Thursday, October 30, 2014
Another Multicultural thief in Britain
A postman helped steal £141,000 from Royal Mail customers by swiping letters containing personal bank details, a court heard today.
Archie Johnson is accused of targeting post addressed to recipients in London's W1 postcode, encompassing the upmarket West End district, to steal personal financial information.
This was then used by accomplices to impersonate account holders and defraud their bank accounts, the court heard.
Prosecutor Warwick Tatford said: 'Post men are given positions of trust - they look after the mail and they are entrusted to deliver it to the right address and also not to steal it.
'Sadly the Crown's case is that this defendant did steal mail and he didn't just steal things like DVDs or books or money in birthday cards - nothing like that - what he stole was financial information.'
In a scam running between 2008 and 2012, Johnson felt envelopes for bank cards then passed them on to fraudsters higher up the chain, prosecutors alleged.
Jurors were told Johnson was 'acting on orders' from other people. Prosecutors said there is 'clear evidence' Johnson stole 'a lot of items'. Bank cards were found in his car, the court heard.
'What he did was target financial documents, in particular bank statements, debit cards and PIN numbers,' said Mr Tatford.
'It is probably pretty obvious to anybody that a hard rectangular shape in an envelope is some kind of bank card.
'Bank statements also are obvious pieces of post and you will know if you have bank accounts that PIN numbers come out in the post as well a few days after cards are sent.'
Johnson was 'a cog' in a wider fraud that hijacked bank cards in the W1 postcode of London, prosecutors said. Other members of the gang would allegedly impersonate the card holders to empty the accounts of cash.
'What happened in this case, and the defendant was a vital cog in this conspiracy, is that criminals were pretending to be owners of cards and they answered security questions,' said Mr Tatford.
'They have derived a certain amount of information to be able to answer security questions and they created a situation where the card was sent out to the owner.'
Johnson then intercepted the private post and the cards were rinsed of cash before the account owners noticed and alerted their banks, jurors were told.
The total losses to Santander from the allegeldy hijacked data was £93,853. Barclays suffered losses of £47,550 from the alleged fraud, the court heard.
'The defendant was a cog in the machine, he didn't, it would appear, profit greatly by this,' said Mr Tatford.
'Perhaps it is the nature of many criminal conspiracies - those in a safe position are ones that keep most of the money.
'A postman may be able to give useful information to his leaders, the people further up the chain, because the postman finds out a lot about people.
'It may well be that the reason those fraudsters were able to answer security questions is that they were able to be fed personal information that the defendant discovered simply by being a postman to this particular address.'
Johnson worked at Royal Mail premises in Rathbone Place near Tottenham Court Road in central London. He was arrested after investigators linked his postal rounds with the stolen details, the court heard.
Johnson, of Stoke Newington, north London, denies conspiracy to steal.
Wilders: Our First Task Is to Protect Our Own Civilization
The following is the text of a speech Dutch MP and leader of the Netherlands' Party for Freedom delivered in Nashville on October 21 on behalf of the new International Freedom Alliance to stop the Islamization of the free world.
Thank you for attending this very important meeting. It is great to be back in Tennessee, the Volunteer State.
I am traveling from Los Angeles to DC, but I insisted on coming to Tennessee for a very good reason.
Two centuries ago, General Andrew Jackson was tasked with raising an army to liberate New Orleans. When he sent the call out to Tennessee, five times the number expected from your State showed up. The Tennessean Volunteers were noted for their valor in combat.
Many things change in two centuries, but the volunteer spirit and the valor of Tennessee has not. That is why I am here tonight.
I am not going to beat around the bush. I need your help. We have a rendezvous with history here today. Outside, a war is going on. War has been declared on us. The situation is far worse than you can imagine.
For over a decade, I have been warning against Islam. This cruel totalitarian ideology wants to turn the entire world into an Islamic caliphate, ruled by Sharia law.
What this means can currently be seen in the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. There, people are beheaded and women and children are sold as slaves, in the same way as Islam's founder Muhammad did in the 7th century.
America and its allies are currently bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Dutch F16 planes are part of this offensive. My party supports this wholeheartedly. We support the United States.
But there is more to be done. The free world is in danger.
Our judeo-christian civilization is in danger. Islam is threatening our home countries. So we have to do more than eradicate the dark forces of the Islamic State in the Middle East.
As a matter of fact, our first task is to protect our own nations, our own freedoms, our own children, our own civilization, here, at home. That should be our first priority.
What is happening in Syria and Iraq today is what we will suffer in the future if we do not wake up to the danger. We have welcomed in our countries and cities an ever growing number of people whose Islamic values are totally incompatible with ours.
Islam is a mortal threat to Christianity, to Judaism, to Humanity. Islam is incompatible with democracy and freedom.
Already there are significant Islamic populations in every major city in Western Europe. And also in many cities in Australia, Canada and the United States.
Islam is taking over European societies. In my own country, the Netherlands, Muhammad is the most popular name among newborn boys in major cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague.
This is also the case in the Belgian capital Brussels, the Norwegian capital Oslo, the British capital London and as a matter of fact even in the whole of Great-Britain.
Of course, there are many moderate Muslims. But it would be wrong to state that the non-moderates are but a tiny minority. They are not. Recent polls indicate that over two thirds of the Islamic population in the Netherlands consider the religious rules of Islam to be more important than our Dutch democratic laws.
And almost three quarters of all Muslims in The Netherlands view Dutch Muslims who fight in Syria as heroes. Three quarters. That is an enormous amount and a huge danger to our national security.
Polls in other countries yield equally disturbing results. In France, the country with the largest Islamic presence in Western Europe, 16% of the population - this is a staggering 10 million people - have a favorable opinion of ISIS.
Last Summer, there were demonstrations of ISIS sympathizers in my own home town, The Hague, the seat of the Dutch government and parliament. The demonstrators carried swastikas and ISIS flags. They shouted "death to the Jews." These scenes brought us right back to the 1940s, to the Nazi era, the darkest period in our history - when events occured which we had vowed we would never allow to happen again.
But the police did not intervene. The authorities do not want to provoke the forces of Islam. They are weak. They have adopted a policy of appeasement.
Thousands of terrorists with European citizenship fight for the Islamic State. These criminals cut people's heads in Syria and Iraq. An Islamic British citizen beheads American prisoners and fellow British citizens. Recently, an Islamic Dutch citizen proudly posed with the head of one of his victims on facebook. It is horrible.
In Britain, Australia and Canada, soldiers wearing their uniform in public have been attacked and even murdered by jihadis. If soldiers are not safe, then surely citizens aren't safe either.
In Germany, the authorities fear for an Islamic "holy war" in the streets of the German towns. Earlier this month, Kurds were attacked by ISIS sympathizers in Hamburg, Bremen, Hannover and other German cities.
In Belgium, a non-Muslim shopkeeper has been threatened with decapitation if he does not pay 50.000 euros to the Syria fighters. American intelligence sources fear that ISIS terrorists will try to enter Europe as asylum seekers. The Antiterrorism Coordinator of the European Union says that there are at least 4,000 citizens from Western Europe fighting for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, indicated last week that these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. According to Johnson, the British police are monitoring thousands of potential terrorists in London alone. Meanwhile, the London deputy mayor sounded the alarm over primary school children who are indoctrinated by their Muslim families and - I quote - "trained to be junior jihadis."
The head of the Dutch secret service said last month that the number of potential terrorists who are willing to commit bomb attacks, such as the ones on the Madrid train station in 2004 and the London metro in 2005, is now far bigger than it was a decade ago. The intelligence services know how dangerous the situation is.
ISIS has called on Muslims in Europe, Australia and America to murder civilians. Jews, obviously, are prime targets. In the major dutch cities, jewish institutions are under permanent police protection.
Unfortunately, our governments are putting their heads in the sand. Three weeks ago, the Dutch minister of Justice announced that the police had confiscated the passports of 41 Islamic Dutch citizens in order to prevent them from joining ISIS in Syria. They had, however, not been arrested. Hence, these jihadists now freely walk our streets, instead of being bombed in Syria. Last week a Dutch judge released a terror suspect because he had young children. Even our judges fail to protect the people.
And our political leaders are no better. They do nothing, except constantly repeating the sickening mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. Whenever an atrocity is committed in the name of Islam, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and their colleagues hasten to declare that it has nothing at all to do with Islam.
After the beheading of British aid worker David Haines by ISIS in mid-September, the British Home Secretary Theresa May declared about ISIS - I quote: "Their actions have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran." End of quote.
She is either blind, stupid or dishonest.
The Koran is full of commands such as sura 47 verse 4 "When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and cause a bloodbath among them."
All the atrocities by ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Khorasan - they all find their inspiration in the Koran. They show the true face of Islam.
Friends, my message is unpleasant, but there is no running away from it. The task of defending our home countries against Islam has fallen on our shoulders. My shoulders. Your shoulders. Today is one of the most crucial moments in our history. This moment, whether we like it or not, spells duty.
If we shirk away from our responsibility, our children will perish and we will live the rest of our lives in shame. It is not enough to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq; we must stop Islam from spreading here, in our own land. The less Islam, the better. It is as simple as that.
Ordinary people know it well enough. According to an opinion poll, two thirds of the Dutch are of the opinion that the Islamic culture does not belong to the Netherlands. But our leaders do not want to hear it. They try to silence everyone who speaks the truth about Islam.
During the past ten years, I have been living under constant police protection, because Islamic terrorists want to kill me. I have been threatened by al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, jihadis in Syria, and others. I live in a safe house, policemen accompany me wherever I go. But it looks as if the Dutch Public Prosecutor is trying to silence me as much as the jihadis are.
Three years ago, I was taken to court on hate crime charges. After a grueling court case, that lasted almost two years, I was fully acquitted. Now, the Dutch judiciary is going after me again. I am said to have insulted a population group because I asked people whether they want more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.
Moroccans are the major Islamic group in the Netherlands. They are overrepresented in crime and welfare statistics. 65 percent of Moroccans between 12 and 23 are suspect of a crime. Moroccans account for 75% of all the Dutch who leave for Syria to wage jihad.
Nobody wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands. My party - which by the way is the largest or at least the second largest party in the polls - wants to restrict the number of Moroccans in three ways: by stopping immigration from Islamic countries, by sending back all convicted Moroccan criminals to their country of origin, and by stimulating voluntary re-emigration. They intend to prosecute me again. They want me to stop telling the truth about Islam.
However, I will never be silenced. Not by jihadis, not by political opponents, and not by anybody. "Live free or die" - that is my motto.
Friends, I count on you. We have to liberate the Western world from Islam. Islam is threatening the whole world. We have to stand together. America, Europa, Australia, Canada and certainly also the state of Israel.
Israel is the cradle of our civilization. Defending Israel is defending ourselves. We must support our friend and ally Israel. Israel is one of us.
In the past years, I have been traveling the world. I have been to several European countries, to Israel, to the United States, to Canada and Australia, to encourage people to stand up against Islam. But more needs to be done.
The time has come to combine our efforts. I have taken the initiative to establish an international organization - the International Freedom Alliance IFA. Its goal is to combine our efforts, to spread the truth about Islam, to preserve our freedom and stop the islamisation of our societies. IFA aims to be a network of resistance fighters in all the countries threatened by Islam.
We must join forces on a global scale, because the specter of Islam is haunting the entire world.
I told you at the beginning that we have a rendezvous with history here today. Our generation has been entrusted with a huge task: To defend freedom and defeat Islam. I say it without exaggeration: the future of human civilization depends on us. It depends on you and on me. Now is a time when every man must do his duty for the cause of liberty. Help me to combat Islam. We have to save our children from centuries of darkness that will befall them if we fail to do our duty today.
Islam should know that we, the free men of the West, will never apologize for being free men. We will never bow in the direction of Mecca. We will never surrender. Freedom is the birth right of every man. Your great Republic was built on this principle.
Help me to defend this birth right, all over the world. Help me to defend this sacred principle. Help me to secure freedom for future generations
Progressives coddle rapists, while smearing innocent people as predators
By Hans Bader
The Talmud says that “he who is kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind.” That aptly describes many “progressives,” who coddle rapists while seeking to brand innocent people as rapists by redefining consensual, wanted sex as rape merely because it occurred without verbal authorization. Fourteen hundred girls were sexually assaulted in Rotherham, England, while the left-wing ideologues in the local Labour Party government looked the other way out of political correctness (because the perpetrators were Pakistanis, while the victims were working-class white girls):
“Children as young as 11 in the Yorkshire town of Rotherham were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, by groups of mainly Pakistani men from 1997 to 2013, a troubling new report claims. The inquiry team found examples of “children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone.” Revealing details of the inquiry’s findings, Professor Alexis Jay, who wrote the latest report, said: “It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered.” The report pinned the blame on the leadership of South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham council. Despite calls for him to quit over the sex abuse scandal, South Yorkshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright … vowed to stay in his job. Wright was a Labour cabinet member for children and young people’s services at Rotherham Council from 2005 to 2010, when he received three reports about widespread abuse but failed to act.”
Meanwhile, California’s left-wing legislature recently enacted a law, SB 967, that apparently requires colleges to treat some consensual sexual encounters as “sexual assault.” Progressives have long exhibited this sort of political schizophrenia. Education expert Stuart Buck, an honors graduate of Harvard Law School and Ph.D. in Education Policy, describes “one of the women I knew (and was actually good friends with) at Harvard Law School: She got into a heated argument with me once over her contention that rape was a systematic patriarchal tool that benefited all men, but then she would spend her spare time working for the Prison Legal Assistance Project (known as “PLAP”) where one of her projects — I kid you not — was helping a local rapist to get out on parole.”
As I noted earlier, some supporters of California’s new “affirmative consent” law regulating campus sexual encounters say it requires “state-mandated dirty talk.” Now, they are getting even more explicit about how they want to use “affirmative-consent” rules to force you to discuss explicit sexual details (like agreeing in advance on each touching of intimate areas) during sexual encounters. They want to require such discussion even when it would serve no useful purpose, such as where the touching is almost certain to be welcome, based on nonverbal cues and the fact that it was also welcomed by the recipient in past encounters (many campus “affirmative consent” rules require “agreement” in advance, even if the sexual contact or activity is welcomed after it is initiated).
For example, the progressive commenter dgm23, a frequent commenter at Mother Jones and the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, endorsed Antioch College’s expulsion of a male student merely for touching his partner while making out without reaching verbal agreement prior to the touching (the student asked “does this feel good” while doing it, to see if she wanted him to stop, rather than saying “may I touch your breast” before doing it). What does this commenter think the student should have done instead, given the reality that most couples don’t want to discuss every touch or escalation of intimacy right before it happens? After all, there are few women who would want a man to ask “may I touch your breast” before doing so, and almost none who would want a man to ask “may I massage your clitoris” before doing so. (Imagine how embarrassing it is for a shy person to ask such a question, or to have to answer it. My wife, who is quite modest, would be extremely embarrassed if I asked her such things. She would much rather have sex than talk about it, which makes sense, because sex is itself a form of communication, not a vacuous activity that needs to be accompanied by endless chatter and discussion).
Dgm23 says that if it’s not feasible for a man to discuss every individual touching of a woman’s intimate areas in advance (as some “affirmative consent” policies literally require for a couple taking things on a step-by-step basis), he should instead seek consent from his date to a wide array of touching and licking in advance, using this disturbingly graphic example: “Listen, I think you’re hot, I’m really attracted to you. Someday, maybe even tonight, I hope to run my hands, my mouth all over your body, over all your parts. But we might not be there yet, and I need to know that if I start to touch you in a place you’re not comfortable with, you’ll just tell me to stop, and we’ll stop immediately. You’ll feel okay, you won’t feel assaulted.”
How many women would ever want to hear that from their date? (“I hope to run my hands, my mouth all over your body, over all your parts”). It would freak many women out, and few men could bring themselves to say something so awkward (except maybe an egotistical jerk doing so on a dare). My wife says that if a man had told her something like that on a date, she would have gotten out of the room as fast as possible.
The impracticality of “affirmative consent” rules, and the unwelcomeness of the questions men end up asking women under them, it’s not surprising that men who have tried to incorporate “affirmative consent” into their own personal life have generally found that it doesn’t work: It winds up offending women by leading to men making all sorts of awkward requests for consent.
At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf quotes from the misadventures of a man raised by feminist parents who tried to follow “affirmative consent” in his dating relationships with women, who discovered just how much it annoyed them:
I was raised by a left-leaning, feminist family who (at least I thought at the time) were relatively open about sex. But while I arrived at college with a healthy respect for women, I was totally unprepared for the complex realities of female sexuality.
“Oh,” sighed one platonic female friend after we had just watched Harrison Ford grab Alison Doody and kiss her is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, “Why don’t guys do that kind of thing anymore? Now days they are all too scared.”
On our second night together, one of my first partners threw up her hands in disgust. “How am I supposed to get turned on when you keep asking for permission for everything like a little boy?” She said. “Just take me and f– me already.”
As we discussed earlier, the California “affirmative consent” law actually requires an “agreement” for “sexual activity,” not just consent in a less legalistic sense. This “agreement” requirement is misguided: There are lots of things in this world that I like, and view as consensual, that I never “agree” to, such as when my wife or daughter suddenly hug me without asking for permission.
This “agreement” requirement could intrude deeply into people’s private lives. Ezra Klein, a former Democratic operative and leading supporter of the new law, says it will define as guilty of sexual assault people who “slip naturally from cuddling to sex” without a series of agreements in between, since
it tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who’ve been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.
The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value….
If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. . . . men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter. . . To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.
Creating a “world where men are afraid” constitutes precisely the sort of sexually hostile educational environment that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids state officials to create. (Courts have held that government officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they sexually harass people, in court rulings like Bator v. State of Hawaii and Hayut v. State University of New York, and creating an anti-male climate constitutes sexual harassment, see Hartman v. Pena, 914 F.Supp. 225 (N.D. Ill. 1995), a case in which a judge allowed male employees to sue over an intimidating, anti-male sexual-harassment sensitivity training seminar).
Moreover, affirmative-consent rules that require “state-mandated dirty talk” before intimate touching and sexual activity should also be recognized as violating the First Amendment freedom from compelled speech, recognized in the Supreme Court’s 1977 Wooley v. Maynard decision.
Not all liberals or progressives support California’s “affirmative-consent” law, which was criticized by Batya Ungar-Sargon at the New Republic, Michelle Goldberg at The Nation, and Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine. As we noted earlier, California’s law, also known as SB 967 and the Yes Means Yes law, was opposed by the Los Angeles Times, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, former ACLU Board members Wendy Kaminer and Harvey Silverglate, and the Orange County Register. It was also criticized by many columnists, such as Megan McArdle at Bloomberg News, Cathy Young at Real Clear Politics, and Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner.
Republican Candidate Attacked For Being Catholic
Mark Miloscia, a Republican running for state senate in Washington state, is fending off attacks on his Catholic faith.
Miloscia, a former Democratic state legislator running for senate as a Republican in Washington’s 30th District, converted to the GOP over social issues. His campaign is encountering some old-school opposition: An anti-Miloscia attack website believed to be run by a Democratic Party member supporting Democrat Shari Song posted a piece of propaganda portraying Miloscia as a Vatican stooge. The Daily Caller has also learned that copies of the image were placed beside Song’s campaign literature at a recent candidate forum.
“Republican Mark Miloscia comes from the Deep South…with plenty of baggage,” the image read. “‘Mississippi Mark’ has always worn his church on his sleeve. Rather than represent the people of Federal Way, he has best represented the people of The Vatican.”
The image then listed five socially conservative positions that Miloscia has taken that apparently make him a Vatican stooge, and called him a “Lobbyist for the Catholic Church.” Miloscia has lobbied for the Washington State Catholic Conference of Bishops.
“It’s unconscionable that that website is up,” Miloscia told TheDC. “People say to me, ‘Didn’t they do this against Kennedy?’” Miloscia noted that religion is a hot-button issue in parts of Washington state, where people of faith are sometimes viewed with suspicion.
The proprietor of Markmiloscia.info is unidentified. But Song, who condemned the image, wrote on Facebook that she told the activist to stop the anti-Catholic attacks, writing, ”I understand one of my supporters may have crossed the line of what is appropriate in that regard, and I’ve asked them to stop.”
Song’s campaign manager Alex Hendrickson told TheDC that “rumors” led her to believe that local Democratic Party member Keith Tyler is responsible for the website.
“It’s a very small town here and he’s involved in the local Democratic Party just as a member. He’s not a politician or a campaign worker,” Hendrickson said, adding that the campaign does not condone the image. Hendrickson said that she left voice mail messages at all the phone numbers that she has for Tyler but has not been able to reach him.
Keith Tyler is a figure in local Democratic Party politics, serving on the King County Democrats’ Endorsement Committee for Song’s district. “Keith Tyler” recently referred to Miloscia as “Mississippi Mark” in an online comment defending Song. Tyler also “liked” an official Song Facebook photo showing her posing with campaign volunteers.
In fact, Tyler is even photographed standing directly behind Song, holding a Song sign, in the main featured background photo on Song’s campaign Facebook page (in glasses, seen just above Song’s left arm).
Tyler did not immediately return a request for comment on Facebook.
“He is a big activist, a big-time volunteer for them,” Miloscia campaign manager Keith Schipper told TheDC, referring to Tyler, but noted that the identity of the website proprietor has not been confirmed. The image, meanwhile, was not merely posted to the Internet.
“They let us put literature out on the table,” Schipper said, describing protocol at a debate-style candidate forum at Twin Lakes Country Club hosted by the local newspaper The Federal Way Mirror. “Right next to her literature was the graphic in question. That was right next to it. So for her campaign to say they didn’t know about it, I find it hard to believe that that’s true.”
“I never saw it personally” at the forum, Hendrickson shot back. The Democratic campaign manager said that literature from all groups and organizations were placed on the same six-foot table. “I was there all evening and I never saw that literature period.”
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.