Italy: gay couple are brutally whipped with a belt and assaulted by three men and a woman who jumped out of a car and attacked them after seeing the men walk hand in hand
A reminder that homosexual behaviour is distasteful to many people. And Italians tend to be both conservative and impulsive so are not easily influenced by political correctness. And given the attire of the woman the scene, the attackers had a strong heterosexual identity
Mattia and Antonio - fake names provided by local media - were attacked over the weekend at 4am after an LBGT+ event in Rome.
Chilling footage captured the incident which saw the two men crossing the street while holding hands before two men and a woman in lingere and knee-high boots began their assault.
The two male attackers in t-shirts and shorts could be seen tailing the couple for a moment before one wearing a white top raised his leg and kicked them as they shouted homophobic insults and called them 'f******'.
The couple, seemingly baffled by the violence, attempt to retaliate but are outnumbered as the scantily clad woman begins to intervene.
She runs towards the couple before shoving one of the men, throwing punches as they attempt to fight back while also backing away.
The two male attackers become involved in the fight again after one of them punches one of the men in the couple in the head, sending him falling towards the floor next to a lamp post.
Within seconds, the woman who appears to be returning from a strip club, grabs hold of him and continues her beating while her two pals take on the other man in the couple.
One of the attackers then removes his belt and whips one of the gay men in the stomach while his friend holds him still.
As he tumbles to the ground from the impact of the swings, he attempts to shield his face with his arms as he continues to be belted by the cruel man.
After a few seconds of violent whipping across his arms, back, and stomach, the two assailants begin punching him in the head after putting him in a headlock while he remains tackled to the ground.
The man's boyfriend seems to break free from the woman's clutches across the other side of the road as he sprints past and swings a heavy punch to his partner's attacker's head.
The woman in the thong and bra is quick to start her attack again as she grabs one of the men and slaps him around the head before kicking him down as he attempted to stand up.
As cars drive by, the couple remain tackled onto the floor of the road before three members of the public finally offer their assistance to the victims.
According to the Gay Centre, which uploaded the horror footage to YouTube, the couple ended up in the emergency room following the assault.
They allegedly did not report the incident to police, but told the Italian helpline: 'We can no longer accept living in a society where violence, like the one we suffered, is still a sad reality.
******************************************************
Britain has a two-child policy?
I thought that only Communist China had such limits (now abandoned) and official Australian policy encourages extra children, so I thought I was dreaming when I heard of this. But it is a reality. Unlike China, extra children are not forbidden but are financially penalized by the welfare system. If you have more mouths to feed and you are poor, too bad for you! Your welfare pyments stay the same as if you had only two children. Making it harder to feed your children seems shocking to me
In the benefit system, entitlement and need are intertwined: the greater the need, the more benefit income a family is usually entitled to receive. But in the 2010s, two policies were introduced that delinked entitlement and need by limiting the amount of benefits some families could receive: the benefit cap in 2013, and the two-child limit in 2017.
At present, nearly half a million families are hit by at least one of these policies. Although the benefit cap affects out-of-work families only, this is not the case for the two-child limit, and six out of ten families affected by the two-child limit today contain at least one adult that is in work.
The two-child limit results in low-income families losing around £3,200 a year for any third or subsequent child born after April 2017. And when 100,000s of families lose out on £1,000s of benefit income a year, poverty rates soar. In 2013-14, 34 per cent of children in larger families were in poverty, but this is projected to rise to 51 per cent in 2028-29. In contrast, the proportion of two-child families in poverty is projected to remain more or less constant over the same 15-year period, at around 25 per cent. Other outcomes are also worse for larger families: in the year 2021-22, three-quarters (75 per cent) of larger families were in material deprivation, compared to 3-in-10 families with fewer than three children (34 per cent); and 16 per cent of larger families were in food insecurity, compared to 7 per cent of families with fewer than three children.
Abolishing the two-child limit would cost the Government £2.5 billion in 2024-25, rising to £3.6 billion in 2024-25 prices if the policy were at full coverage. These costs are low compared to the harm that the policy causes, and scrapping the two-child limit would be one of the most efficient ways to drive down child poverty rates. If abolished today, 490,000 children would be lifted out of poverty.
There are two especially sharp corners in the benefits system today
Over the last decade, successive UK governments have introduced two policies that undermine the core principle of connecting need and entitlement in the benefit system. The first was the benefit cap, introduced in April 2013, which puts an upper limit on the amount of benefit income out-of-work households can receive.[1] The second was the two-child limit, which prevents the vast majority of families from receiving means-tested benefit support for any third or subsequent children born from April 2017 onwards.[2] These two policies together affected nearly half a million families in Great Britain in 2022-23, including 34,000 who are affected by both (see Figure 1), up from 26,000 in 2013-14 (when only the benefit cap was in operation). [3] [4]
There are several reasons for the over-ten-fold growth over the past nine years. Consider the benefit cap, where the numbers affected have increased from around 26,000 in 2013-14 to 108,000 families in 2022-23. The cap’s real value has fallen every year since its introduction, with the solitary exception of April 2023 when it was uprated in line with inflation: it was cut in nominal terms in 2016, and frozen in all other years. As a result, by April 2024, the benefit cap will be worth £14,000 less in real terms for families outside of London, and £10,000 less for those in London, than it was at its introduction in 2013.[5] The impact of this can be seen very clearly in Figure 1: when benefits were substantially increased in April 2020 (when the £20 a week uplift to Universal Credit (UC) and Working Tax Credit (WTC) was in place and Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was increased to the 30th percentile of local rents), the number of households affected by the benefit cap surged.
The numbers affected by the two-child limit are inevitably growing over time because of its design: it affects families who have a third or subsequent child born after 6 April 2017. In 2018, just 70,000 families were affected by the two-child limit; by 2023, that figure had risen to 420,000, or nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of families with three or more children. When the two-child limit is fully rolled-out and affects all families with three or more dependent children regardless of their age, it is set to affect around 750,000 families.[6]
Self-evidently, it is larger families who are worse off as a result of the two-child limit. In 2023-24, families capped by the two-child limit lose up to around £3,200 a year in benefit support for their third and each subsequent child.[7] Although a range of different families are affected by the two-child limit, disadvantaged groups are disproportionately represented: almost half of the households affected by the two-child limit are single parent families, for example.
Families with more than one child are also more likely than childless or one-child families to hit the benefit cap (claimants are also more likely to be capped if they live in areas with higher private rents). That policy results in differently sized losses dependent on circumstances, but the latest data suggests affected families lose an average of £2,700 a year if benefit capped.
However, there are key differences between the types of families affected by the two policies. The benefit cap only affects non-disabled, non-carer out-of-work families earning less than £722 a month, the equivalent of 16 hours a week at the National Living Wage, but the two-child limit applies no matter the working patterns of the parents. Strikingly, nearly six-in-ten families affected by the two-child limit are in families with income from employment.
Families with three or more children have seen their poverty rates soar in recent years
The effect of losing such a large amount of money has a detrimental effect on the low-income families involved. Figure 2 shows rates of relative child poverty by the number of children in a family. The first thing to note is that child poverty rates for larger families have been consistently higher than those for smaller families. This reflects, in part, parental employment patterns: the more children a family has, the less likely the adults in the household are to be in full-time work or to work at all (especially in the case of single parents, and parents with younger children).
But the trends in the figure also reflect the benefit system and how it operates and has changed: the gap between the child poverty rates of smaller and larger families has not been static over time. There was a large fall in the poverty rate for larger families in the 2000s, which can be attributed in large part to the significant increase to per-child payments; firstly through the Working Families’ Tax Credit and other means-tested benefits (from autumn 1999), then through the Child Tax Credit (from April 2003). In addition, employment rates for parents rose in the 2000s (until the 2008 recession), particularly for lone parents, where 9 percentage points more were in work in 2010 than 1997.
However, the child poverty rates of larger families started rising from 2013-14 and, after some blips through the pandemic years, are forecast to continue the upward trend. As a result, 34 per cent of children in larger families were in poverty in 2013-14, and this is projected to rise to 51 per cent in 2028-29. In contrast, 25 per cent of children in families with two children were in poverty in 2013-14, and this is forecast to hardly change over the next few years (we forecast a rate of just 24 per cent in 2028-29). It is well-evidenced that cuts to benefit spending during the austerity years were concentrated on child-related expenditure, while working-age benefit expenditure stayed consistent during the 2010s, and the benefit cap and two-child limit intensified the income hit for those with multiple children. It is also worth noting that for eldest children born before the introduction of the two-child limit, families receive a higher amount of child-related elements of means-tested benefits (this higher element does not exist for children born after the introduction of the two-child limit).
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/catastophic-caps/
***************************************************Small city branded 'America's jihad capital' descends into civil war - as locals reveal why they detest both Biden AND Trump ahead of election
It doesn't say much for their brains that they fail to see that HAMAS started the war by a vicious invasion that had to be answered
A city labeled 'America's jihad capital' by the Wall Street Journal has become fiercely divided over the war in Gaza - as residents refuse to vote for either candidate in the presidential election.
Dearborn, a small city near Detroit, Michigan, is home to America's largest Arab American community.
The mood amongst locals has significantly switched as the death toll in Gaza continues to mount - with little indication of a political solution in the near future.
Residents of Dearborn believe America's political leaders are playing a major role in enabling the suffering caused by ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Their apathy towards the upcoming election is dwindling by the day.
Abu Bilal, owner of Oriental Fashion - a clothing store on Dearborn's Warren Avenue, demanded to know 'where is the humanity' as he discussed the killings of 90 Palestinian civilians with The Guardian.
A man getting his hair cut at the Al-Rehab Barber Shop on Dearborn's Maple Street said - in Arabic - that he doesn't care who becomes president following the November election. It won't make any difference to him...
His barber agreed, saying that he didn't vote in 2020 and doesn't plan to this year.
Joe Biden won the battleground state in 2020 by just 154,000 votes - and the demise in political spirit could be harmful to his ability to take the key swing state come November.
Election turnout in Dearborn was 10 percent higher in 2020 than the previous election in 2016 - Biden also won 10 percent more votes than Hillary did.
These stats suggest that voters were energized in 2020, but word on the streets of Dearborn, per The Guardian, is that this year's attitudes could not be more different.
During the Democratic primaries in February, 6,432 Dearborn voters chose 'uncommitted' in protest of Biden's support of Israel's war.
Biden held a campaign rally at a school near Dearborn on Friday - but Arab Americans across the country have rejected the campaign's bid to win their votes.
'The whole community was aware [that the administration had sent campaign officials to meet with the community], and I think it says a lot, that he sees us as no more than votes and that it's been normalized for our people back home to be killed,' Jenin Yaseen, an artist whose family is from a village outside Nablus in the occupied West Bank, said.
'Dearborn is made up of people from Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere that have been directly impacted by American imperialism,' she added.
Members of Biden's election campaign team visited Dearborn in January - and were met by an empty room on one occasion because Dearborn's mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, refused to meet them.
******************************************************
Stakeholders Disconnected from Corporate ESG Efforts: Research
‘While corporate activism may appeal to a small, vocal minority, it risks alienating a broader base of stakeholders, including consumers,’ said Emilie Dye.
In light of corporations increasingly engaging in social activism, new research has found that many shareholders, employees, and customers disagree with their companies’ social and political activities.
The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) has released a report (pdf) shedding light on stakeholders opinions on corporate advocacy and activism.
The study, which surveyed 2,500 Australians (1,000 consumers, 1,000 employees, and 500 shareholders), found that most stakeholders were unaware of their companies’ social and political activities.
Specifically, 58 percent of the employees, 66 percent of the shareholders, and 44 percent of consumers did not follow their companies’ advocacy for social causes.
The figures were even higher for political causes, with 83 percent, 74 percent, and 65 percent reporting a lack of engagement.
Corporate Social Activism Misaligns With Stakeholders
According to the report’s co-author Emilie Dye, over 60 percent of employees and 41 percent of shareholders felt that corporate support for political causes did not align with their personal convictions.
“Among consumers, 60 percent say the corporate political advocacy rarely or never aligns with their views,” she added.
“In fact, 6 percent of employees say they have left a job because of their employer’s activism.
“The results suggested that far from being a mass movement, driven from the ground up, these activism initiatives are considered peripheral—if not largely ignored—by most shareholders and employees.”
While younger generations increasingly wanted businesses to intervene in contentious public debates, Ms. Dye said two-thirds of Gen Z respondents (born between 1997 and 2012) preferred companies to focus on providing good service and high returns, and stay out of public debates.
The report also found that consumers were twice as likely to avoid purchasing from a company they disagreed with, compared to those who would choose a company they agreed with.
When asked why companies engaged in social activism, 24 percent of respondents believed it was to increase profits, followed by fear of public backlash (22 percent) and gaining favour with the public and politicians (20 percent).
“The data suggest that while corporate activism may appeal to a small, vocal minority, it risks alienating a broader base of stakeholders, including consumers,” Ms. Dye said.
Echoing the sentiment, Simon Cowan, another co-author, said there was a “critical misalignment” between corporate activism and stakeholder values.
“This report should give strength to managers who feel bullied into taking a public position on contentious social issues, and make those who have been convinced to do so take pause,” he said.
The CIS report comes as companies in Australia and around the globe are increasingly engaging in political, environmental, and social issues.
During The Voice movement, an initiative by the Labor government to embed an Indigenous advisory body into the Australian Constitution, it was reported that 14 of the 20 top ASX companies supported the Yes campaign.
Despite the top companies donating millions of dollars to support the movement, it was overwhelmingly voted down by Australian voters.
****************************************
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