Friday, November 21, 2014

Three multiculturalists banned from approaching girls in Britain

A High Court judge has ruled that three men who are legally banned from approaching young girls following the alleged sexual exploitation of a child can be named following criticism that anonymity orders could harm the justice process.

Ten men received short-term injunctions ordering them not to approach in public places "any female under 18" with whom they are not personally associated.

The orders against three of the men, all from the Birmingham area, have been made final. They are: Omar Ahmed, 27, from Yardley, Mohammed Anjam, 31, from Aston, and Sajid Hussain, 40, from Sparkhill.

The court heard that Mr Ahmed, 27, who lives with his parents, brother and two sisters in Yardley, had been deemed at risk of self harm by mental health professionals.

He lost his delivery job when he was arrested as his car was confiscated and receives job seekers allowance.

Mr Anjam lives alone and occasionally works in one of a number of newsagents that his family own.

He also has a zero hours contract with Domino's Pizza and a "considerable history" of offending.

The court heard that he would be "embarrassed" if his identity was made public and was concerned about the impact on his family, particularly his mother who is in ill health.

The orders were issued by Mr Justice Keehan after a vulnerable teenager was found at a hotel with different men at different times, prompting concerns from social workers and police.

Now the judge has ruled the men subjected to final orders could be identified, suggesting that it was their own alleged "reprehensible conduct" that led them to this position.

The judge said the case involved the "alleged sexual exploitation of a young person by a number of men considerably older than her" and that those seeking to protect their own identities were doing so for their own benefit.

He said: "At the current time there can be no greater public interest in these proceedings. There is a high public interest in the public having a right to know what steps the court has taken to afford protection to the young person in this case and other people in the locality."

He said he had "no doubt" that public identification of the men would cause "embarrassment to them and their families and would no doubt cause considerable distress".

He said that while some individuals may try to "interfere" with them or assault them, the risk was unknown and that there was no evidence to suggest their lives could be put at risk.

He said his "clear decision" was that those against whom final injunctive orders had been made could be identified.

West Midlands Police have made arrests in the case, while Birmingham social services bosses, who have responsibility for the girl, are taking civil court litigation. However, none of the men has been charged with a criminal offence.

Sarah Simcock, for the police, argued that the men should not be named as it could put the personal safety of both them and their families at risk.

"There is a risk of retribution, vigilantism and targeting in the nature of that which happened in Rotherham," she told the court.

"There will be community tension, there will be concerns and a very real risk of retribution by groups such as the EDL."

She warned that members of the public could do their own "research and reporting" on social media, which is largely unregulated, and that people could also be misidentified.

However, the judge said there was a "very strong public interest" in naming the men.

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who helped expose the grooming of white teenage girls by men from a Pakistani background in Rochdale, last month questioned the decision to protect their identities: "Why should it be kept a secret?" he asked.

"If these men have to be kept away from girls in public places, that's pretty serious stuff."

Publishing their names would mean girls would know to avoid the men, and could "encourage others to come forward and share their knowledge", he argued last month.

The court had previously heard that the teenager was found in a hotel room with one of the men. He was arrested before being released on bail pending further investigations.

The man said he believed the girl to be 19 and was not aware she was in local authority care. He told the judge he had "done nothing wrong".

Lorna Meyer QC, for Birmingham City Council, said that in August the girl was found at a hotel with three other men, after she had gone "missing". Two of the men appeared before the judge, saying they had "done nothing".

Two other men were found in a car in which the vulnerable teenager had previously been a passenger, the court heard.


Another tragedy brought on by Britain's "know-it-all" social workers

In his sentencing remarks at the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Sweeney addressed the defendant thus: “Tania Clarence, you are now aged 43, and are of previous good character.”

That plain, factual statement had a depth charge of unimaginable sorrow because this was no ordinary criminal. For life had dealt Tania Clarence a series of terrible blows. After her daughter, Taya, was born in 2006, Tania suffered several miscarriages before giving birth to Olivia in June 2009. The happiness of Tania and her husband Gary seemed complete when, soon after, she fell pregnant with twin boys. Max and Ben were born prematurely at 26 weeks while the family was on holiday in Portugal in July 2010. The babies remained in intensive care for four months until they were finally allowed to return to the Clarences’ Wandsworth home in November.

That’s a hell of a strain for any parent to cope with. As if things weren’t difficult enough, in August 2010, while the twins were still in hospital, it was discovered that Olivia Clarence suffered from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type 2, or “floppy baby” syndrome – a genetic disorder that leads to muscle-wasting and considerably reduced life expectancy. Most children with SMA die by their early teens.

Three months later, the shellshocked Clarences were told that Max and Ben also had SMA. To cope with one profoundly disabled infant is a challenge. Tania Clarence, a woman who had suffered depressive episodes throughout her life and had a family history of suicide, now had to deal with four children under the age of four, three of whom had a life-limiting condition that meant they would never feed themselves or control their movements.

All the evidence suggests that Gary and Tania carried their beloved burden with indefatigable courage. They moved to Surrey and borrowed heavily to equip their new house with everything necessary to make the children’s lives as easy as possible. The Clarences preferred to put quality of life for their babies before operations and countless painful medical interventions, which they deemed unnecessary, given the circumstances. The professionals disagreed. There were distressing clashes with doctors and social services. In one crisis, the Clarences were accused unfairly of tampering with Olivia’s medical equipment. Then, Tania’s rock, social worker Suzie Holley, was taken off the case and replaced with a novice because Kingston Social Services, in their infinite wisdom, decided that Miss Holley had got “too close” to Mrs Clarence.

Just imagine what a hammer blow that was to a woman struggling to cope day-to-day while her brain was still clanging with the death sentence her three babies were living under. Soon after, on Easter Tuesday, while Gary was away with their eldest child, Tania took a nappy and smothered Ben and Max and then Olivia, before attempting suicide. In a note for their nanny, she explained that she had to kill the children as well as herself because Gary would never be able to cope with them on his own.

It’s the kind of warped maternal logic – love gone mad – which makes perfect sense to someone who is mentally ill. In a heartbreaking note to her husband, Tania said that the only thing that was giving her the strength to kill “Liv” was the thought that Max and Ben were already playing in Heaven as they had never been able to play before.

It is, as the judge remarked, the saddest story he had ever come across. And yet, even amid the horror, there are small things to be grateful for. There was no witchhunt of Tania Clarence. A public, which is far better educated about depression than it was even a few years ago, grasped from the start that a doting mother who had done that to her darling children was to be pitied, not reviled. Similarly, the prosecution at Tania’s trial accepted her plea of guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, due to being mentally ill. Lord Justice Sweeney, who could have awarded Mrs Clarence a prison sentence, elected instead for the humane option of a hospital order, and to have Tania confined for her own safety under the Mental Health Act.

Questions were also raised about the culpability of the authorities that were supposed to be supporting the family, not adding to their woes. The judge noted that Tania Clarence had barely slept in the months before she killed her children because of the “increasing distress” of watching Ben, Max and Olivia’s treatment by doctors.

Altogether, the quality of mercy was palpable throughout the case. As the judge told the sobbing woman in the dock: “The prosecution accepts that you loved all four of your children – indeed, there is a substantial body of evidence that they were happy and well looked after – and that you were grief-stricken that Olivia, Max and Ben were destined to die early and before you.”

Compare and contrast with the horrendous treatment that befell Sally Clark, another woman of previously good character, who in 1999 was hounded and wrongfully jailed for the “murder” of her two cot-death babies. Sally’s depression was mistaken for heartlessness, her inability to feel anything for cold indifference. We knew no better back then.

Gary Clarence has said he will stand by his wife on “the long road ahead”. Good man. He must have gone through such a maelstrom of feelings when he learned what she had done to the children, yet he is clear that his wife loved them but was “overwhelmed by depression because of the constant pressures of caring for them”.

Gary says lessons need to be learned from his wife’s story of “dedication and love which turned to despair and utter hopelessness”. They certainly do. One lesson is for the official experts in disabled children who think they know better than the parents who care for those children 24/7. The other lesson is that mental illness is every bit as serious as the physical kind and our society is more civilised for understanding that.

The traditional business of the law is justice balanced with mercy. In the case of Tania Clarence, however, there was no need for balance. Mercy was the justest thing of all.


Capt. Ron Johnson: Ferguson Community 'Ready to Show Their Character'

Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol, left

Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol says he expects protests to erupt in Ferguson, Missouri, regardless of whether a grand jury indicts Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

"Well, I think we have got a community that's ready to show their character," Johnson told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly Tuesday night.

Johnson said police have met with several groups and individuals, and people "definitely will be out protesting whatever the decision is." Even if the police officer is indicted, some protesters will still be out there demanding "change," he said.

Although many out-of-town protesters have gone home in recent weeks, "We do expect that they will come back. Actual numbers I can't give. But we did have a large number of out-of-town protesters that came into the community." Johnson said those protesters are now returning in buses, vans, and by the carload.

And they are "very organized."

One group of protesters, the "Don't Shoot Coalition," has presented police with 19 "proposed rules for engagement," a bill of rights for protesters and a list of don'ts for police.

Number 1 is "the preservation of life."

Number 3 demands 48 hours advance notice before the grand jury decision is announced.

Number 7 says police will "wear only the attire minimally required for their safety."

Number 11 says police will respect "safe houses" as "sacred ground" for protesters.

Number 14 says, "police commanders will allow protests to take and occupy larger and more disruptive spaces than would normally be tolerated, and will allow occupation of those spaces for longer periods of time than would normally be tolerated."

Number 15 demands that police "be tolerant of more minor lawbreaking (such as thrown water bottles) when deciding whether to escalate the use of force."

Amazingly, Johnson told O'Reilly that there are "about 12 points" of the 19-point manifesto "that we agree with."

But Johnson also said police will not tolerate any violence: "And we're not going to let any group come in and take away the constitutional rights of protesters or hurt our business, the safety of our citizens. Any group can come in, and if they are peaceful, then they can be here and they won't have any issue with law enforcement."

The National Guard will help police "protect our businesses," Johnson said. "They are actually a resource for us. To make sure we...have the proper resources to make sure that the public is safe and the businesses are maintained, and the constitutional rights are maintained. So, they are a resource that we will use as needed.

"But, for the most part -- for all the part, I guess -- they will be used to help make sure our businesses remain secure."

Meanwhile, on Sean Hannity's show, Derk Brown, the founder of "Justice for Mike Brown" said point-blank, "I don't want justice for the officer."

"You don't want justice for the officer?" Hannity repeated.

"What he did was wrong," Brown replied.


We can sympathise with British voters who back Ukip as their only way of delivering a howl of protest at the political elite’s failure over immigration

Today, voters go to the polls in the Rochester and Strood by-election. If there was any doubt about Ukip’s impending victory, this has almost certainly been dispelled by two shocking news items this week.

First, it has been revealed that Britain is granting its precious citizenship to more immigrants than any other EU nation: 193,000 passports dispensed like Smarties in 2012 alone, a total of 2.1 million since this century began.

Further statistics show that 1.3 per cent of all Eastern Europeans, more than a million in all, now live in Britain, and arrivals show no sign of abatement.

This country is the destination of choice for a host of Poles, Romanians and people from the Baltic republics fleeing from their own struggling economies to pitch camp in prospering Kent or Essex, Swindon or Slough, or above all London.

Three-quarters of the British people think this is a terrible idea, and most of our politicians now claim they agree. But it is self-evident that the Coalition Government’s repeated promises to stem EU immigration have proved worthless.

Even those of us who refuse to regard Nigel Farage as a serious or credible figure sympathise with voters — especially those living in areas with high densities of immigrants — who back Ukip at the ballot box as their only means of delivering a howl of protest about what successive governments have allowed to happen to Britain.

Ministers resort to weasel words, suggesting that reality is not as bad as MigrationWatch UK, the most authoritative monitor, reports; or that new restrictions will start cutting the intake some time soon.

But the merest common sense shows that if two million immigrants have been given British passports since 2000, and with our population predicted to grow by one-third in the lifetimes of our children, immigration is totally and perhaps irretrievably out of control.

There are a number of causes. The first is flattering: Britain is seen as a wonderful place to live. Nobody with a choice wants to make a new life in rich but dreary Germany; or France, a political and economic basket case; or Italy, which is in even worse shape.

Another reason for the vast influx here is that our judges and bureaucracies are the most sympathetic in the world to hard-luck cases.

In the remote bush of Somalia and Ethiopia, people hear that if they can somehow make their way by plane, boat or container lorry past Customs at Dover, they are assured of cash and a safe haven.

No other nation’s officials or judicial machine treat foreign suppliants so generously, not least through their view of human rights entitlements.

Our judges, from the highest in the land downwards, interpret their duty to newcomers with a generosity that betrays a more important responsibility - to the British people.

No other member of the EU enforces its regulations so rigidly, and with so little heed for our society’s interests against those of the Union as a whole.

The fact is that the EU’s rules allowing free movement of populations can only work if there exists a rough equilibrium of economic and social conditions in all member states.

There is no problem if as many British people want to live in Estonia as Estonians want to come here; or if thousands of Mancunians yearn to live in Provence under the benign rule of President Francois Hollande.

As it is, however, Hollande’s fellow countrymen are fleeing in such numbers that at our local playground in West London one scarcely hears English spoken.

In an echo of our parents’ wartime experience of such refugees, I dub them the ‘Free French’. But it is no longer funny to make jokes about Polish plumbers or Latvian waiters, because they are here in such crazy numbers.

One in every 60 Poles and one in every 30 Latvians is not in Poland or Latvia, but in Britain.

Almost all the arguments deployed by fanatical Europeans to make this seem good news are fallacious. Overwhelming evidence shows that the beneficiaries of open borders are not host countries, but immigrants.

Per capita GDP in the host nation scarcely increases; new arrivals age too fast to help much with paying the pensions of older Britons.

Housing, schools, the NHS, the welfare system and indeed mere space in this crowded island are subjected to stresses that are immense, and verge on the intolerable.

On Tuesday, another grotesque twist to the immigration debate was provided by Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary and wife of the equally calamitous Ed Balls.

She had the effrontery to deliver a big speech denouncing the failure of immigration control under David Cameron’s Government. This came from a woman who was herself a member of the Labour government which opened the floodgates.

Tony Blair and his colleagues deliberately set themselves to ‘change the character of Britain for ever’. A key element in their strategy was to promote a vast influx of newcomers, most of whom could confidently be expected to vote Labour.

They lied through their teeth about the implications of their policies, and succeeded so well that more than two million immigrants entered this country between 1997 and 2010.

According to the latest projections, more than one third of new households will be a result of immigration.

The percentage of white British people living here is predicted to fall to 67 per cent by 2051, and to 50 per cent by the end of this century.

In 1998, just after Blair took power, the Office for National Statistics projected the UK population to peak at 65 million in 2051, then slowly fall. It is now expected to reach 80 million by 2050, 85 million by 2093.

That is the scale of the betrayal of the British people by the party of Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.

Even now, though she claimed this week to recognise the scale of public dismay at what has happened and continues to happen, Cooper offers no substantial remedy, save to waffle that she wants to see ‘fair immigration’, whatever that may be.

She also promises ‘smarter controls’, imposed by an additional 1,000 border guards. Just as most of the heartless robots who administer Britain’s airport security nowadays seem to be Bulgarian, so presumably Labour’s new border guards will be Polish.

Why do I jest? None of this is remotely comic, least of all if one is among millions of British people who live amid large immigrant communities of all races and colours.

These Britons are furiously angry, because neither they nor the rest of Old Britain has ever been given a chance to endorse or veto the drastic change in our society, imposed by a monstrously arrogant political class.

Give Cameron and Theresa May their due: unlike Yvette Cooper and her party - and for that matter Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem rabble of rabbits - the Tories sincerely want to curb immigration, even if they have thus far failed to do so.

But all our politicians will do well to heed the message coming from electorates across the Western world: voters are sick of being told lies on issues about which they care passionately.

The reality is there in the statistics about Britain’s crazy passport giveaway and the huge tribe of EU migrants nesting here: our society is being wrenched askew in ways most British people do not want.

I have always called myself a European, and indeed I still cherish hopes that this country will not leave the EU — assuming that an in/out referendum is held in 2017 — because I am fearful of the economic consequences.

But, given the crying need for more honesty in the immigration debate, it seems essential to acknowledge that it is doubtful whether Britain can regain control of its borders, and limit its soaring population, while remaining within the Union.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has made it plain that she will not entertain Cameron’s plea for a review of the core EU policy of unrestricted movement of populations.

More than that, even if Cameron wins next May’s General Election and remains Prime Minister, it is unlikely he will thereafter be able to secure a meaningful renegotiation of Britain’s terms of membership, or for that matter of the Union’s overall treaty provisions.

Thus, it is plausible that the British people will find themselves facing a choice towards the end of this decade: vote for this country to remain a member of the EU, at the cost of accepting an annual increase in our population of several hundred thousand people; or regain some powers to refuse entry to immigrants, at the cost of a terminal showdown with our EU partners.

I am the first to accept that immigration is a fiendishly problematic issue.

We should acknowledge that, while globalisation has shrunk the world in a fashion that has brought us many benefits, above all economic, it has also created unprecedented difficulties about controlling movements of people.

We claim to cherish the ideal of freedom, but some manifestations of freedom - for instance, the choice to live somewhere other than one’s country of origin, now being embraced by tens of millions - poses big difficulties and dilemmas for the most desirable locations on the planet, Britain prominent among them.

If Ukip formed a government, I suggest that it would encounter just as many difficulties in controlling immigration as the present administration, unless we all resigned ourselves to living in an island fortress under semi-siege conditions.

None of these cautionary words weaken the indictment against the failures and deceits of recent governments in making and implementing immigration policy.

Scarcely a single front-bench politician of any party has come clean with the British people about what has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen to our island, as unprecedented numbers of newcomers crowd our airports and cities.

I hope desperately that come next May, voters will not allow support for Nigel Farage’s stand against immigration to put Ed Miliband into Downing Street.

But who can blame the people of Rochester and Strood for voting Ukip today? The Prime Minister has used a crassly juvenile phrase about wanting to see defector Mark Reckless’s supposedly overweight bottom removed from the green benches of the House of Commons.

In truth, however, it is the fat bottoms of all established politicians, including himself, into which voters yearn to jab an enormous pin, and why should they not do so?

The failure to control immigration is a disgrace to all those who have governed us through the past generation. It is scarcely surprising that they should be punished for it at the polls.


7th Circuit Reverses Decision Stripping Away Clergy Tax Housing Allowance

Today Family Research Council commends the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit for reversing a decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb that declared the clergy housing tax allowance unconstitutional. Family Research Council's "Watchmen on the Wall" pastors’ network is composed of over 40,000 churches from across the country.

On behalf of the over 40,000 pastors who make up our church network, we welcome today's appellate decision striking down Judge Crabb's ruling stripping away pastors' tax-free housing allowance. We commend the 7th Circuit for holding accountable a judge whose name became virtually synonymous with religious harassment when she tried to strike down the National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional four years ago.

Going back to Patrick Henry in 1785, society has tried to relieve the clergy's housing burden because of the tremendous social benefits churches offer the culture and because so many clergy, despite their exceptional educations, receive only modest salaries.

Through charitable work for the homeless, substance abuse, marriage counseling, adoption, and other initiatives, the church's outreach helps treat a lot of the social ills that otherwise would become the burden of taxpayers and the federal government. What's more, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that these sorts of tax laws don't injury anyone-which is why Judge Crabb's decision ended the same way as her last attack on religion: in embarrassment.



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: