Thursday, 29 November 2018

HIV/Aids was back in the headlines after several years out, so I thought I'd check the stats.

This is what the 'elite' tell you...
But if you look at the figures that matter...

Only 0.06% of the straight white UK population have HIV. Almost no one - yet it has soaked up £bn's that could have been spent on elderly care, hip replacements, cataracts, and other services that the huge bulk of the UK population thought they were paying in to the NHS to cover...

Who has HIV? Where has this money gone?... I took a quick look...

OK, so from a number of googled sources (mostly the first reliablish site that turned up - 2016 was the most complete recent year for stats)...

Number of people with HIV in the UK:

GroupNumber of CasesTotal in UK Population% of Group Infected% of UK Infections
White Gay Men
Black Gay Men
White Straight Men
Black Straight Men
White Straight Women
Black Straight Women

NB: The 6.10 for %age of group infected for black and white men is an artefact of a source citing 2% of men in the UK identifying as gay - so it is not possible to specifically separate black/white proportions from that specific figure.

The sources used were:-

--> -->



Wednesday, 21 November 2018

UK Plod gets bitch slapped by GAB.

I wonder if this plod has any concept of 'free speech'? Free speech being one of many genuine 'British Values' that those we remembered on the 11th just a few weeks ago died to protect?

No, probably not, he is a plod after all...

From Plod to Gab:

From Gab to Plod:

Tuesday, 13 November 2018

Guardian admits it is #FakeNews and then blames Trump for repeating it!

The Guardian reported the French President Macron as making a speech wanting an EU army to protect the EU from the USA!

Pretty clear eh?

But when Trump responded to the speech calling it an 'insult' The Guardian changes tack and accuses Trump of conflating a speech and a radio interview.

Well Trump was only citing the very story that the Guardian had run days earlier, as had every other media outlet...

Wednesday, 7 November 2018

Brighton homeless 'charities' guilty of modern day slavery.

The core problem is that our public sector is destroying society - the public sector undermines peoples own actions so making peoples own efforts and initiatives futile, they extort peoples money and they usurp peoples responsibilities - so leaving people to simply drift while they wait for what the state will do to them next.

People sleep rough for all kinds of reason - from choice though to necessity (based on the choices society has left them).

The public generally don't like seeing rough sleepers or seeing beggars. When confronted with people in such a situation they may offer some small assistance - money or some such, but they would really much rather they weren't there next time the passed that way.

So, under the pretence of 'helping' these poor souls, the pubic sector and charity sector have stepped in to tidy up the streets. In so doing they have created nice, well paid, comfortable jobs for themselves, created organisations that need all kinds of support staff and get all kinds of taxpayer handouts to help them with their 'mission'. But what ever the 'mission' was when a private charity, once the taxpayers pocket is near, they all simply become tax parasites looking to get fat at other peoples expense -- with their 'unfortunate clients' only useful role as a 'human shield' so the charities can defend their own greed by virtue signalling over those they pretend to help.

A once common phrase was 'where there is muck, there is brass'. Meaning that people are often willing to pay (brass) to avoid doing dirty work themselves. Clearing the streets of the homeless is the 'dirty work' and the taxpayer are the source of the 'brass', while the 'charities' and 'public sector' (the tax parasites) are those supposedly doing the work.

Because the real purpose of this is to clean the streets (not to help anyone) any dirty trick maybe used to persuade someone to stop sleeping rough. Working hand in hand with another part of the tax parasite sector, a part that is paid to providing 'housing' for those 'rescued' from the streets they aim to force people off the streets (for a tax funded fee) and force them into the 'housing' (again for a tax funded fee).

To the tax parasite public and 'charity' sectors, the rough sleepers are as slaves or cattle being herded around (often under coercion) so the overseers/shepherds can be rewarded from the tax-payers purse.

The latest dirty trick (actually a repeat, but better executed this time) is to persuade people to not give money to beggars. This so called 'fake leaflet' is not a fake... it just uses a council logo without permission.

Meanwhile, the government fattens the cats with more taxpayer money (not for the rough sleepers, buy for the tax-parasite public and charity sector).

And they tax-parasite housing sector hoover up the unfortunates where they they just die anyway... so much for being 'saved' from 'rough-sleeping'.

Thursday, 1 November 2018

What does Islam say about sex with children (pre-pubescent girls)?

TLDR: Islam allows the marriage, consummation and divorce of children (pre-pubescent girls).

There has been a lot of controversy about this recently - most notably a woman in Austria being convicted for saying Mohammed's would be considered a paedophile today. And that conviction being upheld by the European Court of Human Rights as they declared the statement was not covered by 'freedom of speech'.

There is a whole story about the gross incompetence in the ECHR's judgement, but this blog is about what Islam says about sex with children, what we now call paedophilia.

There is lots of information about a 50+ year old Mohammad marrying a 6 year old girl, and consummating the marriage when she was 9 years old. This is denied by some people, but it seems only by those who are trying to reconcile Islam and Western cultures, but it is generally accepted that this was the case in Muslim environments.

Because disputes over the age of Aisha that have been discussed at length there seems little point in repeating the discussion.

But I found another source that shows that child marriage/sex has been acceptable in Islam, so there is no reason that any Muslim should have any issue with Mohammad marrying a child. it is in their divorce and remarriage laws.

To ensure that a yet to be born child can know its father, Islam requires that a divorced woman does not remarry until three menstrual periods have successfully are past. Islam has identified two situations where this would be a problem - where the woman has passed he menopause, and where the girl has not started her periods.

These cases are specifically spelt out - here I quote from Wikipedia - while not necessary an authority links to such

2. The waiting period of a child who has not had her menstrual cycle yet is three months;
﴾The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. (Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir) 

So it is clear that Islam makes specific provision for the marriage of pre-pubescent of girls, and not only marriage, but divorce and re-marriage while still a child.

More concerning to western values that the Koran says that Iddah is only required for divorces in consummated marriages.

“O you who believe! When you marry believing women, and then divorce them before you have sexual intercourse with them, no ‘Iddah [divorce prescribed period] have you to count in respect of them”[al-Ahzaab 33:49]

So Islam fully expects that a 'husband' of a child they are divorcing may have consummated the marriage (so requiring Iddah as set out above). Further as the law of Mohammed is immutable, unchanging, this will always be seen as fundamentally allowable for all devout Muslims for all time.

Finally, I don't expect any genuine devout Muslim would disagree with anything written here - why would they? It is what Mohammed said, so must be good/correct. Denials would either be knowingly false, or made by those who don't genuinely follow Islam.