Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Monday Night

In the waning hours of Gwangbokjol.


They lost the war. Deal with it:


Japan marked the 66th anniversary of its surrender in World War II on Monday with sombre remembrances across the country and a memorial in Tokyo led by the emperor. The ceremonies come as the country struggles to recover from this year's devastating earthquake and tsunami.


Was there an article about the end of Korea's long nightmare?


Oh. Here it is.


That Liberation Day also falls on the Feast of the Assumption....


From this lady:


Ms de la Calva says her son, Daniel Sartain-Clarke, 18, is innocent of the charges and was caught ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’.

But she says even if he is found guilty, she and her eight-year-old daughter Revecca should not be penalised.

Spanish-born Ms de la Calva said: ‘We, as parents, are not responsible for the decisions our children make. I am the householder and it is my name – not my son’s – on the tenancy agreement. 

‘I have lived here for five years and I get assistance with paying the rent because I am working part-time and my daughter is so young....

A letter from Wandsworth Council, signed by deputy housing manager Tom Crawley, to Ms de la Calva, a former professional dancer who has lived in Britain since 1986, says Daniel’s alleged behaviour may mean the family have breached their tenancy conditions under the Housing Act 1985. 

The conditions state that no one living at the property should ‘do anything which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance’ or commit ‘an arrestable offence’. It  also points out that the  family is £1,806.09 in arrears with their rent.


To this lady:


A mother who turned her own daughter into police after discovering she was allegedly involved in rioting, has urged other parents to do the same.

Adrienne Ives, 47, said the decision to tell detectives she had spotted her 18-year-old Olympics ambassador daughter Chelsea taking part in this week's riots  was 'gut-wrenching'.

The talented athlete was stripped of her role as 2012 Olympic ­ambassador after being charged with burglary, violent disorder and hurling bricks at a police car.

However, Adrienne, 47, said that she had no choice but to contact officers.

She told the Daily Mirror: 'Any parent who loves their child should find the courage to do what we did.'

'If parents keep their mouths shut these kids will keep rampaging through the streets.

'As a mother, I love my daughter. It’s not easy, but we hope we’ve done the right thing. 

It was a hard decision to make but it was a decision that any good parent would do. 

These riots happen because good parents do nothing.'

Chelsea, 18, is in custody accused of taking part in the disorder at Enfield, North London.

Mrs Ives was at home in Leytonstone, east London, on Sunday night with her husband Roger, 54, watching the scenes of anarchy unfold on the streets of Enfield, just six miles to the north.

'Roger and I were watching the TV news and it was absolutely sickening,' she said. 'And then we saw our daughter. I could not believe it. For a minute we did not know what to do. 

'But then, what could normal honest parents do? How can you sit there and see that and say, "That's OK"? We were watching people lose their homes and businesses. As parents we had to say, "She can't get away with that".

'I will be portrayed as a bitch – but what are you supposed to do? I had to do what was right. She won't thank us.'


And why I think it's perfectly acceptable to punish the former mother in question:


Because, as a subsidised mum, her excuses are self-serving, her son still lives with her, she isn't going to jail- her son is, she will always find subsidised housing and they violated housing and tenant acts. The latter mum actually acknowledged her daughter's rotten behaviour and, instead of making excuses, did the right thing and turned her in. How many times have we heard: "He was always such a good boy"? You won't get an argument from me that adults should should face the music but I will defend the punishment of all parties involved.


Further....


It's not so much an apology as it is filler material:


"A column by Heather Mallick on July 28 contained a number of inaccurate statements about the well-known British journalist and author Melanie Phillips.

Ms. Phillips has expressed her horror at the slaughter at Utoya, Norway in a clear and unambiguous way, writing “there can be no excuse, justification or rationale whatsoever for the atrocity perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik.”

The column made reference to Ms. Phillips’ writings in an entirely misleading and inappropriate manner.

The defamatory article has been removed from our website.

The Star and Ms. Mallick regret the errors and apologize to Ms. Phillips."



(Hat tip)


Drink this in:


Everyone is sexualized in commercials, not only children. And that's because sex sells. And that's because humans are sexually repressed and exceedingly curious about it, not being "allowed" the satisfaction of normality, thanks to religions and their multitude of sexual taboos. 


Whenever someone says anything like this, stop them. You're doing yourself a favour not listening to this insane tripe. The defense of anything wrong and just plain nasty is just one more sign that liberalism is a mental illness. I refuse to believe that heterosexual marriage is abnormal but shoving things up one's bum is "the satisfaction of normality".



And now for more appetizing thoughts:


Sprinkle a little paprika on your eggs. Add cinnamon to that coffee. Order the curry. A new study published in the Journal of Nutrition has found that a diet rich in spices like turmeric, cinnamon and paprika can counter the damaging effects of fatty foods.


Down that curry! It's good for you!




8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Read those articles again. Tell me, do you see anything anywhere that says "Maite de la Calva is being charged with accessory to arson" or "Maite de la Calva is being charged with receiving stolen property?"

What you will read is that she is being evicted for what her son is accused of (the more intriguing part is that he hasn't even been convicted yet). You will also read that no charges have been laid on her.

Your argument is that her son has committed a crime (for the sake of arguing I will take the stance that he is guilty until proven innocent because I am not sure I buy his story about looking for people who may have been hurt) so she should be evicted from her home, a violation of her right to shelter, when she has little means and another young child to care for. Much like the old "your brother caused trouble in town so we will burn your farm down" tactic. I had no idea you were such a big fan of British styled justice.

I am shocked that the slippery slope this treads is so unclear to you and how comfortable you are with it. What will the British authorities be able to do if they can override a person's rights under the law, with other laws, as it suits them? What will the British authorities be able to do if they can tack on punishment to uninvolved parties?

Your other argument is that another mother turned in her own child, there for Maite de la Calva should too. That is a clear logical error. Adrienne Ives knew of her child's involvement in a crime. That means she was not only convinced that it occurred, but would be accessory if she did not inform the police. This could be seen as honest but also be perceived as saving her own skin. Good for her for having the strength to overcome maternal instincts to protect her child in order to do what was ethical, but this does not apply to de la Calva. She was not a witness to a crime, not an accessory and is not convinced of his guilt. Her inclination to defend her child (even if deep down she thinks he may have done it) is beside the point. She is in no position to assist the authorities as she had *nothing* to do with it.

On top of this, she has even said "(b)ut she (de la Calva) says even if he is found guilty, she and her eight-year-old daughter Revecca should not be penalised." She has accepted that he may be found guilty of a crime. So you think that one person should be commended for turning their child in, and she should be punished for given her son the benefit of a doubt concerning a crime no one actually witnessed him commit (reports say he was there, but there are no reports that he was seen throwing fire bombs or taking goods).

Your other arguments is that she £1,806.09 behind in rent. Given that monthly rent for a two bedroom flat (shared by three people) is in the ballpark of £849.04 - £1502.80 a month, this could be as little as two or three months of back payments owing. If that is her offense, punish her for that offense. Do not evict her for someone else's crime or take away her benefits for the crime of someone else.

~Your Brother~

Anonymous said...

How does this deal with her parenting? It is her actions after the fact you have issues with, not with her parenting prior, which you have called into question.

Sosocats

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

I never claimed Miss de la Calva is being charged with anything, only that her tenant- her poor little boy - can legally be evicted, along with her. Take it up with British jurisprudence if you don't like it. I, on the other hand, am glad to see any member of the entitlement culture get their comeuppance.

What kind of person steals electronic goods? Do you honestly think he would ever admit and then acknowledge fault in such a crime? No he wouldn't. He would have lived with mummy. Why does everyone else have to live with him? What should his punishment be? What should his mother's punishment be? Bad kids don't just happen. Who is responsible for the eight year old kids rioting?

This is the welfare culture, the entitlement culture, the culture that demands and takes but never works for anything and one which refuses to take responsibility for its actions. If kicking this mother out for supporting her wayward son is what it takes to frighten future criminals, good. There are apartment-dwellers and shop-owners who have nothing to return to because rioters like Sartain-Clarke burned them down.

Anonymous said...

*jumps up and down, waving hands above head*

Hi! I would like an answer too. I have yet to see how her parenting deals with the case at hand. He is an adult. We expect teenagers (that is between the ages of 12 to 18) to be responsible for their own actions. Why are you defending an eighteen year old (who is legally an adult) of not being responsible for his actions?


sosocats >^.^<

Anonymous said...

"I never claimed Miss de la Calva is being charged with anything"
True, but you whole heartedly supported punishing her for a crime she didn't participate in, so you say "potato" and I say...


"I, on the other hand, am glad to see any member of the entitlement culture get their comeuppance."
So your *actual* grievance with her is not having a son who is accused (not convicted) of a crime that no one witnessed, or not agreeing with *your* opinion that she should turn him in despite not having any means to do so, or being behind on her rent, but is in fact that she is receiving assistance.

Yes, how dare anyone live on welfare. Hell, why don't we go after every system that has ever given a handout? Like that one you visit for an hour every week that routinely gives alms to others.

Do you know why de la Calva is living on some form of assistance? Do you have any means to determine why she is on assistance? Do you have any means to find out why she only works 20 hours a week? Better yet, do you have any proof that she has not tried hard enough to raise her son properly? Do you have any evidence that it is due to poor parenting we can blame her son's behaviour, which as yet to be proven? It sure is easy for you to pass judgement on others when you don't know the whole story, isn't it?

So your answer to a situation in which a woman you know nothing about, who received assistance from her government (who you seemed to have so much faith in when they want to throw her an her *underage child* on the street), is to assign her guilt by association and treat her as a criminal for a crime she had nothing to do with. That is exactly what you are doing. They want to evict her for her son's alleged actions, and not because she is on social assistance or behind on her rent.


"What kind of person steals electronic goods? Do you honestly think he would ever admit and then acknowledge fault in such a crime? No he wouldn't."

If he is guilty, and I am inclined to believe he may be, then that is still not her problem besides she can only see her son once a month behind bullet proof glass.
You are yet to establish what *his* guilt has to do with what happens to his mother. Unless of course, you back peddle and admit that you believe his mother is directly responsible for or involved in the crime of which he is accused.

"Bad kids don't just happen."

No, but he isn't a bad kid, is he? I believe that reports say he is 18 years old, making him an adult. Even if "bad kids don't just happen" that does not mean it is the parent's fault. Even if he is convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am sure you can think of *many* people who come from good families and screw things up for themselves. That is on them.

There are also plenty of people from bad families that make something of themselves. I am sure you would be all to willing to give all credit to them in that case as opposed to saying their parents had involvement.

"Who is responsible for the eight year old kids rioting?"
I would still say an eight year old is responsible for his own actions as even a child knows that throwing fire bombs and taking what doesn't belong to then is wrong. But this case doesn't involve an eight year old, does it? Stop changing the subject.


"This is the welfare culture, the entitlement culture"

Yes, because it's wasn't until the last 100 years that people start to riot or steal. Being on welfare doesn't make you a criminal. Being a criminal does not make your family members criminals as well.

~Your Brother~

Anonymous said...

"This is the welfare culture, the entitlement culture"

Yes, because it's wasn't until the last 100 years that people start to riot or steal. Being on welfare doesn't make you a criminal. Being a criminal does not make your family members criminals as well.

"If kicking this mother out for supporting her wayward son is what it takes to frighten future criminals, good."
Sorry, I am confused about your point. First you blame it on welfare. Then you you say that you are not claiming his mother is being charged with a crime. Then you say that that the man's mother was supporting her wayward son. Which is it? Did she support his actions or not? Is the matter that she supported him (so you claim) or that she is part of the welfare system?

If your idea to prevent future crimes is to violate a person's rights, why not take it to the next step? Why don't we stop people from hiding pot in their houses by allowing the police to break door the front door of random houses without a warrant? The idea that *your* house could be next would certainly curb the storage of cannabis in residential areas. And if innocent people had to lose their freedom to privacy, safety and security in their homes to do it, good.

How will crime be reduced by putting a woman and her child on the street for crimes they had nothing to do with? Especially given that people in desperate situations (such has not having enough work or a home and being treated like a pariah and criminal) do desperate things. How will justice be served by doing so?

Since you are such a big fan of the exact letter of the law in the British justice system (as opposed to the spirit of the law and it's intended purpose), I am sure I will see you see your name next to these rulings in approval.
Christian foster couple lose 'homosexuality views' case
Act of Settlement
Abortion in The UK

Now, are you going to hold to the exact jot of the law in these cases? Either the British legal system is able to do unethical things in all cases and be correct in doing so, or we are forced to admit that there are frequent miscarriages of justice in it.

"There are apartment-dwellers and shop-owners who have nothing to return to because rioters like Sartain-Clarke burned them down."
Innocent until proven guilty. Another one of those legal stumbling blocks. If only we could just get rid of that.

~Your Brother~

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

I know you are keen on my saying that you are right but I won't. And it might give you some sort of glee to say we should do away with due process or personal responsibility but I won't say that, either.

Yes, I believe Daniel Sartain-Clark is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused. As he is harboured by his mum, he deserves to be kicked out. Miss de la Calva will ALWAYS get free housing somewhere else, just not her soon-to-be former taxpayer funded home. That's the great thing about post-war Britain- a hand reaching out will always get something.


Sartain-Clark lives with mum, on the taxpayer pound, has violated the rules of living on the taxpayer pound and should face the consequences. I asked you what you think should be done with him. A thirty day sentence? What will he do then? Return to the taxpayer funded home with mum having learned nothing.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

Sosocats, yes, Sartain-Clark is technically an adult. Should his dear old mum defend this man-child?