Friday, January 15, 2016
Welfare dependent multiculturalist is jailed for seven years for possessing live ammunition and dealing Class A drugs
Benefits Street star Black Dee has been jailed for seven years for keeping live ammunition in her home - where she ran an 'open-all-hours' drug business.
Samora Roberts, 34, was found in possession of over £5,000 of Class A drugs as well as bullets which she hid in a pink trainer under a washing basket.
She admitted seven counts of possessing cannabis with intent to supply and was found guilty of possessing crack cocaine and heroin.
Roberts was also found guilty of two counts of possessing 11 .38 Smith and Wesson cartridges without a firearms certificate.
Judge Philip Parker QC jailed Roberts for seven years at Birmingham Crown Court where he accused her of running an open-all-hours' drug business from her home on James Turner Street, which was better known as the location of Channel Four's Benefits Street.
Roberts and Omari George, 22, were found with seven packages of crack cocaine totalling over 194g - with a street value of over £5,000 - in a Ford Focus outside Roberts's home on the now notorious James Turner Street in the Winson Green area of Birmingham.
George, along with Tina Thomas, 48, both admitted possessing cannabis with intent to supply.
The court heard how Roberts was filmed by undercover officers carrying out drug deals in her home in the Winson Green area of Birmingham, and £5,250-worth of crack cocaine was found in a Ford Focus outside the property.
'Miss Roberts is now 33 and has come before the courts before, in particular in relation to drug matters.
'In October 2001 in Jamaica, she was dealt with for attempting to export and supply cannabis, for which she served a relatively short custodial sentence.'
Woman raised money for a homeless couple to stay in a 'nice, warm' hotel for Christmas - only for them to trash the room and cause £1,000 worth of damage
Jesus said: "The poor ye always have with you". Below is an example of why. The poor are often poor because they behave badly
A woman who raised money so that a homeless couple could have a 'nice, warm Christmas' in a hotel was left devastated after they trashed the room and caused £1,000 worth of damage.
Louise Elliott, 32, and her friend Becky Mcsorley launched a Facebook appeal to pay for Lewis Holley, his girlfriend Stacey and their dog Bonnie to stay at the Ibis Hotel in Crawley, West Sussex over the festive season.
Twenty-five kind-hearted strangers responded and in just a few days the friends had raised £640 to cover the cost of the accommodation for 10 nights, from December 24 until January 2.
It later emerged the couple had also tried to cut the stay short after just one night, asking staff if they could check out on Christmas Day and receive £576 in cash instead of the remaining nine nights.
After learning of the damage, Miss Elliott, who has five sons, took to Facebook to 'apologise to anyone that donated to help these people', adding 'to say I am disappointed is an understatement'.
Miss Elliott, from Reigate, Surrey, said she and Miss Mcsorley decided to raise money for Mr Holley, known as Piper, after organising a collection of clothes to donate to homeless people in London.
Friends and neighbours suggested raising money for a cause closer to home, and a number suggested helping 'Piper', a well-known figure in Crawley, because he was 'so nice'.
Miss Elliott said that when she first approached the couple they were overwhelmed by the offer, saying they were 'so grateful' and that it would be an 'amazing' opportunity.
She posted an appeal on Facebook in the week before Christmas and within five days had raised £640.
One woman donated £120 and two of Miss Elliott's children each put £10 of their birthday money towards the fund, determined to give back to others over Christmas.
The money was far more than she had expected and was enough to pay for 10 nights in the hotel.
'When I went to tell them, they were over the moon,' Miss Elliott said. 'Stacey was crying she was so happy. And we all felt good.'
She dropped the couple off at the hotel where another friend had organised a hamper for Mr Holley, Stacey and Bonnie to enjoy. She even included non-alcoholic wine as the couple said they didn't drink.
Miss Elliott said: 'We felt really good. We thought we had done such a good thing because it was cold and it was rainy and they were sleeping in a tent.'
She started to think something was wrong when the couple text her while she was on her way to collect them from the hotel on January 2.
They said they had made their own way back into town but they were once again sleeping rough as 'someone had stolen their tent'. Wary they might want more money, Miss Elliott stayed away.
It wasn't until January 5, when Miss Elliott was on holiday with her children in Disneyland Paris, that the hotel contacted her to tell her the couple had caused some £1,000 in damages.
The window was badly cracked and has to be replaced, someone had tried to rip the TV off the wall and the carpet was so badly damaged it needs to be replaced.
The mattress was also 'left in a state' and the couple had taken the duvet. It took two members of staff two hours to clear all the rubbish out of the room.
Miss Elliott said: 'The hotel phoned and said "we just want you to know what happened. We are not chasing damages" and my heart just sank. 'I thought, "oh my God. What have they done? How could they do that?" It is just unreal.'
Neither of the mobile numbers Miss Elliott had for the couple worked but she encouraged the hotel to pursue the matter with the police. 'I just felt so angry and so bad for the hotel staff,' she added.
Miss Elliott said that the experience has taught her 'you can't take anyone's word' and that 'she won't do anything like this again'.
Adding it was worse because it was 'other people's money at such an important time of year'. She said: 'We feel like fools. It was the time of year for goodwill and generosity. 'So many kind people went out their way to try and do something nice at Christmas but it has turned into a nightmare. I am so sorry for the people who gave money.'
Hotel manager Sam White confirmed that the damage would cost around £1,000 to fix, adding he had 'never seen a room that bad in my many years of hotel management'.
General Warns: Military Will Face 'Great Pressure' to Lower Standards for Women in Combat to Please ‘Agenda-Driven’ in D.C.
Marine Gen. John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, said at a Pentagon press briefing on Friday that he believes that future generals will face “great pressure” to lower the standards for women in combat in order to get more women into combat roles.
“My greatest fear---and we see this happen a lot over the 45 years I've been in the Armed Forces--is right now they're saying we are not going to change any standards,” said Kelly. “There will be great pressure, whether it's 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we've let women into these other roles, why aren't they staying in those other roles?
“Why aren't they advancing as infantry people—persons--I guess? Why aren't they becoming, you know, more senior?” he said. “And the answer is--I think will be--if we don't change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers, any real numbers, come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals, but that's their business.”
“So,” said Kelly, “I think it will be the pressure for not probably the generals that are here now, but for the generals to come, and admirals, to lower standards because that's the only way it'll work in the way that I hear some people, particularly, the agenda-driven people here in Washington--or in the land--the way they want it to work.
Here is the complete transcript of the question a reporter asked Kelly and Kelly’s answer:
Question: I have a question. I have a question. Women in combat. Of course, the Marines were against opening all ground combat jobs to women. They were overruled by the defense secretary. The Marine report found that mixed-gender units were less lethal, slower, more prone to injuries than all-male units.
Talk about the way ahead on this. How can they put this into effect, what concerns you in the way ahead with this?
Gen. Kelly: I would just offer that I believe, given the mission in of the United States Armed Forces to fight the nation's wars, I believe that every decision we make, whether it's a personnel decision, Tom, or an acquisition, a new airplane, a new whatever widget, I think every decision has to be looked at only one filter, and that is, does it make us more lethal on the battlefield?
Will it end up -- will it result in less casualties on our side? Will it end up in less casualties on the other side, because they're human beings, too. Some of them very much deserve to be killed but others don't, and so that's the filter.
So if you look at anything we are contemplating doing, does it make us more lethal? If the answer to that is do it -- is yes, then do it. If the answer to that is no, clearly don't do it. If the answer to that is, it shouldn't hurt, I would suggest that we shouldn't do it, because it might hurt.
So that's in my opinion. The way I think you do this is, since we're all ordered to do it, is you simply do it. My greatest fear -- and we see this happen a lot over the 45 years I've been in the Armed Forces is, right now they're saying we are not going to change any standards. There will be great pressure, whether it's 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we've let women into these other roles, why aren't they staying in those other roles?
Why aren't they advancing as infantry people -- persons, I guess? Why aren't they becoming, you know, more senior and the answer is, I think will be, if we don't change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers -- any real numbers come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals, but that's their business.
So we have very small numbers anyways. And then, the only science I know on this was not the Marine study, it was the study that the Marine Corps contracted the University of Pittsburgh, I think. The other aspect is, because of the nature of infantry combat, infantry training, and all of rest, there's a higher percentage of young women in the scientific study that get hurt, and some of them get hurt forever.
So I think it will be the pressure for not probably the generals that are here now, but for the generals to come, and admirals, to lower standards because that's the only way it'll work in the way that I hear some people, particularly, the agenda-driven people here in Washington -- or in the land, the way they want it to work
Rise of the female sex pest: Think it’s only men who harass colleagues with wandering hands and crude taunts? Not any more
Arriving late to a drinks party, I looked across the bar and spotted a former colleague, who beckoned me over. She was perched at a high table, one arm languorously coiled around the neck of the very young man by her side.
Although well-preserved, in an expensive, highly maintained kind of way, I knew this woman would be seeing 50 before too long. I also knew she’d been happily married for more than 20 years, and has children not much younger than the man she was drooling over, as if he was a rare steak on a platter.
‘Angela, come and meet Ryan,’ she said. ‘He’s just joined my firm. Isn’t he simply delicious?’
Ryan looked terrified. Ensnared by an older woman - his professional superior, no less - he was clearly clueless as to how to deal with the situation. No wonder the minute his boss loosened her grip to talk to me, he shot off like a rat up a drainpipe, but not before enduring a humiliating slap on the bottom as he made his retreat.
I caught his eye as he ran, and recognised something I thought I’d never see this side of the Seventies. Though he was trying to laugh it off, I saw the desperation of a subordinate being sexually harassed.
Whereas, in the past, it would have been a female office junior, hiding in the toilets at the office party from a predatory male boss, now the roles were reversed.
I’d like to say this cringe-inducing display was an anomaly - the drunken slip-up of a middle-aged woman who’d wake up burning with shame in the morning - but that wasn’t the case. My ex-colleague saw nothing wrong in her behaviour. ‘It’s just a bit of fun, darling,’ she scoffed when I challenged her.
If anything, she saw it as entirely justified, a retrospective ‘fingers up’ at all the sexism she’d to endure from middle-aged men on her own climb to the top.
There are many like her. Unashamed and brazen, the female groper operates with impunity, unlike her male counterpart who fears a summons to a tribunal should he linger too long when greeting a female subordinate.
Caught in uncharted, dangerous territory, young male victims are left confused and vulnerable. Should they complain and risk a ribbing from male colleagues while incurring the vengeful wrath of their female boss? Or just ‘man up’ and put up with it? It all feels so sadly familiar.
No wonder cases of men complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace are increasing: a third of men reported some sort of inappropriate attention in the workplace during a recent survey.
I couldn’t help thinking of the case of Neil Fox, the DJ cleared of historic sexual assault charges.
Interviewed afterwards, Fox said of one accuser, a former colleague: ‘There were times when I would easily wander by and slap her bum, touch her on the way past. If I thought anyone was uncomfortable with that, I wouldn’t do it. She joined in high-spirited banter, funny chats - none of this would in any way have offended her.’
Oh really? I suspect the woman ‘wasn’t offended’ in the same way the poor soul I could now see, clearly hiding behind a pillar, ‘wasn’t offended’. And other young men like him, all over the country.
One friend, an ambitious financial strategist at a large blue-chip company, told me he’d avoided the firm’s Christmas party because of the way some female colleagues behave towards him.
Already the recipient of relentless female office commentary about his gym-honed body, he told me he simply wasn’t prepared to endure the harassment masquerading as ‘fun’ that inevitably awaited him. It was so much easier, he said, to simply stay at home.
So why should there be one rule for women and one for men? Last year, 23-year-old digital marketing co-ordinator Poppy Smart sparked a storm by reporting wolf-whistling builders in Worcester to the police.
It seems utterly unjust that women baulk at being wolf-whistled at, yet Coca-Cola built an entire advertising campaign on a beefy, shirtless window cleaner who titillates the office typing pool by drinking a can of Diet Coke outside their window. Perhaps the female groper - sexually confident, financially independent and emancipated by equality of opportunity - feels a sense of entitlement. She lets her hands wander and laces her patter with double entendres because she feels it is an unabashed right.
The female groper also believes, perhaps, that men can take it. Yet many can’t. Militant feminism may have succeeded in emasculating men on so many levels.
Yet it continues to turn its back on the thought of men also being the victim. Groups such as Everyday Sexism clamour loudly - and rightly - about harassment, but remain silent when it comes to male victims.
According to Danielle Ayres, an employment lawyer with Gorvins Solicitors, sexual harassment clearly applies to men and women, since it is a form of discrimination under the Equality Act.
Yet through the course of her work, Danielle points out that women are much more likely to raise complaints than men.
‘Perhaps it does happen more frequently to women. But I doubt the disparity in the number of complaints is purely due to men being the main perpetrators.
‘Nor do I think it’s because women are more sensitive or more easily offended either. ‘The women brave enough to complain feel they have a genuine grievance. Rather it’s more likely that more women complain because men are more reluctant to say anything.
‘They may feel they’ll lose face if they complain. Or that they won’t be taken seriously.’
Maybe, then, the female groper is able to flourish because of the cliched vicious circle. She does it because she can. And because she can, she does it.
It’s a knock-on effect that breeds an atmosphere of acceptance, all too familiar in the recent Yewtree investigations, where quite repulsive, predatory behaviour of celebrities such as Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris was seen as normal - and often copied. On this last point, I hold up my own, occasionally wandering hands, and admit how easy it is to fall into tactile behaviour or gentle sexual banter with men.
Take the time a few weeks ago when I bumped into a former colleague who had lost more than a stone since I’d last seen him. We’ve always had a gently humorous working relationship.
So I found myself commenting how he was ‘quite the hottie’ these days. I even asked him to give me a twirl (he demurred) before patting his arm and asking what had prompted him to venture into ‘centrefold territory’.
He took my remarks in good spirit. Perhaps he loved the attention, as many men may do. But what if he was, as Danielle Ayres suggests, putting on a front?
And there’s more. Last month, after completing a project with a group of colleagues, we began discussing a celebration dinner.
Steve, a good-looking man in his 30s, said he’d be unable to make the proposed date. ‘Oh no,’ cried one of the women, ‘what will we have for hors d’oeuvre?’
I cringed inside, but laughed just as loudly as everyone else.
Driving home, I replayed the scene. What if the ‘hors d’oeuvre’ comment had been made to me, by a group of men, as a young, ambitious reporter? What if it happens to my daughter, in future years, joining colleagues for a bonding, post-work glass of wine? I could feel the indignation rising up in me like a flush.
Conversely, I remember interviewing a fairly high-profile businessman who admitted that, at one firm where he’d worked, a female colleague regularly directed lewd remarks towards him and would often pinch his bottom in the corridor.
He told her to stop, but she didn’t. His reprieve came only when she left the company - with a glowing reference and unblemished character. Why didn’t he make an official complaint? He felt he couldn’t do so because he couldn’t bear to think how ‘making a fuss’ would go down at the partners’ meeting.
The female groper is not taken as seriously as the male one. So she continues apace, dispensing unwelcome caresses and inappropriate conversation because she is a woman, and because she can.
As for myself, after watching the unedifying spectacle of poor old Ryan, I have every intention of keeping my hands and my wit to myself in future.
I just wish my ‘sisters’ could do the same.
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.