Muslim viciousness in Britain


Promising recruits for ISIS

Five teenagers have been sentenced over the 'sickening' hot iron torture of a 16-year-old boy because of a £80 debt.

The victim was lured to a house in Oldham, Greater Manchester, where he was stripped and branded on his stomach, buttocks and back before salt and lemon juice were poured on his burns.

He had also been bound with tape, slashed on his back and continuously punched and kicked, said Greater Manchester Police.

Eventually after several hours the teenager was allowed to leave the house in the Werneth area on October 5 last year having suffered terrible injuries.

Three of his assailants, Shohaib Khan, 17, of Grange Avenue, Oldham; Adam Hussain, 16, of Olivers Court, Oldham, and Sufyan Yakub, 16, of Park Road, Oldham, all pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to blackmail, false imprisonment, wounding with intent and assault.

Khan was locked up at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court for six years and six months, while Hussain and Yakub received sentences of four years each.

A 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty to a section 47 assault and was sentenced to a 12-month supervision programme with a night-time curfew, said police.

Ahsan Khan, 15, of Cornwall Street, Oldham, received a five-year custodial sentence after he was convicted after trial of blackmail, false imprisonment, wounding with intent, assault, theft and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.

Following sentencing, Detective Inspector Paul Walker said: 'This was a sickening and prolonged attack on a young boy which left him so shaken and terrified that he didn't even want to tell his parents what had happened.

'The emotional scars from this shocking attack will haunt him for the rest of his life and I could not even begin to imagine the agony and suffering that he endured.

'Thankfully, his attackers have now been sentenced but this can never fully repair the damage that this barbaric incident has done.

'I want to pay tribute to the victim and his family for having the bravery to come forward and give evidence that has helped us catch and convict the people that have inflicted this upon him.'

SOURCE






Interns sacked for ‘flexible dress code’ petition

THIS is it. We finally have it — proof that millennials are the worst generation.  A group of young interns at an unnamed company have been sacked en masse for starting a petition for a “more flexible dress code”.

The intern responsible has been widely panned after their plea for advice on the AskAManager website went viral over the weekend.

“I was able to get a summer internship at a company that does work in the industry I want to work in after I graduate,” the reader wrote. “Even though the division I was hired to work in doesn’t deal with clients or customers, there still was a very strict dress code.

“I felt the dress code was overly strict but I wasn’t going to say anything, until I noticed one of the workers always wore flat shoes that were made from a fabric other than leather, or running shoes, even though both of these things were contrary to the dress code.”

The intern said they spoke with their manager about “being allowed some leeway” under the dress code and was told it was not possible, “despite the other person being allowed to do it”.

Uh oh. The letter went on.  “I soon found out that many of the other interns felt the same way, and the ones who asked their managers about it were told the same thing as me,” they wrote.

“We decided to write a proposal stating why we should be allowed someone leeway under the dress code.  “We accompanied the proposal with a petition, signed by all of the interns (except for one who declined to sign it) and gave it to our managers to consider.

“Our proposal requested that we also be allowed to wear running shoes and non leather flats, as well as sandals (not flip-flops though) and other non-dress shoes that would fit under a more business casual dress code.

“It was mostly about the footwear, but we also incorporated a request that we not have to wear suits and/or blazers in favour of a more casual, but still professional dress code.”

The next day, the hapless intern wrote, “all of us who signed the petition were called into a meeting where we thought our proposal would be discussed”.

“Instead, we were informed that due to our ‘unprofessional’ behaviour, we were being let go from our internships. We were told to hand in our ID badges and to gather our things and leave the property ASAP.

“We were shocked. The proposal was written professionally like examples I have learned about in school, and our arguments were thought out and well-reasoned. We weren’t even given a chance to discuss it.”

The worst part, they said, was that “just before the meeting ended, one of the managers told us that the worker who was allowed to disobey the dress code was a former soldier who lost her leg and was therefore given permission to wear whatever kind of shoes she could walk in”.

“You can’t even tell, and if we had known about this we would have factored it into our argument,” they wrote.

The reader went on to explain that they had “never had a job before” and was “hoping to gain some experience before I graduate next year”.

“I feel my dismissal was unfair and would like to ask them to reconsider but I’m not sure the best way to go about it. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.”

In response, AskAManager’s Alison Green helpfully explained the situation.

“Y’all were pretty out of line,” she wrote. “You were interns there — basically guests for the summer. Their rules are their rules. This is like being a houseguest and presenting your host with a signed petition (!) to change their rules about cleaning up after yourself. You just don’t have the standing to do that.”

While interns shouldn’t have to “suck up any and every condition of an internship”, this “wasn’t something like asking you to do unsafe work or work unreasonable hours”.

“This was asking you to abide by what sounds like a very common and reasonable professional dress code,” she wrote.

“[You] assumed you knew better (despite being in a position where the whole point is that you don’t have experience and are there to learn) and then went about it in a pretty aggressive way.

“A petition is … well, it’s not something you typically see at work. It signals that you think that if you get enough signatures, your company will feel pressured to act, and that’s just not how this stuff works.

“A company is not going to change its dress code because its interns sign a petition.”

The original post has attracted nearly 1400 comments and has been widely shared online.

“Your workplace isn’t a democracy,” wrote one reader. “At best, it’s a benevolent dictatorship. It might be a totalitarian regime. But either way, rounding up supporters and creating a petition is not appropriate.”

Another pointed out that the story was an “excellent example of how many college campus environments these days are not preparing young adults for the real world”.

“Not only are basic office procedures and politics (such as following the dress code) not taught but students are getting the idea that if their voice is the loudest, then change will happen,” they wrote.

Others pointed the blame squarely at the parents.

“If you want to blame any age group, blame the previous generation for raising kids who’ve been taught that when you get a bad grade, you argue with the teacher about it instead of studying harder next time,” wrote one commenter.

“Millennials surely didn’t invent that behaviour but rather learned it from their parents doing it on their behalf.”

SOURCE





Isn't government healthcare just the bees' knees?

UK: Teenager screaming in agony sent home after doctors 'fail to spot' her broken spine. Doctors allegedly failed to spot that this teenage girl had broken her spine - and sent her home.

Chloe Wilson, 16, was screaming in agony with three fractures in her spine after falling from a bannister. But her family claim medics in A&E at Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital did not diagnose the injury, which can cause paralysis.

Her parents Jennifer and Scott, both 32, say they were told their daughter was not seriously injured - but needed x-rays. Care assistant Jennifer told the Daily Record: “They sent her for an X-ray but she was really screaming in pain.  "She couldn’t lie down properly and said she had lost all feeling in her bum, leg and foot on the right side.

“When she came back from X-ray, the doctor came in an said, ‘Good news, nothing’s broken’.

“He came in with a pair of crutches but by this time Chloe was really upset because she couldn’t feel anything.

“The doctor said that could be normal after a fall and that she could be bruised inside.

“However, he wanted her to go to the toilet before she left. “I took her but she couldn’t even sit down and wasn’t even aware she had managed to pass urine.

“I had to buzz a nurse for help to get her back into the cubicle and got her back on the bed as best as I could.”

The original doctor had gone off shift by this time and a second doctor said there was “no reason to keep her in”.

Chloe was given a wheelchair to get the car but her dad was so distressed he tried pleading with doctors again. Scott said: “I could see she was in extreme pain and was screaming.

"She couldn’t sit down so I had no idea how I was going to get her into the car.”

The doctor who discharged Chloe told Scott they had examined her and there was nothing wrong with her.

However, when Scott pressed the issue, the doctor said she had broken her coccyx but there was nothing they could do for that.

Scott asked for her to be readmitted because of her pain but doctor said she would have to wait and still be discharged.

Her parents drove her home, but Chloe shouted in pain throughout the journey. Jennifer said: “She kept saying she was going to be sick and the pain was making her feel faint.”  She didn't sleep and cried out in pain all day, her parents said.

Jennifer said: “Scott and I agreed if she was no better by Monday we would take her to another hospital.”

But at 8.30am on Sunday they got a call from the first doctor they had seen saying when he came in for his shift he read her notes and was surprised she had not been admitted when she could not walk.

Jennifer, a care assistant, said: “He said all he could do was apologise and said he was sending an ambulance for her.”

The paramedics gave her gas and air but they had no effect and they had to give her morphine before they could move her.

During the night, her condition in hospital worsened significantly so she was given two emergency MRI scans which showed she had three fractures in her spine – one of which was in such a dangerous place it has been known to cause paralysis.

She has some feeling back in her leg but there are still large areas of numbness.

A spokesman from Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board said: “Patients discharged from any emergency ­department (ED) are given condition specific advice on what to do if their symptoms change.

“In this patient’s case, her symptoms did change and the family followed the advice given and brought her back to ED, where we carried out further tests and admitted her.

“Her care plan has been discussed with both neurosurgery and the spinal injuries unit who have agreed that it is clinically appropriate, and in line with accepted medical practice, for her to be treated in an orthopaedic ward as she has a stable spinal fracture.”

SOURCE






Dear Iowa Christians, Use the Right Pronouns in Church . . . Or Else

I’m old enough to remember when Christians who expressed concern that LGBT activists would attempt to regulate church services were dismissed as paranoid nutjobs. Well, welcome to our new paranoid future.

My friends and colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom announced today that they were filing suit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to block enforcement of gender identity guidelines that purport to regulate “a church service open to the public.” News flash — virtually every church service is open to the public.

The guidelines, published in a “public accommodations providers guide to Iowa law” contain the usual nondiscrimination catch-all phrases, noting that a “public accommodation” commits an act of gender identity discrimination when it, to take a few examples, intentionally uses names and pronouns inconsistent with the person’s “presented gender” (whatever that means), refuses access to preferred bathrooms, or even “indirectly” advertises that a transgender person is “unwelcome” or “not acceptable.”

Incredibly, the document contains an FAQ specifically directed at churches. Here it is:

DOES THIS LAW APPLY TO CHURCHES?

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).

It’s unclear to me how a branch of the Iowa state government has determined that a “church service open to the public” does not have a “bona fide religious purpose,” but there it is.

Under current guidance, churches in Iowa must become “members only” to exercise their religious liberty. It’s tough to imagine this guidance surviving even liberal judicial review, but even if struck down it shows where some on the Left want to take the law. Not even the sanctuary is safe.

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 and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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