Surprise! Surprise! Christian carer who refused to work on Sundays 'denied rights given to a Muslim allowed to visit mosque'

A Christian care worker was forced from her job for refusing to work on Sundays even though a Muslim colleague had time off on Fridays to visit the mosque, a tribunal heard yesterday.

Celestina Mba, 57, claims she was threatened with disciplinary action after telling her employer her church duties came first.

In her evidence, she said she felt so intimidated by bosses at Brightwell children’s home in Morden, South London, that she had to resign.

‘I was willing to work at any unsocial time of shift in order to preserve my Sundays, I was prepared to work nights, or Saturdays,’ she said.

‘I would have been willing to consider any hours of work, or even a reduction in pay. I believe that my employer did not want to compromise and saw the issue as a question of management power with disrespect to the Christian faith. I have been treated very badly.’

Miss Mba, who has three grown-up children, is suing Merton council for constructive dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination.

London South Employment Tribunal heard Miss Mba worships every Sunday at her Baptist church and is part of the ministry team visiting hospitals and providing pastoral care for young women.

She said that at her job interview in May 2007 she told her manager John Deegan she was unable to work Sundays, a request he said he could ‘work around’. But seven months into the job she was told she had to cover Sundays.

Miss Mba said she launched an official complaint and tried to come up with solutions to the problem but felt her bosses were being obstructive.

The tribunal heard she arranged shift swaps with colleagues, only for this to be blocked by management.

In January 2010, Miss Mba was called to a disciplinary hearing after refusing to work a Sunday shift she had not obtained cover for. She resigned four months later and has not been able to find work since.

She claims that despite stopping her going to church, the same managers were happy to allow a Muslim member of staff to attend mosque every Friday.

Mr Deegan, who also gave evidence, told the tribunal he did not believe Miss Mba had specified she could not work Sundays and said he did not know of any Muslim employee being given special treatment. The hearing continues.

Last week, Baroness Warsi, Tory Party chairman, said a ‘liberal elite’ was attempting to downgrade the importance of religion in public life.

Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, which is fighting Miss Mba’s claim, said: ‘This is another example of Christianity being marginalised in public life. The issue could have been easy to resolve by way of a common sense approach.

‘Increasingly, we see a readiness among employers to accommodate other religions but Christianity seems to be fair game.’

Employment laws do not give Christians the right to Sunday off but bosses must justify Sunday working as a ‘legitimate business need’.

SOURCE






We'll stand up for the majority: Minister signals an end to multiculturalism

The English language and Christian faith will be restored to the centre of public life, ministers are to pledge today. Eric Pickles will praise the traditions and heritage of ‘the majority’ and describe multiculturalism as the politics of division.

Public bodies should no longer ‘bend over backwards’ to translate documents into dozens of languages and migrants must be asked to learn English and understand the British way of life, the Communities Secretary will say. Children should be educated in a ‘common culture’, promoting a British identity that crosses class, colour and creed.

Events such as the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympics should be used to celebrate traditional culture and ‘fly the flags of Britain’ with pride.

Mr Pickles was speaking exclusively to the Daily Mail ahead of today’s announcement of a new strategy on community cohesion and integration.

He said the last Labour government and Harriet Harman, who was its equalities minister, had ‘encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream’.

The minister said the Coalition celebrated Britain’s tradition as a nation of ‘tolerance’ and insisted he was proud to celebrate the special customs and practices that make communities unique. ‘But it’s sad to see how, in recent years, the idea of tolerance has become twisted,’ Mr Pickles added.

‘A few people, a handful of activists, have insisted that it isn’t enough simply to celebrate the beliefs of minority communities; they want to disown the traditions and heritage of the majority, including the Christian faith and the English language.

‘In recent years we’ve seen public bodies bending over backwards to translate documents up to and including their annual report into a variety of foreign languages.

‘We’ve seen men and women disciplined for wearing modest symbols of Christian faith at work, and we’ve seen legal challenges to councils opening their proceedings with prayers, a tradition that goes back generations, brings comfort to many and hurts no one. ‘This is the politics of division.’

Mr Pickles said political correctness had replaced common sense and left millions of people afraid to express legitimate concerns and frustrations. ‘We need a new approach: one that emphasises what we have in common rather than difference,’ he added.

‘Harriet Harman was leading the country down the wrong path. If we are to remain a country where people of different backgrounds feel at ease and get along, we need more confidence in our national traditions. We need to draw a line. ‘We must be unafraid to insist on the common ground and common values we all share.

‘It’s right to stand up for the right of councils who wish to start their proceedings with a prayer. If we want people of all faiths to feel at home and able to contribute here, the last thing we should be doing is knocking Christianity.

‘By the same token, it’s right to ask new migrants to demonstrate a grasp of the English language and an understanding of British traditions. It would be plain unkind is to encourage people to come here without the basic skills and understanding that are vital to getting on in a job, in education and the local community.’

Far from seeing religion as a problem that needs to be solved, ministers regard it as part of the solution, according to Government sources.

The days of the state trying to suppress Christianity – and other faiths – should be over, they said, with the Government aiming to use neighbourhood schemes and other projects to bring different faiths together. Today’s strategy will say the Government believes in certain values and ‘will actively promote them’ – including freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy and the rule of law.

It will pledge to challenge extremism in all its forms and tackle those who spread ‘hatred and division’. Ministers plan to marginalise extremist behaviour and improve the recording of hate crime against the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Requiring incomers to learn English, ministers will say, will help improve social mobility.

‘We want to help people realise their potential to get on in life. It’s not about where you are from, but where you are going. We want immigrants to speak the language of their new home,’ said a Government source. ‘People should be educated in elements of a common culture and curriculum.’

SOURCE





Flemish Politician, Daughter Receive Death Threats Over Muslim Veil & Bikini Ad Campaign

Typical Muslim behaviour. Violence and aggression is all they know

A Flemish nationalist politician in Belgium said he and his daughter have received death threats after she posed in a Muslim veil and bikini as part of his “Women Against Islamization” campaign.

Filip Dewinter, head of the far-right Vlaams Belang — or “Flemish Interest” party — used a photo of his 19-year-old daughter An-Sofie wearing only a niqab — a face-covering Islamic veil — and cloak over her swimsuit-clad body in the campaign earlier this month, the Daily Mail reported. Across her chest is the message “Freedom or Islam?“ and ”You choose!” over her hips.

According to NBC News, Vlaams Belang advocates strict immigration limits and believes new arrivals to the country should adopt the Flemish language and culture. The point of the campaign, the Daily Mail said, is to convince Belgian women to take a stand against Islam:

Ms Dewinter told the Belgian press she does not feel used by the party. She said: ‘I’ve suggested (the poster) myself, I have learned to live with it but I have had everything up to death threats made at me.’

She said that she ‘ wanted to make this statement.’ She added: ‘What is the greatest contrast with a niqab? Nude. ‘The campaign fits in perfectly with how I feel about the whole issue. As women, we must choose: freedom or Islam.’

Since the campaign started, Filip Dewinter told Fox News, he and An-Sofie have received hate mail and death threats.

“There were some threats, yes of course, and I’m very worried about them,” he said. “But nevertheless if nobody speaks up — she’s a grown up girl, she’s 20 years old.”

For her part, An-Sofie seemed to brush off any possible danger. “It doesn’t scare me,” she told Fox News. “I don‘t think they’re serious. I hope not.”

SOURCE





Is Newsweek Redeeming Itself Or Is It Just An Aberration?

Newsweek has been at the vanguard of the liberal mainstream media. Often these media outlets compete to see who is more anti-Christian. Through the years, many of them have led with sensational [yet historically questionable] headlines regarding Christ and Christianity. These headlines range from the denial of the resurrection of Jesus to the denial of the virgin birth, all the way to the denial of Jesus’ existence.

That is why some faithful, Bible-believing, intellectual Christians have been pleasantly surprised by Newsweek’s headline in the February 13, 2012 issue, “The War on Christians.” Wow! Someone woke up and is finally beginning to see the truth.

What was even more pleasantly surprising was the writer’s absolute candor, not only in exposing the widespread persecution and killing of Christians from Nigeria to Egypt to Pakistan to Indonesia, but in exposing the deliberate closing of the eyes on the part of her fellow mainline Western media.

In this masterpiece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she exposed how Islamists led by Saudi Arabia and the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] “over the past decade...have been remarkably successful in persuading leading public figures and journalists in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a systematic and sinister derangement called ‘Islamophobia’ – a term that is meant to elicit the same moral disapproval as xenophobia or homophobia.”

Truth-seeking Christians have been screaming from the top of their lungs, hoping that someone would listen and examine this propaganda by CAIR as being nothing short of mind control. While examples of Islamophobia are reported repeatedly, the killing and beheading of Christians in the Muslim world brings nary a peep out of them.

Speaking of mind control, CAIR has single-handedly derailed Christian speakers from appearing in military Christian functions. From the denial of General Boykin speaking at the West Point prayer breakfast to Franklin Graham being denied a speaking opportunity at the Pentagon, CAIR now exerts great power on the Obama administration.

Newsweek’s expose, while indeed a welcome breath of fresh air in an Islamist fog choking Western media culture, only touches the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in the war of Islamists on Christians.

May it be that the truth is now beginning to seep out, and may it be that other mainstream media outlets begin to open their blind eyes and see the truth clearly.

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

British boy, 7, branded a racist for asking schoolmate: 'Are you brown because you come from Africa?'

And the thought-police are not backing down

The mother of a seven-year-old boy was told to sign a school form admitting he was racist after he asked another pupil about the colour of his skin. Elliott Dearlove had asked a five-year-old boy in the playground whether he was ‘brown because he was from Africa’.

His mother, Hayley White, 29, said she received a phone call last month to say her son had been at the centre of a ‘racist incident’. She was then summoned to a meeting with Elliott, his teacher and the deputy head of Griffin Primary School in Hull.

Ms White, an NHS healthcare assistant, said: ‘When I arrived at the school and asked Elliott what had happened, he became extremely upset. 'He kept saying to me, “I was just asking a question. I didn’t mean it to be nasty” and he was extremely distressed by it all.’

Ms White claimed she was asked at the meeting to read a copy of the school rules and in particular its zero-tolerance policy on racism. ‘I was told I would have to sign a form acknowledging my son had made a racist remark which would be submitted to the local education authority for further investigation,’ she said.

‘I refused to sign it and I told the teacher in no way did I agree the comment was racist. My son is inquisitive. He always likes to ask questions, but that doesn’t make him a racist.’

The school had launched an investigation after the younger boy told his mother about Elliott’s comment and she complained.

Ms White, who lives in a three-bedroom house with her son and nine-year-old daughter Olivia, has now applied to have Elliott moved from the school. She claimed she was told there were places at nearby Thanet Primary School, but the council informed her last Friday that this was not the case. ‘I am going to appeal against this decision because I think Elliott is being victimised,’ she said.

Karl Turner, Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East, last night insisted that the school and Hull City Council had a statutory duty to take racism seriously. ‘However, having spoken to Hayley, I’m satisfied that her seven-year-old son, Elliott, was not being racist in his remarks but just inquisitive,’ he said. ‘It seems the matter has been taken out of all proportion and common sense seems to have gone completely out of the window.’

In a statement, Griffin Primary head teacher Janet Adamson said the school had acted ‘in accordance with the council’s guidance for schools on the reporting of racist incidents’.

Vanessa Harvey-Samuel, head of localities and learning at Hull City Council, said: ‘There is a statutory duty to report any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’

Last year, it was revealed that teachers are branding thousands of children racist or homophobic following playground squabbles. More than 20,000 pupils aged 11 or younger were put on record for so-called hate crimes such as using the word ‘gaylord’.

SOURCE




Australians to be healed from 'Islamophobia' by head of global Islamic organisation -- at the invitation of Foreign Minister Rudd

This week Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has invited Professor Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to discuss “Transition and Change: The OIC and the Islamic World”

Events take place on February 15th and 16th at the National Press Club of Australia and at Griffith University, Brisbane. Following similar events in Europe and Washington, Mr Rudd’s visitor is here to educate and help us overcome “Islamophobia” in Australia.

The OIC, which represents 56 Islamic states, makes up the largest voting bloc of the UN.

United in their effort to limit critical discussion of the Islamic religion and sharia law, these countries refuse to sign the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. OIC members construed the ‘Cairo Declaration’, in which human rights are subject to interpretation by Islamic clergy and sharia law. The OIC is headquartered in Saudi Arabia, a feudal monarchy renown for violation of basic human rights under strict sharia law.

The feigned concern of the OIC with discrimination against Islam and more notably views not supportive of Islam is in contrast to the violent intolerance experienced by non-Muslim minorities in many Islamic countries. Indigenous religious minorities, which are not afforded the same respect, recognition or equality demanded by the OIC for Muslim immigrants in the West.

Author and human rights activist Ayan Hirsi Ali‘s recent article 'The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World' highlights “... an unrecognised battle costing thousands of lives.” With these facts in mind, there are serious questions democratic governments should be asking the OIC, before taking advice from Professor Ihsanoglu.

Q Society appeals to Mr Rudd to show courage and openly address this discrepancy and the discrimination against non-Muslims, evident in almost every OIC country.

Vilifying critics of Islam and sharia practices as 'islamophobic' is in fact aiding and abetting those who seek to silence the debate about the rise of Islamic sharia, both in the West and in the once secular countries of the OIC.

SOURCE




Political Correctness is Hurting America

I recently ran across an old Internet joke that attempts to define the term “political correctness.” The joke reads: “Political correctness is a doctrine – fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media – which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.” It’s as funny as it is nakedly true. It started me thinking about how political correctness affects us.

I know it does not help us – because as a nation we have come far through fundamental honesty with each other. I am passionate that our success as a nation stems in large part from the brilliance of our founders starting with the freedom embodied in the First Amendment. This freedom has been complemented by a culture which, until recently, encourages and rewards the type of Will Rodgers honesty, entrepreneurial challenge to the status quo, and an immigrant-inspired push for something better. The precise antithesis of political correctness.

Political correctness is the enemy of honest communication. We saw it last year with the firing of Juan Williams from NPR after he said: “I’m not a bigot … But when I get on a plane, I’ve got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

What’s troubling about this episode is that Williams was attempting to begin an honest discussion and got canned for it. As one who has spoken and written about civil rights, he was clearly doing some introspection and contrasting his feelings against what he had knew was the “correct” feeling. All Williams’ firing did was reinforce the concept that we should not have honest discussions about tough issues like religion and ethnicity.

But it’s not just in the political-pundit realm that political correctness has shut down the First Amendment. Take the laws protecting anyone in a “suspect class” from hiring, promotion or firing discrimination. As any lawyer, HR manager or employer knows, this means that an employer incurs more legal risk in hiring or firing anyone who is not a white male under 40. That means it is safer and less risky to hire a white male under 40. Given what these laws are trying to accomplish, does that make any sense at all?

Political correctness does not allow us to have a discussion on the harmful impact these laws may be having on hiring of females, minorities, disabled and those who are older. Many employers have encountered an employee who doesn’t work out, hires a lawyer and extorts a settlement from the employer. We hired an employee who was over 60 and insisted on a nap every day. When terminated for poor performance she hired an attorney who said we were discriminating against her on the basis of her age.

Political correctness prevents the type of honest discussion we need to solve our biggest problems. Our nation is in trouble. We are struggling largely because we are not being honest with each other. We are selecting politicians who promise easy solutions and avoid tough discussions.

We cannot expect to recover our economic prosperity when we pillory any politician, pundit or organization that dares to touch the third-rail. We should reward the Juan Williamses of the world for asking the tough questions. The difference between a culture of honesty, respect and diversity is different from a legal and elite mandate of a code of silence that precludes discussion of the toughest issues.

America can and should do better. We can begin by discussing and recognizing that political correctness is neither healthy nor helpful in the type of honest discussion we need to solve the big problems we face. This does not mean we need to change laws or start discriminating. It means we need to stop the censors and confront our divisive issues. Americans have turned on each other, and political correctness is the weapon of choice in ensuring we stay divided.

SOURCE




Rising Black Social Pathology

Walter E. Williams

The Philadelphia Inquirer's big story Feb. 4 was about how a budget crunch at the Philadelphia School District had caused the district to lay off 91 school police officers. Over the years, there's been no discussion of what has happened to our youth that makes a school police force necessary in the first place. The Inquirer's series "Assault on Learning" (March 2011) reported that in the 2010 school year, "690 teachers were assaulted; in the last five years, 4,000 were." The newspaper reported that in Philadelphia's 268 schools, "on an average day 25 students, teachers, or other staff members were beaten, robbed, sexually assaulted, or victims of other violent crimes. That doesn't even include thousands more who are extorted, threatened, or bullied in a school year."

I graduated from Philadelphia's Benjamin Franklin High School in 1954. Franklin's students were from the poorest North Philadelphia neighborhoods -- such as the Richard Allen housing project, where I lived -- but there were no policemen patrolling the hallways. There were occasional after-school fights -- rumbles, we called them -- but within the school, there was order. Students didn't use foul language to teachers, much less assault them.

How might one explain the greater civility of Philadelphia and other big-city, predominantly black schools during earlier periods compared with today? Would anyone argue that during the '40s and '50s, back when Williams attended Philadelphia schools, there was less racial discrimination and poverty and there were greater opportunities for blacks and that's why academic performance was higher and there was greater civility? Or how about "in earlier periods, there was more funding for predominantly black schools"? Or how about "in earlier periods, black students had more black role models in the forms of black principals, teachers and guidance counselors"? If such arguments were to be made, it would be sheer lunacy. If white and black liberals and civil rights leaders want to make such arguments, they'd best wait until those of us who lived during the '40s and '50s have departed the scene.

Over the past couple of decades, I've attended neighborhood reunions. I've asked whether any of us recall classmates who couldn't read, write or perform simple calculations, and none of us does. Back in those days, most Philadelphia school principals, teachers and counselors were white. At Stoddart-Fleisher junior high school, where I attended, I recall that only one teacher was black, and at Benjamin Franklin, there might have been two. What does that say about the role model theory? By the way, Asian-Americans are at the top of the academic ladder, and, at least historically, they rarely experience an Asian-American teacher during their K-through-12 schooling.

Many black students are alien and hostile to the education process. They are permitted to make education impossible for other students. Their misbehavior and violence require schools to divert resources away from education and spend them on security, such as hiring school police and purchasing metal detectors, all of which does little for school safety. The violent school climate discourages the highest-skilled teachers from teaching at schools where they risk assaults, intimidation and theft. At a bare minimum, part of the solution to school violence and poor academic performance should be the expulsion of students who engage in assaults and disrespectful behavior. You say, "What's to be done for these students?" Even if we don't know what to do with them, how compassionate and intelligent is it to permit them to make education impossible for other students?

The fact that black parents, teachers, politicians and civil rights organizations tolerate and make excuses for the despicable and destructive behavior of so many young blacks is a gross betrayal of the memory, struggle, sacrifice, sweat and blood of our ancestors. The sorry and tragic state of black education is not going to be turned around until there's a change in what's acceptable and unacceptable behavior by young people. That change has to come from within the black community.

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

The obscene priorities of a bureaucratic state

Britain's Ministry of Defence civil servants paid £40m in bonuses while armed forces face deep cuts

One senior civil servant was awarded an £85,831 bonus on top of their six-figure salary - at the same time as members of the armed forces have been subject to a two-year pay freeze and 20,000 are to be made redundant.

The bonuses have been paid since April last year and have seen more than 55,000 officials awarded extra payments for their performance - out of a payroll of 83,000.

The ministry expects to pay more in bonuses in the current financial year than the last, even thought it is attempting to drastically reduce the number of civil servants as part of cuts to Government expenditure.

The MoD has been particularly heavily criticised for its financial performance, particularly in defence procurement where major projects have been criticised for being late and overspent.

The department has only just balanced its books by making deep cuts to Britain’s military - including the Army shrinking to its smallest size since the Boer War - which critics say could have been much less severe if it had not been so financially mismanaged.

Bonuses remain a controversial area of pay within the MoD and are linked to a complicated series of targets which can range from cost savings to hitting diversity targets.

Ministers have spoken of the need to rein in the bonus culture in Whitehall and make the payments genuine rewards for exceptional performances, rather than routine parts of civil servants’ remuneration.

However, The Sunday Telegraph has learned that the level of bonuses in the MoD are not expected to be reduced given that staff have faced a two year pay freeze.

In the past year 56 senior officials - those in the highest civil service grades - shared £505,000, averaging £9,000 each. Junior staff were handed a total of £37.9 million, typically taking home £697 - meaning 54,375 of its employees received bonuses, a level in contrast to ministers’ intention that bonuses are not given routinely.

The highest level of bonuses were awarded to the Department of Work and Pensions, whose employees scooped £51 million. The Department of Transport paid out £9.2million, the Foreign Office £6.4 million and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs £2.3 million. The Department for Education spent £1.9 million on bonuses, the Department for Health £1.7 million, the Cabinet Office £1.3million and the Department for Innovation and Skills £1.1million.

But it will be the two highest bonuses which raise most questions about the culture within the ministry.

The £85,831 payment - the same as the salary of a colonel in the Army - went to an unnamed senior civil servant who is understood to be a member of the Defence Board.

It oversees every aspect of the work of the MoD and includes three civil servants - Ursula Brennan, the permanent secretary, Bernard Gray, the chief of defence materiel and Jon Thompson, the director-general of finance.

The second largest bonus was a payment of £64,459 to another unnamed senior civil servant.

The scale of the bonuses raised concern even inside the MoD.

One source said: “Time and again we have been told that we all have to tighten our belts and share some of the financial pain so it sticks in the throat when you discover that someone already earning well over £100,000 gets an £85,000 bonus.”

The payments were made at the same time as criticisms mounted over the long-running performance of the MoD.

Last week it announced that it had finally closed the £38 billion “black hole” in its budget by balancing its books - but in November received stinging criticism over its procurement policies from the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

Margaret Hodge, its chairman, said the MoD had been guilty of “continuous poor planning and performance with the result that the Ministry of Defence’s largest military equipment projects are delivering less, at a greater cost than planned, and taking longer to be completed”.

The report found warned that Britain’s 15 biggest defence projects are expected to cost £6bn more than first estimated and will be delayed by a combined total of 26 years.

And it highlighted the repeatedly delayed Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, upon which £3.4bn was spent before it was scrapped, to save an estimated £1.9bn in running costs over the next 10 years.

The MoD said it was impossible to rein in bonuses this year because of a three-year pay and bonuses deal implemented by the previous Labour government.

But the payments are in stark contrast to the settlement for soldiers, sailors and RAF personnel, who have had pay rises capped at 1 per cent.

The deep cuts will see the Army made much smaller with a withdrawal from Germany, tank and artillery units slashed, the Ghurkas reduced in size and soldiers at every level made redundant and the RAF losing bases and planes.

The Navy has already lost its Harrier jump jets and now operates the smallest fleet in its history.

The Coalition is currently attempting to slash the levels of bonuses paid and the number of civil servants who receive them.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, and Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, have written to all government departments asking them to review their schemes.

In future, bonuses should only be paid for “genuine excellence” and not “run-of-the-mill performance after it emerged that up to a quarter of officials automatically qualified for rewards.

Since Britain went to war with Iraq in March 2003, MoD bureaucrats have shared around £370million in bonuses. This is a third higher than the £260million cost of the war in Libya.

It has also emerged that senior servants are entitled to claim for damaged clothing, handbags and shoes at the expense of the taxpayer even if the government department was not negligent.

A MOD spokesman said: “Difficult decisions have had to be taken to deal with the black hole the Government inherited; this has included reductions to military and civilian personnel.

"Under a three year agreement made by the last Government performance awards were part of the total wage bill paid out naturally, it is just that a proportion of pay was spent on a performance basis.

"More than half of all MOD civil servants earn less than £20,000 a year, and in 2010-11 the average award, which is taxable, was £677. The new Government has since implemented a pay freeze.”

The bonus figure comes after the disclosure that senior civil servants across Whitehall have perks which include being able to claim towards to cost of clothes and shoes which have been damaged or even simply become worn.

SOURCE




More woes from living in bureaucratic Britain

Four-hour delays at Heathrow thanks to immigration staff shortage as tens of thousands of passengers return from half-term getaway. Britain's huge bureaucracy still cannot provide basic services

Passengers at Heathrow airport are facing severe delays this weekend as a shortage of immigration staff causes chaos during the busy rush of families returning from half-term breaks to the UK.

Travellers may be forced to wait several hours before they get through immigration because of apparent staff shortages.

Sky news home affairs correspondent Mark White said: 'This has all the potential to be a very difficult weekend for passengers. 'The airlines at Heathrow have issued an urgent bulletin to staff saying they're expecting delays of up to three hours. 'It's a combination of half-term holidaymakers returning to Heathrow but also apparently lower staffing levels at immigration checkpoints.'

British Airways admitted congestion was already starting to build up in the immigration area in Terminal Five. A BA spokeswoman said: 'We are speaking to Heathrow Airport and UK Border Agency to understand why the immigration area in Terminal Five is congested. 'We are doing all we can to assist our customers and are sorry that they are being affected by this issue, which is regrettably beyond our control.'

A Heathrow Airport spokesman said they were unaware of any immigration staff shortages - claiming it didn't come under their remit. A spokesman for Heathrow added: 'No one has notified us of a staff shortage. However it is up to UK Border Agency to staff the border appropriately.'

Heathrow Airport has 1,231 flights carrying 180,100 passengers a day - with half of those being inbound flights. Last year the airport saw 65.7million passengers with 23.4 millions of those going through terminal five.

But the UK Border Agency has dismissed the concerns - saying they are prepared for the busy weekend. The UK Border Agency released a statement saying: 'There will be a significant number of passengers coming through UK border controls and we have organised extra resources to ensure that we have sufficient staff to process passengers as quickly as possible, while maintaining border security.'

But other immigration checks - such as the multi-million pound Iris Recognition Immigration System (IRIS) introduced to speed up passport control - have proven to take far longer than physical checks. The £9million system have already been ditched at Birmingham and Manchester airports and are expected to disappear from Heathrow and Gatwick after the Olympics

It added that it was expecting 'an exceptionally busy weekend as usual for the end of February half-term'.

But Mr White said queuing passengers at immigration would have a knock-on effect on incoming flights. He added: 'Some may have to circle around Heathrow for longer and some may have to be diverted to other airports.'

SOURCE





Mom Who Made Son Walk to School Is Child Abuser -- Seriously?

Valerie Borders, an Arkansas mom, made her 10-year-old son Nequavion walk to school after being suspended (for the fifth time) from riding the school bus. Was she congratulated? Nope. As per ABC News, Mom was charged with child endangerment and faces one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Let's unwrap the child abuse charges. KAIT says walk to school was longish (4.5 miles). A compassionate, public-spirited (or nosy, bored) bank security guard spotted the lad trudging to school and called the police. The tween boy implored the officer, "Please sir, don't take me home or my mother will beat me." So very Dickensian.

It was also coldish, 30 degrees, though in my home state of Michigan, that's a balmy spring breeze. Kids walk daily through cold and snow in our area. Stores also sell inclement weather apparel in kids' sizes, (Nequavion was wearing such a garment). Anyway, the concern wasn't weather as much as stranger danger or injury, said officer Lyle Waterworth. He encourages other helpful citizens to call the police when they see kids walking alone.

Segue. I find no fault with the police officer for checking this out. As a mandatory reporter, he has to; it's the law. He may have suspected that Nequavion's "beating" reference was just a deflector shield to save the boy's naughty hide, (which Nequavion told KAIT it basically was). Police officers can't take that chance, however. I do fault them for filing charges, once mom explained that her son had been kicked off the bus repeatedly and was being punished.

I give Borders props -- I'm not sure, as a mom, I'd have enough moxie to enforce a march to school. As a teacher, I applaud her for following up with consequences. I once disciplined a student for kicking kids (and explained to mom why). Later, I saw that child at the grocery store enjoying an ice cream cone. Mom's explained, "he had such a hard day."

Admittedly, Nequavion's walk was long, but that's what made it consequentially perfect. As he said, it was mom's way of teaching him to appreciate the bus (kudos, Nequavion, for recognizing that). If she had chauffeured him to school, what would that have taught him? I can see the wheels turning. "Get in trouble--ride in comfy car. Be good--ride crowded, uncomfortable school bus."

Mom needs a commendation, not jail.

SOURCE




Federal Judge Orders NYC To Reopen Its Schools for the Churches

The churches are going back to meet in the NYC schools! Thursday, Judge Loretta Preska issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the New York City Department of Education from enforcing its policy banning private worship services in the public schools on weeknights and weekends. Although the order lasts only ten days, we expect Judge Preska to issue a preliminary injunction during those ten days that will extend the time longer. At a hearing last Tuesday, Judge Preska indicated her agreement with ADF attorneys that NYC’s policy violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and also excessively entangled the City in religious affairs in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Many of the 60 or so displaced churches have nowhere to meet, so they welcome this reprieve from the federal court. The NYC Department of Education has filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to overturn the lower court order and allow NYC to enforce its ban on worship services. ADF attorneys are set to respond to this petition, and we do not expect it to succeed. If necessary, ADF will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although ADF will persevere in court until the end of this lawsuit, ADF urges the New York Legislature to step in and end this whole matter by passing the legislation overturning NYC’s policy. The proposed law has passed the NY Senate, but the Speaker of the Assembly has held up the bill, voicing concerns that ADF has tried to address with new language for the bill. We are encouraging the Legislature to act because it has full authority to repeal NYC’s policy. Nothing in the court case requires the Legislature to wait or to keep NYC’s policy.

This amazing battle for equal access and religious liberty in New York City continues. Stay tuned!

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

Sexism is alive and well in Canada

It has even filtered into the hard sciences. The following is the text of a flier recently passed on to me. Even the huge IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) has succumbed to the "new paradigm", apparently

The First Women's Workshop on Communications and Signal Processing

Banff International Research Station
July 13-15, 2012
Registration: $150

The First Women's Workshop on Communications and Signal Processing will be held at the beautiful Banff International Research Station http://www.birs.ca/ July 13-July 1

The workshop will have a poster session, panels and technical presentations from the speakers listed below:

• Sonia Assia, Universite de Quebec
• Pamela Cosman, University of California, San Diego
• Sheila Hemami, Cornell University
• Shalinee Kishore, Lehigh University
• Urbashi Mitra, University of Southern California
• Anna Scaglione, University of California, Davis
• Milica Stojanovic, Northeastern University
• Sirin Tekinay, Consultant, Istanbul, Turkey
• Sarah Kate Wilson, Santa Clara University
• Sally Wood, Santa Clara University

Space is limited at this workshop. Limited travel grants are available. To apply for the workshop and travel grants, please send the following information to

skwilson@scu.edu:

1. A two-page abstract of the poster
2. Your CV
3. Two references
4. Please put Women's Worskhop in the Subject Header

Accommodation at the Banff International Research Station for up to 25 participants at this 2-day workshop is free. The registration fee for the workshop will be 150 U.S. Dollars.





Just what you want to hear: Planned Parenthood works around the clock to hook your kids on sex

Recently, American Life League came out with a six-minute exposé of Planned Parenthood that was so appalling that I would have had a hard time believing it was true had it not been about Planned Parenthood. The video included clips and images from PP educational materials — cartoons and the like — and the gist of the clips was that teens should learn to pleasure themselves and each other as soon as possible.

At the time, I was so disgusted that I couldn’t bring myself to post it. Now, I wish I had. Because of a copyright claim, YouTube pulled the video. No worries, though: You can read more about its contents here. As the smallest of samplings, here’s a screenshot:



The cartoon above speaks for itself.

The point of the ALL’s video was simple: Planned Parenthood has a vested interest in hooking the next generation on sex. They’re in the abortion business. They depend upon unwanted pregnancies to stay in business. They know no unwanted pregnancy occurs without sex, so they encourage sex — albeit “safe” sex.

Over at BuzzFeed, BigRedH mocks the American Life League for its concern, writing, “Yes, this is both real and terrible. How dare Planned Parenthood try to educate people?” But pamphlets, coloring books, mascots, banners, outrageously-shaped lollipops … These aren’t the hallmarks of education. They’re the hallmarks of marketing. Fortunately for Planned Parenthood, the product they’re marketing is the easiest in the world to sell — and, when teens buy it and then have need of other products (a.k.a. contraceptives, STD testing, abortions), Planned Parenthood cashes in.

It sounds extreme, but, in the end, isn’t that the foundational idea of Planned Parenthood — that customers should be able to have sex without consequences, unless those “consequences” are “planned”?

If it all still sounds like a stretch to you, consider Planned Parenthood’s latest effort to meet teens where they are:

Whether they are texting high school students, lecturing in public schools, or coaxing students to their cringeworthy “Teen Information” website, Planned Parenthood relentlessly tries to appeal to the nation’s youth. Their most recent attempt is the newly-launched “HeyPP!” Twitter account. The page is meant to reach teenagers with sexual health information[.]

Sexual health information like, oh, how to have a conversation with your boyfriend about using a condom, how to know when the time is “right” to have sex or how to know if you’re a “cheater” (hint: it depends on your particular relationship’s rules).

The good news is, teens are unimpressed:

Planned Parenthood’s reputation is fading in popularity as quickly as their choice of words. (Another HeyPP tweet reads, “Sounds like a solid plan!” I’m still watching for the word “groovy.”) Planned Parenthood has been exposed for lying, failing to report statutory rape, and not only concealing, but aiding in the sex trafficking of minors.

But it isn’t only Planned Parenthood that has a dwindling reputation among teens. Abortion as a whole is becoming increasingly unpopular with our nation’s youth. Unlike generations before, today’s teens are a part of what can be called the “refrigerator generation.” Unborn children are not an abstract “blob of tissue” to us, as we have grown up seeing ultrasound images of our unborn brothers, sisters, and cousins on our refrigerator doors. Combine this with an increase in pro-life activism, and it makes sense that more of our generation reports to be pro-life than pro-choice.

Abortion and Planned Parenthood are losing popularity among youth, and no excessive use of the words “like” and “totally” is going to change that.

It’s irritating — and a little insulting to the intelligence — that the “experts” at Planned Parenthood really think teens need help figuring out how to follow their natural urges.

But what angers me most about Planned Parenthood’s perpetual attempts to perpetuate knowledge about every last perversion that plagues the human race is that it robs marriage and sex of mystery and romance. If everybody’s business is everybody’s business, then nothing is private. How ironic that the “right to privacy” has made public in a huge way what was once between just two people.

Incidentally, what evidence we have still suggests it’s better when people keep it to themselves. Let’s please bring back the conversational taboo; surely sex was more exciting that way.

SOURCE





Incredulity among British police over politically-correct poetry contest

It's enough to make the hard men of the Sweeney choke on their cigars and double whiskies. Scotland Yard officers have been asked to enter a poetry competition on the theme of ‘gender equality’.

The prize is a chance to have ‘elevenses’ with the Met’s [black] head of diversity Denise Milani, who is renowned in Britain’s biggest police force for her touchy-feely initiatives.

Officers are told their poems must focus on ‘recruitment, retention or progression’ at the Yard, creating a ‘gender-sensitive working environment’ or ‘successfully managing gender-diverse teams’. They must also provide Miss Milani, 54, with insight on the progress made with the ‘Gender Agenda’ from a male or female perspective and suggest a ‘positive vision’ for the Met.

Details of the extraordinary competition were leaked to the Police Inspector blog, prompting a furious reaction from serving officers who accused the Met of wasting taxpayers’ money.

Inspector Gadget, the anonymous author of the blog, wrote: ‘I can categorically say that this is the maddest diversity nonsense we have ever featured. ‘I would like to hear from more female officers to see what they think of this, in between making tea for the lads of course!’

Within minutes of his posting, Inspector Gadget was inundated with examples of possible entries, some of which were obscene.

Another outraged policeman said: ‘Now that this is in the public domain, can a member of the public write a letter of complaint to BHH (Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe) about this scandalous waste of their taxes?’.

On the force’s internal Intranet, officers and civilian staff are urged to ‘get creative’ in the run-up to the event.

Miss Milani, the daughter of West Indian migrants, originally qualified as a teacher and joined the Met in 1999. She is believed to be paid more than £80,000 a year, although Scotland Yard refuses to reveal her exact salary.

Despite a cost-cutting campaign at the Yard, her position as Director of the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate appears safe. The directorate promotes the recognition of the Met’s minority employees – dealing with gender, disability, sexual orientation, age and faith as well as race. It has a total of 36 staff.

In 2008, the Mail revealed how Miss Milani had urged Met staff to ‘celebrate’ the contribution of Roma gipsies to ‘London’s culture and diversity’.

The Yard said: ‘The Metropolitan Police polices one of the most diverse cities in Europe and is the biggest single employer in London. ‘It can only succeed by recognising and responding to the needs of the varied communities and workforce it serves and the DCFD plays a key role by providing specialist knowledge and strategic diversity guidance across the organisation.’

SOURCE





British Councils are given back right to pray at meetings as Eric Pickles signs an order to protect the ancient tradition

Town hall chiefs have been handed the power to hold prayers at the start of council meetings in defiance of the courts. Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles yesterday signed an order giving local authorities the right to maintain the centuries-old tradition.

He stepped in after the High Court last week backed a controversial campaign to abolish acts of worship during town hall meetings.

Christians and politicians reacted with dismay after a judge banned a council in Devon from putting prayers on the formal agenda. Atheist former councillor Clive Bone started the case against Bideford Town Council in July 2010, claiming he had been ‘disadvantaged and embarrassed’ when prayers were recited.

However, Mr Pickles signed a Parliamentary Order yesterday that should render the judgment irrelevant and protect the freedom for councils to pray. He said the Government’s Localism Act allows councils to do anything an individual can unless specifically prohibited by law.

The right to pray can be exercised by major local authorities in England from today, and by parish councils by the end of March.

Mr Pickles said reversing the ‘illiberal ruling’ was a victory for ‘localism over central interference’ and ‘freedom to worship over intolerant secularism’.

Prime Minister David Cameron has urged people to remember that the UK is a Christian nation and Tory Party Chairman Sayeeda Warsi gave a speech at the Vatican this week saying Europe should speak up for Christianity. The Queen also voiced her most outspoken and personal defence of faith this week.

The intervention is also part of a simmering row between politicians and the judiciary over so-called ‘judicial activism’.

Ministers have grown increasingly frustrated by judges over interpreting the law to deliver verdicts which are widely regarded as lacking common sense. Judges are widely accused of seeking to make law themselves in areas like human rights legislation.

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

Airline forced to scrap controversial 'sexist' ads



The U.K's budget airline Ryanair has been forced to scrap a controversial advertising campaign featuring scantily-clad models for being "sexist".

Sky New reports that the promotion, which ran last November in British newspapers with the slogan "Red Hot Fares & Crew", was yanked by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)--U.K.'s independent advertising consumer watchdog -- after it sparked widespread complaints.

The ASA said one image, entitled "Ornella February", which showed a model pulling down the top of her pants with a thumb, was particularly "sexually suggestive".

Ryanair said the promotion, which took images from its 2012 cabin crew charity calendar, and says the pictures were not sexist because staff had volunteered to produce the images. It said the ad was to help "promote" the charity calendar and that it did not consider the pictures to "unsuitable for public display."

The ASA didn't agree, saying that "most readers would interpret these images, in conjunction with the text "Red Hot Fares & Crew!!!" and the names of the women, as linking female cabin crew with sexually suggestive behavior," says Sky.

Complaints included some from the airline's staff . One person named Ghada reportedly started an online campaign to ban the ads, promoting thousands of complaints in the U.K.. In November when she launched the campaign she wrote: "My work colleagues, many of whom are male, work hard with me to ensure the safety of our passengers. Safety is our number-one priority, not the brand of our underwear."

The advertisement have now been banned by the ASA.

SOURCE






The Church is under-appreciated says the Queen

The Queen has delivered a staunch and strongly-worded defence of the Church and religion in the face of a growing divide between faith and secularism.

In a timely address to leaders of Britain's nine main religions at Lambeth Palace, London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, she highlighted the importance of faith in society and the "critical guidance" it offered in life.

"The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated," she said. "Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country."

The monarch, speaking at the first public event to mark her Diamond Jubilee, said that Church was "woven into the fabric of this country" and had helped to build a better society. It has "created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely", she added.

The Queen's words were considered a rare intervention in the war of words between critics of the Church and faith communities.

It follows a warning issued by Baroness Warsi, chairman of the Conservative Party, who said yesterday that British society was under threat from a rising tide of "militant secularisation" reminiscent of "totalitarian regimes".

In an article for the Daily Telegraph, the Cabinet Office minister said that to create a “more just society” Britons must “feel stronger in their religious identities”.

Last week, the High Court ruled that local councils could not hold prayers during meetings. There have also been recent cases of public sector workers being banned from displaying Christian symbols at work.

The Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, had earlier met leaders of the eight non-Christian religions; the Baha'i, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, and Zoroastrian; who each presented her with a treasured object important to their faith.

In an address in the palace's Guard Room, she said: "Our religions provide critical guidance for the way we live our lives and for the way in which we treat each other. "Here at Lambeth Palace we should remind ourselves of the significant position of the Church of England in our nation's life."

She said the occasion marked an opportunity to reflect on the importance of faith in "creating and sustaining communities" across Britain. "Faith plays a key role in the identity of many millions of people, providing not only a system of belief but also a sense of belonging," she added.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, paid tribute to the Queen's "personal commitment" to her office as a call from God which he said was "at the heart of her understanding of her role".
She has effectively shown that "being religious is not eccentric or abnormal", he said.

"The personal faith to which you have so regularly alluded entails the conviction of a calling from God to do what you do and to be what you are; it also means a full understanding of what makes communities work," he said.

A report conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) suggested that almost three quarters (74 per cent) of Christians polled agreed that religion should not influence public policy, while only about one in eight (12 per cent) thought it should.

SOURCE





No hiding the number of knees under British government desks

Thatcher’s privatisations certainly reduced the size of the state payroll, in terms of car workers, coal miners and steel-makers. But she failed to get to grips with the growing recruitment drive in local government and the rise of the quangocracy, which began in the early-to-mid-Eighties.

I was reminded of this yesterday, when the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude announced that, thanks to a successful programme of economies, the Civil Service is now at its smallest since World War II.

That’s great news, on the face of it. But it depends what you mean by ‘civil service’. Maude was referring to those directly working for the government departments we collectively call Whitehall.

The reality is that there are now more people than ever on the public payroll, not including the six million or so on assorted out-of-work benefits, which is twice the number of the headline unemployment rate in the ‘heartless’ 1980s.

At least all those car workers, steel workers and coal miners actually produced something, when they weren’t on strike, even if it was uneconomic. Too many of today’s ‘public service’ staff produce absolutely nothing of any value.

They are variously engaged in utterly superfluous out-reaching, monitoring, regulating, co-ordinating, box-ticking, witch-hunting, inspecting, consulting, licensing, twinning, punishing, celebrating diversity and generally interfering in every aspect of our daily lives.

Yet at the same time genuine basic services like emptying dustbins and teaching children to read and write have deteriorated hideously.

Labour spectacularly reversed Thatcher’s efforts to shrink the State and left behind a massive debt and deficit. Public spending now accounts for almost half of everything we earn as a country — up over the past 30 years from £128 billion a year to a projected £722 billion in 2013. Even allowing for inflation, that is a grotesque increase.

Today, we don’t have a nationalised steel industry, but Gordon Brown did nationalise the banks. Network Rail, as it likes to be called these days, is back in public ownership and subsidies to the railways are far higher than they ever were in the bad old days of British Rail.

I don’t know about the Civil Service, but we’ve certainly got the smallest armed forces since World War II.

And the public sector still seems to be run with all the incompetence, inefficiency and flagrant contempt for taxpayers’ money which was the hallmark of British Steel under Sir Charles English Hyde Villiers MC, aka Mr Pastry.

SOURCE





Deliberate Muslim propaganda at Australian public broadcaster

by Senator Helen Kroger

Senator Helen Kroger has today asked questions of Mr Michael Ebeid, Managing Director of the Special Broadcast Service (SBS) in Senate Estimates about the controversial screening of the documentary The Promise.

As a result of questions by Senator Kroger, Mr Ebeid revealed that SBS entered into a pre-sale arrangement with the producers of The Promise in full knowledge that the subject matter was going to be controversial.

Questions by Senator Kroger also revealed that when SBS received a series of complaints about the documentary, an internal investigation was initiated to determine if the documentary would be aired. A decision was taken by the review board, which included Mr Ebeid, that SBS would go ahead with the screening.

“What is most concerning about the decision to air The Promise is that SBS appears to have put a business decision ahead of independent assessments which determined that it was offensive to the Jewish community,” Senator Kroger said. “Equally concerning was Mr Ebeid‟s assertion that, with hindsight, he would make the same decision to put the program to air.”

“This documentary was portrayed as fact and any suggestion that it is merely fiction is even more offensive and is an overt slap in the face to the Jewish community.”

“Any suggestion that the Jewish community is "manipulative‟ and "self interested‟, as portrayed in The Promise, is shameful. This documentary fails to portray the continuing valuable and constructive contribution that the Jewish community makes in Australia.”

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

The saving power of the Bible

Mike Adams, who writes below, is a man of profound faith and I have been an atheist for roughly 50 years -- so why do I reproduce his column below? It is because I still love my Bible nearly as much as I did in my Christian youth. I still read it with pleasure, study it, debate it and find great wisdom in it. I see it as the distilled wisdom of a great people, not as the wisdom of God, but I have nonetheless never left it and it has never left me. Its words run through my head often.

I have never had the sort of personal crises Mike describes below but that is perhaps because I was always guided by that great wisdom. I never rejected it and so never had to rediscover it. I knew the teachings and have always found that when I followed them I got a blessing -- usually very rapidly. My favourite text is from Ecclesiastes 11:1. "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days". Ask your pastor or Rebbe what it means. My old and worn Bible falls open at Ecclesiastes these days. So I join with Mike in extolling the wisdom and power of that ancient Jewish book. And if you see it as God's book, that may help you even more.

One extra blessing that I get is that my knowledge of, and past absorption in, Protestant Christian teachings enables me to understand Bach better. Bach's music is among the greatest of classical music but he was a devout Lutheran and his faith suffuses his work. So as I also understand German, I listen to his cantatas with complete understanding on every level. As I write this I am listening to the great but very sombre cantata "Ich habe genug". It is one of my favourites but its words would seem completely mad to someone who did not know and understand the faith behind it -- JR

Dear Mike:

It was good seeing you the other day at lunch. I meant to share a story with you but the room was too crowded and the story is too long. So I write to you today sharing something that will surely lift your spirits just the way you lifted mine when I first heard you speak in May of 2007.

My first visit to your church came during the worst time in all of my life. I was struck with personal tragedy in January of that year. That was followed by another tragedy in February, one in March, one in April, and one in May. Things would settle down in July but had I waited until then to visit your church I might not be writing you today. I’m still surprised that my heart or head did not just explode during all of the turmoil in that tragic time of my life.

On my first visit to your church, I listened intently to your sermon on the first letter of John in the New Testament. It was moving – so much so that I made it the subject of a column called “How to Read the New Testament.” Looking back, I am not sure I still agree with everything I wrote in that column. But I did and still do agree with the manner in which you said we should read that letter. You said it should be read like a love letter written just for the reader by someone who is madly in love with him (or her).

Of course, one does not read the entire Bible the way you suggested we read the first letter of John. But your advice was specific to that book. So I walked right out of your sermon and straight over to Barnes and Noble. I bought the ESV translation of the Bible and started reading it over lunch. I ended up reading that first letter of John every day over the course of the next week. Since I wrote a column about it you know how beneficial I found your advice to be.

In the nearly five years since I wrote the column, I have given it very little thought. Then, just the other day, a fellow wrote asking for a link to the column. He wanted to use it in his Sunday school class. Oddly, I received a second email about the column just 24 hours later.

The second of the two letters was far more dramatic and memorable than the first. In it, a man wrote a long and painful account of a series of tragedies in his personal and professional life. I would not have kept reading it had I not seen the reference to the aforementioned column as I glanced casually over the text. It was only the coincidence of getting two emails two days in a row (on the same very old column) that kept me reading.

Eventually, I reached a portion of the email in which my reader said “thoughts of suicide entered my mind each day – every day. Earlier this year, the pain became so intense that I knew that I would either have to find my way back to Christ, or I would have to die.” That was alarming but I kept on reading. I’m glad I did.

The reader continued, “I would have to return to His Word. However, the Bible seemed to weigh a thousand pounds, and I could neither lift it nor open it. Exacerbating this situation was the fact that I realized that I was a coward; I was afraid because the world has become increasingly and vehemently hostile to Christians and Christianity. I knew that reaffirming and declaring faith in Christ would make me a target of the same hatred, ridicule, and scorn I had heaped on others, and I wasn’t ready for it.”

My reader then informed me that, in the midst of his depression, on the brink of suicide, he came across a column I had written. For some reason, he thought that something I said somehow took courage. So he started working backwards through my column archive. Eventually, he read the column referencing 1 John and your sermon that had inspired it. He ended his letter saying that was the very day he found the strength to pick up his Bible and start his journey in the Word anew.

He continued reading his Bible every day. The Book that once “seemed to weigh a thousand pounds” became light as a feather. As he continued to read, his thoughts of suicide disappeared. They were replaced with a burning desire to live again and to walk in the light of forgiveness.

As I read that man’s letter, I realized that it had been a very long time since I told you what your words did for me in my darkest hour. I hope you will forgive me as I am still seeing what those words have done - not just for me, but through me. I am beginning to understand what John meant when he said “What we will be has not yet appeared.”

The ripple effect that flows from our words and from our actions extends far beyond the reach of human perception. It will not be fully revealed until we reach the other side. That is why we need the Word to lift us out of our desperation and move us beyond our present circumstances. It helps reveal the only Light that can lead us out of darkness.

SOURCE






In conformist Britain, anything unusual is assumed to be illegal

Supermarket manager bans man for buying gallons of vegetable oil to power his delivery van claiming it is 'illegal'. I had similar experiences of British rigidity in Britain back in the '70s, as you can read here. No wonder many people from Britain and other Northern European countries migrate to easygoing Australia to get away from all the social rigidities and expectations -- JR

A grocer claims supermarket staff banned him from his local store after he bought vegetable oil to use as fuel in his vehicle. Chris Waites says managers at his local Tesco in Didcot, Oxfordshire, told him it was illegal for him to buy vegetable oil and use it as fuel in his delivery van.

He claims the ban came after he purchased six five-litre bottles of vegetable oil to fill up the van he uses for his grocery business. The transit van has been adapted to run on vegetable oil. It is not thought to be illegal to purchase vegetable oil to be used as bio fuel.

Mr Waites said he clashed with staff at the store when he bought the bottles of oil and told them what he was using it for.

Tesco said it was investigating the matter and stressed that it does not prevent customers from buying products.

He said when he returned to the supermarket on Saturday to buy other items, he was told he was no longer welcome because using vegetable oil to run a vehicle was a criminal activity. He said: 'A member of staff told me in front of lots of other customers that I was no longer welcome at the store because I had been using vegetable oil illegally for my van.

'Using vegetable oil to run a vehicle is not illegal and it was embarrassing to be branded a criminal in this way in front of lots of other shoppers.

'Normally we get given the vegetable oil free from pubs and restaurants but on this occasion I’d gone to Tesco.

'We deliver groceries to people in rural areas but I can’t imagine Tesco are trying to stop me from using my van because they feel threatened by the competition.'

Mr Waites said he had been a customer at the store for seven years and he was not aware of any other reason why he was being banned.

He added: 'The day before I bought the oil I went to customer services because the store had overcharged me for a pack of PG Tips. I got a refund but that was all sorted out and I can’t believe Tesco are being so petty.'

Mr Waites, who lives with wife Miriam, 27, said his 2.5-litre Ford Transit van had been adapted to run on vegetable oil. He added: 'I have been running the van this way for about six years and it’s perfectly legal. The Government actually gives you a tax-free allowance every year if you use vegetable oil. We cover about 50 miles a day travelling around South Oxfordshire and use about 2,300 litres a year.

'A litre of diesel now costs over £1.40 at the pumps whereas a litre of vegetable oil costs about 90p.'

In recent years companies have provided drivers with a source of greener, cheaper motoring by turning oil used for frying chips into biodiesel. After collecting drums of used oil from cafes and takeaways, firms refine the liquid into a fuel suitable for most diesel engines.

But specially adapted engines, like the one in Mr Waites’s van, can run on unrefined vegetable oil.

Biodiesel emits much less unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and other harmful substances, and does not produce the noxious black smoke associated with mineral diesel. However, biodiesel is not a lover of cold mornings and may cause start-up problems at very low temperatures.

Tesco spokesman David Nieberg said: 'Our stores are there to serve customers, not prevent them from shopping. 'We’d like to stress we do not ban customers for simply buying vegetable oil – even if it is to put in a vehicle. We are speaking to Mr Waites to resolve the issue.'

SOURCE





BBC wins Supreme Court battle after spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers' money to keep report on its 'biased' journalism a secret

Leftism can't stand the light of day. But the secrecy itself tells us most of what they are hiding

The BBC has been accused of a cover-up after spending almost £350,000 on a legal battle to suppress an internal report about bias in its Middle East coverage. A seven-year campaign to gain access to the 2004 document, which examined the corporation’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ended in defeat yesterday after the Supreme Court ruled it could remain secret.

Lawyer Steven Sugar, who passed away last year, made a Freedom of Information request in 2005 for disclosure of the 20,000-word Balen Report. But the corporation argued it was exempt from revealing information it held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’.

After years of courtroom battles and Mr Sugar’s death, his widow Fiona Paveley continued on his behalf. Her lawyer, Michael Levey, said the family were ‘considering their options’ after the Supreme Court dismissed the latest appeal after ruling the report was ‘outside the scope’ of the FoI Act.

By September 2010, the BBC had spent £270,000 on the case, but senior insiders admitted this had now increased to as much as £350,000.

The broadcaster’s reluctance to reveal the details of the dossier – which was compiled by Malcolm Balen, a senior journalist and editorial adviser at the BBC – has led to speculation that it was highly critical. Lord Janner of Braunstone, chairman of the Britain Israel Parliamentary Group, said last night: ‘What have they got to hide?’

Tory MP Mike Freer, vice-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, added: ‘This is the worst of all outcomes. ‘It fuels suspicion they have got something to hide.’

A spokesman for the BBC insisted it did not have anything to hide about its Middle East coverage but had pursued the case to defend its right to protect information about its journalism. He added: ‘We welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment, which will ensure that the BBC is afforded the space to conduct its journalistic activities freely.

‘Independent journalism requires honest and open internal debate free from external pressures. This ruling enables us to continue to do that.’

SOURCE





Why Whitney Houston Died

The media have no bleepin' clue how to cover the death of Whitney Houston. That's because she was slowly dying for years and many in the press simply averted their eyes.

It was ultra-disturbing that a beautiful woman blessed with an extraordinary singing voice chose a self-destructive path in full view of the world. I mean, here is a person who signed a $100 million recording contract, actually sold 170 million albums and commanded high six figures to deliver a 90-minute concert. Houston was a genuine international star, and yet she often was seen in public disheveled and confused, her substance addiction apparent. The media simply did not know what to say.

We live in a time in which addiction is categorized as a disease, and to do what Nancy Reagan once did and urge people to reject narcotics is considered uncool. How many young performers do we see doing public service announcements warning children to avoid intoxication? Right now, I can't think of one.

The national media pride themselves on being non-judgmental unless you are against abortion. Then you are dismissed as "anti-woman" or as a religious zealot. But in the arena of personal behavior, there's an excuse for just about every nonviolent activity and bad decision.

There is no question that some of us have a history of addiction in our families. There are folks who can use drugs casually and avoid dependence, but they are the exception. Once a person decides to dabble in cocaine, or opiates such as heroin and OxyContin, they are putting themselves at grave risk. And they know it. There are legions of famous people who wound up dead just like Houston. From Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson, the signposts are impossible to miss. No matter how rich and powerful you are, drugs can and will destroy you.

The current medical marijuana ruse is a great example of a society walking away from a responsible position. Ask any drug rehab counselor, and he or she will tell you that pot often leads a person to harder drug use and is mentally addictive itself. Yes, most people can function while stoned. But the more you alter your mind the more your perspective on life changes. Believe me, I know people who get stoned or drunk every day. They become incredibly desensitized to those around them.

On the kid front, the situation is dire. Once a child enters the world of intoxication, their childhood is gone. Presto, they are jaded. That's how dangerous drugs and alcohol are to immature minds. Society has an obligation to protect its children, not to tacitly accept or embrace mind-altering agents such as marijuana.

Houston, however, was an adult who made a decision to embrace the drug life. Reports say she tried to rehabilitate herself a few times, but you know how that goes. Once a person enters the hell of addiction, there is no easy way out.

And that's how the Whitney Houston story should be covered. As a cautionary tale. Another life vanquished by substance abuse.

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

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

How political correctness is ruining Britain's police

As corrupt cop Ali Dizaei is finally jailed, an ex-colleague says the Met has been paralysed by fears of being branded racist

The Metropolitan Police continues to stumble from one self-inflicted crisis to another, weakening its ability to fight genuine crime. It is a force that for too long has been gripped by a dangerous cocktail of poor leadership, politically correct dogma, warped priorities and tactical incompetence.

Those flaws have been graphically illustrated by the appalling case of Ali Dizaei, the notoriously corrupt Iranian-born officer who was this week sent back to jail for a second time after his conviction for perverting the course of justice.

Only an organisation obsessed with the creed of diversity and lacking in moral integrity would have allowed a swaggering, criminal bully like Dizaei to rise up its hierarchy and gain a senior position. He should have been drummed out long ago, not constantly rewarded with promotion.

But Dizaei is a symbol of the rot within the top ranks of the Met. Too many senior officers seem to have forgotten that their central duty is to protect the law-abiding British public.
Selfish Instead of taking tough decisions — like challenging Dizaei — they indulge in politicised manoeuvres designed to protect their own backs and further their own careers.

The high command of the Met inhabits a culture where cowardice is dressed up as pragmatism, where a talent for spouting jargon trumps determination to take on the criminals.

The biggest losers from this approach are not just ordinary decent British citizens, but also the constables out on the streets, often doing a heroic, selfless job only to be undermined by their selfish, careerist superiors. It is no exaggeration to say that the Met frontline are lions led by vacillating donkeys.

As a former detective chief superintendent at the Met myself, I have been appalled by the Dizaei saga.

I was actually the borough commander in West London at the time when, in July 2008, he tried to frame an innocent Iraqi businessman, Waad al-Baghdadi, with whom he was engaged in a bitter feud over money. The incident ultimately led to two criminal trials and Dizaei’s conviction this week.

But from the moment Dizaei hauled Mr al-Baghdadi into Hammersmith police station on charges of assault, I had the severest doubts about his tale. This was not just because of the unconvincing nature of his story that al-Baghdadi had attacked him, which turned out to be a pack of lies, but also because of Dizaei’s appalling record of dishonesty, corruption and abuse of office.

Like almost everyone else in the Met, I had always known that he was a wrong ’un. On a superficial level, he could be charming and personable, but his easy manner barely disguised his dark side.

He was a figure of epic venality, ambition and ruthlessness, his entire career geared towards furthering his own interests, regardless of the legality or probity of his methods.

When he joined the Met as a superintendent in 1999, former colleagues in the Thames Valley Police, where he was an officer for more than a decade, warned us to beware, telling us of his enthusiasm for playing the race card to achieve his ends.

But in a climate of hysteria over accusations of ‘institutionalised racism’, the Met’s top brass were desperate to recruit more ethnic minority senior officers.

The warnings from Thames Valley Police were grimly fulfilled. Dizaei was a master at using fears about racism to thwart any challenge to his increasingly aggressive, self-serving conduct. The National Black Police Association, of which Dizaei was president, was his chosen instrument with which to bully and intimidate the Met’s hierarchy. He became a law unto himself. The Met’s terror of taking any action against him made him feel even more invincible.

Even the Independent Police Complaints Commission, normally all too keen on enforcing the politically correct code, urged the Met to discipline Dizaei — but top commanders were too pusillanimous to do so. Most had prospered by avoiding tough decisions. They were not going to risk all by taking on a formidable adversary who loved to smear his critics as racists.

Thanks to their lack of courage, he got away with behaviour that would have led to the sacking of any other Met employee.

So he gained a PhD with a thesis attacking the Met on racism, while in 2007 he wrote an autobiographical book called Not One Of Us, which contained severe criticism of the Met.

Yet instead of being sacked for gross disloyalty, he was promoted. Can you imagine any successful company that would behave in such a pathetic manner towards a senior member of staff making money out of trashing the firm’s reputation?

Fuelled by his invulnerability, Dizaei’s ego was legendary among the rank-and-file. On one occasion he alleged that two constables had damaged his private car. On investigation, it turned out that the damage was inflicted by one of his many mistresses.

Any other officer behaving in that way would have been disciplined or sacked, especially because he had shown such a contemptible lack of respect towards the two constables.

But nothing happened to Dizaei, protected as he was by the shield of spurious anti-racism. On another occasion, he drove into the station and parked so carelessly that he blocked the exit of the emergency response vehicles. Almost immediately, the emergency vehicle was needed.

‘Can you move your car?’ called out the officers, needing to rush to the scene of the incident. ‘You move it,’ replied Dizaei, throwing them the keys and marching brazenly inside.

That was the arrogance of the man. He had no sense of public service, not a shred of decency. He was a brute in uniform, who once threatened to kill the mother of one of his mistresses ‘like a dog’.

But Dizaei was clever enough to exploit the political pressures on the Met for more than a decade.

And, of course, political correctness was to blame for the pusillanimous way the rampaging gangs of looters and vandals — many from ethnic minorities — were dealt with during the riots last summer.

Paralysed by political correctness and accusations of racism, terrified of being accountable for controversial decisions over public order, the Met’s senior officers allowed the mob to control the streets for five days before launching a crackdown.

This is not the police force that the public deserves.

The one great hope is that the Met has a new Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, who made his name fighting crime on Liverpool’s tough streets. Hogan-Howe’s virtues are that he does not crave adulation from the politicians, always a sign of good judgment, and that he has real experience of operational requirements.

Far too many senior officers in the Met have reached the top without such a background. In fact, the avoidance of tough, frontline responsibilities is often the hallmark of a modern successful career in the Met.

The arrival of Hogan-Howe, combined with the welcome downfall of Ali Dizaei, may put an end to this pattern. And, finally, policing will be governed by the needs of the public instead of politics.

SOURCE





Women prisoners should be allowed out to visit their children, British judge rules

Female prisoners should be allowed temporary release from jail to visit their children, a High Court judge has ruled.

Kenneth Clarke was wrong to try to stop two women prisoners being allowed time out of prison to see their children, said Mrs Justice Lang. She said the Justice Secretary misinterpreted policy and acted in a way which was incompatible with human rights legislation when denying two women 'childcare resettlement leave’.

Mr Clarke 'fettered his discretion’ by applying a blanket policy without considering individual circumstances of prisoners, the judge added. She ruled against Mr Clarke at a High Court hearing in London after two women prisoners challenged decisions not to allow them to take the leave.

She ordered that decisions taken about the two women, who were not identified, must be reconsidered. Lawyers representing Mr Clarke were given seven days to consider an appeal application.

Childcare resettlement leave is a 'type of temporary licence’ available to prisoners who had sole caring responsibility for a child under 16. It enabled prisoners to spend up to three days - plus nights - at home providing certain conditions are met.

The judge pointed out that both men and women prisoners are eligible but the judicial review challenge before her focused exclusively on the position of female prisoners.

The Justice Secretary was entitled to direct prison governors on relevant factors to consider in accordance with rules - although in practice governors take decisions on his behalf, she said.

Mrs Justice Lang heard legal argument from lawyers representing the two women and Mr Clarke at a hearing last month.

The judge said, in a written ruling handed down yesterday: 'In my judgment, the Secretary of State acted unlawfully when reviewing and applying his policy on child resettlement leave.' She said Mr Clarke misinterpreted policy by taking the view that child resettlement leave was only ever intended to be available to prisoners close to release.

He had 'failed to have regard' to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which enshrines a right to respect for private and family life - and acted in a way which was incompatible with Article 8 and with the Human Rights Act.

The judge said Mr Clarke had also fettered his discretion by applying a blanket policy without considering individual circumstances of prisoners. She said she did not consider it was 'unduly onerous' for prison bosses to have proper regard for individual applications for child resettlement leave.

The judge said Mr Clarke should reconsider his decisions on the two women within six weeks but she would consider granting him leave to appeal against her ruling.

Mrs Justice Lang gave details about the two women who mounted the legal challenge but did not identify them. The judge said one woman was given a 10-year sentence after being convicted of conspiring to import cocaine and was a prisoner at Downview jail in Sutton, Surrey. She was the sole carer of three children aged between four and 13, said the judge.

The second woman had been given a 14-year sentence after being convicted of importing cocaine and was also at Downview. She was the sole carer of her 15-year-old daughter, said the judge.

SOURCE





For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words

Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved

By Stephen Pollard

Which of us hasn’t groaned when the Rev Giles Fraser, former canon of St Paul’s, pops up with his Thought for the Day on Radio 4? Dr Fraser is the archetypal 21st-century vicar, as predictably Lefty as he is drearily on-trend. That “former” prefix is because, you’ll recall, he resigned after welcoming the Occupy protesters to his cathedral. And since leaving St Paul’s he has, in a form of caricature made flesh, become a Guardian leader writer. But I take it all back. Giles Fraser, you are now my hero.

In a discussion on the Today programme yesterday, Dr Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.

The two men were debating some new figures produced by Prof Dawkins’s think tank, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. (A typical Dawkins touch: not just any old Foundation for Reason and Science but the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.) The statistics purport to show that most people who identify themselves as Christian turn out, when questioned on what they actually think, to be “overwhelmingly secular in their attitudes on issues ranging from gay rights to religion in public life”. Dawkins’s conclusion is that these self-identified Christians are “not really Christian at all”.

If you were trying to come up with a definition of misplaced intellectual arrogance, you could not do better than having the planet’s most famous atheist issuing diktats on who does and doesn’t count as a proper Christian. Prof Dawkins then announced, triumphantly, that an “astonishing number [of Christians] couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament”.

The transcript of the next minute or so only hints at how cringingly, embarrassingly bad it was for Dawkins.

Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Dawkins: Yes I could.

Fraser: Go on then.

Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

It was a golden minute of radio. But as well as being hilarious, it was hugely symbolic. In The Daily Telegraph yesterday, Baroness Warsi highlighted the militant secularism on the march in Britain. But as Dr Fraser revealed, the atheist army is led by an embarrassingly feeble general. The arrogance and intolerance of the atheists, exemplified by Prof Dawkins, is their Achilles’ heel.

Last week’s court decision to ban prayers at the start of council meetings is all of a piece. The judge may or may not have got the law right – there will almost certainly be an appeal. But it is the National Secular Society which, in taking its case to court to have its views imposed on the rest of us, is responsible for the ban on Christians praying.

As a Jewish schoolboy, I had to sit through Christian prayers at the end of every assembly. It would not have occurred to me or any other Jew I knew that we should try to stop them praying in front of us. We were a small minority at a school with a large majority of Christians. I simply sat silently, my mind wandering off to other things.

The militant secularists, however, have only one modus operandi – attack. Respect for others’ views seems to be entirely missing from their moral calculus.

They entirely miss the irony of their position. Religious leaders who focus solely on a sectarian appeal to their own followers, and who seek to raise their own standing by diminishing the views of others, end up on the margins of serious debate. And as their noise drowns out the quieter, less confrontational majority, they act against their own religion’s interest.

We all hear about Muslim leaders issuing fatwas against homosexuals, preaching hate and the extermination of the Jews. But who hears of an Imam who is a credit to their religion?

And yet the extremists are merely a flipside of the atheists. Their actions, too, are entirely negative, aimed at winning plaudits from fellow atheists and in the process poisoning the rest of society against them. We wait in vain for a high-profile atheist to acknowledge that we can all learn from some religious leaders, even if we do not share their faith. The past two Chief Rabbis have shown the benefits of a more open approach, reaching beyond one’s own followers. Lord Jakobovits and Lord Sacks have been feted far outside the Jewish community. Neither were ennobled because they were Chief Rabbi; none of their predecessors had been so honoured. Their elevation to the Upper House was because many gentiles regarded them as figures who had something exceptional to contribute to public life. Where is that contribution from atheists? We’ve had nothing but negativity from Richard Dawkins. And he is now, after yesterday’s intellectual savaging, a busted flush.

SOURCE





Young people today are late to the wedding, but want marriage

When Amy Monticello and Jason Tucker got married, it wasn't the passionate act of two people who'd fallen madly in love. It was a far less romantic mix of love, legal protections, and health insurance. They met in graduate school, dated for a while, and began staying over at each other's apartments.

"We were spending so much time together it just seemed silly to pay two rents," says Ms. Monticello. So the two moved in together in 2006, but she says she was wary: "I think I saw living together as a test run, in a way."

Four years later Monticello, age 29, and Mr. Tucker, 30 – both writers who teach at Ithaca Col­lege, in Ithaca, N.Y. – chose to marry because it gave their relationship legal certainty and other benefits, like next-of-kin status, community property protection, and the ability to share health insurance.

Much of Monticello's ambivalence about marriage, she says, is the result of her childhood in the 1980s and '90s spent watching her parents and their friends contribute to the highest divorce rates in US history.

That ambivalence is also seen in the whole new world of courtship created by her generation – Millennials or Generation Y generally includes those born between 1980 and 2000. This is the first generation to come of age with social media, instant – even constant – Internet and phone connection, and relaxed pressures to marry early. It is responsible for terms like "hooking up" (nonrelationships known to previous generations as one-night stands) and "friends with benefits" (a sexual relationship without emotional involvement).

While Millennial courtship rituals are distinctly different from those of previous generations, say those who study the scene, survey after survey indicates that Millennials do want to be married, they do want the house in the suburbs and the kids.

But they also want to be careful – they are postponing marriage longer than any generation before them.

"Millennials believe in marriage and lifelong commitment but are also more relaxed about sex, dating, and living together" than their Generation X and boomer parents, says Pamela Smock, a professor of sociology and director of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

More HERE

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

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

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

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

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