Friday, July 12, 2013

The multiculturalism never stops in Britain

A teenager who murdered a 'promising' A-level student as he tried to recover a stolen smartphone has been jailed for a minimum of 13 years.

Dogan Ismail, 17, suffered a single stab wound to the heart as he tried to get back a BlackBerry robbed from another 15-year-old during an altercation two days earlier.

Today his killer, Dawda Jallow, 15, from Peckham, London, was ordered to serve at least 13 years of a life sentence after he was found guilty of murder by a jury.

Before passing sentence at the Old Bailey, Judge Christopher Moss took the unusual step of lifting an order granting him anonymity as a minor.

The judge told Jallow that the attack was carried out with 'force and ferocity' but added that he could not be sure whether he intended to kill his victim.

Wearing a blue polo shirt and jeans, Jallow stared at the ground as his sentence was read out with members of his and his victim’s families looking on.

Jallow had been caught carrying a knife twice before the attack took place on December 30 last year, the court heard.

His mother had sent him back to the Gambia, where they are originally from, in a bid to keep him out of trouble but when he returned he was 'disruptive' at school.

Judge Moss described him as a 'troubled boy who appeared to have a difficult background' due to the lack of a relationship with his father.

'You have said you recognise the effect that your actions have had on those who loved him (Dogan) and I can only hope that is the case,' he said.

In a victim impact statement read out in court on her behalf, Dogan’s mother, Ozel Ismail, said the killing had plunged her and her family into a 'living nightmare'.  Speaking of the love she felt for her first-born child, she said he had been 'worth every sleepless night'.

She described him as a 'highly ambitious' boy with dreams of setting up a business of his own, adding: 'He was responsible, caring and a young man with integrity.'

'I had dreams with Dogan - his first job, his first car, his first serious girlfriend,' she said.  'Those dreams have been stolen from me and have died with Dogan.'

The crime happened after another 15-year-old had his BlackBerry stolen on the Aylesbury Estate in Walworth, south London, on December 28 last year.  On December 30, Dogan and the smartphone’s owner went back to the estate in an attempt to reclaim it.

They confronted Dogan’s killer, who went into a flat and returned with what police described as a 'large' knife.

The Walworth Academy sixth-form student was found outside Latimer House in Beaconsfield Road by paramedics, but despite their efforts he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police decided to name Jallow as a suspect on New Year’s Eve and pictures were later released of him travelling on the number 35 bus from Camberwell Green to Newington Causeway eight hours after the killing.

After two weeks on the run, he handed himself in to police and later admitted manslaughter and theft before being found guilty of murder by a jury.

Detective Chief Inspector Matt Bonner welcomed the sentence for what he described as an 'appalling and violent attack'.  'Jallow did all he could to evade capture in the weeks following the attack, until he realised there was nowhere left to run,' he said.

'He will now spend a significant amount of time behind bars for the callous crime that he has committed.'


The danger is we've become immune to Human Rights lunacy. It's vital Britons stay angry, says MAX HASTINGS

Human Rights legislation has become a great divider of the British people, a definer of identities. On one side of the argument stand the Liberal Democrats; Cherie Blair as a standard-bearer of the legal profession which waxes fat on HR spoils; and all those want to remake Britain as a model of Scandinavian social rectitude.

In the other camp is almost everyone who believes that Britain is, on the whole and of its own making, a decent place upholding decent values.

The stranglehold which HR now exercises on the way we conduct our affairs, to the advantage of no one save terrorists and the aforesaid lawyers, has become a very bad joke. It makes some people shrug despairingly, as they do about Health & Safety.

But it is absolutely proper that we should stay angry at big wrongs, and harry politicians who claim that it is impossible to right them.

Yesterday’s verdict from the European Court of Human Rights, branding whole-life tariffs for murderers in British prisons as ‘inhuman and degrading’, represents an insulting intrusion into our national affairs, made by people who are quite unfit to influence them.

Of course, this is merely the latest of many foolish and inappropriate judgments, but that does not make it more acceptable. The European Convention was adopted in 1950, the Court created in 1959.

Those were days when many countries — the Soviet Empire notable among them — routinely imprisoned, tortured and executed people, often without trial. Franco’s Spain was still garrotting domestic critics.

The democratic nations of Europe sought to establish standards for civilised behaviour, and the Court in Strasbourg achieved some success in doing so. For decades it caused Britain little trouble, because it recognised that we were not what it was there for.

But gradually, like so many unaccountable institutions, it grew out of its boots.

Today, its website proudly proclaims that it ‘has made the Convention a living instrument capable of applying to situations that did not exist or were inconceivable at the time it was drafted ..... The Convention is a resolutely modern treaty that can adapt to contemporary social issues’.

In practice, this means that every year, a raft of British cases reaches Strasbourg — almost invariably involving legally aided appellants at a cost to the public purse of hundreds of thousands of pounds — of a kind of which no one would have dreamt six decades back.

The potential beneficiaries of yesterday’s ruling were Jeremy Bamber, who murdered his entire family for cash gain; Peter Moore, who killed four gay men in pursuit of sexual gratification; and Douglas Vinter, who murdered his wife soon after he’d completed a sentence for killing a colleague.

Parliament passed legislation in 2003, allowing for some sentences involving heinous crimes to mean life imprisonment without review.

This measure had overwhelming public support, following a succession of deplorable cases, in which violent criminals were released thanks to philanthropic review boards, only to exploit their freedom to commit ghastly new crimes.

The issue here is the right of Britain, as a state with a responsible and long-proven legal system, to adopt its own policies about appropriate punishments for criminals. What we do with our murderers has absolutely no influence on the right of other nations to make different arrangements.

If the Swedes, for instance, want to parole killers after five years, or the Italians decide to keep them in solitary confinement, their dispensation may be better or worse than ours, but it is surely everyone’s right to make their own choices. It seems intolerable that 16 Strasbourg judges should dictate to Britain how it addresses crime and punishment. And what judges!

I looked up the list, which includes Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos from Greece, Dragoljub Popovic from Serbia, Nona Tsotoria from Georgia, Nebojsa Vucinic from Montenegro.

The court includes one British member named Paul Mahoney. He spent most of his career as a law lecturer, with a couple of years as a practising barrister, and a spell as a visiting professor at the University of Saskatchewan. He then attached himself to the great European gravy train by becoming an administrator at the Court of Human Rights, before gravitating to a judgeship.

I have nothing against Saskatchewan, and I am sure Paul Mahoney is a fine, upstanding Eurocrat. But I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why he is an appropriate person — any more than is Nebojsa Vucinic — to decide whether Jeremy Bamber should, or should not, have any claim to a review of his life sentence.

Human rights, once a fine phrase defining a noble cause, has been debased by foolish judges at home, as well as abroad. It was our own Supreme Court which decided last month that the families of British soldiers killed in action should be able to sue the Government, if negligence had contributed to their deaths.

This was a decision as remote as Mars from common sense. Sensible lawyers say that our judges show ever-increasing symptoms of being afflicted by the madness of Strasbourg; that the British judiciary bears a heavy responsibility for gold-plating human rights decisions. Judge-made law is an ever-increasing threat to the conduct of a sensible society, and to respect for the wishes of parliament and the British people.

The European Convention on Human Rights pre-dates the Common Market, and the Strasbourg Court has no direct link with Brussels. Thus the EU cannot be held responsible for its follies and mischief-making. But diplomats and civil servants warn that, even if Britain quit the Convention, there would be major consequential problems with our European partners.

This may be so, but surely the ECHR nonsense cannot indefinitely continue. The Strasbourg Court takes pride in the fact that it is constantly extending its remit, which means its interference in domestic affairs.

Other countries are protected, to some degree, by domestic judges who are more robust than our own in upholding national interests, especially on security matters. Who can imagine France, for instance, dallying for years as did Britain and its courts over the deportation of the appalling Abu Qatada?

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, deserves full credit for her persistence in fighting the human rights fanatics until at last, albeit at huge cost to the taxpayer, Abu Qatada was flown to a Jordanian prison last weekend.

Mrs May told the Commons on Monday that every option, including withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, must be on the table to prevent any repetition of the Abu Qatada farce and Strasbourg’s ‘crazy interpretation of human rights laws’, and most of Britain applauded loudly.

The Liberal Democrats currently block any legislative attempt to escape from the human rights quagmire. David Cameron at least threatens to withdraw from the Human Rights Act if Strasbourg does not stop its meddling, although Whitehall delivers dire warnings about the practical difficulties.

It seems intolerable for this country to remain in thrall to the Strasbourg Court, and its ever more intrusive and absurd judgments.

It is grotesque that a cluster of ill-qualified judges, several of them drawn from the most corrupt and ill-governed nations in Europe, should abuse their powers to lay down law, quite literally, to the Government of Britain.

Theresa May is right to say that, whatever the difficulties, we must break the chains of thralldom to Strasbourg.



Simon Wiesenthal Center Slams ‘Khaybar’ Miniseries After Video of Actors Spewing Hate Surfaces

Actors from an anti-Semitic miniseries set to air this month in the Arab world have further confirmed their show’s hateful message in a series of interviews compiled by theMiddle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

MEMRI released video Tuesday of the stars of ‘Khaybar,’ set to air in Egypt this month, that captures them making inflammatory and anti-Semitic remarks. One actor says that all Jews think about ‘is making money.’ Another says that Jews ‘have no moral values,’ while another explains that the purpose of the show is to portray Jews as the enemy of Islam.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The Algemeiner that the mainstream appeal is deeply unsettling and that it proves that ‘Jew has become a dirty word in the world.’

‘The fact that we now have the proliferation—and if you will the fine-tuning—of this kind of hateful imagery on satellite TV and on the internet is devastating. To undo that kind of hatred will take at least a generation. And the spillover is dramatic,’ he said.

‘We’re not talking about rabble rousers in the streets. This is a sophisticated production that will have commercials attached to it and it shows its becoming embedded in their cultures,’ he added.

One of the show’s writers, Yusri al-Jindy, attempted further to validate the corrosive intent of the series, saying in an interview in June with Al-Masry Al-Youm , an Egypt-based daily news­paper, that it is meant  ‘to expose the naked truth about the Jews and stress that they can­not be trusted.’

Anonymous blogger Elder of Ziyon has written extensively about the program and has even spearheaded apetition against it. In an email to The Algemeiner he slammed the international community for its silence on the issue.

‘The video shows clearly that the series is not meant to be a historical drama, but a thin excuse to incite Arabs and Muslims against Jews. The screenwriter says so and the actors know it. This is a violation of international law, as specified in The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that ‘Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.’’

Last month he oversaw the delivery of the petition to the New York City headquarters of both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Thus far he says that both organizations have failed to respond to his overtures.

‘It is outrageous that such blatant incitement stirs so little interest from human rights organizations. This is not just a speech, or a newspaper article, or a book — this is a highly anticipated media event. The hype in the Arabic media resembles the week before Iron Man 3 was released in the US. In only the past week, Al Jazeera has written three different articles about Khaybar.’

Cooper similarly criticized both organizations for not vocally condemning the show.

‘We can come with the ‘J’accuse’ for two reasons. If they would say something it might have some impact in our own society, and secondly it would send a signal to civil societies in the Arab countries.’

Neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International had responded to detailed requests from The Algemeiner for comment as of this writing.


British woman is finally jailed after FIVE false rape allegations against her ex-boyfriends in eight years

A woman who repeatedly accused her ex-boyfriends of raping her was today jailed after escaping justice for nearly a decade.

Leanne Black made false rape claims against five different men over a period of eight years, but escaped justice until now.

The 32-year-old used the rape allegations to get revenge on her partners after arguing with them - but a judge accused her of harming genuine rape victims with her lies.

Black was sentenced to two years in prison at Newport Crown Court after pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice.

In one case, she told police that her ex had drugged and raped her, and in another she claimed that a boyfriend had kidnapped her before violently abusing her.

The innocent men could have faced up to five years in jail if they had been found guilty of raping her.

In the most recent case, the court heard, Black's boyfriend Kevin Crowley was arrested on suspicion of rape in March after he called police to their flat to report that she had thrown plates at him in their flat in Cwmbran, South Wales.  But when police arrived at the scene of the row, she invented an allegation against him, according to prosecutor David Wooler.  'When she was questioned by police she told hem her boyfriend had raped her while she slept at his flat,' he told the court.

'It was the most recent in a number of repeated false rape allegations against men since 2005.'

The first claim dated back to June 2005, while in July 2006 she said that her then-partner had raped her twice and also claimed to have been kidnapped.  In 2009 she made a third false rape allegation, and the next year invented a story about having been drugged by an attacker.

Judge William Gaskell told Black that her history of made-up rape claims had made it more difficult for genuine rape victims to be believed.  'Police have to take all allegations of rape very seriously,' he said. 'Women who make false allegations like you undermine the whole system and police investigations.

'It undermines the public's belief in the truth when allegations are truthfully made.'

Gareth Driscoll, defending, said Black had entered an early guilty plea and had made a full and frank admission of the facts.

Mr Gaskell told Black she would serve half her two-year sentence before being released on licence.

Inspector Rory Waring, of Gwent Police, said after the hearing: 'Today's sentence should serve as a warning to anyone thinking of making false allegations of rape.

'As well as causing distress to innocent people accused of this terrible crime, cases like this distract officers from supporting real victims and prosecuting real offenders.

'Those who have suffered from genuine offences are also undermined.'

A spokesman for Rape Crisis (England and Wales) said: 'While stories like this are undoubtedly shocking and sad, it is important to remember that, contrary to popular perception, false allegations of rape are very rare.

'A Crown Prosecution Service report released in March this year estimated that they may make up as little as 0.6 per cent of all reports of rape to the police. At the same time, only around 15 per cent of the 85,000 women raped in England and Wales every year ever report to the police.

'The Rape Crisis movement has been providing specialist, independent support services to these women for 40 years and during that time they have consistently told us that a major factor in their reluctance to report is the fear of not being believed.'

Siobhan Blake, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service Wales, said: 'False allegations of rape are extremely uncommon, but where they do occur they are serious offences. Such cases will be dealt with robustly and those falsely accused should feel confident that we will prosecute these cases wherever there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so.

'Earlier this year, the CPS published a report highlighting how rare false allegations of rape and domestic violence are. We must not allow these cases to undermine our work to support victims of rape and domestic violence.'



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: