Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Convert to Islam or else. Life in British prisons for some inmates

British prisoners in British jails being forced to convert to Islam

Muslim gangs in British jails are forcing ethnic British prisoners to convert to the Islamic religion with threats of violence if they do not, Prison officers have warned. Muslim gangs are growing in power and influence it is alleged and there is growing fear that they target new arrivals whilst many of new these prisoners are vulnerable.

Such tactics are making British jails a breeding ground for extremism. Just days ago the Head of MI5 stated that there was several thousand Muslims in Britain who see the British as a legitimate target for attack.

The Prison officers association told Sky News recently that: “It is a concern, and there’s been clear evidence from a variety of different incidents.  Young men are being targeted and then coerced into converting to Islam.” 

A woman, whose brother is being bullied by an Islamism gang in a British prison to convert to the Muslim religion said “He just looks like a broken man, he’s tearful on visits. I am just really scared for him. He has been physically assaulted. He had black eyes. In the showers, he got threatened with a knife. He’s not going to back down. He’s not going to convert for anyone.”

The situation in British prisons is deteriorating according to a John Chapman a former prison officer now a prison’s law consultant.

“I think it could be a huge problem. Previously I’d probably only worked in about a dozen or so prisons as an officer, but this job takes me to 40 or 50 over the year, throughout the country. It’s become obvious to me that it’s a growing problem. About half of my clients have directly reported problems with being forced to convert, those that weren’t Muslim when they came in and those that were and have been forced to look at more radical ideas about their faith.”

This is an issue that the government needs to sort out fast, if not we will witness prisons releasing some people very mixed up and coerced into extremism, adding to the already dangerous level of anti-British extremist allowed to live amongst us within Great Britain. 

If growing numbers of ethnic British young men are being threatened and forced into the Muslim religion by Muslim gangs within the prisons, then we have a major problem in this country. It is one that the government and prison officers along with security services need to address very fast. If not, the outcome could be nasty indeed for our democracy.


‘Moderate’ Muslims at Norway ‘peace conference’ endorse stoning for gays and adulterers

AFTER overwhelmingly agreeing by a show of hands that they were “normal” Sunni Muslims and not radicals or extremists, delegates to a “peace conference” in Norway earlier this year indicated their full support for the death penalty for adulterers and gays.

This vote, says the Chairman of a Norwegian organisation Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi, is indicative of the fact that ALL Muslims hold the view that the Koran is correct when it prescribes stoning, not just radical preachers.

The show of hands was requested during a section of the conference that dealt with the manner in which the media reports the words of: Shaykhs who speak openly about the values of Islam.

AS soon as these preachers are invited at speak at an Islamic gathering:  The Islamophobic Western media starts murdering the character of that organisation and the invited speaker.

The explanation posted under the YouTube video says: The question these Islamophobic journalists need to reflect upon is; are these so called ‘radical’  views that they criticize endorsed only by these few individuals being invited around the globe, or does the common Muslims believe in them? If the common Muslims believe in these values that means that more or less all Muslims are radical and that Islam is a radical religion.

Since this is not the case, as Islam is a peaceful religion and so are the masses of common Muslims, these Shaykhs cannot be radical.

Rather it is Islamophobia from the ignorant Western media who is more concerned about making money by alienating Islam by presenting Muslims in this way.

Islam Net invited nine speakers to “Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013″. It added:

These speakers would most likely be labelled as ‘extremists’ if the media were to write about the conference. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world.

Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical. That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in Western countries.


'Terror victim' Richard Dawkins wails at honey loss: Atheist professor mocked on internet after complaining that airport security took his jar

Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins was mercilessly mocked on the internet yesterday after he complained that Bin laden has won... because airport staff confiscated his jar of honey.

The respected evolutionary biologist took to Twitter to declare: ‘Bin Laden has won, in airports of the world every day.’  He added: ‘I had a little jar of honey, now thrown away by rule-bound dundridges. STUPID waste.’

The outspoken atheist, who came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, uses his self-coined word ‘dundridges’ to describe petty jobsworths.

The term, which Professor Dawkins has used in his writings, was inspired by the character J. Dundridge in the 1975 novel, Blott On The Landscape.

The Oxford University academic was treated to a flood of sarcastic replies to his Twitter posting.  One Twitter user wrote: ‘I’m not sure that Bin Laden’s number one target was your honey jar, but yeah, he kinda won.’  Another added: ‘You truly are the real victim of terrorism.’

And one advised: ‘You could have just read the rules properly and not kept it in your hand luggage...’

Professor Dawkins hit back: ‘Of course I know the airport security rules. My point is those rules are stupid advertising displays of dundridge zeal. Bin Laden has won.’  He added: ‘Are you carpers really too thick to see the difference between a matter of general principle and a petty concern with a single jar of honey?’

Some of Professor Dawkin’s 844,000 followers had more sympathy.

One wrote: ‘You are quite right. After the awful violence and bloodshed, the winning tactic of the terrorist is to instil lasting fear.’

International airports around the world stop passengers taking containers containing more than 100ml of liquid in their hand baggage.

The rules frequently catch out passengers carrying semi-solid foods such as pate, foie gras or honey, which are often bought by tourists as gifts.

The security measures were imposed in 2006 after British police said they had foiled a plot to bring down as many as 10 planes with explosive liquids.

Professor Dawkins’ outburst comes after he sparked anger in August with a tweet that critics claimed was ‘anti-Muslim’.

On that occasion he posted: ‘All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.’

And last month he found himself at the centre of a row over an interview he gave to the Times Magazine in which he appeared to suggest he was the victim of ‘mild paedophilia’ at school and that current cases of historical child sex abuse had been overblown.

‘I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours’, he said.


This non-profit organisation is like the Left's very own old boy network

Ask anyone connected to Common Purpose what it actually does, and they will almost certainly respond with a wall of impenetrable jargon. On its website, the charity likes to call itself an ‘independent, international leadership development organisation’.

In filings with the Charities Commission, it describes its ‘objective’ as being to ‘educate men, women and young people … from a broad range of geographical, political, ethnic, institutional, social and economic backgrounds, in constitutional, civic, economic, and social studies.’

The language is opaque, which is what concerns a growing chorus of critics who are starting to wonder if Common Purpose’s agenda is to create a quasi-masonic Left-wing equivalent of the ‘old boy network’.

The Shoreditch-based non-profit organisation was founded in 1989 by Julia Middleton, a 55-year-old author and liberal activist who now works as its chief executive.

It has 84 employees and an annual turnover of £5million. Its best-paid member of staff, believed to be Miss Middleton, earns between £100,000 and £110,000 a year – a considerable sum by the standards of the non-profit sector.

For more than two decades, Common Purpose’s primary activity has been to run ‘career development’ courses aimed largely at public sector and charity staff who wish to become ‘better leaders’.

The courses typically cost £5,000 and last a week. But for those who really buy into the charity’s way of thinking, the influence they buy endures for much, much longer. That’s because of Common Purpose’s all-important ‘alumni network’, which all participants are encouraged to join.

Membership allows them to interact with like-minded ‘graduates’ via a password-protected internet site, and to attend networking events held under ‘Chatham House’ rules, under which no one can be quoted by name.

No one knows how many active members regularly do just this, but 35,000 have completed Common Purpose courses over the years.

Many now hold senior positions in Whitehall, the BBC, local government and major police forces.

They range from Sir Bob Kerslake, the head of the Civil Service, to Cressida Dick, one of Britain’s most senior female police officers.

Little wonder that some critics have compared Common Purpose to a giant octopus, whose mysterious tentacles stretch across the worlds of Westminster, Whitehall and academia. Others, citing the group’s apparent political leanings, wonder why it is allowed to continue receiving large amounts of public money.

Freedom of Information requests show that government departments have spent more than £1million sending staff on Common Purpose courses. The BBC spent £125,000 over a five-year period. Police and local councils are believed to have given it millions.

‘It’s a huge scandal,’ says Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley. ‘Common Purpose is like a Left-wing version of the freemasons. It’s a networking organisation for the great and good to advance their pro-Europe, pro-New Labour, politically correct view of the world.’

Common Purpose would deny party-political bias. But it has particularly close ties to senior Blairites.  David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, gave it free government office space in Sheffield.

In early 2005, Julia Middleton held a networking dinner at the London offices of Pearson, the firm behind the Financial Times newspaper, which counted Sir David Bell, a Common Purpose trustee, as a senior executive.

It was attended by senior bankers, academics, and a bishop, along with Robert Peston, the BBC journalist. Like many of Miss Middleton’s meetings, Peston recalled, the dinner ended ‘with a collective wail about the irresponsibility and excessive power of the media’.

A few weeks later, Middleton and Bell would co-found the Media Standards Forum, the charity which spawned the pressure group Hacked Off.

Eight years later, and like so much that Common Purpose’s intensely well-connected founder lies behind, the campaign to muzzle the Press has ended up succeeding beyond her wildest dreams.



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: