Home » World Events

Category Archives: World Events

Some thoughts about mooted changes to Media ownership law in Australia

 

iamnotanartist_gifparanoia_16

People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.

Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles.  My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly.  With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media  consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.

Cheers Comrades

breaking_news_animated

How dare you question my Saxonality? Or George Brandis and our right to be bigots

 

From my appearance with a (now greying) red beard, blond hair and blue eyes its pretty obvious that I have some measure of Anglo Saxon  blood in my veins, thanks to the period of English history when the Saxons were ascendant . What would people think if I were to begin to insist that I am a Saxon? Or if my children were to do the same and therefore ignoring the fact that their Opa  was a Dutchman from Rotterdam? Or that their Grandmother’s family were all good Irish Catholics? Under the way of thinking of those who sued Andrew Bolt I or my children should forever be unquestioned were we to insist that we are Saxons (even though my daughter has dark hair and hazel  eyes ) if my family insisting that we are Saxons is a shallow a conceit, and one that I could insist upon would it make someone a bigot if they were to question that conceit?  I might certainly dislike my conceits being questioned, I might even feel offended , insulted even a bit intimidated because I have had something as fundamental as they way that I ethically self identify but would it mean that those who ask those uncomfortable questions are “bigots” ?

Yesterday in the senate our Attorney General said in answer to a question that “every Australian has the right to be a bigot” it was a nicely put  argument that has got the latte sippers choking on their milky brews because I gather that many on the left are rather certain that being a bigot is about the worst thing that its possible to be unless you are an adult with an unhealthy interest in the contents of a child’s underpants which is of course just a (little) bit worse. Strangely enough Pat Condell published a vid yesterday in which bigotry is quite cleverly considered, its only a short rant so please consider this:

What Condell’s rant tells us with some clever wit is that the politically correct want to control the way that people speak , often for rather noble reasons, but noble reasons or not  the result is more toxic than the intemperate speech that the PC police would have silenced. Which brings us back to the clause in the racial vilification act that the government proposes to seriously amend.

The problem that our friends from the left far too often use a claim of bigotry as a sort of universal shut up when there is a truth that they find uncomfortable, a certain learned gentleman of this blogs acquaintance was very fond of insisting that anyone who thinks that marriage should only be between one man and one woman is a bigot. Our learned friend is obviously wishing to see the standing of homosexuals in our society raised and more respected.  Likewise our own Ray Dixon is extremely sensitive about the way that Muslims and Aboriginals  are perceived in our society he has the most noble motives in his desire to see multiculturalism work and to ensure that those from outside the majority are do not have to endure any kind of prejudicial treatment.  The problem with wanting to enforce any sort of superficial niceness is that the result is  a sort of bullying that Pat Condell so eloquently rails against in his video it ends up protecting that which, in a civil society, should be free to explore ventilate and maybe reconsider.  Thus when 18c was used to shut Andrew Bolt up so that the notion of self selected ethnic  identity by those who sued him under 18c would remain unconsidered, our society lost a good opportunity to take a long hard look at ourselves and just what it means to have any sort of ethnic identity. Some who harshly ventilate  their own feelings or beliefs of such issues may certainly meet the definition of bigotry but the way to counter such views is not with the blunt instrument of a widely cast law but by their fellows convincing them that the prejudice is both wrong and more importantly unproductive and  unlikely to “win friends or influence people”.

What George Brandis was saying is an iteration of the famous Voltaire aphorism , namely “I utterly disagree with what you are saying but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it” its not a principle that we should disavow at all if we want to enjoy a truly free and pluralistic  society but its a sad reflection  of of friends from the left who are both very keen to be the champions of free speech and to enforce”niceness”  is it any wonder that they are being called hypocrite?

So lets defend free speech and encourage niceness in social discourse because, to cite another aphorism you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force him to drink.

Cheers Comrades

Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? or the proper way to nurture social acceptance

As its a fine Saturday morning and I think that such days are perfect for a change of pace I offer a new topic that I have come across from my subscription to “Spiked”. It concerns the refusal of the St Patrick’s day marches in New York and Boston to allow Gay activists to march under Gay themed banners in their parades. Of course our friends of the pink persuasion are screaming “discrimination” with a great deal of vim and vigour so loudly that you would think that the march organisers were planning to burn a few homosexuals at the stake as part of the celebrations. What I find most worrying about the whole thing is the same “if you don’t support the Gay agenda 110% then you are a bigot” mindset from those homosexual activists who want to hijack the ostensibly Catholic festival to promote their own cause .

 

irish_gay_protestThere have also been reports of people losing employment after it was discovered that they do not agree with gay marriage. A common theme in these reports is that the individuals involved do not appear to dislike gay people, but they have nonetheless been labelled bigots due to their objections to same-sex marriage. Rather than encouraging a live-and-let-live attitude, it appears that some supporters of same-sex marriage seek to find and root out anyone who won’t publicly accept this relatively new institution.

When lawmakers in Arizona introduced a bill last month that sought to clarify whether small business owners like wedding photographers can refuse work on religious freedom grounds, there was little consideration in the media of the legal pros and cons. Few highlighted that the existing law allows private vendors to refuse work on the grounds of sexual orientation, and thus continues after the governor vetoed the bill. Instead, the proposed law was greeted with a hysterical campaign to label it ‘anti-gay’ and ‘Jim Crow’ (an historically illiterate comparison, beginning with the fact that Jim Crow was enforced by state law and businesses that refused to obey it could be prosecuted).

These tendencies to demonise dissent are visible in the campaign against the St Patrick Day parades. There is a rush to label any disagreement with gay marriage or gay culture as out-and-out ‘bigotry’. There is a desire to not simply state that certain views of gays are wrong, but to have those views silenced. And there is an operation to target and scare corporations that are associated with such views. Gay activists threatened a campaign against corporations in Arizona, including the National Football League for holding the Super Bowl in the state, if the recent bill passed. Similarly, they pressured St Patrick’s Day sponsors like Samuel Adams and Heineken to withdraw support. This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.

What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.

The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

source

The title of the article asks Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? and I can’t avoid concluding that its the very noisy Gay activists who are using every possible way to bully people into “endorsing” to their position. I can’t help thinking that this may well back fire on them and lead to a backlash that seriously damages the hard earned public good will towards homosexuality that has been steadily been accruing over the last few years. Social acceptance can be most fragile flower that needs nurture and careful cultivation and it can be oh so easily lost if you start tearing up the field with loud and noisy tractors instead of well directed hand tools.

Cheers Comrades

high_class_hoe__x1_tool_animation_scale2_5_quality10_loop_1355197228

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and dodgy passports

Relatives of passengers on the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 arrive for a meeting with airline officials in Beijing. Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

Relatives of passengers on the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 arrive for a meeting with airline officials in Beijing. Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

Now as the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 continues we have the revelation that at least two travellers on that flight were flying on stolen identities. Now while the report from the Guardian is very quick to down play the the possibility that the plane was deliberately brought down by an act of terrorism. personally I think that at this point in time its a better  than evens chance that the loss of the aircraft is the result of an act of Jihad.

 

The Malaysia Airlines flight missing with 239 on board may have turned around just before it vanished from radar screens, the country’s air force chief said on Sunday as the government said it had contacted counter-terrorism agencies around the world following concerns over unidentified passengers.

Transport and defence minister Hishamuddin Hussein said officials were considering all possible explanations for the disappearance of flight MH370, adding: “We cannot jump the gun. Our focus now is to find the plane.”

The airline warned families to prepare for the worst as the search widened amid inconclusive reports that debris had been spotted floating in the sea between Vietnam and Malaysia.

At least two people on the plane were travelling together on stolen passports, fuelling concerns about the Boeing-777′s abrupt disappearance in the early hours of Saturday. However, experts said there were many possible reasons for why it vanished and for people to travel on false documents.

Malaysian officials said they were looking at four suspect identities and were examining the entire passenger manifest. Interpol confirmed that at least two passports were listed in its database as stolen and that it was examining other documents.

The international police agency’s secretary general, Ronald Noble, said it had spent years urging countries to screen all passports systematically. “Now, we have a real case where the world is speculating whether the stolen passport holders were terrorists, while Interpol is asking why only a handful of countries worldwide are taking care to make sure that persons possessing stolen passports are not boarding international flights,” he said.

Source

The fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country may well have made its national carrier think that it would be very low on the possible targets list but with the very acrimonious schisms within  Islam I don’t think that we canmake assumptions  like that, besides which the next world superiority over this may have made the possible death of Muslims logistically acceptable.

Secondly despite my utter aversion to flying I do appreciate that modern planes do not just suddenly disappear off radar screens without some sort of communication to ground informing the air  controllers that they have a problem. The there and then gone aspect of this disappearance suggest at the very least   a sudden  catastrophic failure of the aircraft. With a sudden disappearance AND two  passengers using stolen documents to travel on the plane its not looking good for those who want to make excuses for the religion of peace.

Coincidentally My lovely wife organised for us to go on a date to the movies yesterday and the film she picked was , of all things “Non Stop”  which is a film about terrorists on an airliner. Not a bad flick really with lots of twists and turns to the plot, every possible passenger stereotype from the virtuous Muslim doctor, a  to the scared unaccompanied little girl, an off duty NYPD cop, a plucky stewardess. There was echoes of 911 in the reactions of the passengers and at the end a good exploitation of brinkmanship and, as you would expect from an American film an uplifting resolution of the plot. I could not help thinking about MH370 though and that happy endings are easier to find in the reel world. No matter what the reasons for this tragic loss may prove to be, the families and friends of the compliment of MH370 are going to be grief stricken. I for one hope that the cause is found sooner rather than later but I expect with the crash site as yet undiscovered its going to be a rather long wait for answers.

Later Comrades

nnn

Things are no longer so simple

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370

777 a.tif

3.07am GMT

What we know so far

• Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has gone missing en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing

• Boeing 777 was carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew

• About 160 passengers are believed to be Chinese nationals

• Plane left KL at 12.41am local time and lost contact with air traffic control about two hours later

Updated at 3.11am GMT

There is almost no chance at all that anyone has survived the crash of this plane, its just the simple truth that when an aircraft crashes its generally always fatal unlike cars there are almost no design features in aircraft to make crashes survivable. Cue the usual claims about the “safety” of air travel that is based upon how seldom they crash when the true measure of vehicle safety should be based upon your chances of walking away from a crash.

with respect for the dead Comrades

A relative (woman in white) of a passenger onboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 cries as she talks on her mobile phone at the Beijing Capital ...

A relative (woman in white) of a passenger onboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 cries as she talks on her mobile phone at the Beijing Capital …

The naive minions of the left and aberrant sexuality

There is nothing that I love more than discovering that our friends from the left have been caught with their hands down the trousers of children, hang on let me clarify that, I detest the abuse in fact there is nothing more abhorrent to me but I certainly do love it when the naive maleficence of the left is revealed. I had great joy in the discovery of the way that the prototype of the Australian Greens endorsed paedophilia     and a very spirited  debate in the comment thread. Any how it seems that another element of the left has been caught out flirting with nonces, this time its elements of the left wing of the British Labor party:

Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey in 1982 Photograph: Pa

Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey in 1982 Photograph: Pa

But how did the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), whose affiliation to the NCCL has been exhaustively investigated by the Daily Mail, come to get a ticket to the party?

“It was an extraordinarily liberal period,” said Harry Fletcher, a criminal justice expert who at the time was the senior social worker for the National Council for One Parent Families. “The abortion laws had come in and capital punishment had been abolished.” People were pushing at every boundary – sexual, moral, legal. Fletcher recalled how the groups would spend hours debating whether the NCCL, which became the campaign group Liberty, should defend the right of someone with racist or homophobic views to express themselves. The discussion about defending the National Front’s right to march went on for months.

But by far the most divisive topic centred on the lowering of the age of consent. Many on the left thought that criminalising sexual behaviour between consenting teenagers was misguided and wanted it lowered to 14, a proposal endorsed by the NCCL’s executive committee. Others, like Fletcher, felt such a move would give a licence to older men to prey on young girls. Into this permissive climate crept the PIE, a group that actively promoted sex between children and adults and that was allowed not only to affiliate to the NCCL (in return for paying a £15 subscription) but enjoyed considerable recognition and support for its right to speak out on such issues.

The group inveigled itself so successfully into the NCCL that, as reported in the May 1978 edition of its magazine MagPIE, the council’s annual meeting passed a motion in support of PIE’s rights. Motion 39 stated: “This AGM reaffirms the right of free discussion and freedom to hold meetings for all organisations and individuals doing so within the law. Accordingly, whilst reaffirming the NCCL policy on the age of consent and the rights of children; particularly the need to protect those of prepubertal age, this AGM condemns the physical and other attacks on those who have discussed or attempted to discuss paedophilia, and reaffirms the NCCL’s condemnation of harassment and unlawful attacks on such persons.”

That motion was passed two years after Harman has claimed that the group no longer wielded influence in the NCCL. “They had been pushed to the margins before I actually went to NCCL and to allege that I was involved in collusion with paedophilia or apologising for paedophilia is quite wrong and is a smear,” she told the BBC last week. She said her husband had successfully fought to stop PIE having any influence in the NCCL in 1976 – two years before she joined as its legal officer.

Admittedly, any group could join the NCCL, which had more than 1,000 affiliate member organisations and the council’s motion probably owed more to defending the principle of free speech than defending PIE. And it would be wrong to portray PIE as a major force. Being small, comprising only a handful of activists and with a membership estimated to be between 300 and 1,000, PIE was not a powerful voice at a time when the main debates within the council were about sexual equality and race relations. But its views were so profoundly abhorrent to most of Britain that it is still hard to see why the council did not do more to disown PIE from the start.

click for source

What I find most darkly amusing about the report from the Guardian that I quote from is the headline “How paedophiles infiltrated the left and hijacked the fight for civil rights” there was clearly nothing covert at all about the creeps from PIE joining the NCCL they were entirely open about their beliefs and their desire to make their perversion more socially acceptable. there was therefore no infiltration, they asked to join and they were welcomed. That is what makes these minions of the left so culpable now.  Eventually PIE  were shunned by the NCCL but the shame of the left was that they were ever  allowed to have the supposed respectability of membership in the first place.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here? The prototype of the Greens endorses paedophilia, the British Labor party is complicit in endorsing PIE so it seems to me  be in the DNA of the left to accept any expression  of abnormal sexuality . Can it be that the far left (and maybe those further from the extreme as well) might just have some equally vile skeletons in their collective closets?  OK that is enough Schardenfreude for this morning I realise taht the Australian left are of course just that little bit better than its European precursors but then again they don’t have much to say about followers of Islam who take the life of the Prophet as their template to “marry” pre-pubescent girls do they? Hmm maybe they are not that much better after all…

Cheers Comrades

swing

Judgement in London in the Murder of Lee Rigby

If ever a case deserved a capital sanction….

 

Michael Adebolajo (also known as Mujaahid Abu Hamza) and Michael Adebowale (also known as Ismail Ibn Abdullah) you have both been convicted, on overwhelming evidence, of the barbaric murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in Artillery Place in Woolwich in the early afternoon of Wednesday 22 May last year.

You are British citizens, aged 29 and 22 respectively. Adebolajo you are married with four step children and two children of your own.

Having presided over your trial I am sure of the following facts.

You each converted to Islam some years ago. Thereafter you were radicalised and each became an extremist – espousing a cause and views which, as has been said elsewhere, are a betrayal of Islam and of the peaceful Muslim communities who give so much to our country.

You decided, between you, and in order to advance your extremist cause, to murder a soldier in public in broad daylight and to do so in a way that would generate maximum media coverage, including getting yourselves killed by armed officers who would be bound to attend the scene in the aftermath of the murder – thereby expecting that you would become martyrs and each gain a place in paradise.

The planning took place over a period of time. You Adebolajo acquired an old handgun which, although it did not work, was to be used at the scene to keep the public at bay and to threaten the armed officers with when they arrived. The day before the murder you Adebolajo bought five knives and a knife sharpener – which you used to sharpen some of the knives in preparation for their use in the murder.

On the day of the murder the two of you met up some hours in advance. Eventually Adebolajo drove you both to Woolwich in his car, where you parked up in Wellington Street and waited to spot a soldier to murder. You had with you a total of eight knives and the gun. It was while you were waiting that Lee Rigby walked past. He was instantly recognisable as being a soldier as he was wearing a Help for Heroes top and carrying his army day sack.

He was 25 years old, had joined the army in 2006, and among other postings had seen active service in Afghanistan in 2009. An outgoing and popular personality, he was by the time you saw him in a recruiting post dealing with young people and involved in other duties at his regimental HQ at the Tower of London. Indeed, he was on his way from his HQ to the Woolwich barracks when you saw him. He had done absolutely nothing to deserve what you went on to do to him.

You stalked him in the car as he walked along Wellington Street, crossed the South Circular Road and went into Artillery Place where he crossed the road in front of you.

Seizing your opportunity Adebolajo, and once he was no longer looking in your direction, you accelerated hard to 30-40mph and ran him down from behind. The impact carried him up on to the bonnet of the car breaking five vertebrae in his back and five ribs. The speed of the car was such that it carried up on to the pavement and crashed into the support of a road sign and stopped, depositing Lee Rigby in the area between the front of the car and an adjacent wall. He was unconscious and certainly unable to defend himself.

You both exited the car armed with knives and over a period of around two to three minutes you butchered Lee Rigby – going, as you were well aware, far beyond what was needed to murder him. You Adebolajo concentrated on his neck – hacking at it repeatedly with first a substantial cleaver type knife and then another knife, all in an attempt to decapitate him for maximum horrific effect. In the end you failed but in the process you caused horrendous injuries as shown in the materials before the court.

You Adebowale concentrated on Lee Rigby’s torso stabbing him a number of times in the chest in frenzied fashion and with severe force. It is no exaggeration to say that what the two of you did resulted in a blood bath. Aspects of all this were seen, as they were intended to be, by members of the public.

Once you had finished, and again in order to achieve maximum effect, you then carried and dragged Lee Rigby’s body into the road in Artillery Place and dumped it there – thus eventually bringing the traffic to a halt.

In the 13 minutes that passed between then and the arrival of the armed officers, the number of members of the public at the scene grew. You both gloried in what you had done. Each of you had the gun at one point or another and it was used to warn off any male member of the public who looked as though he might intervene.

Those who saw the gun believed that it was real and loaded.

You Adebolajo handed out a pre-prepared written statement seeking to justify your joint cause and actions. In addition, carrying the bloodied cleaver in your equally bloody hands, and knowing that you were being filmed, you made a political statement. Images of that filmed statement were broadcast around the world. The effect of the two statements was to seek to justify your joint actions as being retaliation for deaths in Muslim lands, and to incite the removal of the government in this country.

Your sickening and pitiless conduct was in stark contrast to the compassion and bravery shown by the various women at the scene who tended to Lee Rigby’s body and who challenged what you had done and said.

The armed police officers arrived in a marked police vehicle. At that time, you Adebolajo were still armed with the cleaver and the other knife, and you Adebowale (by agreement between the two of you) were armed with the gun and a knife. You Adebolajo sprinted towards the officers jettisoning the knife and carrying the cleaver above your head as if intent on attacking one or more of them, while you Adebowale went down the adjacent pavement and pointed the gun at the officers.

The officers shot you both. They were clearly entitled to do so. It is thanks to their professionalism, including the speed with which they rendered First Aid, that neither of you was killed – especially in your case Adebowale, given that you pointed the gun at them again even after you had been shot for the first time.

As is clear from their moving Victim Personal Statements, and unsurprisingly, the consequences of the murder, its brutality and the publicity, have had a severe and lasting impact on those close to Lee Rigby.

You Adebolajo were the leader of this joint enterprise – albeit that Adebowale played his part enthusiastically. It was you who provided much, if not all, of the equipment and the car, and you were the mouthpiece on the day.

That said, neither of you, I am sure, has any real insight into the enormity of what you did, nor any genuine remorse for it either – only regret that you did not succeed in your plan to be shot dead, which has resulted in you being brought to justice before the courts.

Equally you, Adebolajo, who I have observed at length, have (I am sure) no real prospect of rehabilitation.

Sentence for murder is mandatory – it must be one of life imprisonment. But I must also identify the minimum term that you must serve.

The prosecution assert that, in each of your cases, this was (in the terms of paragraph 4(c) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The prosecution equally assert that, in each of your cases, and in accordance with the provisions of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, this was a murder with a terrorist connection.

Hence the prosecution submit that this is an offence the seriousness of which is exceptionally high, and that thus my starting point should be a whole life term.

The prosecution also submit, obviously correctly, that in the light of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference (No.69 of 2013) [2014] EWCA Crim 188 it is open to me to go on to impose a whole life term in relation to each defendant. They draw my attention, in particular, to the public nature of what happened, to the fact that there was a significant degree of planning or premeditation, that Lee Rigby was providing a public service or performing a public duty, and to the treatment of his body.

As to the starting point it is submitted, amongst other things, on your behalf Adebolajo that I should not be bound by the reasons that you yourself have given for your actions, but should regard this offence as being one motivated by simple religious hatred actions, or the equivalent of the murder of a police officer, and thus the equivalent of an offence requiring a starting point of less than a whole life term. It is urged, although it is accepted that there is not much evidence to support it, that you are someone who can be rehabilitated in time. As I have already indicated, I am sure that is wrong. It is urged that I should be flexible in my approach to the provisions of Schedule 21 – which I am. It is further submitted that it is of significance that there is no evidence that you were part of a wider group, that there was no intention to physically harm more than one victim who was chosen purely at random because of his profession, and that there is no evidence that the plot was part of a wider network or support group, and that thus this is not a case to take the sentence of last resort as my starting point.

Similar points are urged in relation to you, Adebowale, together with other points which in my judgment come more appropriately into consideration in deciding what the appropriate actual sentence is in your case. I am sure that this was (in the terms of paragraph 4(c) of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

I am equally sure that, in each of your cases, and in accordance with the provisions of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, this was a murder with a terrorist connection – though I am careful to avoid double counting in that regard.

I equally have no doubt that this is an offence the seriousness of which is, in fact, exceptionally high, and thus my starting point in relation to it should be a whole life term.

While I agree with Mr Lakha that there are three aggravating features, namely a significant degree of planning and premeditation and planning, the fact that the victim was performing a public duty, and the way that the body was treated, I have included all of these in the overall facts that I have found.

I must however go on to consider my actual sentence.

In your case Adebolajo there is no mitigation, and whilst to state the obvious, this is not a case of mass or repeated murder it is nevertheless one of those rare cases where not only is the seriousness exceptionally high but the requirements of just punishment and retribution make such an order the just penalty. Accordingly in your case I propose to impose a whole life term.

In your case Adebowale I am persuaded that the combination of your lesser role, your age and your pre-existing and continuing mental condition mean that it is not appropriate in your case to impose a whole life term. Nevertheless in your case there must still be a very substantial minimum term. The term that I propose to impose is one of 45 years less 272 days spent on remand.

Michael Adebolajo I sentence you to life imprisonment with a whole life order.

Michael Adebowale I sentence you to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 45 years less 272 days spent on remand. In both your cases I make a Notification Order for the maximum of 30 years.

In each of your cases there will be an appropriate victim surcharge.

Source

In the circumstances the decion of the court is the most that can be imposed and I for one am pleased that neither of these examples  of Islam will ever be free within the community to kill again in the name of Allah, I can only hope that they have a truly miserable existence at Her Majesty’s pleasure, sadly I think that they will be far more comfortable than they deserve to be.

Later Comrades

Saddam's cat Wants to play with

Saddam’s cat Wants to play with Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale

 

 

My daughter is a fan so we look forward too “The Wind Rises”

click for source

click for source

With The Wind Rises, which has earned an Academy Award nomination for best animated feature, Miyazaki has made a departure from the themes and visual language that have constituted the house style of his Studio Ghibli. The digression feels all the more startling in that the 73-year-old film-maker has announced that this will be his last film. The story of second world war fighter plane designer Jiro Horikoshi may be highly fictionalised and suffused with Miyazaki’s characteristic sensitivity and breathtaking vistas, but it feels more earthily literal than the director’s standard family-friendly fare.

With that caveat in mind, it’s possible to admire and even enjoy the world that Miyazaki invites viewers to enter, in this case Japan during the 1920s and 30s, when the nearsighted, aeroplane-obsessed Horikoshi, unable to become a pilot, instead turns to engineering the flying machines that course through his dreams like giant, enchanted birds. He also dreams of an Italian aeronautical designer named Caproni, who appears throughout The Wind Rises like a benevolent muse. Miyazaki uses Horikoshi’s life to illuminate some of the most distressing chapters of Japanese history, including the country’s crippling economic depression, the devastating Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 and a tuberculosis epidemic that, in the film, winds up playing a role in Horikoshi’s courtship of his wife, Nahoko.

Cheers Comrades

tumblr_lt7vl5nI211r4c6y2o1_500

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 240 other followers

%d bloggers like this: