Sunday - November 08, 2009

Police secretly follow mother after hearing her reprimand children.

BMEWS readers, When you were a little kid and maybe acted up or got a bit difficult, did mom ever threaten you with, “Wait till I get you home?” Or, “You’re gonna get it.” And didn’t we always know what “IT” was.  In my home “it” was never an idle or empty threat.

Well, if you live in this part of the world today mom and dad, ya better be careful where and how loud you threaten your offspring. 
It isn’t just the walls that have ears anymore. Oh no.  Off duty but officious cops have ears too.  So look around, look over your shoulder, look behind you because ...............  you will be questioned later.  You WILL be visited by .... The Plod.  (Britspeak for cops, in case you didn’t know that)

A mother who threatened to smack her children while out shopping was secretly followed home by an off duty policeman and was later questioned by officers.


By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Published: 12:15PM GMT 08 Nov 2009

The 34-year-old woman, who has asked to remain anonymous for the sake of her family, was also warned by social services that she could face further action and that a file on the incident is being kept on record.

Last night, charities criticised the police’s action as “disproportionate” and pointed out that parents in England and Wales are allowed to smack their children.

Friends of the woman, who works in a bookstore and is married to an aeronautics expert, said that she had been left distressed by the ordeal.

Shopping in a supermarket in Woolston, Southampton, the woman’s children, aged 11 and 4, were misbehaving, provoking her to warn them that they would “get a hiding when they got home”.

She claims she did not actually smack them afterwards and says that, while smacking is used as a form of punishment in their home, it is not something she often does.

However, an off duty policemen who had been standing near her in the supermarket followed her on the 15 minute journey home and then reported the incident to Hampshire Police’s child protection team.

It was not until six weeks later that she was visited at her home by two officers and quizzed on how often she smacks her children. The pair also gave her parenting tips. They suggested that she should use a ‘naughty step’ or withdraw treats as a more effective form of punishment.

A month later, she received a letter from Southampton social services saying that her behaviour had raised concerns over the children’s welfare.

Kim Wills, information officer for Southampton council’s Children First department, wrote: “I am writing to inform you that we have received information on 24th September 2009 from Hampshire Police advising of concerns for ------- and ------ regarding an incident on 6th August 2009 where the children were chastised in public.”

The letter stated that Children’s Services would not be taking further action “at this time”, but told her that the information would be kept on record.

A spokesman for the department said that the incident would be held in their files until her children leave school, which could be up to another 13 years.

While it is a crime to smack children so hard it leaves a mark, mild smacking is allowed as “reasonable chastisement”.

Friends of the woman describe her as a good, patient mother, who is loved by her children.

They said she had been upset by the police’s questioning and shocked to learn that she and her children had been followed home.

A spokesman for Hampshire Police defended the action of its officers, arguing that the manner of her reprimand had caused alarm.

“An off-duty officer reported to our child protection team an incident involving a women in Woolston, Southampton who they saw chastising her children.

“It was not an ordinary telling off and because of what the woman said and the way her children reacted to it, it gave our officer reasonable grounds for concern for the children’s welfare and they may be at risk of physical chastisement.”

The spokesman added: “We followed this up as you would expect any police force to do, especially when it comes to the safety of children.

“Officers from the team spoke to the woman later at her home about the concerns and passed the details of the case to social services as is normal practice in such cases. No further action was deemed necessary by us.”

The mother denies that there was anything extraordinary about the way she scolded her children, and said that they were simply upset because they do not like being reprimanded.

A spokesman for Care, a social welfare charity, questioned the need for the police’s action unless there was a clear indication that she was going to beat them.

“One fears that it was a wholly disproportionate response to a threatened smack informed by the destructive and censorious views of those opinion formers who refuse to make a distinction between smacking, which can actually be very helpful, and beating which is a serious crime,” he added.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/08/2009 at 08:29 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Family • Outrageous • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

So now it’s come down to this low. Muggers attack two-year-old girl. I’m not even shocked.

So forget surprised.  Yes I think it’s shocking that any low life pile of human garbage would hit a two year old in a robbery attempt.  I’m just not shocked that anyone actually did it.
What ppl can get away with and what ppl do, just doesn’t have a very high surprise factor anymore.

Like so many posts I do, this wasn’t on my radar this morning till I booted to catch the morning paper before it’s been delivered to our door in another hour.
If caught, what are the chances these perps will EVER get the kind of punishment that would deter them from this kind of life?
My solution? Some serious acid scaring on the face so when free the public can be immediately aware of a potential problem coming their way. Some broken hands might be a good idea as well.  Extreme?  Maybe.  But so is street crime.  Trust me.  If caught, these slags won’t suffer whatever they put the victims through.

A two-year-old girl was punched in the head by two teenage girls during an attempted robbery in north-west London.

By Julie Henry
Sunday Telegraph

CCTV of two teenage female muggers who punched a two year old toddler in the head. Photo Pixel

The girl was with her mother when the pair were targeted by two female suspects in Preston Road, Wembley, at about 4.45 pm on Thursday.
They demanded money from the mother before punching her in the arm and attacking her daughter.

The attackers are described as being of Mediterranean appearance and aged between 14 and 18.

“Although the victim and her daughter do not have any visible injuries, this was a frightening experience for them,” said Det Insp Rebecca Reeves, of the Metropolitan Police.

“We have released images in the hope that someone may recognise the suspects and report them to the police.”
One was around 5ft and was wearing a white jacket, black mini-skirt, tiger stripe leggings, black flat shoes and was carrying a large black fake leather bag.
The second wore a black jacket, blue denim “skinny” jeans, black Ugg-style boots and had a large brown fake leather bag with gold details.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/08/2009 at 03:03 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - November 06, 2009

Judge rules believers in gorbal warming have same protection under religious laws

Think it’s a joke?  Nope.

A few days ago I ran across a story that beggars belief and lost the damn article. Tried to find it in Google and failed but fortunately Richard Littlejohn brings it up here in his column today in the Mail.

I have edited the article to this subject but really do suggest you use the link to read his entire column. This guy is spot on .

GO HERE FOR ALL OF LITTLEJOHN

By Richard Littlejohn
Daily Mail
Nov. 6, 2009

This column has long argued that ‘man-made climate change’ is a new religion. So I suppose it was only a matter of time before that status was conferred upon it by law.

A judge has just ruled that a ‘global warming’ fanatic, made redundant by a property company after refusing to fly on business, can seek unlimited damages for religious discrimination.

Mr Justice Burton said that ‘a philosophical belief which is based on science’ is entitled to receive the same legal protection as a sincerely-held religious conviction.

The trouble with ‘man-made climate change’ is that it isn’t based on settled science, despite what the alarmists and their allies at the BBC would have us believe.

There is a welter of countervailing evidence that, far from warming up to boiling point, the Earth is actually getting cooler and the ice caps thicker.

More than 300 eminent, reputable scientists and research fellows in America have signed a declaration that ‘man-made global warming’ is a myth and dispute the link between carbon emissions and so- called ‘climate change’.

The founder of the Weather Channel says that Al Gore should be sued for fraud over his movie, A Convenient Lie

The founder of the Weather Channel, a meteorologist who can be fairly assumed to have some idea what he is talking about, says that self-righteous hypocrite Al Gore should be sued for fraud over his scaremongering movie, A Convenient Lie, which British judges have already agreed contains a number of obvious distortions of the truth.

(Incidentally, it has just been revealed that Gore is on course to become a billionaire off the back of his stake in a number of eco-related enterprises. It’s an ill wind...)

Look, I don’t know for sure which side is right, maybe neither of them, but my natural inclination is always towards scepticism.

What does seem patently apparent is that when you look at the assorted vested interests lined up on the ‘man-made’ side of the argument, you can’t help concluding that if all these opportunist politicians, madwomen, social engineers, sexual inadequates and quasi-communists agree then they are almost certainly wrong.

Politicians, in particular, love the great ‘climate change’ scare because it takes them a step nearer their fantasy of global government and allows them to impose an exciting array of new taxes, punishments and controls upon the peasants who pay their wages.

It has spawned a vast, self-perpetuating industry worth a fortune, of which the great ‘carbon offset’ scam is the most exploitative and ridiculous incarnation.

Paying someone conscience-money to plant a tree every time you fly? I wish I’d thought of that. .

President Obama back-pedals, China opens another coal-fired power station every day, India pollutes with impunity and tinpot African states demand cynically that the West pays them hundreds of millions of dollars to play ball.

Posted by peiper     on 11/06/2009 at 12:15 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Environment • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Religion • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - November 05, 2009

JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF “RIGHTS” IN THE WRONG PLACE!

Just another daily example of how civil and human rights are seen in this place.  What a load of crap.
And take a look at the ugly smirking face of the vandal.

This sort of thing could so easily be turned around by the removal of say, one hand.  Or maybe break all the bones in one hand and rip a tendon or two.  Something that this creep can remember for a lifetime.  Wanna bet he’d never try again.  And if implemented nation wide, I’ll bet the rate of crime might go down too.  It’s really all a matter of the gremlins KNOWING they won’t get off scott free.  But I’m dreaming.  We know that isn’t gonna happen.
Look at that face and tell me he won’t repeat the same thing again.  The face of modern Britain?  One of em anyway. 
Meanwhile, young ppl his age are dying in some far off hell hole not earning what he has done in damage in a week or two.

Couple ‘named and shamed’ thug on boarded-up window… then police warned them it harms the vandal’s civil liberties

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:02 PM on 05th November 2009

A couple shamed a yob by writing his name in the shop window he smashed only to be told to remove it by police - in case it harmed his civil liberties.

Dennis and Christine Lusby wrote ‘Damage Done by Ben Hill’ on the boarded up windows of their village shop after he went on a drunken rampage - and they have decided to defy the police advice.

Hill, 20, caused £3,000 worth of damage during the spree which also saw him attack cars, homes, farm buildings and a football club.

Dennis and Christine ‘named and shamed’ Hill by writing his name outside their shop in thick black pen after he handed himself in to police.

The couple claim their local PC told them to remove the sign - in case it infringed the lout’s human rights.

Dennis, 60, of St Breward, Cornwall, has refused to remove the name of the well-known local yob and says it will stay there until the windows are replaced.

He said: ‘Even in the smallest villages in the country there is a thug problem. Our shop window was smashed to pieces.

‘The lad was caught straight away but people kept coming in to ask us what had happened and who was responsible.
Ben Hill was jailed for 74 days after his wrecking spree in Cornwall

‘Eventually Christine wrote his name up there on the window boards. We thought we’d let everyone know who had done all the damage.

‘But then we were warned by the police for writing it because they say it’s taking away his civil liberties What about our civil liberties? We chose to quietly ignore the police advice.’

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall police yesterday said officers advised Mr Lusby to remove the sign in case it ‘inflamed’ the situation.

He said: ‘The officer felt that the offender had been dealt with and punished for the damage he had caused.

‘By publically naming him in this way could inflame the situation and possibly tempt one of his friends to carry out further acts of vandalism on the shop.

‘The beat officer knows the patch and his advice was given for the sake of the store owner.’

During his rampage on October 29, Hill caused £300 worth of damage by kicking open a football club door and smashed a window of a farm house.

He also caused £725 damage to a newly-laid floor at another property as well as damaging a Skoda to the tune of £600.

Hill threw a giant boulder of granite at another home before smashing the windows of Dennis and Christine’s car and their St Breward Stores.

He then handed himself in and was jailed for 74 days at Bodmin Magistrates Court after he pleaded guilty to possession of an offensive weapon and three offences of criminal damage.

Dennis said Hill had been causing problems in the village for years, but his latest rampage was the ‘final straw’.

‘This village is a low crime area, but when anything goes wrong he is always mixed up in every bit of bother. He turns up in our shop quite often, being
rude, turning up drunk.

‘We shouldn’t have to tolerate it and I can’t see any reason why everyone shouldn’t know about what he has done.

‘We’re not completely intolerant but this is ridiculous - he’s terrorised the whole village.

SOURCE AND OTHER PHOTOS

Posted by peiper     on 11/05/2009 at 10:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - November 04, 2009

Lisbon Treaty: more of Britain’s powers surrendered to Brussels. Gordon Brown cheerful.

Britain’s power to govern itself is to be surrendered increasingly to Brussels after the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty was finally ratified.

By James Kirkup and Bruno Waterfield

SOURCE, TELEGRAPH

The treaty, which will come into force within a few weeks, will create the first president of Europe, as well as a European foreign minister, and will end Britain’s right to veto new EU rules in more than 40 policy areas.

The treaty’s supporters say it will allow the EU to operate more efficiently and give it greater influence in world affairs.

But critics say it will cede too much more of Britain’s sovereignty to Brussels.

Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, yesterday signed the Lisbon Treaty, ending eight years of resistance to its attempt to give more power to the EU.

The Czechs are the last of the 27 EU states to sign the treaty, and their move forced the Conservatives to abandon their pledge to hold a British referendum on Lisbon.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said it was “a bad day for British democracy”.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, will today set out plans for an alternative Tory pledge to renegotiate several parts of Britain’s EU membership, trying to win back control over social and employment laws.

It is understood that one of Mr Cameron’s options will be to guarantee a referendum for British voters under a Tory government if any more national powers were in danger of being ceded to Brussels.

Mr Cameron’s retreat on announcing a referendum on the newly ratified treaty has led to accusations of breaking his promise and betraying the British people.

The Lisbon Treaty is based on the European Constitution, which started at a summit in Brussels in December 2001.

Gordon Brown hailed the Czech signature as “a historic step,” and European leaders said it will create a more powerful EU.

Despite the scale of the changes the treaty makes, the British people have never been directly consulted on the document, which was ratified in a Commons vote and signed by Mr Brown in 2007.

Labour won the 2005 general election having promised a referendum on the European Constitution but then dropped the pledge, arguing that Lisbon was a different document.

The Conservatives gave a “cast-iron” guarantee of a vote on Lisbon.

But after Mr Klaus signed the text, the Tories admitted that they will not offer voters a say on Lisbon.

Mr Hague said that once ratified, the treaty will cease to exist as a distinct legal document, meaning no vote can be held on it.

He said: “Now that the treaty has become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the president of the European council, the loss of British national vetoes, these things will already have happened, and a referendum cannot unwind them or prevent them.”

Daniel Hannan, a Tory MEP and leading Euro-sceptic said the signing was a step towards a European super-state. “The boot continues to stamp on the human face,” he said.

Mr Hague last night attempted to blame Labour for the treaty’s passage. He said: “People have never been consulted or voted in a general election for this.

“The British people have never even voted once, and we will not let people forget whose responsibility that is.”

Mr Brown insisted that the signing of the treaty was something to celebrate.

How in the world is signing away your sovereignty something to celebrate?
I guess to understand that, one would have to be a politician. 

Now here’s something from the Daily Mail, who are quoting something they got from the Sun, another daily paper.

Today I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.
No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.

David Cameron

BUT WAIT!
Mr. Cameron has a get out in that he made clear he was referring to a treaty that had not yet been ratified.

okok ....  LYNDON (shouts peiper) HELP!  Explain this again.

Right now, Cameron is blaming Brown.  I get that part. I think.  But since Cameron did make that statement above, I’m still not clear on this.
So the treaty passes because they now have the number required. Do I have that right?
So then, because the UK is a member of the EU, and since the treaty is ratified, that means that the citizens here are STUCK with the EU like it or not.
Do I have that right?

Great so, where to from here?

Posted by peiper     on 11/04/2009 at 07:53 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • EUro-peons • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Drunken yob got more than he bargained for when he challenges his betters.

The video runs three minutes, pretty frustrating at times cos it’s often hard to see what this article is describing. But you’ll still get the sense of things and what ordinary ppl are putting up with here, and especially in London.  Altho of course it isn’t restricted to that location.
See this LINK for the still photos.

This looks to have taken place around 6:20pm. Hell, I suppose any downtown city anywhere in the world can be a problem.  I get to feeling a bit guilty always hammering on about this sort of thing here in the UK.  I don’t mean to make it appear a unique thing to this culture and lord knows we have enough bad guys in the states. Right?  Maybe I need to read more USA based news and I’d find an equal amount. Ya think?  Cos honestly I have my doubts about that.  What I mean is, I doubt there’s the same kind of street crime in America on the same level.  Partly no doubt because so many are armed at home.  I don’t think we have the binge drinking all hours in the USA that they have here.  And we sure as heck don’t issue ASBOs, unless we do but under another name.  Our criminal justice system is surely just as fouled up. I know that.

Oh, btw ...  another poor soul was kicked to death this week by a gang of five men and two women, it has been reported.  That’s what I mean.
I have my doubts that kind of thing occurs in the USA with the frequency that it does here. If it happens at all and I’m sure it must given the nature of the criminal animal.

Caught on CCTV: The moment BBC presenter floors taunting yob with his karate expertise

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:41 AM on 04th November 2009

This drunken yob got more than he bargained for when he picked a fight with a BBC presenter who used to be an international martial arts champion.

Reporter Paresh Patel had been followed for half an hour through Manchester city centre by two youths, who subjected him to a barrage of abuse as he attempted to set up a live broadcast.

The North West Tonight journalist had been preparing a report in Sackville Gardens, central Manchester, when a group of drunken louts began harassing him and his cameraman Steve Capstick.
Watch the video below

He floored one of the unsuspecting thugs with a kick to the groin followed by a lightning-quick punch in the face.

The dazed victim can then be seen in CCTV footage scrambling to his feet just as police arrive to arrest the man as Mr Patel, dubbed the ‘BBC Bruiser’, calmly walks away.

A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: ‘The accused persistently followed the victim and told him not to call the police and a woman poured a pint over him at one point. 

‘The other two defendants continued to follow Mr Patel to Princes Street, where the victim was punched in the face and threatened with violence. 

‘One of them picked up a bit of street furniture and also threatened the victim - he tried to walk away but still he was followed by the suspects. 

‘Both had been drinking and appeared very drunk. But what they hadn’t realised was that the victim was a black belt in karate.’

Mr Patel can be seen in the footage punching one of them in the face before kneeing him in the groin after being attacked as he planned a live broadcast from the statue of Alan Turing in Sackville Gardens, following Gordon Brown’s decision to grant the computer pioneer a posthumous apology. 

Sean Brady, prosecuting, told Manchester Magistrates’ Court that when Mr Patel phoned his studio, two of the group John Nugent, 22, and David McKenna, 27, thought he was ringing the police and started swearing threatening him.

At the sentencing of the pair, Judge David Hernandez said: ‘He defended himself, he delivered a blow. I say good for Mr Patel.

‘He had no reason to be subjected to that level of abuse and threat by you.’

The CPS spokesperson added: ‘The defendants claimed that Mr Patel has threatened them and told had them not to “mess with him” because he was a “Thai boxer” and that he would “sort them out”.

‘They insisted they were just having a laugh. And that they only picked up the chair so that he could have a sit down.

‘Even when they were shown the CCTV footage they came up with the same explanation.’

Gee, what patience the BBC guy showed.  If I were fortunate enough to have his skill and training, I would not have waited that long before turning on the damn punks.

Posted by peiper     on 11/04/2009 at 06:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - November 02, 2009

OH POOR ME. I WORK SO HARD AND PUT IN SO MANY HOURS AND I’M NOT MAKING ENOUGH.

I doubt much if even the liberals here would have used his example, pc as they are.  I’m particularly PO’d BIG TIME not just because this politician said something dumb.  They manage to do that everyday no matter the party they belong to.  What has me seeing red (again) is my previous and sad post on the death of that brave soldier.  That poor fellow wasn’t making a quarter of what his representatives were making while CHEATING on their expenses.
The bastards were caught red handed and the maddening thing about so much of what they did is, much of it was legal because THEY MADE THE RULES!  Some are refusing to pay back any money, some are paying back a portion, and many are crying the blues claiming they are being picked on.
Not all of them were cheating to be sure. Lets be very clear on that.  But you should hear the excuses and arguments many are making in an attempt to mask what they did or else make what they did appear on the up and up.  But this story today really set me off in light of that soldier’s death.
Maybe he should be sent to fight this war in that benighted place, on the same money the SSgt was making.  Yeah. We can all see that, right?

It is NOT his making a comparison with the Holocaust that set me off to be honest.  I don’t think he meant it the exact way it’s been taken. I think
I understand his theory, while I think he was pretty darn foolish to use that example.  .  No ... what bothers me so much is his complaint with regard to what he was paid as an MP and his gripe about hours worked and pay received being equal to “minimum wages.”

Tell that to the late Sgt., subject of my last post.

Cameron rounds on Tory MP for comparing expenses ‘witch-hunt’ with Nazi persecution of the Jews

By Claire Ellicott
02nd November 2009

The MP who compared the clampdown on expenses with the Holocaust was ordered to say sorry today.

In an astonishing outburst, Tory MP David Wilshire said the “witch-hunt” against cheats was akin to the politics that “led to Hitler’s gas chambers”.

His remark was branded “offensive and unacceptable” by Tory leader David Cameron who told the Spelthorne MP to withdraw it.

Mr Wilshire paid a total of £105,000 from his expenses into Moorlands Research Services, a firm owned by him and his girlfriend Ann Palmer.

The MP used his office expenses to write to all his constituents in Spelthorne, Surrey, defending his claims.

The two-page letters were printed on Commons notepaper and sent using taxpayer-funded envelopes funded by his office expenses.

When one constituent wrote back, Mr Wilshire replied: ‘The witch hunt against MPs will undermine democracy.

‘It will weaken parliament, handing yet more power to governments. Branding a whole group of people undesirables led to Hitler’s gas chambers’.

The Commissioner for Standards is expected to investigate whether he broke Commons rules that forbid MPs from entering into arrangements that ‘may give rise to an accusation’ of profiting from public funds.

The MP’s latest controversial comments come less than a month after he infuriated David Cameron by comparing his salary to the minimum wage.

He provoked fury by complaining about his salary and long hours in a Westminster meeting with trainee journalists.

He told them: ‘I work 60 to 70 hours a week some weeks. When you look at what I earn, it comes dangerously close to working out as the minimum wage.’

Mr Wilshire paid £3,250 of his office allowances to his own firm over a period of three years.

He claimed that the money was used to pay other suppliers for posters and office products.

The arrangement was highly unusual. Most MPs submitted receipts for office costs directly from suppliers and claimed them back.

The constituency offices of senior Conservative MP David Wilshire in Staines, Surrey. Mr Wilshire said his company was used to pay ‘suppliers’ for office services such as printing

Moorlands Research Services was never registered with Companies House. Mr Wilshire said the firm closed down last year.

Before that, details of his involvement with the company had been included in his entry for the Regis-ter of Members’ Interests.

Mr Wilshire insisted he had done nothing wrong and had not personally profited, calling the claims against him ‘deeply hurtful and unjustified’.

He said the arrangement had been approved in writing by the House of Commons Fees Office, the body accused of nodding through questionable claims for hundreds of MPs.

SOURCE

btw ....  That’s another thing that I have heard quite a bit of.  The MPs saying when all is said and done, they aren’t making all that much considering the hours they work.  OK. Maybe so.  But is anyone holding a gun to their collective heads and forcing them to become MPs?  Don’t think so.

Posted by peiper     on 11/02/2009 at 12:25 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Government • Corruption and Greed • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - October 28, 2009

DISORDERED LAW IN THE LAND WHERE THE LAW IS AN ASS.

Some will recall a recent post with regard to an elderly woman who wrote to her council objecting to an in your face queer pride march in her town and then getting a visit from the police as her letter was seen as possible hate speech.  Hey, serious stuff. Must be looked into. Can’t take any chances ya know.

Then I saw this cartoon in the morning paper and these articles from the same issue of the Daily Mail and that decided on this posting.

Just loony tune stuff none of us will understand.  Except the cartoon.  If you live here, you really understand this.

‘PHEW! FOR ONE TERRIBLE MOMENT THERE I THOUGHT HE WAS COMING FOR US.’

£1m stolen in 665 raids. Yet burglar walks free… and is given a new home

By Andrew Levy
28th October 2009

Uproar: Judge Christopher Ball says prolific thief Bradley Wernham had turned over a new leaf

One of the country’s most prolific thieves has been allowed to walk free from court after a judge was told he had turned over a new leaf.

Bradley Wernham, 18, has committed hundreds of offences during a £1million crime spree that began when he was 12 and involved stealing luxury cars and breaking into churches, homes and pubs.

But after admitting 20 burglaries and asking for another 645 offences to be taken into account, he was told that rather than going to jail he was to be relocated to a new town and given a rent-free home to live in with his girlfriend.

The punishment was handed out by Judge Christopher Ball QC, who has caused uproar in the past with a series of lenient sentences.

There was fury in the town where Wernham will be starting his new life. Chelmsford West MP Simon Burns branded the sentence a ‘joke’.

He added: ‘It is a disgrace that Chelmsford is being used as a dumping ground for somebody who is a habitual thief.

‘It is misguided do-gooding philosophy when a custodial sentence would have been more appropriate.’

The Safer Harlow Partnership, a crime reduction body composed of organisations including councils and Essex Police, is covering Wernham’s deposit and first month’s rent until he can start claiming benefits and pay them back.

Wernham had already been convicted of 26 offences before appearing at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday - bringing his total number of known crimes to 691, an average of an offence every three days.

His favourite targets were his home town, as well as nearby Bishop’s Stortford and Sawbridgeworth.

Crimes included the theft of two Mercedes cars worth £85,000, an Audi RS4 valued at £50,000, a Porsche Caymen, also worth £50,000, and a £30,000 Land Rover Discovery.

SOURCE AND MORE

“until he can start claiming benefits and pay them back.”
Easy Peasy.  So as I understand it and check me here.  He’ll get a taxpayer loan as where else is that money coming from, and pay back the lender with .... taxpayer money as he will be claiming benefits.  Wha - Ha.  What a great system.

Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds… in case they are paedophiles

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:39 PM on 28th October 2009

A council has banned parents from supervising their children in public playgrounds until they have undergone criminal record checks.

Adults have been excluded from two adventure play areas in Watford, apart from a handful of council-vetted ‘play rangers’ who will assist youngsters, it emerged today.

Parents will be forced to watch their children from outside the perimeter fence.

Watford Borough Council claims it is just following Government guidelines and cannot allow adults to walk around playgrounds ‘unchecked’.

But parents are furious that they are all being labelled ‘potential paedophiles’ and branded the ban ‘a joke’.

Mother-of-five Marcella Bergin, 35, said she was disgusted when she heard she would not be allowed to stay in the park with her children.

Mrs Bergin, from Watford, has been visiting one of the playgrounds affected with her three eldest children for many years.

She said: When I heard about what they were planning to do my jaw just dropped.

‘It’s like they are branding all parents potential paedophiles which is disgraceful - 99 per cent of people are great parents and certainly not child abusers.

MORE ON THIS HERE

A few days ago I posted an article with regard to a child rapist and all around baby abuser who threatened legal action as regards, “his good name.”
You will recall that.  OK ... same abuse story but a bit of an update.

Out in two years: Fury as judges cut sentence on Baby P tormentor because he ‘does not pose significant risk’

By Vanessa Allen
updated at 8:37 AM on 28th October 2009

Low risk: The Court of Appeal said Jason Owen was not likely to be a serious risk to the public in future

A paedophile jailed over the death of Baby Peter will walk free in less than two years after judges slashed his prison sentence yesterday.

Child protection campaigners accused judges of ‘spitting on Baby P’s grave’ after the Appeal Court ruled that Jason Owen was not dangerous enough to be locked up indefinitely.

A panel of judges admitted that Owen, 37, was ‘feckless and irresponsible’, that he posed some risk of offending again and that he could be a danger to the public after his release.

But they still cut his jail sentence for his role in Baby P’s horrific abuse and death to just six years because they did not believe he posed a ‘ significant’ risk.

This means he will serve only three years - and he will be out on licence in less than two years.

Right you are judges.  This is the fellow who doesn’t really look like he may pose a future threat to anyone. He isn’t twisted. No. Must be the rest of the law abiding population then.

HERE FOR THE REST

Every day you convince yourself there can’t be a more obscene story of our decline into a moral morass, aided and abetted by an incompetent executive, who no longer have the wit or the will to address the insanity, but of course in modern day Britain, such faith is always short-lived.

- Andy, Sussex, 28/10/2009 16:26

Posted by peiper     on 10/28/2009 at 11:20 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

GUY FINDS BURGLARS IN MOM’S HOUSE, KILLS ONE.  MURDER SAYS IDIOT PROSECUTOR. IDIOT COURT AGREES.

My first post for this Wednesday morning seems so mundane following Drew’s posting of the Melanie Phillips editorial yesterday. Hers is the story of the planned assassination of a culture.  The genocide if I may borrow the term, of an entire history of a country.

I guess my effort here this morning has far less impact except to the poor bastard being charged with murder, for the killing of a slime punk burglar he found in his mother’s house.  Actually, he found two but sadly only wounded the other rather stop his useless breathing.

The court says he used excessive force and his violence was “gratuitous.” How might the court know that exactly?  In the heat of the moment, under stress, can anyone say with certainty exactly and without fail, how they might act?  Whatever. 
I see nothing wrong at all and in fact find it laudatory to kill someone found in a place they shouldn’t be. Like YOUR OWN HOME or your mother’s home.
Way I see it, now there’s one less criminal marauder to commit future mayhem.  And that’s a good thing. 

Accused of murder, council official’s son who knifed two burglars raiding his mother’s home

By Andy Dolan
Last updated at 12:16 AM on 28th October 2009

A man who stabbed a burglar to death after catching him in the act was charged with murder yesterday.

Omari Roberts, 23, was remanded in custody. Roberts had found two teenage burglars in his mother’s house when he arrived to visit her.

After chasing one of the youths, aged 14, from the property, he returned to find 17-year-old Tyler Juett still there.

Tyler Juett, 17, died after he was allegedly stabbed by Omari Roberts

There was a struggle and Juett was fatally stabbed in the chest, Nottingham Magistrates Court was told.

The Crown Prosecution Service said the decision to charge Roberts months after the incident in March had been taken after ‘careful consideration’.

Its lawyers believed he had used ‘excessive and gratuitous force’.

The case echoes that of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who became a cause celebre when he was jailed for life for murder in 2000 after shooting dead a teenage intruder at his dilapidated Norfolk home.

His conviction was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and he was released in 2003.

Yesterday the court heard that Roberts’s mother Jacqueline McKenzie-Johnson, 46, a senior official at Nottingham City Council, was not at home when her son arrived on the afternoon of March 13.

Lee Shepherd, prosecuting, said Roberts first discovered the 14-year-old, who was also stabbed during a confrontation.

Roberts chased him down the street before returning to the semi-detached house in Old Basford, Nottingham, to be confronted by Juett.

Applying for bail for Roberts, who is also charged with wounding the younger raider with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, Raj Chand, defending, said: ‘This must have been a dreadful situation for any law-abiding member of the public.

‘Someone said to me earlier that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I said that he was in the right place at the right time. An Englishman’s home is his castle.

‘He says he was in the right. He regrets what happened, but he was defending himself and his property.’

District Judge John Stobart initially said he would take the ‘rare decision’ to grant bail because of Roberts’s flawless record of reporting to police.

But he agreed to remand him in custody at least until today after the prosecution said it wanted to appeal against the decision. Roberts, who did not enter any pleas, is scheduled to appear at Nottingham Crown Court on November 10.

His address was listed in court as his mother’s house, although it is understood he did not live there at the time of the incident.

Before the hearing, CPS lawyer Ian Cunningham said: ‘I have decided that when Omari Roberts disturbed two burglars and caused injuries to them - in one case fatally - his actions were not reasonable.

‘I have looked very carefully at the public interest in this case, and I am satisfied that it requires a prosecution.

‘I also discussed the case with the CPS principal legal adviser and have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.’

Mr Cunningham said legal guidelines made clear that anyone using ‘reasonable force’ to defend themselves would enjoy the full protection of the law.

He added: ‘The law also makes clear that people could be prosecuted if they act with excessive and gratuitous force.’

Nottinghamshire Police said the 14-year-old admitted burglary at youth court in May and was sentenced to two years’ detention.

SOURCE

This is the idiot scum sucking would be burglar filth that happily croaked.  One can only hope that his end was very painful. Types like this deserve no less.  As I looked at this totally revolting photo, I couldn’t help but think, anything that looks like this shouldn’t be allowed to breathe anyway. He’s gone for good.  Hip-hip hooray.  Well done and kudos for the prosecution victim. 

SCRATCH ONE GREMLIN ...

Posted by peiper     on 10/28/2009 at 03:12 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Jack Booted Thugs • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Oppression • Outrageous • OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - October 26, 2009

IF GIVEN THE CHANCE I’LL KILL AGAIN. IT’S FUN. GOOD BOY. WE’LL CUT YOUR JAIL TIME NOW.

Ha-freeken-ha.  Some joke except it isn’t.  This is another one of those articles that wasn’t on my radar till a minute ago.

Here come de idiot fuckin judge.

The judge said it was wrong not to give McNally the chance of being freed if, at some point in the future, his mental state stabilises to the extent that the authorities no longer consider him a danger to society.

Fine. Then when the bastard is released, I want him housed NOT with idiot judge. Oh no.  I’d like to see him housed with a member of the idiot judge’s family. With no restrictions. 
Never mind he has killed twice and says he enjoys it.  No way I’d trust shrinks who will I just know, one day make the claim that now he’s cured.
Folks like this fellow need to be rounded up and immediately put down for the sake of community safety.  These ppl (term used loosely) are never cured and I don’t care what shrinks say.  They are smart enough however to know how to play the system.  They know what authorities want to hear.

Here, read it yourself. Crazy. Just freeken crazy!  The system, not the criminal.  THE LAW IS AN ASS.

Jailed Satanist who murdered cellmate for kicks has life sentence cut to give him ‘light at the end of the tunnel’
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:59 PM on 26th October 2009

Psychopathic: Double murderer Clement McNally described killing his prison cellmate as ‘better than sex’
A psychopathic Satanist jailed for life without parole after he strangled his cellmate while serving a prison term for another murder, has had his sentence cut to 20 years ‘to give him light at the end of the tunnel’.

Clement McNally throttled father-of-one Anthony Hesketh with a T-shirt in September 2003 because he was Satan’s ‘hands and eyes’.
Hesketh, who was serving four months for driving while disqualified, was found dead on the floor of the cell he shared with McNally in Manchester’s Strangeways prison. 
McNally, 34, claimed to worship the devil and decorated his cell with satanic symbols.
He was also diagnosed as ‘psychopathic, narcissistic, paranoid and obsessive-compulsive’.

The killer was already serving a mandatory life term for stabbing a friend to death outside a party in July, 2002, when Hesketh was allocated to his cell.

He was given a life term, with a whole life tariff, for the second killing after pleading guilty to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility at Manchester Crown Court on July 12, 2004.
But now the minimum term has been slashed to 20 years by Lord Justice Hughes, sitting at London’s Criminal Appeal Court.
The judge said it was not right that McNally should be denied a light at the end of the tunnel and never have a chance of release.
McNally, who was prescribed anti-depressants and mood-stabilisers, had told a psychiatrist after being jailed for Mr Skelly’s murder that he had worshipped the devil for two years.

He also claimed prison chiefs allowed him to read books on the occult, some of which came from the prison library.
Nevertheless petty criminal, Mr Hesketh, of Worsley, Greater Manchester, was locked up with him and met his death.
Lord Justice Hughes, sitting with Mr Justice MacKay and Mr Justice Davis, said of Mr Hesketh’s killing: ‘McNally had no particular grievance against his victim - he simply suffered an urge to kill him.

‘He said it was exciting - better than sex. He said Satan told him to do things and it was his job to do as he was told.

‘He said he was not in the least bit sorry for what he had done, but had derived a great deal of pleasure from subsequently thinking about it.
‘He suffers from compulsive homicidal urges and poses an exceptional risk to other prisoners.
‘He made it perfectly clear that he would kill again if the opportunity arose and the urge to kill was of sufficient intensity.’

However the judge said it was wrong not to give McNally the chance of being freed if, at some point in the future, his mental state stabilises to the extent that the authorities no longer consider him a danger to society.
He told the court: ‘The life sentence was plainly correct as he was likely to represent a danger of the gravest kind, for a period which could not be determined.
‘However the imposition of a whole life tariff was a mistaken application of the process of sentencing.

‘The life sentence itself is designed to cater for a prisoner in whom it cannot be seen when, or if ever, they will cease to be a danger to the public.
‘The Parole Board will not release a prisoner under a life sentence until it is convinced that they no longer pose a danger to the public.
‘The minimum term should be set on the basis of the severity of what the offender has done and his level of culpability for it.
‘If this man never ceases to be a danger, he will never be released.
‘But what cannot be known is whether his condition will change in the future.
‘Accordingly, we set aside the order, declining to set a minimum term, and the question of his dangerousness now and in the future is reserved to the Parole Board.

‘His culpability was plainly reduced because he was in the mentally abnormal condition that he was, but the circumstances and gravity of the acts were considerable.
‘It was a second homicide within about 15 months. It was a pointless killing, generated simply to satisfy an internal impulse.
‘The appropriate course now is to set a minimum term which takes account of both the murder and manslaughter offences. We arrive at a minimum term of 20 years.

‘However, the plainest evidence of the absence of a risk would be needed before any consideration could be given to his release.
‘It may very well be that there is never sufficient evidence of an absence of danger, but those decisions lie in the future and, to that extent, this appeal is allowed,’ the judge concluded.
An inquest into Mr Hesketh’s killing heard that McNally turned his back on the Devil 18 months after the murder, but denied fabricating his Satanism.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 10/26/2009 at 10:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Insanity • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - October 25, 2009

DUMB JUST GOT EVEN DUMBER …. sighs, there’s no hope.

Been reading the Sunday papers all day, it a bit past 4pm and I haven’t even got to the magazines yet for the book reviews.
So anyway here I am reading all this stuff and while there’s quite a bit and some of it interesting mostly to Brits, I stumbled upon this bit of nonsense.

I’ve pointed to stories like this in the past where the PC Commissars for language and its new use make these stupid changes.  Sure they’re off the rails and we get a laugh out of some of it. But good grief why oh why can’t these folks see exactly how dumb what they want appears?  I guess if they were smarter they’d see it.  However, sadly for them they just have to be left wing libtards cos who else would dream this hash up.

“confusion among those from different cultural backgrounds”
Maybe if they tried to integrate as our grandparents did, they’d get themselves un-confused.  And I bet they aren’t confused at all. Only the silly mostly white lefties who are confused and offended on behalf of other people who didn’t realize until told, that they were offended and confused.
Bah!

Here, take a look at this.

Police have been urged to avoid using greetings such as “evening” and “afternoon”, because the words are “somewhat subjective” and could cause confusion among those from different cultural backgrounds.
By Jasper Copping
The official guidance means the salutation “evenin’ all”, which marked the start of each episode of Dixon of Dock Green, (a tv show) could be under threat.

The instructions form part of lengthy guidelines issued by police forces and fire services across the UK on what language their staff should use. Critics have accused the guides of “lacking common sense”.

Other words now discouraged include, “businessman", “housewives” and “child”, which the organisations argue have negative connotations and could cause offence.

Confusingly, staff are also barred from using the word “homosexual", for which they are instructed to use the term “gay”, while they are warned against using the phrase “straight”, and told to say “heterosexual”.

The instructions have emerged in response to a Freedom of Information request to police forces and fire services about the guidance they give their staff on their use of language. One force urging caution over the use of “evening”, is Warwickshire Police.

Under a section entitled “Communication, Some Do’s & Don’ts”, in its “Policing Our Communities” handbook, it gives advice to officers on communicating with people from different ethnic groups. It states: “Don’t assume those words for the time of day, such as afternoon or evening have the same meaning.”

A spokesman added: “Terms such as ‘afternoon’ and ‘evening’ are somewhat subjective in meaning and can vary according to a person’s culture or nationality. In many cultures the term evening is linked to time of day when people have their main meal of the day.

“In some countries including the UK, the evening meal time is traditionally thought of as being around 5-7pm but this might be different say for a family say from America who might have their main meal earlier and thus for them ‘evening ‘ may be an earlier time.

“The point is there is an element of subjectivity leading to a variation between cultures that we need to be aware of – taking steps as far as possible to ensure our communication is effective in serving the public.”

A number of organisations, among them Essex Police and Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, now instruct staff to avoid the phrases “child, youth or youngster”.

The 52-page guide used by both organisations states that such phrases could have “connotations of inexperience, impetuosity, and unreliability or even dishonesty”. It also states that addressing someone as “boy” or “girl” “may cause offence”. Instead, officers and firemen are instructed to use the phrase “young people”.

The same guide also warns against the phrases “manning the phones”, “layman’s terms” and “the tax man”, for “making women invisible”.

The Metropolitan Police warns its staff about “common errors” to watch out for in their language. It says “homosexual” should be avoided and “gay” used, but that “straight” should not be used and “heterosexual” should. “Homosexual” should only be used in connection with legislation, according to the force.

London Fire Brigade instructs its staff not to use the terms “businessmen” or “housewives”, because it says they “reinforce outdated stereotypes”.

For the same reason, it tells workers not to call themselves “firemen” – they are “firefighters”. Other organizations have discouraged using the terms “postmen” and “binmen”.

Marie Clair, spokeswoman for the Plain English Campaign, said: “I have never heard of anyone being confused as to what part of the day it is. When the police need absolute accuracy over when something happened, then I am sure they use the exact time. There comes a point when common sense must prevail.”

She also criticised the decision to avoid phrases like “child” and “youth”. “Do you call a two-year-old a young person? Surely we can get greater accuracy in the language we already use, which is non-offensive,” she added.

There comes a point when common sense must prevail.”

Not in this country. Not anymore.  And if you think this is pretty stupid and I’m sure you do unless you belong to Labour, I’m digging for something just as stupid if not more so of a recent Health and Safety rule.  The folks who do these things simply do not have enough real, honest work to do.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 10/25/2009 at 11:05 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

A barber’s shop pole has been seized as a health and safety risk. Moonbats on the march!

No surprise in a country where (least where I live) a barber can’t use traditional razors due to, elf ‘n’ safety.  Fact is, I haven’t even seen a safety razor in use here.  So this doesn’t come as any surprise.

No problems after 19 years but the council figures there will be a problem.  Tell ya what. After this I believe there could be. If they relent and allow the barber in this story to re-install his pole, how long might it be before someone suddenly had, oops. An accident. And sued. Naturally.

HEALTH and SAFETY’S CHOP FOR THE BARBER’S POLE DEEMED ‘UNSTABLE.’
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 1:16 AM on 25th October 2009

A barber’s shop pole has been seized as a health and safety risk – even though no one has ever complained about it.

Wigan council officers said it was their duty to remove the freestanding red-and-white sign in case pedestrians tripped over it.

But shop owner Rob Grice, 38, said the move was unjustified.

‘Nobody has tripped over the pole in the 19 years I’ve owned the shop,’ he said.

‘There are bins and lampposts along the street but they are not considered safety hazards.

‘The pole let our customers know when we were open and now it has been taken away. Health Secretary Andy Burnham is our MP and he’s always banging on about promoting local businesses. But how can you do that if your customers can’t see if you’re open?’

One regular said: ‘Has the council nothing better to do? Everyone thinks this is ridiculous. The pole doesn’t pose any danger.’

Last night town hall chiefs defended their decision to remove the pole: ‘We work closely with access groups and it is our duty to look after the interests of people in wheelchairs and with white sticks,’ said a spokesman.

‘Objects like these are not as stable as fixed street signs and we are being encouraged by Government to be much more proactive over things like this.

‘The sign was noticed by inspectors. The shop is in a narrow street. It was an accident waiting to happen. The proprietor was issued with a warning but he failed to respond so we were obliged to take it off him. He is entitled to have it back if he pays the council £100.’

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 10/25/2009 at 03:09 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - October 23, 2009

Animal abuser—Baby abuser—Baby rapist. Threatens to sue to keep “his good name.” AND WINS!

We all know the job of a defense lawyer is to make the indefensible , defensible.  But this carries things to new extremes unheard of before. Or maybe not.  Nothing in todays culture carries any surprise anymore.  Especially where lawyers get involved.

For the first time I find myself on the same side as PETA and for that to happen folks takes one hell of an event.

Some weeks ago or maybe months, I related a story to you about some scum including the mother of a baby abused and finally killed, after months of torture.  The little kid was only 17 months old.  17 months old.  OK I won’t repeat all the things they did to the kid here.  It’s been known as the Baby P case should you want more information.

So just where does PETA come into this?

Well, PETA produced a poster with one of the baby abusers photos. And oh by the way, this absolute rotten excuse for a human had also raped a two year old girl. Keep this all in mind.

Here is the PETA poster.

Well BMEWS, this filthy bastard has through lawyers (proving why some really need to be graveyard dead by any and all means) that his “good name” was being ruined by PETA.  And they had to cave in!  He’s a baby raper and a damn killer and a child abuser BUT .... he still has a “good name.”
Yeah. I suppose in todays world he does. At least among the lawyers who would take and fight this case on his behalf. 

Baby P thug: Poster is ruining my good name
By Vanessa Allen

A sadistic thug who tortured Baby P has threatened to sue a charity for damaging his reputation, it was revealed yesterday.
Steven Barker was labelled a murderer by an animal rights group which used his police mugshot in a billboard campaign.

Now Barker, who was cleared of murder but convicted of ‘causing or allowing’ the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly, has astonishingly decided that his ‘good name’ has been threatened by the posters.

It believes there is a link between cruelty to animals and violence towards humans.
Moors murderer Ian Brady killed cats and dogs as a child, serial killer Fred West mutilated and killed rabbits, and Soham killer Ian Huntley strangled a puppy and strapped fireworks to animals.

Spokesman Poorva Joshipura said: ‘Whatever the courts call Barker, the fact remains that violence towards animals is evil and if unchallenged it may be a warning that the perpetrator won’t stop there.

‘Abusers are generally cowards who seek out the most vulnerable victims, including children, animals and elderly people.’ Replacing the billboard cost £1,000 but PETA could have faced a much higher bill if Barker had sued successfully.

Baby Peter suffered more than 50 injuries during months of abuse by his mother, Barker and his brother Jason Owen.

The judge at the Old Bailey said neo-Nazi Barker played a ‘major role’ in the toddler’s death in August 2007. Owen was also found guilty of causing or allowing the death of a child, while Baby Peter’s mother admitted the same charge.

SOURCE

I’m really surprised PETA caved in but I also know they have lawyers too.  They were probably told they couldn’t win this.
What a miserable sad day for truth and right.  What a condemnation of where we’ve come.  What a shit world!

Posted by peiper     on 10/23/2009 at 09:16 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - October 21, 2009

HUMPTY DUMPTY SAT ON A WALL, ALONG CAME A SPIDER AND SAID LETS BE FRIENDS.

Right. Screwy headling. Screwy article too but hey, this is the UK 2009.  This silly stuff has become the norm.

I’m having problems shaking whatever the heck it was I had a week ago. Off line yesterday and now find I’m backed up.
I think my stomach ache isn’t the result of aspirin.  It’s the result of consuming too many newspapers and listening to radio news. But mostly papers.

OK so, Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall but all is okay and no trauma to the kiddies cos the BBC has changed the ending.
OH .. And little Miss Muffet is no longer frightened by that bad ol spider.
They have become friends in the true spirit of diversity and multi-culture.

Outrage as BBC changes ending of Humpty Dumpty

Mon, 19 Oct 2009

Accident-prone nursery rhyme character Humpty Dumpty has been given a happier ending thanks to some controversial tweaking of his story by the BBC.
Britain’s public broadcaster changed the words to the 1810 rhyme for one of its children’s shows so all those who originally couldn’t “put Humpty together again” after his great fall could now make “Humpty happy again”.

The change, broadcast on the CBeebies programme Something Special last Friday, outraged Labour MP for Glasgow South Tom Harris who watched the show with his two young sons.

Harris told The Independent on Sunday it was “pathetic” that the BBC had rewritten one of the most famous nursery rhymes so children would not be upset at Humpty’s fate.
“For goodness sake. Obviously children will find it far too violent, distressing and horrific that Humpty should not be put together again,” he told the newspaper.

A BBC spokesman said the changes were made for creative reasons.
“We play nursery rhymes with their original lyrics all the time and the small change to Humpty Dumpty was done for no other reason than being creative and entertaining,” he said.

It is not the first time the BBC has tweaked a popular nursery rhyme to ensure a more sanitised ending.
A recent CBeebies cookery show changed Little Miss Muffet so the little girl no longer runs away from the spider but instead becomes friends with the eight-legged creature.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 10/21/2009 at 08:41 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Nanny State • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner