Public Health Warning

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

“The authorities” in the West Midlands are appealing for possible victims of a HIV-infected man who has been knowingly having unprotected sex with women for a couple of years to come forward and get tested so they don’t unwittingly pass the infection on to others.

Unfortunately, the man can’t be named for legal reasons even though he’s been convicted so they’re advising any women who think they might have slept with a man they can’t name, describe or show a picture of after being picked up in a club in the West Midlands in the last couple of years to get themselves tested.

What a fucking joke.  Name the bastard, put his picture on the internet and on billboards around the West Midlands and then handcuff him to a lampost in Broad Street in Birmingham for a couple of hours.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,


  1. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Legal reasons?

    They cant name or show the parents of the baby, who was beaten to death, Baby P.

    Is this some weirdness of Magna Carta or something, that criminals cant be named?

    The whole Baby P story, really makes me angry and pisses me off. I know the father will have to be kept in the segregation unit, where ever he is kept but was it not murder? If i did that to any of you it would be murder, has your legal system gone mental or what?

    By the looks of it Baby P was white, so there will be no hiding behind ‘Ethnically sensitive issues’ for the enquiry (inquiry?!?), some people really need to be made to pay, not the perpetrators but the slimey civil servant\councill workers who allowed this to happen.

    Sorry, his story makes me really angry, I cant even crack a joke about it, I really cant beleive what I read, no, I need to stop writing, it really infuriates me.

  2. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Could an english person explain to me, how, I could beat you to death but not be charged with murder?

    Could you also explain how all our identities could be legally hidden too?

    We have all read about the case but why are the details being hidden?

    The baby is dead, beaten to death, why can we not know its name? Why can we not know its killers names? They have been found guilty, in a court of law, was the trial in camera?

  3. steadmancinques (34 comments) says:

    Probably for the same reason that Nevres Kemal, the whistle-blowing former social worker in Haringey has had an injunction taken out against her to prevent her discussing the case; these arrogant bastards are desperate to conceal the truth from the public at all costs, until they have concocted a suitable story.
    Remember what Sir Humphrey Appleby said to Jim Hacker;

    ‘Minister, you must realise that the Official Secrets Act is to protect officials, not secrets’.

  4. Stan (222 comments) says:

    The term “legal reasons” can cover a multitude of sins, rightly or wrongly. Unfortunately if someone isn’t named we will never know the reasons why. In the case of Baby P it could be to protect a brother or sister if there is one. In the case of the HIV guy, it could be that further charges could be brought at a later date (perhaps if a victim dies).

    “Could an english person explain to me, how, I could beat you to death but not be charged with murder?”

    Unfortunately no.

  5. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Oki, to protect a sibling from what? The parents are in jail for ‘unlawful killing’, why are their ids being protected?

    The only reason I can think of are ones of national sec urity when the father is James Bond 007 and cant be exposed, what other reasons would there be, I am really lost in this one.

  6. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Does england still not have ‘plague laws’ where you can lock up a disease carrier, who is infecting people? Or were they repealed on the sly?

  7. Stan (222 comments) says:

    “Oki, to protect a sibling from what? The parents are in jail for ‘unlawful killing’, why are their ids being protected?”

    I cases where a sibling is too young to understand whats going on, it could be judged that they are brought up in a situation where the parents crimes should not impact on their upbringing. I’m with you on this, I’m just saying there are some situations where caution has to be taken.

    The case is still ongoing so there is a strong possibility that the identities will be revealed.

  8. axel (1214 comments) says:

    oki, that sort of makes sense but surely all the other child killers should get their ids legally protected too?

    Another friend reckoned, it was because the crime was so horrid, it was used to protect them in prison from the inevitable retribution by the bad people who seem to be so prevalent inside.

    Could there be other reasons, it does seem a bit odd?

    Laws and legal systems work because most of us submit to them because we beleive we will be protected by them and the guilty will be suitably punished, there is blood in the wind and if the authorities do not give the plebs their pound of flesh, they might just take it for themselves

  9. axel (1214 comments) says:

    jeeeeeeeeeeez, I am melodramatic asshole tonight :O

  10. IcyPurplepants (13 comments) says:

    These ‘people’ are remaining “anonymous” because there are siblings involved. I have a feeling there may even be three of them.

    To place the cherry on the icing on the cake, the mother concerned was pregnant when arrested, and had the baby whilst on remand. Obviously the baby was taken away from her a couple of days after birth and put into care. This woman is now using taxpayer’s money to sue the government, or whoever, to get custody of this child back.

    It beggars belief that this woman isn’t dangling at the end of a rope with crows pecking out her eyeballs let alone being allowed to waste our money to sue for custody. She should be sterilised!

  11. steadmancinques (34 comments) says:

    Isn’t it strange that the Ross/Brand affair provoked comment and condemnation from El Gordo downwards, accompanied by suspensions and resignations over what, imho, was a small storm in an insignificant media teacup. I accept, somewhat reluctantly these days, that my licence fee will be paying for total crap that I would never want to listen to, or watch, in a million years; (Well, in the case of Radios One and Two, well over twenty!)The payback is that I get things that I do want, occasionally on TV, and most of the time on Radios Three and Four.
    However, in the tragic case of baby P, ministers who were warned have remained silent; people who gave out warnings have had injunctions slapped on them to prevent them from speaking out; the management are passing the buck, and can only parrot; ‘proper procedures were followed’. Any sense of a share in responsibility is notably lacking. Proper procedures, my ass! If the procedures were proper, then the toddler would now be alive; a paediatrician who can’t tell that a child has broken ribs and a broken back is appealing against her contract not being renewed. The whole thing is a sickening indictment of where this country has got to.

  12. axel (1214 comments) says:

    I still maintain, it is a good thing it is a white baby, it means we can really get torn into them, with out any ethnic bullshit being used.

    Remember that kid that was starved to death in Brum a few months ago? That was put down to ‘weird islamic’ stuff, I am not saying islam is weird but the report said ‘what can you do?’ Victoria Climbie was the same, she was from Ivory Coast, again it was ‘weird foreigners, what can you do?’

    This time, there is no excuse, he is one of us and as a result 85% of the population can say ‘Oy, no!’

  13. axel (1214 comments) says:

    I listen to radio 4 too.

    Though not 3, classical music is still opver long and the guitar is too low in the mix.

  14. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Could this not be a case for Corporate Manslaughter?

  15. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Could this not be a case for Corporate Manslaughter?

    Not until someone dies.

    steadmancinques, I’ve yet to post on the Baby P thing. It makes me angry just thinking about it. I will write about it soon though.

  16. Stan (222 comments) says:

    The panarama programme about this makes grim viewing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.