The Fascist reality behind far-Left "anti-racists" revealed

Nigel Farage was caught in a war of words with Scottish nationalists last night after he accused them of being ‘fascist scum’.

The UK Independence Party leader said the left-wing extremists who trapped him in an Edinburgh pub were the ‘ugly face of Scottish nationalism’ pursuing an anti-English agenda.

He challenged Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond to condemn the protesters who had chanted ‘Nazi, Nazi’, jostled him and told him to ‘go back to England’.

Mr Farage also hit out at the BBC after a Radio Scotland presenter appeared to question his right to debate Scottish issues.

In the extraordinary scenes on Thursday night the police forced Mr Farage to take refuge in the Canons’ Gait pub on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile for his own safety after the mob of supposedly anti-racist protesters launched the hostile demonstration against him, preventing him from leaving a press conference.

Dozens of activists from the Radical Independence group, most of them students, had gathered on the street outside the press conference, where a giant ‘Vote Yes for Scotland’ banner was held up.

Offensive chants included ‘you can stick your Union Jack up your a***’ and ‘go back to England, you’re not welcome here’.

The Radical Independence group is not formally linked to the Scottish National Party, but Mr Farage suggested ‘elements’ of the SNP had the same anti-English views. He said: ‘It was a demonstration dressed up as being anti-racism but in fact in itself was deeply racist, with a total hatred of the English and a desire for Scotland to be independent from Westminster.

‘My goodness me, if this is the face of Scottish nationalism it’s a pretty ugly picture.  ‘The anger, the snarling, the shouting, the swearing was all linked in to a desire for the Union Jack to be burnt and extinguished from Scotland forever.

‘I must say I have heard before that there are some parts of Scottish nationalism that are akin to fascism but yesterday I saw that face to face.’

Mr Farage hung up the phone on his BBC Radio Scotland interview after a presenter asked him to ‘remind me how many elected representatives you have in Scotland’.

He replied: ‘Absolutely none. But rather more than the BBC do.

‘We could have had this interview in England a couple of years ago, although I wouldn’t have met with such hatred that I’m getting from your questions, and frankly I’ve had enough of this interview. Goodbye.’

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie described Mr Farage’s treatment as an ‘attack on free speech’ and urged Mr Salmond to condemn it.

‘We’ve always known that supporters of independence can be very passionate for their cause but the offensive and aggressive behaviour toward Nigel Farage was unacceptable,’ he said.

‘Of course I disagree with Nigel Farage on his unpleasant and dishonest agenda but he will be defeated by argument not aggression.

‘It was deeply ironic when these self-proclaimed anti-racist campaigners told an Englishman to get back to his own country. Anti-racists turned racist but were too ignorant to notice. I am sure most people in Scotland will be appalled at this behaviour.’

George Galloway, the Respect Party MP, said the protest was bad for Scotland.

In a message on Twitter he said: ‘Events in Edinburgh yesterday forcing the evacuation of Nigel Farage were a pure embarrassment for Scotland. And the shape of things to come.’

The Yes Scotland campaign which is pushing for independence in next year’s referendum on Scotland’s future, distanced itself from the ugly protests.  A spokesman said: ‘Yes Scotland continues to run a positive campaign and we condemn any and all forms of intimidation.’

But the SNP said Mr Farage had ‘lost the plot’.  Mr Salmond, who leads the Scottish Nationalist Party, claimed Mr Farage knew ‘absolutely nothing’ about matters north of the border.

He added: ‘This is a man who doesn’t like getting challenged because when the obnoxious views of his party are put to him then his bubble deflates very quickly and that is what we saw in his panicky interview this morning.’

Lothian and Borders Police confirmed two men were arrested for assault and breach of the peace at Thursday’s protest.

One revealed on Twitter that he is English, and criticised Mr Farage for branding yesterday’s protest ‘anti-English’. He said: ‘As a proud Englishman, arrested yesterday for protesting, I dispute these claims.’

Liam O’Hare of the Radical Independence group also defended the protest, saying: ‘Our protest was to make it clear that UKIP’s rise in England is in no way reflective of Scotland.’

SOURCE






Shit British social workers again:  They ignored warnings about safety of 13-month-old boy before he was beaten to death by mother's boyfriend

Social services are under fire for failing to prevent a 13-month-old boy being killed by his mother's boyfriend - despite desperate warnings from his father in the weeks before his death.

Slater Sharkey was repeatedly being abused by Richard Morgan, who lived with his mother Rachel Peacock.  When the toddler died in December 2010, he was covered head-to-toe in 25 bruises.

His father Carl Sharkey had complained to officials that the boy was at risk, but they told him they had 'no concerns' for Slater and refused to investigate his care - later saying they were distracted by strategy meetings.

It has also emerged that Peacock took her son to a GP when he was having trouble breathing, but ignored the doctor's advice to visit hospital to treat the bruises on his head.

A report has criticised child welfare agencies for failing to act on a series of warning signs, and concluded that Slater was not 'properly safeguarded' in the 24 hours leading up to his death.

Although Mr Sharkey contacted both social workers and police, his concerns 'do not appear to have been acted on'.

The report found that as well as poor communication with the victim's father, information about the boy's welfare was recorded inaccurately.

'The child's father, who lived with him for the first ten months of his life, and who then cared for him overnight for the final three months of his short life, was not visible,' it said.

'He had to ring the social worker, rather than the other way around. He expressed concerns to the social worker, police and the HV, but these do not appear to have been acted on.'

A spokeswoman for the Durham Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) apologised for the failures and said no one could have predicted Slater's death

Gill Rigg, the author of a serious case review for LSCB, said that on the day of Slater's first birthday in November 2010 concerns had been raised when Peacock contacted medical professionals.

She wrote: 'There were sufficient concerns identified on that evening, and on the following day that could and should have triggered a child protection investigation had the totality of the information been considered at a strategy meeting.

'Slater's mother initially said he had stopped breathing but failed to seek help for several hours.

'Slater had a bruise on his forehead. His mother arrived at the GP surgery with no warning, and left before the GP could complete the referral to the hospital. She then failed to attend hospital as directed.'

Mrs Rigg said social workers had failed to challenge medical opinions about his injuries, and the meeting with the GP had not been recorded properly.

Senior managers claimed they had not carried out a review of Slater's care because 'too many strategy meetings were being held'.

But Mrs Rigg said the true explanation was 'more subtle', and a 'misunderstanding' meant senior managers had failed to properly safeguard Slater.

Following the review, in which Slater was referred to as 'Child R', Mrs Rigg said the boy's death was 'not predictable' but a 'different course of events' should have occurred in November 2010.

Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court, Peacock, 31, was found guilty of cruelty and sentenced to a 12-month community order by Mr Justice King.

Morgan, who lived with Peacock in Tantobie, County Durham, claimed he had left the baby in the living room and found him collapsed when he returned.

He was sentenced to seven and half years in prison for manslaughter after a jury found he had inflicted the fatal injuries.

SOURCE






British Police chiefs prepare to defy government by imposing ban on naming suspects

Police chiefs are preparing to defy the Prime Minister by imposing a ban on identifying arrested suspects.

Despite warnings from David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May, the Association of Chief Police Officers is pressing ahead with plans to impose a policy of almost total secrecy.

A draft of its draconian new guidance – due to be approved next week – states: ‘Save  in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public.’

It flies in the face of a hugely significant intervention by Mr Cameron on Wednesday, when he said there should be a ‘working assumption’ in favour of identifying crime suspects.  He backed Mrs May, who last week said that police should be free to name those who have been arrested if it is in the ‘public interest’.

Campaigners say it is vital that officers should not have their hands tied by rules that could prevent victims and witnesses coming forward.

In the case of Stuart Hall, a string of  victims contacted the police only after the media reported that the TV presenter had been arrested for indecent assault.

But despite the warnings, Acpo are pressing ahead with their guidelines.

The phrase in the rules ‘save in exceptional circumstances’ echoes the Leveson report, which called for anonymity in the event of arrests. This is despite Mrs May and Mr Cameron pointing out to officers that, while the issue was raised in the Leveson report, it was not one of the judge’s substantive recommendations.

Last night campaigners attacked the plan for secret arrests.

Kirsty Hughes, of the Index On Censorship, said: ‘De facto anonymity for people who have been arrested would reverse the principle of open justice we have in the UK and could lead to people being arrested and taken into custody without anyone knowing about it.

'It’s a very difficult balance to get right ... making public the details of the arrest can help to bring forward evidence and bring forward victims. Therefore it is completely in the public interest'

Peter Watt, director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s helpline, said: ‘Sex offenders frighten children into staying silent and make them feel they are partly responsible for what’s happening. This can leave the victim feeling isolated and unaware there may well be others suffering the same ordeal.

‘When a suspect is named in the public interest – for example when there is a child protection issue or because the police believe there are more victims – it gives others an opportunity to come forward, which helps build a stronger criminal case.’

Last week, Mrs May wrote to police chiefs to insist they must not continue with the practice – which has been adopted by a third of all forces – of refusing to identify suspects even after they had been charged. One force insisted they had adopted the policy in direct response to Leveson.

But Mrs May said it risked undermining ‘transparency in the criminal justice system’.

She added: ‘I believe there should be a right to anonymity at arrest, but I know that there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named.’

On Wednesday, five days after the letter was first made public, reports on the BBC suggested this meant Mrs May was herself in favour of anonymity except in exceptional circumstances. However, when this was put to the Prime Minister by journalists, he made it clear this was not the case.

Mr Cameron said: ‘I know some people want to connect it specifically with Leveson. But actually it’s a long-standing debate about how to get the balance right between making things public, which as Theresa has said should be the working assumption, but also respecting privacy where that is appropriate.

‘It’s a very difficult balance to get right. On the one hand, making public the details of the arrest can help to bring forward evidence and bring forward potential victims. Therefore it is completely in the public interest. Sometimes it is right to respect the privacy of the individual because the publicity around these sorts of arrests can be genuinely life changing. There is no simple answer to this.’

Mr Cameron added: ‘I saw Theresa’s approach in advance and I think it’s the right one.’

SOURCE






My night with Pam Geller

While she is well known for her opposition to Islamist terror, with her notoriety for anti-Muslim rhetoric, Pamela Geller, as a subject, was someone whom I generally avoided.

Her campaigns against "Jihad" were notable, but mainly for the reactions they inspired and the way in which it highlighted the hypocrisy that some on the left in America demonstrate when it comes to Free Speech.

Islamism, with its determined mission of suppressing dissent and its fostering of ideals that inevitably lead to terror and repression, is despicable. But just as despicable is prejudice against Muslims and the presumption of guilt or sympathy for terror simply because of someone's ethnic or cultural background. I didn't know if Geller's words justified her reputation as a bigot and, to be honest,  I didn't find her interesting enough to inquire, so to my thinking she was irrelevant.

That changed recently when she stirred up a controversy in my part of the world. The York Regional Police Department leaned on one of its chaplains to cancel a speech by her because it didn't reflect their "values of diversity," threatening to remove him as a police chaplain if he hosted her at his synagogue. That would be reasonable if Geller's reputation was true. Yet retaining a Muslim chaplain who attended a conference organized by a group with direct terrorist affiliations, including with al Qaida, demonstrated the York Police's rather odd and hypocritical concept of "values of diversity."

It seemed to me that it would be worthwhile to hear what Geller had to say for herself, rather than to make a judgement based on what others said about her, so I accepted an invitation to hear her speech.

I'm glad I did, because just about everything I'd heard about Pamela Geller was a lie.

There was nothing "anti-Muslim" in anything she said. Her fight is with Jihadism, a fanatical ideology which  promotes violence and terror. Geller said her principal motivation is the struggle to preserve individual liberty, which Islamism, like Marxism, fights to repress.

The delivery was fiery and pugnacious, but her message in fact resembled that of Muslim reformers I know, such as Salim Mansur and Tarek Fatah, who struggle to spread the word that it is Muslims themselves who are victimized the most and harshest by Islamist totalitarianism.  Like those Muslim reformers, she warned that by turning a blind eye to Islamism in North America, we encourage its growth here.

Geller spoke against the repression of women and female genital mutilation and honor killings and the promotion of terrorism of which most American Muslims find abhorrent, but far too many Islamic leaders, such as those at the York Region Islamic Society, remain silent or even give tacit approval.

I could elucidate further, but that was in essence the entirety of her message and a review of her website and writings suggests that her talk last night is consistent with everything she has said in the past.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything Geller says or the ways she chooses to deliver it.

Her use of quotes from the Quran to vilify Jihadism is unfair. One could as easily cherry-pick quotes from the Old Testament that imply approbation of killing. The importance is not in the wording of ancient texts but the contemporary interpretation within a religion. By some, the verses in the Quran are taken literally, but by most they are considered antiquated and immaterial.

Her controversial anti-Jihad campaign in New York is another example. She had posters placed in the transit system which read, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man, support Israel defeat Jihad."

I would take issue with the use of the terms "civilized" and "savage." After all, it was the "civilized" Spanish Conquistadors who introduced the sadistic, ghoulish practice of scalping when they fought the "savage" natives of North America.

However, the west is in a war against those who intentionally target civilians for murder, who kill Gays, treat women as little more than property, and who believe free speech is subservient to their dictates. That we should support a liberal democracy fighting to defend its citizens against them is something anyone resembling a modicum of a moral compass should support.

Which raises the question of why Geller's reputation is so rancid.

The answer falls into two categories, one is that there are Islamist organizations whose purposes it serves to suppress her message. Those include Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like the Islamic Society of North America, who portray themselves as mainstream, but have links to the most reprehensible practices and ideologies of hate.

The other are the useful idiots of Jihadism who are primarily concerned with maintaining their image as "community leaders" who promote tolerance, even if it means tolerating a doctrine that calls for suppression of free speech, illiberal treatment of minorities and outright murderous acts.

Unfortunately, some among the so-called leadership of the Jewish community are behaving like self-serving moral pygmies in order to bolster their own image, at what to them must be only the minor cost of truth and integrity.

A group with the grandiose-sounding name of the Toronto Board of Rabbis, which in reality only represents a handful of reform and nominally conservative Jewish congregations, publicly condemned Geller.  Referring to her "extreme criticism of Muslims"  they say they find her views "distasteful." They are unable to specify any of those distasteful views since they evidently haven't bothered to investigate what she actually has said or written and issued a condemnation based on rumor and reputation.

It is tragic that a group of people with the pretense of being "learned" and "community leaders"  behave like small-minded, sanctimonious ignoramuses who are an embarrassment to the biblical teachings they claim to uphold.

Tragic, but not surprising.

It's no secret that there is an implicit understanding among some of the heads of Jewish congregations and organizations. They go out and raise money as "community leaders" and make very good salaries in the process. They are called upon as "official Jews" when the CBC or Toronto Star wants a quote. And all they have to do to maintain that is to play ball and periodically  issue worthless platitudes about diversity and cooperation with people who hold them in complete contempt.

Meanwhile the people who actually stand up to those who want to destroy the Jewish State or speak out forcefully against terrorism and for free speech get portrayed by these "official Jews" as a "radical fringe."

But make no mistake about it. Many official Jews profess, albeit very, very quietly, to the radical fringe that they share their concerns. But not too loudly of course, because that might entail a cut in pay and prestige.

There are a few Canadian Jewish organizations, like the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and CIJA, that do have integrity. But far too many are no better than the appeasers who, in the 1930's  felt it would be better to remain quiet and not rock the boat as the Nazis came to power in Germany and went about their work of genocide.

In fact, they are even worse. Because now with the lessons of history, the "official Jews" should know what horrors their appeasement of evil can bring.

SOURCE

*************************

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,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************