Welcome to MY world

I am unsure whether I am unusually perceptive of bull dust or so naïve that I cannot understand plain English. The latest confusion comes from the words of our Chancellor Osborne who has been commentating on the dodgy performance of our economy over the past months. The chancellor blamed the severe weather for the weak figures, but said he had no intention of changing his programme of cuts to public spending. "These are obviously disappointing numbers, but the ONS has made it very clear that the fall in GDP was driven by the terrible weather in December," Mr Osborne said.
Quite true, About the weather anyway. However, as politicians do, he wanted to big up where he could. In a video clip, he drew attention to manufacturing which had performed well in comparison with other sectors and that is where I smelled a rat. What is it about manufacturing that is weather proof? Their workers have to battle the same snow and transport cancellations. Raw materials still have to get to where they are processed and then the finished product delivered to the customer. Power outages were fairly widespread.
Another apparent anomaly was the question of control orders. The proper administration of these requires very significant use of trained surveillance operatives and equipment. To maintain comprehensive observation on one man has been estimated as needing 40 personnel. It seems that the original legislation was loosely drafted and those subject to an order have successfully challenged them in Human Rights courts. Much discussion is in hand regarding alternatives.
The shape of new orders is likely to consist of

End overnight curfews - but overnight residency at named location
Tag suspects - same as now
Bans on visiting locations difficult to keep under surveillance
Allow mobile phones - but only if numbers are supplied
Foreign travel ban
Ban on meetings with other suspects

. I am quite sure that I could operate a ring of terrorists within these confines.
Add in another factor. We have recently heard more about police moles who infiltrated action groups. Not very impressive.Quite a few of these undercover officers went under the bed clothes with nubile members of the group and confessed their identity and role. There were instances where personal protection officers did naughties with the wives of their charges. Undercover work is especially stressful where officers are away from their normal milieu for long periods and their going rogue is a real risk. Seems as if these risks were not detected in the cases that have come to light. Assume these traits are repeated in those involved in watching the control order procedures - are we really getting the anti-terrorist defences that are claimed?
My doubts as to what I read and how I translate this into real concern involve a peer of the House of Lords who was done for fiddling his expenses.He is a qualified barrister in criminal law but put forward the defence that some of his colleagues had suggested he do this to make up his income from his position in the House. This sort of conduct is well covered in the legislation where the Theft Act includes a section

17. False accounting. — (1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,—
(a)
destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
(b)
in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

His claims were in respect of car journeys he did not make and rent of a house where he never stayed. His alleged advice was tested only in one case but fell down when the witness denied ever giving such advice. However, there is no mention of any investigation being mounted to see just who else - if anyone - was up to the same caper. Lord Taylor has not yet been sentenced.

"The grooming of vulnerable teenage girls for sex is being investigated by the country's specialist exploitation unit.

Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre are to carry out the work, which comes after the indefinite jailing of two Asian men for abusing girls aged between 12 and 18.

Former home secretary Jack Straw sparked a backlash after claiming the conviction was evidence of a specific problem among young men in the UK's Pakistani community.

Ceop, affiliated to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, was set up in 2006 and its staff include police officers and members of organisations such as the NSPCC.

On Friday Mohammed Liaqat, 28, and Abid Saddique, 27, were jailed at Nottingham Crown Court for raping and sexually abusing several girls, often after giving them alcohol or drugs. They were the prime movers in a group of men who befriended girls aged 12 to 18 in the Derby area and groomed them for sex.

Mr Straw, who represents Blackburn, said such crimes were a "specific problem" in the Pakistani community which needed to be "more open" about the reasons.

But fellow Labour MP Keith Vaz, who chairs the home affairs select committee, rejected his colleague's claims and insisted the case was not symbolic of any "cultural problem". Children's charity Barnardo's, Muslim youth group The Ramadhan Foundation and a retired police chief also said Mr Straw was wrong to highlight one community."

Straw put the cat amongst the pigeons (pig in the mosque?) with his views. He ventured onto the egg-shell floor where almost any remark that refers to ethnicity sends the PC brigades into a frenzy. To give him his due he agreed that there were many white men in prison for sex offences. This seemed to have been ignored by his opponents.

The proposed CEOP inquiry might be a tool to cut through the barriers that exist in any process towards integration. The mother of one of the girls abused is reported as saying that the Muslim religion of the offenders was not the issue - they did what they did because they knew they could get away with it.

The matter arose following a Times newspaper article* ("A culture of silence that has facilitated the sexual exploitation of hundreds of young British girls by criminal pimping gangs is exposed by The Times today. For more than a decade, child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending in towns and cities across northern England and the Midlands involving groups of older men who groom and abuse vulnerable girls aged 11 to 16 after befriending them on the street.")

Far be it for me to correct The Thunderer, but I consider there are two things that need to be considered. There are those (young) Pakistani males who approach and subvert the girls and also there are those (older and sometimes fathers themselves) who take advantage of the delivery service of drunk or drugged white girls provided by the young men. This is where I think 'conspiracy of silence' is appropriate. I see no reports of any end-user being charged in respect of the offences disclosed. If the same attention were given to this group, it should limit the demands of a market served by the young recruiters.

What is really needed is a debate regarding the conduct of those who come from overseas or were born in UK as members of any separate racial group. We have affirmative actions that are designed to benefit minorities who wish to live in a separate culture to the majority. What we seem to lack is action to explain to the minorities how they may best conduct themselves with a view to the assimilation we all support. A prime example of this void is the question of introduction of sharia law. It is here (Times link - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece)

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.” All sounds very clear - but, there is a problem. "Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.

Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.

"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice." So even if sharia law were universally accepted, we would not have something that is agreed by those who seek it. There have been reports of rape victims being punished by flogging. How would such treatment in UK sit with the empowered sisterhood?

What about honour killings? "An Iranian civil rights activist who is due to be deported from the UK tomorrow could face the death penalty and fears being murdered by her family in an "honour killing" if she is sent back to Iran," If sharia law sentences someone to death or amputation, where does UK law stand?

E pluribus unum is a fine aim but even where it is sought officially, there are serious problems. What this country requires is one law for all regardless of racial beliefs or origins.

* Link is to a mirror - Times material is behind a pay-wall