British blogger Lionheart has been accused of inciting racial hatred. Do you believe in free speech? If you do, you should be angry.... He writes on his blog:
"I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986. This charge if found guilty carries a lengthy prison sentence, more than what most paedophiles and rapists receive, and all for writing words of truth about the barbarity that is living in the midst of our children, which threatens the very future of our Country.
The cultural weapon in the hands of the modern Jihad within Great Britain, silencing the opposition using our own laws against us - The Dumb Filthy Kaffir's as the Moslem would say to his children behind closed doors.
What has become of my homeland, the land my forefathers fought and died for on the battlefields of the world when one of their children is forced into the position of facing years in prison for standing up for what is right and just within British society. At least my words of truth have obviously now reached people's eyes and ears, with the powers that be now intent on silencing me - Third World Tyranny in a supposed 21st Century democracy!
Is it right that people should be arrested for writing things and thinking things that the powers that be do not approve of? Is the UK now like Saudi Arabia?
Update:
Tony Bennett Says: I have been asked to represent Paul ('Lionheart'). For the public record, here is a full copy of the e-mail sent by Ian Holden of Bedfordshire Police to `Lionheart' yesterday, Thursday 3 January 2008:
"The offence that I need to arrest you for is "Stir up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986. You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent. Paul I will see you on the 19/02/08 when I will tell you everything that you need to know. Due to being out of the office for six weeks I will not have access to my email as of tomorrow 04/01/08.
There are already a number of aspects about this case involving not only `Lionheart' but concerning other friends of his which are almost certain to result in a complaint being made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
After my success in getting the I.P.C.C. to agree to a top-level, `managed', investigation into *38* separate complaints about Essex Police's woeful first investigation in 2001/2 into the death violent death of Stuart Lubbock (which is ongoing), and my success this week in getting the I.P.C.C. to enquire into another disastrous set of Essex Police investigations, this time into their three so-called `investigations' into the death of Lee Balkwell in controversial circumstances in the early hours of 18 July 2002*, my mentioning the I.P.C.C. is no idle threat. Bedfordshire Police had better be very careful....
One of the issues here, which Bedfordshire Police may well have to account for in due course, is the way they have approached this investigation. I will not say more otherwise I would be breaching a confidence. The way Bedfordshire Police seem to have put it, it is words on a website that they say amount to `LionHeart' breaching the `incitement to racial' hatred provisions of the Public Order Act 1986.
It seems that his main campaign is against Islamist (note I do not say Islamic) terrorism based in and around Luton. Let us bring to mind Bedfordshire Police's abject failure to deal with the Islamist murderers who killed 52 people and maimed scores more in their 7/7 bombings. The Muslim murderers met and planned their attacks in Luton. And set off from Luton railways station on their murderous mission. There are, in Luton, Islamists involved in planning terrorist offences, involved in drug dealing to which Bedfordshire Police turn a blind eye, and involved in other criminal activity. LionHeart speaks out against all this - and Bedfordshire Police decide to go after - who? ....
Let those, like Lionheart, who have the courage to speak out against Islamist militancy and terrorism, be handed medals and bravery awards, not interviews under caution by the politically correct and ineffective Bedfordshire Police.
More background:
Lionheart has never called for violence, and also he's not talking out of his ass either - he's basically just reporting whats happening in his town. He only got into this because he was an anti-drug educator who was researching the drugs trade in Luton and discovered that the drug dealers were largely Muslim and justifying their business as jihad since drug taking harms kaffirs, and he figured out the money was going towards organizations that support jihad. Sounds pretty reasonable to me that he is concerned.
And how on earth can anyone call him violent or paranoid? He's proved that his arrest threat is very, terrifyingly real, and meanwhile he's totally non-violent - the man is a devoted Christian for God's sake!
This is terrible. The people on here who are dismissing this guy are not being realistic. He is not a racist, he is not full of hate - only justified fear - and he is not inciting racist anything - he's talking about followers of a religion, not an ethnic group!!!
More here. See also here
Bishop says Muslim extremism creates UK "no-go areas"
Making Muslims furious over his comments -- of course
Muslim groups reacted with fury after a senior Church of England bishop accused Islamic extremists of creating "no-go areas" for non-Muslims in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said communities dominated by radical Islam give a hostile reception to Christians and those from other faiths.
In the Sunday Telegraph, he condemned the use of loudspeakers to spread the call to prayer and compared intimidation by radical Muslims to far-right extremism. He writes: "...there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into 'no-go' areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.
"Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an 'Islamic' character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer."
Mohammed Shafiq, a spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth group, caalled on the bishop to resign. "His article is once again an attempt to whip up hatred against Muslims and cause division," he said.
Ajmal Masroor, spokesman for the Islamic Society of Great Britain, said: "It's nonsense. It's a distortion of reality. I believe our communities are far more integrated than they were 10 years ago. If the Church of England had an iota of fairness in their minds they would definitely take serious action."
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, accused the bishop of scaremongering. "Bishop Nazir-Ali appears to be exercised by what he perceives as the decline in the influence of Christianity upon this country, but trying to frantically scaremonger about Islam and Muslims seems to us to be a rather unethical way of trying to reverse this," he said.
A spokesman for the department of Communities and Local Government said most Muslims found the views of extremists "completely abhorrent". He said: "The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, make a huge contribution to British life and find the views of a small minority of violent extremists completely abhorrent. Britain also has a proud tradition of different communities living together side by side. But we are not complacent - the Government has completely re-balanced its community cohesion strategy putting far greater emphasis on promoting integration and shared British values (as the Bishop acknowledges in his article)."
Source
Comment from a British reader:
According to Tory and liberal spokespersons, Bishop Nazir Ali supposedly was being divisive and factually incorrect. In reality he was telling the truth that ought to have been told decades ago - that significant areas of the uk have become controlled by Islam such that non-muslims cannot live there. One such area is Alum Rock in Birmingham. I saw for myself that a nominally Christian school in Alum Rock Rd had 100.00 percent of the children muslim-parented (or thus-dressed).
I myself have encountered the harassment that drives others out of "muslim" areas. All this is entirely in line with the rest of the reality of the "religion of peace" which in reality is the personality cult of terrorist Mohammed (e.g. see opening of sura 59 of his Quran, justifying his eco-terrorism against peaceful civilians who failed to show him sufficient reverence).
Likewise, note the extensive rioting and deaths following Bhutto's assassination. Was there anything similar after the Pope's attempted assassination (by a Muslim), or of JFK's assassination, or the assassination of theo van Gogh (again by a Muslim)? The difference is that Islam = terrorist cult. Genuine Islam that is, (though all who label themselves as Muslims join in with giving reverence to the terrorist book and its terrorist author).
If holocaust denial is a crime, how much greater a crime is the Jihad Denial that pretends away the greatest evil in history, responsible for far more millions of deaths over the centuries.... AND continues ongoing right now.
Another comment here
Just don't throw sticks and stones
There's a lot of difference between hitting someone and shouting at them. I defend my right to abuse footballers -- says Mick Hume
For the first time in 2008, I fear I must disagree with "all right-thinking people" ? by defending the liberty of football fans to shout abuse at opponents, their own players, referees, or even Sir Alex Ferguson. Today I am off to Old Trafford, and if Manchester United play as badly as on Saturday it will not be best wishes for the new year that 75,000 of us give out to the team.
Will we still be free to do so next year? A crusade against crowd abuse has taken off since Sol Campbell, the Portsmouth defender, rang the Today programme to demand that the FA and the Government protect him from rude words. Campbell said "light banter" was acceptable (so Stephen Fry should be OK) but not personal abuse: "If this happened in the street you'd be arrested. This is a human rights situation." His indignant pose has been backed by football figures from Fergie and ArsSne Wenger downwards, and by esteemed sports writers who say that verbal abuse is "violent". No, it isn't, a distinction made clear in the old playground saw about sticks and stones. Mixing up words and deeds is dangerous.
And so is mixing up football and real life. What goes on at a football ground is rightly not governed by the same rules as events "in the street". As one of the game's thinkers, Campbell might consider Freud's thoughts on different parts of the human psyche. Football is the home ground of the id, the more emotional, irrational side of the brain. That is why people talk and behave there as they would not elsewhere. Sport can take us out of ourselves for worse as well as for better. But if you want to make it conform to the etiquette of everyday life, you might as well ban football altogether.
As it happens, there is already less abuse in the sanitised all-seater stadiums of today. Standards of terrace wit have certainly declined, but at its best that was less gentle banter than savage wordplay. What has risen is the sensitivity of players. Partly this reflects their celebrity status. Mostly it is a by-product of the epidemic of thin-skin syndrome sweeping society, so that causing offence can be deemed the worst offence.
Fans are not immune either ? Arsenal supporters are even suing their own club over offensive language from other Arsenal fans. Not content with insisting that players act like Mary Poppins, some now demand that the crowd behave as a mass role model too.
The funny thing is that Campbell's crusaders seem to have suffered the same loss of perspective as the more hysterically abusive fans. They all attribute far too much importance to what happens in the game of football. As more sensible voices have observed, there are worse things in life than being shouted at. Ask those laying scarves in mourning outside Motherwell's stadium
Source
Patients left to starve on NHS wards
The number of NHS patients suffering from malnourishment as they leave hospital has nearly doubled, new figures show. Around 140,000 patients were discharged after being inadequately fed on NHS wards last year, statistics obtained by the Conservatives reveal. The number released from hospital suffering from malnutrition, nutritional anaemia, or other nutritional deficiencies has risen by 84 per cent in the decade since Labour came to power, from 74,431 in 1997 to 139,127.
The vast majority arrived in hospital suffering from these conditions. But the Department of Health figures also show the nutritional condition of at least 8,500 patients actually worsened while they were in hospital in the last year. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines say all patients should be screened for signs of malnutrition on admission to hospital and treated accordingly. Campaigners complain that elderly people in particular are not given enough help to eat in hospital.
There has also been a rise in the number of patients being admitted to hospital suffering from malnutrition to 130,594, up from 70,658 a decade ago. The figure rose by 12 per cent in the last year alone. The shadow health minister Stephen O'Brien, who obtained the statistics, described them as a "scandal". He said: "Malnourished patients are more prone to infections, have more complications after surgery, and have higher mortality rates - yet the Government allows more than 130,000 patients to enter hospital in the state. "If patients are at risk of malnutrition, then they should be offered extra support before going into hospital, and they should be cared for better whilst they are in hospital. Nurses need to be given the time and equipment to get on with the job of caring for our most vulnerable patients. "It is a scandal that in 21st-century Britain, we allow vulnerable patients to be let out of hospital in a malnourished state, and it is even worse that we allow thousands of patients to get more poorly while they are in hospital."
The worst area in the country for malnutrition was the Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust in Greater Manchester, where 4,947 patients were discharged suffering malnourishment, followed by the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, with 2,771, and the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. They were among nearly 50 hospital trusts around the country that discharged more than 1,000 malnourished patients last year.
Meanwhile, it is estimated that the poor quality of hospital food is putting patients off to the extent that 13 million meals are thrown away each year, at an average cost of 2.65 pounds each.
Last year, the health minister Ivan Lewis admitted patients were being starved on wards, with some elderly people given little more than a scoop of mashed potato for lunch. Others were "tortured" by having meal trays placed out of reach, which they were too weak to pull towards them. Age Concern has protested that elderly people are often given non-pureed food, which they cannot chew or swallow. Michael Summers of the Patients' Association said: "Families tell us that when visiting elderly relatives in hospital in particular they noticed how malnourished they are. "Nurses are so rushed off their feet that it is no surprise that patients end up malnourished. "We have heard stories of elderly people who haven't had a meal all day because they have just been overlooked. The food is just taken away when the patient hasn't been able to eat any of it. "It is a scandal in the 21st century - it ought never to happen."
Source
Deaths of two new mothers at same hospital WERE probably linked, says expert
Two mothers have died from an identical infection after giving birth at the same hospital on the same day. An expert said it was "extremely unlikely" that their deaths were not linked. Amy Kimmance, 39, and Jasmine Pickett, 29, had their babies at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester on December 21. Within 72 hours they had both died from complications linked to streptococcus A infection - known as Strep A - which normally causes sore throats.
Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust insisted investigations so far showed their deaths were coincidental. A spokeswoman said Mrs Kimmance developed fatal toxic shock syndrome as a result of a group A streptococcal infection while Mrs Pickett died from a sudden onset of severe pneumonia, likely to have been caused by a group A streptococcal infection.
However, Mark Enright, professor of molecular epidemiology at Imperial College, London, said: "It's extremely unlikely in my view that they are not linked." Professor Enright said he believed a member of staff had been carrying the infection in their throat, got it on to their hands and passed it on. He said he would be interested to see the results of laboratory tests on the women to see if the identity of the bacteria was the same.
The deaths raised fresh concern over hygiene and infection control practices in Health Service hospitals. Earlier this week David Cameron said hospitals would face hefty fines for each patient who catches a superbug if the Conservatives win power, saying infection levels of MRSA and C.diff, which cause several thousand deaths a year, were "unacceptable".
Mrs Kimmance, a teacher at St Swithun's independent school for girls in Winchester, went home with her new daughter Tess to husband David and their two other children on the day she gave birth. Her condition suddenly deteriorated and she was readmitted to hospital on December 23 where she died of fatal toxic shock syndrome triggered by Strep A infection.
A day later, on Christmas Eve, Mrs Pickett died after suddenly developing severe pneumonia, almost certainly caused by the same infection. She had given birth to her first child, a boy named Christopher. Both babies survived....
Streptococcus A is not a superbug, which means if an individual has a sore throat it can be eradicated with antibiotics. But it can cause aggressive infections if it gets into the bloodstream. There are about 1,200 bloodstream infections linked to Strep A reported to the Health Protection Agency each year, some of which lead to death. The trust spokesman said that the maternity unit had remained open as there had been no results directly linking it or the staff with the cause of the fatalities.
But she added that extensive swabbing of staff and the unit had been carried out as a precaution. She refused to confirm whether antibiotics had been given to staff and the families of the dead women, which would eradicate the infection. She added that a full investigation was taking place. The Royal Hampshire County Hospital missed its target for reducing MRSA last year and had 191 cases of the potentially deadly stomach bug C.diff between April 2006 and March. Its kitchens were severely criticised last year and as a result it now has to submit to six-monthly inspections.
Around 100 mothers die in the UK each year giving birth or shortly afterwards, about two a week.
Source
British universities refuse credit for soft High School subjects
About time
TOP universities are drawing up blacklists of "soft" A-level subjects that will bar applicants from winning places on their degree courses. They are warning that candidates who take more than one of the subjects such as accountancy, leisure studies and dance are unlikely to gain admission. They say they lack the academic rigour to prepare students for courses and are alarmed at the way increasing numbers of state schools are using them to boost pupils' top grades.
Disclosure of the lists will anger the parents of many pupils whose schools have failed to warn them that the A-level subjects are effectively worthless for entry to the best universities. Ministers will also be concerned that they will undermine attempts to increase the number of state pupils at leading universities, traditionally dominated by independent schools.
Some universities such as the London School of Economics (LSE) and Cambridge University have already published lists of up to 25 subjects on their web-sites. Others are less overt but still operate lists. Wendy Piatt, director-general of the Russell Group of 20 leading universities, said most top institutions would follow suit in "providing a steer on preferred combinations of A-levels".
She warned that a new analysis carried out by the group showed that a gulf was emerging between state and private schools, as comprehensives opted for "soft" A-levels and independents and grammars tightened their grip on traditional academic subjects. "Clearly if pupils from state schools are increasingly taking a combination of subjects which put them at a disadvantage in competing for a course at a Russell Group university, the task of widening participation in our universities becomes even more difficult," said Piatt, a former deputy director of Tony Blair's Downing Street strategy unit.
The list run by Cambridge advises potential applicants against taking more than one from a list of 25 subjects ranging from business studies to dance and tourism. It warns that such a combination "would not normally be considered acceptable". "Doing these A-levels individually is not a problem, it is doing too many of them," said Geoff Parks, director of admissions at Cambridge University. "We know there are bright students on track to get As but in subject combinations that essentially rule them out."
The LSE has named 10 subjects that it deems questionable. They include many of those named by Cambridge, but also others such as law. A spokes-woman for Oxford said that it did not operate a list but that candidates who opted for "meatier" A-levels were likely to gain some advantage.
The Russell Group findings are unlikely to please ministers, who have accused universities of failing to do enough to attract working-class students. In September, John Denham, the universities secretary, called the current system a "huge waste of talent", adding that there was a "social bias" across higher education institutions, "including some of the most sought-after".
The Russell Group research shows the widening divergence between subjects being studied at different schools. In media studies, for example, 93% of pupils were from nonselective state schools, far above the sector's 74% share of all A-levels. The situation is reversed in science, languages and maths. In the state sector, fewer than one in 10 A-level pupils in nonselective schools takes sciences, compared with one third at grammar and independent schools. In further maths, 35% of exams are taken at private schools, far above the sector's 15% share of all A-levels. Meanwhile, the number of independent school candidates taking languages has remained steady, while those in the state sector have plummeted.
"It is overwhelmingly the state school students dropping sciences and languages," says the research. "This is making it increasingly difficult for the Russell Group to recruit large numbers of state school pupils into these difficult subjects." The choice of subjects is increasing the dominance of independent and grammar school students already shown by their higher grades - the two groups together accounted for 52.3% of those gaining three As in 2006, although they made up only 21% of candidates.
Competition is becoming increasingly tough at the top universities, with 94% of the students who entered Cambridge last year securing more than three A grades at A-level. At Bristol, for example, there are 10 candidates for every place. The Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "More young people are staying on at school taking A-levels and achieving - surely that's something we should welcome."
Source
More medical ideology bites the dust
Drugs that are commonly used to treat aggressive or violent outbursts in intellectually disabled people are less effective than a placebo and should not be used as a standard form of treatment, research shows. The finding, by Australian and British experts, strongly challenges routine medical practice throughout the world of using antipsychotic drugs to treat aggression in intellectually disabled patients. Up to 45 per cent of people with an intellectual disability in hospital and about 20 per cent of those in the community are prescribed antipsychotic drugs, although there is no clear connection between aggressive behaviour and psychotic illness.
The study, published in The Lancet, examined 86 adults with a mild intellectual disability in group housing in England, Wales and Australia over more than a month of treatment. It found a 79 per cent reduction in aggressive behaviour among patients taking placebo pills, compared with a reduction of 65 per cent or less in those taking antipsychotic drugs. Researchers compared the placebo with two antipsychotic drugs - haloperidol and risperidone - although the findings would almost certainly apply to all similar medications, they said.
The lead author, Peter Tyrer, a professor of psychiatry at Imperial College London, said that although all treatments led to a reduction in aggression after four weeks, the greatest decrease was by those taking the placebo. "Our trial has shown that aggressive challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability decreases whether or not active medication is given," he said. There had been no differences between drugs and dummy pills when measuring aggressive behaviour, quality of life, effect on carers and adverse drug effects, Professor Tyrer said.
The study's authors, including researchers from the University of Queensland, said the results "should not be interpreted as an indication that antipsychotic drugs have no place in some aspects of behaviour disturbance". Dr David Harley, who worked on the study while at the Queensland Centre for Intellectual and Developmental Disability, said he was not surprised that the drugs had little more effect than the placebo, given they had not been used for the purpose in which they were created. "They are being used to treat [aggression] which is not a recognised medical diagnosis," he said. "We might expect drugs like this to work if the aggression was caused by schizophrenia or psychotic illness." Dr Harley said when intellectually disabled people became aggressive, doctors were left to feel "like the only avenue they have is to prescribe". He has been advocating against the use of medication in this group for years and preferred to treat most patients with behavioural therapy.
Philip Mitchell, head of the school of psychiatry at the University of NSW, said the study was a "wake-up call" to psychiatrists that the drugs were "of limited benefit" for patients with intellectual disability. "It should hopefully make clinicians and doctors more circumspect about their prescribing practices," he said.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment