Well the BBC have been exultantly pushing this one today;
The High Court has told the NHS in England it can fund a drug that can prevent HIV – after health bosses argued it was not their responsibility. NHS England previously said councils should provide the pre-exposure prophylaxis (Prep) drug as they are in charge of preventative health. This stance was successfully challenged by the National Aids Trust (NAT).
The elephant in the BBC room is, of course, the reckless sexual behaviour by a section of gay men who use the NAT to lobby to ensure the taxpayer funds their dangerous lifestyle. The BBC always takes the side of gay adventurists and this is no different in my view.
No wonder the ‘envy of the world’ NHS is creaking at the seams, as we have to fund homosexual buggery, trannie child-bearing, and other weird lifestyle choices, drunks assaulting staff every weekend, lazy people using A&E instead of registering with GPs, as well as immigrants bringing TB and their other diseases.
The bBBC loves all these ways of destroying a normal society, of course.
What will be interesting will be any ‘what would you say to…’ style interview comments to those who have hogged the airwaves crowing about this ‘victory’, as can happen when paucity of funds has seen tragic consequences to those who have not engaged in lifestyle-based practices to require attention, and turn to the NHS at the point of need.
One suspects professional courtesies in editorial integrity will again apply, as so far I have heard zero.
That dude in Africa now seeking new challenges after his career took a swerve likely on a plane paid for by Barebacking4U lawyers on a pro bono basis from public funds too.
Here’s a fact you can chew on: more women than men have HIV. I’d like to see you continue to blame the HIV epidemic on “homosexual buggery”
Lesbians? No, surely not!
I supervised research on HIV positive pregnant women in West Africa. They get it from men. Where the men get it from is a matter for conjecture. But one man with several female contacts may suggest that the source is men. Homosexual sex might well be an important factor.
Not to mention the NHS setting up clinics all round the country to deal with reversing FGM! – From outside the UK.
Thanks for posting this David as I have been wondering why no-one has brought up or discussed at length this important point during a whole day’s coverage on the BBC. Now, I do not wish to be disrespectful to gay friends as I do work with and know several and they are totally respectable and nice people. But I have been wondering all day why no-one has come out to ask the question ‘perhaps if promiscuous gay people (and anyone else for that matter) wore condoms and didn’t practice careless sex with strangers we wouldn’t have such a huge rise in cases of HIV.’ But, as we know the militant gay lobby has the same PC stranglehold on our establishment as other sections of the community and it is forbidden to ask truthful questions for fear of upsetting the PC fantasist narrative. It is well known that in the past some gays were promiscuous and enjoyed unprotected sex with many partners; I never understood why they wouldn’t take precautions. Heterosexuals were all advised to wear protection before we were married and had one night stands etc, so why shouldn’t those gays who are sexually active?
My thoughts exactly Alex.
There does not appear to be any “lengths” the establishment wont go to in order to please the gay lobby.
It is also all bound up with people being seen as victims and unable to help themselves and also decisions such as this are a good opportunity for the judiciary to partake in a bit of “virtue signalling” themselves. It s a bit like a while back when there was talk that obesity had to be treated as a disease not a self inflicted condition. If you are fat its not your fault that you ate ten cream cakes rather than one. Same as saying dont bother using condoms cos we will fund your irresponsible lifestyle. Gay or straight this definitely sends the wrong message
I personally dont care what gays get up to in their private life its their choice. But I do think that rulings such as this are more likely to stir up resentment against the gay community as a whole. Reason being that people tend to get pissed off when they have to start putting their hands in their pockets to fund an irresponsible lifestyle.
This also sets up a rather interesting precedent – cant quite see where this will stop.
Maybe the NHS should also supply ” Buggery Councillors” to be on hand immediately after any intimacy to soothe any hurt feelings away, caused because the paddling pool springing a leak or one party only provided cheap olive oil from Liddles when they promised it would be from Waitrose.
To legitimise the claim first Today equated the drug to the contraceptive pill. Then on the lunchtime news granted, the BBC reporter did ask the question why should the NHS stump up for drugs so a proportion of gay men can carry on with unprotected sex – a lifestyle choice – but then went on to compare it to pre-diabetes treatment.
But we all know damned well the militant end of the gay rights lobby will win in the end – with or without the BBC’s help.
How come gays get license to continue their unprotected, promiscuous and irresponsible sex without any “comeback”(oo er) from the health lobby, the nanny NHS?
But smokers get hounded and blamed for their lung cancer, and don`t get the same license as do the gays.
As for gay smokers?…er, over to Evan…
Dont use enough Vas Chris – boom boom!
> But smokers get hounded and blamed for their lung cancer
By whom? The impression I get is that their cancer is treated, but it’s recognised that preventive measures are far more effective – so the emphasis is on getting people to quit before they develop potentially fatal diseases, without stopping the treatment of those who contract lung cancer.
Preventive medicine is practised in the NHS along with treatments of conditions where preventible diseases and other illnesses occur. If you’re saying that a disease which affects high-risk groups of which you are not a member should be treated differently because you disapprove of that high-risk group, well then that’s a subjective call on your part that doesn’t belong in the NHS’s approach to medicine.
Respectful and courteous jerrod, so I`ll respond in kind.
I DO happen to think that smokers get blamed as much as do obese people re wasting NHS resources in indulging their unhealthy options, and the drain that they exert on finite NHS resources.
It`s not always overt but it has been, can be ;and does pop up once in a while.
The emphasis on “not judging, but pre-empting” applies to smoking and obese lifestyles when the NHS is being polite…so why then don`t they apply this principle to gay/HIV issues as well…for isn`t THAT equally a lifestyle choice with known risk factors that may come with a consequence?
I`ve no axe to grind-you pay your taxes, you`ve got the right to claim back.
But cataract patients surely have a preferential claim over youngsters who won`t take the necessary precautions, surely-older and paid more taxes and not responsible for the predicament they`re in.
So I`d have thought-as I say, I don`t pretend to be sure af any of the above…but the feeling that some groups are favoured over others re NHS provision seems clear cut to me.
Xavier,
Are you trying to make a political point? See my post above. I might add to it that the massive number of HIV positive pregnant women in the African study became pregnant and contracted HIV from men – women don’t get pregnant by themselves – and you cannot rule out homosexual activity as a significant source. However, the gay lobby in Europe may claim victim status but a serious problem for some of us is obtaining appropriate drugs at a cheaper rate than that sold on the European market. It is available but no one is really pushing hard. Why bother when the cost of a new bride is less than treatment for the old one?
ChrisH,
There is an ethical principle throughout medical practice – not merely the NHS – that life style matters should not influence the availability of treatment. Hence the hackneyed example that mountain climbers should not be pushed to the back of the queue for treatment of broken limbs. However, judgments to withhold therapy on the basis of lifestyle choices are often hidden under the guise of clinical assessment of likely outcomes. Hence a heavy drinker might not have easy access to a liver transplant on the grounds that his/her addiction might limit the ability to cooperate with post operative drugs and therapy. Assisted reproduction might be witheld from the obese, on the basis of a negative assessment of a healthy outcome. This aside, cultural beliefs within the NHS test the principle that life style choice should not affect availability of therapy. I once gave a talk at one of the UK’s leading cancer hospitals on pain relief. To my astonishment several nurses from another culture, I believe, responded by telling me that pain relief should not be easily available to people who had given their lives to Satan. Way back in the sixth century the connection between pain and punishment was not that distinct. The word ‘pain’ comes from the Latin word ‘poena’ which means punishment. For various reasons cancer is regarded within some cultural perspectives as a punishment
Just for the trolls who see politics everywhere – ever see the donor cards which say that in the event of my death I do not want my organs to be donated to a Tory? The idea was initiated by thr KKK but was shot down for legal and ethical reasons – for those who read Joh Rawls.
Why do they waste money on researching these drugs so that a pampered, selfish minority can carry on with their perversions? I suppose there are all the normal people in Africa who get HIV to consider, but you have to remember that one of the causes of HIV propagation is to do with patterns of sexual behaviour, in the case of Africa these patterns are promiscuity & irresponsibility. They will not modify their sexual behaviour & they expect the white man’s magic medicine to cure them at the white man’s cost, as many African countries complain that they cannot afford the drugs.
This is another example of the modern phenomenon where the aim of charities is not to directly perform good works but rather exist to lobby for the greater spending from the public purse (eg Shelter)
The report on the news pointed out that the claim for NHS funding to enable this chosen homosexual risk behaviour would be in competition with treatment funding for cystic fibrosis, prosthetic limbs for amputees and hearing implants for deaf people.
Somewhere I read that the drug costs £400 per month- if this is correct it is rather more expensive than aspirin. I have no problem with gays chosing to use the stuff – just not at tax payers’ expense. What about personal responsibility? And I do think hearing on WATO, during school holidays (I am assuming the children that might hear WATO during term time might not understand) that gay men need this drug because they may be so involved in the moment that they forget to use a condom(I may have not got the wording quite right but it was certainly what was implied) it is just too much information – and would be if listening about straight couples too.
… you do know straight people can get HIV too, don’t you? Some people are born with it. Or are you so much of a dinosaur you still think HIV is simply down to one man licking another man’s bum hole?
There are of course public health benefits to any measure that prevents the spread of infection. And those benefits have financially beneficial side effects too: something which could prevent a transmissible disease from infecting anyone new means that there will be one less carrier in future who could possibly transmit an infection onto others, and so on.
Prep won’t be appropriate for everyone, and now that it’s been decided that the responsibility for who should be prescribed it has been judged to belong to the NHS, NICE can draw up guidelines as to the suitable uses as it does for other drugs.
I’m sure that those making NICE policy don’t start talking about “reckless gay sex” – because, of course, contraception, abortions and Viagra (all fundable through the NHS) could never be associated with reckless heterosexual sex – or “normal people in Africa”. That’s the sort of talk perpetuated by a failed politician with a history of homophobic attitudes that have consistently been on the wrong side of history (civil partnerships, marriage, DADT repeal, et al) who is more concerned with being seen to have an opinion than he is to bother thinking about whether that opinion has any basis in fact, and from a bunch of people whose lack of compassion is equalled only by their lack of any understanding that an egotistical Ulsterman who has never let his ignorance get in the way of pocketing BBC license fee money to appear as a talking head on subjects he knows nothing about is the last person on God’s earth who should be listened to when it comes to public health.
Jerrod, why can tax payers fund prophylactic medication for people deliberately choosing to risk infection by their behaviour ?
The same tax payers who are unable to fund treatments for non chosen ill health.
Is it because the state says so?
Because the NHS’s goal is to improve the public health, not to be the nation’s moral arbiter. Prep will be one potentially useful means of reducing HIV infection rates across the board, along with much cheaper education efforts. As it is, the latter often struggle to get adequate funding because of resistance by certain people who decide that their blinkered, prejudiced view of the world is somehow more important than other people’s health.
Just as well neither you or Vance have any say over public health policy. Best leave that to people with a capability for compassion.
Morals? Compassion?
So Jerrod, please explain how it is moral and compassionate to divert health spending to enable people who deliberately expose themselves to infection risk to avoid responsibility for their chosen behaviour.
Whilst simultaneously reducing spending on other conditions that are the result of misfortune or accidental trauma. NB the both the public health and NHS budgets are finite, and as a matter of fact public health is a local government responsibility not an NHS one…..hence the court case.
Looking forward to another lecturette on morals and compassion, to go with the one the BBC delivered earlier today and….ooh look….a gay guy called Ali to illustrate the story….what were the odds of that?
You seem, embolden, to be overlooking the magic money tree. (what’s the betting that when I scroll down Jerrod will be along to remind you of it)nb(aww, he didn’t,,,,,,,yet)
You’re a retard.
Why do people on this site think HIV is down to “deliberate exposure” of “homosexual buggery?” People are born with HIV. People can be infected with HIV from breastfeeding, from improper needle use. The idea that HIV is spread by men’s bum holes is so hideously 1980s it really shows how backwards you cretins on this site are. I’ll repeat what I said above – more women have HIV than men.
So in that sense, HIV isn’t very different from the “accidental trauma” or misfortune you describe. But because your preconception is simply down to it being spread by promiscuous anal sex you refuse to see it that way.
Oh dear Xavier, who mentioned the specific practice of which you speak? not I.
But since you have here`s the deal, the BBC story was entirely framed around the “needs” of homosexual men……the people interviewed (Ali) and the repeated references to the message about condoms “being still out there, but a small group of people not acting on it” reinforced this.
And yes the fact is that regardless of gender the mucosa of the rectum is thinner and therefore more prone to allow the transmission of HIV than the mucosa of a womans vagina. Check out any reputable anatomy and physiology text for confirmation. It`s almost like the organs mentioned were designed “fit for purpose”.
Facts, fella, facts.
X
“You’re a retard.”
X, as a newcomer myself, who may be ignorant, I do not recall any previous “contributions” from you.
OK, so you did include the apostrophe, but you began with an insult.
An “ism” insult, anti-Mencapping.
If I had access to advanced computer facilities I would call you a NOHPY.
Xavier has posted here before, generally as an Islamist apologist but also as a classic Leftoid. ‘You’re a retard’ is a classic, childish Leftoid, Corbynutta term of abuse.
Xavier has also claimed to be a UKIP supporter, but again it is a classic Leftoid tactic to try to deflect justified criticism by suggesting some degree of common thought. I asked him on here if he found any aspects of Al Beeb’s reporting of his chosen political party troubling. After all, this MB is about Al Beeb’s bias against Brits/the UK/England/non-gays/ politicians other than NooLabor etc. As a UKIP supporter he hasn’t found anything adverse in Al Beeb’s reporting, so I would suggest he is lying.
As a Leftoid (robotic semi-human who still believes in the benefits of Marxism despite the evidence to the contrary), like Jerrod the Jihadist he accepts the right of homosexuals to indulge in unsafe sex practises and for someone else to pay for the consequences.
Xaviers examples of those who sadly inherit hiv has nothing to do with this drug which is said to be effective at protecting from his infection rather than curing it.
But then Xavier is a pure Leftoid f**kwit!
‘This infection’ not ‘his infection’. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
ediu
Xavier, calling someone a ‘retard’ sort of puts your argument at a disadvantage from the outset. It’s a shame because it may create, to the reader of your posts, a false impression of you.
My wife works as a nurse in a children’s hospice with many disabled children with short life spans, I wonder if you would call them ‘retards’.
My posting is intended to be helpful, please take it that way.
Someone just said that the NHS’s goal is to improve the public health. It is not and never should be. despite the objectives of socialists and statists. Improvement of public health is a political goal and some might say that funding of the NHS was to achieve that goal. But medical practice and ethics is based on the well being of the individual. Failure to grasp that fact places one outside of ethical discourse. Of the four principles of bioethics, autonomy ranks highest. If I had time I would develop a critique of preventive medicine to this end. But I will pass.
As for smoking Jerrod?
Not the nations arbiter?
Obesity and smoking?
Jerrod?
Come back lad….
AS for funding….s`pose there`s no chance of them raising the money themselves like they used to do?
Fun runs , records etc…used to work once?
Why do WE have to pay…would rather give it to the fat smokers who-at least-may vote UKIP when we tip them out of their scooters in 2020.
That`s a joke lad….now then, as you were about to say….
Here we go Troll alert, vermin resistant to warfarin and truth
Do not feed.
Strewth Jerrod, you should take up pearl diving, if you have the lung capacity to speak your last sentence!
Media quoting £400/month without proper context.
An MP on R4 PM said that the drug will be out of patent in 18 months.
..A Guido commenter reckons a very similar drug is available for £40/month.
Nevertheless a HIV playboy is attempting murder if he keeps having unprotected sex with strangers, so of course the taxpayer should be arresting him not subsidising him. And if he has a regular partner it up to them to find the £40/month if the alternative drug does cost that.
I wonder if the drug company is behind the legal action in some way.
I always find it bizarre when left wing retards trumpet state sponsored sodomy as ‘progressive’ while regressing to bronze age perversion
As it was in the days of Noah
Do well to remember that
‘bronze age’………ironic.
ohoho
the one word leftoid twat attempted brush off
how we all larfed
The NHS needs to be completely overhauled from the ground up. It should have a finite budget and concentrate on treating people who are sick. It should not be paying for life style choices whether that is sex, smoking or eating.
England’s ,
Agreed. Many have been saying this for years but the politicians have neither the will nor ability to do it. They are weak and incompetent.
So what about the virgins who have HIV? You can’t blame HIV on their sex life.
*gasp!* yes! Virgins can get HIV!
“should provide the pre-exposure prophylaxis (Prep) drug as they are in charge of preventative health”
Seems the nation’s nuns should be included lest anything untoward comes their way in the form of a newly radicalised, frustrated, now unemployed gentleman of dubious talent from Africa.
In other news, in what has become known as Rik’s Law, the NHS is to fund ejector seats on quad bikes for those who think helmets are for sissies.
Guest,
LOL !
Xavier, that straw you are clutching at won`t take much more strain.
By “virgins” I guess you are talking about people infected by blood transfusion or born to mothers with HIV, are you including anally raped people?
PREP is a prophylactic for people who are aware of their risky behaviour so would be useless for the cases you mention. Reading between ther lines it also suggests people living “chaotic lifestyles” who are the most likely to randomly miss doses thus increasing the risk of the evolution of drug resistant HIV.
Of course infected people should be treated but there is a difference between treating people for an acquired infection and encouraging infection transmission behaviours by tax payer funded provision of prophylactic medication, when other prevention strategies are effective.
Xavier,
HIV is a blood-bourne virus that can be spread by the introduction of bodily fluids that contain the virus into the hosts system.
The disease AIDS is a further manifestation and consequence of HIV.
It is widely accepted that the early cases of AIDS were due to having “caught” the virus (HIV) from monkeys in Africa. Whilst it is now politically correct to include having eaten monkey meat as a possible method of infection, within medical circles it is again widely accepted that it was due to men having engaged in sexual contact with the infected monkeys.
Once a man carried the virus it spread if it could somehow find it’s way into the bloodstream of another victim. Anal sex will often cause rupture of blood vessels and allow infected semen to be literally injected directly into the body of the recipient. As a consequence it became prevalent within the homosexual community due to the high levels of promiscuity and very nature of sexual activity they were performing.
Sexual intercourse between a man and woman involving the more “traditional” form of vaginal sex would rarely lead to infection of the female because the virus failed to gain entry to the blood stream and would be killed by the female’s own natural defences within the vagina.
HIV dies very quickly when exposed to the atmosphere and away from the protection of the host. If you were to smear blood on a worktop containing HIV, the virus would be dead in a matter of minutes. If you were to do the same with blood containing Hepatitis B virus, the virus would still be infective after two days. For this reason it is actually quite difficult to acquire HIV and hence is mainly seen when there is “direct injection” into the host’s blood stream………anal sex and blood transfusions being the best examples.
The reason babies are born with HIV is because they have shared their infected mother’s blood stream.
The reason a virgin can have HIV is because they have had the virus introduced in a form not related to sexual contact e.g. blood transfusion.
A woman can acquire HIV just as easily as a man by engaging in anal sex. It is very difficult for her to then pass this on via sexual activity.
During the 1980’s it was people with the same level of ignorance that you are showing on this forum that led to the epidemic-level spread of HIV and AIDS and consequently the many unnecessary deaths.
Fortunately, even The Terrence Higgins Trust realised that denial within the homosexual community was a severe problem and promoted greater self awareness and “safer sex” as essential.
Wiser heads fortunately prevailed – yours was obviously not one of them.
It should also ascertain whether patients have the right to free NHS treatment. 20 years ago the Evening Standard publicised doctors’ total refusal to query patients’ eligibility status. The imbalance in what we pay other EU members for treating our citizens abroad compared to the peanuts we claim for treating three times as many of theirs, is staggering, let alone the illegals and diseased or multiple-birth health tourists.
Things haven’t changed much regarding doctors’ attitudes.
At first the Gaystapo whispered in the ear of their MP can we please be left alone to do what is a personal act in our own bedrooms! Then, after they had that plea granted, it was: this is what we do in our own bedrooms and we ain’t bothered if it disgusts you when we keep on reminding you of all the sexual perversions we get up to!! But then they got rather bold and shouted “give us what we want or else!” But, now! All they need to do it seems is simply to “look” at their local MP or health worker and their every demand is immediately granted! What next you may add?
> it also suggests people living “chaotic lifestyles” who are the most likely to randomly miss doses thus increasing the risk of the evolution of drug resistant HIV.
Not borne out by research so far. In fact, research trials are ongoing to see if, following an initial regimen to ensure that the body’s resistance to HIV infection is sufficiently high, subsequent doses can be taken less often than the current daily regimen.
> Of course infected people should be treated but there is a difference between treating people for an acquired infection and encouraging infection transmission behaviours by tax payer funded provision of prophylactic medication, when other prevention strategies are effective.
And nobody’s suggesting that other prevention measures will be replaced. It does mean that Prep will be one of the arsenals in the public health fight against the spread of HIV, for the benefit of society as a whole.
The suggestion that it’s only promiscuous men who will benefit and therefore it’s not worth doing not only exposes the prejudices of those making the argument – just as the availability of the contraceptive pill for women on the NHS was decried for introducing promiscuity in women upon its introduction – it’s also a misrepresentation of the truth. Not only is a lot of US usage driven by men who already have a condom-based approach to safe sex, but who recognise that in the heat of the moment things don’t always work out that way (just as many women go on the pill as well as insisting their male partners use protection), but a big target for such measures are serodiscordant couples, where one partner is HIV+ and the other is negative.
I’m not surprised that David Vance’s position is based on ignorance and slut-shaming – he wouldn’t be him if he took a stance based on knowledge, common sense and a sense of decency towards other people. But don’t fall into the trap of believing that his viewpoint is in any way relevant to the debate – a stance which will generally fare you well, whatever debate that happens to be.
Christ, jerrod. You’re nearly as thick as that Xavier clown and that’s saying something. We’re not imagining it’s aimed, exclusively, at homosexual men. ~(because we all dislike homos, or whatever)
The BBC (you know, the people that employ you) ran with this story all day and they told us, every pro-prep campaigner told us. As a matter of fact, I was thinking they all sounded a bit sexist myself. Why shouldn’t it be available to dirty old female sluts, if they want it, as well.
I don’t see you objecting to this post’s title, though, which was constructed by a man with a long tradition of homophobic posts and a lack of understanding of society in general.
Surely your evident long term close scrutiny of the post originator’s previous posting history disqualifies you from denying that you are a troll.
Else why would you do it.
Here is how logical NHS (NICE) adjudicators should consider this; HIV infection as a sexually transmitted disease can be prevented by a) condoms costing pence b) PREP costing £400/month.
Condoms is the correct answer.
FFS if you are in a high risk category; promiscuous (male or female) or drug user and know you are risking your life by not taking sensible precautions then the consequences are your own.
Your own logic suggests that everyone currently not infected should be on PREP because none of us can be absolutely certain that we will not come into contact with an HIV sufferer at some stage in our lives.
Very many years ago I shared a student house with a feminist (a good pal actually) and she had a poster which read ‘Women who want to be equal to men lack ambition’
She could easily have been writing aboutvthe gay lobby. We are now in a position where promiscupos gay men in most of Africa can seek asylum here and get these drugs automatically to continue therir irresponsible lifestyle.
As of course can indigenous promiscuos gays.
It is of course deeply offensive and biased against heterosexuals who have to fund many of their own contraceptives, including those which guard against sexually transmitted diseases themselves.
And we wonder why the NHS is short of cash.
Just as the bBC could be split in 2 with a much reduced Licence Tax funding only entertainment separated as a different company from the News/Politics part which should fund itself.
So too, the NHS……..the formation of a separate NHS ” Lite” aimed at the aforementioned “lifestyle” clientele as well as
serious criminal, illegal migrants, long term benefits personnel,obese, drunks,addicts etc etc.
NHS primary services would be available to other than the above with migration either way allowed based upon contribution to society criteria.
Funding stream priorities could then be established as opposed to this one size fits all failed system.
I wonder why it is quoted as £400 per month prescription cost with the NHS, and yet it is available through a private clinic on prescription for £135 per month?
Answers on a postcard to bloated government national treasure.
Reminiscent of Harry Enfield’s “I saw you coming” sketch?
Just as a reminder for those turkeys who vote for christmas
WARNING….GRAPHIC ……DO NOT WATCH IF EASILY OFFENDED OR UPSET
https://youtu.be/FLK5Zo4kpos
Strange, I don’t recall seeing that on News at 10.
Not important I guess.
Having watched the above video of Muslims ritually throwing gays off a building and hearing the sickening crunch of the bodies hitting the concrete below, I again ponder one of the greatest mysteries of the human mind: how can so-called liberals (that’s YOU beeboids) consistently whitewash and defend a fascistic cult that is violently and implacably opposed to every single sacred cow of the left – and indeed of any civilised human being? Misogynistic to the core, homophobic, intolerant, antisemitic, paedophile-tolerant (at the very least), slavery-tolerant, murder, rape, violence-tolerant (when not actively condoning) Xenophobic and more; and all this not as a demonic aberration of the life and teachings of its founder but totally consistent with its scriptures. It’s there in black and white for anyone who can read, and fully borne out by history and current outrages!
Lol its puzzling isn’t it – its almost as if everything that anyone in the UK has ever fought for (gay rights, women’s rights, children’s rights etc) are just being ousted to please the RoP – the thing I find most bizarre is the gay people Al Beeb manage to find to to defend the RoP…. Do they not understand what the RoP’s “enforcer’s” will do to them when they catch up? I mean unless you have a fetish for being shot with an AK then having your balls chopped off and stuffed in your mouth that is…
That’ll teach them gays to chant ‘Allahu Akhbar’, won’t it!
Now….i wonder if that qualifies for ‘homophobia’
Or would calling it that be ‘islamophobia’?
Ffzzzzttttttttt does not compute
If you wade in on a topic which people have been trying to discuss sensibly with a graphically violent video about whose content you feel you have to warn people, it’s a sign you’re not right in the head.
Its to educate pompous twats like yourself who accuse people like Alan of ‘homophobia’ by writing stuff down that you throw a hissy at
What do you think of those allahu ackbar guys then?
Maybe if they had zoomed in a bit you might have thought they were kinda hot eh?
Keep voting for christmas….coming to a rooftop near you soon
I said David Vance, not Alan, has a history of writing homophobic posts, which is very true.
Where is your evidence.