Britain's "new" Girl Guides

The Girl Guides have fallen to the Guardianistas. Julie Bentley, the new chief executive, says she wants to shed the organisation’s ‘middle-class reputation’ and attract recruits from more diverse backgrounds.

She intends to demonstrate that the Guides are ‘cool’. When she was appointed, she raised eyebrows by describing Girl Guiding UK as the ‘ultimate feminist organisation’.

Miss Bentley’s plans have been shaped by her own experience. ‘I am very working class and was never a Brownie or a Guide.’ Her aim to broaden the appeal of the organisation is commendable and she has promised not to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’.

But there are fears in more traditional quarters over how far she is prepared to go in order to make the Guides more ‘relevant’ to 21st-century Britain.

Pilot projects are already under way in some areas. This column has been sent a copy of a newsletter and mission statement from a recently established, inner-city, combined Guides and Brownies group:

'Girlguiding UK is an equal opportunities organisation, which does not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.  We particularly welcome applications from members of the transgendered, transsexual and intersex communities, who are currently under-represented.

However, we do discriminate on the grounds of gender, pursuant to the provisions laid out in the Positive Discrimination Act 2009.

Therefore, it has been decided to drop the name Guides. While superficially gender neutral it could include males, who as we all know are violent oppressors and potential rapists.

Guiding carries connotations of grooming, which is particularly inappropriate in light of recent revelations about a certain well-known children’s television entertainer, fortunately now deceased.

After due consideration we have also decided to drop the name Brownies, which is clearly offensive to persons of colour. Henceforth, to reflect our inclusivity, we will be known as the First Winnie Mandela Radical Young Feminists Project.

In keeping with our progressive agenda, we are scrapping uniforms, which have militaristic overtones and could be interpreted as conveying support for the illegal wars prosecuted by successive British governments in recent years.

We are sensitive to the fact that a rigid uniform policy may act as a disincentive to fashion-conscious Young Feminists, who are free to attend in appropriate clothing of their choice, including onesies.

Please note that our steering committee has decided that we will no longer be meeting in St Bartholomew’s Church Hall from this week forward. We are a multi-faith organisation and any association with the established Church may discourage members of minority religions from enrolling.

We were also disturbed to learn that the Rev Farage, the rampantly homophobic rector of St Bartholomew’s, is refusing to conduct same-sex weddings.

For the immediate future, Young Feminists are requested to assemble outside Accessorize, next to the boarded-up Woolworth’s in the Hugo Chavez Retail Experience (formerly the Arndale Centre).

This Friday we will be holding a candlelit vigil for Abu Qatada, followed by a kebab and Bacardi Breezer supper.

Some of you may have read on Facebook recently that we plan to reach out to those who previously would not have considered joining our organisation.

In keeping with this goal, we have introduced a number of new badges and activities which will help prepare Young Feminists for the challenges of the 21st century.

We will be offering a brand new Makeover badge, to include hair extensions and waxing, courtesy of our sponsors, Reinaldo’s Brazilian Beauty Spa.

Our popular Sewing category will be expanded to include instruction in how to effect a running repair to a flesh wound in the event of an unexpected and unprovoked ‘glassing’ at a rave.

To assist Young Feminists in the difficult task of life balancing, we are also introducing a Microwaving badge. This will involve heating up a ready meal of Pot Noodles in under two minutes before settling down on the sofa to watch The Great British Bake Off.

For our Survival Skills badge, we have decided to dispense with camping and orienteering. This winter, members will travel to Newcastle city centre where, dressed only in micro-skirts, thongs, skimpy vests and stilettos, they will be expected to endure eight hours outdoors in freezing temperatures, sustained only by 18 bottles of alcopops.

Extra marks will be awarded to all those who manage to complete the course without vomiting, getting arrested or ending up in casualty.

Instead of learning how to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together, Radical Young Feminists will be taught the safest way to assemble a petrol bomb in preparation for the next spontaneous demonstration against student loans and the savage cuts.

A fortnight on Friday, a technician from Computerland will be holding a seminar on how to delete compromising, intimate photos that may have inadvertently been posted on Twitter and distributed over the worldwide web by treacherous and immature so-called boyfriends.

The following week, we are honoured to announce that the world-famous MP and Oscar-winning actress Glenda Jackson will be giving us a lecture on why Mrs Thatcher wasn’t a woman.

This will be followed by a rousing rendition of our new anthem, Ding, Dong! The Witch Is Dead. This classic tune has been chosen to replace the more traditional A Guide’s Got A Face Like A Ping Pong Ball, which was deemed to be offensive to victims of acne and associated skin disorders.

We are aware a number of parents/appropriate adults have expressed concerns that traditional values may be lost as our modernisation programme progresses. Please be assured that is not the case. Our new chief executive has promised that ‘the baby will not be thrown out with the bath water’.

In keeping with this spirit, we have arranged a visit from the Senior Nursing Sister at the local maternity unit for the benefit of any single mothers who may be interested in joining the First Winnie Mandela Radical Young Feminists Project. Creche facilities will be provided.

Her first lecture is entitled: How not to throw the baby out with the bath water .....'

SOURCE






More multiculturalism in Britain



Strolling down the street with a smirk on his face, this is the callous teenager who killed a frail 85-year-old for her purse.

Nayed Hoque and his friend Jiervon Bartlett pounced on Paula Castle in an alleyway near her home.

Partially sighted and recovering from a stroke, the grandmother was an easy target and suffered a serious head wound when she was knocked to the ground. She died a few hours later.

Nayed Hoque was locked up for manslaughter after knocking down and killing 85-year-old blind widow Paula Castle during a street robbery

Jiervon Bartlett was locked up for manslaughter after knocking down and killing 85-year-old blind widow Paula Castle during a street robbery

The Old Bailey was told yesterday that Hoque and Bartlett, both 15, were responsible for a litany of violent crimes including robbery, kidnap and assault.  They attacked another elderly person the day after mugging Mrs Castle.

They were jailed for six years yesterday – far too short a sentence according to Mrs Castle’s family. ‘They’ve repeatedly committed crimes, some of a violent nature, and they’ve targeted the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled,’ said daughter-in-law Jane Castle.

‘They didn’t seem to have much remorse because they went out and mugged another lady the next day. The punishment doesn’t coincide with the crime.’

Mrs Castle was attacked as she walked home from the shops in Greenford, West London, last November. Witnesses saw Bartlett and Hoque loitering around the alleyway with hoods covering their faces.

Andrew Edis, prosecuting, said Mrs Castle’s emptied handbag was found discarded in a nearby garden.

Police discovered they spent the cash on a takeaway pizza and used her bank cards to buy mobile phone top-ups and a pair of Nike trainers.

After learning that Mrs Castle had died the pair robbed a second woman, Rose Mohamed, 75, of her handbag containing £120. Her bank cards were used to buy a pair of trainers and more mobile top-ups.

Both teenagers had repeatedly walked free from court despite being found guilty of serious crimes.

Bartlett had convictions for robbery, burglaries, kidnap and making threats. He attacked his 62-year-old foster father and took part in a violent burglary in which an autistic victim was robbed.

The court heard he has shown no remorse for killing Mrs Castle and stormed out of a probation meeting when he was asked to apologise to her family.

Hoque, who blamed Bartlett for killing Mrs Castle, has three convictions for assault, including two violent attacks on his own parents last year.

Both youths, from Southall, West London, admitted manslaughter shortly before they were due to go on trial.

SOURCE





These loving parents were branded abusers - yet the courts won't let them clear their names: SUE REID on a chilling case that raises profound new questions about justice and Britain's culture of secrecy

Playing in their large garden, this family look happy and content.

A pair of twins, a brother and sister aged two, reach out to cuddle their parents who, in turn, cling tightly to their youngest child, a boy of one who keeps crawling off at a fast pace towards the flower-beds.

The children are blissfully unaware that if doctors, police officers  and social workers had had their way, this scene would not be taking place at all. By law, in many cases such as theirs involving family courts, it is not possible to name those involved or identify where they live.

But we can reveal that nearly two years ago, the parents were wrongly accused of the most horrific crime: shaking their children, injuring their brains and breaking their bones.

At one stage, a police officer told the family: ‘This is the worst case of child abuse I have ever come across in my 16-year career.’

During 19 months of investigations, the parents were barred from being alone with the children. Therefore the twins’ maternal grandparents (both in their late-70s) had to care for them at night while the parents slept in a separate part of the family’s home, the connecting door locked on the orders of social workers.

Astonishingly, a bell on the electric gate at the garden entrance was also disconnected by social workers.  They said it was so they could make unannounced visits to check the parents were not attacking their children.

When the mother gave birth to her third child, by Caesarean, social workers claimed there was a risk that she would hurt him. They threatened to take the baby away (even though he was being breast-fed) until the mother could be supervised round the clock in her hospital bed.

But a little over two weeks ago, a High Court judge decided that the parents had not harmed their children. Mr Justice Baker said the couple were ‘besotted’ about them and should not face ‘one scintilla’ of criticism.

He refused to allow the youngsters to be taken into care by Devon Council and, in all probability, be put up for adoption.

The judge said the couple suffered from complex medical ailments which may have been inherited by the children and which made their bones and skulls fragile.

He concluded there was a ‘real possibility’ that — rather than being the result of abuse — the twin girl’s elbow was broken when her arm was pinned down by two doctors as they tried to insert a tube for blood tests.

A fracture of her brother’s rib was also ‘likely’ to have occurred at the hospital during a medical examination.

As the mother says now: ‘It has been a nightmare. So many mistakes were made. We have lived for months under this massive terror that council social workers would take our children away. I was made to feel an evil woman by social workers. They treated me like a liar. We were accused of being child abusers by the police.

‘Now we learn that some of our children’s injuries may have been caused at the hospital where doctors were accusing us.’

The coverup: Protecting the REAL guilty ones

It is, indeed, a disturbing story. But as this family get on with their life, there is another worrying aspect to this case.

It concerns the judge’s decision that the family cannot be identified and that their whereabouts must be kept secret until the children are grown up — even though they have done nothing wrong.

The ruling, by Mr Justice Baker at the High Court in Exeter, means that if this family allow the media to use their real names, they will be in contempt of court and risk being sent to prison.

They are frightened even to speak about their ordeal to neighbours or friends because in doing so they could identify themselves and the children as having been participants in the family court case.

These gagging orders have become normal in such family court cases where parents are eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing. Last week, Bill Bache, the family’s lawyer and an expert on family courts, said: ‘This ruling impinges on this family’s freedom of speech. This is very troubling.’

Mr Justice Baker’s ruling also means that only the one doctor actually named in his final judgment, when he cleared the parents, can be identified publicly.

As a frightening result, the identities of the social workers, the police officers and nearly all the hospital medics who provoked this family’s nightmare are now hidden behind a cloak of secrecy.

So why, one might ask, is this couple not allowed to say who they are — and shout publicly from the rooftops that they are innocent?

More HERE





The euphemism imperative

President Barack Obama was proud to become the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood last Friday. But not proud enough to utter the word “abortion.”

The right to abortion is the sneakiest, most shame-faced of all American rights. Its most devoted supporters don’t dare speak its name. They hide behind evasion and euphemism and cant.

So Obama sang a hymn of praise to Planned Parenthood at the organization’s annual conference without mentioning what makes it so distinctive and controversial. He said it is a group women “count on for so many important services.” He said its core principle is “that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own health.” He excoriated opponents involved “in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women’s health.”

Listening to him, you could be forgiven for thinking that the country is riven by a fierce dispute over whether women should be allowed to choose their own ob-gyns or decide whether to take contraceptives or to get cancer screenings. One side is pro-women’s health, the other anti. In his speech, the president said the word “cancer” seven times. About that he is happy to be straightforward.

Imagine if he had been similarly frank about the rest of Planned Parenthood’s work: “In 2011, according to your annual report, your clinics or affiliates performed 330,000 abortions. That’s a lot of abortion. Over 10 years more than 3 million. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. Think of all those women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies and you were there for them. That’s what you do. That’s what you are about. And that’s what this country is about.”

Before that crowd, he might have gotten rousing applause, but talking in such honest terms would have been a gross faux pas. Planned Parenthood’s image is dependent on averting eyes from its central purpose. According to a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee, fifty-five percent of people don’t realize that Planned Parenthood performs abortions. In the past, Obama has said Planned Parenthood does mammograms, when it doesn’t.

The unwritten rule is that when the left discusses abortion it is never called “abortion,” but always referred to as “health” or, more specifically “reproductive health” — although abortion is the opposite of reproduction and for one party involved, the opposite of health. The former National Abortion Rights Action League, and then the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, finally settled on the name NARAL Pro-Choice America, effacing all reference to the procedure that it holds in such high esteem.

This is a strange reticence. The National Rifle Association doesn’t get defensive when it is pointed out that it protects the right to bear arms which allows people to buy guns. Charlton Heston, in the famous photo-op, didn’t hesitate to lift a musket over his head. The organization isn’t about to remove the word “rifle” from its name. The NRA conducts courses on how to handle guns safely, but Wayne LaPierre doesn’t try to pass himself off as concerned only with “munitions safety.”

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, 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. 

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

Britain's top police chief backs law to keep courts secret - even when journalists know the suspects

Britain's most senior police chief is backing controversial rules to ensure that all arrests, including those involving high-profile figures, are carried out in secret.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan [London] Police Commissioner, has insisted that new guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers are as draconian as possible.

It follows Lord Justice Leveson’s call in his report on the media for a blanket ban on naming suspects.

Under the new rules, police will be banned from confirming suspects’ names, even when journalists know their identity.

Without confirmation, the legal risks of incorrect identification will prevent the media publishing suspects’ names.

A senior source who is close to the proposed rules and has met Andy Trotter, the ACPO officer in charge of the guidance, said Sir Bernard was driving through the changes.

The source said part of the reason for his determination to enforce the blanket restriction was growing concern that Scotland Yard was committing disproportionate resources to high-profile arrests.

He said: ‘It was put to me that ‘‘we arrest so many people that it would be ridiculous to name everybody’’.’

The claim emerged at the same time as the former Director of Public Prosecutions condemned the police plans.

Lord Macdonald QC, said: ‘There should be a presumption police will reveal names of arrested people... It’s important the public are told who police are locking up.’

Sir Bernard, who is in charge of more than 30,000 police officers, is also said to be concerned about the harm caused by publicity surrounding an arrest when the individual may later be released without charge.

The police plan for ‘secret arrests’ is opposed by the Law Commission, the Government’s own adviser on legal reform, which believes it is in the interests of justice that police release the names of everyone who is arrested, apart from exceptional cases.

Lord Macdonald said: ‘My experience as DPP showed it is common that an arrest triggers other victims  to come forward.’

Yesterday it emerged that Home Secretary Theresa May had intervened in the debate by writing to all chief constables, saying she also backed plans for anonymity in arrests.

‘I believe that there should be a right to anonymity at arrest, but I know there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that  an arrested suspect should  be named,’ she said.

SOURCE





The collapse of liberty in Scotland

From hiding away cigarettes to hiking up the price of booze – Scotland is a world-beater in state nannying

The Scottish government has enforced yet another measure designed to help us help ourselves: it has passed a law requiring that all supermarkets hide cigarettes from public view.

This follows the enforcement of the public smoking ban in 2006; the raising of the legal age for buying cigarettes to 18 years; and a levy on cigarettes sold in supermarkets, which led some shops to stop selling them altogether. The aim is to create a smoke-free Scotland by 2035. One wonders if Scottish politicians also plan to make Scotland a heroin-, cocaine- and dope-free society, too. Good luck with that. Strangely enough, some Scots keep taking drugs despite their not coming in shiny packets or being sold at supermarkets.

With the proposed change to the voting age in Scotland, it’s possible that by 2035 16-year-olds will have the chance to elect their own government yet will be barred from buying cigarettes or even being allowed to see them.

It is not just cigarettes that Scottish officials are targeting. Alcohol prices are set to rise, again with the aim of creating a ‘healthier Scotland’. And Scotland’s public-health minister, Michael Matheson, wants to ban TV advertising of fatty foods before 9pm.

I took part in a debate about these measures on BBC TV’s Newsnight Scotland, alongside Dr Andrew Fraser of NHS Health Scotland and Dr Laura Williamson, a health researcher. Dr Fraser said we can’t have a ‘free choice and damn the consequences’ society. But at the same time, he said, it would be wrong to refer to the Scottish parliament’s behaviour-modifying measures as the actions of a ‘nanny state’. Rather, he said, this is an ‘informed state’. The government is simply providing people with information to try to help them make the ‘right decision’.

He said this is an important function of the state, because smoking and drinking have a negative impact on society. For example, smokers may die young, potentially leaving behind small children. And drinking, he says, impacts on the criminal justice system, causing crime and also creating broken families, leading to the further corrosion of society itself.

But these arguments are deeply disingenuous. Most people who smoke don’t die young; many, believe it or not, manage to give up smoking (despite those shiny packets). Most people don’t commit crimes when drunk, or beat their wives. And when Dr Fraser talks about the ‘dire state’ of Scotland’s health, what does he mean? The life expectancy for Scots born today is around 78.4 years – only a few years shy of Japan, which tops the international table at 82.7 years. By way of contrast, in 1900 life expectancy in Scotland was 45 years. Health is improving in Scotland, not becoming more ‘dire’. Dr Fraser’s non-nannying ‘informed state’ seems to be as much in the business of using dubious claims to try to change people’s personal behaviour as the old-style nanny state was.

In the Newsnight discussion, Dr Laura Williamson took, on the face of things at least, a more forthright approach to liberty and freedom. She described herself as an advocate of classical notions of liberty, and said she did not think poor people were stupid. However, she then argued that liberals like her are keen to protect the vulnerable from certain problematic and dangerous things, and thus there is a case for doing something about Scotland’s ‘health inequalities’.

There we have it, those weasel words, ‘health inequalities’. What is wrong with talking about simple, old-fashioned inequality? Why is that category being replaced by ‘health inequalities’? Could it be because where the idea of inequality referred to major problems like poverty and unemployment, which are hard to solve, ‘health inequalities’ allows such social issues to be redefined as simply matters of physical ill-health brought about by the fact that people who live on council estates apparently make the ‘wrong’ choices?

Dr Williamson, like many other liberals today, even classical ones, effectively argues that poor people’s socioeconomic situation means they don’t have the same capacity to make choices as middle-class people do. Poor people have a kind of choice inequality, apparently. ‘How free are these choices?’, she asked: ‘We are talking about multimillion-pound advertising industries. This is why cigarettes have been locked away and why we’ve gone for plain packaging.’

In other words, poor people are choice-poor, unlike the choice-rich middle classes – which means the poor need to be protected against the temptations of that big sweetie jar of cigarettes and alcohol, which must either be hidden away or made too expensive to buy. Through turning inequality into ‘health inequality’, and turning economic poverty into choice poverty, Dr Williamson and others are really pushing a radical form of paternalism. Sometimes, experts like Fraser and Williamson hide their illiberalism behind the idea that these behavioural policy changes are ‘good for the children’. The reality, though, is that too many of today’s politicians and experts think that we adults, especially the poor ones, are overgrown children who need constant help and guidance.

When I challenged Fraser and Williamson’s patronising approach to the public, Williamson shouted: ‘Haven’t you heard of addiction?’ Here, again, we have the representation of the hopeless vulnerable adult – the ‘addict’ – who can’t make real, rational, meaningful choices, and thus needs experts to make them for him.

Sadly, liberty is collapsing in Scotland, under the weight of political and professional elites who have become obsessive micro-managers and nudgers of people who were once thought of as moral, political, responsible agents. Williamson has a point: poverty, especially serious poverty, does make it harder for people to plan ahead and even to ‘plan’ their health. But so too does a culture that treats adults like infants, which calls into question our capacity to make free and responsible choices, and which invades poor estates in order to convince the people who live in them that they are vulnerable, pathetic and addicted, and in need of help.

SOURCE







Federal Student Aid Form Now Using 'Parent 1' and 'Parent 2' to 'Reflect Diversity' and Better Calculate Aid

Applying for federal student aid? The application no longer asks about a student's "mother" and "father." Instead, the U.S. Education Department is replacing those terms with "Parent 1" and "Parent 2."

"All students should be able to apply for federal student aid within a system that incorporates their unique family dynamics," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in the April 29 announcement.

"These changes will allow us to more precisely calculate federal student aid eligibility based on what a student's whole family is able to contribute and ensure taxpayer dollars are better targeted toward those students who have the most need, as well as provide an inclusive form that reflects the diversity of American families."

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), until now, has collected information about a student's parents only if the parents are married.

As a result, says the Education Department, the FAFSA has excluded income and other information from one of the student's legal parents (biological or adoptive) when the parents are unmarried, even if those parents are living together. The terms "mother" and "father" also fail to capture income and other information from one parent when a student's parents are in a same-sex marriage under state law but not federally recognized under the Defense of Marriage Act.

The 2014-2015 FAFSA will provide a new option for dependent applicants to describe their parents' marital status as "unmarried and both parents living together." Additionally, the new FAFSA form also will use terms like "Parent 1 (father/mother/stepparent)" and "Parent 2 (father/mother/stepparent)" instead of gender-specific terms like "mother" and "father."

The information provided on the FAFSA is used to calculate the student's expected family contribution, which determines a student's eligibility for federal need-based student aid as well as for many state, institutional and private aid programs.

"It is critical that both of a dependent student's parents help pay, to the extent they are able, for the educational expenses of their child," the news release said. "Collecting parental information from both of a dependent student's legal parents will result in fair treatment of all families by eliminating longstanding inequities based on parents' relationship with each other rather than on their relationship with their child."

While most students will be unaffected, the eligibility of some dependent students will change because of the additional income used in the calculation of the expected family contribution, the Education Department said.

SOURCE





The homosexual takeover of America

What is happening to our country? Gays, who represent less than 3% of our population, are trying to dominate our culture and society. Love whom you want. Love the one you’re with. People don’t really care. This is the message most people want to say but are afraid to because the LBGT (lesbian, bi-sexual, gay and transgender) community will verbally flog anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Between gay marriage, gay adoptions, forcing the Boy Scouts to admit gay scouts and scout masters, and lauding a rich NBA player for announcing he’s gay, the message is clear from gay America to the 97% of the rest of us. You will accept our lifestyle as mainstream. My response: “No I won’t.”

Notice when anyone rejects this gay agenda based on religious beliefs or personal views, they are called bigots or mocked. Appearing on Meet the Press May 5, 2013, Republican Newt Gingrich noted the Catholic Church is prohibited from performing adoption services in states like Massachusetts and the District of Columbia because the Church will only allow a married couple (by definition a man and woman) to adopt a baby. This is a perversion of societal norms all in the name of liberals forcing their political correctness down America’s throat whether her people have an opinion about it or not.

Liberals are eager to help the “gay lobby” with its takeover of America. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced March 29, 2013 plans to consider allowing Medicare to pay for sex change surgeries and invited public comments on the topic. Later that day, HHS abruptly pulled the proposal. While the agency said it was due to “an administrative challenge” of Medicare’s 1981 decision not to cover such operations, it seems news coverage of HHS’ proposal had something to do with its about face. I doubt Republicans in Congress would think sex change operations were a good use of taxpayer money.

There’s more. Democratic Senators are pushing to include a "gay couple's" provision in the comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Bowing to the gay strong-arming, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy will offer up the amendment, Uniting Americans Family Act, when the committee votes on the bill. The amendment allows “foreign same sex partners” of legal US residents or citizens to come to America and get a green card. Talk about a target for fraud. What test will the government use to certify people are gay and “permanent partners” and NOT people posing as gay to game the system?

As if the bill didn’t have enough problems with its amnesty push for over 11 million criminals and 301 amendments, Senators thought let’s make it even more outrageous. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy said he didn’t believe the gay partner provision will kill the bill. No, the immigration bill will die a slow death like the Senate’s gun bill did because it’s mired in mud.

Even though the jobless rate has stayed above 7.5% for the past five years and remains on track to be the longest period of persistent unemployment in 70 years, Democrats want to extend amnesty to as many people possible who aren’t even in the US yet. What’s next? Allowing relatives of foreign gay partners to come here too? The liberal logic is beyond nonsensical it’s downright comical.

No matter how many TV shows are produced about gay couples being married and raising children, or phones calls made by president Obama to gay athletes, homosexuality will never be the majority in our culture. I think it’s high time the 97% of the rest of heterosexual America stand up for the preservation of American society not the distortion of it.

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, 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. 

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

RI Bishop on Gay Marriage: We’ve Entered ‘Post-Christian Era’

Bishop Thomas Tobin, head of the Catholic diocese of Providence, said the “gay marriage” bill signed into law in Rhode Island by its governor, Lincoln Chafee, constituted a “new challenge of the post-Christian era into which, clearly, we have now entered.”

Chafee, a liberal Independent who used to belong to the Republican Party, signed the bill making “gay marriage” legal in the Ocean State on Thursday, May. 2. That same day, Bishop Tobin, who represents 680,000 Catholics in 143 parishes, issued a pastoral letter to Catholics on the approval of “same-sex marriage.”

“In particular, I wish to invite members of the Catholic Church in Rhode Island to a moment of prayer and reflection as we respond to this new challenge of the post-Christian era into which, clearly, we have now entered,” said Bp. Tobin.

“First, like many others, I am profoundly disappointed that Rhode Island has approved legislation that seeks to legitimize ‘same-sex marriage,’” said the bishop.  “The Catholic Church has fought very hard to oppose this immoral and unnecessary proposition, and we are most grateful to all those who have courageously joined us in this effort. When all is said and done, however, we know that God will be the final judge of our actions.”

He continued, “Our respect and pastoral care, however, does not mean that we are free to endorse or ignore immoral or destructive behavior, whenever or however it occurs. Indeed, as St. Paul urges us, we are required to ‘speak the truth in love.’ (Eph 4:15)”

“At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful,” said Bp. Tobin.  “And because ‘same-sex marriages’ are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.”

Currently, “gay marriage” is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. Last May, Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, said he was “absolutely comfortable” with homosexual marriage: “… men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.”

Several days later, on May 9, 2012, President Obama, who previously had claimed he opposed “gay marriage,” said, “For me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Referring to the Rhode Island legislation making “same-sex marriage” legal, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordelione, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, said it “is a serious injustice.”

“"The meaning of marriage cannot be redefined, because its meaning lies in our very nature,” said Arbp. Cordelione.  “Therefore, regardless of what law is enacted, marriage remains the union of one man and one woman – by the very design of nature, it cannot be otherwise.”

SOURCE





At the Core of the “Gay Marriage” Debate

In Jeffrey Toobin’s recent article in The New Yorker, Wedding Bells, he resorted to name-calling to malign pro-marriage advocates, an all-too common tactic among the gay lobby.

In his article, Toobin wrote: “There are really only two reasons that gay marriage is still illegal in more than three-quarters of the country: that’s the way it has always been; and the very idea of same-sex marriage makes some people, well, uncomfortable.”

Then he went on to define that discomfort as “tradition and bigotry.” So much for returning the tolerance they preach and demand from others—others who actually have legitimate reasons for their beliefs.

The gay lobby—which I contend is the most powerful lobby in America today—has successfully infiltrated the minds of the less-grounded generation. And with that infiltration, they have dismissed the importance of what the Creator Himself demands of His creation.

They have succeeded in framing the argument, not from the creation point of view, but from one of justice and human rights. And who could oppose human rights? I, for one, applaud every effort to give the 100 million persecuted Christians around the world their human right to be left alone in peace.

But according to gay activists, human rights demand that gay couples be allowed to marry regardless of their gender. They are attracted to each other—why shouldn’t they marry?

That is a flawed argument, however. Marriage is a far more significant institution than trivializing it as between any two people who like each other.

In the Jewish and Christian understanding of creation, the Creator has ordained marriage for a far greater purpose than that short-sighted and shallow definition.

As the Anglican Book of Common Prayer declares: “Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted by God . . . and therefore not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and soberly, and in the fear of God, duly considering the causes for which matrimony was ordained.”

Marriage is far from the concept of being just for two people who love each other—whether it be for a month, a year, or longer. Marriage is far from a hunger for sexual pleasure in whatever way one deems fit. Marriage is far from the idea that, if it feels good, then society must support you in doing it.

The Creator ordained marriage for three vital reasons: for the survival of humanity, for the procreation of children, and for lifelong companionship—specifically a lifelong companionship where one finds the only proper expression of sexual intimacy.

The Maker of humankind instituted that triune foundational bedrock, and one’s lack of religious beliefs cannot alter that elemental truth.

Many people argue that marriage cannot be looked upon with that triune purpose because so many marriages fail. The institution itself is damaged goods, they say. But that’s a false argument. Even if all marriages were to fail, that would not negate the purpose for which it was ordained.

Here’s the crux of the matter: loving someone, even if one intends for that love to be permanent, is not enough to constitute marriage. That trivializes marriage.

Although love is an essential ingredient for marriage, it is by no means the only ingredient—especially when that love is of the selfish nature so common today. Emotional love and good feelings will ebb and flow. But lifelong, deep commitment between a man and a woman, buttressed by children, is the Creator’s purpose for marriage.

Children need a father and mother. And the concept of a father and mother is based on a male/female relationship. There’s no getting around that. It is a foundational concept. But in bowing down to the powerful gay lobby, ten state legislatures have politicized and trivialized it.

I understand that some homosexual activists want recognition and feel that homosexual marriage is the only way for society to recognize them. But even if that happens, they won’t stop there. The next stage will be the demand that homosexual marriage be, not only protected and privileged, but preached as a virtue—even superior to natural marriage.

For deep down—too deep for some of them to admit or even recognize—they know they were created in the Creator’s image and are going against His ordained order. Thus their conflicted conscience will drive them to push society for more and more recognition. They will not be able to stop.

That is the proper understanding of the “gay marriage” debate. It is far more than just intimidating the people they falsely accuse of “bigotry.” It craves and demands respect, even from those who disagree with it.

I, for one, respect people with whom I disagree. That’s just general human courtesy. But no amount of name-calling will give those who reject the created order the respect they seek. That can only come from within, from a conscience that is aligned with God’s will for His world.

SOURCE




Britain's Health and Safety Executive debunks myths

A coffee chain told a customer that they could not serve half and half full fat and skimmed milk due to “health and safety”.

While a state of the art gym used the same excuse when it banned men from using the hairdryers on anything other than the hair on the head.

But now these have become the latest myths exposed by the Health and Safety Executive as they hit out at the spurious uses of the term which is abused to justify "ridiculous decisions”.

The watchdog is attempting to set the record straight as misuse is “trivialising” what protecting peoples health and safety really means, it said.

For the last year the HSE’s “myth busting panel” has been correcting statements, including that trapeze artists have to wear hard hats, that children should be banned from playing conkers, and that park benches need replacing as they are three inches too low.

HSE chair Judith Hackitt said: “We’ve uncovered and exposed abuses and misuses of health and safety right across Britain, and seen ‘health and safety’ trotted out to justify all sorts of ridiculous decisions… is it really too much to expect people to explain the reasons for their decision rather than just saying "elf’n’safety innit, guv"?”

The latest “staggering misuse” include Fitness First in Highbury, north London, who wrote "hairdryers can only be used for drying hair on the head".

The HSE concluded it was an “easy excuse” to deter “inappropriate” public use, adding: "The health club should give the real reason for their decision rather than hiding behind the catch all”.

Mark Doodes, 35, reported the "amusing" sign as he realised he could inadvertently be “abusing all sorts of regulations” without even realising it as companies make up their own rules on "health and safety" grounds.

A Costa coffee shop in Sheffield refused to mix milk for health and safety manager Melanie Ransom when she asked for semi skimmed and they did not supply it.

Mrs Ransom, who works in the construction industry, said abusing the excuse is dangerous as it trivialises a process which is essential to saving lives.

The HSE described Costa's excuse as a “clear case of poor customer service hiding behind the health and safety”.

Costa says it is a trading standards issue - as they legally cannot replace semi skimmed with a mixture of other milks because the mixture would not deliver the required fat content - and the employee got her wires crossed.

A spokesperson added: "We can however if the customer requests make the drink with a mix of whole milk and skimmed milk, but we would have to advise that it cannot officially be classed as semi-skimmed milk."

SOURCE





Britain's Feckless, Two-Faced Approach to Radical Islam

The UK government, simultaneous with its legal pursuit of extremists, has attempted to resolve the challenge through political accommodation with Islamist fanatics.

In an example of such conduct, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Pakistani-born minister for faith and communities in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition headed by Prime Minister David Cameron, spoke in March at a meeting of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS).

FOSIS has been criticized by Cameron's home secretary, Theresa May, for its failure to distance itself from extremist ideology; May has refused to meet with FOSIS leaders. The organization has been similarly censured by Liberal Democrat leader and current deputy prime minister Nick Clegg.

Guest speakers at past FOSIS annual conferences have included Al-Awlaki, as well as other prominent fundamentalists, such as Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian-British academic aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Baroness Warsi, an advocate of "engagement" with radical Islam, was until last year, a co-chair of the Conservative Party. Nobody believes she supports terrorism, but her approach to the problem betrays, at least, a lack of coherence. One cannot oppose radical Islam by "dialogue" with its exponents. Such an approach reveals at worst, a failure of will and nerve on the part of British authorities. Radical Islam must be confronted openly and defeated categorically.

Conservative member of the British parliament Patrick Mercer stated at that time that 100 million British pounds – about $150 million – had been spent on an overall set of anti-terrorism programs known as "Prevent," in the period 2007-09. This amounted to about 90,000 UK pounds per day (then equivalent to $135,000) on schemes to abate radicalism by "soft" methods.

These included the "Radical Middle Way" project, in which fundamentalist Muslim preachers were hired to travel around Britain with the message that while radical ideology is acceptable in the marketplace of ideas, the violence that it has produced is not.

Nevertheless, the "Radical Middle Way" – which received 1.2 million British pounds [$1.8 million], including 54,000 [$80,000] for its website, up to 2009 – continues to function. Its main participants include Abdur Rahman Al-Helbawy, son and colleague of Kemal Helbawy, the long-time representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain.

Other leading figures in the "Radical Middle Way" are highly-placed partners of the Egyptian-born, Qatar-based, Muslim Brotherhood-supporting hate preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. These associates include the Muslim Brotherhood's star among Western-based intellectuals, Tariq Ramadan (grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan Al-Banna).

As pointed out by the leading German scholar of Islam, Matthias Rohe, "with respect to the legal rules of shariah it was broadly accepted since the Middle Ages that they cannot be applied outside 'Islamic' territory and that Muslims are obliged to either respect the law of the land or to leave the country and to return to countries ruled by Muslims."

Rohe, in an article titled "Application of Shari'a Rules in Europe – Scope and Limits," in the Special Theme Issue – Shari'a in Europe, published by the authoritative journal Die Welt Des Islams, in 2004, cited this principle from Islamic legal works in Arabic published in Kuwait in 1990 and Lebanon in 1998. Every Muslim is taught that when the first Muslims fled from Mecca to Christian Abyssinia (today's Ethiopia) they were commanded by Muhammad to obey the Christian ruler or return to Muslim territory.

Mandates by ECFR include judgments that Muslim women may be ordered by their husbands not to visit female friends of the wife, if the husband suspects such relationships will harm the family or relations between the couple. Under ECFR rules, Muslim women must obtain permission from their "male guardian," that is, a family member, before marrying. Al-Qaradawi's effort to establish "parallel Shariah" in Europe legitimizes four wives for Muslim men living in non-Muslim Europe. ECFR reserves the right of husbands to initiate divorce from Muslim wives, unless a right to divorce by action of the wife is written into their marriage contract. It prohibits gender mixing between unrelated men and women, unless women are entirely covered except for their face and hands. It forbids Muslim women from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a "male guardian."

These concepts contradict European civil law, but ECFR does not represent Muslims living in Europe and integrated into Western society. It has excluded moderate French and German Muslim leaders, and nearly all of its members are immigrants from or residents in Arab or African countries. It is, however, affiliated with the Turkish Milli Gorus [National Vision] movement, an ultra-fundamentalist trend associated with the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Milli Gorus has a significant, if low-key presence in Germany and the Netherlands.

Members of the "Radical Middle Way," such as Tariq Ramadan, Ibrahim Osi-Efa, Jamal Badawi, and Abdullah Bin Bayyah, are not moderate Muslims. They have demonstrated this by their commitment to the Muslim Brotherhood and the South Asian jihadi Deobandi movement, their defense of wife-beating, and their support for Wahhabism. Moderate Muslims have repudiated all these interpretations. These Islamist personalities are not appropriate partners for the British government in its effort to obstruct radicalization.

The planning of violent atrocities continues in Britain; the government has still failed to curb the spread of radical agitation, and actions like the visit of Baroness Warsi to FOSIS illustrate that a necessary, firm, and united opposition to radical Islam remains lacking at the official level. Nobody in the UK government should ask Muslims to abandon Islam as a religion, but a significant struggle against radicalism is justifiable and necessary.

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, 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. 

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

The Church of Scotland pisses on the Bible

Their antisemitism trumps all else

Earlier this month, the Church of Scotland issued a report titled "The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the 'Promised Land.'"

The essence of the report is that according to the Bible, Jews have no more attachment to the land of Israel than anyone else. Hence "promised land" is in quotation marks in the report's title -- because there is no promised land.

In the report's words: "The New Testament contains a radical re-interpretation of the concepts of 'Israel,' 'temple,' 'Jerusalem' and 'land.' When the Bible mentions 'Israel,' it does not mean Israel; when it says 'temple,' the Bible does not mean the Jewish temple; 'Jerusalem' does not mean the city of Jerusalem; and 'land' does not mean land. 

"Promises about the land of Israel," the report continues, "were never intended to be taken literally, or as applying to a defined geographical territory."

Even during the worst excesses of Christian anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages, it is doubtful that any normative Christian body declared that "Israel," "the temple," "Jerusalem" and "the land" no longer meant or were ever intended to mean what those words represent.

This claim is not only profoundly anti-Semitic. It is an act of theological forgery; it makes a mockery of the Bible as a coherent document and it renders Christianity inherently anti-Semitic.

It would be as if a major post-Christian religious body had announced that "Jesus," "Christ," "crucifixion" and "resurrection" had never meant what Christians and the New Testament had always understood them to mean. Imagine if a major Muslim body declared that Jesus means Muhammad; Christ means Quran; crucifixion means Islamophobia; and resurrection means the Hajj.

I have never equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. But the Church of Scotland report is not about criticism of Israel; it is about invalidating the Jewish people and invalidating the Jews' historically incontestable claims to the land upon which the only independent states that ever existed were Jewish.

--The Church of Scotland report asserts that the Bible does not support the existence of a Jewish state: "There has been a widespread assumption by many Christians as well as many Jewish people that the Bible supports an essentially Jewish state of Israel. This raises an increasing number of difficulties. ... "

--It asserts that justice and the existence of a Jewish state are mutually exclusive: "There is a direct conflict of interest between wanting human rights and justice for all and retaining the right to the land."

--It asserts that the Jews' return to Israel has no biblical basis.

--It asserts that the notion that the Jews have or ever had a special relationship with God -- one of the most oft repeated ideas in the Hebrew Bible -- is negated in that very same Bible: "That exclusivist tradition implied Jews had a special, privileged position in relation to God. But the prophetic tradition stood against this." The Chosen People is not chosen, in other words.

--It asserts that God's promise of the land to Abraham has nothing to do with the Jews; it is only about Jesus: "The promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people."

--It asserts that even Jesus -- that proud, religious Jew -- did not believe in any special relationship between God and the Jews: "Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewish specialness ... "

At the same time, this truly immoral document does not devote a word to why there were Palestinian refugees: While the Jews accepted the 1947-48 partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, all the neighboring Arab states rejected the partition and invaded the Jews in order to annihilate Israel at birth.

Nor does the report devote a single sentence to how Israel's occupation of the West Bank came about: In 1967, Israel's neighbors sought to exterminate Israel just as Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and most Palestinians and other Muslims in the Middle East today wish to now. And that only because of that war, won by Israel, did Israel come to occupy the West Bank of Jordan.

Nor is a word devoted to Palestinian national honoring of their numerous terrorists, or to the exterminationist and anti-Semitic propaganda that saturates Middle East media or to the widespread Palestinian support for terrorism (according to the just-released Pew Forum poll of Muslims, 40 percent of Palestinians support suicide terror).

And the Church of Scotland did not think it important to even hint at what happened in Gaza after the Israelis gave the whole of Gaza to the Palestinians: The Palestinians converted it into a terror-state that regularly launches rockets into Israel to kill as many Israelis as possible.

And, most vile of all, the Church of Scotland never once notes, let alone condemns, the Muslim countries and organizations that seek to annihilate Israel, an existential threat that no other country or people in the world face.

The Church of Scotland has given voice to the ugliest depiction of Jews since medieval times. The official reaction of the Scottish Jewish community is that Christian-Jewish post-Holocaust dialogue seems to have been a moral and intellectual waste of time. I do not agree. But if other Christian churches do not condemn the Church of Scotland -- despite its promise to revise its report to include a statement that Israel has a right to exist (!) -- even pro-Christian Jews will wonder whether the Scottish Jewish community's reaction is valid.

And how did this happen? The report is a combination of medieval Christian anti-Judaism and contemporary leftist anti-Zionism. For Jews and Israel, that's a lethal combination.

SOURCE






London Police give out cautions for a quarter of ALL crimes including rapes, drug trafficking and robbery

One in four of the crimes ‘solved’ by Britain’s largest police force last year involved the offender accepting a ‘slap on the wrist’, it emerged last night.

Nearly 30,000 cautions were handed to criminals in London for offences including robbery, drug smuggling and even rape.

They made up a quarter of the 118,000 crimes counted as solved by police in the capital during those 12 months.

Critics said the public and police are being short-changed by a rampant ‘cautions culture’ which lets off serious criminals.

The figures, revealed by a Freedom of Information request, showed the Metropolitan Police issued 28,998 cautions and youth warnings last year.

Among the cautions were 5,843 for violent attacks, 165 for sexual offences and, astonishingly, five for rape.  A total of 180 offenders were cautioned for grievous bodily harm or wounding, 131 for robbery and 318 for drug trafficking.

Police handed out 205,700 cautions nationwide in the 12 months ending in September 2012, according to the Ministry of Justice.

Among them were 40,148 for drug offences, 13,466 for violent assaults, 2,726 for burglary and 1,422 for sex attacks.

The figures represented a 12 per cent decrease compared with the previous 12 months, and a 44 per cent fall from 2007 when cautions peaked at 367,300.

Last month, Policing Minister Damian Green announced a review of guidelines for issuing police cautions as part of a wider crackdown. Mr Green said the Government’s goal was to see the use of cautions restricted to ensure serious criminals would never escape punishment.

The review, due to report next month, will examine whether cautions should  be banned for some offences. There  are fears that victims of violent and even sexual crimes are subject to a postcode lottery where attackers in some areas  are more than twice as likely to escape with a caution.

Ministers are also concerned at the way repeat offenders receive cautions for multiple crimes.

Tony Arbour, a Tory politician in London who uncovered the data, said justice was not being done and those who receive cautions ‘escape punishment’.

A Met spokesman said the force follows national guidance and cautions are issued only in the case of serious offences after discussions with prosecutors.

He said the force ‘supports’ the use of cautions, which are mostly used to deal with first-time offenders.

He added: ‘A caution is a serious matter, which can have significant consequences for the person’s future employment.’

SOURCE






Fanatical fools trying to blow us all up? They're the least of our problems...

By Peter Hitchens

Long ago I annoyed a prominent Irish republican. When we were mistakenly left alone together in the same hospitality room in a TV studio, he raged at me, white with fury, accusing me of being paid to persecute him.

It crossed my mind that I might be a terrorist target as a result. I pondered for a while, and concluded there wasn't much I could do about it.

Too bad. My father had spent long months on the Russian convoys in the Second World War, harried by appalling weather, U-boats, German surface raiders and the Luftwaffe, with half an inch of steel between him and a sea so cold that it would kill you in seconds.

Compared to that, my danger was tiny and barely worth worrying about. My only sorrow was that my minor risk was all in vain. Not long afterwards, the British State cravenly surrendered to the Provisional IRA, and called it 'peace'.

This has made me more scornful, ever after, of the ludicrous spasms we go into when criminal bombers strike at us. In the end these people are just immoral zealots who have turned to crime because they have an exaggerated idea of their own goodness.

In many cases they save us the trouble of killing them by doing it themselves. But if they survive, they deserve a fair trial and then a swift vertical journey through a trap door with a rope round their necks.

Yet instead, we do exactly what they hope we will do. We act as if they are important. We turn our countries upside down to take useless precautions against them. We give the police special powers. We make travel into a silly palaver of searches and checks of obviously harmless people. We destroy half our ancient liberties as we tramp and stamp about. Then, later on, we give in to the terrorists anyway.

None of these precautions works. They are as futile as the toy golf-ball detector which a cunning fraud successfully sold as an explosives scanner, and they work on the same principle. The client is so scared that he has stopped thinking, and will gullibly accept almost anything he is told.

If some fanatical cretin wants to bomb a marathon, how on earth can you stop him? We know that the American authorities had been warned about this particular cretin, but, short of locking him up without charge, what could they realistically have done?

'Our culture is already noticeably scared of Islam and gives it a great deal of leeway. My own view is that this will end in the slow Islamisation of this country'

Just before the July 7 outrages in London in 2005, our vaunted, boastful security organs were completely unaware that anything was going to happen (and, worse, our emergency services were sadly unprepared).

They have been trying to justify their enormous budgets ever since by rounding up groups of bearded, incompetent but talkative fantasists, and slinging them into prison for very long periods. They also periodically let it be known that they have saved us from lots of other nameless perils that they can't speak about. Well, perhaps.

Meanwhile we continue the hilarious pursuit of some furry-faced Muslim cleric, who seems to have been invented to demonstrate that we no longer control our own borders. The Government's legal bill must be enormous. What we won't even consider doing is leaving the EU and the Human Rights convention, the two actions that would free us to act as we wish.

Meanwhile, the real Islamic problem grows unnoticed – the quiet spread of Sharia law, female subjugation and polygamy in our country, mainly the result of the uncontrolled mass immigration that would have been a good deal easier to tackle than 'terrorism' ever was.

In the end, who knows where this may lead? Our culture is already noticeably scared of Islam and gives it a great deal of leeway. My own view is that this will end in the slow Islamisation of this country.

If you don't think we will wear this, look at the fascinating picture of Katherine Russell, widow of the unlamented Boston murderer Tamerlan Tsarnaev, an all-American girl, brought up in freedom, yet now shrouded in the submissive garb of the Muslim wife. I shouldn't think she thought that would happen to her, either. She is a metaphor for all of us.

SOURCE




Report details lives ruined for children put on sex-offender registries

Put on a sex registry for the offense of public nudity as a minor. Harassed by neighbors out of a home and banned from a homeless shelter because of an offense committed at age 15.

The New York-based research group Human Rights Watch issued an extensive report today on the life-shattering consequences of putting minors on sex registries for offenses — sometimes shockingly mild offenses — for the rest of their lives.

Filled with devastating stories of teens and young adults unable to put offenses behind them, the rights group's report is called “Raised on the Register: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the U.S.”

The report is the product of a 16-month investigation into 581 cases and interviews with 281 sex offenders — median age 15 — in 20 states.  Prosecutors, defense attorneys, child sexuality experts and victims of “child on child” sexual assault were also interviewed.  The investigation explores how a burgeoning national web of laws in various states requiring constant registration and public disclosure of offenders’ identities has affected the lives of young offenders long after time served or rehabilitation. Some on registries have killed themselves, even before reaching adulthood.

The report begins with Jacob C., who was 11 years old when convicted of one count of sexual misconduct in Michigan for touching, not penetrating, his sister’s genitals. He was not allowed to live in a home with other children, was eventually put into foster care and was placed on a sex registry that was made public when he turned 18.  He struggled to graduate from high school, and was shunned because of his registration status. And when he enrolled in college, he said, campus police followed him everywhere. He dropped out.

Now 26, the report says, Jacob’s life continues to be defined and limited by a conviction at age 11.

Another case in the report: “In 2004, in Western Pennsylvania, a 15-year-old girl was charged with manufacturing and disseminating child pornography for having taken nude photos of herself and (posting) them on the internet. She was charged as an adult, and as of 2012 was facing registration for life.”

Sex offender laws, the report says, “that trigger registration requirements for children began proliferating in the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s. They subject youth offenders to registration for crimes ranging from public nudity and touching another child’s genitalia over clothing to very serious violent crimes like rape.”

Registries can also include “people who have committed offenses like public urination, indecent exposure (such as streaking across a college campus), and other more relatively innocuous offenses.”

The Human Rights Watch report acknowledged that registration laws were designed to protect the public from offenders, and that they are based on assumptions that offenders are likely to violate again.

“But including youth sex offenders on registries assumes that they are highly likely to reoffend, which is not the case,” the report says. “Numerous studies estimate the recidivism rate among children who commit sexual offenses to between 4 and 10 percent, compared with a 13 percent rate for adult sex offenders and a national rate of 45 percent for all crimes.”

The report was prepared by Nicole Pittman, a national expert on the application of sex offender registration laws who was an attorney at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. She specialized in child sexual assault cases and registries, and has provided testimony to Congress and state legislatures on the subject.

The report calls current registry laws “an overbroad policy of questionable effectiveness” that leaves the public often unable to discern who on a registry is actually dangerous.

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, 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. 

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

A quarter of young girls with absent fathers 'grow into depressed teenagers' but boys cope better with parental separation

Girls need fathers too

Almost a quarter of girls whose fathers were absent during early childhood suffer depression as teenagers, a report says.

Some 23 per cent will show symptoms such as sadness or severe tiredness later in life if their parent leaves before they turn five, researchers found.

It makes them almost 50 per cent more likely to have future mental health problems than older girls, confirming previous studies that suggest pre-schoolers cope badly with break-ups because they are less likely to have a support network of friends and other family members.

Those ‘coping mechanisms’ meant just 15 per cent of over-fives reported signs of mental distress later on – the same as those whose parents stayed together.

Boys coped best of all with early parental separation, with less than ten per cent in the youngest age range going on to suffer teenage depression, psychologists found.

However, that figure jumped to 17 per cent for the five to ten age group – ten per cent higher than boys whose parents stayed together.

Lead author Iryna Culpin, from the University of Bristol, said: ‘The measure that we used was a non-clinical diagnosis of depression.

‘In reality the largest group of children whose fathers were absent between nought to five years, the girls, were the ones who answered the most questions with “yes”.

‘Girls whose fathers were absent in middle childhood, or boys in general, were less likely.

‘We saw that girls who experienced divorce and a father’s absence in the first five years were more likely to develop advanced mental health, or health, issues, later in life.’

About a third of British children experience separations or divorce before the age of 16.

In order to examine the impact of the timing of a split on children, researchers asked 5,631 teenagers whether they had experienced symptoms such as sadness, unworthiness or extreme lethargy in the past two weeks.

The participants were from the Children Of The 90s project – a group of almost 20,000 youngsters born in 1991 and 1992 who scientists are studying to help discover the causes of leading health and social problems. Using the background data, the research team were able to track their family circumstances and pinpoint the effect of a father’s departure on their mental health.

‘We cannot place judgment or blame on anyone but we are suggesting these girls might be more at risk later on in life,’ said Miss Culpin.

‘This study is dependent on a host of other factors, such as social and economic factors developing independently as well.

‘We cannot accord for all the experiences children go through, but from our studies girls are more at risk if their fathers leave early on in their childhood.’

The research, published in the journal Psychological Medicine, also suggests young girls are ‘more vulnerable to negative personal events’ than boys. However, they are not necessarily more likely to suffer from depression throughout their life, Miss Culpin added.

SOURCE






Routine coverup of crime by British police

Police officers are afraid to speak out about the dubious practices being used to conceal true crime rates, a senior police leader has claimed.

Steve Williams, chairman of the Police Federation, said officers were under huge pressure to keep crime statistics down.

In some cases, mobile phone thefts were being recorded as lost property, while a spate of burglaries might be registered as a single offence.

But whistleblowers who might have exposed such practices in the past were now afraid to do so in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards.

The inquiry also looked into allegations of inappropriate links between a handful of senior police officers and a small number of journalists and, as a result, some chief constables had now effectively imposed gagging orders on their staff, said Mr Williams.

‘The latest crime figures showed a 5 per cent fall in crime but, based on the anecdotes I’m getting, I am not sure that is the case,’ he said. ‘Pressure is being brought to bear on frontline officers on the way they are recording crime.

Frontline police representatives suspect many victims do not bother to report crimes because their local police station is closed. Others no longer insure household goods and therefore do not report losses.

‘Cops are very reluctant to speak to the media and say how it really is. Some chief officers have imposed almost a gagging order on their staff. I do not think the true story is getting out because of the “fear factor” in the wake of Leveson about the effect going public would have on officers’ careers.’

Last night the police watchdog launched a review of how forces record crimes. Tom Winsor, Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said it would examine claims that officers downgraded crimes to appear less serious than the offences which actually took place.

The latest crime figures published last month show the number of offences recorded by police last year fell by 8 per cent to 3.7million. The independent Crime Survey for England and Wales said the estimated level of crime fell by 5 per cent to 8.9million offences against adults, based on a survey of more than 40,000 households.

Over five years, police recorded 400,000 fewer offences than reported in the Crime Survey. Mr Williams, a detective inspector in North Wales who represents 130,000 officers in England and Wales, said: ‘There is a lack of understanding in the wake of Leveson about what police officers can and cannot do.

‘Officers feel that speaking to journalists will lead to them being labelled troublemakers and that it could lead to them losing their jobs, facing discipline or affecting promotion prospects.’

Officers at the Police Federation’s annual conference in Bournemouth yesterday confirmed manipulation of crime statistics is common.

One said that a town in the North East did not officially have a single mobile phone theft in a month, instead recording every single missing device as ‘lost’.

Another said teams of officials are employed to determine if offences could be re-categorised so that they can be recorded as less controversial offences or even no crime at all.  An attempted burglary might be registered as criminal damage.

Such changes improve the appearance of a force’s crime figures because they lower the numbers of high-profile crimes.

Announcing his review yesterday, Mr Winsor told the Home Affairs Select Committee: ‘Information is the oxygen of accountability and the information must be sound.’

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary will also look at allegations that some officers encourage prisoners to confess to crimes they had not committed in order to boost clear-up rates.

Earlier this year, the Office for National Statistics said officers were under ‘informal pressure’ to meet targets and could have downgraded some crimes.

Labour called for an inquiry into whether fewer crimes were being recorded as a result of cuts.

Police officers also suspect victims are finding it harder to report crimes because police stations are closing and fewer officers are on the beat.

Police chiefs say a reason behind the fall was the ‘over-zealous’ reaction of officers when new standards were brought in ten years ago.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Crime is falling and police reform is working – recorded crime is down by more than 10  per cent under this Government.

‘At the same time, the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales shows crime is at its lowest level since records began.’

SOURCE






Boris is right: the world does not owe Britain a living

Much of the fault, to paraphrase Shakespeare, lies not in the EU’s yellow stars, but in ourselves

Boris Johnson, writing for The Daily Telegraph, made the point that not all of Britain's problems can be laid at Europe’s door

Over the past few days, a great deal of politicians’ time – and the media’s attention – has been devoted to the subject of Europe. This is only natural: the issue of our future relationship with the European Union, and the benefits and drawbacks of continued membership, is of utmost importance both to many within Britain, and to the future of our economy.

Yet it fell to Boris Johnson, writing on these pages yesterday, to make one significant point: that not all of our problems can be laid at Europe’s door. The supporters of withdrawal certainly have a case when they castigate the EU for its bureaucratic, protectionist impulses. Yet other members – notably Germany – manage to find markets for their products, and drive on the productivity of their workforce, while still being subject to the same rules and regulations. Much of the fault, to paraphrase Shakespeare, lies not in the EU’s yellow stars, but in ourselves: what the Mayor of London decried as our “short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and under-investment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure”.

The lazy criticism of such comments is that they do down Britain. But that is to misunderstand the situation. Put simply, there are two components to the British disease, in its 21st-century form. The first is the structural weaknesses in our economy: the fact that while our workers spend long hours at their desks, they produce less while doing so than their American, German or even French counterparts; that we are still unable to make enough things that others want to buy, hence the fact that our current account deficit recently reached its highest level since 1989; that the state spends far too much and taxes too much, and uses that money more to promote dependency than to build the infrastructure on which future growth depends, such as new airports and high-speed rail networks.

The second part of the problem has to do with culture and mindset: put simply, the sense that the world owes us a living. And it is on this score that the Coalition is having more success. With its talk of a “global race”, reforms to education, raising of the pension age and capping of benefits, it is starting to make the case that our rivals are not just in Europe, but around the world – that the quality of our companies, and our curriculum, and our workers, must be measured not just against those of France or Germany, but China, Singapore, Brazil and everywhere else, and that we must be leaner and keener in order to compete. The good news is that, while this is not always a comfortable message, it is one in which voters increasingly see the sense.

SOURCE





UN declares that nations must punish speakers for racism, to comply with treaty

Menacing free speech, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has ruled that Germany violated international law by not prosecuting a former German legislator for statements he made in an interview with a cultural journal. The statements included comments critical of immigration and the alleged dependence on welfare of Turkish immigrants to Germany.

This disturbing ruling illustrates that international norms are at odds with American civil-liberties such as freedom of speech, making it inappropriate for U.S. courts to enforce them in lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute, as left-wing American legal scholars have urged the courts to do.

German prosecutors had concluded that the former legislator’s remarks were protected by Germany’s (limited) free-speech guarantees because, while offensive, they were part of a “discussion” of “problems of economic and social nature,” and did not rise to the level of hate speech. (Germany generally bans hate speech; by contrast in the U.S., the Supreme Court voided a hate-speech ordinance in 1992 on First Amendment grounds. A federal appeals court has also ruled that a professor’s racially-charged anti-immigration diatribes were protected speech in the Rodriguez case.)

Law professor Eugene Volokh reprints the speech that, “according to the Committee, must lead to a criminal prosecution in countries that have ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.” (The U.S. has ratified that convention, but, as Professor Volokh notes, “I am pleased to say that the U.S. has not recognized the competence of the Committee to enforce the Convention, though most European countries have; the U.S. has also ratified subject to a specific reservation in favor of the freedom of speech.”)

Giving UN officials a veto over people's speech is a bad idea, especially given their weird, unrepresentative ideology, which often displays hostility to America. Their strange ideology is illustrated by the disturbing remarks blaming America for the Boston terrorist bombing by “Richard A. Falk, the U.N. ‘human rights’ official and Princeton professor. . . .Commenting on the Boston bombing, Falk wrote, “Should we not all be meditating on W.H. Auden’s haunting line: ‘Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return’?” “The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world.”

Earlier, I wrote about how it was a good thing that the Supreme Court blocked foreigners from suing in the U.S. over putative violations of “customary international law” by corporations and other defendants with deep pockets. Letting people sue over violations of “customary international law” would be like giving a blank check to lawyers with favored ideologies. International-law “experts” often define international obligations in ways that go far beyond what countries that ratified a treaty ever intended or contemplated, but which are appealing to “progressive” ideologies. Earlier, the UN “special rapporteur on torture,” Argentina’s Juan E. Méndez, sought to define as torture, in violation of international human-rights law, a wide variety of government policies, such as “restrictions on access to abortion” and “laws requiring sex change surgery before legal sex reassignment, laws that permit a parent to lose custody of a child solely because they use drugs, and mandatory HIV testing for ‘sex workers.’”

Letting people sue over violations of “international law” can be bad for civil liberties like free speech, equal protection, and private-property rights. Left-wing lawyers take vague international treaties and interpret them as mandating their ideological wish lists, such as restricting criticism of Islam and minority religions as “hate speech,” banning Mother’s Day as sexist, and mandating quota-based affirmative action. For example, the CEDAW equal-rights treaty has been construed by an international committee as requiring “redistribution of wealth,” “affirmative action,” “gender studies” classes, government-sponsored “access to rapid and easy abortion,” and “the application of quotas and numerical goals.” (Governmental racial quotas violate the U.S. Constitution, as do quotas imposed on private enterprises by the government. Government-enforced gender quotas also generally violate the Constitution.).

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, 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. 

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

Naqba — Commemorating a Self-Inflicted Tragedy

Today, Palestinians and their supporters, as they have done increasingly over the years, mark what they call the naqba (Arabic for catastrophe). It was on this day 65 years ago that Israel came into existence upon the expiry of British rule under a League of Nations mandate.

That juxtaposition of Israel and naqba in not accidental. We are meant to understand that Israel’s creation caused the displacement of hundreds of thousand of Palestinian Arabs.

But the truth is different. A British document from early 1948, declassified only weeks ago, tells the story: “the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats…. Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands.”

In other words, Jew and Arabs, including irregular foreign militias from neighboring states, were already fighting and Arabs fleeing even before Israel had sovereign existence.

Thus, on May 15, what is now called the naqba consisted, not of an Israeli act of forcible displacement of Arabs, but of neighboring Arab armies and internal Palestinian militias responding to Israel’s declaration of independence and Britain’s departure with full-scale hostilities. Tel Aviv was bombed from the air and the head of Israel’s provisional government, David Ben Gurion, delivered his first radio address to the nation from an air-raid shelter.

Israel successfully resisted invasion and dismemberment — the universally affirmed objective of the Arab belligerents — and Palestinians came off worst of all from the whole venture. At war’s end, over 600,000 Palestinians were living as refugees under neighboring Arab regimes.

So the term naqba is misleading. Indeed, it smacks of falsehood, inasmuch as it implies a tragedy inflicted by others. The tragedy, of course, was self-inflicted.

As Israel’s UN ambassador Abba Eban was to put it, “Once you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged.”

However, the Palestinians do not mourn today the ill-conceived choice of going to war to abort Israel. They mourn only that they failed.

This is contrary to normal historical experience of disastrous defeat. The Germans today mourn their losses in the Second World War — but not by lauding their invasion of Poland and justifying their attempt to subjugate Europe. They do not glorify Nazi aggression.

The Japanese today mourn their losses in the Second World War — but not by lauding their assault on Pearl Harbor and their attempt to subjugate southeast Asia. They do not glorify Japanese imperialism.

The very existence of naqba commemorations is therefore instructive in a way few realize. It informs us that Palestinians have not admitted or assimilated the fact — as Germans and Japanese have done — that they became victims as a direct result of their efforts to be perpetrators. It informs us that Palestinians would still like to succeed today at what they miserably failed to achieve then. And it informs us that they take no responsibility for their own predicament, which is uniquely maintained to this day at their own insistence.

If readers doubt my word, consider this vignette from January 2001. That month, Palestinian rioters in the West Bank burned in effigy John Manley, then Foreign Minister in Jean Chrétien’s Canadian Government. His sin? — Mr. Manley had offered to welcome Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Canada after a peace settlement. The Palestinian response? Legislator Hussum Khader of Fatah, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas’ party — not Hamas or another of the Islamist groups — threatened Canada, saying, “If Canada is serious about resettlement, you could expect military attacks in Ottawa or Montreal.” A similar offer by then-Australian Immigration Minister, Philip Ruddock, also received a threatening Palestinian rejoinder.

Scarcely a typical response by a government official to an offer of refugee relief, Mr. Khader’s was illuminating. Setting up a Palestinian state and resettling the refugees and their descendants inside it or abroad would remove any internationally accepted ground for conflict. That is why helping to solve the Palestinian refugee problem is regarded as a hostile act — by Palestinians.

Naqba commemorations disclose that the conflict is about Israel’s existence — not about territory, borders, holy places, refugees, or any other bill of particulars.

Only when Palestinians accept that Israel is here to stay will the possibility of the conflict’s end come into view. In the meantime, responsible governments can discourage and repudiate naqba commemorations as a small but important step towards bringing that day closer.

SOURCE




British social workers already have overweening power -- but want more

A year ago, I wrote of a worrying case where Social Workers went to the High Court for permission to enter the home of a person of sound mind because ‘it was thought’ that possibly they were making decisions as a result of ‘undue influence’ by their son who lived with them. No one actually knew whether they were or not, but on the basis that they might be – such permission was granted. Fair enough, a judge had listened to the arguments from ‘a’ social worker – we are not allowed to know who – and a document was drawn up delineating what subjects the son was allowed to speak of to his parents in their own home…in particular, he should not discuss with his parents any arrangements for securing the family home. What happened to the home in which he and his parents lived was to be entirely a matter for the local authority to decide if and when they thought it should be sold…..presumably if and when the parents became vulnerable through mental incapacity.

Social Workers were outraged – why should they have to grovel before a judge and explain themselves before they could enter a home and decide the basis on which family relations should be conducted? The fact that they wanted to do so should be perfectly sufficient! They lobbied hard to be given an automatic right of entry to any household they wished, regardless of whether the occupants were vulnerable for any reason…in order to dole out health advice or dictate how individuals conducted their family affairs.

The Government agreed to consult on the matter. Raccoon readers were kind enough to make a magnificent response to the survey! The results of that consultation were published a few days ago. The Government were not minded to give that power to Social Workers:

We believe it is highly significant that members of the public were far more strongly against the proposal compared to health and social care professionals [...] it is clear that some people perceive themselves at greater risk of unwarranted intervention by social workers than of abuse in their home.

The Social Workers have thrown a hissy fit! We, the public, don’t understand! Nanny knows best! We have to be encouraged to eat our ‘five a day’, and Social Workers are the people to do it… no sooner was the Government’s conclusion to the survey announced than the Social Workers flounced into print:

A survey of social workers carried out by the College during the consultation had found overwhelming support for the power, with practitioners citing cases where they would have used it had it been available. Walker said:

“It seems that the weighting [the government has] given to individuals’ responses doesn’t reflect the evidence or the professional view.”

They are mobilising ‘the professional view’ to lobby the Government before the second reading on the 21st May of the Bill that would give them this power. This is becoming a battle of wills. Nobody is objecting to them going to court if they really believe that there is a specific problem in a specific household – but that is a world away from all Social Workers having the power to enter any house at any time and dictate how the occupants live!

Remember that Social Workers do not have to be publicly named, nor do the local authority have to be publicly named – There have been 358 applications from Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and Bath & North East Somerset councils in the last 3 years alone demanding the right to take control of households, their finances and the welfare of the occupants. Just in one relatively small area!

Newcastle MP Paul Farrelly has written to the Lord Chancellor demanding to know why Stoke on Trent City Council has requested that some families be imprisoned for challenging orders governing the welfare of their loved ones. (No public record exists of Judge Cardinal’s ruling on Miss Maddocks and secrecy rules forbade anyone to name Stoke on Trent City Council who had requested that Miss Maddocks be imprisoned. The social worker who gave evidence against her could not be named either.)

Kingswood MP Chris Skidmore said:

"It cannot be right that local authorities and council bureaucrats should run roughshod over the lives of individuals and their families. At the centre of elderly care must be the concept that families and loved ones must have a right to care and look after the best interests of patients, whatever their condition’.”

I have spoken to John Hemmings MP on this matter, and he told me this morning, quoting yet another case:

‘Although the senior judiciary have now moved to stop secret imprisonments for contempt of court, it remains that we have a number of other secret prisoners where there is no public accountability as to why people have their liberty denied. I have passed the Rachel Pullen case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (RP v The United Kingdom). The key to this case is that as with many others in fact she does have capacity. It is simply that the courts have ignored all the evidence that she has capacity and only taken into account the single expert that says she doesn’t. I have provided examples of a number of cases where the capacity assessment is plainly wrong.

In England we allow a single social worker to imprison someone by claiming that they don’t have capacity – and the Courts will accept this. That is basically wrong.’

They are misusing the power they have at present, a power that they argued was essential to protect the vulnerable, the young, the elderly, the mentally incapacitated. Now they seek to extend that power to all of us, at any time, under any circumstances, just because they think they should – and they don’t want a nosy judge overseeing how they use that power.

They don’t like the fact that the Government listened to the public in that consultation – they want our voices to be overruled. What do we know, ignoramuses that we are?

Lord Reid once said:

“English law goes to great lengths to protect a person of full age and capacity from interference with his personal liberty. We have too often seen freedom disappear in other countries not only by coups d’état but by gradual erosion: and often it is the first step that counts. So it would be unwise to make even minor concessions.”

Please help to reinforce the will of those in parliament who are listening, and will try to protect our freedom. Lord Howe will be introducing the ‘Care Bill’ into the House of Lords for its second reading on May 21st 2013. Make sure he doesn’t think the public’s response to the consultation was a ‘fluke’ – and drown out the voices of the professionals!

Its in your ‘best interests’. You can e-mail Lord Howe via this link. Tell him that you do want your voice to be heard!

SOURCE






British police chief constable and council chief executive refuse to stand down despite catalogue of errors in Oxford sex ring scandal

The angry mother of a victim of the Oxford sex grooming gang last night demanded: ‘Someone needs to take the blame.’

Catastrophic failings by police and social services enabled the sadistic group to drug, rape and traffic girls as young as 11 for eight years. Victims repeatedly told police they had been abused and sexually tortured and care-home staff just watched as the men collected the under-age girls at night.

But despite the catalogue of appalling blunders and missed opportunities – and David Cameron warning police and council chiefs they faced ‘very searching questions’ – nobody is  prepared to take the blame.

Both Thames  Valley Police Chief Constable Sara Thornton and Joanna Simons, head of Oxfordshire County Council, say they will not resign.

Their defiance, a day after the seven vicious and ‘medieval’ predators were convicted at the Old Bailey, came as:

* It emerged that only one care worker has been sacked in the aftermath of the scandal.

* An MP urged courts to impose ‘the most severe penalties’ on the gang so the victims receive ‘the justice they were denied by the local authorities’.

* One of the UK’s largest police forces said tackling child sexual exploitation is now a bigger priority than gun crime.

Most of the eight-year campaign of abuse by the gang took place after Miss Thornton was appointed head of the Thames Valley force in 2007.

She yesterday apologised for not acting sooner, but when asked if she had considered resigning from her £160,000-a-year post, she said: ‘The focus has got to be moving forward. I think the focus for me is on driving improvements in the future.’

Five of the six girls were abused while in the care of Oxfordshire County Council’s social services department.  But Miss Simons also said she was not quitting her £182,000-a-year job as chief executive.

She said: ‘My gut feeling is that I am not going to resign because my determination is that we need to do all that we can to take action to stamp this out.

‘[We are] incredibly sorry that we weren’t able to stop this abuse any sooner ..... what we understand now is much more about the grooming process.  'We didn’t understand that going back seven or eight years ago.

‘All I can do is apologise if we didn’t listen enough, if we didn’t do enough.’

The mother of one of the victims, only 14 when the gang began plying her with drink and drugs before exploiting her for sex, said: ‘Oxford Social Services has failed our children and someone has to pay for it.

‘They were supposed to be looking after my child, yet the social workers went home at night knowing that she was being abused and did nothing.

‘The police are talking about there being more victims, something like 50 more girls, who they want to come forward.  But how can they expect them to have the courage to come forward when these six girls have been failed so badly.’

Speaking in New York, the Prime Minister refused to defend the Chief Constable and county council chief, saying the authorities would have to ‘respond for themselves in terms of what happened’.

Mr Cameron, an Oxfordshire MP, said: ‘It really is just appalling, absolutely appalling – it’s shocking what took place. Everyone’s going to have to ask some very searching questions about how this was allowed to continue for so long.’

As with similar outrages in Rochdale and Rotherham, police officers, social workers and staff in residential homes knew or suspected that children were being used and sold for sex by large numbers of men.

But a catalogue of opportunities to stop the abuse were missed from as early as May 2005.

Two of the three care homes where victims of the Oxford gang lived have been closed down.

But only one person has been sacked – a manager at Dell Quay, a privately run care home in Henley-on-Thames where the council placed girls, was dismissed after refusing to pay a victim’s taxi fare when she returned after running away.  The 14-year-old was driven back to Oxford where she was raped.

Steve Heywood, assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, said yesterday: ‘Our No 1 priority at the moment is child sexual exploitation. It is now ahead of gun crime. Expect a lot more convictions.’

Prosecutors have pledged to 're-review' three historic cases involving victims of the Oxford sex ring after admitting more could have been done to investigate their claims.  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it would look again at the decision to take no further action over the allegations of abuse involving the girls from 2005 to 2006.

In one case, the CPS said information was requested from Thames Valley Police but the force did not respond.

Baljit Ubhey, chief crown prosecutor for Thames and Chiltern, said the CPS would now be more 'proactive' when dealing with sex abuse allegations.  She said: 'We want to encourage people who have experienced something similar to have the courage to come forward.

'What we shouldn't do is as soon as we see a weakness - the girls had taken drugs or alcohol or they lied about something in the past - that means, "this case is hopeless and we can't go ahead with it".  'Rather than be fatalistic and negative, it's about being really positive and saying, "how can we really get to the truth here?"'

Ms Ubhey admitted the CPS should have pursued Thames Valley Police when information was first requested about one of the claims.

The further allegations do not involve any of the defendants involved in the Old Bailey trial, she added.

'I think we could have been more proactive,' Ms Ubhey said.  'Of four cases we looked at, in three of those it's arguable we might have been able to do more.

'What I can't say is that we will change our decision. What I can say is perhaps we could have taken a more proactive approach in making further enquiries.'

Ms Ubhey confirmed a serious case review would be conducted following the conclusion of the trial.

SOURCE





Authoritarian Britain:  They can't be bothered about Muslim sex criminals raping young white girls but having a model railway in your home calls for action!

A model railway fan has been ordered to dismantle his £10,000 train set in his loft by his housing association on health and safety grounds.

Father-of-three Robert Burdock, 61, has 63 locomotives which whizz along 70ft of track around the perimeter of his attic.

His train set includes hand-crafted stations, depots, streets and tiny figures - which are all enjoyed by his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

But a social housing firm now says Robert has made 'alterations' to the two-bed 1950s property in Buckfastleigh, Devon, without permission - breaching strict planning regulations.

Robert, who has lived in the home for fourteen years, says a housing official arrived to inspect a leaky chimney and told him the train set had to go.

Retired builder Robert said: 'I've been building train sets since I was 11. It's been a lifelong passion of mine and I take a real pride in creating things.

'When I moved into this house I decided I needed a project to keep me going as a hobby and I decided to build a railway in the loft.

'Some people like to spend their money down the pub or play a few games of snooker, but for me I build railways.  'I've made much of the scenery myself and spent anything from £8,000 to 10,000 on it.

'There's absolutely no way I'm taking it down now - if they want to evict someone over a train set that's up to them.'

Robert's woes began when he rang Teign Housing to report a leaking chimney at the £140,000 ex-council property where he lives with his disabled wife Linda, 64.

He says the only work he's ever done to make room for the train set was to put down flooring and replace a single, faulty electrical socket.

Robert, who retired due to ill health, said: 'They have said that unless I dismantle the railway, they will send in their workman to pull it apart so they can put right the changes I've made.

'All I've done is put down flooring that meets all the required regulations and I've even coated the little buildings I make in fire-retardant.

'Everything is based on trestle tables. I've not damaged a thing. This house was a tip when I moved in. I've spent thousands down the years doing it up.  'I even fitted my own central heating - you won't hear them complaining about that.

'People might think model railways are childish - but I don't think I'm being the childish one here.'

Teign Housing insists Robert's track has to go so inspectors can make sure the loft area is safe. The firm manages over 3,600 homes across south Devon.

Paul Davies, head of asset management, said: 'It is part of our tenancy agreement that tenants must seek permission to make any alterations to our properties so that we can make sure it is safe and meets the required building regulations.

'We have written to Mr Burdock to explain that all items in the loft space must be removed so that we can gain access and reinstate the timber members to ensure the property is safe.

'Once this work has been done, we will look at ways for Mr Burdock's train set to be accommodated safely.'

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, 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. 

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

The Fascist reality behind far-Left "anti-racists" revealed

Nigel Farage was caught in a war of words with Scottish nationalists last night after he accused them of being ‘fascist scum’.

The UK Independence Party leader said the left-wing extremists who trapped him in an Edinburgh pub were the ‘ugly face of Scottish nationalism’ pursuing an anti-English agenda.

He challenged Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond to condemn the protesters who had chanted ‘Nazi, Nazi’, jostled him and told him to ‘go back to England’.

Mr Farage also hit out at the BBC after a Radio Scotland presenter appeared to question his right to debate Scottish issues.

In the extraordinary scenes on Thursday night the police forced Mr Farage to take refuge in the Canons’ Gait pub on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile for his own safety after the mob of supposedly anti-racist protesters launched the hostile demonstration against him, preventing him from leaving a press conference.

Dozens of activists from the Radical Independence group, most of them students, had gathered on the street outside the press conference, where a giant ‘Vote Yes for Scotland’ banner was held up.

Offensive chants included ‘you can stick your Union Jack up your a***’ and ‘go back to England, you’re not welcome here’.

The Radical Independence group is not formally linked to the Scottish National Party, but Mr Farage suggested ‘elements’ of the SNP had the same anti-English views. He said: ‘It was a demonstration dressed up as being anti-racism but in fact in itself was deeply racist, with a total hatred of the English and a desire for Scotland to be independent from Westminster.

‘My goodness me, if this is the face of Scottish nationalism it’s a pretty ugly picture.  ‘The anger, the snarling, the shouting, the swearing was all linked in to a desire for the Union Jack to be burnt and extinguished from Scotland forever.

‘I must say I have heard before that there are some parts of Scottish nationalism that are akin to fascism but yesterday I saw that face to face.’

Mr Farage hung up the phone on his BBC Radio Scotland interview after a presenter asked him to ‘remind me how many elected representatives you have in Scotland’.

He replied: ‘Absolutely none. But rather more than the BBC do.

‘We could have had this interview in England a couple of years ago, although I wouldn’t have met with such hatred that I’m getting from your questions, and frankly I’ve had enough of this interview. Goodbye.’

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie described Mr Farage’s treatment as an ‘attack on free speech’ and urged Mr Salmond to condemn it.

‘We’ve always known that supporters of independence can be very passionate for their cause but the offensive and aggressive behaviour toward Nigel Farage was unacceptable,’ he said.

‘Of course I disagree with Nigel Farage on his unpleasant and dishonest agenda but he will be defeated by argument not aggression.

‘It was deeply ironic when these self-proclaimed anti-racist campaigners told an Englishman to get back to his own country. Anti-racists turned racist but were too ignorant to notice. I am sure most people in Scotland will be appalled at this behaviour.’

George Galloway, the Respect Party MP, said the protest was bad for Scotland.

In a message on Twitter he said: ‘Events in Edinburgh yesterday forcing the evacuation of Nigel Farage were a pure embarrassment for Scotland. And the shape of things to come.’

The Yes Scotland campaign which is pushing for independence in next year’s referendum on Scotland’s future, distanced itself from the ugly protests.  A spokesman said: ‘Yes Scotland continues to run a positive campaign and we condemn any and all forms of intimidation.’

But the SNP said Mr Farage had ‘lost the plot’.  Mr Salmond, who leads the Scottish Nationalist Party, claimed Mr Farage knew ‘absolutely nothing’ about matters north of the border.

He added: ‘This is a man who doesn’t like getting challenged because when the obnoxious views of his party are put to him then his bubble deflates very quickly and that is what we saw in his panicky interview this morning.’

Lothian and Borders Police confirmed two men were arrested for assault and breach of the peace at Thursday’s protest.

One revealed on Twitter that he is English, and criticised Mr Farage for branding yesterday’s protest ‘anti-English’. He said: ‘As a proud Englishman, arrested yesterday for protesting, I dispute these claims.’

Liam O’Hare of the Radical Independence group also defended the protest, saying: ‘Our protest was to make it clear that UKIP’s rise in England is in no way reflective of Scotland.’

SOURCE






Shit British social workers again:  They ignored warnings about safety of 13-month-old boy before he was beaten to death by mother's boyfriend

Social services are under fire for failing to prevent a 13-month-old boy being killed by his mother's boyfriend - despite desperate warnings from his father in the weeks before his death.

Slater Sharkey was repeatedly being abused by Richard Morgan, who lived with his mother Rachel Peacock.  When the toddler died in December 2010, he was covered head-to-toe in 25 bruises.

His father Carl Sharkey had complained to officials that the boy was at risk, but they told him they had 'no concerns' for Slater and refused to investigate his care - later saying they were distracted by strategy meetings.

It has also emerged that Peacock took her son to a GP when he was having trouble breathing, but ignored the doctor's advice to visit hospital to treat the bruises on his head.

A report has criticised child welfare agencies for failing to act on a series of warning signs, and concluded that Slater was not 'properly safeguarded' in the 24 hours leading up to his death.

Although Mr Sharkey contacted both social workers and police, his concerns 'do not appear to have been acted on'.

The report found that as well as poor communication with the victim's father, information about the boy's welfare was recorded inaccurately.

'The child's father, who lived with him for the first ten months of his life, and who then cared for him overnight for the final three months of his short life, was not visible,' it said.

'He had to ring the social worker, rather than the other way around. He expressed concerns to the social worker, police and the HV, but these do not appear to have been acted on.'

A spokeswoman for the Durham Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) apologised for the failures and said no one could have predicted Slater's death

Gill Rigg, the author of a serious case review for LSCB, said that on the day of Slater's first birthday in November 2010 concerns had been raised when Peacock contacted medical professionals.

She wrote: 'There were sufficient concerns identified on that evening, and on the following day that could and should have triggered a child protection investigation had the totality of the information been considered at a strategy meeting.

'Slater's mother initially said he had stopped breathing but failed to seek help for several hours.

'Slater had a bruise on his forehead. His mother arrived at the GP surgery with no warning, and left before the GP could complete the referral to the hospital. She then failed to attend hospital as directed.'

Mrs Rigg said social workers had failed to challenge medical opinions about his injuries, and the meeting with the GP had not been recorded properly.

Senior managers claimed they had not carried out a review of Slater's care because 'too many strategy meetings were being held'.

But Mrs Rigg said the true explanation was 'more subtle', and a 'misunderstanding' meant senior managers had failed to properly safeguard Slater.

Following the review, in which Slater was referred to as 'Child R', Mrs Rigg said the boy's death was 'not predictable' but a 'different course of events' should have occurred in November 2010.

Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court, Peacock, 31, was found guilty of cruelty and sentenced to a 12-month community order by Mr Justice King.

Morgan, who lived with Peacock in Tantobie, County Durham, claimed he had left the baby in the living room and found him collapsed when he returned.

He was sentenced to seven and half years in prison for manslaughter after a jury found he had inflicted the fatal injuries.

SOURCE






British Police chiefs prepare to defy government by imposing ban on naming suspects

Police chiefs are preparing to defy the Prime Minister by imposing a ban on identifying arrested suspects.

Despite warnings from David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May, the Association of Chief Police Officers is pressing ahead with plans to impose a policy of almost total secrecy.

A draft of its draconian new guidance – due to be approved next week – states: ‘Save  in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public.’

It flies in the face of a hugely significant intervention by Mr Cameron on Wednesday, when he said there should be a ‘working assumption’ in favour of identifying crime suspects.  He backed Mrs May, who last week said that police should be free to name those who have been arrested if it is in the ‘public interest’.

Campaigners say it is vital that officers should not have their hands tied by rules that could prevent victims and witnesses coming forward.

In the case of Stuart Hall, a string of  victims contacted the police only after the media reported that the TV presenter had been arrested for indecent assault.

But despite the warnings, Acpo are pressing ahead with their guidelines.

The phrase in the rules ‘save in exceptional circumstances’ echoes the Leveson report, which called for anonymity in the event of arrests. This is despite Mrs May and Mr Cameron pointing out to officers that, while the issue was raised in the Leveson report, it was not one of the judge’s substantive recommendations.

Last night campaigners attacked the plan for secret arrests.

Kirsty Hughes, of the Index On Censorship, said: ‘De facto anonymity for people who have been arrested would reverse the principle of open justice we have in the UK and could lead to people being arrested and taken into custody without anyone knowing about it.

'It’s a very difficult balance to get right ... making public the details of the arrest can help to bring forward evidence and bring forward victims. Therefore it is completely in the public interest'

Peter Watt, director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s helpline, said: ‘Sex offenders frighten children into staying silent and make them feel they are partly responsible for what’s happening. This can leave the victim feeling isolated and unaware there may well be others suffering the same ordeal.

‘When a suspect is named in the public interest – for example when there is a child protection issue or because the police believe there are more victims – it gives others an opportunity to come forward, which helps build a stronger criminal case.’

Last week, Mrs May wrote to police chiefs to insist they must not continue with the practice – which has been adopted by a third of all forces – of refusing to identify suspects even after they had been charged. One force insisted they had adopted the policy in direct response to Leveson.

But Mrs May said it risked undermining ‘transparency in the criminal justice system’.

She added: ‘I believe there should be a right to anonymity at arrest, but I know that there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named.’

On Wednesday, five days after the letter was first made public, reports on the BBC suggested this meant Mrs May was herself in favour of anonymity except in exceptional circumstances. However, when this was put to the Prime Minister by journalists, he made it clear this was not the case.

Mr Cameron said: ‘I know some people want to connect it specifically with Leveson. But actually it’s a long-standing debate about how to get the balance right between making things public, which as Theresa has said should be the working assumption, but also respecting privacy where that is appropriate.

‘It’s a very difficult balance to get right. On the one hand, making public the details of the arrest can help to bring forward evidence and bring forward potential victims. Therefore it is completely in the public interest. Sometimes it is right to respect the privacy of the individual because the publicity around these sorts of arrests can be genuinely life changing. There is no simple answer to this.’

Mr Cameron added: ‘I saw Theresa’s approach in advance and I think it’s the right one.’

SOURCE






My night with Pam Geller

While she is well known for her opposition to Islamist terror, with her notoriety for anti-Muslim rhetoric, Pamela Geller, as a subject, was someone whom I generally avoided.

Her campaigns against "Jihad" were notable, but mainly for the reactions they inspired and the way in which it highlighted the hypocrisy that some on the left in America demonstrate when it comes to Free Speech.

Islamism, with its determined mission of suppressing dissent and its fostering of ideals that inevitably lead to terror and repression, is despicable. But just as despicable is prejudice against Muslims and the presumption of guilt or sympathy for terror simply because of someone's ethnic or cultural background. I didn't know if Geller's words justified her reputation as a bigot and, to be honest,  I didn't find her interesting enough to inquire, so to my thinking she was irrelevant.

That changed recently when she stirred up a controversy in my part of the world. The York Regional Police Department leaned on one of its chaplains to cancel a speech by her because it didn't reflect their "values of diversity," threatening to remove him as a police chaplain if he hosted her at his synagogue. That would be reasonable if Geller's reputation was true. Yet retaining a Muslim chaplain who attended a conference organized by a group with direct terrorist affiliations, including with al Qaida, demonstrated the York Police's rather odd and hypocritical concept of "values of diversity."

It seemed to me that it would be worthwhile to hear what Geller had to say for herself, rather than to make a judgement based on what others said about her, so I accepted an invitation to hear her speech.

I'm glad I did, because just about everything I'd heard about Pamela Geller was a lie.

There was nothing "anti-Muslim" in anything she said. Her fight is with Jihadism, a fanatical ideology which  promotes violence and terror. Geller said her principal motivation is the struggle to preserve individual liberty, which Islamism, like Marxism, fights to repress.

The delivery was fiery and pugnacious, but her message in fact resembled that of Muslim reformers I know, such as Salim Mansur and Tarek Fatah, who struggle to spread the word that it is Muslims themselves who are victimized the most and harshest by Islamist totalitarianism.  Like those Muslim reformers, she warned that by turning a blind eye to Islamism in North America, we encourage its growth here.

Geller spoke against the repression of women and female genital mutilation and honor killings and the promotion of terrorism of which most American Muslims find abhorrent, but far too many Islamic leaders, such as those at the York Region Islamic Society, remain silent or even give tacit approval.

I could elucidate further, but that was in essence the entirety of her message and a review of her website and writings suggests that her talk last night is consistent with everything she has said in the past.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything Geller says or the ways she chooses to deliver it.

Her use of quotes from the Quran to vilify Jihadism is unfair. One could as easily cherry-pick quotes from the Old Testament that imply approbation of killing. The importance is not in the wording of ancient texts but the contemporary interpretation within a religion. By some, the verses in the Quran are taken literally, but by most they are considered antiquated and immaterial.

Her controversial anti-Jihad campaign in New York is another example. She had posters placed in the transit system which read, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man, support Israel defeat Jihad."

I would take issue with the use of the terms "civilized" and "savage." After all, it was the "civilized" Spanish Conquistadors who introduced the sadistic, ghoulish practice of scalping when they fought the "savage" natives of North America.

However, the west is in a war against those who intentionally target civilians for murder, who kill Gays, treat women as little more than property, and who believe free speech is subservient to their dictates. That we should support a liberal democracy fighting to defend its citizens against them is something anyone resembling a modicum of a moral compass should support.

Which raises the question of why Geller's reputation is so rancid.

The answer falls into two categories, one is that there are Islamist organizations whose purposes it serves to suppress her message. Those include Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like the Islamic Society of North America, who portray themselves as mainstream, but have links to the most reprehensible practices and ideologies of hate.

The other are the useful idiots of Jihadism who are primarily concerned with maintaining their image as "community leaders" who promote tolerance, even if it means tolerating a doctrine that calls for suppression of free speech, illiberal treatment of minorities and outright murderous acts.

Unfortunately, some among the so-called leadership of the Jewish community are behaving like self-serving moral pygmies in order to bolster their own image, at what to them must be only the minor cost of truth and integrity.

A group with the grandiose-sounding name of the Toronto Board of Rabbis, which in reality only represents a handful of reform and nominally conservative Jewish congregations, publicly condemned Geller.  Referring to her "extreme criticism of Muslims"  they say they find her views "distasteful." They are unable to specify any of those distasteful views since they evidently haven't bothered to investigate what she actually has said or written and issued a condemnation based on rumor and reputation.

It is tragic that a group of people with the pretense of being "learned" and "community leaders"  behave like small-minded, sanctimonious ignoramuses who are an embarrassment to the biblical teachings they claim to uphold.

Tragic, but not surprising.

It's no secret that there is an implicit understanding among some of the heads of Jewish congregations and organizations. They go out and raise money as "community leaders" and make very good salaries in the process. They are called upon as "official Jews" when the CBC or Toronto Star wants a quote. And all they have to do to maintain that is to play ball and periodically  issue worthless platitudes about diversity and cooperation with people who hold them in complete contempt.

Meanwhile the people who actually stand up to those who want to destroy the Jewish State or speak out forcefully against terrorism and for free speech get portrayed by these "official Jews" as a "radical fringe."

But make no mistake about it. Many official Jews profess, albeit very, very quietly, to the radical fringe that they share their concerns. But not too loudly of course, because that might entail a cut in pay and prestige.

There are a few Canadian Jewish organizations, like the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and CIJA, that do have integrity. But far too many are no better than the appeasers who, in the 1930's  felt it would be better to remain quiet and not rock the boat as the Nazis came to power in Germany and went about their work of genocide.

In fact, they are even worse. Because now with the lessons of history, the "official Jews" should know what horrors their appeasement of evil can bring.

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, 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. 

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

Modern Britain

What you get when "There's no such thing as right and wrong"

With a heavily-armed policeman guarding the playground, assault rifle at the ready, it could be the scene of a terror alert.  In fact, this is a routine patrol just yards from a suburban primary school.

The show of force is designed to calm residents of an estate plagued by gang shootings.  In the past four months there have been nine gun-related incidents in Luton linked to the Marsh Farm and Lewsey Farm estates.

In the latest, a 16-year-old boy was shot in the back early on Saturday morning. He may never walk again.

The violence has left law- abiding families so terrified they welcome the patrols, even if they risk scaring children.  Faye Bell, 37, a mother of two, said: ‘The armed police might seem heavy-handed to some people but to us they are hugely reassuring.

‘It’s very sad that it has come to this but we need the police to be armed so they can protect our kids.’

The officers, with a dog unit, have been patrolling the estate near the rundown Purley shopping centre all week.

Marsh Farm residents told the Daily Mail yesterday that the armed patrols had given them the confidence to go outside.  Shannon Read, 17, said: ‘I don’t really come out of my house at all so it’s reassuring to know these patrols are here.  ‘I knew the lad who got shot on Saturday so it has been even more terrifying recently.’

Darren Putney, 46, added: ‘Some of the children on the way to school or in the play area look frightened.  ‘But the police need to make their presence known.’

The officers carry Heckler and Koch G36C assault rifles with 5.56mm calibre ammunition that can pierce body armour.

They were introduced in response to the threat of a ‘marauding’ terror attack, like the one in Mumbai involving a gang of men with semi- automatic rifles. The officer pictured also has a Heckler and Koch baton gun which fires ‘less lethal’ plastic bullets.

He is likely to have a hidden personal protection weapon such as a Glock 17 pistol.

Parents in Luton appear resigned to the patrols. Lisa Conway, 25, a mother of three, said: ‘A Taser gun is not going to be enough when you are dealing with armed gangs.’

Bedfordshire Police have also invoked Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, allowing them to stop and search without suspicion.

Assistant Chief Constable Andrew Richer said: ‘Obviously we are concerned that there could be further incidents and we are doing everything we can do to prevent it.’

SOURCE





More modern Britain: Councillors 'trading insults and speaking at official meetings in Bengali'

Councillors are trading insults and speaking in foreign languages at meetings, prompting concern that it undermined public accountability, it emerged tonight.

Some elected representatives have been accused of slipping into their native tongue at Town Hall gatherings, instead of conducting official business in English.

Some visitors have complained they have been unable to follow proceedings because, when councillors lose their tempers, they appear to trade insults in a foreign language.

Critics tonight attacked councils which allowed public officials to speak foreign languages at meetings, prompting fears the “divisive” practice undermined transparency.

The controversy emerged today at one of London’s biggest local authorities after a councillor formally complained that he was insulted by a colleague in the Bengali language, widely spoken by people from Bangladesh.

One councillor at Tower Hamlet’s council, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was accused of calling colleague Abdal Ullah, a “shurer batcha”, which is translated to mean "Son of a pig".

The comments came during a heated exchange between the pair at a meeting last month, triggering a row within the as the slur is considered extremely offensive to Muslims.

While Cllr Ullah, a Labour councillor, protested at the insult, many English-speaking councillors and other public visitors failed to realise its significance because it was issued in a foreign language.

Some councillors later claimed the issue was widespread and did not just involve trading insults.

It is understood that other members of the public have complained to Town Hall bosses about the use of Bengali during meetings.

It was also suggested that some of the Bengali-speaking councillors have been forced translate for their colleagues.

In a letter to the council's Standards Committee, Councillor Ullah raised concerns about the lack of power to enforce only English being used in council meetings.

“Whilst we may have our differences, councillors should afford one another courtesy in our exchanges rather than resorting to unnecessary and abusive insults,” he wrote.

"In my view the use of Bengali or other languages – other than in translation during public questions or petitions and so on – disrupts the transparency and openness of meeting by preventing some present from understanding the exchanges taking place."

Tonight, Peter Golds, the leader of the council’s Conservative group, said Bengali is was being “used in a very foul manner”.

He added: “At a full council meeting the language should be one that all members of the public should understand.

“It is a very serious problem here that a number of councillors insist on speaking in Bengali.”

"It is not just when they get emotional. It happens a lot. Even when they are travelling in a lift before going into a meeting, they will suddenly begin talking in Bengali.”

Brandon Lewis, the Local Government minister, last night criticised the revelations.

"This is a deeply worrying and divisive move. Council meetings should be held in English,” said the Conservative MP for Great Yarmouth.

"Using foreign languages not only undermines transparency and accountability, but it threatens to promote segregation and harm community cohesion.

"Councils in diverse communities should be encouraging everyone to learn and speak English and not practise the politics of division."

According to official figures, more than half of Tower Hamlets’ population are from non-white British ethnic groups.

Almost a third thirty per cent are of Bangladeshi origin, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said in the 2011 Census.

A Tower Hamlets Council spokesman said tonight: "Council proceedings are carried out in English and members’ and officers’ conduct in the chamber is subject to the council’s code of conduct.”

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said it was the right of councillors to speak in a foreign language dependent upon each local council's constitution.

The councillor at the centre of the row did not respond to inquiries.

SOURCE





Council vetoes flag of St George after concerns raised about links to Crusades

A local council decided against flying the flag of St George after concerns were raised that it would offend the town’s 16 Muslim residents.

Eleanor Jackson, a university lecturer, said the red and white symbol could cause upset in Radstock, Somerset, because it was used during the Crusades 1,000 years ago.

The Labour councillor voiced her concerns at a meeting called to discuss which flag should be purchased to fly atop the town's repaired civic flagpole.

She said: “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right.

"My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years."

Radstock Town Council, which serves a local population of more than 5,600 residents, eventually decided to purchase a Union flag to fly on Armistice Day.

The rainbow flag of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement will be flown at “appropriate” times of the year while an In Bloom flag will celebrate the town's achievements in the gardening competition.

The objections raised about the flag of St George were branded “oversensitive” by the local Muslim community while the Muslim Council of Britain said England's patron saint should not be associated with “any hatred of Muslims”.

Spokeswoman Nasima Begum said: "St George needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred.”

Rizwan Ahmed, spokesman for the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said: "I think they are going a bit far here.  "It is political correctness going a bit too far.

"Use by the far right is one thing, but to say that Muslims are offended I don't think is correct. We understand the flag is part of this country's heritage, and in fact many many Muslims will identify as being British themselves.

"In actual fact we are normal people. We have a sense of humour and have the same concerns as everyone else – we are not just some single group."

Lesley Mansell, the council chair, insisted that the discussion focused primarily on buying a Union flag.

“We were presented a list of every flag we can fly as a local authority but the council agreed that we did not want to fly all of them and simply wanted to purchase our own Union Jack," she said.

“The statement made by one councillor regarding the St George’s flag was not really taken into consideration.”

SOURCE





Australia: NT Chief Minister Adam Giles says fears over "Stolen Generation" are causing child neglect

Leftist fantasies hurting people, as usual.  Leftists have demonized social workers who took black kids from abusive, alcoholic homes.  So now the kids just get left there.  Leftist  "compassion" at work

NORTHERN Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles says he will remove neglected Aboriginal children from their parents and place them in adopted homes if necessary.

Mr Giles, Australia's first indigenous state or territory leader, said governments had failed Aboriginal children because of fears they would be accused of creating a new Stolen Generation, but he would not be put off by such accusations, The NT News reports.

"Whatever we do has to be about making parents take responsibility for their kids," Mr Giles said.

"And if they won't, (we're) prepared to provide alternative solutions. If that means those kids are loved and cared for by other parents, then so be it."

Mr Giles said despite the federal intervention, only one Aboriginal child had been adopted in the past decade.

"There are situations in the Northern Territory where nobody has been prepared to support a permanent adoption of a child for fear of Stolen Generation," he told the Northern Territory News.

"There is a lineup of families out there who say, 'If you want help with children, we'll be happy to foster a child, look after a child.'"

Mr Giles, speaking in an exclusive interview, said there would not be a mass grab of children, but he and his cabinet were ready to consider cases of child neglect on a case-by-case basis and move to protect them.

"I think it needs to be negotiated (with biological parents), but there has to be a point in time where you take the necessary steps to protect children."

Mr Giles said the legal mechanisms for adoption were already available, but governments had been reluctant to act.

The result, he said, was that in towns across the Territory, numerous children wandered in high-risk situations, often fearful to go home to households awash with alcohol and violence.

"Where there are couples who wish to provide love and support for children who are neglected and not cared for properly, and it can be determined that the parents will not be able to look after their kids properly till they're older, then we need to make that opportunity available," he said.

"You mean to tell me when we've got all these alleged cases of chronic child sexual abuse, children running around on petrol, going on the streets at night sexualising themselves in some circumstances, and there's only one permanent adoption, for fear of Stolen Generation?

"That is not standing up for kids."

Mr Giles said he wanted the public to know he was prepared to act and said his cabinet was fully behind him.

"If you've got kids who aren't being looked after by their parents, there's only so many times you can try and intervene to get that right," he said.

"And if it's not working, and those kids' lives are falling apart in front of your eyes, make a decision.

"It's not like we're coming in to take kids, but where individual issues come up, we will take that decision.

"People were too scared of Stolen Generation. And I believe that's why there's a lot of kids out there with such social dysfunction."

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, 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. 

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

'How Jill Dando's death convinced me everything you know about crime is wrong': NICK ROSS tells the shocking truth about the murder of his friend and the real cause of crime

Nick Ross surely has a point below  about the importance of prevention but turning every home into a steel-shielded fortress seems impossibly expensive.  And how do you prevent street crime?  And even with an armed citizenry  -- as in some American States -- there is still a lot of crime

Crime has been with us since Adam and Eve and, surprisingly, God didn’t spot the solution.

Rather than punishing the miscreants, it might have been better had he put the forbidden fruit higher up the tree. We have been too slow to realise how strongly crime levels are dictated by temptation and opportunity.

It took a lot of research to persuade me of this.  When, in 1984, I started presenting Crimewatch, I shared everyone’s presumptions that crime is caused by criminals.  It seemed obvious: If we want to cut crime we must cut criminality.  Three years later, quite by chance, I had an epiphany.

I was reporting for the BBC and, at the start of China’s astonishing race towards modernisation, I stood on a top-floor balcony in a dusty town with the local mayor. He proudly pointed out the local hospital, a big school and a prosperous cluster of new houses.

Why, I asked, were some of the new homes surrounded by barbed wire? The mayor responded sorrowfully: ‘Burglaries,’ he said. ‘Mostly televisions.’ I said I hadn’t realised burglary was a problem in China.

‘It wasn’t,’ said the mayor.

‘So what changed?’ I asked.

The mayor recoiled slightly as though it were a trick question. After a moment he responded gravely: ‘We didn’t have televisions.’

Human nature remains more or less constant from one generation to another but situations change, and it is those evolving situations that largely determine how much is stolen, how many people are assaulted and how many citizens get hooked on drugs or even child pornography.

The message is that if you want to cut crime, you need to spend more time on low-hanging fruit.

By seeing crooks as the big issue, we tend to not to notice how important immediacy is.  We favour solutions which are remote – improving parenting, for example – rather than improving security at the scene of the crime.

We still need to catch offenders – I am a proud trustee of Crimestoppers – but we cannot arrest our way out of trouble.

I started looking to criminology for answers but found a lot of political diatribe and pseudoscience.

When my co-presenter, Jill Dando was murdered in 1999, I proposed a more rigorous approach and, with public support, we founded the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science at University College London.

It is now thriving and has helped me see that almost everything we are told about crime – certainly everything I once thought I knew – is wrong.

In some ways, my argument is a challenge to everyday reporting of crime. The human condition recoils from the mundane untidiness of reality.

Who, for example, can resist a good conspiracy theory – whether it’s flying saucers, or that 9/11 was organised by Mossad, or that Princess Di was murdered?

Take what happened after the murder of Jill.

She was then the most popular presenter on TV, so her shooting caused a sensation and, given her role on Crimewatch, people leapt to the idea that she had been killed because of one of her appeals.

Within hours, I was trying to calm the speculation down.

The immediate facts made a contract killing improbable but in any case the revenge motive would have been entirely without precedent in modern mainland Britain.

As more evidence emerged, the conspiracy theory became even less sustainable. The killer had hung around with no disguise at the wrong address – it was chance she turned up. He had no getaway vehicle and so had to walk away down a long straight street with no turn-offs.

He didn’t have a real gun or ammunition but home-made versions of both. He held the weapon in contact with his victim’s head, which would have showered him with tell-tale forensic evidence. And so it went on. All in all it was about as amateurish and clumsy as a shooting can be.

So I became alarmed when the inquiry seemed to be taking the conspiracy theory seriously.
I wrote privately to the head of the investigation, pointing out that when celebrities are shot, like John Lennon, the killer invariably turned out to be a loner.

It turned out that Britain’s top profiler at the National Crime Faculty agreed with me, but nobody took much notice. It was a frustrating as well as an upsetting time for me and for Jill’s other colleagues on the programme.

Yet, when this first conspiracy theory began to fade, I could not have imagined that another intrigue would replace it, one that was not just unconvincing but risible.

According to this new hypothesis, the author of Jill’s murder was Slobodan Milosevic. The reason was that a few weeks before Jill’s death, she had fronted an appeal for victims of the civil war in former Yugoslavia and there was conjecture that the Serbs had taken umbrage. Then, when a Serb TV station was hit by a NATO air strike on Belgrade, a plot was hatched to kill her.

However improbable, this Balkans theory made front-page news and became one of the most popular and persistent explanations for Jill’s death.

For the record, the idea was based entirely on a mild letter of complaint to Jill written by a Serb. It was so low-key that Jill’s agent only mentioned it to police, ‘clutching at straws’, some weeks later.

She thinks the Yugoslav connection is ludicrous and so do the detectives and all Jill’s colleagues who have been on the inside track of the inquiry. Yet crime and conspiracy theories go together as readily as Bonnie and Clyde. We love ’em.

Myth One: 'Crime is caused by a broken society'

Liberals and Left-wingers are convinced crime is caused by unfairness and poverty, and social conservatives are equally certain it is down to lack of discipline and failing values.

Yet there can be few clearer illustrations of the huge part played by temptation and opportunity than the rise and fall in car crime.

Car numbers reached ten million in 1970, or one for every two households, and that turned out to be a tipping point. Car theft boomed. Some 20,000 were reported stolen in 1968, and then, suddenly, in 1969 thefts rocketed six-fold.

Did something happen in that time to breed more deviance and badness? Less authority, less self-control, perhaps? Or more unfairness and therefore less compliance?

The numbers add up to a different story: Half the homes in Britain now had hundreds or thousands of pounds’ worth of property sitting out on the street unguarded and it was temptation on an ostentatious scale. It was also staggeringly easy.

My first car, a Mini, had almost no security at all. You could force the flimsy lock with one hand or prise open the sliding window and unlock it from the inside.

By 1990, there were 20 million cars and half a million thefts a year and by 1993, when ‘taking without owner’s consent’, or ‘twocking’ reached its peak, the annual risk of a vehicle being stolen was one in 30.

Then, in 1995, the problem started to decline, which is where social theories hit another problem. Community divisions like income inequality were growing, not diminishing.

Right-wing beliefs also faced a contradiction. There had been no return to hanging, birching or religious observance, and more and more children were born out of wedlock.

Yet car theft tumbled. Within ten years, recorded numbers halved, and by 2011 twocking had dipped below 100,000, the lowest figure since 1968.

For once, politicians were involved in wholesale and dramatically successful crime reduction. They put pressure on car-makers to mend the vulnerabilities in their products.

Immobilisers, intruder alarms, central locking, sophisticated keys, tougher door and boot designs were introduced and much more besides, and all of them had an immediate effect – especially immobilisers, which prevented hot-wiring of the ignition.  In little more than a decade, car crime plummeted in England and Wales by around two-thirds.

Myth Two: 'British justice is the best in the world'

When I started Crimewatch, I thought British justice was the best in the world.

After 30 years’ experience, I am now in contempt of court. It is not as open as it claims, it is slow, costly, and still believes that debate is the best way to establish facts. It is also more concerned with offenders than with victims.

When my 90-year-old father-in-law woke one night to find an intruder, the police were all one could have asked of them. His front room was strewn with glass, drawers and cupboards had been rifled and a random selection of trinkets stolen.

My father-in-law had come down the staircase brandishing his walking stick (‘Well,’ he told us, ‘I was in the Army’), shouted at the intruder to get out, and got a vague impression of someone climbing back out through the broken window.

The police made sure he had a cup of tea and stayed a reassuring half an hour. The next day, a forensic officer found a bloody fingerprint – the burglar had cut himself as he fled through the broken shards. So far, so good. And that was the last we heard.

Or at least, it was until we called them and were told they had identified the villain – a prolific  burglar – but would not press charges because, at 90, my father-in-law would not make a good witness. The matter was dropped.

It was a classic illustration of how the legal process has divorced itself from decency and common sense.

It should not have mattered if my father-in-law, nonagenarian, living alone, frightened and in semi-darkness, got the description wrong.

The fingerprint and blood left by the burglar were proof enough. The offender went on offending and the victim was abandoned.

What police will not have known (and since nobody kept in touch, how could they?) was how that small nocturnal trauma ruined the rest of my father-in-law’s life. Thereafter, he couldn’t sleep. He began hallucinating, seeing a strange man in his room and wandering round his house, a man who used his toothpaste and toyed with his possessions.

His confusion and anxiety were not caused by the burglar – it was diagnosed as a form of dementia – but the form it took undoubtedly was. At his insistence, after a lifetime of domestic tranquillity, his house was thereafter encased with burglar-proof steel mesh.

Myth Three: 'Poverty is the main cause of crime'

Instinctively, almost everyone thinks poverty is the prime cause  of crime.

This is especially true for the liberal Left, for whom it has been an article of faith, but even Right-wingers at heart share in the assumption that the poor are somehow dangerous.

Yet surveys show there is no correlation between a society’s experience of crime and its sense of fairness.

In any case, crime rose exponentially at a time of unprecedented prosperity when, in the famous words of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, Britain had, ‘never had it so good’.

Whatever else was causing crime to rise, it was not poverty. On the contrary, it was wealth, which brought with it progenitors of crime, including: higher wages and more credit, thus more to steal; more spare time; more late night carousing; more alcohol and drugs; more social mobility; more travel; and more anonymity.

We forget that the class system had been a huge restraining influence on the majority.

Its breakdown has changed our dreams and made us hope that they really might come true. It has made us aspire and made us envious.

As the pitilessly direct Conservative sage Lord Tebbit put it: ‘When I look at what we denounce as  the appalling conduct of “ordinary people” I see the way the rich have always behaved.

‘It’s just that they have had the resources to deal with the fallout.’

Myth Four: 'A 'wicked' minority is behind crime

The truth is that most of us cheat and steal and almost all of us can be persuaded to. Yet we rationalise our own behaviours, while we denounce the sins of others.

We have constructed a fantasy world in which we, the goodies, must be protected from a minority of potential baddies.

Most of us break the law. A third of British males born in the 1950s had acquired a criminal conviction by the time they were middle-aged.

If you think that sounds fantastic, several follow-up studies have shown similar results.

And what about the other two-thirds? Have they never been criminals? Or could it be that they never got caught and convicted?

A 2003 survey found almost half of us would evade income tax, two-thirds would dodge a fare or install illegal software, almost as many would steal office stationery and over a quarter would filch a hotel towel. For ‘would’ one might reasonably substitute ‘had’.

We all have ethics, and each of us has different limits, but sainthood is not the default position of humanity and for most of us our morals are for sale if the price is right.

Myth Five: 'There is more crime than ever before'

The more historical archives are analysed, the more it seems that violence was once a much larger part of life than it is now.

Historical records show the homicide rates in 13th Century England were about twice as high as those in the 16th and 17th Centuries, and those of the 16th and 17th Centuries were some five to ten times higher than today.

Recorded crime rose slowly from 1900 to 1930, then accelerated to the 1950s, after which there was a fearful lurch upwards that continued for 40 years.

After that, crime did not just dip, it plunged.

Almost all the downward trends were masked at first by figures recorded by police, but police statistics can be hugely misleading because most crime – including serious violence – is not reported.

Property crime began to tumble around 1995 and violent crime subsided five years later. Hospital attendance for wounding fell every year from 2001 onwards.

Homicide seemed to have peaked in 2002. The speed of crime’s decline had come to mirror the ferocity of its ascent.

So deeply rooted are our assumptions about crime and criminals that it sometimes seems as though no amount of evidence will shift them: the curmudgeon’s myth that crime is always rising, the deviancy delusion that offenders are abnormal.

But it really is true that opportunity makes the thief. To a vast extent it also creates the football hooligan, drink-driver, and knife-wielding youth too.

This is why crime rates rise, and it is how we make them fall. It is why burglary as well as car theft rocketed until we became serious about home and vehicle security. It is how we so radically curbed football violence and road fatalities.

It is the reason why so many British politicians got caught with their hands in the till until their expenses protocols were changed.

Crime requires more than a predisposition to offend. It will flourish when we make it easy and shrivel when we make it hard.

SOURCE






Freedom philosophy embodied in London buses!

It sounds unlikely but Boris Johnson makes the case

I remember what the doubters said when we first announced a new bus for London – a replacement for the beloved Routemaster. They said I was mad. The Labour Party said I was deranged. My opponents said I was a swivel-eyed loon, or words to that effect. They said we were showing an arrant disregard for health and safety, and that in any case, it would never be built.

Where is it, they used to sneer at me, as Sir Peter Hendy and Transport for London began the necessarily lengthy process of procurement. When’s the bus due, eh? And when the first prototype finally turned up in 2011, the machine managed to conk out on the M1 (because someone had forgotten that a diesel hybrid still needs to be filled with diesel). The sceptics laughed their pants off.

So it gives me unbridled joy to inform you that the new bus will shortly arrive en masse. A whole gleaming fleet of them is about to take over Route 24, from Pimlico to Hampstead Heath; and in the next two years they will cease to be a curiosity – a rare species of charismatic megafauna that you might spot once in the course of a safari. They will be a glorious and regular addition to London’s streetscape, as famous and as emblematic as the elephants of the Serengeti, whose noble and domelike brows they faintly resemble.

When I went to Antrim last week, and saw dozens of them being made in the new Wrightbus plant, I felt a sense of awe, and the deep certainty that this was the most wonderful project I had ever been involved in. It has clean, green hybrid technology. If the new bus fulfils the promise it has shown in tests, we will be able to save so much on fuel that it will actually come out cheaper than our current hybrid buses. With 600 of them on the streets by 2016, they will make a significant reduction in nitrogen oxides and particulates, and will help us to improve air quality in the city.

The bus is a masterpiece of design, conceived by Thomas Heatherwick, the magician who created the Olympic cauldron. It helps to drive employment throughout the UK – unlike the wretched bendy buses, which were made in Germany. London’s buses are creating hundreds of jobs at the plants in Northern Ireland, but it does not stop there. The engines come from Darlington, the seats are made in Telford, the seat moquette in Huddersfield, the ramps are from Hoddesdon and the “Treadmaster” flooring from Liskeard. Oh, and the destination signs are from Manchester.

It is the embodiment of the point I often make, that investment in London boosts the rest of the UK economy, directly and indirectly. We have stimulated the very best of British technology, creating jobs in this country, and yes, we are now looking to potential export markets.

All these features make the bus remarkable; but there is one more thing about it – the best thing of all. This bus stands for freedom, and choice, and personal responsibility. It not only fulfils a promise often made to Londoners by bringing back conductors; it restores to the streets of London the open platform at the rear – and in so doing, it restores the concept of a reasonable risk.

We all remember the pleasure of the old Routemasters. It wasn’t anything to do with the way their flanks heaved and throbbed like wounded old warhorses. It wasn’t the boggler-boggler-boggler noise or the fumes of diesel. It was the way you could sit on those banquette seats at the back, high over the wheel arches, and watch the road passing you outside. And if the bus got stuck in traffic, or at the lights, you knew that you weren’t a prisoner. You were allowed to get on and off at will, provided the thing wasn’t moving, and now that freedom and benefit will be restored.

Of course, you will have to be careful. You should look around to make sure there aren’t any motorbikes or cycles approaching. But if the road is clear and the traffic is stationary, and you want to hop off and do some shopping – or if you have missed the bus at the stop, and you want to scoot down the street to catch it up – then the option is there. You can hop on and hop off, like the hop-on hop-off hoplites [heavily armed soldiers of Ancient Greece] who were trained to leap from moving chariots and then back on again.

Yes, of course there is a risk; but that risk is manageable; and without it you have no opportunity to ascend or escape the bus if you want to. It is, as far as I know, one of the few recent examples of a public policy that actually gives back, to sentient and responsible adults, the chance to take an extra risk in return for a specific reward.

We need to develop this thought, because I worry that in the post-crisis world, we have become all too paranoid, too risk-averse. Yes, the banks made grotesque errors, largely because they could not understand the risks they were taking. But unless we allow businesses and banks to take reasonable risks, they will never hit the jackpot at all.

Why is it that Britain hasn’t produced a giant like Google, or Facebook, or Amazon? It is because such a business, in the UK, would not have been given access to the capital required. We are more hostile to risk, and, indeed, we are more hostile to reward. If you go to San Francisco, where so many of these tech giants were born, you can see the most bizarre tram I have ever set eyes on. People hang from it like gibbons as it swoops and clangs through the streets. It would never be allowed in Europe. But the San Francisco authorities evidently believe that Americans are more robust – more willing to be free, more willing to make their own assessment of a reasonable risk.

If you look at the state of the eurozone, and you compare it with the US economy, you can see the possible advantages of this approach. And that is the point of the hop-on hop-off platform. In restoring a culture of reasonable risk-taking, it is a platform for growth.

SOURCE




DOJ on ‘Gays’: ‘Silence Will be Interpreted as Disapproval’

Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.

The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed:

“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)
That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”

DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

“DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

Oh, brother.  Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

“DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”
In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

“DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”

“DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that’s a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you’re a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

SOURCE





Australia: Not "discrimination" to ban prostitute from motel

THE owner of a country motel who won an appeal against a sex worker who took a discrimination case against her says she is "ecstatic" that her business reputation has been restored.

Drovers Rest Motel manager Joan Hartley, who in 2008 told the sex worker she could not come back and rent a room for prostitution, said the motel had become known as "the whorehouse of Moranbah".

"Now I just want it known as the Drovers Rest - the nice, quiet, homely, friendly place it's always been," Mrs Hartley, 67, said. "I'm not a prude. I believe there is a place for these people, but that place is not in my motel."

Mrs Hartley, who with husband Evan, 68, has been running the motel for 13 years, said it had been stressful fighting the discrimination case.

"We are ecstatic, not only for ourselves, but because we've been able to win a situation where every motel owner can say 'no' to these people because they can ruin their business reputation," Mrs Hartley said.

On Friday the Court of Appeal overturned an appeal decision in Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which the sex worker won last year.

The court heard that on June 28, 2010, the sex worker, who had stayed at the motel for prostitution purposes during the previous two years, was told she would have to stay elsewhere in future.

In 2011 the legal sex worker, who had been earning $2000 a day during sporadic visits to the Drovers Rest, lost the first round of her discrimination case against the motel, then won an appeal in QCAT.

The motel owners appealed and on Friday the Court of Appeal unanimously found in their favour.

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, 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. 

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

'You're not doing this in my home': lesbian bed ban sparks threats and abuse

The owners of a New Zealand guesthouse who refused to let a lesbian couple share a bed are standing firm despite threats.

Karen and Michael Ruskin, of Pilgrim Planet Lodge, in central Whangarei, say they have received death threats and verbal abuse over their stance on homosexuality.

But they say they will not have their beliefs silenced, even if it puts their business at risk.

Lesbian couple Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, decided not to stay at the lodge on May 7 after being told they could only have a room with single beds.

They had booked online a room with a king-sized bed but Mrs Ruskin said that when the couple arrived they were told the lodge's policy was for same-sex couples to be put into a room with two king-single beds.

The engaged couple decided not to stay but could not find other accommodation until they got to Waipu.

Mrs Ruskin said she was sorry for the couple's inconvenience but was standing firm on her morals and the sanctity of her home.

The Ruskins live in the bed and breakfast-style lodge, where guests share lounge, kitchen and living areas.

"It's our home - it's not a motel."

Ms Collison filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, because it is illegal to discriminate against someone in the provision of goods and services because of their sexual orientation.

But Mrs Ruskin said there was an exception in the Human Rights Act relating to shared residential accommodation.

She said that in 2010 a gay couple also complained to the commission after being asked to sleep apart, but that complaint was withdrawn when the exception for shared accommodation came to light.

Mrs Ruskin said she and her husband did not hate homosexuals and were happy for them to carry on with their lives.

"Everyone knows what homosexual activity is. It's quite clear if two guys rent one bed you know what's going to happen. We have to protect our other guests."

But Mrs Ruskin said the homosexual community had shown nothing but hate toward the Ruskins' beliefs.  "We've been threatened to have our place burnt - it's pretty foul. They have zero tolerance if you say, 'No, you're not doing this in my home'."

The Ruskins acknowledged the lodge was a business but said there needed to be a place for morals in business.

The couple was Antioch Orthodox Christian and had a small chapel inside the lodge, but Mrs Ruskin said she did not discriminate against other religions, and Muslims and Jewish people had stayed in the lodge.

Ms Collison said what went on behind closed doors was none of the Ruskins' business.

"It is a closed bedroom. I'm not allowed to cuddle my partner in a shared bed, but if I walked in there with a random guy I picked up off the street she would let me in. This is my fiancee."

SOURCE





Ex-soldier told to repaint his St George's flag front door by housing association after it was deemed offensive and distressing



For ten years, Steven Rolfe has displayed the flag with pride.

But far from making him a patriotic citizen, his unorthodox St George’s banner has seen him branded a ‘nuisance neighbour’.

The 52-year-old former soldier painted the red and white symbol on his front door in 2003 yet only now have his landlords decided it is ‘offensive’ and must go.  He has 14 days to remove it – or face eviction.

Mr Rolfe, who served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s, said: ‘I’ve had this for ten years and nobody has said anything until now.

‘My landlords, Places for People, sent me a letter saying it could be deemed offensive, and that I was breaking my agreement over a nuisance.

‘I wrote back, asking for retrospective permission because it’s been there so long, but they weren’t interested.

'I’m ex-forces and I’m proud to be English. I’m not in the EDL or any other racist group. I’m very angry about this, and I won’t be changing anything. I want my day in court.’

The enforcement notice has sparked outrage among Mr Rolfe’s neighbours in Preston and Muslim groups have criticised the housing company’s stance. Ali Anwar, a Muslim  representative on the Preston faith forum, said: ‘As far as I’m concerned, a man’s home is his castle, and he should be allowed to express himself as he wishes.

‘This is political correctness gone mad. As a Muslim it really frustrates me that organisations become overly politically correct and make issues and tensions where there aren’t any. They don’t speak for the Muslim community.

‘The flag of St George needs to be reclaimed from the far right. There is nothing offensive about the flag and anyone who is proud to be English should be able to fly it.’

David Borrow, a former Labour MP who is now a local councillor, said: ‘The door has been like that a long time and, having spoken to the gentleman, I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a decent member of the community.

‘I do not believe that he has intended the door to symbolise anything offensive, and I have heard no specific complaints.  ‘There are other doors in the city that have flags painted on to them, and there appear to be no problems at all.’

John Clemence, who is vice-president of the Royal Society of St George, said: ‘To say that the cross of St George can cause offence needs to be challenged.  ‘We are seeing more and more of this kind of complaint, and these jobsworths are causing resentment and inciting racial hatred.’

Places for People, which owns Mr Rolfe’s house, has since apologised for calling the flag offensive but insists its tenant must repaint the door because he did not have the proper permission to turn it into an England flag.

A Places for People spokesman said yesterday: ‘We do apologise for describing the door as offensive, which it is clearly not.

‘Under the customer’s tenancy agreement, they can make alterations and additions to their property, including external decoration, so long as they gain written consent from ourselves and meet our decoration specifications.

‘We have asked Mr Rolfe to repaint his door as he has not requested our permission and his door does not meet our decoration specifications.  ‘We are happy to discuss any future changes he may wish to make to his rented property.’

Mr Rolfe, who helps out in a friend’s chip shop, says he has won a Preston Council award for the appearance of his house and has flown the St George’s cross in the past.

SOURCE





Farmer accuses police of acting illegally after they refuse to hand back shotgun he fired at thief

More bastardry from the British police.  They HATE self-defence

A farmer, who shot at a metal thief as he attempted to get away in a van, has hit out at police after they refuse to hand back his guns.  Bill Edwards, 21, says he has struggled to find work six months despite being cleared of attempted murder because his guns are the tools of his trade.

The man from Scalby, Scarborough claims the police have acted illegally by keeping his property.

He was arrested last summer on suspicion of attempting to murder scrap metal thief David Taylor after he shot at Taylor’s van, loaded with stolen metal from remote farmland at Whin Covert, Riggs Head near Scarborough in North Yorkshire.

Mr Edwards’ four shotguns and two rifles - worth at least £3,000 - were all confiscated when he was arrested last August.

When he was finally released from police bail on December 20, he was given a letter from North Yorkshire Police stating they were going to review his suitability to hold a firearms certificate.

He always maintained he only turned his shotgun on the van because he feared for the life of his mother Louisa Smith, 50, as Taylor sped towards her while he fled the scene.

Taylor claimed that he was simply trying to getaway because Mr Edwards was shooting at him. He was later caught by police in a nearby village after a high speed chase.

Mr Edwards and his mother caught Taylor and an accomplice loading stolen metal cables into the back of his Ford Transit after spotting that outbuildings had been tampered with. The thieves jumped into the van and drove it towards the pair as they desperately dialled 999 for help.

Mr Edwards fired his shotgun, which was loaded with lightweight rabbit shot, several times, hitting the van’s windscreen and bodywork. No one was hurt. Police eventually caught Taylor when Mr Edwards gave chase and gave a running commentary on his mobile phone. But the crook was only charged with metal theft.

The 39-year-old from Scarborough escaped with just a £100 fine for theft after claiming he had been ‘traumatised’ by Mr Edwards shooting at him.

His father Gary, 67, said: ‘It's ironic because when this first happened he was a local hero. The farmers who employ him were queuing up to offer him work.

‘But the police have his guns and his firearms certificate and it seems legally they can take as long as they like to reach a decision.

‘They are still treating him like a criminal for defending his own property and his mother.

‘Bill does not have any work and feels very badly let down by the police.’

Mr Edwards added: ‘They have also got my air rifle which doesn't even require a certificate to possess.

‘They are the tools I need and not having them is costing thousands as my crop is being eaten by pests and I could not have lambs this year without controlling vermin.

‘When I work for other farmers they also require me to control pests. Not being able to do so prevents me getting work and if I do it is low pay.

‘Clay shooting is, was also my main hobby and social activity.’

He argues that once his firearms were taken off him, the police no longer had any legal right to retain them. Legally, Mr Edwards could buy guns and ammunition because his certificate has not yet been revoked.

However, he would need to present his firearms certificate - which the police have also retained.

Mr Edwards added: ‘They are breaking the law. I am left very disappointed with the police as they have illegally held my property since August.

‘Since no further action was taken in December and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] made a very positive statement regarding my case, the police still have not communicated their decision on whether I am still fit to hold the firearms I need.’

The national representative body for shooting sports, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, supports Mr Edwards’ cause.

Senior Firearms Officer Matt Perring said: ‘A gun is absolutely essential to a farmer.  ‘There is nothing like having your own gun to control the land.  ‘Otherwise the land owner can ask anyone else with a shotgun certificate to do the job.’

He said employers needed farm workers who were trusted to carry guns to stop pests and vermin attacking crops.  Mr Perring said: ‘Otherwise it's like asking someone to put up a fence with a broken arm.’

Mr Edwards said his family has lost thousands of pounds through theft and damage caused in a number of raids on their land.

North Yorkshire Police Professional Standards are still looking into a complaint from the family into how the whole case was handled.

A police spokesman said: ‘The investigation into Mr Edwards' complaint is still ongoing and so we are not yet in a position to comment.’

SOURCE






Another lying British female:  Woman who lied to police and said her ex-boyfriend raped her is jailed for eight months after her own mother reported suspicions

A woman has been jailed for eight months after falsely accusing her ex boyfriend of raping her.  Kirsty Debanks, 20, lied that Chris Newitt had attacked her the day after she suffered a miscarriage.

However, she finally admitted that she had made it all up when CCTV showed Mr Newitt was in Oxford city centre with his brother at the time.

Sentencing her, Judge Ian Pringles told Miss Debanks 'Those who suffer genuine rape are undermined by people like you. You undermine the whole system of justice.'  He added: 'I would be failing in my duty today if I was not to pass an immediate prison sentence.'

The city's crown court heard that police were called by paramedics to help control Debanks who was claiming to be having a miscarriage.

Prosecutor Jonathan Stone said the next day Debanks told police that Mr Newitt had raped her when she got home from hospital.

Mr Stone told the court: 'She said he had pushed her friend Tracy out of the address.  'He had pushed her (Debanks) down on the sofa. He said: 'You're going to f*** me whether you like it or not'."

Mr Newitt was arrested and questioned in police custody for almost six hours and subjected to forensic testing.

Officers visited her to begin the formal investigation but she told them she did not want to make a complaint only 'wanted the defendant to pay for what he did'.

She also refused a medical appointment and would not sign the officer's notebook to confirm her account.

However, later on she called police to say that she did want to make the complaint. In interview she described the alleged attack to them, saying Mr Newitt's face was 'pure evil'.

Miss Debanks' mother then called police and said something did not ring true in her daughter's account.

Mr Newitt protested that he could not have carried out the attack as he was in Oxford city centre with his brother at the time. When officers viewed CCTV footage it confirmed his account.

Debanks then called police herself and confessed that she had lied.

In her statement she explained that in fact she had gone to the pub with her friend Tracy to drink double vodkas and beers, then gone back to her home to continue drinking and smoke crack cocaine.

Tracy then suggested making the false claim, she said. Debanks only told the truth when her mother warned her the case would go to trial.

'She appeared to show no remorse. In fact she smirked as she gave her account,' Mr Stone told Oxford Crown Court.

Lucy Ffrench, defending, said Debanks had suffered a difficult time, including the loss of her father to cancer and of her uncle in a freak accident, as well as other personal issues.

'She has been looking in the wrong places for the attention she craves,' said Ms Ffrench.

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, 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. 

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

Obama Got Black at Morehouse But Didn’t Speak the Truth

Crystal Wright

Wow, after five years of his loyal constituents supporting him and receiving nothing in return, it was nice to see President Obama address this year’s all black male Morehouse College graduates. Obama even found his black vernacular as he always does before a black crowd, saying “I know some of you are just graduating, thank you Lordy.” As if all black people walk, talk, and think alike. Sickening and offensive.

Nevertheless, the last time Obama spoke to an historically black college or university was in 2007 at Howard University when he was trailing Hillary Clinton in the black vote for the Democrat presidential nomination. Can we say pandering?

Equally surprising during his Morehouse commencement address, Obama referred to himself “as a black man like you” something he rarely, if ever has done. Obama didn’t refer to himself as a black man during his re-election campaign either. In fact, quite the opposite, as America’s first black president he’s largely made it a point of distancing himself from black America but ironically need black Americans vote each time to win.

In his first term Obama had no appetite for the problems facing black Americans even though over 95% of blacks voted for him in 2008 and 93% in 2012. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Obama’s black voter water carriers, barely got one meeting with the president during his first term. According to the editor of the blog Crew of 42 and managing editor of Politic365, Obama has met with the CBC only three times since 2009.

In 2012, CBC Chairman Emmanuel Cleaver told the media that if Hillary had been president or any white person with the black jobless rate at 14%, “we’d be marching around the White House.” Instead, the CBC gave Obama a break because he’s black. And with this lousy record, Cleaver and CBC members told blacks to vote for Obama a second time and they did.

Obama is “black” when convenient. The president throws blacks a few bones during elections to keep them in his pocket, ignoring them the rest of the time and delivering them nothing for their loyalty. His Morehouse speech was a nice diversion for the mainstream media from the growing scandals (IRS, AP and Benghazi) in his administration.

But the speech amounted to dishonest, propagandistic rhetoric that glossed over the problems plaguing the black race, which have been hurt by liberal policies for the past 40 years. The historically black college located in Atlanta has a proud legacy of educating young black men like Martin Luther King Jr., many of whom went on to become leaders and successful men in life.

Obama told the young men they were “graduating into a job market that’s improving.” That’s hardly true, of course, because the black jobless rate has remained twice as high as the national average since Obama took office. “If you think you can get over in this economy, just because you have a Morehouse degree, you are in for a rude awakening,” continued Obama. This was closer to the truth.

As he has done on many other occasions, Obama vilified success. Even though he is a very rich man who sends his kids to private school, Obama told the Morehouse men don’t aspire and worry about “making money” or paying off your student loans, “ask yourself if the only option is to defend the rich and powerful.”

Obama mentioned many blacks live in “troubled neighborhoods across the country—many of them heavily African-American” with bad schools “where violence is pervasive.” Rather than asking the Morehouse graduates to “set an example,” numerous times throughout his speech Obama should have set an example himself and talked about how Black America is failing itself. He should have pointed out to these young men that the catastrophic problem facing blacks is our rejection of marriage.

Obama should have warned graduates 73% of black babies are born out of wedlock compared to 40% of whites and this is the direct cause of higher incarceration rates, lower high school graduation rates and the economic decline of blacks. He also should have mentioned the staggering statistic that 44,038 black children have been killed by guns since 1979, which is about 13 times more than blacks lynched over 86 years from 1882 to 1968, according to a Children's Defense Fund report.

Moreover, Obama also should have told the young black men, looking up to him as an example of success, that the only way blacks can truly help each other is by helping themselves first. Instead we heard Obama invoke the same, old broken record blacks must be the caretakers of other blacks. “If you know someone who isn’t on point, go back and bring that brother along.”

Why are blacks the only race constantly telling blacks they have an obligation to help each other along? No, blacks have an obligation to first help themselves along like any other race. Giving back should be something we all do but the Democrats’ message to black America always seems to be someone will be there to help you along, peers or the government.

I’m glad Obama connected with his blackness at Morehouse but he wasn’t honest in his speech. If Obama had been, it would have been an admission to the young black males at Morehouse that liberal policies have and are utterly failing black America.

SOURCE





Apology over children taken from UKIP foster pair 'too little, too late’

The council that told a couple it was removing their foster children because they were members of the UK Independence Party has been accused of attempting to cover up its “ridiculous” mistake after it issued a partial apology.

Rotherham borough council sought to draw a line under the controversy today by issuing a statement in which it admitted giving misleading media interviews but said it was in the children’s “best interests” to remove them.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, said the authority’s apology for its handling of the case “didn’t go far enough”.

“I’m afraid this is a bully-boy council trying to cover up for a ridiculous error and, as ever, it is ordinary decent people who are made to pay the price,” he said.

The council was widely criticised from all sides of the political spectrum after its social workers removed three siblings of ethnic minority descent from the experienced foster parents last November, saying that the parents’ membership of Ukip meant they supported “racist” immigration policies.

In interviews at the time, Joyce Thacker, the council’s director of children’s services, said the quality of the couple’s care was “not an issue”.

She added: “These children are from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has made very clear statements on ending multiculturalism. I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children.”

The Telegraph, which first reported the story, understands that the husband and wife have not received any apology from Rotherham council and have not had any other foster placements since the siblings were taken away.

The wife said last year that she felt “bereft” to lose the children, adding: “We felt like we were criminals.”

In its statement, the council said it gave the impression in media interviews that the decision to remove the siblings was made solely because the couple were Ukip members.

It insisted that a “detailed” internal review had concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to take them from their foster parents.

The council said legal reasons relating to the welfare of the children prevented it from releasing further details, but it pledged to learn “important lessons” about the way it makes decisions, communicates and shares information.

It added: “The council can confirm that membership of Ukip would not prevent any individual from being considered as a foster carer in Rotherham and could not be a reason for removing foster children from a placement.”

The foster parents declined to comment on the council’s statement, saying they were considering taking legal action against the authority over the way they had been treated and did not want to prejudice any future court hearings.

A friend of the couple said the council’s apology was “too little, too late” and questioned why social services had handled the case so aggressively.

John Gilding, the leader of the Conservative group on Rotherham borough council, said he would be asking questions about precisely what action the local authority had taken to learn lessons and suggested that the response should have led to a resignation.

“For the furore it caused, I would think somebody should have been answerable, but I don’t think that will happen,” he said.

SOURCE





British justice boss to crack down on criminals freed early from jail

Justice secretary Chris Grayling has plans to crack down on criminals who are freed from jail halfway through their sentence.

Mr Grayling said he wanted to get tougher on Britain’s sentencing rules that let inmates walk free from prison early, and said he hoped to provide the public with “reassurance” over the coming months.

His comments follow the release of ex-Cabinet minister Chris Huhne and his former wife Vicky Pryce, who served only two months of an eight-month sentence.

Other offenders who did not serve their full sentence include Karen Matthews, who was released from prison last year after serving half of an eight-year sentence for kidnapping her nine-year-old daughter in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, sparking a huge manhunt in the area.

Philip Davies, a backbench Tory MP who has campaigned for longer jail terms, said an “overwhelming majority” of the public wanted offenders to serve the terms they were given.

Mr Grayling responded by saying he had “sympathy” with this view and hoped to be able to provide further “reassurance” in coming months, the Daily Mail reported.

The Conservatives have previously said it felt that “many people feel that sentencing in Britain is dishonest and misleading”.

Sources have revealed that Mr Grayling has ordered a review on changing the current sentencing regime, which was introduced by Tony Blair a decade ago, and allows everyone apart from the most serious criminals to go free after serving half their sentence.

Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce, who were jailed for perverting the course of justice by swapping speeding points, benefited from further time being cut from their sentences in exchange for wearing tags.

Mr Grayling's plans will initially focus on the most serious violent and sexual offenders, where they will have to earn the right to be released, instead of being automatically freed regardless of their behaviour while in jail.

Continuing their education or carrying out work behind bars and showing a willingness to earn the skills to go straight are among possible ways inmates could earn their right to be released.

The plan, which is likely to require additional prison places, will initially be limited to the more serious offenders because of budget constraints.

But Mr Grayling wants to move to a sentencing regime which is easier to understand and will rebuild public trust, with one option being to introduce a system where the courts can specify minimum and maximum sentences.

Under the new system, prisoners will only be able to leave jail after their minimum sentence is served by having earned their release.

Mr Grayling revealed his stance in questions at Westminster yesterday when Mr Davies asked him: “Chris Huhne and his former wife were released from prison recently after serving just two months of an eight-month sentence.

“In surveys that I have conducted, an overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that prisoners should serve their sentences in full. Aside from locking them up for longer, will the Secretary of State say how long he thinks people should serve in prison before they are released?”

Mr Grayling replied: “On this matter, I have a lot of sympathy with what [Mr Davies] says. I am looking closely at this area. I hope to be able to provide further reassurances to him in due course.”

Steve White, deputy chairman of the Police Federation, said prison sentences should do 'what they say on the tin'.

He said: “It is hugely confusing for the public who read that Chris Huhne is sentenced to eight months and then see him walk out weeks later. The same applies to someone convicted of murder and sentenced to life, something most people think is unequivocal.

“If it does not mean that the courts should say so. They should be open and honest. The idea that you get up to 50 per cent off for good behaviour, which in effect is lack of bad behaviour, is nonsense.”

SOURCE




Men can’t be expected to turn a blind eye to beauty

The last time I was back in Britain and stuck in the bowels of the Central Line on a Tube train limping painfully towards Oxford Circus, I found myself observing a group of teenage girls in prohibitively short skirts. “Look at him,” shrilled the loudest, prettiest member of the pack, pointing out a silver-haired gent peering over the top of his Metro. “He keeps staring at my legs.” The man turned a violent shade of puce and raised his newspaper still higher, in an attempt to block out all the body parts he shouldn’t be looking at.

I felt for him. The girl had very nice legs. The girl knew she had very nice legs, and had chosen to showcase them in a belt of fabric that would draw admiring glances from every male member of that carriage – and a few females besides. Yet she found it demeaning – or “disgusting”, to quote her friend’s empathetic murmur – to be reduced to an object of beauty. Women, she believed, in her indignant, third-wave feminist little head, are more than the sum total of their gloriously appealing body parts. So she happened to be beautiful. So what?

So what, indeed. But women seem to have got themselves into a tangle over beauty. If the media is any reflection (and it is), anyone would think that the majority of women now spend an inordinate percentage of their time worrying about their looks – and the rest of it actively trying to enhance them. Historians will tell you that this has always been the case, only modern women have tools at their disposal that even the corseted and bewigged Madame de Pompadour would have blanched at.

We can dye our skins, suck the fat from our bottoms and thighs, stretch and plump out our faces. We can subject our bodies to intensive fitness regimes, embark on scientifically tested diets and then flaunt parts of ourselves that have for centuries remained hidden in a provocative array of new fabrics and styles. But should any man (or woman) notice or – God forbid – point out the results of our efforts, we immediately rise up in revolt.

Take Laura Fernee, a 33-year-old science graduate from Notting Hill who poutingly decried her own beauty in yesterday’s papers as the reason she was unable to hold down a job. “I’m not lazy and I’m no bimbo,” she mourned. “The truth is my good looks have caused massive problems for me when it comes to employment.” Female colleagues were jealous and male colleagues “were only interested in me for how I looked. I wanted them to recognise my achievements and my professionalism, but all they saw was my face and body.”

Fernee is not alone in her self-made beauty inferno. Just the other day, a scrupulously turned-out, highly attractive friend remarked that a casual comment her boss had made about her dress had left her feeling “patronised”. Last month, President Obama was forced to publicly apologise for calling the California attorney general “good-looking”. Never mind that he had formerly praised Kamala Harris for being “brilliant” and “dedicated” – it was the “good-looking” that stuck in feminists’ throats.

I feel for modern men, just as I felt for the man on the Tube that day. They’re supposed to remain blind to the legions of women strutting through life and the workplace in thigh-highs and low-cut tops. And, of course, it’s our prerogative to do that. But in this digital age, the days of un-self-aware beauties (the most arresting kind of all) are sadly behind us. If you’re lucky enough to have that extra asset (which is all beauty is), use it cautiously – not as a weapon with which to beat the opposite sex. Better still, ignore it.

If Fernee is so disabled by her looks, she’ll be relieved to discover that nothing makes a woman ugly quite so fast as talking about her own beauty.

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, 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. 

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

Ain't multiculturalism grand?



A British soldier has been butchered on a busy London street by two Islamist terrorists, one of whom proclaimed afterwards: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

In the first terrorist murder on the British mainland since the 7/7 suicide bombings of 2005, the men attempted to behead the soldier, hacking at him like a “piece of meat” in front of dozens of witnesses, before both were shot by police who took around 20 minutes to arrive.

After the killing, one of the men, believed to be a British-born Muslim convert, spoke calmly into a witness’s video phone.

Speaking with a London accent, holding a knife and a meat cleaver and with his hands dripping with blood, he said: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. Your people will never be safe. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.

“We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die?

“No, it’s going to be the average guy like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we, so you can all live in peace.”

Witnesses said that the men used a car to run over the soldier just yards from the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, south-east London, before setting about him with knives and a meat cleaver as if they were “trying to remove organs”. One unconfirmed report suggested that he had been beheaded.

Passers-by said they thought at first that the attackers were trying to help the man, who was wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt, and only realised they were killing him when they got closer.

As they attacked the soldier, one of the men shouted “Allahu akbar”, or God is Great, according to the BBC, while another witness said they appeared to pray next to the body as if the solder was a “sacrifice”.

Their victim, thought to be aged around 20, had reportedly been on duty at an Army recruitment office in central London and was on his way back to the barracks when he was murdered at 2.20pm.

It emerged that passers-by went to the soldier’s aid. One of the killers ordered that only women could tend to the body, not men.

There were also questions over why it took around 20 minutes for armed police to arrive on the scene, during which time the killers calmly walked up and down the road, carrying their bloodied knives and a pistol, while members of the public confronted them.

When police did arrive, both gunmen tried to rush at the police and were shot, reportedly by a female officer.

On Wednesday night they were under armed guard in separate hospitals. Their British accents suggested that they were “home-grown” terrorists and security sources said they did not believe anyone else was involved in the incident.

David Cameron described the attack, which had chilling echoes of a plot to behead a soldier foiled in Birmingham in 2007, as “absolutely sickening”, but said that Britain will “never buckle” in the face of terrorism. This morning he will chair a meeting of the Government’s Cobra emergency briefing committee to be updated on developments.

Speaking in Paris, where he had been meeting François Hollande, the French president, he said: “We have suffered these attacks before. We have always beat them back. We have done that through a combination of vigilance, of security, of security information, good policing.

“But above all, the way we have beaten them back is showing an absolutely indomitable British spirit that we will not be cowed, we will never buckle under these attacks. The terrorists will never win because they can never beat the values we hold dear, the belief in freedom, in democracy, in free speech, in our British values, Western values. They are never going to defeat those. That is how we will stand up to these people, whoever they are, however many there are of them, and that is how we will win.”

He added that “every aspect” of security would be reviewed. After a Cobra meeting last night, chaired by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, security was tightened at all London barracks.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London who attended the meeting, said: “I know that Londoners have been through terrorism before and this city has huge resilience.

“What we also have is the best, the most professional security services and the best police in the world to protect us and they are now going to get to the bottom of exactly what’s happened.”

The Queen announced that she would go ahead with a planned visit to the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery at Woolwich Barracks next week.

The murder appeared to have been planned to ensure maximum publicity, with the killers urging witnesses to take their picture “as if they wanted to be on TV”. One witness, identified only as James, said he and his partner watched in horror as they realised what they were seeing. He shouted at the men to stop, only for one of them to pull out a gun and threaten to shoot him.

After driving his car further up the road, he stopped and called the police, telling them to bring armed units.

He said: “These two guys are chopping this guy to pieces, literally hacking at something like it’s a bit of meat. These two guys were crazed, they were just animals. They then dragged the poor guy from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road.

“They were standing there with the knives in their hand, waving the gun about. There were police at the end of the road but there were no police in the vicinity of the attackers. I think they were proud of what they were doing.”

The Muslim Council of Britain condemned the killing as a “truly barbaric” act with “no basis in Islam”.

A spokesman said: “We call on all our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, to come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail.”

SOURCE






Nearly all children born to cohabiting couples this year will 'see parents split by the time they are 16'

Nearly nine out of ten babies born to co-habiting parents this year will have seen their family break up by the time they reach the age of 16, says a study.

Half of all children born this year will not be living with both natural parents when they reach their mid-teens, and almost all those who suffer family breakdown will be the children of unmarried parents, added the report.

The study, based on figures from the national census and large-scale academic surveys, extrapolates from current trends and calculates that just 9 per cent of babies born to cohabiting couples today will still have their parents living together by the time they are 16.

The report adds that the declining popularity of marriage and the rise of co-habitation will damage the lives of increasing numbers of children.

The figures were produced by researcher Harry Benson, of the Marriage Foundation think tank, who said: ‘The report provides solid evidence that married parents are more stable than unmarried parents.

‘The contrast between married and unmarried parents who remain intact by the time their children reach their teenage years demonstrates that marital status plays a crucial role in family breakdown.

‘With family breakdown costing an estimated £46billion a year – more than the entire defence budget – in addition to the immeasurable social damage, it is clearly in the interest of the Government and the taxpayer to work to counter this devastating trend.’

The study by the think  tank, which is headed by High Court family division judge Sir Paul Coleridge, was based  on findings from the census of 2001 and recent results from Understanding Society, a government-backed survey which charts the lives of people in 40,000 homes.

The report said that in 2001, four out of ten teenagers aged 15 were not living with both parents, and among the parents of 15-year-olds who stayed together, 97 per cent were married.

Understanding Society, a ‘longitudinal’ survey which asks questions of the same group each year, found that 45 per cent of teenagers aged between 13 and 15 are not living with both parents. It also found that of the parents who were still together, 93 per cent were married.

Co-habiting couples who were both registered as their children’s parents accounted for a quarter of family breakdown in 2001, but nearly half in 2012.

The analysis comes as the popularity of marriage is at an historic low. In 2010, there were 241,100 weddings in England and Wales compared to more than 400,000 a year in the early 1970s.

In 2009, the number of weddings was 232,443 – the lowest figure since Queen Victoria was on the throne.

Last month, David Cameron pledged to recognise marriage in the tax system before the next general election in 2015.

Mr Benson said: ‘Despite the evidence behind the stability of marriage, the Government seems fixed on airbrushing  marriage from family policy papers.

Whilst government  policy disregards the crucial  role marriage plays in helping couples stay together, the  epidemic of family breakdown will roll on.

‘Almost all couples who remain intact whilst bringing up their children are married. The most family-friendly Government of all time – as promised in 2010 – needs to recognise this hard  evidence and do something about it.’

SOURCE





The evidence that blows apart Mr Cameron's claim that gay marriage will strengthen families

A passionate rallying call, it was supposed  to encapsulate David Cameron’s political creed, boldly blending the progressive and the traditional.

‘Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is strong when we make vows to each other,’ the Prime Minister triumphantly declared at the Tory party conference in October 2011.

‘So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support it because I am a Conservative.’

Speaking yesterday on Radio  4’s Today programme, after the Commons voted on Monday to allow gay marriage in England and Wales, Mr Cameron said: ‘There will be young boys in schools today who are gay, who are worried about being bullied, who are worried about what society thinks of them, who can see that the highest Parliament in the land has said that their love is worth the same as anyone else’s love and that we believe in equality.

‘And I think they’ll stand that bit taller today and I’m proud of the fact that has happened.’

Over the past three years, the legalisation of same-sex marriage has become one of the flagship policies of Mr Cameron’s Conservative-led Government, even though it was never mentioned in his party’s manifesto at the 2010 general election.

For the PM’s inner circle of self-styled modernisers, this proposal is seen as a key instrument of change, a powerful agent that can ‘detoxify’ the Tory brand. By embracing gay marriage, the party will be able to shed its ‘nasty’ image and present itself as an inclusive, socially advanced force in British politics. 

The policy is also portrayed by its backers as a vehicle for reinvigorating the institution of marriage itself by promoting those values of commitment, loyalty, stability and personal responsibility that are considered vital to the creation of a strong society.

According to this argument, the process of opening marriage to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, will be a catalyst for the revival of marriage generally.

For example, Culture Minister Maria Miller said in February, when putting forward the legislation to enshrine same-sex unions: ‘What marriage offers us is a lifelong partner to share our journey, a loving, stable relationship to strengthen us and a mutual support throughout our lives. I believe this is something that should be embraced by more couples.’

In the same vein, Mr Cameron’s favourite think-tank, Policy Exchange, proclaimed same-sex marriage will ‘encourage strong and stable families, and tackle the social breakdown that leads to poverty’.

But in the real world beyond excitable political rhetoric, we should be very wary of claims that a far-reaching change in family policy will help to strengthen our social fabric.

Indeed, it is one of the classic tactics of radical reformers to assert that a ‘progressive’ proposal is actually a means to achieving a traditionalist end. This is exactly what happened over the reform of the divorce laws in 1969/70.

Advocates argued that by making divorce much easier, the new law would do no more than help to end a few ‘dead’ unions that were beyond saving. By allowing this, it was argued, the institution of marriage would be left much stronger and more respected.

As we all know, it has hardly worked out like that. Just the opposite has happened.

Divorce rates have rocketed, marriage rates have plummeted and tens of thousands of children have been robbed of security.

A similarly disastrous outcome arose from another progressive policy — providing state support for lone parenthood outside marriage. Again, this was done with the best of intentions: to remove the stigma on single mothers and to provide for children whose fathers had abandoned them.

But in practice it has offered incentives to help the creation of fatherless families and the remorseless expansion of the benefits system.

The same applies to same-sex marriage today. The upbeat language of the Tory modernisers is based on nothing more than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Look at what has happened in those countries that have already made same-sex marriage legal. In not one case has there been any indication of a wider revival in marriage. Indeed, in most countries its decline has merely accelerated.

In Scandinavia, where hostility to the two-parent family is central to the ruling political orthodoxy, the widening of the legal definition of marriage has done nothing to stop the institution decaying.

The same applies in Spain, where the Catholic Church still retains significant social influence and state policy has not been so antagonistic to traditional family life. Gay marriage was first sanctioned in 2005, and since then the decline in heterosexual marriage rates has been precipitous.

Likewise in Holland, where the traditional Protestant culture has fought against the increasingly predominant tolerant anarchy so beloved of liberal campaigners.

Since the Dutch legalised same-sex marriage in 2001, the concept of long-term commitment among heterosexuals has been evaporating — not least because of the parallel introduction of ‘registered partnership’ or ‘cohabitation agreements’ for heterosexuals.

Forty per cent of first babies are now born to unmarried mothers in Holland, a doubling of the rate since 2000.

This is tragic proof of the misguided belief that same-sex marriage could help to reinforce the value of traditional marriage. And, in any case, this belief has always been absurd and is wholly undermined by the evidence.

For the truth is that the drive for gay wedlock is precisely the same instinct that wants to destroy traditional marriage. It is part of the pernicious notion of social equality.

It is particularly revealing, therefore, that some of the most outspoken campaigners for same-sex unions, such as the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, do not seem to believe in the importance of traditional marriage at all.

Notoriously, he once derided plans to support marriage through the tax system as like ‘taking the 1950s model of  suit-wearing, breadwinning dad and aproned, home- making mother and trying to preserve it in aspic’.

Perversely, despite the hysteria and emotional bullying of some advocates of gay marriage, there does not even seem to be any great wish among gays or lesbians in any nation for official recognition of their relationships.

According to surveys from Holland, Belgium and Canada, only two to six per cent of homosexuals get married. Similarly, in Norway and Sweden it has been estimated that just one to five per cent of the gay population enter a civil partnership or get married.

Furthermore, research shows that long-term commitment among homosexual couples seems even more elusive than in heterosexual ones, undermining the fashionable belief among policy-makers that gay married couples can serve as role models for the restoration of marriage.

In Sweden, for example, male unions are 50 per cent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and the rate is even higher for lesbian couples.

The truth is that marriage between two loving parents of opposite sexes has for centuries been the bedrock of Western society, providing the best environment for raising children. But the radicals, with all their self-righteous importance, think they know better.

So they seek to denigrate and trivialise the institution, making weddings little more than something couples might like to do in the first flush of excitement at their new relationship.

Marriage becomes an excuse for a party, a bit of fun while it lasts, rather than a lifelong commitment based on the creation of the next generation.

This trivialising instinct is further proved by reformers’ demands for ever wider definitions of wedlock or civil unions.

From Brazil to Canada, there are even calls for civil unions to encompass three or more partners.

Here in Britain, the indefatigable campaigner Peter Tatchell has urged that civil contracts should accommodate those who are in close but non-sexual relationships, such as relatives, friends, even brothers and sisters.

He says: ‘Under my Civil Commitment Pact, partners could pick and mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities.’

So this is what the campaign for same-sex marriage has led to: a complete collapse in the power and meaning of traditional wedlock.

In the midst of an epidemic of fatherless families and spiralling welfare bills, we are all paying a terrible price for this dogmatic, posturing nonsense. And self-delusion from the Tories does not help.

SOURCE





Boris's sexual shenanigans and a landmark victory over our creeping culture of Stalinist secrecy

Many of our senior judges apparently dislike the Press and increasingly insist on the rights of privacy for public figures. So it was with some astonishment that I read a story on Tuesday morning that suggested the opposite may be the case.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the public do have the right to know about the philandering past of Boris Johnson, Mayor of London. In so doing, it confirmed the judgment of a High Court judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, last July.

Note that the Court of Appeal is a very august institution. No less a figure than the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, delivered the judgment, supported by two senior judges. This was a significant ruling.

The reason for my amazement is that I had assumed the higher judiciary shared the view of certain high-minded newspaper editors, the pressure group Hacked Off and most politicians that what a public figure does in private is entirely his or her own business, provided it is legal. Not so, said Lord Dyson and his colleagues.

The case arose because Boris Johnson, who is married, fathered a child during an extra-marital affair. The mother, Helen Macintyre, was living with someone at the time. The child’s family took action against this newspaper, which broke the story of her daughter’s paternity.

Lord Dyson stated that ‘the core information in this story, namely that the father had an adulterous relationship with the mother, deceiving both his wife and the mother’s partner, and that the claimant, born about nine months later, was likely to be the father’s child, was a public interest matter, which the electorate was entitled to know when considering his fitness for high public office’.

The Master of the Rolls added: ‘It is fanciful to expect the public to forget the fact that a man who is said to be the baby’s father, and who is a major public figure, had fathered a child after a brief adulterous affair (not for the first time).’ This was a reference to an earlier extra-marital fling.

What is interesting about this ruling is that there was no imputation of hypocrisy on Boris’s part.

Unlike some politicians, he has not presented himself as a family man or proclaimed his sexual virtue.

The former Lib Dem Cabinet minister Chris Huhne, by contrast, exhibited his close family in his 2010 election hand-outs while having an adulterous affair.

Boris is not a hypocrite. He doesn’t tell people to do one thing and then do another. By the way, I should mention that he wasn’t involved in this legal action. He wasn’t trying to suppress information about what had happened.

The point is that, even though Boris was not guilty of hypocrisy, in their Lordships’ view the public are entitled to know about his shenanigans because he is a leading politician seeking office.

Of course, the revelations may not injure him. Boris seems to be indulged by the electorate, as he is by those close to him. In assessing his fitness to be Mayor of London, some voters may even take the view ‘Good on yer, Boris’, though I suspect he may be assessed more critically when he sets his cap at No 10. Others may agree with Mrs Justice Davies, who accepted that Boris had shown ‘recklessness’ in conducting extra-marital affairs, which called into question his fitness for public office.

What matters is that people have a right to know so that they can make their own judgments. The Court of Appeal has unambiguously embraced a principle that was once widely accepted, but has in recent years come under threat as some judges have developed a privacy law under Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

A huge array of high-profile figures, including footballers and members of the super-rich, have been granted injunctions preventing the media from revealing their indiscretions. The Leveson inquiry into Press ethics has helped foster a climate of greater secrecy.

At times it has seemed that we were following the example of France, whose political class has often escaped media scrutiny as a result of draconian privacy laws, as well as a mood of deference on the part of the Press.

French newspapers for many years chose to ignore that Francois Mitterrand, president from 1981 to 1995, had a secret mistress by whom he had fathered a daughter. Journalists hid this fact until 1994.

The French Press did not write about the brutal and possibly illegal sexual antics (including an allegation of rape) of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a leading socialist politician and head of the International Monetary Fund.

If French experience is any guide, sexual misdemeanours and financial corruption not infrequently go hand in hand. Disregard the one and you may miss the other.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment appears to put a brake on our gradual adoption of French habits.

Of course, we don’t know what it would have said if Boris were a billionaire businessman or an England footballer rather than a leading politician. The extent of the public’s right to know in respect of public figures has not been precisely defined.

Nonetheless, the ruling is a boost to an open society. Incidentally, two senior judges also spoke in a spirit of openness yesterday when lifting a gagging order preventing the media from naming the triple child killer David McGreavy. According to their judgment: ‘It is a cornerstone of the rule of law that public justice be publicly reported.’

If only the police were as enlightened. A new-fangled body called the College of Policing has published guidelines that will force every police officer in England or Wales to declare any friendship outside the workplace with a journalist.

This sounds more than a little bit Stalinist. It will discourage police from having entirely innocent relationships with journalists in the course of which they might pass on information in the public interest about corruption or other misconduct. This measure will most certainly not promote a more open society.

Meanwhile, police forces across the country have unilaterally decided to keep arrests of suspects secret. Even the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has expressed his disquiet, pointing out that naming a suspect can sometimes encourage further victims to come forward, as happened in the case of the disgraced broadcaster Stuart Hall.

If police are able to arrest suspects in secret, there is nothing to prevent them from bringing in any number of people for questioning, and then releasing them on police bail without the public being any the wiser. Is that the kind of society most of us want to live in?

In the wake of the Leveson inquiry, police leaders have demonstrated just how opposed to an open society many of them are. Now it emerges that the Metropolitan Police withheld a possibly highly significant document from the inquiry, claiming ‘public interest immunity’. What a row there would have been if a newspaper had kept back evidence!

The police evidently relish secrecy, but they’re not the only ones. Look at the Tories’ spine-chilling plans for secret courts to operate in terrorist cases, which, to their credit, the Lib Dems are resisting.

All of which makes me lift my hat to the Master of the Rolls and his colleagues for recognising that in a free and open society, the public do have a right to know.

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, 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. 

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

"Multiculturalists" revolting in Sweden too

STOCKHOLM police have called in reinforcements from across Sweden to quell a possible sixth straight night of riots in the capital's immigrant-dominated suburbs, with Britain and the United States warning against travelling to the hotspots.

Nearly a week of riots have put Sweden's reputation as an oasis of peace and harmony at risk.

The unrest has also sparked a debate among Swedes over the integration of immigrants, many of whom arrived under the country's generous asylum policies, and who now make up about 15 per cent of the population.

"We will be getting reinforcements from Gothenburg and Malmoe tonight," police spokesman Kjell Lindgren said on Friday, referring to the country's second and third largest cities.

He would not disclose how many additional police officers were due to arrive.

Another police spokesman, Lars Bystroem, told the Swedish news agency TT he had never before experienced unrest that lasted so long and was spread over such a wide area.

The nightly riots have prompted Britain's Foreign Office and the US embassy in Stockholm to issue warnings to their nationals, urging them to avoid the affected suburbs.

Firefighters were dispatched to 70 fires the night between Thursday and Friday, extinguishing torched cars, dumpsters and buildings, including three schools and a police station, the fire department wrote on Twitter. This was down from 90 blazes the night before.

Parents and volunteer organisations who have patrolled the streets in recent nights have helped decrease the intensity of the unrest, Lindgren said.

He said 13 people had been arrested overnight, bringing to 29 the total arrests since the start of the riots on Sunday.

Police, who have so far concentrated on putting out fires, are beginning to round up people suspected of criminal acts, according to TT.

"Even if we don't intervene, we regularly make video recordings and get information from the public. That way we can get people a couple of days later," said Bystroem, the police spokesman, to TT.

The troubles had begun in the suburb of Husby, where 80 per cent of inhabitants are immigrants, triggered by the fatal police shooting of a 69-year-old Husby resident last week after the man wielded a machete in public.

Local activists said the shooting sparked anger among youths who claim to have suffered from police brutality and racism.

One of the rioters in Husby told Swedish Radio racism was rampant where he lived, and that violence was his only way of being noticed.

"We burned cars, threw rocks at police, at police cars. But it's good, because now people know what Husby is ... This is the only way to be heard," said the rioter, identified only by the pseudonym Kim.

In the suburb of Rinkeby, six cars parked alongside each other were torched on Thursday night.

A police station and several shops in another area Aelvsjoe were set on fire, but the flames were quickly extinguished.

Each of the country's major insurance companies If, Folksam and Trygg-Hansa has received 20 to 30 claims for cars that have been torched, according to Swedish Radio.

Stockholm county police chief Mats Loefving said on Friday the rioters were local youths with and without criminal records.

SOURCE





Boycotting Israel does not bring peace closer or benefit humanity

Foreign Secretary William Hague should be applauded for signing an agreement to strengthen scientific cooperation between Britain and Israel

In Jerusalem yesterday, William Hague and Yaakov Perry, Israeli Minister of Science, Technology and Space, signed an agreement to strengthen scientific cooperation between our countries. Building on research programmes in areas such as regenerative medicine, the initiative expands cooperation into the fields of advanced materials and nanotechnology; agri-sciences, neuroscience and space research.

Marrying Israel’s passion for innovation with Britain’s ability to scale up and commercialise technological advances has helped UK-Israel trade more than double in the past decade. But the partnership sends a deeper message. It reflects a shared commitment to scientific research as an investment in a better future. Already, in a number of areas – most especially medicine, water treatment and alternative energy – it has made significant contributions to aid and development projects globally.

As such, the Foreign Secretary’s signing of this agreement stands in stark contrast to the small but strident boycott campaign that seeks to break down channels of cooperation and dialogue with Israel. Most recently, the campaign has pressured Professor Stephen Hawking into cancelling a trip to Jerusalem to participate in President Shimon Peres’s conference on “Facing Tomorrow”. Held annually since 2008, this brings together leaders, thinkers, innovators and academics of all faiths and nationalities to address pressing international challenges. It is a unique forum for discussion and debate which should, one would hope, appeal to anyone committed to progress and genuine scientific inquiry.

Dissuading Prof Hawking from attending a conference with a focus on Israeli innovation seems particularly invidious in view of the many ways in which Israeli technology has changed the lives of those with special needs. It was an Israeli bionic walking device that enabled the paralysed British horse-rider Claire Lomas to rise from her chair and complete the London marathon. Indeed, Prof Hawking’s own speech-generation device is operated by a silicon chip designed in Israel.

It is hard to see how spurning the conference could advance the boycott campaign’s declared goals of promoting Palestinian interests or the prospects for peace. Every year – including this year – the gathering has included senior Palestinian officials and academics. In the highly charged atmosphere of the Middle East, surely those rare spaces where genuine dialogue between the parties takes place should be cherished and not shunned.

But the campaigners have little interest in scientific inquiry or peace. Their aim is to isolate Israel – even if that involves the loss of innovation that benefits humanity or the rejection of the fundamental principle of academic freedom or the dismissal of genuine overtures of reconciliation.

Those who care about the prospects for peace work to support and strengthen those who seek peace on both sides. When the author Ian McEwan was subjected to a similar campaign of pressure to boycott Israel after being invited to receive the Jerusalem Prize, he insisted on attending. “My feeling was that I wished to engage with the best elements of Israeli society,” he explained, “and I don’t want to isolate those people.”

Wholesale rejection of the forums in which minds can freely meet and true engagement takes place is anathema to science and to reconciliation. If the moderates, innovators and visionaries are beyond the pale, who are you hoping will actually make peace?

SOURCE





Grandmother won't make Double Gloucester for cheese-rolling event after 'heavy-handed threats' from British police





Police have been criticised after banning an elderly grandmother from making a giant Double Gloucester wheel for an annual cheese rolling event.

The event started in the early 1800s and sees competitors chasing the massive 1ft diameter cheese down the 200-yard Cooper's Hill near Brockworth, Gloucestershire, as they race to reach the bottom first.

Farmer Diana Smart, 86, has been making her handmade cheese for the downhill run for a quarter of a century and it is something, she said, that brought her 'such joy'.

This year, however, Mrs Smart, who has provided the large piece of cheese since 1988, has now been warned off doing so after a visit by police.

Three officers visited her farm and told her not to donate five 8lb wheels of her cheese in a bid to prevent the "dangerous" event.

Mrs Smart said the "heavy handed" police visited her home last week and told in a "threatening" manner she would be responsible for any injuries caused – and so has pulled out.

"They threatened me, saying I would be wholly responsible if anyone got injured," she said. "I'm 86, I don't have the will or the cash to fight any lawsuits. It's crazy."

It is the first time in its 200-year history that police have banned a cheesemaker providing the cheese – leaving organisers outraged by the polices warnings.

A spokesperson said: "It's outrageous. Completely unbelievable. You cannot stop someone selling cheese. If they try and stop us we will use something else"

It has been found, however, following health and safety fears, 2009 was the last official cheese rolling event but unofficially the event is still held every year – without proper medical cover or insurance.

A Gloucestershire police spokesman said: "Advice has been given to all those who have participated in any planning of an unofficial cheese rolling event. We feel it is important that those who could be constituted as organisers of the event, are aware of the responsibilities that come with it so that they can make an informed decision about their participation."

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, slammed the police for threatening Mrs Smart.

He said: "Taxpayers will be appalled that the valuable time of three police officers was wasted trying to scare an elderly lady into withdrawing her involvement in a centuries-old tradition.

"People expect the police to be keeping us safe and solving crime, not badgering innocent old ladies.

"Anyone participating in the cheese-rolling needs to take personal responsibility for themselves and the idea that Diana Smart should be liable for any injuries is frankly ludicrous."

SOURCE




Useless British police again

If you "offend" someone they will be after you -- but stolen property does not matter to them

When Dean Parnell realised his iPad had been snatched from a table in a busy city centre bar, he was determined to get it back.

Within an hour, the quick-thinking solicitor had traced the £750 Apple tablet computer to four possible addresses ten miles away thanks to an in-built tracking application.

But despite repeatedly asking police to recover the device, he was told they were too busy to attend.

So he travelled from Birmingham to the village of Water Orton in Warwickshire to recover the iPad himself.

Last night, Mr Parnell, 45, condemned West Midlands Police for failing to help him.  He said: ‘I went to the police station. I was able to demonstrate that an apparent crime was taking place and I was turned away.

'I guess I am more angry about the way I had been treated at the police station than I was about an opportunist who had pocketed my iPad.’

The drama began on Friday last week when Mr Parnell realised the 32GB retina display iPad had been taken from a table in a bar.

Staff at a nearby Apple store showed him how to use the inbuilt tracking system and quickly pinpointed it to a train heading out of Birmingham.

Mr Parnell, from Northamptonshire, said: ‘The train stopped at Water Orton and the iPad began moving slowly as if someone was walking to a car park, then it began moving quickly.

‘I called the police and they said someone would be along shortly but no one turned up. I then rang them again and they said someone would ring me back, but they didn’t.’

At a local police station he was told nobody was available until the following day – even when he said there was a greater chance of ‘an incident’ without assistance from officers.

Four more calls to West Midlands Police proved fruitless - and during the final attempt he was told it was now Warwickshire Police’s problem because he was now within their jurisdiction.

Mr Parnell then had to ‘go through the whole story again’ and was told a patrol car would be there within the hour. It didn’t arrive, and when he called back, he was told the nearest car was still 30 miles away.

The commercial litigation partner eventually got the device back when he knocked at one of the four doors pinpointed by the GPS tracking application and recognised the stunned householder as a fellow patron of the bar he had been to.

The suspect returned the tablet computer – claiming he had found it and was planning to hand it in to Apple the following day. Police later gave him a ‘stern warning’.

Mr Parnell, who has now received an apology from police, said: ‘The whole event took some four hours from beginning to end. Had it not been for my persistence, my iPad would have ended up as another statistic.  ‘I appreciate the police may have been busy but it was their total lack of interest that was what really bothered me.’

Superintendent Danny Long, of  Birmingham West and Central Police, said the ‘standard of service’ fell short and that officers should have been dispatched quickly.

An investigation had found that a crime had not been committed, he said. Warwickshire Police declined 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, 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. 

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

London Police Took 20 Min to Respond to Muslim Beheading, But Quickly Arrest 85-Year-Old British Woman for Islamophobia

Priorities, priorities. Witnesses claim it took London police 20 minutes to show up and stop the two Muslim killers.  The official police narrative is something like 9 minutes for the unarmed police and 14 minutes for the armed police (those crazy Americans with their guns everywhere, really.)

But when it comes to something truly serious, like protecting Muslims from elderly British women, then the coppers were on the case.

“An 85-year-old woman has this afternoon been arrested after abuse was hurled at Muslims outside Gillingham Mosque. The pensioner was handcuffed and taken away in a van by officers attending the Canterbury Street mosque for Friday prayers. As worshippers gathered outside the venue, a woman at a nearby bus stop shouted: “go back to your own country”.

The arrested woman, from the Maidstone Road area of Chatham, was taken away by officers at about 1.45pm and is now in police custody. A Kent Police spokesman said: “An 85 year old woman from Chatham was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence.”

This woman survived WW2 and presumably learned all the wrong lessons about resisting fascism. But if she had been a Muslim beheading a British soldier, she could have just strolled away while the police took 20 minutes to come around.

And the same police that could not be bothered, when it came to protecting Muslims from angry Britons shouting things, then no expense was spared and no time wasted.

An extra 1,200 police officers were deployed on the streets of London after an impromptu English Defence League protest descended into violence in Woolwich, south-east London, following Wednesday’s terrorist attack.

EDL leader Tommy Robinson, was among a group of around 250 men, who gathered in Woolwich near the scene of the terror attack, chanting anti-Islamic slogans.

Mr Robinson told supporters: “They’re chopping our soldiers’ heads off. This is Islam. That’s what we’ve seen today.”

He added: “They’ve cut one of our Army’s heads off on the streets of London. Our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. It never has been. What you saw today is Islam.

Well that’s a crisis. People are speaking the truth. Can’t have that.

If two Muslims butcher a soldier in broad daylight, the police will one day show up. But if 250 men chant that this sort of butchery represents Islam, then 1,200 officers have to be sent in to keep the peace. And by peace, we mean Islam.

In Bristol two men were detained following allegedly racist messages that appeared on Twitter following the terrorist murder. A spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police said two men aged 22 and 23 were being questioned over the incident.

He said: “The men were arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. They are currently in custody. Our enquiries into these comments continue.”

If the authorities had been similarly motivated to take in Muslims who incite racial and religious hated in the name of Islam, the attack in London would never have happened.

But why bother learning any lessons? Just shoot the messenger.

The spokesman added: “These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol. “People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.”

Yes, do stop and think. You wouldn’t want to end up in jail for asking why the authorities are ignoring Muslim terrorism.

SOURCE






British guilty of disguised anti-Semitism, says Israeli minister

 A senior Israeli government minister has attacked British attitudes towards his country as "disguised anti-Semitism" and said that Britain was more hostile towards the Jewish state than other Western countries.

In frank comments on the eve of a visit to the Holy Land by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, Yuval Steinitz, Israel's intelligence and strategic affairs minister and a confidant of Benjamin Netanyahu, voiced fears about British "animosities" towards his country.

Speaking exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, Mr Steinitz suggested that there was growing antagonism – taking the form of hostile media coverage, "incitement" and boycott campaigns – and intimated that a less friendly attitude may be being reflected in official Britsh policy.

He also issued a coded warning to Mr Hague and other Western statesman against lecturing Israel about Jewish settlement building in the West Bank, which the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly condemned.

Asked if Britain was still a "friend of Israel", Mr Steinitz replied: "It's difficult to say. Traditionally we had good relations with Britain and currently we have good intelligence cooperation with Britain and it's very successful.

[But] we are concerned about the relations, about what we see as some animosities, some incitement in Britain, in the media, made by NGOs [non-governmental organisation] against Israel. I hope we will be able to use [Mr Hague's] visit to improve relations."

He pointed to campaigns calling for boycotts of Israeli products, academics and universities – a movement which recently saw Prof Stephen Hawking, the renowned British physicist, withdraw from a conference hosted by Shimon Peres, Israel's president, next month in protest at the occupation of the West Bank.

Expressing "disappointment" at Prof Hawking's decision, Mr Steinitz said: "I didn't hear that Prof Hawking or other British academics, who are so easily boycotting Israel, are boycotting other Middle East countries. Or if they have reservations about America invading Iraq, they so easily boycott American universities. So some Israelis feel that there is some kind of double standards.

"The fact that Israel is treated differently, the fact that some people can say so easily, let's do something against Israel, let's boycott Israel, let's boycott Israeli products, this is some kind of disguised anti-Semitism. In past times people said that they are against the Jews. Now, especially after the Holocaust, nobody says that they are against the Jews, but people are against the Jewish state."

Mr Steinitz – a former finance minister – said British perceptions of Israel were more negative than those of other Western or European countries and drew comparison with popular sentiment in the US, Canada and Australia.

"There should not be much difference between people in America, Canada, Britain and Australia," he said. "[They have] the same language, very similar cultures. And still in America, Canada, in Australia in opinion polls, most citizens support Israel with a very warm feeling. In Britain it is much less.

"When you think that all four are Anglo-Saxon democracies, why should people in America, Australia or Canada have different relations to or appreciations of the minuscule Jewish state than the people of Britain? Just recently, there was a very general poll in the United States. The support for Israel in the United States was stronger than ever. I'm not confident that this is the case with Britain as well."

Asked if this difference in attitude might be reflected in the Foreign Office or in Government policy, he replied: "This might be the case."

Anti-Semitism existed in Britain to a "certain extent", he added, manifesting itself in negative attitudes to the Jewish state.

Widely believed to be Mr Netanyahu's favoured choice as Israel's next foreign minister, Mr Steinitz was almost certainly reflecting his boss's views. One official close to the prime minister has told The Daily Telegraph that Mr Netanyahu views British public opinion towards Israel as "very tough".

Mr Steinitz insisted that he was not accusing Mr Hague or other British ministers who had criticised Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank of anti-Semitism, saying this was a "legitimate view".

"Not every kind of criticism is anti-Semitism," he said. "I didn't say that any criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic or unfair even. If somebody has some criticism of Israel, this is one thing. The same person can also have some criticism of his own country.

"But if somebody is following criticism of Israel and becoming anti-Israeli, saying 'I'm ready to cooperate with Israel's enemies or boycott Israel, or Israelis or Israeli academia or Israeli institutions', this is something different."

But he rejected the view – voiced by Mr Hague and other Western statesman – that continued settlement building threatened to torpedo chances of a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

"I think those allegations about the settlements are fundamentally wrong. To come to Israel and say why are you doing this and this, this is totally wrong," Mr Steinitz said. He cited the dismantling of settlements in Sinai in Egypt after the 1979 Camp David accords as proof that Israel would uproot settlers in return for genuine peace.

SOURCE




The crisis of individualism

By Phyllis Chesler

Suddenly, the price of speaking one’s mind has gotten very high. You may agree on every issue save one; dare to share your independent or dissident view—and you might shut down the conversation or lose all your friends.

Since this kind of censorship and self-censorship has been going on for some time, people who want to stay out of trouble write under pseudonyms, smile carefully at meetings and dinner parties, but do not say what they really think, there is too much at stake.
I call this the crisis of individualism and the destruction of independent thinking. It is the death knell of free thought, free speech, critical inquiry, and Western civilization (at its best) as we have known it.

People who think, write, and speak out, are now being attacked for their ideas, not only on the page, but in very ugly and economically and physically violent ways.

Offend this man and your funding will be cut. Offend that woman, and you will no longer be published at certain sites. Every site has a political party line. Cross it—and you are crossed off their list.

Offend an ideological opponent and they might sue you or track you down, first on the Internet, then on the lecture platform, then up close and personal, at home or at work. This is happening in America and elsewhere around the world.

Perhaps they will spray graffiti right outside your door, as has just happened to a long-time member of the Jerusalem-and American-based Women of the Wall (WOW).

Now, this particular female worshipper knows that the hooligans know exactly where she lives. The bullies—who rioted ten days ago, ten thousand strong—mean to intimidate our bravest members—one by one. “You are only the first” was part of the spray-paint message.
I must note, with considerable joy, that on the day of the riot, (May 10, five hundred Israeli police officers protected the 200 members of Women of the Wall from the mob of zealots who cursed, jeered, threw chairs, stones, bottles, water, and blew whistles loudly during the women’s prayer service.

Five days later, on May 15, Israeli Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, issued her intention to stand by the recent legal decisions which support WOW’s right to pray—and guess what? The Justice Minister must sign off on any proposed amendments to the regulations that govern the laws and customs of holy sites.

I suppose the targeting-by-graffiti is the response made by the kind of bully who feels he (or she) is losing and who cannot accept this.

Lethal hatred empowers and unleashes hate crimes, lynch mobs, beatings, murder.

Last week, in Russian Georgia, a priest-led mob of 20,000 attacked a small gay rights march, injuring at least 14 gay rights activists. Like their counterparts in Jerusalem, they believe that God is behind their views and therefore that violence in God’s name is justified.

A lot of violence is taking place in God’s name.

My friend and colleague, Hans Erling Jensen, the President of the International and Danish Free Press Societies was first sued for what he said about Islam; legally, he prevailed. Thereafter, a few months ago, he opened his door and found a gun sticking in his face. Luckily, Jensen wrestled with the masked gunman, the shot missed, the gunman fled. But now Jensen will be living at an undisclosed location and under Danish police protection for the rest of his life.

Something relatively small but infuriating also happened to me: The webmaster who had been in charge of my website for many years, suddenly locked me (and all my experts) out of my own site because he rather viciously disagreed with my support for Women of the Wall. (I am one of the founders of this group). He did not sue me, but his bullet-proof method of hosting my website cost me nearly ten thousand dollars in “exit” fees. And, he also managed to silence me for two months. 

In other words: People who think, write, and speak out, are now being attacked for their ideas, not only on the page, but in very ugly and economically and physically violent ways. Our barbaric attackers know no shame. And, they are everywhere.

I have a friend who is a religious Muslim feminist. Every day, she receives anti-Muslim and anti-woman hate mail. I have another friend, a gallant intellectual, who is being bullied and baited for her views on Islam. Her attackers are not Muslims but are, rather, those whose views on Islam are far more negative than hers.

It is crucial that people stop silencing themselves on either the left or the right. We must be willing to risk unpopularity and discomfort on freedom’s behalf. This is true globally and in terms of the ideologies that currently hobble free speech.

One also hopes that the pundit mobs will begin to research their ideas, since emotions and rumors do not constitute expert opinions. We must behave respectfully—especially when we are disagreeing with someone publicly or privately.

Vulgar amateurs on the Internet confuse an insult with an insight. Pathologically angry zealots (I call them “attack dogs on short leashes), denounce others—actually, almost everyone--mainly in order to shame and destroy them. There is no desire for civilized dialogue, no place for independent thinking, no concept of an honorable opponent.

If this does not stop, we are doomed. We will soon be living in a totalitarian state of mind. Actually, I fear we already are.

SOURCE





This is Just Beastly

The shouts for “marriage equality” and “equal love” continue unabated. Of course they have nothing to do with genuine marriage or real love, and everything to do with radical social engineering and kinky sexuality. And as we have been warning for decades now, once you start messing with marriage, soon anything goes.

And that is exactly what is now happening. All sorts of groups are demanding that their perverse sexual preferences be fully recognised, supported and given government endorsement. I have documented this both in my book, Strained Relations, and on my website.

As these demands are never-ending, so my coverage of all this will have to be never-ending. So let me look again at another “love” which is quickly and proudly coming out of the closet. Sadly there are now many calling for the legalisation of bestiality, or zoophilia. Yes, there is even a “scientific” name now assigned to those who want to enjoy “equal love” with animals.

And these are not just a few cranks and misfits. Sadly we have academics, educational institutions, and plenty of other respectable type groups calling for this. Indeed, simply google the euphemistic term “zoophilia”. When I last did this some 1.2 million hits came up. There are all sorts of zoophilia sites, organisations, groups, societies and advocates out there seriously promoting all this.

In fact, there is far too much material here for me to do proper justice to it, so let me just select a few representative examples. Let’s begin with this headline: “Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They’re Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement.” The headline alone says it all: If the homosexual lobby can get their way with full recognition and legalisation, then why can’t we?

The article speaks of a Cody Beck who is quite serous in seeing his “rights” recognised: “Being a ‘zoophile’ in modern American society, Beck says, is ‘like being gay in the 1950s. You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak.’ Now Beck believes he and other members of this minority sexual orientation, who often call themselves ‘zoos,’ can follow the same path as the gay rights movement. Most researchers believe 2 to 8 percent of the population harbors forbidden desires toward animals, and Beck hopes this minority group can begin appealing to the open-minded for acceptance.”

I mentioned that universities and academics are even happy to run with this. Here is another headline to get your head around: “Yale hosts workshop teaching sensitivity to bestiality”. Yes, that would be Yale University. The entire article is so incredible that I am tempted to quote the whole piece. But let me offer this much:

“On Saturday afternoon, Yale hosted a ‘sensitivity training’ in which students were asked to consider topics such as bestiality, incest, and accepting money for sex. During the workshop, entitled, ‘Sex: Am I Normal,’ students anonymously asked and answered questions about sex using their cell phones, and viewed the responses in real time in the form of bar charts. The session was hosted by ‘sexologist’ Dr. Jill McDevitt, who owns a sex store called Feminique in West Chester, Pa. Survey responses revealed that nine percent of attendees had been paid for sex, 3 percent had engaged in bestiality, and 52 percent had participated in ‘consensual pain’ during sex, according to an article published in the Yale Daily News on Monday.

“Event director Giuliana Berry told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday that the workshop was brought to campus to teach students not to automatically judge people who may have engaged in these sorts of activities, but rather to respond with ‘understanding’ and ‘compassion.’ ‘People do engage in some of these activities that we believe only for example perverts engage in,’ she said. ‘What the goal is is to increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that are not what you would personally consider normal.’ McDevitt referred to the range of activities discussed in the workshop as ‘sexual diversity.’ ‘It tries to get people to be more sensitive … to sexual diversity,’ McDevitt told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday. ‘We’re not all heterosexual, able-bodied folks who have standard missionary sex’.”

There you go: we need to offer “understanding” and “compassion” to those who are into zoophilia, or incest, or whatever. And the last thing we should do is cast any moral judgment on any of this: “‘It’s sensitivity training,’ McDevitt told Campus Reform. ‘Don’t judge other people, because we all have something we are embarrassed about’.”

One well respected academic has been quite cavalier about bestiality for years now. I refer to Princeton University’s Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer. He is rather infamous for a piece he penned back in 2001 called “Heavy Petting”. The online magazine Nerve, the site where it first appeared, seems to have pulled it, but one can still find the entire article elsewhere. He said this, in part:

“The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul….

“On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex.

“But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals….

“But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”

This guy is actually saying all this with a straight face! And all this is not just theory or speculation. We have already had a number of cases of people “marrying” their beloved animals. As but one Australian example of this, consider this story:

“A young Toowoomba man yesterday tied the knot with his best friend – a five-year-old labrador. In perhaps a first for the Garden City, Laurel Bank Park hosted the wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey, a labrador he adopted five years ago. Thirty of the couple’s closest friends and family were in attendance for the emotional ceremony, held at dusk.”

The news item continues: “Mr Guiso said as a ‘religious guy’, he could no longer take the guilt of living with Honey out of wedlock. ‘It’s not sexual,’ he assured the onlookers. ‘It’s just pure love.’ The couple is planning a short honeymoon to one of Toowoomba’s parks.”

And to give cat lovers equal space here, consider this story of a German man who married his own cat: “A German man has unofficially married his cat after the animal fell ill and vets told him it might not live much longer, Bild newspaper reports. It says Uwe Mitzscherlich, 39, paid an actress 300 euros (£260,$395) to officiate at the ceremony, as marrying an animal is illegal in Germany.

“Mr Mitzscherlich said he had wanted to tie the knot before his asthmatic cat Cecilia died. The cat and groom have lived together for 10 years. ‘Cecilia is such a trusting creature. We cuddle all the time and she has always slept in my bed,’ Mr Mitzscherlich, a postman from the eastern town of Possendorf, told Bild. Actress Christin-Maria Lohri, who officiated the ceremony, was quoted as saying: ‘At first I thought it was a joke. But for Mr Mitzscherlich it’s a dream come true’.”

Bestiality, zoophilia, and marriage rights with animals then is clearly the next step in the sexual revolution. Albert Camus once said, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world.” In this case it might be more accurate to say, “A man without ethics is a man loosed upon wild beasts.”

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, 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. 

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

Until our leaders admit the true nature of Islamic extremism, we will never defeat it

By Melanie Phillips

Ever since the spectre of Islamic terrorism in the West first manifested itself, Britain has had its head stuck firmly in the sand.

After both 9/11 and the 7/7 London transport bombings, the Labour government promised to take measures to defend the country against further such attacks.

It defined the problem, however, merely as terrorism, failing to understand that the real issue was the extremist ideas which led to such violence.

Accordingly, it poured money into Muslim community groups, many of which turned out to be dangerously extreme.

When David Cameron came to power, his Government raised hopes of a more realistic approach when it pledged to counter extremist ideas rather than just violence.  This approach, too, has failed. The Government still has no coherent strategy for countering Islamist radicalisation.

Following last week’s barbaric slaughter of Drummer Rigby on the streets of Woolwich by two Islamic fanatics, the Prime Minister has announced that he will head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force.  And the Home Secretary has said she will look at widening the banning of radical groups preaching hate.

But at the heart of these promises remains a crucial gap. That is the need to define just what kind of extremism we are up against.

The Government has been extraordinarily reluctant to do this — because it refuses to face the blindingly obvious fact that this extremism is religious in nature.

It arises from an interpretation of Islam which takes the words of the Koran literally as a command to kill unbelievers in a jihad, or holy war, in order to impose strict Islamic tenets on the rest of the world.

Of course, millions of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere totally reject this interpretation of their religion. Most British Muslims want to live peacefully and enjoy the benefits of Western culture. They undoubtedly utterly deplore the notion that the kind of carnage that occurred in Woolwich should take place in Britain.

And let’s not forget that, worldwide, most victims of the jihad are themselves Muslims whom the extremists judge to be polluted by Western ideas.

Nevertheless, this fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran is what is being spouted by hate preachers in Britain and on the internet, and is steadily radicalising thousands of young British Muslims.

Now the Prime Minister says he will crack down on such extremism. Yet after the Woolwich atrocity, he claimed it was ‘a betrayal of Islam’ and that ‘there is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act’.

The London Mayor Boris Johnson went even further, claiming: ‘It is completely wrong to blame this killing on the religion of Islam’ and that the cause was simply the killers’ ‘warped and deluded mindset’.

Yet the video footage of the killers — who had shouted ‘Allahu Akhbar’ when butchering Drummer Rigby — records one of them citing verses in the Koran exhorting the faithful to fight and kill unbelievers, and declaring: ‘We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.’

Frankly, these comments by the Prime Minister and London Mayor were as absurd as saying the medieval Inquisition, for example, had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, but was just the product of a few warped and deluded individuals.
Power

Their comments were also deeply troubling. For if politicians refuse to acknowledge the true nature of this extremism, they will never counter it effectively.

But then, government officials have always refused to admit that this is a religious war. They simply don’t understand the power of religious fanaticism.

Of course, there are fanatics in all religions. Within both Judaism and Christianity,  there are deep divisions between ultras, liberals and those in between.

In medieval times, moreover, Christianity used its interpretation of the Bible also to kill ‘unbelievers’, because early Christians believed they had a divine duty to make the world conform to their religion at all costs. That stopped when the Reformation ushered the Church into modernity, and today no Christian wants to use violence to convert others to their faith.

The problem with the extremist teachings of Islam is that the religion has never had a similar ‘reformation’.

Certainly, there are enlightened Muslims in Britain who would dearly love their religion to be reformed.  But they have the rug pulled from under their feet by the Government’s flat denial of the religious nature of this terrible problem.

Some people instead ascribe the actions of the Woolwich killers to factors such as thuggish gang membership, drug abuse or family breakdown. But it is precisely such lost souls who are vulnerable to Islamist fanatics and who provide them with father figures, a sense of belonging and a cause which gives apparent meaning to their lives.

Many people find it incomprehensible that such fanatics remain free to peddle their poison. Partly, this is because the Security Service likes to gather intelligence through their actions. But it is also because of a failure to understand what amounts to a continuum  of extremism.

There are too many British Muslims who, while abhorring violence at home, nevertheless support the killing abroad of British or American forces or Israelis, regard unbelievers as less than fully human, and homosexuals or apostates as deserving the death penalty.

Such bigotry creates the poisonous sea in which dehumanisation and religious violence swim.

To the failure to understand all this must be added the widespread terror of being thought ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘racist’.

It is quite astonishing that universities mostly refuse to crack down on extremist speakers and radicalisation on campus — despite at least four former presidents of Islamic student societies having faced terrorist charges.

In a devastating account published at the weekend, Professor Michael Burleigh, who advised the Government on revising its counter-radicalisation strategy, described how this process descended into a ‘sad shambles’. He related how the Federation of Islamic Student Societies (FOSIS) had created a sexually segregated environment in which young people were being systematically indoctrinated in anti-Jew, anti-homosexual and anti-Western hatred by Islamist speakers on campus.

But although the Government condemned FOSIS for its failure to ‘fully challenge terrorist and extremist ideology’, with the Home Secretary even ordering that civil servants withdraw from its graduate recruitment fair, the Faith and Communities Minister, Baroness Warsi, actually endorsed it by attending one of its events at the House of Lords.
Lethal

Nor has the Government done anything to stop extremist preachers targeting and converting criminals in British jails at a deeply alarming rate.

On top of all this official incoherence is the paralysis caused by the excesses of the ‘human rights’ culture.

Thus the Home Secretary is facing a monumental battle to get through Parliament a Communications Bill that would give police and security services access to records of individuals’ internet use.

It is said that some of these extremist preachers exploit loopholes in the law. If so, then the law should be changed.

But we all know what would befall any such attempt. It would be all but drowned out by shrieks that we were ‘doing the terrorists’ job for them’ by ‘undermining our own hard-won liberties’.

Well, it’s time to face down such claims as vacuous and lethal nonsense.

The people threatening our liberties are Islamic radicals determined to destroy our way of life.

It is those who refuse to acknowledge the true nature of this threat who are doing the terrorists’ job for them.

And unless Britain finally wakes up from its self-destructive torpor, all who love civilised values — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — will be the losers.

SOURCE






I hate censorship but the BBC's wrong to pander to our enemies

By Quentin Letts

Back in the bloodiest days of Northern Irish terrorism, Margaret Thatcher called it ‘the oxygen of publicity’ – a vivid phrase for a knotty dilemma.

To what extent should the media report extreme views? The BBC is accused of giving undue prominence to Muslim demagogue Anjem Choudary, the cleric who stands accused of having inspired Woolwich murder suspect Michael Adebolajo.

Another associate of Adebolajo, one Abu Nusaybah, was arrested at BBC studios just after giving an interview about how the blood-soaked suspect was once courted by our security services.
Mrs May said it was inappropriate to interview Choudary in the wake of Drummer Rigby¿s death

The decision to 'go' with studio guest Choudary was that of a management which is even more remote from its viewers than our much-criticised politicians are from their voters.

Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday signalled her unease at liberal broadcasters’ readiness (some might say precipitous desire) to make media stars out of these unalluring men. Does she have a point?

Chauffeurs were dispatched to convey Choudary to BBC and Channel 4 studios, as though he were some sort of celebrity. He was accorded the full courtesies of a member of London’s ‘punditocracy’.

Had the make-up girls combed that beard? Sure looked like it. He was given the powdered, soft-backlit treatment normally extended to politicians and representatives of respectable views. So what did he make of the Woolwich butchery?

Choudary conceded to feeling ‘shock’. But he certainly would not condemn it.

Here was a so-called man of religion, dressed in the clerical garb of one of the world’s great faiths.

Yet he would not criticise two machete-wielding motorists who mowed down a pedestrian and then tried to sever the defenceless soul’s head from his neck.

Ye gods. And now over to Liam for the weather.

Defenders of the BBC will say it is important that we know such violent sympathies bubble under society’s facade. Society has, in its darkest pockets, men and women who believe in all sorts of Satanic misdeeds.

But liberals, rightly, would never contemplate giving them a platform on prime-time network television.

If they bubble under society’s facade, let them stay there. Don’t turn them into gurus for the masses.

As a journalist who dislikes politicians meddling in the media, I would normally be tempted to side with the BBC.

Indeed, I find it more difficult to feel disquiet about Channel 4, whose news reporting has long been testing and rigorous, even if it often dresses to the Left. It is harder to give the BBC the benefit of the doubt. This is a Corporation which for years has promoted political correctness at the expense of journalistic truth.

This is a Corporation whose news editors have been bullied into silencing criticism of working-class views about multiculturalism and immigration.

You agreed with Enoch? Your voice went unheard. The middle-class snoots of the BBC hierarchy would not hear of such intolerance.

You support the death penalty, English nationalism, a flat tax rate, an end to the welfare system? No airtime for you.

Would Anjem Choudary have been given such a comfortable ride on primetime telly if he had been attacking wind farms; if he had been calling for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union; if he had been questioning the MMR vaccine?

This conditioning of BBC editors as to what is and what is not ‘acceptable’ – a conditioning which earlier this month prevented them telling us the Pakistani background of most of the Oxford sex ring – explains how Choudary sauntered into a BBC studio to abuse our country.

Free speech is not the same as naïvely giving houseroom to enemies of the state.

When journalism tries too hard to be politically correct it becomes opaque, dishonest and, in this instance, culpably unpatriotic. The timing was wrong. The tone was wrong.

The decision to ‘go’ with studio guest Choudary was that of a management which is even more remote from its viewers than our much-criticised politicians are from their voters.

When the country’s most powerful media organisation (by far) is so out of touch, is it any wonder democracy is in such ill health?

No journalist wants to return to the days of Mrs Thatcher’s attempt to prevent Sinn Fein leaders ever being heard on air (the BBC, rightly, got round that authoritarian ban by employing actors to voice the words of Gerry Adams and Co).

But the comparison to Irish republicanism is instructive. Sinn Fein was and is a political party. Not so Anjem Choudary.

This row weakens the BBC. Politicians are pouncing. Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan said that Choudary was an ‘offensive and obnoxious media tart’.

The Tories’ Lady Warsi deplored the promotion of extremist ‘idiots and nutters’.

Sucking up to the Centre Left and its grubby electoral scheme of multiculturalism was once seen by the BBC’s ruling Left-wing clique as a good career move.

It has backfired terribly, not just on them and on our country, but most terribly on the family of Drummer Rigby.

SOURCE





Suspected terrorist who tried to kill a French soldier in copycat attack was 'caught on security camera footage removing his robes'

Paris police today conceded that the stabbing of a French soldier was inspired by the terrorist murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

Private Cedric Cordier, 23, was stabbed in the neck while on patrol in the business district of the French capital on Saturday evening. He is now recovering in hospital.

The attacker, who has not been caught, was 6ft2in, of North African origin and wore a long, Arab garment called a djellaba.

In a copycat of an ambush in London in which a British serviceman was murdered, the attacker struck in front of dozens of passers-by, stabbing his victim in the throat and neck.

Police spokesman Christophe Crepin said: ‘You don’t have to be a great observer to see that people are taking inspiration from what’s happened abroad.’

Politicians also acknowledged the similarities. ‘The sudden violence... could lead one to believe there might be a comparison with what happened in London,’ said interior minister Manuel Valls.

And defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said that attack had undoubtedly been an ‘attempt to kill’ the soldier, whose regiment had recently fought in Afghanistan.

Two comrades from the 4th Cavalry Regiment were with him, and carrying automatic rifles, but they failed to react before the man ran off.

‘We are looking through video surveillance footage,’ said an officer at the scene of the crime. ‘He was seen taking off his Arab-style robes and running away wearing European clothing.’

Detectives are convinced that the attacker was ‘inspired’ by the savage murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, who was allegedly hacked down by two radical Islamists in Woolwich, south London, last Wednesday.

While Drummer Rigby was off duty, Private Cordier was on an anti-terrorism patrol in La Defense business district of west Paris.

France’s defence minister Jean Yves Le Drian said that attack had undoubtedly been an ‘attempt to kill’ the soldier, whose regiment had recently fought in Afghanistan.

Private Cordier lost a considerable amount of blood but would survive, and is being treated at the nearby Percy military hospital.

France is considered a hotbed of radical Islamists, and the country’s Vigipirate anti-terrorist surveillance plan is currently in action.

Last year Mohammed Merah, a 23-year-old French-Algerian Islamist, murdered three French soldiers near the south west city of Toulouse during a killing spree which also claimed the lives of four civilians.

SOURCE






Eleven people across UK arrested for making 'racist or anti-religious' comments on Facebook and Twitter about British soldier's death 

No free speech in England  -- except for Muslim preachers, of course

The murder of soldier Lee Rigby has provoked a backlash of anger across the UK, including the attacking of mosques, racial abuse and comments made on social media.

Eleven people have been arrested around Britain for making 'racist or anti-religious' comments on Twitter following the brutal killing in Woolwich on Wednesday.

The incident has also prompted a huge increase in anti-Muslim incidents, according to the organisation Faith Matters, which works to reduce extremism.

Before the attack about four to eight cases a day were reported to its helpline. But the group said about 150 incidents had been reported in the last few days, including attacks on mosques.

Fiyaz Mughal, director of Faith Matters, told BBC Radio Five Live: 'What's really concerning is the spread of these incidents.  They're coming in from right across the country.

'Secondly, some of them are quite aggressive very focused, very aggressive attacks. And thirdly, there also seems to be significant online activity...suggesting co-ordination of incidents and attacks against institutions or places where Muslims congregate.'

It comes as 22-year-old man appeared before magistrates in Lincoln today charged with posting a 'grossly offensive' anti-Muslim message on Facebook following the Woolwich murder.

Benjamin Flatters, of Swineshead, Lincs, faces a charge under the 1988 Malicious Communications Act following a message he posted on Facebook on 22 May which is alleged to be offensive to Muslims.

No details of the message were given at the hearing but another man was warned about his conduct on social media.

Flatters, who spoke only to confirm his name, age and address, was refused bail by Lincoln Magistrates following a 20 minute hearing.

The court was told he faces further matters including four charges of inciting under-age girls to engage in sexual activity by sending sexual messages by Facebook as well as two drugs charges.

Flatters was remanded in custody until Wednesday when he will appear before Skegness Magistrates via video link.

His court appearance came within 24 hours of Lincolnshire Police warning users of social networking sites such as Facebook that they face arrest if posts were likely to incite racial hatred or violence.

A force spokesman said 'We have received a number of reports from local members of the public about tweets and Facebook comments that could potentially incite racial hatred and violence.

'These are currently being investigated. If such communications are reported to us and they do breach the law, those messages may be monitored; captured and robust police action will be considered.

'We would urge people to consider the very real impact of their online comments in relation to this matter.'

Flatters court appearance comes after two men were arrested and released on bail for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder of Lee Rigby.

Complaints were made to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social networking website, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

A 23-year-old and a 22-year-old, both from Bristol, were held under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred.

Detective Inspector Ed Yaxley of Avon and Somerset Police said: 'These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol.

'People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.'

Two men will also appear at Thames Magistrates Court today charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour over an incident in an east London fast food restaurant on Thursday.

Labourer Toni Latcal, 32, and plasterer Eugen-Aurelian Eugen-Beredei, 34, both from London, were arrested following the incident at 9.15pm on Thursday.  Latcal was charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour and causing criminal damage, while Eugen-Beredei was charged with religiously aggravated threatening behaviour.

Surrey Police said a 19-year-old man has been charged in connection with comments placed on a social media website following the murder of the soldier.

Mohammed Mazar, of Balmoral Drive, Woking, has been charged with improper use of public electronic communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

A police spokesman said Mazar has been freed on police bail to appear at South West Surrey Magistrates' Court on June 11.

Superintendent Matt Goodridge said: 'Surrey Police will not tolerate language used in a public place, including on social media websites, which causes harassment, alarm or distress.'

Another unemployed 28-year-old has been charged by police after allegedly posting an offensive message on Facebook.

Sussex Police said Adam Rogers, of Kingsman Street, Woolwich, was arrested in Hastings, East Sussex, yesterday.

He will appear at Brighton Magistrates' Court later today accused of sending an 'offensive, indecent or menacing message' online.

A police spokesman said: 'The entry was allegedly in connection to an incident in Woolwich on Wednesday.'

Meanwhile, a 23-year-old woman has been charged with allegedly sending a 'grossly offensive' message on Facebook, Hampshire Constabulary said.

Michaela Turner, of Lumsden Road, Southsea, was arrested at her home yesterday evening after a post was uploaded at 10.42pm on Wednesday. The post has since been removed.

Turner was charged overnight with an offence contrary to Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. She has been bailed to appear at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court on June 7.

A police spokesman said: 'Following the terrorist incident in Woolwich this week, Hampshire Constabulary is working closely with local partnership groups to safeguard all members of the community.

'This includes monitoring social networking sites, and we will seek to arrest and prosecute anyone inciting hatred or violence online.'

Police have also arrested three people ahead of an EDL protest for allegedly making racist tweets.

Northumbria Police said two people from Gateshead and a third from Stockton, Teesside, were held earlier. The EDL has planned their demonstration for months, but the horrific murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich on Wednesday has heightened tensions in the local community.

A counter demonstration by opponents of the EDL has been planned.

Northumbria Police said it will 'allow people the right to peaceful protest, protect the safety of everyone in the city and prevent serious disorder and damage'.

Newcastle area commander chief superintendent Gary Calvert said: 'We appreciate that the events in London on Thursday may have heightened community concerns about this weekend's planned protests in Newcastle.

'We are constantly monitoring the situation and will continue to adapt accordingly.'

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, 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. 

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

Stockholm riots leave Sweden's dreams of perfect society up in smoke

A week of disturbances in Sweden's capital has tested the Scandinavian nation's reputation for tolerance, reports Colin Freeman

Like the millions of other ordinary Swedes whom he now sees himself as one of, Mohammed Abbas fears his dream society is now under threat. When he first arrived in Stockholm as refugee from Iran in 1994, the vast Husby council estate where he settled was a mixture of locals and foreigners, a melting pot for what was supposed to be a harmonious, multi-racial paradise.

Two decades on, though, "white flight" has left only one in five of Husby's flats occupied by ethnic Swedes, and many of their immigrant replacements do not seem to share his view that a new life in Sweden is a dream come true. Last week, the neighbourhood erupted into rioting, sparking some of the fiercest urban unrest that Sweden has seen in decades, and a new debate about the success of racial integration.

"In the old days, the neighbourhood was more Swedish and life felt like a dream, but now there are just too many foreigners, and a new generation that has grown up here with just their own culture," he said, gesturing towards the hooded youths milling around in Husby's pedestrianised shopping precinct.

"Also, in Sweden you cannot hit your children to discipline them, and this is a problem for foreign parents. The kids can feel they can cause whatever trouble they want, and the police don't even arrest any of them most of the time."

This weekend, after six consecutive nights of rioting, Mr Mohammed was not the only one questioning the Swedish social model's preference for the carrot over the stick. Many Swedes were left asking why a country that prides itself on a generous welfare state, liberal social attitudes and a welcoming attitude towards immigrants should ever have race riots in the first place.

The disturbances erupted in Husby last weekend, after police shot dead an elderly man brandishing a machete inside his house. Angered at what they saw as police heavyhandedness, youths torched cars and buildings and stoned police and firefighters. Police were then forced to draft in extra manpower from outside Stockholm as the trouble spread to other immigrant-dominated suburbs of the capital and towns such as Orebro in central Sweden, where 25 masked youths set fire to a school on Friday night.

Up too in smoke has gone the notion that egalitarian Sweden, which has largely avoided the global recession, might be immune from the social problems blighting less affluent parts of Europe.

Sweden's centre-right prime minister, Frederik Reinfeldt, blamed "hooligans" but also talked sympathatically of the difficult "transition period between different cultures". Meanwhile politicians from the Swedish Left, which ruled the country for most of the post-war period, blamed the trouble on social spending cuts introduced by Mr Reinfeldt, whose Moderate Party vowed to trim - though not slash - the welfare budget when he took office in 2006.

But amid the soulsearching last week, perhaps the most telling comment was the one from Kjell Lindgren, the spokesman for Stockholm Police. "We don't know why they are doing this," he said, when asked for a cause for the riots. "There is no answer to it."

Certainly, wandering around Husby last week, it was hard at first glance to see quite what the problem was. Built in the 1970s as part of the "Million Programme" that aimed to give affordable housing for all Swedes, the estate is one of dozens on Stockholm's outskirts that now house mainly immigrant populations, including large numbers from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, comparisons to the Paris "banlieus", or indeed riot-hit Tottenham or Salford, are limited. Between the rows of clean-looking housing blocks are well-tended flowerbeds and neatly- kept public gardens, and in the shopping precinct, where an ornamental fountain still bubbles away, there are bars, shops, and a smart cafe-bakery that would not look too out of place in an IKEA catalogue. At eight per cent, Husby's joblessness rate is three times the Swedish average, but only slightly higher than that in the UK.

Likewise, although the rioting has been large scale by Swedish standards, seen up close it has less of the ferocity of the 2011 disturbances in Britain. When The Sunday Telegraph visited Husby late on Wednesday night, the highlight was a hit-and-run arson attack on two parked cars. Police were hardly to be seen, and when they did arrive, it was purely to protect the firefighters dealing with the car blaze rather than make arrests.

Instead, teams of well-intentioned volunteers from local community groups and Islamic associations mingled with the crowds of excited onlookers, politely suggesting that they expressed their grievances peacefully.

Among a large group gathered on an overhead walkway was Mohammed Abdu, 27, whose family came to Sweden from Eritrea when he was aged three, and who now works as a security guard. While he condemned the violence as "hooliganism", he claimed that many Husby residents still suffered from discrimination from the police and employers. Besides, he added, living in such a prosperous, advanced country offered no real satisfaction for those so conspicuously at the bottom of the heap.

"It's true that the welfare system here is an example to the rest of the world, so if you fall here you do not fall all the way to the bottom," he said. "But people don't like being dependent on social welfare, and there is hidden racism."

Not so, argued Yusuf Carlos, 32, a construction worker from Palestine. "It is just kids causing this trouble, that is why the police are not doing much about it," he said. "Sweden is fair towards immigrants and it isn't hard to find work, or not before these riots anyway. The problem is that the Swedish people are angry now. They don't know why people here in Husby are doing this, only that they come from this neighbourhood."

Certainly, claims of racism upset many Swedes, who have little colonial history, and whose decision to admit large numbers of Third World migrants from the 1980s onwards was born of no particular political obligation, more just a very Swedish sense of humanitarian duty to the wider world. From the very start, the government also sought to avoid creating a German-style "guest worker" class by promoting immigrants' rights and introducing a plethora of programmes to promote racial integratkion.

Yet despite Swedish language education being offered free to all long-term immigrants, ghettos of foreigners have flourished in recent years. So too have Far Right parties challinging the political class's long-standing pro-immigration consensus, who now command up to 10 per cent of the vote and may increase their share in next year's elections.

"We have tried harder than any other European country to integrate, spending billions on a welfare system that is designed to help jobless immigrants and guarantee them a good quality of life," said Marc Abramsson, leader of the National Democrats Party. "Yet we have areas where there are ethnic groups that just don't identify with Swedish society. They see the police and even the fire brigade as part of the state, and they attack them. We have tried everything, anything, to improve things, but it hasn't worked. It's not about racism, it's just that multi-culturalism doesn't recognise how humans actually function."

Aje Carlbom, a Swedish academic and author of a critical study into Swedish immigration policy, added that despite the increasing appeal of Far Right parties, mainstream Swedish politicians were still reluctant to even ask the kind of questions that the likes of Mr Abramsson was already offering answers to.

"Anyone who wants to regulate immigration is immediately classified as a nationalist, which also implies a racist as well," he said. "It is still almost impossible to debate this question."

Still, some of Husby's younger generation argue that it is unreasonable of Swedes to expect them to be perennially "grateful" for taking them in, even from the dire circumstances in their homelands.

Among them is local youth worker Rami al Khamisi, 25, whose family escaped to Sweden from Saddam Hussein's Iraq back in 1994, smuggling themselves first through Turkey and Russia and then across the Baltic in a fishing boat commandeered by a people smuggler. "I was six years old and the boat was packed with about 60 people," he said. "An old man died, and they threw him in the water because his body was smelling a lot."

That, though, he says, is his only real memory of the hardships of his early life, and as such, he finds it hard to be as thankful as his parents still are to his adopted homeland. "They compare it to Baghdad or Somalia," he said. "But we younger immigrants only really know Sweden, and we just compare our situation to the one around us."

With Stockholm still burning this weekend, though, that may be asking for just a little too much understanding - even in compassionate, generous Sweden.

SOURCE








Incompetent socialist Britain cares for no-one

Passengers packed into sweltering carriages, overflowing toilets, clueless staff and police called to quell a mutiny: My Bank Holiday nightmare on Britain's Third World railways which cost £125 a ticket for a 10-hour journey

Friday evening and Kings Cross station was bedlam at the start of the Bank Holiday weekend — but it was a happy kind of bedlam.

The working week was over and expectations were riding high as families, students, elderly couples, children of all ages and hundreds of tourists waited to learn from which platform the 7pm London to  Edinburgh train would leave.

Even the weather forecast was half-decent.

We were a group of four and had reserved seats in carriage C several weeks in advance. We paid £125 each for a return ticket.

Nearly eight hours later, on a trip that should have taken three hours and 40 minutes, we had still not reached our final destination — though we had long reached the end of our tether.
Friday evening and Kings Cross station was bedlam at the start of the Bank Holiday weekend ¿ but it was a happy kind of bedlam

Friday evening and Kings Cross station was bedlam at the start of the Bank Holiday weekend ¿ but it was a happy kind of bedlam

It was a journey that tested many of our fellow passengers to the limit; a frightening experience for some and confirmation that in so many areas of life Britain is nothing more than a Third World country run by overpaid incompetents accountable to no one.

Hundreds of us put up with it because, as a nation, we are still good in adversity. Perhaps the increasingly overused wartime slogan, Keep Calm And Carry On, has subliminally persuaded us that the shambles of day-to-day living in this country is a perfectly normal state of affairs and will never change. So why fight it?

But many of us who were stranded on the Nightmare Express might beg to differ. As one pensioner said to me at one point as the lights went out and the temperature rose higher and higher in our hermetically sealed carriage: ‘You can bet your life that if a member of the Cabinet were on this train, heads would roll.

As it is, we’ll be fobbed off with excuses and the promise of a refund — then the same thing will happen all over again in a few weeks’ time.

When we boarded our train, it did dawn on me that it was dangerously overcrowded. One of the guards on the platform practically pushed passengers on to the train, shouting: ‘Move right down the corridors, we need to get this train off.’ People did as they were told, taking their cases with them because there was no room in the racks near the doors.

Every inch of space was occupied. It took us 40 minutes just to get to our seats, and yet the hapless ‘train manager’ still had the audacity to ask passengers to ‘keep the aisles clear for your safety and comfort’.

He never dared move through the train to inspect tickets. He would have been lynched a hundred times over if he had.

Apart from the general sense that we were all jammed into a giant sardine can hurtling through the countryside, the journey progressed without incident for the first 30 minutes.

Then, shortly before Newark in the East Midlands, the disembodied voice announced that there was a problem with a section of the northbound track, and that our train was in a queue to use the southbound track for a mile or so — while, hopefully, going in a northern direction.

While we conjured visions of travelling all the way back to  London, those with connections to meet at York resigned themselves to a very long evening — or even an expensive night in a hotel. In the end, the to-ing and fro-ing caused a delay of two hours, during which the passengers around us became increasingly frazzled.

We were seated near a group of South Africans, who were preparing to run in the Edinburgh Marathon on behalf of the cancer charity Macmillan Caring Locally.

One of them said he had never seen such an overcrowded train, and asked me if there was a limit to the number of people allowed on board.

Shortly after Newcastle, the train slowed down and then, as we approached Berwick-Upon-Tweed, which was our stop, it came to a complete halt.  And remained stationary for a further 90 minutes.

The gormless guard had been replaced at Newcastle by a woman who said the train had stopped because someone had pulled the passenger alarm.

This might have been true, but the real reason was that the train before us — the 6pm London to Edinburgh service — had broken down in the station and all its passengers had been told to disembark.

Unsurprisingly, late on a Friday, when most of us are desperate for the week to end, tensions were running high, not least because the  station staff refused to open up the First Class lounge so the elderly or frail could shelter from the cold. The police were called.

I know this because my wife, who had driven up from London earlier in the day, was waiting at Berwick for us to arrive.

She said the scene was more chaotic than anything she had ever seen in India, whose railways are famous for their lunatic overcrowding.

Our guard finally told us about the broken-down train ahead of us. She said that ‘fault finding’ was ‘ongoing’, but she had no idea when we might be on the move.

As she finished her announcement, my daughter told me there was a distressed young man slumped on the floor by one of the doors. I went to see him and helped him to his feet.

He explained that he suffered from claustrophobia — then, suddenly, he began pounding the window of the door with his fist and shouting: ‘I need fresh air NOW!’

I told him to walk with me to the guard’s carriage at the other end of the train, where I knew there was a small window that could be opened.

On the way, we passed crying babies, despairing old people with vacant eyes, lavatories blocked in such a way that urine was seeping under the doors, and everywhere there was anger and bewilderment.

When we got to the buffet car, I asked for some water for the man I was accompanying. There was none.

As we entered the First Class carriages, a member of the train staff had the gall to ask if we had First Class tickets.

When we reached the little window at the back of the train, the young man gulped the air like a dog trapped in a baking car.

Then the lights went out again. This, the guard eventually explained, was because it had been decided that our train would couple up to the broken down one in  front and attempt to shunt it past Berwick station into a siding, and reverse back into the station.

Then all those leaving the train could do so, and those waiting on the platform at Berwick could continue their journey aboard our train — if only they could fit on.

Not once did any member of staff walk up and down the train to see if any passengers needed help. I came across a pregnant woman who told me she was expecting a baby in less than five weeks.

She was struggling in the heat, and her mobile phone battery was dead. I told my daughter’s boyfriend to sit with her and offer her his phone. Increasingly, the place began to feel like a relief centre in a war zone. We pulled into Berwick at 2.40am.

Those going on to Edinburgh eventually arrived at 3.39am, which means passengers who were on the 6pm from London had been travelling for nearly ten hours. Some Bank Holiday.

‘We are sorry for any inconvenience that may have been caused,’ was the last thing I heard our guard say, still reading from a script and still with an inflection that suggested she wanted us to feel sorry for the stress she was under.

The next morning, I was reading about the Government’s plans for the High Speed Rail link from London to Manchester. If ever there was a case of running before you can walk, this is it.

Our public transport is a disgrace. The East Coast Line, which is now State-owned and will remain so until at least 2017, is particularly dreadful.

Passengers are treated like fodder; no one takes responsibility for abject failure and not even the ‘duty spokesman’ knew the answer to most of my questions.

I wanted to know if there is ever a cut-off point on the number of people allowed to board a train. ‘I don’t have information about that,’ he said. Is there always water on board in case of emergencies? ‘There is sometimes in the guard’s carriage, I think.’

I told him I wanted the East Coast line to issue a statement. Which it did: ‘We would like to apologise to customers for the disruption on Friday evening.’

So that’s all right then.

SOURCE






Peers plot homosexual marriage revolt

Lords from all main political parties will unite next week in a last-ditch attempt to block the Government’s introduction of gay marriage.

Peers expect the Upper’s House debate over same sex weddings will go through the night or even into a second day, with a key vote that could scupper the policy regarded as “too close to call”.

The former head of the British army Lord Dannatt and Lord Lothian, a former Conservative Party chairman better known as Michael Ancram, are amongst those set to criticise the draft legislation in next Monday’s session.

Other opponents will include Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, Lord Luce, who served as a minister in Baroness Thatcher’s government, and Lord Singh of Wimbledon, a respected figure in the Sikh community.

The Sunday Telegraph has also established that the senior Tory Baroness Warsi, a practising Muslim, refused to lead the bill through the House of Lords when asked to do so by David Cameron, the Prime Minister.

Some peers believe dozens Lords who rarely attend Parliament will flock to Westminster to make their position on homosexual marriage clear.

Seventy-five members of the Lords have already asked to speak in the debate, suggesting that dawn could rise on the Tuesday morning before all the peers have their say.

Government whips are fighting calls to allow the Lords to hold a second day of debate on what has become the one of the most emotive issue in parliament for many years.

Some critics of same sex marriage legislation believe the policy undermines the institution of marriage while others simply regard it as a “distraction” from the country’s economic problems.

Mr Cameron has championed homosexual weddings and Tory strategists hope it will entice new voters to the party at the next general election.

However, gay marriage so far appears only to have played havoc with the Conservative party’s grassroots, sparking resignations of members and fierce criticism of the Prime Minister.

Lord Luce said: “You can’t suddenly pounce on the 2,000 year-old institution of marriage after such little consultation and with such little thought.

“This is all part of the Prime Minister’s 'modernisation’ of our party, whatever that word is supposed to mean. This is all being handled in a very slap happy, careless manner.”

This weekend there is speculation in Westminster that the Most Rev Justin Welby, the recently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, will also voice his concerns about the policy in next week’s debate. One of his predecessors, Lord Carey of Clifton, has already put his name down to speak.

Lord Dear, the retired chief constable of West Midlands Police and crossbench peer leading opposition to the Bill, said that critics of the policy were not “anti-homosexual”.

“This is ill-thought through legislation that is being rushed through,” the peer said. “There are some 8,000 further amendments that will be necessary to existing legislation because of this single policy.

“Of those who said they would speak about half seem to be opposed. I really think the vote will be too close to call.”

If the Government loses the Bill, ministers could use the Parliament Act to drive the policy through. However, Lord Dear thinks this is unlikely.

He added: “The Parliament Act has been used only three times before. Opposition in the Commons in the Commons was strong and there is not strong appetite amongst the public for this.”

Lord Stoddart, an independent Labour peer, described the whole concept of gay marriage as “bogus”. He said he was baffled as to how gay people and lesbians would “consummate” their marriage.

“Without consummation the marriage could be annulled at any point,” the peer said. “No one has been able to explain to me how homosexuals or lesbians would be able to actually consummate their marriage.

“People who voice concerns about this policy are told that we are bigots. I honestly think the bigots are on the other side of the argument. Many homosexual people do not want this.”

Those peers who will vote with the Government include Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive and friend of Lord Mandelson, and Lord Deben, the former Conservative minister better known as John Gummer.

Lord Hodgson, a Conservative peer who expects to back the bill, said that the policy was “clearly a very divisive issue”.

He said: “I have children in their twenties who wonder what all the fuss is about and friends in their sixties who think this is the end of the world.

“The number of people who have put down to speak is quite staggering. We could go through the night on this… it looks very close.”

Nick Herbert, the Conservative MP who has campaigned for same sex marriage, said: “The Lords always has an important scrutiny role but they can’t ignore the fact that this BIll passed the elected House with a two to one cross-party majority.

“The Bill was debated for hours in Commons committee and every independent poll shows majority public support for the measure.

“Equal marriage is being introduced across the western world and I don’t believe peers will want to be out of step with changing attitudes.”

SOURCE






Woolwich attack: New bid to muzzle Muslim preachers

A high-level task force is to be set up in a fresh attempt to muzzle Islamist clerics who radicalise young men through extremist preaching.

David Cameron has ordered the setting up of the new body in the wake of last week's killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in the street in Woolwich, South London.

Made up of senior ministers, police officers, security officials and moderate leaders, the new committee will study a range of options, according to reports.

These inlcude banning extremist clerics from being given public platforms to incite students, prisoners and other followers – and forcing mosque leaders to answer for so-called "preachers of hate."

It was being made clear in Whitehall that the launch of TERFOR (the Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force) should be seen as an overhaul of the government's counter-terrorism strategy in the wake of Drummer Rigby's murder.

A senior Whitehall source said: "The Prime Minister is determined to challenge the poisonous narrative of extremist clerics and confront religious leaders who promote violence. We are looking at the range of powers and current methods of dealing with extremism at its root, as opposed to just tackling criminal violent extremism.

"We will look at ways of disrupting individuals who may be influential in fostering extremism. We cannot allow a situation to continue where extremist clerics go around this country inciting young people to commit terrorist acts. ‘We will do everything we can to stop it."

Sources said, however, that there must be no question of restricting freedom of speech. Any moves to do so would quickly bring Mr Cameron and other Conservative ministers into conflict with their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.

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, 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. 

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

Machete attack horror:  Muslim outrage in Lancashire

MACHETE wielding thugs have left two men with ‘serious injuries’ after attacking them in an Accrington barber’s shop.

The two victims had been inside the shop in Ormerod Street when four masked men carrying machetes and knives forced their way inside.

Detectives investigating the incident said the gang attacked the pair before forcing them into the street.

The thugs also attacked a parked car during the incident at midnight on Saturday.

Police said they were alerted to the incident after witnesses called an ambulance.

The victims both suffered deep wounds and had to be taken to hospital by paramedics.

One of the men, a 23-year-old man from Accrington sustained a serious head injury while, the other a 24-year-old man also from Accrington suffered a serious cut to his arm, police said.

Both men are being treated at the Royal Blackburn Hospital and their condition was yesterday described as ‘serious but not life threatening’.

Detectives investigating the incident are now urging anyone who witnessed the incident to come forward.

DI Claire Holbrook, of Eastern division’s public protect unit, said: “We are treating this incident extremely seriously.

“Despite the offenders wearing facial coverings we will endeavour to bring these extremely violent offenders to justice.

“I urge anyone with information about the attack to come forward and contact police.”

Extra police patrols have been launched in the area to try reassure residents. Police said they were looking for a gang of Asian [i.e. Pakistani] men in connection with the attack.

SOURCE





What if homophobia is also “natural”?

Most people I have talked to express an instinctive distaste for homosexuality  -- JR

If you’re like me, sometimes you are unlucky enough to watch an episode of Question Time that doesn’t feature Nigel Farage or David Starkey, and is therefore a festival of liberal banality. Last week’s programme, broadcast from Belfast, was one such: the only enlivening moment came when Ian Paisley (Jr) struggled to get beyond his remarks, made in 2007, that homosexuality “repulsed him”.

As I watched Paisley wriggle in his straitjacket of shame, I began to feel a tad uncomfortable. Because I, too, am a tiny bit homophobic. That is to say: when I see gay men kissing, I get a brief twinge of ewww – until my better liberal self takes over.

Before you beat me to death with rainbow flags, let me explain. I have homosexual friends (yes, this sounds like “I’m not a racist, but…”). One of my oldest friends is, indeed, a post-op transsexual. And I love my friends (platonically); I am therefore happy for them to have whatever kind of consenting adult sex they wish, and to marry with similar freedom.

I make this judgment not because I’m incredibly nice, but because I have a brain, and I’ve realised that homosexuality is genetic. Instinctive. It’s something people are born with. “Hating” gays for “being gay” is therefore like hating penguins for being flightless. Ludicrous.

Moreover, it’s quite probable that gayness extends some benefit to our species, as it is so persistent over time – and so common in virtually all species. Gibbons, for instance, like threesomes. Antelopes are prone to transvestism. Ducks are fond of lesbian orgies. American bison are bi-curious. Weasels are just completely kinkyboots. All this is true.

But if gayness is natural, why do I feel that brief, reflexive twinge of disgust when I see gay men kissing? Some would argue that I have been conditioned by society into accepting the norm of straightness, and my repulsion is therefore mere bigotry.

But what if it isn’t? What if homophobia is also “natural”?

Evolutionary psychologists have debated this point, and it is at least arguable that homophobia is unconscious – and inherited.  And it’s not hard to see why such a reflex might have evolved: before the era of the test tube baby and artificial insemination, parents who happily tolerated gayness in their kids would be smiling on the extinction of their genes. Not good.

All of which presents us with a liberal paradox. If we’re going to extend equal right to homosexuals, because homosexuality is perfectly natural, we also need to extend equal rights to homophobes, for exactly the same reason. How we celebrate this rich diversity is a difficult issue, though. Perhaps both sides could have marches on their special days, through different parts of the same town? Ian Paisley Junior could help organise.

SOURCE






Left Defends Accused Child Molester Because She’s Lesbian

When your 18-year-old daughter is expelled and charged with sexual battery of a child, one option is to go public and declare she’s a martyr under fire from anti-gay bias. That’s the approach taken by the parents of Kaitlyn Hunt, a Florida teen who faces two felony charges of “lewd or lascivious battery” on a child. And sure enough, the tactic has earned Hunt some high-profile left-wing media defenders.

According to the charges, Hunt, a senior at Sebastian River High School who was set to graduate this spring, pressured a 14-year-old girl four years her junior to be her “girlfriend” and engage in sexual activity with her. But when Kaitlyn faced prosecution from her underage partner’s parents, her own parents and gay activists immediately granted her victim status, claiming she was unjustly persecuted for being homosexual. 

Not surprisingly, leftie headlines followed. In the account of ThinkProgress (funded by left-wing sugar daddy George Soros), Hunt was “charged with felony for same-sex relationship with classmate,” while Huffington Post lamented that she “faces felony charges over same-sex relationship” and offers links to petitions and support pages for Hunt.

ThinkProgress quoted Hunt’s mother talking about the underage girl’s parents: “they feel like my daughter “made” their daughter gay. They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.” [emphasis in original]

Talk like that is catnip to the libertine left, always eager to take a stand against sexual prudery and oppression – especially if evil religious types are involved.

But the sexual activity in question occurred when Hunt was an 18 year-old senior and her “girlfriend” was only 14. “Police said a 4 year age gap is a serious difference. They say a 14-year-old is not old enough to give consent,” according to a local news report.

Clearly, Hunt’s parents and her supporters in their “Stop the Hate, Free Kate” Facebook group disagree. They are portraying her story as a tragedy like Romeo and Juliet – two lovers separated by people who just don’t understand.

But the details aren’t quite so cute and pretty. According to the official charges, Kaitlyn took the lead in initiating lewd sexual activity with her minor girlfriend in the highschool restroom.

Hunt’s father said she’d be fine with pleading guilty to a misdemeanor – just not a felony. Hey, sometimes kids get rambunctious – sewing their oats [nudge, nudge]. Who didn’t engage in aggressive homosexual activity in a public bathroom with a fourteen-year-old back in high school?

Clearly, Hunt’s parents are onto something. If you can play the gay card, you immediately trigger knee-jerk support from the liberal media and homosexual activists anxious to topple any and all rules regarding sex. Who knows--with that kind of angle and pressure from groups like Anonymous and Change.org, maybe they’ll get those felony charges reduced to a “Get Out of Jail Free Card”... just because she was gay.

SOURCE




I was a radical Islamist who hated all of you

MAAJID NAWAZ

MOST people find it hard to imagine stabbing another human being, let alone almost decapitating someone with a meat cleaver.

To do so in broad daylight and in the middle of the road, while asking passers-by to take pictures, simply beggars belief.

Few can understand how the British jihadists Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale could be filled with such hate.

I'm ashamed to say I can. For I was similar to them once.

I spent 13 years inside Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the global Islamist organisation that first spawned al-Muhajiroun, the banned Islamist terrorist organisation founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary.

Bakri and Choudary both knew Adebolajo, a 28-year-old who was raised as a Christian. Like Adebolajo, I was raised in Essex in an educated, middle-class and well integrated family.

Again, like Adebolajo, I went on to further education. He dropped out, while I gained a law and Arabic degree from The School of African and Oriental Studies and a Masters in political theory from the London School of Economics.

(The belief that all radicalised young Muslims must lack jobs or are socially awkward loners is a dangerous misconception. I did not lack career opportunities, nor did I lack friends or girlfriends.)

And I, too, was caught up in the aftermath of a Jihadist street murder in which a man was killed with a machete. It was 1995 and I was president of the Student Union at Newham College in East Ham. The union was nothing but a front for HT. We siphoned off money to our cause, giving lectures and preaching anywhere and everywhere - the street, the yard and the canteen, where I would stand on the tables and spout hate.

We were encouraged by Omar Bakri to operate like street gangs and we did, prowling London, fighting Indian Sikhs in the west and African Christians in the east. We intimidated Muslim women until they wore the hijab and we thought we were invincible.

And when an acquaintance of mine, Saeed Nur, slashed a Nigerian student, Ayotunde Obanubi, shouting the same battle cry as the Woolwich attackers: "Allahu Akbar" - God is Great - I watched him die and felt nothing. I did not incite the murder but I did nothing to stop it.

So how did it reach that point? And what turns a tiny minority of ordinary, young Muslim men into fanatical, cold-blooded killers? For my own part, once I became a teenager I experienced severe and violent racism. The neo-Nazi paramilitary group Combat 18 began to target me and my friends. On a few occasions I was forced to watch as white friends were stabbed merely for being associated with me.

At 15, I was falsely arrested at gunpoint for playing with a plastic gun. This was the early 1990s, genocide was unfolding in Bosnia, while the international community failed to act. Add this to my own internal identity crisis - I didn't know if I was British or Pakistani, Muslim or agnostic - and my disenfranchisement from mainstream society was complete.

However, it's what happened next that sealed my fate. I needed someone who could guide a broken and confused 16-year-old. Instead, I came across a charismatic recruiter espousing HT's cause who sold me the ideology of Islamism in the name of Islam.

But Islamism is not Islam. Islamism is the politicisation of Islam, the desire to impose a version of this ancient faith over society. To achieve this, Islamism uses political grievances, such as mine, to alienate and then provide an alternative sense of belonging to vulnerable young Muslims. Preying on the grievances of disaffected young men is the bedrock of Islamism.

Like all bigoted ideologies, it plays on the identity politics game, creating a "them and us", in order to provide a home for the "us" against the alien "other" and control the community by acting as the sole "representative" of Muslims.

One of the Woolwich jihadists ranted to onlookers: "You" have occupied "Our" lands. Spreading this sense of exclusive Muslim victimhood is crucial to the radicalisation process. I continued to spread hate for many years after Obanubi's murder, co-founding branches in Denmark and Pakistan where we targeted army officers in order to incite military coups.

I was aiming to do the same thing in Egypt in 2001, when I was arrested and tortured. Eventually I was convicted of membership of a banned organisation and sentenced to five years in Mazra Tora prison, where deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak is held.

It was then I began to sift through my layers of hatred and ignorance. I also encountered the kindness of strangers, especially Amnesty International whose campaign to win my release was led by an octogenarian in England I'd never met.

After much soul searching I was able to renounce my past Islamist ideology, challenging everything I was once prepared to die for.

De-radicalisation begins by breaking down the logic that once seemed unassailable and rethinking what you are fighting for and why. Hard to do when Islamists and Islamophobes feed off each other's hateful cliches.

We must not blame the security services for what happened. As long as a man can pick up a knife, these murders will be impossible to predict. The only way to try and prevent it happening again is to give those angry young Muslims another outlet. I have founded Khudi, in Pakistan, a youth movement which tries to counter extremist ideology through healthy discussion and debate.

We need a similar grassroots movement in Britain. The only way we can challenge Islamism is to engage with one another. We need to make it as abhorrent as racism has become today. Only then will we stem the tide of angry young Muslims who turn to hate. Only then will they stop listening to people like Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary.

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, 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. 

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

Hormonal influence on homosexuality

Rodent data so far only

A chemical usually associated with how happy we feel could also play a pivotal role in our sexual preferences, researchers have discovered.

A Chinese team found that blocking serotonin, known as the brain's 'happy chemical' caused female mice to switch their sexual preferences.

It is the first time that sexual preference has been reversed in animals without sex hormones.

Yi Rao of Peking University in Beijing, China, and his colleagues genetically engineered female mice so that they could no longer make or respond to serotonin.

'Female mouse mutants lacking either central serotonergic neurons or serotonin prefer female over male genital odors when given a choice, and displayed increased female–female mounting when presented either with a choice of a male and a female target or only with a female target,' the team wrote in their paper,  which is published in the journal PNAS.

'Our results indicate that serotonin controls sexual preference,' they say.

'It's possible that the well-known effect of early sex hormone levels on partner preference and the serotonin mechanism described here are completely independent mechanisms,' Simon LeVay of Stanford University told New Scientist.

'In other words, serotonin systems may be part of the cascade of signals that translate sex hormone levels during development into sexual partner preference in adulthood.'

SOURCE





"Multicultural" Britain is a different place



Ricardo Miles, 21, Daniel Ikumelo, 23, and Adebola Alimi, 22, cycled through the streets of Hackney, east London, armed with a gun searching for enemies in a gangland feud.

When an unmarked police car pulled up alongside the trio, Miles turned and fired the .45 revolver at the officers. Fortunately the bullet hit the ground in front of the vehicle.

The gang members, including Adebola Alimi (pictured) were cycling through the streets of Hackney, east London, when the incident took place

Miles then tried to fire again, but the weapon jammed and he pointed it threateningly at officers as they sped off. They abandoned their bikes and threw away the weapon before fleeing over a footbridge on January 10 last year.

Miles, from Enfield, Ikumelo, from Islington and Alimi, from Hackney, are facing years behind bars after they were convicted of possessing a colt calibre revolver with the intent to endanger life, possessing ammunition and possessing a knife after a trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court. They were remanded in custody ahead of sentence on July 5.

All three had denied involvement, claiming they were not at the scene of the shooting.

The court heard the trio, members of Hackney's Certified Southwold Road gang, had been looking for rivals from the Gilpin Square gang.

PC Richard Gilbert spotted the group acting suspiciously at around 11.30pm and approached them in the unmarked police care with another officer in the passenger seat.

'They were all fiddling with their waists, and I assumed they were going to drop something, or hide something, which is often the case,' he said.

'As they were doing that the male in the white produced a handgun and fired a shot towards us into the ground. There was a loud bang, a flash and then sparks just in front of the car where we were.

'I put the vehicle in reverse and tried to put some distance between us and the males in question. The male in white continued to point the gun towards us over his shoulder as they cycled away.'

Jurors were played CCTV of the three males firing at the car from only metres away in Mandeville Street, Homerton before fleeing over a footbridge towards Hackney Marshes.

They also dropped a knife at the scene, less than half a mile from the Olympic Park, the court heard.

Prosecutor Julian Jones said: 'These defendants were riding out into the Gilpin Square territory with the intention to endanger the lives of rival gang members.'

They were arrested in May 2012 after a long police investigation.

Jurors were read Blackberry phone messages between the defendants in the days after the incident saying they were 'on the run' because of 'madness'.   The messages mentioned someone taking 'a burst at the feds', slang for shooting at police officers.

There was another message sent a day after the incident from Ikumelo, to Miles, the shooter, saying 'if you have a picture of the whistle (gun) delete them all now.'

In 2010 Miles and Ikumelo were given suspended sentences for affray after two fighting dogs were let loose in a train carriage packed with commuters at Stamford Hill station following a fight between rival gangs.

Detective Inspector Neil Bradburn, from Trident North East Shootings Team, said: 'Today's result is the culmination of a great deal of hard work by Trident which has lead to the conviction of three dangerous offenders.

'More than 1,000 London gang members are now either locked up or subject to legal restrictions as a result of activity by the Met's Trident Gang Crime Command.

'This investigation clearly demonstrates that tackling gang-related violence remains a key priority for The Met and we will continue to target and convict those who choose to carry weapons and cause harm in London's communities.'

SOURCE





A long view of women

Fred Reed

 One grows weary, or at least I do, of feminists who complain constantly of imaginary discrimination. It makes no sense. They are in almost the only place and time in which women are not mistreated. Those who do not read history may not know the extent to which woman really have been—tired word, but accurate—oppressed.

For the hell of it I made a list of all the men of classical Greece I could name in five minutes, thanks to courses in philosophy and to general reading. Of men, 25 and counting, of women, two: Sapho, notorious for being a lesbian, and Xantippe, Socrates’ wife, for being a shrew. (I didn’t count mythical women like Cassandra and Clytemnestra.) The absence verges on total erasure.

More women are known from Roman times, most conspicuously Livia and Messalina I suppose, but mostly as poisoners and villainesses. In general women were nonentities. Men had life-and-death power over their wives and daughters, meaning exactly that: they could kill them if they so chose. It was not a theoretical power, but one at least occasionally exercised. To an American man in 2013 this seems insane, even if he has had adolescent daughters.

The pattern holds with variation in details almost everywhere. American Indians, savages but hardly noble, subjugated women utterly. Foot-binding, as lunatic a practice as the mind of man has conceived, was common among China’s upper classes. In India women were kept in strict isolation in purdah and, should their husbands die, expected to immolate themselves on the funeral pyres. What all of this was supposed to accomplish, I cannot imagine.

So much for the idea cherished in semi-literate courses in Women’s Studies that non-Western cultures have been female-friendly. They have not.

But in this feminists are right: The three mid-Eastern religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, do indeed have a ghastly record. The Jews I think were least bad, subjugating their women but not waging actual war against them. Christianity was hideous. The Catholic Church for three centuries practiced systematic sadism against witches, torturing and burning alive uncounted thousands of women. Torture meant crushed bones, dislocated joints, molten lead, and other pleasantries ordained by the Vicar of Christ.

Today the church has softened. It has given itself to the minor consolations of pederasty and to urging women who can’t afford them to have large families. This is an improvement.

Islam, intractably primitive, follows still the old ways. Girls in many places are not allowed to learn to read. Horrendous genital mutilation is horrendously common. Why the world puts up with this is a mystery. If I had been the British administrator of colonies practicing such mutilation, I would have had the fathers strung up naked on the town square and castrated with a blowtorch. Barbarous? Yes. But the cutting would have stopped in about ten minutes.

Curiously, in America more fury arises from the suggestion that men may be better than women at mathematics than from tens of millions of bloody clitoridectomies practiced on screaming young girls. Nobody, not the UN, not feminists, makes an issue of it. This too is beyond my comprehension, but maybe I just don’t comprehend well.

So why have misogyny and subjugation of women—these are not quite the same thing—ceased in much of the world, and very much so in America? Said subjugation has been so widespread through all time that one might suspect it to be a trait  genetically determined. But it isn’t. In Europe, North America above the Rio Bravo, Australia, and New Zealand among others, women are fully integrated into society.

Many places thought to be bastions of repressive masculinity no longer are. For example, Mexico crawls with female doctors, dentists, lawyers and such. About half of the students in my stepdaughter’s university (La Universidad Marista de Guadalajara) by impressionistic eyeball snapshot seem to be girls. Don’t buy stock in machismo. Slide rules have a brighter future.

Feminists believe that they brought about the change by a valiant struggle against long odds and awful men. (By which they seem to mean all men.) Not so, quite. Powerless groups seldom rise unless those in power decide to permit it. For example, Brown versus the School Board was passed by nine white men. Whatever one thinks of Roe versus Wade, the court was male.

It is odd that in America, where women enjoy historically unprecedented rights and opportunities, often greater than those of men—who don’t have affirmative action—feminists complain of oppression. It is fantasy. Consider the undying assertion that women are paid less than men for the same work. It was once true. Today there are fifty thousand slavering lawyers who would love to launch class-action suits, which they would be sure to win.

The trouble with basing your identity on fighting discrimination is that if you run out of discrimination, you don’t know who you are.

The attitude of European men to the change, to include most white American men, is interesting. Men I know are for it, though they may not think they are. Irritation with the unending bitching of the professionals of bitching, the compelled political correctness, the demands for special privilege, the noisy hostility of too many women—weariness with all of these can obscure a few truths:

American men do not want to oppress women. All the men I know very much like intelligent, educated women who do not wear chadors or burkas.  They like athletic, adventurous women with whom they can scuba dive and camp. (My younger daughter got her scuba ticket at age twelve, muchly with her dad’s support.) Many of my male friends have daughters. If any university tried to exclude them because they were girls, a law suit would instantly ensue.

But one mustn´t speak of this. If you speak unfavorably of the ill-breeding and obnoxiousness of professional feminists, they say that you hate women. The tactic is common. Criticize the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis, and you hate Jews. Object to the beating to brain damage of whites by urban black mobs, and you hate blacks. Yet it is not the race, sex, or faith that one objects to, but specific behavior of specific members of these groups. A very different thing.

We live in the middle of a social order that is, so far as I know, entirely new. To those who have grown up in it, it seems normal and, now, is. Seen against the backdrop of three thousand years, the merging of women into the polity is astonishing. How it will shake out in the long run is uncertain, but it seems to work well enough. Spare me the nineteen-year-old bimbos in Women’s Studies at Dartmouth telling me how oppressed they are, on daddy’s dime.

SOURCE





Shoplifters and burglars get the right to work in schools and care homes in Britain

Burglars, shoplifters and violent thugs will be free to work in schools, care homes and hospitals under rules which come into force today.

Thousands of criminals will have their records in effect wiped clean after as little as two years – meaning they will be hidden from prospective employers.

The changes to the criminal records regime follows a human rights ruling in January.

Details about which criminals will be affected by the ruling emerged last night.

Under existing rules anyone wanting to work with children or vulnerable adults must disclose any previous convictions or cautions – which stay on their records indefinitely.

But the Court of Appeal judgment said that requiring some minor offences to be disclosed was a breach of an individual’s right to a private and family life.

Yesterday the Home Office announced which offences would be expunged and which would remain on people’s records when they face an enhanced criminal records check.

Anyone with a conviction or caution for burglary, shoplifting or common assault will see it removed after a set period of time – as long as they were not jailed for the offence or committed any further crimes.

Adult offenders will see convictions cleared after 11 years, and cautions after six years.

Young offenders will have no visible conviction record after five and a half years, and no caution record after two years.

All serious sexual and violent crimes and all terrorism offences will remain on records indefinitely.

Critics said the rules were a ‘slap in the face for victims’ and would allow potentially serious offenders to get into sensitive jobs.

Peter Cuthbertson, chief executive of the Centre for Crime Prevention think-tank, said: ‘Treating  burglary as a minor offence is a callous insult to victims.  Many people who are burgled lose treasured gifts and never feel safe again in their own homes.

‘Already many victims see burglars avoiding prison and receiving community sentences that don’t protect the public.  To let those burglars have their criminal records wiped clean would be another slap in the face for victims.

‘If the Government wants to make this scheme workable and fair, they should ensure burglary always means a prison sentence so that no burglars will benefit.’

The changes to the Disclosure and Barring Service – which has replaced the Criminal Records Bureau – come into force today.

The appeal judges found in favour of a woman blocked from taking a job in a care home eight years after she was handed a police caution for theft from a shop in Sheffield.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, said the decision to bar her from the job had breached her human rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The verdict also included the case of a 17-year-old who failed to get a job at a sports club because he had to disclose a police warning he had received for theft when he was 11.

The judgment was condemned at the time for eroding the ability of politicians to ‘protect the vulnerable’.

Ministers have been given permission to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court, and the case is likely to be heard in July.

The rules are being changed despite the appeal because of fears of legal action and demands for compensation. It is also feared that the original judgment raises much wider questions about the entire criminal records regime and when it can be used.

Civil liberties and privacy groups have backed the changes.

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘This is a victory for common sense and a long overdue change to a system that was ruining people’s lives.’

A government spokesman said: ‘This new system of checks strikes a balance between ensuring children and vulnerable groups are protected and making sure minor offences from the past do not make it difficult for people to get on with their chosen career.’

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, 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. 

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

`The latest Lefty mantra: Check Your Privilege

Whatever you’re doing, stop. Actually, you’re reading this, so it’s probably best to carry on for the minute. But then when you’ve finished you need to stand up, step back, and take the time to “check your privilege”.

Until today I wouldn’t really have known where to even find my privilege, never mind scrutinise it. But thanks to Twitter – sociology’s version of NHS Direct – I am now fully up to speed.

Last week, in the midst of a debate about some vital issue of the moment (possibly something to do with Ed Miliband and Willy Wonka), someone indignantly instructed me to “check my privilege”. I didn’t have a clue what they were on about, and politely told them I thought they were nuts. But since then I’ve seen requests/demands for people to CYP popping up all over the place.

So this morning, after I saw Labour MP Tom Harris state he was off to conduct his own privilege audit, I threw myself upon Twitter’s mercy, and asked what this perplexing phrase actually meant. And now I know.

Apparently, if any of us wish to comment on a particular issue we have to first “check our privilege”. It’s like a sort of moral entry exam. Before expressing a point of view we must first establish our bona fides. So for example, if you want to talk about an issue such as welfare reform, you have to consider whether you are middle-class or not. If you are, then sadly you fail the test. You can’t comment. Or if you do comment, then your point of view is in some way invalidated.

Sufficiently briefed, I sat down to give myself a comprehensive privilege MOT. White: tick. Male: tick. Middle-class: tick. Public school education: fail. Able-bodied: tick (well, half a tick. I’ve only got one eye. But you get two for a reason). Heterosexual: tick, (though never say never).

My initial response was delight. I’d given my privilege a thorough going over, and everything looked to be in good working order. But then to my horror I realised this was in fact a catastrophe. Unless the debate veers off towards comprehensive education for the partially sighted, I literally have nothing to contribute. Or if I do contribute, who will listen? My privilege will act like a gag. A beautiful and very expensive Liberty silk gag. But a gag none the less.

Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not on. This is naked “privilegeism”. And I for one shall not sit still for it.

For a start, how do we actually define privilege? Let’s go back to the example I gave about welfare. Who really holds the privilege in this debate? Is it someone like me, who has never taken a penny of welfare, except to make regular withdrawals from the bank of mum and dad.? Or is it those who are actually subsisting on, and benefiting from, welfare themselves? Who, in this case, actually enters the debate from a position of self-interest? Shouldn’t it be those Shameless types who we all know are merely idling and scrounging and swinging the lead, who should be giving their own privilege the run down?

Also, who actually came up the whole CYP concept? How’s their own privilege looking, eh? Apparently the phrase “check your privilege” first originated on the social justice blog Shrub.com, (no, I’ve no idea what a social justice blog is either). Shrub was set up by Andrea Rubenstein, who describes herself as the site’s “primary blogger”, which sounds a touch hierarchical.

Anyway, from what I can glean, Andrea appears to be a woman, white, relatively able-bodied and university-educated. Something of a mixed bag, privilege-wise. Though, to be fair, she does acknowledge, “Once you have a basic grasp on the system of privilege, the next step is one simple self-realisation: you are privileged … we are all privileged”. To help us come to terms with this, she helpfully provides some useful “primers”, including “Privilege in action”, “Occasionally conversations with my men are instructive” and “Privilege is driving a smooth road and not even knowing it”. Where not holding a driving licence puts you on the pyramid of oppression isn’t made clear.

I’m sure Andrea means well. But I’m sorry, I’m still old enough to remember the days when being a white, middle-class male actually meant something. And surely if we know one thing about privilege, it’s that it doesn’t give up without a fight.

So fight we must. From now on, I shall be confronting the privilegists head on. Far from letting my privilege silence me, I shall use it to give my arguments wings.

So those of you who would have me “check my privilege” hear this. I’ve got my latest copy of Esquire sitting on my desk right now. It contains an article on page 110 on the philosophy of Pamela Anderson, and I’m going to read it, and I’m going to enjoy it.

I’ve seen the Phantom Menace three times. And though I hate Jar Jar Binks as much as the next man, it never even occurred to me he was a crass racial stereotype. And it never will.

Yes, I will wait till Gatsby is on at the Greenwich Picturehouse, rather than the Odeon, because it’s a more refined cinematic experience, and there will be fewer people complaining “Oi, this isn’t The Hangover Part Three”.

Believe me, I’ve checked my privilege. I’ve looked under the bonnet, checked the oil and kicked the tires. It’s in immaculate working order.

Privilege isn’t driving a smooth road and not even knowing it. It’s driving a smooth road, with the wind in your hair, the sun on your face and not a care in the world. I'm sorry about that. Really, I am.

SOURCE



   
The Daily Mail did not kill Lucy Meadows

A coroner’s ruling that the press helped drive a transgender teacher to her death marks a new low in the culture of ‘You can’t say that’.

Since the UK phone-hacking scandal broke and the News of the World closed in 2011, it has been open season on the popular press. Self-righteous critics have felt free to blame the tabloid newspapers for everything from the recession to rape. Now matters have moved a little further down the slippery slope, with a state official effectively accusing the British press, and the Daily Mail in particular, of helping to cause the death of a transgender primary-school teacher.

Michael Singleton, the coroner for Blackburn in Lancashire, this week told the inquest into the death of Lucy Meadows that the ‘sensational and salacious’ press coverage of the teacher’s gender change had been a big factor in her decision to commit suicide in March. The coroner declared his intention to call on the government to implement Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for controlling the press, to ensure that nobody else was driven to their deaths by such ‘ill-informed bigotry’. Singleton concluded his ruling by turning to the media reporters present in court and declaring, like an Old Testament prophet, ‘Shame on you all!’. (The Guardian headline omitted the ‘all’ from this judgement, perhaps because they were certain he could not be talking to them.)

Nobody has to like the Daily Mail, of course, and anybody must be free to criticise its coverage. But this is different. A coroner now feels free not only to declare that the Mail and others contributed to a tragic death – despite the absence of any real evidence to support that claim – but to demand that the government crack down on the press. That is a sign of how far the lobby to curb press freedom has advanced across British politics and society.

We have seen throughout the Leveson circus that anti-tabloid crusaders have used high-profile victims of phone-hacking as ‘human shields’ behind which to pursue their wider agenda of purging the press. Now it seems that some are prepared to use a suicide as a weapon in the propaganda war over press freedom. What was that about the ‘sensational’ exploitation of people’s lives to make headlines?

The story of Lucy Meadows hit the news late last year, after the head of a primary school in Accrington, Lancashire, wrote to inform parents that teacher Nathan Upton had ‘recently made a significant change in his life and will be transitioning to live as a woman’. Mr Upton returned to the school after Christmas as Ms Meadows, wearing women’s clothes. First the local and then national press picked up on the story after some parents expressed concerns about the effect this dramatic change might have on their children; one father was widely quoted as saying that his three sons at the primary school were ‘too young to be dealing with that’.

Then Richard Littlejohn, the conservative Mail’s notoriously provocative columnist, weighed in with his characteristically forthright opinion on the case. His column, published in December under the headline ‘He’s not only in the wrong body… he’s in the wrong job’, asked whether anybody had considered the ‘devastating effect’ this teacher’s gender transformation could have on the young pupils, and suggested that Ms Meadows should have left the school and gone to teach elsewhere.

In January, Ms Meadows complained to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) about ‘press harassment’ and about the Littlejohn column in particular. As a result, the Mail removed the offending article from its website, and Ms Meadows thanked the PCC for helping to resolve the dispute.

The tone of the Littlejohn article is clear from this extract (worth reprinting since it is no longer available on the Mail’s website):

‘The school shouldn’t be allowed to elevate its “commitment to diversity and equality” above its duty of care to its pupils and their parents. It should be protecting pupils from some of the more, er, challenging realities of adult life, not forcing them down their throats.

‘These are primary-school children, for heaven’s sake. Most of them still believe in Father Christmas. Let them enjoy their childhood. They will lose their innocence soon enough.

‘The head teacher denies that pupils will be punished for referring to the teacher as Mr Upton but added ominously that they would be “expected to behave properly around her”. Nathan Upton is entitled to his gender reassignment surgery, but he isn’t entitled to project his personal problems on to impressionable young children.’

To some of us at the time, Littlejohn’s column about Lucy Meadows seemed fairly constrained by his own standards. For instance, he acknowledged her right to change gender, and to continue to teach – though not at the same school where she had been Mr Upton.

To many others, however, it seemed that Littlejohn had committed a hate crime by criticising Lucy Meadows and the school. The outrage exploded on social networking websites in March, when it was reported that Ms Meadows had been found dead in her home, having apparently poisoned herself after two failed suicide attempts. Protesters gathered outside the Mail’s offices, and launched a Twitter onslaught and online petitions calling for Littlejohn to be sacked. These petitions now claim to have gathered a quarter of a million signatures.

The gathering storm of outrage culminated this week in the coroner’s official ruling that the press – and the ‘ill-informed bigotry’ of the Mail and Littlejohn in particular – had contributed to Lucy Meadows’ suicide. He called on the government to implement ‘in full’ Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for taming the press, in order to prevent further deaths.

In fact, as the Mail and others have since pointed out, there was no real evidence to suggest that the press coverage of Ms Meadows’ gender change contributed to her death. She left a long and eloquent suicide note, trying to explain her reasons for taking her own life. It made no mention at all of the press.

Instead, she talked about her financial problems, the stress of her job and, most importantly, the way she had been left bereft by recent bereavements, including the loss of her parents. Ms Meadows’ therapist told the inquest that she had found the media intrusion ‘very stressful’ but ‘easier to deal with than she had thought’, because she had been more concerned about the terminal illness and death of somebody she loved. The woman who had previously been married to Nathan Upton, and had his child, said that Ms Meadows had been ‘more annoyed than anything’ about the press ‘intrusion’ into their lives. She said her former spouse had first discussed suicide in February: ‘She said there was not enough to keep her here.’

Like many suicides, Lucy Meadows’ death appears to have been the tragic outcome of a complex set of personal circumstances, difficult for anybody to comprehend from the outside. Such events do not lend themselves to sweeping explanations. That did not stop the coroner, despite the absence of any evidence, declaring that the shameful press had helped drive her to her death. He acknowledged that she had not mentioned the press in her suicide note, but effectively decided that he knew better than her.

It is also worth asking: even if Lucy Meadows’ note had blamed the media coverage, or named Richard Littlejohn, would it really have changed anything? The coroner said that if she had mentioned the press at all, he would certainly have summonsed ‘various journalists and editors to this inquest to give evidence and be called into account’. Yet whatever she had said or thought, the press reports and comments about the transgender teacher would still remain only words. It would still have been her who committed the act of suicide, and the ultimate responsibility for taking her own life would still lie with Ms Meadows herself.

As her suicide note put it, ‘I have simply had enough of living. I am not depressed or mentally ill in some way. I may have different worldviews to others to the point that most may not consider this a rational act. But it is right to me. All the things I have wanted to accomplish I have done. I have no regrets other than leaving behind those dear to me and causing them pain in doing so, for which I am deeply sorry.’

Coroner Singleton complained that the case showed ‘nothing has been learned from the Leveson Inquiry’ into the ‘culture, practices and ethics’ of the press. The implication is that the treatment of Lucy Meadows shows that the tabloid press is still free to do what it previously did to such victims as the parents of Madeleine McCann or Christopher Jefferies, who were star witnesses at the Leveson Inquiry.

But from my point of view, this case shows that things have indeed moved on since Leveson – and in the opposite direction. The Mail and others did not make false factual allegations of serious offences against Ms Meadows, as newspapers did against the McCanns or Jefferies. Instead, what Richard Littlejohn did was to express his opinion about the transgender teacher returning to the same school.

That opinion may have offended many, including the coroner who deemed it ‘ill-informed bigotry’. But it remains an opinion, not an offence. Yet the expression of opinions deemed outside the respectable mainstream of polite society is now apparently considered a suitable case for punitive action by the government and the courts, acting on the word of the good Lord Justice Leveson. That is a major change – and one for the worse.

It may seem perverse to some to have to defend the principle of press freedom in such a sad case as the suicide of Lucy Meadows. But these are the hard cases in which it is important to hold the line. Not because we necessarily agree with anything Littlejohn might say, but because we agree with another popular journalist, George Orwell, that ‘if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’. The fact that some might use press freedom for ends of which we disapprove is no reason to allow others to encroach upon it.

No doubt a coroner should be free to express his prejudices about the press, just as a tabloid columnist is at liberty to express his opinions and prejudices and be judged on them. But there is no excuse for demanding state action to curb the expression of opinions that are not to the taste of the bench.

The discussion around the Lucy Meadows case reveals how persuasive the creeping culture of ‘I blame the media’ and ‘You can’t say that’ has become. You do not have to like the British tabloid press at all. But in a free society, I’m afraid you really should have to lump it.

SOURCE





Gay marriage opponents like supporters of apartheid, says  C of E bishop who apparently can't find his Bible

Is God an apartheid practitioner?  Presumably he must be if we regard him as the author of Leviticus

A senior Anglican bishop has likened opponents of gay marriage to Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery and apartheid.
Opponents of gay marriage like supporters of apartheid, says senior bishop

The Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, suggested Christians should “rethink” their interpretation of Scripture in light of changing attitudes towards homosexuality in society.

In a strongly worded intervention as members of the House of Lords prepare to debate the Government’s draft legislation introducing gay marriage, Bishop Holtam told peers that allowing gay couples to wed would be a “very strong endorsement” of the institution of marriage.

Bishop Holtam previously opposed gay marriage, but is now the only diocesan bishop in the country to publicly favour the proposed new law.

In a letter sent to Lord Alli, a gay Muslim peer, and published in The Daily Telegraph, Bishop Holtam distanced himself from the Church of England’s official opposition to same-sex marriage, saying: “Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience.

“Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience.

“For example, before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as Biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation. Similarly in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid because it was Biblical and part of the God-given order of creation. No one now supports either slavery or apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has.”

Bishop Holtam’s intervention comes as peers from all main political parties prepare to mount a last-ditch attempt to block the draft legislation, which has been championed by David Cameron.

Among peers set to criticise the Bill on Monday are the former head of the British army Lord Dannatt and Lord Lothian, or Michael Ancram, a former Conservative Party chairman.

Lord Dear, the retired chief constable of West Midlands Police and crossbench peer leading opposition to the Bill, has described the Bill as “ill-thought through”, saying its critics were not “anti-homosexual”. Earlier this week he said Monday’s vote would be “too close to call.”

The Church of England, which has 26 bishops in the Lords, formally opposes the move and there has been speculation that the Most Rev Justin Welby, the recently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, will be among bishops voicing their concerns about the policy at the debate.

A statement issued by the Church’s House of Bishops and Archbishops’ Council last year and endorsed by the Archbishop, said same-sex weddings were against Anglican teachings and would undermine the state of marriage, as well as being “divisive” and “legally flawed”.

However, the statement prompted a groundswell of opposition within the Church and two suffragan bishops broke ranks to say it did not speak for them, nor for a substantial number of clergy and churchgoers.

Bishop Holtam, a diocesan bishop who sits in the House of Bishops but not the Lords, indicated his support for gay marriage in an interview and a speech last year but has been cautious about intervening in the ongoing debate.

Lord Alli, however, asked the bishop to set out his views for the benefit of peers debating the Government’s legislation next week.

In the letter to the Labour peer Bishop Holtam said: “You, as a gay Muslim, will not be surprised that there are a variety of views within the Church of England where we are experiencing rapid change similar to that in the wider society.”

He added: “The possibility of 'gay marriage’ does not detract from heterosexual marriage unless we think that homosexuality is a choice rather than the given identity of a minority of people.

“Indeed the development of marriage for same sex couples is a very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage.”

The Church’s leadership indicated as part of its opposition to the move that it favours civil partnerships as a way for gay couples to demonstrate their commitment to each other.

However in the letter Bishop Holtam suggests civil partnerships are same-sex marriage in all but name, saying “this now needs recognition in law.”

He said: “Like the Archbishops now, I used to think that it was helpful to distinguish between same sex civil partnerships and heterosexual marriage. Many in the churches think the commonly used description of civil partnerships as 'gay marriage’ is a category error.

“However, the relationships I know in civil partnerships seem to be either of the same nature as some marriages or so similar as to be indistinguishable. Indeed, the legal protection and public proclamation which civil partnership has afforded gay relationships appears to have strengthened their likeness to marriage in terms of increasing commitment to working on the relationship itself, to contributing to the wellbeing of both families of origin, and to acting as responsible and open members of society.

He added: “Open recognition and public support have increased in civil partnerships those very qualities of life for which marriage itself is so highly celebrated. It is not surprising this now needs recognition in law.”

The legislation was passed by the House of Commons last week despite an attempt by almost half of Conservative MPs, among them two Cabinet ministers, to block the move.

It includes so-called “quadruple locks”, described by Bishop Holtam as “extraordinarily robust”, to protect religious groups, including the Church of England, who do not wish to carry out same-sex ceremonies.

SOURCE






Homosexual weddings pave the way for polygamy, warns former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey

A former Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday warned David Cameron that his ‘equal marriage’ reforms open the door for multiple weddings and marriages between siblings.

Lord Carey said that same-sex marriage laws amount to a radical and disturbing upheaval which is likely to lead to unintended consequences.

Among them he listed the inclusion of polygamous and multiple relationships into the definition of marriage, and the right for two sisters living together to demand a legal wedding.

The intervention from Lord Carey, one of the most prominent campaigners against same-sex marriage since the Prime Minister first announced his plan in the autumn of 2011, comes as peers prepare to debate the new marriage law.

Ministers are braced for an attempt to wreck the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill next week.

A group of MPs have already written to members of the House of Lords urging them to vote down the Bill, on the grounds that in the supposedly free vote in the Commons they were warned by Downing Street that their careers would be at stake if they failed to back it.

Lord Carey, 77, said that the Bill overturns the historic understanding of marriage as a platform for a man and a woman to raise children that has lasted since the dawn of Christianity.

That, he argued in a paper published by the Civitas think tank, means that the doors will fly open for very different legal versions of marriage in the future.  ‘A reason why we should be worried by the redefining of marriage is the unintended consequences of such a step,’ Lord Carey said.

‘Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?

‘If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man.’

The former Archbishop, who stepped down from Lambeth Palace in 2002, cited the arguments of US academic and lawyer William Eskridge, a prominent advocate of gay marriage rights, who has maintained that it is illogical to limit the number of people in a relationship.  Instead he has proposed the scrapping of any laws that limit the numbers or sex of people entering a marriage.

Lord Carey said: ‘In no way do I mean to be alarmist about the possibility of this happening in a large scale way, but it is happening in the United States and there is nothing to stop the trend continuing.’

He added that the idea promoted by Home Secretary Theresa May that people who care deeply for each other and want to spend their lives together should have the right to marry is ‘a wholly inadequate understanding of marriage.’

The former Archbishop said: ‘Those of us accused of being on the wrong side of history can only plead with the Government to respect our concern that extending marriage to same-sex couples is not only unwise, but also sets a dangerous precedent.’

Lord Carey’s plea for rejection of same-sex marriage was published alongside a series of arguments both in favour and against the reform published by Civitas in The Meaning of Matrimony: Debating Same-Sex Marriage.

Among contributors was Culture Secretary Maria Miller, the minister in charge of piloting the new law through the Commons.

Mrs Miller said: ‘Much of the strength of marriage lies in its ability to change with the times. As society has changed, so marriage has changed, and become available to an increasingly broad range of people.

‘In the 21st century marriage is an inclusive - not exclusive - institution. It is available to all adults who are prepared to make vows of life-long fidelity and commitment. Except, that is, if you happen to love someone of the same sex. I believe that simply isn’t right.’

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, 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. 

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

Introducing Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader who's charming the ladies...


Britain's most "incorrect" politician

It was an apparent late surge by female voters that led to Ukip’s electoral success last month Melissa Kite checks out party leader Nigel Farage’s girl appeal
'People see me as approachable. Perhaps they don¿t see me as a politician. That¿s the point'

'People see me as approachable. Perhaps they don't see me as a politician. That's the point'

Going to the pub with Nigel Farage is very therapeutic. Within seconds of our drinks arriving, I realise I am telling him my troubles as we sit beneath an umbrella at a table in the street.

He is nodding sympathetically, sipping from a pint of beer and puffing on his trademark cigarette. As I offload my frustrations, he says all the right things. Before long, we are setting the world to rights and I catch myself thinking that I must tell Nigel about that problem I had with my local police because…
Because what, exactly?

Farage has that indefinable quality that makes you believe he is interested in your problems and even that he might be able to put them right. But to be realistic, he can’t possibly put anything right, can he?

He’s the leader of a fringe party that, on the face of it, hasn’t a hope in hell of getting into power. Yet with the UK Independence Party hitting 19 per cent in the council election polls last month, people have started to sit up and take notice.

And they are now looking at its chirpy leader as someone who cannot be as easily dismissed as David Cameron would like.

Most surprising of all, given that Ukip was once a nerdish, male-dominated party, is the fact that Farage, 49, is becoming a hit with women. Indeed, it was apparently a late surge in the female vote that led to Ukip’s stellar performance in last month’s council elections.

A few weeks ago, I asked my circle of friends how they voted in the local elections and one glamorous, wealthy divorcee revealed she had voted Ukip, saying: ‘Nigel Farage is a straight talker. He isn’t surrounded by spin doctors. He’s a real man.’

‘There is a country out there desperate for success. You see it in the Olympics, in football. People want to belong, to be proud'

Perhaps it’s the pint, the cigarette, the reassuringly macho banter. Perhaps women are tired of the touchy-feely, organic, free-range posturing of Cameron and his Notting Hill metrosexuals.

After all, Farage wouldn’t make a song and dance of telling voters he went home early for bath time.

This is the man who emerged with minor injuries from a serious plane crash while campaigning in the 2010 general election.

He wouldn’t tell us how he loves to cook lasagne, naming his favourite celebrity chef’s recipe.

But is he really becoming a sex symbol? Farage rocks with laughter. ‘Oh, I don’t…ha ha… Oh, no, you are not going to get me to answer a question like that. I very much doubt it anyway. I’m English, for God’s sake.’

 ‘I can cook. I’m good at fish I’ve caught. It’s the hunter-gatherer thing’

And he goes on chuckling, but looking ever so slightly flattered. When he eventually calms down, he says: ‘Look, people see me as approachable. Perhaps they don’t see me as a politician. Perhaps that’s the point.’

But I have obviously planted an idea because Farage develops the sex symbol theme as he sips his pint.

‘Isn’t it funny? It’s the perception thing: how women see men and how men think women see men. Men can never work out why some women find some men interesting or attractive. “Why is he so popular with women?” they say.’

But Farage is still pondering the sex symbol comment. ‘I’m going to go all shy now,’ he says.

‘Seriously, maybe the others are a bit too polished.’ I put it to him that the others are indeed polished, and that politicians such as Cameron and Clegg make all sorts of slick claims about being good with children and cooking Sunday lunch.

He says: ‘I’m really good with nobody’s children. But I can cook, actually. I’m good at fish.’

What fish? ‘Fish that I’ve caught.’ Macho cooking, you see. His press secretary Annabelle reveals he is a dab hand at gutting sea bass. ‘He’s useless at cooking artichokes, though,’ she adds.

But who needs artichokes when you’re a man who can gut bass? Farage, a keen angler, has even written columns for Total Sea Fishing. He enjoys shooting as well. ‘It’s the hunter-gatherer thing,’ he explains, rather extraneously.

The effect of this old-fashioned chauvinism on the numbers is impressive. Female support for Ukip is now only fractionally behind male votes and the party has burgeoning numbers of female councillors, some of whom arrive at the pub later for a drink with Nigel and are really quite chic.

By contrast, while Cameron brags about doing the school run, his female vote continues to plummet.

One might postulate that women, who have keen antennae for authenticity, warm to Farage because he does not put a gloss on things. He is prepared to manfully put his foot in his mouth if the moment requires it. He described the first president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, as having ‘the charisma of a damp rag’ and called Belgium ‘pretty much a non-country’.

Has he consciously cultivated this maverick streak? ‘That’s just the way I am,’ he says, before adding wistfully, ‘I’m an accidental politician.’ For a moment, he looks reflective, almost troubled. ‘I had no plan to do this. It wasn’t my boyhood dream.’ He is staring into the middle distance as he slowly exhales smoke. What was his dream?

‘I had different ambitions and aspirations. I thought in my early teens I would join the army. Then Thatcher got elected. The birth of the yuppie. I thought, “I’d like to be one of those. I want to make lots of money.”’

That’s Nigel, you see. Ask him what he wanted to be and he’ll tell you that he wanted to make lots of money. Cameron would never admit that. He would come out with some guff about how he wanted to serve his country.

Farage says: ‘In my late 20s I didn’t change, the world changed. Maastricht [the 1991 agreement that gave birth to the EU], the ERM [European exchange rate mechanism, a precursor to financial union that went disastrously wrong for Britain in 1992]. These things motivated me to get involved.’

But what else drives him, personally? I ask about his wife and four children, who – unlike other party leaders’ wives and families – are never trotted out for the cameras. I offer him a chance to say what a devoted father he is, but he turns it down.

‘If I was honest with you, I’m not there enough because of the demands of this job. I have sort of failed on that score really.’ Failed? Even by Farage’s standards of straight-talking, a politician using the f-word is astounding. ‘I’ve had four children. I wouldn’t say when they were little that I was particularly brilliant. I try. I have tried. But I’m not very good.’

His German-born wife Kirsten is an elusive figure. They met when he was working in the City and she was a bond dealer. Now she’s works as his PA. She is obviously devoted, yet he refuses to put her on display.

‘I haven’t mentioned my wife because you can’t have it both ways. If you make your family public property… I have tried to make sure there isn’t a single photo of my children.’

When he talks about his hobbies his face lights up.  ‘I love the big outdoors. I enjoy watching cricket. Going to Lord’s for the Ashes. I won’t sleep the night before.’

When he outlines his vision for Britain it is tinged with the same excitement and idealism:

‘There is a country out there desperate for success. You see it in the Olympics, in football. People want to belong, to be proud. And we cannot have any sense of pride or self-respect if we are not a self-governing nation. Our entire political class has given up on this country. It’s the concept of managed decline: “Let’s go down the tubes with dignity. We are no bloody good, let’s admit it.” Well, I think we are an extraordinary country. Of course we can turn it around.’

I can almost hear Elgar in the background. And no, I haven’t been drinking pint to pint with Farage. I’m on the mineral water. But does it have to be hokum? Can’t we believe in Farage’s simple, patriotic vision? He makes it sound so straightforward: ‘You can’t pussyfoot around.

You have got to get the hell out of the EU political union. You have got to have an amicable divorce and replace it with a trade deal.

‘But we have got these spineless, pathetic, weak politicians and this weak prime minister who says, “Sorry, it makes me sick to my stomach, but there is nothing I can do about it.”’

Farage, a former Tory who resigned from the party during John Major’s leadership, clearly does not have much time for David Cameron.

The most damaging insult he levels at the prime minister is an aside that comes out casually as he poses for photographs. As he reaches into his pocket for his Rothmans, he reveals something Cameron used to do when the two were between takes on TV debate shows: ‘He was always nicking my fags. He never had his own.’

Authenticity. Cameron cultivated his wholesome image while sneaking cigarettes from his adversary. Farage may be flawed. But at least he wears his vices on his sleeve.

SOURCE





Tony Blair says murder of Lee Rigby PROVES 'there is a problem within Islam'

He's finally getting it right

Tony Blair today makes his most powerful political intervention since leaving Downing Street by launching an outspoken attack on ‘the problem within Islam’. 

The former Prime Minister addresses the shocking killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich by going further than he – or any front-rank British politician – has gone before over the issue of Muslim radicalism.  

Writing in today’s Mail on Sunday, he departs from the usual argument that Islam is a peaceful religion that should not be tainted by the actions of a few extremists.

Instead, Mr Blair urges governments to ‘be honest’ and admit that the problem is more widespread.

‘There is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology which is a strain within Islam,’ he writes.

‘We have to put it on the table and be honest about it. Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.’

He adds: ‘At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it.’

Mr Blair’s comments are likely to be seized on by critics who will argue that by leading us into the Iraq War he has helped to swell support for radical Islam around the globe.

The former PM’s remarks come as David Cameron prepares to make a Commons statement about the Woolwich murder tomorrow afternoon.

The statement will come just hours after the first meeting of the Prime Minister’s Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) – made up of senior Ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders – tomorrow morning.

Whitehall sources said that it would be a ‘preliminary meeting’ to draw up the agenda for a full meeting within days. The group, which the Muslim Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi, will examine new powers to muzzle hate preachers.

Mr Cameron’s Commons speech is also expected to address the situation in Syria.

In his article, Mr Blair, who is trying to establish a Palestinian state through his work as a peace envoy, also addresses the Syrian situation, warning: ‘We are at the beginning of this tragedy ..... Syria is in a state of accelerating disintegration.

‘President Assad is brutally pulverising communities hostile to his regime.’ Mr Blair says that ‘the overwhelming desire of the West is to stay out of it’, which he goes on to describe as ‘completely understandable’.

He suggests that ‘the problem within Islam’ can start to be tackled by ‘educating children about faith here and abroad’. 

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Foreign Secretary and chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, said: ‘Much of what Tony Blair says is sensible.

‘The Islamic terrorists who kill people have the silent support of many more in their community who share their ideology, if not their methods.

‘But even combined, they represent only a small minority of British Muslims, and we must never forget that.

‘However, he appears to be still trying to justify the Iraq War rather than acknowledging that that war provided an unprecedented opportunity for the Sunni and Shia extremists to slaughter so many of their co-religionists.’

SOURCE






Violent Far-Left "anti-Fascists" arrested in Britain

Violent clashes took place outside the Palace of Westminster between anti-fascist campaigners and  BNP supporters.  As the trouble erupted, dozens of police officers rushed to break up the disorder.

The angry scenes led to groups kicking and punching each other as police struggled to keep the opposing sides apart.

A total of 58 people - all anti-fascist campaigners - were arrested at the scene by police officers and packed onto London buses.

They were then transported to London police stations for further questioning.

At least one man, a BNP activist, suffered a large cut to the nose after fierce shouting from either side of gated barriers spilled into violence. 

Police dogs were also deployed to the scene as the protesters fought with each other.  The crowd of anti-fascist protesters heavily outnumbered the BNP supporters. They held banners which read 'smash the BNP' and 'say no to Islamaphobia'.

The BNP had planned to march from Woolwich Barracks, but were banned from doing so by Scotland Yard, amid community fears that their presence could prompt disorder.

Around 100 people gathered on Old Palace Yard, clutching BNP banners and calling for 'hate preachers out'.

A short time later, counter protesters began directing chants at them, calling them 'fascist scum', 'you racist Nazis'.

Scotland Yard said that a group, believed to be part of the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) protest, gathered in a pre-arranged penned area - but some were unwilling to remain within that area.

The BNP had planned to march from Woolwich Barracks, but were banned from doing so by Scotland Yard, amid community fears that their presence could prompt disorder

A spokesman added: 'Due to police concerns about serious disruption to the life of the community, and the potential for serious disorder should this counter protest confront the BNP organised protest, police have imposed conditions under Section 14 of the Public Order Act.

'Those conditions state that the protest must take place in Whitehall Gardens junction with Whitehall.

Around 50 anti-fascist protestors were reported to have rushed towards one man as he was escorted by police to the area containing the BNP group.

BNP leader Nick Griffin also attended the protest. He said the murder of soldier Lee Rigby would not be an isolated incident.

Labour leader Ed Miliband today joined celebrities and thousands of others in signing a letter to a newspaper in protest at far-right groups using the death of Drummer Rigby for their own agenda.

In the letter to the editor of the Daily Mirror, they wrote: 'The EDL and Islamic extremists are more similar to each other than to us. They share a violent, hate-fuelled desire for conflict and war, and we will not let either group tear our country apart.

Meanwhile officers in Scotland last night said a 25-year-old man had been charged in Inverness in connection with an alleged hate crime on an internet memorial page for Drummer Rigby.

In a statement, police in Scotland said a man was charged 'in connection with an enquiry into alleged hate crime comments on Facebook'.

The man is expected to appear at Inverness Sheriff Court on Monday.

SOURCE





Feminists warn British supermarkets: Stop selling raunchy lads' mags or we will sue

Shops selling ‘lads’ mags’ with covers of featuring scantily-clad women, could be sued for sexual harassment by their own customers and staff, feminist groups have claimed.

Campaigners are warning high street retailers to remove magazines that display naked and near-naked images on their covers or face the risk of legal action.

The Lose the Lads' Mags campaign, by pressure groups UK Feminista and Object, says displaying publications in stores or requiring staff to handle such magazines could amount to sex discrimination or sexual harassment.

In a letter in the Guardian today, 11 equal rights lawyers say there have been previous cases of staff suing employers in respect to exposure to pornographic material at work, and called on retailers to stop selling 'lads' mag' publications.

'High-street retailers are exposing staff and, in some cases, customers to publications whose handling and display may breach equality legislation,'  the letter said.Displaying lads' mags and pornographic papers in 'mainstream' shops results in the involuntary exposure of staff and, in some cases, customers to pornographic images.

'Every mainstream retailer which stocks lads' mags is vulnerable to legal action by staff and, where those publications are visibly on display, by customers.'

The group says it has been contacted by employees who dislike handling such magazines but who feel they have no power to take the issue up with their employers.

UK Feminista and Object are discussing with lawyers about bringing a test case and will support employees who are uncomfortable with images of naked or near-naked women on magazines, the Guardian said.

Kat Banyard, founder of UK Feminista, told the newspaper: "For too long supermarkets have got off the hook, stocking lad's mags in the face of widespread opposition, but this time we have the law on our side.


The barnyard lady.  Guaranteed to deflate anyone

Every shop that sells lads' mags - publications which are deeply harmful to women - are opening themselves up to legal action."

Sophie Bennett, campaigns officer for Object, added:  'Lads' mags dehumanise and objectify women, promoting harmful attitudes that underpin discrimination and violence against women and girls.

Reducing women to sex objects sends out an incredibly dangerous message that women are constantly sexually available and displaying these publications in everyday spaces normalises this sexism.'

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, 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. 

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