I get really really frustrated and angry when I hear waaaacccciiiissssttts and narrow-minded bigots claim “*sl*m is not compatible with British values”. It really really makes me cross.
I believe it makes our great leader, *sl*mo-Dave Cameron, very very cross too. So he has to keep telling us that “*sl*m’s values are British values”.
So, to prove once and for all that the wonderful Religion of Tolerance and Peace is (as an X-Factor judge might say) a million trillion percent compatible with British values, I’ve prepared a simple reference table. On the left I’ve listed a few key aspects of life in Britain and then across I’ve indicated the dominant attitudes of four main groups to these aspects of life in Britain (click to see more clearly):
There. You can see that *sl*m is ummm, errr, oops. Wait, let me try again:
I’m sorry. I think something has gone wrong here. I thought, I mean, I tried, oh oh, I guess it’s back to the drawing board with this idea.
First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday (After Saturday Comes Sunday) (Arabic: min sallaf es-sabt lāqā el-ḥadd qiddāmūh), lit, ‘When Saturday is gone, one will find Sunday’, is a popular Arab expression. It has been documented in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, in the form: sállẹf ẹs-sábt bẹtlâqi l-ḥádd qẹddâmẹk
What it means, first we will kill all the Jews – those whose holy day is on a Saturday. Then we will kill all the Christians – those whose holy day falls on a Sunday.
Sadly for our Arab friends things haven’t gone quite to plan. Even though the Europeans have been doing all they can to help the Arabs wipe out Israel (the Germans helpfully supplied much of the material for Iran’s nuclear programme), the Americans have stuck with Israel and so far every time the Arabs attack, they get a bloody nose.
But that has not deterred our peace-loving Arab brothers. While continuing to harrass Israel, they seem to have brought Sunday forward and have almost completed the massacre of Christians living in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt. The Lebanese Christians got all but exterminated in the Lebanese civil war and subsequent invasion and takeover by Syria. And during the brief reign of Morsi and the M*sl*m brotherhood in Egypt it became open season on Coptic Christians. Several thousand were despatched in the name of the Prophet.
Naturally there has not been a bleat of protest from our supposedly Christian rulers and the supposedly Christian Church of England as the Middle East’s Christians are wiped out. And as for the professional hand-wringing, bleeding-heart Lefties and Guardianistas, they don’t seem to have been too concerned either. But every time Israel whacks a building where Hamas or Hezbollah terrorists are hiding, hoping to use the occupants as a human shield, the howls of fury are almost deafening.
Our leaders hope that by appeasing M*sl*m hatred, the Arabs will leave us alone once all the Jews have been killed or forced to flee to America which will probably be the only safe haven left to them.
But our leaders simply don’t understand that we are in a war of evil versus civilisation. And when the Jews are no more, it will be our turn.
Remember “First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday” every time you hear our rulers grovelling to Arab fanaticism and claiming “*sl*m is a religion of peace”.
As British M*sl*ms react with the usual foam-flecked fury to a very reasonable and moderate letter sent to British mosques by government ministers Eric Pickles and Lord Ahmed asking imams to do more to counter extremism in their communities, I gave my cross-breed mutt a simple test. I gave him two words – “Democracy” and “*sl*m”– and asked him to quickly write down what he associated with each of these two words.
With “Democracy” everything went fine. Here are the results:
But when it came to “*sl*m” the stupid beast could only come up with negatives:
As punishment for his ignorance, I’ve sent my dog on a 3-day “Cultural Awareness for Canines” course run by my local council to help British dogs adapt to life in the glorious multi-cultural Britain our rulers are creating for us without having asked our permission.
When the dumb animal gets back from his training course, I’ll be giving him another test of his political correctness. And this time he’d better have shown some improvement in his cultural awareness.
But, in the meantime, if you’d like to help my dog, click on the title of this blog and in the box put in all the positive things that you can think of that “*sl*m”has contributed to Britain.
You see, when I tried to help my dog, I couldn’t think of any either.
(Incidentally, a phobia is defined as ‘an irrational fear’. But if, like my dog, you believe that *sl*m is the greatest threat to civilisation and progress in the world today, then it is not ‘irrational’ to fear it. In fact, it is entirely rational. Therefore, ‘*sl*mophobia’ cannot exist)
If you have spent time in India or any similar Third-World country (Pakistan, Indonesia or anywhere in Africa), you will know that you spend most of your waking hours with the locals trying to scam you, rob you or both. I don’t blame India’s poor for trying to get whatever money they can. After all, in a country where over 500 million people defecate in the streets because they’re too poor to have even the most rudimentary form of a toilet, life is hard and is a continual battle for survival.
But I do resent being continually ripped off by India’s wealthy. If you try to do business there, it’s always “no bribe, no business”. Though if you were to offer an Indian or a Pakistani a bribe directly, they would be hugely offended. After all, you’d be suggesting that they were corrupt. Which of course they all are. But to admit this would mean them losing face. Instead, you have to use an Indian middleman (it’s almost always a man) to distribute the appropriate bribes for you in return for keeping a considerable amount of your money himself.
So, while I’m here in the Land of Smells, it’s a true joy to watch the rich Indian tourists being relieved of their money by the locals. You see, after decades of socialist economic stagnation, India’s economy is starting to grow and the newly affluent middle classes are generally new to international tourism and so are not as aware of typical scams that Western tourists might know about.
The one I see most is the ‘damaged’ jet ski scam. It goes like this:
1. A group of young Indian men rent a few jet skis (Indian men always do things together. Even when it comes to having sex with prostitutes, you’ll seldom see less than 3 to 4 men taking the same girl at the same time)
2. Off they go whooping and screaming in delight as they shoot across the waves
3. When they bring their jet skis back to the beach, the renters (scammers) pull the jet skis out of the water and notice some apparent ‘damage’ that has been caused to the undersides. This was not visible when the jet skis were rented as they were already floating in the water
4. The scammers demand that the tourists (scammees) pay for the ‘damage’ they supposedly have caused. They usually ask for several hundred pounds
5. A big argument ensues, but with more jet ski renters crowding round, the scammees feel outnumbered and increasingly threatened
6. One of the scammers rips off his t-shirt in apparent ‘fury’ as if squaring up for a fight with the scammees. The situation is becoming very tense
7. Fortunately for the scammees, a policeman (usually an extremely well-fed one) on a moped turns up just before things get nasty. Relieved that the police have arrived, the scammees explain the situation and without getting off his moped to inspect the ‘damage’ the policeman proposes a compromise whereby the scammees pay just a little less than the money demanded by the scammers
8. Realising that this is about the best possible outcome they’re likely to get, the scammees allow themselves to be marched off to a nearby ATM to pay the scammers. The policeman gets a 20% cut of the money
9. The jet skis are pushed back in the water ready for the next group of scammees to be fleeced
So the utterly corrupt get taken to the cleaners by the even more corrupt. Hey ho, that’s the way it goes.
I’m afraid I have to pause after writing yesterday’s blog about first-cousin marriages in Britain’s M*sl*m community. If you haven’t read yesterday’s post, I’d encourage you to have a look and also click on the headline to see the comments.
Before writing yesterday’s post, I had heard of first-cousin marriage and vaguely knew it probably wasn’t a great idea. But I had no idea of the scale (55% of all marriages in the British Pakistani community) and the negative consequences in higher rates of birth defects and lower IQ.
So, I’ve tried to crunch a few numbers to assess the scale of the problem:
1. There are about 750,000 births in the UK each year. Although M*sl*ms only make up about 4% of the population, they account for 10% of all births. So about 75,000 M*sl*m children are born each year
2. If we assume that half of these are to parents who are first cousins or close relatives, then that’s about 37,500 children of consanguineous marriages.
3. The birth defect rate of first-cousin or close-relative marriages is around 6% (compared to a national average of I think 1.7%). So 2,250 of these M*sl*m children will have birth defects. The number would be 425 if there were no consanguineous marriages. So, first-cousin and close relative marriages are giving us an extra 1,825 children with birth defects a year. Of these, 912 will have Downs Syndrome (I have probably underestimated the problem as some studies suggest that 30% of the 12,750 children born with birth defects each year in Britain – that’s 3,825 children – are from consanguineous marriages)
4. I’ve no idea of the lifetime support costs for these children with birth defects. But it could easily be more than £500,000 each. So, consanguineous marriage is probably adding an extra £912m each year to the costs that have to be borne by the NHS and social services. Over a 10-year period, M*sl*m consanguineous marriage is adding an extra £9.1bn burden on the NHS and social services.
5. Then you have to factor in the costs to our educational system. Around 25,000 M*sl*m children will have an IQ that is 10 to 16 points lower than the IQs of children of ‘normal’ marriages and 1,550 (6.2%) will have IQs lower than 70. Who knows what disruption these 1,550 low-intelligence children will cause in our schools?
In 2005, Labour MP Ann Cryer called for first-cousin marriages to be banned. Nothing happened of course for fear of offending the M*sl*m community. Then in 2008, there were calls for Labour Environment Minister Phil Woolas to be sacked when he dared raise the issue of first-cousin marriage and the link to the rising number of birth defects.
So, political correctness has once again prevented any debate on yet another medieval practice imported into Britain by a certain group in society. Oh what a wonderful politically-correct world we live in.
As the world becomes wealthier and travel increases, increasing numbers of inter-country and inter-racial marriages should mean more healthy children. But one section of the human population – 1.2 billion M*sl*ms – seems to be going in the opposite direction. By encouraging inbreeding, M*sl*ms are producing more handicapped and mentally retarded children than any other group. Nobody knows (though we can guess) how many tens of thousands of handicapped children and how many hundreds of thousands of mentally-retarded the world’s M*sl*ms are producing, encouraged by a bunch of backward, bearded bigots (sorry, I meant highly-respected *sl*mic scholars, I must have mis-typed). This is a problem of staggering proportions and it seems that almost nobody has the courage to mention it.
What’s the most career-limiting C-word a politician or anyone in public life could use? No, it’s not ‘cnut’. It’s ‘consanguinity’.
The general definition of ‘Consanguinity’ is sharing the same blood line. However, it has more recently been mostly associated with the M*sl*m practice of marrying close relatives, especially first cousins. A study reported by the BBC found that in Bradford 55% of people of Pakistani origin were married to first cousins, compared to less than 1% of married couples nationally. Communities encouraging first-cousin marriages see them as a way of strengthening already tight family networks.
So, what’s the problem?
1. Birth defects
British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population – they account for just over 3% of all births but around 30% all British children with such illnesses
2. Low intelligence
Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develop slower in inbred babies.
In a study in India, IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400% from 1.2% in children from normal parents to 6.2% in inbred children.
3. Mental disorders
There is also evidence suggesting that inbred people have a higher risk of developing mental disorders particularly schizophrenia: “The closer the blood relative, the more likely was there to be a schizophrenic illness”. The increased risk of insanity among children of marriages between cousins might explain why immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric systems of many Western countries. In the largest mental facility in Denmark, for example, more than 40% of the patients have an immigrant background
4. Low educational and professional achievement
Linked to the likelihood of lower intelligence and mental disorders is the risk of low achievement in school and in work leading to a growing and embittered group who will always try to find other people to blame for their own failure
In summary – one study concluded: “The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages”.
Though any politician or academic even mentioning the C-word is likely to be hounded by the politically-correct brigade and probably lose their job and see their career destroyed (click on image to see more clearly). As I don’t have a job, I guess I can dare mention the C-word.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all M*sl*ms in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70% of all marriages are between first cousins and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30%. Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34% of all marriages in Algiers are consanguineal, Bahrain – 46 %, Egypt – 33%, Iraq – 60%, Jordan – 64%, Kuwait – 64%, Lebanon – 42%, Libya 48%, Mauritania – 47%, Qatar – 54%, Saudi Arabia – 67%, Sudan – 63%, Syria – 40%, Tunisia – 39% and Yemen – 45%.
A large number of inbred M*sl*ms are born from parents who are themselves inbred – which greatly increases the risks of negative mental and physical consequences.
Is anyone beginning to see why there might be a bit of a problem with a certain group in the world today?
UN Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR) highlighted the lack of interest in science and human development in the M*sl*m World. The AHDR concludes that there have been fewer books translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year: “The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s [sic] time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year”.
About 10 years ago a Labour MP bravely called for a ban on first-cousin marriages. But since almost no politician, academic or community leader seems to have been keen to use the ultimate C-word (consanguinity) and so this social and economic catastrophe has continued aided and abetted by those who we pay to protect us from such disasters
The Internet is fertile ground for lunatic conspiracy theories. You know, things like Martians are controlling the Queen, Prince Harry is really James Hewitt’s son, the missing Malaysian Airways flight was abducted by aliens and you can believe any of Dave ‘Cast-Iron-Promise’ Cameron’s promises.
But one theory going the rounds may not be so crazy – that the Glasgow bin lorry ‘accident’ which killed six Christmas shoppers and injured many others was actually a Jihadist attack and that this has been desperately covered up by our rulers just like they covered up the gang-raping, gang-sodomisation and perverted torture of thousands of British girls by Pakistani and Bangladeshi M*sl*ms.
It should be noted that around the same time there were two similar episodes in France where M*sl*ms drove cars into pedestrians. There the authorities tried to claim that both men were mentally deranged and not Jihadi murderers. In the second of these attacks, in Dijon where 11 were injured, the prosecutor improbably stated that the driver ‘shouted “God is great” to give himself courage to act, and not out of religious belief.’ Umm, how likely is that? Anyway the French authorities’ almost laughable attempts to absolve M*sl*ms for the two attacks sort of fell apart after the deadly Paris murders.
If people in Britain did find out that the Glasgow incident, where a bin lorry mowed down Christmas shoppers, really was a Jihadi attack, then this would have two awful consequences:
1. Total fury amongst most of the population against ‘British’ M*sl*ms and probable violence against M*sl*ms
2. A string of dreadful jokes about ‘Osama Bin Lorry’
Here’s a blogger who suggests that the Glasgow bin lorry incident was not a M*sl*m attack, but that by refusing to release the names, religion or ethnic origins of the driver and the other two workers on the bin lorry, the authorities have fuelled speculation that they are covering up a Jihadi attack to avoid ethnic tension:
Please note that every time there is a report of a car accident, the driver is always named. For example the authorities recently named a GP who killed another driver when she panicked after a spider fell into her lap when she was driving. Yet strangely the driver of the Glasgow bin lorry apparently cannot be named.
Here’s a slightly more in-your-face report of the Glasgow incident which suggests it actually was a Jihadi attack and that there has been a massive cover-up in the same way as the authorities (councils, police and politicians) spent more than ten years covering up the widespread sexual exploitation of tens of thousands of British girls by M*sl*ms:
I’m afraid it’s back to *sl*m again today. Why? Because I believe the three biggest problems facing Britain today are:
1. The rapid rise of a M*sl*m population most of whom do not accept our values of freedom, tolerance, democracy and equality
2. The handing over of our sovereignty to a German-run undemocratic, wasteful and corrupt superstate run by a privileged elite of hereditary, self-serving bureaucrats
3. The failure of our politicians to govern the country within our financial means leading to a national debt that will soon hit almost £2trn and annual interest payments that will soon cost us more than we spend on education and defence.
All the other stuff about the NHS under crisis, the rise in food banks, supposed Climate Change and so on is trivial compared to the three issues listed above.
So, here are the five big lies we will constantly be told as *sl*mic attacks increase:
1. The attack has nothing to do with *sl*m
This, of course is absolute rubbish. In all cases, London bombings, Lee Rigby murder, Sydney siege, Paris murders, the perpetrators have made it very clear that they are acting because of their *sl*mic beliefs instilled in them by M*sl*m preachers living (usually on benefits) in our midst
2. Almost all M*sl*ms here and abroad found these attacks repugnant
I believe the latest published research showed that around 48% of British M*sl*ms believed that anyone making fun of their death cult masquerading as a religion should be punished.
In a post a few days ago, I included a short piece of a Radio 4 broadcast in which the hapless interviewer struggled to find any M*sl*ms in High Wycombe who would condemn the attacks. Most supported them.
3. The attacks were perpetrated and supported by a minuscule number of people who can simply be defined as ‘terrorists’
Even if the ‘vast majority of M*sl*ms are peaceful and do not support these attacks (which there is strong evidence to show is not true) let’s crunch some simple numbers. Let’s suppose that 99.9% of Britain’s M*sl*ms would not commit or support violence. That leaves just 0.1% who would attack us. With at least 3 million M*sl*ms in Britain (nobody knows the real number). that 0.1% gives us about 3,000 British M*sl*ms who would commit violence against us or support those committing violence. And if only 99% of Britain’s 3 million M*sl*ms are peaceful, then that gives us 30,000 who would kill us in the name of their ‘religion’. So all this tosh about ‘the vast majority of M*sl*ms are peaceful’ is irrelevant. What is relevant is the 3,000 or 30,000 who would happily murder us in order to protect their ‘religion’ against our ridicule
4. Immigration and multiculturalism were in no way contributory causes of either the Paris attack or the attacks which we might experience in the future or have suffered in the past.
This claim is surely so laughably obviously a lie it’s difficult to know what to say to refute it. Imagine we had never allowed mass M*sl*m immigration. There would be no first-cousin marriages, no female genital mutilation, no Trojan Horse schools, no M*sl*m ghettos, no cruelly-slaughtered Halal meat, no hate preachers, no Sharia Law, a massive drop in the benefits bill, no attacks.
Every other immigrant community coming to Britain has managed to adapt, generally accept our values and make a contribution to the country. The British M*sl*m community is unique in the way it has refused to integrate and instead tried to force its blighted views on the rest of us responding with fury and violence every time someone dares question any of its often medieval practices
5. We are all Charly
Our rulers’ attempts to portray themselves as standing up to M*sl*m terror are more than pathetic. No publication dares print the supposedly offending cartoons. The Daily Telegraph even disallows any readers’ comments on any articles about M*sl*ms and their violence and hatred. And our politicians are desperately trying to explain away the mounting series of attacks without mentioning the words ‘M*sl*m’ and ‘*sl*m’
We are entering a very dark period. The coming clash between the M*sl*m world and civilisation is going to be brutal. Millions will die because, just as they did in the years up to 1939, our rulers refuse to recognise the true nature of the evil that threatens our way of life.
Interesting times ahead. And remember, in times of war, the first casualty is the truth.
I wanted to title today’s blog: “Do you know how much your MP earns?” But as most MPs do little to no work for their constituents (apart for turning up once a week for PMQs to make it look like Westminster is a hive of debate and activity) the word “earns” would not have been appropriate.
This year will be a great one for our wonderful MPs. They get not one but two pay rises. The first is a modest about 1% in April taking their salaries from £66,396 to £67,731. I suppose that by just taking the tiny 1% they show they understand the economic difficulties the country faces. But then just four weeks later, our MPs give themselves about another 10% taking their salaries to £74,000. Of course, they claim that they are being awarded this money by the supposedly ‘independent’ IPSA and so they’re not just giving it to themselves. But I didn’t hear many of them refusing to take it.
It’s not just their salaries that are shooting up. So are their expenses. Just about two years ago, MPs’ allowances to pay their staff rocketed by about 20% from £115,000 to £137,000 for constituencies outside London and by 25% to £144,000 for those in London. Of course, much of this money pours straight into the pockets of MPs’ family members. We know that the number of MPs employing family members with our money rose last year from 155 to 170. But we have no idea how many MPs are also employing lovers, boyfriends, children of their political and business cronies and so on.
But the real moneyspinner for MPs is their gloriously generous, inflation-protected pension. An MP gets 1/40th of their salary for every year spent with their snouts in the Westminster trough. So let’s do the numbers. A 1/40th of an MP’s £74,000 salary is £1,850. With annuity rates at just 3.3% for an inflation-protected joint pension, you or I would need to put £56,000 a year into our pension fund to get a similar pension to our MP. Many people don’t even earn £56,000 a year let alone manage to save this in a pension scheme. Our MPs sadly fail to mention their unbelievably generous pension scheme when claiming they are underpaid:
Then, of course, our MPs have so little real work to do that many of them have second, third and even fourth outside jobs in addition to being paid to represent the interests of their constituents. There can’t be many MPs who are pocketing less than £50,000 a year on the side with some earning hundreds of thousands of pounds thanks mainly to being an MP:
And there’s the ‘Government Minister Scam’. Being a government minister allows an MP to hugely increase their earnings:
With around 90 supposed ‘government ministers’, Britain has over twice the number of ministers compared to countries like Germany, Spain, Italy and France:
So, most MPs are really pocketing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year while keeping a straight face when saying things like ‘failure to pay politicians “fair” rates would make it harder to recruit good candidates for Parliament in future’.
But the most ridiculous aspect of all is that we absolutely don’t need 650 MPs any more. With most areas of government policy now being handed over to the EU or the national assemblies, 200 MPs at Westminster would be more than enough. After all, massive USA with more than 300 million people manages to get by with just 435 Members of Congress. So, why do we need 650 MPs?
Are we being scammed by our greedy, lying, self-serving politicians? Yes we are.
(my thanks to a reader for the story behind today’s blog)
Imagine the outcry. Imagine the uproar if a tabloid found that a footballer had been having sex with a woman with a mental age of eight. Imagine the lurid newspaper headlines and the condemnation of a culture of depravity and sex abuse within the footballing community. Imagine the howls of the social media, twitter-storm mob that this ‘sex pervert’ and ‘rapist’ should be chucked into jail and the keys thrown away. Imagine angry MPs asking furious questions in Parliament to get their names in the press. Imagine all the outraged ‘experts’ and ‘opinion-formers’ appearing in the media to denounce the ‘sex abuser’. Now imagine how much worse the public outcry would be if it was revealed that social workers and the police knew all along what was happening, but did nothing.
Well this did all happen. But there was no press uproar and no howling mob and no angry questions in Parliament. Why? Because the man involved wasn’t a footballer. He was actually a member of our wonderful M*sl*m community. Here’s the story:
I shall call her ‘Tia’. She has a husband ‘Mustapha’. We are not told by what means either of them came to be living in England, nor whether they are employed – though Tia patently can’t be, and I very much doubt, as you shall see, whether Mustapha could be either. They live in a two-bedroomed housing association flat in Tower Hamlets. They both originate from Bangladesh.
Despite the fact that they are first cousins, they married in 1999. This was also despite the fact that Tia has a mental age judged to be between 4 and 8 years old. Neither factor was a good omen for the genes, nor for the care of the ensuing children. As it proved, in the fullness of time – by 2010, Tia had given birth to four children. All four had to be taken into immediate care and were subsequently placed for adoption. The usual lengthy court cases and legal representation was legally aided.
Tia was not able to care for herself, never mind a child. Social Services found it necessary to install 24-hour, 7 day a week, 52 week a year care in that two-bedroomed flat for Tia. In order to provide 24 hour care, we are talking about a bare minimum of four full time employees on a rota, possibly more. Tia had no comprehension of the necessity to feed or wash herself, nor ‘how babies came to be in her tummy’.
Since the birth of her first child, Tia has been in the care of a clinical psychologist and an independent social worker, in addition to the rota of full time carers and the inevitable interpreters. They confess they ‘have made no progress with her’ – she neither speaks English nor takes any interest in other people, merely lying on a sofa watching Bangla TV during the day, attended by her carers.
The number of people crowding into this small apartment appears to have been curtailing Mustapha’s sex life. He arranged for Tia’s (and his) cousin Alia, to arrive from Bangladesh on the soon to be proved worthless assurance that she would be financially independent. She was initially refused an entry visa – but a legal challenge was mounted to this, and she moved into the crowded apartment as Mustapha’s ‘second wife’. Mustapha quickly impregnated Alia.
Alia has subsequently given birth to two more of Mustapha’s offspring. These children have not been taken into care, but are now living with their mother in council provided bed and breakfast accommodation. It would appear that Alia’s entry visa was obtained dishonestly and attempts have been made to deport her, each accompanied by a legally-aided defence. Since she is now the mother of two children belonging to a man legally resident in Britain, no doubt she will eventually win the right to remain and be supported physically and financially, as she cares for them.
With Alia parked up in a bed and breakfast, Mustapha turned his attention to his first wife once more.
‘No, no, no’, cried social services – ‘she’ll be pregnant again in five minutes. We’re supporting six of his children already’, and they very smartly moved the compliant Tia to a full time care facility and out of range of Mustapha’s nightly forays.
Thus began the latest legal battle – reported by the Independent as ‘Man banned from taking wife out of care facility to have sex with her’ (18 December 2014). As far as the Independent (and the Mirror) are concerned, this is merely a case of whether a man has the right to have sex with his wife. Neither paper has reported on the background to the case.
It is not – it is primarily concerned with whether Tia has ever had capacity to consent to sex, and whether it is a deprivation of her liberty to remove her from the family home and prevent her from returning. The judge concluded that ‘she hasn’t the capacity to consent to sex’ and ‘moving her from the family home isn’t a deprivation of liberty’.
(N.B When footballer Ched Evans was judged to have had sex with a woman who didn’t have the mental capacity to consent because she claimed she was too drunk, he was imprisoned for rape and and had his career ruined. When a M*sl*m man has sex with a woman who doesn’t have the mental capacity to consent, that’s ok with the authorities)
And then there is the cost to the taxpayer of these events.
We have two adults, possibly three if we include Mr Ouanq, fully supported by the taxpayer.
We have housing association accommodation subsidised by the tax payer.
We have six children, each fully supported in care by the taxpayer.
We have full time care via a rota of employees for Tia.
We have (I may have lost count here!) nine high court actions/family court/court of protection/immigration tribunals – each of which has been attended by a murmur of black-gowned legal experts including top flight QC s.
We have a range of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, case conference attendees, and assorted council employees.
Hopefully this little tale reveals just some of the hypocrisy of politicians and the media, whereby nobody dares criticise anything done by a M*sl*m because of the inevitable smears of being a “waaaacccciiiiissssstttttt!!!!!”
As for the M*sl*m gentleman, what will he now do for sex? Will he import more first cousins (mentally retarded or otherwise)? Or will he join a M*sl*m gang to gang-rape and gang-sodomise underage white girls? We don’t know. But one thing is certain – whatever he decides to do, he will get away with it because he’s a M*sl*m.
David Craig, on January 23rd, 2015
