Multicultural murder in Britain



A young man who brutally murdered a 73-year-old by stabbing him 22 times after the pensioner discovered him  breaking into his south London home has been sentenced to life.

Aaron De Silva, 21, will serve a minimum of 32 years for the murder of Joseph Griffiths in his £1.5million home in Fulham, south London.

De Silva had admitted the manslaughter of Joseph Griffiths, but denied murder. However he was found guilty of murdering the 73-year-old on Tuesday following a trial at the Old Bailey.
Aaron de Silva, 71, was found guilty or murder

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the 21-year-old, of Earls Court, south west London, was also sentenced to 12 years to run consecutively after admitting aggravated burglary armed with a lock knife.

De Silva killed Mr Griffiths after he broke into the basement of the grandfather's six-storey house armed with a knife.

The victim of the 'brutal' attack was asleep with his wife at the time and got out of bed to challenge the intruder in the hallway.

He was then discovered in a pool of blood by his wife and a friend, who was visiting for a wedding.

Prosecutor Brendan Finucane QC told the jury when he opened the trial: 'There were no eye witnesses but people were awoken by a completely brutal and overwhelming assault on an elderly man in his own home, where he was knifed 22 times to the body.'

After the attack De Silva was caught on CCTV taking a 'cool, calm and collected walk' back to the Earls Court hostel where he was staying to wash his clothes and get rid of evidence, Mr Finucane said. He was arrested three days later.

The court heard that De Silva had gone into a number of gardens on the street before stealing a pair of bolt croppers from a shed.

Using the tool, he broke a rear window on the basement level of Mr Griffiths’ nearby  terraced home and walked around the lower two levels.

Mr Finucane said: 'Mr Griffiths must have been woken by the defendant coming in, must have challenged him in the hallway, outside his own bedroom door.'

It was at this point, Mr Finucane said, De Silva carried out the 'brutal and overwhelming assault', stabbing him 22 times in his chest and abdomen.

He added: 'This awoke his wife and friends, but by the time they got there he had left.'

Mrs Griffiths found her husband lying on his back in a pool of blood. The front door was still locked, and Mr Hall found the rear basement door had been opened.

Paramedics tried to resuscitate Mr Griffiths, but he died in the house.

Mr Finucane said: 'Given the savagery of the attack on Mr Griffiths and his behaviour before and after, there can be no doubt that he had the intention to kill or cause really serious harm.'

He added: 'Anybody who stabs a person 22 times with a knife like that has at the very least the intention to cause really serious harm, and further you can be sure that he did it with the intention to kill the deceased.'

De Silva looked impassively as the verdict was read out. He is said to have 31 previous convictions from the age of 12 to his arrest for the murder when he was 19, for matters such as robbery, burglary and carrying a knife.

Mr Griffiths’ eldest son, Mark Griffiths, 53, said afterwards: 'There is a great sense of relief for all the family, friends and customers of Joe.'

The victim had a car repair business in which his son still works.

He added: 'We are overwhelmed with all the support we have had from the police, and very impressed with the way they’ve handled it from day one.

'We are very happy that the legal system of this country has proved to be one of the best in the world, as usual, and we have come to the correct verdict.'

In an impact statement written by Mark Griffiths, on behalf of the family, which was read to the court, he said: 'The murder of Joe in such a senseless manner has left a gaping hole not just in our family, but every family who knew him.'

The statement added: 'We as a family are living with the devastating consequences of that act of violence.'

The trial judge, Timothy Pontius, sentenced De Silva’s father Emmanuel de Silva to 24 years’ imprisonment in 2002 for robbery.

Court reports at the time said he was part of a gang that was responsible for a number of well planned and executed robberies in the London area between January 2000 and May 2001.

The reports said that Emmanuel’s nephew, Orson de Silva, was jailed for 24 years for similar offences.

Investigating officer Detective Inspector Simon Pickford, of the Homicide and Major Crime Command, said: 'De Silva is an extremely violent individual who had no hesitation in stabbing the victim repeatedly in a frenzied and brutal attack after he was disturbed having broken into Mr Griffiths’ home.

'I must pay tribute to Mr Griffiths’ family who have been left utterly devastated by what happened. They have conducted themselves with the utmost restraint and dignity throughout this tragic incident and my and my team’s thoughts are with them.'

CCTV showed De Silva back at his hostel around an hour after the murder listening to music, seemingly entirely unaffected by what he had just done.

Mr Griffiths had two grown-up sons and seven grandchildren.

SOURCE






NCCL paedophilia scandal: Leftist icons will have to resign


Press release issued by the National Council for Civil Liberties in 1976

I still can’t quite believe it. But here’s the evidence in black and white. In 1976, the NCCL put out a press release proposing that the age of consent be lowered to 14 “with special provisions for situations where the partners are close in age, or where consent of a child over ten can be proved”. So let me get this straight. If the NCCL had had its way, a paedophile could induce a 10-year-old child to have sex with him and, provided he could "prove" he or she had consented, that child's parents would have no legal redress?

As a father of a 10-year-old girl, that fills me with horror. Even if the NCCL had no links with the Paedophile Information Exchange, that would have been morally repugnant. The very idea that a 10-year-old is in a position to "consent" is absurd – blatantly and transparently absurd. But it's worse, far worse than that, because we now know that the NCCL was taking this line, at least in part, at the behest of a group of notorious paedophiles. In 1975, Patricia Hewitt, the general secretary of the NCCL, wrote to the chairman of PIE to thank him for a letter he had written her arguing that the age of consent should be lowered. "We have found your evidence… most helpful and I think it has certainly been taken into account by the people preparing our evidence," she wrote. Sure enough, the following year, the NCCL began lobbying Parliament to have the age of consent lowered to 10. Not only was Patricia Hewitt the general secretary at that time, but Jack Dromey was on the executive committee and he was at the meeting where it was agreed that the NCCL would take this line.

In a statement issued yesterday, Dromey, who is Labour's shadow policing minister, said he was "a lifelong opponent of evil men who abuse children". If that's true, why did he approve the NCCL's decision to lobby for the age of consent to be lowered to 10? Didn't it occur to him that a change in the law along those lines would leave children more vulnerable to abuse by evil men – men in the group "affiliated" to the NCCL and who had been asking the NCCL to take this line? Incredibly, he still hasn't apologised for helping to run an organisation that was linked to a group of paedophiles and nor has his wife, Harriet Harman, the NCCL's legal officer from 1978 to 1982. Instead, they both continue to attack the Daily Mail.

Harman and Dromey's handling of this scandal has been an object lesson in how not to do it. If Harman had taken the opportunity to apologise when she was interviewed on Newsnight on Monday, this story would have gone away by now. Instead, the nation woke up to this headline on the front page of The Sun this morning:



For the Labour Party, that's an unmitigated disaster. Ed Miliband has to take his share of the blame for this because he decided to back Harman's disastrous decision not to apologise and blame the messenger instead. But it's Labour's deputy leader who is most culpable for this disaster – not merely for the numerous mistakes she made while helping to run the NCCL, some of which I listed in my Spectator column this week – but for compounding those errors by refusing to acknowledge they were mistakes. How could she be so idiotic? As I said in the Spectator, is it because she has a moral blind spot and cannot see the full horror of the group the NCCL was linked with? Maybe some part of her won’t allow her to see it because she knows her conscience wouldn’t be able to cope.

An alternative explanation is that she is simply too arrogant. This 1998 interview with Harman by Lynn Barber in The Observer is instructive in this regard. Here's the most telltale paragraph:

   "She knows she has a problem with interviews. She thinks it is because she is 'prickly' but a better epithet might be snotty. She can't really see why anyone has the right to ask, let alone know, any more than she chooses to tell them."

It's Harriet Harman's snottiness – her refusal to acknowledge that she owes the public an explanation about the NCCL's links with PIE – that has plunged her party into this full-blown PR disaster. No doubt there are more revelations to come, not just in tomorrow's papers but in the Sundays as well. At this point, I don't see what Harman – and Jack Dromey – can do to stop this tide of stories linking the Labour Party to paedophiles other than to resign. Will they be gone by Monday?

SOURCE






007, licensed to be politically correct: MI6 job advert (endorsed by gay rights group) seeks British spies 'committed to diversity and equality'

In the 007 spy films, James Bond’s driving passions are deadly weapons, fast cars and faster women.  But according to a job advert placed by MI6 yesterday, the world of espionage is rather more mundane.

The Secret Intelligence Service says it wants ‘empathetic’ recruits who are ‘able to get on with diverse groups of people’.

The details are included in an advert for intelligence officer posts, published yesterday in the Economist newspaper.

The officers collect, analyse and report secret intelligence material from around the world.

The job advert – presented as a flowchart – has questions including ‘Do you want to protect your country?’, ‘Do you have an instinctive curiosity?’ and ‘Can you be trusted?’. Applicants are also asked about their language skills and whether they want to carry out work overseas.

Hopefuls must say if they are male or female before being told their gender does not matter. The same goes for sexuality and ethnicity – although candidates must have British nationality.

Secrecy is a key issue naturally. Anyone answering yes to the question ‘Would you tell anyone else about your application?’ is told ‘Thank you for your time’.  An identical response is given to anyone believing that MI6 is ‘all guns and fast cars’.

Where Bond routinely defies his bosses and breaks the rules, the MI6 advert warns against the idea that Britain must be protected ‘by any means possible’.

MI6 has signed up to Stonewall’s diversity champions programme, which aims to make workplaces ‘gay friendly’ and ensure employers comply with equalities legislation.

The advert states: ‘The Service strives for diversity in the workplace and is committed to the creation and maintenance of a climate in which all staff are treated fairly on the grounds of merit and ability.’

Last year MI5, the sister agency responsible for protecting Britain against foreign and domestic enemies, came 25th in the list of Stonewall’s top 100 gay-friendly employers.

Both agencies’ attitudes to gay employees have changed markedly in a short period.

Until the mid-1990s, homosexuals were banned from sensitive posts in the diplomatic or security services, on the grounds that they were more vulnerable to blackmail.

Two members of the Cambridge Five, the notorious ring of communist spies who worked for the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 50s, were gay.

Guy Burgess, who worked for the Foreign Office and MI6, lived with a boyfriend even after he defected to Moscow in 1951.  Anthony Blunt, an MI5 officer and leading art historian, also had a secret gay life.

The most recent Bond film, Skyfall, raised eyebrows among critics with a highly charged gay ‘flirtation’ scene. Bond baddie Raoul Silva, played by Javier Bardem, undoes Bond’s shirt, and strokes his chest and legs while he is tied to a chair, suggestively saying ‘First time for everything?’

Daniel Craig, who stars as Bond, replies: ‘What makes you think this is my first time?’

SOURCE






'There aren't enough gay characters on TV' says BBC drama boss who promises to commission more homosexual storylines

The BBC drama controller has said there are not enough gay characters on TV. Ben Stephenson, who is himself gay, called on writers to come forward with more stories which focus on homosexuality.

The comments were made during the BBC's Reflect and Represent talk at New Broadcasting House on Monday which aims to discuss the Corporation's future vision.

Mr Stephenson said: 'I am diverse, in that sense (gay), and are there many portrayals of gay characters on television? I would say it's probably one of the lowest (represented) areas.  'When the great gay script comes in, I shall definitely be commissioning it.'

Despite Mr Stephenson believing there is diversity in BBC drama he said there is still 'a long way to go'.

Mr Stephenson was appointed controller of BBC drama in 2008.

Last month Eastenders character Johnny Carter (Sam Strike) broke down in tears as he revealed to his father Mick (Danny Dyer) that he is gay.

Johnny's sexuality was first revealed by his sister Nancy (Maddy Hill) during an explosive family argument at the Queen Vic - where Mick is landlord.

Despite Nancy regretting her revelation and attempting to then deny it, Johnny makes the brave decision to come clean and tell his parents the truth.

The episode showed Johnny sobbing into his father's shoulder before Mick is seen apparently reassuring is son that he made the right decision by coming out.

Johnny's coming out comes after the New Year's Day episode of the show saw him kiss Danny Pennant (Gary Lucy), in a scene which prompted several complaints on social media.

One person wrote: 'Danny dyers son............ Is gay? Never cringed so much from eastenders! That's not good. Poor danny.'  And another added: '‘#EastEnders was a disgrace. No wonder it was on after 9. Kids watch this program. Being gay is wrong and it shouldn't be promoted #Dirty.'

However, others applauded the show for introducing more gay characters and diversifying its storylines.

Another writer on the soap, Daran Little, also tweeted: '10 years ago Coronation Street had complaints when I wrote Todd kissing Nick... now complaints about EastEnders gay kiss... no progress.

'I thinks it's encouraging that Hollyoaks gay kisses don't get complaints, cos its viewers are young and accepting,' he wrote.

Amanda Rice, head of diversity, told Broadcast: 'Reflect and Represent is about recognising that more needs to be done, exploring how we can all achieve greater impact celebrating the progress we have made.

'We want to make sure that all staff have the opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas.'

Gay author Tom Rob Smith is writing a new drama about a gay spy for the BBC. The story will look at Danny, described as a ‘gregarious, hedonistic, but ill-equipped spy’ who falls for the ‘anti-social and enigmatic’ Alex.

The drama will be going into production later this year and is expected to be lined up to air in 2015

SOURCE

*************************

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. 

***************************