The Judicial System Of Great Britain - Protecting The Rights Of UK Citizens?

No, not really.

Pakistani national Sheraz Malik, 28, was found guilty of raping a 'vulnerable' teenage girl whom he and a friend pounced on in a park in the constituency of Reform MP Lee Anderson. Mr Anderson first exposed Malik as an asylum seeker last year after he was arrested for targeting the 18-year-old woman when she was alone in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.

But a judge stopped the public from being told about the rapist's asylum status by gagging the Press from reporting it until the end of his trial, it can now be revealed.

A jury on Monday convicted Malik of two counts of rape after just a few hours of deliberation at Birmingham Crown Court.

Who imposed the order? One of those 'diverse' judges we were told we desperately needed to 'improve' our justice system, of course: 

At a hearing at Nottingham Crown Court in September, Judge Nirmal Shant imposed a reporting restriction postponing publication of Malik's immigration status until the end of the trial, to avoid a 'substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice'.

But don’t focus all your opprobium on her, Reader, the old white male judges are really no better:  

In court Malik was asked why he took advantage of the victim, and replied: 'What else was I supposed to do?' Asked how he arrived in Europe, Malik protested that the question was not relevant – prompting Judge Simon Ash to intervene and side with the defendant.

Malik will be sentenced at a later date.

The entire edifice needs sweeping out like the Augean Stables. For the same reason.

And Another Government Rachel Proves Herself To Be A Moron....

And really, one is more than enough!

The government needs to stop children using virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass age checks on porn sites, the children's commissioner for England has said. Dame Rachel de Souza told BBC Newsnight it was "absolutely a loophole that needs closing" and called for age verification on VPNs.

And just how are they supposed to do that? Given every WFH civil servant and local government drone will be using one? 

VPNs can disguise your location online - allowing you to use the internet as though you are in another country. It means that they can be used to bypass requirements of the Online Safety Act, which mandated platforms with certain adult content to start checking the age of users.

And as a result, lead to the closure of perfectly harmless sites like the Eastleigh online discussion forum and a hamster enthusiasts forum!

A government spokesperson said VPNs are legal tools for adults and there are no plans to ban them.

Leaving out the word ‘Yet’ I note….. 

Dame Rachel told BBC Newsnight: "Of course, we need age verification on VPNs - it's absolutely a loophole that needs closing and that's one of my major recommendations." She wants ministers to explore requiring VPNs "to implement highly effective age assurances to stop underage users from accessing pornography."

Government needs to tell Rachel to get back in her fucking box! 

Who Do You Trust To Draw It?

Former Love Island contestant Zara McDermott said “a line needs to be drawn between freedom of speech, and bullying, hate speech and abuse” as she met Digital Minister Caroline Dinenage to share her experiences of revenge porn.

Because neither of you seem bright enough. Dinenage is a nobody and you, frankly, are an idiot: 

McDermott, from Essex, has previously revealed that she faced abuse from strangers in the street after becoming the victim of revenge porn at the age of 14, saying life became “unbearable” and she considered taking her own life.

McDermott said she took the nude photograph of herself as a way of fitting in at school, where she was being bullied at the time.

As you do! 

McDermott said: “I have been subject to relentless online abuse since I entered the public eye in 2018.”

Seems like you've offered your own solution there, if only you were bright enough to realise it. 

“The Online Safety Bill is going to be fundamental in ensuring our young people feel properly protected online.

“We, as a society, do not tolerate physical abuse – so why, in the past, have we been more tolerant of online abuse? It’s important that those behind social media accounts – often anonymous – are held to account for their words.”

Well, maybe because we can't simply switch off physical abuse? Or expect a company to remove it for us?

“Social media has become a breeding ground for this behaviour and, if it is not moderated sooner, there will be significant consequences to the mental health of our young people.

“I believe the Online Safety Bill is a huge step in the right direction.”

I think we need to hear from more scantily-clad Z-list celebutards before we can be sure. 

If A Green Terrorist Causes Criminal Damage In London And No Media Report It...

 

...did it really happen at all?

Insanity, Or Sinister Overreach..?

I'm going with the latter...

Unless they've got a method of policing thoughts now, of course... 

H/T: Peter McDonald via Twitter

They Don't Like It Up 'Em!

...predictably, some saw it as an opportunity to immediately flout the request and post disrespectful comments.

Oh noes! People have opinions!

Meanwhile, via Longrider:

For example, movie review website Rotten Tomatoes announced that it was switching off comments on the new Captain Marvel movie this week, over concerns that trolls planned to leave negative comments following remarks by the film’s star Brie Larson.

However, Dissenter users are already giving their opinions on the movie and Rotten Tomatoes decision.

Heh!

Why the outrage? If Brie Larson has opinions, and a platform to express them, why shouldn't everyone else?

Well, Frankly, I'd Be Disappointed If It Didn't...

Sometimes, film ratings make little sense...

That’s An Awful Lot Of Words…

…to say “Oh, do please take the sex and travel option, you idiots!” isn’t it?

An ad for the film Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes that showed an ape shooting a man dead with an automatic weapon has been cleared following 119 complaints.

One hundred and nineteen people actually phoned, wrote and (presumably) emailed. One hundred and nineteen!

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the majority of complainants believed the ad was inappropriate for children to see …

Right, OK, fair enough. Wait, when was it shown, again?

… while others believed the theme and content was unsuitable for juxtaposition with a mainstream sporting event.

Oh, I dunno. A bunch of out-of-control apes running amok seems quite fitting, somehow. But…back to the broadcast time:

The ASA said the ad was unsuitable for young children and the 9pm restriction reflected this. It said: "While it was unfortunate that any distress was caused to younger viewers who did see the ad, we considered that the scheduling restriction in place, together with the time of broadcast, 9.50 pm, meant that it had been directed away from younger viewers."

Quite! So, if you let your precious kiddiewinks stay up past the threshold, and they were traumatised, you’ve only yourself to blame. You’re the adult.

On the other hand, if you were traumatised, maybe you’re not really such an adult after all…

Don't Bother To Ask Me, Demon Internet...

...the answer's 'Yes':

All 20million families with internet connections are to be forced within months to say whether they want access to online pornography.

No, not because I'm addicted to pornography (though I confess, I'm currently reading the last couple of John Norman 'Gor' books, published under my radar last year!), not even because there are no children in the house, but simply because I know only too well that this kind of blanket ban will sweep up many perfectly legitimate sites in its wake.

After all, when O2 implemented these controls a few years ago, my phone stopped accessing many local newspaper sites and is still unable to access some blogs until I got round it by installing Onavo, which functions as a VPN.  

Adult content filters are also expected to be fitted to all new mobile phones automatically.

Only an adult will be able to change the filter settings and the account holder will receive a confirmation email. Some providers are also offering text alerts, in case children hack into the account.

/facepalm

Mr Cameron has argued that web firms have a ‘moral duty’ to act but have not been ‘doing enough to take responsibility’.

He said: ‘I made a promise in July that I would take action to help parents protect their children when online at home and we are now delivering on that promise.’

What a pity you didn't decide on a far more important promise to honour, then...

‘As a dad, it is very simple: I want to know my children are protected when they go onto the internet. A family-friendly filter gives me the tool to do that and so this is a really important step forward by the internet service providers.

‘We all need to work together, both to prevent children from accessing pornography and educate them about keeping safe online, and I will continue to ensure this happens.’

I don't need to 'work to keep children away from pornography', you massively-foreheaded cretin - that's their parent's job.

"When there’s something strange in your neighbourhood, who ya gonna call?"

Well, the police, it seems:

James Creighton, 25, decorated the outside of his house with skeletons, bloodied corpses and cobwebs in a display dubbed Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The bar owner transforms his house in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, every year to raise money for the Cancer Research UK charity in memory of his grandmother Betty, who died from the disease in 2009.

Awww, how heart-warming! Isn’t it nice to hear a…

Oh.

But he had a nasty shock when two police officers knocked on his door to tell him a parent had complained it was frightening children.

Mr Creighton said: “The police came round knocking on my door. They said they were sorry to disturb me but they had a complaint from a member of the public who walks past my house in the morning.

"Apparently their child starts crying every time they walk past my house. “I was shocked - more to the point that the parent couldn't come to the door themselves and speak to me personally, but had to get the police involved and waste their time."

Oh, please, don’t waste any sympathy on them! They are wasting their own time, and trying to resolve the situation by making you compromise, rather than having the balls to tell the offended party that what you are doing isn't illegal and so they have no jurisdiction, now mind how you go sir/madam...

And this is yet another incident which gives the lie to the constant police whinging about how they are so stretched and short of staff, because if that were really true, they wouldn't feel obliged to hot foot it round every time some cretin gets it into his/her head to screech about being 'distressed'.

"Police have asked me to put black tarpaulin along the fence so the kids can't see it, but why should I do that? It ruins the whole rest of the display for everyone else.

“All the other kids love it. It is just this one who doesn't like it."

Yes, and sadly, today, that one person wields power beyond measure, because the police have become the kind of spineless, 'let's see if we can work out a compromise here', social workers with uniforms and radios, and not the simple crime-fighting service they were envisioned to be.

No more, it seems, do new recruits long to kick in doors and face hardened villains with shooters. Now, it seems, they long to broker 'peace' between Mrs Grimethorpe and Mrs McTavish over noise issues with the former's kids and the latter's barking dog.

Well, if that's the case, can we make them wear the blue berets of the UN Peacekeeping Forces and no longer have to pretend they are 'our finest boys in blue'?

Inspector Simon Tabert told the BBC that officers had visited Mr Creighton "to discuss the matter." He said: "We had a complaint (from a parent) that it was so realistic, it was going to upset their children.

“Mr Creighton offered to create a barrier, but it's my understanding we did not ask him to do so.

"We asked him to tone it down, because people were being distressed by it."

Then you are every bit as much a snivelling little weed of a man as the complainer, and as for your role as 'Safer Neighbourhood Team Member, a role you seem unusually proud to claim, it seems what Stevenage really needs is someone to keep them safe from cretins like you and your team...

As Leg-Iron points out, it is indeed a funny old world.

CiF Columnist Prefers The Warm Blanket Of 'Approved Speech'..

For a start, the desire to block, ban or remove something comes up against the fact that both Facebook and Twitter are deeply imbued with the United States's first amendment and its sense of free speech, which can at times seem like the freedom of a privileged elite to speak, lecture and make jokes.

Clearly, 'Jane Fae' prefers the comforting embrace of the CiF moderation regime, where privileged elites don't get things all their own way.

Oh. Wait...

True, it's possible they were all deleted because they threatened to rape the author. But having looked at their profiles and their other comments, and seen the bizarre things you'll get moderated for, I suspect not...

The male-rights activists, the racists, homophobes and bigots have got smart. They know how to insult, wind-up and hurt without overstepping the mark, with the end result that only the worst and most overt "you should be raped" jibes are stopped.

Because those are the only people that will ever be affected by controls. There's no such thing as mission creep in 'Jane Fae's' world.

How do we know they are 'homophobes, racists and bigots'? Well, because the author assumes they must be! And that should be good enough for us, right? It's a near-universal belief in the progressive press that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

If the police started to act more consistently in such instances, using the law, as they appear to have done in support of Criado-Perez, the number of cases where intervention was required would quickly reduce – and the DPP's fears of being swamped might turn out to be unfounded.

Yes, well, best of luck in getting consistency out of the police!

Let's focus instead on the law as it is: let's ask the CPS to enforce it, convince it that letting such crime slip past is about as acceptable as ignoring difficult assault cases. By all means, let's have a button – but one that delivers reports of online abuse directly to the local police force, a bit like a security alarm, and not just to Twitter.

I...

I just....

*speechless*

Which is, I guess, just what the progressives want.

This relatively simple solution doesn't exist yet but I'm currently coding a mock-up of one for Everyday Victim Blaming (EVB), a not-for-profit organisation set up to help stop violence against women.

Violence against men is, I suppose, perfectly acceptable?

This desire to help women only will strike some as strange, because despite the 'Guardian's' coy statement that 'Jane Fae is a feminist and writer...' it leaves out that part that she wasn't actually born a woman. 'She' is transgender.

There just has to be a psychological reason for this concentration on women's issues, doesn't there?

Oh, Just Make It STOP!!!!

…Bear Grylls will now fall foul of new guidelines from the Scout Association, which has banned all nicknames in a bid to reduce bullying among its young members.

The organisation founded by Lord 'B-P' Baden-Powell believes that giving children nicknames could encourage taunting and bullying.

The organisation founded by Lord Baden-Powell has clearly gone as mad as almost every other organisation the nannying ninnies have managed to infest…

Training sessions are being offered to new and current leaders, who have also been warned not to use the shortening technique amongst themselves.

I do like the word ‘offered’. I suspect it’s the offer you can’t refuse, if you want to be a new or current leader…

It is particularly concerned aboutthe use of nicknames which focus on an individual’s physical characteristics – such as their hair colour, height or weight.

And who is responsible for this outbreak of cretinism? Step forward, ‘Barmy’ Sam Marks.

Oh, sorry, was that offensive? So sad, too bad…

The association’s chief 'safeguarding' officer Sam Marks drew up the plans. He told Scouting Magazine: 'Bullying can advance gradually and can start with something as simple as a nickname.

'Research and experience all highlight that name calling – whether it be nicknames or harmless taunting – is often the largest form of bullying.'

Brilliant! So, to reduce the risk of bullying, we ban nicknames! What a genius plan! That one's up there with blaming the victim...

I mean, never mind intent. That’s hard to prove. No, the ‘new and current leaders of the Scout movement’ can’t be expected to make judgement calls. They need firm, clear, black and white guidelines.

'We don’t have a black and white list of approved nicknames. 'If someone is called Frederick and you call them Freddie then there is no problem with that.

'But you need to ask why that person has a nickname – if it is because they have red hair or are fat or they have a funny face, or because they did something funny and it stuck with them? They might be quite embarrassed by that.'

Well, how about you ask them? And if they don’t mind, why should you?

Mr Marks continued: 'It is in response to industry standards – all the anti-bullying work mentions name calling and teasing as the main form of bullying.'

Translation: ‘ I've read all the stuff pumped out by the fakecharities and I don’t understand half of it, but my job depends on me coming up with a policy, so I've come up with one. Whew!! Earned my salary there!’

'It is about getting the adults to think about their behaviour and how they are role models, because what they do, the children may do. 'If adults don’t use nicknames then the children are less likely to do so.'

Yes, children will always do just what adults do. It’s the way of the world, right?

Really? Sounds To Me Like They Are Tailoring It To Fanatics On Both Sides?

John Carr, from the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, said ministers wanted the less stringent solution, meaning they are doing all they can to prevent parents and charities from putting forward their view.

Oh? So…what are they doing?

He said the consultation, by the Department for Education, was much shorter than the usual length for government consultations – ten weeks instead of 12 – and has been timed for the summer to prevent people having their voices heard.

He added that the web page set up for people to respond is confusing and complicated, deterring many from taking part. Instead of the usual situation, where people can type in their comments directly on the page, in this case they have to download a Word document and fill in a long list of questions, before re-uploading the document.

They also have to go through a time-consuming security check.

Hmmm. Odd.

Because it seems to me that these are likely to ensure that the fanatics on both sides (you vs the people involved in the industry) mobilise their forces and push their particular viewpoint home, while the average man on the Clapham omnibus gives up and fails to have his say…

‘None of this gives me the sense that the Government is straining every sinew to ensure a widespread consultation,’ said Mr Carr.

‘When you add it all up, it looks a bit dodgy. The Government clearly do not have any intention of changing their mind.’

I think what motivates you more than anything is…you fear the industry will out-spend you on form completion troops.

There’s just not enough of the Legions Of The Perpetually Outraged.

Oh dear. So sad, too bad.

Get Ready For More!

The BBC asks the important questions of the age:

Fifty Shades of Grey's success highlights the lack of age restriction on selling erotic fiction. Why are books freely available to children when other media are highly policed?

*sigh*

Because 30 years of comprehensive education has left the little darlings unable or unwilling to read them, maybe?

Unlike television - with its nine o'clock watershed - and the age classification of films and video games, and even the labelling of explicit lyrics on music, there is no age restriction on buying books in the UK.

Oh, noes! Quick! Stir some controversy up! For the chiiiiilllldreeeeen!

And yet there is apparently little in the way of moral panic about children getting hold of Fifty Shades, a paean to sadomasochism.

Children's author GP Taylor has been something of a lone voice, arguing that EL James's novel would leave children "with a view of sex which is warped".

See? You can always find someone who'll go along if you but look hard enough...

H/T: Thickey via Twitter

Meanwhile, In The ‘Guardian’, It’s All The Fault Of The Greedy Corporations!

The arrest of a teenager by police investigating abuse of Olympic diving star Tom Daley on Twitter has led to calls for a new initiative…

Hurrah! A good, hard look at the law and a repealing of those parts that leads to such nonsense, I hope.

Oh. Wait.

… educating the public about the ease with which a tweet can end with a jail sentence.

I…

What?

Atalie Matthews, an associate at Bindmans, a law firm specialising in human rights law, said mobile phone companies should provide advice to schools and shops and make children and adults aware of the serious consequences that can flow from sending abusive messages, including jail sentences and hefty fines.

"I think mobile phone companies should give out more advice when people buy phones, because let's face it, most children live online these days. These companies make unbelievable amounts of money and they should take the initiative and help educate everyone," she said.

Where to start?

Firstly, rather than warn everyone about the potential for being arrested under a nonsensical law, how about we change the nonsensical law? 

Secondly, aren’t you forgetting something, sweetie? Twitter isn’t a phone-only system. Are you going to demand Dell, Apple and all other computer manufacturers address this too?

I shouldn’t joke. You probably are:

Matthews added that the onus should be on Vodafone, O2 and others to put notices up in shops and have information leaflets in phone packs about what is legal and what is illegal to say in a tweet.

That’s going to be one huuuuuuuuuge information pack, if it has to cover all of that!

So, what are the laws we are talking about?

… section 127 of the Communications Act, 2003, which is now being seen as a catch-all for all internet commentary. It prohibits messages or other matter sent by means of "public electronic communications network" that are of a "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

Offences may also be committed under the Malicious Communications Act of 1988, which was originally designed to combat "poison pen" letters, and the Public Order Act 1986, which covers offences committed on a mobile phone while on the street, according to lawyers.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could also be invoked after just two abusive messages.

If you’re thinking that none of these are post-Twitter, you’d be right.

Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP, who successfully campaigned to have the Blasphemy Act abolished and has been subject to his own fair share of trolling, said that the public and Twitter have responsibilities too.

"It's not necessarily in the public interest to prosecute every case of a tweet that contains an ingredient that may breach the Malicious Communications Act. What we don't want is to get people in the habit of going to the police for something that is a non-credible threat like Paul Chambers' tweet," Harris added. He said the onus is on Twitter users to block followers, not to retweeet abuse and report offences.

But, he added, this has to be coupled with Twitter improving its reporting systems. "They should remove people who are racist and abusive...

It is in Twitter's interests not to have the police involved," he said.

It’s in ALL our interests, actually.

I Wonder If Cllr Mike Harris Will Support This One?

Well, maybe not. After all, it's one thing to nod approvingly when people make comments about daft religions, and whinge bitterly when you feel you've been targeted unfairly for political reasons.

But it's quite another to defend speech that would make your progressive chums a bit hot under the collar...

Councillor Graham Partner – who quit the BNP to sit as an independent – has been censured "in the strongest possible terms" for sending out the New Year message to more than 5,000 voters in his Coalville division.

Gosh! What did he say?

The leaflet, which featured part of an article from a national newspaper, said victimhood "comes easily" to followers of Islam.

The leaflet said: "Every terrorist atrocity, every blood-soaked massacre is justified by reference to imagined grievances. But the greatest persecutors of other faiths are Muslim, themselves."

Is the truth not a defence, then?

It criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for being "woolly in thought and appearance".

I repeat: is the truth not a defence then?

It appears the answer is 'No':

Coun Partner, who did not attend the hearing, saying he had to work, was found to have breached the code of conduct on two counts by showing disrespect to others and bringing the authority into disrepute.

I think your former council leader has that latter role sewn up, doesn't he?

In his statement, Coun Partner, who had signed a declaration to abide by the code of conduct, said: "The claim that the leaflet caused distress to any minorities has not been demonstrated, but it was seen as an opportunity to feign offence on their behalf by political rivals who are incapable of defeating a single independent councillor by fair and proper means."

Sounds like a job for the head of advocacy at Index on Censorship to me!

I bet I shouldn't hold my breath, though...

Don’t Poke A Wasp’s Nest, Complain About Being Stung, And Demand The Eradication Of All Wasps…

A young mother who was subjected to 'dead baby jokes' on Facebook after losing her unborn daughter has attacked the website for refusing to take down the offending page.

Oh, here we go…

The 22-year-old made the heartbreaking decision to end her pregnancy after a scan showed her baby girl Sara had the rare chromosome disorder triploidy - and wouldn't have survived birth.

Still grieving, Jessamy was horrified to discover the existence of a Facebook group called Dead Baby Jokes…

And most normal people, even allowing for the strange effects of grief, would have closed down the PC then and there, knowing that there’s nothing you are going to like therein.

But no. Not in this case. She didn’t just read it either…

…- and decided to write on the page's wall voicing her disgust.

/doublefacepalm

Miss O'Neill, who lives with her grandmother in Swanscombe, Kent, was sickened by the response to her comment.

She must be possessed of very few brain cells indeed, if she expected anything else…

Miss O'Neill, who is no longer with Sara's father, said: 'Reading these comments has made me shake with anger. I’ve been an absolute mess because of it, I can’t stop crying.

'I just can’t believe anybody would be so cruel and sick to write things like that - why does somebody want to hurt me like that?'

Look, love, it’s not all about you. This group wasn’t set up for you, and you clearly have enough problems, without needing to add to them by visiting it and getting into a scrap with the members.

Just use the 'off' button on your computer...

Miss O'Neill said she was disappointed that Facebook was refusing to shut down the page and was going to ask her local MP to lobby the website for her.

Oh, for…

She said: 'I find it shocking that they don’t seem to care about the hurt these people have caused me.

'I'm going to write to my local MP and I am even prepared to go and sit outside David Cameron’s house and scream and shout until something is done about websites like this.'

Should someone who throws a public tantrum about something that has nothing to do with her in order to demand others' activities be halted be thinking about breeding in the first place?

Facebook are being quite bullish, for now:

A Facebook spokesman said: 'We take our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities very seriously and react quickly to remove reported content that violates our policies.

'In general, groups devoted to jokes, even disgusting and distasteful ones, do not violate our policies.

'Where these groups make real threats or statements of hate, however, we will remove them.

'We encourage people to report anything they feel violates our policies using the report links located throughout the site.

'Specifically, dead baby jokes groups and pages in general do not violate our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

'However, should there be any specific images believed to display children at risk, we encourage the reporter to bring them to our attention so that we can investigate them and take action accordingly.'

How long do you give it before Facebook caves in?

Momtaz Begum-Hussain Had A Problem, And No-one Else Could Help...

...so she set out to find The A-Team...

Wait, no, that's not right. She turned to Twitter, of course!

I've made a decision. From now on, if I need help, I'm heading straight to Twitter. I've tweeted pleas before. I once posted that I needed a job and the same afternoon got commissioned to write an article. But a few weeks ago, I discovered the true benefits of the virtual world.

Awwww, how heartwarming! Was was her problem? Lost kitten? Stuck tap? Locked out of her house?

It was election day and on my way back from a lunchtime trip to the launderette I discovered a huge BNP banner had been tied to the lamp post outside my flat. My immediate reaction was to pull it down. The trouble was, I'm short and it was higher than my tallest chair could reach. So I sent out a tweet. Could anyone help me tear down this monstrosity?

Ah.

I pondered the idea of knocking door-to-door until I found a ladder-owning resident, but it's a busy main road where people are closely guarded and don't stop and chat. Then I spotted my immediate neighbour who's exceptionally tall. When I told him about the banner and the fact I needed help, he laughed and went indoors.

Well, yes, after all, he perhaps quite sensibly reasoned it was a legitimate political party so who was he to help you censor them?

I was contacted by a local councillor and a member of another political party, who advised that I should deal with the issue legally.

Did they? Spoilsports!

Finally I got it. The tweet that saved the day. A message from a stranger to say assistance was on the way. Sure enough, two gentlemen promptly arrived with a ladder in tow. I tweeted a photo of them, and have since found out who they were, marking a satisfactory end to my tale.

At least with CiF, you can usually get some common sense below the line. And the first comment (and highest rated) points out the truth of the matter:

Well, indeed. Welcome to the new politics. So much improved by our addition of tribalist, communalist cultures, eh?

Left Wing Media Braced For Orgasm As Feared ‘White Backlash’ Materialises…

…or can be intimated and suggested by the media, anyway:

Gangs of youths have clashed with police after targeting a takeaway business in Greater Manchester.

Police were pelted with bricks and other missiles in Heywood, Rochdale, on Thursday evening as a takeaway was attacked and four vehicles damaged.

Eyewitnesses said about 200 youths were in Bridge Street and Market Street, prompting nearby businesses to shut.

Ahhh, YONA! And not the expected ones, either, as the Beeb coyly hints…

The disturbances coincide with the trial of 11 men from Rochdale accused of having sex with girls under the age of 16. They all deny the charges.

Gosh! Hold onto your hats! The media is almost at the point of no return!

Assistant Chief Constable Terry Sweeney said police were aware of "tensions in the borough" and that local people would be concerned following the trouble.

He said: "We will maintain and increase police presence in the coming weeks to keep up our reassurance. We ask that the community acts responsibly during this difficult time."

Earlier, he said a group of youths had "attacked a local business and clashed with police officers".

"A number of local businesses have closed of their own volition and we will continue to work closely with them," he added.

I can’t help but note the speed with which this noisy demo was shut down. Have the police learned from the London riots?

Or were they just expecting this, once the news about the Op Matrix trial broke?

A woman who called herself Kedge told the BBC she had been in the area at the time of the disturbances.

She said: "I went there to keep an eye on things. All the stuff that's happened, it's riled a lot of people. There's a lot of outrage, it could happen again."

How nice that you can’t be identified, eh? Maybe you should have chosen ‘Cassandra’ as a nom de guerre...

The EDL said on its official Twitter account that it had not been involved in the events in Heywood but praised the youths.

Police said they were monitoring social media sites.

Yes, I’ll bet the journalists are too.

And I’ll bet a lot of people in the legal profession are already planning to use this as the basis for yet more news blackouts on trials deemed ‘sensitive’…

H/T: Pavlov’s Cat via Twitter

Does Self-Flagellation And Grovelling To Progressive Tropes Bring In The Money..?

Save The Children must be hoping it does:

The film-making career of director Ken Loach is to be celebrated with a six-week series of screenings – including the showing of a controversial documentary that has been unseen for four decades.

Oh?

The Bath film-maker made a film about a Save the Children project in 1969 but the charity has until now blocked its transmission.

Interesting…

The film was shot in the UK and Kenya by Loach’s production company Kestrel Films, and covers a Save the Children holiday home in Essex and a project for homeless children in Nairobi.

The British scenes feature criticism of deprived children’s parents and suggest youngsters wetting the bed are given cold baths, while political activists are shown criticising the colonial approach to education – including the banning of any native language – in Kenya.

Which didn’t go down too well with Save The Children, as you might imagine.

Save the Children was unhappy with the content of the film and persuaded LWT not to broadcast it. However, Loach and Garnett refused to hand over the negative and the dispute went to court where it was decided that the film should not be destroyed, but that all the material should be sent to the archive on condition that it would not be shown without Save The Children’s written approval.

Yes, well, that was the past, and they did things differently then.

We all know that. What’s the point in showing it now?

Mr Loach told the Daily Mail: “We knew we were making a film that was contentious. We weren’t there to do a PR job.

“Save The Children thought that we were on the side of the angels and, without any self-awareness, they felt they were too.

“The bigotry, particularly with the benefit of hindsight of 40 years, is just intolerable.”

But since we do have the benefit of that hindsight, what’s the point in re-hashing it?

What’s in it for the charity?

Recently-appointed charity chief executive Justin Forsyth said: “I am pleased we have belatedly allowed this film to be shown after 40 years. It raises important questions about power, colonialism and charity that are still relevant today. I am enormously proud of the work Save the Children does in the UK and around the world. We save millions of children’s lives and help millions more fulfil their potential, and expect to be scrutinised and challenged to do the best possible job.”

It seems nothing, other than a chance to grovel in front of the great and good at a charity event, eagerly abase oneself and disclaim loudly how awful the West was, and wait for the cheques from other self-haters to flood in…