Wednesday, May 08, 2013
The unwavering Leftist race obsession
The latest British pro-crime idiocy: Dog owners could be forced to tie up pets in case they bite a burglar
Dog owners might have to tie up their pets to stop them attacking burglars, police have warned – amid growing controversy over a clampdown on dangerous animals.
The Association of Chief Police Officers say planned amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act could leave householders 'liable to prosecution' if their dog bites a burglar while they are out.
Ministers want to close a loophole in the law that makes it difficult to prosecute dog attacks that take place on private property.
The move – which will be included in next week's Queen's Speech – follows a string of attacks on children, postmen, and health visitors on private land.
The proposals will include a defence for people whose dogs attack a burglar while they are at home. But critics warn the defence will not protect owners if a burglar is attacked while they are out, or if the attack takes place in the garden or an outbuilding.
The loophole in the proposals will leave dog owners open to potential fines of up to £5,000 – or even a two-year jail sentence – if their pet attacks an intruder while they are not at home.
Now Acpo, the organisation which represents senior police officers, has warned that the plans will favour burglars.
In a letter to MPs they said the police 'would rather the householder was given a defence in law' to prevent prosecution if a dog attacks a burglar while they are out.
They added: 'The consequences would be that any individual leaving their dog in their home whilst they go out may be liable to prosecution should their home be burgled whilst they are away. We are confident that this is not what the Government had in mind.'
The Dogs Trust has also criticised the proposals, saying: 'If a trespasser is on private land it is nonsensical to criminalise a dog owner if that trespasser should be injured by the dog.
'Surely a trespasser must take some responsibility for their unlawful actions. Dog owners should only face criminal liability if the victim is present lawfully.'
Government officials have confirmed that homeowners would not be immune from prosecution if a 'dangerously out of control' dog attacked a burglar in their home.
But the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said ministers were still looking at ways to ensure dog owners would not be penalised for being burgled.
Child rapists taken of Sex Offenders' Register in secret... and police say it's to protect their human rights
Police have secretly removed dozens of convicted sex offenders, including paedophiles and rapists, from the Sex Offenders’ Register, the Mail can reveal.
Following a human rights ruling, the law was changed last year to allow sex attackers to claim they no longer posed a threat and apply to be taken off the register.
Since then, 43 applications have been approved behind closed doors, at the rate of one every five days.
About half of those who apply have been successful – including eight rapists and 27 child sex attackers.
Each case was signed off by a mid-ranking police officer following a paper review of the case. With the stroke of a pen, each convict was removed from the list, and is now free to walk the streets with no monitoring of any kind.
Those who are taken off the register no longer have to tell the police where they are living, even if they move near a school, or move in with a family with young children.
Nor do they have to tell the police about any overseas travel.
Forces are refusing to name those taken off the register, citing Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life – and data protection rules. And they say it would ‘compromise the health and safety of these individuals’ to name them.
Some are even refusing to give details of the offences committed, and victims are not routinely notified if their attacker has been deemed no longer a threat.
Child protection charities said the use of the law was setting back child protection, and questioned whether sex offenders could ever be reformed.
Claude Knights, director of children’s charity Kidscape, said: ‘This step removes a number of bricks from the wall of child protection, and takes us back to the level of a number of years ago.
‘The jury is out on whether someone who has committed these crimes can ever be cured. The worry is someone could be let off the register and commit further crimes and harm more children.’
Peter Cuthbertson, director of the Centre for Crime Prevention think-tank, said: ‘The Sex Offenders’ Register exists to protect the public from people who risk committing serious crimes.
'These decisions involve a very one-sided and backward understanding of human rights. It wrongly puts the welfare of serious sex offenders above concern for public safety.’
Ministers were forced to allow the law change after a human rights ruling in 2010 which said it was a breach of criminals’ rights under Article 8 to keep them on the register without any chance of appeal.
The case was brought by two convicted sex offenders. One, Angus Thompson, was jailed for five years for violently attacking and indecently assaulting a girl. He said the ‘stress’ of being kept indefinitely on the register had contributed to his ill health. The other was a man from Wigan who was 11 when he raped a boy of six. He said his name should be taken off because it prevented him from going on holiday.
There are about 37,000 sex offenders on the register.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Sex offenders who remain a risk to the public will stay on the register, for life if necessary.
‘We argued strongly that sex offenders should stay on the register for life. But the Supreme Court decided they should be able to apply for a review of their case.
‘It is for individual police forces to decide how to manage known sex offenders living in the community, but those who pose a risk to the public will remain on the register.’
Pentagon Changes Mind, Says Soldiers May Share Faith
Following an uproar over a Defense Department statement saying that military personnel could be court-martialed for sharing their faith, the Pentagon has backed down on that position and now says soldiers are free to proselytize, as long as they don't harass others. “Service members can share their faith,” clarified Navy Lieutenant Commander Nate Christensen in a statement, “but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs.”
Earlier the Defense Department had released an alarming statement saying: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.... Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis.” That statement appeared to come as the result of an April 24 meeting between military officials and Mikey Weinstein of the atheist group Military Religious Freedom Foundation, in which Weinstein pressured Air Force officials to enforce a policy that supposedly bans Air Force personnel from openly expressing their religious faith. The Defense Department has reportedly turned to Weinstein's group to hammer out policies on religious expression in the military.
Weinstein has gained notoriety for his aggressive campaign to sanitize the military of overt faith expressions by service members. He told Fox News that “until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.” Weinstein was referring to examples of supposed religious persecution within the ranks, and said that his group “would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”
The outcry from chaplains and religious leaders over Weinstein's rhetoric prompted the Defense Department to issue its updated statement backing down from implying that service members might be targeted for sharing their faith. According to Charisma News, the clarification came after the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking a clarification from the Defense Department on the issue.
“Members of our military should not be denied the very freedoms they fight to defend,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Joseph La Rue. “Freedom of religion and speech are paramount among those freedoms.”
La Rue noted that since there is little evidence of a crisis concerning overt religious proselytizing in the military, “we are still troubled over what motivated the original comments” from the Pentagon. He added that his group is seeking “to ensure that the Pentagon does not deny members of the armed services the basic freedoms that the Constitution guarantees all Americans.”
In his updated statement Lieutenant Commander Christensen insisted that the Defense Department “has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.” He added that “when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis.” He did not elaborate on the actions that might be taken, but the previous Defense Department statement seemed to indicate that penalties could range from non-judicial punishment to a full court-martial.
In an e-mail Christensen explained that the Defense Department would work “to ensure that all service members are free to exercise their constitutional right to practice their religion — in a manner that is respectful of other individuals’ rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission.”
Australia: Monash University 'sexist' cupcakes furore
This is an established way of highlighting official discrimination but all the evidence shows that, other things being equal, there is NO discrimination against women in the workforce
MONASH University students are in a social media frenzy about a "sexist" campaign where men were charged 20c more than women for a cupcake.
The Student Association’s Women’s Department sold the cupcakes as part of a campaign to highlight gender wage differences.
The cakes were $1 for men, 80c for women and 60c for transgender students.
A Facebook post calling the stall sexist has received nearly 1500 likes and attracted more than 900 comments on the invite-only Monash StalkerSpace Facebook page.
Tess Gian posted: “to the ‘Women’s’ stand on clayton campus selling cupcakes … that is not feminism. that’s sexism. You want to demand equality? It goes both ways.”
A Monash Student Association public affairs officer, who did not want to be named, said the stall aimed to “raise awareness of the gender pay gaps” that exist in the workplace. It was not sexist but “positive discrimination”.
Monash University law student Louisa Ashton, 21, was among those who stepped in to defend the campaign on Facebook.
Ms Ashton told Waverley Leader many of the angry students had missed the point.
“They were selling the cupcakes to reflect the exact pay differences in society,” she said. “I think it was quite brilliant actually. It got people talking."
But Stefan Kotzamanis was one of many who slammed the idea. “They honestly met in a group and thought having different prices based on sexes was a good idea?”
Rachel Archie Wall-e posted: “the best thing they could think of doing was baking? to promote women's rights? i don't want to inadvertently stereotype but their choice surprises me.”
More than 180 people "liked" her post.
The stall was held on the Menzies lawn at Monash and organised by the Monash Student Association’s Women’s Department for Blue Stockings Week, which celebrates women in higher education.
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.