Tuesday, September 20, 2016

The perils of a multicultural boyfriend

A teenager who was brutally knifed by her boyfriend more than 100 times - in front of her two-year-old son - only survived by playing dead.

Lewes Crown Court heard Jamiv Usman launched the terrifying attack because the 19-year-old woman refused to get him a glass of water. At one point he stabbed her in the neck with such force the tip of the knife snapped off.

But despite being repeatedly slashed with the eight-inch blade in the neck and chest, she managed to survive by pretending to be dead and crawling into an empty bus.

The woman, now 21, suffered two punctured lungs and had 500 stitches to treat her wounds.

Unemployed Usman, of Brighton, denied attempted murder but was found guilty following a trial at Lewes Crown Court on July 20 and jailed for 20 years on Friday.

After the attack in March last year she staggered onto a nearby empty bus near her home in Brighton, East Sussex, just after midnight, where the driver alerted police and drove her to the bus depot.

Police officers boarded the bus and helped treat a life threatening wound to her neck while they waited for paramedics who took her to the Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton.

The victim's son was found in a distressed state by a neighbour following the attack.

The knife used in the assault was found dumped in a hedge close to the victim's home.

Usman was still at large until he was spotted in a nearby street later that day and arrested for attempted murder and later charged.

Detective Inspector Andy Wolstenholme of Sussex Police said: 'This was an horrific unprovoked attack on the victim who had to fight for her life in front of her child who was just two. 'It is a miracle she survived.

'I also want to praise the bus driver for having the presence of the mind to drive the victim away from the scene and to get her help.

'The sentence means Usman will be in prison for many years, preventing other victims suffering this level of violence at his hands.'


UK Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom plans a free vote to ditch the ban on fox hunting before the next election

A new push to repeal the ban on fox hunting is set to be announced by the Environment Secretary.

Former Tory leadersh ip contender Andrea Leadsom said she wants to hold a free vote on the issue before the next election.

Mrs Leadsom had made the pledge of a Commons vote on fox hunting a key plank of her election campaign in the summer.

Aides say that even though she lost to Theresa May, she is still in a position to fulfil her pledge as she now heads up the department in charge of the issue.

However, campaigners say it is unlikely that a free vote will be won, saying the current odds are about 100 to 1.

The ban on hunting foxes and other wild mammals with dogs was implemented in the Hunting Act 2004.

The Tory election manifesto last year pledged to offer a free vote on repealing the law, meaning MPs would not be whipped on party lines, in a promise to ‘support countryside pursuits’.

There had been concerns however that the new administration would ditch the vow.

But a source at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: ‘We stand by our manifesto commitment to give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time.’

Mr Cameron’s attempts to secure the change were thwarted after winning a slim Tory majority last year.

With Labour and Liberal Democrats against the move and a handful of Tory rebels, Mr Cameron argued the SNP should not vote as the change would only impact England and Wales.

But the SNP vowed to block the move – forcing him to pull the vote. Campaigners hope Theresa May will strengthen the Government’s English votes for English laws changes to bar Scottish MPs from voting.

Their second hope is an SNP change of heart. It vowed to review the law in Scotland last summer and a backroom deal remains possible.

Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: ‘There is an ingrained political prejudice which means that resolving this issue will remain difficult. We will, however, work with the Government to achieve just that.’


Sir Cliff set to lobby the Lords in a bid to ban sex abuse suspects being 'named and shamed' before charge

Sir Cliff Richard is to lobby senior politicians in Parliament in an attempt to stop people accused of sex abuse being ‘named and shamed’ before they are charged.

The veteran pop star is demanding a change in the law that would give anonymity to anyone suspected of rape or sexual assault unless they were facing trial.

He hopes it will end the ‘witch hunts’ against high-profile figures who have had their reputations tarnished by unfounded accusations without ever being charged with any offence.

Sir Cliff, 75, will tell MPs and peers of his own ordeal when the BBC broadcast aerial footage of his penthouse in Berkshire being raided by officers from South Yorkshire Police, following claims he had abused a boy some 30 years earlier.

Although Sir Cliff was questioned by detectives, he was never arrested or charged, yet had to endure an investigation lasting almost two years until police finally admitted there was not enough evidence to prosecute him over abuse claims made by four men. Now the Crown Prosecution Service has been asked to look again at the cases.

The singer, who is planning to sue the BBC and police for allowing the search of his home to be broadcast, has told how he was treated like ‘live bait’ and said in July: ‘Having suffered the experience that I have, I firmly believe that privacy should be respected and that police guidelines are there to be followed.

‘That means that, save in exceptional circumstances, people should never be named unless and until they are charged.’

He has said that the law change would ‘make all that I’ve been through almost worthwhile’, if it ‘saves someone else going through the same thing’.

At a meeting in a House of Lords committee room on October 17, Sir Cliff will be joined by DJ Paul Gambaccini, who endured ‘12 months of hell’ on bail for sex abuse allegations for which he was never charged.

Also present will be the widow of Leon Brittan, the former Home Secretary who died before being told police had dismissed historical abuse allegations against him.

They will urge politicians to back changes being proposed by Lord Paddick, a former Scotland Yard chief who is now a Lib Dem peer.

His reform would mean nothing could be published or broadcast in England and Wales to identify anyone accused of a sexual offence ‘up until that person is charged with the offence, except where a judge is satisfied it is in the public interest’.

Some say the move could hamper police investigations because further victims sometimes come forward when arrests are publicised, as happened in the cases of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall.

In July Sir Cliff and Mr Gambaccini met Tory MP Nigel Evans, who was cleared of sex abuse in court.

The former Deputy Speaker said: ‘We are all scarred by the experiences we have been through and we all came through it.

'We are talking to other people who have been through similar trauma to try to put pressure on the Government.’

The amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill will be debated by peers just weeks after Sir Cliff’s appearance in Parliament, and if voted through it could become law.

Lord Paddick said last night: ‘It’s important to hear from those who have been affected so that Parliament can have an informed debate.

‘The recent developments where we’ve had high-profile individuals, both living and dead, who have had allegations made against them have prompted at least for there to be a debate to be had.’


Corporate Social Responsibility skin-deep?

Comment from Australia

'Corporate Social Responsibility' (CSR) is becoming a prominent part of the business of business.

CSR refers to how leading companies seek to burnish their corporate reputations by endorsing social and political issues including gender equality, gay marriage, and ethnic diversity.

Indigenous affairs makes an interesting case study of how deep the commitment to genuine social responsibility actually is -- does CSR often amount to backing invariably fashionable causes while ducking the really hard issues?

Many major companies have implemented affirmative action policies to boost the number of Indigenous employees on staff.

Hiring a 'diverse' workforce will be of some benefit to the burgeoning Indigenous middle class -- who the statistics nevertheless show are generally doing as well in health, housing, employment, education, and other social outcomes as non-Indigenous peers -- including the increasing numbers of people who have only recently discovered their ancestry and identified as Indigenous.

But how much Indigenous disadvantage will these well-intentioned staffing practices really overcome?

Consider the fact that 6% of Indigenous children (approximately 15,000 children) have had to be removed from their families due to abuse and neglect, and currently live in state care. This figure is even more shocking given that only 100,000 or so of the 670,000 Indigenous Australians live in the rural and remote communities with the worst social problems.

I believe, based on the findings of my research, that we will never 'close the gap' unless more Indigenous children are rescued from squalor and are adopted (on a non-discriminatory basis) by either an Indigenous or non-Indigenous family.

Indigenous adoption is, of course, a taboo subject in the wake of the apology for the Stolen Generations. Therefore, speaking out on the subject of Indigenous child welfare entails not only advocating for otherwise advocate-less children, but also involves copping flak for supporting ill-deservedly unpopular issues and causes. In my opinion, this kind of unfashionable advocacy is thus an act of profound social responsibility.

But I wonder if corporate Australia would agree, and would wish to run the reputational risk of associating their brands with as important but contentious an issue as Indigenous adoption?

If these doubts are fair, then a fair judge might conclude that the corporate commitment to social responsibility is somewhat skin-deep.



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


No comments: