The death of Mariam Moustafa - when Murder is afray

A young teenage woman, is followed by a gang of other women onto a bus. There’s a video showing that for a short period a young man kept the gang of girls away from her. Or so it seems. The video clip is short and would of surely come from one of the gang. The single young lady picked on is of Eygptian descent, the girls who attacked her were said to number between 6 and 10. They hit her many times. As her father indicated in an interview she had bruises all over her body. The gang of other teenage girls were all black. Six of them were taken to court, the names of three were released, but the others were kept confidential.

This young woman was Mariam Moustafa, 18, was attacked on February 20^th, she went to hospital after the attack, where she was discharged. Then was taken again having been found in a coma. On March 14^th she died of a brain embolism. 

Here is a case of the justice system getting it completely wrong. So wrong as to make it look like a laughing stock. It doesn’t matter it took four weeks for Mariam to die after her attack, the result whether delayed or instant was the same. But just imagine, if Mariam had died on that bus, after the assault what the headlines would of been like. There certainly would of been no delay in arresting the gang and keeping them rightfully locked up. 

Perhaps though because Mariam didn't die instantly this has been treated differently. Which is wrong, the assault on Mariam led to her death, this is fact.  Therefore the salient question is why is it no one has been charged with murder?  Everyone of those girls should be charged by joint enterprise as participants to this cowardly gang bullying and murder. 

Poor Mariam had met some of this group before, they had bullied her and they were intent on harming Mariam. The reason is irrelevant for there is nothing this single young lady on her own could have done to protect herself. Nothing she could of done to provoke this, she was effectively a young woman who faced racism, a hate crime and paid with her life.  Mariam ran onto that bus In Parliament Square, Nottingham. To get away from the gang, she wanted to avoid confrontation. She’d even texted her mother and sister not to meet her as she didn’t want them to get involved or hurt. Seeing the momentary video clip of Marian boils up anger when viewed as this was a vulnerable girl being harassed by a gang of cowards. Girls who should not be allowed a day of liberty, girls who should be paying for their crime properly.

This young lady had her life in front of her, she wanted to be an engineering student, she was loved by her family so much. Her father Mohamed Moustafa is rightly angry at the British justice system, and so to is Eygpt as the story took off like a bomb shell in their press. Mr Moustafa was not kept up to date with the hearing schedule for the accused girls, the courts had kept him in the dark. He had no chance to stare them in the face.

The identified culprits are Mariah Fraser, 19, Britania Hunter, 18, and a 16-year-old girl, admitted their part in the attack before Judge Gregory Dickinson QC on April 16. Three other teenage girls, two aged 17 and one aged 18 admitted affray at Nottingham Youth Court last year.

There should be a consequence to a crime and the consequence should equal the severity of the crime in law. I put it, if all the six girls were on charge for this crime and murder by joint enterprise, they'd crack. Under the pressure of TV, press and pointing the finger of blame at each other. The truth would come out, their vile and disgusting behaviour aired for all to hear. Then justice would be served. So the Crown Prosecution Service have got it wrong. They have not thought this through. Therefore the question is why are they all not on murder charges?

Murderers Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson and Marc Tulloch

I have just read an article about the teenage murderers: Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson, 14 and Marc Tulloch, 17. In yet an another incidence of moronic behaviour they killed a boy who was playing football. The victim was Junior Nkwelle, 15.  Cherelle apparently did not like the way Junior had spoken to her, she felt aggrieved, so aggrieved in fact she decided Junior had to pay for his behaviour. For some reason Cherelle believed she was special and if insulted by another teenager they should pay for it. Junior paid for it when Marc Tulloch stabbed him in the chest to appease his girl friend Cherelle. It is another act of mindless violence and mindless disregard for life.  No doubt both Cherelle and Marc had no consideration for consequences. This seems to be a common thing with teenagers. Junior was not considered as a human being, he was not considered to be the son, nephew or brother of another person. He was not thought of for the good deeds he had done during his life which Cherelle and Marc were not aware of.  He was evaluated by a judge and jury of only two people, two teenage kids full of ignorance and self worth.  Remarkably these two murderers were not sentenced to murder but rather man slaughter, when this vengeful act was actually premeditated. Cherelle set the whole thing up. In view of this their sentences would seem pretty light Cherelle got 8 years and Marc 10 years. However, they will only serve half this time.

There may have been a degree of verbal provocation, but verbal provocation is something every person must live with during their entire life. It happens every day. Normal people learn if they are provoked to use many different strategies. Walking away, verbal argument, physical violence which is non fatal, verbal reasoning, humour and laughter. The list of coping strategies is endless, it is as imaginative as a human being can be. Whilst the solution from Cherelle and Marc was probably the least imaginative of all.

I am always saddened whenever I read the news about teenagers who are murdered or who are killers and take no responsibility or thought about what they have done. I am saddened to yet again read of this happening in London. On a housing estate (Loughborough Estate) in Lambeth South London. It is an area which suffers from poverty, it has both gangs and drugs issues. It is in fact a common factor of many housing estates in London.  With poverty there is ignorance as well.  It is poor kids killing poor kids, because I never hear of rich kids killing rich kids in the same way. 

Poor late Junior had his life ahead of him, he could of expected to live another 60 or 70 years, had a girlfriend and got married and had a family. Junior and his parents will never see what his sons or daughters would of been like. How he could of enriched this planet. In the meantime Cherelle and Marc will likely serve a total of 9 years and then be let free.  It seems in such instances life is cheap. Both sentences should of been double. Maybe they will come out of prison having learnt something, but at that time they will still both be pretty young, well at least they have time to think about consequences. If that is they do.

America and guns, God Bless the right to murder

The American constitution (second amendment) gives citizens of this great country to right to bare arms. On examining this constitution I can see it has a moral and social equality and how it unifies the people. It is something American's consider with pride and is like apple pie, a very important part of their identity. Beyond words. But the constitution is old, it is out of date. It reflects a time and place when having a fire arm was necessary to survival. So today, it is quiet obviously a redundant feature. You don't need a gun to protect yourself, but you do need a gun to kill. So in this notion of freedom Americans now have a right to not just possess a weapon but for any American to possess a weapon and for them in turn to take the life of another.

Connecticut, Newtown, Sandy Hook Elementary School. A twenty year old young man (Adam Lanza).,disaffected with life, possibly having a mental illness and most certainly emotional instability kills 20 children and 6 teachers. After which he sets the gun on  himself and kills himself. He had the right to bare arms, he had the right to protect himself, he did not have the right to kill innocent young children. Children whose parents had probably already bought them Christmas presents. Presents which will now lay unopened for eternity. Children who no longer have the right to life because it has been taken away from them. They will in turn not have their own children, not know what it is like to have their first boyfriend or girlfriend. Now their mothers and fathers will mourn them and wonder if America is such a great country after all. However, if by some chance their parents don't the rest of the world certainly do. It doesn't take much reason to understand, the unavailability of firearms therefore makes it more difficult to quickly kill another individual. If someone is intent on murder there is nothing to stop them. Yet, if they are murderous emotionally unable to control their own feelings or understand them then a firearm gives them the ability to quickly kill and not to consider the consequences of their actions while they are happening.

God bless America, the right to bare arms and the right to kill indiscriminately when an unhinged mind is behind the firearm. The world looks on you and knows, something is wrong, very wrong. The world can see this time and time again. Columbine High School in Littleton America also comes to mind.  In the UK such a right does not exist. The number of firearms used in killings is far less per capita. We do have firearms but they simply are not readily available. There are not gun shops scattered all over the place and there is very strict licensing. We don't have it right, but it is better. To this extent we value life. Whereas the right to bare arms removes the right of life.

America get it right, do something. The gun lobby isn't the only lobby, a school in Newtown Connecticut has a viewpoint worthy to challenge any. Sadly though, it will all happen again, because nothing will change.

PC Harwood -Guilty as...

PC Harwood has been found not guilty of manslaughter, even though he is responsible for the death of an innocient bystander Ian Tomlinson on 01st April 2009.  Harwood attacked Tomlinson while Tomlinson was strolling away with hands in his pockets.  Harwood is known to have had 10 raised incidents during his carreer when he showed excessive violence.  Yet he still walks away clear.  I can't see how such a verdict has happened.  He must be guilty of something, his actions led to the death of Tomlinson.  Could this be another case of the judicial system protecting its own even when it knows its own are rotten?   When someone is attacked from behind, and they have not shown any form of aggression or provocation how can the assailant be allowed to walk away free?  To what extent can British justice ever redeem itself after such an event?  In a barrel of apples all it takes is one bad one and the rest turn.  This man should not be allowed to ever work in any law enforcing role, or one of authority.  The disbelief pushes me to the point of speechlessness.  Especially in considering had Harwood's actions been taken by another citizen who was not wearing a Police uniform then would the outcome of been the same?  Hell no.  Not in a hundred years.

This now leaves it up to the family of Tomlinson to decide whether to take Harwood through the civil court process.  Even to use the phrase of Health and Safety, because under such law Harwood again becomes personally liable for what he did.  In full reality this is what he should be accepting, full personal responsibility.  Instead listening to the news a character sketch is drawn of Harwood, he is a man who tends to see red.  Who has an aggressive streak and can not help himself.  Yet because someone can not help themselves it doesn't mean they be allowed to walk away from their actions with no punitive justice.  In this high profile case there indeed has been none.

A fund should be started up by the relatives of Tomlinson.  A war chest to which the public can donate monies so further legal action and prosecution can take place.  This has now become an event of the people versus the judiciary.  Harwood can not be allowed to get away with murder.

The danger of youths in groups

Gary Newlove was murdered by a or some drunken youths in Warrington in August 2007.  Under a law nearly 300 years old called "Joint Enterprise" three individuals were convicted.  The judicial system would see this as a success story.  However, to be told this is disheartening when considering Mr Newlove was set upon with a crowd of approximately 15 youths around him.  What would of been a success story, would of been if every one of those youths had received some form of prosecution.

In other countries there is something called the "Good Samaritan Law,"(Canada) which makes a witness to an event responsible to intervene and prevent it from happening if they can.  This sounds a bit similar to the Christian belief of "sin by omission."  In France they have a law called "non-assistance à personne en danger" (deliberately failing to provide assistance to a person in danger).  Whilst in Germany the obligation is put in "Unterlas Hilfeleistung" (neglect to provide assistance) is an offence.  Therefore in the UK it is a travesty no such or similar law is present.  It is not even an offence to make a phone call to the emergency services if you witness criminal behaviour.

So yes, it is a shame a 300 year old law has to be used because there isn't one more appropriate and more modern day which makes every witness or participant in some way responsible.  So three prosecutions when there should of been at least fifteen is yet another tragic story.

Boy murdered at Victoria station 25 March 2010

It is incredibly sad to hear a boy of 15 years of age was stabbed and murdered at Victoria Tube station.  His name was Sofyen Belamouadden. The worse part is it was a group murder, in which as many as 20 other school children were also involved.  Those involved wore school uniforms.

This is a typical example of "group think" taking place, or "mob rule."   I'm sure individually none of those persons would have done this deed on their own.  However, with peers present it became easier.  The group mind took over, even the most intelligent gang members would of dropped 20 IQ points.  There is also no doubt, no consideration was taken as to whether they would actually kill the boy even though knives were used.  For if they did understand what the repercussions would be then the surface of their consciousness might be pricked.  The group mind is also cultural to young teenagers.  It is as though many believe they are in some kind of war.  They aspire to be noticed, to show they are big and respectable in their insular circles.  Circles which are based on the school they go to and the area they are bought up in.  Blame is sometimes put on violent musical lyrics, or on the Americanisation of youth culture, however, ultimately the blame is with the individual who carries a knife and then uses it.  If we are to believe these individuals are free from homicidal intent, then the blame may be proportionately put on  politics, schooling, local area, peers, TV and lets not forget poverty.

Responsibility is a matter of knowing what consequences are and accepting them.  It is difficult to ponder what the answer is in the case of homicide by gang culture, especially when thinking of justice.  For if the rest of the world takes the same view this group did at the time they ambushed their victim, they would all be pushing up daisies themselves.  Who truely knows what the answer is, except somewhere there is now a family in mourning at the stupid and sensless loss of a young man's life.