Wednesday, February 16, 2011

British shed owners warned wire on windows could hurt burglars

Police have told residents to stop putting wire mesh on their garden shed windows – because they could be sued if a burglar is injured.

A spate of thefts in several towns and villages in Kent and Surrey over the past few months led to many householders taking action to protect their property.

Some have been warned by police that using wire mesh to reinforce shed windows was "dangerous’’ and could lead to criminals claiming compensation if they "hurt themselves’’.

Thieves target sheds to steal lawnmowers, power drills, bicycles and a variety of DIY tools.

Thomas Cooper, of Tatsfield, Surrey, used wire mesh to protect three of his garden sheds after two break-ins over the past four years. He decided to take action after reports of a rise in garden raids in the area. Mr Cooper said: “I reinforced my shed windows with wire mesh, but was told by the police I had to be very careful because thieves can actually sue you if they get hurt. "It is ridiculous that the law protects them even though they are breaking it.”

Last month Samantha Cullum, a mother-of-three, of Brasted, near Sevenoaks in Kent, had her whole shed stolen when thieves lifted it on to a lorry. She said: “We had some tools stolen every now and again, but this time they took the entire shed – I couldn’t believe it.”

Dave Bishop, of Tatsfield, said: “The law is so stupid, and you never know what decision judges are going to make. People do get fed up with these people trying to help themselves to things which you have worked hard to gather together.”

Pc John Lee, a crime reduction officer for Tandridge, said: “We are constantly advising home owners to protect their property and the contents of their shed or garage, however, a commonsense approach needs to be taken. “To properly secure your sheds, Surrey Police strongly advises people to invest in items such as good-quality locks and bolts, and not to resort to homemade devices, as this could cause injury.”

A police source added: “Homemade devices can cause injury and there have been cases where criminals have sued for injuries they have suffered while committing a criminal act. "We are advising people to do whatever they can to protect their property, but wire mesh is not one of the suggestions we would make.”


Wisconsin Takes On Big Labor

Wisconsin is yet again leading the way forward for the entire nation. Governor Scott Walker, in a bold and brave step, is making drastic and far reaching changes to the relationship between his state and the government employee unions that represent Wisconsin government employees. The changes could not come soon enough, as Wisconsin is facing devastating budget shortfalls.

The plan proposed by Governor Walker effects most state and local employees, including teachers. Most local law enforcement and fire fighters will be exempt from his proposal.

The proposal that Governor Walker has put in front of the legislature will greatly limit the role that the government employees’ unions play in Wisconsin. Walker’s plan would:

* Eliminates the ability of state employees to bargain over anything except wages. This excludes benefits and work rules from the bargaining table;

* Makes state & local employees right-to-work;

* Requires an annual vote for unions to remain recognized as workers’ collective bargaining representatives;

* Prohibits state agencies from collecting union dues;

* Requires wage increases above and beyond inflation to be approved by a popular referendum;

* Requires state employees to contribute half of the cost of their pension payments, up from nothing now. This works out to 6 percent of their salaries;

* Requires state employees to cover 12 percent of their healthcare premiums.

In effect, Walker’s plan completely curbs the power of the union — a good first move to get Big Labor’s money sucking tendencies under control.

Of course, Big Labor doesn’t feel good about Walker’s proposal. Reacting to the Governor’s plan, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt said, “Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of hard-working Wisconsinites, we need to come up with a balanced approach that looks at shared sacrifice from everyone.”

The statement from Neuenfeldt ignores the fact that the budget shortfall burden is indeed on the backs of hard-working Wisconsinites. After all, the taxpayers in Wisconsin are the ones who pay the bills that the government and the union, rack up.

And why shouldn’t taxpayers have the right to decide if state employees should receive compensation raises that are absurd anywhere else in the marketplace. Governor Walker’s proposal would drastically limit the ability of public sector unions to extort absurd levels of compensation from Wisconsin taxpayers.

If passed, the proposal would also severally limit the ability for the extremely partisan union in playing a major role inside of government. For far too long, the AFL-CIO has been allowed to run around the inner workings of government without check. This proposal would tamp down the role that the left-wing labor group can play in Wisconsin — a move that puts government on a more fair playing field for all Wisconsinites.

States across the nation should be looking at Governor Scott Walker’s plan as a model for their own states. As state budget crises loom from coast to coast drastic changes are needed more than ever. Allowing state budget malfeasance to continue only invites disaster. Wisconsin has set a path forward for states to reign in their out-of-control spending — we can only hope that others are paying attention.


Is "Islamofascism" a Slur?

Amil Imani

A few years back, President George W. Bush used the term “Islamic Fascism” in a speech. In no time at all, the Bush-bashers, Islamic propaganda organizations and the rabid left unleashed a campaign of assault on the President for insulting the Muslims and sullying the sanctified religion of Islam by linking its name with fascism.

Opportunistic Democrats were just too happy to lead the attack on the President. An aspirant for presidency, to the left of the [left] Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, was so indignant by this “horrific” slander of the President smearing the stainless name of Islam that he found it his solemn duty to write a letter to the President lecturing him on his unacceptable use of the terms. Did the President indeed slander Islam, or are people like Feingold Bush-bashers who for their own reasons would never miss an opportunity to berate President Bush as well as those who support him? Let the facts decide.

“Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.” -- Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia

Let us examine each characteristic of fascism, one at a time, and see if the President was justified or did he indeed misspeak.

Radical: Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraysh, he was ridiculed as a Crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.

Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom were men of power and influence, such as Omar, Osman and Abu Bakr. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, including the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger. Then Allah’s messenger Muhammad set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.

As for teachings of Islam, “radical” is the most fitting term. The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s-way or the high way. This radicalism is very much in action today.

Political Ideology: Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam through religious divines controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.

In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Shariah. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted.

Authoritarianism: Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.

Nationalism: To Islam there is only one world-wide nation, the Islamic Ummeh. To Islam the earth is Allah’s, political boundaries are arbitrary and there is only one legitimate nation—the nation of Islam. The idea of one world, one nation, is not new with Islam. A number of secular rules, rulers and movements had aimed for the same objective. Alexander the Great, for instance, strived toward this goal, so did Communism, and the World Federalists still hold the vision of world unification.

The festival of Ashura, where Shia Muslims commemorate the death of Husayn ibn Ali, grandson of Mohammed, in the Battle of Karbala.

Militarism: Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as an instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. “No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor,” “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.

Anti-anarchism: Islam does not even tolerate the basic rudiments of liberty. Anarchism can be considered as liberty gone amuck. So, Islam is anti-anarchist as a matter of course. Furthermore, the very name of Islam means “submission.” And anarchism is 180 degrees from submission—Islam is the rule of the absolute—anarchism is the rule of no rules.

Anti-communism: Islam is based on the belief in a supreme being, Allah. This fundamental precept makes it incompatible with any materialistic philosophy, including communism. Islam, furthermore, places great importance on the rewards and punishment of the next life and denigrates the value of material existence—ideals disharmonious with the main tenets of materialistic Communism.

Anti-liberalism: Islam contends that it has the perfect divine prescription of life, brought to mankind as its eternal charter. Hence, human interventions and inventions are not only unacceptable; they are detrimental to the implementation of the perfect edicts. Liberal ideas trigger change. To Islam, any change from the perfect design of Allah, necessarily is in error and must not be allowed.

Islam fully meets each of the eight distinctive features of fascism. “If the shoe fits, wear it,” as the saying goes. Islam is fascist. Muslims and their apologists are guilty of denial and dishonesty. They have no ground at all for objecting to the contention that Islam is fascism. President George W. Bush did not misspeak.

If Muslims find fascism repugnant, then they should reconsider being Muslims.


A much ignored petition in Australia

Political correctness trumps the voice of the people

The controversial petition calling for a ban on Muslim immigration has been tabled 48 times in Parliament, The Canberra Times can reveal.

ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries angered the Muslim community when he tabled a petition on behalf of three Sydney residents last week, calling for a 10-year moratorium on Muslim migration to Australia. Several other senators had declined to do so.

However, an analysis of the history of the petition which appears to originate with the Christian Democrat Party reveals it is not the first time Senator Humphries has tabled it. Another 35 politicians 19 Liberals, six Nationals, eight Labor MPs and senators and two Independents have also tabled it since 2007, several more than once.

The petition calls for Christians to be given priority in immigration and for a 10-year ban on Muslims coming to Australia "so an assessment can be made on the social and political disharmony currently occurring in the Netherlands, France and the UK".

Senator Humphries said yesterday he would have tabled it the first time for the same reasons as last week. Although he disagreed with its sentiments, he had a responsibility to allow people's views to be presented to Parliament.

He was "not anxious to become the patron saint of ... extreme points of view" and sorry the publicity had given some people the chance to express bigoted or racist views, but stood by his decision to table it.

"I would do so, and in fact I will do so, again, because this situation is bound to recur in some form or another; not necessarily this issue, but something else that people consider to be controversial," he said.



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

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

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 or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: