Thursday, January 07, 2016
Creepy multicultural doctor in Britain
A doctor stunned an NHS manageress by asking her if her nail polish matched the colour of her underwear before pestering other female hospital colleagues for a date, it was claimed today.
Tipo Qureshi, 44, is said to have behaved inappropriately towards five separate female members of staff in less than three months at Sandwell General Hospital in West Bromwich, Midlands.
Quershi, a locum specialist registrar in plastic surgery, began his flirtatious behaviour during his induction meeting at the hospital, a medical tribunal heard.
This is when he made his nail polish remark while discussing a work timetable with a female employee known as Miss A, who manages NHS waiting lists.
She said she was 'surprised by how forward he was' and attempted to ignore his comment.
But Qureshi, who denies the allegations, began to pester her for her personal mobile number when he took up a full-time post at the hospital, it was said.
When he asked her out on a date, she informed him she had a boyfriend but he replied: 'How would your boyfriend feel if we went for a coffee?' it is alleged.
Qureshi, of Warwick, would view dating websites on his mobile phone whilst on a ward with patients and told a nurse it was a shame she was engaged because he 'had a lot of money', the court heard.
He told the same woman that she reminded him of an ex-girlfriend with whom he had had a 'very physical relationship', it was said.
When she asked what he meant, the medic allegedly 'raised his eyebrows' and gave her a 'knowing look'.
Qureshi also told a nurse known as Ms C that he was viewing a dating website on his mobile phone while on a hospital ward in 2013, the tribunal heard.
He then showed her a picture of a teenage girl in a bikini on the screen and said she had a ‘good pair of legs’, it is alleged. Ms C later complained that he asked her out on a date.
The surgeon is also said to have told a student nurse that she was too pretty to be a nurse and should be a model, before asking if she ‘minded dating older men'.
Qureshi was reported to the General Medical Council when two nurses complained of indecent assaults allegedly committed on the same day.
Both had separately been in an operating theatre with the medic on December 6, 2013 when he is said to have leant across them for paperwork or medical equipment and deliberately touched their breasts.
On the second occasion, towards a nurse known as Miss F, Dr Qureshi allegedly ‘fumbled’ around her breasts while attempting to catch a vial of anaesthetic.
Both women say he failed to apologise after each incident, which ‘would have been consistent with the possibility of accidental touching’.
Miss F overheard the first woman, known as Ms E, talking about her experience when they bumped into each other in the hospital staffroom.
She in turn revealed her alleged ordeal, which was heard by a department practitioner who suggested they report the incidents. The matter was then passed to the GMC.
The surgeon is also accused of swerving clinical duties - on one occasion refusing to cannulate a patient because a less senior member of staff could do it, and on another refusing to take a surgical case because he was close to finishing his shift.
When questioned by a nurse, he allegedly said: ‘Patients don’t care about me, why should I care about them?' loud enough for patients and other members of staff to hear.
Recalling the nail polish comment, Miss A told the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester: 'I was quite taken aback that in our initial meeting, during an induction with a professional, that comment was made.
'I continued with the meeting and dismissed the comment. I'm not really sure why I didn't complain immediately in hindsight.
'It was an element of disbelief and the fact I didn't take it as: "Oh my gosh, this man can't ever work here again." It was when additional incidents and allegations were being made and I realised this wasn't one-off behaviour, this was an ongoing thing.'
When Qurashi later asked her for her number, she laughed and brushed it aside. 'He would ask me for my number and say things like: "How would your boyfriend feel if we went for a coffee?" I didn't respond. He certainly asked for my number more than once,' she said.
Counsel for the GMC Simon Jackson QC said: 'There are three elements to the GMC’s misconduct case. Firstly, inappropriate remarks or questions with a sexual overtone. Secondly, refusals to assist colleagues with tasks and thirdly, two incidents of alleged sexual assault.
'Right from the outset of his appointment at the hospital, Dr Qureshi was rather forward in manner and soon began to make inappropriate remarks to female colleagues. As early as the induction meeting with the hospital manager and Miss A when Dr Qureshi was discussing the timetable, he spontaneously said to her: "Does your nail polish reflect the colour of your underwear?"
“She didn’t take the remark seriously but was surprised at how forward he was. They were to be future colleagues and had only just met. He plainly did not treat Miss A with respect on this occasion and other colleagues on other occasions.'
Describing his use of the dating website, Mr Jackson added: 'While in the nurses station and again in the company of Ms C, Dr Qureshi used his mobile phone on the ward, which is not permitted, and in the course of doing so told Ms C he was logged into a dating website and then proceeded to show her a picture of a teenage girl in a bikini on his mobile and said the girl in the picture had a good pair of legs.
'On another occasion while working together he asked Ms C out on a date. The witness will say that this course of conduct by Dr Qureshi made her feel uncomfortable while in his presence and when she sensed he might seek her out to do clinical tasks - the request being an excuse to talk to her - she took steps to avoid it.
'The GMC alleges all these incidents had a thinly-disguised sexual overtone. Not simply over-personal or intrusive or rude, but when looked at in the context, all had an underlying theme of the doctor wanting to pursue sexual conduct or a sexual relationship with the women he approached and spoke to in this way.'
Qureshi admits telling Ms C she reminded him of an ex-girlfriend but denies all other allegations. The hearing continues.
UK: Evangelical preacher who called Islam 'heathen' and 'satanic' and hailed Enoch Powell as a prophet is CLEARED of making grossly offensive remarks
Evangelical Protestant preacher Pastor James McConnell has been found not guilty of making grossly offensive remarks during a sermon in which he described Islam as 'heathen', 'satanic'.
This afternoon Pastor James McConnell, 78, of Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, walked free from Belfast Magistrates' Court after being cleared of sending grossly offensive messages.
The high profile evangelical pastor had been charged with two alleged offences after the sermon delivered from the pulpit of his Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle on May 18, 2014 was streamed online.
In his sermon he described Islam as a 'doctrine spawned in hell' and said he did not trust Muslims.
But following a hearing he was today cleared of improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.
The court heard although the words upon which the charges were based were offensive, they did not reach the high threshold of being 'grossly offensive'.
Delivering his reserved judgment, District Judge Liam McNally said: 'The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive.
'It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances. 'Accordingly I find Pastor McConnell not guilty of both charges.'
As the judge delivered his reserved judgment, the crowd of up to 50 Christian supporters who had packed into the public gallery of courtroom 13 erupted into applause.
The judge said: 'He is a man with strong, passionate and sincerely held beliefs.
'In my view Pastor McConnell's mindset was that he was preaching to the converted in the form of his own congregation and like-minded people who were listening to his service rather than preaching to the worldwide internet.
'His passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, "lose the run of himself"'.
The judge said the comments about Islam being 'heathen' and 'satanic' were protected under human rights legislation.
When considering the remarks about mistrusting Muslims, Judge McNally said he was satisfied the pastor had not set out to intentionally cause offence.
If the preacher had qualified his remarks, as he did in subsequent media interviews, he could have been spared the legal battle, the court was told.
Judge McNally said: 'If he had clarified this in his sermon and set out in a clear and precise way why Sharia law was repugnant to him he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.
'In the manner in which he did express this he has, in my view characterised the followers of an entire religion in a stereotypical way.
'Indeed when he uses the word 'may' in the context of whether there are any good Muslims it leaves open the inference that that might not be exactly right and there may not be any good Muslims in Britain. Either way, he is making it crystal clear that he does not trust any Muslim.'
The distinction between offensive and grossly offensive was an important one and not easily made, the court heard.
'Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed... the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions that offend, shock or disturb the state or any section of the population,' said Judge McNally.
Throughout proceedings Mr McConnell, who was dressed in a dark grey suit with grey shirt and pink and purple coloured tie, sat alongside his wife Margaret and other family members. He was not required to sit in the dock.
During the three day trial in December, Mr McConnell spent more than an hour in the witness box giving evidence in his defence. He said he had not intended to provoke, hurt or offend anyone but was unrepentant for preaching the Christian gospel.
He also claimed he had refused the lesser punishment of an informed warning because it would be an insult to Jesus and he did not want to be 'gagged' in the future.
The prosecution had claimed it was a 'straightforward' case because the words were delivered in a rehearsed sermon to an audience of 2,000 and watched by 700 online, and had been carefully chosen.
Outside court hundreds of supporters cheered as Mr McConnell emerged. Some sang hymns as the preacher gave his reaction to the judgement. 'I am very happy,' he said, before adding he would do the sermon again, though word it differently.
'The only regret I have is the response from the Muslim community - that I was out to hurt them,' he said. 'There was no way I was out to hurt them - I wouldn't hurt a hair on their head.
'But what I am against is their theology and what they believe in.
'If there are Muslims out there I want to assure them I love them and, if they need help, I am there to help them, but their theology and their beliefs I am totally against them.'
He added: 'I would do it again but I would word it differently because I would be conscious I was hurting innocent Muslims, I would be conscious I was hurting Muslims who have come here to work hard and are doing their best - there's no way I would hurt those people, but I would do it again - yes.'
The pastor said he did not realise how far his sermon would travel. 'As far as I was concerned I was preaching to my own people, I was preaching in my own church - I didn't realise it would go out there and so forth,' he said.
Mr McConnell also said he believed he had said 'worse things' in other sermons that had been streamed on-line.
The only gun control that works is "incorrect"
The President, Hillary Clinton, and their type in the legacy media have devoted much time to advocating the disarming of law abiding Americans and labeling the National Rifle Association as a terrorist organization. Their claim is that if the Congress would only enact common sense gun safety laws our long national nightmare would soon be over.
The problem is that none of the gun schemes they advocate have a logical connection to the problem. Many cities including Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit have become weekend shooting galleries with most of the victims being young black males and some collateral damage of a number of five-year-olds and other innocents caught in the crossfire.
While no one policy would solve this problem there is one that has proven itself to have a tremendous positive impact. It is called, “stop, question, and frisk.” It is a law enforcement program designed to take illegal guns off the streets and thereby reduce the number of gun homicides. People engaged in suspicious activity are stopped, questioned, and if necessary, frisked. If they are found to have an illegal gun in their possession, they are eligible for a three-year mandatory prison sentence. It works. The number of guns on the streets dropped dramatically.
Following the crime ridden reign of Mayor David Dinkins New Yorkers elected Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani instituted the program and it was continued by leftist Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The results were stunning. The number of homicides in New York City went 2,605 in 1990 to 414 in 2012. This is an 84 percent annual reduction in lives lost, a majority of them black lives. With this kind of record you would think that the Black Lives Matter movement would be on the streets demanding that the program halted by Mayor DeBlasio be reinstated since the murder rate is predictably rising since the program ceased.
But no. The leftist solution to the rising urban crime rate is to release thousands drug dealing merchants of death back on to the streets and take the guns away from otherwise defenseless law abiding Americans.
The reason Clinton, Obama, De Blasio oppose a program that actually works is the same reason they oppose most effective law enforcement, political correctness. While a majority of those stopped and questioned in high crime areas are not frisked no one likes to be frisked.
The left also goes to absurd lengths to deny the effectiveness of the program. Take this quote from Mother Jones as reprinted in the Aug. 13, 2013 Washington Post:
“As Kevin Drum says in Mother Jones, the thing driving the drop in crime in New York, as everywhere, might not have anything to do with policing. It’s likely the removal of lead from gasoline and house paint, he argues. Several studies have found that lead exposure can damage children’s brain development, affecting their behavior. Rick Nevin, and economist and a leading researcher on crime and lead questions, notes that there has been far more progress on removing lead in New York City than in other large cities like Chicago or Detroit…”
The piece continues, “New York’s lead removal efforts are commendable and are a more than adequate explanation of why it’s seen sharper crime drops than other cities. There’s no reason to credit alienating policies like stop and frisk here.”
Really? And now that the program has been halted and homicides are going back up it no doubt is because lead has been snuck back into the gasoline supplies of New York?
Since the residents of urban black neighborhoods are more likely to be victimized by crime, naturally police concentrated on protecting them. This is known as racial profiling which in the mind of the left cannot be tolerated. Better that they be victims of homicide than they be profiled.
The ‘silencing of Christians’ in Britain's public sector
Christianity is being subtly “silenced” within the public sector in the UK because of a civil service culture which treats speaking about faith as “not the done thing”, according to a former top Whitehall mandarin appointed as Church of England’s most senior lay official.
William Nye said a “secularising spirit” now permeates the machinery of government, leading to an unspoken “squeezing out of Christianity” from national life, despite public expressions of support from David Cameron and other ministers.
He said ministers or the general public would be surprised to realise the full extent to which faith is now seen as “odd and unusual” within the public sector in Britain.
Christians working there now rarely “reveal” their beliefs except to close friends for fear of being viewed as biased, he added.
Mr Nye, who spent 20 years in a series of senior Whitehall posts before a spell as Principal Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales, recently took over as the Church of England’s Secretary General.
His appointment comes as the Church embarks on what it describes as a major programme of “renewal and reform” hoping to turn around decades of decline in the numbers in the pews.
The Church’s financial arm, the Church Commissioners, is planning to open up parts of its £6.7 billion endowment to help fund ambitious expansion plans to arrest decline. But it is also facing growing challenges from within its own ranks as it grapples with divisions over issues such as homosexuality.
Speaking to The Telegraph in his first interview since taking on the post, Mr Nye voiced optimism that congregations will recover but warned the decline is likely to continue for at least another five years.
After a career as a senior civil servant with posts ranging from overseeing arts policy to national security and counter-terrorism he said it was a “joy” to work in an environment where he could “talk more openly” about his faith.
“I think there has been, in the 20 years I was in the public sector, a sort of squeezing out of Christianity from many aspects of the public sector,” he said.
"People who aren’t in the public sector don’t realise quite how that secularising spirit has led to the silencing of Christians.”
“[It is] not universal – obviously there are chaplains in hospitals, there are chaplains in prisons – and I don’t think it is ministers doing it deliberately.”
He added in many cases it is likely that ministers probably had “no idea” that it was going on and that but that few officials would even let it be known that they were Christians.
Mr Nye said that he had been asked recently to suggest possible candidates from within the civil service for a senior post in the Church of England, a job which requires the candidate to support the Church’s Christian aims.
He said: “I had to say ‘you know I’m not sure I would be able to think of many people because, why would I know about anyone in government who is a Christian unless they are a personal friend?’
“Personal friends might have revealed to me that they are Christians but other people in government, central government departments, wouldn’t do that. “They wouldn’t let it be known that they were Christians.”
He added: “I think people who aren’t in the public sector don’t realise quite how that secularising spirit has led to the silencing of Christians in a way that isn’t actually, I think, what people nationally want, or people are necessarily aware of.
“There is a lot of support, I think, for the Church of England doing its job as the Queen said ‘gently and assuredly’ – for the quiet work of the Church of England. “But quiet work shouldn’t mean silent.”
Part of the explanation could be a form of “self-censorship” by Christians themselves in response to the working culture in Whitehall, he said. “Looking back on it I feel there may be an element of that and, I think, just a sense that it’s not really the ‘done thing’ to talk about religion in the 21st century, especially in government.
“You know: does it imply that you’ve somehow got some sort of axe to grind or it’s something odd and unusual?
“Of course, actually, in practice everybody, all my former colleagues in the civil service, all bring their own perspectives and their own personal beliefs to bear.
“They all, I genuinely believe, try to be neutral and objective but they all bring their beliefs to bear and so do Christians but Christians sort of feel [it is better] not to say about it.
“It is now a joy for me to be in a place where, although having spent 20 years not talking about my faith … one can talk more openly about it.”
His new post, overseeing the day-to-day running of the Church of England, will also see him play a key role in shaking up red tape as part of the drive to win people back.
But he said that, while the Church leadership was “prayerfully confident” it could return to growth, talk of numbers at services bottoming out and preparing to increase could be premature.
“I am always happy to be taken by surprise by some unexpected good news but realistically I think it is probably at least five years,” he said.
“You can see pockets of very good growth in some places but we are a national church with thousands and thousands of parishes and it takes time and money for things to change.”
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.