Monday, August 04, 2014

Another charming Multiculturalist in Britain

A honeytrapper and her boyfriend lured a man to a park over Facebook so they could attack him with a meat cleaver for his money and mobile phone.

Haseena Aziz arranged to go on the 'date' in order to give her 29-year-old boyfriend Afahan Hussain a chance to rob the victim.

The 28-year-old tempted the man to meet her in a park in Birmingham by flirting with him in a series of messages over the social-networking site.

The unnamed 25-year-old victim caught a train to Birmingham from his home in London in June this year in the belief Aziz wanted to start a relationship with him.  He took a seat on a bench in parkland near a fly-over in Hockley, Birmingham, expecting to meet Aziz for a date.

Instead, Hussain - who has a gold tooth - appeared from behind and punched and headbutted the defenceless victim.

He then held a meat cleaver to his face and demanded his phone and cash.  The court heard how Aziz laughed as she watched the attack and even waded in by kicking the man in the groin.

The pair later sent texts to the victim mocking him for falling for their set-up.

West Midlands Police launched an investigation. The pair were found through phone and social media enquiries.

They were charged with robbery and both found guilty at Birmingham Crown Court.

Recorder Oscar Del Fabbro jailed Hussain for a total of 12 years after he was found guilty of the robbery, as well as a separate crime of wounding with intent to cause GBH.

Aziz was also found guilty of robbery and was sentenced to four years in prison.

The court heard how, weeks after the park attack, Hussain also slashed a complete stranger across the face with a Stanley knife during an unprovoked street attack.

He shoulder-barged a 27-year-old man to the floor in the early hours of August 7.

As the victim scrambled to his feet, Hussain then pulled out a knife and slashed him down the left side of his face severing an artery and narrowly missing his left eye.

Unemployed Hussain denied the offence but the victim's recollection of his attacker's distinctive gold tooth was crucial in the conviction.

Speaking about the second attack Detective Constable Sara Caldwell, from West Midlands Police, said: 'It was completely unprovoked. The man was walking with a friend to a local shop to buy cigarettes when Hussain deliberately barged into him and lashed out with a knife.

'The victim suffered significant blood loss, nerve damage and has lost sensation on the left side of his face. It was an outrageous attack.

'Anyone who carries a knife in public is potentially putting themselves and others in danger and can expect to be jailed, even if they don't strike out with it in anger.

'The judge described Hussain as a dangerous man and a risk to the public.He will rightly spend many years behind bars and be subject to an extended licence period upon his eventual release.'


NHS to fund sperm bank for lesbians: New generation of fatherless families... paid for by the good ol' generous taxpayer

Britain is to get its first NHS-funded national sperm bank to make it easier for lesbian couples and single women to have children.

For as little as £300 – less than half the cost of the service at a private clinic –  they will be able to search an online database and choose an anonymous donor on the basis of his ethnicity, height, profession and even hobbies.

The bank, which is due to open in October, will then send out that donor’s sperm to a clinic of the client’s choice for use in trying for a baby.

Heterosexual couples will also be able to benefit, but the move – funded by the Department of Health – is largely designed to meet the increasing demand from thousands of women who want to start a family without having a relationship with a man.

Critics last night called it a ‘dangerous social experiment’ that could result in hundreds of fatherless ‘designer families’.

The former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said last night: ‘It is the welfare of the child that must come first and not the fact that people want a particular kind of baby.’

Bishop Michael, who once chaired the ethics committee of Britain’s fertility watchdog, added: ‘This is social experimentation. It’s one thing for a child not to have a mother or father through tragedy, but it is another to plan children to come into the world without a father.’

The National Sperm Bank will be based at Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, which currently runs an existing NHS fertility clinic and recruits sperm donors from the local population.

Funded by a £77,000 Government grant, the bank will be run by the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT) which this year received  an additional £120,000 of public money to organise egg and sperm donation.

Over the next three years the NGDT aims to recruit at least 1,000 men and collect sufficient  donations for the sperm bank to meet demand.

Laura Witjens, NGDT chief executive, said: ‘There are people who  are medically infertile or practically infertile – they want to use donation services in the UK but can’t do so because there isn’t enough donated sperm.

‘The [demand from] same-sex  couples and single women has grown exponentially. It’s become more socially acceptable to say, I haven’t found a guy yet, don’t want to wait for him, still want a child.’

She added: ‘The aim is that we will have enough surplus sperm so that we will be able to set up a service for people like single women and same-sex couples.’

She described this group as ‘customers rather than patients’.

Britain has a major shortage of sperm donors, whose anonymity is preserved until any children they father reach the age of 18.

Women who want to have a baby using donated sperm have been routinely waiting for up to two years, with many eventually forced to seek donors abroad.

Heterosexual couples with fertility problems who need donations as part of IVF treatment will be among the customers of the new bank.

But a large percentage are predicted to be professional, single females who decide to have a baby without a man.

And based on current trends, more than a quarter of all the recipients are likely to be gay women.

Latest available figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show that in 2011, 4,101 cycles of donor insemination were carried out in the UK.

Of these, 1,271 related to women registered with a female partner. That figure represents more than  a quarter of the total and was a  23 per cent increase from the  previous year.

Treatment resulted in the births of 161 babies to lesbian couples.

Ms Witjens rejected suggestions that children suffer adverse consequences from lacking a father figure. ‘There is no evidence to suggest that children are better off with or without a father,’ she said. ‘There’s never been a call – from us or the Department of Health – to reduce the access to sperm for same-sex or single women. That’s a non-issue.’

Ms Witjens pointed to the removal of the reference to a ‘need for a father’ in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, when taking account of a child’s welfare when providing fertility treatment.

She added that the National Sperm Bank would also help prevent desperate women using murky unregulated services and going online to buy sperm.

There are currently just two clinics in the UK where women can choose donors from an online list.  Both are private and charge around £850 for the service.

NHS funding for fertility services, including donor insemination, is decided by regional Clinical Commissioning Groups and varies widely.

CCGs are typically more likely to fund heterosexual couples struggling to conceive rather than lesbians or single women because they are considered to have more of a medical need. The NGDT hopes the sperm bank will be self-funding after a year.

A spokeswoman for the HFEA said: ‘We welcome the new National Sperm Bank which will help to ensure that the recruitment of donors and the availability of donor sperm is better organised.’


Cut the crap about the gender pay gap

Where would we be without the gender pay gap? With girls outperforming boys at school, outnumbering male students at university, and women experiencing no more practical hindrances than men to achieving anything they want in life, feminists have been forced to shift their attention to the more nebulous cultural sphere in order to prove that women remain victims of a patriarchal conspiracy. Often played out in the messy virtual world, feminism has been reduced to a question of lifestyle choice and personal identity, with the supporters of the Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen hysterically pitched against those in the #WomenAgainstFeminism camp. So, apparent evidence that women really are disadvantaged in a way that can be counted and measured, through the pay gap, is greeted with an almost audible sigh of relief.

Whatever people’s views on stay-at-home mothers, glamour models or body hair, it seems there is one thing on which all can agree: men being paid more than women is a very bad thing indeed. The fact that no one today seriously argues that men should earn more for doing the same work is no impediment to politicians, feminists, academics, celebrities and anyone who has ever been near a workplace or a woman decrying this financial injustice. The gender pay gap provides a useful opportunity for everyone to demonstrate their feminist credentials and to show that women still experience institutionalised sexism. Indeed, such is the desire for the gender pay gap to exist that the facts have been ignored in the pursuit of narrative consensus.

Last week in the UK, headlines declared that women in London earn 13 per cent less than men and that the pay gap is widening. Not only do such claims not stand up to scrutiny – even worse, they actually hide a far more positive story about women’s pay. A recently published report from the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport examined changes in median hourly earnings over time and showed that since 1997 the gender pay gap has shrunk. Men have seen their pay increase by 57.4 per cent over this period, while women’s wages grew by 74.5 per cent. For women up to the age of 40, median hourly earnings rose faster than for people in any other group, increasing by 81.7 per cent, and as a result the pay gap for this cohort went down from 25.1 per cent to 12 per cent.

This welcome levelling-off in pay differentials has no doubt been driven by many factors, including equalities legislation, fear of litigation, women delaying having babies until later in life, and an increase in female graduates taking better-paid professional jobs. Unsurprisingly, all these factors combined mean that London has the lowest pay gap of anywhere in the UK. Crudely put, women in London get paid 86.8p for every £1 earned by men; in comparison, women from the whole of the UK earn nearly 20 per cent less than men each hour.

But the above suggests that, for all the shrinkage of the pay gap, it is still the case that women are hard done by in comparison with men. Certainly, these headline-grabbing statistics about a smaller but still existing pay gap are used by politicians and campaigners in their handwringing over the plight of women and girls today. However, what is less well known is that such statistics are arrived at by conflating the earnings of women of all ages, all occupations, and those in part-time and full-time work. The reality is that for people aged under 40 and working full-time, the gender pay gap is around zero; since 2009 women aged 22 to 29 have actually earned more than men. Furthermore, evidence shows that as the pay gap falls first for younger people, this smaller differential sticks with each generational cohort as they age. So, if current trends continue, the pay gap should be a thing of the past in the space of some 20 years.

This generational effect is rarely noted in glossy campaigns and petitions, such as Mind the Gap; instead, the 20 per cent pay gap is reported unquestioningly. However, not only does this figure take no account of age – it also ignores the type of work undertaken. Wages vary considerably according to job, and for many reasons women have not always chosen to go into the highest paying careers. All the evidence suggests that this is beginning to change – as the number of female graduates increases, so does the number of women entering well-paid professions. Gender pay-gaps do of course exist within professions, but again much of this is down to more women choosing to become nurses rather than doctors, or remaining as classroom teachers rather than moving into school management. While it’s fair to ask why women make these kinds of choices, it is not surprising women are paid less for doing a different job.

The headline gender pay-gap figures also ignore the fact that more women choose to work part-time: overall, 43.2 per cent of women work part-time compared with 13.7 per cent of men. It’s long been the case that most part-time jobs are comparatively low skilled and low paid. This is beginning to change, and a significant proportion of women are now securing well-paid professional jobs before shifting to part-time work when they have children. Of women aged 30 to 39, 38.4 per cent work part-time compared with 8.4 per cent of men, but the gender pay gap for this group is actually -8.2 per cent. This group of women is earning more per hour than men. Working part-time brings with it disadvantages: it’s perhaps less easy to pick up over-time or to get chosen for promotion if you are not seen to be at your desk. Bonuses are often made dependent upon hours worked or profit generated, so if you are a woman working part-time, you will get a proportionately smaller bonus than a man working full-time. This may further explain some of the London pay gap.

A gender pay gap, albeit one that is rapidly decreasing, still exists; but the good news is that when occupation, contracted hours and most significantly age are taken into account, it all but disappears. In fact, the youngest women today, even those working part-time, are already earning more each hour than men. We need to ask why this is not more widely known and question the motives of those who seem so desperate to cling to a last-ditch attempt to prove that women remain disadvantaged. We should be telling today’s girls that the potential to do whatever job they want and earn as much money as they please is theirs for the taking, rather than burdening them with the mantle of victimhood.


Democrat Fundraises on Equal Pay, Pays Women Staffers 71 Cents on Dollar

Sen. Mark Begich (D., Alaska) is fundraising on his desire to put an end to gender pay inequality, but women currently working in his Senate office are making just 71 cents for each dollar paid to men.

“Alaska women make just 74 cents on the dollar compared to Alaska men,” wrote Begich in an email to supporters this week. “And anyone who wants to tell Alaska women that they’re not working hard enough should be ready to find out just how tough Alaska women are.”

The average female salary in Begich’s office is a staggering $23,504 less than the average male salary. Women working for Begich are paid just 71 cents for each dollar paid to men, even less than the statewide statistic used by the senator in his email.

Begich lags behind his fellow Democratic senators on the issue of equal pay. Though more than two-thirds of Democratic senators pay women less than men, the average male salary is just over $5,500 higher, which is far less than the $23,504 gap that exists for Begich.

“Equal pay for equal work is more than just a matter of fairness—it’s a smart way to help working families achieve the American dream,” wrote Begich.



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: