Monday, April 25, 2016

For now, Ched Evans is an innocent man again but whatever happens at his new trial the Jessica Ennis lynch mob will NEVER forgive him for being successful

I thought from the beginning that the conviction was a monstrous injustice.  It took a British court to convert consensual sex into rape. The Crown Prosecutors stretched the law in order to appease feminists with a high profile conviction. Feminists had been complaining that there were "not enough" rape convictions. Evans is the victim of feminist hate

KATIE HOPKINS rightly says below that those who condemned and shunned him will have egg on their faces for a long time -- JR

Right, Charlie Webster, you pouting fool, are you going to apologise?  How about you Jessica Ennis-Hill, Miss Strop-A-Lot? Perhaps we should take your name off the football stand at Sheffield for being too quick to judge.

And how about the rest of the blithering idiots, feminazis, slopey-shouldered board members and vindictive fools who said Ched Evans should never be allowed to play football again?

He served two and a half years of his five-year sentence, was released from prison to be ostracised from society, and now a senior judge has finally quashed his guilty verdict pending a retrial.

Given a man is innocent unless proven guilty, that makes him innocent where I am sitting. And I'd be pretty mad if I was Ched Evans right now.

Upset at the football profession who failed to stand by him even after he had served his sentence (possibly as an innocent man). Where is the leadership and loyalty of the board?

And livid at those who once were friends and have no doubt distanced themselves from him and his cash faster than a they'd run from a hooker with herpes.

And somehow, through all this anger he has had the strength to continue to fight, to display loyalty and gratitude to his girlfriend and new baby, and release a respectful statement thanking the court for restoring his faith in justice.

I am now mad on his behalf.

Mad that some woman is sober enough to go back to her hotel with strangers but too drunk to be accountable for her actions.

Outraged that these 'victims' get anonymity whilst the lives of the accused are torn apart, even destroyed - and those of their family around them.

Isn't it time these accusers were made to face up to fact they are about to ruin someone's life?

Surely if you are certain you are the victim and your attacker is guilty, you should be prepared to show your face. I would be - in defiance and as a show of strength. Why do the accusers always get away with chucking a hand grenade into someone's life and legging it?

And it is beyond evil that certain wanna-be celebrities and recognisable faces want their slice of the action to virtue signal their solidarity for some drunken girl from Rhyl.

Jessica Ennis-Hill, I love it when you are running home to heptathlon glory for Great Britain. I'm addicted to the way you hurdle, grazing your girl-bits as you go. But don't tell me how to treat Ched Evans. You can stop telling me where to bank as well whilst we're at it.

And to all those rival football fans and feminists who decided he didn't deserve to return to his football career after serving his sentence (for a crime he is no longer convicted of committing), do you still stand by your jealous words?

Whatever you views on Ched, drunken sex and footballers - if we don't give people a second chance to work and earn money, what sentence are we really handing out? Life every time?

Most people objected to him returning to work as a footballer. He was allowed to be a binman. But not a sportsman. How does that work? Is there an unspoken sliding scale of shame to which criminals are intrinsically attached?

I've been a cleaner, a burger flipper and a bar maid. Have I paid my dues for the sins of my eventual success?

If the cases of Ched Evans and Adam Johnson have taught us anything, it is being in the public eye comes at a price, especially if you live a lifestyle of excess.

Your trial will be a public spectacle, and the wish to see you in the stocks for people to throw tomatoes (or rocks if you follow the Religion of Peace) clearly lives on.

Public shaming is our new national sport for the YouTube generation.

The higher you rise, the greater people enjoy watching you fall - for jealousy, envy and some peculiar, skewed notion of social justice.

I still stand by Ched Evans and his family.

He will have to face another trial with fresh evidence presented and could well be found innocent.

But whether his name will be cleared in the court of public opinion by braying mob who cannot think for themselves, is a great deal less certain.

We all have secrets we would prefer to hide. I would remind those on the moral high ground that when I look up, I can see their dirty knickers. You'd best sit down.


Not another U.N. "Rapporteur!

A couple of previous ones have been completely off the planet in their criticism of Britain -- and this one is no better

An unelected United Nations inspector, whose job is funded by UK foreign aid cash, provoked outrage last night after he attacked Britain's crucial new counter-terror laws.

Kenyan human rights chief Maina Kiai condemned the Home Office's flagship scheme aimed at stopping young Muslims joining Islamic State and calling on teachers to report suspicious activity.

He also criticised crucial powers needed by security services to track terror suspects and plans to ban extremist groups.

The grandly titled Special Rapporteur On The Rights To Freedom Of Peaceful Assembly And Of Association launched his attack on Britain during a three-day visit to London last week.

He met contentious figures including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a radical students' leader accused of anti-Semitism, and members of a prisoners' rights group who called Jihadi John a 'beautiful young man'.

Last night former Defence Secretary Liam Fox hit back at Mr Kiai saying: 'With the level of oppression, abuse of human rights and terrorism around the world, I would think the United Nations would have better things to do with its resources and manpower than investigating one of the most peaceful, liberal and free countries.

'We don't make contributions to the UN to have them stick their noses into our country – we give them to improve the lot of people who don't know what freedom and security are.'

Mr Kiai is a Harvard-educated lawyer from Kenya which, its critics say, has far worse problems with human rights and terrorism than Britain does.

The capital Nairobi is home to the world's biggest slum, the Kenyan president has been accused of crimes against humanity, and Islamist group Al-Shabaab killed hundreds of people in massacres at a shopping mall and Garissa University.

In his role as Special Rapporteur, Mr Kiai was invited by the Government to observe freedom of association in Britain in 2013, and returned last week for an update. On the first day of his visit he met charities and members of 'civil society'.

He was pictured shaking hands with Ibrahim Mohamoud, communications officer for CAGE, the prisoners' rights group that described IS executioner Mohammed Emwazi – known as Jihadi John – as a 'beautiful young man' who was 'extremely kind and gentle', and blamed his radicalisation on MI5.

Mr Kiai was also photographed with his arm around Malia Bouattia, the newly elected president of the National Union of Students. She has caused a split in the union as she once claimed it was Islamophobic for the union to pass a motion condemning IS, and described Birmingham University, where she studied, as a 'Zionist outpost'.

Mr Kiai is unpaid, but his visits and reports are paid for by the UN, to which the Foreign Office contributed £518 million last year.

A spokesman for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said: 'The funding for the Special Rapporteur On Freedom Of Peaceful Assembly And Association comes from the United Nations regular budget, which is approved by the General Assembly every two years.'


Fury as the Bard is dragged into refugee row: BBC accused of using Shakespeare celebrations to push 'Left-wing, pro-immigration agenda'

The BBC was accused last night of using its Shakespeare celebrations to push a 'Left-wing, pro-immigration agenda'.

An obscure passage known as the 'immigration speech' was never performed in the playwright's lifetime, yet it was selected as one of the excerpts on BBC2's Shakespeare Live! last night.

Tory MP Peter Bone said: 'They've gone out of their way to find a piece of writing which fits the Left-wing establishment's pro-immigration agenda and it's a shame.

'You'd have thought they could at least have found something which was published under Shakespeare's name for a start.'

Read by Sir Ian McKellen, the speech appears in a play called Sir Thomas More, originally written by Anthony Munday about Henry VIII's Lord Chancellor.

Shakespeare is thought to have inserted 17 lines which quote More trying to calm an angry mob looting immigrant businesses. The statesman asks them how they would feel if they were 'wretched strangers forced to seek refuge in a modern land'.

The choice of text was made by Gregory Doran, artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Doran, who married his partner, actor Sir Antony Sher, last year, claimed last week that Shakespeare was gay.


Georgia Bureaucrats Listened to a Doctor’s Sermons, and Then Fired Him

On March 28, Georgia governor Nathan Deal capitulated to threats from the social-justice warriors at Apple, Disney, and the NFL and vetoed HB 757, the “Free Exercise Protection Act.” In his self-righteous statement justifying his veto, Deal claimed that Georgia didn’t need new religious-liberty legislation. Rather, he claimed that these laws enable discrimination, and his veto was thus about the “character of our State and the character of its people.”

Perhaps he should look to the character of his own government. This morning, the First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit in federal court that makes chilling claims against Georgia’s Department of Public Health, claims backed by a host of damaging documents.

The Institute represents Dr. Eric Walsh, a California physician and former director of public health for the city of Pasadena, Calif. Walsh is also a devout Christian, a Seventh-day Adventist who sometimes preaches in his spare time.

Walsh, a former member of the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, had accepted a job in Georgia as a district health director when Georgia officials became aware that he’d delivered a number of “controversial” sermons on his own time — sermons where he articulated orthodox Seventh-day Adventist positions on, among other things, human sexuality, Islam, evolution, and the corrupting influence of pop culture.

In California, Walsh had been attacked by student activists who objected to his selection as a commencement speaker at Pasadena City College. To these activists, working for former president Bush and President Obama to combat AIDS, serving as a board member of the Latino Health Collaborative, and starting California’s first city-run dental clinic for low-income families dealing with HIV/AIDS wasn’t sufficient to overcome the horror at Walsh’s Christian views.

Under fire, Walsh canceled his commencement speech — while the city, incredibly, put him on administrative leave. The college replaced him with a gay screenwriter.

When Georgia officials learned of Walsh’s California controversy, they responded by immediately violating the law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits government employers from considering an applicant’s religion in employment decisions, but Georgia officials not only evaluated Walsh’s religious views, the director of human resources wrote an e-mail to department employees giving them the “assignment” of listening to his sermons. And so they did. E-mails indicate that health-department employees split the sermons up, listened to Walsh’s religious views, and took notes.

 Walsh asserts that one department official called and told him that “you can’t preach that and work in the field of public health.” The very next day, Walsh claims that department officials held a “hastily arranged” meeting to discuss Walsh’s employment.

Not everyone supported the witch hunt: Walsh claims that the health department’s own lawyer twice warned department officials that Walsh’s religious beliefs “could play no role” in the department’s employment decisions. One health-department employee issued his own stark warning, saying: “If we do not hire this applicant on the basis of evidence of job performance and disqualify him on the basis of discrimination by those who seek to advance their own agenda and do him harm, I believe we are no better than they are.”

These warnings went unheeded, and two days after health-department officials carried out their “assignment” to watch his sermons, they terminated Walsh — informing him through a mocking voice-mail message that a termination letter was on its way.

The health department has since claimed that the sermons that officials were “assigned” to watch had nothing at all to do with Walsh’s termination. Instead, they claim they fired him because they believed Walsh failed to disclose outside income while working in California — an assertion that Walsh contests and asserts never came up at any stage of the Georgia interview process.

Walsh’s case is now the second major federal lawsuit challenging the conduct of Georgia public officials. In February, I reported on former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran’s case against Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed. The city fired Cochran after they discovered he’d written a book on his own time that — gasp! — articulated an orthodox Christian view of sexual morality.

Both Cochran and Walsh were African-American men raised by single mothers. Both Cochran and Walsh relied on their faith to fuel careers of incredible achievement. The faith that sustained them now condemns them — at least in Nathan Deal’s Georgia.

The Left used to say that it wasn’t concerned with Christian speech in houses of worship. Instead, it was only focused on “ending discrimination.” But now the Left is the discriminator, seeking to purge vocal Christians from public life. Now, even sermons are not safe from government scrutiny, and a man who’s never been accused of workplace discrimination finds himself unable to find a job in the public-health sector.

Governor Deal described Georgia as a place where “our people work side-by-side without regard to the color of our skin, or the religion we adhere to.” But his own government refutes his words. In some parts of Georgia, persecution is the practice.



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: