Friday, March 18, 2016
Multicultural taxi passenger stripped off because she thought the driver wanted sex then wrecked his cab in a violent rampage
A taxi passenger took her clothes off in the back of a cab because she thought the driver wanted sex, then wrecked his vehicle and attacked him with a bottle.
Shareen Willock, 29, left Arshad Rasool spitting blood after drunkenly attacking him during a taxi journey in London.
A court heard that she was swigging from a bottle when she called a minicab to pick her up from Barnet, North London on January 17 this year.
Willock asked Mr Rasool to take her to East Ham, in East London - but on the way she suddenly undressed, wrongly thinking that the driver wanted to have sex with her.
She then began trashing the inside of his car, breaking an armrest and knocking the satnav off as she climbed into the front seat next to Mr Rasool.
At one point Willock poked the driver in the back of the head, causing him to sustain cuts to his ear, Thames magistrates' court was told.
She demanded the car pull over, then snapped off a windscreen wiper and battered both Mr Rasool and his Toyota with it, costing £1,000 worth of damage.
Willock was given a suspended sentence after she pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage and common assault.
Prosecutor Alexa Morgan highlighted extracts from Mr Raspol's victim impact statement in which he described having 'no idea where I was because my satnav was broken'.
The driver added: 'The female got out of the car and I got out as well. She broke the windscreen wiper and hit the windscreen. 'She swung the wiper at the body of my car which caused several dents. She also hit me twice with the wiper on my arms and threw it away.'
Mr Rasool eventually dropped Willock off at a petrol station where the police were called and she was arrested.
Ms Morgan said: 'The complainant suffered a small cut to the back of his ear and spat blood out when he actually got out of his car.'
Mez Motegheria, defending, said 'She does accept fully that her behaviour was wrong and she is remorseful for her actions. 'She does not recall any of the incident but she pleads guilty today and accepts she was intoxicated.'
Magistrate Stephen Bridges told Willock: 'This is an assault of the highest category - you ruined his car.
'All for the sake of we know not what. This assault is so serious that custody is the only option in the circumstances. Your behaviour beggars belief, frankly.'
Willock, from East Ham, was given a 12-week suspended sentence and 180 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay £650 in compensation.
Misdiagnosing the refugee crisis
by DANIEL HANNAN
I spent part of last summer volunteering in a hostel for underage migrants in the south of Italy. The teenagers there were largely from West Africa, and many of them told me harrowing stories of their journeys across the Sahara and Mediterranean. They were optimistic, resourceful boys and, in their situation, I hope I'd be brave enough to do what they did. But they were not, as we understand the word, refugees.
I have seen refugee columns before, and they tend to be made up disproportionately of women and children. Of the boat-people landed by the coast guard while I was in Italy, more than 80 percent were young men. Young men who, I noticed, took out smartphones when they disembarked and looked for Wi-Fi so as to tell their relatives that they had made it.
Those smartphones are the key to understanding what is going on. A young Gambian with access to the Internet and to credit is able to undertake journeys that his parents, living on subsistence agriculture, could not have contemplated. We are witnessing the beginning of an unprecedented movement of peoples, a Völkerwanderung, made possible by rising wealth and rising aspirations.
Official policy in Europe is based on a misdiagnosis. The migrants are treated as refugees, and there is an implicit assumption that their displacement is somehow our fault. In the weirdly narcissistic tradition of the Left, the West is simultaneously blamed for having intervened in Libya and for not having intervened in Syria. But the lads I was working with in Italy were from countries that we never bombed - except with aid money.
Vast as the numbers are, this is just the start. More than a million settlers - some estimates say a million-and-a-half - entered Germany in 2015. That figure may seem colossal now, but it will look modest in retrospect. More than twice as many people crossed into Greece on each of the 31 days of January 2016 as in the whole of January 2015.
True, some of these people are Syrians who, by any definition, have a claim to sanctuary. But many are not. The European Commission says that 60 percent of those entering the EU illegally are economic migrants rather than refugees; but it has no idea how to return hundreds of thousands of sans-papiers - or where to return them to. Sweden admitted 163,000 entrants last year. Its interior ministry now says that more than half of them are not genuine refugees. How many has it deported? Four thousand.
Imagine that you were living a squalid life in, say, Nigeria. You might not be suffering from persecution, but you are suffering from poverty and misgovernment. You know that, if you can get into Europe, you will almost certainly be allowed to remain, with or without refugee status. Why wouldn't you make the attempt?
Now imagine that you were a criminal or even a terrorist contemplating the journey. Bizarrely, the same calculation applies: You will almost certainly be allowed to stay. An al Qaeda fundraiser who was incarcerated in Britain overturned the deportation order at the end of his sentence by arguing that it would violate his "right to a family life." The daughter-in-law of the jailed Islamist militant Abu Hamza, who may not be named for legal purposes, likewise fought off repatriation following a conviction on grounds that she was the "sole carer" of a child in Britain (the taxpayer, it seems, is the "sole breadwinner").
Britain's situation is nonetheless enviable compared to Europe's. It's true that our judges seem determined, always and everywhere, to overturn deportation orders. But at least we have some control over who comes into our country in the first place. On the Continent, by contrast, the determination to build a united Europe trumped concerns about immigration, anti-terrorism and, for that matter, refugee welfare. Frontiers between EU states - what Brussels calls "internal borders" - were dismantled. In consequence, frontline states began to wave illegal migrants on to the next country, knowing that they would become someone else's responsibility. That policy is the proximate cause of the present crisis.
In desperation, Angela Merkel is now trying to persuade Turkey to take some migrants back from Greece - and holding out the prospect of visa-free travel to the EU for 75 million Turks in exchange. But we're far past the point where such measures will reduce the net inflow of illegal migrants. On 23 June, Britain will have an opportunity to stand aside from the entire EU shambles by voting to leave in a referendum. We won't get another chance.
UK: Corbyn’s accommodation of Jew-hatred is a betrayal of Labour’s morality
Jews have “big noses” and “slaughter the oppressed”, and Hitler was a “Zionist God”, according to Vicki Kirby, former Labour parliamentary candidate and now vice-chairman of the party’s Woking branch. Further, she exhorts Islamists to attack Israel: “Apparently you can ask IS/ISIS/ISIL questions on ask.fm,” she tweeted. “Anyone thought of asking them why they’re not attacking the real oppressors #Israel?”
According to Guido Fawkes (who has been pursuing this matter rather assiduously), she also tweeted: “I will make sure my kids teach their children how evil Israel is!” This belongs on the curriculum of a Daesh madrassa. For Vicki Kirby, Jew-hatred goes hand-in-hand with Israel-loathing. Jews have big noses and oppress people, and so Israel is evil. The response of Jeremy Corbyn to this blatant anti-Semitism has been somewhat muted.
It is ironic, is it not, that as politicians across all parties are hyper-sensitive to the merest whiff of Islamophobia, Her Majesty’s Official Opposition tolerates manifest Jew-hatred. It is an ancient, poisonous syndrome, devoid of morality, reason and compassion, which scapegoats all Jews and demonises Israel. Vicki Kirby’s rhetoric would find no place in the Conservative Party, or even in Ukip. That Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party deems her not merely fit for membership but suitable to hold elected office ought to concern everyone who cares about community cohesion and the national political discourse.
For Jews right across Europe, violence, suffering and persecution are not confined to the Nazi era: they are being driven out of their homes, shot in their schools and bombed in their shops by those who seek to islamise modernity. Vicki Kirby not only condones this; she incites more of it. She not only pitches Islamic-State terrorists against Zionists and political Judaism; she spouts hate against Jews everywhere, for they all are complicit in the Zionist conspiracy by virtue of their big noses.
If a mainstream British political party is prepared to tolerate the sort of jihadi ideology and crusade of hatred espoused by Vicki Kirby, the future for British Jewry will be bleak indeed. If we are to work for a peaceful coexistence, those who foment antagonism against Jews and Jewish civilisation have no place at all in our political culture.
If Vicki Kirby wants to march on the Holy Land, let her seek a warring tribe with whom she can dwell. If she can survive a week without being tortured, raped, sold into slavery or forcibly converted to Islam, good luck to her. Her myopic apprehension of the “Zionist God” Adolf Hitler is the true fault line in the perverted borders of her mind. If the Jews are to have no homeland, and Jeremy Corbyn sees fit to accommodate Vicki Kirby’s intifida, then those in Labour with a grasp of Christian morality have an obligation to rise up and speak out. The future of our civilisation depends on it.
It is reported that “Vicki Kirby has been suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation.” For all his faults, Ed Miliband moved swiftly to eradicate anti-Semites from his party. Why does Jeremy Corbyn enjoy their fellowship? Why does he grasp the oppression of every minority except Jews?
MSNBC Turns Intolerably White?
As it fires black bobblehead Melissa Harris-Perry
In the liberal lexicon, "backlash" is a word that only describes conservatives getting what's coming to them. But as MSNBC reduces its number of shows and time slots for race-obsessed black hosts, this was bound to happen. The hashtag that appeared as the left began to devour itself was #MSNBCSoWhite.
After MSNBC hired leftist, race-fixated hosts, it was only natural that the news station would be trashed as "going white" when the reality of it's terrible ratings — for shows hosted by academics preaching about how badly America stinks — cost Comcast some serious cash.
They gave the Rev. Al Sharpton a nightly show at 6 p.m. It had absolutely nothing to do with the infamous race-baiter's skills on television; he has none. It was all about stroking the ego of a leftist black activist. His mangling of the words on the teleprompter was so routine that the word malapropism could be re-categorized as "Sharptonism." Early in his "career" at MSNBC, he proclaimed "but resist we much — we must — and we will much — about — that — be committed." That laughable clip was all over conservative talk radio. That was just one of many. When they demoted Sharpton to a show on Sunday morning, he went quietly.
By contrast, professor Melissa Harris-Perry went out in a Black Lives Matter movement bender. When this self-described over-educated scholar felt her four-year-old show was being curtailed for weekend campaign coverage, she sent an outraged email to her co-workers that leaked to The New York Times. "I will not be used as a tool for their purposes," she wrote. "I am not a token, mammy or little brown bobblehead. I am not owned by (NBC News Chairman Andrew) Lack, (MSNBC President Phil) Griffin or MSNBC. I love our show. I want it back." She claimed that her audience — which she calls Nerdland — was hurting.
One was almost waiting for Hurricane Katrina analogies: the NBC brass were drowning minorities with their floods of campaign chatter.
Then a longer memo with more Harris-Perry self-pity leaked out. She was outraged at being left out of political coverage. "I have a Ph.D. in political science and have taught American voting and elections at some of the nation's top universities for nearly two decades, yet I have been deemed less worthy to weigh in than relative novices and certified liars." She burned every bridge with a rhetorical flamethrower.
ABC's "The View" interviewed Harris-Perry on March 14, and she again slammed the race card on the table. "The history of mammy is that mammy is the black woman who cares more about the master's family than about her own. And so, what I'm saying is, I don't care more about MSNBC's reputation than I do about the Nerdland family, about the thing that we built, about our viewing audience and about our team."
What she built, compared to Fox and CNN, would make molehills swell with pride.
She said her show's end absolutely has racial implications because her show's guest list was so diverse. "Taking this show off the air, even if you put me, individually, back on as a host meant that the folks who sat at our table, whether they were transgender women of color, whether they were Latino Republicans, they just weren't going to be there anymore because we were the folks who put them on air each and every week."
The ratings problems at MSNBC would be helped by curtailing the radical leftists. But the brass must know that conservatives and independents still won't trust a network of Obama-tinglers and Hillary Clinton-boosters, from Rachel Maddow to Chris Matthews to Andrea Mitchell. They may have avoided an Al-Jazeera dive, but the leaning forward mess continues.
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.