Monday, October 05, 2015

Neo-Marxist elitists in charge of the British Left

TOBY YOUNG was brought up surrounded by Champagne socialists. Hearing Labour sing their anthem brought back toe-curling memories.  Their claim to represent the worker is an absurdity.  Money insulates them from the real world.  Their anthem is "The people's flag is deepest red".  It would more frankly be: "The spoiled elite's flag is deepest red"

Frankly, I can't say I was surprised that Jeremy Corbyn had no hesitation in accepting the £125,000 salary and chauffeur-driven car that comes with his new job.

After all, this veteran campaigner against inequality was brought up in a seven-bedroom mansion and went to private school.

Like so many Labour leaders before him, it's a case of do as I say, not do as I do.

Being the son of a prominent Left-wing intellectual — and brought up in North London, not far from Corbyn's constituency — I witnessed this hypocrisy at first hand.

When I saw the footage of Corbyn singing the Red Flag at the Labour conference this week — not long after staying tight-lipped during a rendition of the National Anthem — my mind was transported back to Christmas Eve in the mid-Seventies, and a memorable supper party at the house of Anthony Crosland, then a Labour Secretary of State.

Tony was one of my father's closest friends in the Labour Party. He is probably best remembered for vowing to get rid of grammar schools, the greatest engines of social mobility this country has ever produced.

'If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every f***ing grammar school in England,' he said, shortly after becoming Harold Wilson's Education Secretary in 1965. And he was as good as his word. Today, there are only 164 grammars left.

Every Christmas Eve, my father, Michael Young, a writer and sociologist who co-authored Labour's 1945 manifesto, would drive our family over to Tony's house where the Croslands and the Youngs would break bread together and sing carols by the fireside.

Needless to say, Tony's house in Pimlico was a far cry from the cottages of his constituents in Great Grimsby, the working-class constituency he served from 1959 to his death in 1977.

It was a grand, four-storey affair, featuring six bedrooms, a beautiful dining room and a large, sweeping drawing room with a magnificent fireplace.

On the mantelpiece were stiff, cardboard invitations to various society soirees. In the lavatory, if memory serves, were framed photographs of Tony at his alma mater — the famous (and fee-paying) Highgate School in North London.

There was Tony in his cricket kit, about to open the batting against a rival establishment, and there was Tony in his tennis whites.

He was, quite literally, the picture of a privileged public schoolboy.

On this particular occasion, he'd invited his colleague Shirley Williams, then the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and soon to become Education Secretary. Like Tony, she was determined 'to destroy every f***ing grammar school in England', and did her very best to do so, although, curiously, her own daughter went to agrammar school — just like Jeremy Corbyn's son.

Supper was pleasant enough, as always in this hotbed of socialism. Tony's American wife, Susan, was a gracious hostess and made sure guests were well fed and well watered — a selection of fine wines was on offer.

It wasn't quite Downton Abbey, but there were employees on hand to help with the cooking and the serving. Nothing but the best for these tribunes of the masses.

After supper we retired to the drawing room and Shirley Williams led us in carol singing, accompanied by one of Tony and Susan's daughters on the piano. I can picture it now — the perfect Christmas tableau. I think there were even snowflakes piling up on the window frames.

But then something happened to interrupt this chocolate-box scene. Susan broke out the 25-year-old Macallan — a favourite tipple of my father's — and as the whisky started to flow, the guests became more emotional.

Before long, the two Labour Secretaries of State, along with my father, who was a peer of the realm, were demanding something a little more 'authentic' than Good King Wenceslas.

Sure enough, they started singing The Red Flag: 'The people's flag is deepest red/It shrouded oft our martyred dead/And 'ere their limbs grew stiff and cold/Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold.'

I distinctly remember Tony Crosland, red-faced and animated, pumping his fist in the air and crying: 'Balls to the bourgeoisie.' This week, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell cut a similar figure as he raised his clenched fist while belting out the socialist anthem.

Quite what Crosland's staff made of that spectacle, all those years ago, I don't know. They hovered discreetly in the background, waiting to replenish the whisky glasses of these Left-wing firebrands. I daresay they'd seen it all before.

This was probably the most egregious example of champagne socialism I encountered in my childhood, but there were plenty of others.

I hesitate to criticise my father, whom I loved dearly, but his commitment to equality didn't extend to his choice of motorcar — a vintage Bentley.

Like Tony, he was a passionate advocate of comprehensive education, but that didn't stop him sending three of his six children to Dartington Hall, then the most expensive private school in England. He'd been there himself, paid for by a rich Australian uncle, so perhaps that was understandable.

We lived in a large, detached house in Highgate Village, and spent summers in our second home in the South of France.

No doubt my father would have been happy to share those advantages with the less fortunate if the red flag ever flew over the Houses of Parliament. He had a habit of inviting homeless people to share our Christmas lunch, so in that respect, at least, he practised what he preached.

I never asked my father about the disconnect between his socialist values and his affluent lifestyle. Every rich person I knew growing up in North London was a passionate egalitarian, so I just thought of it as normal.

It was only later, when I experienced more of the real world, that I realised how bizarre it was. Most people don't live such gilded lives, and those who do are unlikely to spend Christmas in the lap of luxury, shouting 'Balls to the bourgeoisie'.

Even today, such hypocrisy is commonplace on the Left.

For instance, Jeremy Corbyn singled out 'zero-hours contracts' in his victory speech, vowing to do away with this modern form of 'slavery' if he becomes Prime Minister.

That's a bit rich, considering 68 Labour MPs have employed staff on zero-hours contracts in the past two years. And by 'staff' I mean Parliamentary researchers, not domestic servants — although I daresay Shaun Woodward employs a few of those.

Woodward, who has a net worth of £300 million and divides his time between six houses, was the Labour Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from 2007 to 2010.

Andy Burnham, Corbyn's leadership rival, bangs on and on about the Tories 'privatising' the NHS, forgetting that 4.4 per cent of NHS services were outsourced to private providers under the last Labour government, while only a further 1.5 per cent have been outsourced since 2010.

Harriet Harman, Corbyn's predecessor as Labour leader, branded Chancellor George Osborne a 'posh boy' — even though they both attended exactly the same independent St Paul's schools.

The list goes on.

Perhaps my favourite moment of this year's General Election campaign was watching Ed Miliband abase himself at the feet of Russell Brand, a revolutionary socialist so committed to the cause he has a personal hairdresser on call 24/7 and travels everywhere by private jet.

Quite why the leader of the Labour Party thought turning up at the £2 million penthouse of the then 39-year-old multi-millionaire was a way to win over the 'yoof' vote is anyone's guess.

Luckily, the British public has a good nose for this type of hypocrisy.

As I discovered on that Christmas Eve in Pimlico, the red flag is made of velvet and sits on top of a corner table in a large drawing room where the expensive whisky is kept.


Political correctness causes unnecessary Loss of Life among American troops

By Walter E. Williams

War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on — or even seen — a battlefield. Today's battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders who are all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant deaths, so-called collateral damage.

According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh H Bravo, "Insanity: The Rules of Engagement" (, our troops fighting in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: "We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of." Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But the question we should ask is: Are our troops' lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?

The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be magnified in future conflicts by mindless efforts to put women in combat units. In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the screeching and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.

The U.S. Army has announced that for the first time, two female officers graduated from the exceptionally tough three-phase Ranger course. Their "success" will serve as grist for the mills of those who argue for women in combat. Unlike most of their fellow soldiers, these two women had to recycle because they had failed certain phases of the course.

A recent Marine Corps force integration study concluded that combat teams were less effective when they included women. Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster "in each tactical movement." The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

Should anyone be surprised by the findings of male combat superiority? Young men are overloaded with testosterone, which produces hostility, aggression and competitiveness. Such a physical characteristic produces sometimes-poor behavior in civilian society, occasionally leading to imprisonment, but the same characteristics are ideal for ground combat situations.

You may bet the rent money that the current effort to integrate combat jobs will not end with simply a few extraordinary women. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. He said, "First we're going to make sure there are standards" and "they're gender-neutral." Only after that will the Navy make sure the standards "have something to do with the job."

We've heard that before in matters of race. It's called disparate impact. That is, if the Navy SEALs cannot prove that staying up for 18 hours with no rest or sleep, sitting and shivering in the cold Pacific Ocean, running with a huge log on your shoulder, and being spoken to like a dog are necessary, then those parts of SEAL training will be eliminated so that women can pass.

The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall timidity of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in combat after they retire from service.


Navy Secretary Dismisses Risks to Women in Combat

A new study reveals the disturbing facts

For Navy Secretary Ray Mabus it would appear that progressive ideology trumps inconvenient reality. In an interview with National Public Radio (NPR) Mabus criticized a nine month study revealing that women sustain injuries at a higher rate than their male counterparts and shoot with less accuracy under combat-simulated conditions. “(The study) started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking this is not a good idea and women will never be able to do this,” Mabus told NPR’s David Greene. “When you start out with that mindset you’re almost presupposing the outcome.”

Apparently Mabus is immune to the irony that attends his own presuppositions. The study itself, known as the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF) and conducted with 200 male and 75 female volunteers, couldn’t have been clearer. As the executive summary reveals, all male squads, teams and crews “demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews.” By contrast, gender-integrated units outperformed their all-male counterparts in two events.

In the Speed category, and regardless of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), all-male squads were faster than gender-integrated ones in each tactical movement. Furthermore, those differences “were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition,” the summary stated.

The Lethality category showed similar discrepancies. Other than the probability of hit and miss with the M4, all-male squads demonstrated greater accuracy than gender-integrated ones with a “notable difference” recorded between genders for “every individual weapons system.” All male squads had higher hit percentages, engaged targets in shorter time periods and registered more hits on those targets than their gender-integrated counterparts, with the only exception being M2 accuracy.

In addition, all male squads demonstrated superiority in the performance of the basic combat tasks that required negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. “For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top,” the summary revealed. “During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who ‘evacuated’ the casualty).”

In the Health and Welfare of Marines category, “well documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures,” with men outperforming, or demonstrating greater degrees of strength and endurance, than women in all categories, including body composition, anaerobic power and capacity, and aerobic capacity.

The injury differences were especially stark. According to research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry level training sustained injuries at six times the rate of their male counterparts. In the categories of task movements while carrying loads, males were injured at a rate of 13 percent while females sustained injuries at a rate of 27 percent. Female musculoskeletal injury rates were more than double those of males, coming in at a staggering 40.5 percent, compared to just 18.8 percent for males.

Mabus was unmoved, insisting that “empirical standards” are determined by “what you put in” the tests and that the Center for Naval Analyses have discovered ways to “mitigate this so you can have the same combat effectiveness, the same lethality, which is crucial.” He further insisted the idea that women are injured more often than men was not shown in the study, but based rather on “an extrapolation based on injury rates,” and that the Marines could have chosen women for the study better suited for the task of shouldering heavier loads. “For the women that volunteered, probably there should have been a higher bar to cross to get into the experiment,” he said, apparently ignoring what the word “volunteers” actually means.

Sgt. Danielle Beck, a female anti-armor gunner with the task force was contemptuous of Mabus’s contentions. “Our secretary of the Navy completely rolled the Marine Corps and the entire staff that was involved in putting this [experiment] in place under the bus,” she said. That sentiment was echoed by Sgt. Joe Frommling, one of the Marines acting as a monitor for Beck during the tests. “What Mabus said went completely against what the command was saying the whole time,” Frommling explained. “They said, ‘Hey, no matter what your opinion is, go out there and give it your best and let the chips fall where they may.’”

Another Marine officer took Mabus to task for the Secretary’s suggestion the test was rigged. “If you were to look at our training plan and how we progressed from October to February, you’re not going to find any evidence of institutional bias or some way we built this for females to fail,” he stated. “We consulted physical trainers from [the school of infantry] to help develop an appropriate hike plan, and we fired roughly a year’s worth of ammo for a regiment in a quarter. In the time that we had, there wasn’t a day wasted when it came to training for California … From the top down, we were trying to level the playing field.”

Congressman Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, took it one step further, calling on Mabus to resign. In a scathing letter sent to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on Sept. 17, Hunter, who served as a Marine in both Iraq and Afghanistan, criticized Mabus’s assertion that he would not support any requests for gender-related exemptions before he was even briefed on the 900-page report’s findings. “This alone underscores the fact that the Navy Secretary is biased in his judgment and should be withdrawn from any decision-making with respect to the Marine Corps' gender integration plan,” Duncan wrote. In calling for Mabus’s resignation, Hunter cited the Secretary’s disrespect for the Marine Corps as an institution and for insulting its competency “by disregarding their professional judgment, their combat experience and their quality of leadership.”

Four days later, Mabus penned an editorial for the Washington Post reiterating his commitment to diversity, and once again implying the tested were rigged. “The Marines deconstructed each job in a unit to specifically detail its requirements so that individual members could function better as a team,” he wrote. “During the study, however, the Marine Corps did not rely on the data for, or evaluate the performance of, individual female Marines; instead, it used only averages. Averages have no relevance to the abilities and performance of individual Marines.”

In its Oct. 1 release, the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) refuted that assessment. “Secretary Mabus betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of statistical analysis,” CMR stated. “Data points are derived from the performances of multiple research participants – not just the highest-scoring or lowest-scoring. It matters, therefore that all-male squads, teams, and units outperformed gender-integrated teams in 93 of 134 tasks” (bold in the original).

Mabus sounded even sillier when he noted the language rescinded by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey to integrate combat units had its roots in a 1992 recommendation by the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces that excluded women from combat. Mabus insisted the Marine Corps “relied on that language” when conducting its tests.

Yesterday was the deadline for armed service recommendations for gender integration into combat units by top U.S. military leaders. The Marine Corps has requested a partial exemption from the 2013 directive issued by Panetta and Dempsey. According to Reuters, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have “hinted that they will not seek exemptions.” Current Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford recommended maintaining the Marine Corps exemption. Secretary Carter, who stated he would “carefully review” reports from all four service branches and the Special Operations Command, remained noncommittal. “Everyone who is able and willing to serve and can meet the standards we require should have the full opportunity to do so,” he told reporters. “I am going to be very facts-based and analysis-based. I want to see the grounds upon which any actions that we take at the first of the year are going to be made.”

Few things are more emblematic of the fecklessness of Obama administration than its obsession with progressive pieties while Vladimir Putin and the Iranians are turning the Middle East into their personal playground. While Obama and company pursue the Holy Grail of diversity, our enemies pursue a realignment of the world in ways utterly inimical to our national security. If it continues, these doyens of gender equality irrespective of reality may get their wish: every soldier in uniform may be called upon to defend this nation from an unprecedented level of aggression. Aggression enabled by what is arguably one of the worst assemblages of clueless government officials and their military enablers in the history of our nation.


Class War vs Cereal Killer: a riot for poverty

Ignore the paint-flinging pillocks – gentrification is good. The British slang word "pillock" translates roughly into American slang as "jerk"

On Sunday night, a mob of 200 anti-gentrification protesters descended on Shoreditch in east London as part of an event called Fuck Parade. The event, organised by bedraggled anarchist outfit Class War, featured a burning wicker policeman, balaclavas aplenty and an alleged attack on a dog. It culminated with the mob vandalising the Cereal Killer café on Brick Lane and threatening its terrified customers with smoke bombs and burning torches. Cereal Killer’s crime? Well, according to Class War, the owners are part of the social cleansing of the previously run-down area.

Cereal Killer has become synonymous with the gentrification brought to Shoreditch by hipster culture. With customers happily paying up to £3.50 for a bowl of cereal, it is testament to the revival of the previously impoverished area. And it is this newfound affluence that provoked the anger of Sunday’s mob; the Facebook event claims that the community is being torn apart by the influx of ‘Israeli scumbag property developers, Texan oil-money twats and homegrown Eton toffs’. The anti-gentrification sentiment that Class War expresses indicates an aversion to economic growth, and an aversion to investment in the community, which it claims to represent. Surely the most immediate threat to the local community is mob vandalism and intimidation from within, not economic investment from without.

The café was attacked while it was still open, and the panicked customers were forced to take shelter downstairs as a smoke bomb went off and red paint and cornflakes were hurled at the shopfront. The vandals wore masks and balaclavas as they shouted abuse, and one man spraypainted ‘Scum’ on the café window. Does selling expensive cereal to happily paying customers make you scum? No. But intimidating the members of the local community that you claim to defend certainly does.

The gentrification that the café represents should be celebrated. The two men who founded the café, Irish-born twins Gary and Alan Keery, employ a number of local people and are among a number of entrepreneurs who have helped to revive the previously unpleasant area. There is no agenda of social cleansing here, as the mob’s organisers claim.

The ‘progressive’ media has helped make this small business the target of such bile. Given that gentrification represents entrepreneurship and is indicative of progress, it is ironic that so-called progressives take such issue with it. The Guardian has taken potshots at the café in the past, and it even published a piece by one of the protesters hours after the Fuck Parade took place. When I spoke to the café’s manager, Matt Moncrieff, he said the attack was definitely ‘influenced by the café’s media coverage’.

Class War claims to represent a local community that is sick of rising house prices and an influx of wealth from overseas. However, Cereal Killer employs people from the local community, and many more residents come to the café to socialise and bond over a bowl or two of Coco Pops. The café remains defiant in the face of bullying and intimidation, and locals have since rallied behind it, with other businesses dropping off care packages for the owners. Moncrieff told me that footfall has actually increased since the attack.

The Fuck Parade was made up of a small core of balaclava-wearing pillocks and a lot of posers. People who rail against gentrification are, thankfully, the minority, and they have no right to speak for residents who are probably too busy enjoying new amenities and job prospects to protest.

Gentrification is not part of some conspiracy against the poor. Opportunities for people in Shoreditch to improve their lives are growing, and that is no bad thing. Fortunately, a bunch of idiots throwing cornflakes at a shopfront won’t change that.



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.


Sunday, October 04, 2015

Muslims can't commit hate crimes in Britain

An Asian family who converted to Christianity claim they are being driven out of their home for the second time by Muslim persecutors.

Nissar Hussain, his wife Kubra and their six children said they have suffered an appalling ordeal at the hands of neighbours who regard them as blasphemers.

They claim they are effectively prisoners in their own home after being attacked in the street, having their car windscreens repeatedly smashed and eggs thrown at their windows.

Mr Hussain, 49, has even given up his career as a nurse due to the effect on his health.

Police have been called numerous times to deal with the trouble but are said to be reluctant to treat the problem as a religious hate crime.

Only one successful prosecution has been made, and Mr Hussain said he feels so let down by police he has lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

He also criticised the Anglican Church for failing to provide any meaningful support.

Now the family are likely to move from their home city of Bradford to a 'white English' area to escape the hate campaign.

Mr Hussain said his wife, 45, and children Issar, 23, Anniesa, 21, Sarah, 19, Miriam, 17, Leena and Isaaq, seven, have faced harassment and abuse on almost a daily basis.

Flashpoints include an incident in March this year when Mr Hussain ended up grappling with a man who 'threatened and confronted' his wife.

Police were called and Mr Hussain was arrested and spent 12 hours in police cells before being released without charge.

Over the last year, Mr Hussain has had his car windscreen smashed six times at a cost of £5,000. His eldest son, a final year medical student, has also had his windscreen smashed.

Although their faith remains strong, Mr and Mrs Hussain no longer attend church. 'We have given up on the Church of England, they have done nothing for us,' said Mr Hussain.

A West Yorkshire Police spokesman said: 'We are aware of an ongoing matter involving Mr Hussain and are working closely with partners to resolve this situation. All reports of crime are taken seriously and are investigated thoroughly.'


But Muslims CAN commit hate crimes in Australia

The Australian authorities call a spade a spade -- unlike the hypocritical English

Police have released a photo of the 'admired' and 'gentle' father of two who was gunned down by a 15-year-old 'radicalised' youth Friday evening.

Curtis Cheng, 58, was leaving work at the police headquarters in Parramatta, Sydney, when he was shot in the back of the head by the Iranian-born youth.

The gunman responsible has been identified as Farad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, the ABC reported.

He had visited a mosque in the hours before the killing, which has been confirmed by the Prime Minister as an act of terrorism.

Police had searched the teen's North Parramatta family home and taken computer equipment, the ABC reported.

He was a student at Arthur Phillip High, a school less than half a kilometre from where the shootings took place, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

A source told the ABC the teen's weapon was a revolver and it did not seem he knew his victim.

Witnesses of the attack on Friday afternoon said after the killing, the teen paraded in front of the police station with his weapon chanting 'Allah, Allah', it was reported.

After exchanging gunfire with police officers, the teen was killed.

Mr Cheng, a father of two and accountant for the police, was remembered as a 'wonderful' man, loved by family, friends and colleagues.

In a press conference with New South Wales premiere Mike Baird, Police commissioner Andrew Scipione said the police force was in mourning.

NSW premier Mike Baird said it was an 'unthinkable act' that ended his life.  'I want the family of Curtis and the members of his Police community to know that you don't face this loss alone. We mourn with you and we are here for you.'

The police commissioner confirmed the teen's actions were 'politically motivated and therefore linked to terrorism'.

En route to the killing the youth, originally from Iran, had visited Parramatta Mosque, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The killer, who had an Iraqi and Kurdish background, carried no identification and it was believed his brother contacted police with his identity, the Daily Telegraph reported.

The gunman, at present believed to have been acting alone, shot Mr Cheng at close range outside the Parramatta police headquarters in a targeted attack on Friday, which has been described as a 'brutal' and 'callous murder'.

The assailant, dressed all in black, fired a number of shots at special constables guarding the NSW Police station in Sydney, before he was gunned down and killed by one of the officers.

Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said Mr Cheng was 'simply leaving work' when he was shot in the back of the head by the gunman who was wearing 'dark trousers and a flowing top'.

'A number of special constables came out of the building and as they've emerged they've come under fire.

'In the exchange that followed the gunman was shot and killed. An employee of the NSW police force has been callously murdered here today. This is a very sobering time for us.'

Police believe the gunman was not working with anyone else, but have not ruled out the possibility there may be others involved.


Truth about the rabble bringing fear to British streets: Working class warriors? No, middle class spongers and so-called academics

Age has not mellowed university graduate Ian Bone. He may now be a 68-year-old grandfather, but he is full of burning resentment. Almost all his life has been devoted to waging war on the rich while claiming benefits funded by their taxes.

His father was butler to Sir Gerald Coke, grandson of the Earl of Leicester, and the family lived in a bonded cottage on a family estate in Hampshire. Young Ian hated the rich children ‘from the big house’ for calling his father ‘Bone’ and grew up with an abiding contempt for the upper classes.

After finishing a degree in politics from Swansea University, he announced to his horrified parents that his choice of ‘career’ was to be an anarchist, and that he would fund it by claiming the dole.

‘I thought I might as well be unemployed so that I could be a full-time radical revolutionary and the State would pay me to do it,’ he explained later. ‘I never thought about having a job or a career. Jobs and material possessions have never loomed large in my life.’

He lived in Bristol, playing in a band, drinking heavily and staying in rented flats. He also became a founding member of Class War, a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of state structures, and published newspapers in support of the cause.

He moved to London in the 1990s, still claiming benefits, and now lives there in a £330,000 home with the mortgage paid off, which belongs to his partner Jane Nicholl, 64.

She, too, is an anarchist and was arrested last year for setting fire to an effigy of Boris Johnson on Guy Fawkes night. The charge was subsequently dropped.

Ian’s anger about his childhood has not been eased by his immense good fortune and charmed life on benefits. Far from it, judging by the pictures and messages he has posted on social media.

When Baroness Thatcher died in 2013, he used his blog to summon an army of followers to celebratory street parties, and published an image of the former prime minister’s head being cut open with a meat cleaver. Next to the image he wrote: ‘The best cut of all.’

In other film clips posted on YouTube, he rails against the Royal Family and urges ‘violent action’ to achieve his aims.

More recently, Bone — who has five children with two former partners — posted pictures of himself angrily brandishing a walking stick during a protest against the so-called gentrification of London.

Last week, he was the key figure behind a vicious mob attack when riot police and helicopters were deployed after more than a thousand people descended on a fashionable part of East London to protest against a trendy cafe selling breakfast cereals from around the world for up to £4.40 a bowl.

The protest was organised by Bone’s Class War group, which urged followers of its Facebook page to join in.

‘Our communities are being ripped apart — by Russian oligarchs, Saudi sheiks, Israeli scumbag property developers, Texan oil-money twats and our own home-grown Eton toffs,’ went Class War’s cry.

‘We don’t want luxury flats that no one can afford, we want genuinely affordable housing. We don’t want pop-up gin bars or brioche buns, we want community.’

The community in the part of East London that Class War targeted on Saturday night was nothing short of terrified as the mob descended.

And what was striking is that it wasn’t just unemployed ne’er-do-wells such as Bone who responded to the call, but a motley crew which included well-dressed youngsters with iPhones as well as university academics — of whom more later.

With police helicopters buzzing overhead and dozens of riot officers deployed on the ground, the mob headed for an establishment called the Cereal Killer Cafe, which is run by 33-year-old twins from Belfast.

While cafe staff locked the doors and barricaded themselves inside, hundreds — many of them masked and carrying burning torches — gathered outside, threw paint at the premises and daubed the word ‘scum’ on the window.

As families with young children cowered, the protesters managed to break in and threw a smoke bomb.

Riot police rushed to the scene while the protesters chanted obscenities, burnt an effigy of a policeman and smashed the windows of a nearby estate agent.

‘They are violent bullies and we want them prosecuted,’ says Alan Keery, 33, who founded the cafe with Gerry, his brother, last year. ‘We’re a small business. We work hard. They see us as an easy target. They see us as the face of gentrification.’

The brothers describe themselves as ‘very working-class’ boys from Belfast, who left school at 16 and worked for years in shops, pubs and clubs before opening their own venture.

Jasiminne Yip, the owner of Regimental Vintage, a nearby boutique, was caught up in the violence, which began as she was closing for the night.

‘At first I thought it was a pub crawl,’ she told us. ‘I heard some of the group, most of them in their twenties, speaking very loudly in very posh accents and shouting general profanities in every direction.

‘I barricaded myself in my shop because the situation looked dangerous. I saw a small dog running past the group and some of them were attacking it — kicking at it. One person was trying to hit it with their skateboard.’

The attack on the cafe was just one of a series of violent incidents across London this year. Bottles and missiles were hurled at police, estate agents’ windows were smashed and flames leapt into the night sky during recent disturbances against luxury developments in Camden, North London.

Similar scenes took place in April in Brixton, South London, with violent protests against the ‘gentrification’ of the area. Tear gas had to be used as protesters stormed Brixton Town Hall.

That same month, the annual Property Awards at the Grosvenor House Hotel in central London were disrupted by 200 demonstrators claiming to be angered by a lack of social housing, while branches of Foxtons estate agents have had their windows smashed because they are considered to represent the evil of gentrification.

Bone and his cronies are planning more anarchy tomorrow outside the Jack the Ripper Museum, a new tourist attraction on Cable Street, in the East End of London.

Class War has denounced the museum as being the work of ‘a rich businessman who glorifies the brutal murder of working-class sex workers. It is also a symbol of gentrification’.

But in fact this has nothing to do with ‘class war’. Besides Ian Bone, the other main agitators are also drawn from the ranks of the middle classes and the university-educated.

Perhaps the most preposterous of them is Dr Lisa Mckenzie, 47, a research fellow at the prestigious London School of Economics, where such academic posts attract salaries of about £40,000.

Denying that she is middle-class, she ludicrously compares the cereal protest to the struggles of the Suffragettes and Nelson Mandela.

This from a woman who lives in a £1,300-a-month flat in the achingly trendy Limehouse area of London and posts details on her Facebook page of holidays to far-flung destinations such as Barbados, Las Vegas and Jamaica as well as New York, Milan, Rome, Paris and Barcelona.

A mother of one with her hair dyed bright red, she studied sociology at Nottingham University and went on to gain funding for a Masters degree and a PhD.

She claims — without a hint of irony — that taking part in the riots is all part of her job. ‘I’m always on protests because I write about them,’ she says. ‘I’m there but this is research, too.’

Her research work for the LSE concerns ‘the precarious nature of particular groups in our society and the vulnerability they experience’. She is also looking into ‘social cleansing’ in East London.

The daughter and granddaughter of miners, she honed her hatred during the miners’ strike of 1984-85 in which Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher crushed Arthur Scargill, leader of the National Union of Minerworkers.

‘Our community was absolutely decimated by the Conservative government,’ she told the BBC this week. ‘I am now an economic migrant to the South East. Social cleansing is happening in London.’

In her 2009 academic thesis, called Finding Value On A Council Estate, she complained that cases such as that of Baby P — the appalling torture and killing of a 17-month-old boy by his mother and boyfriend — were ‘used by the media and politicians to make way for a barrage of accusations, suspicions and stigmatisations regarding those who live on council estates, especially mothers’.

She stood as a Class War candidate in the General Election in May this year in Iain Duncan Smith’s Chingford and Woodford Green constituency, where she won just 53 votes.

The previous month, she had been charged with criminal damage and threatening behaviour after placing a notice bearing the slogan ‘New Homes For The Rich’ underneath a picture of a cemetery on the East London home of Taylor McWilliams, a wealthy American friend of Prince Harry.

She posted on Facebook a smirking selfie of herself after her magistrates’ court hearing, at which she pleaded not guilty and urged ‘everyone’ to attend her next hearing for a ‘day out’ when it takes place later this month.

On the march against the Cereal Killer cafe, she carried a placard bearing the slogan ‘We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live’.

She insists that not all the protesters that night were academics like herself. Yet they included Dr Simon Elmer, a former professor of art history, who wore a latex pig mask to hide his identity.

Dr Elmer describes himself as poet, writer, photographer and propagandist. He has worked as visiting professor at the University of Michigan, and has taught at the universities of London, Manchester, Reading and Roehampton.

He now lives in fashionable Stoke Newington in North London, where he runs an online publication called The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Poetry, Community, Sacrifice.

Asked about the aims of the protest, he was not amused. ‘Your idiotic attempts to bring the issues of gentrification and homelessness down to the supposed class origins of the protesters [are] worthy of the schoolyard at Eton.’

He added: ‘The cereal cafe wouldn’t be there if there weren’t people who could afford, and have the inclination, to spend £4 on a bowl of cereal. The cafe isn’t just a cultural symbol of gentrification, it’s an instrument of the economic colonisation of the area. The question is, will you write it? And I think we both know the answer to that.’

Another well-heeled supporter of the mob was Adam Barr, 23, who grew up in a four-bedroom house in the East Yorkshire village of Cottingham, where his father is a company director, and who now studies history and Chinese at the University of London.

Despite his privileged background and the opportunity to attend university away from home, Mr Barr was oblivious to the irony this week after he hit out at the ‘invading hordes’ who have taken over London, ‘driving up rents and driving out people who have lived here for years’.

Anybody who dares to question the motives of Class War is abused, it seems. After someone asked how the group could justify saying it wanted ‘to see the rich dead’, an un-named anarchist on its Facebook page replied simply: ‘Hah! Hah! Hah!’ and called supporters of new businesses ‘maggots’ and ‘cxxxs’.

What, then, does Ian Bone, the bitter graduate son of Sir Gerald Coke’s butler, think of the cereal cafe protest? For a man who has never worked, he professes an unerring understanding of the working classes, but his overriding message seems to be one of self-congratulation.

Attacks on business premises, he said, were ‘fxxxxxx great. We will drive the fake elements out and repopulate with the proper working-class people rather than fxxxxxx yuppies and millionaires. They can go and fxxx themselves.

‘Our idea was to parachute behind enemy lines. Our aim was to seize control of the streets in Shoreditch for six hours and we effectively did. Look, we don’t like rich people. We’d like to drive them all out of London and repopulate with the proletariat. Got it?’

Confirming that he had never had a job — ‘Why would I want to work for a capitalist? Work is boring,’ he said — he added that he was delighted ‘shops are talking about closing down and moving out’ and that ‘people are scared of us coming to the area. That’s fxxxxxx brilliant’.

Meanwhile, the cereal cafe brothers, who prefer the virtues of hard work and enterprise to living off the State, spent last week tidying up and trying to put their business back together.


Ben Carson Destroys Democrats on Race

From the getgo, Ben Carson has stressed that his campaign was going to go places where many Republicans wouldn't, in an effort to grow the party. This week, Ben Carson met with a small group of African American leaders last week and questioned the black community's allegiance to the Democratic Party. Via the Washington Times:

“The Democrat Party, of course, is the party of the KKK. Of Jim Crow laws. And perhaps just as bad right now, of servitude. ‘Now you do this, and we’ll take care of you, pat you on the head, take care of all your needs.’ Which keeps people believing that’s what they actually need,” Mr. Carson told the small group.

If anyone can attest to this it's Carson, who overcame a life surrounded by poverty and violence to become a groundbreaking neurosurgeon. Carson's story, and his message, seem to be resonating, as a recent USA Today Poll has him second to frontrunner Donald Trump.



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


Friday, October 02, 2015

Multicultural mother-of-five 'made £1.5m running a high-class escort agency while also claiming £117,000 in benefits'

A mother-of-five made £1.5million running a high-class escort agency with former TOWIE star Maria Fowler on its books while claiming £117,000 in benefits and tax credits, a court heard.

Janine Adeleke, 42, claimed state handouts while running agency Carltons Of London from her seaside home Bexhill-On-Sea, East Sussex.

One of her children was sent to the exclusive Roedean boarding school for girls, while her family had private medical insurance and membership to the David Lloyd gym.

She is now facing jail after being found guilty of seven counts of cheating the revenue, fraud and money laundering at Canterbury Crown Court yesterday.

At the start of the trial, Allastair Walker, prosecuting, told the jury that for eight years between November 2006 and October last year Adeleke had failed to disclose significant income - much of which came from the escort business.

'During this period she claimed state benefits including Income Support, Council Tax benefit and carer's allowance,' he said.

The jury heard that in July 2011, when she suspected that Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) investigators were on her trail ,she laundered receipts through accounts in the name of her elderly and frail mother.

The court heard that the total loss to taxpayers as a result of Adeleke's fraud was £367,000.

