PM at coke party — Cameron embarrassed as stars did lines



— Hunt for swine who squealed over pig act

DAVID Cameron attended an A-list party while PM where cocaine was openly passed around.

Wife Samantha was with him at the bash in a pal’s house four years ago.

Insiders said he was “embarrassed” by celebs taking drugs but felt he could not speak out.

Last night the MP who leaked allegations Mr Cameron took part in a bizarre act with a pig’s mouth was being hunted.

A source who attended the 2011 party told The Sun: “There were a lot of big names and A-list celebrities there. It was a pretty wild night and Dave and Sam were having a few drinks. As the night wore on, it became obvious quite a few people had been taking drugs.

“There were guests snorting cocaine in various rooms and in the toilets. Dave and Sam never touched the stuff. But you could see they were uncomfortable. I don’t think they felt they could intervene.

“The extraordinary thing is the guests didn’t feel they were doing anything wrong by taking drugs around the PM.”

Mr Cameron’s murky record on drug-taking was thrust into the spotlight again yesterday by the serialisation of Lord Ashcroft’s book Call Me Dave.

The search is on for the MP who leaked claims in the book that the future PM placed his genitals in a dead pig’s head as part of an initiation ritual at Oxford University.

The biography also quotes a reporter as saying that Mr Cameron — now an avid fan of rural life in the Cotswolds — can “scratch a pig’s back so effectively that the creature sighs”.

Described as a “hatchet job” by Mr Cameron’s supporters, the Tory grandee’s book also alleges he smoked dope at Oxford and later took cocaine.

Last night a pal of the PM claimed the class A drug was openly passed round a dinner party attended by the Camerons in the late 1990s. The friend said: “I’d be astonished if Dave had not taken cocaine at some point. He’s been around it for a long time. He told me once about it being handed round at a Cotswolds dinner party. People were leaving the table and returning with bright eyes and dusty fingers.

“He was uncomfortable about it being so open but did not object. It was before he was an MP in 2001, but probably around the time he was a candidate. Cocaine was in plentiful supply in the late 1990s.

“If you were in your late 20s or early 30s and you were not taking it, you were in a minority. Once he decided to go into politics, my sense is he sought to move away from that crowd.” Lord Ashcroft’s book also includes claims from former Labour spin doctor Tom Baldwin that he had seen Mr Cameron taking cocaine.

Mr Baldwin has refused to comment. Throughout his political career, Mr Cameron has been questioned on drug-taking. When he stood for the Tory leadership in 2005 he said: “There were things I did as a student I don’t think I should talk about now that I’m a politician.”

A few days later, he said “we are all human and we err and stray” when asked if he or Sam had taken class A drugs. The book also reveals the Camerons dip in and out of the Chipping Norton social scene in the Cotswolds to avoid political damage.

But it is claimed Mr Cameron became so inebriated at one party he lost his mobile phone. One guest said: “He was wandering around drunk, asking if anyone had seen it. I couldn’t believe it.”

It was also revealed by Sam at a private party that she and Mr Cameron both vomited after a boozy night on holiday in Morocco.

The PM’s official spokesman has said he “would not dignify” Lord Ashcroft’s allegations by commenting.

CAMERON: Ako ne dobijemo ono što želimo Velika Britanija bi mogla napustiti EU
Objavljeno 04.10. - 16:25

Foto: FAH
Britanski premijer David Cameron nije želio odbaciti mogućnost da će se založiti za izlazak Britanije iz EU-a na referendumu ako mu europski kolege ne daju ustupke koje želi.

Cameron je zatražio od svojih vladajućih konzervativaca, koji su se okupili na godišnjem skupu stranke u Manchesteru, da budu strpljivi oko britanskih odnosa s Europom.

“Ako ne dobijem ono što želim tada ništa ne isključujem”, rekao je Cameron za BBC upitan priprema li se povesti Britaniju van iz Unije. “Ali sam uvjeren da ćemo dobiti što želimo”, rekao je.

Cameron je obećao održati referendum o eventualnom izlasku Britanije iz EU-a do kraja 2017.

“Pokušavam ishoditi za Britaniju ono što nam treba, i očito, kada to dobijem, okrenut ću se i zalagati za ostanak u reformiranoj Europi”.

Cameron je također u razgovoru za Telegraph odbio objaviti datum referenduma ali je rekao da će kolege u EU-u imati “dovoljno vremena” da razmotre njegove zahtjeve.

I pristaše i protivnici ostanka Britanije u EU-u pokreću svoje kampanje kako bi privukle ljude, kao i potrebna sredstva, a postoji rizik da bi grčka kriza i neviđeni izbjeglički val u Europi mogli okrenuti britansko javno mnijenje protiv članstva u Uniji./Hina/HMS/

Hand over our border controls to Brussels? Not in a THOUSAND years! Theresa May rules out joining any EU migration scheme
Home Secretary warned the scale of migration was a threat to society
Theresa May said Britain would not give up control of its borders
She said the answer to the migration crisis was not more EU integration
Mrs May said countries in Europe needed to protect their own borders
See our full coverage of the European refugee crisis
By TOM MCTAGUE, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 11:12 GMT, 6 October 2015 | UPDATED: 12:45 GMT, 6 October 2015

Hard-line Home Secretary Theresa May this morning bluntly warned Brussels Britain would not give up control of its borders ‘in a thousand years’.
The Tory Cabinet minister said the European refugee crisis should not be used as an excuse to set up a ‘common’ EU border, as she launched a series of attacks on mass migration, bogus asylum seekers and foreign students overstaying their welcome

Mrs May, tipped as one of the main contenders to succeed David Cameron as Tory leader, said countries across the continent needed to ‘take responsibility and protect their own national borders’ and hit out at those who said it was impossible to restrict migration.
Scroll down for video
Hard-line Home Secretary Theresa May this morning bluntly warned Brussels Britain would not give up control of its borders ‘in a thousand years’

Hard-line Home Secretary Theresa May this morning bluntly warned Brussels Britain would not give up control of its borders ‘in a thousand years’
The Home Secretary, speaking at the Conservative conference in Manchester, said Britain needed to take back ‘more control’ of immigration from Brussels – not less.
Mrs May said: ‘We must control who comes to our country.’
In a series of blistering attacks Mrs May hit out at those who have called for ‘ a new European approach’ to immigration involving a ‘common immigration and asylum policy’.
She said: ‘To those people, I have a very clear answer. Not in a thousand years. We’re not seeking to regain control of our borders with one hand, only to give it away with the other.’
Mrs May also defended Britain’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis.

She said: ‘To those who say Europe is about to be overwhelmed by refugees, I say less than twenty per cent of Europe’s asylum seekers are from Syria, while nearly thirty per cent are from the Balkans.
‘To those who say the answer to this challenge is more integration, I say look at the countries in Europe who signed up to Schengen but are now putting up fences and re-establishing border checks.
‘To those who say the problem is too great for nation states to resolve themselves, I say it can only be resolved by nation states taking responsibility themselves – and protecting their own national borders.
‘So we don’t need a common European asylum policy. But we do need a new British approach.’

Mrs May, tipped as one of the main contenders to succeed David Cameron as Tory leader, said countries across the continent needed to ‘take responsibility and protect their own national borders’ and hit out at those who said it was impossible to restrict migration

Mrs May, tipped as one of the main contenders to succeed David Cameron as Tory leader, said countries across the continent needed to ‘take responsibility and protect their own national borders’ and hit out at those who said it was impossible to restrict migration
Mrs May said mass immigration without control was making it impossible to build a cohesive society and was against Britain’s national interest.
She warned the Tory conference that huge pressure is being placed on public services and infrastructure by economic migrants.
She said: ‘There are millions of people in poorer countries who would love to live in Britain, and there is a limit to the amount of immigration any country can and should take.’
Based on the current influx, Mrs May says the UK needs to build 210,000 homes every year and find 900,000 extra school places by 2024.
The hard-line Home Secretary launched an attack on mass migration today

The hard-line Home Secretary launched an attack on mass migration today
She claimed there are ‘thousands of people who have been forced out of the labour market, still unable to find a job’.
Her comments – the strongest by a senior minister in recent times – reinforce the need to get a grip on immigration at a time when some Cabinet ministers are seeking to water down the Tory pledge to cut net migration to tens of thousands.
Mrs May will also reveal that Britain has spent more than £4million processing asylum claims by EU citizens at no risk of persecution. Many of the claimants are from Spain, where millions of Britons take holidays, and Poland.
The claims have no chance of success but, under existing rules, applicants are entitled to a full interview.
The Home Secretary will tell the Tory conference in Manchester she is scrapping the ‘absurd’ rules, so claims by EU nationals will be inadmissible unless there are exceptional circumstances – for instance if they are victims of people trafficking.

Mrs May, who speaks before leadership rival Boris Johnson, said: ‘People on both extremes of the debate – from the anti-immigration far Right to the open-borders liberal Left – conflate refugees in desperate need of help with economic migrants who simply want to live in a more prosperous society.
'Their desire for a better life is perfectly understandable, but their circumstances are not nearly the same as those of the people fleeing their homelands in fear of their lives.
‘While we must fulfil our moral duty to help people in desperate need, we must also have an immigration system that allows us to control who comes to our country.
'When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society.
‘It’s difficult for schools and hospitals and core infrastructure like housing and transport to cope. And we know that for people in low-paid jobs, wages are forced down even further while some people are forced out of work altogether.
Hundreds of migrants who arrived by train on the Hungarian-Austrian border walk the four kilometres into Austria earlier this month

Hundreds of migrants who arrived by train on the Hungarian-Austrian border walk the four kilometres into Austria earlier this month
‘Now I know there are some people who say yes, there are costs of immigration, but the answer is to manage the consequences, not reduce the numbers. But not all of the consequences can be managed, and doing so for many of them comes at a high price.
'But even if we could manage all the consequences of mass immigration, Britain does not need net migration in the hundreds of thousands every year.
'Of course, immigrants fill skills shortages and it’s right that we should try to attract the best talent in the world, but not every person coming to Britain right now is a skilled electrician, engineer or doctor.

‘The evidence... shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.’
In an exclusive interview with the Mail, ahead of the speech, the Home Secretary slapped down Cabinet colleagues who are trying to dilute the Government’s commitment to cut net migration to the tens of thousands.

Last month, it emerged that Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, Chancellor George Osborne and Business Secretary Sajid Javid want non-EU students to be omitted from the target.
Campaigners for stricter border controls are concerned that ministers might seek to drop the target altogether, given it has been repeatedly missed and net migration – the difference between the number entering the country and leaving each year – is at an all-time record of 330,000.
Mrs May insisted the presence of target was vital in focusing minds on driving down immigration. The Government should continue to measure how many students were arriving and, crucially, leaving when their course was finished.

Theresa May takes tough stance against mass migration

- "Close to zero" net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration. “Impossible” to build a cohesive society.
- The UK home secretary has set out a defiantly anti-immigration focus for her next few years in office.

Theresa May has set out a defiantly anti-immigration focus for her next few years in office by promising a tougher asylum system and blaming incoming migrants for putting pressure on public services.

Addressing delegates at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, the home secretary bolstered her credentials as the rightwing candidate in any future leadership contest by arguing that mass migration made it “impossible” to build a cohesive society.

The net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration was “close to zero”, she said.

But her speech drew immediate criticism from business, with accusations that she had used “irresponsible” rhetoric.

Despite net migration rising to a record high of 330,000 over the past year, Ms May defended her attempt to meet her party’s “tens of thousands” target by saying that even though controlling immigration was getting harder, that was “no reason to give up”.

“As our manifesto said, we must work to control immigration and put Britain first,” she told a packed hall.

Ms May hardened her rhetoric against migrants, saying that when the pace of movement was too fast, schools and hospitals struggled to cope and people in low-paid jobs saw their wages pushed down or “forced out of work altogether”.

Business leaders were strongly critical of Ms May’s harsh line.

John Cridland, director-general of the employers’ group CBI, said skilled migration had been “positive” for the UK economy, and called for the net migration target to be scrapped.

“Businesses stand ready to play their part in helping the government develop a properly managed migration system that shows that Britain is open for business,” he said.

Simon Walker, director-general of the Institute of Directors, was even more scathing, accusing Ms May of “irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment”, adding she was putting “internal party politics ahead of the country”.

“The myth of the job-stealing immigrant is nonsense,” he said. “Immigrants do not steal jobs, they help fill vital skill shortages and, in doing so, create demand and more jobs.

“It is about time the Home Office stopped undermining business and our own government’s efforts to secure productivity growth.”

The home secretary is widely touted as a possible candidate to succeed David Cameron as party leader, alongside George Osborne and Boris Johnson.

She took on her political opponents in the Treasury and Foreign Office who want the UK to appear more welcoming to international students, and renewed her determination to limit student visas and clamp down on those who do not leave the country after the end of their degree.

“If they [students] have a graduate job, that is fine. If not, they must return home. So I don’t care what the university lobbyists say: the rules must be enforced,” she said. “Students, yes; overstayers, no . . . The universities must make this happen.”

She was similarly trenchant against the idea of a common European policy on asylum, following the influx of thousands of Syrians and Iraqis seeking refuge from war. Instead Ms May’s plan for asylum — put forward as a “new deal” — suggests limiting the number of people who she said “wrongly” claim asylum in order to be more generous to “the most vulnerable people in the world’s most dangerous places”.

The overhauled strategy will involve reviewing the international legal definitions of asylum and refugee status to prevent applications from foreign criminals who are about to be sent home to prison.

“My message to the immigration campaigners and human rights lawyers is this: you can play your part in making this happen or you can try to frustrate it,” she said. “But if you choose to frustrate it, you will have to live with the knowledge that you are depriving people in genuine need of the sanctuary our country can offer.”

One of the biggest frustrations for the Home Office has been the inability to limit the large numbers of people coming to Britain from within Europe in search of jobs. According to the most recent statistics, 636,000 people moved to the UK while 307,000 left in the year to March. Of the arrivals, 269,000 were EU citizens.

Ms May stopped short of calling for Britain to leave Europe, but suggested that more should be done to limit freedom of movement around the bloc.

“At the moment, for example, workers coming to the UK on very low salaries can claim over £10,000 on top of their salary in benefits — which makes the UK a hugely attractive destination,” she said. “This is not good for us, or for the countries those people are leaving.”

Gradonačelnik Londona zahtijeva ograničenje ulaza imigrantima

07
Srijeda
Lis 2015

Boris Johnson je danas zatražio od premijera David Camerona dramatično pojačanje napora povodom reformi EU, pozivajući Britaniju da preuzme natrag kontrolu nad svojim granicama.
Londonski gradonačelnik inzistira da Velika Britanija treba biti u mogućnosti staviti ograničenje na imigrante koji dolaze u Veliku Britaniju, prenosi Daily Mail

Britain will STAY signed up to European Court of Human Rights but will not slavishly follow rulings from Strasbourg judges

By JAMES SLACK FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 15:58 GMT, 8 November 2015 | UPDATED: 16:39 GMT, 8 November 2015

Justice Secretary Michael Gove has been wrestling with how to fulfil the Tory pledge to scrap Labour's Human Rights Act and return sovereignty to the UK Parliament.
Britain is to remain signed-up to the controversial European Court of Human Rights – but will no longer slavishly abide by the rulings of Strasbourg judges.
Under the new British Bill of Rights, the UK's own courts would have the final say where there is a clash between the Government and Europe.

The plans, which were leaked today, would also give greater protection from human rights lawyers to journalists and British soldiers fighting overseas.
Whitehall officials said the intention was to end the abuse of human rights laws and stamp out the courtroom 'compensation culture'.

Justice Secretary Michael Gove has been wrestling with how to fulfil the Tory pledge to scrap Labour's Human Rights Act and return sovereignty to the UK Parliament.
To the dismay of the Tory right, they have stopped short of deciding to quit the European Convention on Human Rights and the accompanying court in Strasbourg.
Instead, British judges will be told they will not have to follow the Court's ruling where they disagree.

In doing so, they will able to rely on the common law — the body of judicial rulings built up in Britain over centuries — when making their judgments.
The legislation is expected to set out measures to 'reduce the amount of compensation' that can be won in cases against public bodies.
The bill will grant soldiers greater protection from human rights cases – with the convention no longer applying on the battlefield overseas.
Legal challenges over incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the taxpayer £85m.

General Sir Nicholas Houghton, the chief of the Defence Staff, warned that the current rules could lead to soldiers 'hesitating' in a combat zone as they tried to work out the legal ramifications of their actions.

He said 'that completely undermines the whole basis of the way in which we operate at a tactical level'
The Bill will also give journalists greater protection from people trying to use human rights law to sue for damages by giving explicit support for the 'freedom of expression'.
A note leaked on the draft Bill of Rights proposals also outlines plans to ensure that only cases that fulfil 'a certain level of seriousness' go before the courts.

The leaked plan says: 'We would make clear that the domestic courts are not automatically bound to follow Strasbourg and will be free to reference other sources of law such as common law and rulings from other Commonwealth countries when formulating judgments.'

Ministers are trying to strike a balance between the demands of the different wings of the Tory party - both of which could scupper the legislation.
Many Eurosceptic MPs argue that nothing short of leaving the Convention will end the rampant abuse of human rights rules and restore supremacy to the UK courts.
However, there is also a rump of backbenchers who argue that leaving the Convention will set the wrong example to the rest of the world.

The need to protect a majority of only 12 has previously led to confusion at the top of Government over what the position should be.
Earlier this year, Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond said of leaving the Convention: 'That is not the proposal on the table.'
But he was later contradicted by Prime Minister David Cameron who said, quitting was an option.

He told MPs: 'If we can't achieve what we need - and I'm very clear about that, when we've got these foreign criminals committing offence after offence and we can't send them home because of their right to a family life - that needs to change.
'I rule out absolutely nothing in getting that done.'

Last night Lord Falconer, Labour's Shadow Justice Secretary, said: 'These are ill-thought out, illiterate and dangerous plans.
'They say they don't want to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights but their plans clearly show that they have misunderstood the relationship between our courts and the
European Court and their approach could result in such tensions that we would have to withdraw.
'For the Government to dither over this issue and send a message that it's ok to pick and choose the human rights you like does incredible damage both at home and to the UK's standing in the world.'

The consultation document is expected to be published in the next month, though Number Ten has yet to fix the date.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: 'This is speculation. We will set out our proposals in due course.'

Britanija na aparatima...

2014'te:

65.3% od rodjenih su beli Britanci
10.3% Ostali belci

Pakistanci: 4.3%
Indijci: 3.3%
Banglades: 1.5%
Crnci Afrikanci: 3.5%
Crnci Karibljani: 0.9%

Ostalo (Arapi,Kinezi...): 11%

27% od novorodjenih u 2014'te su imali majku rodjena van Britanije.

V. Britanija: Mladu djevojčicu silovalo 15 muslimanskih divljaka

12. Studeni 2015. - Crna kronika

Mlada djevojka opetovano je bila silovana od strane 15 muslimanskih divljaka. Djevojčica, koja je u vrijeme napada imala 13 godina, opetovano je silovana u gradu Keighley, u Zapadnom Yorkshireu.

Trinaestero muškaraca i mladića starih 17 godina, optuženo je za ukupno 28 seksualnih napada na djevojčicu, izvijestio je The Times, a optuženi su negirali krivnju.

Tužioci su rekli kako je zlostavljanje počelo nakon što je djevojčica rekla Arifu Choudhuryu, koji nije među optuženima, da neće više dostavljati drogu za njega.

Naime, djevojčica je, prema riječima tužioca, počela dostavljati drogu za Choudhurya jer je „imala problema kod kuće.“ Bila je „očajna u pokušaju da se uklopi“ te je bila „upamćena po tome što je bila rezervirana i s premalo samopouzdanja. Nije imala prijatelja.“

Choudhury, koji je tada imao 15 godina (!) navodno je fizički napao djevojčicu i silovao ju prije nego li ju je „podijelio“ s drugima. Na sudu se moglo čuti kako su mnogi od tih drugih prijetili djevojci da će pozvati Choudhurya ako djevojčica ne učini ono što oni žele.

Choudhury je navodno bio prisutan kod većine silovanja, koja su se odvijala, ni manje ni više, u dvorištima crkava, parkovima i na parkiralištima u okolici Keighleya.

Jednom prilikom, djevojčica je bila prisiljena na spolni odnos s petoricom „muškaraca.“ Ovo su njihova imena: Nazir Khan (23), Saqib Younis (29), Hussain Sardar (19), Zain Ali (20) i Faisal Khan (27).

Još jedan napad uključivao je slijedeće počinitelje: Sufyan Ziarab (22), Yasser Kabir (25), Bilal Ziarab (21) i Tauqeer Hussain (23). Ovaj napad dogodio se u podzemnoj garaži napuštene policijske stanice. Policija je na zidovima pronašla čak i grafite s imenom djevojčice i imenima napadača.

Pred sudom je također izneseno svjedočanstvo o tome kako je djevojčica morala oralno zadovoljiti Rohaila Iqbala (22) i Rohaila Hussaina (18) u lokalnom zabavnom centru, dok je Israr Ali (19) optužen za prisiljavanje na oralni seks u parku.

Još jedan neimenovani 17-godišnjak, također je optužen za silovanje djevojčice. Tauqeer Hussain također je optužen za silovanje još jedne djevojčice 2009.

Suđenje je u tijeku.

How many more people have to die before we stop appeasing Islamists? Why aren't we standing up to the enemy within?

We have within our midst thousands of people whose lives are devoted to doing our society harm

Charles Moore By Charles Moore11:35AM GMT 16 Nov 2015 Comments3562 Comments

Forty years ago, as a student, I lived in Boulevard Voltaire, the scene of some of the killings on Friday night. Paris was not an untroubled place at that time. The violent events of 1968 were still a recent memory, and I witnessed plenty of left-wing demonstrations.

There were also some serious problems about immigration, mainly related to the French decolonisation of Algeria, but there was an overwhelming difference between then and now. All the arguments – even the postcolonial ones – were framed within the context of European civilisation.

Even the pro-Soviet Left and Arab nationalists who dreamed of building better societies argued within that context. In France, both left and right invoked their own interpretations of the French Revolution to make their case.

"There is no reason why attacks just as terrible as those in Paris will not take place in London, Manchester, or Birmingham"
So although many feared – and some supported – social upheaval, I do not remember anyone predicting what has actually happened. If I had said to my archetypally French beret-wearing grocer in Boulevard Voltaire, or even to some professor of political science at the Sorbonne, that in the next generation France would have to struggle against murderers waving the green flag of Islam rather than the red flag of Communism, and that their purpose would be not the transformation of Western civilisation, but its defeat and destruction, they would barely have understood me.

What is much more extraordinary is that a great many modern European leaders and policymakers still do not understand it. If they did, they would not be expressing "shock" at Friday’s attacks. They would have been expecting them.

There are respects in which France’s plight is worse than Britain’s. It has many more Muslims – its second city, Marseille, now has a Muslim majority – and they are perhaps more ghettoised than ours. It has land borders, and we do not. It is part of the Schengen passport-free area, and we are not. It insists on secularism almost as the definition of citizenship, and we do not.
But the similarities are much greater than the differences, and there is no solid reason why attacks just as terrible as those in Paris will not take place in London (or Manchester or Birmingham).

This is because of the implacable enmity of Islamism. It is a highly political version of Islam which cleverly mixes the modern blogosphere world of grievance and conspiracy theory with the sanctity of ancient texts ill-understood but passionately invoked. It has some advocates who are not themselves personally violent, but its entire idea is a violent one.

Essentially, Islamism is a doctrine which provides a reason to hate and kill everyone who does not subscribe to it. Start with the people in the front line of your malice – Jews, Christians in the Arab world, the professional soldiers of infidel countries.

Progress to those who transgress your morality – "loose" women who do not cover their faces, homosexuals, people who drink alcohol, people who dance and sing. And then end up with anyone – everyone – who does not submit to the will of Allah, as interpreted by your pop-up theologians. Isil is the apotheosis of this: a would-be state based upon the annihilation of all diversity. The most beastly atrocities are, in its collective mind, the best proof of its purity.

It would be harder to imagine a clearer foe, yet we still have difficulty making policy in the light of the threat. After seven years in the White House, President Obama still cannot bear so much as to mention its religious aspect. He sees it all as a distressing misunderstanding arising from colonial wrongs and the fact that George Bush was President before him.

The whole of the West led – or rather, not led – by Mr Obama has failed to confront the effect of the civil war in Syria. It has therefore allowed Isil both physical and ideological space.

In Britain, Members of Parliament, including almost as many Tory as Labour ones, continue to think that by refusing to authorise intervention in Syria, we can avoid trouble. Such people may claim their view is reinforced by what happened in Paris: if we have nothing to do with the Middle East, its fanatics will leave us alone. They are like the eccentric political party in Denmark in the 1960s which briefly shot to about 25 per cent in the opinion polls with a defence policy of leaving a tape-recorded message for the Soviet Union in government offices saying "we surrender".

In fact, no civilisation can survive without the means of defending itself, and those means include an expeditionary capacity. Diplomacy, foreign policy and trade have to be backed up by the ability to project force across the world to support our allies and confront our enemies. In this generation, most of our leaders have abandoned this idea. Now they seem surprised that we are left weak.

What brings it all home, literally, is immigration. Even if it is true, as it probably is, that the great majority of Muslims are as peace-loving and decent as any other group of people, you have simple problem of numbers. If a million Muslims, thanks to Angela Merkel, are reaching Germany this year, and even if only one per cent of them subscribe to the doctrines of Isil, that still means 10,000 people dedicated to killing their hosts and assailing the society that accommodates them.

And such as the power of Islamist grievance culture and their infiltration of social media, charities, community groups, mosques and public-policy forums, that one per cent would be a very conservative estimate. The grim fact is that we have within our midst thousands on people whose lives are devoted to doing our society harm and tens of thousands more who are susceptible to the lies they tell. Yet still our policies magnify their voices and swell their numbers.

Two teachers in 'Trojan horse' school face lifetime ban for feeding pupils 'diet of Islam' - segregating assemblies and failing to teach about sex and relationships

By HUGO GYE FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:30 GMT, 17 November 2015 | UPDATED: 11:09 GMT, 17 November 2015

Two teachers from a school linked to the 'Trojan horse' scandal could be banned for life after a hearing found that they 'fed pupils a diet of Islam' which 'stifled their development'.

Inamulhaq Anwar and Akeel Ahmed exercised 'undue religious influence' on children at Park View Academy in Birmingham, a disciplinary panel ruled yesterday.

Pupils were never taught sex or relationship education, according to officials, and were 'immersed in orthodox Islamic doctrine' - which could leave them vulnerable to being groomed by extremists.

Anwar, 34, and Ahmed, 41, were 'generals' in the campaign to enforce Islamic discipline in the school, according to the Birmingham-based panel.

They were found to have implemented 'an undue amount of religious influence in pupils' education', and could now face being the first British teachers to be banned from the classroom permanently.

A total of 11 other staff at Park View and Oldknow Academy face charges of misconduct over the 'Trojan horse' affair, which allegedly saw teachers conspire to introduce hardline Islamic teaching to schools in the West Midlands.

Yesterday, a National College of Teaching and Leadership disciplinary panel chose to accept the evidence of a staff member that Anwar and Ahmed were central figure in Park View's religious indoctrination programme.

The panel said that pupils were 'fed a diet of Islam' which had in turn 'stifled their development as normal teenagers'.
It also found that the conduct of the two men tended to undermine tolerance and respect for the faith and belief of others.
Chairman Mark Tweedle said that the teachers were 'guilty of unacceptable professional misconduct' which 'may also bring the profession into disrepute'.

He said that the claims were 'in no way concerned with extremism', but added: 'Pupils raised in a predominantly Muslim community and immersed in orthodox Islamic doctrine at school are more likely to feel isolated and inadequately prepared for the world as they grow up.
'As such they are more likely to be vulnerable from the actions and inferences of others who may exploit any sense of alienation.'

Mr Tweedle said the panel had found that 'Park View was leading the way in the introduction of Islamic practice - perhaps more so than in other British state schools.'

Among the allegations found to have been proven were the claim that Ahmed and Anwar 'reformed the school curriculum to exclude proper teaching of sex and relationship education, use of contraception and safe sex'.

Mr Tweedle went on to say that 'pupils' development was being stifled and they were not being allowed to develop likes normal British teenagers'.

The panel concluded: 'This omission meant the relevant boys were not being fully informed as to how to keep themselves safe [from STDs] and meant they were not being prepared for life in modern Britain.'

Mr Tweedle said both teachers had also failed to afford pupils the chance to 'explore different cultures and form their own views'.
Ahmed organised religious assemblies where boys were segregated from girls, and encouraged prayer during the school day through posters, a call to prayer on the school's loudspeaker system, and direct reminders to teachers.
Separately, Anwar was also found to have breached proper recruitment procedures at Park View's sister school Nansen Primary, in hiring a personal acquaintance as deputy headmaster.

Park View was placed in special measures by Ofsted after the 'Trojan horse' allegations came to light, and it has since been renamed Rockwood Academy.

Ahmed and Anwar will be told what sanctions they will face at a later date.

Immigrant spouses must speak English before coming to the UK, Supreme Court judges rule

Two British women took the government to court over language checks
Husbands do not speak English so have been blocked from joining them
Supreme Court rules checks are not 'unreasonable or disproportionate'
By MATT CHORLEY, POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 13:28 GMT, 18 November 2015 | UPDATED: 14:23 GMT, 18 November 2015

A legal challenge to immigration rules that force foreign national to learn English before coming to the UK to join their spouses has been thrown out by judges.
The Supreme Court rejected claims that the pre-entry checks were 'unreasonable, disproportionate and discriminatory'.
Judges denied claims the rules infringed human rights but did suggest it could be unlawful, raising the threat of further court challenge.

Two British women took the government to court because their husbands, who cannot speak English, are foreign nationals and wish to join them in the UK.
Saiqa Bibi and Saffana Ali both claimed the requirement for their husbands to speak English breached their right to a private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

It is said in both cases that it would not be feasible for their husbands to pass a test before coming to the UK.

U VB (59% se smatraju kršćani, 2012.) udruga koja zastupa 80% vlasnika kina, zabranila ovaj kršćanski video clip, koji propagira molitvu "Oče naš", i koji je trebao ići prije filma Star Wars. Razlog ne "ne žele ostale vjere da vrijeđaju". Čudi me samo da u toj zemlji na veliko podržavaju i dozvoljavaju prakticiranje sharije, koja potkopava pravni sustav, koji se navodno temelji na jednakosti svih.

Kakve li veze ima kršćanska molitva sa Star Wars,koji poput npr Avatara,propagira totalno nekršćansku filozofiju,tj. new age sranja?

British Airways pilot suffered a burnt retina after a 'military strength' laser was shone into the cockpit of his plane as he came in to land at Heathrow

By KEILIGH BAKER FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:05 GMT, 24 November 2015 | UPDATED: 10:40 GMT, 24 November 2015

A British Airways pilot suffered 'significant' eye damage when a laser was shone into the cockpit of a plane landing at Heathrow Airport, damaging his retina.
Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the British Airline Pilots Association, said a 'military strength' device was used, causing the most serious injury ever inflicted upon a pilot in the UK during a laser attack.
'His retina was burnt on one of his eyes,' Mr McAuslan said.

He added that 'people have assumed the laser must have been military strength' because the damage was much more severe than that caused by common laser pens.
He said: 'When there's something like this, that's damaged a man's retina, that starts to worry us.'

Ali zašto to prikazivati baš pred STAR WARS? Zašto ne i pred druge filmove?