Anger as horror attack thugs walk free

The family of a teenage girl left with a pendent embedded in her face are furious her teenage attackers have escaped jail. The two girls and a boy, who cannot be named because they are all 16, were given referral orders or community sentences by magistrates.

The uncle of the victim, who has asked not to be named, said: "This was an horrific attack so it is disappointing that the perpetrators have escaped custodial sentences. It sends out the wrong message."

The victim had gone to a children's playground in Rochdale's Springfield park in June with her three young sisters, aged five to 11, and her sister-in-law, who was with her 18-month-old baby. They were confronted by one of the 16-year-old girls and Kirsty Leigh Hood, 19. The victim was subjected to verbal abuse, including chants of 'BNP'. The 16-year-old boy and another girl later approached the women and also became confrontational. When the boy mumbled something at the victim she told him to speak English, to which he responded: "I'm more British than you."

The boy then told one of the two girls to pull the victim's headscarf off, but she punched her in the face with such force that the pendant from her bracelet became embedded beneath the 17-year-old student's eye. She was taken to Rochdale Infirmary where the pendant was removed.

Hood, 19, of Yew Dale Gardens, Marland, was fined last month after admitting a public order offence. The girl who threw the punch had earlier pleaded guilty to causing actual bodily harm and was given a 10-month referral order by District Judge Paul Richardson at Rochdale magistrates after he heard the attack was her first offence. She will not have to pay costs or compensation as she is jobless and has no parental support.

Mr Richardson said: "It was the conclusion of a very ugly incident in a public park. Mercifully, the injury the victim sustained was not of a permanent nature, but for the victim was still a very alarming incident."

The 16 -year-old boy, who has 30 previous convictions for a catalogue of offences, admitted common assault at an earlier hearing and was given a nine month supervision order and placed under a curfew for two months. The second 16-year-old girl, who has 13 previous convictions and was involved in verbally abusing the victim alongside Hood, pleaded guilty to a public order offence earlier and was given a nine-month supervision order. Both their parents must pay £200 costs.

Manchester Evening News

Curfews, knee-length skirts and no cleavage will save the world as we know it

Another fine British tradition for the BNP to bring back - the workhouse

Don't you sometimes wonder what kind of lunacy goes on at BNP conferences? Not the bits where they're all falling out with each other or just standing around talking about the 'plight of the indigenous people of Britain', but the parts where they actually sit down and try to formulate policies. Not that the BNP does much of that but to keep up the pretence that it's a real political party, they have to have a go every now and then.

So where do these policies come from? I'm told the model is based on that of (shock, horror) the Labour Party. That is, someone at a branch will suggest a policy, the branch will vote on it and if it approves it, the policy goes through a number of similar stages until it reaches conference level. There, it is spoken to - that is, presented to conference - amendments are made or rejected, it's voted on and, if approved, it becomes party policy.

The BNP varies that slightly, in that only voting members (the BNP elite) can attend the conference and the Advisory Council will chop the number of proposals down from two per region to a single proposal to go on to the conference.

Fair enough. But what are the policies that are presented to the BNP conference? We're never told because, unlike the Labour/Conservative/Lib-Dem and Green conferences, the BNP's is a closed event. And why would that be? Because they talk a load of shite, frankly.

Take a look at the conference proposals from the London region of the party. The first is to demand a fixed-term Parliament. Okay, I agree with that and I'm sure a lot of other people will, too. The third regards nuclear fusion but gets off to a bad start by stating 'I believe that global warming is real...' Well, Nick Griffin doesn't, so that one will almost certainly fall flat on its arse. The second of these proposals is a classic though:

'Teenage mothers - the problem and the solution

Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.

Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.

So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.

This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.

If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.'

From the first sentence, this proposal is a crock. Sexual health education clearly does reduce teen pregnancy rates (and incidentally cuts down on the spread of sexually-transmitted infections) and there are very few attractive rewards for single teen mothers, apart from the joy of having a child. But this isn't really the problem. The Mail-esque quality of the next sentence is startling:

'The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP.'

This statement seems to assume that a pregnant 'girl' is immediately offered council accomodation and has money thrown at her from the benefits agencies. Not so, and let's get this straight for the more narrow-minded BNP morons who might be reading this - council housing is offered solely on NEED. Nobody gets a council house simply because they would like one, they get one because they need it. In many cases, young mums are hived off to Bed and Breakfast accomodation - hugely expensive, entirely unsuitable and frequently dangerous - until somewhere suitable becomes available. That something could be council, Housing Association or even private, but the single mum won't even get as far as the B&B unless she can prove to the local authority that they have an obligation to house her because of her personal circumstances.

'It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles. Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.'

On the three worst council estates in Lancaster, there are around a dozen families who are extremely well-known in the area as a pain in the arse to the entire community. Some of these are drug dealers, most are drug or drink-addicted and they are responsible for 90% of the crime, pit bulls, general violence and sheer bloody nuisance that takes place in those areas. All of these families own their own (ex-council) houses, all of them have several cars outside and satellite dishes on the wall and all of them have two parents - some (though God knows how) even hold down jobs.

It isn't only single-parents who bring up dysfunctional families (look at the Windsors), nor is it only single-parent families who live in poverty. Far from it. And yes, it does sometimes cost money to provide for the needs of teen parents. So what? We live in a civilised society (largely) - isn't that what we should be doing?

As for the comments on 'alternative' lifestyles and 'feckless members of society', they're beyond contempt. I doubt if a young woman struggling to bring up a small child has any time or energy to think much about her 'alternative lifestyle' beyond wondering how the hell she's going to pay her next electric bill. Much like the rest of us really.

So what's the solution, as imagined by London BNP? To build more and better local authority housing? To make people pay a little more tax to cover the costs incurred by these billions of feckless young women? To force the young father's to make a decent and regular contribution to the mum and child? No, it's to take away all local authority housing and benefits and to place teen mums in 'homes' run by authoritarian matrons (who no doubt look and act like Nurse Ratched), complete with education, classes for parenting and 'social development', a curfew and a severe dress code. It sounds like prison to me but apparently isn't because the next step if these poor young mums choose not to comply with the rules, is to bang them up in a real prison and put the child into care. Fook me.

I'm not going to do the maths here but I'd be willing to bet that the difference between stopping housing and all benefits from teen mums comes out at a roughly similar amount to the cost of building and staffing these pris - homes all over the country, plus the cost of real prisons to house these recalcitrant young women and the enormous cost of children in care that will inevitably result from such a staggering poorly thought-out policy.

Who thought this lunacy up? That fruitloop Robert West? The vile Nick Eriksen? And what precisely has the amount of cleavage a woman wants to show or how much leg she wants to flash got to do with the government?

Whoever is responsible for this nonsense hasn't even managed to think it through to the next stage. What happens when the young mum reaches the age of twenty-one, leaves prison or the so-called home and gathers her child up from wherever the poor little sod's been for the past couple of years? Where is she going to go - or more to the point, where is she going to live? Presumably, London BNP will now allow her to claim some benefits so she's able to feed herself and her child but she still needs to be housed. One assumes she's going to go to the local authority...

There's a curious side-issue to this which only emerges in the last sentence:

'If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.'

Ah, so the minimum age for marriage should change too? And if the young mum has a husband (note, not partner - no same-sex relationships here, if you don't mind) who is working, she stays out in the real world rather than being banged up in the BNP home? Okay, so what if her husband is working but loses his job when she is still young enough to be banged up? What if they separate when she is nineteen years old? What if she's not only a single young mum in a council property but she's working (it happens frequently)? Does she still cop for the prison/hostel?

Like all BNP policies, this proposal is garbage - ill-considered, unworkable and incomplete even within its own limitations. But the author ends on a relatively high note:

'Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant'

Personally, I believe that the implementation of this policy would result in a vast increase in suicides among pregnant teenage girls.

Quite frankly, if this is the only three policy proposals that the London BNP can get together for its party conference, it's tragic. Even more tragic is that these idiots believe they're capable of running the country.

[Thanks to Jain for the heads-up]

Far right leader gets suspended prison sentence for race hate speech

Kevin Quinn, the leader of a right wing party convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence after a racist speech in South Oxhey, has received a six-month suspended prison sentence.

Quinn launched a tirade of abuse at a British First Party rally after setting up a stall with Union flags in the shopping precinct on Saturday, December 1, 2007. The 44-year-old was arrested after he was heard to shout all Muslims are b******s, while referring to the plight of British school teacher Gillian Gibbons, accused of blasphemy in Sudan after allowing children to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad.

Quinn was found guilty after a second trial at St Albans Crown Court in March and sentence was adjourned for reports until Monday. The jury in the first trial was discharged when they could not reach a verdict. A two-year suspended sentence imposed on the unemployed father of four, for disseminating racist literature had only just expired when he took to the stand in South Oxhey.

In mitigation Mark Kimsey, said although Quinn - who sat in the dock with his bag dressed in a blue tracksuit - held “extreme views” the court case had had a profound effect on the party leader and its 1000 members.

Mr Kimsey said: “The words uttered on that day weren’t to cause offence but the emotion was some what high. Earlier he had been handed an article in the Daily Mail about the woman in Sudan and the naming of a Teddy Bear Muhammad. The words were said in the heat of the moment and he apologises for the upset.”

He added: “One shopkeeper took exception to the words uttered, but there was no public unrest.”

One of Quinn’s children had been bullied as a result of the media attention to the case, which had caused the defendant to think about his place in the party. Mr Kimsey said: “He is reconsidering his role in the party. He has learnt a hard lesson by the impact the court case has had on him and those closest to him. He will now concentrate on his family rather than the political views he holds.”

Before sentencing, Judge Stephen Warner said: “The jury found you used abusive or insulting words directed towards those of the Muslim faith. There is a right of freedom of speech in this country, which extends to those such as yourself who seek to express in public views such as yours however offensive many may find them to be. That right, however, does not include the right to insult or abuse such members of the public that are exposed to that behaviour.

“A member of the public felt sufficiently strongly to contact police because you had abused that freedom of expression. You have a long history of involvement in extreme organisations and clearly hold deeply entrenched views consistent with that ideology.”

The judge noted the party operated on a small scale and was a “marginal less than sophisticated fringe organisation”. He concluded: “The option I face is to send you to prison today, which many would regard you thoroughly deserve, or an alternative course to mark the seriousness of the offence but allow you to stay in the community.”

Judge Warner suspended the six-month sentence for 18 months. Quinn was also ordered to carry out 250 hours unpaid work, and subjected to a four-month curfew from 7pm to 6am. He will be supervised by probation for six months.

Watford Observer