This is yet another video about the expansion of the American war machine and war propaganda by the Jimmy Dore Show. In this video, he discusses the report that AFRICOM, the part of American High Command responsible for Africa, has decided to put troops back into Somalia after 24 years. The troops are apparently there at the request of the Somalian government, and will be there for training purposes. The article does reveal that American troops have also been deployed several times within that space of 24 years in minor missions, such as scouting for bombing sites.
The US troops are being deployed to help the Somali government against the Islamist group, al-Shabaab. The article states that al-Shabaab, although sharing a similar Islamist ideology with ISIS and al-Qaeda, aren’t actually part of those organisations. Most of the time, they’ve been confined to Somalia. They arose after a long period of…
The gringa likes to steer clear of controversial politics. However, after researching Donald Trump’s candidacy for almost 12 months now, I feel compelled to share. Although all the candidates for the US presidency have their fair share of baggage and issues, I sincerely believe Donald is the only one who threatens to cause irreparable damage to my nation as well as to other countries around the world. So, while some candidates may be troublesome, Donald is downright dangerous.
This election season is historical and a struggle for the heart of our nation. Donald’s bigotry is dangerous. Those who deny this are: A. Right wing extremists who are trained in the art of subversion and misinformation; or B. Average folk who really don’t want to destroy their country but are caught up in the celebrity of Donald and doing nothing more than believing everything he says. This post is for those…
Disability is now the second most common motivating factor behind all hate crimes, new figures show.
photo credit: Lisa Norwood via photopin cc
The number of disability related hate crimes reported to police has soared by a shocking 25% in only a year, according to new figures published today.
Figures published by the Home Office reveal that 2,508 disability motivated hate crimes were reported and recorded by the police in 2014/15, up 25% from 2,006 in 2013/14.
The report says ‘improved willingness of victims to come forward is likely to be a factor in the increase in hate crimes recorded by the police’. Critics blame welfare cuts and the negative portrayal of disabled people in the media.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales also includes unreported cases, which reveals that disability is now the second most common motivating factor behind all hate crimes.
According to the survey, there were an average of 70,000 incidents of disability hate crime per year between 2012 to 2015, including unreported/unrecorded cases, compared to 106,000 for racially motivated hate crime.
Among all hate crimes reported and recorded by the police in 2014/15 (does no include unreported/unrecorded cases):
42,930 (82%) were race hate crimes;
5,597 (11%) were sexual orientation hate crimes;
3,254 (6%) were religion hate crimes;
2,508 (5%) were disability hate crimes; and
605 (1%) were transgender hate crimes.
Incidents of hate crime can have more than one motivating factor, hence why the figures add up to more than 100%.
The Home Office says there were increases in all five of the centrally monitored strands between 2013/14 and 2014/15.
Notably, racially motivated hate crime increased by 15% between 2013/14 to 2014/15 and religious hate crime increased by 43% over the same period.
Racially or religiously aggravated hate crime offences peaked in July 2013, following the Lee Rigby Murder.
Of cases reported to the police and flagged as hate crime:
59% were public order offences;
30% were violence against the person;
7% were criminal damage and arson; and
3% were recorded as other offences.
Victims of hate crime are far less likely to be satisfied with police handling of incidents. Just 52% said they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly satisfied’, compared with 73% for crime overall. …………….’
“The best possible outcome for the Corbynistas would have been for their man to have been defeated by a small margin. Then he could have become the Great Lost Leader, the martyred saint who might have led his people to their true destination had he not been cheated by a cabal of…Well, you get the picture.
“As it is, one of two things will happen. Either the Parliamentary Labour Party will go momentarily quiescent while it regroups, refusing co-operation and advice to the leadership clique.
“Or else the Corbyn crew will be brought down within months by a Labour assassination squad. This will result in a decade of division within the party – but the hard Left will be particularly scarred by the viciousness of its fight to the death.”
‘Poorest and richest’
The Observer says there is “much evidence to suggest voters will resoundingly reject Corbynism in its current form if he makes it to the next election”.
“History and common sense suggest that Labour only wins when voters feel they can trust the party to run the economy and to be a guardian of public spending.
“New polling published by Lord Ashcroft last week reinforces what poll after poll has suggested since the May election: voters deserted Labour for the Conservatives in 2015 because they had serious doubts about Ed Miliband and they feared a Labour government would spend and borrow too much.
“Labour has a message for the poorest, and the richest, but nothing to say to the rest of the country.”
Shaking up British politics
The Independent says Jeremy Corbyn’s win “shows there is an appetite for change in British politics”.
“He has interesting ideas for changing the way Parliament does its business. He has suggested that other members of the shadow cabinet should take turns asking questions of the prime minister in the House of Commons.
“He is not the first to promise a “new politics” or to want to end the Punch and Judy of Prime Minister’s Questions, but perhaps he will be the first to succeed.
“It is not as if our political system is so perfect that it could not do with shaking up.”
“Until recently, Boris Johnson’s supporters argued that the Tories needed something extra for the party to win outright. Boris, who had won twice in a Labour city and had the appeal of a celebrity as well as a politician, appeared to be that something.
“But with Corbyn as Labour leader it appears that anyone sensible can beat Labour. It is no coincidence that in the past few weeks, the odds on George Osborne’s leadership chances have been shortening almost as fast as Corbyn’s.
“The chancellor is now, for the first time, the bookmakers’ favourite.”
The New York Times says Mr Corbyn’s success “underlines the extent to which European political structures have been destabilized by the aftershocks of the financial crisis in 2008, with voters increasingly attracted away from the political center ground, either to the socialist left or the nationalist right”.
There’s plenty of doom and gloom from the Sydney Morning Herald, which says: “British Labour has now selected the wrong leader twice. First, they chose Ed Miliband over his brother David in 2010. By choosing Ed the party lurched to the left and lost the 2015 election, which the more centrist David could well have won. Now they have responded to this awful result by electing Corbyn. Expect the result in the 2020 general election to be the same as last time, if not worse.”
The Hindu says that while Mr Corbyn did not detail any foreign policy during his campaign, “the newly elected leader of the Labour Party has, in his long career in politics, been associated with international movements for peace, against war and nuclear militarisation, and for human rights”.
And Andrew Hammond, writing in the Gulf News, says Mr Corbyn’s win “represents a political earthquake in the Westminster establishment. The aftershocks will continue for weeks to come as he seeks to move the centre of gravity of UK politics in a leftward direction”.
Meanwhile, Andrew McFadyen delves into sporting history in his piece for Al Jazeera. “Jeremy Corbyn winning the Labour leadership is like Aberdeen beating Real Madrid in a European final. It really happened, but you have to pinch yourself to believe it is true,” he says.
“Their arguments are backed by two former prime ministers: Gordon Brown, whose main claim to fame is losing an election to the Tories in 2010, and Tony Blair, the Ghost of Bad Decisions Past.
“Corbyn, however, has been re-elected by the people of Islington North consistently since 1983 and, like Bernie Sanders in the US, seems as surprised as anyone to suddenly be reaping the rewards of a lifetime of sticking to his principles – principles that once put Corbyn on the moderate left of Labour and now make him look, at least in the estimation of much of the press, like the nightmare offspring of Che Guevara and Emma Goldman dressed up in a Stalin costume.
“And all for proposing a modest increase in the top rate of income tax.”
Corbyn’s win ‘changes Britain’
Jeremy Corbyn’s “triumph”, says the Morning Star, is cause for celebration “for everyone who fights for a better world”.
“Corbyn’s mandate to lead the Labour Party is unshakeable.
“And the enthusiasm he inspires wherever he goes — packing out halls at rallies in every corner of Britain over the past few months — shows that he is far and away the most popular politician in Britain today.
“His win is a tremendous step forward for the party and the movement. In itself, it changes Britain for the better.
“It means the government will not be able to pursue its attacks on our public services, rights at work and living standards without encountering principled opposition on every front.”
“The last Labour leader to represent an inner London seat, indeed the last leader of any major party to do so, was in his 60s by the time he became Prime Minister. He was unfashionable, disdainful of the media and he stood on a platform that promoted peace and investment in public services and housing, even with the country facing massive debts.
“Clement Attlee went on to be Labour’s greatest Prime Minister. And while few may believe that Jeremy Corbyn can follow in his footsteps as he slips into the leader’s shoes today, one thing is for sure: He comes from the right place.”
“Many voters may even be attracted initially by Corbyn’s populism and anti-Establishment pitch. But that is not the same as deciding he should be Britain’s next prime minister.
“The danger is that Labour simply decides to muddle through, resigning ourselves to our fate rather than doing anything big enough to alter it. Miliband’s failed ‘35% strategy’ would seem ambitious in comparison and we would quietly slide into history.”
Elementary role for Watson?
Professor Charles Lees, who is professor of politics at the University of Bath,writes in the Huffington Post that the most intriguing aspect of the Labour leadership outcome is how the new deputy Tom Watson play his role.
“Watson is a party insider insider and – many would argue – a bit of a political thug. He has the power to either make Corbyn’s task harder than it needs to be or to bring the party machine behind him in the name of unity.
“And if, in a few years time, it is clear that Corbyn is leading Labour to disaster, I wonder what role Watson will play as Corbyn’s opponents try to remember where they buried the political hatchets?”
“Yet his blunt Marxism appeals to Leftie voters sick of appealing to the ‘centre’. His cartoonish policies seem new to the young and naive only because they weren’t born the last time anyone was foolish enough to spout them.
“His policies would be catastrophic: leaving Nato, printing money and causing rampant inflation, downgrading our forces to a home guard, re-opening mines and so on.
“He began yesterday as he means to go on, with deranged attacks on the media, whom the Left always blame for their election defeats.”
‘Wow’ factor reviving Labour
Kevin Maguire has an enthusiastic piece in the Mirror, saying Mr Corbyn’s win was “sensational, stunning, seismic, stupendous – pick any superlative you like”.
“Jez he Did. Easily. With a thumping majority on the first round. The result wasn’t even close. Corbyn walked it. Wow!
“Corbyn’s message of hope and optimism energised and excited Labour, reviving the party by dragging it from its knees after a crushing election defeat.
“Now its most Left-wing leader in recent times deserves his chance to succeed.” …………..’
An extract ‘My Life My Choice is an Oxford-based advocacy charity run by and for people with learning disabilities. Today, Monday 1st December, they have launched a film as their contribution to the national ‘Who Benefits?’ campaign.
‘Who Benefits?’ was originally formed by leading charities Crisis, Gingerbread, MIND, Macmillan Cancer Support and The Children’s Society to give a voice to the millions of people who have been supported by benefits at some point in their lives.
My Life My Choice believes that labelling benefit recipients as scroungers has started to erode some of the important gains made by the disability movement over the past 20 years. ……………..’
An extract ‘In 1982 I was toying with the idea of a career in teaching. That year a controversial film, Made in Britain, starring Tim Roth was released and I almost didn’t become a teacher. The film’s central character, Trevor was a dysfunctional, violent, foul-mouthed youth – everything society hates and fears. My natural fear was how would I, as a young teacher, cope with a classroom full of such kids? Of course the film is fictional. It portrayed the 1980s accurately – but did it portray Britain’s youth accurately?
With the way some of the media represents young people, you may be forgiven for thinking that Roth’s character is alive and well and infesting our streets and schools. Different newspapers have their favourite terms for teenagers: the Daily Mail likes “yobs”, while the Daily Express goes with “feral kids”. ……….’
An extract from ‘ ………The analysis presented in this report shows that 13 year olds and their parents are, on the whole, positive about their school, home and personal lives. They appear more likely to make responsible choices than ten years ago – the findings produced in this report are in line with other research suggesting this is a sober, responsible generation of young
So just what is the truth? Do the media just highlight a minority group and then by either design or not imply this is in fact the majority. Is this just for the media of today or could it also be for yesteryear? For, is it not true that there as and may always will be a minority group of individuals who wish to rebel against the Values of Society and will these persons be the ones who the media wish to highlight. For in most cases what makes ‘headlines’ is it tragedies and bad events or good events?
The same can be said of the media coverage of persons on benefits, do they not publish accounts after accounts of persons claiming benefits for which they are not deemed to be entitled or misuse the benefits they receive. This then provides, to the population at large, a distorted belief of persons who claim benefits. There may be many more instances of how the media may distort information. Should the media not provide a balance in their reporting? It may be that you need to view the political leanings of each publication and should this be made clear within each media.
But in any context you will be studying statistics and can these statistics always be believed. Do we really know how the information as been obtained, is it from actual happenings, or is it from what has been said by particular persons. If it is the former are all happenings being included and if the latter, do we know what is being said is the truth. Are the statistics representative and how many persons have been included in the research. In the former have all areas of the country been included and all demographic persons.
So just what can we believe? Or do we just form our own opinions from information gleaned from a variety of sources, whether they be correct or not.
So are the media right or wrong, but this is just your own opinion as to what it is. But as it is an opinion, others may not agree, but we all do have a right to our own opinions.
* Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0.
Our mission is to use the most ethical and positive business practices in order to EMPOWER, ENHANCE, and ENRICH the lives of individuals with disabilities, inspiring them to reach their full potential! Knowing that every day is better than the next, if you believe in yourself and your ability...not your disability!