Uncategorized

A pregnant Italian woman who suffered a panic attack when she forgot to take her medication for Bipolar Disorder was forcibly (actually unconsciously) subjected to a “compulsory caesarean section on the decision of the High Court under an ex-parte order obtained by social workers. (Ex-parte means that the other party didn’t get notice, wasn’t consulted and had no opportunity to challenge the decision.) This MIGHT be justified in itself if it was to address an immediate crisis. But the Essex authorities went on to refuse to return the child and have now put it up for adoption. This goes far beyond addressing the immediate crisis and raises questions about both the honesty and integrity of the Essex Social Services and the commitment of the British courts to law.

The claim made by the social services, was that she might suffer a relapse. A judge in Chelmsford Crown Court accepted this argument and ruled that the child should be put up for adoption in the UK. Now you would think that a judge would know the law. But this ignorant judge did not seem to realize that as the mother was normally resident in Italy, the matter of custody of the child falls within the jurisdiction of the Italian courts not the British ones.

The woman, who incidentally has two other children in Italy, has never been allowed to see the child, who is now 15 months old.

The question is why was this blatantly illegal action taken by the Essex Social Services and backed up by a judge who one presumes must have known better. Could it be that Essex is short of babies for adoption and is looking for short-cuts to find more? Even if it involves fabricating bogus pretexts and breaking the law? It reminds me of a book I wrote a few years back about a baby racket conspiracy between social services and a devious paediatrician: How I cleared my mother of a murder charge when I was eleven (The Ethan and Lexie adventures)


 

Who can play the lead? is a new series of books and screenplays in which the reader is invited to make suggestions as to who should play the leading roles.

Over in a Flash (Who can play the lead?), the first in this series, is a romantic comedy about an emotionally-repressed aviation engineer who steals an advanced fighter to jet to get back to his ex.

Readers are invited to make suggestions for who should play the roles ofConrad and Alison. Also welcome are suggestions as to who should direct the film.  Please write an Amazon review and put the suggestions in that review.

 


 

It is becoming an almost daily story: scum of the earth viciously assault innocent person, scum of the earth caught, scum of the earth brought before judge and found guilty, scum of the earth told they are very naughty boys (or girls) or have done a terrible thing and then sentenced to suspended sentences or community service and turned out onto the streets.

Time and time again it happens and time and time again we wonder if the judge speaks the English language.
“You did something very wicked and instead of punishing you I am going to spout a load of hot air and then let you go. This is how our criminal-friendly judges behave. And Judge Shani Barnes is no exception.

In this case the scum of the earth are: Kieran Hawker (18)  Robert Elsey (19), Aaron Henery (18), Dean Riley (19), Anthony Patton (27) and two seventeen-year-olds who cannot be named because the law protects criminals who are younger than 18. These namby-pamby little mama’s boys – who haven’t got a testicle or a brain cell between them – conducted a vicious assault on three innocent people without any legitimate reason. For the full story see here.

But scum doesn’t grow in a vacuum.  Where are the people who brought them up? The people who were supposed to teach them right from wrong?  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would have to conclude that those who brought them up are scum too.

There is really only one cure for people like this – a taste of their own medicine!

 

 

A twenty-year-old-woman, Naomi Oni, had acid thrown in her face by a woman who turned out to be a former friend of hers.

Naomi Oni was walking to her home in Daggenham from Victoria’s Secret in Westfield Stratford, where she works. At 12:40am when she was five minutes from her home and talking to her boyfriend on the phone, she heard some one behind her. She turned round to see a woman who then threw acid in her face, blinding her in one eye and causing severe visual impairment in the other.

It later transpired that the woman who carried out the attack had once been her friend.

 

Once again another criminally-friendly British judge has demonstrated her readiness to pervert justice in order to spare a vicious thug the prison sentence that any honest judge would know that she deserved, because she felt sorry for the thug’s children. She also let off the slag’s “partner” and cousin – who were also guilty – despite the fact that there were no legitimate grounds for her to do so.

The slag in question is 26-year-old Amanda Lowe.

The incident, that occurred at 8:15 pm on May 21st of this year, began when the slag Amanda Lowe shouted verbal abuse at Khuram Nisar calling him a “fucking Paki” and “terrorist” when he was minding his own business in Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester’s city centre. Mr Nisar responded by telling 26-year-old Wesley Earls (i.e. the partner of the slag) to control the rude aggressive woman.

At that point, Earls and Lowe (who have had a baby together but haven’t bothered to get married) viciously assaulted Khuram Nisar, assisted by Lowe’s cousin Daniel Wray (a twenty one year old little boy who feels safe pretending to be a man when he has the backing of another man and a woman! ) Earls punched Mr Nisar to the ground while Wray punched him in the head. Rowe kicked him viciously in the head, leaving the innocent man with cuts and bruises both to his body and his head.

The slag Lowe (who was pregnant at the time) even showed her total lack of responsibility for her children, aged eight and four months, by leaving them unattended in order to participate in the attack. This also showed her brazen disregard for the safety and health of her unborn child.

After the attack, the slag was so excited by her racist crime that she re-enacted the vicious kick for passes-by while wheeling along the four month old that she had previously left unattended while participating in the vicious assault. All three of the scum were arrested 20 minutes in Oldham Street nearby.

At the trial – faced with overwhelming CCTV evidence – Lowe pled guilty to Racially Aggravated Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm, whilst Earls, and Wray pled guilty to plain Actual Bodily Harm. Needless to say, they all had form – and plenty of it. Between them the three scum bags had 21 previous convictions – that is, actual offences for which they have been convicted. (NB It is unusual for habitual criminals to be caught and convicted of all the offences that they commit.)

In the case of Amanda Lowe, this is her fourth conviction in six years. She has convictions for assault and disorderly behaviour going to when she was 17.  And it should come as no surprise that she committed such a vicious crime given that she has failed to comply with previous community orders. This in itself should have been enough for the slag to get a custodial sentence.

But what did judge – Lindsey Kushner QC – do?

Well before I answer that, let’s look at what did she said?

First she said that “It is fantastic to have this CCTV footage. It is good to see the events as they happened because they are horrifying when you see them.” So there was no doubt about what they did and what the judge knew.

Then she said to Lowe, “Your record is terrible for violence given that you are 26 years of age. The damage you are doing to your children – there at the time and seeing you drunk, the risk you put them at – is disgraceful.”

So much for the effect on the dirty little slag’s own children. But what about the effect on the victim of the violence. The ever-so -perspicacious judge noted that “People have been killed and maimed through being kicked in the head.”

So did she sentence the slag to a custodial sentence?

Er… no. Instead she gave Lowe a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered her to attend a programme for women offenders. She explained that she was not sending Lowe to prison because of the effect this would have on her children. In other words Lowe was getting a get-out-of-jail-free card because she had children – even though she was (and is) endangering her children and is clearly unfit to be a mother.

However the judge’s lenience also extended to the two men who were also given 12-month suspended sentences together with a community order each.

But the fearsome judge warned the three scum-bags that this was their last chance and if they re-offended they would go to prison.

To prison?

I doubt it. Especially if they come before another judge like Lindsey Kushner QC.

To read more and to see CCTV footage of the attack click here.

 

 

We’ve seen it all before: the brainless little savage who lives by the law of the jungle, the street-talk (woh-ever), the swaggering bullying attitude, the animal territorialism, the violence… and an innocent person ends up dead. But this time the savage was a girl.

That’s how the innocent Julie Sheriff was murdered by the savage Rebecca Douglas. In a parallel to the murder of Damilola Taylor case, Julie’s family had come to England, full of hope and enthusiasm only to see their loved one viciously murdered by our home-grown the scum of the earth.

The trouble is that the people who commit these crimes get off with very light sentences. In this case, for example, although she has been sentenced to detention at “her majesty’s pleasure”, the recommended tariff for the little savage is only ten years!

No wonder one case is followed by another… and another…

and another.

 

PC Simon Harwood is a thuggish police officer who assaulted Ian Tomlinson, thereby causing Tomlinson’s death. He was acquitted of manslaughter by a majority jury verdict in a shameful miscarriage of justice.

Furthermore Harwood perjured himself when he dishonestly testified that Tomlinson had encroached upon a police line and committed a breach of the peace. Harwood also perjured himself at his trial when he testified falsely that Tomlinson had been obstructive.

Having said all this, it must be added that other police officers contributed significantly to Tomlinson’s death by preventing third-year medical student Lucy Apps from giving him first aid. The police who did that had no lawful grounds to do so. The police officer who did that denied Tomlinson timely first aid was therefore also guilty of manslaughter.

If any of the police officers described in this article feel aggrieved, let them sue me.

 

 

The launching of Mercy in America has been a huge success with some 20,000 copies downloaded in six weeks.

It’s also been getting some good reviews – along with some bad ones. One person gave it one star whilst admitting that he hadn’t read it. Another gave it a five star review before she had finished it. But that is different. She at least was in the process of reading it. The other one was antagonized by the fact that he thought the preceding seven reviews were fake. One wonders what he made of the five five-star reviews that followed in short order, several from verified purchases?

But that’s a burden we writer’s have to bear.

Anyway, it seems to have made a bit of an impact and quite a few readers have bought the second Alex Sedaka book No Way Out.

Now I’m hard at work on the third in the series.

 
Cover B

 

The Kindle edition of Mercy is now available in the USA. And for two days – Wednesday 29th February and Thursday the 1st of March – it is available absolutely FREE!!!!

So click on the link and get it while you can and review it and tell all your friends what you think about it!

Oh, and while you’re here, let me know which of these two covers is better.

Thanks,

David Kessler

 

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!  Amanda Knox is to tell her story in a book to be published by HarperCollins!

But not everyone is happy.  For instance, Nick Ferrari said on the radio a few days ago that he had not the slightest desire to read it.  Now I am a great fan of “Old Nick” and agree with him on many issues.  But I can’t help thinking that on this occasion he is wrong.  Whilst I am deeply reluctant to put money into Amanda Knox’s pocket, I for one am very anxious to hear her side of the story and discover what she has to say.  And I will be hanging on to her every word.

With the aid of a competent ghostwriter, Miss Knox will finally be able to tell us which of her of her several conflicting versions of events is actually true.  Was it the one where she said that she and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, happened to be at Sollecito’s flat on the whole night when her “friend” Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered – an event so traumatic that it sent Miss Knox into cartwheels?  Or was it her story that she was at home, but in the kitchen and that she put her hands over her eyes to block out Meredith’s screaming? (Her current story is that it was the former – but will she stick to it for the book?)

She might also tell us why she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, an innocent man.  Her story so far is that she was forced to do so by the Italian police.  But is that true?  Did the Italian police have any reason for wanting to frame Lumumba? Did they have some grievance against him? Is there any evidence that they harboured any animosity towards him? Was there any history of any conflict between him and the police of such magnitude that they would want to frame him for murder? Or did they simply select him at random and not bother to check if he had an alibi? Indeed did the Italian police really force Amanda Knox to say anything false? Or was this just another lie on the part of Amanda Knox to explain away the fact that she made a false accusation against an innocent man? And if her explanation for why she lied does not stand up to scrutiny, then what was her real reason for lying? Lies are usually self-serving. But how could she benefit from falsely accusing an innocent man?

That is, however, the least of her ghostwriter’s worries. They already have their work cut out. They will probably have to tone down the number of times the words I and me are used. It may be Amanda Knox’s story but the publishers won’t want to over-emphasize her self-obsessed, narcissistic perception of herself as some kind of latterday Joan of Arc.

Knox’s boyfriend and fellow acquitted former accused, Raffaele Sollecito, is also apparently writing a book about the case – or having one written with his name attached. But Meredith Kercher herself  is no longer with us.  Her voice has been silenced forever by the scum of the earth – which gives Knox and Sollecito carte blanche to say what they like without fear of contradiction.

And this lies at the heart of the matter, because Meredith Kercher’s story will tragically – and unjustly – never see the light of day.  And hers is the book that all decent people would truly want to read. But that would take a real ghostwriter.