Tuesday, January 07, 2014

Multicultural home invaders in Britain

Two thieves were caught red-handed when a schoolgirl called police from under a bed when they broke into her home.

Marcus Speirs, 32, and Richard Ansah, 29, broke in to the home in Erdington, Birmingham, by breaking down a back door. They then began searching the property for valuables.

But the burglars hadn't realised a 13-year-old girl and her brother, nine, had run upstairs and grabbed a phone.

The quick-thinking teenager, who was alone in the house with her younger brother, hid under a bed and dialled 999 before Speirs spotted the siblings. When he did he threatened them with a garden hoe.

Police officers arrived at the family home within four minutes of the emergency call and arrested the pair.

Speirs, from Hockley, Birmingham, was charged with aggravated burglary whilst Ansah, from Sutton Coldfield, West Mids., was charged with burglary.

The pair were sentenced to nine years and four years in prison respectively at Birmingham Crown Court on December 20 after admitting the charges.

Speaking after the hearing, West Midlands Police Detective Sergeant Mark Langley, said: 'The young girl showed extreme courage and, crucially, had the awareness to grab a phone and take cover whilst dialling 999.

'She remained calm throughout what was undoubtedly a terrifying incident and was able to clearly and accurately relay details to a police call handler.

'The girl's textbook actions meant we were able to get officers to the scene within four minutes and catch both men in the act.

'These are two dangerous offenders - men who put young children through a shocking ordeal - and they have rightly been handed lengthy terms behind bars.'

The two thieves - one of whom was armed with a metal bar - broke into the address just before 6.30pm on May 7 last year.

The court heard Speirs was the main aggressor who snatched the phone from the 13-year-old girl and threatened her with the garden hoe.  He was later found with the handset when searched in police custody.

Det Sgt Langley, added: 'The evidence against both men was overwhelming and they pleaded guilty at an early stage.  'It meant neither child needed to give evidence - but had they been required to we have special measures in place to assist vulnerable witnesses when giving evidence and officers on hand to guide them through the process.'


Basic principle of Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech was right, says Nigel Farage

There are many people in  Britain today who say: "Enoch was right"

Nigel Farage yesterday said `the basic principle' behind parts of Enoch Powell's notorious Rivers of Blood speech was right.

The Ukip leader was asked if he agreed with a statement about how the `indigenous population found themselves strangers in their own country'.

He said it was true - but appeared thrown when he was told the statement was made by the controversial Tory minister of the 1960s.

The passage from the speech read to Mr Farage was: `The indigenous population found themselves made strangers in their own country, their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition.'

Mr Farage said it was true `in a lot of England' - before being told on Sky News that it was part of the 1968 warning of racial violence that led to Mr Powell being sacked from the Tory front bench and politically marginalised.

He said: `Is it? Well, what he was warning about is that if you have a large influx of people into an area that changes an area beyond recognition, there is tension, that basic principle is right.'

Asked if Mr Powell `saw it coming', he replied: `Well no ... for different reasons, for different reasons and on a completely different scale.

`I mean when immigration was being discussed in the 60s and 70s and 80s we were talking about an annual net inflow to the country of between 30,000 and 50,000 people.

`What we have had in the last 13 years is net four million extra migrants who have come to Britain so we are dealing with something now on a scale that hitherto we couldn't even have conceived.'

In 2008, Mr Farage courted controversy by naming Mr Powell as his political hero in an interview and saying the country would be better today if his words had been heeded.  He said at the time: `I would never say that Powell was racist in any way at all.'

Mr Powell, then shadow defence spokesman, had told a Conservative association meeting that Britain was mad to allow in 50,000 dependants of immigrants every year - and compared it to a nation building its own funeral pyre. He said: `Like the Roman, I see the river Tiber foaming with much blood.'

Mr Powell lost his job after the speech, which was denounced by Tory leader Edward Heath [Pansy Ted].


Secret Court orders autistic man's teeth to be removed: Decision 'taken behind closed doors to stop him from self-harming'

An autistic young man had all his healthy teeth removed on the orders of doctors, it was revealed yesterday.

The permanent operation left the man facing the rest of his life subsisting on liquids or forced to use dentures to chew solid food.

The decision to carry out the procedure and inflict a long-term disability was not tested in a court of law or approved by a judge, according to evidence provided by lawyers who work in the secretive and controversial Court of Protection.

Instead it was taken in secret by health workers who said it was necessary to stop the man from harming himself.

The harsh and radical dental operation was disclosed in files presented to a House of Lords committee investigating the Court and the law which gave birth to it, Labour's 2005 Mental Capacity Act.

It follows the scandal last month over the decision of a Court of Protection judge to order a forced caesarean operation on a pregnant Italian woman who had been detained under mental health laws after suffering a breakdown at Stansted airport.

The treatment of Alexandra Pacchieri - whose baby was taken by Essex social workers for adoption in Britain - led to a renewed wave of calls for greater openness in the courts and from social and health workers who take life-changing decisions about families and patients behind closed doors.

The removal of the autistic man's teeth came in a submission to peers by a group of lawyers who work regularly in the Court of Protection, which was set up by Labour's mental capacity law to take decisions on health care and finance for people too ill to decide for themselves.

Led by barrister Victoria Butler-Cole, the lawyers said that among the defects of the law and the Court is `confusion about what counts as serious medical treatment and when health professionals need to go to court to obtain declarations.'

They added: `One example is a case in which an autistic young adult had all his teeth permanently removed to stop him self-harming, without the Court's involvement.'

In keeping with the secrecy surrounding such decisions in the NHS, children's and adult social work departments, and often in the family courts and the Court of Protection, no further details of the incident were discussed in nearly 2,000 pages of evidence which has now been published by the Lords committee.

The lawyers called for a string of reforms to the Mental Capacity Act and the Court of Protection, including changes to the `deprivation of liberty' powers which allow judges to order someone to be detained in a care home.

The Lords committee, which is expected to report this year, was also told about research into the workings of the Act commissioned by the Department of Health, but never publicised.

Researchers from Bristol and Bradford Universities said aspects of the law were `worrying' and criticised the way the Court of Protection decides when someone has no capacity to think for themselves.  They said there was confusion over `the distinction between unwise decisions and a lack of decision making capacity.'

The case of the young man whose teeth were taken out comes after months of growing disquiet at the high-handed and secretive behaviour of Court of Protection judges.

Concerns were raised in April last year after the Daily Mail revealed that a judge had jailed a woman called Wanda Maddocks for contempt of court after she tried to take her father away from a care home where he had been ordered to stay.

Miss Maddocks, who had no lawyer to represent her in court, was imprisoned secretly and no-one was allowed to know her name until the Mail investigated the case.

The most senior family court judge, Sir James Munby, has since ordered that no-one should ever again be jailed in secret.

He is also pressing judges to break the routine Court of Protection secrecy by publishing judgements. New rules are also expected this year to allow greater public access to Court of Protection hearings.


Welby casts out 'sin' from christenings: Centuries-old rite rewritten in 'language of EastEnders' for modern congregation

Parents and godparents no longer have to `repent sins' and `reject the devil' during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony.

The new wording is designed to be easier to understand - but critics are stunned at such a fundamental change to a cornerstone of their faith, saying the new `dumbed-down' version `strikes at the heart' of what baptism means.

In the original version, the vicar asks: `Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?'

Prompting the reply: `I reject them.' They then ask: `Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?', with the answer: `I repent of them.'

But under the divisive reforms, backed by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and already being practised in 1,000 parishes, parents and godparents are asked to `reject evil, and all its many forms, and all its empty promises' - with no mention of the devil or sin.

The new text, to be tested in a trial lasting until Easter, also drops the word `submit' in the phrase `Do you submit to Christ as Lord?' because it is thought to have become `problematical', especially among women who object to the idea of submission.

The rewritten version - which came after reformers said they wanted to use the language of EastEnders rather than Shakespeare in services - is designed as an alternative to the wording in the Common Worship prayer book, rather than a replacement.

But insiders predict this draft will become the norm for the Church's 150,000 christenings each year if, as expected, it is approved by the General Synod. It may discuss the issue as early as this summer.

But the idea has angered many senior members of the Church, who feel it breaks vital links with baptisms as described in the Bible.

Writing in The Mail on Sunday, former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said the reform should be scrapped before it further reduced Christianity to `easily swallowed soundbites'. 

And one senior member of the General Synod, who did not wish to be named, said: `This is more like a benediction from the Good Fairy than any church service.

`The trouble is that large parts of the Church of England don't believe in hell, sin or repentance. They think you can just hold hands and smile and we will all go to Heaven. That is certainly not what Jesus thought.

`There is so much left out that one wonders why do it at all? If you exclude original sin and repentance there is very little substance left.

`It doesn't just dumb the service down - it eviscerates it. It destroys the significance of the rite by watering down the concept of sin and repentance.

'A humanist could say "I renounce evil." If you take out repentance you immediately strike at the heart of the whole idea of needing to be baptised.

`John the Baptist only baptised those who came and were repentant. This rite is saying to people you don't need to be particularly repentant. Just come and join the club.'

Alison Ruoff, a lay member of the General Synod from London, said the new version was `weak and woolly' and lacked conviction.

She said: `By removing all mention of the devil and rebellion against God, we are left to our own vague understanding of what evil might or might not mean.'

The draft was drawn up by the Church's Liturgy Commission to redress fears the current version was too off-putting for lay people who only go to church for baptisms, weddings or funerals.

The Bishop of Wakefield Stephen Platten, who chairs the commission, said repentance was implied in phrases urging people to `turn away from evil', and defended the omission of the devil by saying it was `theologically problematic'.

He said: `We are certainly not dumbing down. Far from it. What we are concerned about is to make sure that people who are coming to baptism understand what is being said.'

Other changes do away with the cleric saying: `Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified,' to which the congregation replies: `Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ against sin, the world and the devil, and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.'

The new version - which refers to sin once in an optional prayer -  replaces this with: `Do not be ashamed of Christ. You are his for ever,' to which the congregation answers; `Stand bravely with him.   Oppose the power of evil, and remain his faithful disciple to the end of your life.'

The baptism ceremony had not been altered for more than 400 years until it was changed in 1980. This is the third revision in 30 years.



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: