Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Britain is awash in "diversity"

A glamour model and escort called Lady Jet Black British Barbie was spared jail today after admitting to racially abusing and spitting at an Asian taxi driver.

The 32-year-old, who appeared in court with a totally shaven head, assaulted Ramin Sasani, 25, outside David Lloyd Leisure Centre in Chigwell.

During an earlier hearing , the court heard that Barbie had called the cab driver rude when he didn’t thank her after she paid the £4 fare.  She then become hysterical and leant in through the door of the cab and attacked him. She had to be pulled back by a passer-by.

Mr Sasani said the model had shouted: 'You are a f*****g immigrant, go back to your own country you f*****g Paki.'  He added: 'She shouted "If you call the police I’m going to tell them you tried to rape me." She then spat at him in the face.

The model, from Woodford Green, whose name was Natalie Springer until she changed it six years ago, was prosecuted under the name Jet Black British Barbie.

After pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to racially aggravated common assault, she was sentenced today at Chelmsford Magistrates court.  She was given a one year community order, which includes a requirement that she must carry out 200 hours unpaid work.

After passing sentence, chair of the bench, Paul Jee, said: 'This was a nasty offence with a number of aggravating features. People were present, the victim was operating a public service, it had an on-going effect on him and spitting is a nasty thing to do.  'It is humiliating and there is a risk from disease being transmitted.

'However, this was an isolated incident and you wish to apologise to the cab company.'

Representing her, Stuart Cowan, said : 'You would have read how she makes her living and may not agree with it, but she pays her taxes.

'She has lived at the bottom of society and does not want to return there. She has a nice place to live, possessions, and a life style which agrees with her.'

He said that the taxi driver had refused to deliver her to the doors of the leisure centre instead, stopping at the gates and 'snatched the money out of her hand.'

But he said that she accepted that what she did was 'wholly inappropriate'.

She had claimed at an earlier hearing that she was provoked by the cabbie calling her 'a n****r'. And she claimed that at the time she was tired after working all night, and was annoyed at the way he didn’t thank her when she handed over a £10 note.

But Chelmsford Magistrates had ruled that she was not provoked and that Mr Sasani had not called her a “n****r.”  He denied he snatched the £10 note from her hand or said 'No-one likes you anyway, n****r'.

Barbie admitted grabbing and shaking him, spitting, and shouting that she would claim he had raped her.

She also told magistrates she had nothing to hide about her work as a glamour model in the adult industry and in escorting.  She said she was regarded as 'a bit of a celebrity' and she shaved her head as a personal campaign against slavery and racism.

A regular church-goer, she denied she was a violent person and said she lived a quiet life in her village adding : 'I don’t class myself as a racist person.'

She said she had not felt comfortable with Mr Sasani because he had stared at her in the rear view mirror and asked questions about what she did.

'I obviously get naked for a living and do have guys who fancy me but if I am paying someone I just want a job done. I’m professional and I expect people to be professional,' she had told the court.

She had added : 'I have had racism in the past. I have been called an orangutan, a c**n, a spade, but that particular day when I was called a n****r that was the cherry on the cake. I was very tired from the night before. I was pre-menstrual. That’s why I reacted that way.'

Following the hearing, the model was told she must also pay £620 legal costs, £60 victim surcharge, and £250 compensation.


British woman, 20, is jailed for 18 months for accusing innocent man of kidnapping her, tying her naked to a lamppost and raping her in three-hour ordeal

A 20-year-old woman has been jailed for making up a false report claiming she was kidnapped, tied naked to a lamppost and raped.

Aleisha Worrell lied to police that innocent Sean Hibberd had abducted her for a brutal sexual assault.

A court heard how Mr Hibberd, 35, was held in custody for nine hours for 'intimate' physical examinations in the rape investigation.

But Worrell confessed she was lying after detectives discovered her evidence was 'full of holes'.

She said she wanted revenge on Hibberd because he was 'harassing' her boyfriend in a neighbourhood feud.

Worrell told officers she had been abducted by a masked man before being tied to a lamppost.  She claimed she was raped and left for three hours before being released.

Prosecutor David Pugh said Worrell contacted the emergency services last December saying she had been abducted.

Mr Pugh said: 'She claimed he had taken her to a road junction where he stripped her and himself, raping her as she remained tethered to the lamppost.

'He had then dressed and left her tied up for three hours before returning to free her.

'She then claimed that she had been dizzy when she had arrived at the police station after he had injected her with something after the alleged rape.'

Mr Hibberd was arrested at 2.55am and underwent investigation. He was 'intimately examined' by a female police doctor at Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales.

Police spent 14 hours investigating the allegations before realising she had been lying because her story was 'full of holes.'

The court heard that not only was the area well lit but there were workmen nearby who would have had a clear view.

When confronted Worrell broke down to say: 'It’s all lies. I made it up because Sean was harassing me and my boyfriend and the police did nothing to him.'

Worrell’s lawyer Clare Fear said: 'She is extremely sorry for the effect on Mr Hibberd and appreciates the severity of her position.'

Worrell, from Merthyr Tydfil, admitted perverting the course of justice and was sent to a young offender’s institution for 18 months.

Judge Eleri Rees told her: 'The wider issue is that you made the position of those who have truly been raped much more difficult.

'Make the most of the assistance given to you and the education available and you will come out more mature and more sensible and will never offend again.'


Britain's ‘Porn Block’ Will Block More Than Just Pornography

Jim Killock, from the Open Rights Group, originally criticised Cameron’s ‘porn block’ on the basis that it was an attack on our online freedoms, and that illegal material could be better tackled with better policing.

However, Jim Killock was recently obtained new information from several ISPs, suggesting that Cameron’s default ‘opt out’ ban will ban far more than just hardcore pornography.

From his conversation with these ISPs, Killock explains that every internet user will be confronted with a check list of categories, all of them automatically ticked, meaning that they will be automatically blocked. Not only will this list include pornography, it will also include violent material, extremist and terrorist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking, web forums and esoteric material.

Now that’s a pretty hefty list and it means a lot of online content will be censored automatically. Some of these categories are extremely suspect. For example, what would ‘web forums’ and ‘esoteric material’ include exactly? They’re such broad categories that it could mean, unfortunately, that a lot of information becomes unavailable to us. Critics of Cameron’s porn filter were worried that it would pave the way to more censorship and lead us down a slippery slope where the government could ban pretty much anything it wanted, so long as it deemed it ‘immoral’ or ‘inappropriate for children’. It seems that this is exactly what is happening…

Jim Killock argues that, although people will always be able to ‘opt in’ to this material at any point, people are likely to stick with these defaults. There is a choice involved, but the first choice is instantly preferred because it is automatically ‘chosen’ for us. This is why our digital freedom is being violated. Killock goes on to maintain that Cameron is using a tactic known as nudge theory, an idea in behavioural science which says that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestion can achieve non-forced compliance. The theory states that this kind of tactic is far more powerful than direct legislation or enforcement.

Killock was quoted on his website as saying, “The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there’s not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website’s audience.” Indeed, a consequence of this censorship, which was also true of the block just against pornography, is that responsible members of society will be discriminated against for the sake of ‘protecting children’.

This is unjust. Even if there were evidence that the block could prevent children from accessing these websites, it would still be unjust. There is a solution which both protects our liberty and protects children – that is keeping government regulation away from the internet, but to increase police funding to prosecute those who distribute illegal material.

All of these problems can also be avoided if customers have an active choice, which the ISPs originally suggested. This would mean there being no default ban, allowing customers to say whether they want the filters or not. In this scenario, whether children can gain access to this material will depend on the choice of the parents. Responsibility should be in the hands of the parents, not in the hands of the government.

The Open Rights Group has started a campaign against Cameron’s proposals.


Australia: Workers lodging claims over lookism, Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission reveals

Looks matter and hoping otherwise is pissing into the wind

WORKERS are lodging discrimination claims based on their looks, as bosses prize beauty over brains during job interviews.

Selecting and promoting workers based on their appearance - or "lookism" - has joined racism and sexism as forms of workplace discrimination, warns a University of Sydney report to be launched today by NSW Supreme Court judge Elizabeth Fullerton.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission revealed yesterday that dozens of workers have claimed discrimination on the grounds of weight, tattoos, hair style or even body odour.

In the past five years, 96 workers have alleged discrimination on the grounds of appearance - such as being "ugly" or blonde.

Another 107 people lodged discrimination claims on the grounds of obesity, 10 on being underweight, and 17 on their height.

Body odour was the grounds for two discrimination claims, hairstyles for 38 claims and 22 claims related to for tattoos and piercings.

A spokeswoman for the commission said she did not have details of how many cases succeeded.

Dress for Success, a charity that supplies low-income women with donated suits and office attire for job interviews, yesterday said first impressions not only count - but are key to - landing a job.

A third of the Dress for Success managers interviewed by the university researchers reported that at least half their clients had suffered discrimination based on their clothing.

"I think many employers want employees with less tats and piercings, and clothes that are more modest than current fashion dictates," one manager stated.

"Some use it as a screening tool in an economy when they have so many applicants.

"Business casual attire is accepted but a neat appearance is paramount - an amazing outfit on a dishevelled person won't too."

The founder of Dress for Success in Sydney, Megan Etheridge, said women could help overcome discrimination by dressing for the job - preferably in a suit.

"It's important to help women understand that being excluded on the basis of appearance is a very real issue," she said.

The researchers cite an Australian study that found good-looking men command an $81,750 salary, compared to $49,600 for men with below-average looks.

The researchers also interviewed job placement agencies who warned that employers would "look you up and down" and make a hiring decision before listening to "what comes out of your mouth".

One of the authors, Dr Diane van den Broek, said suits gave a message that "I'm ready to work".

"If you go dressed in your own personal taste you could be too bright or too frivolous or too sombre," she said.

Professor Richard Hall, professor of work and organisational studies at the University of Sydney business school, said appearance was prized above performance in the hospitality and retail sectors.

"Boutique hotels and certain retail stores have a distinctive presentation not just with their infrastructure, but the style of staff," he said.

"Personality and looks are seen to be much more important than previous experience or their qualifications to do the job."

Australian Retailers' Association executive director Russell Zimmerman said stores wanted staff to fit their image.

"Let's take a Just Jeans or Jeans West, I don't think they'd want my 85-year-old mother serving there - or she'd have to be pretty funky ," he said.

"In the retail environment you cannot force people to wear particular types of clothing unless you're prepared to supply it."

Mr Zimmerman said employers needed to spell out their dress requirements at the stage of the interview.

Lawyer Kamal Farouque, principal of employment law at Maurice Blackburn, yesterday said "lookism" could be hard to prove.

He said workers outside Victoria could claim discrimination on the grounds of disability, which might cover appearance such as scars or birthmarks.

"Employers generally are not so daft to say they reason you didn't get a job is because you've got a scar or a birthmark or you're not good looking enough," he said.

Carole Haddad, the owner of Corcorz hair salon on Brisbane's South Bank, said her staff's presentation was crucial.

"Absolutely, how could it not have an effect on our customers?" she said.  "Our staff work so closely with our clients, things such as hygiene are so important."

Ms Haddad said the way potential staff presented at interviews was "shocking."  "And I think it is getting worse," she said.

"All of us have bad hair days but there must be basic standards. Things like well-groomed nails make a big difference."

Ms Haddad said she didn't mind her staff having tattoos, but preferred facial piercings were kept to a maximum of two.



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: