Wednesday, 18 October 2017

The 'Guardian's' Efforts To Find The Least Sympathetic Cause Might Have Run Its Course....

....because I can't see them topping this one:
In a corner of a teeming refugee camp, 40 miles north of Raqqa, a small group of women and children are kept alone. They mill together at the back of a blue building; blond and brown haired children darting in between blankets that their mothers have hung as doors across small, dank rooms. Others in the Ain Issa camp call them “the Daeshis”, meaning Islamic State families. No one wants to know them.
 Hardly surprising!
International aid agencies and governments are scrambling to assess the numbers of widows and orphans now thought to be at extreme risk, both within their societies and at the hands of predatory local officials.
“No one will deal with them, or even touch them,” said Ahmed al-Raqqawi, a 25-year-old anti-Isis fighter in the centre of Raqqa.
When they were here, they used to think they were kings. Even the women.”
Well, most likely, they thought they were queens...!
“The women who chose to leave the UK and go there need to be responsible for what they did. They will not be coming home,” said a British official.
The children, though, deserve compassion.”
Do they? Why? Why take the risk? Even the French are well aware of the dangers they may pose:
On Friday, France appeared to flag an advance in its position, with the defence minister, Florence Parly, announcing on French radio that the children of its dead nationals may be taken in, but not their mothers.
“Children who are in local custody can, depending on their parents’ preference, either stay with them while their parents get tried locally, or be repatriated to France, where they will be cared for by social services. They are usually very young, but they can have been radicalised and need to be watched. The challenge for us is to turn them into citizens again,” said Parly.
Is it a challenge worth taking? I don't think so.

Mayoral Priorities...



Offered without comment.

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

I Think The Problem Is Closer To Home...

...on his first day she was called into school over claims he attacked a dinner lady.
Ms Yourelis claims this was because he was alone and 'petrified' of the other children in the playground.
She said: 'Eli began hitting this person and as a result I was called into the school.'
Well, yes. What else would you expect?
'Eli's condition is not diagnosed yet but he has trouble understanding social situations and will often get confused and lash out.
Ms Yourelis, from Bromborough, Merseyside, had a meeting with staff and claims she was told that expelling him was an option.'
I'm wondering why someone whose initial reaction is physical violence was ever admitted to a normal school!
She said: 'I told them he needed support not exclusion and a behavioural plan was put together.
'He has lashed out a few times at school since he started but they haven't given him the support he needs.'
They aren't equipped to do so. If he's that uncontrollable, he needs to be in a special school, for his sake and everyone else's.
'They tried to show me videos of Eli striking out at teachers but I never gave them permission to film my son.'
That's a strange reaction, isn't it? To immediately think that your uncontrollable little hellion is the real victim?
Ms Yourelis received a letter on September 28 stating that Eli will be permanently excluded from the school. The letter said that Eli was excluded due to a serious breach of school behaviour policy. This included seriously harming and attacking five members of staff - thumping, kicking, biting, damaging school property and using offensive and threatening language.
She added: 'I'm going to tribunal with this case because I feel like the school have failed my son.'
They had him for one day. You had him for four years. What are the odds?

'Lenient Leigh' Strikes Again...

Sam Kent, 26, of Dovervelt Road, Canvey, and drinking buddy Jak Bruce, 27, smashed up 11 cars outside the Smuggler’s Den in Pooles Lane, Hullbridge.
Basildon Crown Court heard police found the pair in an “agitated state” after their rampage and had to forcibly restrain them on the floor.
Kent was banned from driving for two years after the court heard he also drove into a van and then gave chase as the terrified driver tried to flee.
Both had been on an all-day bender on May 25.
How on earth do you do £12,000 worth of damage and not see a day behind bars for it?
Judge Samantha Leigh (Ed: *groans*) handed both men a three-year community order, with 200 hours of unpaid work and a thinking skills course. Both must pay some compensation to the drivers who did not claim on insurance.
She said: “How on earth you have both got yourself in to this situation is really quite incomprehensible. It just doesn’t make sense. Mindless violence and vandalism are the only words that spring to mind.”
Oh, I dunno, Samantha, a few others actually spring to mind...

Monday, 16 October 2017

I Don't Think Hurricane Ophelia's Going To Be So Bad After All...


...unless you're a cat lover, I suppose. Or Muslim!

"My old man's a dustman, 'e wears a dustman's 'at...."

....'e wears gorblimey trousers, and is abused by a Muslim chap."
The man filming says: 'Because there's a white woman here, he's taking everything.
'It is a matter of colour of skin here.'
 Of course it is... *rolls eyes*
The man filming ends the video by pointing the camera at the binman and saying: 'This face is going on YouTube today. That is the most racist little b*****d face.'
No, his isn't. But your's just might be...

H/T: DanSaffend via Twitter

Saturday, 14 October 2017

Diversity In The Met Is The Gift That Keeps On Giving...

A former senior Metropolitan police officer and relative of Rashan Charles, whose death sparked protests in east London, has said that the family is being treated with “disdain” by the force he served for 30 years.
As a relative, shouldn't he be more concerned with the fact he has criminals in his family?
Rod Charles, a retired sergeant and the 20-year-old’s great-uncle, said Scotland Yard’s refusal to explain the circumstances of the death shortly after contact with police meant the family’s rights “are being violated”.
He refused to stop for police, tried to swallow the substance he was carrying so police wouldn't seize it, and choked on it. What more explanation do you need?
Referring to police “use of force” principles, Rod Charles wrote that when the known circumstances are set against official guidance, it appears that “the force used [against Rashan] was unreasonable, disproportionate, unnecessary and excessive”.
He added that the Met’s refusal to explain the purpose of the arrest also seems to contravene the law.
A former public support unit commander, Charles said the family was concerned that Rashan did not receive first aid. “We will continue tirelessly to secure all our legal entitlements,” the statement added.
They always know their entitlements, but are somewhat hazy on their responsibilities....