Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Policing

Woman invoiced $5,488.51 for her own sexual assault

Lets play cave explorer

A New Mexico woman has reached a $475,000 settlement with the Customs and Border Protection agency after she had claimed she was subjected to six hours of illegal cavity searches.

The ordeal began when a drug-sniffing dog allegedly “alerted” on the ACLU’s client as she attempted to return from Mexico to her home in the U.S. Agents subjected her to a strip search at the border station, examining her genitals and anus with a flashlight. No contraband was found.

The agents nevertheless transported Ms. Doe to University Medical Center, where over the course of six hours she suffered an observed bowel movement, an X-ray, a speculum exam of her vagina, a bimanual vaginal and rectal exam, and a CT scan. These procedures were conducted without Ms. Doe’s consent or a search warrant.

Having found no contraband, CBP agents offered Ms. Doe a choice to either sign a medical consent form or be billed for the cost of the searches. Ms. Doe refused to sign, and was later billed $5,488.51.

The ACLU and lawyers acting on behalf of Ms. Doe obtained a settlement of $475,000 without any admission of wrongdoing.

The Independent and for additional reporting Texas ACLU.

I’m not quite sure what was most egregious, the fact that a mistake by Fido can lead to a cavity search or that having completed said procedure and taking 6-hours to do so, yet finding nothing, they billed this woman $5,488.51 for the costs of the invasive sexual assault they inflicted upon her.

That US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) coughed up without any admission of wrongdoing strongly suggests that they are completely happy with the process itself, just didn’t expect to get caught. It also suggests that in the same scenario CPB would do exactly the same again, which is also pretty repugnant.

For any ladies prepared to stand up for her civil rights, the opportunity to further embarrass the CPB (if such a thing were possible) and potentially make $475,000, bacon flavoured deodorant is available here: <link>

Sowell: The War on Cops

Dr. Thomas Sowell’s review of Heather MacDonald’s latest book, The War on Cops, seems pertinent to our conversation on the situation with our police.

To anyone who isn’t familiar with Dr. Sowell’s work, he is an economist and political commentator, revered by conservatives and libertarians even if he is Chicago School and not Austrian, and is also, um, Negro. He has many videos on UT, including lots of interviews with Peter Robinson of Hoover’s “Uncommon Knowledge” series, with Brian Lamb of C-Span, even with William F. Buckley on “Firing Line” for PBS, back in the ’80s.

Some excerpts….

There was never a more appropriately named book than “The War on Cops” by Heather Mac Donald, published a few weeks ago, on the eve of the greatest escalation of that war by the ambush murders of five policemen in Dallas.

Nor is this war against the police confined to Dallas. It is occurring across the country. Who is to blame?

First, says Dr. Sowell, the race hustlers like Sharpton, the racist movements or institutions like “Black Lives Matter,” and the “genteel, upscale, and sophisticated race panderers,” including the present creature who “presides.”

Speaking of remarks by the latter, Dr. S. writes,

Are we fighting against racism today or do we just want to put it under new management?

And,

The mainstream media play a large, and largely irresponsible, role in the creation and maintenance of a poisonous racial atmosphere that has claimed the lives of policemen around the country.

He continues,

The media provide the publicity on which career race hustlers thrive. It is a symbiotic relationship, in which turmoil in the streets gives the media something exciting to attract viewers. In return, the media give those behind this turmoil millions of dollars’ worth of free publicity to spread their poison.

And now, he gives away the entire show. I do remember this, and I am delighted to see my memory confirmed for a change. My boldface:

The media have also actively promoted the anti-police propaganda by the way they present the news. This goes all the way back to the Rodney King riots of 1992. Television stations all across the country repeatedly played a selectively edited fraction of a videotape covering the encounter between the police and Rodney King, who had been stopped after a wild, high-speed chase.

The great majority of that video never saw the light of day on the TV networks that incessantly played the selectively edited fraction.

When the police were charged with excessive violence in overcoming Rodney King’s resistance to arrest, the jury saw the whole video — and refused to convict the policemen. That is when people who had seen only what the media showed them rioted after the jury verdict.

Mob rule is not democracy.

Those are the highlights of Part I of the piece, which continues in Part II. Part II includes, for instance, this short reminder of what the race-hustlers and -panderers were up to in the ’80s:

Consider one of the big talking points of politicians and others who claim that the harsher penalties for people selling crack cocaine than for people selling powder cocaine show racism, since crack cocaine is more likely to be used by blacks.

The cold fact, however, is that black political and community leaders, back in the 1980s, spearheaded the drive for more severe legal penalties against those who sold crack cocaine. Black Congressman Charlie Rangel of Harlem was just one of those black leaders who urged these more severe penalties.

It is all well worth reading.

Quote of the Day

The Dead of Dallas

One of many reasons I would never consider the open carry of a handgun here in Ohio – where it is perfectly legal to do so – is that I simply do not trust the police to respond appropriately to my doing so.

Dennis the Peasant – Tim Worstall’s place

(more…)

We are the pigs.

I recently watched the excellent BBC documentary on the Hillsborough disaster. I talked about it with my Dad because we watched the match live at the time (he’s a lifelong Liverpool fan). The bastardy of South Yorkshire Police was revealed in full detail. Now, I, as a kid, knew what was happening. My Dad did and John Motson (commentating) did. The evil bastards redacted officer statements. And the BBC showed the documents with all the crossings out. The Stasi* would have been proud.

Have you ever been in a crowd surge? I have. It was at a U2 gig in Roundhay Park, Leeds. Bono said it was the biggest gig they’d ever played. There is sort of natural amphitheater there and that’s where it was. Me and my brother traveled about 20m faster than Usain Bolt out of the blocks. It was scary. But it was well stewarded by private security. Nobody was hurt. Hillsborough wasn’t well stewarded. It was controlled by the Police who (at the top end) thought of the fans as “plebs” who didn’t matter. So they get West Midlands cops to look into it and they cover-up the cover-up but then the Brummie rozzers have previous. Birmingham Six anyone?

So during the discussion with my Dad the issue of Ben Needham came up. He mentioned the cops going out to Kos. Guess what happened? I said they just want a holiday at our expense. That was yesterday. This is from today.

I must be Mystically Megulent or something. You’d think after the recent stuff on Hillsborough South Yorkshire would be on their best. But do not misunderestimate the capacity of the rozzers to “confuse” the idea of law and being the law and indeed above it. Robert Peel must be rolling in his grave enough to power 11% of the National Grid.

So don’t trust the rozzers. They are family. They stick together. Now where have I heard that sentiment before?

Yup, a state-funded Mafia.

And why every Lestrade needs a Holmes (and Watson).

*Just before the red drapes closed on communism (and they had a lot of red curtains) the Stasi were so desperate to destroy the evidence they had to import shredders from West Germany. Nothing sums up moral bankruptcy more than that.

M8 Yer Polis R Nazis

A man has been arrested over a video posted online that shows a dog appearing to make a Nazi salute.

The 28-year-old, from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, faces hate crime charges over the video, Police Scotland said.

The clip, posted on YouTube, allegedly shows a pug sitting in front of a computer screen showing footage of Adolf Hitler.

The video, titled M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi, also includes a man, who says the pet belongs to his girlfriend, playing with the dog.

Officers said the video “caused offence and hurt to many people in our community”.

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: “A 28-year-old man was arrested on Thursday April 28 in relation to the alleged publication of offensive material online (improper use of electronic communications under the Communications Act 2003).

(Sky News)

I find one of my biggest problems in writing posts is coming up with a decent title. For this, I thought it wrote itself. However the thing that really angers me about this story isn’t just that it happened, or that the shiny new “Police Scotland” are getting a name for their illiberal crackdowns on free speech (which, in an I-told-you-so kind of way, is oddly gratifying). It’s that my country is getting a name, internationally, for its illiberal crackdowns on free speech. If my RSS feed was ordered differently, I’d first have heard about the Nazi pug on an Australian blog, our near-nicknamesakes, the Catallaxy Files.

And they nailed the title:

The only people who might be offended by this are actual Nazis

I keep saying it: if the Scottish Nationalists don’t like being called Nazis, then maybe they should start acting a bit less like, y’know… Nazis.

Since I’m here, a word on last week’s election. You’ll have heard that the Tories came second, with 31 seats: more than Labour and the Lib-Dems combined. If you’d predicted that ten years ago – when even the now all-conquering Nats only held 27 – you’d have ended up in the nuthouse. I’ve seen very little blogospheric reaction so far: I think everyone’s still in shock.

Now, granted, they’re not exactly “our” kind of Tories, being more of the dripping wet Cameron mould. They wouldn’t have done half as well if they had been. But their first order of business is to try to put a stop to the Named Persons scheme, so at least they’re aware that something is very rotten in the state of Holyrood, and perhaps this sort of nonsense will be next in their sights. We can but hope.

The bad news is that with the Nats dropping below the threshold for majority control, the Greens hold the balance of power. It could get (even more) ugly.

(One thig Wikipedia’s good at is election figures. Find ‘em here.)

Greater Manchester Police apologise for noticing

So Greater Manchester Police were carrying out this terror exercise yesterday

https://twitter.com/i/moments/729988461755826176

And some people now apparently feel safer. Why? This is all about the response to an attack and a possible follow up, rather than the attack itself.

Now if GMP had said “You know what, we need to arm our citizens, we trust the law-abiding to be able to carry Glocks and if they are properly trained they could personally respond to a Paris style attack, rather than being slaughtered like sheep as we know from recent events they will be. We recognise that the terror advice of ‘run, hide, tell’ is treating people like children and is wildly reckless”

But of course, they didn’t say that. Instead they found themselves apologising to our constantly offended friends in the Muslim community. Some people were simply baffled as to why GMP might think an attacker might shout “Allahu Akbar” before committing murder.

Well they could look at recent terrorist attacks in the UK and on the continent and see what religious group is statistically over-represented per capita? Or they could look at the German knife attack this very day and see if there is any suggestion the perpetrator shouted “Die in the name of Ganesh” They could look at which culture is murderously intolerant of others, which one fails to integrate to such an extent that even Trevor Phillips has noticed.

However, instead of looking at the glaringly obvious reasons why anyone might simulate an exercise like that, they can instead be assuaged by the words of ACC Gary Shewan. Mr Shewan thought it unacceptable and apologised for any offence caused, (sic).

When a weak, divided but tolerant culture is confronted by a strong, homogenous, wholly intolerant culture, is it reasonable to assume those two cultures can peacefully co-exist? When people get wholly offended at obvious assumptions, but aren’t visibly standing up for the laws and culture and standards of the host community is there a problem? When leftist fellow travellers conclude the only problem here is the police making assumptions aren’t we doomed as a culture?

We can either choose to recognise and call out existential threats to our way of life, or we can go meekly into the pages of history as a culture that refused to see what is now apparent, and defend itself accordingly.

Tricky Dicky is long dead, time his war died too

Is it time to end the war on drugs

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.

We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

John Ehrlichman, who served as domestic policy chief for President Richard Nixon when the administration declared its war on drugs in 1971 as reported in Harpers this month

Why particularly this should come out now about Ehrlichman, one of the more unlovable of the Watergate conspirators, some 17 years after his death is unclear, but certainly any movement towards ending this unproductive and unwinnable war is a step forward.

The only beneficiaries have been the drug cartels, the politicians and those agents of the governments such as the DEA, prison service and local and federal law enforcement agencies.

Indeed the increasing militarisation of police to deal with drugs on the streets of America has lead to a further alienation between the police and the communities they are meant to protect and to serve.

Enough already, time for it to end.

Beyond the Swedish Model

All Parliamentary Group on Prostitution

British men who use prostitutes while abroad on stag parties should be prosecuted in the UK under new laws that make paying for sex illegal, according to a report backed by a senior MP.

Sex tourists and businessmen who pay for prostitutes on expense accounts would also be criminalised under the proposals in the Sex Buyer Law report published today.

The report, commissioned for the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Prostitution by the campaigning group End Demand, says payment for sex in the UK should be made illegal and recommends Parliament “strongly considers” extending the offence to payments abroad.

Sex tourists who pay for prostitutes abroad ‘should face prosecution in UK’ (Independent)

So not only are we talking about the government proposing to turn the dynamics of the sex trade upside down and making what is already a grey area in UK law actually illegal (for the men so desperate for a shag that they have to lay out cold hard cash for it), but we are also going to criminalise that which other countries have already decriminalised and some of them (like Germany) only relatively recently.

How’s that going to work then? PC Plod & co. outside the whorehouses of Old Amsterdam then? No. Thought not. Just because the US Government thinks they can get away with extra-territoriality (one of the worst aspects of good old British colonial justice), the UK’s own Social Justice Warriors want a slice of the action.

Whilst this is allegedly meant to “help” your average streetwalker in that she can no longer get done by the police for soliciting (and therefore presumably no longer has to do “favours” for the boys in blue to turn a blind eye to her activities), what will not help her is if the “Johns” are too shit scared to approach her for fear of being arrested for what is already a somewhat fraught exchange at best.

As with drugs the current model of legalisation used in Holland and Germany strikes the right balance between allowing the ladies to go about their business in a non-threatening environment with tax being collected and their health being monitored.

The Swedish model does none of that, it simply persecutes the male (who are the primary purchasers of sex), without providing any other benefit in the name of “reducing demand” because of over-exaggerated claims of “sex trafficking”.

The authors of this report, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution should be all given “a short drop and a sudden stop” preferably with hempen ropes, because it is the only way to stop this sort of bansturbating nonsense.

Christ on an electrically charged moped give me strength.

Cybersecurity and the NSA

Panel discussion from last March, by members of the Federalist Society (that would be the Good Guys’ scholarly law society, as opposed to the American Constitution Society, constituted by the Bad Guys–a.k.a. “Progressives” and “Libruls”–in reaction to the evil awfulness of the Good Guys). Long, but worth it. Pros and Cons of the NSA’s warrantless data collection on Americans, including Constitutional, legal, and practical issues; and a little about the FISA Court.

In particular, Prof. Randy Barnett is his usual cogent and interesting self, and the third gent, Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, is an absolute hoot. The set of presentations is most interesting, and there are good points and food for thought.

Description and cast of characters below the video.

Description:

Published on Mar 25, 2014

The NSA acts pursuant to broad statutory authorities, and has interpreted those statutes to enable vast data collection programs. Two programs in particular, programmatic surveillance of the content of communications and bulk collection of metadata have become the subject of heated public and scholarly debate. Are these programs consistent with the NSA’s mission to gather foreign intelligence and to defend U.S. government information systems? Have the leaks about these programs jeopardized national security, or have they enhanced public accountability? Is there a better way to strike a balance between privacy and security?

The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014.

Panel 1: “CYBERSECURITY AND THE NSA”
–Mr. Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
–Prof. Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
–Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
–Moderator: Chief Justice Ricky Polston, Florida Supreme Court

University of Florida Levin College of Law
Gainesville, FL

A Word from Kropotkin

With hat-tip to Bryan Caplan*, of all people!

Parents and schools should be at great pains to see that the children learn this, take it to heart, learn to apply it productively. (I mean, you might know that the horses are leaving piles on the roadway, but the DIY method of taking care of the problem is not to kill all the horses.) It’s one of the main points which libertarianism, the Tea Party movement, and any other sensible political or philosophical group should stress.

In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is impassable, the peasant says, “There should be a law about parish roads.” If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of them, the insulted man says, “There should be a law to enjoin more politeness upon the park-keepers.” If there is stagnation in agriculture or commerce, the husbandman, cattle-breeder, or corn-speculator argues, “It is protective legislation which we require.” Down to the old clothesman there is not one who does not demand a law to protect his own little trade. If the employer lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in embryo explains, “We must have a law to put all that to rights.” In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human indolence and cowardice.

–Peter Kropotkin,
“Law and Authority”

*Bryan Douglas Caplan is an American economist, a professor of Economics at George Mason University, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and blogger for EconLog. Wikipedia

He contributes to econlog.org.

Libertarianism and Conservativism – foes or friends?

F.A. Hayek at the end of his “Constitution of Liberty” (1960) wrote “Why I am not a Conservative” – which is odd as Hayek had (perhaps without knowing it) a good grasp of what actually is a positive conception of conservatism, and a poor grasp of libertarianism.

Hayek rejected the word “libertarian” as “artificial” which is just as well as he was not a libertarian – philosophically or politically.

Philosophically Hayek was a determinist (like so many 19th century and early 20th century thinkers, he assumed that “science” mandated determinism). Hayek took David Hume literally (whether Hume should really be taken literally is a hotly contested issue), the “I” (the human person) is an illusion, as is human choice – a thought does NOT mean a thinker (a reasoning “I”) and as there is no agent (no human being – no reasoning “I”) there is no agency (no free will), actions are predetermined by a series of causes and effects that go back to the start of the universe – and humans (who are not beings) can do no other than we do (we could not have done otherwise – as choice is an illusion).

Politically Hayek claimed to an “Old Whig”, but is hard to see how his philosophical views are compatible with the Whig point of view – which was based on the MORAL value of human free will (it is not an accident that David Hume was not a Whig) . The determinist (such as the Thomas Hobbes) holds that “freedom” is just an absence of external restraint – for example when a dam fails the water is “free” to rush out and destroy towns and so on. “Freedom” (in the determinist view) is not a matter of moral choice (remember choice is an “illusion”) so “freedom” is like taking one’s hand off a clockwork mouse and letting this clockwork mouse go around on the floor. It is hard to see how this “freedom” can be of any moral importance at all – if any view of politics can be based upon it would be a politics of tyranny (exactly the politics that Hobbes did base upon it), after all walls of water from broken dams (and so on) does not sound very nice.

Still does Hayek say anything else about his politics? Yes he does – again in the “Constitution of Liberty” we are told that he supports the “limited state” not the “minimal state”, because (according to Hayek) the minimal state can not be defined and the limited state can be defined.

Hayek is just wrong – the minimal state is easy to define (although very hard to achieve or maintain – an anarchist would argue impossible to maintain or achieve). The definition of a minimal state is one that just uses force only against the violation of the non aggression principle (attacks on the bodies or goods of people or groups of people). It is actually the “limited state” that is hard to define. Limited to what?

Hayek does make some vague efforts to define the “limited state” – for example he says that such a state applies “general rules” that apply to everyone.

O.K. then – everyone is to have their head cut off. Is that a good example of a “limited state”?

Hayek also says that a limited state does not seek to have a monopoly of any service.

O.K. then – everyone but the children of Mr Smith of 25 Silver Street to go to a state school?

Unfair example? O.K. – how about the state hands education and healthcare “free” (at the expense of the taxpayers), but you are free to pay twice (i.e. pay again on top of taxation) to go private? Is this the limited state?

How about you can go to any doctor you like and send your children to any school you like, but the state pays the bill (no matter how big it is), is that the limited state?

Such a state (one that seeks to provide or pay for education, healthcare, old age provision and on and on) will end up spending half the entire economy (and still fail). That does not sound very limited or sustainable – and Hayek (in his attack on the Welfare State) shows he understands this. However, his “limited state” is not defined in a way that prevents it.

Oh dear this post seems to have turned into “why Hayek is crap” which is unfair as anyone (even the best of us) looks terrible if one just concentrates on errors and weaknesses. I will leave the above out if I ever give a talk on this subject (because it sounds terribly negative) – but it needed to be put on record.

So why is Hayek (perhaps without knowing it) insightful about Conservatism?

Hayek’s own definition of Conservatism (given in “Why I am Not a Conservative”) is not good. He just defines it as being opposed to change – so (for example) a North Korean conservative now would be a socialist (or that is the system they have) and a British conservative I (say) 1870 would be a free market person – as this was the system of the time.

Whatever Hayek may have believed that is not a serious definition of Conservatism. But Hayek (again perhaps without knowing it) does give a description of Conservatism – in “Constitution of Liberty”, “Law. Legislation and Liberty” (and other works).

Cosmos not Taxis – spontaneous order (evolved over time) not top down planning. What Hayek called the results of “human action not human design” (it would be have been better to say the results of voluntary action not forced action – but Hayek had philosophical problems with even voluntary design).

Or (in the language of the conservative writer M.J. Oakeshott) a Civil Association not Enterprise Association, a Societas not a Universitas.

Institutions and customs that evolve over time often without people knowing the reasons they are useful – till they are broken.

As Tolkien’s (Tolkien being a Catholic Conservative) character “Gandalf” puts it in the “Lord of the Rings” – “he who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom”.

This is what Conservatism is about – a preference for evolved custom and ways of doing things (ways of living) over imposed “rational” planning by the state.

The state (in the Conservative view) is like the Thrain of the Shire (Tolkien’s) and the Mayor.

The Thrain does nothing in peacetime (in war it is different) – he just farms his estate. And the Mayor is the leading figure at formal dinners (like those of the old Closed Corporations that were the only “urban local government” before the Act of 1835 in England and Wales), he does not order folk about. Families govern their own affairs and do not attack each other (police forces were not compulsory on the counties of England and Wales till 1856). There is plenty of (moral – traditional) authority, but little naked “power”.

I think it is obvious show this view of Conservatism is close to libertarianism (hence “Tory Anarchist”) – a friend not a foe. But is it tied to Hayek and his philosophical opinions?

No it is not – which is why I mentioned Oakeshott and Tolkien (two Conservatives with very different philosophical opinions to Hayek). Both Oakeshott and Tolkien believed in free will (agency – moral responsibility, the ability to choose to do otherwise).

Even in the 18th century Conservatives did not follow the philosophical opinions of David Hume (again IF they were his opinions – I repeat this is hotly contested). Neither the Tory Conservative Dr Johnson or the Old Whig Conservative Edmund Burke (a real Old Whig – unlike Hayek) accepted determinism and the denial of human personhood (moral choice – the ability to choose to do otherwise). Edmund Burke and Dr Johnson (the Whig and the Tory) both believed in free will (agency – moral responsibility, the ability to choose to do otherwise) and were moral universalists (not just Dr Johnson – but Edmund Burke also, for the T. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson view of his is totally wrong, to Burke it did not matter if something happened in the Middle Ages or right now, in India or America – right was right and wrong was wrong).

Is this the only view of Conservatism?

Of course not – there are other views of Conservatism. For example the statism of Disraeli (with his life long commitment to “social reform” – yuk).

However, that is hardly “doing nothing” (against those who do not themselves aggress against others). The Tauist Old King Log sitting in the shade – rather than Young King Stork “helping” his subjects by eating them.

Excuse me Officer…

“Could you tell me the time please?”

“Certainly Sir, it’s 11.38am precisely”

“Er… are you sure Officer… It’s pitch dark?

“Are you calling me a lying effing Pleb sir? You are so bleedin nicked!”

Remember, The Government is not your friend, and that goes double for its enforcement arm.

Posthumous Execution – A modern slant on an ancient tradition

“You asked a question two days ago that I will now answer for you. You are quite right, Mademoiselle. You cannot libel the dead.”Hercule Poirot in Death on the Nile

Since ancient times, it has been seen as a symbolic but rather futile gesture to seek final retribution upon your enemies by digging up their rotten corpse and undertaking the ritual steps of execution albeit with rather less effect than usual as the offending enemy has already escaped and is now thumbing his nose from the safety of the Halls of Mandos or your own particular incarnation of Mozart’s “Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis…” (“When the accused are confounded, and doomed to flames of woe…”) (more…)

Neighbourhood Watch RoP Style

The dhimmification of Birmingham’s police force is on track.

Two brothers in law who went on a sponsored walk wearing comedy mankinis had to be picked up by police – after they were pelted with stones and eggs by residents who told them ‘this is a Muslim area’ and demanded they leave.

Yes, you read that right.  Two people who were going about their lawful business were prevented from doing so after coming under a cowardly attack.  They committed the crime of wearing silly swimwear on an English city street and walking their dogs for charity.

WTveryF?

Shome mishtake shurely?

This is Britain!  Things like that don’t happen!

But they do, don’t they.

Be accused of “islamophobia” and you can all too quickly become acquainted with the inside of a police cell.  Display overt racism Anglophobia by throwing stones, other missiles and verbal abuse at filthy kuffar innocent members of the indigenous public gets your law abiding victims removed from the area they were inno0cently passing through by the very agency that should have protected them by controlling a lawless mob – West Midlands Constabulary.

Your extorted jizyah taxes at work.

Steven Ellis, 41, and Jason Hendry, 22, wanted to walk eight miles from Solihull to Birmingham city centre wearing the outfit featured in 2006 film Borat to raise money for Birmingham Dogs’ Home.  But they ended up being escorted by officers after they were attacked as they passed through the Sparkbrook area of the city, claiming police said they had offended local Muslims during Ramadan.

Offending Muslims by pursuing a harmless and lawful enterprise during ramalamadingdong?

Is that a crime?

Hurling stones and racial abuse?

Isn’t that a crime?

They were driven through the area as locals hurled abuse at them – calling them paedophiles. Mr Ellis’s wife Victoria, 36, had followed the pair’s journey in a car, with the couple’s five young children.

Public order offences and hate crimes committed by a favoured and protected minority, thy instances are legion and thy law enforcement officers devoid of testicular body parts.

She said: ‘We were basically run out of the area. We had stopped at a supermarket car park to give the dogs a drink as it was a hot day, and we were suddenly surrounded.

The men were taking off their jackets and threatening to fight Jason. I have seen nothing like it in my life before. The children were terrified as within minutes a crowd of 30 or 40 men assembled.
‘They began throwing stones and eggs at us. They were shouting at Jason saying that he was a pervert and a paedophile, and one of them called me a dirty white s***.

‘They told us that they hated dogs and told us to get out of the car park. The children were petrified and asked why these people were calling me a s***.

‘One egg narrowly missed hitting my 12-year-old son, Jason, leaving him petrified and even passing cars ended up being hit by the eggs and stones. The abuse was appalling.

Menacing and threatening behaviour and incitement to commit violence.  Throwing missiles with intent to intimidate regardless of what injuries may occur.  Racist and sexist abuse.  A breach of the peace at the very least.  The arrests will come thick and fast as soon as the cops arrive at the scene.

Whoops!

‘We called the police and they came straight away. I asked the police what they were going to do to help us but they just said it was because of sensitivities over an EDL (English Defence League) march and Ramadan.

It wasn’t the Muslims.  It was the fault of the EDL.  Well of course it was!  Who else could possibly be blamed for Muslims behaving in a criminal fashion?  Certainly not the Muslims.

Face/palm interface.

Of all the police’s feeble excuses for ignoring criminal behaviour from RoPers this has got to be the most spineless one I’ve heard in some time.  Surely that’s the job of the left leaning, muslim apologists?

‘We didn’t even know there was an EDL march planned for that day – we had nothing to do with it. Our family just love dogs, we’ve homed a rescue dog and we wanted to raise money to help the charity.’

It shouldn’t have mattered.  Neither should the attire of the two men doing the walk for charity have mattered.

But local butcher Irshad Armani, 22, said: ‘It was disrespectful for the men to come here half-naked. This is a Muslim area and we don’t want to see that.

Then turn away and mind your own damned business you intolerant buffoon.  And WTF is a muslim area?  Since when did Sparkbrook relocate to Pakistan?  If I told a tabloid journalist  I live in a “white area” and then accused muslims passing through of “disrespect I’d be hauled before the local beak and charged with a hate crime faster than Irshad could howl “Islamophobia!”.

‘People were fasting and we do not want to see anything considered impure or dirty during such an important month. That is why people were so upset by it.’

So that gives muslims an excuse to intimidate and assault people does it?

Bullshit!

Islam does not put muslims above British law even if they think it does.  Islam does not make muslims special even if they think it does.  We don’t give a kippers dangly bits how offended muslims are by Brits doing lawful Brit things on Brit streets during ramalamadingdong.  Most certainly not when muslims do things like this and this on the streets of Britain in the name of their intolerant and hateful religion.  They turned being offended into a fascist industry.

Iqbal Khan, 25, a carpet shop owner, added: ‘They came here saying it was for charity, but what they were wearing barely covered their private parts.

Muslims do tend to get rather agitated when it comes to dress code, don’t they.  Suggest that burqas should be banned because many Europeans find them offensive and oppressive and all hell breaks loose.  Muslims seeing a couple of Brummies wearing swimming cozzies for charity and, you’ve guessed it, all hell breaks loose.

‘We see people come and go doing charity around here – black, white, Asian – but it is not appropriate to do it in a bad way, dressed as they were, especially when this is mainly an Asian and Pakistani area.’

Black, white, Asian?  So Asian is a colour now is it?  As a point of interest how many Asians of Chinese or South East Asian extraction were part of the Sparkbrook Massive?  And where the hell does Iqbal Khan and his ilk get off telling people how they should dress when they don’t like the same authoritarian pointy stick thrust up them?

Mr Hendry said: ‘A man who was in a nearby hairdresser came over and started having a go at us and then a guard at the supermarket and the manager came out and joined in.

I take it we’re not talking Morrisons, Tesco or Asda here…

‘It was disgusting behaviour. I was furious. I was angry with the local people for how they reacted and we tried to explain it was just a bit of fun, to raise money for charity.’

You’d get more sense out of a brick wall than try to reason with minds deeply entombed in a psychotic religious cult straight out of the Middle Ages Middle East and unpolluted by enlightenment.

The police escorted them all back to Birmingham Dogs’ Home because there were two groups of men waiting at the end of the road.

Because religious mob rule on the streets of Birmingham isn’t in the politically correct public interest to stamp out.  Unless it is a mob of one Bible thumper handing out leaflets about how gay sex is sinful.

He added: ‘But it was also frustrating to have to be escorted as it made us feel like we had done something wrong. I am shocked and disgusted that this should happen in our city.

A shame West Midlands Constabulary don’t feel the same way.  They should be scammelling embarrassed at being so useless.

‘It was like something you see on TV. The idea behind the mankini walk started off as a dare and then we decided to make it a reality and do it to raise money for charity.’

‘We have a love and passion for dogs and we both wanted to do it to raise money for Birmingham Dogs’ Home.’

Mrs Hendry added: ‘I grew up to respect people irrespective of colour or creed as have my children. But this was totally appalling and has made me so angry that this should happen during an event to help a charity.’

Unfortunately Mrs Hendry and her group broke a cardinal rule – you cannot offend or disrespect muslims.  Ever.

However Raja Ahmad, 46, a local shopkeeper, said: ‘The men were partially dressed and it’s not really appreciated around here by the Asian or the English community.

So how many white faces were part of the Sparkbrook Massive then?  Or on the streets hurling abuse as their victims were driven away under police escort?

‘The police moved them on and they said they were covering their modesty but it upset a lot of people in the community.’

Diddums.  Grow up and get over yourselves.  Your regressive religion and aggressive arrogance makes me want to vomit like Mr. Creosote.

A West Midlands Police spokesman said: ‘Police were called to reports of tensions on Stratford Road in Sparkhill at around 2:50pm on July 20 due to a group of men wearing fancy dress whilst on a charity walk.

‘Officers attended and worked closely with those at the scene to resolve the situation peacefully in order to ensure no unnecessary or unintended upset was caused.

Resolved the situation by appeasing the aggressors.  West Midlands Constabulary thy name is dhimmi.

‘Police left the area around 25 minutes later and there were no further calls to the location.’

Because arresting muslims for criminal behaviour is racist and likely to cause unnecessary and unintended upset to religious bigots who recognise no law but sharia?

So West Midlands police punish the victims instead by restricting their freedom to walk certain public streets.

You useless, lazy bastards!

Killing the Good Samaritan

Wendy McElroy is a long-time activist within the American libertarian community. Her piece here uses the example of an innocent young man accused of stalking to make her point and to particularize it to the dangers of being found living while male, or indeed while being a member of any number of suspect “classes.”

But the principle applies much more broadly, to the fact that private snooping, spying, and snitching to The Authorities seem to be more and more common in our U.S. society at least. This kind of thing can destroy a person: his bank account, his job or career, his family relationships, his friendships, his reputation, his very sense of himself…. And some of these people are so eager to find fault and, in some cases, to just plain make trouble, that they will not take the simplest, safest steps to see if there are valid grounds for their suspicion.

Herewith what I consider the meat of the article. (The boldface is mine.)  Better yet, read the whole thing (kidney basin in hand) at

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1021.html

Killing the Good Samaritan

October 21, 2003
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.net

The incident reflects how paranoid our culture has becomeafter decades of political correctness that defines and divides us into categories eternally at war: female against male, whites against minorities, heterosexual against gay.

I was once asked to describe the devil. (I interpreted the question to be about the general nature of evil in man rather than about religion.)

I replied: If the devil is the living flesh of evil, then here is who I think he is. …[H]e is the average-looking person who walks into a room and shakes your hand with a smile. By the time he leaves, the standards of decency of everyone within that room have been lowered ever so slightly.

Perhaps he offers general statistics on divorce or child abuse to convince you to suspect your husband of infidelity or your neighbor of molestation. No evidence of specific wrongdoing is offered, of course. But since such “crimes” do occur, you are advised to be vigilantly on guard against them in your personal life. And so, you begin to view your spouse and neighbors with a bit more suspicion, a little less trust and with the tendency to interpret every action as possible evidence of wrongdoing. The very possibility of an offense is taken as evidence of its presence.

…[Y]our co-worker is no longer an individual….

Slowly, you come to view the world through the eyes of the devil. People are guilty until proven innocent. Acts of kindness and common decency are meticulously dissected for hidden motives and agendas. People are not individuals but categories. Those closest to you — family, friends and neighbors — do not receive the benefit of the doubt; they receive the “benefit” of your suspicion.

With no religious implication, I say: a devil is at large. He tells us that acts of kindness and common decency do not exist; the worst possible interpretation should be placed on acts that appear to embody those values….

In short, the Devil is the one who is selling us on the evil of others.

%d bloggers like this: