Thursday, June 05, 2014

Multicultural husband killed estranged wife by dousing her with petrol and setting her alight

Iranian Muslim Yazdanparast

A husband set his estranged wife alight after dousing her with petrol because she wanted a divorce.

The mother-of-three died after suffering 95 per cent burns in the horrific in October last year.

The two-week trial at the High Court in Edinburgh heard that 61-year-old Mr Yazdanparast attacked the mother because she was divorcing him.

He was found guilty of murder - and will be sentenced at a later date.

Detective Inspector Bryan Burns, from Police Scotland, said: 'The horrific nature and consequences of this crime has had an immeasurable impact on Ahdeih’s family and I would like to praise their strength, courage and support during the investigation.

'I would also like to thank those members of the community in Stirling who helped at the scene of this tragic incident and those who came forward after our appeal for witnesses.

'The many people who responded so promptly and positively did much to assist the investigation.

'Our thoughts remain with Ahdeih’s family during this difficult time.'

Ms Khayatzadeh was found alive by a fire crew responding to the Maxwell Place blaze on Saturday October 12, but died later in hospital.

Paramedic Steven Morgan told the murder trial that he asked Ms Khayatzadeh who was responsible and she said it was her ex-husband.  Asked why, the witness said she told him 'because she had divorced him'.

A court document published in April last year said Mr Khayatzadeh 'does not want to be divorced' and there was 'considerable tension' between the former couple, who separated in August 2010 and had a number of joint property interests.

Following her death, Ms Khayatzadeh’s family said a 'huge void' had been left in their lives.

They described her as a 'wonderful woman who was devoted to her family and spent every spare minute she could with them.'


Conservative Presbyterian Church unwavering in view of homosexuality as a sin

 At its annual General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church in America is considering 52 overtures or calls to action, including one “concerning same-sex marriage.”

The same-sex marriage overture, which will be considered at PCA’s 42nd General Assembly (June 17-20), was summarized in the denomination’s quarterly magazine “By Faith.”

“In response to an increasingly aggressive homosexual agenda, Westminster Presbytery has proposed an overture that reaffirms the PCA’s position on homosexuality,” the article stated. “The overture also issues a call to church leaders to petition the government to place restrictions on those who advance the agenda.

“A reaffirmation of the PCA’s position affirms that homosexuality is sin, requires churches to call a practicing homosexual person to repentance, and denies church office and membership to those who practice homosexuality,” the article stated.

“The overture also charges church leaders to petition local government leaders to deny those who ‘practice, advocate, or condone’ homosexuality the right to become schoolteachers, and to petition local, state, and federal government leaders to ‘cease and desist’ from any legislation that legalizes gay marriage,” the article stated.

The article then quoted Daniel Foreman as a spokesman for the Westminster Presbytery, which sought the same-sex marriage overture. Westminster Presbytery is the regional presbytery for PCA located in Upper East Tennessee and Southwest Virginia and represents 23 churches.

“Because of the rise in seeking to advance the homosexual agenda, our chaplains are under renewed pressure to perform wedding services for same-sex couples, our military chapels are being desecrated with such services being performed, and businesses are being persecuted for not providing consumer services for such activities, etc.” Foreman said.

“Therefore we feel we need as a denomination to reaffirm our position, and to add the emphasis of our opposition … to the concept of same-sex marriages, to give our chaplains and Christian business leaders added support to stand against this behavior for conscience’ sake,” Foreman said.


'Drug-dealer' injured in crash to get millions in compensation from Government

A drug dealer caught with a huge block of cannabis when he was in a serious car crash is in line for a multi-million pound payout.

The Department of Transport had been trying to stop Sean Delaney profiting from the injuries he suffered in the smash.

But yesterday a judge ruled this would have breached EU directives and the 40-year-old father of five should receive compensation despite the ‘public revulsion’.

Delaney was a passenger in a speeding £80,000 Mercedes roadster driven by a fellow drug dealer who overtook on a bend and ploughed into a car carrying a family.

Peter and Lisa Houston and their three children all suffered serious injuries as well but were awarded only £20,000 between them.

In the judgment at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Jay said: ‘Many readers may be wondering how it comes about that a drug dealer is entitled to compensation against Her Majesty’s Government in circumstances where he was injured during the course of a criminal joint enterprise.

‘The understandable reaction might be: There must be some rule of public policy, reflecting public revulsion, which bars such a claim. The short answer is that there is not.’

Delaney, from Bedworth, Warwickshire, suffered fractures, ruptured organs, amnesia and ‘intellectual blunting’ in the November 2006 crash near Nuneaton.

When he and the driver, Shane Pickett, were cut free from the wreckage, a small package of cannabis was found hidden in Pickett’s sock and a block the size of a football in Delaney’s bomber jacket.

Pickett was jailed for ten months for dangerous driving and possessing cannabis. No action was taken against Delaney, probably because of the severity of his injuries.

He demanded compensation from Pickett’s insurers but they invoked an exclusion clause in that Pickett was under the influence of cannabis and driving dangerously.

Delaney’s lawyers sued the Secretary of State for Transport, claiming the exclusion under a clause of the UK Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement was incompatible with the 2009 European Motor Insurance Directive which, in the interests of standardisation, allows no exclusions. The 1999 agreement helps innocent victims of uninsured drivers obtain compensation.

In 2011 the Court of Appeal found against Delaney saying he would, or should, have known the Mercedes was being used for ‘the furtherance of crime’.

But yesterday Mr Justice Jay ruled in his favour, saying the Department’s failure to ensure uniformity between UK law and the EU directives was ‘so serious that ... it must pay compensation to Mr Delaney’.

The court found the illegality involved in the journey itself was merely ‘scene setting’ and not the cause of the accident.

But Delaney’s Tory MP Dan Byles said: ‘I’m sure I speak for the majority of my constituents who would be horrified that a drug dealer is getting extremely large amounts of taxpayers’ money for what is essentially a self-inflicted injury. It seems highly unfair.’

Dominic Raab, the eurosceptic Tory MP for Esher and Walton, said it was absurd ‘criminals can sue the government at huge taxpayers’ expense for harm suffered in the course of committing their crimes’.

He said it added ‘insult to injury that this nonsense is being forced on us by Brussels contrary to all notions of basic democratic accountability’.

The amount of compensation the Department must now pay Delaney will be assessed at a later date, but millions are routinely awarded in cases of such serious injury.

The Houston family, from Exhall, near Bedworth, were hospitalised after the crash with broken bones, collapsed lungs and bruised kidneys. Yesterday Mr Houston said he was surprised by the judgment.

‘If Delaney is getting multi millions then it is quite disappointing when we didn’t get anything near that,’ said the salesman.

‘It seems stupid that the loophole is allowed to exist and the EU law allows him to get that money.’

The family received a new car on top of their compensation, which came from a pot built up by the Motor Insurers Bureau under the uninsured drivers agreement.

When approached at his semi-detached home, Delaney claimed he had not heard about his court victory.

‘All I can say is I’m in shock,’ he said. ‘I haven’t been able to work for eight years because apparently I’ve got a brain injury. I don’t feel like there’s anything wrong but apparently there is.’

A Department for Transport spokesman said: ‘We thought that the directive was drafted in a wide-enough way to allow governments some autonomy. We are considering an appeal.’


C of E vicars face sack for joining the BNP or National Front because far-right parties are 'incompatible' with Christian teaching, say bishops

But being a Communist is just fine, of course.  See here

Clergy who support or join the British National Party or National Front will face disciplinary proceedings under a new resolution passed by the Church of England.

Church of England bishops have backed a declaration stating that the policies, activities and objectives of the two far-right parties are 'incompatible' with Christian teaching on racial equality.

The move means that a complaint of misconduct can be brought under the Clergy Discipline Measure against any cleric who is a member of, promotes or expresses support for the two parties.

The General Synod, or national assembly of the Church of England, will have an opportunity to debate and give formal approval to the declaration when it meets in York next month. If there is no debate, the declaration will automatically come into force at the start of the meeting.

The effective proscribing by the bishops of the two political parties comes after the General Synod gave final approval in 2012 to legislation making it 'unbecoming' or 'inappropriate' conduct for clergy to be members of a political party with policies and activities declared “incompatible” with Church teaching on race equality.

The Church of England bishops were given the power to make a declaration on parties or organisations deemed incompatible with Christian teaching.

Where a political party is deemed to have changed its views, the ban could be lifted by a simple majority vote by the bishops.

The move was first proposed by Vasantha Gnanadoss, a Metropolitan Police civilian worker and General Synod member. She had the backing of the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.

The British National Party, speaking at the time the move was given final approval by the General Synod, accused the Church of England of being 'stuck in the 1970s'.

'We are a modern, forward-thinking and progressive nationalist party,' a spokesman said.  'We are non-discriminatory and we have a constitution to match.'

He added: 'It is high time that was put out there. The Church of England has to keep up to date - they are stuck in the 1970s.'

A BNP spokesman said today: 'This is indicative of the way that the Church of England is being politicised. What is written in the Bible and scripture is clearly of secondary importance to the politically-correct option that these people adhere to.

'Where is it going to end? Are BNP members going to be allowed to be buried any more in churches? Is that where it is going to end? It makes you wonder. It is very sad to see the Church go along with this.'



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: