Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Another charming multiculturalist
PENNYSYLVANIA man Rick ‘Ricky’ Webster is just 26-years-old, but he is set to serve his second prison sentence for having unprotected sex with women without telling them he is HIV positive.
Webster was slapped with a 33 to 66 month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to nine counts of reckless endangerment, related to not disclosing his HIV status to three female sexual partners.
Senior Judge Leonard N. Zito described Webster’s actions as ranking “among the most cowardly of human acts”, the Morning Call reported.
“This was not only disrespectful but it borders on the most heinous and deplorable acts,” he said.
“What he did, what Ricky Webster did, was to steal the lives of these young girls.”
Webster, who was born with HIV, showed remorse in court and his father asked the judge to take his obstacles in life into account, but Judge Zito refused to give him any sympathy.
“I get the feeling everyone is out to make him the victim. He’s not the victim,” Judge Zito said, the Le High Valley Live reported.
None of the three women have tested positive for HIV, but the testing period has not expired yet.
Assistant District Attorney Anthony Casola said the emotional trauma would be difficult to overcome even if there was no infection.
“I know that they’re going to be concerned about this for the rest of their lives,” Casola said.
In court, Webster admitted to cheating on his pregnant girlfriend when he slept with his female co-workers.
Webster was previously sentenced to four years in prison in 2010 for having unprotected sex with two women in New Jersey, including a 15-year-old girl.
Children brought up by both parents far less likely to suffer mental ill-health
Britain's Draconian feminist-inspired divorce laws have greatly discouraged marriage, thus depriving children of the best environment for them
Children brought up by single parents and in step families are three times as likely to suffer from mental health problems, a major study has found.
Research on more than 10,000 children found that those brought up by both natural parents are far less likely to suffer severe emotional and behavioural problems.
The major study by University College London shows large differences in the well-being of children, depending on their upbringing.
Experts said the findings added to “a mountain of evidence” about the damage caused by family breakdown, with children left stressed by marital breakdowns, or falling into poverty which could increase their risk of psychiatric distress.
The Millennium Cohort Study examined the mental health of 10,448 11-year-olds living in the UK. Overall, 6.6 per cent of children living with both natural parents were found to have severe mental health problems, compared with 15 per cent of those living with single parents, and 18.1 per cent of those living in step-families.
Those brought up by single parents and in step-families were particularly likely to suffer from conduct and hyperactivity problems, the mass study found. Almost one in five children brought up in step-families were rated as suffering some form of conduct problem, such as tantrums and fights. The figure of 19.5 per cent compared with a figure of 7.1 per cent among those brought up by both natural parents and 17.4 per cent among those brought up by a lone parent.
Higher levels of mental health problems were found among boys, who were more likely than girls to suffer from conduct problems, hyperactivity and inattention.
Racial differences were also found. White boys were the most likely to suffer from hyperactivity and conduct problems while mixed race girls were the most likely to suffer from any type of severe mental health problem.
Children brought up in low income households were also more likely to suffer mental health problems, with a four-fold difference between the wealthiest and poorest households.
Andy Bell, chief executive of the Centre for Mental Health said: “It is not known from the information available to us why children living with both their parents are less likely to have mental health problems at age 11, but there are likely to be a range of reasons.
“We know that incomes are an important factor and children from the poorest families are four times as likely to have mental health problems as those from the wealthiest households. “Stress and distress among parents may also be an important factor putting children at risk.”
Norman Wells, from the Family Education trust, said: “This study adds to a mountain of evidence that family stability matters and that family breakdown can have a damaging effect on the mental health of children.
"The fact that a growing number of children lack the advantages of being raised by both their natural parents in a stable family unit is not something we can afford to be complacent about.”
Children who are bullied at school grow into adults with an increased risk of anxiety disorders, depression and suicidal thoughts, the findings show
Calling on the Government to do more to promote and encourage marriage, he said the rise in births outside marriage in recent years was having a damaging impact on children.
"In an age that places great emphasis on personal fulfilment at all costs, this study is a salutary reminder that the personal choices we make can have a lasting impact on others, and especially on our children,” he said.
Carey Oppenheim, Early Intervention Foundation chief executive, said families needed help earlier if children were struggling.
“Every child deserves the best opportunity to realise their full potential and we know that those with well-developed social and emotional skills have a better chance of being happy and healthy adults. That is why it is so important to tackle the inequalities that exist in these vital skills between children from different backgrounds,” she said.
Fewer British women are seeking divorce as men behave less badly: Number of wives seeking split drops by half since the mid 1980s
I doubt that male behaviour has changed much. Draconian divorce laws mean that they marry less frequently, however. So they will mostly be very confident of the relationship when they do marry and slower to end it
Women are less likely to seek a divorce in the first five years of marriage today than they were 30 years ago because their husbands have a more realistic expectation of marriage, according to a pro-marriage researcher.
According to the analysis, fewer women are asking for a divorce early in their marriage because men are walking down the aisle with their eyes wide open.
Sir Paul Coleridge, founder of the Marriage Foundation, commissioned the data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which distinguishes between divorces instigated by husbands and wives.
'The scale of the decrease in women filing for divorce suggests that 'men doing better' must be a significant factor,' Sir Coleridge told The Sunday Times.
While 7.9 per cent of women initiated divorce proceedings within five years after marrying in 1986, the figure dropped to 4.2 per cent in 2013.
The proportion of men seeking to part in the same period also dropped from 3 per cent of those who wed in 1993 to 2.2% for those married in 2008 and seeking a divorce by 2013.
Dismissing reasons such as a change in work-life patterns, and the later stage at which women now get married, Marriage Foundation researcher Henry Benson says the change is because men get married these days because they want to, not because they 'have' to because of social pressure.
'In the 1990s, a man was under social pressure from his family or friends. 'Do the right thing,' they say. 'Make an honest woman of her. Tie the knot.' So he enters marriage under a certain amount of duress, without ever fully buying into it,' Benson said in The Sunday Times article.
'So as long as things are good, he is broadly content with his new arrangement, but over time, and perhaps with the arrival of a baby, inevitable little conflicts emerge.
'Instead of dealing with them responsibly, he feels less constrained in the way he behaves because he never really bought into a long-term plan. She becomes aware of his indifference and pulls the plug,' he said.
Other experts attribute the uptick of divorces in the 1980s as women no longer accepted their role as sole child carer and pushed back against old stereotypes.
They argue that some men have caught up with expectations of equal division of domestic labour, which causes less conflict
War on Christians? This Doctor Spoke Out About Homosexuality. Guess what happened next...
The War on Christians continues: Boston urologist Paul Church should have just stuck to telling co-workers that smoking is unhealthy.
But making similar arguments about the gay lifestyle to his Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) colleagues ultimately got him expelled from the hospital’s staff after 28 years of apparently impeccable service.
The BIDMC board of directors has quietly upheld Church’s expulsion for expressing “offensive” views when he again objected to the hospital’s gay pride events. That edict was the capstone of Church’s 11-year battle with Harvard Medical School-affiliated hospital over its glorification of all things homosexual.
Homosexual activists used to advocate for equality, to be treated like everyone else. Now, predictably, they're asking for preferential treatment. As a result, those who disagree with their lifestyle are losing their freedom of speech.
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.