In October, following a decision by CPS not to take criminal proceedings against a number of men for sex grooming in that they did not consider there was sufficient evidence, Birmingham City Council obtained civil orders against the 10 men barring the men from contacting a
teenager and from approaching girls they did not know.
This followed an incident when a vulnerable teenager was found at a hotel with
different men at different times, prompting social workers and police to
It has since emerged the 17-year-old girl who was sexually exploited by men in
Birmingham is pregnant.
Both the Council and the Media would like to publish details of the men concerned but the police and lawyers for some of the men have objected to the release photographs of those involved because they
said "they feared reprisals, embarrassment and suffering for their families".
Mr Justice Keehan expressed his surprise and commented that "The surest way of eradicating or ameliorating the risk of misidentification
is ensuring the fullest possible details of each of the (men), including
photographs, are made public and given wide coverage by the media".
The police said the men's details would be "shared in the right
places with the right people" and that "We also have a duty to consider the impact of releasing the men's images on
innocent family members, which include their partners and their own young
Just who do the police think they are protecting, vulnerable teenagers or these perverts and their families? What about others in the community who might be mistaken for those involved, what is the risk to them? Once again, the police seem to have got all their priorities wrong.
Fuller details in the Telegraph which shows a picture of three of those involved outside the court.
Incidentally, I haven't described those concerned as "Asian", as has most of the media, as I believe this is an affront to many decent people who come from that part of the world and are not representative of two particular counties having less than 10% of the total Asian population.
According to a well-leaked party document, Labour party strategists are advising their activists to steer
doorstep conversations away from immigration and on to healthcare and
housing, in an attempt to win back UKIP waverers next May.
That's all right by me.
Lets start with healthcare and talk about the number of
immigrants using our local hospital and particularly the maternity
services. Why if you visit A&E, the majority of those awaiting treatment appear to be immigrants, probably there because all the local GP's lists are full.
Or perhaps they'd like discussion about housing and why we are having to
build so many new homes on greenfield sites to house the ever increasing
population brought about by immigration.
And perhaps if they've got some time to spare, we could
move onto schools and why English speaking pupils are being held back
due to the number of non-English speakers in the class.
Somehow, I don't think they would want to talk to me!
The use of torture to extract information from terror suspects and their associates has been headline news for the past few days following an American report on the actions of the CIA. Numerous well-meaning people have supported the premise that "Torture is Wrong".
When I was younger, I would have fully agreed with this statement; However, as I’ve got older I’ve become less
idealistic and less certain that the statement is true. Since the end of World War Two, there hasn't been any time when there hasn't been a significant conflict taking place somewhere in the world often with appalling atrocities being carried out by one side or the other, the most recent being ISIS who are prepared to execute someone simply to produce a propaganda video.
Sayings such as
“fight fire with fire” and the biblical “eye for an eye” seem to have
increasing relevance to me when we are up against such evil organisations. Should we opt out of activities which our enemies are perfectly willing to use? I am
aware of the arguments that if one uses the barbaric methods of such
people that one then forfeits the moral high ground, but retaining the
high ground is no use if you lose the war.
So I now hold the view that there are circumstances under which torture
can be justified and blanket statements such as “Torture is Wrong” are
themselves wrong. I believe that it is justified when lives are at risk
or it can be shown to be for the greater good. There are times when we
simply have to trust those who are in charge of protecting us, and trust them
to do what is appropriate at the time.
Ideally the invention of a so-called “truth drug” would solve the
problem – or would it? Would it be torture to give a captive such a drug
against his wishes?
Such a question in itself shows that there is no clear definition of torture; I
read today that British troops have been told that when interrogating
suspects they must not shout or bang the table! To me this is total
madness! The way we are going, we may be morally correct, but the enemy
is going to win.
A scandal at UKIP - or is it?
UKIP's General Secretary, Roger Bird, has been suspended over allegations that he made improper approaches to a potential female Asian candidate.
Surprisingly, the media hasn't made such a fuss about this as one might have expected and one wonders whether this is because there is "more in this than meets the eye" and they don't want to take any risks with possible damages claims.
The female in question is
Natasha Bolter and she was first seen at this year's UKIP conference when she was on the platform as a Labour defector.
She is described by the media as being a single mother of five children, Her maiden name was Ahmed, so one assumes that she was married at one time although the media has not mentioned an ex-husband. So she's hardly a single mother, she's either divorced, separated or widowed.
Roger Bird has taken the rather unusual course of publishing all her text messages that she'd sent him, and she hardly seems to be a reluctant participant in whatever happened! Roger is single, so there is no reason whatsoever why he should not pursue any woman of his choice provided that he does not offer her advancement within the party in exchange for sexual favours.
Her claim claim of a top degree in
politics, philosophy and economics from Oxford University unravelled
yesterday when the Wadham College (she spelt it Wadam) took the rare step of denying she had ever
attended the institution.
So what was she, a real defector, a plant or just on the make?
I don't think she was a plant; if she'd come from the Tories, I would probably have taken that view, but some how I don't see it as a Labour tactic. Was she a real defector, I'm inclined to say no, as if she had been, she wouldn't have resigned from UKIP at the start of this saga but stood her ground.
I tend towards the belief that she was "found out" by Labour and realised that she would never achieve candidate status and so looked for another home. She picked UKIP as a suitable choice, knowing, quite rightly, that as a female from an ethnic minority she'd be welcome if only to prove that the party wasn't racist or anti-female. Perhaps Roger Bird realised this and rejected her as a candidate with the resultant harassment complaint.
Time will tell, but as usual in cases like this, no-one emerges smelling of roses and the innocent party (if there is one) invariably suffers with the guilty.
Whatever the outcome, the party will have learnt a valuable lesson, be wary of new members who join the party and rapidly seek a position of importance. UKIP is going to have to be somewhat more professional in vetting its candidates for all posts where they could harm the party.
Certain elements of the media are castigating Nigel Farage for suggesting that women should be more discrete about breastfeeding their babies in public.
"Nigel Farage says breastfeeding women should sit in a corner" screamed the media and all the feminist tweeters and blog sites. No he didn't, he merely suggested that some people feel very embarrassed by it, it isn't too difficult to
breastfeed a baby in a way that's not openly ostentatious, perhaps by sitting in a corner.
To me this was a reasonable suggestion, why not be discrete and try to avoid upsetting anyone; surely this is simple good manners.
When our children were young, some forty years ago, we would have been refused entry to many
restaurants if they were with us, and, even if we were allowed in, we would be seated where we
weren't easily seen by most diners. We were staggered when we went to Sweden for a holiday and tentatively entered a restaurant to be met by a waiter who immediately rushed to get a high chair for our youngest and produced a children's menu. At that time, such things were unheard of in England!
There are times that I wish things
were still like that when you have to put up with some of the children
nowadays. Last week we went to a normally peaceful pub for Sunday lunch,
but it was ruined by two boys, probably about 5 or 6 years old who were
playing some chasing game in and out of the tables, and when they
weren't doing that, they were shouting at the top of their voices. Their parents seemed to see nothing wrong with this and I was
about to say something when another customer did so in far more
forceful terms than I would have done. The parents looked visibly
shocked. Why should anyone object to their boy's games? You don't expect boys of that age to sit quietly at a table, do you? My answer would have been "Yes, I do". My grandson, six years old next month, can be taken to a restaurant and will sit still and behave at the table. We quite enjoy taking him out, and whilst he's a terrible chatterbox between courses, it's not so loud as to disturb other diners.
Unfortunately the attitude of a few, seems to be to question anyone's right to be offended by their actions and so they see no need to consider whether what they are doing might offend someone as their own needs are paramount. Farage
is right, people should be show more consideration for others,
unfortunately these days "rights" seem to be more important than
"responsibilities". Oh for a return to the so-called "polite society".
I'm a week late with this item, but did anyone read about this in the MSM or see it on television?
Can you guess what party the councillor belonged to? Perhaps, quite reasonably, you will have concluded that it wasn't a UKIP councillor as, if it had been, it would have been headline news in much of the media and on BBC TV news.
But it wasn't UKIP, so the news went no further than the local paper as the ex-councillor was a female Labour councillor who had falsely claimed an allowance for child care .whilst carrying out council duties.
We wouldn't expect the BBC to mention such a trivial matter as UKIP wasn't involved!
I was a grammar school boy who went into engineering after having studied part time at Technical Colleges and gained the necessary experience to become a Chartered Engineer.
Initially I worked on defence electronics and subsequently on ground radar systems and radar data processing.
Now retired, my main interests are working with computers, family history research, church bell ringing and travel.
I am absolutely against Britain being a member of the E.U., and believe that whilst climate change may be taking place, there is absolutely no proof that it is man-made.
For these two reasons, I am unable to support the present day Conservative Party, although I always did so until Margaret Thatcher left office.