Uber Launches Anti – discrimination app in UK and France

Uber in France has joined the British branch of the company in introducing a new anti-discrimination button on its popular ride-sharing app

The option, listed in the “help” section of the app, allows customers to report drivers if they feel have been the target of verbal or physical abuse, discrimination or prejudice based on gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or disability, French newspaper Le Parisien reports.

A 20-year-old man in France told the newspaper that he needed such an option last weekend after a poor experience with an Uber driver in Rennes.

“I summoned an Uber cab after a party. I was with my friend and we had a very banal conversation with the driver when he suddenly asked us: are you married? We answered: no. Then, he added: you are in a relationship? We said yes,” the complainant said.

“He became hyper-aggressive and asked us to get out of his car. It was the first time that it had happened to me. I did not want a problem, we went out and we had to finish the last kilometre of the walk. It was 3 am,” he added.

Similar discrimination has been reported in other countries like the United States, where a Palestinian Uber driver was accused of kicking out passengers in Los Angeles because they were Jewish.

View image on Twitter
Actress Frances Barber (pictured with Sir Ian McKellen,) complained that an Uber driver who took her home after this gig told her she was dressed disgustingly (picture pbs.twing.media)

 

A British woman reported she once got book an Uber cab to a liquor store but the driver  refused to allow her to carry alcohol in his car as he said his religion forbade it, (not hard to guess his religion then.) When the woman called the taxi company to.complain they said drivers are self employed so it was up to the driver to decide what he would accept in his car.  This is tota! BS. Muslims cant drink alcohol. There is no rule that they can’t have it in their cars.

While it is positive, though not exactly reassuring, to know that Uber are trying to protect users from discrimination, the do not appear to be doing much to protect fare paying passengers from crime. It is widely known in Europe, the USA and elsewhere that a common practice among Uber drivers is to accept payment from ‘guest drivers’ to operate a vehicle while the registered driver takes time off. Neither passengers, the company, nor regulatory authorities have any way of knowing who these people are or if they are qualified and adequately insured to dive fare paying passengers. And that does not even consider the possibility that convicted criminals are posing as legitimate cab drivers.

Meanwhile Uber itself continues to burn investors money while also continuing to ride roughshod over local public transport laws and regulations, by claiming it is not a taxi cab operator but merely a platform that puts people needing rides in tough with people offering rides. However, the lawmakers are catching up. Uber is facing massive fines and tax penalties in the USA and EU, is banned from certain counties.

Uber is just one example of how the internet has enabled and facilitated crime.The third world invasion of European and North American nations has been helped by the internet as much as by politically correct politics and globalist dominated media. Fraudsters, scammers,  paedos, dating site liars and former Nigerian government officials needing help liberating their money have all benefitted from the anonymity provided by the web.

Criminals have always been around but the internet has made it easier and faster to steal money. The various apps accessible from your own phone, the tracking software used by Goggle, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft etc. have made it easier for the criminals to access personal information and contact individuals on a daily basis. But that’s another article.

RELATED POSTS:

London’s Black Cab Drivers Take On Uber Cancer

Technology rules you
London Black Cab Drivers Take On Uber Cancer
After Leaked video Of Adolescent Idiocy Uber’s CEO Wants You To Know He Needs To “Grow Up”
As Uber Implodes Are Unicorns An Endangered Species?
The Daily Stirrer

Report reveals Google’s manipulation of search results to influence outcomes.

by Arthur Foxake

The contributors to this blog are not the only people putting content online to have been called ‘conspiracy theorists’ for suggesting that Google has, for at least twenty years, been manipulating search results to its own benefit and the benefit of its clients. In the early days this was innocuous enough, organisations that paid to advertise of Google’s pages had their page links bumped up the search results table.

Later it became more sinister, when you understand that among Google’s clients were organisations including political parties, governments (of some very nasty dictatorships as well as the so – called democracies,) state security agencies, NGOs (non government organisations) promoting and assisting the mass migration of illiterate, unskilled third world males to the developed nations for the purpose of destabilising societies, and other organisations and corporate enterprises pursuing a globalist political agenda.

Yes, the proof is out there that Google (and other internet tech giants,) rather than ‘hostile foreign powers’ have been meddling in elections and manipulating public opinion on certain issues.

German farmers roll out HUNDREDS of tractors, bring cities to a halt, protesting new EU eco-rules


Picture © Thilo Schmuelgen / Reuters  via RT

Angry farmers brought trasffic to a standstill by driving tractors slowly through German cities in protest of new green laws aimed at protecting birds and insects. Protests were organised in 17 cities across Germany, the largest in Bonn, where the Agriculture Ministry HQ is located. Angry farmers rolled out around 1,000 tractors onto the streets, blocking several major roads and bridges.
The farmers claim that new environmental protection rules will damage their business. The measures, put forward by Angela Merkel’s unpopular government, will limit the use of certain weed killers in order to protect field birds, like Eurasian skylarks, lapwings and partridges, as well as some insects.
The protesters say that small family farms will be hit the most, and demand the government to drop the “farmer-bashing” agenda. “We’re not animal killers and polluters,” the farmers leaders said.
Amid the protests, Environment Minister Svenja Schulze promised to help farmers adapt to the new policy and invited them to discuss how to make their businesses “environmentally friendly.”

Vandalism versus Bacon

“The support shown by the ruling elites for the Islamisation of the west is more apparent in the unequal application of law, with far harsher sentences being handed out to Christian, Humanist or other persuasions than are imposed om Muslims for similar crimes.

Mainstream media are complicit in this of course, playing down the imbalance between criminality rates in various minority communities. As Marcus Tullius Cicero said over 2000 years ago, “Ever since our ancestors came out of the hills and forests to live as civilized men, it has been understood there can only be one law and it must apply equally to all.”

If we lose sight of that principle of equality before the law in an orgy of left wing virtue signalling, we have lost everything.

posted by Xavier Connolly:

UK: Muslim gets 1-year “community order” for “appalling damage” of church, non-Muslim got prison for bacon at mosque

By For the bacon at the mosque story and another example of how British “justice” favors Muslims and Islam today, see here. It is clear that Muslims in shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain today are a protected class, encouraged and enabled in all manner of ways by the government. And it is also clear what will be the result of that fact. As a free society, Britain is finished.

“Teenager sentenced for ‘mindless vandalism’ that desecrated church,” by Jenny Loweth, Telegraph & Argus, October 15, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A teenager who was warned by a judge that he was at risk of going to custody for his part in “mindless vandalism” that desecrated a church has been sentenced to a 12-month community order.

Muhammed Mughal, 18, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to criminal damage at All Saints Church, Highfield Lane, Keighley, on December 3 last year.

Mughal, of Cliffe Street, Keighley, was one of a group of youths who did £200 damage to the church, prosecutor Philip Adams told Bradford Crown Court.

They got into the building through an insecure fire door and committed “mindless vandalism.”

READ FULL ARTICLE >>>

RELATED POST:

SWEDISH POLICE arrest, harass, intimidate Swedish professor for publicly exposing the horrific crimes of Muslim migrants and criticizing radical left wing Muslim sympathizer on Twitter

Greenteeth Elsewhere:
[ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Writerbeat ] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Greenteeth & Daily Stirrer on YouTube ] … [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] … [ Minds ] … [ ] … [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] … [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Roundup]
… [
Boggart Network News

Parliament’s Problem With Brexit

The verdict of the Supreme Court, that Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament, NOT for the purpose of stopping pro EU factions from preventing the UK having a no strings break from the EU as a (long overdue) result of the 2016 referendum, and it’s result which surprised the elites and the citizens of our recently renamed capital city Wankeristan, has divided the country even more deeply than the brexit vote itself.

Answers given to this question posed on Quora.com reveal that above all, the pro EU side, while totally opposed to referenda which do not return the result they want, are quite happy with judges who overreach their judicial authority and usurp the lawmaking powers of parliament to their unelected selves, so long as their verdict is the one Remain supporters want.

What does it say about Boris Johnson when 11 senior judges unanimously call his prorogue unlawful and he still says they are wrong?

ME:

What does it say about the judiciary when 11 Supreme Court Justices ignore the law because they are determined to stitch up Boris Johnson. Article 9 of the Bill Of Rights (1689) clearly states that “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;”

The Supreme Court Justices, showing that they are corrupt rather than stupid although they may well be both, chose to pretend they believed proroguation was not part of the normal proceedings of parliament. In fact it is a routine process that must be performed in order that one parliamentary session can be ended and another one begun.

 

Mark Gallaway

You are incorrect. They determined in this case that no reason was given and no reasonable reason could be given for suspending Parliament for five weeks. They are saying the the PM does not have the right to suspend Parliament for no reason or for a length of time not consistent with the reasoning for the suspension.

If this had not been up held the Government could close Parliament indefinitely. That clearly should not be allowed.

I also notice that you are calling these judges corrupt with any evidence.

 

ME

I have plenty of evidence that the Supreme Justices are corrupt and repeatedly find in favour of certain interest groups, and that the Supreme Court is a politcal device created by Tony Blair to rule on constutional matters he could never hope to get past parliament, and that its members are not the most senior judges in the land but most of it is not relevant to this question, is far too long to summarise meaningfully in a comment and is being fully covered by online news and commentary sites like Unherd and Spiked.

The point people are missing here is that these court cases need not have happened had the combined opposition parties tabled a no confidence motion and brought down the government or supported one of the governments attempts to call an early election. Instead the opposition decided to put their political interests ahead of the national interest and leave us without an effective government rather than face the prospect of losing an election..

The opposition’s problem is while there is no majority in parliament for Leave means Leave, there is also no majority for Leave With Theresa May’s Deal or Remain, and the as long as parliament will not allow Leave With No Deal, the EU will not agree to renegotiate May’s withdrawal agreement.

Most of the comments on the Quora question above and the Supreme Court ruling on the proroguation of parliament (including my own I have to admit,) went with the respondant’s wider position on Brexit, but it is interesting to note that of the answers from people who claimed legal expertise, none mentioned this rather important fact:

via robertkariakides.wordpress.com
The eleven justices all made a single judgment; there was no dissenting opinion, which is odd considering that equally senior judges including the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Master of the Rolls already made a decision which was precisely the opposite of that of the Supreme Court decided.

Now clearly those Remain supporters who claimed that legally the Supreme Court judges are the most senior legal authorities in the land have far less knowledge of the judicial hierarchy than one would expect from legal professionals. Perhaps the fact that the Supreme Court is not an ancient and venerable institution but a recent politically innovation created at the behest of the traitor and war criminal Tony Blair and packed with New Labour political appointees (probably for the purpose of protecting Blair and his cronies from justice should their war crimes and acts of treason ever be prosecuted,) has something to do with it.

It is widely suggested that the whole of the judiciary has a pro – EU bias, ans the Supreme Court Justices are not the first to allow their political prejuduces to overrule their duty of impartiality.

The judge in the Robin Tilbrook case, in which the plaintiff argued that Theresa May had overreached her authority in agreeing an extension to Article 50 without putting it to parliament and therefore the UK had legally left the EU on March 19, 2019, in the words of Tlbrook’s case, ” wilfully deliberately knowingly and intentionally failed to declare his ‘conflicts of interest'” – which by the way mainstream media failed to inform the people about!

The MSM could not report honestly about the judge’s conflict of interest, because they would then have to explain what the case was about. What scant coverage it was given presented Tilbrook, a legal professional, as an obsessive nutcase driven by hatred of the European Union The Establishment are desperate to suppress any mention of the Tilbrook case, which is why there were been a total news blackout about it. If the Tilbrook case was generally known about, then there would be inexorable public pressure for Robin Tilbrook to at least be given a fair hearing. Any fair, impartial court would almost certainly find in Robin Tilbrook’s favour – and we would immediately be out of the EU. Hence the total news blackout. 

Judge LJ Hickinbottom ruled Tilbrook’s claim ‘Totally Without Merit’. Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Legal Institute and therefore sworn to promote EU law throughout the ‘Community’ as well as the recipent of many lucrative commissions by virtue of holding that position.
Biased, much?

The EU is of course a lawers’ wet dream, the giant bureaucracy produced swathes of new laws every week, most so arcane only an army of lawyers could interptret them in any meaningful way. The practice of Law mis certainly the fastest growing industry in the EU and given the collapse of manufacturing and agriculture due to the burden of bureaucratic law placed on producers might sooon be the largest industry.

The Daily Stirrer, September 2019 
British MEP Reveals Undemocratic EU Stitch Up Of Top Jobs
 

Don’t Pannick, Captain Johnson, Don’t Pannick

ss-composite-image-2019-9-17-9-12_trans_nvbqzqnjv4bqqvzuuqpflyliwib6ntmjwfsvwez_ven7c6bhu2jjnt8
Gina Miller. Boris Johnson and The High Court

Having concluded ]it’s three-day hearing in a case that will determine whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks was lawful or not the judges, most of who displayed a definite anti – Brexit bias during the proceedings, must now ponder the legal – and not the political implications of the case. Their Lordships should bear in mind, though if the Remain factions wins the argument they will not, that the English ill Of Rights, which became law in 1689, states unequivocally, “That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.”

Picture: Zero Hedge

Lord Pannick QC

The decision of the justices is expected early next week. As thus point, it is imposssible to predict a verdict, but should they let their own political prejudices interfere with their oath of impartiality and rule that the suspension was indeed unlawful, that ruling would mean that technically the prorogation actually never happened.

Lord Pannick QC, the lawyer who represents the lead plaintiff, lawyer, millionaire businesswoman and Brazilian totty Gina Miller, told the court that Speaker Bercow should then be entitled to reconvene parliament as early as next week. Furthermore legal pundits who have obviously not familiarised themselves with the quoted clause from the Bill Of Rights are claiming Prime Minister Johnson, who effectively stands accused of lying to the Queen about his motives to suspend parliament, could face jail time. This is bollocks, to refer back to the Bill of Rights , debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in ANY court.”

Ah yes, but that act was passed 330 years ago, and times have changes the rabid Remainers screech, showing their usual disregard for the law when the law denies them what they want. It was passed 330 years ago, but until it is repealed by act of parliament it stands. And as for Johnson misleading The Queen, that’s bollocks too, we cannot know what was actually said in their exchange because conversations between Monarch and Prime Minister are private and are never discussed publicly but The Monarch has her own legal and constitutional advisers who would not allow her to be conned or bullied into doing anything of uncertain legality

While this would be sensational stuff in normal times, and possibly force the resignation of Mr. Johnson, these are not normal times. The opposition having twice voted down acts proposed by the government to advance Brexit, have on each occasion declined to call a vote of confidence and force an election (because they know they would lose,) and have twice voted down government efforts to call an election, thus leaving the country paralyzed politically in their determination to thwart the democratic will and stop the UK leaving The Fourth Reich The EU in line with the result of the 2016 referendum. Reports circulating in political circles suggest Boris Johnson’s government  is already publicly contemplating whether, should a Remainer alliance in the Supreme Cort and parliament force the recall of parliament, the government might immediately impose a further suspension and thus run down the clock to our default leaving date, October 31st. If you are a Leave supporter there’s no need to Pannick yet, there are a few more constitutional tricks available to Boris and every silly stunt aimed at stopping Brexit ensures that when the inevitable election is held, the defeat of Labour and The Liberal Democrats is completely crushing.

MORE on Brexit
BoJo To Go For Election Again On Monday After Chlorinated Corbyn Chickens Out
Don’t Pannick, Captain Johnson, Don’t Pannick

How Much Does The UK Actually Send To The EU
Big kerfuffle this week over Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson facing trial for his claim, during the EU Referendum campaign, that Britain sends £350million a week to Brussels. Originally the Remainers claimed somebody in the Leave camp had said all the money would go to the NHS. Nobody actually said that but if fanatics want something to be true, they can easily convince themselves it is.

UK Given 12 Days To Agree Brexit Deal Amid Chaotic Court Scenes Over Parliament Prorogation

The debate over Boris Johnson’s bid to negotiate a Brexit deal within deadlines agreed by his predecessor is going on amid amid a fierce legal battle in the UK Supreme Court that entered a third day on Wednesday. The case is in esssence a bid by the Labour and Liberal Deomcrat parties to usurp power without having to face an election which Labour would surely lose, while political minnows The Liberal Democrats would fall well short of a majority.

Legal challenges to the government argued Johnson suspended the Parliament to silence the MPs over the EU exit, while the prime minister had earlier referred to the move as one scheduled to pave the way for the Queen to deliver a speech on the country’s legal course for the upcoming year. He stressed the prorogation had been given royal consent, with Mr Rees-Mogg, who travelled to Balmoral for the Queen’s approval, hitting back it was “nonsense” to suggest she had been misled over the decision.

One has to believe Rees – Mogg, the Monarch has her own team of legal advisers would would have told herr to withhold the Royal Assent from anything of dodgy legality.

The defence in the Supreme Court on behalf of the UK government is arguing the decision to prorogue Parliament was a political matter and is not in the courts’s jurisdiction.

Earlier in September, Boris Johnson suspended MPs’ work for five weeks (a period which included what would have been a four week break for party conferences, with the parliamentarians not scheduled to return until 14 October after the combined opposition, having voted down government proposals to effect Brexit, twice ducked the opportunity to force an election and voted down government motions to hold an election election, as the  debate in the country around a no-deal exit from the EU became exceptionally heated, totally polarising the nation.

Despite having rejected the opportunity to put the dispute to the electorate, MPs voted en masse for a bill that forces the prime minister to delay Brexit until the end of January if there is no agreed trade deal with the EU.

MORE on Brexit
Just When You Thought Brexit Could not be A Bigger Cock Up
Anarchy In The UK And Elsewhere

Greenteeth Elsewhere:
[ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Writerbeat ] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Greenteeth & Daily Stirrer on YouTube ] … [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] … [ Minds ] … [ <a href=https://medium.com/@greenboggartIan on Medium ] … [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] … [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Roundup]
… [ Boggart Network News ]

[ Ian at Facebook ]