Tag: scandal

Muslim rape gangs and the disturbing role of Britain’s leading child welfare charity

Among the more nauseating spectacles of the Rotherham child rape scandal has been the squirming evasion and shameless attempts at face-saving by the various authority figures whose job it supposedly was to prevent such horrors happening.

One of them is a man named Javed Khan. He is the head of Britain’s largest children’s charity Barnardo’s which now stands accused of having known about the Muslim rape gang problem for well over a decade – but which chose to do next to nothing to confront it.

In an ugly interview with Sky News, Khan infuriated viewers – and his normally mild-mannered interviewer Eamonn Holmes – with his mealy-mouthed evasiveness.

Not only did Khan refuse to call for the resignation of South Yorkshire Police Commissioner (and former head of Rotherham Council Children’s Services) Shaun Wright but it often seemed as though he was trying to make excuses for the various institutions which allowed mass child rape to occur on their watch.

Holmes could barely contain his fury.

“You’re the expert in the field. You’re the man who people turn to when all else fails. Your charity’s job is to protect children, to protect the innocence of those children. I put it to you, Mr Khan, no one else has bothered: are you going to fail them as well?”

Khan once again evaded the question. As well he might – for the children’s charity he represents is almost as heavily compromised by this scandal as Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police.

We know this thanks to Peter McLoughlin’s detailed report Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery. A whole section of it is devoted to Barnardo’s.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Why the Child Benefit cuts have made me despise Cameron’s ‘Conservatives’ even more than I did already
  2. Welfare to work scandal: the inevitable consequence of Cameronomics
  3. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN
  4. The majesty and usefulness of recycling captured in an exquisite hand-crafted child’s toy

 

Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism

Q: When is the sexual abuse of children culturally, socially and politically acceptable?

A: When it’s committed with industrial efficiency by organised gangs of mainly Pakistani men in English Northern towns like Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham, of course.

But obviously you’re not allowed to admit this or you might sound racist. That’s why, for example, in today’s BBC report into the fact that at least 1400 children were subjected to “appalling” sexual abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, you have to wade 20 paragraphs in before finally you discover the ethnic identity of the perpetrators.

And even then, the embarrassing fact slips out only with the most blushing mealy-mouthedness:

By far the majority of perpetrators of abuse were described as “Asian” by victims.

Well hang on, a second. What this phrase seems to be hinting at is the possibility that the men involved weren’t “Asian” (note to US readers: Asian is UK PC-speak for Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, not orientals) but that the victims mistakenly took them to be so. Is that actually the case or not?

Let’s have a look at the names of the Rotherham men found guilty by Sheffield Crown Court in 2010 of raping or sexually abusing girls as young as 12 shall we. Maybe that’ll help.

  • Zafran Ramzan
  • Razwan Razaq
  • Umar Razaq
  • Adil Hussain
  • Mohsin Khan

Nope. Absolutely no clues there, then…

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. What the BBC didn’t want you to know about the Belfast ‘Romanians’
  2. Why I’m cancelling my kids’ subscription to The Beano
  3. Build-a-bear: the sinister green plot to turn our kids into eco-fascist Manchurian candidates
  4. There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism

One thought on “Rotherham: 1400 kids groomed, drugged and raped by multiculturalism”

  1. Crystyn says:27th August 2014 at 1:21 pmQuite frankly, I don’t believe this explanation. It makes the people look more stupid – as if they’re not already. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong shouldn’t be working in the positions they are. They’re being paid to do a job they’re not doing. Time to boot them out so that those who do know the difference between right and wrong can take over.I’m glad to see that Roger Stone has now handed in his resignation. At least I know he’s truly sorry for having turned a blind eye. Shaun Wright, the Chief Inspector and now the Police and Crime Commissioner, should be the next to resign. He’s paid a lot of money to do his job, which clearly in this case he failed to do. Saying sorry is simply not good enough. In a case like this, it’s meaningless.AND FINALLY, Barnardos’ Chief Executive, Khan, should lose his job as well because he gives a bad name to Barnados. On his interview with Eamonn Holmes he came across as rather robotic in his replies, giving well rehearsed replies such as “we must ensure this never happens again” and “there are lessons to be learned”. None of his replies came from his heart or even spontaneous. I’ll never ever support Barnardos.

Comments are closed.

Welfare to Work Scandal: The Inevitable Consequence of Cameronomics

Terrifying spending

If Cameron’s Coalition weren’t so utterly crap, I would have said that today’s new revelations about the multi-billion pound welfare-to-work scandal were the government’s Gerald Ratner moment – the one where the credibility of Cameron plc finally plummeted to lows from which it could never recover.

But I can’t say that because the Ratner moment happened ages before that. Indeed, if you believe Iain Martin’s superb analysis yesterday – and I do – the terminal rot set in to the Cameroon project as long ago as the general election campaign, when Cameron’s lot got it into their heads that the way to beat arguably the worst prime minister in British history Gordon Brown was to promise to copy all his policies but just in a more user-friendly watered-down, green-tinged way, and with a nicely spoken semi-toff in charge rather than a dour, beetle-browed Scotsman. Unsurprisingly, the voting public was less than thrilled.

Martin’s piece began with a glorious insider anecdote which bears repeating:

One of the most senior cabinet ministers under Gordon Brown likes to recall how during the run-up to to the 2010 general election he kept expecting one morning to wake up, turn on the Today programme and discover that the atrocious campaign the Tories had been running up until that point had been a feint, similar to that organised before D Day to lull the enemy into complacency. The proper campaign would then start. But the day never came and the Tories went into the election without any clear and coherent offer to the country. David Cameron should, says the Brown-era cabinet minister, have won by fifty seats.

Exactly. I can’t be the only one here who finds himself constantly driven to a state of planetstruck incomprehension by the sheer asininity, the counterproductivity, the gormlessness, the stupidity, the truly epic wrongness of almost every new policy the government introduces. If this were a Labour government, led by Ed Balls, you could understand it. It would all make perfect sense. But it’s not. This, believe it or not – and I’m not sure that I can any more – is a Conservative-led administration running the country. Since when did Britain’s Conservatives end up so terminally useless?

Since, I would argue, they began subscribing to the Keynesian “consensus”. (A bit like the “consensus” on Climate Change, though even more expensive and dangerous). This is the idea – hugely popular with left-wing governments, for obvious reasons – that the state has the miraculous ability to create more jobs and boost economic growth by spending more taxpayers’ money.

It can’t.

I don’t dispute that the state can create “jobs”. For example, it could create a “job” by paying people to dig holes and fill them up again. Or, more absurdly still, it could “create” “jobs” by paying people to “work” – via hidden tariffs forced on energy users –  in the renewables industry (solar, wind, etc).

But these aren’t real jobs. In fact you might say they’re the opposite of jobs. Anti-jobs, even. For example, in Spain, research has shown that for every pretend job created by government spending in the renewables industry, 2.2 jobs are destroyed in the real economy. In Britain, the figure is more depressing still. For every one of the “green jobs” “created” by David Cameron, 3.7 jobs are killed in the real economy.

The notion that government spending is capable of generating economic growth is more ludicrous still. On the contrary, as the excellent Allister Heath notes at City AM, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is an inverse correlation between government spending and economic growth.

Here are a few of the studies. A 2011 paper by Davide Furceri and Ricardo Sousa studying 145 countries over 47-years found every one per cent of GDP rise in government spending reduces private consumption and private investment by 1.9 per cent. A 2011 study by António Afonso and João Tovar Jalles of 108 countries over 38-years found that there is a significant negative effect of size of government on growth. A 2008 study by Asa Johansson and colleagues of 21 OECD countries over a 35-year period found that every one per cent rise in tax as a share of GDP is associated with a 0.14-0.27 per cent fall in GDP. A 2009 study of 15 EU member states by Mihai Mutascu and Marius Milos found that the optimal public spending share of GDP was 30 per cent. Others have found that the level of spending that maximises performance on the Human Development Index is 30-35 per cent of GDP. Public spending in the UK is close to half of GDP today.

What’s so truly terrifying about Cameron and Osborne is that their entire economic policy is based on doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done to get Britain’s economy back on track: money-printing; borrowing; spending on pointless projects like HS2; increasing the price of energy through the drive to renewables; putting obstacles in the way of shale gas developments.

The disastrous £5 billlion jobs scheme is just one more damned thing in the government’s litany of crimes against the taxpayer. How much better it would have been for us all if, rather than helping the grinning Emma “£8.6 million dividend? That will do nicely!” Harrison to buy her enormous Derbyshire mansion and amass a fortune at our expense, the money had instead been taken off our tax bills. That way, we would have had more money to spend in the real economy, creating real jobs rather than the pretend jobs

Cameron has attracted much flak for employing the deeply suspect Andy Coulson as his director of communications. But I would suggest that a far greater indicator of his abject unfitness for office is his extraordinarily ill-advised decision to appoint Harrison his Families Czar. What it shows is that his economic illiteracy is no unhappy aberration, nor the result of pressure from his coalition partners, but absolutely fundamental to his ideological vision.

The “Big Society”, it seems, is destined to do for Britain what Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” did for America. Johnson was not a conservative. Neither is David Cameron.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: how the ‘greatest scientific scandal of our generation’ got its name
  2. It is left to me to point out this regrettable, overlooked fact: Dave blew it
  3. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
  4. Andrew Breitbart’s War Comes to Britain

There Is Nothing Cuddly about the WWF

Today in the Sunday Telegraph my colleague Christopher Booker breaks possibly the most important environmental story since Climategate: a devious plan, truly Blofeldian in its scope and menace, by a hard-left-leaning activist body to gain massive global political leverage and earn stupendous sums of money by exploiting and manipulating the world carbon trading market.

