T252 OBL - Green 3 door Golf (UK)

The owner of the vehicle above drove in such a manner on the evening of Thursday 29th just gone that it irritated me. They pushed out, and when I had left them behind they came up from nowhere and overtook on a narrow part of the road. In future I will be taking down registration plates and makes of vehicles who drive and behave irrationally, erratically on the road and who are seen using mobile phones in clear disregard for road safety and the law. This is but one step.

Ahmadinejad adds more to the furore and the understated

Here's a recap:

In 2004, 8 British service personnel on behalf of her Majesty's Government were patrolling the waters of the Shatt al-Arab shores between Iran and Iraq. In doing so, they were approached and taken away by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces under the assumption of deliberately entering Iranian territorial waters "fully-armed with sophisticated weapons, radios and other instruments", according to the Iranians. In other words, going equipped to spy. Both UK and US naval officers insisted the servicemen were within Iraqi waters, yet a televised apology on Iranian TV later, the servicement were taken to the capital of Tehran and released into the custody of the British embassy. the boats and the equipment on board were not returned.

Three years on, the British frigate HMS Cornwall is on routine patrol in the same shores, this time the borders are clear between that of Iraq and that of Iran, and the British Navy sails within the Iraqi territory with the permission of the Iraqi government and with approval under the UN Security Council Resolutions 1723. One of the duties of the frigate is to stop and search any vessel it deems suspicious or on routine to prevent any smuggling of contraband or worse into Iraq. On March 23rd, 15 Navy personnel debark off the HMS Cornwall to stop and search a cargo ship in the Shatt al-Arab waters, and upon clearing the ship and moving to debark off it, they were met by six Iranian warships. The Iranians escorted the 15 personnel into Iranian territory and has since held them captive. No consular access has been given, their location has not been given, they are said, by the Iranian authorities, to be in good health and spirits and well treated, and they have been shown on Iranian TV eating together.

Three of the personnel, the only female Leading Seaman Faye Turney, Nathan Summers and Adam Sperry, have been shown on Iranian TV together expressing their apologies for 'entering Iranian waters'. Letters said to have been written by Turney, have expressed resentment in Britain's involvement in Iraq and were received by the British Government, namely the Foreign Office. Of late, a TV channel had stated talk from the Iranian ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, in that a "legal process" had begun against the 15 British personnel, only for that to be later refuted by the ambassador, who was then quoted to have said the television channel had made a "translation mistake" and that he had not mentioned the prospect of a trial. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, is stated to have made a speech within which he said:

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise. After the arrest of these people, the British government, instead of apologising and expressing regret over the action taken, started to claim that we are in their debt and shouted in different international councils. But this is not the legal and logical way for this issue."

The Iranian president strikes me as someone with an agenda, which may be quite clear to some but let me elaborate. I read him as someone who cares nothing for the West, most certainly not in the direction of peaceful talks with the Israelis, wishes for the Iranian people, Arab people to be equal to the West, perhaps more importantly that he is recognised as having granted that feat to them. I also read Mr Ahmedinejad as appeasing to others, seen to be doing that which is the belief of powerful allies within the Tehran regime. I certainly do not think he is alone in his conveyance of policies. I am concerned the Iranian president is to become something of a despot with huge fanatical notions that will make him powerful in the world. I have concerns that Mr Ahmedinejad is a major or indeed future worry for the peace and settlement of mankind on Earth.

Earlier this week, Royal Navy Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, gave a press conference in London presenting maps and GPS data that pinpointed the longitude and latitude positioning of the HMS Cornwall at the time it anchored to search the cargo ship in question. The frigate was reported to be 1.7 nautical miles within the Iraqi territory and without question was not in Iranian waters. This was then said to have been confirmed by Iraqi intelligence and was open to question by the Iranians if they wish. During negotiations prior to this conference, Sir Charles stated the Iranians had given one set of co-ordinates of the HMS Cornwall at the time it anchored, which the British replied actually placed the frigate within Iraqi waters. The Iranians then replied a few days later with a new "corrected" set of co-ordinates, which were found to be of a position within Iranian waters. Both sets of co-ordinates were refuted.

You need not be a rocket scientist to suspect the Iranians are playing about to upset talks over their nuclear enrichment programme that has caused diplomatic disruption particularly within the UN and the US. Secondly, five Iranian nationals were detained by US forces in January. The Iranians, believed to be members of the Revolutionary Guard, were taken in a raid in the city of Irbil, along with equipment the Americans say shows clear Iranian links to networks supplying Iraqi insurgents with technology and weapons. The US have denied the capture on 23rd March has a link to that of the Iranians in January.

However, we as the British are being fed like an ass while we await the Iranians' next move in this game of duel. Our personnel are captured, accused of trespass, parade, again on TV as caught naughty children, no British access has been allowed but Turkish diplomats are encouraging as go-betweens, GPS data shows the frigate had not sailed into Iranian waters and in reply the Iranians could not provide an accurate positon of the frigate from the outset and only returned with a second set of co-ordinates that suspiciously collaborates their version when the first set they supplied found in favour of the British. If you are in court providing exhibits as evidence, only to then change them later on for another because the initial exhibits would likely fall in favour of the other legal counsel, the judge would kick the case out for lack of evidence and probably have to referred to your Inn for being the Bar into disrepute.

The Iranians are playing out a game as and when it suits them, making a farce of diplomatic relations that will in turn see them as an isloated dictatorship. Seeing who I assume were Iranian nationals outside the British embassy protesting for the 15 personnel to be executed just made for more scare propaganda that intially emerged from the Muslim protests in London over the Danish cartoon of the prophet Mohammed. Calling for the p15 personnel to be executed is clearly extreme, as extreme as the dictatorship within the Tehran political regime. How long do they believe they can drag this issue for until they are turned against and made to suffer global condemnation.

What is wrong with people?!??!!

I went to the local supermarket and parked, did what I had to do and was on route around the car park to the exit and as I turned one corner, I noticed another driver reversing slightly but stopping as I approached. Then he just reversed out, so I had to quickly stop. The look on his face suggested he was not happy in having to not face me in case I was looking at him irate, and I was. But I think he felt shame in having done what he did, nonetheless in his opinion he had to do it to get out. Well, he didn't have to, he could have waited as I saw him seconds before as I exited the supermarket, so it was not that he had been waiting minutes to come out. Then after that he just drove on, indicating, and I thought 'he didn't pay me the respect by reversing out as he did yet now he respects me enough now to indicate', which seemed evidently ironic.

Then there was the driver who knew not where he or she was going, slowly driving, stopping, pressing on the brakes, indicating then driving on because the direction they were about to consider was then considered the wrong one, all of this in front of myself and four vehicles behind me. Beggared belief. Then there was the typically slow driver, less than 25miles per hour, I don't know why. A pedestrian who considered it wholly appropriate to walk in front of my vehicle as I went to move, again it beggared belief. People simply step into the middle of the road, or any part of the road that a vehicle is expected to flow through, under the assumption oncoming vehicles will stop. Finally two vehicles who signalled for me to give way for them to change lanes and then didn't even say or signal 'thank you', both of them from lanes way over from where they wanted to go.

There will be more to follow, no doubt, because I just went on a 40-minute drive to the supermarket and back home. Imagine what happens when you are on the road for most of the day.

Life no longer meaning life.....what is the point?

A bus driver from South-East London was jailed for life for the sexual assaults on two foreign women in London. Saeied Negad sexually assaulted a 23-year old Czech student who advertised a vacancy in a pizza parlour, where he then locked her in a room and assaulted her. That was in 1999 and went unsolved until last year when a Congolese woman applied to a vacancy of a cleaner and cook. Under the promise of accommodation if she cooked and cleaned, he raped the 24-year old three times, informing her no one would hear her screams. She nonetheless had the sense to contact the police and they matched Negad's DNA from both scenes of crime.

On the case itself, it would appear the pizza parlour ad was for premises which Negad had access to. He committed the offences in the premises, the police could not link him to the scene for six years. Trying to establish what happened during the investigation, I assume the police were not aware of Negad though they had his DNA, therefore, despite the news article stating the premises were his, they could not have been otherwise the link would have been established. The DNA is put on the national database. Six years later he commits the rapes on the Congolese woman at his premises and DNA from both crime scenes are checked when similarities between both attacks are suspected. Thus the police came to arrest Negad. He is suspected of taken advantage of other foreign nationals in similar or identical manner, only that no one else has come forward.

Judge Richard Hawkins at the Old Bailey pronounced a life sentence on Negad, yet stated he would be eligible for parole after six years. Not meaning he will get parole then, but he has a chance when he should be afforded none. Life should mean life. This government should balance the prison population with the number of places in prisons and yet here is another example of the failure of our current government. This potentially has reverberations onto our justice system, too many convicted offenders being allowed the possibility of not remaining in length in prison. If Negad is a model prisonser for six years, would the Parole Board refuse him liberty? Or is this another way of teasing the prisoner, giving them hope of an early release which will be constantly refused.

Quite simply, life means life. Otherwise, sentence the convicted appropriately.

The justice system a little too late for those who have already perished

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, has sent a directive to the prosecutors of England and Wales to seek a more serious offence where one's driving has led to one's death. Many times we have heard reports of someone driving potentially with an aggravated factor of drugs or drink or adrenaline and their driving is such that it is dangerous and leads to someone dying. In many cases it is a pedestrian or a passenger in the offending vehicle.

Mr Macdonald has recognised that the conviction of careless driving has undermined the confidence of the public when the actions in question has led to such tragic results. How is it that it is taking so long for someone in authority to recognise that the dangerous driving that kills is being punished with nothing more than a feather rather than the belt? How does someone drive dangerously, knock someone over which leads to that person's death, is found and charge and then convicted for careless driving that ends in a ban and/or fine? The convicted walks out of court, banned, fined yet otherwise at liberty while the grieving family have an unnecessary, reckless death to contend with, forever??

This government is rubbish. I despise Tony Blair and canot wait for him to go for at least a new leader and a new chance of a policy change in all aspects of our living in this country, because things have minutely improved, and that is a very fine minute amount indeed. That amount is down to the change from Conservative to Labour, that is the only improvement we have had from Labour's coming to power since 1997. I cannot go into all aspects otherwise this would be an extensive article right through the next 12 months. But one aspect I find I am at odds with is crime and there has been little to no improvement there.

Gun crime is more than before, just merely by judging by the amount of gun incidents we hear and read. How programmes like Crimewatch say these crimes are a minority, do have good dreams, is bewildering. That is absolute rubbish. You cannot even open your window much less your front or back door. The call around the country is for all citizens to be more alert, more security conscious, and if something feels wrong, then suspect that it is. That may lead to some paranoia but which is better, that or being a victim?

When there is conduct that leads to one's death, it is serious. Once investigated and found to have had aggravated elements, there is a crime. One should not be conducting aggravated movements in the presence of others, the courts shold consider that as a dangerous element. The ignorance of not knowing what you are doing to be considered so dangerous is one for the prosecution to prove and the defence to counter. Considering the driver who drives with excess speed for any reason, have drugs or drink in their system, who then knocks someone over and that results in that pedestrian's death, that is in my opinion a factor that places the driver in a potential custodial position upon conviction. With no shadow of a doubt. It is scandalous.

The police now have powers to deal with drivers who have no tax, no insurance, no licence or all three and are behind the wheel of a car. Any such driver is risking their vehicle or the vehicle they are driving in being seized and if not claimed later, being crushed. The police have on-board computer systems that can instantly focus on a licence plate and recognise if there are details of tax or insurance on the vehicle or if an unlicenced driver belongs to that registration. That seems to be one response to cut down on illegal drivers. Yet there can be legal drivers who go on to commit death through dangerous driving.

Consider how former boxer Naseem Hamed drove his vehicle dangerously as he hit another vehicle whilst on the wrong side of the road because he went to overtake the car in front, who he also hit afterwards. As Hamed was more or less unhurt, the other driver suffered multiple fractures to the majority of his body. Hamed left the scene because other drivers witnessed it all and were so shocked they may have lynched him. Sounds plausible in the circumstance, I would have loved to have lynched him, because the scene was appalling. Yet Mr Hamed was jailed for 15months, and audaciously applied to be released for the birth of his newborn child soon after. Four months into his sentence he was released on the ridiculous eletronic tagging curfew that has already been exposed as breakable and forces police to find the offending offender.

One would spend half their time in jail for a sentence of less than four years, then be released on licence, but not Hamed. Jermaine Pennant, previously of Arsenal and Birmingham and now with Liverpool Football Club, was released early on the same curfew and even played with it on, which makes it all the more farcical. But I digress. For such a dangerous maneouvre that put another driver in awful hospitalisation that required the shortening of one leg, at the expense of an ego that thrived on huge finance, swagger and complete defiance of the motoring laws and respect with four previous convictions for speeding, Hamed should have been sentenced to five years. Anthony Burgin, the injured driver, could have been killed along with his wife.

It is not the DPP who should send directives to his prosecutors, it is the government to make appropriate legislative changes to the concept of careless and dangerous driving. They are happy to see drivers kill people on the road as long as it avoids anyone connected to them, before they actually get down to proper decisions. Consider that there is support for the law against pornographic images that depict pain and/or suffering in various forms because one convicted killer was discovered to have killed his victim under the obsession of submitting strangulation during sexual contact, yet the numerous cases over the past decade of drivers who kill others through their aggravated driving and walk free from court with nothing more than a ban and/or fine seems not to be important enough for the government to act.

The few have priority over the many. The accolade of the government.

PC driver escapes dangerous driving punishment....surprise, surprise.

My days, it is practically unbelievable. The eyebrows raised in surprise will not hold that position for long when you consider a judge has once again dismissed a high profile case with mere words that ends with an offender leaving court free without sanction. Beggars belief.

Police officer Mark Milton had taken control of a new police vehicle, a Vauxhall Vectra 3.2, on the 5th December 2003. At 0300hrs he was on an A-road near the M54 in Shropshire before going onto the motorway itself, and when he returned to his base it was established by checking his on-board cameras that Pc Milton had reached speeds of 131 and then 159mph. The first speed was clocked on the A-road, the second on the motorway. A-road speed limits can vary but on average are 50mph, the motorway carries a 70mph limit, giving an idea of how much over the limit the officer was during casual driving and not in pursuit of an offending vehicle.

The Crown Prosecution Service found the PC had committed an offence and tried him, but he was acquitted after the trail judge heard Pc Milton was 'familiarising himself' with the vehicle, for it was his first time and he wanted to see how the vehicle would perform under pursuit conditions. The CPS appealed tot he High Court and it was found the trail judge had erred and the case was sent for retrial.

It came before District judge Peter Wallis at Ludlow Magistrates' Court, who saind the speeds were "eye-watering", found the Pc guilty of dangerous driving but said he had suffered enough during the past two and a half years of court proceedings. Therefore Pc Milton received an absolute discharge, which means a criminasl conviction is recorded but no punishment.Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 it is to be granted under exceptional circumstances.

West Mercia Police, responsible for the district, said they would appeal the discharge, and Pc Milton's lawyer stated an appeal will challenge the judge's opinion that the officer's advance driving skills were irrelevant.

Now, my take is why did he reach those speeds? Because he was familiarising himself with the vehicle. Then aren't the vehicles tested prior to being made available for duty? They are checked, I am not sure how often but they are, particularly if the driver has a concern or has been involved in a collison or pursuit. Additionally, if Pc Milton had to test the vehicle, why hasn't a senior officer come forward to say they had been aware of what Pc Milton intended to do and gave him permission to do so under certain conditions? Is this country aware of how many people have the mind or experience to do things without going through training or tests? That is why the officer's advanced driving skills are irrelevant, most can handle a vehicle at such speeds with little to no vehicles around at the same time. How many people own a vehicle that can reach speeds of 150-160mph and do so and are prosecuted if caught?

My understanding is that police vehicles in pursuit will call off from the chase if speeds reach 100-130mph for too long because of the danger to other road users. A police helicopter is called and can take over the pursuit from the safe distance above and ground units then follow the commentary from the 2nd man in the 'copter. Therefore there is little to no need for Pc Milton to test the vehicle at such speeds if police policy will forebade such speeds in the interest of public safety. Lawful authority or reasonable excuse are two phrases used when one adopts an approach that is deemed inappropriate or of major concern, and I doubt Pc Milton had either.

If an advanced driver had reached those speeds at the same time of night (which I expect was quoted to show the lack of vehicles on the road surfaces at the time), he or she would still be prosecuted and no doubt would be convicted of dangerous driving even with no other vehicle on the road for miles and miles. Judges are beginning to show a lack of public concern and common sense, and police officers continue to evade punishment for conduct unbecoming of a police officer. Same old same old, and it is partly why law enforcement continues to have a fluctuating popularity.

Finally.....Damilola's killers are eventually brought to justice

Damilola Taylor was found bleeding from a leg wound in a stairwell of a housing estate in Peckham, South East London on the 27th November 2000. He received the wound from an intentional slab of a broken beer bottle, and such was his attempt to get to somewhere for assistance or even be out of sight of his attacker he limped some distance and got as far as two flights of stairs before weakness crept in and he was found by a passer-by. Damilola reached hospital but was pronounced dead due to a severed artery.

In 2002, four youths were charged with his murder on the evidence of one female girl who was so contradicting in her evidence she was practically and inadvertent hostile witness for the prosecution. Her demands for mod cons during her stay under police protection was well documenting of her overall attitude and concern for her role as a vital witness. The case went on to an absolute aquittal beyond all reasonable doubt.

Two youngsters were arrested along with the eventually tried four above. Those two were Daniel and Richard Preddie. They were released at the time but four years went by before forensic evidence was passed to another forensic team from the Forensic Science Service, the original forensic team in the acquittal trial. Experts found traces of Damilola's blood by the heel of a trainer and on a cuff of a shirt, belonging to either of the brothers. Evidence also matched torn fibres with that found on the beer bottle. Today the Preddie brothers (the Pray-die brothers as they hunted their victims during a detailed crime spree from the age of eleven and twelve) were found guilty of Damilola's manslaughter and will be sentenced later. Danny Preddie shouted at the jury after the verdict.

These two have faces of absolute contempt, wicknedness, and a one-way ticket to criminality. You are not meant to judge on appearances and in some cases that is true. In this one, there is no doubt. I expect they will be sentenced for six years, though I sincerely hope it is more.

Another tragic incident from motorist selfishness

A lorry driver, who was driving a 7.5 tonne lorry at the time he was attempting to press the keypad of his mobile handset, was not paying attention to the road ahead of him and his lorry ran onto the back of a vehicle and then rolled over it. In the aftermath, the lorry had also damaged six other vehicles waiting in a queue of traffic. The first vehicle the lorry hit and rolled over had a woman driver only as its occupant, who was pronounced dead at the scene. The lorry driver, 31-year-old John Payne said in court he did not know why he was pressing the buttons on his handset because he did not intend to make a call but the prosecuting lawyer told the court Mr Payne (which is no misnomer) had mentioned to his companion at the time that he wanted to know how to operate the handset.

We have again had another loss of life through the inappropriate actions of a driver concerned more with his mobile handset than the safety of himself, his passenger and other road users. What would have happened had there been cyclists, motorcyclists, people moving in between the traffic, who could have been unaware of the lorry? More deaths. It sounded quite a miracle others were not killed in their vehicles, much less on open road. Some people believe they can handle operating a mobile and drive simultaneously. The judge in this case said the incident described before him in court made for a telling example of why such conduct is to be eradicted. But we are a society that do not pay attention unless we are involved in a circumstance.

The thing is Mr Payne would have looked to avoid thinking about his handset if he could have forseen the incident that unfolded. We should not need to be in a situation to learn to avoid it but we will not listen until it is too late and then aim to make amends, by which time it is far too colossal to turn the clock back. Mr Payne received a custodial sentence of four years. I say the incident should have been a case for Caldwell involuntary manslaughter and Mr Payne jailed for seven, if not eight, years.

I see numerous people still driving and talking on their handsets in total ignorance of the law. If it was considered important for the implementation of a hotline to the Department of Works and Pensions for informing on benefit claimants who abuse the benefits system, so why do they not do the same for those who openly flaunt motoring laws? Report the driver and their registration, time of offence and where. With CCTV said to be in such quantity around cities and of such covert operation, finding a vehicle on camera and deciphering whether drivers were alone or not, it should work to stop the mobile-handset-using drivers. Mobile phone operations are easier to prove giving satellite positioning and the masts logging every signal from the handsets, and the constant sight of drivers on their mobiles allows for plain-clothes officers to film and stop almost on a daily basis.

The call for duty of care under police powers

The stop-and-search powers for the Metropolitan Police is called again into question. To some, the question of its absolute application is no surprise. Before, the police were entitled to stop whoever they wish and question them as well as search them. Now, the police must have a reasonable suspicion to stop and search you. The determination of reasonable suspicion is open but were you to wander from one's garden with a bag that could be considered from its size and bulging contents to be potentially implements to aid committing a burglary and one moves off at a faster than usual walking pace, maybe that is reasonable suspicion. Particularly to a police officer.

Today one of the senior officiers of the Metropolitan Police force, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, the highest ranking Asian officer, has spoken out at a National Black Police Association conference in Manchester in regard to the potential 'extremism' such powers could encourage to protude from members of the public in the direction of Muslims. Amongst his speech, Mr Ghaffur said:

[stop-and-search powers are] "to be based on physical appearance than being intelligence-led"

"The impact of this will be that, just at the time we need confidence and trust of these communities, they may retreat inside themselves."

This is partly the element amongst the black population today, that the racism from police officers or the bad feelings of everyday pressure directed at black people by police officers has the exact effect of many black people turning away from the law authorities. Amongst the black population, particularly the younger generation, it is a struggle to encourage them the police force is there to combat the crimes of today in the good name of righteousness and justice. Because of the updated legislation that now imprints the treatment of police officers on members of the public in the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the number of stop-and-search on minorities has reduced. That is not to say police officers should not used such powers often, only that they use them with discretion and good intelligence, something which Asst Comm Ghaffur mentioned in his speech today.

The UK law authorities and counter-terrorism agencies have discovered that there are members of the Muslim population in the UK who hold extremist values in favour of the terrorist supporting groups situated globally. Such views has called for the commitment of bombings that resulted in the 7/7 attacks last year, the first of its kind connected to Muslim extremism. Police intelligence appears to have led to a number of raids and arrests up and down the country, one of which has been a major debate recently, that of Forest Gate.

Because of such 'intelligence' (because it is questionable how good the intelligence is), the authorities found no sign or evidence of terrorism-linked activities at the Forest Gate address, while one occupant was shot. Our surveillance people are not stupid, they have methods of conducting intelligence without people knowing, so why had the raid not found any evidence? At the same time, calls are immediately made that the authorities are out to get members of the Muslim community, perhaps at random. I feel it is strong to suggest the authorities choose at random as that is simply a heavily time-consuming exercise but also they must ensure they are right before they conduct a raid.

Additionally, the tragic Stockwell tube station shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes reminds us that intelligence gathering can have its flaw with dire consequences, and such flaws could continue to result in more innocent deaths. The shot occupant in the Forest Gate raid could have been another, though I suspect the pofficer in question had struggled with the occupant before the firearm discharged. The de Menezes incident was different in that officers aimed with intent to kill. A side note, SOMEONE should have been found accountable for that innocent man's death but perhaps because he was a Brazilian national, it made little for such accountability. I know if one of my family members had been shot innocently, I would endeavour to find out the truth because someone somewhere would be responsible, and that someone would have to be found. Regardless.

The UK government is right to debate and pass laws to tighten up the resources, the intelligence gathering, accountability and security measures in order to prepare to combat the threat of further terrorism attacks particularly in homeland. That could call for stringent measures that effects us all but if that's the cost of keeping vigilant, I am OK for that. But I am not OK for an officer to simply pick me out in public because I am black or a Muslim person. Consider this incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4840814.stm

Also consider how police officers had harassed Duwayne Brooks, the friend who accompanied Stephen Lawrence during that fateful night of Stephen's death. Officers had been accused of harassment of Brooks, allegations from robbery to attempted rape were unfounded and nonetheless do not amount to the right to harass. Mr Brooks successfully sued the Metropolitan Police under the Race Relations Act for not granting him the same rights as they would have to a white person. The Met Police still claimed no admission of liability, astoundingly enough. When an accused is convicted, he or she can plead to the cows go baa but he or she is considered to have been liable. But when the Met Police are found to be wrong in court, they still say they are not liable. This is the kind of mixed message that gives a poor impression on the police. They have the powers to execute their duty under law, why do so to the degree of extremity?

Lebanon: August 7th 2006

The situation in Lebanon has reached the stage of no return. Unless the powers that be (a basic ideal way of describing them) involve some monetary value into a draft ceasefire initiative, the fighting will continue, along with it it's inevitable loss of life and destruction of property. The militia Hezbollah fight for the right of the Lebanonese people for proper recognition of its people by the Israeli government, but in the background they reach out to their fellow Arabs in Palestine.

Today there is more reporting of deaths of civilians, and at the end of the day there is room for talks to occur because no one in war would wholeheartedly choose to fight for the occurrence of deaths of innocent civilians.

The world is a hellhole for many as it is, with famine STILL continuing despite the numerous nations who continue to prosper, criminality reaching the levels where criminals are treated with kid gloves by the very system set up to deter and/or punish them, shooting on the streets between those who wage a vicious war through drugs and guns and its financial incentives that results in the deaths of innocent bystanders, the increasement of costs of living that further widens the gap between society and poverty (I am talking about the streets of England, much less in a third world state), medicinal resources being strained and restricted unless you have some wealth or connections that help you (meaning the many middle-class workers continue to strive for the wage packet that just covers their monthly living and having to work out how they can divert more money for hospitalisation).

Life is hard enough as it is without two factions going to war and many lives destroyed in the process over issues that should be discussed between adults. If adults cannot at least do this to avoid war, what chance is there of encouraging youngsters of doing the same throughout their lives? Isn't this why many youngsters are disillusioned that they brandish or conceal weapons to help settle their disputes?

Another young death under the spectre of drugs and guns

On Friday, a drug dealer named Joel Smith was convicted for the murder of Bertram Byfield and Toni-Ann Byfield. Toni-Ann had been visiting Mr Byfield, who understood he was her biological father, but DNA tests revealed he was not. Mr Byfield was a convicted crack cocaine dealer residing in an ex-offender's bedsit in Kensal Green, North West London. Smith visited to kill Byfield and rob him of his possessions, assumed to be drugs and money. Unfortunately innocent seven-year-old Toni-Ann was there too at the same moment and Smith shot her as she turned her back to flee fromm him, after she witnessed Smith shooting dead Mr Byfield.

To think Smith left no clues, no witnesses of him leaving the premises, no CCTV footage of him or a vehicle suspected to or proven to have been used by him or by anyone else harbouring him. Shooting Toni-An covered any chance of revealing the assailant's identity, the perfect crime, if such a concept can be condoned. Except for the honour amongst thieves, or murdererd, or drug dealers. Because nonetheless, shooting a child, an innocent child, was a step too far.

Criminals are into crime just to get by, others to have something to raise a family on, to help pay the continuingly increasing bills that come with living. There are some who may have both in mind, or simply want to live the rich life at the expense of others, without the effort of honest grafting under legal employment. Nonetheless, shooting a child is a taboo. Due to nationwide appeals, Smith's name was conceded to the law authorities and a search for him developed intelligence of his whereabouts in Liverpool, where he was for two years after the murders as a prisoner.

Yet what it is that gets to me is not so much the murders but also the Birmingham Social Services. What was their policy in regard to Toni-Ann visiting a convicted drug dealer? For me, a convicted drug dealer would have to convince me he or she will have nothing more to do with drugs. No taking them, no selling them, no laundering them, carrying them, looking at them. How they will prove that is up to them, they just have to convince me. But for a statement to be worded like this beggars belief:


"We've made really significant changes to address all recommendations of an independent review.....At the end of the day however, I can't guarantee that armed gunmen won't walk into a room and shoot people. And at the end of the day, that's what lies at the heart of this case."

- Peter Hay, Birmingham City Council's strategic director of social care


Cannot guarantee armed gunmen walking into a room but Birmingham Social Services can guarantee to check more thoroughly, if they did at all, on who children in their care are visiting or residing with. Perhaps they would have preferred a child was sent to visit or reside with a paedophile, a child molester, where maybe they can guarantee the child won't be murdered but interfered with. Such a stupid statement, which comes on the back of those who failed Victoria Climbie in Wembley and Tottenham, North West and North London respectively.

Miss Climbie was being looked after her aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, under the understanding of her mother in the Ivory Coast that Victoria would have a better opportunity to gain a high standard of education in Europe. Kouao initially lived in Paris, France but was being pursued by the authorities over benefit payments and took off to England. Kouao and Victoria meet Carl Manning, a bus driver, while he was working, and both move into his place in Tottenham. It is there Victoria's tragic abuse began at the hands of Manning. Read the timeline of this terrible, tragic eventual murder of eight-year-old Victoria here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2062590.stm


Birmingham Social Services to release such a statement showed they do not feel any lack of duty in Toni-Ann being allowed to visit Byfield and therefore murdered for being in the wrong place. Such a flippant tone, they should be condemned and those responsible for Toni-Ann's care should be reprimanded or dismissed. Meanwhile, Smith was jailed for life for both murders, with a recommendation he serve a minimum of 40 years for the killing of Toni-Ann and 33 years for the murder of Mr Byfield. Concurrently. I have read many stories of where I feel British justice has constantly let down those affected by the actions of an offender as that offender is let off lightly in punishment. Concurrently means at the same time therefore Smith will served 40 years instead of 73 years. Smith should answer in full for both murders, and he is not the only one.