Sunday, December 14, 2014

A multicultural psychopathic liar Britain

It is quite rare for females to be psychopathic. All tell some lies but not on this foolish scale

Not long into his romantic liaison with Natasha Bolter, Roger Bird began to feel somewhat uneasy. Perhaps it was the sickly-sweet tone of her text messages, which became increasingly clingy after the pair began a relationship in September.

Or perhaps it was the fact that despite claiming to have five As at A-level and a First in Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford — where Bird himself had read the same subject — Bolter spoke like a nervous teenager, often resorting to girlish giggles or lighting up a cigarette whenever she felt out of her depth. Ukip’s troubled General Secretary will not say exactly what gave him second thoughts.

Suspended by his party after accusations of sexual harassment by Bolter, with whom he says he had a consensual sexual relationship, Bird has remained tight-lipped about the most intimate details of his relationship with the 39-year-old former Labour Party activist who dramatically defected to Ukip in September. Bird, 41, is still waiting to hear the outcome of a Ukip disciplinary hearing held yesterday.

But while his political fate hangs in the balance, Bolter’s claims that he used his senior position within the party to press his attentions upon her began to unravel spectacularly this week after the emergence of dozens of romantic texts she sent him, not to mention a denial from Oxford University that she had ever studied there.

School contemporaries have also poured scorn on talk of five A grade A-levels, and painted a picture of a woman who, even as a schoolgirl, had a reputation for tall stories.

Having thrust herself into the limelight as a victim of sexism, Bolter now faces questions about the gargantuan cracks which have appeared in the story she has been telling.

When she’d first got in touch with the party back in August, officials no doubt thought all their Christmases had come at once. Forever keen to shake off accusations of racism and bigotry, a woman of mixed race who not only wanted to leave Labour and join Ukip but was also prepared to publicly condemn her former party for its misogyny, would be the perfect weapon in their armoury.

A fortnight later, Bolter was unveiled by Bird at the party conference in Doncaster as a fellow Oxford PPE graduate, a former East End comprehensive pupil with a remarkable five As at A-level who had returned to her roots after Oxford to teach.

Throughout the faltering, jittery speech she made, which had been edited by Bird, she was applauded heartily by delegates. She later went on to campaign alongside Nigel Farage for Mark Reckless, the Tory MP and defector to Ukip while he fought to retain his Rochester seat.

But in Ukip’s haste to embrace Bolter, they’d done very little in the way of checking her credentials.

Had anyone done so, a very different picture would have emerged of the woman born Natasha Ahmed, the daughter of a Colombian mother and an Indian father, who grew up in a council flat in Tower Hamlets.

She certainly did not go to Oxford, and the recollections of a former classmate cast doubt over her own claim to have five A-grade A-levels.

Contemporaries from her comprehensive, Bishop Challoner in Tower Hamlets, recall a rather chubby girl who was placed in the middle of five academically streamed classes.

Although she is believed to have stayed on to the school’s sixth form, the classmate said it was highly unlikely that anyone from this middle stream would go on to do five A-levels because they wouldn’t have had the academic ability.

Another recalls: ‘With Natasha, it was one thing after another. She once told us she was a keep-fit teacher, then that she was a paramedic, then that she was going to be a police officer. She was always an attention-seeker at school, so no one wanted anything to do with her.  ‘She is also an outrageous flirt.’


Why These Citizens Voted to Repeal a Bad ‘Civil Rights’ Law

One way to prevent the government from violating your rights is to stop bad legislation in its tracks. Citizens in Fayetteville, Ark., did just that Tuesday. After the city council of the college town passed a “civil rights” ordinance that undermined basic civil liberties back in August, voters took to the polls to repeal the law, ordinance 119.

Among other things, the law made it a crime for citizens to engage in what the government deemed to be “discrimination” based on real or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. Concerns were raised about wedding vendors and “discrimination” based on sexual orientation, as well as bathroom policies and “discrimination” based on gender identity (particularly transgender individuals—which bathrooms must biological males who identify as women, and biological females who identify as men, be allowed to use).

As the organizer of the Repeal 119 campaign explained, this is bad public policy:

It was called the Civil Rights Ordinance, but it was misnamed. It was an ordinance that actually took away civil rights and freedom from people. It criminalized civil behavior. It didn’t accomplish the stated purpose of the ordinance, and it was crafted by an outside group. It wasn’t something Fayetteville residents put together.

That’s entirely right. Laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. They tend to be vague and overly broad without clear definitions of what conduct can and cannot be penalized. And they create new, subjective protected classes that expose citizens to unimaginable liability.

Indeed, bad state and local SOGI laws are frequently the measures that allow the government to penalize and punish people for their beliefs about marriage. SOGI laws have been at the center of the cases involving photographers, bakers and florists, as well as farmers, and even ordained ministers.

Laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Traditional civil rights include protections for the rights to free speech, religious liberty and free association, as well as the right to vote, own property and enter into contracts. All Americans stand equally before the law and have their civil rights equally protected.

But no one has the right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them, or a certain photographer to capture the first kiss, or a baker to bake the wedding cake. Declining to perform these services doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. Some citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in a same-sex ceremony, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. The government should not force them to choose between their religious beliefs and their livelihood.

Ordinary Americans—both those in favor of gay marriage and those who oppose gay marriage—agree the government should not penalize those who hold the historic view of marriage. So the citizens of Fayetteville were acting for social justice and the common good when they voted to repeal this onerous law. Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We also must insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.

Citizens must do this because there are some ideologues who want SOGI laws to trump basic civil liberties. There are some activists who are working to pass laws that would allow the government to coerce individuals to violate their beliefs about marriage. And, as the organizer of Repeal 119 noted, they frequently are coming from out of town.

Indeed, SOGI laws are being pushed on unsuspecting citizens at the federal, state and local level by the Human Rights Campaign. HRC just launched a new project for 2015 it dubs “Beyond Marriage Equality.”

Not content merely to redefine marriage throughout America, the activists at HRC want to use government coercion to impose their agenda on Americans.

Citizens do two things to prevent government from violating basic civil liberties. First, citizens should argue against SOGI policies at the federal, state and local level.

Second, policy should prevent the government from violating the civil rights of citizens. At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

Not content merely to redefine marriage throughout America, the activists at HRC want to use government coercion to impose their agenda on Americans.

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.

States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement. In a nation founded on limited government and religious freedom, government should not attempt to coerce any citizen, association or business into celebrating same-sex relationships.


British social worker evil once again

A baby's first smile, their first Christmas, those unsteady first steps... these are precious moments every new parent cherishes.

But one couple missed nine months of their baby daughter's life after officials wrongly took her away – and initially offered them just £500 in compensation.

Their child was even put up for permanent adoption before the case was thrown out by a judge, who described it as a 'debacle'.

Cheryll Rich and Jack Barnes, who have now been reunited with their daughter Misty, told the Mail of their disgust last night at the 'insulting' compensation offer.

Miss Rich said: 'Those are months we will never get back. We read the log from when Misty was with the foster carer. When she rolled over for the first time. Her first teddy. Pictures from her first Christmas.

'She was toddling when we got her back. We had missed her first step. I'll never know if she called the foster carer mama before me.'

Misty was born in November 2012 and is the first child of 27-year-old Miss Rich, a retail assistant, and Mr Barnes, 40, a scaffolder, who have been together for nine years.

Miss Rich was attacked near her home in Grays, Essex, when she was six months pregnant, but fortunately her baby was not harmed. But in a seemingly heavy-handed decision after Misty's birth, social workers would not let the couple take her home in case they were targeted again and said she would be taken away if they did not find somewhere else to live.

Miss Rich and Mr Barnes struggled to find somewhere and over the following weeks, the council placed them in a refuge and B&Bs across the country.

'All we wanted to do was take her home,' Miss Rich said. 'It was ridiculous but at every stage we were told: 'Do this or we'll take her away'.' A month later, the couple were taken to court with just one day's notice, where they were told Misty would be taken into temporary care because of their chaotic lifestyle – which they say was caused entirely by social workers. The heartbroken parents fought through the courts to get her back, but social workers placed adverts for Misty to be adopted permanently.

In a disorderly case overseen at times by a student social worker, the couple was twice sent private details about other children in care by accident – a serious breach of data protection.

Their case was finally heard by judge Mrs Justice Jennifer Roberts, who said social services had 'completely mishandled the situation'. Describing the couple as 'loving parents', she reunited them with their daughter and – after a year of check-ups from social workers – they were told after Misty's second birthday last month that the case has finally been closed.

Thurrock Council, which oversaw the case, apologised in private but refused to do so publicly. They later raised the compensation offer to £5,000 but the couple saw it as an 'insult' and refused it.

Thurrock MP Jackie Doyle-Price said: 'Nothing can replace the time they have lost. A major injustice has taken place here.'

A council spokesman said: 'The safety of the child is always of paramount importance.'


Mum bloggers show dark side of feminist parenting

Former Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham is having a go at feminists again

When the Greens senator Larissa Waters publicly endorsed the No Gender December campaign last week, most people thought it was just another left-feminist brain-snap.  As if buying Barbies for young girls at Christmas condemns them to a lifetime of low self-esteem and repression.

My seven-year-old daughter has a room full of Barbies, yet she’s an incredibly independent, strong-willed and capable young lady.

Over the years, I’ve met prime ministers, presidents and billionaires, but none of them have overwhelmed me with their force of personality the way Siena Latham does.  I’ve always thought the manufacturer puts something in the Barbies to empower her and weaken me – like kryptonite on Superdad.

 Senator Waters and her Green mates are off with the pixies – a fantasy world in which all parts of life are inherently political.

You get up in the morning and go to the toilet: for the Greens, that’s an act of politics. By standing at the urinal, men exercise the power of patriarchy, while women are forced to sit – a vulnerable and submissive position.

You buy your son a Star Wars lightsaber and the dark side will convert him to a lifetime of misogyny. You buy your daughter a pink dress and automatically she’ll be barefoot and pregnant in a public housing estate, denied access to the Anne Summers texts that could set her free.

It’s easy to dismiss No Gender December for what it is: a political sect that extrapolates the simple, everyday parts of life into wacky sociological conspiracies. But it’s more than that.

In the inner suburbs of our major cities, a fascinating experiment is under way. Thousands of children have been locked in a gender-neutral bubble, growing up in households manipulated by their mothers to fit the left-feminist mould. How do we know this? Through the phenomenon of mummy bloggers.


Daily Life, for instance, describes itself as “a proudly female-biased website”. One of its feature writers is Sarah Macdonald, well known for her work on ABC radio.

Like most mummy bloggers, she’s youngish, hip and self-absorbed. Her parenting techniques provide a snapshot of left-feminism in action.

According to Macdonald, “all parents” try to “raise children in a new way, unencumbered by a long, rich history of gender stereotypes”. But then they slip back into old habits, such as when “a mother coos ‘you’re so pretty’ to her baby daughter” or “a father comes home and starts ‘fun time’ ”. For any parent inclined to talk about their daughter’s appearance, the answer is clear: call her ugly.

The next MacParenting tip is for mothers to avoid being “the default parent” – the one “who has met the teacher and knows where the favourite T-shirt is buried”.

Macdonald, it seems, is unmoved by research showing parents actively involved in their children’s education help to improve their children’s academic results. If she sees a teacher walking towards her at school pick-up time, apparently she runs the other way. Her bare-chested children (having been unable to find their ­T-shirts that morning) are then forced to chase her down the street.

This prejudice against education is confirmed in other MacParenting recommendations. In trying to avoid the “dad is fun, mum is mean” stereotype, Macdonald admits to having “avoided homework [assistance] for years”, while her “kids have stopped learning their instruments”.

She’s also against participation on school P and Cs, given “it’s another area of unpaid work for women”.

MacParenting hates the idea of dads being seen as “the fun one”. So in divorced families, mothers are advised to “give their kids pizza every night”.

What’s the net outcome of this social experiment? In the name of gender equality, left-feminism is breeding a generation of shirtless, tone-deaf, overweight, pizza-eating dummies – the opposite of what progressive politics is supposed to achieve.

At the Macdonald laboratory, the results are clear: “My daughter is far more willing to whack [people] than my son and she is not a hugger”.

Here in outer-western Sydney, I couldn’t live without my daughter’s hugs. Thank goodness we’re the antithesis of nutty Green feminism.



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: