UK: Children Given Lessons on How to Treat Stab Wounds Due to Increase in Knife Murders and Injuries

UK: Children in high knife-crime areas are being taught how to treat stab wounds.  The program follows the shocking deaths of two teenagers who were stabbed to death in separate attacks, and an incident with a knife gang that entered school grounds and threatened pupils. There have already been 10 teenagers knifed to death since the start of 2019.  Prime Minister Theresa May has faced a backlash over her claim that there is no direct link with the reduction of police officers.  She restricted police power to stop and search suspects in 2013 when she was the Home Secretary on grounds that the policing technique was disproportionately targeting minorities. The number of police officers in England and Wales has dropped by more than 20,000 since 2010, and levels of violent crime have risen markedly in recent years. The UK and the EU have withheld information about migrant crime rates.

Children in high knife-crime areas are being taught how to deliver
first aid to stab victims, details of the programme emerging less than a
week after two teenagers were stabbed to death in separate attacks and a
knife gang entered school grounds and threatened pupils.

Run by charity Street Doctors, school children are taught how to
deliver first aid to stabbing victims through role play, and learn how
to stem blood loss, reports The Times.

The scheme operates in 16 cities across the country including London,
where less than 15 per cent of the population live but one-third of all
stabbings occur, according to NHS data.

The charity said that they know of 14 cases where their training has
helped in an emergency situation faced by youths, in one case in a
shooting and seven after a stabbing.

Carl Ward, chief executive of City Learning Trust in Stoke,
Staffordshire, told the newspaper that Street Doctors gives training at
its secondary schools, explaining, “They come and show you what a knife
can do to the body — it makes it very real.

“Children are usually in quite a lot of shock. Stoke on Trent is a
tough area with lots of gang problems. We’ve had for a few years to prep
the children up so they know what they’re getting into.

“Every child has lessons from StreetDoctors, including how to respond to a stabbing.”

On Monday morning, police were called to Runshaw College in Leyland,
Lancashire, after administrators were informed a gang of youths
travelling from Manchester, 30 miles away, were intending to enter
school grounds bearing knives in what was suspected to have been a
“targetted attack.”

Read full article here…

Additional sources:

Trump Expanded ‘Catch and Release’ that Is Bringing Massive Waves of Immigration

Last month, Trump expanded the ‘Catch and Release’ program and he also created virtual amnesty for any illegal alien living in the same household with Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), causing massive migration to the US.  Trump has failed to deliver a wall and the majority of the US-Mexico border remains open. At the same time, the US has continued funding border walls and border security programs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Lebanon.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen reported almost one million people are expected to try to illegally enter the US and they will overwhelm the system.  She said that there was an 80% increase over the number of people trying to enter the US last year at this time.

President Trump is projected to oversee the largest flow of illegal immigration at the United States-Mexico border since former President Bush’s administration, surpassing every year of crossings under former President Obama.

As Breitbart News
reported, more than 76,000 border crossers attempted to enter the U.S.
in the month of February — the most apprehensions of illegal border
crossers and migrants in this month in 12 years.

While Trump’s administration expanded
the Catch and Release program last month and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen focuses her attention on
cybersecurity and terrorism issues, the U.S. is projected to see a level
of illegal immigration this year that will surpass every year of
illegal immigration under Obama.

Princeton Policy Advisors researcher Steven Kopits estimates that
there will be about 775,000 illegal border crossings this year when the
last month’s border data is analyzed. This would indicate that Trump’s
overseeing of the crisis at the southern border would reach Bush era
levels of mass illegal immigration when, in many years, more than
illegal border crossings occurred in a single year.

In the past, Kopits has projected
that there would be about 606,000 border crossings this year, the most
illegal immigration since Fiscal Year 2008 when Bush was still in

Now, Kopits predicts illegal immigration to reach “a phenomenal pace
of acceleration” at the southern border this year. The researcher also
expects up to half a million border crossers will successfully enter the country through the border this year.

Should illegal immigration hit the level of 775,000 attempted border
crossings this year, as Kopits projects, this would be nearly double
what illegal immigration was in Obama’s last Fiscal Year.

Simultaneously, about 224,000
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) are resettled across the U.S. every
half decade after arriving at the border. The resettlement policy, often
used by MS-13 gang members, is expected to be exacerbated after Trump signed into law a quasi-amnesty for any illegal alien living in the same household with a UAC.

The vast majority
of voters say a border wall would be effective in stopping illegal
immigration, though that has not equated to progress on constructing new
barriers at the border.

Read full article here…

Elliott Abrams, the US Envoy to Venezuela, Threatened Sanctions Against Countries that Support President Maduro

Elliott Abrams, Washington’s top envoy for Venezuela who was involved in the disastrous Iran-Contra war in Central America in the 1980s, indicated that the US could impose secondary sanctions against allies of Venezuela and the Maduro government who oppose the effort by the US to force regime change.  Sanctioning governments across the globe for backing Maduro over Guaido violates international law and the sovereignty of the nation of Venezuela.  While 54 countries have joined the US in recognizing Guadio as the ruler of Venezuela, three-quarters of the world’s countries, including Russia and China, are siding with Maduro’s elected government.

With the vast majority of the world still seeing Nicolas Maduro
as the legitimate leader of Venezuela, America’s hawkish special envoy
has hinted that Washington might sanction third parties that defy the US
regime-change efforts.

The international
community must choose sides wisely in the Venezuelan conflict, the
curator of US intervention in the Latin American country, special envoy
Elliott Abrams, suggested on Tuesday, noting that Washington would not
limit itself to economic sanctions just against the Maduro government,
but against all who chose to support him.

“Secondary sanctions, it’s clearly a possibility,” Abrams said at a press conference, warning that a decision to sanction third party countries “would depend on the conduct of the [Venezuelan] regime over time.”

So far some 54 countries
have bowed to US pressure and recognized the self-proclaimed ‘interim
president’ Juan Guaido, who since January has been rallying support for
regime change. Whilst the US claims the “momentum is good” to get more countries on board, the majority of the world’s countries and population rejected Washington’s “imperialist” ambitions, Colin Cavell, associate professor of political science at Bluefield State College, told RT.

The US administration is “internationalizing
the Venezuelan conflict on a very dangerous basis… threatening other
countries who deal with Venezuela, saying that if you do not support our
sanctions, we are going to impose sanctions on you,”
Cavell explained.

Read full article from RT here…

From Reuters:

Earlier on Tuesday, Washington’s top envoy for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, said imposing U.S. secondary sanctions against non-U.S. citizens or entities tied to the Maduro government was “clearly a possibility,” although he said a decision had not been made on taking such a step.

Read full article here…

Florida Lawmaker Introduces ‘Stop Social Media Censorship Act’ to Protect Free Speech Online

Florida State Senator Joe Gruters (R) introduced a bill to protect free speech on social media by imposing a fine with a minimum of $75,000 in statutory damages against large platforms if they delete or censor a user’s religious or political speech.  The bill also prohibits the large social media sites from citing so-called “hate speech” as a justification for political and religious censorship and authorizes the Attorney General to bring action against them if they censor anyone residing in Florida. 

State Senator Joe Gruters (R) has introduced a bill to protect free
speech on social media and fine the biggest sites a minimum of $75,000
in statutory damages if they delete or censor a user’s religious or
political speech.

The law would only apply to social media sites with “more than 75
million subscribers” which are “open to the public” and from their
inception have “not been specifically affiliated with any one religion
or political party.”

The bill also prohibits large social media sites from citing so-called
“hate speech” as a justification for political and religious censorship
and authorizes the Attorney General to “bring a civil cause of action
… on behalf of a social media website user who resides in this state
and whose religious speech or political speech has been censored…”

The bill makes clear it would allow social media sites to censor “calls
for immediate acts of violence,” “obscene or pornographic” material,
that which “entices criminal conduct” and that which “involves minors
bullying minors.”

Here’s the full text of Sen. Gruters’ bill, SB 1722:

1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to social media websites; providing a
3 short title; defining terms; providing that the owner
4 or operator of a social media website is subject to a
5 private right of action by a social media website user
6 in this state under certain conditions; providing
7 damages; authorizing the award of reasonable attorney
8 fees and costs; prohibiting a social media website
9 from using hate speech as a defense; authorizing the
10 Attorney General to bring an action on behalf of a
11 social media website user; providing exceptions for
12 the deletion or censure of certain types of speech;
13 providing an effective date.
15 WHEREAS, this state has a compelling interest in holding
16 certain social media websites to higher standards for having
17 substantially created a digital public square, and
18 WHEREAS, this state has an interest in helping its citizens
19 enjoy their free exercise of rights in certain semi-public
20 forums commonly used for religious and political speech, NOW,
23 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
25 Section 1. This act may be cited as the “Stop Social Media
26 Censorship Act”.
27 Section 2. Social media website speech; cause of action;
28 penalties.—
29 (1) As used in this section, the term:
30 (a) “Algorithm” means a set of instructions designed to
31 perform a specific task.
32 (b) “Hate speech” means a phrase concerning content that an
33 individual finds offensive based on his or her personal moral
34 code.
35 (c) “Obscene” means that an average person, applying
36 contemporary community standards, would find that, taken as a
37 whole, the dominant theme of the material appeals to prurient
38 interests.
39 (d) “Political speech” means speech relating to the state,
40 government, body politic, or public administration as it relates
41 to governmental policymaking. The term includes speech by the
42 government or candidates for office and any discussion of social
43 issues. The term does not include speech concerning the
44 administration, law, or civil aspects of government.
45 (e) “Religious speech” means a set of unproven answers,
46 truth claims, faith-based assumptions, and naked assertions that
47 attempt to explain such greater questions as how the world was
48 created, what constitutes right and wrong actions by humans, and
49 what happens after death.
50 (f) “Social media website” means an Internet website or
51 application that enables users to communicate with each other by
52 posting information, comments, messages, or images and that
53 meets all of the following requirements:
54 1. Is open to the public;
55 2. Has more than 75 million subscribers; and
56 3. From its inception, has not been specifically affiliated
57 with any one religion or political party.
58 (2)(a) The owner or operator of a social media website who
59 contracts with a social media website user in this state is
60 subject to a private right of action by such user if the social
61 media website purposely:
62 1. Deletes or censors the user’s religious speech or
63 political speech; or
64 2. Uses an algorithm to disfavor or censure the user’s
65 religious speech or political speech.
66 (b) A social media website user may be awarded all of the
67 following damages under this section:
68 1. A minimum of $75,000 in statutory damages per purposeful
69 deletion or censoring of the social media website user’s speech.
70 2. Actual damages.
71 3. If aggravating factors are present, punitive damages.
72 4. Other forms of equitable relief.
73 (c) The prevailing party in a cause of action under this
74 section may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.
75 (d) A social media website that restores from deletion or
76 removes the censoring of a social media website user’s speech in
77 a reasonable amount of time may use that fact to mitigate any
78 damages.
79 (3) A social media website may not use the social media
80 website user’s alleged hate speech as a basis for justification
81 or defense of the social media website’s actions at trial.
82 (4) The Attorney General may also bring a civil cause of
83 action under this section on behalf of a social media website
84 user who resides in this state and whose religious speech or
85 political speech has been censored by a social media website.
86 (5) This section does not apply to any of the following:
87 (a) A social media website that deletes or censors a social
88 media website user’s speech or that uses an algorithm to
89 disfavor or censure speech that:
90 1. Calls for immediate acts of violence;
91 2. Is obscene or pornographic in nature;
92 3. Is the result of operational error;
93 4. Is the result of a court order;
94 5. Comes from an inauthentic source or involves false
95 impersonation;
96 6. Entices criminal conduct; or
97 7. Involves minors bullying minors.
98 (b) A social media website user’s censoring of another
99 social media website user’s speech.
100 (6) Only users who are 18 years of age or older have
101 standing to seek enforcement of this act.
102 Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2019.

Read full article here…