Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Lazy British police again
If she had called someone a "poofter" or a "n*gger" they would have been there with sirens blaring. Her assailant was in fact black
A young mother was beaten to death by her violent ex-partner in front of her two-year-old daughter after police failed to intervene 11 times, UK investigators say.
Casey Brittle, 21, repeatedly called Nottinghamshire Police before she was murdered by Sanchez Williams.
Amerdeep Somal, a commissioner at the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), said Williams, from Nottingham, was "well-known to local police for his propensity for violence and threatening behaviour".
"In this case it is clear that a number of officers failed to perform to the level expected of them and basic actions, that may have helped others see the full picture of her suffering, were not completed," the commissioner said.
"No consideration was given to why Casey was reporting domestic abuse but then subsequently saying that she did not want police help."
Ms Brittle died from a series of injuries to her head, including a fractured jaw, cuts and bruising in October last year.
Williams, of Lathkill Close, was jailed for life after he admitted murdering Casey at her home.
His minimum term of 15 years was increased to 20 years by the Court of Appeal in June after the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, agreed the original sentence was "unduly lenient".
One of the aggravating features of the case, said Lord Judge, was that the small child had "witnessed the murderous attack on her mother by her father".
The judge said: "We simply cannot guess the long-term damage which will have been caused to that little girl and we can only hope that her future happiness is not irretrievably damaged."
Police received allegations of domestic violence and abuse against Ms Brittle between September 2008 and August 2010.
The police watchdog recorded a number of force and individual errors. It said officers had shown a lack of understanding of the force's domestic abuse policy and procedures, and bail conditions preventing contact with Ms Brittle had not been imposed on Williams.
It also found officers had not passed information on to the domestic abuse support unit, meaning it was not given a high enough priority.
Ms Brittle's mother Victoria Blower refused to blame police as the report was published.
"I know mistakes were made in dealing with previous attacks involving Casey, but there is only one person responsible for my daughter's death and that is Sanchez Williams," she said.
"Maybe one small change in the way things were handled could have saved her, or maybe Sanchez Williams was a time bomb just waiting to explode and nothing that anybody could have said or done was ever going to prevent him from murdering Casey."
A next-door neighbour was said to have heard Ms Brittle's daughter screaming "I want my mummy" as her father carried out the killing.
As her mother lay unconscious after the attack, the little girl stayed in a bedroom on her own for two hours.
In a statement, Paul Broadbent, assistant chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police, said the force unreservedly accepted the recommendations of the report and that he deeply regretted Ms Brittle's death and the circumstances surrounding it and had apologised to her family.
He said: "There had been a history of domestic violence and abuse in Casey's life involving Williams.
"In the 23 months leading up to her death, a total of 11 separate incidents had been reported to Nottinghamshire Police and for this reason the force asked that the circumstances leading up to her death be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
"Whilst awaiting the IPCC's report, we took steps to completely revise our approach towards responding to, and identifying, incidents of domestic violence and abuse. This involved an overhaul of working practices, specifically in relation to the identification and management of the risks faced by victims."
A new training program, including a 20-minute film featuring Ms Brittle's mother, has also been put in place for all police officers and staff who deal with such cases.
Six officers have appeared before a misconduct meeting and admitted their individual failings in relation to the case.
One received a written warning while three received management advice, Mr Broadbent said. No action was taken against the remaining two.
Four others, who were not required to attend the meeting, have been subject to unsatisfactory performance procedures, he added.
British Libel reforms 'do not go far enough' to protect free speech: MPs worried firms flex financial muscle to gag opponents
Reforms to England's libel laws will not do enough to protect free speech, MPs and peers will say today. A powerful parliamentary committee believes further steps are needed to prevent big corporations using their financial muscle to gag opponents by threatening legal action.
It also wants extra measures to protect scientists and academics who are publishing legitimate research, and to prevent trivial claims ever reaching court.
The committee has been scrutinising the Coalition’s proposals to end the ‘international embarrassment’ that sees rich and powerful foreigners flocking to our courts to silence critics. There has been growing concern about the ‘chilling’ impact of our defamation laws on free speech.
Today’s report from the joint committee on the draft Defamation Bill says many of the Government’s proposals – particularly a move to end trial by jury except in the most serious cases – are ‘worthwhile’. But it says the plans are ‘modest’ and do not address the key problem in defamation law – the ‘unacceptably high costs’ associated with defending cases.
It also argues that powerful corporations should have to obtain permission from the courts before lodging a libel claim to prevent the threat of action being used to silence criticism.
The committee says further steps are needed to reverse a ‘chilling effect’ on scientific debate and investigative journalism.
Critics believe scientists and academics are increasingly being ‘bullied into silence’ when they raise concerns about products or services.
Former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Mawhinney, who chairs the committee, said: ‘Our recommendations should help minimise the reliance on expensive lawyers and the courts, bringing defamation action into the reach of ordinary people.’
Why the Press must stay free to say 'very rude things', by Boris
Boris Johnson made a passionate defence of press freedom yesterday, saying the right of newspapers to say ‘very rude things’ about public figures has protected democracy.
In a clear challenge to David Cameron, who has called for the current system of press self-regulation to be torn up, the London Mayor said he would not support restrictions on the media.
Instead, he said he ‘passionately’ sided with Paul Dacre, the Editor of the Daily Mail, who has argued that imposing restrictions on press freedom would have worrying implications for democracy.
Mr Johnson has repeatedly been on the receiving end of media stories about his private life, including details of extra-marital affairs and claims that he fathered a love child.
But the Mayor insisted that the media has a right to upset public figures because openness encourages honesty and stamps out corruption in public life. Speaking at a Westminster lunch, he said: ‘People looking at London see a society that is as honest as anywhere in the world – thanks very largely to the very rude things the media says about so many people.’
Many in the media believe the Government is using the Leveson inquiry, set up by the Prime Minister in the wake of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, as a vehicle for muzzling the media in revenge for exposing wrongdoing in the political class.
In a speech to the inquiry last week, Mr Dacre questioned the motives of politicians who had crushed the standing of the Press Complaints Commission, the industry’s regulator. ‘Am I alone,’ he said, ‘in detecting the rank smells of hypocrisy and revenge in the political class’s current moral indignation over a British Press that dared to expose their greed and corruption.’
Mr Dacre said that while he agreed that self-regulation should be ‘beefed up’, it was ‘in a country that regards itself as truly democratic, the only viable way of policing a genuinely free Press’.
How times have changed
It is a truism to say that Marxist thought has done much to undermine the quality of today’s college experience. But few people realize just how deeply Marxist thought has penetrated education in America. Its influence is not restricted to the realm of higher education. Nor is it restricted to the realm of economics. Marxism also affects our moral reasoning and it begins to do so in grammar school. The case of Mrs. White is illustrative.
Mrs. White was a first grade teacher in the 1960s. She taught in a small school in Alabama just a few years after the schools integrated along the lines of race. She was rather blunt in her teaching methods. But she was effective. In fact, no one ever questioned her efficacy in the classroom.
One day, Mrs. White was teaching a young black boy to read. He was pronouncing the word “this” as “dis” and the word “that” as “dat.” Mrs. White told him he needed to learn to speak English properly. She said that integration was a right accompanied by responsibilities. She went so far as to tell him that he wasn’t a “nigger” and shouldn’t speak like one. She told him he was an intelligent young man and needed to act like it.
Her methods were unorthodox but hardly controversial in that day. Years later, after the young black boy became a young black man with a college degree, he stayed in touch with Mrs. White. She was the best teacher he ever had. She taught him how to read – something neither of his parents learned to do.
In 1968, just five years into her teaching career, Mrs. White went through a very public divorce. She had an affair with another man and subsequently decided to leave her husband and three children. When she left her family, she was forthcoming about the reasons. In an unusual move, she decided to give her husband full custody without any legal challenge.
The response to Mrs. White’s divorce was uniform. Parents called for her dismissal, which was effected at the end of the school year. She never taught again – although it was a moot point given the substantial wealth of her second husband.
Mrs. White had only one daughter, named Gina. When Gina graduated from college in 1983, she became a schoolteacher. Her choice of career surprised many given that her mother had walked out on her when she was a child. No one expected her to want to grow up to be like her mother - but she did so in many ways.
In 1990, Gina did something that surprised many, given the pain that divorce had brought upon her own life when she was just a little girl. Gina, like her mother, left her husband. And, like her mother, she did so after a long extramarital affair. A final similarity was that there was no effort to win custody of her two children. She wanted to break away and begin life anew with her second husband.
Unlike her mother, she suffered no adverse effects in the workplace. Her divorce never really came up at work except among good friends who offered their support. She continued to teach for a number of years until an unfortunate incident changed her life in the course of a day.
Ebonics was a topic of discussion in the realm of education in the 1990s. In fact, one day in front of class, she was asked her opinion of Ebonics by one of her black students. Her reply was blunt. She told him Ebonics was harmful. She said it taught young black people that they were “nothing more than niggers” when, in fact, they are just like everyone else. She concluded by saying “Therefore, they should talk like everyone else.”
Gina’s use of the word “nigger” in the classroom set off a firestorm that resulted in her termination. The termination occurred over the protests of the young black man who asked the question and who insisted he was not offended by her answer. In fact, he agreed with it.
Most people would say that America has become a more tolerant place since the 1960s – a land relatively free of condemnation. That view is more than simplistic. It is wrong. The nature of judgment, not the level of judgment, has changed drastically in the last half-century. The cases of Mrs. White and her daughter demonstrate that clearly.
Mrs. White was given a pass on her use of a racial epithet in class in the 1960s because it was not seen as injurious to any individual. It wasn’t being used as an insult. It was being used to tell a student what he was not. But she was dismissed after her divorce because her behavior was seen as injurious to several individuals. It hurt her husband and children and set a bad example for her students.
Unlike her mother, Gina taught in the era of postmodern education where judgments are made on the basis of group considerations. People who see the truth as defined by power struggles are inclined to see our institutions as oppressive. And that is why Gina was supported rather than fired after her divorce. She was making a statement, not just about herself, but about women everywhere. They are free to be happy rather than subjugate themselves in deference to patriarchal oppression.
But postmodernism would not tolerate her later transgression along the lines of race. She did not offend the black student in her class. She offended a race. And groups have consumed the rights once held by individuals.
In education today, there would be no speech codes without postmodernism. And there would be no postmodernism without the influence of Marx. It’s no mystery that speech codes are used to defend the Marxist ideas that gave them life. They play the role their parents assigned them.
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 blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.