Obama forces Union Carbide to pay proper compensation

In the face of allegations of double standards over the BP tragedy, US President Barak Obama has decided to use his executive powers to force Dow Chemical (owners of Union Carbide) to pay out a "massive but fair" settlement to the victims of the Bhopal disaster in India.

In 1984, a release of poison gas and chemicals from the Union Carbide works in India killed 15,000 Indians (dots, not feathers) and exposed a further 500,000 to toxic chemicals.  Union Carbide, and their parent company Dow Chemical, have consistently resisted efforts to bring a class action suit - with the connivance of the American courts as well as successive administrations.  They have also protected CEO Warren Anderson and other key Union Carbide officials from extradition for manslaughter, despite the fact that the US claims the right to extradite (and even kidnap) people who commit crimes against citizens of the United States.

However, in the face of criticism over double standards in relation to BP, US President Barak Obama has decided to use his executive powers to force Dow Chemical to make a huge payout - running into "many billions" - to the victims of the Bhopal disaster.  He has also issued an executive order for the extradition to Warren Anderson and eight other key Union Carbide officials to India to face charges of manslaughter.

President Obama's decision, which has not yet been officially announced, was revealed by Italian investigative journalist Satira Scrivnera, who obtained copies of the confidential document from a "highly placed White House source."

According to the documents, the government plans to have the Union Carbide executives arrested by Federal Marshalls and to freeze the Dow Chemical bank account at the same time. The White House has declined to comment but the inside mole quoted President Obama off the record as saying "If I can kick one butt, I can kick two" - an apparent paraphrase of Sylvia Plath.

The above article was satiric...

Bloody Sunday Justice - at last

Yesterday, the Saville Report on the Bloody Sunday massacre was published. It confirmed what was known all along: that British soldiers fired on unarmed, peaceful demonstrators, murdering 14 of them - 13 that day, with one of the wounded dying later.

The background to the story was that a peaceful but "illegal" civil rights demonstration was held by Roman Catholics in the Bogside area of Derry (Northern Ireland) on the 30th of January, 1972. Members of the British Paratroop Regiment (who in fairness, it must be remembered, had been sent there initially to protect the Catholics from Unionist violence) opened fire, claiming that they had been fired upon first.

An inquiry by a tribunal led by Lord Chief Justice Widgery and completed in haste (reporting their findings on April 19, 1972), stated that the actions of some of the soldiers "bordered on reckless" but also concluded that three of the dead had been armed and firing weapons. This conclusion was based on the fact that they were found to have lead residue on their hands, implying that they had handled bullets (although the cartridges of bullets are made of brass) and nail bombs "found" on one of the deceased.

No explosives residue was found on any of the deceased and one of those who had such residue was known to work with lead solder in his normal employment. Moreover, it was known that in a number of cases, the dead were lifted into waiting vehicles by soldiers - who had themselves been firing guns. It was pointed out, even at the time, that this alone could explain the lead residue on the hands. But Widgery rejected this, saying that he didn't think it was very likely. There was just one problem: Widgery hadn't bothered to take any scientific evidence on the subject. Any competent forensic scientist could have told him that lead residue could indeed be transferred in this way.

It was also pointed out that the nail bombs supposedly found on one of the bodies could easily have been planted there. Certainly there was no evidence that any such bombs had been detonated. Furthermore no soldier was either killed or injured and no traces of any bullets or cartridges from any guns other than those of the soldiers were found.  Nor did anyone other than some of the soldiers claim to have seen any of the demonstrators firing guns.

Thus it was clear even at the time that all the victims were innocent. This means that Lord Widgery's report was not only wrong: it was brazenly dishonest. A coroner's inquest was also held at the time and the Coroner (retired British Army Major Hubert O'Neill,) required the jury to return open verdicts because of the overall uncertainty in any particular case. (NB Although the inquest covered all the deaths, each fatality required a separate verdict.) However, having required the jury to return open verdicts on those narrow technical grounds, the coroner then indicated his own overview of the actions of the soldiers as a whole when he stated that: " I would say without hesitation that it was sheer, unadulterated murder. It was murder."

All of this leads us to the present and what should be done about it 38 years later. Some would say forgive and forget. Others would point out that there is no statute of limitations on murder. It has been pointed out that the Good Friday Agreement granted a de facto amnesty for members of "paramilitary" organizations that observed the ceasefire unequivocally. Indeed Sinn Fein co-leader Gerry Adams made it clear in an interview while the agreement was being negotiated that failure to agree to early release of the "paramilitaries" was a deal breaker.

Now it is to the credit of the British government, that even whilst acceding to this thoroughly unreasonable demand (that violated the rights of the victims of terrorism), they never sought to introduce a similar provision for soldiers. However, notwithstanding this omission, the question is should such a reciprocal arrangement be deemed to apply?

I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it is offensive that those who killed the innocent should escape justice. On the other hand it is equally offensive that one party to the agreement should be denied the benefits that are granted to the other. Some would say that a government and a genuine army should be held to a higher standard than terrorists masquerading as soldiers.  And this is certainly true. But it is not something that Gerry Adams can say - at least not legitimately.

But perhaps there is a remedy. It is now becomingly increasingly clear that some of the soldiers lied to the Widgery Tribunal and/or the coroner. Could these soldiers not be prosecuted for Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice (both of which carry maximum sentences of 10 years imprisonment)? Indeed if it can be proven that any of them are guilty of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, they could be imprisoned for Life!

This could be used as a means for squaring the circle and ensuring that those who wronged the honoured and innocent dead - first by killing them and then by lying about them over their graves - are brought to justice. At the same time it would honour the principle of reciprocity and deliver a powerful message to Gerry Adams and his cohorts that they have made their bed and must now lie in it.

Murderers found guilty of manslaughter

It is now becoming routine for murderers to get off with manslaughter for a variety of legally irrelevant reasons that judges are allowing them and their shysters to get away with.

The reasons for these miscarriages of justice include such excuses as "I was only driving the getaway car," or "I was the robber, but it was the getaway car that killed him," or "although we battered him and it caused his death, there was an intervening medical error.

The latest example of this phenomenon occurred in the recent case of 24 year-old garage worker Saravanakumar Sellappan (above) who was beaten to death by three dirty little scumbags (or maybe I should say cumbags) called Jegir Ahmmadi (20), Roshan Samedov (18) and Awat Murad (18) (the spineless little boys on the right). These pieces of shit followed him and, in the context of a group enterprise, beat him to death to get his mobile phones. There is a dispute amongst them as to who struck the fatal blow but that is because these wannabe tough-guys weren't so brave when it came to taking their responsibility for their actions.

However it appears that before his death, the victim concealed the full nature of what had happened from the emergency room staff at the hospital because he did not want to worry his family. Consequently he was not given the medical treatment that might have saved his life. And on the strength of this, the death-deserving scum who attacked him were acquitted of murder, in a shameful miscarriage of justice, and were only convicted of manslaughter - which those cowardly little boys also denied.

Now here's something else of interest which I am hesitant to mention. The reason I am hesitant is because it lends itself to misuse at the hands of racists. Nevertheless I will say it and then state my own position on the subject. These three murderers came to this country in their childhood as refugees, two from Iran and one from Armenia. In others words, they came to this country seeking asylum, were welcomed by this benevolent nation state, grew up here getting all the benefits of our civilized society, our democracy and our education system - and how did they pay back our society that had shown them such kindness, generosity and hospitality?

They breached our laws in the most serious of ways, becoming violent robbers and ultimately murderers. Indeed this was not just a one-off opportunistic crime. It was done in a manner that clearly showed that they had experience of what they were doing.

Now I know that at this juncture some people will jump at the chance to cite this case as proof that we shouldn't allow in asylum-seekers, even if they are genuine refugees from oppression. Others - at the opposite end of the political spectrum - will no doubt accuse me of jumping on the anti-refugee bandwagon myself.

Neither claim has any merit. Granting political asylum to those who are genuine refugees from oppression is certainly an act of goodwill, rather than an act of duty. But as a benevolent nation we should continue to have such goodwill. That is not to say that we should not be allowed to set tough conditions in return for our goodwill, and these conditions may be tougher than we impose on native citizens. To use a familial analogy: you wouldn't throw an obnoxious teenage son out onto the streets for constantly putting his booted feet up on the coffee table. But if his friends did likewise you'd ask them to stop and if they refused you'd ask them to leave - not to mention probably never allowing them back. As for a family, so for a nation.

If this means that we have to wrest back into our elected government's hands, some of the sovereignty that we have signed away in European and international agreements, so be it. If this means that we have to defy a sovereignty-waiving agreement that our previous government signed (without a mandate from the people), so be it. If this means that our spineless prime minister - who also reneged on a promise of a referendum on that agreement - must belatedly sprout a pair of testicles and stand up the pseudo-liberal Nick Clegg in order to regain our sovereignty on this issue, then let it happen. If not, then let his successor do the unfinished job.

But whilst we should reassert our right to expel foreign criminals in the face of flagrant judicial misinterpretation of such noble concepts as the "right to a family life" - we should not be diverted from our tradition of compassion towards genuine refugees. Nor should we abandon our long and venerable tradition of kindness and fairness merely on account of the crimes of a few snivelling little boys who wanted to play being at men.

I suspect that one of the reasons they were so ill-equipped for that task was because they didn't have the benefit of any actual male role models, when they were growing up, to show them how real men behave. This in turn would explain why, after inflicting the fatal blows on their innocent victim and stealing his blackberry, one of the murderers, Roshan Samedov, put the sim card from the blackberry into his own phone and used it to make a five-minute call to a sex line. Presumably he belongs to the "little willy" school of crime.

Oh well. Look on the bright side Roshan. You only got nine years, which means you'll probably be out in four and a half. In the meantime enjoy your porridge - and your prison showers.

Rape and Revenge

Amidst all the politics that has been in the news today, there is one small item, unrelated to the election campaign that has caught my attention. The story concerns the fatal stabbing of a man who had previously been accused of sexual offences.

The reports on the radio were somewhat minimalistic, stating simply that a fourteen-year-old girl had been changed with the murder (by stabbing) of a 45-year-old man in Brixton. At the time I thought this mildly curious. Although reports of teenagers killing adults are not unheard of, they usually involved alleged killings of adults by teenage boys. When teenage girls are alleged to be involved it is usually either as an accomplice in a gang killing or when the victim is also a female.

Now I should point out that since the original arrest, several other arrests have been made and now both the girl and a fourteen-year-old boy have been charged. But what was more interesting – to the thriller writer in me – was that then stories began to emerge that the deceased had been investigated for alleged “sex offences.”

Since then matters have further crystallized, with the Crown Prosecution service acknowledging that such charges were considered but that it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Reports from the family of the accused girl have claimed that she claimed that the deceased man raped her and that she wanted to face him in court.

Now it is very important at this juncture that we do not prejudge the case – either with regard to the allegations of rape or with regard to the murder charges against the girl. But cases such as this, regardless of their outcome, do serve to focus our minds on such issues as unpunished crime, lack of confidence in the legal system and that very dangerous phenomenon known as vigilante justice.

Some people like to get up on their high horse about vigilante justice and portray it as worse than violent crime in general. Others make excuses for such practices and brush them off with glib phrases like “he had it coming,” without actually knowing whether or not the victim of the vigilante was really guilty of anything. Yet others, might get tempted to distinguish between a case in which no charges were brought and one in which charges have been brought and are awaiting trial, or at least a decision on whether to commit the case to trial.

This last one is touchingly naïve because it assumes that where no charges are brought it necessarily means that the suspect was innocent. The harsh reality is that guilty people can be acquitted, can avoid being charged for lack of evidence or the high costs of prosecution, or can in some cases escape detection altogether. The other side of the coin is that innocent people can be charged (like Colin Stagg), convicted and then cleared (like Barry George) or convicted and not cleared (like Michael Stone who was convicted of murdering Lin and Megan Russell on a basis of a “confession” invented by a career criminal in the neighbouring cell).

The problem of justice for victims is particularly acute with rape. Rape is a notoriously difficult to prove, because it is the only crime for which alleged consent is a defence. One cannot use consent in a theft case: one might claim that the owner made a voluntary donation, but that is unlikely to be taken seriously. There is no defence of consent in cases or murder, manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, grievous bodily harm or arson. But with rape, the prosecution must prove not only lack of consent but also that the accused either knew that the other party didn’t consent or was reckless as to whether or not the other party consented. In practice – in the real world – this is a very tough nut to crack.

Small wonder then that only six percent of reported rapes result in a criminal conviction. This is an appallingly low figure. Between the police taking the decision to “no action” some rape reports, others being dropped by the CPS and 58% of those that go to trial resulting in a guilty verdict, it is easy to see how this happens, as well as why. But it is of little comfort to the victims.

Even allowing for the fact that some reported rapes are invented, one must also allow for the fact that many rapes (some would say most) go unreported. Certainly based on the way rape victims are treated by the law (and the barristers who represent the rapists) it would be reasonable to conclude that the number of rapes that go unreported is far more than the number of false allegations of rape.

In general the figures are no improvement on those from the time that Sue Lees wrote her book Carnal Knowledge, exploring the way the law treats rape victims.

It should come as no surprise then that a rape victim might decide to take the law into their own hands and kill the rapist. Indeed the only thing that is surprising is that it does not happen more often. Perhaps part of the reason is one revealed by Sue Lees herself in her excellent book. When men hear about rape of women they care about, the first thing they think of is revenge. Some report that their male friends respond by offering to “beat up” the rapist. But – argues Lees – what women want is not so much revenge as “empowerment.” After the fact vicarious revenge, carried out by a male friend, would hardly make them feel empowered.

But therein lies the heart of the problem as well as the answer. For whilst vicarious revenge does not convey any sense of empowerment to the victim, personal revenge just might. And the question we should now be asking is will we see more rape victims killing the rapists in the future? Because let’s face it the penalties for murder are low and so we have a diminishing deterrent against murder on the one hand and the rise in rape (without a significant rise in conviction rates for rape) on the other. Is it not inevitable that women will increasingly resort to direct action to empower themselves against rapists, including by the extreme sanction of killing them?

This is not a happy situation. But it is a product of what came before. Vigilante justice is a symptom not a disease. And this applies as much to a woman killing a rapist as to any other vigilante action.

The theme of rape and revenge features very prominently in my forthcoming thriller No Way Out.  In this case, the character seeking revenge uses guile rather than force. I suppose this is only natural. Guile could be called the “weak person’s force,” but it could also be called the “clever person’s force.” It depends how you look at it. Like direct force, it can be used for both noble and ignoble purposes.

But such is the ethical paradox. As long as there is force and guile in the world, there will be injustice. And as long as there is injustice in the world, there will be both force and guile.

Jon Venables - murderous scumbag

So the murderous scumbag Jon Venables is back behind bars. It doesn't surprise me.

For those who don't recognize the name, he and his mate Robert Thompson (who lives round the corner from me under a new identity) kidnapped, abused, tortured and viciously murdered two year old James Bulger.

It is an article of faith among wishy-washy liberals that anyone who reacts with anger rather than equanimity in the face of such heinous crimes, is the proverbial low-brow "man in the pub" who thinks with his heart but not his head. But the reality is that the bleeding heart liberal rehabilitation lobby are no less motivated by fantasy and wishful thinking than those right-thinking people who demand punishment. The rehabilitation lobby too are driven by emotion rather than reason. They too have the capacity for self-deception. They too believe only what they want to believe.

That is why Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were released at almost the same time. What is the likelihood that they were both fully rehabilitated at exactly the same time? Or are we asked to believe that those two "psychologically damaged" boys (the mitigation factor for their crime remember?) were miraculously cured of their mental ailments in less than six years and were merely waiting until their tariff came up so they would be eligible for release on license?

Methinks not. The rehabilitation lobby simply wanted to believe that they were cured. It was a classic case of wishful thinking and self-deception on the part of the bleeding heart liberals. And now the chickens are coming home to roost.

In the case of Robert Thompson I can tell you that he appears to have settled down. I can't say that he is "good" but he is at least polite. He is living with his girlfriend and toddler and (interestingly) a female blood relative! But as he has stayed out of trouble for the time being, it would not be right to "out" him.

However Jon Venables is another matter entirely. I will not repeat all the reports about him. Suffice it to say that while the courts have forbidden publication of pictures of him after those of when he was a child, above is an age-progressed picture of what he would have looked like aged about 18.

On a lighter note, for those who like a good thriller, check out my website: www.davidkesslerauthor.com

When bullying turns to murder

Just over three weeks ago I woke up to the news that two teenage girls had been convicted of the “manslaughter” of a seventeen year old girl by viciously beating her, chasing her and causing her to fall 50 feet to her death to escape their vicious assault. The girls – feral monster Hatice Can (then 13) and mentally deranged Oluwakemi Ajose (then 17) subjected Rosimeiri Boxall to a two year campaign of bullying, culminating in the innocent girl’s death.


Two years before the fatal attack, when Can was only 11, she pushed Rosimeiri off a wall and threatened another girl with a knife. In the immediate assault in which Rosimeiri was murdered, Can and Ajose punched and slapped her, pulled by her hair and sprayed deodorant into her eyes. They also set her trousers on fire on a kitchen hob. And oblivious to the irony, they also called her a 'whore' and a 'slag'.


Just before they caused Rosimeiri to fall from a third floor window, Hatice Can said to her: “Do you want to die? Jump out of the window.” The terrified Rosimeiri replied “Do you want me to jump?” To which Can replied “yes” – thereby making it very clear to Rosimeiri that jumping out of the window was the only way to avoid further immediate violence. Then the vicious Hatice Can stood over the dying Rosimeiri and said “Serves you right, bitch.”


Now in many states of the US, causing some one to die in these circumstances would constitute murder rather than manslaughter. The reason for this is that a number of US states have enacted statutes that include a category of murder defined as “causing death by acting with a depraved disregard for another person’s safety.” However, in Britain the law makes no distinction between “reckless disregard” (which is mentioned specifically in the law) and “depraved disregard” (which is not recognized as a separate category). In practice, both are lumped together as manslaughter. In Britain one is only guilty of murder if there is an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. But clearly anyone who tries to cause some one to jump 50 feet is trying to cause grievous bodily harm. And yet the killers of Rosimeiri Boxall were only found guilty of manslaughter.


It should come as no surprise that these two killers had a long background in bullying and thuggery. Other victims of the pair reported being locked in bedrooms and in one case had mobile phone charger flex wrapped around their hands. It should also come as no surprise that gang leader Hatice Can didn’t take the trial seriously and was sure she was going to get away with it. She actually spent much of the trial laughing and talking on her mobile phone to her friends. At one point she tried on her barrister's wig and gown for a laugh


However, she wasn’t so tough when the verdict was delivered. She wailed like a baby when the jury found her guilty and could still be heard long after she was led away. For the first time in her life she had learned that actions have consequences. Although knowing how soft our legal system is, one wonders how severe these consequences will be. But at least it will be better than the non-involvement of Can’s parents, whom she very rarely saw and who showed no signs of trying to assert their parental authority.


Today Can was sentenced to eight years imprisonment - hardly sufficient to deter others from doing likewise, but enough to focus her mind. Again she was led away from court in tears, still feeling sorry for herself rather than her victim. Ajose was sentenced to be detained indefinitely at a psychiatric hospital. But in turns out that she still hasn't given up her bullying activities. She has been trying to get some of her fellow inmates in Holloway "to hang themselves with their bedding," according to the judge.


The case brought back to me the recollections of another case 37 years ago: a 15-year-old girl called Tina Wilson who committed suicide with sleeping pills after being hounded by bullies. I never knew Tina Wilson, but the reason the case sticks in my mind is because I was the same age as Tina and I too had suffered bullying at school (although not nearly as intense). I was deeply moved when I read about the Tina Wilson case and it prompted me to write a short story from the girl’s point of view culminating in her suicide. It was one of the first things I every wrote and the first from a female point of view.


Although never published, it was praised by the then editor of Woman magazine. who wrote: “I was sure it was a literate teenage girl writing.” Interestingly, I remember that each time I changed the manuscript on other people’s advice, it got worse rather than better. The reason for this is that the original draft – which I created directly in the typewriter – came straight from the heart and drew as much on my own experiences as the reported facts of the Tina Wilson case.


In my case the bullying was dealt with by personal connections. I didn’t want to commit the cardinal sin of being a snitch, but because the bullying led to truancy, it resulted in me being pressured by my parents into telling them. Fortunately, my father was a colleague of the father of the “School Captain” and he asked his colleague for help. The School Captain “had a word” with the bullies and the bullying stopped. It was all done without involving the teachers.

Many years later, bullying again became a theme of my writing. My latest thriller Mercy is about a man on death row in California for the murder of a girl he mercilessly bullied in high school. He too believed that actions didn’t have consequences. But in real life they do: sometimes for the victimizer; always for the victim.


David Kessler

David Kessler's "Mercy" is in the shops

Tomorrow I will be going to Waterstones in Sutton to do a reading from my new thriller Mercy. I fear that there will not be all that many people there, despite a bit of publicity in the local paper, as we are doing it in on a winter evening. It might have been better if we had arranged it for Thursday, which is late shopping day... or Friday when young people like to go out in the evening.

However what's done is done and however many or few people come, I will do my reading, sign the copies of the books and hope that everyone one of those customers who buys the book will read it and then recommend it to half a dozen other people.

The books is available in W H Smith, Waterstones and all good bookshops. It is not yet available in the supermarkets. As I have said elsewhere, in this commercial Christmas period, I can't hope to compete with the likes of such literary luminaries Katie Price and Martine McCutcheon. Suffice it to say that there is a chance that I will be in the supermarkets after Christmas, for the New Year promotions.

I've also decided to advertise the book myself. The major publishers generally will only advertise the books of their bestselling authors. This is perfectly reasonable. The market for books as a whole is elastic, and the major publishers reason that if they advertise their mid-list writers then they would simply be competing against themselves. This is less true of the smaller publishers. But the smaller publishers are at a disadvantage in other respects.

But whilst the publishers have many writers, I have only one ME, and if I do not make it, I get no comfort (or support in my old age) from the knowledge that other writers have. So tomorrow morning, I will take the plunge and commit just over £3000 to advertising my book Mercy.

And I sure hope it pays off...