," he said.

"We're deeply concerned a number of our elected politicians appear to have joined the current campaign of negativity, lies and self-interested fear-mongering, complete with recurring misinformation about migrant rates of pay and sub-standard treatment.

"The racist innuendo and slurs against these workers is abhorrent and divisive, and must stop."

Mr Peever last night told the MCA dinner that "divisiveness can have no future in the vibrant Australia to which we aspire, where all Australians can be better off and continue to enjoy the unique fruits of this great land".

"Mining has a pivotal role to play in creating this future for all Australians and for our country," he said. "Complacency and inadequate understanding of the drivers for the sector are our enemies."

Howard government foreign minister Alexander Downer said the reaction from the unions and some elements of the Labor Party to the EMA was a profound embarrassment for Australia.

"It was a really ugly outbreak of xenophobia, and if Australia wants to work with Asia and work with its region, it's got to get over this sort of behaviour," he said.

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop said she believed Labor MPs, including Senator Cameron, had framed their recent comments about the EMA to appeal to racist and xenophobic sentiment.

"It sends a very poor message to our region that we don't welcome foreign workers," she said.

"These projects will not go ahead unless we are able to access workers from overseas. We should be welcoming them."

Ms Bishop said Ms Gillard should reprimand members of her caucus for resorting to "inflammatory and racist language". Ms Gillard said last night Australia would always need skilled workers and that demand would increase as the economy continued to grow.

"While grappling with that challenge, Labor will do what we have always done - put Australian jobs first," the Prime Minister said through her spokesman.

"This is an important policy matter, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition shouldn't be trying to exploit it. If the Liberal Party genuinely cared about Australian jobs, they would join with the government in supporting the Australian car industry; the Australian steel industry; as well as the retail sector, through tax cuts and cash payments."

South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon warned that while he welcomed skilled migrants, it was fair for people to ask whether policies were configured to ensure that Australians were given every opportunity to access work.

SOURCE

*************************

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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************






Examining political correctness around the world and its stifling of liberty and sense. Chronicling a slowly developing dictatorship


BIO for John Ray


Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the most politically incorrect person in American public life so she will be celebrated on this blog


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 chidren 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


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.


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."


The Supreme Court of the United States is now and always has been a judicial abomination. Its guiding principles have always been political rather than judicial. It is not as political as Stalin's courts but its respect for the constitution is little better. Some recent abuses: The "equal treatment" provision of the 14th amendment was specifically written to outlaw racial discrimination yet the court has allowed various forms of "affirmative action" for decades -- when all such policies should have been completely stuck down immediately. The 2nd. amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed yet gun control laws infringe it in every State in the union. The 1st amedment provides that speech shall be freely exercised yet the court has upheld various restrictions on the financing and display of political advertising. The court has found a right to abortion in the constitution when the word abortion is not even mentioned there. The court invents rights that do not exist and denies rights that do.


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


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