Thursday, January 24, 2013
The bottomless immigration scandal: yet further revelations
A tenth secret immigration caseload dump has been found by John Vine, the Immigration Inspector: boxes of files of non-actioned cases dating back a decade lie in an office here in Sheffield. That coincides with my starting work there (2003). Yes, my old unbelievably surreal place of non-work which was set up as a centre far away from prying London-based journalists, where blame could be laid for the utter dysfunctionality of the Borders & Immigration Agency's (then the Immigration & Nationality Directorate) haplessly named sub-division 'Managed Migration' headquartered in Croydon.
This 'backlog' is quite small: only 16,000. The rest add up to well over 300,000. And this is itself tiny in comparison to the total number of those of whom the BIA has no knowledge whatsoever or whom the BIA has completely lost any track – the illegals who are so either by simply overstaying or by using simple frauds to easily get past our immigration non-system.
The media still parrot the wildly inaccurate figure of 600,000 for the total of illegals in the UK, when this is based on a hopeless international comparison not applicable to the UK with its unique combination of special 'pull' factors. In any case, the bogus 600,000 total does not include non-workers and dependants, which would straight away take it to over the million. This figure is the result of Blair's cynical commission of Professor Salt to come up with a figure that would not fuel the immigration debate. The real figure is, of course, in the millions.
It is now almost a decade since I came forward to 'whistle-blow' the huge immigration scandal, and just as I predicted there is no sign of appalling stories of immigration system incompetence ever drying up. The revelations in my book, The Great Immigration Scandal, actually understate the dire state of things. Still no sign, though, of an apology from The Independent for its defamation; ditto the Boob and others. I take that as a complement in the way that the stupid 'intelligentsia' cannot bring itself either ever to apologise for their unforgivable treatment of Ray Honeyford after he came forward likewise to cogently attack another appalling manifestation of PC-fascism.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The amazingly stupid male-hating Savile hysteria continues in 'Giving Victims A Voice'; the police report travesty
The title of the report says it all. An exercise in entirely one-sided justice is the very antithesis of justice. The Met Police have no basis even in principle of concluding that Savile was a serial sexual abuser, but have instead simply assumed his guilt despite all of the well-researched reasons for being highly suspicious of retrospective accusations where sex is involved – see my previous blog posts on this.
It is not tenable in the light of all of these major factors casting very serious doubt on historical sexual allegations against a celebrity through a media and police trawl to accept that multiple accusations in any way provide mutual corroboration. On the contrary, they undermine each other in that they provide a key basis for elaboration or invention. The Met Police claim that the accusations are fully believable because of their similarity! Of course they are similar: what else would be expected given the trawling?! The stupidity here is elementary.
The report deliberately misrepresents in using the terms 'allegation' and 'report' to conflate the date (year) in which an offence was claimed to have occurred with the date (year) when the claim was formally made to police. There is no mention in the report of even a single allegation made at a time contemporary with its supposed occurrence, so all of the claims are retrospective -- and retrospective by several decades.
As a parallel, look at the similar sexual abuse hysteria in Portugal where both the leading TV icon and the leader of the main political-Left party in the country were convicted, only later for their convictions to be quashed when finally it was accepted that there was no proper evidence against them. Cross-corroboration here too had been the basis of building the whole house of cards, and likewise after police and media trawling.
What we will see now is the dismal spectacle of accusers on the make taking out civil actions through the waiving of the normal there-year limit on retrospective claims.
In my previous blog posting I have outlined the likely scenario of Savile's behaviour, and that this was hardly unusual for a high-status male. Likewise it would be usual for girls who were willing at the time to come to regret their acquiescence, and for all sorts of – often trivial – reasons.
Inasmuch as allegations have any basis beyond invention they are likely to be distortions or gross misrepresentations of events; and many are likely to be 'false memory' constructions.
There is an outside chance -- of course, and this is not to be denied -- that Savile really was a serial sexual abuser, but, even if this were the case, if evidence were to be considered dispassionately then this can never be proven even according to a civil let alone criminal standard of proof. Obviously, evidence will not be considered at all dispassionately. It will not be 'considered' in any meaningful sense of the word, but merely paraded pejoratively.
An alarming aspect of the Met Police report is that it is a collaboration with a demonstrably male-hating political campaigning organisation – the NSPCC – with the two authors being one from each organisation. The Met Police author, Detective Superintendent David Gray, should resign; as should the senior policeman responsible, Commander Peter Spindler. Ditto Keir Starmer, the ever hapless idiot Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Savile hysteria will go down as a very dark chapter in British history, where there was a collective refusal to think in any way logically or fairly, and instead to express unhindered the pure prejudice of how we have all evolved to consider men generically when it comes to sex. It is as crude as that.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
CORRECTING THE PERSPSECTIVE ON INDIAN RAPE
As ever, entirely the wrong perspective has been adopted re men/women regarding the truly horrific assault on the woman and her fiancé in India. The very strength of the reaction in India could not better illustrate that there hardly is political change needed or in process. Women are always regarded as specially deserving of consideration and protection: in any culture and at any historical juncture. This is as true in India as anywhere else. Hence, we have heard little if anything in comparison about the serious injuries the woman's fiancé suffered in trying to defend her; and that he has now lost his fiancée.
The very low incidence of 'stranger' rape generally within communities shows clearly that it is not a problem of any sort of supposed general attitude towards women. Where problems do arise it is across community boundaries. This is why rape often becomes a major issue in war – where women are still much better off than are men, of course, in that the men get killed rather than raped, whereas the women are either left alone or possibly raped, and rarely killed.
In a very large nation like India, riven as it is by major community boundaries, then it is no great surprise that there is a relatively high incidence of 'stranger' rape; but this is a problem indicative of serious division and conflict generally rather than rape specifically; as evidenced by the routine murder and serious injury of men.
The attitude of the Indian police is explained by a combination of the usual incompetence evident in any public service organisation in a poor, non-'Western' country and the well-evidenced understanding by police around the world that a high proportion of rape reports to police are fabrications – 50-70% according to Sir Ian Blair's own research; 90% according to specialist rape investigators in some places, and never less than 50% anywhere in the world. The feminist mantra that there is nothing unusual compared to other crimes about female false reports of sexual (or other cross-sex) assault is entirely contradicted by the data and by research into motivations revealing a spread of alarmingly trivial reasons that are all the women bogus complainants appear to need.
No doubt the Indian police should do a lot more to deal with the incidence of 'stranger' rape, but regarding what crime do the Indian police not need to get their act together?
