Friday, November 14, 2014
Another one of those wonderful multiculturalists Britain is lucky to have
A nurse was murdered and mutilated by her ex-boyfriend after police failed to warn her that he had a history of attacks on women, a damning official report has found.
Katie Cullen, 34, a highly respected hospital sister, was ‘badly let down’ by police who failed to protect her from Iman Ghaefelipour, 28.
The Iranian, who had successfully claimed asylum in the UK, threatened to kill two previous girlfriends and burn down one of their houses.
When Miss Cullen reported him to police for harassment and death threats, they investigated – but did not pass on the information.
This was because she said he had spoken ‘in the heat of the moment’ and had never been violent, and there were no ‘warning markers’ for violence on his record, they claimed.
Miss Cullen later agreed to meet him at her home, where he stabbed her more than 130 times in the face and neck, cut out her right eyeball and tried to sever her right hand. He was jailed for at least 23 years in 2010 after pleading guilty to the murder in October 2009.
Yesterday a deeply critical report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) found that had she been told of his past, Miss Cullen might be alive today.
It said claims he set fires on an earlier partner’s property were not handled properly.
Rachel Cerfontyne, IPCC deputy chairman, said police put her in danger by giving her ‘false reassurance’.
She went on: ‘In my view, Katie was badly let down by Greater Manchester Police. Our investigation exposed a catalogue of inaction and missed opportunities.
‘Had arson offences against [his ex] been adequately investigated, it is possible Mr Ghaefelipour would have been convicted and not at liberty . . . [Miss Cullen] was passed from pillar to post.’
Her mother Diane, also a nurse, said: ‘We are distraught at what happened to Katie and utterly appalled at the lack of care she received at the hands of GMP.
‘It is inconceivable to us that the two police officers concerned should protect her assailant . . . rather than a vulnerable girl who lived on her own and who turned to them for help. By withholding such information from Katie they denied her the opportunity to protect herself.
‘She returned to her own home alone and vulnerable, ignorant of the dangerous situation she was in.’
She added: ‘Since Katie’s murder we have been plunged into unimaginable torture. ‘There isn’t a day goes by I don’t think about her.’
Catholic Cardinal: Gay Marriage ‘A Trojan Horse Undermining... Core of Humanity'
Catholic Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, warned Monday that gay marriage is “a Trojan horse” that weakens the family.
“It only confuses people and has the effect of being a sort of Trojan horse, undermining culturally and socially the core of humanity,” Cardinal Bagnasco told those gathered at a meeting of Italian bishops in the town of Assisi in Umbria, according to The Telegraph.
“It is irresponsible to weaken the family by creating new forms”, the cardinal emphasized, adding that children “have a right to a mother and a father.”
Cardinal Bagnasco also serves as archbishop of Genoa and president of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), Italy’s national association of bishops. He was considered one of the top five candidates to succeed the retiring Pope Benedict XVI.
According to The Telegraph, “Cardinal Bagnasco’s remarks were interpreted as an attack on the increasing number of mayors in Italy who have recently made a point of recognising gay marriages performed overseas.”
Same-sex marriage is illegal in Italy, although Reuters reported last month that the mayor of Rome held a ceremony to recognize the validity of 16 gay “marriages” performed outside of Italy.
"Such arbitrary presumption, put on show right here in Rome at the present time, is unacceptable," CEI said in a statement condemning the mayor’s actions.
Eugenia Roccella, a member of Parliament from Italy’s New Centre Right Party, said that “Cardinal Bagnasco's comments on the family are, as ever, absolutely clear,” The Daily Mail reports.
“The attempt by mayors to undermine the law and the Italian constitution by registering gay marriages performed abroad is specious and constitutes a classic Trojan horse tactic,” Roccella added.
Why must my family pay for the sins of a minority?
By Sarah Vine
On Sunday, with my husband out at Remembrance services and my youngest expected at a football match several miles away, I faced a common parental dilemma.
Our daughter was still in her pyjamas - and had no desire to attend either match or service. She begged to be allowed to stay at home. Alone.
I hesitated. I’ve never left her on her own before, bar my occasional trips to the corner shop. But she’s 11 now. She comes home on her own from school. She takes the dog to the park. It was 9.30am on a Sunday morning. What could possibly go wrong?
So off we went, my son and I, leaving her in her slippers. He scored a goal; she mainlined trashy TV; both were equally thrilled.
It was only later that she told me what really happened. She had gone to the corner shop to ‘get a magazine’ (in other words: buy sweets) and had locked herself out.
Finding none of the neighbours home she, understandably, burst into tears. Then, luckily, she remembered where I keep the Secret Key.
As a mother, it’s very hard to judge when your child is ready to step up a rung on the personal responsibility ladder. My parents, for example, used to leave me alone with my younger brother from about the age of eight - but then I was the most prissy little Miss Goody-two-shoes that ever lived. Still, an eight-year-old in charge of a four-year-old?
Nowadays, some busybody would have probably reported us; my mother might have ended up with a criminal record, as happened to some poor woman who left her six-year-old alone for 45 minutes eight years ago, and - it was revealed this week - is still fighting to get the police caution wiped from her record.
According to the Lib Dem MP John Hemming, the home alone dilemma requires government attention. ‘It is not at all clear for how long and at what age children can be left alone,’ he said. ‘Nor is it clear whether leaving them alone is either not an issue, a child-protection issue or a criminal issue’.
The answer is: none of the above. A good parent knows their child; it should be up to them to make the judgement call.
The fact is that very few parents deliberately neglect their children. Yet, as with everything else these days, it is the lowest common denominator in human behaviour, and not the standards of the silent, decent majority, which dictates policy.
Take the story this week about children in Scotland being hospitalised after eating laundry tablets. Apparently the problem is that they look like sweets. Cue the usual knee-jerk demands for ‘action’.
But why? Must we all be treated like morons just because some people can’t be bothered to keep the Liquitabs on the top shelf?
Must we all be treated like morons just because some people can’t be bothered to keep the Liquitabs on the top shelf?
And take the woman being sued for criminal negligence on behalf of her daughter, who was born with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.
The mother concerned consumed the equivalent of around five bottles of wine a day. Clearly an appalling and tragic case.
And yet there were predictable demands to make it a criminal offence for pregnant women to drink.
As though downing a whole bottle of vodka was in anyway equivalent to having half a glass of wine with dinner.
It’s this kind of moral dumbing down — where the most irresponsible in our society consume the most time and resources while those who set an example are ignored or taken for granted — that’s so frustrating.
After all, what’s the point in trying to be a good and upright citizen if all you ever get in return are more self-reliance sapping restrictions and tick-box laws that undermine our responsibilities as parents.
These restrictions are invariably imposed by that omnipotent modern class, the people who know best. Which is why I increasingly get the nagging sense that someone, somewhere, is taking me for an almighty ride.
Ban On 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' Among Australian Kindergarteners
The word "black" in the nursery rhyme Baa Baa Black Sheep is derogatory and racial for its allusion to black people—an implication that can be derived from the decision of staff at childcare centres in the Southeastern suburbs to change the lyric of the song. Also, a childcare centre in Melbourne mulls alteration to the line "one for the little boy who lives down the lane" for sexist insinuation, the Herald Sun reports.
The decision sparked unwanted reaction from parents saying the desire for political correctness was overblown. One parent said the rhyme is in no way alluding to a race. Another parent, who said he had black skin, said the issue is becoming a joke. While one parent pointed out there are black sheep and there are white sheep, the decision is like banning the use of the colour black.
Speaking to the Herald Sun, Celine Pieterse, co-ordinator of Malvern East's Central Park Child Care, said it will be more appropriate to introduce a variety of the sheep instead of banning the term "black." The term denotes the colour of the sheep and nothing else, Belli Spanos, owner of Bubbles Pre-School, told the Herald Sun.
The song's political correctness has actually been a long running issue. Back in 2000, a school council inspector in Birmingham City had told schools in the region not to teach the song anymore. The inspector said the song is filled with all the negative connotations like being the "black sheep of the family." The inspector also underlined the negative history behind the song, saying it originated back in the time of slavery. "The rhyme has colonial links: 'Three bags full' refers to the three bags of wool which the slaves were told to collect and 'yes sir, yes sir' is how the slaves would reply to the slave masters when told to do a task," the inspector was quoted saying.
The Birmingham City Council ruled otherwise, scrapping the advice. Parents had appealed the advice was ridiculous. The song had since been taught as is.
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.