Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Young British mother jailed for making two false rape claims within hours after getting drunk and sleeping with friend's partner

Another lying hotbox

A young mother has been jailed after she made two different false reports of rape within hours after drunkenly sleeping with her friend's partner.

The man only proved his innocence because he filmed the sexual encounter on his mobile phone and the footage showed she was a willing and active participant.

Ashleigh Loder, 25, wasted at least 100 hours of police time and subjected the man, who has not been named, to police questioning after inventing the two attacks in Bideford, North Devon.

She first contacted police - drunk on vodka - saying she had been dragged to the ground and raped in an alleyway by two strangers.

But when forensic tests seemed to disprove the story, she fabricated a new one - accusing a man of date raping her at home.

A friend of the man's partner, Loder admitted she fabricated a story fearing the consequences of sleeping with him.

She spread her claims about him around Bideford and he was forced to stay inside, becoming a recluse for two weeks to avoid reprisals, Exeter Crown Court was told.

Loder, of Bideford, admitted perverting the course of justice and was jailed for six months by Judge Phillip Wassall.

He told her: 'The man was branded a rapist locally and it caused him considerable distress and suffered threats within the local area and lost time off work.

'One can only imagine what it is like to be accused of a very serious crime which could carry a sentence of around six years.

'There are some offences so serious that the court has no option other than immediate custody.

'There must be a clear message to anyone who invents a serious allegation, particularly one such as this which carries such a stigma.'

Jonathan Barnes, prosecuting, said Loder called the police on the night of December 1 last year and initially claimed to have been raped in an alley near her home as she left for a night out.

But after changing her account of events, her friend's partner was forced to take time off work for police questioning.

He proved his innocence with images of their affair and a text Loder had sent him claiming to have been raped in an alley.

Mr Barnes said: 'The allegations had a considerable effect on him. They were bandied about the area and he had to live like a recluse for two weeks. He lost two stone of weight through the stress and had problems sleeping.'

Greg Richardson, defending, said: 'Her life was a complete dream and she convinced herself she had been raped. Who knows what was going on in her mind but she believed something within her had said no.

'She says the situation she got into was rock bottom. She wishes to apologise sincerely to the man.'


The Second Biggest Issue in America

Bruce Bialosky

The government was shut down and we had spent up to the limit of what we could legally borrow. But the country was not focused on the fact that our new health care law was beginning as a dismal failure. Or that our tax collectors are running rampant with no promised Presidential butt-kicking. Record numbers of people are on food stamps, even as our economy has supposedly grown for four years and the employment rate has supposedly shrunk. None of these constitute the second most important issue in America. That would be the name of Washington D.C.’s professional football team.

My commenting on this issue has no personal interest. I could not give a rat’s behind about the NFL. I am a Saturday football guy when teams like the Buckeyes, Bruins, Crimson Tide and Fighting Irish play. But watching the spectacle that has occurred over the name of a team that has existed for 81 years has been quite astonishing.

I am aware of some disruption that has occurred across America over teams named after groups now called “Native Americans.” Well, they were not actually Native Americans because they came from elsewhere also.It is just that they came here before the Europeans. We have to call them Native Americans because someone decided that at some point, and it made some people happy.

It did not exactly make the newly-named Native Americans happy. They are still being segregated on mostly worthless tribal lands. They are still living under the protection of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (who still call them Indians) on supposedly sovereign lands. They have not been mainstreamed into this society and suffer every cultural malady that could possibly occur when you are being helped by our federal government. The only thing that has advanced since they were moved around the country over a century ago is that they now own casinos. Yes, folks, we gave them the right to operate gambling parlors because they live on fictionalized sovereign land. And, of course, we changed their name to Native Americans.

Now we have this fight over the name of the football team. I don’t know what the Native Americans think because I hear conflicting reports. I do know, as a Jew, how I might feel if there were teams named the New Jersey Yids or the Florida Hebs. But those were always derogatory terms. The name of this football team is not. The team name was once honored and used by Native Americans. I don’t think the team took a name because they were dishonoring it. They thought it was a sign of strength. That is why we Jews never had a team named after us. Someone could have named their team the Maccabees. Now that the Israelis have proven to be such effective fighters maybe someone will name their team the Israelis. I think I would be proud.

When I grew up there were derogatory terms for many groups of people, but two that were not were Colored and Negro. "Colored” is obviously what the “C” stands for in NAACP. There is also the United Negro College Fund. Both of these organizations are still thriving with their names intact; but, if you use either of those terms, someone would look at you as if you had a few screws loose. We were then told we had to use the term Black. Then Jesse Jackson comes up with the term African-American and now what we use has to change again.

Yet with all the name changing, where have the Black people gotten? Yes, there have been some advancements with newly-elected officials, but the pace of improvement has been slow.Youth unemployment for Blacks reached a 25-year high in September at 49 percent. The rate of out-of-wedlock births is at 70 percent which is perceived as the prime road to poverty.

This is all about one issue and one issue only: White Liberal Guilt (WLG). That is why these subjects keep on being brought up and this is why these issues move forward.Sometimes WLG spreads beyond the liberals; for example, when we elected our current President who has proven in five years that he is not up to the job in so many ways. It manifests itself when the Stanford Indians became the Stanford Cardinals and adopt the silliest mascot in sports – a tree.

The problem with WLG is it never deals with the underlying problems.It only assuages the feelings of the liberals who get back to their cozy homes in their nice cars where they might write a check to further assuage their feelings.Or they will hold a fundraiser and bemoan the plight of whatever group they currently are focused upon.

A few Native Americans may feel better about themselves if the Washington football team becomes the Senators or the Wildcats. But for most they will still go back to their reservations and the pallid lives aided by a government worker. Now at least they can count their chips.


TV Has to Be at Least 42 Percent Gay?

The media elites glowed as they reported a judge had forced New Jersey to become the 14th state to honor and celebrate the "gay marriage" concept. When homosexuals marry in Hoboken, the gay left will be — should be — thanking Hollywood.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has issued a new report boasting that "TV hasn't merely reflected the changes in social attitudes; it has also had an important role in bringing them about. Time and again, it's been shown that personally knowing an LGBT person is one of the most influential factors in shifting one's views on LGBT issues, but in the absence of that, many viewers have first gotten to know us as television characters."

If network executives were honest, they'd be slamming this report. If. Haven't they routinely insisted that TV shows have zero effect on the audience? That's their constant mantra when defending sex and violence on TV. They're silent. They know exactly how much they influence.

GLAAD and The Hollywood Reporter commissioned a poll last fall that found in the past 10 years, about three times as many voters have become more supportive of "marriage equality" (31 percent) as more opposed (10 percent). When asked how television has influenced them, 27 percent said "inclusive" TV shows made them more "inclusive," while six percent were more "anti-marriage equality."

As GLAAD put it, "Telling our stories to a mass audience is an important role that television continues to play."

These cultural trend-enforcers went after the movies this summer, complaining that out of the 101 film releases by the major studios in the 2012 calendar year, "only 14 films contained characters identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. There were no films containing transgender characters."

The silver-screen people need to catch up, they lectured: "But if the major Hollywood studios want a real barometer of how much has changed in our society and how much catching up they have to do, they need only look at what's become one of the greatest threats to their viability: television."

In the 2012-13 TV season, GLAAD found a record number of LGBT characters — 4.4 percent, or at least double their actual percentage of the population. Fox was honored for having these characters in 42 percent of their programming hours — although that wasn't enough for "Excellent" status, merely "Good."

There's no wonder that a Gallup poll in 2011 found that on average, American adults estimate that 25 percent of Americans are homosexual. They're getting that crazy idea from TV.

GLAAD is using that example to proselytize the movie studios: "The 'novelty' of these (TV) characters being LGBT has long since passed, and now they're simply unique personalities making up part of unique character ensembles."

That doesn't mean these guardians of inclusion aren't going to keep pressuring TV. The new gay-focused sitcoms "Partners" and "The New Normal" were canceled, alongside other shows with socially liberal agendas. To compensate, GLAAD is even bashing The History Channel for having zero gay characters.

They don't mean in the Civil War documentaries. History executives have loaded their schedule with fictional and "reality TV" shows, and GLAAD is having a tantrum. "The closest the network seemed to get was on the scripted drama 'Vikings,' which depicted one 'straight' Viking couple sexually propositioning a monk they had enslaved." They even expect Middle Ages dramas to have gay scenes or characters in 42 percent of programming hours.

They want children indoctrinated as well. GLAAD is also not shy when it comes to Teen Nick, Cartoon Network and the Disney Channel. Apparently, children also desperately need the propaganda of gay characters in 42 percent of programming hours. They're extremely happy with the liberalism of "ABC Family" and have relayed that Disney Channel executives promised GLAAD they will "introduce LGBT characters in an episode of its original series 'Good Luck Charlie' set to air in 2014, a first for the network." The first of many, they expect.

Here's the catch: Gay characters never face any real opposition to the gay agenda on these so-called "inclusive" programs. There is no measure of Orthodox religious inclusion and no real debates. The victory of the left is assumed without thinking. When a conservative character is created — like Ellen Barkin's "Nana" in "The New Normal" — it's a vicious cartoon, the kind that those "against defamation" folks deeply enjoy.

These people are all about tolerance and sensitivity. But if you disagree with them, they will have your head. Ask anyone in Hollywood who's pro-family.


There was a conspiracy behind Britain's immigration surge – our do-gooding silence

Mass immigration happened for the obvious, boring reasons: business likes cheap labour, and Labour likes new votes. There’s no organised, malign conspiracy

It’s difficult to know how to react, part one. A cabby said to me on Thursday night: “Do you think there’s a conspiracy?” We’d been talking about his holiday in France, and I’d asked him if he fancied retiring there.

From this we got to “They keep France quite French, you know?” and then, of course, to immigration. He thought that it suited capitalists and the Labour Party alike, delivering squeezed wages for the former (“that’s just a fact”) and plenty of votes for the latter.

I said: “Why would there need to be a conspiracy? Aren’t those reasons good enough explanation for the evidence?” I agree with both propositions, never quite able to join in the Boris‑esque rejoicing at the changing face of London. Poor people work for rubbish wages: hooray. Not all diversity is good for cohesion: heresy.

He looked at me in his mirror. He thought I was copping out. I looked at myself in another mirror, later that night, brushing my teeth. Maybe I should have made more clear to the man that such hallucinatory theories lead to racism. Maybe I got it wrong, and should have confronted the conspiracy theory – of a “them” and “us” – more forcefully.

It’s difficult to know how to react, part two. When Tommy Robinson abruptly departed the organisation he’d founded, the English Defence League (EDL), and proclaimed himself opposed to violence, there was widespread joy, and not only from liberals. One sinner repenting, etc.

But I was never able to join in the mandatory Two Minutes Hate about the EDL, and found the commentariat’s inability to understand what they were witnessing quite baffling. To dismiss the EDL as “simply” fascists was an error, I think.

Maybe growing up in the west of Scotland, where young men often felt the need of a crowd in order to defend their group’s identity, even against phantoms – while, intellectually, rejecting the sectarianism of my youth – maybe it’s left me, subconsciously, empathetic to the yearning that fuels such collectives.

Maybe, too, living so long in east London – no. Tell the truth. Maybe that a significant reason for our departure from east London was that it had become increasingly unpleasant for gay people to live there: the verbal abuse we’d received, twice, walking home, “gay-free zone” stickers on lamp-posts. Maybe this, too, left me with a slight (and not subconscious) understanding of why working-class men from Luton would want to protest about the Islamification (as they saw it) of their (as they considered it) town.

What – you didn’t feel angry at the poppy-burning? You don’t read about yet another college which segregates the sexes at public events, and shake your head in bewilderment? Please do not pretend that I’m the sole non-racist Briton who can understand the incoherent anger, if not the methods, of the men who sought something like the EDL in order to give them voice.

It’s hard to say this, for fear of providing succour to racists, for fear of being accused of racism, but mainly, I hope, because my empathy isn’t a facility with directional control. It extends to people with very different backgrounds, to newcomers as well as the indigenous. Most newcomers make good Britons. Which makes it difficult to know how to react. Easier to condemn the EDL yobbery and assure ourselves that it was just that: yobbery.

It’s difficult to know how to react, part three. That video of a young man being beaten up by Muslim youths in east London, who smash a beer bottle in his face and then kick him to the ground.

Don’t be ridiculous. It’s not difficult at all. (And if you wish to dismiss this as “just” violence, imagine the news coverage were gangs of Christian youths found to be prowling Oxfordshire, beating up their atheist neighbours.)

It shouldn’t have been difficult, either, to react to (and stop) the EDL by being honest about the reasons for its growth. There is a link, I very much fear, between the simple-minded recitation of “Shut up, you racists” and the beating of that man. A climatic link, anyway.

The cabby drew the wrong conclusions from the evidence. Mass immigration happened for the obvious, boring reasons: business likes cheap labour, and Labour likes new votes. There’s no organised, malign conspiracy controlling society; no shadowy puppet-masters. No one planned that Islamist vigilantes would attempt to make east London a “gay-free zone”.

But there is a conspiracy of sorts, none the less. It’s the conspiracy of silence, which we wished into being, all by ourselves. The horror of it is that we did so for the kindest of reasons: we want to believe the best of people; otherwise, how can we think well of ourselves?

Difficult to know how to react? You tell me. With hindsight, a little more reaction in the late 1990s – a little more border control, a little more clarity about Britishness – would have been very welcome.



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 and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: