Monday, July 15, 2013

Some Sri Lankan multiculturalism in Britain

A senior doctor used his iPhone to secretly film women in public places – including the police officer who arrested him, a medical tribunal heard.

Dr Thilanga Kasun Iddamalgoda was arrested by a plain-clothes WPC who noticed he was behaving suspiciously as he sat on the steps of London’s Trafalgar Square.

After he was arrested and the phone was analysed, the officer found out that she was one of his victims.

The 32-year-old doctor, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, used his mobile to capture videos of women’s thighs, chests and groin areas as he sat in the bustling square last August.

He sat outside the National Gallery, surrounded by women dressed for the sunny weather in vest tops, skirts and shorts, a hearing was told.

The medic, who is pursuing research into heart conditions, later accepted a police caution for outraging public decency. Giving evidence before a misconduct hearing at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester, PC Tiffany Anderson said she was ‘disgusted and upset’ to realise she had been a victim.

The officer said she had been on duty at the square with two fellow officers at 4.45pm. She first noticed the doctor sitting near her on the steps but he moved to sit closer to a couple sitting a step up from him.

Miss Anderson said: ‘There was a woman with a very short skirt on. The movement to me seemed unusual.

‘He was also shielding his phone. He couldn’t have been shielding it from the sun because there was a lot of shading. He was shielding the screen very closely, so he didn’t want people to see. He didn’t appear to be reading a text message.

‘He appeared to have his phone  to his right, it appeared to be in the direction of the lady in the short skirt. He was sitting two steps in front of me. I caught a glimpse [of his phone] and it was on camera video.’

Iddamalgoda, who qualified at the University of Aberdeen in 2005, then made his way to Nelson’s Column where he continued to hold his phone and manoeuvre it around him at waist height. Miss Anderson said: ‘The angle of the iPhone appeared to be waist to chest height. There was one woman in a see-through top doing up her shoelaces and the phone stayed at that level.’

Miss Anderson and the other  officers approached the doctor.  Miss Anderson explained she was a police officer and told him she had been watching what he was doing. She said: ‘I believe his words were, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry, it is the first time”, and “I’m sorry, please don’t arrest me”. I arrested and cautioned him.’

The officer found four videos on the doctor’s phone which confirmed her suspicions. She said: ‘There was one by the fountain of a lady sitting there in a black skirt. Had she uncrossed her legs, it would have been a very clear view of up her skirt.’

Another video was of the women he recorded on the steps –  but Miss Anderson was shocked to find he had also zoomed in on her own legs.

She said: ‘The same film moved on, the phone had gone round to the left filming myself and my legs sitting on the steps behind.

‘I was quite pleased that my jumper and bag were between my legs as I was wearing a short skirt. I was disgusted and upset.

‘I told him, “That’s me”, and I think he said, “I’m sorry, it is the first time.”’

Iddamalgoda was not at the misconduct hearing, which continues.


Political correctness and free speech

Representative Don Young is the congressional court jester and nobody much in Congress or in Alaska for that matter cares or is surprised at what comes out of his mouth. As an environmentalist, it has been my longstanding argument that we are better served by a fool than someone who is not. The flap over Congressman Young’s oafish gaffe about “wetbacks,” however, speaks to a problem that has become a pernicious part of American culture.

One can imagine the fireworks if there were organizations like the National Council of The Race, the Anglo-American Legal Defense Fund, or the National Association for the Advancement of White People. What if the Huffington Post had a section called “White Christian Voices”? Political correctness is an obvious double standard and is often used by minorities to stifle debate and advance their own, often-suspect agendas. The surest way to put someone on the defensive is to call him and/or her a racist or a bigot no matter that most of those who do it cannot correctly define the terms. Political correctness is an enemy of free speech. It is hard for me to believe that Don Young is a “racist” or a “bigot” given that he was married to and had children with an Alaska Native woman. My guess is that what his detractors were really up to was to discredit his views on immigration.
300x250 Anchorage Concert Association

Political correctness is part of the mix that has brought American society to a standstill because it detracts from the substance of debate. Americans are so thin-skinned that is seems that we do not have anything better to do than to be uptight all the time. Even the President cannot call a “babe” a “babe” without being labeled sexist. His own self-description as an African-American in itself evidences our double-standard, because he is half-Caucasian (not to mention that Caucasians also have their genetic roots in Africa). So should not we all be African-Americans or in the President’s case an African-Euro-American?  The fact we are becoming a society of hyphenated names underscores the split personality of America.

Another recent piece of silliness is the fuss over the Mexico Barbie Doll. Come on folks—I do not hear an outcry about the Holland Barbie. … and while on the subject, why is it not ok to say “Jewed down”—as unflattering as that might be—but ok to say “Dutch treat” or “get Scotched”? As a Scottish-Something-Something-American, I am not in the least offended of being denigrated for being frugal and will refer readers to The Millionaire Next Door for a more detailed discussion of the subject. There may be some Scots who are offended, but I have not met any. There are also the “Mics,” “Wogs,” “Frogs,” “Itis,” “Newfies,” and “Kaffirs”—too many to list them all, but in time they all will be forgotten to be replaced by other epithets.  How come Mel Brooks can get away with breaking the bounds of political correctness while the rest of us can’t?

Labels can only mean something if we allow them to.  We all have been called names that we do not like. It is not right but it part of being living in a social environment.  What happened to “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me”? People who know their worth rise above it, but there are those who want to stew in it and in some cases make careers out of it.  Who are these self-appointed gatekeepers anyway, and why do we let them get away with controlling the dialogue by dictating the use of vocabulary? Political correctness is as bad as its opposite, and it detracts from what we really should be concerned about


America's Sociopath Fetish

Michelle Malkin

I would like to declare a war on women -- namely, all those cringe-inducing ninnies who lust after every celebrity criminal defendant with big muscles, tattoos, puppy-dog eyes or Hollywood hair.

You know who I'm talking about, right? America's Bad Boy groupies. They're on the courthouse steps with their "Free Jahar" signs, cooing over how "hot" and "cute" the bloodstained Boston Marathon bombing suspect is. He "can blow me up with babies," one moral reprobate quipped shortly after his capture. "I'm not gonna lie, the second bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is hot. #sorrynotsorry," another young girl boasted.

Among the callous accused killer's victims, in case you'd forgotten: 8-year-old boy Martin Richard, who had been cheering on his dad and other family friends at the race. But who cares about an innocent dead child blown to bits by pressure cooker bombs in the name of Allah?

Far from a minuscule fringe, the Ja-harem is a growing social media phenomenon. Its members mimic Justin Bieber's Beliebers, adopting the last name of their Tiger Beat terrorist and doodling hearts around his mug shot. In heat or in jest, these depraved females continue to spread viral photos, memes and hashtags of their Islamist Idol. One woman showed up at Tsarnaev's court appearance Wednesday donning a "Free the Lion" T-shirt. Another sported a "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent" tee, while her gal pal shouted, "Exonerate!"

For those ladies who prefer jocks to jihadis, there's accused murderer/NFL star Aaron Hernandez. He's "fine as wine," one woman lusted. He's "too damned sexy to go to prison," another lamented. "He can come to jail at my house," sighed yet another. In response to one of gangsta Hernandez's Glock-wielding Instagram pics, one sick chick slavered, "Soooo hot with the combination handgun-mirror selfie."

Fugitive cop-killer Christopher Dorner also had his own fan club. Parked in front of their TV sets, women cheered on the "kinda sexy" homicidal maniac as he terrorized Southern California before perishing in a cabin inferno. "I'd honestly hide Dorner in my house," one fan girl enthused. Tens of thousands "liked" Dorner's various support pages on Facebook.

Harmless Internet chitter-chatter? Don't kid yourselves. While some of the murderers' panting minions may be joking, it's irresponsible women like these who end up enabling, marrying and conspiring with public menaces.

They're your neighbors and relatives, suburban gals like Colleen "Jihad Jane" LaRose and Jamie "Jihad Jamie" Paulin-Ramirez of Colorado, who agreed to wed Muslim terrorists and conspired to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. Paulin-Ramirez dragged her 6-year-old (whom she renamed "Walid") to Ireland to assist with the plot. Family members said she was "easily influenced" and that "any man that came along ... she kind of followed like a lost puppy."

It would be one thing if these morally stunted followers segregated themselves in enclaves outside the American mainstream. But some of these damaged goods end up on juries, entrusted to weigh evidence fairly, digest complex instructions, and render impartial verdicts in matters of life and death. Indeed, they are aggressively sought after by predatory defense lawyers. I'll never forget the female jurors of the first murder trial of confessed parent-killers Lyle and Erik Menendez. Star-struck by "glamorous" defense lawyer Jill Abramson, the women of the Menendez jury told Los Angeles reporters that "they admired her wardrobe and biting wit."

Their swooning for the hunky Menendez brothers, whom they praised as "bright" and "nice," was obscene. After a mistrial was declared, Abramson arranged for "her jurors" to meet the boys. Soon after, talk show queen Sally Jesse Raphael hosted a program on "women who would leave their husbands to marry a Menendez."

From Menendez mania to Free Jahar, the pathologies persist: Easily led. Emotion-driven. Desperate for male approbation. Prone to acting with their lady parts instead of their lady smarts. Heckuva job, feminism! All the equalization and parity in education and the workplace are for naught if women can't distinguish right from wrong and "hot" from evil.

Lesson learned: You can indoctrinate generations of American women in the ways of gender empowerment, but you can't make a goodly portion of them think straight. Hormones trump basic human decency and good judgment in the crowded coven of sociopaths.


Now that Britain's got rid of Abu Qatada, let's tackle the radical mosques

Most mosques in Britain teach traditional Muslim virtues, but a minority pursue a more radical agenda

At last we seem to gaining the upper hand in the wearying fight against the radical Muslim preachers who have taken advantage of our liberal free speech traditions to peddle their hateful dogma on the streets of Britain.

After last year's successful deportation of Abu Hamza to the US to stand trial on a variety of terrorism charges, Home Secretary Theresa May has now succeeded in closing the embarrassing saga of Abu Qatada, another radical cleric who has led the British a merry – and costly – dance for more than a decade as he impeded attempts to have him deported to Jordan, where he is wanted on terrorism charges.

After Qatada's removal from these shores in the early hours of Sunday morning, Mrs May indicated that she intends to tighten the law to prevent other radical preachers from pursuing similar legal challenges.

But as my colleague Philip Johnston points out in his column this morning, we still have a long way to go before we have proper protection against the poisonous ideology espoused by the likes of Abu Qatada.

While the Government's focus is rightly centred on tightening up our liberal immigration laws, there is another area that requires urgent attention.

The majority of this mosques in this country preach the traditional virtues of Islam, but there remains a minority that continue to subscribe to a more radical agenda, and are highly influential in persuading impressionable young Muslims – many of them British citizens who cannot be deported to places like Jordan – to take up the cause of jihad against the West.

It is estimated that around 500 British Muslims have gone to fight with extreme Syrian rebel groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra - which is closely affiliated to al-Qaeda – after being radicalised in British mosques. Similarly scores of British jihadists went to fight in the recent Libyan conflict, and have now signed up with radical Islamic groups that are undermining attempts to bring stability to post-Gaddafi Libya.

We should also not forget that the two men charged with the murder of a British soldier in Woolwich in May are believed to have been radicalised in Britain.

Thus, if we are to deal effectively with the modern curse of Islamist extremism, we need to pay as much attention to the ideology of hate as our immigration laws.



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.



No comments: