Tommy’s Latest Osman Warning

ALERT

English Defence League
April 6, 2012

http://englishdefenceleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ScreenHunter_07-Apr.-05-17.38.jpg

http://englishdefenceleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ScreenHunter_06-Apr.-05-17.37.jpg

You will see from the two images above, for his appearance on theBBC’s ‘Big Question’ programme, he has been rewarded by the Religion of Peace with another death threat.

For those outside of the UKand for those who don’t know what an Osman warning is, we shall briefly explain. An Osman warning is an official warning given by the police authorities to individuals and their families where they,

the police, have creditable evidence of a threat to the life and person involved. It dates back to 1986 when the Osman family were attacked, and the father killed by a man who had become infatuated with the son. The family won a case in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that the police had a duty of care to people in such situations irrespective if the victim is him/herself a criminal.

There remains one big question to be answered by the Bedfordshire police force. If you note on the second image, it quite clearly states that they know is making the threat. The question that needs to be answered is, why is this person not being arrested?If members of the EDL quietly enjoying a drink after the Remembrance Day ceremonies can be rounded up and questioned merely on the words of an anonymous twitter because the twitter suggested going to St. Paul’s and getting into a fight with the demonstrators there. Remember this is not known intelligence, it’s not definite, just a rumour and the police acted on it, why have they not acted on the information in the Osman warning? Is this not just another case of not upsetting the local Muslims and reinforcing community cohesion? Is this not another example of the two-tier system of policing and law enforcement we are coming to expect from the police and the Establishment?

It is time for the police and the Establishment to make up its mind either enforce the law as it should be applied, to all citizens of the United Kingdom without reference to colour, creed, ethnicity, religious belief or political beliefs. We need the law to be applied to all equally and fairly.

School discipline: Sparing the rod has spoilt the children

By Katharine Birbalsingh
06 Apr 2012

What can be done to reverse the collapse in discipline since the banning of the cane?

When I was in my second year of teaching, I asked a 15-year-old boy to leave the classroom as he was being disruptive and rude. He refused, and swore at me several times. I wrote down what he was saying – because as a teacher today, your word is never enough. He marched towards me, and stood there, towering above me, his fist raised. “Gimme the paper, bitch!” he shouted, trying to grab it from my hand.

I held on, knowing that if I let go, I’d lose the rest of the class for ever. After several attempts to scare the wits out of me – which, I have to say, nearly worked – he let go of the paper and left the room. His punishment? To sit outside the deputy head’s office for the next couple of lessons.

It comes as little surprise, then, that a report to the annual conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) has revealed that a quarter of the union’s members have been physically attacked in the past 12 months. Or that half of the teachers say that low-level disruption has got worse in the past two years. Or, as this newspaper reports today, that teachers are winning hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation for injuries received at their pupils’ hands.

Mary Bousted, the leader of the ATL, claims that part of the problem is that middle-class children aren’t given enough chores to do at home: the result is a generation of spoilt and precious “little Buddhas”. Clearly, families have an important role to play when it comes to instilling discipline. Bousted is right to point out that we have allowed children to take control, with parents running around trying to please them with a bigger television set, the latest iPad, or the most expensive birthday party. Gone are the days when parents were considered to have the authority, and when a teacher’s threat to tell Mum or Dad was enough to keep the child in line. On the contrary, it is rather more common to hear “I’m gonna tell my mum on you!” being shouted at the teacher.

The problem, however, is rather more complex than just children not doing the washing-up. Part of it is the rise in low-level disruption. The inordinate emphasis on group work and the general pressure on teachers to be “facilitators of learning” who roam among a bustling class, rather than teaching to it from the front, is part of the reason why general noise and inattentiveness is considered normal. In some places, it is simply expected.

With the boundaries shifted in this way, so that “good” behaviour is what we would have considered bad some 20 years ago, a naughty child has to go even further to stand out from the crowd and attract attention. This explains why rudeness and swearing at teachers are on the increase. In my experience, children think nothing of responding to teachers with a flippant, derisory “Yeah?”, and expect teachers to ignore it because they have been trained to do so.

Sadly, many younger teachers are made to feel inadequate when they complain about this. It is not unusual for their seniors to believe that if there is bad behaviour, it is the teacher’s fault for not having been engaging enough. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard children explain away their bad behaviour by saying that the lesson wasn’t interesting enough. The result is that history classes seize upon Titanic or Jack the Ripper because of the gore, English teachers make project work out of The Simpsons, and anything considered “too boring” is pushed aside.

So what’s the answer? Julian Perfect, a teacher from inner London, pointed out at the ATL conference that the decline largely dates from the cane and slipper being banned in 1987, since when no equivalent disciplinary measure has been introduced. That’s certainly true – I have known many children, in particular the naughty ones, who wonder why the cane was ever taken away. Many even wish it would return, so as to “help them behave”. Detentions are sometimes effective, but when children come from chaotic families, they can be actively grateful for them, since it allows them to stay away from home for longer. Exclusion is another option, but schools shy away, because of the harsh repercussions if they are seen to exclude too many children.

But while reintroducing the cane might be effective, it is also a bit of a red herring. In the old days, it was normally used only in extreme cases. What kept the vast majority of children in their chairs was not fear of corporal punishment, but a sense of right and wrong – of duty, pride and obedience, of not bringing shame on their parents’ heads.

Of course, there are schools today that maintain discipline, despite the challenges. They do so by offering a structured environment, imposing extremely high expectations and refusing to accept the excuse that discipline is the job of the family as a justification for bad behaviour on their premises. Many other schools would do well to learn from their example.

Marion Barry and the Left’s Hatred of Asian Entrepreneurs

by Michelle Malkin
Apr 6th, 2012

Marion Barry’s mouth set him up. The disgraced former mayor of Washington, D.C., who was caught on tape in a 1987 crack cocaine sting, made an even bigger disgrace of himself and his city on Tuesday. Celebrating a Democratic primary victory, the city councilman attacked small businesses owned by “Asians” in his district. Then the race-baiting clown doubled down.

Barry told supporters in D.C.’s Ward 8: “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.” Once pushed out, Barry promised, he would replace the foreign invaders with “African-American business people.” Barry then took to the social networking platform Twitter to expound on the perils of “dirty” Asian shops in his neighborhood.

As documented by my Twitter curation start-up Twitchy.com, Barry posted photos of supposedly hazardous stores — including Chinese restaurants surrounded not by trash or toxic waste, but by Plexiglas barriers and reinforced doors. Barry explained that Asian-owned businesses that had the audacity to protect themselves from crime were “lowering standards” in his constituents’ communities.

In Barry’s bizarre world, law-abiding entrepreneurs who take steps to prevent robberies are the ones who threaten Ward 8′s quality of life — not the armed thugs who threaten honest livelihoods in the first place. Vigilant wealth creators taking care of their families? Scourge of D.C. Profanity-spewing drug addicts inciting hatred against successful achievers of the American Dream? Model citizens!

Crazy Barry doesn’t just need another round of rehab. He needs a reality check.

As a commenter on DCist.com noted, 2010 Census data showed that “Asians made up 0.4 percent of the Ward 8 population (blacks made up 93.5 percent, a 1 percent increase from 2000). If anything, Asians are moving out, not in — the Asian population decreased 13.6 percent (from 301 people to 260 people) between 2000 and 2010. Meanwhile, the child poverty rate in Ward 8 sits at 48.3 percent, a 1.2 percent increase since 2000 — in contrast, the District’s overall child poverty rate decreased 3 percent since 2000. Now that’s what I call defying the odds.”

If Barry’s ignorant slurs had come out of the mouth of, say, former GOP Gov. George Allen of Virginia (pummeled for his “macaca” gaffe), there would be calls for his head from every civil rights organization in the Beltway. While the Washington Post reported that Barry “apologized,” he showed typical fake penitence for “offending” Asians and claimed he was “taken out of context.”

By “Asian,” he blubbered to a local TV reporter, he didn’t mean “Asian.” He really meant all “those persons (who) come into our community, whatever color they are; it happened to be Asian initially.” Put the prejudice pipe down, buddy.

Instead of showing true remorse, Barry dug in deeper with even more divisive, entitled and militant us vs. them propaganda: “We’re spending our money there, and we demand respect,” he told the Washington Post. “We demand they participate in community affairs. We demand they give jobs to Ward 8 people regardless of their cultural situation. That’s as American as apple pie.”

Spoken like a true racial racketeer.

But Barry’s not alone. His incendiary rhetoric echoes other liberal black leaders who have long made a sport of scapegoating Asian immigrant entrepreneurs across the country. Just this February, Jeffery Muhammad, the veteran Nation of Islam leader in Dallas, lashed out at Asian-American business owners for being “just the latest in a long line of people who have come to this country — like Jews, Italians, Indians and now Asians — who have sucked the blood of and exploited the black community.”

Just a fringe sentiment, you say?

Rapper Ice Cube, now a mainstream actor and comedian, penned “Black Korea” to demonize Korean store owners in South Central Los Angeles:

So they watch every damn move that I make.
They hope I don’t pull out a gat and try to rob
they funky little store, but b***h, I got a job.
… So don’t follow me, up and down your market,
or your little chop suey ass’ll be a target
of the nationwide boycott.

And Al Sharpton, now a prominent MSNBC host, was caught on tape stoking hatred against Chinese-owned chicken restaurants and Korean grocers:

“We’re the black chicken friers of the universe. We gonna go buy some Col. Sanders chicken. Then the Chinamen comin’ and (inaudible) … Koreans sell us watermelons. We eat watermelons all our lives. But they gonna come cut it up, put it in a bucket with a rubber band around it, and we gonna buy it like it’s somethin’ and we didn’t know what it was.”

Few dare to call out black racism against Asians. Those who do are met with nasty racial epithets, of course. Last year, when I called attention to flash mobs of black assailants in Denver, Wisconsin, Philadelphia and New York who were explicitly targeting Asian students and elderly Asian women for brutal assaults, my e-mail box filled with vitriol:

“(D)oes your family still live in poverty? Not anymore, since you married into the tribe ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME GI.”

“Shut up whore.”

President Obama, commander-in-chief of post-racial America, was unavailable for comment.

Arizona Passes Sweeping Internet Censorship Bill

Legislation to make it illegal to use “offensive” language online

Steve Watson
April 2, 2012

The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet and other means of electronic communication.

The law, which is being pushed under the guise of an anti-bullying campaign, would mean that anything communicated or published online that was deemed to be “offensive” by the state, including editorials, illustrations, and even satire could be criminally punished.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund breaks down Arizona House Bill 2549:

“The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.”

First Amendment activist group Media Coalition has written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, urging her not to sign the legislation into law.

The letter notes that the terms used in the bill are not defined in the statute or by reference, and thereby the law could be broadly applied to almost any statement.

“H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’” the letter notes. … ‘Lewd’ and ‘profane’ are not defined in the statute or by reference. ‘Lewd’ is generally understood to mean lusty or sexual in nature and ‘profane’ is generally defined as disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices.”

“H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.” the letter continues.

In this respect the law could even technically be applied to someone posting a status update on Facebook.

“Speech protected by the First Amendment is often intended to offend, annoy or scare but could be prosecuted under this law.”The Media Coalition letter continues.

“A Danish newspaper posted pictures of Muhammad that were intended to be offensive to make a point about religious tolerance. If a Muslim in Arizona considers the images profane and is offended, the paper could be prosecuted. Some Arizona residents may consider Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments about a Georgetown law student lewd. He could be prosecuted if he intended his comments to be offensive. Similarly, much general content available in the media uses racy or profane language and is intended to offend, annoy or even terrify.”

“Bill Maher’s stand up routines and Jon Stewart’s nightly comedy program, Ann Coulter’s books criticizing liberals and Christopher Hitchens’ expressions of his disdain for religion, Stephen King’s novels or the Halloween films all could be subject to this legislation. Even common taunting about sports between rival fans done online is frequently meant to offend or annoy, and is often done using salty and profane language.”

This type of legislation is far from unprecedented. Last year, former president Bill Clinton proposed a law to censor internet speech. “It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview that aired on CNBC. Clinton suggested the government should set-up an agency that monitors all media speech for supposed factual errors.

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

Cass Sunstein, head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also proposed banning speech on the internet that the government disagrees with. Sunstein proposed the creation of an internet “Fairness Doctrine” similar to the one that was used for years to limit and eliminate free speech on the radio.

This legislation represents yet another move to police and control freedom of expression via the internet. Once again it grants the state and the government the direct right to determine what is and is not “offensive” on a whim. It then allows for the prosecution of individuals and organisations based on such summations – an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

After putting the Left to sleep, the Brotherhood moves

by Andrew Bolt
1st April, 2012

How’s that Arab Spring working out?

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says it has decided to field the movement’s deputy leader and top strategist as its presidential candidate.

The move tops off its success in legislative elections with a bid for the country’s most powerful post…

The announcement reverses a pledge made by the group’s leaders not to contest presidential elections to reassure liberals and other countries fearful of an Islamic takeover.

You mean Western Lefitsts actually believed them?

Well, yes. Monash University lecturer Waleed Aly:

The question is how many votes the Brotherhood will chase – they’ve said they’re not going to put forward a presidential candidate, because they won’t back one, so they say they won’t run one. So what exactly are their ambitions going to be? Let’s assume they end up in a position where they have backed whoever the next President of Egypt is, whoever that is, and that he’s not a Brotherhood member himself. I’m assuming it’s a ‘he’, which I think is fairly safe. And let’s assume they end up in control of the Parliament, or a very significant role in the Parliament – what are they going to do with that? In the end only time will tell – and I can’t see them being terribly rash.

Ditto with Oxford academic and writer Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, who was special assistant to former US president Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs:

Islamists might want to stay away from the front lines. In Egypt, some Brotherhood leaders made it plain that they will regulate their share of the parliamentary vote, preferring to sit in the legislature without controlling it. They will not run for high-profile offices, such as the presidency. They will build coalitions. They will lead from behind. The Islamists are on a mission to reassure.
They might play down controversial religious aspects of their project...

[ed. It now turns out they have nominated a candidate to run for President of Egypt...Islamic Taqqiya at its best...]

Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws

[ed. Sadly this is not an April Fools joke it is just another day in our own Orwell novel...]

1 April 2012

Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws

Senior Conservative backbencher David Davis criticised the plans

The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.

Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.

The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it.

Tory MP David Davis called it "an unnecessary extension of the ability of the state to snoop on ordinary people".

Attempts by the last Labour government to take similar steps failed after huge opposition, including from the Tories.
'Unprecedented step'

A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant.

But it would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited.

In a statement, the Home Office said action was needed to "maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes".
Continue reading the main story

"It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public," a spokesman said.

"As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the government's approach to civil liberties."

But Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary David Davis said it would make it easier for the government "to eavesdrop on vast numbers of people".

"What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals, it's absolutely everybody's emails, phone calls, web access..." he told the BBC.

"All that's got to be recorded for two years and the government will be able to get at it with no by your leave from anybody."

He said that until now anyone wishing to monitor communications had been required to gain permission from a magistrate.

"You shouldn't go beyond that in a decent civilised society, but that's what's being proposed."

'Attack on privacy'

Nick Pickles, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, called the move "an unprecedented step that will see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance seen in China and Iran".

"This is an absolute attack on privacy online and it is far from clear this will actually improve public safety, while adding significant costs to internet businesses," he said.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, added: "This is more ambitious than anything that has been done before. It is a pretty drastic step in a democracy."

The Internet Service Providers Association said any change in the law must be "proportionate, respect freedom of expression and the privacy of users".

The Sunday Times quoted an industry official who warned it would be "expensive, intrusive [and] a nightmare to run legally".

Even if the move is announced in the Queen's Speech, any new law would still have to make it through Parliament, potentially in the face of opposition in both the Commons and the Lords.

The previous Labour government attempted to introduce a central, government-run database of everyone's phone calls and emails, but eventually dropped the bid after widespread anger.

The then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith did pursue efforts similar to those being revisited now, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats continued to voice their concerns.

The shadow home secretary at the time, Chris Grayling, said the government had "built a culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter terrorism and serious crime".

Chris Huhne, then the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said any legislation requiring communications providers to keep records of contact would need "strong safeguards on access", and "a careful balance" would have to be struck "between investigative powers and the right to privacy".

Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor

* Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism

by Paul Joseph Watson
March 30, 2012

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.”

“Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good. It’s not a new idea: trick-cyclists in Blighty and the US have lately called for a “science of communicating science” rather reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional “Psychohistory” discipline, able to predict and alter the behaviour of large populations,” reports the Register.

As Jurriaan Maessen documented yesterday, the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ confab at which Norgaard is appearing to push this insane drivel is nothing other than a strategy session for neo-eugenicists to hone their population control agenda.

A statement put out by the scientists behind the event calls for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet.

The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto.

“We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC.

The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over.

Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance.

Norgaard’s effort to equate climate skepticism with racism as a disorder that requires “treatment” also serves as a reminder of the story we covered earlier this month about the establishment’s efforts to push the pharmaceutical heart drug Propranolol as a “cure” for racist thoughts.