Monday, September 30, 2013
Hispanic multiculturalism in Britain too
A rapist has been jailed for nine years because of forensic evidence preserved by his victims thanks to an EastEnders storyline 25 years ago.
Salvador Orozco, 49, dragged his victim off the street and subjected her to a brutal sexual attack in Gateshead in 1990.
He fled to Hawaii and evaded justice for more than two decades, until new technology allowed him to identified and brought back to the UK for trial.
During the trial his victim, who was 20 at the time of the attack, told jurors at Newcastle Crown Court that the vital evidence which led to his conviction was only preserved because she remembered an Eastenders storyline.
When character Kathy Beale, played by Gillian Taylforth, was raped by James Willmott-Brown, in 1988, her attacker was convicted in part because she knew to write down a comprehensive account, and to avoid washing to preserve evidence on her body.
She said: “Kathy had been raped by Willmott-Brown and I remember watching the story. 'I knew I had not to have a shower or bath and I knew it was important to remember as much as I could.'
The court heard that during the attack Orozco has put on an oriental accent, saying :'My name’s Sushi. It’s Japanese.'
He was living in Gateshead at the time and working as a doorman at a club before making the attack on 17 May not far from Gateshead Metro Station.
After the attack the victim rushed home and her husband discovered her wrapped in a duvet in the living room, Newcastle Crown Court heard.
Her injuries were so severe that she could not be examined at first but samples were taken from her which would ultimately lead to the conviction of Orozco.
He was extradited from his home in Hawaii earlier this year on the strength of the forensic evidence, which was able to be used after a cold case review six years ago.
At court Orozco claimed that he had had consensual sex with the woman, but he was convicted of rape by the jury. He was cleared of attempted buggery and jurors were unable to reach a decision on a charge of indecent assault.
Sentencing today, Judge John Milford said: 'I find it very unlikely that a 20-year-old married woman would choose to engage in consensual relations with a complete stranger that she had just met.
'The complainant to me was an honest woman. You on the other-hand did not give a favourable impression and gave me no doubt about how this started.
'You grabbed her from behind, dragged her into a yard and detained her against her will in a state of abject terror. The effect this rape has had on the victim was very considerable. 'She was unable to live in her marital home, she was unable to return to her job and this incident had a most damaging effect on her marriage. 'That marriage broke down.'
After the sentence his victim said: 'I really want to thank everyone: friends, family, police and victim support. I could not have got through the last 23 years without their ongoing support.
'I want my case to give hope to other victims of rape; just because the offender is not caught or prosecuted at the time does not mean you won't get justice in the future.'
Nicola Musgrove of Northumbria Police said: 'This was a particularly violent offence of a stranger rape which has had a lasting impact not only upon the victim, but was also remembered by the officers who investigated the crime 23 years ago.
'This case shows that together with our partners in the CPS, we are committed to doing all we can to bring offenders to justice.
'The verdict sends a clear message to offenders of these types of crime that there is no hiding place and we are determined to support victims to seek justice and help them to achieve closure after they have suffered such serious crimes.
'Crimes of this nature are unusual and I hope that this verdict today will encourage victims of rape and other sexual offences to come forward and provide reassurance that their case will be thoroughly and professionally investigated; no matter how long it takes'
A Brief History Of American Race Relations–Conflict Is Inherent; Tragedy Is Frequent
By Jared Taylor
I have been asked to give you a history of American race relations in a half hour—not an easy thing to do. It would be easier to give you a history in a single word, and that word would be conflict. Conflict is the normal state of race relations anywhere in the world, and for reasons that I believe are deeply biological.
Humans have an exquisite sensitivity to differences between their group and other groups. Group conflict is as old as our species. Humans are prepared to fight each other for all kinds of reasons: ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, and even for political reasons, but of all the kinds of conflict, racial conflict is the most chronic and difficult to control, and that’s because race is part of biology. It is immediately visible, and is usually an indicator of differences in behavior and culture and not just a difference in appearance.
Wherever you find people of more than one race trying to share the same territory, there is conflict.
American race relations in the Anglo-American sense began in 1607 with the founding of the Jamestown colony on the coast of Virginia. Jamestown is not only where American race relations begin, it is also a fascinating example of the inevitability of racial conflict.
The purpose of the colony was to find gold, but the intentions of the colonists towards the Indians were entirely benevolent. In fact, the English, aware of the Spanish reputation for brutality in the New World, consciously wanted to be different and better.
The English, moreover, had no preconceived notions of racial superiority, and saw the Indians—or “naturals” as they called them—as essentially no different from themselves. This was in direct contrast to their view of Moors or black Africans whom they did think of as aliens. Some of the Jamestown colonists believed that the “naturals” really were white people whose skin was dark because they painted themselves so often.
In any case, the 100 or so men who started the colony were very careful to find a place for their encampment that was unclaimed and uninhabited. They wished to cause no offense. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, decreed that since the English came in peace, there would be no fortifications and no training in arms.
There was contact with the Indians, mostly peaceful but sometimes tense, and before the encampment was two weeks old, hundreds of Indians attacked the camp in an attempt to wipe out the colony. There were deaths on both sides, and the English would have been massacred if they had not panicked the Indians with cannon fire. It was only after this narrow escape that the English built the three-sided stockade so familiar to American school children.
The colony went through very hard times, but survived. Despite that bad start before the walls went up, the English genuinely tried to have good relations with the Indians, but to their disappointment, it was the tribes who were closest to them who liked them the least and the ones furthest away who were friendly and willing to trade. This seems to be a general principle of race relations: they are better at a distance.
I don’t know how much I can assume about this audience’s knowledge of colonial history, but the chief of the neighboring Indians was named Powhatan, and his favorite daughter, Pocahontas, converted to Christianity and married the English planter John Rolfe. That was in 1614, and it inaugurated a period of real harmony. The new head of the colony, George Thorpe, was especially solicitous of the Indians, whom he genuinely tried to help. When English dogs barked at Indians, he had them publicly hanged.
But four years after Pocahontas married John Rolfe, Chief Powhatan died, and his younger brother, Opchanacanough, became chief. Opchanacanough did not have a marriage alliance with the English, and he wanted to drive the invaders out. In 1622, four years after he became chief, Opchanacanough struck. By then there were about 1,200 English in the colony, spread out in several different locations. Every morning, Indians would come to work with the English on farms and in workshops, and on March 22, they were to all rise up and exterminate the colonists. The main settlement at Jamestown was warned, however, and the men kept their weapons handy and nothing happened, but in other areas there was complete surprise, and the Indians killed about 400 colonists. Interestingly, they were especially brutal to George Thorpe, who had hanged dogs that annoyed Indians and who had been so concerned about their welfare.
There was war on Opchanacanough, and reprisals, but the two groups returned to peaceful relations, just as before.
Amazingly, in 1644—22 years later—Opchanacanough launched an identical sneak attack, and this time managed to kill between 400 and 500 people in yet another attempt to exterminate the English. This time the English went on what amounted to their own extermination campaign, killing many Indians, including Opchanacanough. Two years later, in 1646, the Virginia General Assembly noted that the natives were “so routed and dispersed that they are no longer a nation, and we now suffer only from robbery by a few starved outlaws.”
Here we have what I would call the inherent tragedy of race relations. The English appear to have brought with them genuinely cooperative intentions. They were unaggressive and trusting and had no sense of racial superiority towards the Indians. This was in complete contrast to their feelings towards the first blacks who appeared in Jamestown in 1619, whom colonists considered alien and inferior. As we look back on the Jamestown colony, it seems as promising an effort to establish peaceful race relations as could be imagined for the times.
And yet the very presence of the English was an act of aggression. The Indians were there first. Someone is always there first. We may deplore the series of Pearl Harbors that Opchanacanough launched on the colonists, but that was the only way the Indians could have driven out the white man and remained masters in their own house. Those attacks failed and the Indians were destroyed.
And this is the story of the conquest of the continent. The intentions of whites—sometimes good, often bad—really did not matter. The fundamental fact is that one people had the land, and another, more advanced and powerful people wanted the land. The result was dispossession, and even now, despite a great deal of intermixing, Indians are a distinct people with a distinct identity that shows how difficult assimilation is across racial lines, even after 400 years. Race relations mean conflict.
Bombshells and Baby Daddies: How Single Moms Are Destroying Kids and Society
Any woman who decides to have a child without a husband is putting her baby at risk of poverty.
Former USC basketball star Brynn Cameron has just had baby number two out of wedlock with yet another sports star. Her first baby daddy was NFL quarterback Matt Leinart and the newest addition to her growing family is the child of the NBA’s Blake Griffin.
Cameron is neither married nor in a relationship with either sperm-donor. (Rumor has it the stars of the NHL are competing with the pros of the PGA to see who will be next in line for PDA with the leggy blonde.)
While Cameron may not be struggling as a single mother because of her reported $15k a month child support paycheck (from baby daddy #1), the money alone will not protect her children from her stupid choice to raise them without a partner. Worse, Cameron’s lifestyle may seem attractive to her young fans who will suffer far more harm than she if they follow in her ill-advised footsteps.
Time and time again, statistics prove children raised in single-parent homes suffer compared to their peers in stable, married households. And yet, fauxminists still insist that single mothers are superior because they’re fighting the patriarchy… or something equally unintelligent.
In an essay entitled “The Increase in Single Mothers is Actually a Good Thing,” Hugo Schwyzer claims that the rise in single motherhood is a result of women having babies with men they find inferior and thus not marriage material. Schwyzer uses an example of a woman whose “boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind.”
Perhaps having sex with him should never have entered her mind.
Why are today’s women so stupid they allow men they wouldn’t trust to run errands deposit their DNA inside of them? Perhaps it’s related to the lie from the progressive feminists that birth control works and there is such a thing as consequence-free sex. Here’s a secret: It doesn’t and there isn’t.
Any woman who decides to have a baby without a husband (not a baby daddy or a guy who visits on the weekend) needs to understand she is making the choice to put her baby and society at risk for the unforgivable disadvantages of poverty, teen pregnancy, sexual abuse, a life of crime and incarceration and suicide.
Now work for your benefits: British Ministers to unveil tough crackdown on payments to jobless
The long-term unemployed are to be told they must do an unpaid full-time job or be stripped of their benefits.
A dramatic extension of the conditions attached to unemployment handouts will be unveiled at the Conservative party conference next week, according to well-placed sources.
Ministers are convinced a new US-style ‘work for the dole’ scheme will help to reduce Britain’s vast benefits bill and curb the something-for-nothing culture.
It is expected that claimants who go through the Government’s main back-to-work scheme, the Work Programme, but fail to find a job, will be required to take part in unpaid community activities or work experience. Those who refuse to do so face losing their welfare payments.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told the Daily Mail: ‘It’s not acceptable for people to expect to live a life on benefits if they’re able to work.’
A poll today finds overwhelming support for stricter conditions for the long-term unemployed.
The YouGov survey shows most voters believe jobseekers should carry out work experience or community work in order to receive their benefits.
By a margin of nearly five to one – 56 per cent to 12 per cent – they support the introduction of ‘workfare’ for the long-term unemployed compared to the status quo.
Two thirds of those questioned – 67 per cent – felt workless mothers with children under four should be excluded from doing community work in return for benefits.
But only one in four – 25 per cent – thought those with mental health conditions who are capable of work should be excluded from workfare, and only one in five – 22 per cent – thought those with physical disabilities who are capable of working should be exempt.
However, the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange, which commissioned the survey of 1,930 people, warned that forcing those with physical and mental health problems to work would be counterproductive.
In a report published today, it says the Government should pilot workfare schemes for specific groups of jobseekers, including those who leave the Work Programme without finding a job after at least two years of support, either through lack of effort or experience.
The Government has already carried out pilot schemes which suggest significant numbers of jobless claimants would rather lose their handouts than get out of bed and do a stint of unpaid work.
Officials suspect many of those who stop claiming are working in the black economy and would rather lose their welfare than give up their undeclared earnings.
Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘The welfare state rightly provides a safety net for those out of work. But in return, jobseekers must do everything they can to get into work, that’s only fair.’
Ed Holmes, senior economics fellow at Policy Exchange, said: ‘Making people work in return for their benefits is clearly popular with the public but workfare is not suitable for everyone.
‘These findings underline that fact that the public feel it shouldn’t be the responsibility of government to prop people up and find them work.’
Figures yesterday showed an increasing number of long-term jobless have found employment under the Government’s flagship back-to-work scheme.
More than 168,000 have been helped into a lasting job through the Work Programme to the end of June.
The figure is an increase of 37,000 in the three months to June, said the Department for Work and Pensions.
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.