The war against grammar schools

Labour is set to reignite the political row over selective education by making it easier for disaffected parents to force the closure of their local grammar schools.

Jim Knight, the schools minister, has instructed officials to look at how to simplify the balloting process by which schools can be forced to drop selection under a 1998 law.

Knight’s move will be seen as an attempt partly to appease the Labour left and partly as a ploy to reopen a split in the Tory party over selection that emerged this summer. David Willetts, then shadow education secretary, said the 11-plus exam “entrenches advantage”.

The balloting system is a complex three-stage process that requires 10 parents to trigger a petition which must then be signed by 20% of all parents in the affected area before a full local vote takes place.

This has proved so complicated that only one full ballot – in Ripon, North Yorkshire, in 2000 – has gone ahead. It failed to end selection at the local grammar school.

“We are firmly committed to giving local parents the right to vote to abolish selection at existing grammar schools,” said Knight this weekend. “It is absolutely right we keep the parental ballot arrangements under review to ensure they work effectively and give value for money.”

If parents are to have the right to vote to abolish existing grammar schools, should they not also have the right to vote to create new ones? Well, no, of course not. Because this isn't really about parental choice at all: it's about getting rid of grammars. Hence the desire to make it easier to seek the abolition of individual grammar schools.

In addition to shortening the process required to trigger the full ballot or lowering the number of petitioners required to trigger it, another option now under consideration would be to allow antigrammar school campaigners early access to a full database of parents eligible to vote.

This could require MPs to change laws on the electoral register and on data protection, requiring a debate in parliament.

I'd imagine that it would also give the anti-grammar campaigners something of an edge when it came to campaigning. After all, they'd be able to start contacting prospective voters, before the defenders of grammar schools even knew that a vote was a possibility.

Of course, perhaps the main reason for the lack of votes on grammar schools is that there simply isn't any public support for closing them. 66% of voters (and 70% of Labour voters) say that they would like to see a state grammar school in every town. This reflects almost exactly the results in the vote on the future of Ripon Grammar School, where the proposal to end selection was defeated by a majority of two-to-one. The public know, even if the government and the opposition do not, that grammar schools produce the best outcomes for the most able pupils, and fiddling around with voting systems is not going to change this.

The failure of Cameronism

Isn't it ironic that, after all the endless attacks that Cameron and his minions have launched upon the sanity, intelligence, and moral decency of the true right, and after all the endless crap they spouted about "modernisation", it was a traditional conservative pledge to cut taxes that saved their bacon (for the time being, at least)? Why, it's almost as if traditional conservatism has more popular support than Cameronite liberalism!

Legitimate targets

Via North East Scotland Nationalists, the following story:

A British teenager who is accused of plotting to blow up members of the British National Party appeared in court today.

The 17-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court in London to face two charges under the Terrorism Act 2000.

It is alleged that he had in his possession a copy of the "Anarchists' Cookbook", containing instructions about how to make home-made explosives.

The charges are that he was in possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year and that he collected or had information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

The teenager, who is a British national but has dual nationality with Pakistan, stood in the dock wearing a baggy, blue hooded top.

"Dual nationality with Pakistan". No religion mentioned, but I wouldn't mind betting that he isn't a Pakistani Christian.

I am not at all surprised to see that BNP members are now being targeted by Muslim terrorists. Not only is the BNP the only British party of any significance that is prepared to come out and challenge Islam, but it has also been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of demonisation by all three major parties, and the MSM. There have also been a number of cases in which public figures have openly advocated the use of violence against members and supporters of the BNP. For example, in November 2004 the "alternative" (as in "alternative to funny") comedian Jeremy Hardy expressed the view that those who support the BNP "should be shot in the back of the head". Earlier in the same year, the singer Billy Bragg announced that he was "in favour" of "duffing [BNP members] up in the street". This constant drip feed of anti-BNP propaganda is in many ways comparable to the campaign of vilification with which the Dutch establishment targeted Pim Fortuyn. And we all know what happened there.

