Author's Remarks:
I'll write my remarks after having rather worryingly digested this Appeal Court verdict and have slept on it! As it's now 22.51 hours and I’ll be preparing for bed soon.

It's Wednesday now and I’ve done what I promised I would last night. One of the very first things that came to mind was that no crime, even if they look similar, are actually identical, nor are the circumstances in which they are carried out precisely the same, therefore each crime for which someone is subsequently convicted should in fact be based on the exact circumstances enveloping it and not on what happened previously in the case of someone else, or even other persons.

James Bulger, a 1 year old toddler, was killed by Jon Venables and his mate who were both 10 years old at the time. The entire UK, unless elements of it were away on Jupiter or Mars and weren’t aware of that case and the publicity surrounding it, know precisely what criminal treatment was meted out to these young lads and most people would say, justifiably so. Jon Venables is still in jail. The reasons for which you’ll just have to research and ascertain for yourself.

My point is that Jamie Barrow was 32 years old when he also premeditatedly and very callously killed Mrs Fatoumatta Hydara, 28 and her two young daughters, 3 and 1 years respectively. There’s a massive age rage between Jamie Barrow and those two killers of James Bulger; and if the full ire of the court could justifiably come down on two 10 year old boys yet in 2024 we’re now expected to accept that the tariff handed down to this calculated, racist and unrepentant murderer is too excessive, then clearly something is fucking wrong with the thinking of the judges, I would say Jamie Barrow’s lawyer as he’s paid to represent him, and any member of the British public or their genocidal allies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, who think that murdering a Black woman and her two toddlers aged 3 and 1 year old, is no big deal. Because that is precisely what message is being sent out by the British Appeals Court? And you don’t have to have a Mensa IQ to work out that if Jamie Barrow was BLACK and his victims: a young married mother and her toddler kids were WHITE, there’s no way that the Appeals Court would have entertained a request to examine the original sentence, let alone reduce it. So much for equality before the law.

Britain is essentially still a feudal and deeply class-ridden and additionally an entrenched racist society with the participants deeply bound up in the latter living in their deeply ingrained and delusional state of DENIAL. And I ask myself, but already knew the answer, if this was a family from among Britain’s so-called toffs; its monarchy: say Kate, George, Charlotte and Louis, would this bloke Jamie Barrow be still alive? Ask a daft question, eh? What we’re essentially seeing here is a play out of Animal Farm; a state of affairs where theoretically, for propaganda purposes, we are all equal, but some self-evidently are more equal than others. And, doubtlessly if Jamie Barrow had killed one of these judge’s family members in similar fashion, no Appeals Court judges would have regarded his prison sentence of 44 years for very malevolently and premeditatedly killing them as “Extremely Excessive!” And in case you too conveniently forget, because of who these victims were, THREE people were quite callously and premeditatedly murdered. Aren’t their lives worth anything and aren’t they too entitled to justice? For if the Appeals Court think not, why shouldn’t other racists and psychopathic murderers do the same, knowing full well that they’ll be treated leniently if the “right persons” are murdered?

#Inequality