Clacton Question Time Possible Bias

If you've ever watched the political debate program Question Time on the BBC, you'll have noticed that the audience in the studio - that asks the panelists topical questions - is constantly predominantly belonging to the Left and extreme Left of the political spectrum, and doesn't seem to be in tune with - let alone representative of - the general public opinion.

To dispel doubts of bias, the BBC once explained that its criterion for choosing the audience is that the latter should represent the various proportions of political views of the local population. Each show has a different location in a British town or city and, according to this criterion, when the broadcast is in Bath, the studio audience should include roughly the same proportion of Conservatives, Labour etc found in Bath.

How can the BBC explain, then, the kind of treatment (not quite lynch mob but getting there) reserved by the members of the audience to the UKIP's Economic spokesman and MEP Patrick O'Flynn on the last Question Time, Thursday 9 October in Clacton on Sea, Essex?

That same day, the by-election held in the Clacton constituency had returned a massive majority for UKIP with nearly 60% of the votes, the highest ever percentage increase (from 0 to 60) in a by-election in British history.

And yet, anyone watching the program would have thought that the people of Clacton viscerally hate the UKIP and love Labour, which came a lame third in the electoral results with just over 11% of the votes.

The possible explanations are prima facie two: either the BBC takes a long time to catch up with public opinion, or the apparently impartial criterion it indicated as the basis for its choice of audiences is not the one actually used.

London Says "Ban Jihadis" as New Terror Plot Is Discovered

Last Tuesday 7 October counter-terrorism officers and armed police have arrested four jihadists plotting a "significant" terror attack in London, and are still interrogating them.

One line of enquiry is that the group was plotting a Mumbai-style gun attack in the capital.

Scotland Yard and the MI5 suspect that the plot was linked to the Islamic State, the first plot directly inspired by the IS. At least one of the four men in their early 20s arrested had recently returned to Britain from Syria.

The police are convinced we are in a more intense phase of Islamic terrorism, increased by the threat of Muslim fighters coming back from their involvement in the Syria and Iraq violence.

Referring to the latest foiled plot, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, speaking to BBC London Radio, gave a grave warning: "[I|t is a quite serious case.

"It is one of a series of arrests that we have had over the last few weeks which taken together for me confirm that the drumbeat around terrorism has changed.

"It's a more intense drumbeat - we are having to be more interventionist and a lot of it is linked back to Syria and Iraq."

It looks like public opinion is getting the message loud and clear, as a Wednesday's YouGov poll showed that three out of four Londoners (74%) think that Britons who have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with extremist groups should be banned from returning to the UK.

This is what my party Liberty GB says, and it's been part of our policies regarding Islam since the beginning of the present crisis.

If we break down the survey results, it's interesting to see that women (at 77%) more than men (70%) are in favour of banning jihadists from entering the country.

But only 49% of people aged 18-24 support it, which is the unmpteenth confirmation that lowering the voting age is a bad idea, and it should in fact be increased.

In the last few weeks extra armed patrols have been employed all over London due to fears of increasing Islamic terrorism.

This plot has been foiled, but how long before another one cannot be stopped and we have a new atrocity?

And how long before the public realises that Islam is the problem and the number of Muslims who are sworn enemies of Britain - tiny minorities or not - is very large and counting?

Politically Correct Language Thoughts

If a prostitute is a sex worker, is a thief an expropriation worker? And a hitman a dispatch worker?

If a homosexual is gay, is a necrophiliac happy?

If Before Christ is Before the Common Era and Anno Domini is Common Era, is Jesus Christ a common good?

If a person who criticises Islam is suffering from Islamophobia, is a person who criticises him suffering from Islamophobiaphobia?

If someone opposed to Third World immigration to the West is a racist, is someone in favour of it a Westist?

If believing that a woman should cook is misogynist, is believing that a man should do the dishes misandrist?

If someone who researches evidence on the subject of the Holocaust is a Holocaust denier, is someone who is engaged in research on any historical subject a history denier?

If a person who doubts anthropogenic global warming theory is a climate change denier, is a person who doubts flat earth theory a flat earth denier?

YouTube without PC Censorship

I want to tell you about a free-speech answer to YouTube: it's called LivingScoop.

The people behind it have contacted me asking me to spread the news of its existence and its need of promotion and financial support.

LivingScoop declares to be "the first and only video sharing site with unlimited free speech and freedom of all expressions".

The problem with YouTube is that it is relatively easy to violate its terms of service. How many times have we clicked on a link to a YouTube video and found that it had been taken down? Counterjihad and other politically-incorrect clips are particularly vulnerable to this fate.

It seems that many videos violating YouTube's guidelines can remain on the website without any trouble, as long as no-one complaints. But, if there is a sufficient number of complaints about a video, it will be removed until it's reviewed by YouTube's staff. And we know how good Muslims and Leftists are at acting in concert to get what they want (just look at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in the United Nations).

Besides, YouTube is owned by Google, which is itself an ideologically Left-of-centre company, a fact that shouldn't inspire total trust.

LivingScoop is different. The LivingScoop management has sent me this message, which I reproduce faithfully:

Livingscoop is one of the key front line Websites in the fight against Islamization of Western countries. Very big blogs like PI-News in Germany use Livingscoop to host their videos safely, and Livingscoop was also notably used to host video interviews with Robert Spencer or with Wafa Sultan.

Meanwhile, these days Livingscoop needs support over the short term in order to face costs, and provide support for necessary technical improvements on the mid-term.

Please, donate to Livingscoop to help us develop and add technical improvements, such as a new own video player, a general HTML5 video format working better with iOS devices, and an upgraded great version of our â "Live Reporter" real time streaming app, etc.

>>> Use the Paypal "Donate" button visible on all pages of Livingscoop. <<<

Feel free to pass on this message to your friends, relatives, networks.

The more support Livingscoop gets, the more sustainable and efficient it is to provide everyone's daily freedom of expression and to offer a strong, safe and reliable platform for anti-jihad videos.

Thanks!

www.livingscoop.com

No Free Speech in English Schools?

New, dangerously anti-free-speech regulations have come into force in English schools on the 29th September 2014. They are contained in the new Independent School Standards regulations, which change the legal framework for academies, free schools and private schools. Ofsted has been asked to enforce the same minimum standards for all other schools.

Among them are the requirements that schools actively promote:

(v) further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions by enabling pupils to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures;

(vi) encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010.

The former is very good in theory, if we didn't know that the "tolerance" and "respect" are not mutual but one-directional, at the expense of British culture.

As for the latter, the new standards will only be met if a school in England "actively promotes" the rights enshrined in the Equality Act.

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage, explains what this innocent-sounding regulation means in practice:

As a result, schools will undoubtedly be put under pressure to promote same-sex marriage. Advice from a senior QC confirms this.

Indeed, the Government Consultation Documents are specific about what these "protected characteristics" are. A clue: think of words that are often used in conjunction with the suffix "phobia".

a. Para 3.2.2
b. “The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristic (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example… failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school”.

The protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (s4 Equality Act 2010).

Hart elaborates:

This all conflicts directly with previous good guidance issued by the Government. But earlier reassurances can’t disguise the fact that schools will now have to comply with the new minimum standards...

If schools were required to promote respect for people as people there would be no problem. But the additional requirement of “paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010” transforms the duty in an alarming way.

One of the ‘protected characteristics’ in the Equality Act is sexual orientation. It could easily be alleged that a teacher who says “I believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage” has shown a lack of respect for people of a same-sex sexual orientation.

Schools will come under immense pressure to endorse same-sex marriage in order to comply with these regulations. Since the equality rights must be “actively promoted”, they will undoubtedly change what is taught in schools.

Under existing equality law, schools cannot discriminate against pupils but governments have carefully excluded the school curriculum from the Equality Act. The regulations break the seal around the curriculum for the first time. Now activists could launch a discrimination claim over the content of lessons.

This is why the Association of School and College Leaders has warned about the harmful implications for freedom of expression in schools.

The Government keeps talking about “British values” but seems to think this means promoting political correctness.

In its alarming consultation document, the Government lets slip some of its thinking.

3.2.2
PART 2 – Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of students

… Schools will be expected to focus on, and be able to show how their work with pupils is effective in embedding fundamental British values. ‘Actively promote’ also means challenging pupils, staff or parents expressing opinions contrary to fundamental British values.

It’s astonishing that the Government thinks schools should challenge the personal beliefs of parents for being contrary to political correctness. This could lead a head teacher to reprimand a parent who tells their child that marriage is for a man and a woman.

The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristics (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example where girls are disadvantaged on the grounds of their gender; failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school.

As we know from recent history, reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely described as ‘homophobia’. Does the new equality requirement mean a school must discipline or dismiss a teacher who voices support for traditional marriage? Will parents of prospective pupils be interrogated about their beliefs before their child is granted a place at school?

The plans also slip in another attack on parents by demanding that in future private schools must conform to ‘national norms’ rather than the expectations of parents.

Any school with a religious ethos which upholds traditional marriage will now have to defend itself against the new rules. Schools could be harassed by inspectors or even have their governors removed by the Secretary of State.

The regulations are a fundamental change of approach in our education system, which have been slipped out under the radar. It is vital that these dangerous plans are opposed and exposed. [All emphases added]

In short, the new regulations are written in such ambiguous terms that any opinion about an institution - like same-sex marriage - may be taken as a lack of respect for some people - homosexuals.

As John Bowers Q.C. explains:

The Regulations are not framed as a duty to promote the protected characteristics but instead as a duty to promote respect of people, having particular regard to those protected characteristics. It adopts much of its language from the human rights case law (tolerance, respect etc). It is however a small step as a matter of interpretation to elide the respect for a person to respecting the beliefs and practices of the group to which that person belongs and this is especially so given the reference to active promotion, a concept to which I refer below in more detail. It may also be said that the words “paying particular regard” shift the duty beyond that of merely respecting people since otherwise it could have been framed simply as a duty to respect persons. [Emphasis added]

Mr Bowers also remarks that the curriculum is in danger of becoming politicised,

because respect for some protected characteristics (or more correctly respect of those with different protected characteristics including faiths and beliefs) may be highly contentious. The law has thus far stayed steadfastly outside the classroom door (and indeed from promoting respect in the classroom) and this has been the policy of governments of each political colour. [Emphasis added]

It's been an article of faith of successive governments that the curriculum should not be a political football and that teachers should not even potentially be the subject of litigation. But all this could be an unintended consequence of the amendments.

Mr Bowers provides examples of situations in which teachers may fall foul of the standards because what they say may be perceived as a lack of respect for people who hold the corresponding beliefs: portraying jihad negatively, dismissing the concept of man-made climate change, making jokes about veganism. He concludes:

The danger of litigation is exacerbated by the vagueness in the proposals arising from the concept of active promotion.

41. The inevitable result is to open teachers up to increased scrutiny, pressures and complaints. There is a real risk of major litigation over what happens in the classroom. Further the contents may undermine their academic freedom.

I find the concept of "protected characteristics" entitling the persons who possess them to "particular respect" a bit politically-correctly sinister, implying that some groups of people are more equal than others. We already know that Muslims are more equal than non-Muslims and homosexuals are more equal than Christians - we've seen it repeatedly demonstrated -, but now it could be enshrined in government's school regulations.

In the end, all this means one thing: much more power to the government and less freedom of expression to people. We are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and plenty of progress on that route has already been made.

First USA-Developed Ebola Case, UK Has Third Highest Risk Globally

Bushmeat eaten in West Africa can be a source of Ebola

This news is from America, but the threat is present in Britain too.

There has been a first case of Ebola diagnosed within the United States, and it's a man from Liberia who should not have been in the US, named Thomas Eric Duncan. He is now being treated in a Dallas hospital, in Texas, isolated and in critical conditions.

His is the first case of someone developing Ebola outside the tropics. Mr Duncan was infected in Liberia and became ill after flying to Dallas.

The UK magazine New Scientist claims:

Epidemiologists have been warning that this could happen since early in the Ebola outbreak, which is concentrated in three countries in western Africa, and say the risk will only increase as cases start to skyrocket.

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in the USA explains why the man's visa should have never been issued:

Duncan is a 40-something, single, unemployed Liberian who applied sometime in the last year for a visa to visit his sister in the United States.

That is five strikes against his application:

1.Single
2.Unemployed
3.Liberian (5th highest overstay rate of any country in the world)
4.Has recently resided outside of his country of citizenship, displaying weak ties there
5.Sister living in the United States.

Together, all these factors should have weighed very heavily against the issuance of a visitor's visa to Duncan. He clearly appears unqualified.

In 2013, more than 3,500 non-immigrant visas were issued to Liberians. This number has grown steadily since 2009, when just over 1,300 were issued. Most are issued to tourists and business travelers. A relatively high percentage do not return, but settle here illegally to join a well-established Liberian community (many of whom have won green cards in the visa lottery). [Emphasis added]

In addition to the high risk that Mr Duncan presented of overstaying his visa due to his weak ties outside the USA, his coming from Liberia, one of the countries most afflicted by the current Ebola outbreak - the worst in history -, should have dictated extra precaution.

Reportedly, travelers to the United States are simply being questioned about their contact with infected people and are checked for a fever. In contrast, three African countries (Namibia, Kenya, and Zambia) have banned travelers from the countries that are experiencing the outbreak (Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea).

But, despite a letter from congressman Alan Grayson suggesting that for the duration of the outbreak the US should bar from entry citizens of the Ebola-stricken countries and any foreign national who visited one of them within 90 days before seeking entry to the United States, Obama doesn't seem interested in controlling immigration in the face of any danger to homeland security, be it terrorism, foreign criminal cartels, or a deadly epidemic.

A comment to the article on the CIS site quoted above showed no hope in the Obama administration:

Our government is failing us. Nothing new though. It has been going on for 6 years now.

The UK is in an even worse situation:

Alessandro Vespignani of Northeastern University in Boston and his colleagues have rated the risk of different countries around the world importing cases of Ebola. After Ghana and Gambia, the UK has the third highest risk globally because of the large number of people and flights from the epidemic region to London.

In September, the risk for importing a case to the UK was around 25 per cent, and slightly less for the US.

On the lookout

Doctors and hospitals in the UK have been told to be on the lookout for possible cases, says Peter Piot of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. [Emphasis added]

But so far, efforts in Britain seem to be focused on helping the countries of West Africa and discussing what the global community can do to provide an effective international response, and not on barring from entry to the UK people from the Ebola-stricken countries.

Black Gangs: Memphis Police Giving Up on Public Safety

What's happening in America? A race war fought only on one side seems to erupt in its cities every so often, maybe more frequently than we hear about.

"Another Teenage Mob Terrorizes Southern Town: ‘Memphis Is Going to Burn if They Don’t Control These Children’" headlines The Blaze, echoing a similar episode of a few weeks ago.

As in the UK when paedophiles are Muslim and their victims white, so in the US the mainstream media try to underplay the fact that the gangs and the attackers are black and the victims they choose for their knock-out game, in a city like Memphis whose population is 62.6% African American, are predominantly white.

Hence WREG-TV reported:

Three people were attacked by a large group of teenagers Saturday night.

Can we be more specific?

“Hold on, they got a white dude,” exclaims the woman capturing the cellphone video.

Memphis' black youth gangs are so terrifying and crime levels are so high that last year the Memphis Police Association installed billboards saying “Danger: Enter At Your Own Risk – This City Does NOT Support PUBLIC SAFETY.”