Of course, many Muslims are quite capable of behaving in a violent manner against any non-Muslim, and especially against one who opposes them, straight off their own bat. They do not need the encouragement of the likes of Billy Bragg in order to get aggressive. But the vitriolic and hysterical anti-BNP language of many in the British media-political elite does often imply that anti-BNP violence is justified - that the BNP are legitimate targets - thereby reinforcing the views of those who would like to commit violence against the BNP anyway, and perhaps encouraging others, who would not otherwise wish to commit anti-BNP violence, to seek do so. If - perhaps when - a BNP member is murdered solely for being a member of this legal political party, then people like Billy Bragg and Jeremy Hardy will have blood on their hands (of course, being communists, they'll probably regard that as a point of pride).

Postscript: Laban Tall points out that al-Beeb is once again spinning for Islam and the left in its coverage of this story. Their report of this trial completely fails to mention either that BNP members were the intended targets of the alleged plot, or that the defendant in this case has dual British-Pakistani nationality. As with the case of Nicholas Roddis, the BBC is doing all it can, short of actually telling outright lies, to imply that this is just another one of those white British Christian terrorist plots. They really have given up even trying to be fair and impartial purveyors of fact, and the sooner the whole corporation is shut down the better.

Not embracing diversity

Residents of a gay retirement community in America are worried the special ambiance of their “private oasis” could be ruined by an influx of straight people.

RainbowVision, billed as the “first community of its kind”, opened last year in the New Mexico desert offering resort-style comforts and promising its mainly gay and lesbian retirees “the experience of people being together and sharing in the same values”.

But now a glut of empty properties is prompting fears the community’s composition, which is currently 80 per cent gay, could alter dramatically.

Roughly half the 120 units are up for rent or for sale and some worry that the depressed property market will mean owners seeking to offload their homes will sell or let to whoever they can, regardless of sexual orientation.

And they are completely free to do so as New Mexico outlaws any housing discrimination based on sexuality.

It is a concern for some of the residents who say they have spent their working lives “closeted” and do not want their new-found freedom compromised.

“It does not matter how friendly they are,” Roger Bergstrom, 77, a retired school teacher who shares a RainbowVision condo with partner Barry Baltzley, 57, told the Los Angeles Times.

“If straight people are in the majority, it’s different. It’s not what we came here for. It’s not where we want to live out the rest of our lives.”

Interesting. The residents of RainbowVision appear to prefer to live alongside people with whom they have certain things (lifestyle, cultural and moral values, etc) in common. One wonders whether they are, therefore, wicked intolerant bigots, guilty of the sin of refusing to embrace and celebrate diversity? After all, that is the label often applied to those of us who object to the flooding of our country with people (particularly Muslims) whose lifestyle and cultural and moral values are completely alien to us.

Real Crime Good, Thought Crime Bad

On 27th June, at around 10.30 in the evening, four firemen were driving their engine back to Bristol's Temple Fire Station, when, while passing by the area of open space known as the Downs, they encountered four homosexuals cottaging in a clump of bushes. Upon making this discovery they shone their torches on the participants, before going on their way.

Now, it seems that the cottagers were not very happy about this treatment, and felt that their wonderful and wholesome evening's entertainment had been spoiled. So one of them contacted the Terrence Higgins Trust, who advised him to make a complaint alleging that he and his fellow cottagers had been subjected to "homophobic" victimisation. The complaint was duly made, and following an investigation, during which the accused firemen were suspended from duty, the fire brigade fined two of the firemen, demoted a third, and issued a written warning to a fourth. In addition, all four firemen will be attending a fascinating-sounding conference on the subject of "Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexuals and Transgender Equality in the Fire Service - an absolute taboo?". Meanwhile, the complainant, whose night of fun was so cruelly curtailed, has pronounced himself happy with the result.

And he certainly should be happy. After all, he's really dealt a blow against the evil of "homophobia", hasn't he? Getting four firemen suspended and then disciplined for shining torches? Result!
In addition, the incident has not been reported to the police, so he and his associates will not have to face the consequences of their crime. Because cottaging is, of course, illegal! Indeed, I'm amazed at the gall of the man (and the Terrence Higgins Trust, who encouraged him), to actually kick up a fuss about a thought crime, when he himself was caught red-handed (or red something, anyway) in the commission of a real crime. I'd also point out that he should count himself lucky that it was these firemen who found him and his friends. Had it been people of a less tolerant and more violent nature, then he might have had rather more worries than simply the fact that a light was shone at him.

As for the Terrence Higgins Trust: I thought that they existed in order to provide support and representation for people infected with HIV. So far as I know, they do not exist in order to play victimhood poker. The fire brigade is equally at fault, and their craven response to this complaint provides yet another indicator of the extent to which politically correct orthodoxy has infiltrated the entire public sector.

Indeed, the only people who appear to have behaved decently through all this are the very people who have been labelled as wicked bigots, and subjected to punishment for their thought crime. In my opinion, they were entirely correct to act in the manner which they chose. Cottaging is an extremely unpleasant form of anti-social behaviour, which can render an area unvisitable by decent people, just as surely as can gangs of thugs drinking on street corners. Those who engage in it do not have a right to be left to their own devices while doing so. This is not to say that I endorse the actions of those who engage in "queer-bashing" (although I would not be greatly upset if queer bashers were to catch the complainant in this case, next time he goes for a nocturnal adventure). However, it does mean that I support those members of the public who make a more peaceable attempt to shame cottagers into ceasing their anti-social behaviour, just as I would support members of the public who used peaceful methods in an attempt to make street corner drinkers behave more reasonably. In the case of cottagers, who thrive off being hidden from view, despite being in public, I would think that shining powerful torches upon their activities was an excellent way of dealing with them.

If....

Reading the following news report brought nothing to my mind so much as the 1960s film, If....:

Police were called to a comprehensive school where pupils had walked out of class and set fire to their school blazers in a protest against new rules requiring them to wear uniforms.

The pupils, aged 13 to 16, put their new blazers in a pile and set fire to them in front of the school at Abertillery, in South Wales, which has about 900 pupils.

The protest came the day after Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary, during a speech at the Tory conference, promised to reintroduce blazers at all secondary schools.

Police were interviewing the ringleaders yesterday. The decision to reintroduce the black blazers was made by the school council and had been popular with parents, despite them costing an average of £34.

Pauline Thomas, the head teacher, said that the pupils congregated in the bus bay at about 11am. She said she called the emergency services “to get the group under control”. The pupils ran off when the police arrived.

SIOE demo in London

Just a brief note to let readers know that the next demonstration organised by the campaign group Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) will be held in London on Friday, 26th October, with an especial theme of resisting Islamic Kuffarphobia. Those taking part are asked to assemble in Whitehall Place at midday, with a procession to Temple Place beginning at 1pm. Full details and rules of the demonstration are available here.

Do you feel safe?

Another classic example of joined-up thinking, courtesy of police chiefs:

The controversy over Police Community Support Officers deepened last night with the emergence of a leaked memo that "makes a mockery" of their ability to fight crime.

The memo states that PCSOs - dubbed Blunkett's Bobbies after the home secretary who created them - are not allowed to tackle violent yobs.

They are also barred from responding to any serious incident where there is not a fully-trained police officer already present.

The risk assessment compiled by Lancashire Police even forbids the PCSOs to issue fines, detain people or confiscate alcohol if any violence is threatened.

Instead, they are instructed to call for back-up or withdraw if they face confrontation by a member of the public.

I would have thought that situations where violence appears possible or likely are precisely the ones which most require the presence of qualified police officers. If PCSOs are going to be unable to deal with such situations, then there really is very little purpose behind their continued employment. As the Police Federation's Steve Edwards told the Daily Mail, it is surely going to be a more efficient use of resources to hire 60 fully-trained officers, who actually can take action in such circumstances, than to hire 100 PCSOs, who can't.

Meanwhile:

Police community support officers are to have more powers to investigate crime in an attempt to relieve work pressures on front-line officers.

Now, to me, this sounds rather like telling nurses that they are no longer allowed to take patients' temperatures, and then letting them carry out open heart surgery. How, precisely, are PCSOs going to be able to investigate crime, when they have absolutely no powers with which to back up their investigations? What will they do if the person they are investigating starts getting angry? Run away crying, presumably.

Hug a Jihadi

A GOVERNMENT minister believes that the answer to furthering the integration of the Muslim community into wider British society could be for them to share more coffee and biscuits with their white neighbours.

John Denham, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills was addressing a meeting in Bournemouth organised by the Fabian Society on citizenship and integration.

Zareen Roohi Ahmed of the British Muslim Forum told the meeting that the problems often stemmed from a "massive Eurocentric" view and said she hoped that the government would be pushing for a "less Eurocentric culture".

Note to Ms Ahmed: Britain is a European country. Our culture is, and always has been, European. If you don't like that, then Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world, Gatwick is also pretty big, and I'm sure that at one of those you can find a nice cheap flight to the Islamic hellhole of your choice. But please have the courtesy to refrain from demanding the cultural deracination and Islamification of this country.

She explained: "Asians would say that the main barrier is a lack of trust, mistrust among young Asians and past supporters of the Labour Party who are feeling let down. In the recent past Labour has been more Islamaphobic than most of the other political parties.

"Indeed in Dudley, in the West Midlands where I was born Labour seems uncomfortable with Muslims and it recently abandoned its support to support the BNP instead. It has left that community feeling dejected. However, Gordon Brown's tone at the Labour Conference is encouraging and we hope to develop it."

Another issue she said was the life chances for young people and crime was a big issue.

She added: "We are not saying focus all your attention on the Muslim communities we are saying let's have targeted provision where there is a need. Do not Islamise everything as most issues are not related to the faith."

The government, she said, could show it wanted to help the community by improving access to services and letting Muslims know they should not feel isolated.

So, to sum up Ms Ahmed's argument: Muslims have lots of problems integrating, but they are to blame for absolutely none of these. Rather, these problems are caused by evil Islamophobes who make Muslims "feel isolated". The solution is to improve access to services. But only for Muslims, who are, of course, always the innocent victims of everyone else's wickedness. More fawning over Muslims by the government is also much-needed.

"We have to reassure Muslims they are not the problem. The issue of radical elements is as much a problem for them as it is for the wider society."

But, of course, Muslims are the problem. And the issue of "radical elements" is not "as much a problem for them as it is for the wider society". Rather, it is a far greater problem for them than for every other group in society. Because no one can seriously dispute that extremist views are far more common among Muslims than they are among the general population. 40% of Muslims in Britain want to see the widespread introduction of Sharia law, for example. 36% of UK-based Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslims who convert away from Islam should face the death penalty. Do you think that a comparable number of young Christians feel the same way? Equally, the majority of non-Muslims do not subscribe to unevidenced conspiracy theories: most Muslims do. And of course, the publication of a cartoon of most religious figures - no matter how offensive - does not commonly earn either the artist or the publishers death threats, nor does it incite rioting in the streets. The publication of a cartoon of Mohammed does. And then there are the terrorists - Muslims account for just 3% of the UK population, but, funnily enough, they seem to account for a rather higher proportion of terrorist offences.

I would suggest that it is precisely these things, together with the apparent refusal of many Muslims to make any real effort to integrate into the society into which they have come as immigrants, that cause problems for Muslims (and, indeed, for everyone else). If John Denham is serious about trying to get Muslims to integrate into British society, then it is going to require more than just telling everyone to have coffee and biscuits, and play nice. It is going to require Muslims to ditch their support for Sharia law, to stop being perpetually outraged and offended, to refrain from constantly demanding preferential treatment, to accept and abide by the native culture of this country, and to take action against the small but nonetheless far from negligible number of their coreligionists who are willing to use or support violence in order to further their politico-religious ends. Doing all of these things should make long-term peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims possible. Whether all of this can be done is, however, far from certain.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Shock of the Day

In today's Daily Mail:

Diversity training for cops 'a waste of time' says expert

Thank God there was an expert around to tell us that, or we might never have known!