"First Muslim Peer" Lord Ahmed Charged with Buggery Against a Boy Under 11 in Sheffield Crown Court

Tweet

Member of the British House of Lords Nazir Ahmed has been called (and has called himself) the "first Muslim peer". Apparently, this is technically incorrect, with two other Muslims beating him to it by a matter of weeks. (Apparently, appointing Muslims to the peerage was a thing in the Summer of 1998). There have also been a number of earlier Muslim hereditary peers, all converts, I believe.

But he is almost certainly the most well-known current Muslim Lord.

Last month he was charged with attempted rape against a girl under 16. It allegedly occurred in the early 1970's.

Fittingly, perhaps, his peerage is Rotherham, the site of the notorious Muslim mass "grooming" scandals.

Lord Ahmed was also sexually attracted to young boys. Or so it seems.

From the Rotherham Advertiser (4/18/19) h/t Gates of Vienna:

Rotherham peer Lord Ahmed charged with fourth child sex offence

ROTHERHAM peer Lord Nazir Ahmed has appeared at court — alongside his two brothers — charged with a fourth historical child sex offence. 

The peer faced the further allegation of buggery against a boy under 11 when he appeared at Sheffield Crown Court yesterday (Wednesday). 

Ahmed, of East Bawtry Road, Rotherham, appeared at the lower court last month charged with indecently assaulting the boy and two counts of attempted rape against a girl aged under 16 in the early 1970s. 

The former Labour politician would have been aged between 14 to 17 when the alleged abuse took place against the two complainants. 

No pleas have been formally entered but Ahmed’s solicitor told reporters at last month’s hearing outside Sheffield Magistrates' Court “he will be doing everything he can in order to prove his innocence”. 

His brothers (below L-R Tariq and Farouq) have denied sexually abusing the same boy between 1968 to 1972.

Mohammed Farouq (68), of Worrygoose Lane, Rotherham, denied at the earlier hearing four counts of indecent assault, said to have taken place when he was aged between 17 and 22. 

Mohammed Tariq (63), of Gerard Road, Rotherham, denies two counts of indecently assaulting the boy when he would have been aged between 14 to 16. 

A two-week trial date was set for December 2 and the men were granted unconditional bail.

CLOCKWORK ORANGE: London saw 16,000 Moped Gang Attacks in 2017 - Up 1,000 Percent in 3 Years

Tweet

Diversity: Moped gang, convicted in December, 2017

In Anthony Burgess's 1962 novel A Clockwork Orange and Stanley Kubrick's subsequent 1971 film of the same name, London is terrorized by youth gangs who rape, steal and murder with impunity.

The criminals speak in a Cockney-foreign argot and often wear foppish costumes or uniforms. The main character, a thug named "Alex," likes classical music.

Great Britain is a socialized police-state where dissidents are monitored and politicians attempt to use the violence to manipulate elections. There appears to be little difference between the dominant political parties.

The story was satire, but many saw it as a sort of prediction.

Has it come true?

I would argue that the reality is getting closer.

What are some of the differences?

In the story, while all of London and the surrounding countryside were to some extent dangerous, there were no "no-go zones" where the police would not venture.

In the story, there were no terrorist groups engaging in random mass-atrocities.

In the film, all of the gang members were white. Today, it's a mix, though probably dominated by "Asians."

In 2018, the criminals supplement the broken bottles, clubs and knives of the story with hammers, deadly acid and sometimes firearms.

If there is an argot, it's Cockney-Arabic or -Urdu, not Cockney-Russian.

There are no foppish costumes. Beethoven is out. Urban rap and Islamic chant are in.

In 2018, if there is a form of aversion therapy, it's only practiced on the dissidents.

Though in 2018, the government is apparently attempting to murder dissidents by imprisoning them with the thugs. This didn't happen in the story.

***

I went to school in London for two years and subsequently visited many times as an adult. My wife and I honeymooned there.

But I doubt I will go back. I don't think I would send my children to school there. And, of course, if I were a bit more prominent as a blogger, I would be banned from returning, anyway.

But, man, I have some very fond memories.

Is all of Great Britain now a dystopian hell-hole? Of course not. I have many online friends who, as far as I can tell, live fairly happy and normal lives, in between being banned from YouTube or fired from their jobs for dissident activities.

But a more nasty dystopia and perhaps civil war are coming.

That didn't happen in the story, either.

From The Sun:

HELL ON WHEELS London moped gangs – how many crimes have there been and where have they happened? 

London saw 16,000 moped attacks in 2017 while scooter-related crime is up 1,000 per cent in three years across the UK 

By Mark Hodge, 5th June 2018, 9:55 am, Updated: 5th June 2018, 10:30 am 

THUGS riding mopeds have helped fuel the rise in violent crime in the UK. 

London is proving to be a hot bed for the scooter attacks which are up 1,000 per cent in three years across the country.
How many moped gang attacks have there been in London? 

London saw 16,000 scooter attacks in 2017 - up from just 1,053 in 2014. 

Motorcycles have been used in crimes such as phone snatches, gem store raids and acid attacks. 

Authorities told The Guardian last year that one gang carried out 30 robberies in the capital within an hour period. 

In October 2016, a man was jailed for snatching 21 phones in one hour while riding a moped before he was chased down by a police helicopter. 

When and where have the London attacks happened?

• April-May 2017: A gang of three teenage boys – aged 15, 16 and 17 – committed over 100 crimes while riding mopeds in the boroughs of Camden, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster.
• July 13, 2017: Five people were attacked with acid in a 90-minute period by two men riding scooters.
• The victims, who were all riding mopeds, had their bikes hijacked in the assaults in Hackney, Stoke Newington and Islington.
• July 14, 2017: A moped rider was attacked with a "noxious substance" by two men riding a scooter in Dagenham, East London.
• July 15, 2017: A man was stabbed to death by a moped gang in Greenwich.
• October 2017: Charity worker Abdul Samad, 28, was stabbed to death in Maida Vale, West London, by a scooter gang who were attempting to steal his phone. In April, 2018, two teenage robbers, dubbed the “highway men for the 21st Century”, were convicted of murder following Abdul’s death.
• December 2017: A ten-strong moped gang were jailed for 110 years after a series of £1.2m raids across the capital.
• June 2018: Comedian Michael McIntyre had his Rolex watch stolen by hammer-wielding moped thugs in North West London.

What has caused the rise in moped attacks? 

Authorities believe the surge in moped-related robberies could be driven by an increase in the value of smartphone parts. 

Met Police officials say criminal gangs are also getting better at bypassing the security of stolen handsets. 

Aside from mobile phones, many of the attacks involve the criminals hijacking others scooters. 

Police stats in 2017 showed that around 1,500 mopeds or motorcycles are stolen in London every month. 

The poor security of these vehicles, coupled with their ability to easily mount curbs, is thought to be behind the surge in robberies. 

Experts, such as former Metropolitan Police chief inspector Peter Kirkham, also believe budget cuts to cops have contributed to a rise in violent crimes in the city. 

Speaking with iNews, Kirkham said: “Cuts to police officers mean fewer officers on the street and fewer officers investigating crimes. 

“There is no time for officers to carry out stop and search, and the bad guys have noticed. 

“They know they can get away with more and more… It’s not rocket science."

On Asians, Jamaicans, Muslims and Beards

Tweet

Khalid Masood - Before

The British media initially reported that the Westminster terrorist was "Asian."

This turned out to be false.

Khalid Masood was actually born Adrian Russell Elms of Kent, to a single-mother who was either Jamaican or of Jamaican origin. I do not know whether the ethnic background of his biological father is known or has been reported, but there's no reason to think he was from Asia. Later, the mother would marry Phillip Ajou, who is believed to be Nigerian. The boy would later, for a time, use the last name "Ajou."

He had a relatively affluent upbringing, and the elder Mr. and Mrs. Ajou now live what has been described as an "idyllic" life in the Welsh countryside. Mrs. Ajou sells handmaid cushions.

Reports indicate that the Ajous are Christian.

So why was he identified as "Asian"? Let's go back a step.

In the latter half of the 20th century in Britain, "Asian" was the designation put on immigrants and their descendants from, wait for it . . . Asia. Or more precisely, it was primarily used to denote immigrants or their descendants from the former British colony of India - what we now call Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, or what has also been called "South Asia."

Until the 1960s and perhaps even into the 1970s, the South Asian population of the United Kingdom was primarily Hindu, Sikh and Christian. But at some point the Muslim proportion came to dominate. Population statistics on ethnicity and religion are notoriously unreliable and fuzzy, but it's almost certain that there are now two or three times as many Muslim South Asians in Britain as there are non-Muslim South Asians. And, of course, that excludes other Asians, such as Chinese - apparently a fast-growing immigrant group - and non-South Asian Muslims, such as those from the Middle East and Africa, as well as "white" converts.

So, again, why did they call Masood an "Asian"?

The answer, obviously, is that "Asian" is now used in Britain as a euphemism for Muslim. And the attacker did appear to be Muslim. Most obviously he had a "sunnah beard" or "Muslim beard" - an untrimmed beard with a trimmed mustache.

The man now known as Khalid Masoode took on the beard when he converted to Islam.

Khalid Masood - After

Ethnic groups often have associated stereotypes about their "look." Black africans have big lips and "afros." Chinese have "slit eyes." Jews have big noses. Whites have . . . well it depends on what kind of white you are and which of your cosmetic "components" others want to emphasize - southern europeans are "swarthy" and perhaps even dirty. The English are thin and pale, etc.

All of these contain a kernel of truth, of course, while at the same time often being more or less offensive and racist.

Now, it's an obvious fact that "Muslim" is technically a religious, not an ethnic or racial designation, though many try to obscure it. At the same time, one of the things that makes Islam stand out from some (though not all) other religions, is the quasi-requirement to have a certain look, which for males means having an untrimmed beard and a non-existent or light and trimmed mustache.

You can't change your ethnicity, but you can change your religion. And going along with that, you can't get rid of your curly hair or big nose or "swarthiness" (well in some cases you sort of can, but still), but you can change your beard.

The Muslim beard thing is not merely an arbitrary cultural accretion but is implied in the Koran and explicitly discussed in the Hadith and Sunnah - the sayings and traditions of Muhammed.

Muhammed and the early Muslim leaders wanted Muslims to stand out from "pagans" and non-Muslims. They (non-Muslims) had trimmed beards and bushy mustaches. Muhammed essentially said, "we'll do the opposite":

Trim your mustaches and let your beards grow and do not emulate the Jews

This is from a Hadith recorded by al-Saduq, and is just one of many similar statements by Muhammed and other authorities. Students of Islamic history should also note that in these contexts, "don't be like the Jews" comes up often.

If anything most clearly outwardly identifies a devout male Muslim by birth or by conversion, it's the untrimmed beard with a trimmed mustache. Chinese Uighurs have it (or many of them do), blonde Chechens have it, and British converts, whether red-haired and freckly or curly-haired and Jamaican, have it.

ISIS punished people who didn't have it. That this was perhaps unfair to some of the fairer-skinned and less naturally hairy fighters was sometimes remarked upon (though, usually, quietly).

So how about this? Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that using "Muslim" to denote the background of the terrorist of the day is politically incorrect. But let's also admit that "Asian" or "Tunisian-French" or even and especially "German citizen" (to pick three recently used designations of terrorist suspects) are all to some degree misleading or even close to meaningless.

How about using, instead, "untrimmed-bearded," as in "untrimmed-bearded knifer" or "untrimmed-bearded driver" or "the shooter who had an untrimmed beard"?

The lack of a prominent mustache would be implicitly part of the description but would be dropped to save words. 

Ignore what I earlier said about the historical religious tradition. Such a designation doesn't positively denote a Muslim. The suspect could be an Eastern Orthodox priest with a mustache aversion, or a lazy or indifferently groomed Sikh with a mustache aversion or perhaps just a fashionable rapper from Philly.

"Ah ha!" the anti-Islamophobes might say, "that would just be to use 'untrimmed-bearded' as a stand-in for 'Muslim.' That's so racist.

To which we, if we are truthful, would have to answer, "of course it's a stand-in."

But racist is precisely what it is not.