Monday, December 01, 2014

Multicultural pedophiles in Britain

Seven Somali men who were part of a 13-strong sex gang involved in the abuse, rape and prostitution of British girls have been jailed for more than 40 years.

Victims aged between 13 and 17 were preyed upon, sexually abused and trafficked across Bristol where they were mercilessly passed around the men's friends for money.

Many of the girls were groomed to view the abuse as a normal part of being the 'girlfriend' of a Somali man, as it was said to be 'culture and tradition' to be raped by their 'boyfriend's' friends.

Of the four girls, three were white and one mixed race, with a fifth girl witnessing many of the sickening assaults.

The girls were in local authority care and fell into the evil clutches of the men who used the fear of rape to control them.

The victims, described as 'vulnerable' due to their age and circumstances, were paid as little as £30 or given drugs, alcohol and gifts to perform sex acts on older men.

On one occasion, a 13-year-old girl was trafficked across Bristol to a Premier Inn by one of the defendants, Said Zakaria, 22, where she was raped four times by three different men.

Another defendant, aspiring boxer Mohamed Jumale, 24, forced a victim to be raped by his brother, Omar Jumale, 20, to save him from hell as he 'wanted to turn gay'.

And police investigating the case rescued one 14-year-old victim - wearing only her underwear - from a cupboard in a flat, where she was found weeping 'they made me do stuff'.

The case, now the subject of serious case reviews, follows similar exploitation of young girls across English towns and cities such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and Telford.

Two trials took place at Bristol Crown Court following an investigation, codenamed Operation Brooke, with 14 men convicted of child exploitation or drugs offences involving 10 victims.

Eight were jailed for a total of more than 70 years in June, while the remaining seven defendants - including one who featured in both trials - were sentenced today.

Judge Julian Lambert imposed sentences of between two and 11 years, with a combined total of 40 years and six months, describing some defendants as 'merciless'.

He said: 'You have all brought deep shame on your families, along with all the damage you have done. You were all brought up to know what proper standards of behaviour are.

'As well as deep, deep concerns for the victims of your crimes, I also have some concern for your families, who are not responsible for your actions. You are.'

The Operation Brooke defendants were convicted of charges including rape, sexual services of a child, facilitating child prostitution, trafficking, paying for the sexual services of a child and drug offences.

Mohamed Jumale was sentenced to 10 years after he was convicted of one count of rape against the second victim, known as Complainant 2. He was also found guilty of six counts of sexual activity with a child, against the first victim, known as Complainant 1, and one count of sexual activity with Complainant 2.

Jumale was also convicted of aiding and abetting his brother, Omar Jumale, in sexual activity with Complainant 1 - telling her to have sex with his brother to prevent him from turning gay.

Sentencing, the judge said: 'Love flowed only one way and was reciprocated only with lust on your part.

''You persuaded your girlfriend to have sex with three different men, including your brother.  'What you did was akin to causing a form of prostitution. To say you took advantage would be a significant understatement. You preyed on her affection for you in a highly cynical way.'

The judge, who imposed a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), described the rape on Complainant 2 as a product of Jumale's 'appalling lust'.

Jumale's brother Omar was sentenced to two years imprisonment, which he will serve in a Young Offenders Institution, for having sex with the 13-year-old girl.

Mohamed Dahir, 22, was jailed for two years for causing or inciting Complainant 1 into child prostitution.

Said Zakaria, 22, was also made the subject of a SOPO, and jailed for 11 years for two counts of rape and two counts of sexual activity with a child against Complainant 1.

He was also convicted of trafficking the girl, then aged 13, across Bristol to take part in a 'sex party' in a hotel room at a Premier Inn.

The judge said: 'While at the hotel you raped a 13-year-old girl twice, once in the bedroom and once in the bathroom.  'When you didn't get the sex you hoped for you took it by force. That force was significant.

'Your victim was injured as a consequence of your forceful lust. The repeated humiliation of a small 13-year-old girl was completed in a rough, callous and very nasty manner.  'You behaved without humanity and simply took what you wanted, leaving your victim totally humiliated and bleeding.'

The judge ordered Zakaria to serve the 11-year sentence alongside the five-year sentence for drugs offences he was handed in the first trial.

Jusuf Abdirizak, 20, was jailed for seven-and-a-half years for the rape of the 13-year-old girl, Complainant 1, at the Premier Inn.

Abdirizak was captured on CCTV booking the hotel room, using his driving licence as identification.

The judge said: 'I assess you as being responsible for an opportunistic rape which you perpetrated on a little girl of 13 who had been recruited for a sex party at a hotel.

Abdirashid Abdulahi, 21, was jailed for four years for the rape of a 16-year-old girl, known as Complainant 4.

Sakariah Sheikh, 21, was jailed for four years for raping a girl, aged 16 or 17 at the time, known as Complainant 5, and sexual activity with a 13-year-old girl, Complainant 1.


Why I Didn't Wear a White Ribbon

Malcolm Smith

 I see that another special day and another good cause has come and gone: the United Nations' White Ribbon Day, 25 November. People were encouraged to wear white ribbons to protest violence against women. T-shirts bearing slogans like "Stop Violence Against Women" were worn at demonstrations. Groups of men were encouraged to get up and swear never to offer violence to women, and to speak out if they ever heard of it from others. The statistics quoted were quite frightening: 52 women murdered per year - one a week - by a current or previous partner, amounting to three-quarters of those women who had died by homicide, with one in three women a victim of violence in their lifetimes. I myself know women close to me who have suffered horrifying violence from their husbands. This is obviously a very good cause. So why do I refuse to get involved?

     For a start, I don't like the coercive nature of such campaigns. It is drunks, not sober citizens, who take the pledge, but when a sporting club is called upon to swear not to offer violence to women, what sort of pressure does that put on the one who doesn't think it necessary? It also suggests that if you decline to wear a white ribbon, then you are condoning violence against women. As far as I am concerned, it should be taken for granted that I, like every other decent person, am against all antisocial behaviour without having to say so.

     Secondly, it is a waste of time. It is preaching to the choir. I don't hit women - or men, for that matter - and don't know anybody who does. (I know some victims, but not perpetrators.) Even if I did know any, what makes you think that these riff-raff would take any notice of a wowser [puritan] like me?

     This brings me to the third reason. There is a sinister unspoken undercurrent throughout this campaign. It carries the strong suggestion that this is widespread cultural phenomenon which needs to be changed when, in fact, it involves actions by a minority of deviates who know full well that they are violating community norms.

     Lets take a look at the homicide statistics. The most recent, detailed ones I was able to find were in the report by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) for the reporting years 2008-9 and 2009 -10. (There are later reports, but I couldn't find any so detailed). In that two year period there were 89 women killed by an intimate partner. That's 44½ per year; the figure of 52 is presumably later. In contrast, 33 men met their deaths at the hands of an intimate partner. However, if we look at the bigger picture, the total number of female homicides was 175 (that makes the proportion killed by an intimate partner 51%, not three-quarters), while male victims of homicide numbered 366 - 2.1 times as many!

     So why aren't we coming out into the streets demanding an end to violence against men? What's so special about women? Indeed, why are we concentrating on just one major aspect of violence against women: that committed by a partner? For that matter, instead of asking why 51% of murdered women are killed by partners, we might ask why there are not a whole lot more killed by other people.

     For the last question, the answer would appear to be the proportion of highly emotional interactions. 88% of the offenders were male. Now human beings are primates, and just like chimpanzees and baboons in this regard: not only is the male of the species more aggressive, he is more aggressive to his own kind than to the opposite sex. Men get aggressive in lots of situations: workplace disputes, fights over women, drunken brawls, gangland war, to name just some. Where would a woman fit into this scheme? To put it bluntly, for the average violent male, the only woman important enough to be worth killing is the one he is sleeping with.