My cynical prediction is that this vitally important story will gain little traction in the wider media, especially not with organisations like the BBC. Why? Because the activist body in question has a lovely, cuddly panda as its motif, and a reputation – brainwashed into children from an early age – for truly caring about the state of our planet. What’s more, this latest campaign by the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) is very easy to spin as something unimpeachably noble and right. After all, what kind of fascistic, Gaia-hating sicko would you have to be NOT to applaud a delightful heartwarming scheme to buy up whole swathes of the beauteous, diversity-rich, Na’avi-style, Truffula-tree dotted Amazon rainforest to preserve it for all time from the depredations of evil loggers, cattleranchers and other such profiteering scum?

Hence the understandably cautious tone in Booker’s opening par:

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

Only after this nod to fashionable concerns is Booker able to stick in the knife:

If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised. The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.
WWF, which already earns £400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

Read the full story here. Then, for even more grisly details – about how, for example, the WWF’s scheme rides roughshod over the interests of native peoples, in way that might rather shock those who think of the organisation purely in terms of that cute panda – turn to Richard North’s comprehensive analysis at Eureferendum. The work North and Booker have done exposing the great AGW scam is quite beyond admiration. Truly they are the McIntyre and McKitrick of British journalism.

But why does the story matter so much? Because it goes to the heart of what is truly the most shocking and evil aspect of the Global Warming Industry: the way democratically unaccountable – but quite astonishingly well-funded – activist groups like the WWF (annual income: £400 MILLION) have been able to subvert the scientific process, and coax and bully politicians into making policies which will benefit the environment barely one jot, but which will fleece the taxpayer, increase energy bills, and make a handful of filthy rich investors even richer. If this scheme ever comes off – and it still might, if Americans are foolish enough to vote for Cap and Trade – then the WWF will have the financial clout of decent mid-ranking economy and a political influence as great as any G8 nation. For WWF, read New World Order.

Related posts:

  1. After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
  2. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.

 

Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Related posts:

  1. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
  2. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  3. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  4. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process

7 thoughts on “Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?”

  1. Pingback: The Zeroth Fundamental Force « Broken Britain
  2. Tiggerito says:21st November 2009 at 1:45 pmI’ve been through global cooling/warming and am a skeptic on the current theories and probably the next 10 that come by. They are theories and its a scientific process so they should change/evolve to hopefully something closer to the truth in the future.What I do believe in is that we have done and are still doing things are not good for the environment. Chimney smog, river pollution, mas deforestation, profits over life…I will keep my shares in alternative energy in the hope that it helps us move in a positive direction in protecting where we live, even if the next scare is global brightening.
  3. Strangely says:21st November 2009 at 2:50 pmcui bono?As you said above,

    …wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see…

    We will see what?

    Mysterious hacks into computers?
    Embarrassing emails?
    Personal thoughts and ideas published as accepted, peer-reviewed, authoritative information?

    And the alternative is:
    Weird kiddy climate change ads on telly.
    News about rapidly disappearing glaciers etc.
    Disappearing species.
    Habitat loss.

    Now you can choose to think that all scientists are evil grant-scammers or you can choose the evidence of your own eyes and life. Now that the water is reaching my bottom lip, I have an idea that climate change is real.
    Is it human generated? Probably yes although it all fits in with natural cycles.
    Will the Ice Age return? Of course it will. But not for a long time.

    The problem is that many scientists can be just as cunt-ish as anyone else. But the probability (which is what scientists deal in, not facts), is that much of what we see is human generated, not just by driving cars, but by our very numbers on the planet that all have to eat and live.

    Read up on Richard Feynmann. A good guy, who took nothing at face value, but, and there’s the rub, he knew what he was talking about. Most CC sceptics don’t, they really don’t. They are good at quoting stuff out of context and making mischief, but that’s all. And nearly all of them are part of a vested interest group much larger than the one you choose to denigrate.

    My personal belief is that if what you say “But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover”…
    … is true, then it’s curtains mate, for most of us, and all the fine words and argument will be nothing, just echoes in a wet or dry wind. I have done my own research into this, starting way back when HH Lamb was still alive. I think Feymann would agree and it’s a sad loss that he’s not here now to see all this.

  4. Michael Roc Thomas says:21st November 2009 at 4:56 pmWhat are these vested interests in the global warming myth? One would think the fossil fuel lobby amongst others with huge power would have put them to the sword by now. So what is it that keeps driving this ahem discussion?
  5. Christopher says:21st November 2009 at 6:35 pmThe final quote in the Guardian’s article “Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists” seemed familiar when I read it:>>>A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”This was because it was based on a comment posted at the Realclimate.org site a few hours earlier, signed simply “ben”:>>>”If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last ten years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. The fact is the scientific consensus on climate change has been reached through the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, field research and the lifetime’s work of some of humanity’s best minds. It’s obvious these emails didn’t even go through a spell-check let alone the rigorous peer-review process. Contrary to what the skeptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth.”

    I wonder what to make of this…

  6. Pingback: Global warming seems to have stopped! And not only that, the whole man made climate panic turns out to be the biggest hoax in scientific history! « Links on Economy, Politics and Political Incorrectness
  7. Pingback: Crime inc ~ The Alliance for Climate Protection | Politics & Capitalism

Comments are closed.