Sunday, January 20, 2013
Hooded 'Muslim Patrol' vigilantes remove alcohol from drinkers and tell women to cover up as they stalk London suburb
Police are investigating reports a gang claiming to be Islamic vigilantes have been confronting members of the public and demanding they give up alcohol and women cover their flesh in their 'Muslim area'.
The hooded men, who call themselves Muslim Patrol, have been filmed walking London's streets and calling white women 'naked animals with no self respect.'
The group is also shown taking 'evil' booze from revellers and film a cyclist being treated after a road accident, claiming they were injured because they were unclean.
In one exchange a member of the group says: 'We don't care if you are appalled at all', before calling themselves 'vigilantes implementing Islam upon your own necks'.
They have uploaded videos to their YouTube channel with the most recent three-minute clip causing a stir online. 'The Truth About Saturday Night', which was uploaded on Sunday, has already been viewed more than 42,000 times. Scotland Yard says it is investigating.
It was shot on a mobile phone at night in what the Met say is Waltham Forest, London, with a number of men seen shouting 'this is a Muslim area' towards white Britons they've confronted.
The video, which first appeared on The Commentator, states: 'From women walking the street dressed like complete naked animals with no self respect, to drunk people carrying alcohol, to drunks being killed in the middle of the road, we try our best to capture and forbid it all.'
One scene shows the hooded yobs forcing a passing man to put a can of lager away, telling the stunned gentleman they are the Muslim Patrol and that alcohol is a 'forbidden evil'.
They then tell a group of women 'they need to forbid themselves from dressing like this and exposing themselves outside the mosque'.
On another occasion, a woman takes offence to their requests and tells them they are in Great Britain at which point they respond by saying 'they don't respect those who disobey God'.
Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim organisation which campaigns for a peaceful co-existence among communities, has condemned the group's behaviour. He said: 'We live in the UK and we are governed by UK law, there should be no mob rule. If people are involved in this behaviour then it is worrying but it is an isolated incident.'
The vigilante video follows an earlier clip made by the group where they protested against adverts for push-up bras by High Street retailer H&M.
In the clip they say: 'The Muslims have taken it upon themselves to command the good and forbid the evil and cover up these naked people.'
They then show a number of adverts for the product which has been sprayed over and also film themselves pouring petrol over one advert and setting it on fire.
WE NEED MORE PRINCE CHARMINGS
Nice to see that Allison Pearson (below) has read some Chaucer but her mastery of modern English grammar is deficient. I have reproduced her heading above exactly as I found it. "Princes Charming" was needed. But, grammar aside, what she says is reasonable
I never knew his name, but the memory of his act of chivalry will still be keeping me warm when I’m in my red rubber chair in the nursing home watching reruns of The Rockford Files.
In the mid-Eighties, I was on a down escalator at King’s Cross when the heel of my shoe got stuck. With the bottom of the escalator fast approaching, I stepped out of the shoe and hopped with one bare foot onto the concourse.
Appearing from nowhere, my verray parfit gentil knyght retrieved the errant footwear, came towards me and dropped to one knee. Proferring the shoe, he said with a smile, “You shall go to the ball.”
Well, it worked for me. If Prince Charming happens to be reading this, I’d like to thank you, kind Sir, for that swift act which brought such grace and – yes – wit into a dreary commute. For a moment, instead of feeling like a worker drone, I was Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief, with a chiffon scarf and Cary Grant to tease me.
How depressing to learn that acts of chivalry are now so rare that, as highlighted in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, women view them with outright suspicion.
Ladies, what a catastrophic own-goal! And who can blame men if they hesitate before offering to help with a heavy case, knowing that they risk getting the feminist death-stare in return? Perhaps those of us who are happy to be patronised by a beefy guy, if it means he will lift a double-buggy onto a bus, could wear a Willing Damsel in Distress badge?
The decline of chivalry has led to a coarsening in society. Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College, is to make a timely call for a General Certificate of Character Education (GCCE). To be introduced in all secondary schools, it would give students a grounding in self-control, responsibility, punctuality, kindness and tidiness.
To that list I would add playfulness, which, for both sexes, is the most highly regarded quality in a potential mate. Undoubtedly, a certain playfulness and charm left life the day man decided not to hold a door open for woman. The mistake was to see chivalry as oppressive when, all along, it was just good manners dancing.
Another British woman jailed for crying rape to cover up cheating
A woman who cried rape to cover up cheating on her partner with a taxi driver has been jailed for two years after the infidelity was exposed.
Gaynor Cooke, 41, claimed she had been subjected to a horrific ordeal in the front seat of a taxi cab in 2003 and reported the incident to police at the time. She was also swabbed for DNA evidence.
In her 18-page statement, she said the rape had made her depressed and suicidal.
It was not until eight years later that police found a match after a taxi driver from Nottingham was arrested for an unrelated incident.
Cooke, formerly of Nottingham but now of Corby, Northamptonshire, was told about the match and the taxi driver was charged. He was due to face trial at Nottingham Crown Court in February 2012.
The driver denied the charge, claiming that he had only had consensual sex with women in his home when he was a single man in 2003.
At the time, Cooke said she was "pleased" a suspect had been identified and could finally could have "justice".
Cooke originally kept up her lie when visited by a policewoman, saying she intended to proceed with her complaint and had nothing to add to her original statements.
But the lie was eventually exposed when police went to speak to Cooke about the case and a couple in the St Ann's area of Nottingham told them the rape had been a lie to cover up her cheating on her husband.
When police told Cooke about the couple's allegation, she admitted "you have got me". She later confessed that she had been having problems with her partner and had a one-night stand with the cab driver.
She said she had made the false allegation when she realised her husband was angry when she returned home.
After the lie was exposed, the taxi driver was "completely exonerated" and instead Cooke was charged with perverting the course of justice between October 25, 2003, and January 20, 2012.
She wiped away tears as Recorder Shaun Smith QC sent her to prison for two years after she admitted the offence.
He read to her extracts from statements she had given about her "ordeal". In these she had claimed: "Since I was raped in 2003, I feel my life has been changed for ever. I'm depressed after what happened to me and often feel suicidal."
The judge told her: "It's a complete pack of lies. It may only have been for a short period of time, but you have destroyed an innocent life."
The court heard the taxi driver had been suspended from work as a result of the charge. The stress of the court proceedings had taken a toll on his health and he had been unable to return to work. "It was a humiliating experience for him," said Prosector Grace Hale.
Australian "Hate-speech" law is fundamentally unjust
Several years ago I wrote a book about vermin, the kind defined by the third meaning in the Macquarie Concise Dictionary. Researching the book required me to sit in courts for months and go out and interview dozens of people. The heroine of the book was a teenager named Tegan Wagner who had been gang-raped by a group of young Muslim men. She came from the Shire and as her case was nearing an end, and I was nearing completion of Girls Like You, the notorious Cronulla riot took place.
It was December 11, 2005. Wagner was there. "When I heard about it, I wanted to go," she told me at the time.
"I'm a Shire girl. I've been going to Cronulla for years. I'd seen first-hand how people get treated, not by the local Lebanese, but by the Lebanese Muslims that come in from places like Bankstown and Riverwood. They treat our beaches like a sleazy nightclub. They treat young women like garbage. And as soon as you say anything, they are on their mobile phones, to 50 of their closest friends, and their mates come down and outnumber people. If it's guys, they will beat them up. If it's girls, they will terrorise them."
After the riot, and the following violent rampage by Muslim men in convoys of cars, I interviewed dozens of people from the Shire and they all gave me variations of what a teacher at Cronulla High School told me: "It's so disturbing that the images [of the riot] distributed around Australia and the world never mentioned the beatings, the provocations, the filth. They were not even discussed.
"Every girl I know has either been harassed or knows someone who's been harassed. It's not just young girls. I've been followed on numerous occasions. It's just constant harassment. The word 'slut' gets used all the time."
None of this was aired at the time. The media's story had one theme, the Shire's white racism. A deafening silence about the real cause of the tension came from the feminists, much the same people now so indignant about white male misogyny.
Seven years later, nothing has changed. Now Fairfax Media is supporting the complaint by the NSW Premier, Barry O'Farrell, that nobody is being jailed for hate speech, which means the anti-discrimination laws should be toughened. The prime example used by Fairfax Media in its coverage was Alan Jones.
In the week before the Cronulla riot, Jones described the young Muslim men who for years had been sexually harassing women on the beach as "vermin" and "mongrels" who "rape and pillage". That was the context of his comments, a context which dropped away entirely as a prosecution for hate speech by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal dragged on for seven years. No mention was made in Sunday's news reports of the far more sinister and contemporaneous example of public hate speech on September 15 last year.
During a demonstration that turned violent in Sydney, some protesters carried provocative placards including one infamous message, "Behead those who insult the Prophet". Many wore headbands with Arabic script exhorting jihad. Among the chants was, "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell".
Another telling moment came in the aftermath of the demonstration when supporters of a Muslim man charged with assaulting police refused to stand when the magistrate entered the court. It was a calculated act of disrespect for Australian law.
One hopes the parliamentary inquiry ordered by the Premier, which will consider diluting the section of the Anti-Discrimination Act that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of serious racial vilification, will be alert to the way in which anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws are abused.
Vexatious or zealous litigants, such as religious fundamentalists, have only marginal interest in the outcome of their complaint. It is the threat of formal complaint, and the complaint process itself, with the burdens of compliance, which is used as a weapon against opponents.
As if to confirm every warning made before the previous Victorian Labor government introduced laws on anti-vilification, the first major test of the law came when Muslim fundamentalists sought to use it as a weapon against Christian fundamentalists.
This proposal by O'Farrell is part of the latest push by the political class, of which he is a fully paid-up member, to increase the power and reach of the political class. In Canberra, the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has released a draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012, which seeks to introduce an expanded never-never of nebulous categories of discrimination offences. It includes speech that "offends" or "insults". It extends the categories of potential discrimination to "political opinion" and "social origin".
Every aspect of the draft law is biased towards expanding the possibilities of complaint. It will make it easier for complaints to be lodged.
Shockingly, the draft bill reverses the onus of proof. A person accused of discrimination will be deemed guilty until the claim has been dismissed. The bill then even requires defendants who have been found not guilty to pay their own legal costs.
Complaints will be heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which is desperate to increase its relevance, and the Federal Magistrates Court, which already has more than enough of a caseload. The draft federal bill has been submitted to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is due to report on February 18.
In NSW, the parliamentary inquiry ordered by the Premier will conduct public hearings in April.
Both these proposed changes to the law are being treated as paradisaical by the human rights industry.
This alone should send an alarm to the rest of the community.
It should also alarm the parliamentary inquiry but it never seems to occur to the members of the political class - politicians, staffers, lobbyists, bureaucrats and lawyers - that the extension of the government power via micro-management, regulation and compulsion has been cumulatively unceasing for more than a century to the point of social, legal and moral sclerosis.
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, 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.