Why are we granting unrepentant murdering thug scum anonymity?
Written by John of Gwent
Do a google search for "Edmonton, London" and it won't be long before you turn up the accounts of the murders. Most are just gang members reducing the membership lists of rival gangs the way they have since the days of the Montagues and the Capulets, but the problem of course is that a society which permits such thuggery to thrive must occasionally find itself on the receiving end of demands that it answer for the death of an innocent.
One such innocent victim (doubtless the apologists for gang thuggery would use less salubrious terms like "stupid" and "gullible") met his end in the last days of August last year as described here.
21 year old Steven Grisales went to "talk to" some youths who were throwing conkers in their spiked cases, and got stabbed through the heart for it. His murderer would have continued to slash at his corpse had some brave (again bloody foolhardy if you ask me) witness intervened and put their own body between the victim and the frenzied attacker.
The tale can be tracked through the BBC web site's accounts of the trial and others but I for one cannot be bothered. What is the point? Already the apologists for this "poor, deprived child" have succeeed in ensuring the murdering thug who has shown not one ounce of remorse "cannot be named because they are too young"
BALLS TO THAT. IF THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH TO MURDER, THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH TO BE NAMED AND SHAMED WHEN FOUND GUILTY OF THAT CRIME.
Here you go, BF. I'll give you a campaign worth fighting for. An END TO ANONYMITY FOR MURDERING THUG SCUM.