Monday, August 05, 2013
More "diversity" in Britain
A bodybuilder who was banned from squeezing men’s muscles or asking them to do squats has targeted more young males, a court has heard.
Akinwale Arobieke, 52, approached well-built men in Manchester city centre, Trafford and Bolton and touched their arms or shoulders, prosecutors allege.
Mr Arobieke denies any wrongdoing and says he is being set up by ‘vindictive’ people who know about his history of offending.
He was jailed for five years in 2003 for 15 charges of harassment and on his release he was given a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). It bans him certain specific activities, including feeling a person’s muscles or getting them to carry out ‘squats’ in public.
He has since been jailed three times for flouting the SOPO, and is now facing a further string of breaches at Manchester Crown Court - offences he denies.
Prosecutor Michael Brady told the court: 'The complainants in this case are all young men whose physical appearance and build hold a fascination for this defendant.
'Mr Arobieke has had, and continues to have an interest in body building. 'His interest extends beyond that which is legitimate and manifests itself in a way that we say is criminal.'
It’s alleged that between April and June 2011, Mr Arobieke approached a 19-year-old man in Manchester and ‘bumped into him’ before striking up a conversation.
The man, now 20, told the jury Mr Arobieke followed him along the street and up towards the Triangle shopping centre in the city centre. The alleged victim told the court: 'He stopped in front of me and held out his arm, because I had stopped answering his questions.
'He opened his rucksack which had different body building magazines and started showing me pictures of them and asking if I knew who they were. 'He asked if I could do particular poses.'
The man told how the defendant touched him on the shoulder and bicep, and said it was a ‘very uncomfortable experience’.
More than year later, the man said he was approached by Mr Arobieke again several times, in St Peter’s Square.
Mr Arobieke, who was defending himself, denies he ever met the man in the street and said there was no CCTV evidence that he approached him or followed him in St Peter’s Square.
Arobieke, formerly of Liverpool, denies eight breaches of his sex offences prevention order.
Christians lose out to atheists for senior jobs as religious people are 'held back from top positions' in Britain
Christians are less likely than atheists to be promoted to top jobs, official figures show.
Nearly a quarter of people with no religious belief live in homes headed by someone with a senior executive position or a job in one of the professions.
However, well under a fifth of Christians work in the best-paid and most influential jobs or are married to someone who does.
The figures also show high levels of senior and professional employment among the Jewish and Hindu communities.
The breakdown of employment and religious belief, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from the 2011 census, comes as campaigners claim it is becoming harder for Christians to get to the top.
Barrister Andrea Minichiello Williams, a member of the Church of England’s General Synod, said: ‘If you hold views that are contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy you are seen as potential trouble. ‘This is a real phenomenon. Christianity is now a bar to appointment or promotion.’
But others believe the Christian majority are being out-paced by more ambitious religious groups.
Economist Ruth Lea, of the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said: ‘Jews and Hindus are proportionately so much more successful than Christians. The driven people tend to come from minorities.
'Christians are the majority group, and they do not seem so ambitious and hard working.’
Miss Lea, who is an Anglican, added: ‘There doesn’t seem to be any discrimination here. What these figures say is that if you are determined you can make it.’
The number of people claiming to be Christian in England and Wales fell by 4million in the decade to 2011 to 33million.
Of these, two thirds only go to church for weddings, baptisms or funerals. However, those with no religion rose 45 per cent to 14million.
Nigel Farage attacks culture of political correctness amid growing sacked dinner lady row
UKIP leader Nigel Farage today attacked a culture of political correctness he believes is “terrifying” people from causing offence.
He said ordinary people are losing their jobs over fears of doing something accidentally wrong in the workplace.
He was commenting after school dinner lady Alison Waldcock, 51, was sacked for serving seven-year-old Muslim pupil Khadija Dar roast gammon.
She forgot his dietary needs when she asked him if he wanted the food and when the youngster said yes.
The headteacher of Queen Edith Primary School in Cambridge swept the plate away from the pupil just as she was about to tuck in to the lunch.
The girl's parents were told about the mistake and complained to the school's catering firm.
Ms Waldock, a dinner lady for 11 years, was then suspended and later dismissed.
Muslim groups have come out in support of Ms Waldock saying innocent mistakes should not be punished.
And during a discussion with Ms Waldock on ITV’s Daybreak programme this morning, Mr Farage said: “It's outrageous, isn't it? “We've all made mistakes in our lives and in our jobs, and I can imagine 250 kids coming through chattering, it's noisy, you've got time pressures on you, and mistakes get made.
"The reason that Alison's been sacked is that we're so terrified in this country of causing offence to anybody, particularly the Muslim religion."
And he told Ms Waldock, who was on the same programme: "I wonder had gammon been given to a vegetarian child, whether you would have been sacked, I suspect probably not."
He denied he was jumping on a political bandwagon, saying: “No, I think it's important, because I think actually what's been happening with this whole politically correct agenda is lots of decent ordinary people are losing their jobs and paying the price for us being terrified of causing offence.
"There was nothing malicious or deliberate in this, and this isn't just Alison, this is happening to scores of people every month up and down the country, she's just got the courage to come and talk about it."
Inayat Bunglawala, founder of campaign group Muslims4UK, told the same programme that the sacking, for a one off mistake, was, on the face of it, an overreaction. He said: "If mistakes are made, then we'd expect employers to resolve this in a sensible manner.”
However, he added: “I am a bit concerned that a leader of a political party would seek to make capital out of this, because it is a minor issue, it does need resolving, I'm concerned by Nigel saying that people are becoming overly sensitive to Muslim communities, I think that makes it a far more divisive issue than it needs to be."
Mr Farage said: "We want to all live and work together as one happy community in this country, and your attitude towards this, frankly, is very refreshing."
Ms Waldock said she was still considering whether there was anything else she could do to challenge her sacking.
"It's something I'll have to think about, because it's my livelihood," she said.
This is not Peace It is Pure Nazi Ideology
Abbas tells the truth, but those listening pretend not to hear
Imagine if any political leader would say: "No blacks will be allowed to live in my state". He would be denounced correctly, as a racist, a bigot.
That does not seem to include Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Arab leader of Ramallah, who on the verge of the new "peace talks" in Washington just declared: "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands".
This is not "peace", but pure Nazism, it is ethnic cleansing. And instead of the expression "final resolution", Abbas should have said what he really means, "final solution".
Addressing a session of Arab League in Doha, Qatar, Abbas in 2011 declared that “when an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is established, we won’t allow the presence of one Israeli in it”.
A Palestinian Arab State on Western Eretz Israel would be “jüdenrein”, or cleansed of Jews. A state founded on the ethnic cleansing of every single Jewish man, woman and child.
How can you call "peace" a deal in which hundreds of thousands of Jews surrender to expulsion or to becoming refugees like "lambs to the slaughter"?
Can you imagine if Benjamin Netanyahu instead of Mahmoud Abbas would have pronounced such a statement? What would have been the world reaction?
And Abbas said it in front of the long European noses. He proclaimed his Nazi intentions while in Cairo. Lady Ashton, the ridiculous EU foreign chief, was present.
But we must thank Mr. Abbas, because he said clearly that the "State of Palestine" and the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria are exclusive. Israel would have to uproot all the Hebrew towns in order to pave the way for this "peace", which is in fact the new apartheid that he hopes will come into existence upon the ruins of the "settlers'" homes.
What Abbas said is the same message repeated from the Palestinian Arab mosques and streets: "Idbach al Yahud !" (Slaughter the Jews), "Mauwt al Yahud !" (Kill the Jews), "Falastin baladna, al Yahud kalabna" (Palestine is our homeland, the Jews are our dogs).
The PLO Covenant rejects the idea that Jews have any “historical or religious ties” to the land, since “Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality”.
Isn't it pure Nazism?
PLO’s Article Six declares: “The Jews, who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion (usually dated as the mid-19th century) will be considered Palestinians”. In other words, 98 per cent of the existing Israeli Jewish population must be banished like, like the 8.000 Jews of Gush Katif. Or killed, like the Fogels of Itamar.
The PA's mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ikremah Sabri, and the Palestinian chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, issued decrees authorizing the killing of Arabs who sell property to Jews and forbidding Muslims from burying them in Islamic cemeteries. Not even Nazi Germany in the 1930s knew this level of anti-Jewish pathology.
Or take the 'refugee' question. The PLO manifesto claims that the“Palestinian personality” is an “innate, persistent characteristic that does not disappear . . . and is transferred from fathers to sons” (No. 4). And what if all Palestinians had emigrated, or had become refugees from the land? They would still belong to “Palestine” along with their male descendants. Forever. This is like the Nazi “Drang Nach Osten” and “Blut und Erde”.
Abbas and other PLO terrorists are asking Israel and the United States to expel all the Jews, from the youngest to the oldest, so the Hebrew people will be stained by their presence.
If you assume that Area A and Area B are no longer negotiable, which is not true, note that 60 percent of Judea and Samaria is already free of Jews. And with the exception of the Jewish city of Hevron, there are no Jewish citizens in the big Arab cities, Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkarem, Qalqilia. And also in Hevron, the city of the Patriarchs you have "Area A" (or H1), the jüdenrein part of Hevron.
To return to the "peace talks", what are these all about? The division of Jerusalem? Maybe, but only in a suicidal end game. The 'return' of the 'refugees'? Certainly not. These talks, like all the previous ones, are about the percentage of Jews of Judea and Samaria to be ghettoized, deported, killed and expelled.
The "State of Palestine" would be the carbon copy of Hans Frank's General Government in Poland. Two thirds of the nations of the world, represented in the United Nations, support the establishment of a state that would be, by definition, the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany.
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. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.