Sunday, February 13, 2011

Once again: British police not interested in real policing

They prefer to harass decent people over trivia. It's easier to meet their "targets" that way. A once-lauded police force has been destroyed by 13 years of Leftist control

A detective whose work may have saved the lives of seven prostitutes trafficked into Britain was allegedly told by her boss: `I'm not interested in trafficking. I am interested in burglaries.' Detective Constable Jennifer Coleman, 33, claims senior officers tried to `conceal' the scale of the trafficking because they feared a major investigation would tie up resources and leave them unable to meet crime detection targets.

DC Coleman told an employment tribunal that colleagues put the lives of many women in danger when they refused to raise the status of a human trafficking case she was leading to a nationwide level. The officer made the claims as she sued South Wales Police for discrimination under whistleblower laws. It is understood she is seeking a total of œ30,000 for loss of earnings and hurt feelings.

The tribunal in Cardiff heard that DC Coleman was seconded to a national serious organised crime task force in January 2006 to join an investigation into the trafficking of women from Eastern Europe to work as prostitutes in Britain. She was the officer in charge of two trafficking cases and the point of contact for two victims of a crime ring which had brought them to the UK and set them to work as prostitutes at a brothel in Cardiff.

In a statement, DC Coleman said she had `received positive feedback' for her work, but after nearly a year with the task force she was transferred back to CID. She claimed her CID colleagues treated her trafficking work with `disdain' and that her new `line manager', Detective Sergeant Chris Cullen, `did not appreciate' that she still had work to do on her human trafficking cases. DC Coleman complained to Detective Inspector Gary Osborne that she felt `bullied' and that this was impacting on her health.

On New Year's Eve 2006 she received a call from the madam of a Cardiff brothel in `a hysterical state' telling her that a trafficked woman was working as a prostitute at her premises and that the victim's pimp was `bashing at the door'.

The victim told police she had been trafficked from her home in Eastern Europe to Sheffield, then to Cardiff. The next day the victim said seven more women were being held in a brothel in Sheffield and forced into prostitution. DC Coleman made contact with a detective at South Yorkshire Police.

`He explained that one of the names I had given had been at the centre of a very large investigation into human trafficking,' she said. `The information I passed on saved the lives of seven females and has led to the arrest of national and international targets.'

DC Coleman, who still works as a detective for South Wales Police, said she knew her career would be finished as a result of passing information to South Yorkshire Police. She added: `I believe that South Wales Police did not want me to pass the intelligence on as it would have led to an expensive joint force investigation. It would have impacted on our detection rates.'

DC Coleman said she was told by DI Osborne not to deal with trafficking cases any more, but in March 2007 she received a message from a contact saying he had `urgent information about trafficked females in Cardiff needing assistance'. She wrote the details on a piece of paper and handed it to DS Cullen, saying: `I am aware I am not to deal with any human trafficking, therefore can someone deal with this.'

DC Coleman claims he took the piece of paper from her, screwed it up and said: `I'm not interested in trafficking. I am interested in burglaries.' He then walked off.

She was accused by South Wales Police's barrister, Jonathan Walters, of being `a plausible liar'.


Sexism alive and well in British Girl Guides

A teenage boy barred from a Girl Guides meeting has accused the organisation of sexual discrimination. Thomas Desai, 17, was invited by two female friends to join them at their weekly session at the Guide hut, but he was turned away at the door.

'I made the assumption, as girls are welcome to be members of the Scouting movement, I would be welcome,' said Thomas, from Crowborough, East Sussex.

Sex discrimination laws allow the Guiding movement to exclude boys, but Thomas criticised the organisation's 'backward ethos'. Guiding bosses have fiercely defended their stance, saying it was 'vital' in today's society for a girls-only group to be available.

Sixth-form student Thomas had been invited to a meeting of the Crowborough District Rangers, the section of the Guiding movement for 14- to 26-year-old women, where regular activities include hiking, cooking, crafts and challenges.

'I was disgusted,' he said. 'My friends were surprised. They thought I would be welcome. 'It's not as if I was some strange person going on my own. I was with friends. They turned me away just because I was a male.'

Thomas said he had always been fascinated with Girl Guiding. He said: 'The values of camaraderie and friendship within the movement, as well as the various activities members undertake, appeal to me greatly. 'I have never really had male-orientated hobbies. I'm not interested in football and rugby. I love cooking and eventually want to be a chef. I feel I can engage better with girls than boys.'

Guides were formed in 1910 as a movement for girls in response to the setting up of the Scouts, exclusively for boys, a year earlier.

In the past couple of decades, Scouts troops have been free to accept girls if they choose, but the Guiding movement has remained for girls only.

Thomas said the Guides should open its doors to people like him who were keen to get involved and do something positive but didn't see Scouts for them. 'We are living in 21st-century Britain, where discrimination is not tolerated in any form. Surely these days a person's sex should not define what they are and are not allowed to do,' he said.

'The Guiding movement encourages equality and acceptance, and yet seems to fail itself in practice. 'Times are changing fast and the movement needs to open its eyes and catch up with the rest of society. 'I feel let down that such a backward ethos is still acceptable.'

The Rangers' website describes their meetings as 'informal and spirited'.

Claire Cohen, spokesman for Girlguiding UK, said: 'The young man turned up unexpectedly at the location. He was spoken to by a person who was responsible for a younger age group.

'The Rangers leader had no knowledge of this and would have given him the same message but might have used a slightly more 'teen-friendly' approach to explain to him why we are a girl-only space.' She added: 'Our young members, whom we frequently consult, have repeatedly told us enjoying a safe girl-only space is one of the things they value most about their guiding experience. 'Throughout our 100 years we have always maintained this safe girl-only space for our members.

'We strongly believe that in today's world there remains a vital role for such a space, where girls can be themselves during a formative time in their lives without the pressures of having boys around.'


Yet another false rape claim from Britain

Such claims seem to average about one a week. It is fueled by the feminist practice of taking a woman's word against a man's word

A female chaplain at a Roman Catholic college narrowly avoided jail last night after she admitted falsely accusing a parish priest of rape when he ended their affair.

Father Patrick Udoma lost his job and his home and his life was `completely devastated' when Emma Templeton, 44, lied to police that she had been seriously sexually assaulted by him, a court heard.

The 45-year-old suffered the humiliation of being arrested by police at his church while conducting a funeral, had his home searched, mobile phone confiscated and was locked up for 23 hours in a cell and questioned.

Despite Father Udoma insisting that the pair had enjoyed a consensual relationship, officers refused to accept his protestations of innocence. It wasn't until five months later - when police discovered more than 200 intimate text messages between the couple on Templeton's phone - that he was finally exonerated and she was arrested instead.

Yesterday Templeton, who worked at Cardinal Newman University College, Birmingham, was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment, suspended for a year, after admitting perverting the course of justice.

James Burbidge, QC, the Recorder of Birmingham, said he accepted Templeton had not acted maliciously when she made the rape allegation, but added: `You have committed a very serious offence. `It was created when your relationship with Father Udoma appeared to be coming to an end, and from what you said to him you knew you could cause him trouble.'

Birmingham Crown Court heard that Father Udoma started a relationship with Templeton in 2008 while based at St Rose of Lima Catholic Church, in Weoley Castle, Birmingham.

Shenaz Musaffer, prosecuting, told the court that Templeton first made an allegation of rape against the priest to colleagues in January 2009. She also claimed to have tried, on two occasions, to take her own life by taking an overdose of paracetamol.

However, it wasn't until more than a year later, in April last year, that Templeton, of Northfield, Birmingham, made a formal rape complaint to the police.

Father Udoma was arrested and, under questioning, admitted he had engaged in consensual sex with Templeton on two occasions but said their relationship was over. He told officers she had warned him that she would not be able to guarantee what she would do if he `hurt' her.

Father Udoma was released on bail but it wasn't until September, when police discovered hundreds of text messages on Templeton's phone, in which she declared her love and respect for the priest, that he was finally told no further action would be taken against him.

Templeton was arrested and, the court heard, initially claimed she had lied because the priest had some kind of hold over her. Eventually, however, she told officers she had made the allegations up.

Sally Hancox, defending, said Templeton was of previously good character but had `issues' from her childhood and adolescent life which meant there was still an element of the `emotional child' in her. She added: `She allowed herself to become embroiled in a situation which for many reasons was inappropriate.'

Following the case, a former parishioner, who did not want to be named, told the Birmingham Mail that Father Udoma had been `tormented' by Templeton's `wicked' claims and `didn't deserve what happened to him'. She said he was conducting a funeral at his church on April 15 last year when police arrived to take him into custody.

It is understood Father Udoma has since been reinstated in a different parish.


British hotel owner sparks anger by putting up provocative sign declaring 'Poofters welcome'

A mixed message. "Poofter" is roughly equivalent to the American "faggot"

A hotel owner has caused uproar in his village after putting up a sign outside the building saying 'Poofters welcome here'. Mike Saqui meant the sign to be a pointed reference to the case where a Cornish B&B owner refused to let in gay couples. But many in his village in Hampshire's New Forest were left outraged and he was given a strong talking to by the police.

Mr Saqui wrote the message on the sandwich board outside his Penny Farthing Hotel, on a main road in Hampshire's New Forest. Residents feared they could be branded a 'village of bigots' but others insisted it was 'light-hearted' and urged councillors to 'lighten up'.

Chairman councillor Mark Rolle told the parish council meeting this week that he had been offended by the slogans. He said: 'There have been some amusing signs occasionally. But last weekend I found one that incensed me. 'The realms of decency were overstepped - we could be branded a village of bigots.' Coun. Rolle also said that when he phoned the hotel to complain, a member of staff told him the owner could 'put what he wanted'.

Councillor Paul Boyes said: 'I personally find it offensive. I think it is our duty to say something.' And Angela Trend added: 'I found it offensive. Some people aren't confident enough to go in and make a stand.'

However, other councillors disagreed. Leonard Cornell said: 'It's not offensive, it's a fact. On its website it is listed as gay friendly.' Councillor Pat Wyeth said: 'It wasn't particularly appropriate but it is not something the parish council should get involved with.

'On the whole it is only that last one and the one just before which caused offence. I honestly do not think it is something we should get involved with - the police should have a word if it oversteps the mark. If someone is offended by it, go in and say it.'

Mr Saqui, 45, said: 'This is a just a storm in a teacup and the parish council has overreacted. 'I've been writing fun, comical messages on the A-board for the last 10 years and no harm is meant by them. 'We have a small minded parish council who have their knickers in a twist and I just want to get on running a business.

'This is the political correctness culture gone mad. The latest message is not homophobic, we welcome gays, lesbians or whoever.

'After we did receive a complaint and I took the board in - and then I received complaints from people saying 'don't let the naysayers win'.

'I can't believe the police were sent round to have a word either, it's a ridiculous waste of their time. A few bad apples on the parish council will not stop me writing my messages.'

A spokesman for Hampshire Constabulary said police had 'spoken with the hotel's management about the issues'.


A black trouble-maker and a politically-correct council combine to do a lot of harm to innocent people

Anna Farquhar has spent most of her life helping others - first as a nurse, then running a branch of St John Ambulance, a job she performed with distinction for more than 20 years. When she retired, she took up voluntary work with the armed services charity Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA).

But the latest entry on her CV - and the reason you are reading about her today - is that of chairman of a local health watchdog in her native Wiltshire.

If truth be told, it was a job no one really wanted. It involved a mountain of paperwork, as well as endless meetings in draughty halls. But, aged 70 and a grandmother of five, Mrs Farquhar agreed to take on the job last May. The position, it should be stressed, was unpaid.

The only `perk', apart from the satisfaction that comes from doing such a valuable, if thankless, task was the free tea and biscuits provided when she and her fellow volunteers met up.

But today, the `thoroughly decent' Mrs Farquhar (not our words, but those of her colleagues) is a near-broken woman after being publicly vilified and humiliated.

What happened to her is not just a personal tragedy for Mrs Farquhar, but also an indictment of the kind of society we have now become, where the pernicious culture of political correctness holds sway and common sense has all but disappeared.

The story begins at a Scout hut in the village of Potterne Wick, near Devizes, where Mrs Farquhar lives with husband, Ian, 68, and where she has been a `pillar of the community' for many years. Could there be a more unlikely setting for controversy?

But it was here back in August that Mrs Farquhar's group, Wiltshire Involvement Network (WIN), convened. Towards the end of the meeting, Mrs Farquhar noted that gossip about NHS changes had been spreading within the health service, remarking: `You cannot help the jungle drums.' The phrase, as everyone must know, is a commonly used expression similar to `rumour mill' or `grapevine'.

Well, not everyone. Almost before Mrs Farquhar had finished her sentence, a voice from the public gallery rang out: `You can't say that.' The voice belonged to Sonia Carr.

Mrs Carr, 50, a veteran equality campaigner, claimed the remark was racist. Mrs Farquhar did not think she had said anything offensive, racially or otherwise, but apologised out of courtesy. That was the end of the matter. Or so it seemed. Mrs Carr even remained behind for refreshments and sandwiches after proceedings had been concluded.

One month went by, then two, then three. Finally, on November 17 - some 13 weeks after the meeting in the Scout hut - a ten-page report landed on Mrs Farquhar's desk with the sinister sounding title 'Complaint Investigator's Report'.

It had been commissioned by Wiltshire County Council. The authority, it transpired, had received an official complaint from Mrs Carr about the `jungle drums' aside.

But, as far as Mrs Farquhar was concerned, the document marked `confidential' might just as well have been produced by a Communist politburo, such were its astonishing findings. `The comment [jungle drums],' it informed her, `was inappropriate and caused offence.' Underneath, written in capital letters, were the words: COMPLAINT UPHELD. Indeed, those words seemed to be everywhere. Her colleagues had `failed to challenge' her statement: COMPLAINT UPHELD. There was a `clear lack of understanding of equality and diversity issues' among the group: COMPLAINT UPHELD.

Mrs Carr had been interviewed, of course, before the report was published. So, too, had members of other organisations that had dealings with Mrs Farquhar and her team.

Scandalously, though, the only person who wasn't interviewed was Mrs Farquhar herself or anyone on the 20-strong `steering committee' who were present in the Scout hut. Except one, that is. And she was the one colleague who agreed with Sonia Carr. Those with high blood pressure should perhaps turn away now, for this is only half the story.

One revelation, in particular, in the report that left Mrs Farquhar's good name besmirched - unjustifiably and unfairly in the view of practically everyone apart from Mrs Carr and the politically correct jobsworths over at county hall - leapt off the page.

The sentence read: `The complainant [Sonia Carr] explained that she suffered real pain and was emotionally upset by the comment made and this has had an impact on her health and her family.' Yes, that's the same Sonia Carr who stayed behind for sandwiches and mingled happily with Mrs Farquhar and her colleagues after the fateful meeting.

Presumably, Mrs Carr, vice-chairman of the Wiltshire Racial Equality Council, must have suffered a great deal of `pain' and `emotional `upset' in recent years. Why? Because this is not the first time she has she raised race issues. She has made a string of complaints against various public bodies, of which more later.

But still the council supported her unreservedly and, in the process, came close to destroying the reputation of a woman with an outstanding record of public service. That in itself is shocking enough. But the authority's policy of appeasement towards Mrs Carr hasn't just had disastrous consequences for Mrs Farquhar.

Like its counterparts up and down the country, Mrs Farquhar's organisation worked hand-in-hand with local authorities, monitoring NHS trusts and social care services, carrying out hospital inspections, among other things, and investigating grievances on behalf of patients.

Following the `jungle drums' farrago, all volunteers working under Mrs Farquhar - 200 of them across Wiltshire - were banned from council premises and meetings. They were even forbidden from communicating with councillors in any way. Funding to cover the watchdog's administration costs was punitively withdrawn.

So a valuable public service was paralysed and a scandal, which had dragged on for more than six months - at an untold cost to the taxpayer - had now managed to turn an army of well-meaning and selfless individuals into pariahs.

All because of an innocuous turn of phrase that has long been part of everyday speech. Wiltshire County Council didn't want you to find out about this, of course, and has done everything it can to stop information about the `jungle drums' affair getting out.

But the story was leaked to a local paper, the Salisbury Journal, last week. Cue a swift and embarrassing climb down this week when the `ban' was lifted and funding reinstated. Could there be a more shoddy abuse of power by a supposedly democratically accountable institution?

It follows the saga of a black councillor in Bristol who called her Asian rival a 'coconut' (slang for someone who is betraying their roots by pandering to `white opinion' because a coconut is white in the middle but brown on the outside) during a political debate.

Not a nice expression, certainly. Many might find it offensive. But common sense was the real victim when the councillor was prosecuted and subsequently convicted of racially aggravated harassment.

This offence was introduced under laws to deal with the Far Right marching through areas like Southall in Manchester or Islamic fanatics descending on military funeral processions in Wootton Bassett. Not squabbles in the council chamber.

The same culture - a kind of politically correct fascism - which resulted in `Coconutgate' and too many other examples to mention, was also at the heart of the `jungle drums' farce.

It's a culture epitomised and exploited by the likes of the wretched Sonia Carr, who has made a career out of causing trouble.

A separate complaint from Mrs Carr against Wiltshire Police is still under investigation. `I can confirm this lady has expressed concern about posters displayed at one of our stations,' a spokesman revealed yesterday.

The nature of the complaint? Mrs Carr, a married mother-of-two from Warminster, was unhappy, it is alleged, about the `lack of black officers' in the posters. Mrs Carr, whose husband is believed to work in the Army, has also complained about two officers at Wiltshire County Council, we have been told, and has targeted Anna Farquhar's health watchdog on a previous occasion, too.

That gripe arose from a public meeting, organised by the watchdog, at the Corn Exchange in Devizes in April 2009, to discuss how people with dementia can best be supported. One member of the audience pointed out that sufferers sometimes found it hard to eat non-British dishes prepared by volunteers from ethnic minorities.

Mrs Carr, who was present, demanded an apology for the observation, which she deemed to be offensive, from the then chairman Phil Matthews. He refused to indulge Mrs Carr after seeking legal advice. `I warned the council then about her,' said Mr Matthews, who, it turns out, is also member of the local Coalition Against Racism.

Even so, the row rumbled on for a year before Mrs Carr went away. A few months later she was back, `tut-tutting' from her seat in the Scout hut. Little wonder that Mrs Farquhar was heard to say `not this again' when Sonia Carr protested about her -`jungle drums' remark.

The man blamed - even by many of his own colleagues on the Tory-run council - for allowing the complaint to escalate is deputy leader John Thomson. `The law makes it clear that what matters is not the intention of the person who uses the phrase but whether anyone is offended by it,' he said.

By that logic, `Chinese -whispers', `black magic', `brown bread', and `Indian summer' could soon be on the banned list in Wiltshire - and elsewhere - along with countless other popular phrases. In fact, Cllr Thomson, like everyone else involved in this politically correct witch-hunt, is hiding behind the law (which includes a clear -`reasonableness test') to avoid -making sensible decisions. That is evident from the `confidential' correspondence between the council and the health watchdog.

In December, after the complaint against the watchdog was upheld, Mrs Farquhar sent a response to the authority `rejecting any notion of racism concerning the term "jungle drums"' and cited `its wide usage as a company name', giving as an example the Jungle Drums marketing consultancy in Dorset, whose previous clients include the Metropolitan Police. The council ignored the evidence.

Mrs Farquhar wanted to know what grounds there were for Sonia Carr's claim that she suffered `real pain', `emotional upset' and adverse effects on her `health and family'. The council did not tell her.

The report, Mrs Farquhar, pointed out, accused her of making a `weak' apology to Mrs Carr. `What does "weak" mean?' she asked. `Whose judgement is this? The Complaint Investigator [council officer Heather Ludlow who was at the meeting in the Scout hut] was not present at that particular point and must, therefore, be accepting the judgement of someone else.' The council did not respond.

Mrs Farquhar said that the procedures followed by the Complaint Investigator were `unsound and unjust', that the findings were `all in one direction' and that she and her colleagues never had an `opportunity to defend' their position, which `defies common justice'. `It is matter of great regret this matter has taken so long to resolve,' Mrs Farquhar said. `It has caused me great personal stress and I will be glad to get back to work serving the community.'

Colleagues say Mrs Farquhar has `visibly aged' over the past six months. At her home in Devizes yesterday, her husband Ian, 68, a former local government education official, apologised for his wife being unable to come to the door. `She is shattered at the moment,' he said.

At county hall, councillors said they were furious about the way the authority has behaved and would be calling for a public inquiry. One letter in the Salisbury Journal summed up the local mood: `How reassuring for taxpayers to know that our representatives, while debating our precious health service, can find the time and money to investigate what can only be described as trivial complaint.

`As for the council being "legally obliged"' to investigate, this compounds the idiotic with the futile. Why wasn't this individual taken to one side and informed that the term jungle drums offends no one?'

What a pity the useless Cllr Thomson or one of the highly paid (maybe that should read -`overpaid') officials he relied on for advice couldn't have taken such a view six months ago and spared a -`thoroughly decent' woman from a very public and humiliating ordeal.



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: