Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Another perverted Muslim
A pervert doctor who groped female patients 40 years ago and robbed one of the chance of ever finding love has been sent to prison for his crimes.
Justice finally caught up with retired GP, Mohammed Haq, from Hornchurch, Essex, when the frail 74-year-old was led from the dock of St Albans Crown Court to begin his 18 month sentence.
Before, the court heard how a young single woman - who was pregnant at the time - was left so traumatised by what Haq did to her that she never felt able to let a man to touch her again.
As a result, St Albans crown court was told, the woman has never had a 'relationship' with a man since. In a statement that was read to the court, she said: 'Since that evening I have not been in any relationship. I didn't want to be touched by any man.'
The woman said she had been looking forward to being a mother until Haq groped her at his surgery one evening.
Even as the time approached for her son to be born she couldn't bear the thought of a doctor touching or examining her. She insisted she be allowed a Caesarian birth as a result.
Her statement continued: 'Everything changed in my life that evening... I have never felt safe to have a relationship'. 'He took from me the ability to love and he's a wicked man who got his kicks by abusing women,' she said.
Haq appeared in court having been found guilty earlier this year of fondling the breasts of a teenage girl and three female patients during unnecessary clinical examinations in the 1970s and early 1980s.
The married father-of-two indecently assaulted the women while he worked as a GP at the Burvill House Surgery and Hilltop Surgery in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.
Prosecutor Miranda Moore QC told the jury at the start of his trial: 'There were inappropriate breast examinations and there was no clinical justification for what happened.'
The youngest victim was 15 when she went to see the doctor because she had swollen neck glands.
Ms Moore added: 'He asked her to take her top, her bra and her trousers off. She was standing in her pants alone in the room with no chaperone. 'He cupped her breasts and twiddled with her nipples. He told her to bend over. She felt stunned.'
One patient went to see Dr Haq for a repeat prescription of slimming pills. 'He told her to take her top off and pulled her right nipple to make it erect. Then he made both nipples erect and plucked them. He did not weigh her or give her the weight loss pills,' said the barrister.
Another woman, who is now in her 60s, went to Haq with a bad back and he touched her breasts unnecessarily. The victim told the jury: 'He told me to take my jumper and bra off and lie on the couch. There was no second person in room. 'He started touching the breast area. He was not examining me for problems he was just fondling. 'He asked me to stand up and touched my breasts again. I suppose I was young and naive.'
She said she saw Dr Haq again in 1980 when she had a rash on her neck. 'He asked me to take my jumper and bra off. I did.
'I felt shocked, having only gone with a rash on my neck. He didn't say why he was touching my breasts. He said he did not know what the rash was and gave me a prescription for some cream.'
When another woman went to Haq to find out if she was pregnant he told her to strip and squeezed her breasts. The woman is said to have complained to the surgery receptionist who 'laughed at her'.
Haq, of Parkstone Avenue, Hornchurch denied ten offences of indecent assault on four women in the 1970s and early 80s.
During the course of the trial Judge Andrew Bright QC ruled that he had no case to answer on two charges of indecent assault.
He was convicted by the jury of eight women and four men unanimously on three counts. They convicted him on two other charges by a majority of ten to two. The jury cleared him of two others. They could not agree on the remaining charge.
Sentencing had been adjourned for medical reports to be prepared and he was ordered to register as a sex offender.
Haq had committed the offences on the women when he was in his thirties, but the court was told he now suffers from heart problems and is profoundly deaf. He has diabetes, eye problems and is waiting for an operation to remove a large kidney stone. He is also suffering from depression.
In the early 1980s he was been suspended for 9 months by the General Medical Council after complaints from patients, but there was never any criminal investigation into his activities.
Years later his victims finally found the courage to tell Hertfordshire Police what Haq had done to them and he was arrested and charged.
Following his suspension in 1981, he was allowed to resume practicing as a doctor and eventually retired in 2014.
Julian Woodbridge, defending, described what Haq had done as 'the opportunistic touching of breast'. He went on 'Even 35 years on what is obvious is that his behaviour has had an effect on the women.'
Passing sentence on Friday, Judge Bright said that because of the age of the victim, the most serious offence had been the fondling of the 15-year-old. As a result of what he did to her, which had been for his own 'sexual gratification,' the judge said her life had been blighted by panic attacks.
The judge told Haq his victims had placed total trust in him as their GP. 'It was complete and total trust and you abused that trust with all your victims including a 15-year-old who was in no position to speak up for herself.'
Judge Bright said by contesting the allegations and forcing the victims to go to court and relive their ordeals, it was clear Haq felt no remorse for his crimes.
He jailed him for 18 months and ordered him to pay £7500 towards the cost of the prosecution.
One in six BBC stars 'must be gay or lesbian or disabled' by 2020 says new staff-hiring guidelines
One in six of all on-screen BBC roles must go to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender or disabled people by 2020, the corporation's new diversity targets state.
In a bid to deter criticism that it has been failing to reflect its audience, the BBC has pledged that LGBT and disabled people will each make up eight per cent of all on-air and on-screen roles.
The new targets follow a heated debate in the House of Commons led by David Lammy MP on the issue of the broadcaster's diversity.
Fifty per cent of all on-screen and broadcasting roles will go to women, who already make up 48.5 per cent of the BBC's total workforce.
However, the BBC will still be able to commission shows where the main roles are more likely to be male-dominated.
Radio 2, which has a particularly male-dominated line-up of broadcasters, including DJs and presenters Chris Evans, Simon Mayo, Jeremy Vine and Bob Harris, faces an overhaul.
Last year, a review by the BBC Trust, the corporation's watchdog, found that six stations - including Radio 2 - raised concerns that they were failing ethnic minority audiences.
Radio 2 was highlighted as having particular difficulties in attracting non-white listeners. It was said to reach an average of only 12 percent of BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) adults each week, compared to 35 percent for all adults.
The BBC's target for 15 per cent of on-screen and on-air representation, including lead roles, to be people from BAME backgrounds will not be increased by 2020, as the current percentage reflects the UK's population. Currently 13.1 per cent of the BBC's workforce is from a BAME background, with the same target of 15 per cent by 2020.
A statement from a BBC spokesperson said: 'We are making good progress in our work to make the BBC a truly diverse organisation, but there's more to do and we're always keen to improve.
'Almost half of our workforce is made up of women and the proportion of our workforce who are black, Asian and other ethnic minorities is at an all-time high.
'We'll continue doing what works but also develop new and innovative ideas to do even better, and we'll set this out in our new diversity strategy shortly.'
In a statement on the BBC's website, Tunde Ogungbesan, head of diversity, inclusion and succession at the BBC, said: 'The BBC is a diverse organisation, whichever way you look at it.
'Almost half of our workforce is made up of women and the proportion of our black, Asian and other ethnic minorities in our workforce is at an all-time high.
'But there is more to do and we know the challenge we face so we’ll be building on this strong platform by continuing doing what works.
Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy Ed Vaizey confirmed that diversity will be prominent in the White Paper on the BBC's new charter, which will be unveiled by Culture Secretary John Whittingdale in May.
The BBC's royal charter, due to expire this year, is currently under Government review.
Be a 'fattipuff' if you like, but don't expect my NHS to save you!
By RACHEL JOHNSON
A little while ago I sat next to Jeremy Hunt at a work dinner in Westminster. Mouth full of Parma ham, the Health Secretary spoke movingly about the challenges the NHS faces as the country grows up in terms of age, and out in terms of size.
He ate his fish but declined pudding (I ate his lemon tart for him). He grazed at the cheese and then jogged out, his blue shirt tucked flat into his waistband, and all this wasn’t just his manly pride in maintaining a bella figura.
Hunt knew then what was coming. At the Italian restaurant that evening, he talked a lot about obesity, and how the fatberg threatens to sink HMS NHS.
And last week, we learned that our NHS’s many captains are already being forced into taking evasive action. According to the Royal College of Surgeons, the overweight and smokers (let’s call them fattipuffs for short) are becoming ‘soft targets’ for savings.
In a third of health trusts in England, treatment is being withheld or delayed for up to three million patients presenting with those conditions.
Now, according to the president of the RCS, who rejoices in the name of Clare Marx, this is not on. Not at all. ‘Blanket bans that deny or delay patients’ access to surgery are wrong,’ she says.
Well, I’m sorry, Miss Marx, but the surgeons and clinicians aren’t wrong. They are right.
I admit this makes me sound like an unsympathetic, horrible, fattist person. I know that the very founding principles of our sacred NHS are that it should be free at the point of delivery, and treatment should be based on need, not the ability to pay. In an ideal world, these principles would still hold.
But we do not live in an ideal world. And, as we don’t, those who take more care of their health – like our slimline Health Secretary, a man who dances a mean lambada on a specially sprung floor in his London home – should be first in the queue, pushing a blubber mountain who sits and smokes himself into oblivion further down the list.
Politics is about choices, and so is healthcare. Resources are finite, whereas demand is unlimited. Inevitably, the NHS has been forced into exercising Darwinian natural selection, and helping those who it thinks have most chance of survival into the lifeboat first.
When my husband needed a liver transplant, he had to undergo a week-long battery of tests, and also complete a sheaf of forms, to prove he wasn’t a George Best character, depriving another more deserving patient of a desperately needed organ. And quite right too.
In fact, I think healthcare ‘leaders’ have to send out a firmer signal that those who self-inflict damage should not expect rapid and automatic service.
They have no other choice if the NHS itself is going to survive or sink beneath the waves of flab or go up in smoke.
According to Public Health England, in 2014-15 almost a fifth of children in Year 6 (those aged ten and 11) were obese, while for children in Reception (aged four and five), the figure was one in ten.
Just think of the NHS staggering under the weight of their case notes alone in a few decades.
Jeremy Hunt should come out and explain why such rationing is not just important and necessary, but right. As a nation, we are digging our own graves with our teeth, and burying the NHS as we do so.
If he won’t say it, I will. Go ahead and smoke and drink and eat yourself to death. Knock yourselves out, fattipuffs.
But don’t expect preferential treatment at my expense.
Limbaugh: 'Obliterating Morality Has Been What the Culture War is All About'
"How in the hell did this happen?" conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh asked his audience on Thursday.
"We have men's and women's restrooms for a reason, just like we've always had marriage, and it's always been defined as a specific thing for...time-honored and time-tested reasons. They were not the result of people who had power lording that over other people.
"These are processes and behavioral patterns that established over the millennia as proper, just, moral, correct, sensible, you name it. Now all of a sudden that gets thrown out, and it's all up to how somebody feels about themselves at a particular moment in time as to which bathroom they want to use."
Limbaugh said none of it makes any sense within a "right versus wrong" framework. He said it's all about "us versus them."
"And, see, I don't think the culture war has been about right versus wrong for a long time. And people haven't figured that out. They continue to fight it on a moral or a morality battlefield, but that's not it at all.
"In fact, obliterating morality has been what the culture war is all about, not asserting it and not having it triumph. The whole point of the culture war is an us-versus-them framework now, and the 'us' is all of the disparate minorities of the world versus the 'them,' which is people they claim to be the oppressive majority."
Limbaugh said liberalism is determined to wipe out the concept of morality, believing that no one has the right to define it.
"Nobody can write laws that are based on morality and have them apply to everybody, because your morality may differ from mine, and there isn't any universal morality; there isn't any universal right and wrong...
"So something as simple as morality and right and wrong has now become politicized, and therefore illegitimate, 'cause you don't have the right to tell somebody what's right and wrong. You don't have the right to define morality -- and if you do, then you're a problem. You're the problem. You're the oppressive, old fogey, fuddy-duddy problem. Meanwhile, you think you're just standing up for what's right and justice and wholesome and good, and their whole objective has been just to erase all of that."
Limbaugh said the cultural and political battles we face are no longer rational.
"None of this LGBT stuff is rational. Not a single thing happening is rational. It's all irrational. None of it makes any sense. It's got everybody scratching their heads, but they don't know how to stop it. They don't know how to oppose it. Anybody who tries is shouted down, targeted for destruction or what have you, on Twitter."
Limbaugh described the ongoing battles as "tribal."
"We are stunned. How many of you, how many of you are literally shocked and stunned that logical arguments do not persuade people anymore? How many of you have found yourself in an argument with people and you're using logic, inescapable logic? As far as you're concerned, there's no question the difference in right and wrong in terms of whatever it is you're discussing. And it doesn't persuade anybody. And you end up at your wits' end over this.
"The problem, you see, is that the left has shifted this entire culture battle or culture war from right versus wrong to us versus them. There isn't any right versus wrong.
"The only way they can win this war is by obliterating the concepts of right versus wrong, 'cause they are wrong, and they know it, and they don't want to be thought of that way. So they just obliterate the whole concept of right versus wrong, and it gets replaced by something we could call us versus them, where it becomes more important to be on the right side of an issue, quote, the correct side, the popular side of any issue than it is to be right, as in correct."
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.