Saturday, 17 March 2018

"Look, Social Justice Warriors, Really, It's All Your Fault.."

No, for once, that's not me saying that!
The Church of England may have “overcompensated” for earlier repressive attitudes to gay clergy with a reluctance to deal rigorously with priests who sexually abused children, Rowan Williams, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has said.
You sort of have to admire the chutzpah here, don't you?

I mean, once you get past the horror and revulsion that this preening popinjay can actually advance this as an excuse, of course.
In recent years, “more and more people [are] coming out of the closet. The question of clergy sexuality has been more openly discussed. The change in climate has been quite striking … I think there has been a sea change.
He went on: “At a time when people were beginning to feel awkward about traditional closeted attitudes, there was perhaps an overcompensation, [people] saying, ‘Well, we don’t want to be to be judgmental about people’s sexual activities … We must therefore give people a second chance and understand the pressures,’ and so on.”
He suggested that “a rather paradoxical consequence of the traditional view of homosexuality within the church [is that] you want to overcompensate a bit for it.”
I'm not religious, but I rather suspect that that's not what the phrase 'suffer the little children' means...

This Is Not The Fault Of The Police....

Deborah says she is now looking to lodge a complaint against West Yorkshire Police.
...though I'm prepared (just) to give her a pass because grieving people say strange things:
Uninsured driver Yasser Iqbal, 29, of Norman Grove, Idle, was jailed for 15 months in January at Bradford Crown Court after he ploughed into Kenneth as he crossed the road to get a takeaway.
The 71-year-old, who had six grandchildren and four great-grandchildren, was treated by paramedics at the scene of the crash but was later pronounced dead. Kenneth’s family initially hit out at the “unforgivable” actions of Iqbal, who fled the scene, before abandoning the van two miles down the road on September 23, 2016.
But Kenneth’s daughter, Deborah “broke down” when she saw the van back parked in Iqbal’s driveway after it was returned by police following the end of the court case.
Well, yes. Of course it was returned.
She said: “The police took it away until it went to court because they needed it as evidence and then just out of the blue last Saturday it turned up in the driveway. I thought, ‘how inconsiderate it that?’, the windscreen was still smashed and it’s just two minutes away from my house, where is the compassion?
“It just brings everything back, I get flashbacks anyway.”
But the police are obliged to do this. What's the point in complaining to them?
A West Yorkshire Police spokesperson said: “The collision which caused Mr Parratt’s death was hugely traumatic and distressing for his family. It is standard procedure that property which is seized as part of the investigation or for court proceedings is not retained indefinitely and would be returned to the legal owner once the court process is fully concluded, as they have in this case. Officers fully understand and sympathise with the terrible loss Mr Parratt’s family have suffered.”
I have no doubt they do.

But, frankly, they have enough on their plate without having to fend off whining snowflakes who can't seem to grasp that the world doesn't revolve around them.

That there will always be reminders all around of upsetting incidents, and that how we cope with that is a sign of maturity.

That demanding the world change to assuage their grief is not healthy.

Friday, 16 March 2018

They Heard 'Gangs' Because It Was A Gang....

...homicides are not always so straightforward, especially in cases of spontaneous violence, such as a street fight. One defendant might throw a few punches without intending that anybody should use a knife. Should their commission of assault imply their guilt of murder?
Yes. Because we don't want roaming gangs of youths feeling free to attack people in the street.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
Joint enterprise’s crisis of legitimacy has also been intensified by its grossly unequal application. In a study of the cases of 294 people under 26 who were given sentences of 15 years or more, researchers at Cambridge University found that those convicted under joint enterprise comprised more than half of their sample, and observed a stark pattern in the composition of this group: more than half were black or mixed-race.
Ah. Of course. Yet more statistics that must at all costs be ignored, more reality that progressives cannot bear.
All 11 of those convicted in the Moss Side case are black or mixed-race. The youngest was 14 at the time of the attack, and the oldest was 20. Their family members say that the academic research confirms their fear that their loved ones have been convicted in part because of the colour of their skin. “The jury made up their mind as soon as they saw them,” said Devon’ta Neish’s aunt Anna, an administrator at a local school. “They saw black boys from Moss Side, they heard ‘gangs’, and that was it.”
Because it was, indisputably, a gang.
...on Thursday 12 May 2016, a young man named Abdul Wahab Hafidah was seen on CCTV cameras running westward through busy traffic across Princess Road in Moss Side, a crowded, diverse, working-class neighbourhood two miles south of Manchester city centre. He was pursued by two young men on foot, and another on a bicycle. As traffic slowed at the junction of Princess Road and Moss Lane East, Hafidah tried desperately to open the door of a passing car, before turning to face his pursuers, waving a knife. They stepped back, and he ran off down Moss Lane East. Someone threw a hammer at him, but missed. The chase went on, joined – or followed – by seven other young men who made their way across Princess Road over the next 45 seconds. Hafidah was drunk, and he was scared. He knew some of the boys who were chasing him, and he knew they were angry with him.
On Moss Lane East, he tried once more to get into a passing vehicle. As he ran across the street, he was hit by more than one car, one of which was a Vauxhall Corsa, driven by a friend of some of those pursuing him. A pathologist later found that he had suffered leg injuries suggesting “a glancing blow” at low speed.
At around 5.14pm, near the junction of Moss Lane East and Denhill Road, roughly 100 metres west of Princess Road, several of Hafidah’s pursuers caught up to him. He was punched, kicked and stamped on, although witnesses remember the details and the number of attackers differently. According to statements taken by the police, a student walking home from college saw “at least three or four” people drag Hafidah to the ground, punching and kicking him. A man working in an office overlooking the scene saw “a couple of youths” fighting on the northern side of the road, and “six or seven youths” watching from a nearby grass verge. Another witness, a lab assistant, thought there were five attackers. A woman on her way home from work saw three young men knock Hafidah to the ground. He curled up into a ball while they kicked him around the legs, torso and head.
A gang. Clearly. If they'd been wolves, we'd have called them a pack.

