Politics Hu
Monday, 9 August 2010
Jobbik MP allegedly threatens journalists (Hungary)
Politics Hu
Man who attacked gay couple jailed for six years (UK)
A 21-year-old man from Oxford who brutally attacked a gay couple has been jailed for six years.
Lewis Buck - who pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - was sentenced at Oxford Cown Court.
According to the Oxford Mail, he was lucky not to have killed 27-year-old victim, Stephen Furze, whom he stabbed in the abdomen just weeks after New Year.
The incident happened when Furze and his partner, Tim Samways, were walking through Summertown on 27 Janurary when Buck challenged them to a fight.
After attempting to punch Furze, Buck stabbed him with a 9cm knife, piercing his liver.
Surgeons at the John Radcliffe Hospital said Furze was “extremely fortunate” that the blade had not ruptured an artery.
Judge Patrick Eccles said: “Fortunately for the victim, Mr Furze, and also fortunately for you, it did not cause a grievous injury. Someone in that position was at risk of grave injury or indeed death.”
He added: “Whatever was going through your mind, you brought a knife back to threaten him and stab him.
“You cornered him, threatened to inflict pain on him with the knife, and got him in isolation where he could not escape from you and then you deliberately stabbed him in the stomach.”
Buck is expected to serve at least half of his sentence.
Pink Paper
Lewis Buck - who pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - was sentenced at Oxford Cown Court.
According to the Oxford Mail, he was lucky not to have killed 27-year-old victim, Stephen Furze, whom he stabbed in the abdomen just weeks after New Year.
The incident happened when Furze and his partner, Tim Samways, were walking through Summertown on 27 Janurary when Buck challenged them to a fight.
After attempting to punch Furze, Buck stabbed him with a 9cm knife, piercing his liver.
Surgeons at the John Radcliffe Hospital said Furze was “extremely fortunate” that the blade had not ruptured an artery.
Judge Patrick Eccles said: “Fortunately for the victim, Mr Furze, and also fortunately for you, it did not cause a grievous injury. Someone in that position was at risk of grave injury or indeed death.”
He added: “Whatever was going through your mind, you brought a knife back to threaten him and stab him.
“You cornered him, threatened to inflict pain on him with the knife, and got him in isolation where he could not escape from you and then you deliberately stabbed him in the stomach.”
Buck is expected to serve at least half of his sentence.
Pink Paper
Alleged Serial Killer was Member of Neo-Nazi National Alliance
A Panamanian official quoted Holbert, who was deported to Panama to face murder charges, as saying he established friendships with two of his victims by posing as a potential investor, then shot each in the head, buried them and took over their money and other property. The National Police in Panama said they found nine bodies on the property of Holbert and Reese, which included a hotel.
Holbert and his girlfriend had been on the run for more than two years, since they fled after being pulled over on Feb. 5, 2006, in Sheridan County, Wyo., for speeding in a stolen car.
Some of Holbert’s white supremacist history has been made public in news reports, including the fact that he has a swastika tattoo on his upper back and “Aryan Pride” on his arm. But a key piece of that history has not. In August 2002, Holbert joined the neo-Nazi National Alliance (NA), which at one time was the most important hate group in America. At the time, the Alliance was suffering from a leadership crisis caused by the death a month earlier of the group’s longtime leader, William Pierce. Under the leadership of Erich Gliebe, who followed Pierce, the NA would eventually fall apart, leaving only a few weak and scattered remnants.
Yesterday, on the racist online forum Stormfront, “whitegirl” posted that Holbert showed up at an NA meeting in 2003, saying he was the organization’s “Western Regional Coordinator.” “Whitegirl” said he tried “to take over the whole meeting” and tried to “get into a leadership position immediately.” She added that Holbert popped up a year later at a white nationalist cookout claiming to represent a new racist group.
Two years later, in 2005, Holbert, as has been reported, opened a racist store in Forest City, N.C., called Southern National Patriots, which sold books, CDs and pamphlets promoting his white supremacist views. On Stormfront, “whitegirl” wrote that Holbert tried to recruit local skinheads to frequent his store. The Southern National Patriots store was also the site of meetings where Holbert and others advocated for the rights of white Southerners.
Those meetings attracted extremists and a local leader in the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), an organization for the descendants of Confederate soldiers that has been roiled in the past decade by a power struggle between extremist members and those calling for the group to ban racists. Creighton Lovelace, who was in 2005 the commander of the local SCV chapter, Rutherford Rifles, spoke that year at an event held at Holbert’s store. During the rally, speakers reportedly praised the history of the South and repeatedly chanted, “Save the South.” According to a press report, Lovelace said in his speech that southern white Christians should be “separated from other peoples,” something he claimed the Bible demanded.
Lovelace was at the time pastor of the Danielton Baptist Church. Lovelace posted to LiveJournal in April 2005 that Holbert and Reese had joined his church. “It was a very happy day,” Lovelace proclaimed. He also referred to himself as having been for a time the couple’s “spiritual advisor.” But by May 2005, Lovelace had quit his association with Holbert and Southern National Patriots.
That same year, Lovelace and Danielton Baptist Church achieved national notoriety for placing provocative anti-Islam messages on the church’s sign. At one point, the church featured a sign that read, “The Koran needs to be flushed.” E-mails for comment about Holbert and Reese to Lovelace, who now runs Bible Defender Ministries, were not immediately returned.
Before fleeing the U.S., Holbert already had racked up a serious criminal history. In January 2006, a warrant had been issued for Holbert’s arrest for theft using false pretenses. In October 2005, while posing as a doctor and using a false driver’s license, Holbert opened a bank account in the name of Luke Gregory Kuhn. Holbert then allegedly sold a house he did not own in Oak Island, N.C., for more than $200,000. Over the following two months, he withdrew the proceeds from the illegal home sale from the bank account in small increments and then fled to Kentucky, where he obtained a false Kentucky’s driver’s license in the name of Donald Lee Bruckert. It was a just a few weeks later that Holbert and Reese fled the country.
SPLCentre
REVEALED: HOW ASYLUM DETENTION CENTRES DAMAGE CHILDREN (uk)
The traumatic toll of detention on the children of asylum seekers will be exposed in a new report. "State Sponsored Cruelty", due to be published by Medical Justice in September, found that two-thirds of children became ill or were hurt after being held in detention centres. They include a three-year-old girl who broke her shoulder falling down stairs. Pressure was building yesterday on the Government to honour a promise made in the Queen's Speech in May to act quickly to outlaw the detention of young asylum seekers, a practice Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has described as a "moral outrage". This year, 50 women at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre, Bedfordshire, went on hunger strike over conditions. A scathing report by Dame Anne Owers published in March confirmed the findings of a similar investigation by the Children's Commissioner which said Yarl's Wood had been "distressing and harmful" for children. Last night, Medical Justice reiterated a call by the Scottish Refugee Council for the Government to immediately ban the detention of children of failed asylum seekers rather than wait for the outcome of a Home Office Review. "Powers still exist to arrest and forcibly remove children from the UK by harmful means, including separating and detaining one parent, detaining a single parent and putting the child "in care", and forcibly removing one family member from the UK without the others," it said. "We need policy and legislation change that eliminates all forms of family detention and separation and related harmful practices." Spokeswoman Emma Ginn added: "Our fear is that they will never end detention of children. To say they will only detain children for a short period is the same as what we had before."
In the first large-scale investigation in the UK, Medical Justice gathered the evidence of independent doctors who assessed 141 children detained between 2004 and April 2010. It found that 92 had suffered physical harm, often developing fevers and vomiting, while 50 children received inadequate medical care. More than half, 74, had been psychologically harmed and went on to suffer nightmares, insomnia or became deeply fearful of being locked up again. Almost 50 had witnessed violence in detention while 13 had been injured, notably several children hurt during the break-up of a hunger strike at Yarl's Wood. Last year 1,065 children were held with their families awaiting removal. While there are currently no children in detention, the UK Border Agency would only say "detention of families will be kept to a minimum until the review is completed". After taking office, the coalition Government pledged to end the practice of locking up failed asylum families with children. Last month the Prime Minister promised to end the practice "once and for all". A Home Office review is looking at alternatives, including housing children in care, but yesterday Clare Tudor of the Scottish Refugee Council said it wanted "a commitment set in law that would disallow the Government at any time in the future to detain children". A UK Border Agency spokesperson said: "The Government is clear in its commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. One of the first actions was to set up a review and this has changed the UK Border Agency's approach. We are focused on finding an alternative that protects the welfare of children, without undermining immigration laws."
The Independant
In the first large-scale investigation in the UK, Medical Justice gathered the evidence of independent doctors who assessed 141 children detained between 2004 and April 2010. It found that 92 had suffered physical harm, often developing fevers and vomiting, while 50 children received inadequate medical care. More than half, 74, had been psychologically harmed and went on to suffer nightmares, insomnia or became deeply fearful of being locked up again. Almost 50 had witnessed violence in detention while 13 had been injured, notably several children hurt during the break-up of a hunger strike at Yarl's Wood. Last year 1,065 children were held with their families awaiting removal. While there are currently no children in detention, the UK Border Agency would only say "detention of families will be kept to a minimum until the review is completed". After taking office, the coalition Government pledged to end the practice of locking up failed asylum families with children. Last month the Prime Minister promised to end the practice "once and for all". A Home Office review is looking at alternatives, including housing children in care, but yesterday Clare Tudor of the Scottish Refugee Council said it wanted "a commitment set in law that would disallow the Government at any time in the future to detain children". A UK Border Agency spokesperson said: "The Government is clear in its commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. One of the first actions was to set up a review and this has changed the UK Border Agency's approach. We are focused on finding an alternative that protects the welfare of children, without undermining immigration laws."
The Independant
UK BORDER AGENCY INVESTIGATION FINDS CAUSE FOR 'SIGNIFICANT CONCERN'
An investigation into claims by a whistleblower that asylum seekers are mistreated, tricked and humiliated by staff working for the UK Border Agency has found cause for "significant concern" and makes several recommendations for change. The investigation by the agency's professional standards unit, was triggered by a report in the Guardian that revealed the concerns of whistleblower Louise Perrett, a UKBA case owner who worked for three and a half months in the Cardiff office during the summer of 2009. These revelations also led to Perrett giving evidence before the Commons home affairs select committee. Perrett, 29, said some of her colleagues expressed anti-immigration views and took pride in refusing asylum applications. She said that a toy gorilla nicknamed the "grant monkey" was placed as a badge of shame on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application. Former child soldiers were forced to lie on the office floor and demonstrate how they shot people in the bush, she said, while a test to determine the authenticity of people who claimed to be from North Korea was to ask them if they ate chop suey.
When she asked advice about the legitimacy of a Congolese woman's asylum claim, a legal official apparently replied: "Umbongo, umbongo, they kill them all in the Congo." The investigation found that all allegations apart from the toy gorilla could not be substantiated, but acknowledges that the PCS union circulated advice to their members not to cooperate with the investigation. Identifying a number of areas of concern, the report criticised the asylum team that held the "grant monkey", said that its subsequent removal from the office was correct and that no further action needed to be taken. Perrett had complained to managers about her concerns but no changes were made. "Concerns that she raised informally were not documented which this report finds disappointing," the report states. "Consideration should be given in the Cardiff office of the procedures to follow and an environment where staff are comfortable raising concerns without fear of criticism from other staff."
Recommendations include considering the introduction of a disciplinary offence for failing to challenge inappropriate behaviour, looking at other ways for staff to challenge this behaviour from colleagues, and a reminder to staff about appropriate tests that can be used to assess the credibility of an applicant's claim. "This investigation makes me think that UKBA believed my claims all along, but their work was hindered by the PCS," said Perrett. "My reasons for speaking publicly about my experiences of working for this organisation was to effect cultural change within and ensure that those who seek refuge are treated with dignity and respect and are able to make a claim for asylum without prejudice. I hope the training and procedures to be implemented as a result of this investigation will ensure this." In its response to the investigation, UKBA said: "We believe that this has been a useful exercise for the UK Border Agency and are sure that our agency will be the better for it. We welcome the chance this has given us to have a focused look at ourselves and devise a response accordingly."
The Guardian
When she asked advice about the legitimacy of a Congolese woman's asylum claim, a legal official apparently replied: "Umbongo, umbongo, they kill them all in the Congo." The investigation found that all allegations apart from the toy gorilla could not be substantiated, but acknowledges that the PCS union circulated advice to their members not to cooperate with the investigation. Identifying a number of areas of concern, the report criticised the asylum team that held the "grant monkey", said that its subsequent removal from the office was correct and that no further action needed to be taken. Perrett had complained to managers about her concerns but no changes were made. "Concerns that she raised informally were not documented which this report finds disappointing," the report states. "Consideration should be given in the Cardiff office of the procedures to follow and an environment where staff are comfortable raising concerns without fear of criticism from other staff."
Recommendations include considering the introduction of a disciplinary offence for failing to challenge inappropriate behaviour, looking at other ways for staff to challenge this behaviour from colleagues, and a reminder to staff about appropriate tests that can be used to assess the credibility of an applicant's claim. "This investigation makes me think that UKBA believed my claims all along, but their work was hindered by the PCS," said Perrett. "My reasons for speaking publicly about my experiences of working for this organisation was to effect cultural change within and ensure that those who seek refuge are treated with dignity and respect and are able to make a claim for asylum without prejudice. I hope the training and procedures to be implemented as a result of this investigation will ensure this." In its response to the investigation, UKBA said: "We believe that this has been a useful exercise for the UK Border Agency and are sure that our agency will be the better for it. We welcome the chance this has given us to have a focused look at ourselves and devise a response accordingly."
The Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)