‘Too revealing’: Fresh calls for G-string bikinis to be banned
There are fresh calls for G-string bikinis to be banned after thousands of Australians weighed in on the controversial swimwear item, with many declaring the garment “offensive” and “too revealing” for public places.
The skimpy cossie, which puts the wearer’s bottom on full display, has copped a barrage of criticism since it became a cult fashion trend in recent years.
In fact, some hate the racy bikini bottoms so much, they’ve called on local authorities to ban G-string bikinis on Aussie beaches – a move some have described as “policing women’s bodies”.
Now the topic has been ignited once again, after a post on the popular Meanwhile in Australia Facebook group asked: “Should G-string bikinis be banned in water parks?”
The question was posed alongside an image of a woman wearing a pink micro bikini while taking a photo of her boyfriend in front of an orange slide.
It asked for Aussies to give the photo a thumbs up to vote “yes” on a ban, while those who were happy for water park goers to rock a G-string could click on the laughing face emoji to for “no”.
People responded in the thousands to the image, with more than 7000 voting against a ban on G-strings in public places.
But not far behind with 6600 votes, were those who believed the item was “inappropriate”, many of whom voiced their bikini concerns in the comments section.
********************************************
Far-right mob pelts police and mosque after stabbing fake news
The killer was African of Rwandan origin but was not known to be Muslim. Most Rwandans are Christians
Riot police were pelted with bricks and bottles and police vans were set alight as hundreds of people gathered outside a mosque in Southport overnight after misinformation about the suspect was spread online.
Footage posted on social media showed large flames billowing around the police vehicles. Protesters clashed with police wielding riot shields and batons with officers charging the crowds outside the mosque. There were chants of “No surrender!” and “English till I die!”
It came after Twitter/X accounts spread false claims that the 17-year-old suspect was a Muslim asylum seeker.
Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said that social media companies “need to take some responsibility” for speculation in the aftermath of the attack.
Merseyside police said that an officer suffered a suspected broken nose.
The force said that at about7.45pm, a large group of people that they believe to be supporters of the English Defence League began to throw items towards a local mosque. Additional patrols attended with police dogs.
Bricks were thrown, then bins, road signs and anything else the rioters could get their hands on. They cheered every time the crack of a window breaking could be heard.
A scared and bewildered looking boy who had been brought to the anti-immigrant protest asked the woman next to him: “Why is daddy shouting?”
Zulficar Ibrahim had come to the mosque to pray. He said that he could not understand why rioters had decided to target such a “unifying” place where Muslims of all sects come to pray.
“We just arrived now and the boys advised me not to go there because there’s a big problem happening,” he said. He ducked out of the way of a small rock as it flew towards him. “We never saw this type of things,” he said, adding: “This is no good for Southport.”
Officers were seen limping away from the scene. One female officer with a line of blood down her face stood steadfast holding a riot shield.
Assistant Chief Constable Alex Goss said that it was “sickening to see this happening within a community that has been devastated by the tragic loss of three young lives”. He added: “In the last 24 hours, we have seen overwhelming support and sympathy from the community and wider Merseyside communities for the families trying to deal with their loss and care for victims injured during the major incident.
“The actions in Southport tonight (Wednesday) will involve many people who do not live in the Merseyside area or care about the people of Merseyside.”
Earlier in the day Sir Keir Starmer was heckled on his visit to the murder scene, with one person shouting: “How many more, Starmer? When are you going to do something?” As the prime minister’s car left, another shouted: “How many more children? Our kids are dead and you’re leaving.”
The disinformation appears to have been spread by a Twitter/X account which purports to report breaking news. Within hours of the attack, it falsely claimed that the suspect was an asylum seeker who had arrived by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. The post had nearly two million views by Monday night.
US pop star Swift said she was “completely in shock” over “the loss of life and innocence, and the horrendous trauma inflicted on everyone”.
“These were just little kids at a dance class. I am at a complete loss for how to ever convey my sympathies to these families,” she added on Instagram.
**********************************************
After Assassination Attempt on Trump, Some Want to Hold Gun Owners Responsible for Government Failures
Almost immediately after a gunman tried to kill Donald Trump as he spoke July 13 at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, gun control zealots twisted the assassination attempt into an opportunity to blame the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners.
They, as they so often do in the aftermath of any national news story involving the criminal misuse of firearms, immediately demanded restrictive gun control.
Some journalists even went so far as to insinuate that the former president essentially brought this on himself because of his pro-Second Amendment stance when he was president.
Perhaps they should have waited for just a few breaths before making fools of themselves.
Now, over two weeks later, we know that it wasn’t the Second Amendment or Pennsylvania’s allegedly lax gun laws that almost got Trump killed. Rather, it was government ineptitude.
The number of inexplicable decisions and unanswered questions about Trump’s Secret Service security detail that day is long and seems to be growing with every news cycle.
And so far, this appears to be one of the most egregious failures in the history of government-provided personal protection. It rivals the night that President Abraham Lincoln’s security guard left his post outside the President’s Box at Ford’s Theatre and got roaring drunk at a bar across the street.
This is, of course, far from the first time that gun control activists have sought to leverage an emotionally charged atmosphere to further their own agenda. These efforts typically occur in the aftermath of mass public shootings, but high-profile political assassinations have successfully been used to garner support for gun control legislation.
Federal law today generally prohibits the importation of foreign-made firearms for civilian sales, in large part because the gunman who fatally shot President John F. Kennedy in 1963 used a bolt-action rifle initially designed and manufactured for the Italian army and later imported as a military surplus weapon to be sold on the civilian market.
Similarly, the foundation of the current federal background-check system for gun sales was put into place in 1993 and named after James Brady, the White House press secretary left partially paralyzed during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.
Reagan’s shooter had a significant history of serious mental health issues and weapons-related criminal offenses that prohibited him from legally purchasing or possessing firearms.
This is something that, under the Brady Act’s mandatory background check required for licensed dealers, would’ve been detected by the pawn shop at which the shooter purchased the gun with which he shot Reagan.
During these previous assassination-based pushes for more gun control, activists’ demands were at least related (if only nominally, in the case of Kennedy’s assassin) to how the gunman acquired his weapon. That’s clearly not the case here.
Forget, for just a minute, the serious constitutional concerns inherent with so many of these policies. Forget, too, that basing national gun policy on preventing the rarest forms of gun violence is an irrational and ineffective way to do public policy.
The simple reality is that not one of the policies demanded by gun control activists in the wake of the Trump shooting would meaningfully affect the dead suspect’s ability to carry out his plan.
This wasn’t about a lack of “universal” background checks. The shooter’s father legally purchased the weapon over a decade ago from a federally licensed gun store, where he would have been required to pass a background check.
Officials initially believed that the 20-year-old shooter asked to borrow the gun on the day of the Trump shooting, something to which his father agreed and didn’t find out of the ordinary. Officials now believe that the suspect had, at some point, legally purchased the gun from his father.
It doesn’t matter. Even if the shooter legally purchased the weapon through a private intrastate sale—the only type of sale for which background checks currently aren’t required under federal law—imposing a mandatory background check on that sale wouldn’t have changed anything.
The shooter wasn’t a prohibited person whose attempt to purchase a gun would have been prevented by a failed background check. FBI officials confirmed that he had no prior criminal history, and there’s no indication he struggled with serious mental health issues that would have legally disqualified him from gun ownership. This is only reinforced by the fact that he’d recently passed a background check for his job as a dietary aide at a nursing home.
Nor was this a problem with Pennsylvania’s open-carry laws, as some have suggested. Yes, the state generally allows ordinary, law-abiding adults to carry rifles openly in public spaces. But state and federal law enforcement can (and routinely do) set up secure perimeters around special events and prohibit people from carrying weapons in the vicinity of campaign rallies.
There’s absolutely no evidence at this point that open-carry laws were in any way relevant to any security decisions made by the Secret Service or local police that day in Pennsylvania. The gunman wasn’t exactly walking around with his rifle visible, but rather appears to have concealed his rifle in a backpack until he climbed atop the roof from which he shot at Trump. Some sources say they believe that he’d stashed the weapon on the roof days in advance.
And let’s be honest: If the shooter had openly carried a firearm, there’s simply no world in which a rifle-wielding civilian standing just outside the perimeter of a presidential campaign rally isn’t going to be treated as a serious threat.
In fact, this is precisely why bystanders were so concerned when they saw a man on the roof with a rifle and tried so hard to alert police. Open-carry laws don’t magically prevent rational people from comprehending atypical and unusually threatening circumstances.
And this shooting certainly wouldn’t have been prevented if Pennsylvania banned the possession of so-called assault weapons.
The simple reality is that none of the cosmetic features that distinguish an “assault weapon” from a “non-assault weapon” were relevant to the shooter hitting his target. If anything, had the gunman used a more traditional “precision” hunting rifle with a larger caliber round, longer barrel, and a bipod attachment, he may well have been more accurate from that distance.
A lack of “assault weapon” features hasn’t stopped previous would-be assassins, in the slightest. Kennedy was fatally shot with a bolt-action rifle that ironically wouldn’t be condemned today by gun control advocates as an “assault weapon” or “weapon of war,” despite having been literally produced for military arsenals.
Similarly, the man who killed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1968 used a pump-action rifle that, despite firing a far more powerful round than the rifle used to shoot at Trump, would escape “assault weapon” designations.
Both the man who killed Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in May 1968 and the man who attempted to kill Reagan 13 years later used revolvers.
Handguns also were used in the 2002 assassination of New York City Councilman James E. Davis; the 2008 mass shooting at a Kirkwood, Missouri, City Council meeting that killed Mayor Mike Swoboda and five others; and the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that killed a federal judge and seriously wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords.
The list of utterly irrelevant gun control restrictions proposed in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump goes on.
Magazine capacity limits? The suspect fired fewer than 10 rounds, as has been the case in virtually every successful or attempted assassination involving a firearm in the nation’s history.
Waiting periods? The shooter didn’t use a recently purchased weapon and this seems to have been anything but a spur-of-the-moment decision.
Safe storage laws? Trump’s shooter was a 20-year-old adult who used his own legally possessed firearm, not a minor or prohibited person who accessed another gun owner’s unsecured weapon.
Raising the age of commercial gun sales to 21? While such a law would prohibit gun stores from selling to individuals under age 21, they wouldn’t prohibit mere possession for law-abiding young adults. Such laws also universally allow for parents to transfer long guns to their non-prohibited adult children—the exact type of transfer that happened here.
It doesn’t matter how you spin it. Pennsylvania’s gun laws are completely irrelevant to the attempt to assassinate Trump.
That’s because, at the end of the day, this isn’t a story about failed gun laws.
This is a story about a series of government failures—failures for which gun control activists now want to punish ordinary, peaceable gun owners.
We ought not let them.
***********************************************
We trust the police. But the court system? Not so much
I have previously shown via survey researh that the public thinks most sentences handed down are too light
http://jonjayray.com/prisent.html
Just 30 per cent of Australians have faith in the country’s courts and justice system according to a new poll, but more than double that figure trust the police and feel safe in their homes and suburbs.
A whopping 47 per cent of people in the recent Resolve Political Monitor survey said they did not have faith in the judiciary, with another 23 per cent declaring they were either undecided or neutral.
The lack of faith in Australia’s court system follows a series of high profile trials in recent years. Bruce Lehrmann and decorated former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith had findings made against them in defamation cases but not in criminal proceedings – Lehrmann for rape and Roberts-Smith for war crimes.
In contrast to people’s lack of faith in the courts, the survey of 1603 people, taken earlier this month, found 69 per cent trusted the police; 13 per cent said they did not and 18 per cent were undecided.
A total of 82 per cent agreed they felt safe in their own home, with 9 per cent disagreeing and 9 per cent undecided, while 67 per cent agreed they felt safe in their local area or suburb, with 19 per cent disagreeing and 15 per cent neutral or undecided (some figures add up to more than 100 per cent due to rounding).
Social media was also marked down, with 59 per cent agreeing with the statement they felt safe on the internet and social media, while 21 per cent were undecided and 21 per cent disagreed.
The exclusive findings are contained in the most recent Resolve Political Monitor survey of 1603 people, conducted from July 10 to 13 by pollsters Resolve Strategic. The results have a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.
Resolve pollster Jim Reed said while most people trusted the police, “less than a third trust the justice system to deliver, which is hardly surprising given the conga line of mis-trials, appeals, resignations, scandals and inconsistent results we’re seeing in high profile cases like the Lehrmann prosecution”.
The finding was important to the legal profession but also for social cohesion, he said.
“We can only operate as a society if we all agree to certain shared values, behaviours, rights and responsibilities, and if those administering the rules lose our collective trust the whole show is at risk.”
Voters were asked during the survey to nominate three types of crime they thought authorities should tackle as a priority in Australia right now. An almost equal number of men (64 per cent) and women (67 per cent) nominated ending violent attacks, including rape and murder, as their top priority. Tackling domestic violence and stalking came in second, with 59 per cent, but far fewer men (52 per cent) than women (66 per cent) nominated this as a priority.
Child abuse (38 per cent) was the third most-nominated priority, with men (30 per cent) and women (46 per cent) split over how much of a priority it should be.
Voters want Labor to allow MPs more freedom to break ranks
Men were more likely to prioritise tackling scams and fraud (36 per cent) and stopping the physical theft of vehicles, mugging and burglary (34 per cent) than child abuse, whereas 32 per cent of women nominated scams as a priority and 25 per cent nominated physical theft.
People failing to pick up dog poo was nominated by just 2 per cent of people, while cracking down on vapes and e-cigarettes (5 per cent) and on vandalism (5 per cent) were low on people’s priorities.
A total of 12 per cent of those surveyed said they’d witnessed a crime in the last 12 months, while 8 per cent said they’d been the victim of a crime. Surprisingly, just 51 per cent of people who’d experienced a crime said they had reported it, while 38 per cent said they had not done so.
Reed said crime statistics suggest Australia is becoming a safer place.
“But when one-in-12 are telling us they’ve been a victim of crime in the last year, and only around half of them reported it, we are not perfect - and neither are the statistics we rely on to judge that,” he said.
“It’s encouraging that most people believe crimes endangering people should be prioritised. At the end of the day, you will recover from a stolen car, a scam or graffiti on your fence, but the loss and trauma stemming from violence stays with us.”
****************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment