Not the same thing?

Burn a poppy on Remembrance Day, get on national tv and the worlds media and offend millions of people in this country get an £80 fine. Stick a pigs head on a mosque, get a mention in the local press and a one liner in the national press (though not on tv) offend perhaps thousands who belong to a certain religion get 4 months jail.
Mail.

Racist ex-soldier who stuck a pig's head to mosque gates in 'revenge' for extremists burning poppies is jailed for four months
A former soldier has been jailed for four months after he tied a pig's head to the gates of a mosque before uploading pictures of what he did on Facebook.
Simon Parkes, 45, tied the animal's head to the front of Cheltenham Mosque, Gloucestershire, after seeing a group of Muslims burning poppies on Remembrance Sunday 2010.
He also wrote 'Allah' on the pig's snout in what was seen as an 'act of revenge' against the Muslim religion.
Parkes also painted 'rag heads out' on the side of the mosque.
Gloucester Crown Court heard that his actions had distressed worshippers at the mosque and served to heighten racial tensions.
Sentencing him Judge Jamie Tabor QC, said: 'Not only soldiers but the majority of citizens of this country were offended by seeing the poppies burnt.
'They, however, did not react as you did. You deliberately set out to not only insult another religion but you undertook to inflame and enhance racial tension.'
Parkes went to the mosque with an unknown accomplice in the early hours of November 13, 2010 and placed the pig's head on the gate at the front.
Pigs are seen as being unclean in the Muslim and Jewish religion so Parkes' actions will have been deeply offensive to anyone who saw what he had done.
They used red paint to daub graffiti on the building which was found a few hours later by a worshipper who was 'deeply offended' by what he saw.

Ok, first off Islam is not a race, it's a religion, being offended by Islamic or Muslim actions does not make you a racist. Nor am I condoning what Parkes did, it was offensive, however no more so than say burning a poppy on Remembrance Day and probably worthy of exactly the same result.
However we have a judiciary and a legal system which panders to minorities and cannot seem to grasp that positive discrimination is simply discrimination so tacking a 'racist' element onto any crime committed by a white person against any other group is not only wrong it's racist in itself, particularly when the opposite does not appear to apply google Rhea Paige for a shining example of a two tier justice system.
What judgements like this do is build up a sense of resentment in the mainstream, not because we approve of what Parkes has done, but because it is manifestly unfair compared to what happened to those who in my eyes (and no doubt others) did something similar first and caused him to react in this way.
Had say those who burned the poppy and insulted our honoured dead got 4 months for their crime it would be a case of fair enough with a lot of grousing that it wasn't anywhere like enough. As it is you can insult those who gave their all for their country and get a tiny fine, when you insult Islam, you're going to prison.
And the powers that be wonder why people are getting so angry...

Learning to laugh at yourself

The BBC has finally turned out a comedy sitcom involving Muslims called Citizen Khan, with the predictable results in 200 complaints. Which I have to admit is far lower than I expected, though again it might just be that not that many Muslims watch the BBC. It might even be that a lot of the complaints are outrage by proxy in that certain leftist/liberals feel obliged to be outraged on behalf of Muslims, something I suspect we'll never really know.
Telegraph.

Citizen Khan, a BBC sitcom about a Muslim community leader, has attracted around 200 complaints after its first episode was broadcast on Monday.
It was suggested that the programme "takes the mickey out of Islam", contained "stereotypes about Asians" and that it was "disrespectful to the Koran".
A scene in which a heavily made-up girl, Mr Khan's daughter, rushed to put on a hijab and pretended to be reading the Koran when her father entered provoked particular ire, the Daily Mail reported.
The six-part series, created by and starring Adil Ray, a British Muslim, was shown for the first time on Monday at 10.35pm.

Thing is, most religious based comedy takes the mickey out of stereotypes all the way back to All gas and gaiters and beyond. However we're probably dealing with a certain type of Muslim here in the complaints as all religions seem to have them. We're talking about the humourless git here, you know the one, who believes laughter is a sin and that religion (of their particular type) is no laughing matter. I mean God forbid that Muslims should be portrayed as normal people with typical, normal teenagers and young adults who behave rebelliously. Perhaps they should instead all be shown either preparing to be suicide bombers or praying piously.Yes this blog has issues with radical Islam and no it doesn't ascribe to islamophobia as there are a lot of instances in which the followers of Islam have brought terror to the world. But not for one instant have we ever thought all Muslims are the same, perhaps easily lead by the odd extremist, but not all 'allah' clones. That's not to say there aren't some of course...
Learning to laugh at yourself and the foibles of your life, nation, race and religion is a sign of being a well balanced individual. After all, should Scots be offended by Rab C Nesbitt or the Irish by Father Ted or even Mrs Brown's Boys, should the English get upset over The Vicar of Dibley?
Well we don't and I suppose only 200 complaints from 3.6 million viewers is a good start.

Prohibition and real life

Some MP's just cannot seem to grasp basic economics. If an article that people want costs too much and there's an alternative illegal or not, then guess what a lot of people will do? And when the government itself is the reason that an article costs too much and keeps coming up with wacky theories such as minimum pricing, then really they have no legitimate grounds to complain about the outcome.
Mail.

Smuggled alcohol costs the taxman more than £1billion a year - but no more than six criminals are prosecuted every year, MPs said last night.
Customs officials were lambasted last night for its lax enforcement regime which means just 20 people have been convicted for dodging alcohol tax over four years.
The failure by HM Revenue and Customs to take effective action against criminal gangs means the Treasury loses out to the tune of £1.2billion a year.
MPs on the powerful Public Accounts Committee said the department did not have good enough information about how effective it was at tackling the problem and failed to make the best use of intelligence and technology to detect and prevent evasion.
And the criticised the HMRC for having no idea about the extent of the tax gap for wine - making it impossible to target enforcement action against wine.MPs said they had been told criminals often export duty unpaid alcohol then redirect it back to the UK to sell.

This is essentially a problem of the governments own making, they're the ones who have progressively priced alcohol out of the reach of every day folk. They didn't take the lessons of American prohibition to heart which should have told them that making a legal product hard to get simply drives people into the hands of criminals. The thing is though, most people don't regard the 'white van man' who provides them with reasonably priced booze as a criminal so aren't inclined to report anyone involved with the trade. Indeed like my good self, a lot of people hop on the ferries to France and load up with several months supply of booze (and other nice stuff) because even taking the fuel and ferry costs into consideration, it's still cheaper than buying it in the shops.
So the problem is actually one of the governments own making, I suspect if they lowered the duty, they'd get more by way of taxation as the 'white van men' will no longer find it economic to do so. But sadly this will not occur to any of them, it's not in the mindset of politicians to use common sense.

So why was he at an open prison?

There are times I simply cannot grasp the idiocy that goes on in our justice system, from ridiculous sentencing to where they do put the prisoners when convicted.
BBC.

A prisoner who was jailed for making threats to kill and possessing an offensive weapon has absconded from a Teesside open prison.
Bernard Sharkey, 34, was serving an indeterminate sentence at HMP Kirklevington Grange near Yarm.
He was last seen carrying out community work at Newham Grange Farm in Coulby Newham at 12:30 BST on Thursday.
Cleveland Police warned members of the public not to approach Sharkey but to call 999 immediately.
He was serving an indeterminate sentence for threats to kill, affray and possession of an offensive weapon.
Officers said he may pose a risk to a "known individual", who had been contacted, but not to the wider public.

Does it not strike anyone else as odd that a man convicted of making threats and possessing an offensive weapon was being held at an open prison? You know, the type that only those who are trusted not to run or who are being rehabilitated at the end of their sentences are?
We keep hearing reports that the prison system is too crowded, that sentencing guidelines are being changed to allow lesser sentencing (and not so much about building new prisons) and there are sentences which the accused does go to prison which could warrant a non custodial sentence. But it does strike me that we keep the dangerous ones at least behind lock and key.
Hopefully Sharkey will be apprehended without incident, we really don't need another Raoul Moat on the loose. But it is clear that lessons are not being learned and that dangerous prisoners are not being monitored anything like closely enough.

Moneygrabbing

Local councils are up to their old tricks again. Despite the government telling them to reduce costs and help the residents, they simply look for new ways to keep their income rising and as ever have chosen to go after motorists, an easy law abiding target.
Telegraph.

Councils have lobbied the Government for the right to fine drivers who make illegal turns, encroach on yellow boxes or drive in bus and cycle lanes.
Ministers indicated they were “sympathetic” to the plans amid growing concerns from motoring groups that councils would use them as a “cash cow”. The Coalition had promised to end the “war on motorists” when it came to power.
Local authorities already have the power to fine motorists for parking illegally. However, they now want the same powers as authorities in London to fine motorists for other offences.
It is understood the Department for Transport has been in discussions with 20 councils about giving them the new powers. They include Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth, Reading, Salford, Sheffield and Southampton.

The motoring organisations are correct, politicians in general see the motorist as a cash cow and seem to seek out ever new methods of driving them off the road. Nor do the claims of using public transport being a better option work either. It's either inconvenient or far too costly. A return bus ticket to Chatham from where I live would cost over a fiver. I can do the journey in by car far cheaper, including parking fees and that's simply me alone, it becomes even cheaper if my good Lady comes with me. Nor would it be suitable for work, there are no trains or buses that could get me to my place of work in time for my morning shifts starting, nor is using a bike an option either, 12 hour shifts and a one hour travel time by bike means I couldn't be arsed to even try.
But now if going to a big city I'll have to watch out for various other traps to fleece me of my hard earned cash. I doubt they're all Labour, but I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of them will be.
I just wish they'd get away from the idea that my pockets are bottomless and that they need to keep raising revenue.
Hanging them all from lampposts cannot it seems come too soon.

My body my rules?

One of the main planks of the abortion debate has always been that it's the woman's decision, her body, her rules so to speak. There have even been court cases where a father has attempted to stop a wife having an abortion and failing to do so as the courts have always gone along with the woman's body point of view.
Yet now we have a case where a husband became a sperm donor without his wife's knowledge and she's demanding that any such activity should be only with her permission as well...
Mail.

The wife of a man who donated his sperm without her knowledge is campaigning for married men to require their spouse's consent for the process.
The woman, who is in her 30s and lives in Surrey with her husband and son, says the possibility any children - of whom there could be as many as 20 - may want to trace their biological father in 18 years' time, would 'almost feel like introducing the offspring of an adulterous relationship'.She argues that in married relationships, sperm donation should be a decision both parties are involved in; she says in marriage, sperm should be considered some kind of 'marital asset'.

Yet if she were to fall pregnant and have an abortion, if her husband objected as discussed above, he would have no say whatsoever. I don't know whether she's thought this through properly, but if sperm were to be classed as a 'marital asset' then her eggs and the fruit of any union between said sperm and eggs becomes a marital asset as well and somehow or other I cannot see the pro choice people being very happy about this at all. Indeed I can see militant feminists out in force with flaming torches and pitchforks if ovaries were suddenly classed as a marital asset. There's also the human rights aspect to take into consideration as well (sadly) what would happen if a rape victim suddenly found herself pregnant but prevented from an abortion because the rapist classes the foetus as partly his asset? We've all seen the consequences of bad law getting onto the statute books and whilst rape may be seen as an extreme case, there's so far nothing to tell how such a law might be interpreted by the human rights industry.
Whilst I don't believe the husband should have gone down this path, it is his body and his decision, not his partners.
At least so far...

Rocket Man

Neil Armstrong (August 5, 1930 – August 25, 2012) a genuine hero now stepping out again into the unknown. He inspired my generation, was a household name with no political dross to tie him down.
He was indeed one of the best of us.

And yes, I do believe he walked on the moon.

A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.

Well Breivik was declared sane by a Norwegian court and sentenced to 21 years, which means that if he behaves he might be eligible for parole in 11 years. Assuming the Norwegians are daft enough to do so. There has been much outcry and anguish from the families of the victims and much of the left over the lightness of the sentence. But as this is a direct result of socialist/liberalist so called compassion and tinkering with the justice systems of the West they really have no grounds for complaint when it comes back to bite them on the arse.
Breivik was no doubt a monster, though it's somewhat hypocritical of the left (or indeed Breivik) to somehow portray him as tight wing, though there are still attempts by the hard of thinking left to tie him into the EDL who until the massacre had never heard of the guy or his manifesto either. One of the more amusing things though has been the lefts conviction that somehow nationalist groups will adopt Breivik as some sort of icon whereas most of the nationalist groups regard him as some sort of nutter.
Then again the left have a history of adopting mass murderers as icons, so I suppose we should not be too surprised. After all even trade union reps such as Denis Doody, a national executive council member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians had a poster of Che Guevara on his office wall in Wakefield and frequently travels to Cuba to support the regime there.
Yet Che Guevara killed (murdered) 180 documented victims during his days as a revolutionary until he got some of his own medicine by Bolivian troops. The post title is one of Che's best remembered quotes too. Breivik was a rank amateur compared to Che, he only murdered 77.
Seems it's only the cause that matters, had Breivik attacked say a gathering of nationalists many of the left would be hailing him as some sort of hero. Doubt me? Take a look at the occasional comment they make over Margaret Thatcher to see the sort of mindset they have.

Whoops not a right wing salute

The organised left are hypocrites of the highest order when they criticise Breivik, they have done far worse in their time and laud their own mass murderers as some sort of icon to be emulated. They should perhaps be thankful that the nationalist movements the world over are far more civilised...

Not nearly harshly enough.

The whingers are out in force over the last couple of days complaining about the GCSE exam results being marked far too harshly. After all in scenes reminiscent of the old Soviet Unions tractor production stats higher grades were being achieved every year without fail despite the claims of employers that kids coming to them for jobs were unable to do basic literature or mathematics. Nor did anyone with any sense believe kids were getting smarter, which just left the unpalatable fact that exams were getting easier.
Mail.

More than two decades of GCSE grade inflation ground to a halt yesterday, provoking a furore as school heads claimed results had been ‘fixed’.
As top-grade passes fell for the first time in the exam’s history, it emerged that exam boards ‘manipulated’ grading in English at the last minute to make it harder for pupils to pass.
Furious teachers claimed that thousands of pupils unfairly missed out on a C grade in English – which is often a minimum requirement for taking A-levels, going to university and landing a good job. As many as 10,000 are thought to have been affected. Schools are now expected to lodge record numbers of exam appeals in an attempt to avoid slipping down the league tables.
The situation has echoes of the 2002 A-level grading fiasco which saw scores of teenagers unfairly downgraded as boards attempted to restrain the number of top grades.

Thing is, we want these exams to be tough, we want only the brightest and best to progress, we want our kids to be able to read, write and do maths and the system in place was failing them. They were the ones facing employers or universities and having to do catch up courses for stuff they really should have known at age eleven (or even earlier) Yes, the exams might have been marked more harshly, but in this year any kid with good grades knows that they'll have earned it a bit more than the previous year. Exams need to be tough, they should stretch kids memory and deductive powers and 60%+ of kids getting top rates suggests that the exams are either not tough enough or that the system is/was fixed to continually increase the percentage getting the higher grades. Nor did the introduction of the A* grade give any confidence in the system, after all if they had to tack an extra grade on top, it meant that the exam itself was far too easy. In my days getting a top grade from a good exam board was very difficult indeed, only 1% of the intake normally managed it, not the 8% of recent years. That 1% pretty much were the ones who stayed on for 6th form and A levels, the rest of us found jobs, it was easy enough we were pretty much all literate and numerate after all. Though jobs were easier to find too in the way of apprenticeships etc and didn't require ridiculous academic qualifications for that matter either, much of the training happening on the job.
The education system and its tinkering with by the all must have prizes do gooders has badly let our kids down, it might take generations to repair the damage assuming it's possible at all.
Harder exams and tougher marking is simply a start.

Value for money?

It's still staggering that MP's though nervous over the criticism of the foreign aid budget can't quite seem to grasp what true value is. True value is not collecting the budget off our taxation, value represents spending it on the people of the UK who need it. It really is that simple in my eyes, though for the life of me, MP's just cannot grasp this...
Express.

BRITAIN’S overseas aid effort should focus on helping poor countries collect their own taxes so they become less dependent on UK ­taxpayers, a report out today says.
A cross-party committee of MPs says a reliable flow of cash from income, sales, property and company taxes, offers developing nations a much better way out of ­poverty than handouts from Britain or other countries.
It urges the Department for International Development and HM Revenue and Customs to help ensure that unofficial workers and unregistered businesses are brought into tax systems in countries that receive aid.
Governing “elites” and multinational corporations should also pay – and be seen to pay – their fair share.
Britain’s aid spending is set to rise from £12billion this year to £14billion in 2014 to meet international targets, after DfID was spared the austerity cuts wielded on most other departments.
International Development Committee chairman Sir Malcolm Bruce said: “It represents excellent value for money, for the countries concerned and for UK taxpayers.”

No, it does not represent excellent value for money, it does not represent value for money full stop! Much of the aid is siphoned off by kleptocracies and in other countries like India it helps them fund their Mars mission, something our country cannot afford. We'll have pensioners dying of the cold this winter, our education and benefits system is a shambles and please, please don't get me started on the NHS.
The foreign aid budget is for when times are good, when times are hard it's slashed and either the money not collected as taxation, or spent on UK projects such as educating kids and keeping pensioners warm.
Charity begins at home, those bastards in Westminster have never bothered to ask us where we want our money spent, I doubt they'd like the results of that question anyway (which is why I suspect they don't ask) If I want to give to charity that should be my choice, not the imbeciles in Westminster and not by taxation, not now, not ever!

Surprised... Not

Some people are a bit surprised at a BBC decision not to allow a statue of George Orwell (Should that not be Eric Blair?) because 'he's too left wing' these are the people who generally thing the BBC themselves are too 'left wing'.
Telegraph.

When the George Orwell Memorial Trust proposed a statue of the writer for outside the BBC’s new headquarters it expected an enthusiastic response.
However, not everyone appeared enamoured of the plan.
According to Baroness Bakewell, who is backing the campaign, Mark Thompson, the Corporation’s outgoing director general, said the statue could not be erected on BBC premises because Orwell was “too Left-wing”.
Orwell worked as a BBC journalist, producing radio programmes at Broadcasting House during the Second World War before leaving to publish Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Mr Thompson’s remark will surprise critics of the BBC, who have long accused the corporation of liberal bias.

The clue is actually in the article itself as to why the BBC is not exactly enamoured of Orwell in the shape of Animal Farm and 1984, both showing the excesses of left wing thinking that the BBC and others believe in and have slavishly followed despite all the evidence that socialism itself is not a fair or indeed a civilised political system.
Orwell himself fought in Spain for the republican side and became as he saw it a revolutionary socialist, though subsequent exposure to real socialism as practised by the left and the cult of Stalin lead to his disillusionment with the movement culminating in the publication of Animal Farm in 1945. Yes Orwell remained of the left as such in that he believed in a fair, just and free society even though most of the left when in power ended up with societies of anything but and Orwell knew this. Which is why he became ever more critical and despondent of the so called orthodox left who slavishly defended the excesses of those like Stalin and the other communist block leaders despite mounting evidence of their monstrous crimes committed in their name by the states they ruled.
No, I suspect that the BBC do not want a statue of Orwell outside their premises not because he was too left wing, but because he was a critic of those to whom left wing meant power at any price.

"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

Well said George.

Can't see this working either...

Cardiff it seems has a cunning plan to deal with 'binge drinker' it's apparently decided to video them and show them the results at a later date.
Telegraph.

Revellers in Cardiff will be filmed entering the new city centre clinic, which is being opened on certain evenings to take pressure off accident and emergency departments.
Conrad Edymann, head of substance misuse strategy and development for Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, said drinkers who entered the clinic would be able to view it "when they have achieved a level of sobriety".
He added: “Our intention is that the vast majority of people will be surprised and hopefully concerned about the state of their behaviour.”
Nobody would be forced to watch it, he said, and all footage of a patient would be destroyed when they left the clinic. Patients would not be able to take footage away, he emphasised.
Mr Eydmann said that was important because they did not want drinkers misbehaving on purpose so they could have “a trophy item to put up on social networking sites”.

Well Mr Eydmann has already highlighted on reason it probably won't work in that those doing the binge drinking will either not give a damn or would simply not be bothered to watch it. The UK's culture of drinking is different to pretty much anywhere else's and so far all attempts to change it have faltered in the bloody minded intransigence of those who do it. This is mostly because the idiots who decide they can force change on the population are attempting to 'cure' the result, not the cause.
Raising prices simply meant people would tank up on cheap booze before they went out, or smuggle it in to places where they chose to go. The high price of a legal activity often meant that revellers would seek illegal highs in their determination to have a good time.
People work hard and play hard in the UK and you aren't going to make them change their ways by videoing them. Perhaps a look at just why people need to tank up in the first place would give them a better idea on how to cope rather than telling us what to do all the time.
Either way, this won't stop people drinking and it won't do anything about the causes behind it. It might even be a breach of their rights to film them without their permission.

Troughing

Well he might have become the invisible man but Gordon Brown still has his hands deep within our pockets by grabbing £20,000 in travel expenses which are only supposed to be claimed if you're going from your constituency to Westminster to do your job when the records show he's only been there three times in the period claimed.
Telegraph.

Gordon Brown has spent nearly £20,000 of his parliamentary expenses on flying between London and Edinburgh, despite rarely appearing in the House of Commons.
Rules allow MPs to claim for the cost of travelling between London and their constituency homes if they are on parliamentary business.
However the former prime minister has only spoken in the Commons on three occasions since May 2010.
Mr Brown has also participated in only 15 per cent of parliamentary votes since the 2010 election, according to an analysis by the politics website publicwhip.co.uk.
In all, he has claimed £19,237 in parliamentary expenses on air travel between London and Edinburgh between June 29 2010 and Jan 23, 2012.

You can imagine what any other employer in the land outside the public services would say to that sort of claim and work attendance. You'd be looking at the sack and probably facing a police enquiry. Nor I suspect is Gordon brown the only one still at it, though as yet proof is yet to appear. Still it should not really come as such a surprise that those who have their hands on our cash and run the expenses system they have to suit themselves don't see anything wrong with robbing us blind.
All that the expenses scandal of the previous years has done is to take us back to square one, they're still thieves and still utterly dishonourable.
We should hang them all.

Another waste of money

Why do I suspect this little tale has 'human rights' written all over it...
Mail.

A cannibal killer who ballooned to 23-stone has had a gastric band operation on the NHS in a private £1,000-a-night hospital, it has emerged.
Graham Fisher, 39, piled on weight after feasting on crisps, cakes and chocolate at the high security Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.
But after complaining that he was obese and unfit, he was given the go-ahead to have the £8,000 operation.
According to The Sun, the sex predator - who killed two women, eating the flesh of one of them - was taken by guards to a private hospital in Oxfordshire last week after being on a waiting list for just three months.
It is expected he will recover from the surgery in his own private en-suite room for two more days bringing the cost of the entire procedure to taxpayers to £15,000.
The killer's room has a phone and a multi-channel TV.
Robert Oxley, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'This controversial treatment will go down poorly with ordinary people who are tightening their belts.'

Now I'm not against people in prison having operations to fix things, but this strikes me as being a bit of a vanity project, after all, the only one responsible for him getting obese is himself. My thoughts on the matter tend towards him only getting this sort of surgery after his sentence is finished (assuming it ever does) and that if he dies from his obesity then no great loss really. But I certainly do not believe he should have had this op, in a private hospital at a cost of £15,000 on me (and the rest of the taxpayers)
What I do have a sneaking suspicion of is that had he not had his way this one was heading for a Human Rights lawyer and the Court of Human rights and an even bigger bill for the taxpayer.
On the other hand the price of a 9mm bullet is about 20p and that would have fixed his weight problem (and feeding and keeping him) permanently if used in the approved manner.
Generally I'm not in favour of the death sentence, it leads to situations where saying sorry for a mistake is never going to put it right. But there are days and tales like this where my resolve wavers.

The march the BBC didn't want you to see

The BBC follows certain narratives, male = bad, female = good, white = racist, any other skin tone = salt of the earth. EDL = evil fascist/racist/islamophobic scum. Muslims = religion of peace/misunderstood/better than anyone else. Israel = bad, Palestine = good. The narratives never really change unless the consensus from its left wing ideals change and as the hard of thinking left have never come up with anything new in the way of original thought since the 1930's it's not too likely now.
The BBC because of this will not show you anything which makes their narrative suspect such as this pro Palestine march in London.

Here we have a march by Muslims and assorted idiots leftists in London where the police were on numerous occasions attacked violently by the marchers. Had this been the BNP or the EDL it would have been headline news paraded out to enforce the BBC's idea that only the so called right cause trouble on the streets. It's notable that they didn't mention the left wing support of the student riots, nor during the London riots that most taking place weren't white. Indeed they praised certain (Sikh and Turkish) communities for defending their patches whilst condemning other (white) communities for doing exactly the same.
The usual banners are on display parading the usual lies using terms such as holocaust, apartheid, starvation etc all without a basis in truth and all believed as items of faith by Muslims, the left and anyone who seeks to demonise the Israeli state.
There's clearly an attempt to create a two tier solution to justice in the UK where the majority indigenous groups are getting a second class service and representation in the media and in the justice system. This will only breed resentment until it finally explodes.

They always do this

Whenever there is a public outcry over something the government does the plans are often shelved, particularly if the government feels sensitive to public opinion. If they don't then they go ahead and do it anyway.
The problem with a shelved plan though is that it rarely stays shelved for long, they are often tacked onto other separate forms of legislation and voted into law via the back door. This is why we are supposed to have Parliamentary Committees, to scrutinise legislation and hold the government to account.
However it seems there are some bits of legislation the government are determined to get onto the statute book come hell or high water...
Mail.

Ministers were last night accused of plotting to introduce secret inquests by the back door.
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke promised the idea had been abandoned after critics including the Daily Mail and civil liberties groups campaigned fiercely against it.
But MPs and peers now say a clause has been quietly slipped into the Justice and Security Bill, which is going through Parliament, allowing ministers to revive it.
Alarmingly, an influential Lords committee says the decision could be taken on the orders of a Cabinet minister without the need for Parliamentary legislation.
Critics say the move would mean inquests into police shootings and soldiers killed by so-called ‘friendly fire’ could take place behind closed doors.

The problem with these inquests is that they are often deeply embarrassing to the government, ministers and various public services. It's the equivalent of someone going through their dirty laundry and showing the world what idiots/fools/reprobates they are. The number of cases where coroners have accused the government via the Defence Ministry of short changing our troops in equipment, criticised police brutality and called the government to account via their findings published via the MSM on a number of occasions, no wonder the government love the idea. They've even incorporated the idea that the press wouldn't even be informed that there was some form of application was in place, after all, if you don't know it's there, you can't object.
Naturally the government claim that it will only be used in matters of 'national security' the problem of course is who decides it's a matter of 'national security' and even more so the matter of 'mission creep' where the law as written will be used in ways the original authors (supposedly) never envisaged.
As ever, the government of the UK no matter which stripe it hails from is going down a path where our ancient rights are being eroded or cast aside one bit at a time.
What's worse is that the UK public no longer seem to care...

Fox in the henhouse

MP's are supposed to declare an interest if an issue crosses their path in which they have a financial interest or are involved in such a way that their judgement might be called into question. Sadly this doesn't appear to be the case with any green connections that they might have particularly when it comes down to ways of combating the now discredited (by everyone other than greens, the BBC and MP's) climate change and power requirements.
Mail.

Tim Yeo faced growing pressure to quit as chairman of the Commons environment and climate change committee after it emerged the Tory MP reaped nearly £140,000 a year from green companies.
The former environment minister is facing a threat from colleagues to depose him from the chairmanship due to his outside interests.
Activists and MPs have said that he should be forced to choose between his leadership of the powerful select committee and his other jobs.
Mr Yeo sparked controversy over his cheerleading for the renewable energy industry, and has called for communities to be ‘bribed’ to accept windfarms.
He has also attacked the Government for cutting subsidies to the green energy industry. But he also pledged his support to anti-windfarm campaigners in his South Suffolk constituency in 2007.
Angela Kelly, of the anti-windfarm group Country Guardian, said Mr Yeo should ‘do the honourable thing’ and stand aside as there should be no appearance of a conflict of interest.
She said: ‘It is not tenable for the chairman of a select committee to draw income from the very industry he is seeking to hold to account.

Windfarms to put it bluntly simply don't work, yes under certain circumstances they can generate power, but not reliably or consistently. Nor are they cheap to run without massive subsidies and their maintenance cycle (particularly at sea) is diabolical, salt water and spray not being particularly conducive to anything electrical or metal. On land their massive concrete plinths are also not exactly environmentally friendly either, without ever getting to the eyesore factor. Yet some people including government ministers are making a small fortune off 'green' energy and it ill behoves the government ever to have someone who made £140,000 (at least) in charge of putting the damned things up.
Whilst I rather doubt Mr Yeo is breaking any rules, it does rather strike me that he is not the right man to be in charge of the UK's energy needs as his outlook (never mind his judgement) will be clouded by his beliefs that 'green' energy is the only path for the future. Ministers need to be flexible and pragmatic, sadly Mr. Yeo appears to be anything but...

Better off out

Well that's the findings of a survey done by Centre for Economic and Business Research though amazingly enough this has been rejected and smeared by bureaucrats in the EU, can't think why, perhaps it's because they don't like the idea of a net contributor simply leaving...
Express.

BRUSSELS bureaucrats were accused yesterday of trying to smear economists who proved that UK trade can boom outside the EU.
They were reacting to research from a leading think tank which showed that the UK exported more to countries outside the EU than those in the economic bloc for the first time in 40 years.
The figures, showing that 50.4 per cent of exports went to non-EU countries in the three months to the end of May, were highlighted in the Daily Express, which is crusading for Britain to quit the EU.
But Brussels chiefs urged the think tank to retract the research and published a series of messages on Twitter in an extraordinary bid to undermine it.
Jonathan Faull, director general for internal market and services at the European Union, said he hoped the think tank – the Centre for Economic and Business Research – “will correct with accurate data.”
He tweeted a journalist, saying: “Official data are better than a think tank blog as a source for far-reaching political assertions.”
The chief executive of the think tank, Douglas McWill­iams, described the attempts by the Eurocrats to rubbish the research as “bizarre.”
He said: “You would hope European officials would have better things to do than wasting their time trying unsuccessfully to smear people who point out inconvenient facts. The trade figure argument tends to be used by pro-Europeans to support Britain’s continued membership of the European Union.
“I can only assume that is why they responded so aggressively.”

Indeed you would think that bureaucrats would have better things to do, unless of course there's a problem in the fact that the figures being used are accurate and the report is truthful. If that's the case then you'd expect smears, rather than denials complete with differing facts and figures, something the EUrocrats often fail to produce as they tend to be good at bigging themselves up rather than producing the truth.
And there lies the problem for EUphiles as a whole, they've been caught rubbishing anything critical of the EU for so long that no-one believes them anymore. Yes, I know they say the same about EUsceptics, it's just that the sceptics tend to at least do their homework when it comes to attacking the EU and often enough produce facts and figures which are difficult to challenge unlike the EU ones themselves which often come under very close scrutiny.
However I do tend to trust figures by the Centre for Economic and Business Research, yes they have an axe to grind (or an agenda) but they have no reason to lie in this instance, it really seems as if we could do well enough on our own...
What a surprise.

Entitlement

Every so often a story rears its head that beggars belief, most of them are how the native population are being treated by those in power who seem to believe our views can be either taken for granted or run over roughshod by their current pets in the name of diversity and multiculturalism. Object and you're more or less labelled a racist, fascist or bigot by the powers that be and the various legions of the damned twitterati (that well known socialist media format will hound you and expose you to the world. Yet every so often one of their protected species simply goes too far...
Mail.

‘I am entitled to live in a house like this’: Jobless mother-of-seven insists her family ‘deserve’ £1.25MILLION taxpayer-funded home they 'trashed'

• Manal Mahmoud moved into the Fulham address following a £76,000 refit
• 'I deserve to live in a nice house and get benefits,' she said.
• Council says the family's behaviour has been 'appalling' and it must improve
• Claims doors are missing, wallpaper has been ripped off, driveway tiles have been smashed and furniture has been left strewn in the garden
• Mrs Mahmoud insists she has 'right to live in a nice house and claim benefits'

An unemployed refugee on benefits who has allegedly wrecked her £1.25million townhouse paid for by the taxpayer says she is 'entitled' to live there.
Mother-of-seven Manal Mahmoud moved into the upmarket Fulham address almost three years ago, but have since been branded the 'family from hell'.
'I deserve to live in a nice house and get benefits. I deserve this house because I am human. In this country, it is our right to live here. It is important for my kids to have space to play,' she said.
Ms Cummings, who agreed to let council tenants live in her home in the leafy street close to the River Thames, apparently found doors missing or hanging off and walls written on.
The driveway had also been smashed up, wallpaper was off and carpet worn through, the Sun said.
Outside, the lawn was overgrown, furniture left in the front garden and rubbish and motorbike parts strewn around.
However, Mrs Mahmoud, who has five young daughters and two teenage sons, insisted she had the right to live in the house - which only underwent a £76,000 refit - half of which was paid for by public money - three years ago.
All of her children live at the address apart from her oldest son who is in prison for drug dealing.
She told Sun reporters: 'I deserve to live in a nice house and get benefits. In this country, it is our right to live here.'

There are people who were born here, work here and who contribute to society whom I would say had more right to have a chance to live in a house like that. Sadly though the fact that they do work and do contribute pretty much makes them ineligible to be housed in a property like that. Sadly that sort of chance only seems to go to the feckless and workshy, those who have either come here to sponge from abroad.
Again and again bloggers on the right of the political system have stated that if you come from abroad unless you have contributed to the system you should get nothing from the system. No housing, social or health benefits at all either for a fixed period of time or until you have contributed a fixed sum to the system. Sadly those on the liberal left have yet to acknowledge this wisdom, indeed they accuse those who object as bigots, racists and fascists.
So in my view Mrs Mahmoud isn't entitled to anything at all, no house, no benefits no nothing, she's taken shameless advantage of the system like many others and it needs to come to a halt. Immigrants and refugee status seekers should pay their way before they get anything at all back, it's only fair.

Bansturbation

I'm not quite sure just what it is that makes people want to dress up in Nazi uniforms, other than the fact that they look way cooler than the rest of the WW2 regalia of the allies and others. I think it might have to do with the fact that they were designed by Hugo Boss whereas the rest all look like they were designed by the committee that designed the camel.
Still I do understand why certain Jewish groups would get upset when people do, though I don't believe they should attempt to stop it, merely avoid it. However I'm at a loss as to why anyone else would object, though naturally there are elements on the left who object to anything...
Mail.

War enthusiasts cause outrage after parading through streets in Nazi uniforms and flying swastika flags from their cars

• The incident happened at the Yanks festival in Uppermill near Manchester
• War enthusiasts donned Nazi uniforms and drove through in cars with Nazi flags attached
• Jewish and anti-fascism groups brand it offensive

A row has broken out after war enthusiasts took to the streets in Nazi uniforms and flying swastikas from their cars.
Jewish leaders and anti-fascism campaigners have berated festival-goers near Saddleworth, Greater Manchester, who went through the centre of the village of Uppermill proudly carrying the Nazi symbol.
Hundreds attended the Yanks festival last weekend, with many thrilled to dress up and re-create the 1940s for a few days.
But organisers say they cannot stop people wearing Nazi insignia on a public street and insist their own strict code of conduct bans them.
Although they said anyone spotted with anything Nazi-related trying to get into their event at Saddleworth School was asked to remove it.
But campaign group Unite Against Fascism called for the public to protest and said it was unacceptable.

Now, first off people ought to realise that there were two sides to WW2 (and any number of alliances) and that pretending the opposing side doesn't exist is just a tad silly, that includes all aspects of the opposing side too.
Also no-one is making the Jewish groups actually go there and witness the event, which is simply a historical re-enactment on a grand scale.
As for Unite Against Fascism, these are the people who would ban free speech, freedom of expression, frequently turn out when various groups whom they don't approve of legally protest and attempt to violently prevent this. So when looking at the UAF and comparing it to fascism, you'd be wondering just who exactly the fascists are, not that easy to tell them apart.
To most people, this is just a bit of fun, yes they realise just how terrible the Nazi's were, however seeing some people wandering around in Nazi uniforms is not going to turn them into Nazi's, no matter how hard the idiots on the left believe it might. I rather suspect that this is simply something that those groups who hate any form of freedom of expression love as it gives them a bit of free publicity.
A lot of people particularly those of an authoritarian bent seem to forget that freedom if it means anything should allow for views and opinions opposed to your own, including historical ones.

Should know better

I cannot think of many worse things than losing a child or loved one in circumstances which might have been preventable, particularly by medical staff. I'd also expect the medical staff to at least have the common sense not to rub salt into a wound. But I'd be wrong...
Mail.

Hospital hail ‘good news’ in email blunder as father drops fight for justice after their bungle led to the death of his baby son

• Trust's customer services employee Angela Peil wrote to colleague it was 'good news' that James Titcombe was stepping back from his inquiries

• Second time grieving father has unearthed inappropriate messages regarding his quest to find out what happened when his son died

• Baby Joshua Titcombe bled to death nine days after he was born at Furness General Hospital, Cumbria

• Coroner accused hospital staff of a 'cover up' regarding Joshua's care

A grieving father discovered that senior hospital staff dealing with the investigation into his baby's death exchanged 'deeply offensive' emails celebrating the end of his quest for justice. James Titcombe wrote to tell staff at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (UHMBT) that he was 'stepping back' from his personal investigations in the death of nine-day-old son Joshua in November 2008. He found that Angela Peil, who worked in customer services at the trust, greeted the news by emailing Angela Oxley, head of midwifery, writing: 'Good news regarding James T'.
Mrs Oxley replied: 'Has JT moved to Thailand? What is the good news?'
Mr Titcombe, whose wife Hoa is from Vietnam, unearthed the emails as part of a Freedom of Information request.

It just beggars belief that these people are in charge of care over us and can be so callous. A man grieving over the loss of a child really doesn't need to find out that those potentially responsible for the death are treating his withdrawal from enquiries as 'good news'
It also is a shining example of where the Freedom of Information Act (something the government regards as a grave inconvenience and wants to be rid of) is of benefit to the public and can be used to unearth the real motives of those involved in decision-making.
There's the usual mealy mouthed apology about standards of course along with lessons will be learned. But nothing will bring back the child, nor ease the anguish of Mr. Titcombe that somehow or other a conspiracy of neglect, blame shifting and silence surrounding the death of his son was in place and those involved saw his potential withdrawal as good news on a par with him emigrating to Thailand.

Here we go again.

Well the online world is ablaze (for a given value of ablaze) at the case of Tia Sharp whose body was found yesterday in her grandmothers house, despite 3 previous police searches.
A man, Stuart Hazell  who is the partner of the grandmother (and reputedly the ex of Tia's mother) has been arrested in connection with the enquiry into Tia's death.
Express.

THE partner of Tia Sharp’s grandmother was arrested last night on suspicion of murder after the 12-year-old girl’s body was found hidden at their house.
Stuart Hazell, 37, was identified by a member of the public after police launched a manhunt and warned people not to approach him.
He was held in what Scotland Yard described as “a public place in the south London borough of Merton” and taken to a south London police station.
The discovery of Tia’s body came shortly after 20 detectives moved into her grandmother’s council house in New Addington, south London, for a full forensic search.
There was speculation last night that the body may have been found in the loft or a space above the airing cupboard by a police sniffer dog.

 A quick check around the various online outlets for the hard of thinking (twitter, chatrooms and debate boards) finds vigilantism on the rise as they're all convinced that Mr Hazell is guilty as sin and what he really needs is stringing up right here right now.
Now it may be that Mr Hazell is guilty, however all he is at the minute is under arrest and anyone who believes that under arrest = guilty as sin needs to have a quick word with Christopher Jeffries. Yet already people are mentally preparing the hempen rope with an eye to hanging the guy after a damned good beating up.
This in essence is why we must keep separate the legal system from those who would take the law into their own hands, even whilst having the odd pop at some of the weird (and not so wonderful) examples of justice or the lack of it they come up with. But this is always to be done after the judgement call is in.
We don't know all the fact, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and we definitely shouldn't presume guilt as a given if someone is arrested!

Patriotism

I have to admit it, it's been quite impressive the medal haul of the UK team during the Olympics, we've done far better than I expected and some of the victories have been very impressive, including a few against the odds one. Whilst I have precious little time for British nationalism as it's not my flag and not my country, I have enjoyed quite a few of the English golds being grabbed at the event. However it seems that a certain broadcaster has been told not to get so excited about UK victories...
Express.

BBC news teams have been ordered to stop focusing on the success of Team GB and celebrate the achievements of other countries as well. Director general Mark Thompson is said to be unhappy at the patriotic tone of the coverage.
In an email to journalists, director of news Helen Boaden wrote: “Mark Thompson is increasingly unhappy that we are focusing far too much on Team GB’s performance to the exclusion of all else. As editor in chief, he has issued a directive that this needs to change from today.”

BBC: British Broadcasting Corporation, who would have thought it might be glad of British success?
That's right, unlike any other country, the British national broadcaster has been told not to 'big up' our own impressive tally but concentrate on every other nation as well. Only at the leftist BBC could you have expected such a ridiculous pronouncement,  where such things as patriotism and pride need to be squelched so as not to give the masses ideas above their station.
It's not often we have much to cheer about these days.

When Cultural = discrimination

When various governments of the UK came up with legislation to 'enforce' equality it was as ever poorly written and designed mainly to keep either men or the English in general in their place, ie. the bottom of the pile. Various 'buzzwords' were trotted out by the powers that be (and often enough socialists) to try and shame people into either silence or acquiescence. Couldn't stop us thinking what we wanted of course, but if you said or wrote something that didn't fit in with the 'accepted' view then woe betide you. 'Fascist, racist, islamophobe, sexist, bigot' etc. all used to try and silence those who were, but also to stifle any debate on any subject where minorities or non white male genders were running roughshod over true equality where everyone was/is supposed to be treated equally. Though sadly there are more than enough cases to prove that this is not really the case and that equality for some actually means that they are the top dog and different rules must apply to them because they aren't 'white and/or male'
Birmingham Mail.

A BIRMINGHAM children’s centre has been plunged into a sexism row after openly telling dads: “You’re banned.”
Kids Go Wild recently opened in Sparkhill and boasts it is the first soft play venue in the country for just mums and their kids.
Staff have told dads they are not allowed in for ‘‘cultural’’ reasons – but the Equality and Human Rights Commission is now looking into the ban.
Kids Go Wild advertises itself as “the UK’s first ladies and children’s only soft play centre.”
Staff openly tell men they are not allowed in and a flyer posted to homes in the city reads: “Ladies and children only. No boys over nine allowed.”
They claim the ban is for “cultural” reasons and in the interests of the “predominantly Asian” local community.

For 'Asian' as ever read 'Muslim' which appears to be a piss poor MSM way to deflect blame from the Muslim community who constantly demand their own way because it's a) cultural and b) Muslims are ubermensch because allah said so to a 7th century barbarian paedophilic warlord.
Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if this was reversed? That men had set up a business that wouldn't allow women entry and specifically stated that this was the case. Feminists would have went mental, miles of column inches in the Guardian would have been taken up castigating the people involved. But when it's women doing it and it's 'cultural' different rules are believed to apply.

When the Birmingham Mail rang the play centre a woman who claimed to be the manageress, but who refused to give her name, defended the policy.
She said: “It’s a predominantly Asian community around here and we’re catering for that. It’s a cultural thing.
“We’ve had ladies coming in and they’ve not questioned it [ban on men]. They’ve been asking for it for a long time.”

You can spot the fact that they think they are on very dodgy ground when names are refused, nor would I expect women to question it, after all they are pretty much used to not thinking equality rules apply to them, but to men alone. Throw in the 'Asian' buzzword for raving Muslim fanatics who are so afraid to show their faces in case (only Muslim) men will sexually assault them for just showing an ankle. Then obviously they thought they could get away with ignoring the law because it's 'culture'
Still it would be nice to see the law being applied equally in this case, espescially as it's being applied to those who usually think it only applies to others...

More illegals

Apparently there's some sort of big sporting event going on in London, athletes from all over the world have been invited to compete including those from countries we normally wouldn't allow to come here even for a bet.
So, there's no big surprise that having got here, several of these athletes from various (usually African) nations have simply vanished.
BBC.

Seven Cameroonian athletes have disappeared while in Britain for the Olympics, officials said.
David Ojong, the head of the Cameroon delegation, said five boxers, a swimmer and a female football player had been missing since the weekend.
The reason for their disappearance is not known, amid some reports that they wanted to stay in the UK for economic reasons.
Mr Ojong said the athletes had visas allowing them to stay until November.
"What began as rumour has finally turned out to be true," Mr Ojong said, in a letter sent to the Cameroonian sports ministry.

Other than wondering whether or not it would be worth allowing the Olympics to be housed in a permanent home (say North Korea) I can't say I'm a bit surprised, Cameroon is a piss poor African state its largest city Douala is known as the "armpit of Africa." It has several problems economically mostly due to the fact that it's run by the usual tribal kleptocracy that keeps most African nations poor whilst an elite siphons off the riches that are produced whilst taking a cut from pretty much every deal going. The fact that 24% of the country is Muslim doesn't exactly help either as it's heading into radical territory at a rate of knots. It's not helped by a president who keeps getting elected with 90% of the votes cast either, so things are unlikely to change for the better any time soon. Yet would anyone want to take bets that somehow or other it's our fault that Cameroon is poor and that colonialism was to blame? I'm sure the Guardian and thard of thinking socialists among us do.
So we bring to London athletes from one of the poorest nations in the world and guess what happens? The abscond, hell the odds are pretty good they'll get away with it too.
Bet this wasn't part of the original plane to bring one of the greatest sporting events in the world to us...

Beginning of the end?

It's been more than amusing watching the Lib Dem hysteria as its MP's and party members have looked into the abyss of electoral annihilation (mostly due to the fact that people tend to blame the government no matter what) and have seen the abyss in the shape of UKIP wink back. So, rather than be grown up about it...
Actually, what am I writing here, these are Lib Dems I'm talking about.
So when in trouble, the Lib Dems have sought instead to try and break the coagulation, by using the oldest Lib Dem trick in the book, blaming the Tories for starting it.
Telegraph.

The Prime Minister is setting up a bitter clash over the reforms next year, as the Liberal Democrats have said they will vote against the proposals.
Mr Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister, said on Monday that his party could not support the boundary changes because the Conservatives have dropped reforms to the House of Lords.
He declared the Coalition's contract to be "broken" and accused the Conservatives of failing to live up to their promises.
However, Mr Cameron today brushed off Mr Clegg's claims by saying he "does not accept" accusations that the Coalition agreement has been breached.
"We want the boundary change vote to go ahead," he said in Wales today.

Tbh, I doubt that many people were particularly stirred by reform of the House of Lords, save perhaps a generation of spongers unelectable MP's  seeking another route to the top trough. No i don't have any particular problem with the House of Lords, they have in the past reigned in the ideological lunacy of various govenments both Labour and Tory, they have a far greater grasp of the UK's weird and wonderful constitution than most elected MP's too. Are they perfect? No. Do they make mistakes too? Yes. But the alternatives proposed, give no greater hope of accountability or control, merely another way to turn part of Parliament into a party political machine.
As for boundary changes, I really have no problem with this and support the move to do so. After all, shouldn't an MP roughly represent the same amount of people as any other? Why should inner city wards be grossly over represented in the commons, though getting an inner city Labour MP to admit that might be problematical I have to admit.
Still it stands to reason that boundary reform can only leave MP's being more representative of the people who elect them rather than widely diverse numbers depending on which area of the country they represent.
On the other hand it's like asking some turkey's to vote for Christmas, so I expect Cameron will struggle just a bit.

Well there's a surprise...

Patriotic organisations around the UK have been saying that the police and other UK authorities have been hampered in their enquiries of ethnic minorities through fear of being accused of being racist.
This was of course denied, though such denials were becoming rather frayed around the edges with the now ongoing investigation of hundreds of cases of sexualisation of young girls by a certain ethno-religious group.
Still it did come as a surprise to read this article particularly as it links the Stephen Lawrence case vis the Mcpherson report as being part of a major problem in UK policing...
Mail.

Police are failing to investigate crimes committed by ethnic minorities because they fear being branded racist, a report claims.
A pamphlet by think-tank Civitas, released today, says pressure to show racial sensitivity may have been behind the initial failure to properly investigate Asian street grooming gangs in the North of England.
Jon Gower Davies, a former academic, links the failure to police being branded ‘institutionally racist’ by the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence, which he says left police ‘shackled’ by bureaucracy.
The pamphlet, which is entitled’ Mind-Forg’d Manacles: Murder, Macpherson and the Police’ finds Macpherson lacked evidence for the charge of institutional racism which he says ‘lacks substance’.
This year a gang from Rochdale were jailed for plying teenage girls with alcohol before raping them.
All but one gang member was of an Asian Pakistani background.
The court heard up to 47 vulnerable girls were passed around the group and forced to have sex several times a week, but two years before action was finally taken, police missed an opportunity to stop the gang when a 15-year-old girl told them she had been raped.
A former Labour MP, Ann Cryer, said the police failed to investigate properly because they were ‘petrified’ of being branded racist.
Mr Davies, a former Labour councillor, describes the lack of investigation into sex crimes as a case of ‘reverse’ institutional racism in which the views of victims, vulnerable white girls, were not taken seriously.

The saddest thing of all is this has been going on for over a decade, it was even highlighted by Nick Griffin of the BNP back in 2008 though he was decried in public over doing so. By both the left, the mainstream, even by some champions of the 'right' notably John Gaunt. I suppose it could be a case of a stopped clock being right at least twice a day, but Griffin however odious he may be, was dead right as to who was to blame and the media and politicians were dead wrong to try to keep covering it up.
It does seem a little odd that Labour members are only coming out of the woodwork now to complain, they were clearly well in with the bigoted British camp when Gordon Brown let his inner thoughts out on a microphone during the last general election campaign. It could I suppose simply be a fear that they might just have nailed their colours to a sinking ship. After all, it was Labour who are well remembered for opening the floodgates to immigration in the first place, no matter whether the offenders in this instance are home grown or not, I get the feeling the general public no longer gives a damn about whether they were born here, just where they got their attitudes from.
The sainted Stephen Lawrence family and the Mcpherson report have a lot to answer for in the brutalisation of young white women in the UK, there can be no doubt about this any more.
Expect screams of outrage from the perpetually offended left and minority groups over this, It's not often an MSM article puts the boot into one of their sacred cows.

Envy or spite, socialism in a nutshell

The poster pin up for socialism (aka Frankie Boyle tax evader) has decided that the socialist Olympic sports fest is a good target for his vile commentary. I know humour is subjective, but there are a few targets that perhaps you should avoid, or in the case of socialism and its (supposed) equality/gender/multiculturalism beliefs should avoid altogether.
Express.

VILE Frankie Boyle was at the centre of another Twitter storm of outrage last night after sending a “rape” joke about Victoria Pendleton to his 800,000 followers.
The loud-mouthed comedian has already caused offence during the Olympics by tweeting tasteless comments about swimmer Rebecca Adlington and cycling hero Bradley Wiggins.
Anti-violence charities said last night that his latest outburst marked a “revolting” new low.
Boyle tweeted: “Victoria can lift twice her own bodyweight. Sexy, as it means she still wouldn’t be able to throw me off.”
Unrepentant, he also unleashed a stream of “jokes” and expletives about track athlete Jessica Ennis.

Can you imagine the sheer bile and outrage that would have erupted from the left if say a 'right winger' (or should that read ordinary person) made such jokes or even heaven forfend, posted them up on that left wing bastion of the hard of thinking twitter? Arrests would surely follow, thousands would get in on the act by lambasting the perpetrator and announcing his real name and address to the world to allow for summary justice.
But no, all we get is an embarrassing silence from the left and the odd muttering of 'well yeah, but, he's an on the edge comedian' I can only presume that they mean he doesn't mention 'Thatcher' in every second sentence like the tired old leftist comedians beloved by the BBC do.
Still, I doubt they'll do anything, he's 'one of them' a warrior leading the charge for socialist values and he says the odd thing about injustice etc whilst squirrelling his money away off shore for his own use, something ordinary folks can't afford to do.
Socialism at times is just hypocrisy writ large...

Porn

What is it with the education industry in the UK that they try to involve themselves ever more in the minutiae of how people 'should' think 'should' behave and 'should' live their lives, even down to matters of  sex and primary school kids.
Mail.

A primary school has shown its young pupils a sex education video which was deemed so steamy it was removed from sale after a government minister intervened.
The Living and Growing DVD - branded 'cartoon porn' - has caused uproar around the UK for its graphic sex scenes using cartoon couples.
In one scene a naked cartoon couple chase each other around a bedroom with a feather before having sex, and include an animated scene of ejaculation.
The films include a section aimed at children as young as five, asking them to name the body parts on a drawing of a naked man and woman.
It has received such strong criticism from parents and even government minister Nick Gibbs that the Channel 4-produced DVD was removed from sale.

Now I have no objection to sex education, however I'm a great believer of keeping kids as kids for as long as possible as well. Why Westbury Leigh Primary School in Wiltshire, should decide to show a film about sex to children from as young as four up to the age of twelve is beyond me, I simply don't see any need at all for this, it's not like the kids should even be 'practising' anything they see in the dvd as it is. From what I can tell, the school decided to show it to ten year olds, some six years before they are even legally allowed to indulge in sex (yes I know it goes on but we shouldn't encourage law breaking) it's not even as if the film is some sort of 'Stranger Danger' type of warning either.
Certainly a good grasp of biology with regards to kids changing to adults will help, but we shouldn't be telling them just how the actual mechanic work until say at least the entire class is fourteen and approaching the stage where they should really know. Not that I'd expect it to come as a surprise to a lot of fourteen year olds, it's amazing what you can find on the internet, however I still believe that kids should remain kids for as long as possible and if that means keeping them out of the hands of those who want to make them sexually aware from a very young age then I believe it's a price worth paying.
It may not be possible to go back (as yet) to an age of innocence, but attempts like this to sexualise our kids do not help at all.

So is this how you practice Islam?

Some more cultural enrichment from the religion of the perpetually aggrieved.
Telegraph.

A man who raped women to “teach them a lesson” for being out at night was jailed indefinitely yesterday.
Sunny Islam, 23, dragged away his victims, including a 15 year-old, at knifepoint, then bound and assaulted them.
Police fear that Islam, who raped four women over three months in east London, may have attacked many more.
At Woolwich Crown Court, Judge Patricia Lees sentenced Islam to a minimum sentence of 11 years before he is considered for parole. She told him: “The nature and extent of these offences drives me to the conclusion that you represent an extreme and continuing danger to women, particularly those out at night.”
Islam, who told the jury he was a practising Muslim, was convicted of seven charges of rape, one of sexual assault and one of kidnap.

I wonder if the thought the 'I'm a Muslim' mitigation was a get out of jail free card? The other thing not mentioned in the article but can be found elsewhere on the net is that the guy asked his victims their religion before committing the atrocity. I'm actually surprised he didn't play the 'it's all Israel's fault and the Jews made me do it' card. After all if the Israeli's can train red sea sharks to attack tourists, then God alone knows what they are capable of (and what some people will believe come to that)
Of course there are some out there who think that this is an exception that most Muslims don't act or think the way this guy does, but of course the evidence is out there if you look.

Yes, according to this Muslim scholar, women who don't cover up are 'asking for it' I doubt that this is the kind of 'cultural enrichment' that the left and liberals insist is an outcome of diversity, multiculturalism and immigration, but you never know with that lot.
And the government insist that we tolerate this vile religion and its adherents.

The poison in our midst

Finally we get to see the justice in action when it comes to the grooming of underage girls by sexual predators, though if you read the BBC report, you'd never guess the man's race or religion save only that it's fairly obvious from the name.
BBC.

The jailed leader of a Rochdale sex ring has received a further term of 22 years for 30 child rape charges.
Shabir Ahmed, 59, of Oldham, was one of nine men convicted of sex offences against children at Liverpool Crown Court in May.
He was not named at the time because he faced further charges, but was jailed for 19 years.
Ahmed was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in June of raping and sexually abusing a girl for more than a decade.
His sentence will run concurrently with the earlier one.
Judge Mushtaq Khokhar was forced to have Ahmed removed from the dock before passing sentence because he was persistently interrupted by the defendant.
Before his ejection, Ahmed shouted: "It's all lies. It's all concocted by the police."

Whilst I believe the police are perfectly capable of fitting someone up, I somehow doubt these days that they'd try it with anyone not of a white persuasion, the politically, multiculturally clap trap that surrounds us these days will have made sure that this guy is bang to rights guilty (and probably overwhelmingly so) so long has this abuse been carried out in the Islamic communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent and ignored or tolerate by police and politicians in the name of 'diversity' and 'community cohesion'
It's a pity that his sentence will run concurrently though, it really ought to run serially as he's also facing a lot of other charges. Personally I wouldn't have a problem if he never saw the light of day again, just a pity we have to feed and house him really.
Nor despite the best efforts of the state, the judiciary and the MSM is this the end of the matter, much as they would wish it. More and more of these cases are coming to light (Oxford, Telford, Blackpool, Dewsbury etc) to give a lie to the fact that somehow or other these are isolated cases and that somehow or other the race/religion og the perpetrators isn't somehow a factor. After all if you're brought up in a community which treats its own women as second class citizens and sees all outsiders as either prey or irrelevant, then you'd see other women as easy meat to be used and abused as they see fit.
Sooner or later the lies and abuse will catch up with these communities, tolerance only goes so far.

Something to hide?

I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when a freedom of information request to see the 2003 Iraqi war cabinet papers was approved. I guess I should have known better, after all, there are a lot of suspicions about what just went on, who said what and just who was misleading who. So, it being par for the course, the Attorney General has stepped in to block the request at the last minute...
Mail.

Secret Cabinet papers on the decision to invade Iraq could be kept from the public for three decades.
The crucial minutes of ministerial meetings in 2003 were approved for release under Freedom of Information laws but blocked at the last minute by the Attorney General.
Dominic Grieve’s ruling yesterday is a repeat of the decision made by Jack Straw in 2009 over the same papers.
Sir Menzies Campbell said he was disappointed by the outcome.
‘The original decision to go to war against Iraq is still shrouded in controversy with many people arguing that it was the single most significant foreign policy decision since Suez in 1956,’ said the former Liberal Democrat leader.
‘In the interests of transparency I believe that these minutes should be revealed to the public, not least because there are very substantial questions about the extent to which the Cabinet was informed about the proposal to go to war with the US against Saddam Hussein or even had the opportunity to debate them.’ 

I doubt this will stop the speculation, most people are convinced the government was/is hiding something, possibly it's the speculation that there were no weapons of mass destruction, though the likelihood is they ended up in Syria, to the simple fact we were ordered too by the USA, though again it's probably more prosaic than that in that the decisions involved probably make the government look bad, or that certain politicians are still covering each others backs. Why this would affect the current government, God alone knows, you'd think that an opportunity to stab Labour in the back would have been an open goal, given how currently unpopular they are. Still we are talking Cameron here, the man who threw away an election, perhaps he doesn't want to be judged later in the court of public opinion.
I've no doubt that there will be specific leaks of the papers over the next 30 or so years, governments are like that, perhaps there will be the odd exclusive, no doubt served up by the BBC to present things in the best possible light. Whatever happens though, all this decision will do is confirm the suspicion in many peoples eyes that the government (or more specifically the political classes) have something really bad to hide.