Tuesday, March 04, 2014
UK: Black Brixton bar owner blames late-night violence that is blighting nightclub industry on black people
A bar in Brixton has blamed rising violence in south London on black youngsters, claiming many clubs in the area have been forced out of business.
In a post on their Facebook page Fridge Bar, which is owned by a black woman, warned that unless young black people 'learn to conduct themselves in a civil manner' they face being barred from venues.
The post claims 13 clubs have closed 'in the past couple of years', because of violence.
The author of the post, who warned it was a 'controversial' message, said: 'The absolute majority of people who have disrupted theses venues are black men and increasingly some black women.
'There, I said it. It is true, I have witnessed it and there is both anecdotal and empirical evidence that what I say is true. 'I know some will say that it is a "minority" doing the damage but I disagree.
'The minority know that they have the support of the majority who fail to call them out when their behaviour becomes awful.'
It adds: 'It seems that the decent black people of whom there are many are losing the fight. 'We need to take back control and start to ostracise the b******s who are giving us all a terrible name.
The 300-capacity bar in Brixton Hill, which regularly hosts House, RnB and Disco nights, hit out at media reports covering the controversial post, in a second message on the social networking site.
The post said: 'A few days we put up a post highlighting the disproportionate incidences of trouble occurring in S London (sic) nightclubs and the fact that many have closed as a result.
'We deliberately and truthfully inserted our opinion backed by both anecdotal and empirical evidence that some black males and increasingly some black women are at the forefront of this.
'The media have quite mischievously and a tad maliciously tried to smear us. 'Clearly the fact that Fridge Bar is owned by a black woman has passed them by.'
The initial post has so far received 155 likes and attracted dozens of comments, many supporting the statement.
Sporting panel is 'too white' and needs to become more diverse, BBC says
Match Of The Day needs to become more diverse with fewer white men on its panel of pundits, the BBC has said. Days after announcing its dramas would include more black and gay actors to reflect modern Britain, the corporation turned its sights on sports shows.
Danny Cohen, the BBC’s director of television, singled out BBC1’s Saturday football highlights programme for fresh criticism.
He said: ‘If we have five people on a panel show, it shouldn’t be five white men. I think the same thing of Match Of The Day. It’s a very diverse sport and it shouldn’t be like that.’
Although Mr Cohen stopped short of calling for a diversity quota for Match of the Day hosts, he made it clear he expects to see changes to the make-up of sports panels in the near future.
His comments may cause some anxiety for the programme’s current team of presenters.
The weekly show is normally fronted by former England footballer Gary Lineker, 53, who is paid £1.5million-a-year for his services.
He is often paired with his former teammate Alan Shearer, 43, and retired Scotland player Alan Hansen, 58, and they are frequently joined by a string of other white male pundits, including Robbie Fowler, 38, and Michael Owen, 34.
The corporation does have some prominent black football pundits and has lined up Manchester United player Rio Ferdinand to join its World Cup team in Brazil this summer.
The first female commentator to appear on Match of the Day was Jacqui Oatley in 2007, while Radio Five Live appointed Charlotte Green as the new voice of its classified sports results last year.
Last month, Mr Cohen was embroiled in a row with one of the BBC’s top comics after he said it was ‘not acceptable’ to have all-male comedy panel shows and said every one filmed from now on will have at least one woman.
His remarks were criticised by Mock the Week presenter Dara O’Briain, who said the move would make female guests appear to be ‘token women’.
But Mr Cohen reiterated his determination to change the gender balance of TV this week, saying: ‘There isn’t a problem on some of the panel shows - they try to have a good gender balance all the time. Others, it was like pushing water up a hill and we kept saying it, and it wasn’t happening.
‘We got to the point where we thought, this is not acceptable anymore, this doesn’t reflect the world we live in.
‘In a leadership role, I can either keep pushing and hope it’s going to evolve, or I can set some really clear examples to provide a beacon for what our expectations are.’
Speaking at a separate event, drama controller Ben Stephenson said he wants more black and gay actors on TV in a bid to ‘reflect Britain as it really is’.
Home Office 'gave Paedophile Information Exchange £70,000': Group allegedly given taxpayers' money between 1977 and 1980
A vile paedophile group with links to senior Labour politicians was funded with huge amounts of taxpayers' money, it has emerged.
The Paedophile Information Exchange was allegedly given £70,000 by the Home Office between 1977 and 1980 - the equivalent today of about £400,000.
The astonishing claims made by a whistleblower are now being investigated by the police and the government.
They come after the Mail exposed shocking links between the paedophile group and the National Council for Civil Liberties, a pressure group run at the time by former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman.
After months of revelations, Miss Hewitt apologised on Thursday, saying the NCCL was 'naive and wrong' in allowing itself to become affiliated with PIE, which campaigned for the age of consent to be dropped to just four.
'As General Secretary then, I take responsibility for the mistakes we made. I got it wrong on PIE and I apologise for having done so,' she said.
Miss Harman, who was the NCCL's legal officer, has also expressed 'regret' but has refused to apologise, claiming the Mail's stories were a 'politically-motivated smear campaign'.
Yesterday, a former Home Office worker revealed that Jim Callaghan's Labour government and Margaret Thatcher's Conservative administration, which took over in 1979, may have provided funding for PIE.
The whistleblower said senior civil servant Clifford Hindley, who was head of the Home Office's voluntary services unit, signed off a three year grant for £35,000 in 1980.
He has told police he saw the paperwork and the grant was a renewal - suggesting a similar amount had been given to the group in 1977 under the previous Labour government.
Mr Hindley, a classics, philosophy and theology graduate who studied at Oxford and Cambridge, apparently had an obsessive academic interest in gay relationships between men and boys.
He was an assistant secretary at the Home Office, where he oversaw 'co-ordination of government action in relation to voluntary services and funding of certain voluntary organisations'.
The VSU was in the section responsible for 'community programmes'.
Payments were made to the Paedophile Information Exchange during Jim Callaghan's administration, it is claimed
A colleague at the VSU, based at the Home Office's former headquarters at Queen Anne's Gate, was shocked to discover a re-application to the department for funds made by PIE among a list of applications for taxpayer money.
The whistleblower, who did not want to be named, claims he raised concerns with Mr Hindley about why the Home Office should be funding such a vile organisation.
He told Exaro investigative website that Mr Hindley, who was his boss, took the paperwork away from him and told him to drop the matter, saying he would 'deal' with it.
The documents are now thought to have been legally destroyed along with all Home Office files about PIE since 1979.
The whistleblower approached Labour politician Tom Watson last year. The MP has now raised the claims with home secretary Theresa May, who has ordered an investigation.
PIE members have been accused of abusing children 'on an industrial scale' during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The group was formed in 1974 to campaign for sex with children to be legalised and formed an alliance with the NCCL, officially affiliating with the left wing pressure group.
PIE leader Tom O'Carroll was on the NCCL's gay rights sub-committee and the group was described in glowing terms by then general secretary Miss Hewitt.
The NCCL lobbied parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten as long as the child 'understood the nature of the act' and apparently consented.
The group also wanted incest to be legalised.
A memo from 1978 showed Miss Hewitt said the NCCL would be prepared to offer legal advice to adults who wanted to have sex with 14-year- olds.
The NCCL also placed a recruitment advert for new members in PIE's magazine and Miss Hewitt shared a conference platform with O'Carroll in 1977.
Miss Hewitt, Miss Harman and her husband Jack Dromey, a Labour frontbencher, all had key roles at the NCCL.
PIE disbanded in 1984 after two former executive committee members were convicted of child-porn offences and the group's leader fled the UK while on bail.
Commenting on the possibility PIE was funded by the Home Office, Mr Watson said: 'It's a remarkable state of affairs and the Home Secretary must make sure a report is presented as soon as possible.
'If the allegations are true, it shows how insidious an organisation PIE was that they could even convince the Home Office to give them taxpayers' money.'
A spokesman for the Home Office said: 'We are aware of the allegations and the Permanent Secretary has commissioned an independent investigation.'
Governor Brewer’s Veto of SB 1062 Is a Vote for Slavery
SB 1062 is not about religious freedom, it’s about forced labor.
For the last few days, I, like many Americans, have been furious about SB 1062 . . . only I have been angry for a different reason than most.
Opponents are angry because they think the bill is “mean” or that it allows discrimination against certain groups of people. Some people are even claiming that it somehow mandates discrimination.
Supporters are angry because they don’t like the idea that a private citizen can be forced to engage in a transaction that violates his or her religious beliefs.
I am angry because I believe most of the discussion on SB 1062 is missing a much more basic point. Yes, it is chilling that a private citizen might be forced to engage in a transaction that violates his or her religious beliefs. But has no one considered that it is also chilling that a private citizen would be forced to engage in any transaction?
A slave is . . .
Forced to labor against his will
Subject to punishment if he refuses to labor
Considered to be the “property” of someone else.
Someone who is required to engage in an involuntary transaction (such as baking a cake for someone for whom he does not want to bake a cake) is . . .
Forced to labor against his will
Subject to punishment if he refuses to labor
As we can see, the involuntary transaction lacks one of the characteristics of slavery: the notion that the one person is “owned” by the other. Needless to say, this is an important distinction.
But how is it that we are okay with the first two? How is it that so few people are even discussing the fact that our society is forcing one human being to labor for another against his will? How is it that so few people are appalled by the fact that he will be punished—subjected to violence and force—if he refuses?
Forget the religious-conscience aspect of the matter for the moment and just tell me—why is that okay? Why is it okay to force people to labor?
One of the most important characteristics of freedom is the concept of voluntary transactions.
I gave Apple my money, they gave me a computer. (They wanted my money more than they wanted the computer. I wanted the computer more than I wanted the money.)
For a special treat, my wife bought me a massage. The massage therapist wanted my money, and I loved the massage. We both walked into the transaction voluntarily, and we both walked away happier.
Human beings do this every day. Our employers buy our labor, and we sell it to them. Our customers ask us for goods and services, and we give them to them in exchange for amounts of money we deem acceptable. No one is forced into any of this. We do it every day because we choose to.
And guess what—we also refuse to transact business every day.
I go to this gas station rather than that one because of a seven-cent difference in the price.
I bought the Cheerios rather than the generic brand because I had a coupon for the Cheerios that brought the price down low enough so that the few extra cents it still cost was worth it for the taste difference. (Okay, so it was actually my wife who did that.)
But it’s not just on the consumer side that we refuse transactions.
A lawyer may refuse to take your case.
“I’m sorry, Dr. So-and-So is not taking new patients right now.”
A contractor may decline to repair your wind-damaged vinyl siding because the job is too small, or because he’s too busy.
Ever see the sign, “No shirt, no shoes, no service”?
In other words, it’s not like the refusal to transact business is without precedent. It also happens millions of times every day.
So why is this situation different? Why do the person’s reasons for refusing to transact business suddenly make it okay to force him to labor for someone else against his will? And if he refuses, he will be subjected to government force and punishment. How is that okay?
It isn’t. In fact, it’s appalling and disturbing.
Even more disturbing is the inability most of the law’s defenders to even speak to this point. Worse still is the cowardice of so many in the face of the political-correctness police. Opponents of the law scream loud and the law’s defenders equivocate or fold completely. And when they fold—as Governor Brewer did yesterday—they not only fail to protect people’s natural right of freedom of conscience, they fail to protect the equally fundamental human right to choose. To choose with whom to associate. To choose with whom to transact business.
It does not matter if the person’s reasons are good or bad. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE SOMEONE TO WORK FOR YOU.
You can go elsewhere.
You can start your own business.
You can tell all your friends about it, or you can write an op-ed and tell the nation.
You can protest outside the store and seek to convince others that the establishment is unworthy of their business.
But you do not have a right to force someone to labor for you. Period.
Honestly, I am gobsmacked that anyone could, in good conscience, so blithely walk right past this huge issue. Even if someone’s reasons are awful, that doesn’t give any of us the right to make that person our serf for the day. You have a right not to have someone else assault you, or steal from you, or defraud you, or libel you. You do not have a right to make them give you cake.
One of the reasons we know slavery is wrong is because we believe in self-ownership. Each of us is an individual moral agent. We get to choose what we believe, what we think, how we feel. Each of us has exclusive rights to our person—to our choices, our labor, our physical being. No one gets to own us. No one gets to rape us. No one gets to tell us what we must believe or how we must feel. We own ourselves.
SB 1062 was designed to protect people from having to engage in involuntary transactions. I reasoned above that such transactions have two of the characteristics of slavery, but not the all-important third characteristic in which the slave is considered the property of the master. And yet, when you compel someone’s labor, you are violating a little piece of his or her self-ownership. Owning one’s own labor is an aspect of self-ownership. For a short time, an involuntary transaction takes that away.
Still, if you do not like the slavery analogy, then perhaps we can look to serfdom as the source of a better one. Per Wikipedia . . .
Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence.
The government allows you to have your little shop. You may earn a living, but more than half of what you make belongs to the government. If you make too much money, government will increase the percentage it takes. Beyond your own needs, you work for the government, and you work for the people the government tells you to work for, whether you want to or not. Refuse and you will be subjected to punishment, fine, or imprisonment. Resist and you will be subjected to violence.
Sounds like the road to serfdom to me. And Governor Brewer, you just kicked us all a little further down that road.
At the risk of sullying what has been a piece about first principles with a statement about partisan politics, I must conclude with one final point.
Imagine that the baker is Muslim and someone asks for a bacon cake. Can the Muslim refuse to bake it because handling pork violates his religion?
Or how about this? A Christian asks a homosexual baker for a cake with a Bible verse on it—a Bible verse that identifies homosexual sex as being a sin. Can the homosexual baker refuse to serve this particular customer?
Or, let’s compare apples to apples—the customers are a gay couple but the baker is a Muslim rather than a Christian . . . .
Does anyone believe that the nation’s hip, enlightened elites would be leaping to the defense of these customers? Really?
No. Muslims and gays are among the leftist power elite’s protected classes. Christians are an enemy class. Mix up the players and their identifying “groups” and everything changes—the left, the media, and their throngs of rank-and-file followers will suddenly switch from backing the customer to backing the baker. Or, if the scenario doesn’t fit the desired narrative, you’d never hear about it at all.
For them, this isn’t about fixed, timeless principles. It’s about power.
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.