Sunday, September 29, 2013

More Muslim culture in Britain

An illegal immigrant who attacked a ballet dancer, broke his neck and left him lying in the street has had his sentence increased by the Court of Appeal after being declared 'ruthless, callous and a danger to the public'.

Mohammed Ali Mohamoed, now 28, was originally jailed for a total of 13 years for assaulting Jack Widdowson on a disused canal towpath in Cardiff.

But three appeal judges have unanimously ruled the sentence was inadequate because the trial judge wrongly thought Mohamoed, of Splott, Cardiff, would be automatically deported on completing his sentence.

Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting with Mr Justice Spencer and Mr Justice Stewart, ruled there was no such thing as automatic deportation - and Mohamoed could spend years resisting removal from the UK on the grounds that it would infringe his human rights.

The judge quashed the 13-year term imposed at Cardiff Crown Court last June and substituted an extended sentence to meet the danger Mohamoed could pose to the public if released from prison but not immediately deported.

The judge said: 'In our view, so targeted, so ruthless and so callous were the circumstances of this offence that this man quite plainly is a danger to the public.'

The appeal court allowed a challenge by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC to the adequacy of the original sentence imposed by Mr Justice Wyn Williams and replaced it with an extended sentence of 18 years, composed of an immediate custodial term of 13 years, plus an additional five years on licence.

The overall sentence means that, whenever he is released from prison, Mohamoed will remain under supervision for the full 18-year period, or until he is deported.

Mohamoed was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Mr Widdowson, then aged 19 and from Somerset, on November 5 2011.

Mr Widdowson, who was an apprentice dancer at the Bern Ballet Company in Switzerland, suffered neck injuries so serious that it was at first thought he would be left paralysed and unable to dance again.

But eight months after the attack he had returned to dancing in what his family called a 'miracle' recovery.  His father Dr Julian Widdowson said his 'incredible flexibility' may have saved his life.

Mr Widdowson’s mobile phone had been stolen and he had been left for dead on the outskirts of Cardiff city centre near East Tyndall Street at 00.45.  He had been visiting his brother who was studying at Cardiff University.

At his trial, Mohamoed admitted stealing Mr Widdowson’s phone but claimed someone else must have hurt him.

Lord Justice Pitchford said he was smuggled into the UK in June 2008 in the back of a lorry. His asylum claim was unsuccessful, but he illegally remained in the country, living in Cardiff.

At first he claimed to have been born in the Palestinian territories, but now says he is of Egyptian origin.

The Attorney General welcomed the ruling, saying: 'This terrible attack on a promising young ballet dancer could easily have ended his career.

'Mohammed Ali Mohamoed used brutal violence on his victim and left him severely injured and in a paralysed condition on a towpath in Cardiff.

'I am pleased that the Court of Appeal found Mohammed Mohamoed a dangerous offender and increased his term to an extended sentence of 18 years.'


'Celebrating diversity' is Britain's  new State religion. But don't praise the Lord!

By Richard Littlejohn

The persecution of practising Christians in Britain has been a recurring theme of this column. Publicly-funded bodies seem to take a perverse delight in targeting staff with a strong Christian faith.

‘Celebrating diversity’ is our new State religion. We must accommodate all beliefs and, in the case of extremist Islam, tolerate practices which most people in this country find alien and abhorrent.

If you’re Muslim, special prayer rooms will be set aside for you. Hospital canteens will force everyone to eat halal meat. Feel free to wear the veil, madam. If you’re a Pagan, you’ll be granted time off work to celebrate the Summer Solstice.

But if you’re Christian, you praise the Lord at your peril. Take that crucifix off now, or find another job.

This week, a Christian doctor lost his appeal against dismissal for sending a prayer to his colleagues by email. Consultant paediatrician David Drew thought the 16th century prayer, To Give And Not To Count The Cost, by St Ignatius Loyola, would be motivational. It reads:

Teach us, good Lord
To serve as You deserve,
To give and not to count the cost,
To fight and not to heed the wounds,
To toil and not to seek for rest,
To labour and not to ask for any reward,
Save that of knowing that we do Your will.

The prayer might not be to everyone’s taste, but I can’t understand why anyone would be remotely offended by it. What if Dr Drew had sent round a copy of Kipling’s inspirational poem:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you ....

Would that have been a hanging offence? Of course not.

Dr Drew was hauled before a disciplinary committee and told to keep his religious beliefs to himself. When he refused, he was found guilty of committing ‘gross misconduct and insubordination’ and sent packing with his P45.

You don’t have to be a Bible-bashing Godbotherer to feel disquiet over an industrial tribunal’s decision to uphold his sacking.

Dr Drew claims that his bosses at Walsall Manor Hospital were looking for an excuse to get rid of him because he had consistently accused them of putting patient safety at risk.

He’s almost certainly right, so why did they choose to sack him over his ‘motivational’ email? Simple: they knew that a devout Christian doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of convincing a tribunal that he’s been the victim of religious discrimination.

The corridors of the industrial tribunals system are littered with the corpses of Christians sacrificed on the altar of ‘diversity’.

Members of tribunals are trained to be concerned only with upholding the rights of perceived ‘persecuted minorities’. Their verdicts are guided by the doctrines of ‘sexism’, ‘racism’ and a litany of fashionable ‘phobias’.

Adherents of ‘minority’ religions will always get the benefit of the doubt. But Christians are on a hiding to nothing, since they represent the ‘oppressors’.

An old trades union friend of mine who until recently sat on an industrial tribunal in London explained to me how it works.

If a woman or a member of an ethnic minority is sacked for whatever reason, their lawyers will always advise them to claim ‘sexism’ or ‘racism’. Employers will be considered guilty as charged unless they can prove their innocence.

Take the case of 21-year-old call centre worker Elizabeth Cowhig, from Liverpool, who was this week awarded £13,000 after alleging that she had suffered unwanted sexual advances from her male boss.

There doesn’t appear to be any evidence to support her claim. It was her word against his. Miss Cowhig’s boss said she’d been sacked because she wasn’t up to the job.

But employment judge Dawn Shotter decided in her favour ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Maybe the judge suspected her boss of being a Christian.

Please don’t delude yourself that industrial tribunals are neutral courts designed to give redress to those who have been unfairly treated by their ruthless employers. Their primary purpose, like that of every other State institution, is to enforce the official cult of ‘diversity’ and to further the cause of aggressive secularism.

Justice doesn’t enter the equation. Dr Drew’s religious beliefs may not be everyone’s cup of meat, but he hasn’t killed anyone.

Up the road from Walsall, at Mid Staffs Hospital Trust, 1,200 NHS patients died because of a culture of neglect, incompetence and callous indifference. Not a single doctor or manager responsible has been sacked, arrested or jailed.

Yet Dr Drew, who has been  caring for patients for 37 years, has been stripped of his career for sending a harmless prayer to his colleagues and standing up for his Christian beliefs.

Praise the Lord.


Letter from Pastor Clifford Regarding Prosecution for “Hate Crime”

Yesterday evening about 5.45, we were visited by two plain-clothes police officers. They had shown no ID when my wife opened the door, but she invited them into the lounge. In my study at the time (choosing the psalm & hymns for our church study and prayer meeting), Marian informed me that some police officers wished to see me. I thought, “Were they delivering a summons from the CPS?”

The two officers – one was very tall, the other of average height – stood as I entered the room. The tall officer then showed me his ID.

The purpose of their very brief visit was to announce that I am to face no charges regarding the Norwich Gay Pride complaint. When I said, “Do you mean the CPS do not intend to prosecute me?” they said that is so.

Rather taken aback by this unexpected and unannounced call, all I could say was, “That’s very kind of you, thank you.” The officer courteously added that there was a proviso, that I should send no further e-mails to Norwich Gay Pride. Otherwise, I could face charges of harassment. I replied, “I had no intention and saw no need to contact them. So there was no problem.”

Little more was said. The officers promptly departed. It was all rather vague and hasty. Nothing was delivered in writing, neither did I catch the names of the officers.

Going into the kitchen with the news, Marian – with an evident sense of relief – threw her arms around my neck saying “Praise the LORD!” For her sake and others who have been anxious for me since the first police interview of 17 August, I am thankful to God that this trying time is over. That said, I was looking forward to a day in court to bear witness against the sodomite wickedness growing in the UK. In that sense, I am somewhat disappointed! At least I can now continue my pastoral calling without the distraction of recent events.

To all those who have communicated their kind and prayerful support during this testing period, I send my warmest thanks. Please continue to pray for us, not least because if this local battle has ended, the war continues…

Dr Alan C. Clifford
Norwich Reformed Church


British commuter who told Pakistani to 'f*** off to your own country' in Tube outburst caught on camera is found NOT GUILTY

A commuter who told an Asian man to ‘f*** off back to your own country’ in a rant on a Tube train has been found not guilty of racial harassment .

Accountant Claire Moloney was allowed to sit with her family while the verdict was announced.  A gasp of relief was heard when she was pronounced not guilty, and her husband put his arms around her and gave her a hug.  One family member was heard to say, 'About time.'

Mrs Moloney said during her trial that she was embarrassed to watch film footage in which she screamed at an unidentified man, and which was later uploaded to YouTube, and shown to the court at her trial.

The jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court also decided she did not intend her words to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

In the video, Moloney told the commuter, an Asian-looking man: ‘I f****** respect people in their countries, f*** you c***.’  She stood up in her seat, saying: ‘You come in this country, you wanna have f*****g everything on a plate. F*** off back to your own country if your country is so good.’

Moloney, who works in Central London, was travelling to her home in Dagenham, Essex, on a District Line train after going for drinks with colleagues, the court heard.

When the alleged victim told her that she was being racist, she replied: ‘You c**** wanna take over our country, you racist c***, you wanna take over the world.’

The man remonstrated but was taken aback when Moloney got out of her seat to hurl more abuse.  By the end of the video, the victim had given up arguing and told her, ‘OK, I’ll go back to my country.’

Moloney, 40, sobbed and fell in to the arms of her husband in the public gallery as the jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court read out their verdicts.

The mother-of-two denied she was racist, saying she was upset at being told she had 'blood on my hands' and being criticised because she had been drinking alcohol.

‘I’m not a racist in any shape or form,’ she told the court in her evidence.  ‘I agree the language is horrific and I am mortified.  ‘I was half asleep and he said something to do with my poppy and I wondered if it was about me.  ‘He said something about blood on my hands for invading his country.

‘I know what he said was derogatory and against women in general and he definitely used the word “Slag” because I was out drinking.  ‘I was insulted and I lost it and I ranted; I was arguing my case.’  ‘I was in a rage, I lost control and I was ranting but he was goading me.’

It was suggested to Moloney that the man was at a ‘point of surrender’ but she said: ‘I do not think so. He was being sarcastic.’

Under cross-examination she claimed to regret not attempting to leave the train or reporting the abuse.

However, she did say she would have reacted had anybody of any race made comments like the ones the unidentified Asian man had made.

Moloney left court having pleaded not guilty to one count of using racially aggravated words to cause harassment, alarm or distress and one count of intentionally using words to cause harassment, alarm or distress.



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: