Another gang of African and Asian men has been jailed for raping and sexually abusing a 15 year old white girl in Rochdale.
A Safeguarding Children Board found that Social Workers deemed such girls had consented to such abuse, despite the fact that an under 16 year old is legally unable to consent to sex, and Rochdale MP Mr Simon Danczuk accused Greater Manchester Police of ignoring sexual abuse against poor white girls. The girl in this particular case had complained to police in 2008, but no action was taken and the abuse went on for another four years.
Despite this, in a breathtaking example of denial, the Greater Manchester Chief Constable refused to accept what seems abundantly clear, that such abuse, by Asian and African men, is race related when he reportedly said:
"I think there is a real danger that if we try to see this as a racial issue, which we don't believe it was, it then means that society is not confronting some of these really difficult issues"
I don't know about 'society' but from his words it would seem that it is the Chief Constable who is not confronting these 'really difficult' issues'.
Tuesday, 24 December 2013
The Price of Freedom
There's been some expressions of outrage in the national press, and amongst some MPs, concerning the BBC allowing the 'hate preacher' Anjem Choudary to air his despicable views on the Today program.
I don't join in this condemnation.
The more we hear his poisonous narrative of extremism the more we will recognise and be aware of his danger, and that of his followers.
Forewarned is forearmed.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Thomas Jefferson
3rd President of America (1743 - 1826)
I don't join in this condemnation.
The more we hear his poisonous narrative of extremism the more we will recognise and be aware of his danger, and that of his followers.
Forewarned is forearmed.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Thomas Jefferson
3rd President of America (1743 - 1826)
Log Fires and Health and Safety
I know there have been some pretty stupid Council rulings citing the dreaded Health and Safety, think kids wearing safety goggles to play conkers; banning standing for the National Anthem in case you fall over, and many other attempts by Council jobs-worths seemingly intent on banning any and everything they can, but log fires aren't one of them!
The landlord of the 'traditional' Black Horse pub has been reprimanded for burning logs in his pub's open fires, but this has nothing to do with Health and Safety, despite his protestations to the contrary. The pub in question is in a smoke control zone and burning anything on an open fire within a smoke-free zone will contravene the Smoke Control Order.
It's not Health and Safety, it's the Clean Air Act, which has done so much to transform our towns and cities from the dirty, grimy places they once were, something the landlord of the Black Horse must have been well aware of when he took over the pub.
Blaming Health and Safety does no service to the sensible people trying to control Council stupidity, and there's enough of that without trying to add to it.
The landlord of the 'traditional' Black Horse pub has been reprimanded for burning logs in his pub's open fires, but this has nothing to do with Health and Safety, despite his protestations to the contrary. The pub in question is in a smoke control zone and burning anything on an open fire within a smoke-free zone will contravene the Smoke Control Order.
It's not Health and Safety, it's the Clean Air Act, which has done so much to transform our towns and cities from the dirty, grimy places they once were, something the landlord of the Black Horse must have been well aware of when he took over the pub.
Blaming Health and Safety does no service to the sensible people trying to control Council stupidity, and there's enough of that without trying to add to it.
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
Whole Life Sentences and the European Court of Human Rights
It seems that the European
Court of Human Rights has ruled that ‘whole-life’ sentences, where a crime is
judged to be so heinous, or the criminal so dangerous that they should never be
released but die in prison, breach a criminal’s human rights.
I struggle to understand
where from and how the Court could make such a determination. The Court exists
solely on the legal basis of the European Convention on Human Rights – and on
no other foundation. Indeed, it was the Convention which established the Court in the first place, rather than the other way round.
I’ve read and re-read the
Convention in search of an answer:
Article 1 says everyone is
entitled to the freedoms enshrined in the convention
Article 2 enshrines the right
to life.
Article 3 prohibits torture
and inhuman or degrading punishment
Article 4 prohibits slavery
Article 5 states that everyone
has the right to liberty and security of person, save in the case of the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court.
Article 6 covers
the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial
Article 7
prohibits punishment if no law has been broken
Article
8 deals with the much abused right to a private and family life
Article
9 provides for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article
10 the freedom of expression, (which is why I defy the Lord Chancellor and Lord
Chief Justice and continue to express my personal thoughts through this blog).
Article
11 confers the freedom of assembly and association
Article
12 gives the right to marry
Article
13 provides for an effective remedy for violation of convention rights
Article
14 prohibits discrimination
Article
15 allows for the derogation
of certain rights in time of national emergency
Article 16 allows for the
restriction of political activities by aliens
Article 17 prohibits abuse of
the rights set out in the convention
Article 18 limits the
restrictions that can be placed on convention rights
Article 19 establishes the
Court of Human Rights
Articles 20 to 51 deal with
the administration of the Court
Articles 52 to 59 are
miscellaneous provisions
There are also a number of Protocols, the first deals with the protection of property, the right to an
education, and the right to free elections.
The forth Protocol deals with
imprisonment for debt, the prohibition of expulsion of aliens and freedom of
movement
Protocol 6 abolishes the
death penalty except in time of war
Protocol 7 provides for the
right of appeal and for compensation for wrongful conviction, for the equality
of spouses and prohibits punishment twice for the same offence
Protocol 12 is a general
prohibition against discrimination
Protocol 13 abolishes the
death penalty without exception.
AND THAT’S IT!
How, how, how can any of that
be translated into barring whole-life prison sentences? The convention contains
not one word on the subject.
It seems to me that now no
signatory to the convention makes use of torture, no longer executes criminals,
and confers on all the right to be educated, partake in free elections, speak
their mind (within limits) to marry and to have a family and be generally free of
persecution that the Court has b……r all to do, and so makes things up just to
fill the time, and justify their position and status.
A Mockery of Justice
I don’t know which
disappoints me the most, that the fiddling peer Lord Hanningfield claims £300 a
time for spending as little as 21 minutes a day in Parliament, or that he served
only nine weeks of a nine month sentence imposed for falsely claiming £28,000
in parliamentary expenses.
9 weeks for 9 months!!!!!!!
Less than one quarter of his
sentence. What a mockery of justice, and still the do-gooders and politicians
whine on about the prison population and what they claim is the excessive use
of imprisonment.
What a joke, or it would be , except it isn't funny, it's tragic.
Friday, 13 December 2013
Savile and the BBC
In another example of the high and powerful seeking to protect themselves from whistle-blowers, (see below) I recommend, without comment, yesterday's Guido Fawkes' Blog here.
It has been suggested that in order to prevent the publication of a tape-recorded conversation revealing that the then BBC chief Mark Thompson knew about Savile's activities at the BBC, and lied about his knowing, that the BBC Trust Chairman, Lord Patten, issued a legal warning to the Conservative MP Mr Rob Wilson. The BBC, it is said, later 'clarified' it's letter saying it wasn't a warning, merely a 'suggestion'!
It's also suggested, in the Daily Express and Daily Telegraph that the former news executive Nick Pollard, who carried out a review into the fiasco surrounding the shelved Newsnight report on Savile's activities at the Beeb, knew about the conversation yet omitted any reference to it from his report.
Expect more to come on this farrago.
It has been suggested that in order to prevent the publication of a tape-recorded conversation revealing that the then BBC chief Mark Thompson knew about Savile's activities at the BBC, and lied about his knowing, that the BBC Trust Chairman, Lord Patten, issued a legal warning to the Conservative MP Mr Rob Wilson. The BBC, it is said, later 'clarified' it's letter saying it wasn't a warning, merely a 'suggestion'!
It's also suggested, in the Daily Express and Daily Telegraph that the former news executive Nick Pollard, who carried out a review into the fiasco surrounding the shelved Newsnight report on Savile's activities at the Beeb, knew about the conversation yet omitted any reference to it from his report.
Expect more to come on this farrago.
Fireworks and Fog
I can't say I'm surprised, although I am relieved, that Mr Geoffrey Counsell has been found not guilty of causing a fatal accident on the M5 in 2011 after the Judge at Bristol Crown Court ruled there was no case for him to answer on a charge that he breached Health and Safety regulations.
How he could be held to blame for setting off fireworks, whose smoke later combined with fog to cause a smog which drivers then hurtled into, killing themselves and others, is beyond my comprehension.
I tend to think Mr Counsell is quite right when he says he was made a scapegoat by those looking for someone to blame for the accident, especially when one considers that the Highways Agency, the Taunton Deane Borough Council and the Avon and Somerset Constabulary were all consulted regarding the firework display, that no objections of any kind were raised, and that it was the same Avon and Somerset Constabulary who initially charged Mr Counsell with 7 counts of manslaughter and when that was dropped the same Taunton Deane Borough Council who then prosecuted him under the Health and Safety regulations.
How bizarre is that?
Any road fatality is tragic but accidents do happen and drivers in such circumstances must accept a degree of responsibility for their own actions. If you can't see your hand in front of your face then you really shouldn't be belting along at 70 mph!
It's an all too common occurrence on motorways in fog, or reduced visibility of any kind, to see cars and lorries, especially lorries whose drivers seem to think themselves immortal, driving at a speed from which stopping within their zone of visibility would be plainly impossible. An accident waiting to happen, and usually no convenient firework display to blame.
How he could be held to blame for setting off fireworks, whose smoke later combined with fog to cause a smog which drivers then hurtled into, killing themselves and others, is beyond my comprehension.
I tend to think Mr Counsell is quite right when he says he was made a scapegoat by those looking for someone to blame for the accident, especially when one considers that the Highways Agency, the Taunton Deane Borough Council and the Avon and Somerset Constabulary were all consulted regarding the firework display, that no objections of any kind were raised, and that it was the same Avon and Somerset Constabulary who initially charged Mr Counsell with 7 counts of manslaughter and when that was dropped the same Taunton Deane Borough Council who then prosecuted him under the Health and Safety regulations.
How bizarre is that?
Any road fatality is tragic but accidents do happen and drivers in such circumstances must accept a degree of responsibility for their own actions. If you can't see your hand in front of your face then you really shouldn't be belting along at 70 mph!
It's an all too common occurrence on motorways in fog, or reduced visibility of any kind, to see cars and lorries, especially lorries whose drivers seem to think themselves immortal, driving at a speed from which stopping within their zone of visibility would be plainly impossible. An accident waiting to happen, and usually no convenient firework display to blame.
The Perils of Whistle-Blowing
I don't know which I find more despicable, the fact that a HIV positive child could be placed with foster parents, without them being told of the baby's condition, therefore placing the health of the baby at risk through lack of treatment, and that of the foster-parents through risk of infection (baby sick, faeces, drool etc.) or that the nurse who revealed this deception was first sacked by her employers, the Newham University Hospital Trust, and then struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for 'breaching patient confidentiality'.
The High Court up-held the nurse's appeal against the NFC's decision on the grounds that fresh evidence had come to light; a letter which it is said was written by the Trust’s head of employment and which, if genuine, would throw a completely new light on the disciplinary charges.
Nevertheless, she is now fighting a second attempt by the Council to strike her from the nursing register.
The nurse, concerned for the safety of the baby born is 2008, as well as the foster parents and their three young children, who had no idea they were exposed to possible risk of infection, initially complained to her superiors at the Newham University Hospital Trust claiming it was unacceptable that the human rights of the mother, who had HIV and wanted to hide her status, were considered more important than protecting foster families.
It was only after four months of inaction that she finally decided to go public on the issue in the hope that something might be done.
She was sacked in 2009 and it was said in Court that her superiors were embarrassed by the disclosures she had made to the press (I bet they were), that she was ‘seen as a threat by some colleagues’, that allegations against her were ‘exaggerated or contrived’ and that some managers ‘instinctively closed ranks’ against her.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case are I find it repugnant that a Hospital Trust would engineer a deliberate cover-up and ignore a professional nurse's concerns in the way Newham University Hospital Trust seems to have done.
I think the nurse concerned was very brave to go up against a powerful establishment such as a hospital trust, putting her job and career on the line in defence of what she believed to be 'the right thing to do', although I don't hold out much hope for her success. Those in positions of power will move Heaven and Earth to protect themselves and their establishments and without a 'whistle-blowers charter', something which would give real protection to those brave enough to expose the incompetent, the deceitful and the criminal, then means will always be found, or manufactured, to get rid of those such as she who 'blow the whistle' on wrong-doing.
The High Court up-held the nurse's appeal against the NFC's decision on the grounds that fresh evidence had come to light; a letter which it is said was written by the Trust’s head of employment and which, if genuine, would throw a completely new light on the disciplinary charges.
Nevertheless, she is now fighting a second attempt by the Council to strike her from the nursing register.
The nurse, concerned for the safety of the baby born is 2008, as well as the foster parents and their three young children, who had no idea they were exposed to possible risk of infection, initially complained to her superiors at the Newham University Hospital Trust claiming it was unacceptable that the human rights of the mother, who had HIV and wanted to hide her status, were considered more important than protecting foster families.
It was only after four months of inaction that she finally decided to go public on the issue in the hope that something might be done.
She was sacked in 2009 and it was said in Court that her superiors were embarrassed by the disclosures she had made to the press (I bet they were), that she was ‘seen as a threat by some colleagues’, that allegations against her were ‘exaggerated or contrived’ and that some managers ‘instinctively closed ranks’ against her.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case are I find it repugnant that a Hospital Trust would engineer a deliberate cover-up and ignore a professional nurse's concerns in the way Newham University Hospital Trust seems to have done.
I think the nurse concerned was very brave to go up against a powerful establishment such as a hospital trust, putting her job and career on the line in defence of what she believed to be 'the right thing to do', although I don't hold out much hope for her success. Those in positions of power will move Heaven and Earth to protect themselves and their establishments and without a 'whistle-blowers charter', something which would give real protection to those brave enough to expose the incompetent, the deceitful and the criminal, then means will always be found, or manufactured, to get rid of those such as she who 'blow the whistle' on wrong-doing.
Friday, 6 December 2013
Scottish Independance
How I long for the day when we can fly this flag, and finally be rid of those troublesome Scots.
Nelson Mandela
In remembrance of Nelson Mandela, 1918 - 2013
A truly great man.
The Rainbow Nation will be his memorial.
“When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace.”
Nelson Mandela, 1994
Newspapers
I'm a great lover of newspapers, much preferring news from those sources rather than from television, and a number or reports have recently caught my attention.
The first concerns a lady charged with a string of sex offences which occurred 25 years ago when she was 28 and her 'victim' was 15.
Now I can't comment on the specifics of the case, and I won't get into the rights and wrongs of it but I do wonder how and why it has now comes to light. I can only presume, for I can think of no other way, that the now 40 year old man has decided to report it to the police.
But why?
I can't speak for him but I would have thought that sex with an attractive 28 year old was/is right up there at the top of every 15 year old boy's wish list.
Why the sudden urge to confess all? If he was unwilling then I can only say that it's awfully difficult for a woman to have non-consensual sex with a boy/man, unlike when the positions are reversed, so again I wonder, why now?
The second report to catch my eye concerns a 60 year old army veteran who, having served his country for 16 years, in Cyprus, Kenya and Northern Ireland, has had his job-seeker's allowance stopped because he committed the heinous sin of selling Poppies in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday.
I have nothing but contempt for those desk-bound pen-pushers, who have never contributed one iota to the security and well-being of the nation, but who exercise an evil power over those that have and whose only comment to this disgrace is that 'rules are rules'.
May they rot in hell, all of them.
On a somewhat lighter note I read that Frederick Forsyth (Daily Express 6th December 2013) was put out because two Nigerian defendants, on trial at the Old Bailey, were allowed by the judge to be called by their jihadist names (whatever that means). Mr Forsyth maintains that if in similar circumstances he wished to be called Father Christmas it would be refused - I disagree.
Many years ago, when I was a very new Magistrate, I was sent to Huddersfield to observe a court in progress. The defendant, I can't now recall the charge he faced, made it known he wished to be called Rupert Bear. With an absolutely straight face the rather formidable Lady Chairman promptly did just that. Her "please sit down Mr Bear", and all subsequent such utterances, has remained with me to this day, reminding me that all who come before the courts have a right to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter how grave the charges they may face.
The first concerns a lady charged with a string of sex offences which occurred 25 years ago when she was 28 and her 'victim' was 15.
Now I can't comment on the specifics of the case, and I won't get into the rights and wrongs of it but I do wonder how and why it has now comes to light. I can only presume, for I can think of no other way, that the now 40 year old man has decided to report it to the police.
But why?
I can't speak for him but I would have thought that sex with an attractive 28 year old was/is right up there at the top of every 15 year old boy's wish list.
Why the sudden urge to confess all? If he was unwilling then I can only say that it's awfully difficult for a woman to have non-consensual sex with a boy/man, unlike when the positions are reversed, so again I wonder, why now?
The second report to catch my eye concerns a 60 year old army veteran who, having served his country for 16 years, in Cyprus, Kenya and Northern Ireland, has had his job-seeker's allowance stopped because he committed the heinous sin of selling Poppies in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday.
I have nothing but contempt for those desk-bound pen-pushers, who have never contributed one iota to the security and well-being of the nation, but who exercise an evil power over those that have and whose only comment to this disgrace is that 'rules are rules'.
May they rot in hell, all of them.
On a somewhat lighter note I read that Frederick Forsyth (Daily Express 6th December 2013) was put out because two Nigerian defendants, on trial at the Old Bailey, were allowed by the judge to be called by their jihadist names (whatever that means). Mr Forsyth maintains that if in similar circumstances he wished to be called Father Christmas it would be refused - I disagree.
Many years ago, when I was a very new Magistrate, I was sent to Huddersfield to observe a court in progress. The defendant, I can't now recall the charge he faced, made it known he wished to be called Rupert Bear. With an absolutely straight face the rather formidable Lady Chairman promptly did just that. Her "please sit down Mr Bear", and all subsequent such utterances, has remained with me to this day, reminding me that all who come before the courts have a right to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter how grave the charges they may face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)