     On the other hand, the strongest emotional interaction for a woman is likely to be with her husband or lover. 71 of the offenders were women. Since 33 men were killed by their intimate partner, that would amount to 46% of those killed by women.

     But there are a few elephants in the room. The first is the vast over-representation of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the statistics. They represented 60 of the victims, or 11% of the total, including 25 intimate partners (the figures did not distinguish for sex in this case). If you remove them from the equation, the homicide rate for the rest of us is much lower. All right, these are victims, but for offenders it is even worse: 82 individuals, or 13% of the whole, were indigenous, and so were nearly 60% of those they killed. In fact, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, the rate of offending was more than five times the rate of the general population. Of course, I don't wish to minimise or disregard the terrible effects of violence on these dysfunctional indigenous communities. I merely wish to point out that it is not going to be changed by a lot of white men in white cities wearing white ribbons for a day.

     The second elephant is the ambiguity of the term, "intimate partner". Were these people actually married to their killers? I raise this issue because of the well established fact that domestic violence is more common in defacto relationships, and violence against children much more common. Yes, there are some particularly nasty husbands - I could give examples. Nevertheless, a woman is more likely to be bashed or raped if she is single, divorced, or living in sin than if she is married. Again, I don't wish to discount the violence in these relationships, but merely to point out that the solution is not to go around preaching about "violence against women", but to promote marriage - all the more so because of the well established greater propensity of divorce and unmarried parenting to produce violence and dysfunction in the next generation.

     Third, the really big elephant: the quoted figures are all very low. One woman murdered every week sounds terrible until you remember it comes from a population of 23 million. The overall homicide rate is just 1.2 per 100,000, which is among the lowest in the world. It is just a quarter of that of the United States, and on par with other First World Western countries. Not only that, it is the lowest recorded by the AIC. In the twenty years between 1989-90 and 2009-10, the rate had fallen 16%. If offenders, rather than victims, are considered, the male homicide rate fell from a 1992-3 high of 3.8 per 100,000 to 2.5, while the female rate remained more of less steady at 0.4 per 100,000. We are winning the war on homicide. Why hasn't this been publicised?

     What about the statistic of one in three women being victims of violence? Figures like this tend to be quoted and requoted without anyone knowing their origin. When the origin is known, often all that is cited is the summary, without any reference to the methodology. So even if we know the source, how can we be sure of its accuracy?

     In this case, it comes from the report on the 2005 Personal Safety Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), according to which 4.7% of women and 10.4% of men had suffered violence in the previous twelve months. You will notice, again, the much higher number of male victims, whom nobody worries about. However, on closer reading, you will also discoer that "violence" doesn't necessary mean violence. It also includes attempted and threatened violence. When only genuine "physical assault" is included, the figures are 3.1% and 6.5% respectively.

     Not only that, but the situation is improving. For women the level had dropped 60% from 1996 to 2005. More people was also saying they feel safer in more places more often. Again, we are winning the war on violence, but nobody seems to notice.

     The ABS also estimated that 39.9% of women and 50.1% of men had suffered violence at least once since the age of 15. Here, presumably, if the source of the much-quoted figure of one in three women - without, or course, mentioning the one in two men.

     But remember: violence is not necessarily violence. The figures for actual physical assault are 11% of women and 22% of men. However, to even it up, 17% of women but only 4.8% of men have experienced sexual assault. (The two categories cannot, of course, be added, because it is quite possible, and indeed probable, to be a victim of both types of assault.) The fact that the lifetime prevalence is not quite four times the twelve-month incidence suggests that a lot of victims are repeat customers, so to speak. This would appear to correspond to what we know intuitively. Many people will be assaulted only once, or never, but there are certain relationships which are habitually violent.

Also, there are some people who seem to court trouble by their lifestyle. When you hear about drunken brawls in the Valley or the Cross, you just know that it is not an isolated incident for many of the participants. Just the same, one of the statements by the ABS does not really harmonize with the rest of it: that since the age of 15, only 0.9% of men and 2.1% of women experienced current partner violence (in the broadest sense of the word).

     What you will not find in the report is any discussion of severity. Sexual assault is defined as an act of a sexual nature carried out against the person's will, but excludes mere unwanted sexual touching. Feel free to let you imagination wander over the range of behaviour this might include. However, the fact that almost one in twenty men claim to have been a victim would suggest that it is not limited to full penetrative rape. Physical assault is defined as the use of physical force with the intent to harm or frighten. It might be as severe as a beating to render the victim unconscious, or it might be a simple as a slap in the face.

     I am reminded of a site when a women told how her husband had spanked her after she threw a cup of hot coffee at him(!). Was this domestic violence? she asked. The answer, of course, is Yes. According to the definition, they were both guilty of physical assault, and they should get over it. This is not the way reasonable people handle their differences, but let's not pretend it is part of an invisible culture of brutality.


Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit slams Government for helping women 'leave their children at home and go out to work'

Former Conservative Party chairman Norman Tebbit has demanded to know why the Government helps women to go out to work instead of to stay at home and look after their children.

The Tory former Cabinet minister also questioned why people never called for more women to become plumbers or electricians.

He spoke out as Government whip Baroness Garden was answering questions on the gender-pay gap in the House of Lords.

She had answered one question on the number of British women holding posts as ambassadors.

But Lord Tebbit asked her: ‘Do you not think it is strange that when these gender gap questions come up there is always a call for more women ambassadors, or generals or air marshals or something?

‘There is never a call for more women to be plumbers or electricians or jobs like that.'

He added: ‘Why does the Government do so much to give incentives to women to leave their children at home and go out to work rather than stay at home and look after their children?’

Lib Dem peer Lady Garden told him: ‘The Government is in fact giving incentives to women to be plumbers and engineers. We have only 7 per cent of engineers who are women in this country.'

She added: ‘There are a whole host of programmes to encourage girls and young women to go into Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects.

‘And plumbers too - we need more women plumbers. Those women who do go into being women plumbers find that they can be very successful because there are quite a lot of customers who rather like having a women coming to help them out with their plumbing.’


Scientist who discovered DNA forced to sell his Nobel prize after being shunned for inflammatory race comments

A scientist who was part of the team that discovered DNA has been forced to sell his Nobel Prize after he was shunned by the scientific community for comments that linked race and intelligence.

James Watson sparked an outcry in 2007 when he suggested in an interview with the Sunday Times that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people.

The American scientist said he had become an 'unperson' since making the controversial remarks and is now selling his prize in a bid to 're-enter public life'.

The medal, the first to be auctioned by a living recipient, is expected to fetch as much as £2.5million when it goes under the hammer at Christie's in New York next week.

Dr Watson shared the 1962 Nobel Prize, awarded for uncovering the double helix structure of DNA, with British scientists Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick. The discovery was made by Watson and Crick, who used experimental data that had been gathered by Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin.

Dr Watson, 86, said that he was fired from the boards of a number of companies after making the inflammatory race comments, adding that he has not given any public lectures since.  He told the Financial Times: 'No one really wants to admit I exist'.

He said he would use the money from the sale of the medal to supplement his income, which now comes solely from academic institutions.

Dr Watson added that he would use some of the proceeds to give back to institutions that have supported him, including the University of Chicago, where he was awarded his undergraduate degree, and Clare College, Cambridge.

He revealed that he would also like to buy an artwork, telling the newspaper that he would like to own a piece by David Hockney.

He admitted that the comments had been 'stupid' on his part, and insisted he is not racist 'in a conventional way'.

He said: 'I apologise ... (the journalist) somehow wrote that I worried about the people in Africa because of their low IQ - and you're not supposed to say that.'

Auctioneer Francis Wahlgren told the Financial Times he did not expect Dr Watson's previous remarks to affect the sale.

He said: 'There are a lot of personalities in history we'd find fault with - but their discoveries transcend human foibles.'

The auction includes papers belonging to Watson, including handwritten notes for his acceptance speech.



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: