Patients in chronic pain failed by NHS as figures show there is only one specialist for every 32,000 sufferers

Million of Britons are living with long-term pain – but the NHS is employing just one specialist for every 32,000 sufferers, a study reveals today.

Only one in four chronic sufferers has ever been referred for specialist care despite the development of new medicines and non-drug treatments, says the report by the Patients Association.

It estimates that eight million people live with pain from day to day yet one third do not know how to take their medicines properly.

More than half (57 per cent) of pain sufferers are in the dark about potential side effects and many do not feel able to raise them with GPs because they are worried about being told off or made to feel embarrassed.

The report, which included the experiences of 4,400 members of the public, found that more than a quarter (27 per cent) had suffered chronic pain at some point in the past five years. Of those, one third don’t stick to their prescribed medication and only 23 per cent had been referred to a specialist who manages pain.

Chronic pain is defined as continuous pain lasting 12 weeks or more, said the report Public Attitudes to Pain, the biggest study of its type.

It says many face a long wait to attend a pain clinic as there is only one pain specialist for every 32,000 sufferers.

Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said the exact financial cost of pain is unclear but back pain alone accounts for 4.9million sick days and costs the economy £5billion a year.

She added: ‘This report reveals the shocking disparity of pain management services.

‘Patients must rely on GPs and healthcare professionals who are often not equipped to deal with the specific problems that chronic pain can present.

‘We need better information for patients to be able to make informed choices.

‘It is deeply concerning that many patients do not take prescribed medication either because of concerns about side effects, or are taking even more because they are still experiencing pain.’

Anne Begg, chairman of the parliamentary chronic pain group, said the NHS was ‘still in disarray’ on pain services. She added: ‘Patients need to have the confidence to go to their doctor and talk about their pain without fear of being treated as a nuisance – and they need employers to recognise that chronic pain is a seriously debilitating condition.’ Dr

Beverly Collett, the chairman of the Chronic Pain Policy Coalition forum, said it was vital to ensure proper education of NHS staff. ‘During their five to six years of medical school, doctors spend just 13 hours on pain. ‘This is simply not enough to understand the complex problem presented by chronic pain,’ she added.

The Government’s former chief medical officer called for a network of rapid-access pain clinics providing early assessment and treatment in 2009, just before he left his post.

Sir Liam Donaldson said the problem was worse than 40 years ago but the NHS was poorly equipped to meet demand.

Only one in seven suffering chronic pain was seen at a ‘limited number’ of specialist pain clinics, which are ‘inundated’ with referrals, he added.

Training in chronic pain should be mandatory for all healthcare professionals, while patients in hospital should have their ‘pain score’ routinely monitored just like pulse rate, temperature and blood pressure.


Britain’s Met Office fries while the rest of the world freezes

First it was a national joke. Then its professional failings became a national disaster. Now, the dishonesty of its attempts to fight off a barrage of criticism has become a real national scandal. I am talking yet again of that sad organisation the UK Met Office, as it now defends its bizarre record with claims as embarrassingly absurd as any which can ever have been made by highly-paid government officials.

Let us begin with last week’s astonishing claim that, far from failing to predict the coldest November and December since records began, the Met Office had secretly warned the Cabinet Office in October that Britain was facing an early and extremely cold winter.

In what looked like a concerted effort at damage limitation, this was revealed by the BBC’s environmental correspondent, Roger Harrabin, a leading evangelist for man-made climate change. But the Met Office website – as reported by the blog Autonomous Mind – still contains a chart it published in October, predicting that UK temperatures between December and February would be up to 2C warmer than average.

So if the Met Office told the Government in October the opposite of what it told the public, it seems to be admitting that its information was false and misleading. But we have no evidence of what it did tell the Government other than its own latest account. And on the model of the famous Cretan Paradox, how can we now trust that statement?

Then we have the recent claim by the Met Office’s chief scientist, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, in an interview with Nature, that if her organisation’s forecasts have shortcomings, they could be remedied by giving it another £20 million a year for better computers. As she put it, “We keep saying we need four times the computing power.”

Yet it is only two years since the Met Office was boasting of the £33 million supercomputer, the most powerful in Britain, that it had installed in Exeter. This, as Prof Slingo confirmed to the parliamentary inquiry into Climategate, is what provides the Met Office both with its weather forecasting and its projections of what the world’s climate will be like in 100 years (relied on, in turn, by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Prof Slingo fails to recognise that the fatal flaw of her computer models is that they assume that the main forcing factor determining climate is the rise in CO2 levels. So giving her yet more money would only compound the errors her computers come up with.

In another interview, just before Christmas, when the whole country was grinding to a halt in ice and snow, Prof Slingo claimed that this was merely a local event, “very much confined to the UK and Western Europe”. Do these Met Office experts ever look beyond those computer models which tell them that 2010 was the second hottest year in history? Only a few days after she made this remark, the east coast of the USA suffered one of the worst snowstorms ever recorded. There have been similar freezing disasters in south China, Japan, central Russia and right round the northern hemisphere.

The only evidence the Met Office and its warmist allies can adduce to support their belief in the warmth of 2010 is that in certain parts of the world, such as Greenland, Baffin Island and the southern half of Hudson Bay, it was warmer than average. Yet even there temperatures are currently plummeting: Hudson Bay and Baffin Island are rapidly freezing, at well below zero.

The desperate attempt to establish 2010 as an outstandingly warm year also relies on increasingly questionable official data records, such as that run by Dr James Hansen, partly based on large areas of the world which have no weather stations (more than 60 per cent of these have been lost since 1990). The gaps are filled in by the guesswork of computer models, designed by people who have an interest in showing that the Earth is continuing to warm.

It is this kind of increasingly suspect modelling that the Met Office depends on for its forecasts and the IPCC for its projections of climate a century ahead. And from them our politicians get their obsession with global warming, on which they base their schemes to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on a suicidal energy policy, centred on building tens of thousands of grotesquely expensive and useless windmills.

A vivid little reflection of how our whole official system has gone off the rails was the award in the New Year’s Honours List of a CBE, one rank lower than a knighthood, to Robert Napier, the climate activist and former head of the global warming pressure group WWF-UK, who is now the Met Office’s chairman.

The more the once-respected Met Office gets lost in the greenie bubble into which it has been hijacked, the worse it becomes at doing the job for which we pay it nearly £200 million a year, and the more our Government showers it with cash and honours.

Meanwhile, in the real world, another weather-related disaster is unfolding in the Sea of Okhotsk, off the coast of Russia north of Japan, where the BBC last week reported that a group of Russian “fishing trawlers” had got stuck in “30 centimetres” (a foot) of ice. It didn’t sound anything too serious. But, as my colleague Richard North has been reporting on his EU Referendum blog, the BBC underestimated the scale of what is happening by several orders of magnitude.

Although several smaller ships have now escaped, the two largest are still trapped in up to six feet (two metres) of ice – including one of the world’s biggest factory ships, the 32,000-ton Sodruzhestvo. They still have more than 400 men on board. Three Russian ice-breakers, including two huge 14,000-tonners, are engaged in what looks like a forlorn bid to free them.

A 14,000-ton ice-breaker can scarcely clear the way for a ship well over twice its size. And as the weather worsens, with gales, blizzards and visibility often reduced to zero, the chances of helicoptering the men to safety seem sadly remote.

The mystery is why the Russians should, in the middle of winter, have allowed such a fleet of ships into a stretch of sea known as ”the factory of ice”. This is because all the rivers which empty into it from the Russian coast lower its salinity, making it prone to rapid freezing.

But the Sea of Okhotsk has long been held out by the world’s warmists as an example, like the Arctic, of waters which, thanks to global warming, will soon be ice-free.

As we know from Prof Slingo, however, all this cold weather we are having at the moment is a local event, “very much confined to the UK and Western Europe”. Perhaps the Russian fishing fleet took the word of the Met Office, assuming that ice was a thing of the past.

As the ice-breakers struggle to reach the hundreds of trapped men, and still-thickening ice threatens to start crushing the hulls of their ships, it seems that, short of a miracle like that which saved the Chilean miners, a major tragedy could be unfolding.

Meanwhile, the sad little nonentities in charge of our Met Office prattle on, extending their begging bowls – and our politicians who have put them there remain smugly and inanely oblivious to anything happening out there in the real world.


British exam board accused of ‘brainwashing’ pupils with inaccurate climate graph

Near enough is good enough in climate science, apparently

Britain’s largest exam board has been accused of “brainwashing” pupils by forcing them to use an inaccurate temperature graph that exaggerates the scale of global warming.

