Translate

Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Are the BBC, CPS and the police still encouraging women to report rape?

Police fail to record one in five of all crimes reported to them, says report

Among the sample, 37 rape allegations were not recorded as a crime

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30081682




at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 28 August 2014

Why is no journalist asking what Shaun Wright meant when he asked "Why are you picking on Rotherham?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11060608/Why-are-you-picking-on-Rotherham-pleaded-Shaun-Wright.html

Are all UK journalists also involved in a cover up?

 http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/rotherham-scandal-pcc-shaun-wright-prevented-public-from-criticising-police/#comment-56609

I actually sympathise with the police who are even now accused of being institutionally racist. Were they supposed to investigate all cases of alleged under-aged sex or just cases of alleged under-aged sex taking place between white females and Asian males? If so, this policy would be rightly flagged as sexist and racist, and I can see exactly why the cops preferred to expend their energy and resources doing something else and not “go there”.

We already know that coppers prefer not to waste their time investigating complaints made by complainants who blow hot and cold, such as in domestic violence cases, don't we?

Understandably, they tend not to take seriously complainants who are known to make a complaint and then subsequently withdraw it and go back to the alleged abuser to resume a physical relationship with him and turning it into a pattern of behaviour.

Understandably, they will regard all these cases of under-aged schoolgirls from certain backgrounds making these complaints as not to be taken seriously.

Even "Emma" admitted that she subsequently went back to her abusers and resumed having sex with them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28948660

What the fuck were the police supposed to do?

Even  if everyone in the police and the local council resigned, the real culprits will still not be apprehended.

Who are the real culprits then?

They are social attitudes - the liberal social attitudes which condone extramarital sex.

Once you condone extramarital sex, you will find yourself condoning under-aged sex. The slippery slope argument has been proven yet again.

How many of you in practice condone under-aged sex?

If you found your under-aged daughter to be sexually active what would you do - put her on on the pill?

That is condoning under-aged sex, isn't it?

We know what happened to the daughter of a British mother who did precisely that.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/more-on-slags-and-slappers.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/why-slags-and-slappers-are-bad-for.html

Oh, and Tracey Emin's mum put her on the pill too when she discovered that Emin was having under-aged sex.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10627613/I-have-never-actually-loved-properly-before-says-artist-Tracey-Emin.html

So, what are we asking the police to do?

Not bother if the under-aged female is having sex with a under-aged boy of her age?

Not bother if the under-aged female is having sex with an under-aged boy of her age and race?



What age does the male having sex with the under-aged girl have to be for the police start taking an interest?

Why have an age of consent if in practice people ignore it anyway and get away with it?

Were

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fraser,_Baron_Fraser_of_Tullybelton
Lord Scarman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Scarman
Lord Bridge of Harwich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Bridge
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Brandon
Lord Templeman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Templeman

also guilty of condoning under-aged sex?

If it quacks like duck, walks like a duck, is it a duck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

"the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor."

What is the definition of the best interests of a minor? When a knocked-up schoolgirl wants an abortion, of course.

What if the knocked-up schoolgirl doesn't want an abortion but its parents do? The knocked-up schoolgirl gets to have it in defiance of her parents' wishes, of course, who may then kick her out out of the family home, but then the state will give her council accommodation.  

Are the police aware of the concept of Gillick competence?

Should the police be made aware of the concept of Gillick competence?

Should the police be expected to apply the rule of Gillick competence?

What is this principle exactly that establishes that an under-aged girl already having under-aged sex is legally competent to obtain contraception and abortions without telling her parents? It is the Gillick principle. Poor Mrs Gillick whose crowning humiliation was to have this principle named after her by liberal judges ...

When a fish rots, it rots from the head down, does it not?

Have you had under-aged sex?

Do you have friends who have had under-aged sex?

Have you or any of your friends ever made jokes about children having under-aged sex?

Do you think an adult woman in authority such as a teacher seducing an under-aged boy is funny?

Do you as a man wish you had enjoyed the experience of under-aged sex?

Then you would condone under-aged sex in general, wouldn't you?

In this kind of environment, do you think sex predators of any race and religion would make the most of the easy pickings available, with so much low-hanging fruit, so to speak?

Do you think this is a Muslim problem or a social attitudes problem?

Do you think unfit mothers who don't care what their daughters get up and/or who have abandoned them to care homes have no responsibility at all for this state of affairs?

Do you find it easier and more convenient to blame Muslims and Islam for this rather than blame the lax social  attitudes of non-Muslim Britons towards extramarital sex that has resulted in this state of affairs?

Are you an Islamophobe who relishes the the idea of blaming Muslims and Islam for a state of affairs that your own culture and morality is really responsible for?

Have you always hated Muslims anyway?

Finally, again, can you answer the question of what you think Shaun Wright meant when he asked "Why are you picking on Rotheram?"



Why sacking everyone in Rotheram local government will do NO GOOD AT ALL

Sex between 13-year-olds is NORMAL, says controversial 'traffic light tool' sent to schools to teach about relationships
at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 13 May 2014

WOGS or Niggers? Will this scene from Fawlty Towers be censored soon?







WOG is the acronym for Wily Oriental Gentleman, and not short for gollywog, apparently.

Apparently, the Orient consists of the Near East, the Middle East and the Far East, and Far East India is part of The Orient.

Therefore, according the codes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_codes niggers are IC3 and WOGS are IC4, 5 and 6.

Sorted.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/IC3s-and-IC5s-for-Jeremy-Clarkson-and-Free-Speech/1430217037233292
Anyone else mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs who wants to stand up for free speech is urged to like this page.

Free speech for ALL the human race

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 7 March 2014

Why shouldn't the police have spied on the Lawrences if at the time they thought they were up to no good?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26478149#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

My interest was piqued when I heard the Today Programme just after 6 am headlining this story as "Neville Lawrence expresses doubts on new Lawrence enquiry."

Knowing that he had separated from his ex-wife who is now Lady Lawrence, I had taken this to mean that he was saying that he had enough of his ex-wife making a career out of parading her victimhood.

Indeed, I had fondly thought that the reason why their marriage broke up was because he couldn't stand his wife's incessant parading of her victimhood any more.

I had thought it was his masculine pride that balked at yet calling for yet another Lawrence Enquiry and making even more of a fuss, when he realised almost everyone else in this country who was not a liberal and not black was sick of the sound of his son's name.

It turns out that he was really saying, and I paraphrase: "I don't see the point of yet another enquiry because I don't trust the police after what they did to us."

More parading of victimhood then.

It is not in the National Interest to further tarnish the reputation of the police whom I like to imagine try to do a good job while being tied down with red tape and silly impractical rules that hamper their investigations. The toxic dish that will emerge from this business will nourish no one but lawyers like Imran Khan https://audioboo.fm/boos/1973722-undercover-policing-a-powerful-law-enforcement-tool while bringing into disrepute further the reputations of members of the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary.

In any case, I really don't see why the police shouldn't investigate their accusers.  If someone was accusing you of something terrible, and stood to gain by making their accusations stick, shouldn't you investigate their claims, motives and backgrounds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence#Other_public_complaints_and_investigations

On 10 March 2006, the Metropolitan Police Service announced that it would pay Duwayne Brooks £100,000 as compensation for the manner in which police had handled his complaints about their actions toward him after the murder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-116678/Police-admit-defeat-Stephen-Lawrence-case.html

the Met paid Doreen and Neville Lawrence £320,000 compensation for bungling their son's murder investigation.

Money was made from the death of Stephen Lawrence by certain complainants against the police, was it not?

Perhaps it should be pointed out that the money paid to these complainants did not come out of police pensions but directly from the taxpayer.

As a result of the police being accused, we now have this concept of "institutional racism" with the result that the police now have to treat non-white criminals with kids' gloves causing an enormous amount of racial resentment on the part of the white working class indigenous British.

I am sure there were plenty of murder enquiries of white victims who were completely bungled by the police.

The BNP could perhaps be looking into this sort of thing, but I already know no one listens to them because they are a bunch of lower class racist sluts and bastards whose membership is so overwhelmingly slut and bastard that their leader Nick Griffin fears to explicitly support marriage for fear of losing the support of his overwhelmingly slut and bastard lower class membership.  He also fears to antagonise the matriarchy by denouncing feminism. The members of the matriarchy he also fears would be  his wife and daughters.

How can you tell if someone is afraid of denouncing feminism?  When he still calls it Cultural Marxism and refuses to call a spade a spade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA4YHuZvaWc

I paraphrase Nick Griffin: "Abortion is killing our people.  Our young men have no pride.  Consumerism the opium of the people. Not enough white young men.  One more generation and it will be too late and we will be completely outnumbered by coloured [Muslim] immigrants."  Still Nick Griffin won't say the F word and how feminism causes immigration.  How contemptible is that?

When men no longer respect marriage and cannot bring themselves to explicitly support marriage, they are in fact inviting irrational, capricious, sentimental and venal women to rule over them and trash the civilisation created by their ancestors.

Women think, behave and act differently.  The very fact that their bodies are different and that they are the ones left holding the baby in any extramarital sexual encounter dictates that they will vote in an amoral and tribal way as regards sexual morality ie Venal women will want to lower standards of sexual morality. This is very eloquently demonstrated in the objective fact that 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs voted for it.  Only 22% of the MPs voting on gay marriage were female.  This means women hold a disproportionate amount of power.  No one will discuss this either.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html

Most women are feminists. Since men have no power over women but still want to have sex with them, they will say things to please them in order to gain sexual access, and this means adopting their moral values and their low standards of sexual morality. Indiscriminate universal suffrage is clearly a grave and continuing error, but no one will discuss this either.

Are there objective ways of identifying the feminist?

Yes, anyone who refuses to repeal the Equality Act 2010 and refuses to abolish  no-fault divorce is a feminist.

Sadly, this includes the leader of UKIP and probably the leader of the BNP too.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/ukip-disciplines-mep-candidate-for.html

Nationalists who have left the party and who hate Nick Griffin cannot bring themselves to support marriage either.  Ex-BNP organiser Kevin Scott told me that no householder is Newcastle cares about marriage, which does not surprise me at all, knowing that Newcastle is the City of the Fat Slags.  Ex-BNP National Organiser Eddy Butler told me that while he "supported marriage" I was on a hobby horse that would be found irrelevant to most nationalists and voters. I also already know this, for any country whose state ideology is PC Liberalism in fact worships the deity that is Sexual Liberation, which means in practice the condoning of extramarital sex, which is of course the antithesis of marriage. In fact, if you really want to respect marriage, you would logically have to forbid extramarital sex, and homo sex is undeniably a species of extramarital sex, like bestiality, necrophilia and incest. This is the reality of respecting marriage, which PC Liberal British politicians deny, ignore and refuse to discuss. Even Anjem Choudary the Radical Islamist dares not quite say this to the Infidel British to explain their present degradation, but I do at
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html

As Powell would say, it is like watching the nation busily heaping up its own funeral pyre ...

at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 7 April 2012

The fundamental error of the McPherson definition of "Institutional Racism"

Sir William Macpherson used the term as a description of "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people."


I remember my days as a law student, when I was told by my  lecturer that you cannot injunct against someone being negligent or legally require them to be competent and mindful if they are not and do not have the capacity to do so.   You can however sue them for being negligent only after damage has been caused and causation established.  

In other words, you can only forbid someone from doing something specific and intentionally.

I can even remember my law lecturer saying that.  

Is it practicable to stop people from being rude to one another in a free and rational country?

Is it practicable or rational to force the police to be polite to suspected criminals on pain of losing their jobs?

Why are we privileging black suspected criminals over white suspected criminals?

Because the demented matriarchy says so, and its running dogs are too afraid to say anything else.  

The Death of Reason in "Liberal" England is nearly complete.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

No comment from the complacent BNP on anti-racist hysteria crippling the operational efficiency of British police


Youths of all ages of all races in all nations know what the cops can be like when they collar you for one reason or another.

Let's face it young men are just not that nice to each other, especially if you divide them into different tribes.   Young white criminal suspects are often treated rudely by white police, before the immigrants arrived.

In Britain suspected criminals who are black will be treated more politely by white British police.

White suspected criminals can continue to be treated rudely by the police without fear of them playing the race card.

This is the liberal idea of improving race relations, which no one, but no one, but no one is prepared to question, not even the complacent BNP whose Chairman has not seen fit to comment on the ever shriller siren screams of anti-racist hysteria.   Not even a tweet from him.   More than his job's worth, I suppose.   

Interestingly, I have been told yesterday that I would not be welcome at the BNP London Mayoral Candidate's Manifesto Launch in North East London on Monday 9 April as a reporter.

Press and Media please ring Stephen Squire for details on: 07771 598 227
Members and supporters wanting to attend please ring Paul on: 07985 147 324


Do they doubt my ability to report impartially on the proceedings then?   

I actually tweeted approvingly of Carlos' performance on LBC the other day compared to the very dull Lawrence Webb.   

To be read in reverse order:

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
Well done, Carlos! @londonorganiser

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
Gives me such a warm glow to hear the BNP and UKIP London mayoral candidates agreeing with each other! @lbc973

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
"The Mayor of London has to revalue manual work," says Carlos. Excellent stuff!

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
"Why should anyone pay for parking outside his own home?" asks Carlos. Attaboy! Lawrence can be rather long-winded.

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
Carlos agrees with Lawrence about LEZ, and is much less boring. Good move, Carlos! @lbc973

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
LEZzzzzzzzzzzzz @lbc973 @Siobhan4Mayor

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
"Charity begins at home," says Carlos, mastering the art of the soundbite, while Lawrence waffles on about regulations.

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
I must say I think Carlos is coming off quite well compared to Lawrence Webb who is a rather dull chap.

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
Carlos says Olympic tickets printed in the US and merchandise made in China.

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
Carlos says "I can't make promises I cannot deliver."

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
UKIP candidate says BNP candidate naive to ignore immigration!

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
BNP has to be more inclusive, Carlos says. @lbc973

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
Carlos says he will represent people who are entitled to be in the UK irrespective of race.

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
BNP won't be campaigning on immigration, Carlos says.

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
Slight confusion on UKIP name with Lawrence Webb. @lbc973

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
It will be fun for me to imagine myself in the shoes of Carlos Cortiglia since I was once prospective BNP London Mayoral candidate.

3 Apr Claire Khaw ‏ @1party4all
UKIP and BNP London Mayoral candidates on @lbc973 http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-live-3578


I do not need to attend the Manifesto Launch to tell you, dear reader, that everything the BNP does is a waste of your time and your money if they don't sort out their ideology and have a leader who cares about The Cause (by which I take to be the National Interest, rather than what lower class white people who cannot compete with foreigners in the field of unskilled manual labour would like to do non-white British citizens when they get into power).  Nick Griffin is clinging to leadership as a farmer would cling to his only milk-producing cow.   

Do not expect courageous decisions from this man, who has not seen fit to comment on Liam Stacey's 56 day imprisonment for blaspheming against a black footballer.   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121003/Liam-Stacey-jail-tweeting-abuse-Fabrice-Muamba.html  He calculates, correctly, that most BNP core supporters are too dim and too busy to notice.   The ones in the party who do are too frightened to criticise him because they do not want to be suspended or expelled.   

A member I know has been disabled from commenting from the BNP Facebook page for pointing out that Carlos Cortiglia, the BNP London Mayoral Candidate, committed an infelicity of expression when he talked about the BNP "setting London alight" and then went on immediately to discuss last year's riots.   

You would have thought that NOW is the time to build up a full steam of publicity on policies and principles for British nationalism, before the next General Election.  NOW is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party, but this is not in fact what Nick Griffin wants, if these men have any possibility of appearing to be better leaders than him.   

Nick Griffin does not think the core membership will understand or bother their pretty heads with principles and ideology.  Nick Griffin is only interested in the lowest common denominator.  Nick Griffin is not interested in infusing the party with talent that might threaten his leadership, even if it would help the cause of British Nationalism.

And that is why the BNP is a waste of time and money under its current leadership.   

at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 19 March 2012

Instead of fighting crime police censor Facebook and Twitter

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16191419


The police don't seem to realise that tweeting and reading offensive tweets has nothing to do with public order

For an offence to be a public order offence the offence has to be committed in a public place with people who can see and hear you in a context of public order.

Getting angry reading something offensive you read on your PC, laptop or phone in your home or place of work has NOTHING to do with public order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986  makes it quite clear that all the offences listed in the Act have to take the place in the context of a PUBLIC PLACE.

Imagine, if you will, a crowd all sitting in the park (a public place) with their laptops and phones reading the same offensive racist/sexist/disablist/homophobic tweet/blog/Facebook status update.  They all get very angry and want to commit horrible acts of violence against the person from whom the offensive comment originated.

BUT HE IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.

For the crime to be complete the person who caused the offence has to be PRESENT in the same public place too.

Otherwise, the person is only guilty of expressing an offensive opinion which in a supposedly free society he should be allowed to without being harassed by the police, who apparently have nothing better to do.

Are we a free society or not, PC Plod?   Or don't you care because you have to make a certain number of arrests and convictions in order to get your promotion?

Perhaps this question should be more appropriately addressed to Keir Starmer, the Labour-supporting and proud Director of Public Persecutions.  

I advise anyone whom the police persecutes for this "offence" to opt for Crown Court trial and get a decent lawyer.

I wonder if you can have a policeman convicted for wasting police time.   I know you can certainly get him convicted for malicious prosecution if he maliciously prosecutes you and the court does not convict you because it is so obviously trumped up, trivial and de minimis.  

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 8 December 2011

The inexorable logic of a one-party state

This is so that Church of England clergy and members of the Police Force are not prevented from joining a political party of their choice.  

No member of the BNP may become a member of the NUJ.

If they are, under the current rules they would be sacked or have their union membership terminated.

Just because you are not taken out and shot in front of your family does not mean you have freedom of speech.  Social ostracisation, loss of business opportunities and loss of employment are very compelling reasons restraining you from expressing a political view, and all political views are controversial, by their very nature.  

Just remember that in Britain we have no free speech, no freedom of belief and no freedom of contract.  

Just remember that the The Freedom Association - supposedly a libertarian organisation - does not even notice THOUGHTCRIME when it comes up to them and smacks them in the face.   If they do notice they  dare not defend liberties that our ancestors would have taken for granted because they too have been cowed by the establishment.

Just as long as you know, Dear Reader.   
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

​@WoodStoneAndSteel asks about the lolcows of the world

2:00   Incorrect diagnosis Chaste women 3:00  Political economy Abolishing no fault force 5:00  Socialising 6:00  Disposable relationships 7...