My views on crime and what we need to do about it

When Mossad operative Dov Shamir kills an al-Quaida terrorist in London, his face is captured on a webcam, turning a routine elimination into a nightmare.

Branded a “rogue operative” and abandoned by his own people, Dov takes refuge in the home of the one man he can count on to help him – a Palestinian intellectual who was his professor and mentor at the School of Oriental and African Studies where he did his PhD. Though Dov and Rahman are divided by politics, Rahman is a man of immense personal loyalty and a staunch opponent of anything that will bring the Palestinian cause into disrepute (as well as being Dov’s former SCUBA diving partner).

But it becomes particularly important to help when Dov reveals the terrorists’ plan to blow up the sunken wreckage of an old World War II munitions ship packed with high explosives. And when the terrorists ambush them, Dov has to form an uneasy alliance with Salima – Rahman’s feisty and distrustful 24-year-old daughter.

Unable to convince the skeptical authorities that the attack on the ship is anything other than a desperate fabrication by Dov, their only hope is a junior police officer. But he has motives of his own. And with the net closing in on the fleeing Israeli operative, Dov and Salima find themselves caught in a race against time to stop the attack before hundreds of innocent people are killed.

I have to confess that I had reservations about Hidden Menace, because on re-reading, it does seem to stereotype Arabs somewhat. I say “stereotype” rather than “demonize” because the book does have some “good” Arabs too – i.e. those who oppose terrorism. But I still can’t escape the feeling that I have created stereotypes and effectively sold my soul to the realms of Hackdom, as it were.

This is not what I am about – normally. I like to think that I possess a modicum of literary sophistication. To this end, I try to avoid stereotypes in my characterization, just as in my use of language I avoid cliches like the plague. On the other hand, controversy sells. Look at good ol’ Jeremy Clarkson raising hell by suggesting that public sector workers who go on strike against unilateral attempts to breach the pension provisions of their contracts should be shot. A silly off-the-cuff comment that is quintessentially Jeremy Clarkson. In other words, the kind of low-brow, man-in-the-pub macho talk upon which Clarkson has built his stag-party reputation.

And guess what? All of a sudden, everyone’s talking about Jeremy Clarkson just when his star was fading. It seems that just as being outrageous can buy the untalented their proverbial 15 minutes, it can also breathe a new lease of life into the talented but erratic.

And while we’re on the subject of talented but erratic, let’s get back to talking about me! My new book may not be a literary masterpiece. As with cars that’s my other book. But it is what I would call an excellent Velvet Underground piece – in other words, a Loo Read.

And as for that cheap shot at publicity…. well here’s my contribution to the debate: Jeremy Clarkson should be shot! Now would somebody kindly report me to the Director of Public Prosecutions – PLEASE!!!!!!


I remember after Michael Jackson was acquitted of child molesting charges, a silly little star-struck English girl who had flown all the way out to America to “support” him, telling a reporter that the verdict proved that the three people who had accused Michael Jackson of abusing them (at different times) were “liars.”  Of course she was talking a load of rubbish, but it gave a powerful insight into the warped mind of the immature, adolescent fan – the type who loves the famous and wants to be famous herself (probably a “modu”).

I remembered wondering at that time if the empty-headed little idol-worshipper would have dropped everything and travelled thousands of miles to support a poor man accused of a crime whom she thought to be innocent.  But then again, perhaps the question was unfair because she wouldn’t even know of such a case.  It was obvious that she didn’t take an active interest in miscarriages of justice, controversial prosecutions or the innocence project.  She was simply a muddle-headed schoolgirl who wanted to support her idol regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty.

I remember also Michael Jackson’s claim that children come to his bedroom and that he “couldn’t stop them.” However, as one news organization pointed out at the time: no one gets to Michael Jackson’s bedroom unless he wants them to.

The reason this all came back just now is because it is these same empty-headed lunatics who were demonstrating outside a Los Angeles  courtroom for a very different reason these last few weeks.  This time it was not to support the accused but to crucify him.  That Michael Jackson’s death was the result of the cumulative effect of his lifestyle, they simply didn’t care.  That Michael Jackson was an accident waiting to happen mattered not.  That Michael Jackson was a man who was not used to hearing the word no – at least not since he escaped the clutches of his violent father – was of no significance to them.  That Conrad Murray had been on Jackson’s medical team for less than a month was ignored by jurors and Jackson fans alike.

As far as these moronic fans were concerned, Michael Jackson could do no wrong.  When he was accused of wrongdoing, his accusers were “liars.”  When he was the victim of his own poor life choices, he was the victim of others.

In the trial itself, the prosecution lawyers made mountains out of molehills – such as the fact that the doctor used an unorthodox method of CPR.  This may have a mistake, but it hardly adds up to negligence.  It was merely used to make him seem like a man who didn’t care – when in fact all it shows is that he was a man who lost his head in a crisis.  That shouldn’t happen to a doctor, but it can.  Worse still, the defence lawyers put up a surprisingly lacklustre defence – almost as if they didn’t want to be tainted by trying too hard to help the man whom the Jackson fans “knew” was guilty – in case it had a knock-on effect on their defence of others in the future.  (This actually happened with Barry Scheck in the Louise Woodwood case after he had successfully co-defended O J Simpson.)

With such a one-sided contest, it is hardly surprising that the baying mob of Jackson fans got what they wanted. La Toya Jackson described the verdict as “wonderful.”  Now La Toya Jackson has had a less than happy life, so perhaps she should not be judged too harshly.  After escaping from Jack Gordon, her abusive husband (who had been hired by her father to manage her career) she claimed that it was Gordon who had forced her to support the accusations of child molesting aimed against brother Michael.  This may be true, but in the course of supporting those accusations, she did raise a legitimate question when she asked whether it was appropriate for an adult male to be taking other people’s children into his bed when he was not related to them or their parents.

Now I am not saying that I am in any way happy about Michael Jackson’s death.  His first hit, Got to be there, remains one of my all-time favourites, as is the deeply moving She’s out of my life.  But there seems to be something rather malicious and stomach-turning about the sight of those fanatics who supported Jackson when he had done wrong, baying for the blood of a man who was only on the periphery of responsibility to Jackson’s untimely death.  It is their double-standards, their sickening idol-worship and their general lack of morality that I find so deeply offensive.


The attempts by a bunch of trendy-left yobs (AKA Palestinian supporters) to disrupt the performance of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra last week was such a pathetic and dismal failure that at first I wasn’t even going to bother blogging about it.  (That my video footage of their pathetic antics was almost as bad as their dire performance of hooliganism, might also have had something to do with it.)  However, after this decent interval, I have decided to say something about it.

First of all, these uncultured Philistines seem to have forgotten that we Jews thrive on enmity.  If it is a pseudo-Golwynism to say “there’s nothing like a civil war to unite the country” then it is a genuine observation about the Jewish character that there’s nothing like an enemy to rouse us from our lethargy.  Indeed there are some who seize upon this fact to suggest that hostile action against us is really the sub-rosa work of our own leaders in order to manipulate us.  Whilst such conspiracy theorists are dwelling in the murky world of their own paranoia, it is certainly the case that enemy action is the best medicine for our internal bickering.  This is as true of the Jewish character as the Anglophonic character.

But what in fact did we learn from the feckless performance of the “let’s boycott Israel” mafia?  Firstly, that a choir of sopranos – some of them women – cannot sing louder than an orchestra.  Secondly, that the louder the heckling of the haters, the more thunderous the final applause of the decent.  But most importantly we learn that the word Philharmonic is not just part of the name of many orchestras, but also has a meaning: love of harmony.  It is a tragedy that those who purport to represent the Palestinians are phobeharmonics (that is, those who fear harmony) or even pathharmonics – those who hate harmony.  Such is the nature of the only portion of  the Palestinian people whom the trendy-lefties represent.

The following day, when the airwaves were alive with discussion not on the Palestinian cause, but on the legitimacy or otherwise of the methods of those trendies, I suggested that it would help the Palestinian cause more if they formed a Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra and performed internationally.  They are a proud people and I have no doubt that within their ranks there is a vast reserve of hitherto untapped musical and artistic talent.  But I fear that they have been diverted up the blind alley of confrontation that has ill-served their cause.  It is not for want of love for music that their progress has been held back: it is the absence of philharmonia – love of harmony – that is the missing ingredient from their leadership.


Learco Chindamo, the murderer of Philip Lawrence has been acquitted of robbery, along with his co-defendants Gregory Jananto and Saeed Akhtar.

The prosecution case was that the three of them surrounded 20-year-old David Sexton when he withdrew money from a cash machine. Prosecutor, Alison Morgan, told the court: “Mr Chindamo came towards Mr Sexton saying words to the effect of, ‘Do you know who I am?’ and ‘Do you remember about the headteacher in Maida Vale?’ The Crown say that this was quite plainly and deliberately a reference to his conviction designed to intimidate and threaten Mr Sexton.”

Sexton testified that Chindamo asked him “Do you know who I am? Do you know what I’ve done?” According to another prosecutor, Oliver Glasgow, when Sexton answered in the negative, Chindamo “asked for compensation for disrespecting him and his friends.” Sexton also testified that co-defendant, Gregory Jananto was armed with a large empty glass bottle which he waved around by the neck and that it was in response to this threat that he handed over money because he feared that if he turned his back he would be assaulted from behind.

The defence claimed that Sexton had “disrespected” Chindamo by calling him a “killer” Chindamo’s testimony was that “a male who had withdrawn money” had shouted “Killer” at him. Chindamo claimed that he “lectured the male on why I was not proud of what I had done.” Jananto backed up this version of events, whilst admitting that he himself had been aggressive.  He also described David Sexton as “cocky.”

Now here the dispute takes a somewhat surreal turn because the defence lawyers further claimed that Mr Sexton then handed over £10 as a “peace offering” of his own free will.  This is preposterous.  The jury found the accused Not Guilty (as opposed to “innocent”) in accordance with the legal rule that a jury must acquit if they think that there is reasonable doubt.  But this does not mean that Sexton freely handed over the money by choice in the absence of substantial fear for his safety.

There are in fact several points that this case raises.

First of all, Chindamo claimed in the trial (and indeed claimed when he successfully applied for release on licence for the Philip Lawrence murder) that he regretted murdering an innocent and courageous man. Given that Chindamo is a killer – indeed a murderer – why should he take offence at being called one? Should he be “lecturing” the person (who made that truthful comment) on what he is or isn’t proud of?  Or should he be showing, by his demeanour, that he is not proud of what he did? Indeed, should he not accept such a truthful comment with the humility that is befitting the repentant murderer that Chindamo claims to be? Would not a genuinely reformed murderer have quietly walked away? The answer is, of course, yes: a genuinely reformed and repentant murderer would have quietly walked away.

Secondly, are we really to believe that David Sexton was bold enough to insult Chindamo in the first place and then became so frightened (without anyone trying to intimidate him) that he voluntarily handed over money that had not been demanded? I can picture a man being bold enough to truthfully call Chindamo a killer – or even a murderer – to his face. I can picture a man being so frightened of Chindamo as to hand over money to him without being threatened. But I cannot imagine these two characteristics in the same man at substantially the same time. And I don’t think anyone can – except perhaps a devious defence lawyer who can talk bullshit with a straight face.

Thirdly, why was Chindamo even associating with Jananto, given that they had both been members of the same criminal gang. Even if it was not a condition of his licence to refrain from such association (and it is amazing that it was not), surely he should have known better?

And finally, if money had been offered in the circumstances that Chindamo claims, would not a citizen who respects the law have refused to accept it? Of course he would. And every honest lawyer knows it.


The corrupt and crooked judges on Britain’s Supreme Court, and the equally corrupt judge’s on Britain’s Deportation Appeals Tribunals, have dishonestly misinterpreted the European Convention’s “right to a family life” for the nefarious purpose of enabling foreign criminals to remain in Britain contra to law.  In one case it was an adult who wanted to live with his mummy.  In another it was a man who wanted to live with his girlfriend.  No honest judge can really believe that the right to a family life implies the right of an adult to live with his parents or his girlfriend.

Some of them are murderers who do not even have the right to life.  And yet these dishonest judges let them stay in this country on a basis of their willfully false interpretation of the “right to a family life.”

There are also others who have the right to live here under the European citizenship law.  For example the vile and evil Learco Chindamo who viciously murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence when the brave Mr Lawrence tried to protect a child from a beating at the hands of cowardly Chindamo’s gang is allowed to live in this country because he is a citizen of Italy.

Chindamo learned violence from his father who is currently in prison for murdering his girlfriend.  Perhaps this explains why Chindamo’s gang also committed rape.  Chindamo claims to regret murdering Philip Lawrence, but we only have his word for that – and I wouldn’t place too much confidence in Chindamo’s word.



For many years I loved YouTube.  As a child of the sixties and a teenager of the seventies I love it as a repositary of nostalgia offering me the sounds of Herman’s Hermits, Manfred Mann, Marmalade, the Hollies, Don McLean, Albert Hammond, Jim Croce, America, Colin Blunstone, Rod Argent and many others.

But lately I have seen another face of YouTube.  It has become nothing less than a conscious and willful hosting site for antisemitism.  This applies both to the primary content and the comments.  YouTube supposedly offers an opportunity to flag these hate messages.  But I have reported them on numerous occasions and not once has YouTube acknowledged my flagging, let alone removed the offensive material on the strength of it.

Thus it is clear to me that YouTube is both a conscious and a willing source of antisemitic material on the internet and it is getting progressively worse.  It is almost as if YouTube is inviting antisemites to post their hate-mongering sewage on their site.  This is ironic when you consider that YouTube is owned by Google, whose motto is: Do no evil.

Perhaps Google’s (and YouTube’s) motto should be: do no evil but stand idly on the sidelines and allow others to do evil while you rake in the profits.  (I suspect I know what the antisemites will say in response to this.  But if they do, then just on this occasion, they would be well-advised to do it anonymously – because my patience is running out.)