On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-
Jeremy Corbyn:-
“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“No she resigned.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Did you sack or did she resign”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“She resigned”.
BBC interviewer:-
“So you did not sack her?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“She resigned.”
BBC interviewer:-
“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“Well she resigned so that is the question.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Do you think she was right to resign?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Do you think she was right to resign?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”
(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame ‘entire community’ for abuse – BBC News).
This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked.
The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.
The second deception in the interview was to claim:-
“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”
Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.
What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.
Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-
“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!
Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.
The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is.
But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that.
So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?
What do you think?
I have deferred commenting on the Grenfell Tower disaster for some weeks, partly in order to let all the understandable grief of the individuals, and the knee-jerk reactions by various commentators, time to subside. However we seem to be continuing to hear demands by those speaking for the residents that the Judge dealing with the inquiry should be somebody like them. It is therefore worth considering what somebody like “them” is like.
One of the most striking things that can be said about what we saw on our TV and computer screens and in the newspapers of the pictures of the missing, and of their naturally distraught relatives and friends, it is that hardly any were English. Furthermore it was abundantly obvious that a large proportion of them were Muslim and clearly dressed in such a way as to show they are the sort of Muslims who have no inclination to integrate with English society.
Given that this tower block was public housing, or as we used to call it, “council housing”, it is a remarkable and a sorry reflection of just how appallingly badly managed immigration has been by the British Political Establishment over the last 50 years that a public housing tower block in the middle of our capital city should have next to no English people in it! What a disgrace that is! The English Democrats have long said that only our citizens should be entitled to any welfare benefits, free medical care or council housing.
We then come to the cause of the fire. It has been strangely unclear from the reports what exactly caused the fire. Given the general dishonesty of our media in trying to prevent reporting of things that might give rise to suspicion and hostility towards politically correct causes; and that this fire was started about the time when many of the residents of the tower block were breaking their fast after sunset during Ramadan it seems to me not at all unlikely that the fire was caused by something like the barbequing of kebabs in an unsafe way within the tower block. Even if that is not the case there does seem to be many reasons for being suspicious about the origin of the fire.
So far as the reason why the fire got out of control, that seems to be partly a consequence of the so-called environmentalist lobby in seeking to put cladding on the outside of tower blocks in order to insulate them. There is also the EU, in overriding the British Building Standards, to insist upon EU compliant cladding which is less fire resistant.
Naturally the fire inspection process has been made radically less effective in protection against fires by the focus on compliance with EU directives rather than on the safety of the occupants.
This type of regulatory overload is not at all an unusual situation in the UK now where the original purpose of an activity is often lost sight of in a maze of inane legal rules and political correctness.
The one thing we can be sure of there will be many more problems caused by the general institutionalized uselessness of the UK’s public authorities!
Finally here is an interesting article which has been circulated to me:-
As the catastrophe at Grenfell Tower has been so” Politicised” you may be interested to see these facts – especially the last paragraph….
The following appear to be matters of public record:
1. The block of flats was run not by the Council but by Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). This body is made up of 8 TENANTS, 4 councillors and 3 independent members.
2. Labour hold the seat that the block is situated in.
3. Labour run the London Council who manage the under-funded London Fire Service
4. Emma Coad the sitting Labour MP for that ward also sat on the KCTMO.
5. The advice to stay put which Sadiq Khan has been so vocal about was given by the London Fire Service.
6. The decision to change contractors during the refurb was made by KCTMO.
7. The decision not to spend an additional £138k on fitting sprinklers was again KCTMO.
8. The decision to create Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMO) such as the KCTMO was made under the Right To Manage legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act.
9. This was put in place to give leaseholders and tenants a greater say and the ability to self manage, which in some circumstances has clearly proven to be flawed.
10. Which Govt was in a charge when this law was passed? It was Labour.
11. Sadiq Khan as mayor of London Produced a report to say that the fire service did not need further funding.
12. Emma Coad elected Labour MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.
Further, according to Christopher Booker (a strong advocate for Remain) in the Telegraph, when the Grenfell Tower was built, the cladding materials were glass-based and inert. Fire could not pass through or behind the cladding.
Since then, authority for specification of construction materials has passed from individual governments to the EU. The EU has decreed, as part of climate change initiatives, that the main purpose of cladding is to provide insulation, thus reducing the need to burn fuel. When, three years ago, Kensington spent £10m on up-rating the Grenfell Tower it had no option but to use cladding permitted by the EU. Unfortunately, the cladding is not fireproof.
I have not (yet) heard anybody accuse the EU of responsibility for the fire – though that is where at least part of the blame lies.”
WHY IS VIKTOR ORBÁN SO POPULAR WITH HUNGARIANS?
If you were to believe the BBC and most of the “mainstream media” you would think that most people in England are clamouring for an open door immigration policy and allowing in unlimited numbers of economic migrants and, in particular, so called refugees from Syria.
The few opinion polls that have been published relating to this show that the opposite is true. The vast majority of the People of England do not want to see more migrants from any part of the world flooding into our country.
Here is an article about this >>> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/06/no-increase-syrian-refugee-numbers/
It should not therefore really surprise anyone that the one democratically elected politician who has been full-throttle opposed to mass immigration into his country, in particular mass Muslim immigration, should have seen his popularity rise to unprecedented levels of support. For example, here is an article from an enemy confirming his support >>> http://qz.com/501666/take-it-from-a-hungarian-journalist-orban-is-playing-a-dangerous-game/
Our electoral system which clothes parties with the support of only about a quarter of the electorate with the illusion of majority of support, such as Cameron in the recent election with the votes of 26% of the electorate and Tony Blair in the 2005 election with the votes of only 21.6% of the electorate.
One of the problems of our nation is therefore actually our “elected” leaders are not in fact representative of the majority of opinion in our country. I would suggest that, if they were, our country would be run in a very different and more democratic way. There would then be an immediate end to mass immigration.
What do you think?
I have sometimes been asked if Muslims have actually asked for special legal treatment. The Article below is an example of an influential Muslim doing so but it is quite subtle.
The article is from the “Huffington Post” an online news agency well known in America for its Left/Liberal bias but in the ‘UK’ its political editor is the BBC’s favourite Leftist/Islamist, Mehdi Hasan, who seems here to be giving his views on us infidels. Click here >>> Mehdi Hasan – Non Muslims live like animals – YouTube and here he is talking about the Shiite Islamic equivalent of Judas in which he seems to demonise gays >>> ?MehdiHasanYazidHomoKaffir – YouTube. If the “hate crime” law was equally applied I would have expected Mr Hasan to have been at least considered for prosecution over these comments, wouldn’t you?
It should therefore not be surprising that this Leftist online news outlet edited by an Islamist is vocal in its support of the ‘UK’s’ “Islamic Community”(sic!).
As journalists often do, Mehdi weaves into his story a source that he approves of “Tell Mama” but which has been exposed as being just as unreliable a source as he is himself! For revelations about “Tell Mama” and its leader who is quoted so approvingly by Mehdi Hassan, click here >>>The truth about the ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder – Telegraph
The thrust of Mehdi’s article is that “Hate Crime” against Muslims should be punished with especially severe criminal sanctions.
Actually such “hate crime” already is treated more severely than anyone applying ordinary common sense, or indeed ordinary legal principles, would think appropriate if, but only if, it is committed by English people against any other ethnic minority group or individual. Also consider the BBC’s reaction to criticism over a more significant, deliberate and calculated blasphemy against Jesus Christ >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm.
It should also be borne in mind that “hate crime” can often mean merely a rude remark rather than any sort of violent attack.
In my view the old playground adage of “sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me!” should be the start point for any contemplated prosecution (or conviction) for, often trivial, rudeness.
However, if that rudeness spills over into physical aggression or threats of violence, then of course I would support punishment but focussed only on what has actually happened not as a result of a sort of witch trial, otherwise it is the State itself which becomes the instrument of victimisation! (No doubt to the pleasure of people like Mehdi Hasan)!
What do you think? (Note the startling, but no doubt deliberate, confusion of a building with people and the extent of the group allegedly “targeted” in “When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”)
Here is the “Huffington Post” Article:-
Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby
Hate crimes against Muslims have soared in 2013, new figures have shown. Hundreds of anti-Muslim offences have been carried out across the country in 2013, with Britain’s biggest force, the Metropolitan police, recording 500 Islamophobic crimes alone.
Many forces reported a surge in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby by two Islamic extremists in Woolwich, south-east London. And it is feared the figures could be much higher after nearly half of the 43 forces in England and Wales did not reveal how many hate crimes had targeted Muslims – with some forces admitting they do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.
Freedom of Information requests were sent by the Press Association to every police force in England and Wales. Of the 43 forces, 24 provided figures on the number of anti-Muslim crimes and incidents recorded. Tell Mama, a group which monitors anti-Muslim incidents, said it had dealt with some 840 cases since April – with the number expected to rise to more than 1,000 by the end of March.
This compared with 582 anti-Muslim cases it dealt with from March 2012 to March 2013. Fiyaz Mujhal, director of Faith Matters, which runs the Tell Mama project, said reaction to the murder of Fusilier Rigby had caused the number of Islamophobic crimes to “significantly jump”. He added: “The far right groups, particularly the EDL (English Defence League) perniciously use the internet and social media to promote vast amounts of online hate.”
Mujhal said tougher sentencing was needed to tackle Islamophobic crime and branded guidelines by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to monitor social media as “not fit for purpose”. He said: “They raised the bar of prosecution significantly. Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality.
“We also need more robust sentencing. In one case, a pig’s head was left outside a mosque and the perpetrator came away with a community sentence. When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”
Tell Mama has called for police forces to introduce a system which improves monitoring of Islamophobic crimes, after some forces admitted officers do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.
“There are three problems we come across,” Mujhal said. “Firstly, there is a lack of understanding of the language of Islamophobia thrown at victims in any incidents. Secondly, there is very little training on how to ask relevant questions to pull out anti-Muslim cases. Thirdly, recording processes are not in line with each other. One force will allow an officer to flag an incident as anti-Muslim, another force will flag it as religious hate crime. There is no uniformity. There must be guidelines for all forces so we can know the level of the problem.”
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has previously said 71 incidents were reported to its national community tension team (NCTT) over five days after Fusilier Rigby was murdered on May 22. Superintendent Paul Giannasi, Acpo’s spokesman on hate crime, said: “The police service is committed to reducing the harm caused by hate crime and it is vital that we encourage more victims who suffer crimes to report them to the police or through third party reporting facilities such as Tell Mama.
“Acpo has played a key role in improving reporting mechanisms, including through the development of our True Vision website (www.report-it.org.uk). This provides information to victims and allows people to report online. We would obviously want overall crime levels to reduce and to see fewer victims, but we welcome increases in reported hate crime, as long as they are a sign of increased confidence of victims to report. We are working with local police forces, to help improve the way we respond to hate crime and to provide robust and transparent hate crime data.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “These are despicable crimes that devastate lives and communities. The courts already hand out tougher punishments where race or religion are found to be aggravating factors. The number of people receiving a custodial sentence for these appalling crimes is higher than ever before.”
A CPS spokeswoman said: “Online communication can be offensive, shocking or in bad taste. However, as set out in CPS guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media, content has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. In order to preserve the right to free speech the threshold for prosecution must be high and only communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false are prohibited by the legislation.”
(Here is the link to the original article >>>Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby)