Time and time again in this country, doctors and various other ‘experts’ make decisions that are obvious lunacy to anyone with a normal, functioning brain. And inevitably, it’s never these morons who end up paying the price but rather, innocent members of the public.
In yet another such incident, a pregnant woman has been murdered by a psychiatric patient who was released after doctors decided he was ‘exaggerating’ his mental problems.
Alan McMullan, 54, stabbed 21-year-old Claire Wilson to death as she walked to work on a Sunday afternoon.
She screamed and collapsed as her attacker walked away, a jury has now heard.
And here’s the part that will make you seethe: one year earlier the killer had on not one, not two, but on three occasions handed himself into police while armed with a knife, claiming to hear voices commanding him to murder someone!
Each time he was admitted to hospital – and later released after treatment. On the third occasion doctors decided he was ‘exaggerating his symptoms to gain admission to hospital’, Hull Crown Court has heard.
After committing the murder, McMullan told police he was angry he had not been given ‘appropriate treatment’ by the authorities.
Miss Wilson, the victim, was six months pregnant, when she was stabbed to death on June 7 last year.
Personally, I think that every single ‘doctor’ who opted to release this man into the general community, should be struck off and then charged with reckless endangerment, if we have such a category of crime here in the UK.
Sequence of events:
McMullan went to the police on June 2, 2008.
He was carrying a knife, complained of feeling unwell and mentioned the possibility of killing somebody.
He was admitted under the Mental Health Act and seen by a consultant psychiatrist.
McMullan was discharged from Diana Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby after 14 days, told to stop drinking, continue with his medication and attend an outpatient appointment.
On June 19 the same thing happened again. This time he was admitted for 21 days and released with medication.
The third time he was admitted to the psychiatric unit was July 21 and this time doctors decided he was ‘exaggerating’.
The latest example of British lunacy is the decision to extradite to America Gary McKinnon. Gary, for those who have missed all the media coverage, is both autistic and also an internet hacker. After he happily hacked his way into Pentagon and NASA computers, America demanded his extradition. And the reason for his cyberspace mischief…?
Gary was looking for proof of aliens. Yep, that’s right. His primary interest is ‘little green men’. Now, personally, I think the Pentagon should be offering Gary a job – clearly, their security is woefully lacking, as proven by this British alien enthusiast.
America has other ideas, though. Now Gary faces a sixty year sentence and the prospect of dying in a US jail cell. U.S prosecutor Mark Summers insists that Gary’s actions were ‘intentional and calculated to influence and affect the U.S. government by intimidation and coercion’.
Here in the UK, though, numerous politicians, celebs and mental health experts are calling on the government to intervene, insisting that for a person with Asbergers, extradition and prison could be fatal.
And why can’t Gary be tried in the UK? After all, it’s here where his crimes were actually committed. He could be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison, under the Computer Misuse Act.
Instead, legislation that was intended to deal with terrorists, is being applied to this 43 yr old autistic bloke who no doubt wishes one of his beloved UFOs would indeed swoop down and rescue him from the long arm of American ‘justice’.
Lord Carlile, a former Liberal Democrat M.P., is the government’s Independent Reviewer Of Terrorism Legislation. He has repeatedly lobbied the Home Office to rethink Gary’s case. In a letter to the Home Secretary, he says:
‘…I believe we have a duty to protect the vulnerable and even the eccentric. Mr Mckinnon has had the shadow of extradition hanging over him for five years already, during which time he could have been tried, sentenced and perhaps served any prison time, were he to have been prosecuted in the UK.’
Meanwhile, let’s peruse the list of people that Britain apparently either can’t extradite, or is having trouble doing so, shall we…?
There’s radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, for a start. Described as Bin Laden’s ‘ambassador in Europe’. Qatada has been in prison here since 2005 while battling extradition to Jordan on terrorism charges.
Then there’s Rachid Ramda, an Islamic terrorist who spent an entire decade resisting extradition to France, where he was wanted for a series of bombings on the Paris metro in 1995. He was finally extradited in 2007.
Oh, and let’s not forget the case of four wanted for mass murder in Rwanda. They were successful in avoiding extradition and are now in Britain, totally free.
Finally, there’s convicted killer Selami Cokaj, an Albanian who who broke out of jail in his home country and in 1997, was discovered living in Nottinghamshire, running a car washing business.
Twice, British police arrested him. Yet he w
as freed on bail by British magistrates. Finally, Cokaj successfully avoided extradition to Albania – by lodging an eleventh hour asylum claim…
But Crown Prosecution Service lawyers – funded by the good old British public – have been advised they have no choice but to work towards Gary’s extradition.
Quite apart from anything else, this case illustrates the strange nature of Britain’s extradition treaty with the U.S. British citizens can be apprehended on little or no evidence – yet the criteria for extraditing Americans are far stricter.
To be clear: I’m not seeking to condone Gary McKinnon’s online exploits. I just think public funds could be put to far better use than turning over to the U.S. this vulnerable man whose dearest dream in life was to find proof of alien life.
It seems that Gary McKinnon’s motives in hacking into the Pentagon and NASA may have been somewhat darker than I, for one, initially realised. Fellow blogger Sultan Knish has pointed out the following:
16. Analysis of the appellant’s home computer confirmed these allegations. During his interviews under caution, moreover, he admitted responsibility (although not that he had actually caused damage). He stated that his targets were high level US Army, Navy and Air Force computers and that his ultimate goal was to gain access to the US military classified information network. He admitted leaving a note on one army computer reading:
“US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . .”
McKinnon’s mother apparently refers to his being a ’9/11 Truther’:
To quote a programme that some of us used to rather enjoy: the truth is out there…!
An expert on terrorism today warned that UK prisons are now a hotbed for Islamic extremism. Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, stated: “Since 2001 we have seen only the first round of the struggle. Prisons around the world are universities of terror and there is no reason to believe that the UK’s will not be the same.
“The 90-odd convictions will have their own longer-term consequences for which the Government must be prepared.”
In other words, this renewed threat is partly a result of successful anti-terrorism operations, filling prisons with terrorists and turning them into “universities of terror”.
Now there’s a cheery thought for you…
Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant is suggesting we find an alternative symbol for the Red Cross because of the logo’s supposed links to the Crusades.
MPs are debating the adoption of the ‘red crystal’ – a diamond-shaped badge – to avoid the religious connotations of the cross and crescent symbols currently used by the international body.
But critics said the new insignia was a sop to political correctness and warned that it may be the first step towards it replacing cross and crescent. Others fear that it may not be as widely recognised on the battlefield.
‘It is, in an effort not to be contentious, possibly too anodyne to serve its purpose,’ Tory MP John Hayes said.
Philip Davies, a Tory backbencher, said: ‘At face value to the layman it seems at best a solution looking for a problem and at worst another example of extreme political correctness.
‘There is also a risk of confusion with many different symbols, and that terrorists may exploit that to mask themselves when carrying out attacks,’ he added.
The founding Conference of the Red Cross Movement in 1863 adopted a red cross on a white background – the reverse of the Swiss flag – as the emblem of the voluntary medical personnel who assisted the wounded on the battlefield.
It was never intended to have any religious meaning and is thought to have been intended as a tribute to traditionally neutral Switzerland, which hosted the conference.
However, the symbol unintentionally raised suggestions that it was somehow linked to the Hospitallers, a military order which took part in the Crusades, the centuries long series of military campaigns waged by Christians from Europe.
Subsequently, a red crescent emblem was adopted in tandem.
Mr Bryant told the Commons: ‘The reference to the Crusades is… not lost to some people which, of course, anybody involved in the Red Cross would wholly deprecate.
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hope that the neutrality of the red crystal will help improve protection for casualties, military medical services and humanitarian workers.
It was chosen because it is devoid of religious and other partisan connotations.
Hate preacher Abu Hamza is about to present taxpayers with a whopping £800,000 bill for legal fees he was meant to cover. Two years ago, Hamza was ordered by the courts to pay the £1,000,000 defence costs in his trial – but what has he actually paid?
And property experts note that even if the 1930s property in Greenford, West London, is grabbed it will probably fetch only £200,000 instead of its original £235,000 valuation.
A Whitehall source said last night: “If nothing else is found it means the taxpayer will have to pay £800,000 for the shortfall.”
A spokesman for the Legal Services Commission, which oversees the legal aid system, said: “We will go to court to apply for the seizure of the property. We are waiting for a date.”
Conservative MP Patrick Mercer is more candid: “This is Abu Hamza continuing to thumb his nose.”
Hamza was jailed for seven years, in 2006, on a charge of soliciting murder.
Has Denmark caved and banned Dutch MP Geert Wilders? Wilders, you will recall, caused an international furore when he made the film ‘Fitna’, which exposes the violence at the heart of Islam.
Britain shamefully banned Wilders – now reports are coming in that Denmark has done the same and cancelled a conference on free speech to which Wilders was invited by the Danish People’s Party.
The conference was scheduled for February, then delayed until June, the Copenhagen Post reports: “But now, according to information received by Berlingske Tidende newspaper, the conference has been delayed again because of government’s concern over Geert Wilders.”
The Danish Foreign Ministry fears Muslims will not attend a climate conference in Denmark if Wilders is permitted to warn about the dangers of Islam at the free-speech conference.
But let’s recall just what happened when Britain banned Wilders. Wilders had been invited to screen Fitna at the House Of Lords. Problems only arose after several Muslim pressure groups approached Lord Ahmed, a Muslim peer. Ahmed then threatened to ‘mobilise’ ten thousand Muslims ‘in protest’ if Wilders was allowed to set foot in the House of Commons.
Much to the disbelief and anger of millions of Brits, home secretary Jacqui Smith caved – and banned Wilders from entering the UK. Oh, and one more detail: a mere two weeks earlier, Wilders was in Britain. Clearly the only thing that changed in the intervening fourteen days was the temper tantrum thrown by Lord Ahmed.
Let’s also note that for the past few years, Wilders has been living under the shadow of the ‘fatwa’ issued; numerous Muslim death threats, in fact, have been hurled his way. He has to change addresses every few days and has a 24 hour guard.
Yet the British border agency said it was Wilders who threatened harmony and public security!
France has also shown itself to be a nation of Dhimmis. The French Association for the Defense of Human Rights announced that it wanted the authorities to prosecute Wilders for “hate speech.”
‘hate speech’??? All Wilders did was cite the Quran.
Happily, there are still some places on this planet that are willing to stand up to Islam. In April, Wilders received a free-speech award from the Florida Security Council at the group’s Free Speech Summit, where he explained precisely what Islam is and isn’t:
“The take-over of Europe is part of the global fight of Islam for world domination. Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology. Islam’s heart lies in the Quran. The Quran is a book that calls for hatred, violence, murder, terrorism, war and submission. The Quran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Quran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. Churchill compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The core of the problem with the Quran is twofold. First, the commands in the Quran are not limited by place or time, they apply for all time, to all Muslims. Second, the Quran is Allah’s personal word. That leaves no room for interpretation.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Of course, there are many moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once put it, “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam.”
As if to affirm Wilders’ depiction of Islam, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)demanded that Florida’s state Rep. Adam Hasner, who co-hosted the event, resign his post as Republican leader in the Sunshine State’s House of Representatives.
Note: CAIR was an unindicted coconspirator in the federal government’s successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development for its funding the terror group Hamas.
Here in Dhimmiland UK, news just in that a female employee of British airline BMI has been sacked – because she refused to wear an ‘abaya’ and walk behind male colleagues when in Saudi Arabia.
“A BRITISH air stewardess was sacked for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia after she was ordered to wear a traditional Islamic robe and walk behind male colleagues.
Lisa Ashton, a £15,000-a-year stewardess with BMI, was told that in public areas in Saudi Arabia she was required to wear a black robe, known as an abaya. This covers everything but the face, feet and hands. She was told to follow her male colleagues, irrespective of rank.
Ashton, 37, who was worried about security in the country, refused to fly there, claiming the instructions were discriminatory. She was sacked last April.
“It’s not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I’m not going to be treated as a second-class citizen,” Ashton said last week.
“It’s outrageous. I’m a proud Englishwoman and I don’t want these restrictions placed on myself.”
Earlier this year an employment tribunal in Manchester ruled that BMI was justified in imposing “rules of a different culture” on staff and cleared it of sexual discrimination. Ashton has consulted Liberty, the human rights organisation, and may seek a judicial review of the decision.
Ashton joined BMI in March 1996, flying to the Caribbean, the United States and India. Based in Manchester, she was told in the summer of 2005 that BMI was starting a service to Saudi Arabia and she might be required to work on it.
The Foreign Office was then advising visitors of a “threat of terrorism” in the country. Ashton did not want to travel there because of the security risks, and was offended by the rules for staff travelling to the region.
A BMI document circulated to staff who might travel to Saudi Arabia stated: “It is expected that female crew members will walk behind their male counterparts in public areas such as airports no matter what rank.”
Staff were also given abayas and were required to put them on when leaving the aircraft.
Ashton, a practising Christian, was advised by union officials that it was considered a part of the uniform and she could face disciplinary action if she did not wear it.
Why the hell should any NON Muslim woman, from a NON Muslim country, be forced to don traditional Muslim garb? Do Muslim women from Saudi Arabia take OFF their abayas when visiting Britain? No, of course they blinking well don’t!
As usual, it’s we ‘infidels’ that are being required to change and give up our rights in order to fit in with Islam.
And for a British company to be the force behind this latest travesty is alarming. Of one thing we can all be sure: this is not the first such incident, and it won’t be the last.
And the latest from Dhimmiland UK, is that some schools may now shut completely - for Ramadan. Yep – you read it correctly the first time. In some areas of the country, entire schools will close for the Muslim festival. From an article in the Daily Mail: Now local authorities including Manchester, Oldham and Tower Hamlets in East London are granting schools permission to close for up to three days to cover holy days such as the Islamic festivals of Eid al Fitr and Eid ul Adha. Strange, isn’t it? Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, and Sikhs have always managed perfectly well in Britain; we take the occasional day off to observe and enjoy our respective religion’s holy days and festivals – but nobody would ever have dreamed of even suggesting that entire schools be closed down! Yet now it seems as though the Muslim festival of Ramadan is being given the status of a national holiday! Why on earth should non Muslim pupils lose out, and why on earth should non Muslim parents be forced to reorganise their timetables, just because it’s Ramadan…? I’m British and Jewish. I applaud learning about other faiths and their customs – indeed, at age eleven I chose to attend a mixed faith school. But being prevented from attending school just because members of a completely different religion are observing a festival? This is not ‘multiculturalism’. This is LUNACY.
And the latest from Dhimmiland UK, is that some schools may now shut completely - for Ramadan.
Yep – you read it correctly the first time. In some areas of the country, entire schools will close for the Muslim festival.
From an article in the Daily Mail:
Now local authorities including Manchester, Oldham and Tower Hamlets in East London are granting schools permission to close for up to three days to cover holy days such as the Islamic festivals of Eid al Fitr and Eid ul Adha.
Strange, isn’t it? Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, and Sikhs have always managed perfectly well in Britain; we take the occasional day off to observe and enjoy our respective religion’s holy days and festivals – but nobody would ever have dreamed of even suggesting that entire schools be closed down!
Yet now it seems as though the Muslim festival of Ramadan is being given the status of a national holiday!
Why on earth should non Muslim pupils lose out, and why on earth should non Muslim parents be forced to reorganise their timetables, just because it’s Ramadan…?
I’m British and Jewish. I applaud learning about other faiths and their customs – indeed, at age eleven I chose to attend a mixed faith school.
But being prevented from attending school just because members of a completely different religion are observing a festival?
This is not ‘multiculturalism’.
This is LUNACY.
British ‘justice’ is a thing of the past. If any of us doubted this, then today’s newspaper story confirms it:
The family of a man stabbed to death has been denied compensation: because the victim tried to fight off his murderers.
Kevin Johnson, 22, was killed by three teenaged thugs, after he stepped outside his own house to ask them to keep the shouting down.
The killers, aged 16, 17 and 19, invited him to ‘meet Mr Stanley’ and then plunged their Stanley knife into Johnson’s chest, arm and back.
And after they left him there to die, the three thugs later attacked a second victim.
Yet after applying for some compensation, Kevin Johnson’s family have been told that they do not meet the ‘criteria’ because he had ‘significantly contributed’ to his own death.
In fact, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has now twice rejected the case brought by Kevin Johnson’s father.
Great Britain. Not so ‘great’ anymore.
Today’s must-read article appears over at Pajamas Media, and concerns the activities of a major UK Muslim organisation. Don’t miss it!