Category Archives: Stefania Harris

The plot thickens

Yesterday I was pointing out that Stefania Harris seems to be an odd white Catholic woman, lambasting the protestant church, whilst applauding Islam, in any form. She seemed oddly quiet about her views on Catholicism, yet today she made those views clear:

I think there is a good case to be made that shariah law has over the centuries bee[n] a damn sight more humane that Christian law.

What? Clearly she believes that beheading and cutting of a man’s hands so that he can no longer work is humane? Stoning adulterous women also humane? What about slavery? Outlawed in Western/Christian Europe in the 18th Century, continued in the Muslim world up until the end of the 20th (Oman only abolished slavery in 1970!) Slavery is clearly allowed in Sharia law, Mohammed himself kept slaves.

Hardly the kind of response that you’d expect from a good catholic girl right? That the Muslims have had the right idea for the past few centuries! The Christians who came under their yolk certainly would not agree, especially the Byzantines.

Just who is Stefania Harris?

I am really starting to believe that Stefania Harris is a facade. She posts on a range of topics but they all have a similar theme, she hates protestants, Britain, interracial relationships, but loves Muslims and Islam, yet claims to be a white catholic girl from Sicily. I smell a rat.

Since 1534 to turn of the Century, England has been a bastion for religious zealots, extremists, preachers of hate and bigots.

Not a very nice thing to say about her adoptive country, particularly as she’s an Italian, Italy spent the most part of the last century being famous for being a bastion for fascist zealots, extremists, preachers of hate and bigots, and a supporter of Hitler. She was apparently born in Sicily, which of course is famous for only one thing, Cosa Nostra,

She blindly defends all things Islamic and Muslim, bans anything remotely contradictory from her site as anti Islamist, or Islamophobic whilst peddling anti-Semitic rants herself. Her latest Islam is good post is this one: Brown bans Islamic Moderate

Moderate now is he? This is the man who said on BBC’s Newsnight:

“an Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier. I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God’s justice. Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do”

If that is a moderate, what is a hard liner? The mad hatter also claimed that:

…some Japanese expressions squeaked and gibbered by Pokemon may mean “I am a Jew” and “Become a Jew,” but admits the matter is controversial and he isn’t certain.

No shit he isn’t certain, he talking out of his arse, or does he think that the Jews control Japan too?

We don’t need people like him in this country, we have our share of extremists and preachers of hate already, besides with the ‘Italian lawyer Steph’ pushing his propaganda for him it’s like he’s already here spouting his nonsense.

Mixed race relationships thrive in the UK – Contrary to the opinions of some

This post is from Ignatius Sancho – he repeatedly tried to post this information on Steph’s blog but was abused, gagged and then ridiculed.

Firstly I’d like to thank Charlie for giving me this platform from which to rebut the assertions made by Stefania Harris, over at Steph’s Blog. I was drawn to her site as it appeared to discuss a very pertinent subject – is America ready for a black President, or indeed a woman President? However I found the post itself to be impertinent.

Steph veered off on a bizarre tangent about interracial relationships and marriages, my eyebrow was first raised at this remark:

According to a Gallup Poll on interracial dating in June 2005, 71% of respondents approve of black men dating a white woman, which at first seems progressive, but the same survey also suggested that 34% of white American women claimed to have dated a black man. Forget the fact that this survey was only based on the answers of 1,116 respondents, this is obviously untrue – it’s statistically bullshit!

Untrue? Statistical bullshit? I am not sure how she is able to arrive at such a conclusion from that, it seems quite clear to me, according to the survey 34% of white women have dated a black man in the US. Sounds about right.

However she did not stop there, I began to get the impression that Steph did not approve of interracial relationships, and sadly I was later proved correct. She goes on to claim that marriage figures give a more accurate idea of how many white women date black men, quite sweet really, did she think all white women, meet, fall in love and then marry their one and only boyfriend? She continued her bizarre rant:

In England and Wales, only 1% of all married women have inter-ethnic marriages (less than the number of women who describe themselves as Lesbians) and less than 1 in 1000 married white women is married to a black man.

Firstly, black people only account for 2% of the UK population, that means that whatever percentages we are going to be dealing in they are going to be low. About 3.5% of people in the UK are lesbian women. That means that there are more lesbians in the UK than black people, so her silly remark doesn’t actually make any sense, in fact you could call it “statistically bullshit!”

Marriage isn’t the best indicator of interracial relationships, or any relationships for that matter, as fewer and fewer people are getting married in Britain today. Just as the 2001 census shows once again. So looking at the marriages stats isn’t the best way of determining interracial relationships, particularly for black men.

According to the 2001 census (again!), 50% of black men aged 16 or over were unmarried at the time of the census, 50%! Anyone who knows anything about the black community won’t find that surprising, but it clearly shows that one cannot use marriage stats alone when it comes to the relationships of black men.

So how does one find out just how many black men are in mixed race relationships?

There is plenty of evidence of this, one only has to look. If you live in an area that has black people you will have probably noticed it every day whilst riding the bus, shopping in town or out drinking with friends. You are just as likely in the UK today to see a black man with a white woman than with a black woman. I really cannot understand why Steph hasn’t seen it for herself, where does she live? According to recent statistics 50% of black men have a white partner. That’s right, 50%, half, one in two, i.e. for every pair of black men you see, statistically speaking one of them is in a mixed race relationship! It really cannot be any clearer than that. So her statement:

Fact: interracial relationships are extremely rare.

Is clearly absolute rubbish, black men dating white women is pretty much the norm. Either she has purposely twisted the figures or was confused because of the low percentages. Either reason doesn’t look good for a woman of reputed intelligence.

But it was Stefania Harris’ next remark that really surprised me, this sounded more like it came from some kind of BNP propaganda:

The number of mixed race children proves that very few white women conceive to black men.

It does nothing of the sort, in fact it proves categorically that mixed race relationships are thriving. As I said originally before she altered my comment on her website:

That is woefully inaccurate, in many areas of the UK, mixed race children out number black children in schools.

Anyone with half an eye on the 2001 census would know this, why? Well because 2001 was the first year that mixed race got its very own group on the census. It had to, it is now the third largest ethnic group. As this article shows it will be the largest ethnic minority in just a few years:

On current trends, mixed-race babies will soon outnumber those born to black couples in Britain. The last census showed that people of mixed race make up the third-largest minority group behind Indians and Pakistanis. But with half of them aged 16 or younger, they are the fastest growing. In time, people of mixed race will become Britain’s largest ethnic minority.

To see just how fast it is growing one only needs to look at the 2001 census, isn’t that right Steph? Perhaps you missed that page? Although it has been mentioned before in the press:

In some cities the proportions are even higher. Some 11% of schoolchildren in Lewisham, south London, for example, are mixed.

Precisely as I stated in my original comment on her site, which Steph initially scoffed at, then oddly later removed that remark! I was quite offended by her turn of phrase, “few white women conceive to black men”, what a very odd thing to say, almost as if she believes that black men are infertile, or at least less fertile with white women than white men. Clearly though this is not true, probably some old wives tale that she heard from her mother. The fact that this ethnic group is growing so fast means that there is nothing wrong with the black seed and white wombs are proving fertile ground; much to Steph’s chagrin I am sure.

Her parting shot did not surprise me:

I wouldn’t date a black man because I’m not attracted to them – and that’s probably true for most white women – but a lot of white women, as well as white men have a strong negative reaction towards interracial relationships

She didn’t hide her abhorrence very well, but again I found it a very odd thing to say, “and that’s probably true for most white women” but it isn’t is it? As the statistics show.

As for the negative feelings, I can only assume that she is assuming everyone agrees with her, because the prevalence of mixed race relationships clearly shows that most people don’t mind them, well I am not surprised really, afterall she deletes the comments from anyone who disagrees with her and flatly refuses to acknowledge them so of course she believes her opinions are right, she has nothing else to compare them to.

“Make human nature thy study – wherever thou residest – whatever the religion – or the complexion – study their hearts. – Simplicity, kindness, and charity be thy guard – with these even savages will respect you – and God will bless you.” – Ignatius Sancho

Good advice then and now, I hope you take heed Steph. The Blackman is nothing to fear.

Our brotherhood grows

After discovering that I am not the only person on Stefania Harris’ not wanted list, I decided to do a bit of digging to find my comrades. A search for the legendary Gareth proved fruitless, without a second name there were just too many results. Ewan Rose proved a little easier though. A quick Google search on her site found him. For some reason his name linked to the myspace.com main page, assuming that he had a profile there I simply searched for it. Just two results.

It wasn’t till I checked the second one’s profile page that I realised I had found him and what a surprise, he was banned too!

It seems that Steph over at http://stephiblog.wordpress.com/ has banned me from posting on her site. She had the audacity to call me a facist for saying that her free speech should be curtailed, and then removes mine! I really cannot abide hypocrisy.

Classic! There’s loads more, this guy is even more pissed off with her than I am!

She seems to go balistic at anyone who disagrees with her and instantly resorts to name calling (facist, neo nazi, racist, BNP supporter, Islamaphobe, Stupid) when anyone take a position contrary to her own. She stiffles debate and criticism, edits the comments of people that disagree with her (so much for freedom of speech, eh?) and then bans people who aren’t instantly swayed by her constantly posting her opinion or the same inaccurate information.

Spot on, she’s a complete hypocrite. This bit was interesting though.

Finally for anyone who wants to take a look, here is Stefania Harris’ first attempt at a blog:-

http://stephi.blog.co.uk/

As you can see though, there she is a brunette and not a blonde but she’s still a lawyer (even though it is solictor and barrister in the UK – Too many US movies?), she is still of Italian descent, still hates the McCann’s, still an anarchist anti-imperialist etc, still called Steph and still going on about a revolution. One difference though, her brother on that blog is called ‘Bob’ as appose to ‘Rob’ on her new blog. The profile pictures of Rob and Bob are also very similar, a wrestler and a toy wrestler. She even forbides on her comment policy:-

Addressing someone as “Rob”, when their name is actually “Bob”,

I did point out these similarities, but oddly she deleted that comment.

Hmm, coincidence? I think not, it seems that Steph has another blog with another persona! To be honest a better looking one, but there may be a reason for that.

Oh and as a final note, that picture of her (blonde one) is from an Adult Friend Finder site, as is the picture of her friend Amie. Not that I frequent such sites of course! It seems that pop-ups can be informative.

Oh dear! It seems that she has posted a picture of an attractive woman to make herself more appealing, I have managed to track down a photo of the REAL Stefania Harris though and I unmask her here for all to see!

I can see why she didn’t use that one.

I think that I also know why she stopped using that first blog site, this is a comment from someone who called themselves “stefaniaisanasshole“:

Stefania Harris and her goofy stooge of a brother Rob are assholes.

Perhaps she realised then that she needed a blog with more control, where she could ban people for saying things like that.

Well it is great to see that I am not the only person blogging about Steph, better yet it gives me something else to read and have a laugh at!

Steph’s blog – Where Racism meets naivety

I know that readers of this blog probably think that I am a little odd with this obsession over Steph at Steph’s Blog and to be honest I did start to think that maybe it was me and that I was just a little sad. So imagine my surprise tonight when I was reading her latest, quite frankly bizarre, post on racism and interracial relationships and finding lots of information to correct her and point out where she is blatantly wrong, when I noticed another poster disagreeing with her!

So I settled back and watched the weird goings on at Steph’s blog! I admit I was pleased when I saw that someone else had dared to disagree with her and I will post his comment here in picture form as I am sure that by tomorrow that post will have disappeared.

I thought that was great but on Steph’s Blog her word is law, so it was also suicidal. I took a screenshot because I knew that his post wouldn’t be there long.

That picture is his actual post but within an hour it had been altered, that is how it started with me too, unfortunately I didn’t get a screenshot of the first edit, she removed some of the content and branded his post inaccurate!

It was gratifying to know that it wasn’t just me that she did that to other people too! The screenshot of the later edit is below. She then replied, repeating her earlier points and giving a link to the census, all very normal you might think.

Here is a shot of her reply.

It is from this point that things get a little odd. She then decides to rename the person who corrected her, calling him Gareth. She removed the link to the man’s site on Black History, and replaced it with one that linked to Wikipedia. Presumably this was an attempt to make him seem less credible to her other readers? This altered post is again recreated below:

At this point even I was amazed at the lengths she seemed to be going to to make sure that she appeared to be right. Sadly either Ignatius hadn’t had chance to reply or he’d been banned, either way it was the last that Steph was going to have from him. Her final move then was to alter her own comment to belittle him further and of course he had no chance of defending himself.

Whilst I was a little relieved that it wasn’t just me that Steph goes mental at, I actually felt quite sorry for this commenter. He was clearly black and was offended by her post yet she made him look a fool, called him a half-wit and a troll and claimed that his facts were wrong. Here was a post about race, but when a person of race responded, she banned him! I felt obliged to stick up for him, but of course I am banned too!

This little episode aside I was amazed at both the content and tone of this post. Even I, not exactly the most PC of people, was offended by this statement:

I wouldn’t date a black man because I’m not attracted to them – and that’s probably true for most white women

What? How can she make such a sweeping statement and generalisation. She doesn’t find black men attractive, what all black men? Has she met them all? She says that she would never date a black man as they are unattractive, but somehow thinks that it isn’t racist? I could never and would never say the same thing about black women. Obviously some are less attractive than others, as with white women, but there will always be those that I would say were attractive, that is life, everyone is different. Her statement is clearly racist, she must be making the assumption that all black men are unattractive based on the fact that they are black, that Will Smith and Trevor Philips are both equally unattractive as they are both black as she cannot possibly know that she’d never meet a black man that is attractive.

She then goes on to say that most white women also find black men unattractive! As if because it is her opinion and she is a white woman, they must all think alike!

The most bizarre thing of all is that post takes the point that America thinks that it is a tolerant country when really it isn’t, Steph should look in the mirror as American isn’t the only thing that thinks that it is tolerant but clearly is not.

EDIT: Now she is claiming that everyone that has disagreed with her is the same person!

She said:

btw you used the same IP adresses as Charlie, Ewan Rose, Jack, Doug, etc.

I have seen Ewan comment on her site before, not sure who the others are, probably before I started reading it.

My IP address is dynamic so I can’t be using the same one every day, it is highly unlikely that someone else would get my old IP address and then post on Steph’s blog. However I think I know what she is getting at.

Steph, type the address in the resolve IP address at this site:- http://www.webyield.net/domainquery.html

If what comes up doesn’t say CUST at some point then the address that you are receiving is of a Proxy Server. If you still don’t believe me just Google the result.

If that is how she is banning me then she is probably banning anyone with the same ISP as me in Manchester, Nottingham and several other cities that my ISP has proxy servers in! D’oh!

Maddie Suspect Ignored by the PJ

Once again we see that despite that fact that some idiot blogs, such as Steph’s Blog, have hung, drawn and quartered the McCanns, there is still evidence, clear to all but the Portuguese police, that Maddie was snatched.

People like Steph make no mention of Gail Cooper? She saw a man, fitting almost exactly the description given by Tanner, hanging around days before Maddie was snatched.

Mrs Cooper saw the man a third time, two days later on April 22, as she lunched with her husband Jonathan at Bar Habana on the beach. There was a children’s outing there from the Mark Warner Ocean Club at the same time. The man was again alone and standing near the group of youngsters. Mrs Cooper said: “He looked odd and out of place.” When Madeleine arrived at the resort just a week later, the youngster went to the beach three days in a row with the children’s club, including May 3, the day of her disappearance.

That is of course hanging around, as in staking out, watching, something that Steph and her ilk had said was completely impossible, because there was no evidence of it! Mrs Cooper gave her statement on 21st May, yet nothing was ever done about it, even though this could be the third or fourth important link to the same man.

The sad point about this is that it once again it shows the ineptitude of the Portuguese Police, they have had this witness statement since May, yet have not asked for any further information nor released the description, despite the obvious similarities with Tanner’s testimony, in EIGHT MONTHS! In fact the only reason that this description and likeness was released, just like Tanners, was because the McCann’s themselves released it. The Portuguese Police have never been looking for anyone in connection with this crime, other that Murat and of course Kate.

I see this as a vindication of Tanner, somehow I think that Steph and the rest of the nut brigade will see it as further proof of some made conspiracy where everyone is lying to protect the McCann’s. The two witnesses mean that this man was a clear lead, a lead that was never followed and that could have saved little Maddie’s life.

Steph continues her mad campaign

I see that my favourite blogger has been hard at it in my absence, quote:

I’m often asked which candidate I support in the American presidential elections, as a European, I feel that is like being asked, which would I prefer, to be raped vaginally or anally.

Who says that women of the 21st Century aren’t classy, eh? Still there are some good points in that post and I don’t say that very often.

However she has also been spreading her vicious opinions once again regarding the McCann’s. This time though she is turning her attention to Gordon Brown:

Gordon Brown is professionally acquainted with many of the McCanns supporters and financial backers, including Richard Branson, Sir Tom Hunter and Bill Kenwright.

Which is absurd. Of course Gordon Brown is aware of, and has probably met some of Britain’s top entrepreneurs, how else does she think he gets his funding? That doesn’t mean that Richard Branson, Sir Tom Hunter and Bill Kenwright are personal friends of the McCann’s. I certainly don’t think that Richard Branson, Sir Tom Hunter and Bill Kenwright hang out in Leicester much and if they did they certainly wouldn’t be plotting to take over the world and then kill all the children as Steph seems to imply.

She makes it seem as if the McCann’s were let off by the help of some secret society that only doctors and politicians and of course the rich are a part of. The reality is that the Portuguese have nothing to charge them with, they have no evidence. Steph also misses an important point, the McCann’s haven’t been let off or saved by Gordon Brown or anyone else, the Portuguese still haven’t ruled out charging them.

Still any kind of argument is like water of a duck’s back to her, without any real knowledge of the case, or to be frank anything else, she has already tried and convicted the McCann’s.