Monday, October 13, 2014
Multicultural thieves in Britain
The ringleaders of one of the country's largest ever banking scams have been jailed after police seized £6.5million in stolen and fake cheques.
Charles Nyongo and Onais Hove led a country-wide team of fraudsters who intercepted cheques in the post before altering the recipient's details to steal cash.
The men, who are both 43, were jailed for nine years each at Bradford Crown Court after the seizure of more than 3,000 fake cheques - the largest haul ever recorded by the banking industry.
The court heard how the criminals, from Leeds and Hove respectively, intercepted cheque books and reproduced their pages after creating templates for different banks.
They would photograph a page in the middle of the book and duplicate the details before posting the book on again to its intended recipient to evade suspicion.
By the time the account holder had reached the page in their cheque book where the fraudsters started, they would likely have moved on to a new target.
Hospices, schools and elderly, vulnerable people were among victims of the scam which started in Scotland before spreading across the UK.
An investigation carried out by the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit found more than 3,000 cheques at addresses across the UK.
Nyongo and Hove denied conspiring to defraud UK banks and possessing articles for use in fraud, but were found guilty of all charges and sentenced to nine years each in prison.
Det Chief Insp Perry Stokes, head of the DCPCU, said: 'We have dismantled a highly organised and professional fraud gang - one of the largest of its kind ever seen in the UK.
'As the ringleaders, Hove and Nyongo were ruthlessly indiscriminate in selecting their victims. 'Their knowledge of the bank cheque system was considerable, and our investigation revealed a series of fraud factories across the country.
'We are delighted to have brought these criminals to justice and to have removed the threat they posed to British banks and their customers.'
Moving to Oklahoma?
Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win or even carry one county in the last election.
While everyone is focusing on Arizona's new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!
An update from Oklahoma:
Oklahoma passed, 37 to 9, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol.
The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake.
Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values! (HB 1330)
Guess what? .......... Oklahoma did it anyway!
Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen.
They all scattered. (HB 1804).
This was against the advice of the Federal Government and the ACLU; they said it would be a mistake.
Guess what? ............ Oklahoma did it anyway!
Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes.
Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. (SB 1102)
Guess what? ......... Oklahoma did it anyway!
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives.
Joining Texas, Montana, and Utah as the only states to do so.
More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Florida.
Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. (HJR 1003)
The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns.
Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles.
I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals.
The liberals didn't like it.
But ....Guess what? ............ Oklahoma did it anyway.
Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL drivers license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language.
They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only.
If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English.
By the way, the liberals don't like any of this either.
Guess what?... who cares? ... Oklahoma is doing it anyway!
Why it’s bad to be protected from offence
The fight for freedom of speech has never been easy.’ So concludes Greg Lukianoff, president of the US-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), First Amendment attorney and free-speech advocate, in his latest offering, Freedom From Speech.
In this sharp, insightful pamphlet, Lukianoff outlines what he sees as the main threats to free speech today. As one would expect from the president of an organisation that works specifically in higher education, much of the book focuses on campus censorship, with trigger warnings and ‘disinvitation season’ (the annual Spring standoff between college commencement speakers and students who want to get them, well, disinvited) getting special attention. Lukianoff rails against the right not to be offended and decries colleges for their tiny free-speech zones. These campus-based examples are then used to highlight a general anti-free speech trend in society at large.
In his exploration of the growth of disinvitiation season, Lukianoff shows that those perceived to be on the political right are far more likely to be disinvited than those on the left. Recently, speakers including Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condoleezza Rice have either found themselves disinvited, or have voluntarily withdrawn from college speaking engagements as a result of student pressure. Lukianoff uses disinvitation season to reveal that it is so-called progressives and liberals who are more likely to call for gags and bans these days. He argues that disinvitation season is part of an underlying academic move towards reinforcing an ‘expectation of confirmation’. This refers to the idea that a student’s views are beyond contradiction and that they are comfortable only hearing from those with whom they broadly agree. spiked has clocked numerous examples of this expectation recently. From the banning of lads’ mags and raunchy pop songs on UK campuses, to a London university’s gagging of a Nietzsche club, it seems that on both sides of the Atlantic, striving for emotional protection and a safe and comfortable learning environment is now preferred to a challenging and robust education.
The book is equally concerned with the appearance of so-called trigger warnings. Lukianoff traces the insidious rise in college trigger warnings, from their emergence in niche online chat rooms and forums to their current ubiquity on campuses across the US. For those not familiar with trigger warnings, they are warnings attached to anything from books to articles that advise students of the potentially traumatic content contained within. Such warnings touch upon a range of issues, from sexism and racism, to rape and suicide. Lukianoff sees trigger warnings as another key component of the shift towards protecting students from the potential discomfort they may feel as part of a rigorous academic experience, an experience that is no longer celebrated as an essential part of university education. In fact, as Lukianoff argues, if this shift continues, it is more likely that the goal of higher education will be to provide students with a comfortable and ‘safe’ learning environment, rather than one which takes them out of their comfort zones.
Lukianoff reminds us that ‘college is where you are supposed to learn about the world as it truly is, which includes some horrific and dreadful topics’. Moving beyond the realms of campus, he describes the rise of trigger warnings as part of a more general rise in what he describes as a ‘limitless care ethic in which outsiders are responsible for safeguarding the emotional state of all’. As many spiked writers have also argued, basing policy decisions on the need to protect those most easily offended sets a dangerous precedent, one which strikes directly at the heart of freedom of speech and expression.
Trigger warnings and disinvitation season are examples of what Lukianoff calls a more general ‘problem of comfort’: ‘People all over the globe are coming to expect emotional and intellectual comfort as though it were a right. This is precisely what you would expect when you train a generation to believe that they have a right not to be offended. Eventually, they stop demanding freedom of speech and start demanding freedom from speech.’ Lukianoff sees this as leading to a distinct polarisation within US culture. He argues that we are more likely to seek out likeminded individuals and congregate with them, be it in internet chatrooms or in physical locations, than seek out those with whom we disagree.
He makes an intriguing comparison between physical comfort and intellectual comfort, suggesting that both may be part of the same historical progression. But while physical comfort seems eminently desirable, Lukianoff reminds us that intellectual comfort is actually quite dangerous. Describing intellectual comfort as the desire to live in a harmonious environment free of debate, in which disagreement is best avoided, Lukianoff points out that this is antithetical to what has allowed civilisation to flourish. Rather than avoiding debate and challenging ideas, he encourages it: ‘The idea that we can truly tackle hard issues while remaining universally inoffensive – an impossible pipe dream even if it were desirable – seems to be growing increasingly popular.’
‘College is where you are supposed to learn about the world as it truly is, which includes some horrific and dreadful topics’
Throughout this engaging book, Lukianoff makes two points that are worth particular attention. As a Brit living and working in the US, I am fascinated by the constitution and how it plays a part in daily life. I am also concerned that the First Amendment is used to end debate on free speech (not to mention the other four First Amendment protections). That is, because of the First Amendment, we don’t need to worry about free speech as it is already guaranteed. Lukianoff seems to share my concern: ‘Though often used interchangeably, the concept of freedom of speech and the First Amendment are not the same thing.’ Indeed, the danger of relying on the First Amendment is, dare I say it, a possible catalyst to the problems described in this book. If we are to stand up for true free speech, we should not be relying on Supreme Court justices, or judges anywhere else in the world, to protect such freedoms. It is up to us, the people of a cultured and civilised society, to stand up for free speech and tolerance.
A second important point addresses the supposed guardians of the potentially offended. Readers of spiked will be familiar with our distaste for those intent on protecting us from the big bad world, and their pious concern for the poor, easily offended rabble. spiked editor Brendan O’Neill recently described these new-age moralists as the offencerati. Lukianoff skewers them, calling them ‘self-righteous censors… who must protect society from the objectionable opinions of the unenlightened masses’. Be it Sun-reading builders in the UK or Fox News-viewing hillbillies in the US, the idea that any of us need protection from ‘dangerous’ thoughts or opinions is one that we must all fight against in order to protect free speech for everyone, on both sides of the Atlantic.
State Department Endorses Handbook Calling Jihad ‘Noble’
Handbook so controversial Canadian cops rejected it
The U.S. State Department endorsed on Wednesday a controversial anti-terror handbook published by Canada's Muslim community that refers to jihad as "noble" and urges law enforcement to avoid using terms such as "Islamic extremism."
The handbook, published earlier this month by two Canadian Muslim community organizations, was so controversial that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) flatly rejected the manual and ordered its officers not to use it.
Yet the State Department's official anti-terrorism Twitter feed, called Think Again Turn Away, appeared to endorse the controversial handbook on Twitter and linked to a positive article about it.
The handbook, titled United Against Terrorism, has become a contentious issue for the RCMP since its release. Several sections of the guide instruct Muslim community members not to cooperate with police while others claim jihad "is a noble concept."
The RCMP ultimately decided to reject the book, citing its "adversarial tone."
"After a final review of the handbook, the RCMP could not support the adversarial tone set by elements of the booklet and therefore directed RCMP Manitoba not to proceed with this initiative," the police force said in a statement posted on its website.
The handbook itself recommends that "intelligence and law enforcement officials" should "avoid terms such as ‘Islamist terrorism', ‘Islamicism', and ‘Islamic extremism' in favor of more accurate terms such as ‘al Qaeda inspired extremist,'" according to one section of the handbook, which still bears RCMP's official logo.
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.