Uncategorized

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.

 


1.    Thou shalt create an intelligent hero specializing in some arcane academic subject.

2.    Thou shalt provide thy hero with a helpmate in the form of an attractive and somewhat younger heroine, also intelligent, usually possessed of wisdom in a complimentary field that she may assist thy hero without duplicating his skills.

3.    Thou shalt begin thy story with a violent death, usually of a good person, who may be associated with the hero, but dost not have to be.

4.    Thou shalt include in thy story a secretive organization, usually one that has been around for donkey’s years and has links to history and may also have had famous people as members.

5.    Thy hero shalt progress through a maze of mysteries and puzzles and must solve the immediate step in the puzzle before he be allowed to progress to the next stage in thy story.

6.    Thou shalt put obstacles in the path of thy hero in the form of a strong and dastardly villain that art trying to stop thy hero and foil his efforts.  Thy dastardly villain shall be willing to resort to committing the most heinous of crimes in pursuit of his nefarious agenda.  However, thy dastardly villain shall not act on his own initiative or in his own interests but rather shall he be subservient to shadowy figures in the background of thy story.

7.    The masters of thy dastardly villain shall be a powerful organization (see 4th Commandment) that hath a vested interest in foiling the hero because he doth threaten their interests or the established order.

8.    Thou shalt set thy story in an exotic location, or series of locations, that playeth a major part in thy story or in the historical background to thy story.

9.    Towards the end of thy story, it shall finally dawn upon thy hero (as it surely hath already on most of thy readers) that the hero is being betrayed by one who is close to him (but not the female lead) and that the traitor be associated with the very organization that hath been trying to stop thy hero all along.

10.    Notwithstanding thy hero’s sense of righteous indignation at the betrayal, he shall surely solve the final step in the mystery and successfully overcome the obstacles, without the aid of the Almighty, but with some help from the heroine, with whom he shall end up with in a state of transient connubial bliss (albeit outside the bonds of holy matrimony).

 

Once again, British justice has been perverted by a criminal-friendly judge who has allowed two vicious thugs to escape custodial sentences for viciously beating up an innocent man – despite the fact that the pair of scumbags were obviously unrepentant for their vicious crime. It started when 24-year old Joseph O’Reilly (left) was walking with his girlfriend, sales adviser Lucy Blackledge (22) outside Piccadilly station in the centre of Manchester in January last year. They were heading home when they saw the three hooligans walking towards them aggressively, tipping over rubbish bins and scattering their contents in the road.

Like any decent, civic-minded citizen, Mr O’Reilly challenged their boorish behaviour by asking: “What on Earth are you doing?” But in what has now become an all-too- familiar pattern, the thugs responded by viciously attacking Mr O’Reilly.

First the cowardly, yellow-bellied, lily-livered little Mama’s Boy Thomas Lane (a 24-year-old sign writer from Stockport), feigned punches against Mr O’Reilly that he didn’t have the guts to actually throw. Then the similarly spineless Daniel Chrapkowski (24) – knowing that he had the backing of his mates – punched Mr O’Reilly in the face and then tripped him up in a well-coordinated move. (Although the attack was supposedly spontaneous, the routine was quite well-polished. These little boys knew that they were doing.)

After the thugs had brought their victim to fall to the pavement, they continued with their little-boys-playing-at-being-men routine by viciously punching and kicking Mr O’Reilly in the face and stomach before running off like the namby-pamby little squirts they really are. The thugs also included Oliver O’Neill, 23 of Bramhall, Stockport.

Mr O’Reilly sustained a broken jaw and bleeding to the brain and required a metal plate fitted into his face. He needed 40 hours of hospital treatment and had to go back into hospital several months after the attack after collapsing. Although only 24, his life has been ruined by these young thugs – who were presumably brought up by the scum of the earth. Mr O’Reilly still suffers severe dizzy spells and numbness in his mouth and can chew food on only one side of his mouth.

The experience has also affected him psychologically as he now worries about going out alone from his home in east Manchester.

But the worst was yet to come because when the crime came to court, the threesome – aided by smooth talking lawyers and the connivance of a criminal-friendly judge – were able to pervert justice by getting away with excessively lenient sentences.

Firstly the spineless Thomas Lane claimed that that he had made no physical contact with the victim. He disingenuously described his aggressive feigning of punches towards his wholly innocent victim – the event that triggered the violence – as “shadow boxing” and was allowed to plead guilty to affray rather than Grievous Bodily Harm. His lawyer, Paul Hodgkinson, said: “He accepts he had been out drinking and engaging in tomfoolery, but that mischief doesn’t cross the custody threshold.”

Now there’s a dishonest statement if ever there was one. It was not “tomfoolery” or “mischief” that Lane was engaged in, but thuggery. And his lawyer well-knows it. This is an example of the way in which lawyers use language in a conscious effort to cheat justice.

The unemployed (and unemployable?) Daniel Chrapkowski admitted causing grievous bodily harm but his lawyer Katie Jones, falsely claimed that “He is extremely remorseful and wishes to apologise to the court. It is extremely out of character.” We saw just how remorseful he was just a few minutes later when this picture was taken outside the court building.

At Manchester Crown Court, Judge Martin Steiger QC, who decided earlier in the week to pass non-custodial sentences on Chrapkowski and Lane, instead gave Chrapkowski a 12-month suspended sentence.  He also ordered that he be electronically tagged for two months and complete 160 hours unpaid “community service” – which as we all know is a joke that basically means sitting around for two hours reading the newspaper.

The spineless, sissy-boy Thomas Lane was given a 12 month community order, ordered to pay £250 costs and do 120 hours community service. He also has to comply with a curfew.

23-year old Oliver O’Neill, who was on bail for another attack at the time, was jailed for 27 months after pleading guilty to two other grievous bodily harm charges.

But that’s not the end of the matter, because the two who did not get the custodial sentences that they deserved demonstrated their dishonesty, arrogance and contempt for the law outside the court as these pictures show.

The question is, did their lawyers really think their clients were remorseful. The law holds that lawyers represent their clients and act on their client’s instructions. But would such stupid people as Thomas Lane and Daniel Chrapkowski have had the brains to pretend they were remorseful in court, if some one had not put the idea in their heads? Clearly their behaviour outside the court suggest that they were not clever enough to have thought of it by themselves. So some one must have told them to pretend that they were remorseful to get lower sentences.

I wonder who.