Friday, September 20, 2013
Some Islamic cultural enrichment for England
A Bangladeshi student has been found guilty of raping a 14-year-old schoolgirl within weeks of moving to the UK.
Ferdoush Hasan, 22, raped the vulnerable girl at his house in Beaufront Terrace, South Shields, in February last year.
He led the girl, who had drunk half a litre of vodka, to a room in another part of the house from her friends, where he forced himself on her and raped her.
Hasan, Abu Sufian, 21, and Raabsan Khan, 19, were all found not guilty of a second joint charge of rape, during which Sufian and Khan were alleged to have held down another girl while Hasan raped her.
After hearing the guilty verdict, Hasan sobbed with his head in his hands, before being led away into custody.
It took the jury just over three hours to reach the unanimous verdicts this afternoon.
Tom Moran, defending Hasan, asked that his client, who has no previous convictions, be sentenced immediately.
However, Judge Simon Hickey said that Hasan would be sentenced after the preparation of a probation report.
Hasan came to the UK on January 18 or 19 last year to study an HND in nautical science at South Tyneside College.
The following month he raped the schoolgirl at the house that he shared with 13 other Bangladeshi students.
Throughout his police interviews, Hasan lied about knowing the victim and denied having sex with her.
During the trial, however, he claimed to have had consensual sex with the teenager, although he said he thought she was 17.
He said that he had previously lied to police because he was 'afraid' and 'no-one was looking after him'.
During the five-day trial at Newcastle Crown Court, Hasan's victim told how she feared she was pregnant with his baby.
The girl's mother told how her daughter 'went off the rails' after the rape and had begun to self harm and even talked about taking her grandfather's tablets.
The troubled teenager was taken to a doctor by a school counsellor but the pregnancy test was negative.
Hasan, of Ocean Road, South Shields, will be sentenced at a later hearing.
Temporary orders in U.S. child custody cases
When parents separate, one of the first questions anyone asks is, “What happens with the kids?” Current law in most states gives judges practically carte blanche authority to issue temporary orders that place children primarily or wholly in the care of just one parent. One situation that is all-too-common is that one parent gets custody of the children, and the other is ordered “visitation” every other weekend.
For a child that has previously been with both parents every day, removing one of those parents and offering her or him a mere four to six days out of the month must be very traumatic. However, this trauma is not considered when making such orders, and the right of both parents to care for and provide for the child is rarely upheld in family court.
This polarizing dynamic is how most families’ are introduced to the family law system. One parent “wins” and the other parent “loses.” Such is the nature of courts of law – they pit one party against another and do little to recommend, encourage, or enforce continued co-parenting after separation or divorce. The only benefactors are family lawyers… everyone else loses, including judges who are placed in the difficult position of making choices about the future of children between two loving parents without having any personal knowledge of the individuals or their family dynamic.
National Parents Organization is committed to reforming the family law system. We believe that one of the first and best places to make an impact is the instant families are thrust before family court. We believe that education, co-parenting, and early professional intervention can help families to arrange schedules that work best for the parents and their child, and can ease children’s transition to living with two households.
When a family first comes before a judge, there is no prior knowledge about the family, no trial of fact to balance the claims of one parent against the other, and in most cases there has been little or no parenting experience post-separation upon which to draw any conclusions about how the children and the family would best be served. We believe that this lack of information requires that family law judges order shared parenting with approximately equal parenting time in the absence of an agreement among the parents.
National Parents Organization has developed a modest reform to family law that will not only ensure parents are treated equally in this absence of information, but will also give parents the help of a neutral third party as they try to put together a plan that will work with their schedules and prevent ongoing custody disputes. Some states have already begun to implement a similar approach to temporary orders. We are working to move this issue to the forefront of family law discussions and to encourage all states to enact laws to protect children and families.
Oklahoma has successfully addressed this problem with a legal presumption of shared parenting during temporary orders when it is requested by one of the parents (§43-110.1). Recently, Alaska enacted similar legislation (AS 25.20.070).
Hospital patients have right to demand their doctor or nurse does not wear a veil, says British government minister
Patients at any hospital in the country have the “right” to demand that the doctor or nurse treating them does not wear a veil, Jeremy Hunt has said.
The Health Secretary said that he supports the “autonomy” of hospitals to take the decision to ban staff from wearing veils which cover the face.
However, he refused to say whether he would support a national ban, insisting that it is a “professional and not political” issue.
The Government has now ordered a review of all health service policies on workers’ uniforms. It will ask professional regulators to draw up clear rules so that communication with patients is always given priority over the right of a nurse or doctor to wear a veil.
It follows indications from David Cameron that he would support public sector bodies wishing to ban staff from covering their faces. MPs have called for a national debate on the issue.
An investigation by The Telegraph has found 17 NHS hospitals across five NHS trusts which have already quietly instituted a ban on frontline staff wearing the niqab — a full veil which covers the face — while in contact with patients.
There are 160 NHS trusts in England. With no national guidance, the vast majority make no such ruling, leaving decisions to the discretion of local managers. In some cases, uniform policies specifically state that the veil can be worn by front line staff for religious reasons.
Dr Dan Poulter, the health minister, has ordered a review of all current health care guidance on the issue and asked clinical regulators to draw up clear rules to ban the wearing of the face veil by health care staff while they are in contact with patients.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme Mr Hunt said: “It’s a local matter. We very strongly support the autonomy of hospitals to make these decisions and implement policies in a way that’s right in their area.
"But it’s also important that there is the right amount of face contact between clinicians and the people they’re looking after.
“And that’s why Dr Daniel Poulter has written to the General Medical Council to make sure there are national guidelines in place. How those guidelines are implemented has to be a local matter.”
Mr Hunt indicated that his view “as a patient” is that hospital staff should not wear veils while treating patients.
However, he added: “That is my view as a patient. This is actually a clinical matter as well and I want there to be professional guidelines in place to make sure that doctors are doing the right thing for patients.”
Asked if a patient in any hospital has the right to say they “absolutely do not want to be treated by a doctor wearing a full veil”, Mr Hunt said: “They have the right to say that and I have a great deal of sympathy with that but I do think this should be a professional matter and not a political matter.”
Earlier this week, Jeremy Browne, the Home Office Minister, called for a national debate on the issue, but on Tuesday, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, said it was not the role of the state to tell women what to wear.
Their interventions came after a district judge ruled that a Muslim woman must remove her veil while giving evidence, saying that the issue had the potential to drive a “coach and horses” through centuries of justice.
The Telegraph investigation found that the 17 NHS hospitals had clear policies stating that front line staff should not be allowed to cover their faces while in direct contact with patients.
Some went further, to say that face veils should not be worn in situations where communication is essential, such as training.
Many of the hospitals which have introduced explicit restrictions are in parts of the country that have high Muslim populations, such as East London, and Bradford and Dewsbury in Yorkshire.
The policy drawn up by Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation trust, which runs Bradford Royal Infirmary and St Luke’s Hospital, states: “To ensure effective communication, clothing which covers the face (veil/niqab) is not permitted for any staff in contact with patients, carers or visitors or for staff in other roles where clear face to face communication is essential, for example, training.”
Staff who wish to wear a veil when they are not working, such as in breaks, or during their lunch, or walking around the buildings, are told they may do so, but should be prepared to remove their veil if asked to check their identity against their ID badge, according to the guidance drawn up last year.
Similar rules were introduced last year by Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which operates Pinderfields Hospital, Pontefract Hospital and Dewsbury and District Hospital.
Brussels bid to ban gardeners from buying favourite iris, lavender and clematis plants
Thousands of favourite British garden plants and flowers could be banned from sale at garden centres under new EU proposals.
The popular lavender Lavandula Hidcote, the highly scented iris Jane Phillips, the holly shrub known as Ilex Golden King and the pink star-shaped clematis Nelly Moser are among those at risk.
A European Commission shake-up of plant legislation proposes that in future each plant variety must be given a detailed scientific description – as well as being listed on an official plant register.
But the UK does not have an official register of plants and experts say it would be too expensive and take years to set up.
As a result, unregistered plants could be removed from sale in garden centres and other shops.
The aim of the new legislation is to ensure consumers are not sold fake or inferior plants.
But growers and gardening experts are incensed that what was intended as a simplification of trade rules could end up with a new EU law that dictates what plants people are allowed to buy.
Anyone selling an unregistered plant could face hefty fines.
The draft legislation is demanding such detailed information about each plant variety that experts believe descriptions would be two pages long and would even have to specify the lengths of hairs on stems.
At present in the UK, the nearest thing to an official register is a list of 52,000 varieties held by the Royal Horticultural Society, the country’s leading gardening charity. It is regarded as a plant ‘bible’ but only about 2,000 listed plants have an official botanical description.
Industry insiders say growers and plant breeders would also be deterred by the expected high costs of registering a plant.
Some breeders who wish to sell new varieties overseas already pay £400 to £500 to private consultants who write botanical descriptions. Charges are higher for food seeds and plants and can cost up to £1,000.
The Horticultural Trades Association is urging Environment Secretary Owen Paterson to stop the Brussels meddling.
Gary Scroby, HTA policy manager, said: ‘The EC say it’s not their intention to impose bureaucracy and cost on the industry, but the details leave it open to deliver exactly that outcome.’
Graham Spencer, who runs Plants For Europe, an agent for plant breeders, said: ‘Everyone is really worried about this. We could lose lots of varieties. Take Lavender Hidcote. It is one of the most widely grown lavenders but it does not have an official recognisable description. Growers might decide not to grow if they could not label it as Lavender Hidcote.
‘British horticulture is all about developing unusual plants. We have a heritage of growing novel varieties.
The whole trade is driven by varieties and people like to go and buy their favourites. We are all for consumer protection but this will harm consumers and reduce consumer choice.’
Bob Brown, who runs Just Must Perennials and has introduced hundreds of new UK varieties, said: ‘I have a business based on novelty. We can’t pay to register 100 plants a year, it will kill the business.’
One of the most popular daffodils in the country, a variety known as Narcissus King Alfred, could also be affected.
Also at risk are the spiky scarlet flowered montbretia (Crocosmia Lucifer), a tree mallow (Lavatera Barnsley), the lavender petalled cranesbill (Geranium Johnson’s Blue), aromatic catmint (Nepeta Six Hills Giant) and the highly fragrant mock orange (Philadelphus Belle Etoile).
Jenna Fox-Wheddon, supervisor of the garden shop at Sissinghurst Castle in Kent, said they both sell and grow Lavandula Hidcote and Geranium Johnson’s Blue in their gardens, first developed by poet and author Vita Sackville-West in the 1930s.
Both the 12th Century Cranborne Estate in Dorset and the Ness Botanic Gardens on the Wirral Peninsula grow the perfumed iris Jane Phillips.
Vicky Ford, Tory MEP for the East of England, said: ‘This is very poorly drafted legislation. England is famous for the diversity of our gardens.
We either need to amend this completely or kick the entire proposal into the long grass – forever.’
A Defra spokeswoman said: ‘We are working with other EU countries to retain simpler rules which will allow companies to continue to sell ornamental plants and seeds without specific botanical descriptions.’
An EC health and consumer policy spokesman said: ‘There is nothing in the proposals that suggest we wish to ban anything. Our aim is to make plant sales more transparent.’
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.