Tuesday, August 02, 2016
UK: Multicultural stomach specialist, 41, who groomed underage schoolgirls online and told them 'Trust me I'm a doctor' is struck off
An NHS specialist who tried to arrange sex with a '13-year-old girl' after a string of vile explicit messages offering to take her virginity has been struck off.
Dr Khaled Zachariah, 41, used social media usernames TummyDoctor and Medic69 as he trawled social media to find young victims on MSN and World's Biggest Chat.
He talked of 'slow love making' and asked one girl to meet him in a luxury hotel, telling her: 'It is a turn on to teach you everything; Trust me, I'm a doctor,' a medical tribunal heard.
After meeting her online, he changed his name from TummyDoctor to the more salacious Medic69 - the number part being a reference to a sexual position - when they started talking privately.
The doctor, who has a 12-year-old son and a younger daughter, started the conversation by saying: 'I usually don't chat up underage girls. So you are 13?'
But the reply actually came from officers from Greater Manchester Police, who had created the fake profile after they came across his suspicious TummyDoctor account while investigating grooming.
When the officers replied 'yes', the medic used vile language to try and seduce him, using the kind of words and spellings that a teenager might use. He wrote: 'I am a doctor, I won't try to seduce you but if you are ready then I might. You prob still a virgin. You are a good girl. Good is neva bad, being bad is sometimes good.'
The doctor asked her to confirm she was 13 and when she did, he replied: 'I've never played with a 13-year-old'. When asked what he meant, he said: 'f****d'.
He offered to teach her how to 'pleasure a man' and to buy her boots so that she could wear them for him at a hotel in Manchester where he promised to book a room.
Zachariah joked about being three times her age, telling her about Jeremy Forrest, who eloped to France with a 15-year-old girl in order to justify his sick fantasy. He said: 'I am three times your age lol. Society makes it illegal but nature takes its course.
'I won't joke about this to anyone. I could go to jail. You seen what that teacher done with the 15 yr old and took her to France. And where is he now.'
Zachariah claimed that he never intended to meet the girl, posting as 'Sweetsam13', and simply wanted to live out his fantasies online, which he would never act on.
The hearing heard that the conversations got shorter and Zachariah said he would not be able to meet up due to bad weather.
He told officers posing as the girl: 'We won't be able to be together properly for another three years, I need to make sure we stay solid.'
Another post read: 'You are single cute and inexperienced. I would love to get you on the right path, the one that leads to my bed. 'Your first time is better with an expert. It would be fun smuggling you into that room.'
When the undercover officers tried to contact the doctor again he did not respond and he was arrested in June 2013.
The hearing was told Zachariah was bailed but no charges were brought and bosses at Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust were alerted.
Zachariah admitted carrying out the sordid online chats but denied misconduct at a medical tribunal, claiming it was all a fantasy and knew he was not talking to a young girl.
But those claims were thrown out by a tribunal panel who convicted him of misconduct and ordered that he be struck off as a doctor.
Medical Practioners Tribunal Service panel chair Peter Scofield said Zachariah abused his position of trust as a doctor, who worked at Gloucester Royal Hospital as a registrar in Gastroenterology.
He said: 'Sexual misconduct seriously undermines public trust in the profession. The misconduct is particularly serious where there is an abuse of the special position of trust a doctor occupies.
'You abused your position as a doctor and you put your own interests before that of a person you believed to be a child. 'There is an expectation that doctors act with the highest integrity not only in the workplace but also in their private lives. 'Your misconduct is so serious that your interests are outweighed by the public interest in this regard.
'The Tribunal concluded that erasure is the only means of protecting the public, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. 'It therefore directs that your name be erased from the Medical Register.'
How to Defeat Terrorism
I admit at the outset that my title is partially misleading. Terrorism cannot be defeated, it can only be significantly reduced if the right measures are adopted. We are engaged in a war without end, a war that has gone on for fourteen centuries, a war that cannot be decisively won—but it is a war that we need not lose. We can limit the enemy’s ability to strike, keep him on the defensive, degrade his arsenal and confine him as far as possible to the peripheries of our world.
The necessary measures are not difficult to discern, but unlikely to be applied so long as our leaders are either weak or suborned, the media circulate their usual obfuscations, the academy persists in its ideological corruption, the talking heads keep talking before repairing to the security of their gated communities and tony neighborhoods, and the general populace remains mired in its habitual lassitude and fear of sounding politically incorrect.
The measures and policies that would need to be put in place are so obvious that the failure to implement them is nothing but a sign of lethal complacency and moral cowardice. What are these measures? The list is not unduly long and, as I say, entirely obvious.
Islamic immigration must be drastically curtailed if not completely stopped. As Donald Trump has cogently warned, “We are allowing people into our country who we have no idea where they are, where they're from, who they are, they have no paperwork, they have no documentation, in many cases.” This, as the proverb goes, is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. But there are many more horses in the barn to be confined to their stalls. It’s a start.
Since large Muslim populations are already settled within our borders, surveillance must be intensive, methodical and ongoing. No-Go Zones must be pacified by whatever means, and must be made Go Zones. Self-regulated ghettoes have to be opened up and rigorously policed. Islamic law must be ruled in contravention of common law and legally prohibited. Vigorous action is required.
As Andrew Bieszad, one of Walid Shoebat’s co-bloggers, reported at com, the mayor of Calais has now decided to act, to dismantle the so-called refugee “jungle” that has disfigured the town and to displace or deport thousands of its characteristically violent denizens. As Bieszad says, “It has taken a long time, but the French are finally pushing back against the Muslims in Calais.” But nowhere else, it appears.
All mosques, which are effectively command centers, must be stringently investigated and many must be closed down.
Every imam in the country should be thoroughly vetted and many should be de-licensed and restricted from preaching.
Jihadi suspects clearly and unequivocally known to law enforcement agencies should not be so readily allowed, as is far too often the case, to mix freely among the people. As has often been said, lone wolves are usually known wolves. Moreover, it is a mistake to consider them as “lone”; they are really part of a vast ideological pack.
Of course, we would need to protect ourselves against abuse of authority where anyone in disfavor with policing agencies or political administrations can be randomly detained. Wolves may be responsibly “tagged,” so to speak, and monitored, whether digitally or in propia persona, by the intelligence community, with a reasonable prospect of interception before yet another outrage is committed—those like the Nice jihadist Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who, as The Washington Post reports, “had been connected to assault and theft since 2010” and sentenced to a six month prison term (though “[i]t was not clear whether Bouhlel served any of that sentence”).
Admittedly, there is a fine line between liberty and security, the issue will always remain moot, and safeguards will have to be agreed upon even if we lose some battles along the way.
Muslims and non-Muslims who leave the country to fight alongside terrorist entities must not be repatriated, even if they are passport-holding citizens. They are accessories to those who would destroy us and are therefore enemy combatants.
Muslim organizations with ties to terror-sponsoring organizations or that lobby for Sharia or for cultural and political influence must be disbanded and outlawed, no matter how powerful and widespread.
No less important, indeed, perhaps the most crucial of the measures I am proposing, has to do with terminology and the concepts it signifies. We keep hearing that the enemy we are facing is “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.” Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the most serious in its consequences of the evasions we practice and one that ensures our eventual destruction. The enemy is not radical Islam but Islam pure and simple. The terrorists, their enablers and the “entry” cohort take their warrant from their holy scriptures—the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, the schools of jurisprudence, and centuries of political and religious commentary.
As Jeff Sanders writes in an article for PJ Media, “The ‘holy war’ in the Bible is limited to only one set of passages in the Old Testament… [and to a particular] piece of geography and that particular time period….God did not ever tell the Israelites to go conquer and take the land of the Egyptians or the Syrians or the Greeks or the Babylonians or anyone else. And they didn't.…However, the commands in the Quran to make war on all unbelievers have no ‘sunset clause.’ All of these commands are open-ended. They are not limited in any way to any geographical boundaries or to a time period. They are for all faithful Muslims for all time.”
As for the smattering of peaceful and tolerant passages, “the Quran also teaches something called the ‘law of abrogation,’ [in which] a later revelation, if it contradicts an earlier one, must be obeyed (Surah 2:106)…So, those few peaceful and tolerant passages in the Quran [are] replaced with other, newer commands, [which are] not so peaceful and tolerant.” Few “experts,” commentators, intellectuals and lay people are ready to endorse so unpalatable a truth. It is far easier for them to accept the conventional pieties, to regard themselves as correct-thinking and enlightened beings, and to redefine pusillanimity as courage.
In summation, until we recognize that Islam itself—not only its presumably “radical” variants—is incompatible with pluralistic Western democracies, we will not be able to save our countries.
Pushback is unlikely for some time yet, if ever. Notwithstanding, peaceful Muslims must be pressured by informed opinion to undertake a thoroughgoing transformation of their faith even if the result has little affinity with millennial orthodoxy. The liberal argument that, in so doing, we will drive the moderates into the arms of the radicals is a reductio ad absurdum and, as Milo Yiannopoulos pointed out in an interview with a typical mealy-mouthed British journalist, is actually a threat.
Must we keep assuring these putative moderates that Islam is demonstrably a religion of peace in order to keep them moderate? “Be nice to us or we’ll kill more of you,” as Yiannopoulos puts it. Must we refrain from fighting an implacable foe at the risk of finding ever more of them? Is this how we respond to Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs? Such an argument is patently a confession of defeat and guarantees yet more of the same.
Should the measures I and others are recommending be instituted, Islam will not go away, and innocent people will still die in terrorist attacks or find their everyday lives to some extent imperiled by Islamic social and cultural incursions, although to a much diminished degree.
Nevertheless, there is no other resolution to our dilemma, failing which the sequel is eminently predictable: the grizzly march of terrorist atrocities like those we have seen since 9/11 (and before) up to the latest carnage in Nice, dramatic Muslim inroads into the culture, eventual civil conflict and armed skirmishes on the streets of our cities, the rise of fascist parties profiting from the general malaise, and the inevitable disintegration of a way of life that we have ignorantly taken for granted.
“There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war—not just lip-service," Robert Spencer writes, “but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.”
We are now at the inflexion point. Either we are prepared to continue being slaughtered like sheep and to lose our ancestral traditions of rights and freedoms, or we are determined to preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage and the best the West has to offer.
Pentagon’s Transgender Policy Defies Common Sense
On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the U.S. military is dropping its policy of treating male and female troops according to their biology—to be replaced by a policy based on a radical new gender ideology.
This change was not precipitated by military needs but by political correctness. After all, the military is not stretched so thin that it must make special accommodations to help attract the estimated 0.6 percent of Americans who self-identify as transgender in order to effectively fight and win our wars.
Moreover, people with gender dysphoria are allowed to serve, and many have served honorably, so long as their condition or treatments do not interfere with combat readiness.
What the military did not allow before today was the disruption to morale, privacy, and readiness that results from a male serviceman demanding the “right” to dress as a female, have others address him as a female, and be granted unfettered access to showers, lockers, bathrooms, and barracks designated for females. That commonsense policy, which has served our country well, was jettisoned today.
In grappling with this issue it helps to ask why the military has separate shower facilities and barracks for women and men in the first place. As with the question of women in combat, if the answer has something to do with biological realities, privacy, and interactions between the sexes, then the implications for morale and readiness are fairly evident.
But the new gender ideology ignores these facts and replaces them with subjective self-identification, so that a person’s sex is merely an arbitrary designation “assigned at birth” and one can actually be “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female,” at least according to new mandates from the Obama administration.
Some obvious questions arise from the new policy. Will biological males who identify as female be subject to physical fitness requirements for men or women? Will they be required to do 35 pushups or 13 pushups to pass basic training? Will American taxpayers be required to pay for expensive “sex reassignment” surgeries, including breast implants in men and shaving down Adam’s apples when that money can be spent on better weapons or more training?
Will service members who have addressed an officer as “sir” for years be booted out of the military if they refuse to address him as “ma’am?” Wouldn’t the loss and impact on recruiting offset any supposed gains of allowing a relatively few transgender troops the ability to dress according to their chosen identity? These are but a few questions Carter neglected to address in his announcement.
Instead, Carter said that:
Embedded within our Constitution is th[e] very principle that all Americans are free and equal. And we as an Army are sworn to protect and defend that very principle. And we are sworn to even die for that principle. So if we in uniform are willing to die for that principle then we in uniform should be willing to live by that principle.
This is too much.
First, it doesn’t violate equality to recognize relevant biological realities and there is nothing in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution that elevates transgender people to a protected class akin to race.
Second, whatever one thinks of the latest Supreme Court redefinition of marriage, it did not redefine what it means to be a man and a woman for all Americans, especially in the military context.
There are painstakingly detailed regulations concerning uniforms, grooming, and even tattoo placement because troops must be trained to put the mission above self-expression, as lives depend upon it. Regulations that recognize relevant biological realities help, not hinder, the mission, and as admitted by Carter in his statement, thousands of people with gender dysphoria were already allowed to serve over the years because they respected the old policies.
Finally, there are hundreds of thousands of veterans and current troops who were traumatized, wounded, or died fighting against Nazis, Communist aggressors, and terrorists, yet, believe that biological men should not be allowed into the same barracks and showers as women.
Carter dishonors their sacrifices by suggesting that these Americans who actually died for the Constitution failed to live by the Constitution themselves. This decision has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with politics and a gender ideology run amok.
New media gives voice to the oldest hatred
Anti-Semitism has become a poisonously routine part of online life as memories of the Holocaust fade
Not so long ago, the likes of John Nimmo would be living in well-deserved obscurity. Nimmo is a misogynist racist who has a penchant for sending threatening messages to women. Before the internet and the advent of social media, he would doubtless have festered alone in his South Shields bedroom and his hate would have been shared only with whichever other losers he happened to speak to.
But in our digital age, Nimmo can make contact with pretty much anyone at the touch of a button.
Two years ago he did exactly that to Stella Creasy, the Labour MP, and Caroline Criado-Perez, the feminist campaigner, sending them abusive tweets and getting an eight-week prison sentence for doing so.
Now he is at it again, this time sending anti-Semitic death threats to Luciana Berger, the Liverpool Labour MP. She would, he told her, “get it like Jo Cox”. He warned her: “Watch your back Jewish scum, regards your friend the Nazi”, along with a picture of a large knife.
Ms Berger told the court where Nimmo is being tried that his words caused her “great fear and anguish”. She said the tweets left her in a state of “huge distress” and “caused me to feel physically sick being threatened in such a way”.
I imagine that you are shocked to read about such behaviour. No decent person could fail to be. But Ms Berger won’t have been. I certainly wasn’t. Nor will any prominent Jew. Not because the behaviour is in any way acceptable. Rather, because it is so run-of-the-mill.
Ms Berger receives anti-Semitic abuse every day. In spades. Indeed, you will not find a single prominent Jew with a Twitter or Facebook account who does not regularly receive anti-Semitic abuse.
When I wake up and check my Twitter feed it rarely contains fewer than 10 anti-Semitic messages. More often than not it’s far more. Another 20 or so come during an average day. And that’s after I have blocked more than 300 different tweeters – a number that increases every day.
Some even amuse me, such as the recent claim that I “lead British Zionists with their propaganda to enable them to control UK”. Another tweet informed the world: “Pollard is the chief protagonist of Zionist supremacism in UK. He controls MSM.”
MSM is an acronym for mainstream media – which means I apparently control all British media. Which would be really useful, if it were true. Sadly, I can’t even control my own kids.
Some comments are threatening. One notorious anti-Semite that I had previously blocked started informing her followers that I was in the habit of ringing her voicemail and had left abusive messages threatening to rape her. She also posted a tweet suggesting that someone “pop” me off.
In my experience, the police have been entirely useless. Last year I had to explain what Twitter was to two PCs from the Met who had been sent to talk to me about a threat I had reported. Though they had heard of it, they had no real idea what it was.
This is an epidemic of hate. And with the odd exception, such as the clear death threat to Ms Berger, nothing is done about it. Certainly not by Twitter. I have given up reporting the culprits, since not once has Twitter taken any action against them. Free speech, innit?
But one thing puzzles me. Have the likes of Nimmo always been with us, and has social media simply given them a tool and a voice they didn’t have before? Or has social media itself raised the temperature and caused much of the epidemic?
For most of my 51 years, anti-Semitism was something I encountered only fitfully; the odd unthinking throwaway remark or “joke”. Certainly nothing that would give me pause for thought.
But the past few years have been different. I have not gone a day without encountering it. As a journalist, I have reported the spate of such comments from Labour members with astonishment that anti-Semitism can have entered the language of a mainstream party, however marginally.
My hunch is that it has always been there, but we simply did not hear it.
In the years after the Second World War, no one voiced anti-Semitism, even if it lay buried deep within their psyche. Even Jewish jokes were rarely told in polite company. But as memories faded and the Holocaust grew further away, social wariness of Jew-hate dissipated.
History then reasserted itself. It’s not called the longest hatred for nothing. And the kind of anti-Semitism that once remained private, behind closed doors, now has the megaphone of social media. And that, we surely know, is not going anywhere.
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.