Friday, September 25, 2015
Multicultural flasher in London
A SERIAL flasher, who exposes himself to women on trains in England, has been ordered not to travel in shorts or anything that exposes bare skin below the knee.
Mark Thompson, of Wimbledon, in southeast London, was on a train from the town of Epsom, known worldwide for The Derby horse race, that was bound for London Victoria when he exposed himself to four women, the Wimbledon Guardian reported.
The 48-year-old sat across from the women, who noticed that he had a bag on his lap and was wearing shorts exposing himself on Saturday, April 18.
Thompson was identified from CCTV and arrested on July 21.
He was sentenced to four months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, on Tuesday at City of London Magistrate’s Court, British Transport Police said in a statement.
Thompson was also banned from travelling in shorts or anything that exposes bare skin below the knee, and told he cannot travel on public transport unless using a travel card.
He must also participate in a sex offenders program, be placed on a sexual harm prevention order and register with Wimbledon police station for seven years.
“Thompson made the journey for these women extremely uncomfortable. I am pleased that they reported this incident to us as we take all reports of inappropriate sexual incidents seriously and will investigate them,” said British Transport Police Detective Constable Andrew Parkinson.
“I would like to commend the women in this case for telling us about this incident, and encourage others to follow their example.
“In this case we were able to utilise CCTV to help us find the person responsible.
“The message is clear unwanted sexual behaviour is not acceptable. If you commit an offence, we will do everything in our power to bring you to justice.”
French Patriot On Trial For Speaking Out Against Islam
Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s Front National (FN) party, will stand trial over historic comments she made comparing Muslim street prayers to the wartime occupation of France.
Marine Le Pen’s former lawyer and FN party treasurer, Wallerand de Saint Just, has confirmed prosecutors in Lyon will send her to trial on 20 October on charges of inciting racial hatred, reports the Evening Express.
Saint Just framed the issue as a question of freedom of speech, saying: “Political leaders must be able to speak without being afraid of being taken before a judge.”
Le Pen made the comments during her 2010 campaign to take over the FN’s leadership from the party founder, her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. According to France 24, when addressing a rally of supporters in Lyon she said:
“I’m sorry, but for those who really like to talk about World War II, if we’re talking about an occupation, we could talk about the [street prayers], because that is clearly an occupation of territory.
“It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of neighborhoods in which religious law applies – it is an occupation. There are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is an occupation nevertheless, and it weighs on people.”
After the initial investigation into Le Pen’s comments was closed in 2011, the case was reopened in 2012 following a legal complaint by a rights group. She was then put under formal investigation in July 2014, after immunity granted her as a member of the European Parliament was removed following a vote requested by French authorities in 2013.
The trial for “inciting discrimination over people’s religious beliefs” has been described as “a scandal” by Le Pen.
She said: “It is a scandal that a political leader can be sued for expressing her beliefs. Those who denounce the illegal behaviour of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.”
Le Pen believes her views are those of the majority and that being stripped of her immunity brings “to the fore the issue of daily violations against secularism in France”.
As Breitbart London previously reported Le Pen has attempted to modernise the anti-EU, anti-mass immigration party her father once led in order to give her the best chance of presidential run in 2017. She wants the party to be defined by its opposition to the EU and a defence of secularism, not her father’s xenophobia and anti-Semitism.
December’s local elections were intended to maintain that direction, adding momentum to her presidential ambitions. Some commentators say the trial, taking place weeks before the local elections, could harm Le Pen’s chances of winning as expected in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. Others have expressed doubts as to whether the trial is the right move.
“She will no doubt try to turn this to her advantage and make herself out to be the victim of some kind of plot between the mainstream parties, who have had her right to free speech taken away from her,” Jean-Yves Camus told The Local, “if they really wanted to deal with Marine Le Pen it would have been much wiser for the mainstream political parties to just concentrate on themselves and on what they say. For example, the more the centre-right party talks about Islam the more they give legitimacy to the National Front.”
Army rejects appeal from soldier discharged after confronting accused Afghan rapist
Even as the U.S. military denies reports that American troops were told to ignore Afghan child abusers, an 11-year Green Beret who was ordered discharged after he confronted an alleged rapist was informed Tuesday that the Army has denied his appeal.
Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland earlier this year was ordered discharged by Nov. 1. He has been fighting to stay in, but in an initial decision, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command told Martland that his appeal “does not meet the criteria” for an appeal.
“Consequently, your request for an appeal and continued service is disapproved,” the office wrote in a memo to Martland.
The memo was shared with FoxNews.com by the office of Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who has advocated for Martland’s case. According to Hunter's office, Martland learned of the decision Tuesday.
The memo, dated Sept. 14, comes as the Defense Department comes under criticism amid reports that U.S. soldiers were instructed to look the other way when Afghan troops and officers were sexually abusing boys.
Gen. John F. Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a statement Tuesday that he is “absolutely confident that no such theater policy has ever existed here, and certainly, no such policy has existed throughout my tenure as commander.”
When political correctness stands in for morality
This week's visit by Pope Francis comes just in time. He is an apostolic missionary courageously reaching out to a once-religious country that now ruthlessly kills its unborn, mercilessly harvesting and selling their body parts. It is somehow fitting that our local witch doctors helpfully enshrine political correctness as a convenient substitute for morality. True Religion is mostly a phrase we use while adorning our butts in ever-widening swatches of denim. Otherwise our most devout beliefs are humanism, self-interest and relative morality. In God We Trust has been replaced by If It Feels Good Do It.
Now maybe you are neither Catholic nor Christian or even skeptical of all organized religions. Even so: Is it reasonable to believe that we can sacrifice as many as 60 million unborn infants since Roe v. Wade without somehow enduring the consequences for their deaths? That grim reality became visible only as the technology of covert video improved, allowing us to witness the real work of Planned Parenthood. And yet the technology of infant-murder-by-medicine has been enshrined since 1973, when the Supreme Court updated the Dred Scott decision for the 21st century.
The Bible calls that sort of thing "the shedding of innocent blood," matter-of-factly promising divine justice to right the scales. Speaking of which: threescore and 10 years ago at Nuremberg we harrumphed to the world that such mass murders were "crimes against humanity." Even the traditional argument, "I was just following orders," was no defense in the face of such evil. Six million died in Nazi death camps, horrific and intolerable, yet only 10 percent of the death toll from our domestic Holocaust. For an unsettling perspective, rent the classic movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" from Netflix. Every argument advanced by the implacable American prosecutors as former Nazis stood before the bar of justice has a deeply chilling effect if you ask the same questions today against the backdrop of sustained American infanticide.
But why am I telling you this when my usual function as a writer is to focus on national security issues? If you think we are somehow immune from divine or temporal retribution, then you probably don't understand the direct challenges to our national survival that are growing exponentially. Today the national security community - other than tenured professors sworn to uphold convenient and untroubled orthodoxy - is divided over the issue of which threat gets here first. Will technological hubris, strategic incompetence or economic collapse be listed as the proximate cause on our national death certificate?
Is it an EMP attack from Iran or North Korea that fries our electronic circuitry and reduces us to a pre-electrical society? (Poetic justice in a way since we did precisely the same thing to Iraq in Desert Storm.) Or possibly our national demise will take place after another cyber attack from China, the long-dreaded Electronic Pearl Harbor now known as "The Assassin's Mace" among Chinese military strategists. Or maybe our hyperinflated national debt ceiling - $18.5 trillion and counting - suddenly implodes, crumbling our national defenses. As a Texas oilman once told my cadets during his guest lecture: "At best, military power is just a violent form of economics."
But why worry about our external defenses when the nation itself is rapidly unraveling? Now living in Texas, I recently witnessed the local malaise now accompanying those ominous macro-portents. Two weeks ago, the Friday night football game celebrated by Texans for generations suddenly became ugly when two players from a San Antonio high school blind-sided a referee. When the YouTube video of that incident quickly went viral, most people down here expected the prompt expulsion of both culprits. In order to reinforce the larger educational point, many San Antonians expected that the school district might even rule that the remainder of the team's season should also be forfeited. After such an incident, how can you stress teamwork and sportsmanship without taking strong practical actions to reinforce those threatened ideals?
Neither of those things happened, of course, since school administrators in Texas are as feckless as their PC colleagues elsewhere. Instead, both students now attend an "alternative high school" while the football season rolls on just as before. They both now claim as well that their gutless attack was justifiable retribution because the referee used "the N-word," an uncorroborated charge but one guaranteed to paralyze neurons, synapses and intestinal fortitude wherever that dread charge is invoked.
But that is the core problem with relative morality: There really are no absolute standards of anything. Even when the videotape provides the most damning evidence of spearing a ref or butchering a fetus, political correctness will always rescue us. Its only core value: Moving those troublesome goalposts whenever needed.
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.