Sunday, July 13, 2014

Some more of that wonderful multiculturalism

A businessman in Africa has admitted to a savage act of cannibalism – ripping a man’s heart out and eating it ‘to show he was not gay’, while the victim was still alive.

Andrew Chimboza, 35, told Cape Town police in a statement that he killed Mbuyiselo Manona, 62, in self-defence at the home of a client in the township of Gugulethu after being insulted.

Prosecutor Quawnita Geyer read out the statement during a bail hearing at the Athlone Magistrate’s Court in Cape Town on Wednesday.

He said: ‘In your warning statement you say... “I sit upon him and stabbed him on the chest, tore out his heart and took a knife and then sliced his heart and then I ate his heart.”

“’The reason for me to eat the unknown guy's heart was to show him that I am not a moffie [gay] and after I finished eating the heart, I realised he was dead.”’

Investigating officer Constable Mphumelelo Yengwa attended the autopsy and reported its horrifying conclusion.

According to The Citizen he said: ‘It was conducted by Dr Allie. Dr Allie told me that the heart is not present in the deceased’s body and therefore, when the heart was taken out, he could see that the deceased was still alive.’

Yengwa told the hearing that the officer who arrested Chimboza at the scene found him chewing raw flesh and that Manona's neck had been 'half-eaten'. He added that his chest had a gaping hole in the left side.

However, Chimboza, originally from Zimbabwe, is now disputing the veracity of his statement, arguing that it was fabricated after he was assaulted by the police, according to

Chimboza, who runs a window-tinting business, claims that while he did stab Manona to death, he can’t remember taking out the heart and eating it.

He said: ‘The way I was continuously stabbing, that must have ripped his heart out. Because I was in a shocked state.’

Geyer retorted: ‘All the witnesses that were there confirm you killed the deceased, you cut out his heart and ate it. They say there was flesh in your teeth and dry blood on your mouth.’


L'Oréal cuts ties with model Belgium fan after hunting picture

A teenager who became a L’Oréal model after she was spotted supporting Belgium during the World Cup has had her modelling contract cancelled after she posted Facebook pictures of herself hunting wild game in Africa.

Axelle Despiegelaere signed a contract earlier this month with the famous French cosmetics brand after she was photographed in Brazil wearing a Belgian “Red Devils” team hat and with her face painted in Belgium’s national colours. She was hailed on social media as the “most beautiful” football supporter.

The 17 year-old from the Flemish seaside resort of Knokke became a social media star, receiving more than 200,000 ‘likes’ on her Facebook page in two weeks, leading to the contract as the new face of L’Oréal’s Professionnel series of hair products.

“Made my decision, signed my contract with L’Oreal!,” she posted to her Facebook page on Tuesday.

Her dream ended on Friday after another series of photographs went viral on the internet showing her posing next to a dead Oryx antelope while holding a rifle on an African safari hunting trip last year.

The picture, uploaded the day Belgium played, and beat, the United States on 1 July, was accompanied by her caption joking that she was ready to turn her hunting rifle on Americans.

“Hunting is not a matter of life or death. It’s much more important than that ... this was about 1 year ago ... ready to hunt Americans today haha,” she wrote.

Her Facebook page has since been deleted.

“I didn’t mean to offend anyone ... it was a joke. Thanks for understanding,” Miss Despiegelaere posted on Wednesday in an attempt to defuse a growing row on social media.

L’Oréal on Friday dismissed Belgian reports that Miss Despiegelaere was a new “It Girl” and emphasised that the cosmetics company “no longer tests on animals, anywhere in the world”.

“L’Oréal Professionnel Belgium collaborated with her on an ad hoc basis to produce a video for social media use in Belgium. The contract has now been completed,” said a statement to the Independent.

L’Oréal is the world’s biggest beauty company with a cosmetics empire ranging from make-up to hair and skin products.

The company is sensitive to animal welfare concerns and two years ago donated $1.2 million to the US Environmental Protection Agency to help improve the testing of safe chemicals without the use of animals.


How about tolerance for Christians, Mr Cameron?

By Amanda Platell

The family-run Ashers Baking Company is well-known locally for its delicious pastries, cakes . . . and the owners’ deeply held Christian beliefs.

So one has to wonder about the motives of Gareth Lee, of the campaign group Queerspace, who asked the firm to bake a cake to celebrate International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, decorated with the slogan ‘Support gay marriage’.

After the company declined, Mr Lee threatened legal action, claiming its refusal breached equality laws.

The bakery manager, Daniel McArthur, has insisted that Christians must be allowed to apply their beliefs to the running of their businesses.

However, his cause was not helped by David Cameron. Despite having recently asserted that Britain is ‘a Christian country’ and talking about the role religion can play in ‘helping people to have a moral code’, he failed to back the bakery.

At Prime Minister’s Questions this week, rather than defending Mr McArthur’s religious freedom,  Mr Cameron lamely said that ‘tolerance and equality was a very important part of being British’.

It’s also part of being British, Mr Cameron, to support those who believe in Christianity, which has been the defining culture of this country for hundreds of years.

But, then, too often today Christians are soft targets, denied the ‘tolerance’ that in our increasingly politically-correct age is so slavishly offered to minority groups.

Imagine another possible scenario. What if an animal rights campaigner had asked a Halal butcher for a piece of meat from an animal that had not been slaughtered by a cut to the jugular vein? I bet that politicians would be queuing up to jump to the defence of the butcher if he was threatened with legal action.


Unelected. Arrogant. The damning report that reveals Britain's  mandarins really DO believe they run Britain

Every five years we have a general election to choose our government: correct? We can boot out the nincompoops who have made a mess of things and vote in a new crowd who may have dramatic solutions: correct?

Wrong on both counts. A leaked document from the snooty end of Whitehall has exposed how little influence voters’ wishes have on the way our country is run.

Those general elections might as well be decided by lucky dip. The people really in charge — and don’t they know it — are the Permanent Secretaries of the various departments of government, ie, the top civil servants who continue in their jobs whatever the grubby electorate wants.

In the language of Yes Minister, these unchanging civil service bosses are the Sir Humphreys (and nowadays a few Dame Harriets).
A leaked Whitehall document has revealed how civil servants survive democratically elected changes

A leaked Whitehall document has revealed how civil servants survive democratically elected changes

Thanks to a leaked internal document setting out the criteria for choosing Permanent Secretaries, which would almost be comical were it not so chilling, we now know the extent of their scheming to stop politicians getting their way.

The document, blandly entitled Indicators Of Potential For Permanent Secretary Roles, was printed under an official Whitehall crest alongside the logo of consultancy firm YSC (motto ‘Releasing the Power of People’). You may be interested to know that one of YSC’s managing consultants is Peter Mandelson’s spin doctor Derek Draper, though, oddly, his infamous time with New Labour is not listed on the YSC website.

The six-page paper contained jargon such as ‘managing people drivers’ and ‘real world delivery’. There were Machiavellian (or Mandelsonian) subtitles such as ‘political mastery’ and ‘assert personal authority’.

The tone was one of lofty self-satisfaction, Brahmin disregard for the British electorate. It was penned in a key of elitist subterfuge.

The document was, in short, a sneaky, anti-democratic blueprint for a cadre of remote, powerbase-building, status quo-cementing Civil Service grandees. It praised their ability to bypass, baffle, block and occasionally appease the ministers they are supposed to serve.

The document recommended that Whitehall careerists should use their guile and professional job security to ensure that they, and not their political bosses, leave a personal ‘legacy’ in their departments.

These top civil servants should be ‘number one’ and excel in ‘high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty’, while coping with ‘irrational political demands’, said the memo.

No wonder Francis Maude MP exploded with anger when shown the document.  Mr Maude is the minister supposedly in charge of the Civil Service. Yet the mandarins, currently led by the egregious Sir Jeremy Heywood, plainly think they can outwit the Maudes of this world.

Mr Maude said the document did not ‘conform with constitutional propriety’, and immediately issued copies to Cabinet colleagues so they could comprehend what they were up against.

Former Home Office Minister Nick Herbert, whose attempts to rein in the Police Federation were often queried by doubtful civil servants, called the document ‘beyond parody’.

Indeed. It is an all-too-accurate admission of what has been going on at the top of Whitehall. Perhaps the only surprise is that its anonymous author was so clumsy as not to keep it hushed-up, which is the normal trick.

Politicians have long complained of mandarin obstruction.

Richard Crossman, a Labour minister under Harold Wilson, wrote in his diary of the ‘tremendous effort’ required of a minister to fight off the Civil Service. At first, he felt as if he had been placed ‘in a padded cell’. Later, he was ‘like somebody floating on the most comfortable support’. He must finally have been doing what they wanted.

Tony Benn, a 1970s Cabinet minister with radical leanings, was mistrustful of the Civil Service and had a rough time partly as a result.

Sir Humphrey hates radicalism. It involves so much work!

Margaret Thatcher also came to regard the Civil Service with strong suspicion. She remarked that Yes Minister was not so much a TV drama series as a documentary, and was savaged by the political establishment for expecting members of her team to be ‘one of us’.

That dogmatic phrase was considered somehow un-British, yet Mrs T saw that unless you had soulmates alongside you pushing through radical change, it would be blocked by The System. Despite her strength of character she was indeed frustrated, mainly by the Foreign Office when it came to European policy.

Jack Straw, on becoming Home Secretary after the Blair landslide in 1997, was struck by the ceremonial deference shown him by civil servants. They all stood up when he entered a room. That outward respect was not matched by executive ability. Straw was soon complaining that the Civil Service was ‘not so much a Rolls-Royce as a Robin Reliant’.

Both he and his successor, David Blunkett, had terrible battles to get the Home Office to jump to political will, and a later Home Secretary lashed out at the Department as ‘not fit for purpose’.

Blunkett had particular difficulties with his Permanent Secretary, John Gieve. Did it harm Gieve’s career? Hardly. He went on to become a deputy governor of the Bank of England and was given a knighthood.

Tony Blair complained that civil servants ‘reckoned in increments when the system required leaps and bounds’. He was perhaps describing the natural inertia of any vast organisation.

The difference with the Civil Service is that it exists supposedly to process the electorate’s desires. If it obstructs them, is it not a threat to democracy?

One of Blair’s junior ministers, Chris Mullin, wrote in his diaries of how a fellow minister once opened a cupboard at the chaotic immigration department of the Home Office to find it full of unanswered mail, having just been assured there were no more outstanding letters.

An official summoned for a carpeting explained: ‘We put them there so that the Minister wouldn’t see them.’

The Civil Service is supposed to adhere to fine principles outlined in the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1853, which laid down the idea of impartial permanent administrators working under ephemeral political control.

The model worked when politicians were confident personalities prepared to withstand short-term criticism. But in the past 20 years, opinion polling has become more instant and MPs are less stoical about their ratings.

They quail at the thought of being held personally accountable for difficult policies, so they have farmed out decisions, sometimes to arm’s-length quangos, sometimes to private contractors.

The civil servants, like any middle men, have acquired greater power.

Thanks to the leaked document, it has become undeniable that modern mandarins cynically employ double-speak and misinformation to obscure their role.

We see how they have developed improper political ambitions of their own. They now envisage themselves not as civil servants but as entities with a sense of personal ‘mission’.

And in Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, they have their terrible exemplar.  When Sir Jeremy appears before parliamentary committees, as he did only this Monday, he leaves an impression of brazen indifference to democracy.

He gives performances of icy-veined, snippety-lipped, patronising disdain, his bespectacled eyes casting to one side in apparent boredom while the elected dullards ask their questions.

He does not come across as an upholder of dispassionate values. He strikes one more as a management consultant on the make, tapping the table with his fingernails, impatient to get on with his superior existence away from these sub-standard clunkers.

It is uncontroversial to say that the electorate would like the Iraq inquiry to publish its long-delayed report. Who is currently blocking that report? Sir J. Heywood.

David Cameron’s former aide Steve Hilton was one of the few people in Downing Street to voice open criticism of the Civil Service. He was duly shafted — it is said by Sir Jeremy.

Sir Jeremy also, against the wishes of top ministers, insisted the Leveson Inquiry into the Press be given judicial status.

The West Coast mainline rail fiasco can be traced to his door, too. True to the leaked document, the mandarin class filled the air with ambiguity and Sir Jeremy ‘kept going when faced with public criticism’.

He did not resign. These characters never do. They remain disgracefully unaccountable and are invariably rewarded with very handsome pensions and knighthoods.

Never has the power of mandarins been greater than during this Coalition Government.

Civil servants, acting as emissaries between warring Tories and Lib Dems, have filled the vacuum created by the ministerial compromises necessitated by the hung Parliament.

Since the 2010 election, Whitehall’s permanent Pooh-Bahs have pulled every trick to slow down the spending cuts which are so essential to our economic future.

Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has been briefed against viciously for attempting to reduce the welfare monolith. Indeed, it was widely reported that Sir Jeremy manoeuvred to have him sacked. Education Secretary Michael Gove, another inspiring radical, has faced similar Civil Service dissent. A less determined minister would have crumbled.

Now that we have such palpable evidence of the mandarins’ conspiracy to obstruct, why should we ever again take seriously these anti-democratic pen pushers?



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: