racism

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.

 

 

The prices of the Kindle editions of Mercy and No Way Out have been reduced to £0.99 – making them some of the most attractive bargains for summer reading. You can get to them by clicking on the links above. But they will only be held at this price for one month. In September they will go up to £1.99 – still a bargain, but why wait?

Just a brief recap on what they are about. Mercy introduces the lawyer Alex Sedaka, and his faithful sidekick Juanita, in a race against time to save a client on Death Row who is due to be executed in fifteen hours time! No Way Out has Alex pulling all the stops to defend a black man on a rape charge in a racially sensitive case in which nothing is quite as it seems.

 


 

Naomi Campbell has taken offence at an advertisement for a chocolate bar (called Bliss) featuring the words “”Move over Naomi – there is a new diva in town.” She has apparently decided the following:

  1. She really is the only Diva in (any) town, therefore the reference is to her and not any other Naomi
  2. That she is therefore being compared to a chocolate bar, and therefore
  3. That the ad is racist.

Now Ms Campbell had a similar problem in 2002 when she objected to being described as a “chocolate soldier” (i.e. some one who collapses under pressure).  This may in fact have been an inaccurate characterization of Ms Campbell.  A number of  cases have shown that she is more likely to lash out under pressure than collapse.  However, the inaccurate nature of the characterization, hardly made it racist.

Now, there are signs that Cadbury has sailed close to the wind on the use of racial stereotypes, if one looks at their past record of advertisements. Although in fairness to them, their usage has been humorous, to the point of parody.  But in any case, it is hard to feel any sympathy for Ms Campbell.  For she acts like a Prima Donna.  But she doesn’t have a monopoly on such behaviour and her actions hardly make her a role model – any more than Cheryl Cole’s violent episode in a nightclub made her a role model.  (She was Cheryl Tweedy in those days – and her antics were heralded by the brilliant tabloid headline “Girl’s a Lout.”)

It’s a thin line between “Diva and “Ladette” Naomi – even if one is from St Reatham.