It is reported that the Conservative Party is considering allowing people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving to be sentenced to life in prison. While that is fine in principle, I am inclined to be sceptical about any pretence on the part of the Tories to be tough on crime - especially with a general election pending.
The Daily Mail links this with the death of a young couple in Bristol at the hands of a car driver who was under the influence of illegal drugs. While I would like to see their killer imprisoned for life, it is fair to point out that he would presumably not have killed anyone if he had not been able to buy drugs in the first place.
Meanwhile, a convicted drug dealer called Jason Crocker boasts about his luxury life in prison. If the Tories really are tough on crime, then they should arrange for Jason Crocker to be hanged. Meanwhile, a thug called Josh Campbell has avoided prison for breaking a baby's arm.
Related previous posts include:
The death penalty: who dies?
The death of Peaches Geldof: another liberal triumph
Monday 30 March 2015
Friday 20 March 2015
The politics of the eclipse
This morning - 20 March 2015 - there was an eclipse of the sun over the United Kingdom. I did not watch it, as I will only ever have one pair of eyes my whole life. It appears however that I am in a minority, and that huge numbers of people like to risk permanent damage to their eyesight by staring at the sun. Some of them take the sensible step of using a pinhole camera, but far too many people take a chance on sunglasses or even naked vision.
It is reported in the national press that some schools have outraged parents by not letting pupils watch the eclipse. This is from The Daily Mail:
It is reported in the national press that some schools have outraged parents by not letting pupils watch the eclipse. This is from The Daily Mail:
Oldway primary school in Paignton, Devon, is one of the schools which came under fire for keeping children inside.
Head
teacher Jane Smythe said she had 700 children to look after and she
'could not guarantee that they would not look at the sun'.
What is more remarkable is that North Primary School in London did not allow its pupils to watch the eclipse for religious and cultural reasons. This has yet to be explained, but the school has many pupils from immigrant communities.
It is easy for parents to complain, but they would do well to reflect that the school's decision was not very surprising in a country in which those in authority are expected to pander to a variety of cultural whims.
Thursday 12 March 2015
Communism in the USA: Ferguson
Two police officers have been shot by at least one demonstrator in a crowd in the suburb of Ferguson in the state of Missouri.
Before I continue I will advise the reader about policing in the United States of America. The USA as a whole has two police forces: the FBI and the United States Marshals Service. It is normal for a state to have its own police force, and some states have two. Nearly all states have county police forces headed by an officer called a sheriff, who is usually elected. In addition to this, a city or a suburb can have its own police force which reports to the mayor.
On 9 August 2014, a police officer in Ferguson shot and killed a black teenager called Michael Brown who had robbed a store earlier that day. Eyewitness reports were divided as to whether or not Brown had his hands raised when he was shot.
After an extensive police investigation, it was decided that the police officer, Darren Wilson, would not face any charges in relation to Brown's death, but this did not satisfy the federal government. A recent report by the Justice Department used an infantile reading of some statistics to assert that the Ferguson Police Department had been deliberately stopping black motorists more often than white motorists, imposing fines, and thereby using black people as a source of revenue.
There is however no evidence that a black person who drives erratically in Ferguson is any more likely to be stopped by the police than a white person who drives erratically. It is also noteworthy that white people in Ferguson have a better track record of paying fines than black people.
The bias of the Justice Department in this matter is unsurprising in the light of past events. This quote is from Wikipedia:
Former lawyers who had served under the Bush Administration have stated that the current DOJ under Holder [the Attorney General] is unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department's culture, which department officials strongly deny. In the months after the case ended, tensions persisted. Eventually, Christopher Coates (of the Justice's Civil Rights Division) acknowledged telling attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases – under a key voting rights section – only on behalf of minorities.
I find it disturbing not only that the federal government should show such a bias, but also that many people - both black and white - should be willing to protest in Ferguson about a shooting which for all they know may well have been entirely justified. As for whoever fired the shots which injured two police officers, I hope an arrest will soon be made.
Before I continue I will advise the reader about policing in the United States of America. The USA as a whole has two police forces: the FBI and the United States Marshals Service. It is normal for a state to have its own police force, and some states have two. Nearly all states have county police forces headed by an officer called a sheriff, who is usually elected. In addition to this, a city or a suburb can have its own police force which reports to the mayor.
On 9 August 2014, a police officer in Ferguson shot and killed a black teenager called Michael Brown who had robbed a store earlier that day. Eyewitness reports were divided as to whether or not Brown had his hands raised when he was shot.
After an extensive police investigation, it was decided that the police officer, Darren Wilson, would not face any charges in relation to Brown's death, but this did not satisfy the federal government. A recent report by the Justice Department used an infantile reading of some statistics to assert that the Ferguson Police Department had been deliberately stopping black motorists more often than white motorists, imposing fines, and thereby using black people as a source of revenue.
There is however no evidence that a black person who drives erratically in Ferguson is any more likely to be stopped by the police than a white person who drives erratically. It is also noteworthy that white people in Ferguson have a better track record of paying fines than black people.
The bias of the Justice Department in this matter is unsurprising in the light of past events. This quote is from Wikipedia:
Former lawyers who had served under the Bush Administration have stated that the current DOJ under Holder [the Attorney General] is unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department's culture, which department officials strongly deny. In the months after the case ended, tensions persisted. Eventually, Christopher Coates (of the Justice's Civil Rights Division) acknowledged telling attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases – under a key voting rights section – only on behalf of minorities.
I find it disturbing not only that the federal government should show such a bias, but also that many people - both black and white - should be willing to protest in Ferguson about a shooting which for all they know may well have been entirely justified. As for whoever fired the shots which injured two police officers, I hope an arrest will soon be made.
Saturday 7 March 2015
Can a communist leopard change his spots?
The former chairman of the communist Equalities and Human Rights Commission has apparently had something of a change of heart. It is reported that he is to present a television documentary about race issues, and this quote is from The Mail Online:
Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into 'thought control'.
He says the London 2005 bombing by British Muslims, forced him to do rethink his views.
Now,
he insists that only a willingness to talk more openly about race,
despite risk of causing offence, will help those in need.
Mr Phillips has previously said that the Human Rights Act was widely abused by grandstanding lawyers (The Telegraph, 11 December 2011). Some people predicted that before the law was even enacted.
Wikiquotes records him as saying that: Most liberal-minded folk would like to think that since they are not hostile to people of a different race, racism is a disease of the uneducated, unenlightened and socially backward -
football hooligans, British National Party supporters, policemen.
I am not sure how Phillips defines the word racism, but he certainly seems to have no trouble in using it to define supporters of the British National Party. Perhaps he could explain in what sense this is not hate speech. Wikiquotes also records him as using the words less than human, which also strikes me as hate speech - but what else should we expect from a communist trouble maker?
I do not plan to watch the documentary when it is broadcast. If Phillips has genuinely had a change of heart, then maybe he should explain his use of the word racism in the course of an open dialogue with a prominent member or former member of the British National Party - maybe Andrew Brons or Mark Collett or Paul Golding.
For the record, I have tackled the definition of racism in two previous posts, but in both cases I made use of definitions which were stated or implied by other people, and I tried to assess those definitions as fairly as possible. I am not a communist, and I try to keep away from hypocrisy.
Relate previous posts include:
Wednesday 4 March 2015
The great paedo cover up continues
It is reported in the press that the government is planning to bring in new laws whereby it will be an imprisonable offence for any social worker or councillor or police officer to conspire in a cover up of paedophile activity. Here are the facts so far as I can make them out.
According to at least one national newspaper report, Muslim paedophile gangs have been operating in this country since at least 1979, but for most of that time police officers and social workers took no action. I believe that there may have been a prosecution in 1997, but if so then I don't know any details.
According to a recent report, Muslim paedophile gangs have been operating in Oxfordshire since 1999. The British National Party found out about Muslim paedophile gangs in Lancashire and West Yorkshire in 2001, and began campaigning for prosecutions to take place, for which they received no praise or recognition from the evil establishment.
In 2004 the BBC secretly filmed the BNP leader Nick Griffin making a speech about paedophile gangs in the Yorkshire town of Keighley, which led to him being prosecuted twice by the evil establishment. He received no support from any national newspaper, nor any mainstream political party, nor any church leader.
The first prosecutions of Muslim paedophile gang members I am aware of were in the summer of 2009, which by a not remotely curious coincidence was when two members of the British National Party were elected to the European Parliament.
I do not know how many members the British National Party had in 2001, but I imagine it would have been only a few thousand at most. To suggest that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats - with not only far more members, but with councillors and MPs as well - knew nothing about the Muslim paedophile gangs is absurd. Likewise, to suggest that no one in the Church of England or the national press knew nothing about it strains credibility to the limits.
A new law to imprison people who cover up child abuse will be only as much use as the extent to which it is used. After all, raping children has been illegal for as long as I can remember, but that didn't stop the establishment doing nothing about it for years.
The reason why the establishment covered up Muslim rapist gangs for many years is because they are evil. However for anyone wanting a more detailed answer, this Britain First video is instructive:
As it happens, Muhammad did not marry a child, because the real Muhammad is Jesus. The Muhammad of Islam never existed.
Related previous posts include:
Now study Islam
The Church of England, race, and paedophiles
According to at least one national newspaper report, Muslim paedophile gangs have been operating in this country since at least 1979, but for most of that time police officers and social workers took no action. I believe that there may have been a prosecution in 1997, but if so then I don't know any details.
According to a recent report, Muslim paedophile gangs have been operating in Oxfordshire since 1999. The British National Party found out about Muslim paedophile gangs in Lancashire and West Yorkshire in 2001, and began campaigning for prosecutions to take place, for which they received no praise or recognition from the evil establishment.
In 2004 the BBC secretly filmed the BNP leader Nick Griffin making a speech about paedophile gangs in the Yorkshire town of Keighley, which led to him being prosecuted twice by the evil establishment. He received no support from any national newspaper, nor any mainstream political party, nor any church leader.
The first prosecutions of Muslim paedophile gang members I am aware of were in the summer of 2009, which by a not remotely curious coincidence was when two members of the British National Party were elected to the European Parliament.
I do not know how many members the British National Party had in 2001, but I imagine it would have been only a few thousand at most. To suggest that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats - with not only far more members, but with councillors and MPs as well - knew nothing about the Muslim paedophile gangs is absurd. Likewise, to suggest that no one in the Church of England or the national press knew nothing about it strains credibility to the limits.
A new law to imprison people who cover up child abuse will be only as much use as the extent to which it is used. After all, raping children has been illegal for as long as I can remember, but that didn't stop the establishment doing nothing about it for years.
The reason why the establishment covered up Muslim rapist gangs for many years is because they are evil. However for anyone wanting a more detailed answer, this Britain First video is instructive:
As it happens, Muhammad did not marry a child, because the real Muhammad is Jesus. The Muhammad of Islam never existed.
Related previous posts include:
Now study Islam
The Church of England, race, and paedophiles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)