11th November

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Today we pay tribute to all those who have fallen in defence of our country - and continue to follow their orders and do their duty, no matter how obscure or futile the cause.

God Bless them all.

Tube Sex Pest Jailed

It's those damned jobs that British people just won't do again:

An Olympic site worker who rubbed himself against two women on packed Tube trains has been jailed for 18 months.

Tony Uwaifo, 40, was also banned from taking rush-hour Tube trains for eight years.

Uwaifo, of Leyton, was convicted of two counts of sex assault on the Central line between Stratford and Liverpool Street. He was cleared of two similar charges at Blackfriars crown court.

Both victims handed clothes and possessions to the police and DNA tests pointed conclusively to Uwaifo.

He claimed he was a victim of a medical condition causing “intemperate ejaculation”. Uwaifo told police he always took his tea break from the Stratford Olympic site to coincide with the morning rush hour.

Enriching the NHS

How immigrants supposedly benefit the NHS is one of the favourite arguments used by those who favour mass immigration; of course, we could talk about the dearth of unnecessary roles provided by that organisation, or the way the population has swelled as a result of mass immigration, thus meaning more pressure on the NHS and creating a vicious circle - but as they say, a picture paints a thousand words.

From the BBC:

A former nurse at John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, has been found guilty of raping a teenage patient and indecently assaulting another woman.

Oliver Balicao, of Lerwick Court, Bicester, was a senior nurse when the offences took place in 2002 and 2004.

The 37-year-old indecently assaulted a 22-year-old woman in 2002 and raped a 17-year-old girl in 2004.

He was found guilty at Reading Crown Court and warned he faced a "substantial" sentence.

The youngest of Balicao's victims said she was raped in a side room at the hospital's accident and emergency department in October 2004.

At the time her boyfriend and mother didn't believe her because she had been admitted following a drug overdose and had been hallucinating.

But in 2007 the victim went to the police after seeing Balicao's photograph in the news after he admitted having consensual sex with another teenage patient in a disabled toilet.

Balicao's other victim told police he had forcibly kissed her when she was a patient in 2002.

Earlier judge Stephen John told Reading Crown Court that Balicao had committed a "grave breach of trust" and warned him "to expect a substantial sentence".

Indeed.

Yet another Third World parasite who sees the British people, who paid for his employment in a position of trust and responsibility, as playthings, as prey.

But I probably shouldn't be too harsh - perhaps he was raping the patients that British nurses just wouldn't rape.

Diversity & Islamic Cultural Enrichment in Scotland

In July 2009 I reported on the desire of Jim Murphy, the then-Scottish Secretary, for Scotland to become what he called a "melting pot".

Such was his desire for the vibrant, colourful customs and behaviour which can be found in any cursory search here at The Lambeth Walk that he even offered potential violent, primitive Third World chancers immigrants who chose to settle in Scotland a fast-track to British citizenship - so they could legally enrich us all.

I know what you're all thinking - what a caring, absolutely wonderful man that Jim Murphy must be - and how in touch with reality he is! May Allah take pity on his infidel soul.

Well, I have to admit that Jim's vision is starting to achieve results. Back in March, I reported that there were plans to open an Islamic cultural centre near to the site where Kriss Donald, a Scottish teenager, was brutally and callously murdered by a gang of Pakistani men simply for being white.

As if that wasn't enough of an insult to the Scottish people, two months before in January the killers of Kriss demanded compensation from the Scottish Prison Service - because it locked them in solitary confinement for their own protection:

THE jailed thugs who killed Kriss Donald are claiming damages for being locked in solitary confinement, we can reveal today.

Murderers Imran 'Baldy' Shahid, Zeeshan 'Crazy' Shahid and Mohammed 'Becks' Mushtaq were only put in solitary to protect them from other cons revolted by their racist crime.

But the whining murderers claim that being cooped up on their own has caused them mental damage.

And they are demanding thousands of pounds each from the public purse in compensation for the so-called breach of their human rights.

Becks's claim, the first of the three, is due to come to court on Friday.

All three killers have demanded Legal Aid to fight their cases and officials have yet to decide on their applications. ....

Baldy was jailed for a minimum of 25 years, Crazy for 23 years and Becks for 22. Baldy, 33, is in Shotts jail and has been in solitary since starting his sentence.

He claims being held alone has had a "detrimental effect on his physical and mental health".

His damages case will be heard on February 3. It's the latest in a long series of complaints by the thug about his conviction and sentence.

He claims he should be freed because there were no Asians on the jury that condemned him and his appeal is due to be heard this year.

Baldy has moaned before about being in solitary and has accused prison chiefs of leaving him in "spiritual isolation".

No Asians on the jury? Well, that's a clear miscarriage of justice then. Of course I'm joking, but in modern Britain there is no need for satire - back in 2008, "Baldy" tried to get his conviction quashed on that very basis - at our expense.

The presiding judge showed a sense of humour though:

At the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday, lawyers argued that the killer had not been judged by a jury of his peers.

But Lord Nimmo Smith, who heard the application along with Lord Wheatley and Lord Abernethy, ruled: "His peers are fellow citizens of the United Kingdom."

As for spiritual isolation, I find it very hard to believe that any one who participated in what these animals did to Kriss could actually have a soul.

Anyway, Baldy continues to waste taxpayers money and spit in the face of Kriss's family whatever chance he gets - at his hearing over the solitary confinement case, he fired his lawyers at the last minute, meaning the hearing could not take place.

Ah well, I'm sure we'll buy him some better ones.

Anyone reading this can surely only be struck by the degree to which Scotland has improved with the presence of these fine, upstanding gentlemen.

But Jim Murphy's beautiful vision is not dead - things north of the border just keep getting better and better!

In August, a Pakistani thug was arrested for beating up his Scottish girlfriend in Aberdeen.

Naturally, mere infidels interfering in his business annoyed him, and he went on a bit of a tirade against the police, calling them "ginger, haggis-munching Scottish bastards" and telling them he would gladly blow them and any passersby up if he had the chance:

Pakistani Mohammed Amir launched the foul tirade - and threatened to blow 20 people up - as he was nicked for battering his girlfriend.

The 29-year-old lout told police officers he'd "gladly" wipe them out with passers-by during the arrest in an Aberdeen city centre street.

Yesterday, the city's sheriff court heard how Amir said: "I'm going to kill 20 of you and blow you to bits. F*** you, you haggis-munching ginger b******s. I'm going to bomb you white f*****s."

Remorseless Amir - who made rude gestures as he was led away to start an 18-month jail term - was convicted of a string of crimes.

He admitted punching Cindy Gordon in the street in February and racially abusing cops.

The yob pleaded guilty to threatening to stab a cabbie who had tried to stop him attacking Ms Gordon again just a month later. He also admitted theft and breaking bail conditions. Amir (below) was described as having problems with heroin use and anger-management.

Indeed. A shining example of Jim Murphy's vision, I would have thought. The Scottish government seem happy:

Last night Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker MSP said the public would be "relieved" the brute was behind bars.

He said: "This man deserved a custodial sentence and it's important that all racist offences are treated in that way by the courts."

A Scottish Government spokesman added: "There is no place for racism in Scotland. It is unacceptable and will not be tolerated."

I'm going to go out on a limb here; I bet that there are many Scottish people reading this who are wondering who has the bigger problem.

Is it Amir with his "anger management" issues, or the Scottish government with their baffling desire to fill what is actually quite a nice country in many ways with scum like this? I don't care if there's "no place for racism" in Scotland, whatever that even means; I wonder why there's a place for Muslim criminals who clearly despise the society they're preying on/leeching off/enriching, depending on your viewpoint.

The problem isn't racism as such; it's that treating the dregs of the Third World like kings feeds their entitlement and superioriy complexes - and if they happen to be Muslims, particularly younger Muslim males, those will probably be big enough as it is, despite little in the way of actual evidence for the truth of them.

The vibrant diversity seems destined to continue, however:

Muazim Ali Shah is accused of killing 47-year-old Lynne Farquhar at her flat in Rockmount Avenue, in the Barrhead area, on 26 September.

It is alleged that the 32-year-old repeatedly kicked and stamped on Ms Farquhar's head and body.

I wonder how many Scottish people the likes of Jim Murphy and Richard Baker will have on their consciences in the end?

Cherie Blair Defends Islam (II)

Yesterday I wrote about Cherie Blair's robust defence of Islam, and particularly the role of Muslim women, when questioned by an interviewer about her sister Lauren's conversion.

Some of the comments she made came as she addressed a conference in Madrid to honour the "European Muslim Woman of Influence".

She was particularly adamant that wearing a burqa or any other covering is a woman's choice, and Westerners only disapprove or see it as a threat as a nice way of expressing their latent racism and Islamophobia (well, it can certainly be argued that was the subtext).

In fact, she said that the Burka is "no more of a threat than a nun's habit."

Which is rather strange - because Friday brought us our second European "Burka-clad Muslim woman in the dock" story of this week.

(Actually, I'm wrong; the first woman, Roshanara Choudhry, didn't actually appear in the dock - because she, er, didn't recognise the jurisdiction of the British court as it wasn't operating under Sharia law. Still, details, details).

This second one comes from Germany, and concerns Filiz Gelowicz, the wife of one of the four men convicted in March of plotting to attack US troops and interests, as well as infidels generally, on German soil:

The wife of a German convert to Islam who was convicted of plotting a thwarted attack on U.S. targets in Germany went on trial herself Friday on charges of supporting terrorist organizations.

Filiz Gelowicz, 28, is accused of supporting the Islamic Jihad Union and the German Taliban Mujahideen by helping provide euro3,000 ($4,225) to fund terrorist training camps in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region between 2009 and 2010. She faces up to five years in prison.

One of two male co-defendants, identified only as 21-year-old Alican T., also went on trial in the Berlin state court on suspicion of supporting the same terrorist organizations. The other, Fatih K., 31, is in Turkish custody awaiting extradition to Germany.

When they were charged in August, prosecutors said in addition to raising the money that Alican T. posted 16 radical Islamic videos on the Internet trying to recruit new members for jihad, or holy war, while Filiz G. posted more than 1,000 videos, comments and texts online.

In six contributions, Filiz F. specifically asked Muslims in Germany to join Islamic Jihad Union, the German Taliban Mujahideen and al-Qaida.

How many nuns have appeared in the dock during that time? Or, at all? How many refuse to recognise the judge because Britain isn't a Catholic country?

Not that I'm calling Cherie Blair a delusional fool at best and a useful idiot at worst, you understand.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers.

Muslim "Refugee" Sexually Assaults Australian Girl on Train

A self-confessed paedophile from Afghanistan who was granted an Australian visa on "humanitarian grounds" has been referred to a higher court for sentencing in Adelaide after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a young girl.

The assault, which 34 year old Sayed Mohammed Sidaqat carried out on a defenceless 16 year old, took place in July:

Prosecutors told the court that, on July 17, Sidaqat boarded an Outer Harbour line train at Ethelton and sat down next to a girl, 16.

He "squashed her" up against the side of the train before caressing her hand and placing it on his erect penis.

Prosecutors said the girl felt "extremely scared and powerless" as Sidaqat kissed her neck, fondled her breasts and tried to touch her pubic region.

Much of the Australian media has seized upon the fact that Sidaqat is a refugee who was apparently tortured by the Taliban, as if this someone excuses or explains his actions. In fact, the by-lines in both The Australian and Adelaide Now begin with "A refugee once tortured by the Taliban..."

He committed his crime just one month after he was granted his visa and released from detention on Christmas Island.

Now, whilst his time in Taliban custody is being trumpeted from headlines, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of information about him being a "self-confessed paedophile" - oddly enough. After all, it wouldn't do to give the wider Australian public too much information about the kind of scum the government forces them to fund generously.

An Adelaide magistrate has now referred the case to a higher court, as he feels the offence warrants more than the two years behind bars which is the maximum his court could impose.

Unfortunately, Sidaqat was released on bail until he appears in the South Australian District Court on 6th December, but at least the Australian authorities have the right idea in some ways - Muslim men have been walked free from court after committing similar, or even worse, offences in Britain.

The potential severity of the sentence does not ease the girl's suffering, however:

The 16-year-old told police she was scared and powerless and had tried to get the attention of other passengers on the train, but no one responded.

It's a shame that, due to the Australian government's immigration policies and the fact tha no one can join the dots and learn a lesson from these incidents, countless other young Australian girls will have to go through a similar or worse ordeal in the future.

Just how many "self-confessed paedophiles" and potential rapists are waiting on Christmas Island for their humanitarian visas to be processed? How many will be acting in the name of the perfect man?

Hat tip: A Western Heart.

Cherie Blair Defends Islam

Mark Richardson over at Oz Conservative recently wrote an excellent post about the conversion of Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, to Islam.

He cites an article written by Peter Hitchens back in 2003, about the prospect of Britons embracing Islam as they realise they need a kind of moral structure, but are so brainwashed against Western society and their own heritage they cannot comprehend turning to Christianity, and as the influence of Christianity wanes and that of Islam grows all around them:

When Christianity was part of our culture and its beliefs were handed down in homes and schools, its familiarity kept it strong. Everyone knew Bible stories, hymns and prayers. Now it is at least as alien to many young people as Islam, if not more so because it does not seem to be interested in them.

But Islam is interested in them. And Islam is growing. More and more British cities have seen the domes and minarets of smart, prominently positioned new mosques rising in their neighbourhoods.

A large and imposing Islamic centre is now nearing completion in Oxford, one of Christian England's holiest places. Imagine what would happen if Anglicans sought to build a Christian centre in Qom, Isfahan, Najaf or anywhere on the soil of Saudi Arabia, and wonder what Muslim leaders think of Christian feebleness on such matters.

Thanks to the immigration of recent decades, Britain has a young, energetic and swelling Muslim population which is increasingly assertive about its faith.

Lauren Booth is basically the new Yvonne Ridley, a Leftist journalist who has dedicated much of her life to Islamic or pseudo-Islamic causes, particularly the struggle of the "Palestinians". Like Ridley, she has also worked for the Iranian-funded television station Press TV.

I can recall an article Booth wrote in The Sun at least 10 years ago in which she lambasted Israeli border security agents for questioning her about a large number of anti-American leaflets and a Yasser Arafat-style headscarf "she just liked to wear sometimes" present in her luggage, as if all normal, self-respecting people travel with such things.

Now she's taken that extra step, and claims to be reading her way through the Koran and considering wearing a burqa "if she feels like it".

Despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslim women are not free to "feel like it", and suffer beatings, acid attacks or worse if they don't comply with the wishes of their men-folk, Booth, like Ridley before her, has pretty much called Islam an enlightened, female-friendly faith - in fact she recently boasted in the Mail on Sunday about propagandising it to her young daughters.

Many have dismissed her as an idiotic attention-seeker, and I'm sure there is a healthy dose of truth in this.

Her sister Cherie "if it's not nailed down it's a freebie" Blair, wife of Tony, has now waded into the row - not to defend her sister, but Islam:

The former Prime Minister's wife also claimed that it was “not true” that women who covered up were oppressed and “incapable” of thinking for themselves. Her comments, in an interview with a Spanish newspaper, follow Lauren Booth's claims that the religion has given her “a new sense of respect”.

“We use the appearance of women as a metaphor of our fear of a supposed Islamic threat,” she told the El Pais newspaper. “There are thousands of Muslims in Europe who participate in our way of life and intend continuing to do so and if they want to dress in a certain way because of their beliefs, we shouldn't feel threatened. It's important to fight against certain stereotypes that affect above all Muslim women. We tend to believe they're oppressed, insecure and incapable of thinking for themselves and that is not true.

“One of the things I try to do is help to explain that Islam is an open religion in which women have influence, whether they hide their hair or not.” Asked about Miss Booth's conversion, she replied: “It's her choice.”

Interesting. This would be the "supposed Islamic threat" that her husband is currently making an awful lot of money speaking about, presumably.

The "supposed Islamic threat" that recently attempted to murder one of his former Parliamentary colleagues, amongst other things.

What particularly strikes me is that Cherie Blair probably knows as much, and cares as much, about the life of an illiterate, covered Pakistani woman in Bradford as she does about the life of normal working English people - i.e. nothing, and not at all if it doesn't benefit her, preferably in monetary terms.

She's hardly a neutral voice, however; back in February, Cherie was working part-time as a judge at Inner London Crown Court. One of the cases that came before her was that of Shamso Miah, 25, who had been charged with breaking the jaw of a fellow customer whilst queuing in a bank.

Miah is a Muslim (as is the victim), and had just left his local mosque before the incident took place.

Here's what took place in court:

The unemployed first-time offender, from Redbridge, north-east London, pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Yet despite saying violence on our streets 'has to be taken seriously' Mrs Blair, a QC who professionally uses her maiden name Cherie Booth, let him walk free from court.

She told him: 'I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before.

'You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank.

'You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.'

Miah was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for two years, and was ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service.

Can you seriously imagine her treating a Christian so leniently simply on account of the fact he was religious? Frankly, I can't.

The National Secular Society lodged an official complaint about her conduct, outraged by the idea that all offenders are apparently not equal before her and religious belief could apparently bring about a lighter sentence.

Of course, Cherie came up smelling of roses:

An investigation found her decision to give a lenient punishment to a 'religious person' did not amount to misconduct.

Yesterday the Office for Judicial Complaints said 'no disciplinary action is necessary'.

Nope, no disciplinary action necessary - because this perfectly sums up the mindset of the liberal elite. Non-Western good, Western bad.

Context, circumstances, actual facts - they simply don't matter.

That's why Cherie should stand by her sister - the kind of cognitive dissonance whereby someone is horrified to find themselves in a Roman Catholic Church because of the "atrocities" committed in the name of that creed, but will happily not only join one of the most aggressive, bloodthirsty, totalitarian and misogynistic ideologies humanity has ever know, but also boast about it and shill for it to her daughters cannot be found often.

Perhaps it's a family trait?

The Worst Moment of George W. Bush's Presidency

What was the worst moment of George W. Bush's presidency?

There's a question that can easily inflame people on both sides of the political fence, and those who sit quite squarely on that fence.

But what would you guess?

The 9/11 attacks which killed over 3,000 innocent people?

Launching a largely pointless war in Iraq, leading to the deaths of thousands of American and hundreds of British troops, plus resulting in an insurgency which left an unknown number of civilians dead and strengthened Iranian influence in Iraq and the entire region?

Not finding and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden, ostensibly the reason for which a (now) largely pointless war is being fought in Afghanistan, in which thousands of American and hundreds of British troops, not to mention scores of Dutch, French and German troops, have died?

Not seizing the moment adequately and allowing the most poisonous aspects of the Left to set the debate and agenda on events as diverse as Guantanamo Bay and Hurricane Katrina?

You'd think any of those were in with a good chance - but you'd be wrong.

It was when rapper and professional thug Kanye West said on national TV that he didn't think Bush cared about black people!

Of course. That's much worse than anything I mentioned above.

Can this please be the final nail in the coffin of the notion that Bush is in any way conservative?

Hat tip: View from the Right.

What Constitutes Racism in Britain?

Meet John Woodward, pictured above.

He's a veteran of the First Gulf War who now drives a taxi in Cheshire. Being a self-described patriotic Englishman, John got a friend who writes signs to make him one for his cab.

It says "British by birth, English by the grace of God", and is based on several in the same vein he saw being displayed by Welsh lorry drivers whilst on holiday.

John had to remove the sign, however, after two separate members of the public complained to the council claiming it had "racist overtones".

Whilst the council and the taxi licensing body now refuse to rule on whether or not the sign is racist, John has been forced to remove it because he - gasp - didn't get permission from the council to display it on his own vehicle in the first place.

I think John sums up the situation very well:

“There’s nothing racist about this slogan at all. It is just a statement of fact by a patriotic Englishman. We should be proud of our nation, especially in times like these, but for some crazy reason we’re not allowed to display that pride.”

He added: “I have served Queen and country and I’m very proud of my nationality and heritage. I don’t see what is wrong with that. I got the idea when I went to Wales and saw one that said ‘British by birth - Welsh by the grace of God’, so I thought I’d adapt it. My friend is a sign writer and he did it for me.

“To say I’m racist is a massive allegation against someone. The fact is I fought for my country and I’m proud to be British.”

All very interesting. The council have as good as admitted that they see displaying such a sign as wrong:

A spokesman for Cheshire West and Chester Council’s licensing enforcement office said: “The authority has received complaints from two different members of the public who felt that Mr Woodward’s sign was racist. The council has not made any decision on that allegation but it accepts that Mr Woodward did not intend any offence and that he regards his sign only as a reflection of pride.”

He added: “However, as a Hackney cab driver he is not allowed to display a sign without applying for permission and was asked to take it down only on that basis.”

Good of them, I'm sure. However, in my part of the world, it is very common to find Sikh, Hindu and Muslim taxi drivers who display some symbol of their nationality or faith in their vehicles, normally by hanging it from the rear-view mirror.

I wonder if they get permission first?

The story neatly sums up the madness of the times we currently live in, and the culture of denounciation which successive governments, egged on by the people who actually run the country from Brussels, have create with politically correct legislation.

I thought it served more as a useful point of comparison, however.

Back in April, a chap called Tohseef Shah (below) appeared in a British court. He's 21 and was born here.

In December 2009, he decided to spray vile insults all over a Staffordshire war memorial. The graffiti included the line "Islam will dominate the world", as well as glorifying Osama bin Laden and calling for the death of then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

For this act, an outrageous slur on those who have given their lives to defend this country, and a clear attack on its heritage and values, Shah walked free from court with a two year conditional discharge and a £500 fine.

Why did he walk free? Because the CPS decided that his actions did not constitute a "hate crime"; i.e. inciting racial or religious hatred, i.e. our dreaded old foe racism, i.e. the one thing our "justice system" actually considers to be serious. They explained:

The CPS said Shah's offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.

It said: 'While it was appreciated that what was sprayed on the memorial may have been perceived by some to be part of a racial or religious incident, no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted.'

Quite. He obviously just did it for a laugh, and it has no connection with his race/religion and his contempt for this country. Nothing to see here, move along.

To add insult to injury, Shah didn't even show any remorse, as his defence counsel helpfully explained:

Defending, Mumtaz Chaudry said Shah did not hold extremist views. 'This is nothing to do with his religious beliefs, his family's beliefs or his cultural beliefs,' he said. 'He is just an ordinary guy.

'He is remorseful, but at the time of his interview he was simply answering questions and didn't realise that was the right time to show remorse.'

Yes, those seem like the actions of an "ordinary guy"; I can't tell you how many people I know who have inadvertanty sprayed "Islam will dominate the world" on something without quite knowing why.

To show what an "ordinary guy" he is, Shah appointed a Muslim spiritual leader called Abdullah Ibn Abbas to speak on his behalf after the court appearance. Abbas had this to say:

'It really doesn't concern us how the British people feel about the graffiti he wrote - the real outrage should be about the thousands of Muslims who are being killed and butchered as a result of British foreign policy.'

Now I see it clearer than ever - absolutely no political message was intended in this man's actions, nor was it in any way an act of racial/religious hatred or contempt for the country he was born in...

It's just worth noting - the great and the good see one of these two individuals as a nuisance who needs to start thinking along the correct lines, and the other as an upstanding citizen who ignorant people are making a fuss about for no good reason.

The only problem is, they've got it completely the wrong way around.

Update on the Roshonara Choudhry Sentencing

Further to yesterday's post about the Muslim fanatic who stabbed Labour MP Stephen Timms during a constituency surgery, the Daily Mail has an article containing further information on the disruption Musim "protesters" attempted to bring to the proceedings.

Apparently, several Muslim men were ejected from the public gallery after swearing at the judge, threatening members of the jury, and shouting "curse the British", "British go to hell", "curse the judge" and "Allahuakbar".

What beggars belief is that they weren't arrested for contempt of court or attempting to pervert the course of justice, but allowed to continue their "protest" outside, as the picture below demonstrates.

I'm fairly sure that under any other circumstances, those causing the disruption would have at least spent the rest of the day in the cells; threatening the jury is quite clearly an attempt to directly influence the outcome of the case, and to get away with doing it in an open court is an absolute disgrace.

It goes back to the point I was making yesterday; we need to worry a bit less about what sort of videos are available on YouTube, and simply stop mollycoddling these people when they step out of line. It's time to stop posturing and start acting, to show people such as these that they can't act with impunity.

Interestingly, several articles about the case dwell on how "intelligent" Choudhry is, how she was the top of her class, etc etc, until she had the misfortune to be "radicalised" by watching some videos.

The subtext seems to be; "look how lucky we were to have someone like her, until this catastrophe occurred. It's not mass immigration that's a problem, but a few radical sermons which can be accessed online too easily."

I'm not convinced we were all that lucky, however; here is a transcript of her police interview, from the Mail article linked above:

Choudhry: I was the top student.

Question: Was you? OK and what did they say when you pulled out?

Choudhry: They didn’t want me to pull out.

Question: Tell me what happened today.

Choudhry: I stabbed Stephen Timms.

Question: You stabbed Stephen Timms?

Choudhry: Yep. I’ve been learning more about Islam.

Question: Where have you been learning that?

Choudhry: Internet.

Question: What websites you been looking at?

Choudhry: I’ve been listening to lectures by Anwar al-Awlaki.

Question: Who’s he?

Choudhry: He’s an Islamic scholar. He lives in Yemen.

Question: And where have you been listening to these lectures?

Choudhry: I downloaded it off of the internet … explaining stories from the Koran and explaining about jihad.

Question:  Has that contributed to your decision to leave King’s?

Choudhry: Yes.

Question: And where was the link there then?

Choudhry: I thought that I should have loyalty to my Muslim brothers and sisters in Palestine and so I should leave King’s and that would show my loyalty to them.

Question:  So when did you decide: ‘From what I’ve learnt, I’m now gonna go and stab Stephen Timms?’

Choudhry: A couple of weeks ago. It’s three weeks ago, four weeks ago.

Question: How do you feel now about what you’ve done today?

Choudhry: I feel like I did what I’d planned to do.

Question: Tell me your thoughts about what you’ve done.

Choudhry: I feel like I’ve ruined the rest of my life. I feel like it’s worth it because millions of Iraqis are suffering and I should do what I can to help them and not just be inactive and do nothing while they suffer.

Question: I just want to go over a little bit how your thought has gone from getting to religion to wanting some form of vengeance.

Choudhry: Because as Muslims we’re all brothers and sisters and we should all look out for each other and we shouldn’t sit back and do nothing while others suffer. We shouldn’t allow the people who oppress us to get away with it and to think that they can do whatever they want to us and we’re just gonna lie down and take it.

Question: Where did you learn that from?

Choudhry: From listening to his lectures.

Question: How did you feel about what you was about to do?

Choudhry: I was a bit nervous about what I was gonna do but I felt like it had to be done and it’s the right thing to do.

Question: What, what did you think about getting killed then?

Choudhry: I wanted to die.

Question: Why?

Choudhry: I wanted to be a martyr.

Question: Why’s that then?

Choudhry: ‘Cos, erm, that’s the best way to die.

Question: Who told you that?

Choudhry: Islamic teaching.

Question: Where did you learn that?

Choudhry: It’s in the Koran and I learnt it from listening to lectures.

Question: What lectures?

Choudhry: By Anwar al-Awlaki.

Question: Why did you pick an MP to carry out this attack?

Choudhry: Because he was directly involved with the declaration of war, so he’d directly committed a crime.

Question: What do you think about what you’ve done?

Choudhry: I’ve fulfilled my obligation, my Islamic duty to stand up for the people of lraq and to punish someone who wanted to make war with them.

Hmm. As the old saying goes - with friends like her...

Mysterious Woman Sentenced for Stabbing MP

As most of you will be aware, back in May Labour MP Stephen Timms was stabbed in the stomach twice whilst holding his regular constituency surgery in Newham, east London.

The woman responsible was named as Roshonara Choudhry, a 21 year old from the area. A BBC report from July noted:

Roshonara Choudhry, 21, of Central Park Road, East Ham, east London, is charged with attempted murder and possessing an offensive weapon.

She refused to enter a plea when appearing at the Old Bailey via videolink.

Why did she refuse to enter a plea? Is that in any way significant?

Apparently so. Whilst the mass media did its best to prevent much in the way of detail about the case leaking out, one of the security guards who restrained Choudhry until the police arrived let slip that she was "an Asian woman wearing a head covering."

The media did its best to avoid speculating and dwelling on such points. However, it turns out her refusal to enter a plea was significant, as the reason emerged at yesterday's trial:

Choudhary, who had refused to appear in court, told her barrister Jeremy Dein QC she did not accept the court's jurisdiction and did not wish him to challenge the prosecution case.

Yesterday she was convicted of the attempted murder of Mr Timms, and of two counts of possessing an offensive weapon (she thoughtfully took along a second knife to attack Timms, "in case the first one snapped"). This morning she was sentenced to life in prison, and must serve a minimum of 15 years.

It turns out she stabbed Mr Timms because he voted for the Iraq war. It also turns out that, when arrested, she was in possession of a "hit list" of other MPs who had done likewise, all of whom she intended to harm if possible.

Now, the really surpising bit; it turns out that she had been "a moderate Muslim student who had been looking forward to a career in teaching before watching the videos."

The videos described are sermons by Anwar al-Awlaki which Choudhry found on the internet.

So, here we have it; yet another poor, innocent "moderate Muslim" corrupted by those evil extremists to misunderstand their peaceful creed. Just an ordinary British girl, really, could have happened to anyone, I'm sure.

The attack by this poor corrupted moderate Muslim on Mr Timms was described thus:

During the half-day trial William Boyce QC, prosecuting, said Choudhry told police she attacked Mr Timms, 55, as a "punishment" and "to get revenge for the people of Iraq".

Jurors heard she made an appointment to see the MP at Beckton community centre on 14 May.

When she arrived she smiled as she walked up to him, acting as if to shake his hand, before lunging at him with a kitchen knife.

Mr Timms told the court: "She looked friendly. She was smiling, if I remember rightly."

Choudhry stabbed Mr Timms, sending him "reeling and staggering" as his assistant prised the knife from her.

She was held in a "bear hug" by a security guard until the police arrived.

Mr Boyce said Miss Choudhry told police she made the appointment solely for the purpose of attacking him.

She had two knives with her in case one broke during the attack.

In a police interview the next day she said: "I was not going to stop until someone made me.

"I wanted to kill him... I was going to get revenge for the people of Iraq."

Oddly, the BBC report does not mention the terms "jihad" or "political assassination" (although they do acknowledge she's a Muslim, which is a fairly large step forward for them). The Daily Mail is slightly closer to the mark:

Her attack on the former Treasury minister is thought to be the first Al Qaeda-inspired attempt to assassinate a politician on British soil.

The judge alluded to much the same in his summing up:

Mr Justice Cooke, sentencing Choudhry, said: 'You said you ruined the rest of your life. You said it was worth it. You said you wanted to be a martyr'.

The judge said Choudhry would continue to be a danger to Members of Parliament for the foreseeable future.

The judge said that if Choudhry had succeeded in killing Mr Timms he would have given her a whole-life sentence, meaning she would never be released.

He told her: 'You intended to kill in a political cause and to strike at those in Government by doing so.

So, what's the solution to all of this? Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Neville-Jones thinks she might have the answer; attempting to block videos made by extreme Muslim clerics which "have incitement to murder, when you have people actively calling for the killing of fellow citizens and when you have the means to stop that person doing so, then I believe we should act.

'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK.

'They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good."

So, the normal head in the sand tactics, then.

Of course it would be beyond the Baroness, or anyone else involved, to see that Choudhry identified first and foremost with the people of Iraq over Timms and other British citizens - because they are Muslims, and we are not.

Thus, we will always come second. Don't shout that too loudly though - it may be the truth, but it's probably racist or something.

It's quite clear to me that what has been "contrary to the public good" is mass immigration from the Third, and especially the Muslim worlds.

That is what is ultimately responsible for this - not the ability to watch such videos in Britain, but the fact that the country is now full of those who will act on their message without compunction because they despise us, even as they live off of us.

Quite what it is going to take to get that message across, I don't know. This was a terrorist attack, plain and simple, and the media simply ignored that aspect, because it is not conducive to their agenda.

Stephen Timms survived and Choudhry is now in jail, but surely the point of an attack such as this is that every elected representative will have it in their mind when they are asked to vote, especially on certain issues; how many represent what the Muslim Council of Britain has the audacity to call a "very diverse constituency, including many Muslims"?

Diversity and democracy simply do not mix.

***UPDATE 15.36***

From the updated Daily Mail article:

After the sentence was passed, a group of men began shouting in the public gallery 'Allahu akbar' ('God is great'), 'British go to hell' and 'Curse the judge'.

A demonstration was also taking place outside the court.

Yep, it's clearly all about those pesky videos.

The evil Right-wing Mail describes the actions of the men as "the public gallery erupting in protest".

Let's hope the judge showed some backbone and called it "contempt of court" followed by a free trip to the cells, although I doubt it.

Sweden Suspends Deportations to Greece

Today the BBC reports that Sweden is the latest in a line of EU countries to announce it will no longer deport "asylum seekers" (i.e. illegal immigrants) to Greece.

Under the rules of the Dublin II treaty implemented by the European Union, "asylum seekers" must make their claim and be processed in the first EU country they reach.

Unfortunately for the Greeks, this is generally them when it comes to "asylum seekers" travelling by land, particularly from countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The border between Greece and Turkey has recently been announced as one of the EU's "pressure points" when it comes to illegal entry, and a team of border guards from across Europe have been posted there under the EU banner.

Incidentally, shall we just take a brief moment to imagine how much more intense the "pressure" would be if Turkey joined, and the EU bordered Syria, Iraq and Iran?

Anyway, back to the point; the problem with the EU's grandstanding is that it's all largely for show. Most European countries have great legal difficulties expelling asylum seekers they detect as bogus, and many don't even seem to have the will to do so. The vast majority of illegal entrants will end up staying, one way or another, as their host countries tie themselves in legal and ethical knots - throwing even more money down the drain than they spend supporting the vibrant newcomers and their (invariably numerous) dependants.

Which brings me to Sweden's announcement (following similar ones last week from Austria, Finland and Norway); the BBC helpfully informs us:

Under the EU's Dublin II Regulation, asylum seekers generally have to be processed by the first EU member state they come to. That means many have been sent back to Greece.

But in Greece far fewer asylum seekers are granted refugee status than in northern European countries.

Sweden's decision affects about 100 people who would otherwise have been returned to Greece, said Swedish Migration Board director Dan Eliasson.

"The situation in Greece is deteriorating constantly for asylum seekers," the AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

'Inhuman' conditions

Last month a UN special rapporteur, Manfred Nowak, said Greek holding centres for migrants were in a "critical state" and conditions for many of them were "inhuman".

So, the reason for not sending "asylum seekers" back to Greece is simply that they have a much lower chance of being accepted than if they're lucky enough to reach Northern Europe?

Given that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants are simply Third World people, often young males, seeking a new life, often on the Western taxpayer, such criteria simply beggars belief.

On that basis, shouldn't the governments of Sweden and Norway simply send a delegation around the Third World, addressing large crowds and asking "hands up if you want a new life, to you akin to winning the lottery, courtesy of Scandinavian taxpayers."

It would probably be cheaper for them in the long run than maintaining any pretence about "border security".

The flow will only be stemmed when getting into Europe doesn't automatically mean staying in Europe, and UN employees in non-jobs funded largely by Western taxpayers don't describe any conditions which don't include free flights to Scandinavia, large wads of cash, free accommodation and a free hand to harass Swedish women as "inhuman".

I shan't be holding my breath, however.

Election Fever in Barking

Today's Daily Mail carries a report about an incident which occurred yesterday in Barking, involving the BNP's parliamentary candidate for Romford, Bob Bailey.

The bare facts are that former-Royal Marine Mr Bailey and his canvassing team were aggressively approached by three Asian youths, who seemed determined to remonstrate with them and start trouble. After attempting to defuse the situation, Bailey tells them that they are out numbered and should be on their way, at which point one of the youths spits right in his face, causing him to retaliate - which in turn leads to a brawl.

Judge for yourself:

At the beginning, Bailey seems to me to be saying "how many are there of us," or something along these lines, as the youths approach, attempting to appeal to common sense and diassuade them from violence.

The BBC camera crew who just happened to be on hand to record the incident insist that Bailey actually shouted "are you lot robbers," or something similar - at least, that is what I am informed was reported on last night's BBC London news programme.

Apart from their manifesto launch and an interview between Nick Griffin and Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, this is pretty much the only mainstream media coverage the BNP have had in this election campaign.

As usual when it comes to the BNP, opinion and commentary on this latest incident is purely black and white; several copies of the video of the incident on YouTube have titles like "BNP's Bob Bailey Drunkenly Attacks Asian Youths," giving the impression that a swaggering Bailey walked up to some skinny lads quietly reading in a park and attacked one of them for no reason.

The Daily Mail itself reports the incident as: "Caught on camera: BNP candidate punches and kicks Asians after being spat at on campaign trail." It's marginally better than what it was before the update: "BNP Candidate Punches and Kicks Asian Voters After Being Spat At."

The fact is, most people would retaliate after being spat at for going about their lawful business. No one is forced to vote for the BNP or any other party, and attacking canvassers you disagree with is about as counterproductive as it gets.

Some of the comments on the article play for sympathy; apparently, those hooded and hulking Asian males who feel it is their right to silence anyone they don't like are "youngsters" who are "threatened by the BNP's message of hate."

Well, clearly a fair number of white voters in this country feel threatened by Asian gangs, of "youngsters" or otherwise, and the rise of the BNP simply reflects that.

I'm sure the commentators who expressed such sentiments would be just as understanding if some disaffected white youngsters spat in Shahid Malik's face on the campaign trail, because they were scared by his call for a Muslim Prime Minister and the rapidly shifting demographic reality in this country - or outraged over his slithering out of fraud charges over his expenses thefts.

As usual, this is an own-goal for the liberal elite; many people will respect Bailey for standing up to intimidation, particularly those who would not have reacted as he did but wish they could. There is also a glaringly clear case of double standards going on; if Bailey had slunk away, the UAF and Hope Not Hate types would be crowing about how the "scum" aren't welcome on the streets and won't defend themselves, about how the big bad BNP types are scared of some "boys".

Let's be honest, in public relations terms the BNP are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and that's the way the media like it.

Mr Bailey was assaulted in a particularly disgusting and humiliating way whilst going about his business and expressing his legitimate political opinions, canvassing for votes in a supposedly free country; it is clear from the video the Asian males did not want a debate or to protest but simply to provoke him and cause trouble. They succeeded, but because they didn't come out on top we're supposed to feel sorry for them.

Well, I don't. I am sick and tired of media bias and inconsistencies,of unprincipled thieves and crooks trying to prove how moral they are by smearing others, of name-calling and outright lies passing for commentary and debate, and of what is happening to my country.

Tonight I will stay up and follow the election results as they come in, and frankly I wish any political party that isn't Labour, Liberal Democrat or "Conservative" very well indeed. Of particular interest should be the results from Buckingham, where UKIP's Nigel Farage hopes to unseat the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, and Barking, where the BNP's Nick Griffin hopes to unseat the ghastly New Labour ideologue Margaret Hodge.

Good luck to both - and good luck to Britain. I fear that whatever the outcome, she'll need it.