Why the squeamishness about calling them what they are, and treating them appropriately?
The youth worker Akemia Minott, who has known most of the defendants for years, is consumed by anger. “I don’t understand how they can justify themselves,” she said of the police and the courts. “It’s not a game. This shit’s not a game, this is real people’s lives. These lives aren’t less valuable than yours, these lives aren’t inferior to yours, or insignificant in comparison to yours. So why is the criminal justice system of a supposedly civilised and advanced country able to use certain people as just pawns in their game of chess?”
Personally, I think the recruitment of 'youth workers' has gone seriously wrong somewhere. And is contributing to the mess we are in.

A Little Consistency Would Be Nice...

Taken directly from Nottinghamshire Police Farce's page on 'hate crime':

Dad Mohamed said they believed the attack was racially-motivated and added: 'My daughter has never had a problem with any girl in the city before.
'I don't know why they attacked her the first time, but they recognised her the second time and went after her again.
'My wife and I think it was racially motivated because Mariam didn't know these girls, why would you attack someone randomly?
'They were all of different colour skin to Mariam maybe that is why they did this - they also called her "black rose".
'I just don't know why they would attack her, when she did nothing wrong.'
 Open and shut case, then?
Nottinghamshire Police said they did not think the attack was 'motivated by hate' but 'continued to keep an open mind'.
But according to your own published guidelines, it doesn't matter what you think, does it? You may have good reason to disregard this as being a hate crime, of course. But if so, then surely you should be qualifying your statement on your website?

Or awkward questions might be asked.

Thursday, 15 March 2018

The World Is Changing...

Philip Pullman has called on publishers to stop damaging “the ecology of the book world” and start giving authors a fairer share of the money their books earn.
...and if you don't like it, there are other options.
“To allow corporate profits to be so high at a time when author earnings are markedly falling is, apart from anything else, shockingly bad husbandry. It’s perfectly possible to make a good profit and pay a fair return to all of those on whose work, after all, everything else depends. But that’s not happening at the moment,” said Pullman.
 Instead of whining, change the process yourself! It's not easy, but when is anything worthwhile easy?
The Society of Authors has set out a range of challenges for publishers, calling on them to “commit to paying authors a higher proportion of turnover”; to be more transparent about how writers, illustrators and translators are paid; and to draw from “a wider pool, not just celebrities, but writers from across society”.
Yes. More 'diversity'. That's what's needed. 

Sorry Victor, You're The Patsy...

Victor Oladipo, 18, of Arne Court, Laindon, was due to attend a five-day trial for raiding the home of an elderly couple in Timberlog Lane, Basildon.
He was charged with aggravated burglary alongside Sean Byrne, 30, of no fixed address, and Joe Haide 29, of Lincoln Road, Basildon.
However Oladipo and Haide admitted the lesser charge of burglary on Monday and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) offered no evidence in the case against Byrne, meaning he was free to leave court.
Still, having admitted a lesser charge, you'll get a lesser sentence, right?
Oladipo had been bailed to his girlfriend’s home in the lead up to the trial, but after Recorder Pounder told the men they would face a prison sentence, his bail was revoked and he was remanded into custody.
On hearing this, Oladipo began begging the judge to change his mind.
Heh! *opens popcorn*
After sobbing in the dock, he stood up and screamed: “It’s not fair.
“I don’t understand.
I need to see my family. Please your honour.
“I can’t go back there. I need to see my family. What am I supposed to do? It’s not fair.”
Awwww, dry those tears, little thug! You haven't been sentenced yet! There's still time for your solicitor to concoct a sob story:
Oladipo and Haide will appear at Basildon Crown Court to be sentenced on April 11.
Of course, you have to survive remand first:

Normally, I'd be suggesting that if the state imprisons you, they have a duty of care. But an aggravated burglary of pensioners? I hope April 11th feels like a long, long time coming....

Wednesday, 14 March 2018

"...a vague word to get the desired effect without going into details..."

Mr Sarayiah told the Daily Mail: ‘People cannot be allowed to make allegations anonymously. I can’t defend myself without knowing the details of the complaints. I did not act inappropriately in any way.’
Unfortunately, Mr Sarayiah, these days, you're expected to do just that.
When the university told him he was no longer welcome at events because of complaints about his behaviour, he launched court action to find out exactly what these allegations were.
At a hearing, a judge agreed that the university should release the information, but not the names of the women who made the accusations.
Another stunning snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory for our so-called 'justice' system...
But in defiance of the court, Mr Sarayiah told Durham that the women could be identified. Under a new high court judgment, Sir David Eady ruled that the university did not have to name the women – and they have now sent Mr Sarayiah the lawyers’ £24,000 bill.
He could face contempt of court proceedings.
And he will. Because if there's one thing that universities will fight to the death over these days, it's the right of women or minorities to make the most absurd claims without proof.
But he plans to appeal, claiming the document listing seven women’s complaints ‘was malicious and had been conjured up’, despite a judge warning he had no such evidence
I'd say he has all the evidence he needs.

It's The Country, Grudges Grow Like Wheat...

Speaking after the hearing Mr Donoghue said he was pleased with the outcome, but the trauma of the attack means he has not jogged on the public footpaths near Bowling's farm since.
"I just hope he is going to take more care with his dogs now," he said. "His dogs are dangerous — they should have been put down, or one of them at least."
Well, yes. But dogs are cheap, and it's ensured you keep away, so...who has really won here?
Michelle Brown, defending, stressed that Bowling was of previous good character and, since the incident, has installed another gate to ensure the dogs cannot escape again.
"He is a responsible dog owner and someone who does his utmost to ensure there is harmony between his dogs and visitors," she said. "There is no reason to suggest there is going to be any repeat of this incident."
Giving evidence in court he claimed he had spotted the jogger taking a short cut through his crops and admitted he had been angry when he opened the gate to go and confront Mr Donoghue.
He revealed that he had previously been involved in a dispute with Mr Donoghue's family over some land, but on that day had not immediately realised who the jogger was.
And if you believe that story, would you like to buy this?

No reasonable offer refused!

Tuesday, 13 March 2018

Well, I Can Do The Maths, If No-One Else Can...

Carol Broadbent, 32, says her Incommunities house in Shirley Place, Wyke, is too small for her partner and three children to live in and is not specially adapted for her son, Logan Beaumont, five, who suffered a seizure in May 2016.
Miss Broadbent have (sic) called for the Council and Incommunities to move her family from their three-bedroom home which she says is too small for them.
Both organisations say they are working with the family.
She was forced to give up her job as a cleaner to look after Logan full-time. Logan shares a bedroom, which contains a hospital bed, with his brother Lucas, seven, while their sister Lexi, three, has a separate bedroom.
If it was 'too small for three children', one of which needs adaptations, why did you go on to have the third child?
She said: “We are really struggling. It is getting really, really difficult now. We definitely have to move.
“We have waited for something to happen for two years now. Logan is getting bigger and bigger, so he is harder for us to carry around. It is really hard.”
Rather than waiting (and breeding), why didn't you do something about it yourselves? Like get a better job?

And why can't the organisation find another property, since it's huge, and covers a lot of areas?
An Incommunities spokesperson said: “We fully appreciate the needs of the family to find a suitable adapted property locally and are working with the Council to endeavour to meet their needs.
“The family have stated they want to stay in the Wyke area. Unfortunately, although we have identified a number of family-sized properties to date, these have not been suitable for conversion to an adapted home to meet their long term housing needs. ”
*sympathy evaporates*

It Doesn't Say Much For The Quality Of Brighton University Students...

Brighton University student Arjunbir Soin, 21, said there were five bombs in the city shopping centre in a bid to force staff to close it.
Soin pleaded guilty to five charges of making hoax calls at Brighton Magistrates Court yesterday.
The engineering student has now been told he could be sent to prison.
Only 'could'..?!
Prosecutor Martina Sherlock told the court Soin initially denied making the calls before he was played three recordings of them.
She told the court: “He told officers he was behind with university work and wanted the day off work.
“He didn’t know how to ask for a day off.
“So he thought let’s do this and see what happens.
“He said he was sorry and not a terrorist, and did not want to hurt anyone.”
Are the procedures for requesting a day off not clear at Apple Stores? Do they let the techies write them then, rather than the HR department?
Sarah Smith, defending, said Soin was “an absolute idiot”.
“It was not sophisticated and he used his own phone.”
This is the calibre of engineering student we are churning out now?