Climate experts have accused AQA of “scientific illiteracy” and “propaganda” after a graph in its most recent Geography GCSE exam paper contained a series of inaccuracies which magnified the rise in global temperatures.

The graph wrongly presented the current warm period as the hottest on record and pinpointed the world’s current average temperature at 59.5 degrees Fahrenheit (15.3C), when it has in fact never risen above 58.1F (14.52C).

The exam board also overlooked the last ice age, which peaked around 20,000 years ago, instead marking the “previous glacial period” at around 180,000 BC.

AQA ignored the universally-accepted temperature records taken from Antarctic ice core samples over the last 15 years and instead opted to use a graph taken from a children’s textbook first published in 1990.

The ice core data has been used to reconstruct global temperatures going back 800,000 years, showing that the previous four interglacial warm periods were hotter than today.

Kato Harris, head of Geography at South Hampstead High School in north London, has written to the exam board to highlight the errors. He said: “It is demoralising and frustrating when we are trying to be accurate, rigorous teachers, imparting to our pupils the latest scientific knowledge, only for the exam board apparently to show ignorance of scientific developments in the last 15 years.”

The graph published in the exam paper was titled ‘Timeline of the mean world temperatures over the last million years’, even though no such record exists.

Pupils were asked to mark with an X the “recent rapid rise in global temperatures”, as well as the coldest period.

AQA said the graph was simply meant to show “generalised trends” in global temperature and claimed that it displayed a “similar” pattern to the ice core reconstruction.

But Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, said the graph contained “shocking inaccuracies”. “I have no idea where they have got their data from, but it’s completely wrong. The graph exaggerates the case of global warming and it shows scientific illiteracy. “I think this is highly misleading and the fact that it was included in an exam papers just shows how suspicious we should be with a lot of the information presented to students.

“There is a lot of pressure on schools and exam boards from government to educate our children in this way, but if we want to have a well educated population children need to know how science works, and they shouldn’t be brainwashed with misleading information.”

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has recently commissioned a report into the way children are taught about climate change in schools.

Piers Corbyn, owner of the independent forecasting business WeatherAction and a vocal climate sceptic, said the inaccurate graph amount to a “dereliction of duty” by the exam board.
“The fact that an exam board is using this type of graph is monstrous and totally unacceptable,” he said. “On one hand, the government and schools claim they want children to be objective, yet in the real world pseudo science is used to propagate an ideology to justify increased taxation and carbon trading, and this anti-science must be stopped.”

The decision to pass over widely accepted climate data in favour of a “simplified” graph will also be seen by some as further evidence that exams are being “dumbed down”.

A spokesman for AQA said: “We always seek to ensure that we use accurate information that is up-to-date and relevant, but just as importantly we need to ensure that figures are fit for purpose, appropriate for the qualification and, as was the case here, applicable for both foundation and higher tiers.

“The figure is a graph showing generalised trends of global temperature. It was taken from a highly regarded and widely used Geography textbook, Geography: An Integrated Approach. We took if from the 3rd Edition published in 2000 but the graph also appears in the 4th edition published in 2009. We therefore expect that many teachers and candidates will be familiar with this graph.

“The ice core data is very detailed and would have had to have been simplified for the purposes of the question that we wished to ask. Therefore we used a graph readily available in the textbook above that showed similar general trends.”


Fired over ‘elf n safety, British teacher who took two boys of 15 sledging as part of technology lesson

A teacher was sacked after letting children use his sledge in the snow as part of a lesson – because he failed to carry out a risk assessment. Richard Tremelling, 37, took the racing sledge into school to demonstrate design technology to his class of 15-year-olds.

As part of the demonstration, he tested conditions on two snowy slopes himself before deciding they were safe enough for two boys to follow suit. The boys were unharmed. But Mr Tremelling was sacked from his £40,000-a-year job as head of technology for breaching health and safety rules. Yesterday he appeared before the General Teaching Council for Wales at the start of a two-day hearing to decide his future.

Campaigners and MPs said the decision to sack him was ‘absolutely disgraceful’ and ‘ludicrous’. Nick Seaton, chair of the Campaign for Real Education, warned that the ‘heavy-handed’ punishment ‘would only succeed in discouraging good candidates from joining the teaching profession’. He added: ‘I don’t think too many people would consider sledging to be dangerous for children of the age of 15, particularly when under the watchful eye of their teacher.

‘Mr Tremelling should be commended for thinking outside the box and attempting to make his lesson more interesting for his class by introducing a practical element. That he has lost his job over it is absolutely disgraceful.’

Rosa Fernandes, presenting the case, said: ‘Mr Tremelling took the sledge to school without the authorisation of the head. ‘He failed to carry out appropriate risk assessments and failed to provide a written risk assessment. ‘He didn’t ensure pupils were wearing protective headgear and protective clothing.’

Mr Tremelling told the hearing he took the sledge into the 650-pupil Cefn Hengoed Community School in Swansea as a teaching aid to incorporate the weather conditions into a lesson. He said he discussed the manufacture and use of the sledge with pupils during a revision class. ‘A number of pupils stayed behind interested and excited,’ he added. ‘They wanted to see it in use and, giving it some thought, I agreed.’

The experienced teacher said he conducted a ‘mental risk assessment’ before sliding down a small slope, covered in two to three inches of snow, on the sledge. Two of the pupils, aged 15, then volunteered to ride the sledge, one after the other. Mr Tremelling said: ‘I told the first boy to follow the track marks that I’d laid out – which he did in a safe manner.

‘I wanted to demonstrate sledge control so I moved to a different slope. I went first – it was a bit fast so I was not happy for the child to go from the top. ‘He started from halfway down the slope and completed the turn correctly. ‘The whole process took less than ten minutes and I was sure it reinforced their knowledge.’

Tory MP Philip Davies said Mr Tremelling’s case was a perfect example of the ‘health and safety obsession’ in Britain today. He added: ‘What has happened to this teacher is absolutely ludicrous, even in this day and age. The school appear guilty of a ridiculous overreaction.’

Lord Young, the former Cabinet minister and Tory peer, completed a report into the health and safety rules surrounding classrooms and school trips in October. He recommended introducing a single consent form to cover all activities a child may undertake during their time at a school. Other recommendations include cutting back a 12-page risk assessment that teachers have to complete before each school trip.

He criticised the ‘enormous bureaucracy’ which caused many teachers to avoid organising such activities, depriving millions of children of a vital part of their education. All his recommendations are now being implemented.

Mr Tremelling was suspended following the sledge lesson after a snowfall in February 2009. He was dismissed in January last year. He denies unacceptable professional conduct and faces a reprimand on his record, suspension or being struck off if the allegations are proven.


Futile fight against alcohol

This wasn’t just a meal deal. This was a Marks & Spencer meal deal – without alcohol. Yet when the High Street giant trialled the new version of its hugely popular Dine In For Two for œ10 offer with better quality food, but without the usual bottle of wine thrown in, it seems customers were just not interested. Instead of snapping up the deals as usual, the normally loyal shoppers took their business elsewhere, and some even spoke up about their outrage.

Now the trial has come to an end, and Marks and Spencer has no plans to repeat it – promising that the ‘Dine In’ offer will continue, but with a bottle of wine option included as standard.

The experiment, which was carried out in a handful of stores over the New Year, came after a series of attacks on shops for encouraging heavy drinking by offering cheap alcohol. But middle class Britons have evidently shown that they remain a pushover for bargain booze, in spite of the warnings of experts.

The Dine In For Two offer was launched in 2008 as growing recession made many consumers think twice about eating out in restaurants. In response, Marks and Spencer began offering couples a choice of ready meals for two and a side dish, along with a dessert and bottle of wine, all for œ10.

Although customers are offered a soft drink as an alternative to the wine, campaigners against alcohol abuse raised questions – and over the New Year, the trial alternative without any alcohol was tested. The new version offered upgraded gourmet ready meals – rather than the standard ready meals usually offered, as well as the usual side dish and dessert. But without the customary bottle of wine.

According to the industry magazine The Grocer, feedback on the re-jigged deal on the internet consumer forum Money Saving Expert was overwhelmingly negative. Shoppers, it appeared, feared that the popular promotion was set to change for good – and deprive them of their bottle of wine. One shopper said: ‘I saw the poster in-store and thought I had misread it when I could not see the wine listed. ‘Such a shame. I regularly bought the Dine In meal but it doesn’t seem like such a good deal now.’

Another shopper wrote: ‘Haha, this won’t wash with me. No wine, no deal. Think again M&S!” A third added: ‘I definitely won’t be buying again. Without the wine there is no way I’d bother.’

Marks & Spencer Food business development head Jill Bruce told The Grocer the usual offer had been tinkered with as a ‘test’. ‘We were keen to see if Dine In could work during the festive holiday peak and if the meal offered at this time should be more special,’ she said. ‘To test this out, a small number of stores ran some different menus.’

She said that they had trialled more premium food options without wine as M&S had received feedback from some customers that they would prefer to choose their own wine. However she insisted: ‘We have no plans to change what is a very successful promotion and will have another Dine In event in-store from January 13 with the usual combination of main, side, dessert and wine or a soft drink.’

The Dine In deal has been credited with turning round the fortunes of M&S food, and has been copied by leading High Street rivals including Waitrose and Sainsbury’s.

But there have been criticisms. Last October the British Liver Trust claimed such deals should carry health warnings, as they encouraged heavy drinking among middle-aged professionals – yet were promoted in sections of stores away from the alcohol department. The charity made its claim as official statistics showed 22 per cent of the middle classes drink at least five days a week – compared to just 11 per cent of manual workers.

British Liver Trust spokeswoman Sarah Matthews said: ‘These meal deals are prominently advertised and make regular drinking at that level seem like a perfectly acceptable everyday habit. They are totally wrong.’ ‘If a couple share a bottle of wine every night, the woman would be more than double her limit by the end of the week and the man would also be way over.’

And in September, a Scottish National Party member of the Scottish Parliament proposed making it illegal to artificially discount alcohol by combining it with food items. ‘I do not believe alcohol should be used as a promotional device at all,’ he said.


British firms get more powers to fire the slackers

Companies are to be given greater freedom to sack under-performing workers as part of an overhaul of employment laws to boost the economic recovery. The new “employers’ charter” will allow companies to sack workers during the first two years of their employment without the threat of being taken to a tribunal for unfair dismissal. Currently an employee can bring an unfair dismissal claim after only a year.

To reduce the number of vexatious allegations, workers will face a fee when lodging an employment tribunal claim.

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that the Government is also launching a review that is likely to see small companies excluded from some stringent employment laws. The length of time that firms have to pay workers statutory sick pay is set to be reduced as part of the shake-up. David Cameron hopes that relaxed employment laws will help to boost the private sector and encourage firms to take on thousands of new workers.

Downing Street will host a jobs summit on Monday at which some of the biggest employers – including Tesco, McDonalds, Microsoft and Shell — will promise to take on thousands of recruits and create apprenticeships for school leavers.

The issue of jobs is likely to dominate the first day of the new parliamentary session as MPs return after the holiday recess. The Coalition will try to focus on its plans for economic growth, rather than public spending cuts.

Mr Cameron said: “We can only get our economy back on track by creating a climate in which the private sector can grow and develop, creating jobs and opportunities for people across the country. This year the Government is determined to help deliver many thousands of new jobs and I’m delighted that the companies joining me today are part of that.

“Across a whole range of areas you’re going to see the most pro-business, pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda ever unleashed by a government. “It’s time we looked forward to a positive, strong, confident Britain. By developing the right skills and jobs I am determined that the many, not the few will share in the country’s prosperity.”

In total 19 major employers will attend today’s summit with other firms including Balfour Beatty, Centrica, Jaguar, Land Rover and Marks and Spencer. Downing Street said the Prime Minister would talk to employers about “what more the Government can do to enable employers to get Britain working again”.

Currently workers can pursue a claim for unfair dismissal after a year of full-time employment. This is expected to be increased to two years, a move that does not require new legislation. A similar rise was introduced in the 1980s, leading to an increase in employment. The one-year limit was proposed in 1996 and enacted by the Labour government.

Claims for discrimination can be lodged after any term of employment.

Companies also have to pay statutory sick pay of at least £79.15 for up to 28 weeks to those unable to work. The period of payment by employers may be reduced in future.

Mr Cameron is expected to order a wider review of employment laws to slash the red tape for smaller companies. These firms are seen as the key to securing the economic recovery and encouraging the next generation of entrepreneurs. Many small and medium-sized firms complain that they are being hindered by employment rules introduced over the past decade.

Ministers are expected to contrast the “employers’ charter” with the European-led social charter introduced by Labour which boosted workers’ rights.

A Whitehall source said: “The thrust of the initiative is that to persuade companies to hire people we need to make it easier to fire those workers who aren’t up to the job, so there is less risk in taking on new people, especially the young.” The plan, which will be officially announced after the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election on Thursday, is expected to be fiercely opposed by the trade unions.

Workers’ leaders have warned of the consequences of encouraging “second rate employers” by weakening labour laws. The TUC is planning mass protests against Government cuts in the spring and the “employers’ charter” could further antagonise the unions.

Mr Cameron said yesterday that he would not be “pushed around” by the unions. “Striking is not going to achieve anything,” he said. “The trade unions need to know they’re not going to be able to push anyone around by holding this strike, or that strike or even a whole lot of strikes together. “This Government is a very strong government. It’s got a strong majority. I believe the public is right behind the approach that we are taking and people need to know we will not change course because one union or another union wants to kick off.”

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, will join the debate on jobs today, by holding a press conference to attack the Government’s approach to tackling youth unemployment. Mr Miliband is expected to say: “The first thing Mr Cameron should be addressing at his meeting today is the risk of a lost generation of young people in this country. “He should follow Labour’s advice and keep the Future Jobs Fund which would mean 100,000 extra jobs for young people. There will be a looming gap in the help given to unemployed young people.This decision to betray young people is not just unfair it is the wrong long-term economic judgment for our country.”

The Government’s employment policies were also criticised by the shadow minister for equality and women. Yvette Cooper pointed out that women were likely to be hardest hit by the proposals because they were often in shorter term employment.

“The Government is already hitting women hardest in their pockets through cuts in child benefit and child tax credit,” she said. “Now these plans look likely to hit hardest at women’s jobs, because women are more likely to be in shorter term work. “It is typical of this deeply unfair government to claim the only way to bring unemployment down is to make it easier to sack people who have been doing jobs between one and two years.”


While Muslim sexual predators have been jailed, it is Leftist Britain’s hypocritical values that are to blame

Not for the first time, Jack Straw has ignited a firestorm of controversy by expressing serious concerns about behaviour within the British Muslim community.

Mr Straw, whose Blackburn constituency is heavily populated by Muslims, spoke out after two British men of Pakistani descent were jailed last week for a series of rapes and sexual assaults on vulnerable young girls, whom they also groomed for sex with other gangs members or their relatives.

This was far from a one-off case. Police operations going back to 1996 have revealed a disturbingly similar pattern of collective abuse involving small groups of Muslim men committing a particular type of sexual crime.

This has typically involved abducting, raping or otherwise sexually attacking hundreds of mainly white girls aged 11 to 16, as well as enslaving them through alcohol and drugs and grooming them for sex.

Mr Straw said the reason was that some British Pakistani men regarded emotionally ‘vulnerable’ white girls as ‘easy meat’ whom they trapped through plying them with gifts and drugs.

The reaction to his remarks from certain quarters was all too predictable. Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said Straw’s comments were ‘pretty dangerous’. Others accused him of being ‘inflammatory’ or ‘stereo-typing’ an entire community.

What all this merely illustrated, however, was the politically correct denial which exculpates the guilty by ruling out of bounds any criticism of the community to which they belong. For far too long, this has served to suppress an absolutely vital debate which desperately needs to be had. For while, of course, most Muslims repudiate any kind of sexual crime, the fact remains that the majority of those who are involved in this particular kind of predatory activity are Muslim.

The picture is certainly complicated. The overwhelming majority of people who are convicted in general of sex crimes – including sexual abuse within families – are white men. Nevertheless, we do now know that most cases of gang-led, on-street grooming that have come to light involve British Muslim offenders and young white girls.

Most disturbingly, the police say that these convictions form only a small proportion of a ‘tidal wave’ of such crimes. Yet, until now, there has been a conspiracy of silence over this phenomenon.

Charities such as Barnardo’s won’t even discuss the cultural background of such criminals. The Home Office refuses to collect such statistics. And, of course, the Guardianistas condemn any such analysis as ‘racialising crime’.

Actually, there is more than a grain of truth in that particular criticism. For this is certainly not a racial issue. Indeed, one of the many red herrings in this debate is that – if cultural characteristics are discussed at all -the gangs tend to be described as ‘Asian’.

But this is to besmirch Sikhs, Hindus, ­Chinese and other Asians. For these ­particular gang members are overwhelmingly Muslim men. And the common ­characteristic is not ethnicity, but religion.

For these gang members select their victims from communities which they believe to be ‘unbelievers’ — non-Muslims whom they view with disdain and hostility. You can see that this is not a racial but a religious animosity from the fact that, while the vast majority of the girls who are targeted are white, the victims include Sikhs and Hindus, too.

Back in 2007, The Hindu Forum Of Britain claimed that hundreds of
Hindu and Sikh girls had been intimidated by Muslim men who took them on dates before terrorising them until they converted.

And the Sikh Media Monitoring group described ‘the deliberate and targeted sexual degradation of Sikh women purely because of their religion’ and how a minority of young Muslim men boasted about ‘seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women’.

Nevertheless, there is a particular problem with white girls. They are targeted because the men involved in these offences do not regard Muslim girls in the same way as sexual objects to be shared by all. One Muslim man was reported as saying that white girls are targeted by such men because ‘if they did it to a Muslim girl, they’d be shot’.

White girls also tend to be seen as sluts. Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a national Muslim youth organisation, says: ‘These people think that white girls have fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls.’

What seems to have taken place is therefore a tragic conflation of certain primitive, religiously based attitudes towards women and unbelievers — and the degraded way in which certain white girls behave.

For in this debauched British society, highly-sexualised behaviour by even pre-teens is ignored, excused, condoned or encouraged.

Who can be surprised that young white girls willingly go with these sexual predators who pick them up when so many stagger in and out of pubs and nightclubs in a drunken haze wearing clothes that leave little to the imagination and boasting of ‘blow jobs’ or how many guys they have ‘shagged’?

Who can be surprised when even sex education materials in schools advise on oral sex and other sexual practices; teen-targeted magazines, clothing and popular culture are saturated by sexuality; and family life has often disintegrated into a procession of mum’s casual pick-ups and gross parental indifference, leaving young girls desperate for affection from any quarter?

The disgust felt by some Muslim youths at such sexually promiscuous girls can then feed into a more general hatred and hostility towards Britain and the West. Such youths form themselves into gangs bound by a common feeling of being outsiders united by a profound hostility to the society into which they were born.

But because they are indeed also part of British society, and have therefore been exposed to an education system which gives them precious little education about Britain and even less moral ­guidance, such youths often descend into the same pit of drugs, alcohol and sex as their ‘unbeliever’ peers.

Yet they come from backgrounds where, all too often, women have second-class status — a world in which some particularly extreme communities have a mindset that divides them into either virginal slaves to their husbands or prostitutes.

The resulting conflict set up in the minds of these British Muslim boys sometimes creates a disgust that turns upon the ‘slags’ and ‘slappers’. Or – far more lethally – it leads to a self-disgust which makes them vulnerable to the message that they can purify themselves by destroying the society that has led them into such evil and ungodly ways.

It is remarkable that, even though the obscenity of rape and the inviolable rights of women over their bodies are among the shibboleths of the age, feminists and other liberals are almost totally silent when Muslims violate these sacred codes.

Muslim women are often treated abominably within their communities. But to their suffering, feminists and other right-on liberals are almost totally silent. The only sound from that lobby is the cry of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ hurled at anyone who dares protest at such religious slavery.

Some Muslim sexual predators may now be behind bars. Others, according to the police, may still be very much at large. But it is multicultural, reverse-racist, sickeningly hypocritical Britain which is actually in the dock.


British tour company criticised for offering Hitler tour

Must not learn about the history of Nazism:

“British tour leaders faced criticism over plans to take 30 tourists on a luxury $3100 trip through Germany to visit sites associated with the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. The eight-day trip in June – titled “Face of Evil: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” – has been sanctioned by German authorities.

The itinerary includes visits to sites such as the spot where Hitler committed suicide, the lakeside villa where the Holocaust was planned and the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.

But critics claimed that the trip risked becoming a “perverse pilgrimage” in honour of Hitler. “German historians have confronted the Nazi past with seriousness,” said David Cesarani, a British expert on the Nazi period. “But there is a danger of sensationalism when it is incorporated in what I’d call a holiday tour.”


Leftists treating adults like children again. I suppose they live in horror of people finding out how Leftist Nazism was.


About jonjayray

I am former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party. The kneejerk response of the Green/Left to people who challenge them is to say that the challenger is in the pay of "Big Oil", "Big Business", "Big Pharma", "Exxon-Mobil", "The Pioneer Fund" or some other entity that they see, in their childish way, as a boogeyman. So I think it might be useful for me to point out that I have NEVER received one cent from anybody by way of support for what I write. As a retired person, I live entirely on my own investments. I do not work for anybody and I am not beholden to anybody
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s