She had claimed benefits of £37,000, including Income Support for herself and her five children, from 2006 to 2011 - totalling £28,468.22, Council Tax Benefit, from 2007 to 2011, of £6,151.87 and Carer's Allowance, for looking after her elderly mother from October 2010, of £3,280.20.

She also claimed a total of £80,372 in tax credits from November 2006 to April 2014.

Adeleke also avoided nearly £250,000 of income tax and national insurance payments by not declaring her income from the escort agency.


Outrage as public crematorium takes down wooden cross that's been in place for more than 50 years because it might offend non-Christians

A Christian cross has been removed from a crematorium so as to avoid offending followers of different religions.

Council bosses opted to take down Accrington Crematorium's large wooden cross - the symbol of Christianity - after growing concern about how secular groups responded to it.

It will now only be put up for individual services on request, after being the centrepiece of the crematorium for half a century.

The decision has outraged many in the area, including the Anglican Bishop of Burnley, Philip North.

He said: 'This approach at Accrington Crematorium is symptomatic of actions often taken by secular authorities to strip away the outward signs of faith around us, but not for reasons the majority support.

'At the census a majority of people in Lancashire identified as Christian and many arriving at the crematorium will want, and indeed expect, the cross to be there to offer them comfort.

'Will the crematorium management proactively inform everyone they have the option to put the cross back up?

'If it's a funeral of someone of another faith or none, remove the cross by all means, but have it in place for the majority who will still expect to see it.

'I can't imagine many people would ever ask for the cross to be removed as it's a fairly traditional town.

'What I know is the power of symbol. The cross is a powerful symbol of the victory of life over death. People living with grief need that kind of symbol. The rituals around death are incredibly important.

'There are lots of people who say they are Christians but don't go to church, and the cross is even important to them. And many people wear a cross even if they don't attend church. It's a symbol of love.'

Hyndburn Tory group leader Peter Britcliffe said he was alarmed at its removal.

Councillor Britcliffe said: 'This is another example of the creeping madness of political correctness undermining the traditional Christian values of our society in East Lancashire.

'The correct default position is for the cross to be in the chapel unless those organising a funeral ask for it to be taken down.'

Since 1956, the religious symbol has been a permanent fixture at the crematorium, only removed if service organisers made such a request.

Following a £20,000 upgrade earlier this year, Hyndburn Council decided the cross should be removed and only restored at the request of a family wanting a Christian farewell for their loved one.

Hyndburn cemeteries boss Ken Moss said it reflected the growing number of humanist and non-religious funerals held at the Burnley Road venue.

Nearby councils in Blackburn, Burnley and Pendle all keep the cross in place at their funeral chapels unless asked to remove it by service organisers.

Councillor Moss said: 'The large wooden cross was taken down during the recent refurbishment of the crematorium chapel.

'General guidance for crematoria is the building should be non-denominational so that it has the flexibility to make all families welcome whatever their beliefs.

'Most people with religious beliefs have a church service first and then go to the crematorium for the committal.


Asylum bid by Libyans in sex rampage: Three soldiers jailed following night of vile assaults demand right to stay in the UK   

Three Libyans jailed for molesting women in a drunken rampage are seeking asylum in Britain.

The soldiers, who have served short sentences in UK prisons, are thought to be using legal aid to lodge their claims.

They say they risk persecution if sent home because their crimes have brought Libya into disrepute.The case shows yet again how human rights laws can scupper the deportation of foreign offenders.

In 2014 it emerged 100 war criminals had applied for asylum in the UK in the last 12 months, with nearly 800 asking the UK Border Agency to remain in this country over the last eight years.

There have been several high profile cases  - including one that may chime with the Libyan soldiers now seeking asylum.

A Libyan convicted of 78 offences escaped deportation last Febuary on the grounds he is an alcoholic. The 53-year-old man, who is protected by an anonymity order, successfully argued he would be tortured and imprisoned by the authorities in his homeland because drinking alcohol is illegal.

Iraqi Aso Mohammed Ibrahim left 12-year-old Amy Houston to die ‘like a dog’ under the wheels of his car after knocking her down in 2003 while banned from driving.  Twice refused asylum, he was never removed by the Home Office and, after the killing, was allowed to stay in the UK after serving a mere four months in jail because he had fathered two children here, which judges ruled gave him a right to a ‘family life’.

A Bangladeshi woman jailed for five years for stabbing her baby daughter with a kitchen knife in East London in 2009 won the right to stay in Britain so she could rebuild her relationship with the child.

The fiasco is also a blow to David Cameron who had said the soldiers should not be allowed to stay here.

In a book serialised by the Mail last week the Prime Minister was criticised by top brass for his 2011 Libyan intervention. That intervention led to the disastrous training scheme that brought the soldiers here and cost taxpayers £15million.

Richard Scorer, a solicitor representing one of the four women who were attacked, said: ‘She, like the other victims, assumed as soon as these men had completed their sentences they would be deported.

‘My client was dismayed and shocked to learn of the asylum applications. Like us, she is struggling to understand how men who came to this country as guests of our country and abused this hospitality could possibly be making these applications.

‘She, and we, think it is totally and utterly unacceptable.’ He said asylum applications were normally made on the basis that the applicant had a ‘general and justifiable fear of persecution in their home country’.

Lawyers representing the soldiers are also expected to argue their lives would be at risk from Islamic State fanatics in Libya.

Khaled El Azibi, Ibrahim Naji El Maarfi and Mohammed Abdalsalam were among 300 recruits who came to the UK under an arrangement to train them to restore security to their country. Two other cadets were jailed for 12 years each for raping a man in a park in Cambridge on the same day the women were sexually assaulted.

Cambridgeshire Police confirmed the three men have been released from prison and are being held at secure immigration units.

Even if their applications are unsuccessful they are likely to extend their time in the UK by months and possibly years – all at great cost.

Four Libyans applied for asylum before the training programme at ex-RAF Bassingbourn was closed down, bringing the total to seven.

Cambridge Labour MP Daniel Zeichner said: ‘It does seem possible that these people may not be sent back because it is not safe for them.

‘None of this would have happened if the MoD and Secretary of State for Defence hadn’t taken a gamble with people’s safety by letting these people out unsupervised in Cambridge.’

El Azibi, El Maarfi and Abdalsalam were aged 19, 21 and 27 respectively when they stole bicycles and rode into Cambridge on October 26 last year.

During a chaotic hour beginning at 10.30pm they approached one victim outside a pub and fondled her breasts and bottom. El Maarfi also exposed himself and tried to kiss her.

They cycled off when the pub manager confronted them But they touched another woman’s bottom before finding two more victims.

El Maarfi put his hand on the leg of one of the friends and tried to lift her skirt. When she objected, Abdalsalam committed a similar assault.

She called out to her friend for help but the other woman was being attacked by El Azibi.

El Azibi was given a 12-month jail term in May and the other men were handed ten-month sentences at Cambridge Crown Court.

The training programme was given the go-ahead despite a warning from the cross-Whitehall Libya security compact delivery group. It predicted recreational visits would ‘pose significant immigration, security and reputational risks’.

The Home Office said in a statement: ‘We will seek to remove any foreign national offender who receives a custodial sentence for a criminal offence.’ In 2011, Britain conducted air strikes to stop the slaughter of Libyan civilians in Benghazi. The intervention led to the collapse of the Gaddafi regime but the country has been in chaos ever since, with militias running amok.

Last October, a devastating National Audit Office report revealed the Home Office had lost track of 760 of the 4,200 foreign criminals who had been freed back on to our streets by the end of March 2014 pending their removal. They can rely on human rights laws to thwart deportation or, in some cases, simply vanish.


'Pink Hoods': Rapper Azealia Banks Likens LGBT Community to the Ku Klux Klan

Rapper Azealia Banks has sent out a series of tweets comparing the gay community to the Ku Klux Klan and calling gays weaklings who are easily offended.

The first tweet read: "LGBT community (GGGG) are like the gay KKK's. Get them some pink hoods and unicorns and let them rally down rodeo drive."

More tweets followed: "All I had to do was say one word and I moved a whole community. What weaklings!!!" "If I am to be part of an LGBT community I want to be in it with people who aren't weaklings or easily moved ya know." "You boys gotta toughen up!!! Don't be so weak! If one word can put your entire community in distress you're DOOMED." "Words are not tangible things. You all CHOOSE to get upset."

The tweets, sent out September 27, came after Banks was recently caught on tape using gay slurs on an airplane. She also recently said that women should be limited to three abortions.


Thursday, October 01, 2015

Sleepy multicultural nurse in Britain gets off lightly

A nurse who regularly took two hour naps while on duty was caught out because of her loud snoring. Perpetua Cull, 49, originally from Gweru, Zimbabwe, fell asleep nine times whilst working the night shift at the North Merchiston Care Home in Edinburgh, in July last year. 

Mrs Cull would collect a sheet and a blanket from the linen cupboard and sleep on a recliner chair 'for between one to two and a half hours at a time'.

She was reported by a colleague who heard her snoring, and now she has been given a two-year caution order by the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

The nurse attended a hearing in Edinburgh, where she is now living, earlier this month, to face a total of nine charges.

They included 'acting unprofessionally in that she slept whilst on duty on one or more of the night shifts' between July 9 and July 24, 2014.  The nine charges were found proven - despite Mrs Cull strongly denying that she ever fell asleep on duty.

A decision notice posted online shows that evidence was heard from another nurse who used to work the same 10pm to 8am shifts.

The nurse, who remained anonymous, stated that Mrs Cull 'would enter the residents' lounge area having collected a sheet and a blanket from the linen cupboard and sleep in a recliner chair'.

He added that 'she was sleeping not only because he saw her but because he heard her snoring'.

He told the panel that 'although he did not wake her up, he found the night shifts where he was working with her much harder because the volume of work increased'.

Despite not minding initially because the 'shift went more quickly' for him, he 'later became annoyed that this behaviour was becoming a regular pattern'.

At the hearing, which lasted three days, Mrs Cull denied that she had ever fallen asleep on duty.

Mrs Cull, originally from Gweru, Zimbabwe, was given a two-year caution order by the Nursing and Midwifery Council

She also told the panel that her colleague's version of events were 'untrue' and that she believed his motivation for making the allegations was that she had 'raised concerns about the length of his smoking breaks'.

In their decision, the panel stated that they found parts of Mrs Cull's evidence 'implausible', and it was 'more likely than not' that she had slept whilst on duty.

However, they accepted that there was 'no evidence of actual harm to the residents' as she was always on the unit, and 'by taking her breaks in the residents' lounge rather than the staff room she was more accessible should an emergency had risen'.

The panel ruled that her fitness to practice was impaired, and imposed a caution order for a period of two years.

Mrs Cull was fired from the care home following the allegations, and now works for another nursing agency in Edinburgh.

The decision notice states that she 'has made adjustments to her working practice by only working day shifts with her current employer to avoid repetition'.

Mrs Cull's husband, Robert, has slammed the decision to impose a caution order, which does not stop her from practising but is recorded on the register and published on the NMC's website.

He said: 'It's totally barbarian what they have done. She should have just received a warning at the time.  'It's not like she shot or killed anybody, she probably just closed her eyes on her dinner break.

'I used to work night shifts and I know that at two o'clock in the morning your eyes can get a bit tired - she didn't set out to fall asleep."


Academic ridiculed after she likens cereal protest to Mandela and the Suffragettes hours after claiming she wasn't middle class

Evil cornflakes?? A protest over breakfast cereal?  How pathetic can you get?

Protestor Lisa McKenzie is pretty middle class herself.  She has  enjoyed trips to the likes of Las Vegas, Ibiza, Jamaica and Barbados. She has also visited the likes of the Italian fashion capital Milan, Paris, Barcelona, Nice, New York, Rome, Naples, Athens New York, California and Chicago, and has posted photos with a pricey Apple computer and expensive SLR-type camera

The charmer herself

An academic involved in anti-gentrification protests was ridiculed last night for comparing the violent action to the struggles of Nelson Mandela and the suffragettes.

Dr Lisa McKenzie, 47, came under fire after claiming last weekend’s attack by hundreds of masked protesters on a trendy east London cereal café was akin to the battle against apartheid.

She also accused the owners of the Cereal Killer Café of taking advantage of the publicity and insisted she ‘doesn’t care’ about the plight of the small business.

On Newsnight, tattooed Dr McKenzie – who denied she was middle class and described herself as ‘an economic migrant to the South East’ – was forced to defend her comments comparing the ugly protests to the struggle for female emancipation.

She had written: ‘Suffragettes were accused of terrorism, so was Mandela. Direct actions from those most affected. Get off your high horses.’

Journalist and broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer accused her of exaggerating so-called social cleansing in east London.

One social media user, Dannie Horowitz, wrote: ‘Comparing the battle against apartheid with an intellectually incoherent protest about a novelty café. Hilarious.’

London School of Economics research fellow Dr McKenzie said last night: ‘What I was trying to do with that is say direct action has been used by many, many different groups.’

She flatly denied being directly involved in the altercation, which saw paint and smoke bombs thrown at the café, terrifying customers, but defended the notion of revolutionary insurrection.

‘I think the people who have been winning the class war are the elites, the 1 per cent,’ she said. ‘I think what we have got now is working class people getting angry and frustrated at that 1 per cent.'

Earlier in the day, Dr McKenzie said the Belfast-born business owners had little to complain about after red paint was daubed across their building and smoke bombs tossed inside.

Dr McKenzie has claimed the owners have enjoyed the publicity Saturday's attack has given them.  ‘I really don’t care about the café – I have no feelings on it. I would never pay to have a bowl of cereal at four o’clock in the afternoon. I think the people who have run it have had far too much publicity. It was about gentrification in east London, not about a café.’

Hundreds of people descended on Shoreditch on Saturday night to protest against the increasing gentrification of the once working class neighbourhood.

Riot police were called in as masked thugs targeted the café, which has courted controversy for selling bowls of cereal for as much as £4.40.

Dr McKenzie was seen at the head of the protest holding a banner reading: ‘Class War – we have found new homes for the rich’ amid a skull-and-crossbones logo and a makeshift cemetery.

She also held another which read: ‘We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live.’


Hitler sometimes takes a nap and other insights from the New York Times

In 1939, with the Nuremberg Laws and Kristallnacht matters of public record, the Dachau and Buchenwald concentration camps in operation, and German Jews disenfranchised and dispossessed of their properties, The New York Times Magazine published a detailed piece about Adolf Hitler.

"Hitler sometimes takes a nap," it explained.

But rest assured, the newspaper dug deeper: "Hitler can be a good listener." "Hitler is able to talk well as host." "Hitler likes an after-breakfast stroll on his mountain." "Hitler frequently has tea up here." "The Fuehrer does not always take his meals in company." "He likes well-cooked dishes," he "makes no secret of being fond of chocolate," he "walks little, but vigorously," and he "is fond of his climb above the clouds."

The article's focus on Hitler's "very green" grass, "friendly-looking" mountain home, and "excellent" tomatoes humanized the despot – which is exactly what Hitler's propagandists intended when they designed his homes and invited journalists to share his space, according an upcoming book by architectural historian Despina Stratigakos. The aim, the book explains, was "to foster the myth of the Führer as a morally upstanding and refined man."

The New York Times, then, did not only "bury" news of the Holocaust, as has been documented in recent years, but in this article was a willing, even if unknowing, participant in Hitler's propaganda.

This puff piece on Hitler evokes a much more recent New York Times article about Muqdad Salah, a Palestinian prisoner released by Israel as part of a deal meant to restart peace talks.

Salah is no Hitler. He only murdered a single Jew, albeit an elderly Holocaust survivor, and albeit in a brutal manner – 72-year-old Israel Tenenbaum was napping when Salah bludgeoned him to death with a metal rod. And the newspaper's story on Saleh did mention his misdeeds, something its feature on Hitler's house largely avoided. But the paper's empathic, back-to-nature descriptions of the two killers overlap strikingly.

About the German, the newspaper noted that he "has a habit of climbing straight up behind the house … between fir trees with heavy branches" for a vista that allows him to "look over into what used to be Austria." About the Palestinian, current Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren wrote, "Mr. Salah had run past the house to smell a favored carob tree, and then he climbed atop a sheep shed to survey the changed village."

Outside Hitler's house, crowds "are apt to congregate outside the lodge gate patiently waiting to catch a glimpse of him." Salah was described as being "welcomed before dawn by a cacophonous crowd." Hitler "decided to rebuild" his home in the mountains. Salah "remodeled and refurnished his mother's home." Hitler "likes an after-breakfast stroll on his mountain." Salah explains, "I want to breathe the air, I want to walk." (Alas, the Palestinian is described as being stymied by Israel's parole-like restrictions, just as the piece's less-flattering descriptions of Salah are often linked to his life having been "disrupted" by the Israelis who jailed him after the murder.)

Similar currents can be found in the newspapers treatment of other anti-Jewish violence. A recent piece in the New York Times Magazine was roundly criticized for romanticizing Palestinian stone-throwers. It painted a picture of heroic activists who do little but "irritate" the Israelis while overlooking the reality that stones kill Jewish civilians. (Even the piece's anti-Israel supporters delightfully agreed that the piece "featured heroic portraits" of the rioters.) A news article by Rudoren published a few months later likewise cast stone-throwing in a gentle light.

And the title of the story "Helping Hand of Hezbollah Emerging in South Lebanon," about a terrorist group that has carried out massive, bloody attacks targeting Jews across the world, speaks for itself.

The New York Times, in short, hasn't stopped putting a friendly face on violent anti-Semites.

Make no mistake: the contexts are dramatically different. No amount of contemporary terror can begin to approach the horror of the Nazi's systematic genocide. But some of the lessons are the same.

About articles on Hitler's home life, which appeared not only in The New York Times but also other mainstream media, Despina Stratigakos, the historian and author, emphasized that "stories considered 'harmless fluff' can serve as powerful propaganda." And speaking about Hitler, though she could have been referring to The Times and its treatment of the murderer Salah, she added that "we can be lulled into changing our ideas of someone through a slick presentation of their private lives."

Americans reading about the bucolic Hitler might conclude that "maybe this person was not as bad as all of the news coming out of Europe seemed to suggest," Stratigakos said. It would quickly emerge that those swayed by the pieces were wrong. And in present just as in the past, the public attitudes of American citizens, shaped by their media, matter. The whitewashing of anti-Jewish extremism and downplaying of dangerous attitudes has consequences for public understanding of the Middle East, and perhaps also for the security of Jews.


Australia: Man bashing feminists answered over domestic violence

Miranda Devine replies to the hate-filled sisters

It is a marvellous irony that the domestic violence activists who have spent the week abusing and misrepresenting me claim to be champions of “respect” for women.

My sin was to point out the incontrovertible truth about domestic violence, that it is overwhelmingly concentrated in dysfunctional remote indigenous communities and public housing estates.

The response from femi-fascists was to try to get me sacked, silenced and banned from twitter.

They called for my “sterilisation”, branded me a “murder apologist”, a “troll”, a “sicko”, an ”idiot”, “a bimbo”, “a vile creature dangerous to kids”, “nasty and vicious”, “stupid”, “a disgrace”, “rabid old hatemonger”, “a typical Australian”.

“Your victim blaming has done almost as much harm to victims of Domestic Violence as the abusers,” read one email.

Yes, the faux-rage meter was at full tilt.

But I value these intemperate expressions, because they provide evidence of a concerted attempt to cover up the truth.

Domestic violence is the last frontier of feminism. You might think women had already achieved equality in the traditional markers of status in our society, most obviously in higher education, where 60 per cent of university graduates last year were female.

But for feminism to remain relevant, it needs to extend victim status even to the most affluent, pampered women of the chattering classes.

Thus the feminist dogma about domestic violence is that all women are equally at risk and all men potential perpetrators.

In the words of Natasha Stott Despoja, Australia’s Ambassador for Women and Girls, and the Chair of domestic violence lobbying organisation Our Watch: “Violence against women does not discriminate, regardless of ethnicity, social status and geography.”

Only, actually, it does.

This is what I pointed out in the column that has enraged the sisterhood, that domestic violence is concentrated in communities where the underclass lives, where welfare dependency has emasculated men, where drug and alcohol abuse is rife, and intergenerational social disadvantage is entrenched.

I cited the latest data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, showing the rate of domestic violence in Bourke, with its large indigenous population 60 times higher than in affluent north shore Sydney suburbs. The housing estate welfare traps concentrated in Campbelltown and Penrith are similar hotspots.

The evidence is everywhere if you care to look, that poverty, intergenerational dysfunction, mental illness and substance abuse are preconditions for a domestic violence hotspot, with chronic underreporting in indigenous communities hiding the level of distress.

Take the NSW Coroner’s Court’s annual reports of the NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team which invariably involve welfare dependent couples in and out of jail, with “cumulative social issues in both cases”.

The cases are marked by “serious social disadvantage including in many cases poverty, substance abuse issues, violent coping mechanisms, intergenerational violence”.

Or take the 2011 BOSCAR report Personal stress, financial stress and violence against women which shows “risk of violence increases progressively with the level of financial stress (and) personal stress”.

For pointing out these inconvenient truths, I was accused of “blaming victims”.

Fake quotes attributed to me, such as: “Rich men don’t hit women.”

The classic modus operandi of feminist outrage sites such as MamaMia is to make up a line, pretend I said it and then attack me for (not) saying it.

This is the intolerance of the femi-fascist. They ignore BOSCAR statistics but trumpet every half-baked internet survey which makes a ludicrous claims such as that a quarter of young Australian men don’t think there’s anything wrong with beating women.

When the Our Watch group, which receives $8 million of federal funding each year to “change attitudes”, wrote a rebuttal to my column this week, it airily claimed that “the latest international evidence shows that factors such as low socio-economic status or harmful use of alcohol do not have a constant or predictable impact on levels of violence against women”.

Yet, when challenged to provide this evidence, Our Watch cited a UN report on domestic violence in other Asia-Pacific countries such as Indonesia, PNG and Bangladesh. When further challenged to provide research from comparable countries to Australia, Our Watch cited a European study which contains Australian criticism of “the lack of attention to social class and to working class community norms and pressures” in domestic violence cases; it also cited a study which found that lower socioeconomic status was more frequent among men enrolled in “batterers’ programs”.

Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.

In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer.

Some of the 66 victims were killed by women, by sisters, daughters, a female neighbour or, in one case, a female ex-lover of the victim’s husband, as well as by brothers, fathers, and sons.

Domestic violence is a serious enough without exaggerating.

The activists cherrypick facts to support their dogma, rather than using statistics to better target scarce resources to help the most vulnerable victims, and to address the root causes of domestic violence.

To break the intergenerational cycle of violence, I wrote that we need to “end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men”. This was twisted to claim that I had called victims of domestic violence “unsuitable women”.

The dishonesty is clear. The aim is to avoid the obvious, that boys brought up in an environment of chaos, dysfunction and violence, who are neglected and abused, are more likely to become abusive, violent men with poor impulse control.

But these are not facts the man-bashing femi-fascists who control the domestic violence industry want to hear.



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


Wednesday, September 30, 2015

A hate-fest at the British Labour Party conference

Everything in Brighton seems to be turning pink, and not just the Moon. Labour’s conference is in the grip of red-threaded, Marxoid ab-dabs. The oratory here is hyperbolised in its fury, quite possibly a bit bonkers.

Broad-bellied blokes spank spadelike palms over their heads, so hard it’s a wonder they don’t bruise them. The Tories were more than once yesterday compared to Nazi concentration camp guards. Big business was slandered. Sloganeering was denounced – with slogans!

Cue numerous mentions of Mrs Thatcher and the Eighties. We had a 75-year-old man wearing a coal-miner’s helmet with ‘Coal Not Dole’ stickers. Did he get it from the wardrobe mistress at West End musical ‘Billy Elliot’?

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, in carmine-shaded tie, gave a speech so lacking in theatricality, it actually became rather fascinatingly theatrical. Mr McDonnell flexed his jaw muscles, ground his molars, stared at the TV cameras as though about to butt them. Alex Ferguson after a Man United defeat.

Gosh he was furious. Albanian newscasters in the Enver Hoxha days were more skittish.

He warned delegates that it was going to be a speech unencumbered by his usual ‘rants’. ‘There’s no jokes – they get me into trouble,’ he said. In truth, Mr McDonnell has never been Jimmy Tarbuck.

He proceeded to intone a brief, blunt statement of intentions, including an ‘aggressive’ (yet unspecified) balancing of the books. Menace swirled around him like cigar smoke.

He coldly said how ‘disappointed’ he was that some Labour MPs had declined to serve on Jeremy Corbyn’s frontbench. Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper & Co should maybe avoid any men with sharp-ferruled umbrellas.

Happily, other comrades were prepared to be heroes of the Revolution. Mr McDonnell named certain economists who would be assisting his great project. And all hail former Civil Service chief Bob Kerslake, who had agreed to look into firing squads at the Treasury to exterminate wrong thinkers, or something like that. Can this be the same bumbling, bungling Bob Kerslake whose recent departure from Whitehall was a source of hat-hurling relief to his fellow Permanent Secretraries? It can!

For all the stuff about ‘new politics’, the language was prosaic. Mr McDonnell envisaged a ‘concrete alternative for a green economy’. There was a lazy riff about ‘the skills, development and innovation critical to compete in a globalised economy’. ‘Let me make this absolutely clear,’ he said, before being opaque on his tax-raising plans.

The tone was that of a Soviet tractor factory superintendent. His final word? ‘Solidarity!’, shouted with a clenched fist.

Earlier we had heard from dimpled charmer Diane Abbott. She was wearing a Guantanamo Bay orangey-red trouser suit, possibly a size or three on the small side. Front row spectators would have been well advised to shield their eyes in case a button pinged off its moorings like a sniper’s bullet.

Sister Abbott, a supporter of private education, complained in pukka accent about the Tories’ ‘callous’ attitude to the poor, particularly with regard to foreign aid. Eh? David Cameron has spent billions on aid.


As Miss Abbott stomped back to her chair she had her right ear nibbled by sometime swoon Mr Corbyn. And a woman with copper-washed hair, first name Sioux (as in Red Indians), announced that Jeremy Corbyn gave ‘wonderful hugs’. Of the Government’s proposal for a Bill of Rights she said, ‘we might as well walk into the gas chambers today’. Mr Corbyn enjoyed that remark so much, he snogged her, too. He’s a hands-on leader.

That was not the only Nazi allusion. Union heavy ‘Red Len’ McCluskey, the grey-stubbled Obi Wan Kenobi of Corbynism, fulminated about the ‘Fascist dictatorship’ of David Cameron. He compared Tory reforms on strike ballots to Hitler’s imposition of red-triangle badges on inmates of Dachau concentration camp. Having got that off his chest, Mr McCluskey came over all Basil Fotherington-Thomas and started to quote poetry by Emily Dickinson

Former MP Candy Atherton, in a red dress, hit some sort of pothole on stage with her wheelchair. ‘I’m stuck!’ she squealed. Miss Atherton had just given a speech which suggested that the Tories could take us back to the days of 18th century slavery. Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell attended her stalled vehicle like a couple of AA mechanics.

    The moment of the day? A speech by Lloyd Duddridge from Ilford, north London. Addressing delegates as ‘fellow fighters’, Mr Duddridge called for a social ‘safety net’ for workers who took risks. Who could he mean? ‘People trying to write a bloody book,’ he said. Writers of the world, unite. In a summons that will resonate with Mr Corbyn’s friends at the Guardian and the BBC, this Duddridge cried: ‘We need to take that fight to our dinner parties!


Gen. Dees: Social Experimentation is Degrading Our Military Readiness

The military readiness of the United States is being “degraded by social experimentation,” Maj. Gen. Robert Dees (U.S. Army-Ret.) said Saturday at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.

Dees said that the Obama administration’s use of the military for “social engineering” on controversial gay and gender issues is detrimental to the nation’s ability to defend itself.

“Not only are we losing physical readiness to fight, we have to fix the problem of moral readiness,” he said on a panel chaired by Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (US Army-Ret.).

“I think the moral readiness of our forces is even more important than the physical readiness, which is very low,” Dees later told “The moral readiness is degraded by social experimentation within our military.

“In fact, social experimentation is improperly named because it’s not an experiment at all. It’s a top-driven mandate for social agendas that occurs by this administration within the military, which is a captive audience.

“It is not enhancing our readiness; it declines our readiness. We’re spending more time on some of these social engineering projects than we are on developing and maintaining readiness in our force.” asked Dees what message President Obama’s nomination of an openly gay secretary of the Army sends to members of the military, especially those who are Christians.

“Well, I think it’s a very loud statement by the administration. It’s not an accident. We respect all people and yet, it’s tantamount to lighting the White House in rainbow colors,” he replied.

The general added that “even though there’s some guidelines in place, there’s guerilla warfare within the military in a similar way that there’s guerilla warfare within our culture.

“People who would seek to strike religion from our land are working very aggressively out in the various parts of the military to strike down religious freedoms even if it’s against the existing regulations. They will press and push for whatever they can get away with.”

The inevitable result of such conflict is “a rash of poor leaders, and in many cases toxic leaders within the military,” Dees said. “Young people are not seeing selfless servants…the very best of our officers are the ones who leave first.”

“Faith in the foxhole is critically important,” the general added. “We in the military know that [the troops] don’t want to be politically correct, they want to be God correct.”


US should never vote in the UN General Assembly

By Jeff Jacoby

EACH YEAR, THE United Nations General Assembly passes a resolution condemning the US economic embargo on Cuba. Each year, the United States, joined by a dwindling number of friends, votes against the resolution. Passage is a foregone conclusion. The vote last year was 188-2.

The resolution has no legal effect. It is merely a vehicle for inveighing against Washington, and for pretending that communist Cuba’s long record of economic failure and human-rights abuse is somehow the fault of the United States.

For 23 years, under Republican and Democratic presidents, the United States has opposed the antiembargo measure. But now comes word that the Obama administration may abstain from this year’s vote, an unprecedented step. “It is unheard-of for a UN member state not to oppose resolutions critical of its own laws,” the Associated Press reported last Monday, and some congressional leaders are aghast that President Obama would consider shirking his sovereign obligation to defend US interests before the world body. Even if he favors repealing the Cuban embargo (which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996), it remains the law of the land. Until that changes, says outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, the president has a “responsibility to defend US law, and that’s what [he] should do.”

An abstention on the UN vote would be in keeping with this administration’s practice of flouting, ignoring, or refusing to defend provisions of law it finds inconvenient, in matters ranging from immigration to health insurance to recess appointments to marriage. It isn’t only Republicans or conservatives — or lawmakers — who have objected to Obama’s presidential overreach. You can agree with the president’s position that a statute ought to be repealed or amended, while still expecting him to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” as the Constitution requires.

Yet on the General Assembly resolution, I would defend an abstention, even though I strongly oppose Obama’s Cuba policy. Indeed, I would go further. Were it my call, the US ambassador to the United Nations would never cast a vote in the General Assembly.

The suggestion isn’t original. It was proposed in the 1960s by the political theorist James Burnham, who died in 1987. To vote on General Assembly resolutions, he argued, is to lend them an authority to which serious countries like the United States know they aren’t entitled. If that was true in Burnham’s day, it is even truer now, when the General Assembly is dominated by corrupt, authoritarian, or tyrannical governments that are hostile to democratic liberties and contemptuous of human dignity. We should not indulge the pretense that there is moral significance to any proposition merely because a majority of the UN’s membership endorses it.

The United Nations was born 70 years ago this October with the ratification of a charter committing member-states to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.” To be sure, those ideals were always aspirational. But what remains of them? Look at the UN today and what do you see? The world’s cruelest dictatorships seated on the Human Rights Council. A monomaniacal hostility toward Israel. Global financial and sexual scandals. Thundering applause for speeches by tyrants and terrorists. The General Assembly has become a moral wasteland and a monument to hypocrisy.

We cannot simply walk away from the UN. But we can at least decline to solemnize the farce by voting on General Assembly resolutions. The Security Council is different: Its resolutions can have legal force and we have veto power. But in the General Assembly, where cynicism reigns, we gain nothing by voting. Certainly America’s views should be explained and defended. But when the question is called, the United States should abstain. On every issue, every time.


Australia: Is Clueless Clemmie emulating that vicious British barrister feminist?

I want to say something about Clementine Ford's latest emission just to provide the balance that her Fascist thinking lacks but I am initially a little struck by her new photo.  See above.

Her old photo with its furiously red lipstick still accompanies her actual column but on the main page of the SMH there is now a much softer picture of her.  Is she hoping to trap rebarbative old reactionaries like me into praising her looks?  After the Charlotte Proudperson episode in Britain she should be so lucky!  NEVER praise a feminist's looks!  So what is the new image about?  Does she want a Lesbian bit on the side?  I guess that's it. Lesbian couples I have known did have one attractive female. 

But on to the important stuff:  In a typical Fascist way, she wants the government to solve our problems -- in this case the problem of violence against women.  But how CAN a government do that?  Turnbull has announced that he will spend a lot of money on it but that is just window-dressing.  Is he going to put a policeman in every home? Of course not.  Governments may be able to scratch at the margins of the problem but large and inherited  male/female differences will always be there and will in extreme and rare cases result in frustrations great enough to evoke violence.

All that the polity can reasonably do is provide refuges for threatened women and severe punishment for those men who do physically attack women.  But as far as I can tell, that is already pretty much in place.  Some problems will never be completely solved and a mature person learns to know when an  asymptote (limit) has been approached.

Just some excerpts from Clemmie below -- JR

Over the two, long years that Tony Abbott was Prime Minister, very little was done to address the scourge of men's violence against women. This sustained, brutal form of misogyny currently sees around 6 women killed per month while claiming the lives of just under 60 women this year*. Despite the arrogant appointment of himself to the office of Prime Minister for Women, Abbott's interest in issues affecting women's lives remained rooted in the retro ideology that assumes our greatest challenges lie in feeding our families and keeping our energy bills down.

Indeed, rather than direct even a skerrick of the attention given to combating fictional terror threats and desperate refugees fleeing war-torn countries, the Abbott government actually withdrew funding from organisations offering vital services to the victims of family violence. During the exit speech supposedly listing all of the successes of his government, Abbott reemphasised his disinterest in the impact of family violence when he said, "Then there's the challenge of ice and domestic violence, yet to be addressed."



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