Friday, May 02, 2014
Multicultural car theft in Britain
A contributor to society has been removed by two useless parasites
Two men have been found guilty of stabbing a businessman to death in a botched carjacking which would only have earned them £500.
Rory Gordon, 23, and Jae'Don Fearon, 21, attacked Harjinder Singh Bhurji, 32, after he refused to hand over the keys to his treasured Mercedes SLK coupe.
The attack ended with Mr Bhurji getting stabbed in the heart, and left dying on the side of the road in Ilford, Essex, in the early hours of September 13 2011, as the pair drove off.
Jurors unanimously found Gordon guilty of murder at the Old Bailey, while Fearon was convicted of his manslaughter after being found not guilty of murder.
A third defendant, Andre Campbell, 23, was found guilty of a charge of handling stolen goods after exchanging the victim's iPhone for £100.
Adjourning sentencing to May 27, Judge Michael Topolski told Gordon: 'You have been convicted of a brutal murder of a innocent man. 'A brutal murder committed with a knife in the course of a commission of a crime, and all for perhaps £500.'
He said he would need to consider what minimum life sentence term to impose, adding: 'That time in circumstances such as these is a very significant one indeed.'
The trial had earlier heard that Mr Bhurji was parked in Stoneleigh Road, Ilford, talking to a female friend when the carjackers suddenly struck,.
They pulled the woman out of the vehicle and demanded the keys, which Mr Bhurji, who was proud of his car with personalised number plates, said he did not have after throwing them behind the driver's seat.
He was stabbed in the heart but was able to lean down to retrieve the keys and hand them over before he collapsed.
The Mercedes - which was fitted with a tracking device - was then driven off 'at speed' leaving Mr Bhurji dying by the road. It was later found parked neatly near Epping Forest.
Opening the trial on April 2, prosecutor Sally O'Neill QC told jurors: 'Mr Bhurji made the mistake of protesting against his car being taken.'
Fearon and Gordon were convicted after CCTV footage and mobile phone data put the pair at the scene of the murder.
Gordon drove there in a black Corsa and left in the Mercedes. Fearon then picked him up in the Corsa after the the stolen car was left to see if it would be found by police, the court heard.
Gordon, of east London, admitted stabbing Mr Bhurji and that he went to steal the car armed with a knife. But he said he did not mean to cause him serious harm and his death was an 'accident'. He admitted the lesser charge of manslaughter but denied murder.
Fearon, of Chingford, Essex, denied murder and manslaughter and said he had been smoking cannabis on the fatal night, claiming he did did not know anything about the knife or the stolen car.
A victim impact statement was read out to the court by Ms O'Neill on behalf of the family, which described Mr Bhurji as a 'humble and reserved character' who 'enjoyed life and loved to travel'.
It said Mr Bhurji had a 'passion' for cars from an early age and studied electronics before getting a job at Mercedes-Benz, where he won many awards and certificates.
He went on to realise his 'dream' of starting his own business, becoming the main breadwinner of the household so his parents did not have to continue working.
'Knife crime has got to stop,' the statement added. 'No one should have to experience the pain of losing their loved one this way.
'Rory Gordon and Jae'Don Fearon have deprived Raj and his family of the rest of his life. At 32, a healthy, intelligent man was snatched from his future his hopes and dreams.'
Detective Inspector Andy Yeats, of the Metropolitan Police's homicide and major crime command, said: 'Mr Bhurji was a loving son and brother who had everything to live for. He was a successful businessman and worked hard to provide for his family.
'Gordon and Fearon have no concept of hard work. They spotted Mr Bhurji's car and decided they would take it by force without a single thought for the devastating consequences.
'Mr Bhurji's female friend was threatened with a knife before Mr Bhurji was stabbed through the heart without any chance of defending himself.
'We can only hope that today's result offers the family of Mr Bhurji some solace.'
An utter moron: British Labour party leader wants to bring back rent controls
Ed Miliband will today pledge to bring back discredited rent controls – despite warnings that the move could worsen Britain’s housing crisis.
In a dramatic intervention in the free market, the Labour leader will vow to cap rent rises in the private sector and force landlords to offer long-term tenancies.
Mr Miliband will claim new laws are essential to help millions trapped in ‘generation rent’ who are at risk of being ripped off by grasping landlords.
But the move raises the spectre of previous attempts to control private rents, which have led to housing shortages and a decline in the standard of rented property.
It will also reinforce fears that Mr Miliband’s left-of-centre agenda will involve widespread 1970s-style State intervention in markets.
The Labour leader has already announced controversial plans to freeze energy prices and introduce Soviet-style land grabs against developers who fail to build houses.
The populist policies have been branded ‘anti-business’ and led to warnings that they could spark a catastrophic collapse in investment.
Rent controls have long been backed by the Left and are a key demand of the militant Unite union. But experts warn they have a disastrous history and could worsen Britain’s housing crisis.
In a major report on housing last year, the respected Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said: ‘All political parties should make a commitment not to introduce rent controls in the private rented sector, as this would reduce the level of supply in the rented housing market at a time when the country is becoming more dependent upon the sector.’
Rent controls have a chequered history around the world.
Supporters claim they have proved effective in countries such as Germany and Ireland, but they are blamed for the spread of slum dwellings under socialist regimes in Vietnam and Venezuela. They deter landlords from renting out their properties or from maintaining houses that are already rented out, leaving tenants with dilapidated accommodation.
In the UK, rent controls were introduced as a ‘temporary’ measure during the First World War and were only finally abolished by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
Labour last night insisted that its new plans do not amount to the return of traditional rent controls.
‘Some landlords will not like this, but millions of tenants will,’ a source said. Mr Miliband will today say intervention in the rented housing market is a key plank in his agenda to tackle Britain’s cost of living ‘crisis’.
Speaking at the launch of Labour’s local and European election campaign he will say the nine million people now living in rented accommodation have been ‘ignored for too long’.
‘The next Labour government will legislate to make three-year tenancies the standard in the British private rented sector to give people who rent the certainty they need,’ he will say.
Under Labour’s plans most tenancy agreements would automatically last for three years. Although landlords would be free to set the rent at the start of the agreement, future rises would be capped by the Government.
This could be based on inflation or the average increase in market rents and could vary in different parts of the country.
There appears to be no provision for dealing with a sudden increase in interest rates, which could leave many landlords unable to raise rents to cover their costs.
Australia: Debate? Not When You Can Silence your critics
Writing in Quadrant, Mervyn Bendle took to task the new breed of historians who seem bent on destroying the Anzac Legend. One of his subjects, rather than the debate the issues he raised, reacted by demanding that the essay be removed from public view. Alas, such arrogance is entirely typical. Bendle was Senior Lecturer in History and Communications at James Cook University, where he taught a course on war and remembrance, but resigned in 2012
I can confirm the Leftist hegemony in Australian universities. I taught in two of them and I too eventually got fed up enough with the environment there to resign, even though I had tenure.
Anzac day is when Australians remember their war dead and praise the quality of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The Left have long hated it. They want all praise for themselves and their brainless ideas -- JR
A prominent professor at the Australian National University has sought to suppress a recent Quadrant article I wrote critical of the negative academic attitude towards the Anzac Legend. Professor Joan Beaumont, of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, emailed the editors of Quadrant and Quadrant Online, claiming that her book Broken Nation had been “distorted, misrepresented and misread” by Mervyn Bendle, in his article “The Military Historians’ War on the Anzac Legend” in Quadrant‘s April edition.
“It does Quadrant no credit to publish such prejudicial reviews, and I request that you withdraw it from the web”, she told the editors. She insisted that she has “no issue with reviewers engaging critically with my book”, but believed that I had not done this.
My Quadrant article discusses her book in the context of a broader appraisal of the anti-Anzac campaign centred on the ANU, the Australian Defence Force Academy, and the Australian War Memorial. It follows up earlier articles dating back five years detailing this campaign”.
See: “The Intellectual Assault on Anzac”
“Anzac in Ashes”
“How Paul Keating Betrayed the Anzacs, and Why”
“Lest They Forget To Sneer”
“Gallipoli: Second Front in the History Wars”
Taken together, these reveal the systematic assault on the Anzac Legend undertaken by Australian historians leading up to the centenaries of the outbreak of the Great War and the Gallipoli campaign. These historians have made it quite clear that they wish to destroy the Anzac Legend.
I wasn’t surprised at Professor Beaumont’s reaction, as I imagine it’s easier for her to seek the article’s suppression than face up to addressing the issues it raises. I feel compelled to note that Professor Beaumont’s first reaction was to demand my article be withdrawn from the public view, not to debate the questions raised in my article. Alas, many Australian academics prefer to suppress criticism rather than engage in free and uninhibited exploration of ideas and their validity. In my experience they resent attempts to hold them to account and always try to avoid discussions that might reveal inadequacies, mistakes, prejudices and ideological commitments.
The simple fact is that academics take refuge in their exalted status. They don’t feel any need to justify themselves — nor is there very much in the way of pressure to do so, as academic history in Australia has become a closed shop. Indeed, when it comes to considering ideas outside the narrowly “acceptable” range, the profession is hermetically sealed. Prof Beaumont might be more used to dealing with robust discussion, and more prepared to confront my criticism of her work, if the history profession in Australia wasn’t so stitched up and insular.
Beaumont’s is typical behaviour and I have experienced it before. Academics attacked me over articles I wrote for Quadrant and The Australian discussing their sympathetic attitudes towards terrorism. They refused to debate the issues and instead mounted a determined attempt to have me sacked and also threatened legal action. One even threatened physical violence
See “Hijacking Terrorism Studies”
“Terrorism and the Rise of Radical Orthodoxy”
“Radical pacifists deny a murderous reality”
They wanted me to apologize to them and to have all the copies of Quadrant recalled and pulped! I was able to detail all this in a submission to the Senate Inquiry into Academic Freedom, which was included in their report. This eagerness to resort to threats rather than academic debate in these types of dispute reflects the excessively comfortable situation of Australian academics.
It is undeniable that the Humanities, Arts, and the Social Sciences in the universities are dominated by a leftist intellectual monoculture, which everyone is expected to agree on if they want to survive. Academics review each other’s books, give favourable referees’ reports to each other’s’ grant proposals and academic articles, give scholarships and jobs to each other’s graduate students, and generally perpetuate the same leftist orthodoxy.
Academically, it’s incestuous and stultifying — and that critical mass of like-mindedness and intolerance of dissent has now turned its attention to destroying the Anzac Legend, doing everything in its power to achieve this. The last thing they want to hear is criticism.
My grandfather was an Anzac who fought at Gallipoli and in France, and Australians of his generation and later made a pledge very nearly a century ago that must be honoured and redeemed.
As a nation we declared, ‘Lest we forget’. We should now be allowed to honour these centenaries without constant sniping from an anti-Anzac elite of obsessive academic leftists.
Sterling's words were vulgar and bigoted, but private
by Jeff Jacoby
A FEW thoughts on the Donald Sterling scandal, but first a personal disclosure: I have sometimes uttered words in the heat of a domestic squabble that I later regretted. I have expressed thoughts in personal conversation that I would never want to share with the world. On occasion I have yielded to impulses in private that I would be loath to be judged by in public.
Maybe you have too.
Torrents of contempt have been raining down on Sterling since the release of an audio recording, apparently genuine, in which the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Clippers tells his mistress to stop posting online pictures of herself with black men, including Magic Johnson, "and not to bring them to my games." Sterling's comments are repulsive, vulgar, and saturated with bigotry. His girlfriend — who is black and Mexican — effortlessly goads him. "If it's white people, it's OK?" she asks at one point. "If it was Larry Bird, would it have made a difference?"
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver yesterday suspended Sterling for life and imposed a $2.5 million fine as a penalty for "the hateful opinions" heard on the recorded audio clip.
My sympathy for Sterling is nonexistent. His racist remarks are odious, and they couldn't have come as a shock to anyone who has followed his career. Yet the most alarming part of this story has less to do with basketball or the racial prejudices of an 80-year-old plutocrat than with what it says about the rapidly disappearing presumption that things we say in our personal lives will stay personal.
Of course any decent person should be disgusted by the gross things Sterling allegedly said to the girlfriend. But as former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote on Monday: "Shouldn't we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn't we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizens' privacy in such an un-American way?"
There is good reason why it is illegal in many states (including California and Massachusetts) to surreptitiously record a private conversation, just as there is a good reason for the traditional common-law privilege that protects certain kinds of confidential communication — like that between husband/wife, priest/penitent, or attorney/client — from being disclosed unwillingly in court. They reflect a value critical to a free society: Private lives and private thoughts aren't supposed to be everyone's business.
But everywhere today that value is being eroded by the intrusions modern technology makes possible. It is becoming harder than ever to be sure anything you say or do is being said or done in true privacy. Creeps with cellphone cameras take "upskirt" photos. Intimate encounters end up on YouTube. Tens of thousands of surveillance cameras combine with ever-more-sophisticated facial-recognition software, and the upshot is that no matter where you go, you're on candid camera. And websites like TMZ encourage the exploitation of personal embarrassments for public entertainment.
Prudent politicians must assume that everything they say is being recorded and may be used against them. Presidential candidates no longer have the luxury of speaking in privacy to groups of supporters, a lesson learned by Barack Obama from his "bitter clingers" experience in 2008, and by Mitt Romney when his "47 percent" remarks were secretly taped and disseminated. Louisiana Representative Vance McAllister announced on Monday that he would not run for re-election after a security surveillance camera showed him kissing a married female staffer, and someone leaked the video to a local newspaper.
Do you bear in mind at all times that your words, actions, and whereabouts are being captured for posterity on security cameras?
None of this is meant in defense of Sterling's bigotry or congressional hanky-panky or any other dishonest activity. It is meant as a reminder that it isn't only other people's dirty laundry that the whole world can get a good look at. It is yours and mine, too. Once our privacy is gone, don't count on getting it back.
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.