The world's best thriller writer

Magnetic bracelets and copper bangles

2015-12-15T06:46:00.001-08:00

This blog is a bit like a bus. You wait for ages and then two come along together. All right it's an old joke, but then again, as the saying goes, the old ones are the best.

What I mean is, you're probably wondering why I've suddenly become so active. The answer is I have a lot on my mind and all my friends are busy. So I'm sharing it with you. One of the things that is on my mind is my newfound interest in magnetic bracelets and more generally in magnetic products for health.

Now I know what you're thinking... how come this guy who has always been so sceptical that anything that reeked of New Age could even be considering anything as pseudoscientific as magnetic bracelets for pain relief and therapeutic effect? Well the answer is that I have become open-minded in my middle-age.

No, not buying it? All right then. I'll come clean. I have been reading up on the subject, because of personal need.The strain of typing at the computer for long hours is finally taking its toll on me and my wrist. (A cynic would say that I'm straining my wrist with other activities too, but that's another matter.)

Anyway, I want you to know that I am still open-minded, and have not committed to it one way or the other, but I am moving away from Gradgrindesque scepticism to cautious enthusiasm.

So as they used to say in journalism: watch this space.

How to write an Amazon fiction book for the Kindle or CreateSpace

2015-12-02T02:00:00.003-08:00

David Kessler - AKA the world's best thriller writer - has written a wonderful 240-page book called How to write an Amazon fiction book that SELLS.

Aimed squarely at the Kindle and CreateSpace market, there is also a CreateSpace edition, with a slightly different title (for reasons too complex to go into). Here are just some of the things that the book covers:

Getting ideas
Turning basic ideas into a story
Getting past the ole' writer’s block
Starting the book in a way that makes the reader curious
Picking the correct style and genre
Research - when and how
How to write sizzling action
How to write crackling dialogue
Making your description spring to life
Point of view and author's voice
Getting the pace right
Ending chapters at the spot that reader's want to know more
Ending the book to sell the next one
Self-discipline and sanity
Getting the most from the Kindle and CreateSpace platforms
Coming up with that perfect title
Steering clear of the sharks (vanity publishing and bogus agents)
You've written it, now SELL it!

To promote the book, Kessler is giving away ten free copies in a Goodreads Giveaway.

Goodreads Book Giveaway

How to write an Amazon book that SELLS*

by David Kessler

Giveaway ends December 09, 2015.
See the giveaway details at Goodreads.

Enter Giveaway

You can enter the giveaway from here or go to Goodreads and do so from there. That's for the paperback edition. If however, you are a Kindle person through and through, you might like to go directly to Amazon and get the Kindle version right away. You could be reading it in less than a minute.

The Luddite Girls

2014-04-03T06:44:00.001-07:00

Hurricane Sandy hits Amazon

2012-10-29T08:17:00.000-07:00

Sometimes revenge sweeps through a town like a hurricane!!!!

Hurricane Sandy has hit Amazon with a vengeance (literally) in this exciting new thriller by Phillipa Braham.

The year is 2024, when criminal trials take place on television, with the verdict decided by public vote. Under this populist system, Sandy's uncle Bobby Jensen was found guilty of raping and murdering his 13-year-old daughter Judith, in the face of overwhelming DNA evidence, despite an alibi. And now he is dead - the victim of an unsuccessful escape attempt planned by his niece.

It was Sandy herself who gave him an alibi at his trial. But the public didn't believe her and she was vilified as a sick perjurer. Now she wants revenge on all the people responsible for uncle Bobby's death... the DNA "expert"... the cop who interrogated Bobby... the DA... and TV personality "Judge Jenny" who is more into stripping than law.

Sandy Hunter is... the Hurricane Sandy!

Hidden Menace - sterotyping Arabs and glamorizing Israelis

2011-12-14T02:43:00.000-08:00

The following originally appeared on my website www.davidkesslerauthor.com

When Mossad operative Dov Shamir kills an al-Quaida terrorist in London, his face is captured on a webcam, turning a routine elimination into a nightmare.

Branded a “rogue operative” and abandoned by his own people, Dov takes refuge in the home of the one man he can count on to help him – a Palestinian intellectual who was his professor and mentor at the School of Oriental and African Studies where he did his PhD. Though Dov and Rahman are divided by politics, Rahman is a man of immense personal loyalty and a staunch opponent of anything that will bring the Palestinian cause into disrepute (as well as being Dov’s former SCUBA diving partner).

But it becomes particularly important to help when Dov reveals the terrorists’ plan to blow up the sunken wreckage of an old World War II munitions ship packed with high explosives. And when the terrorists ambush them, Dov has to form an uneasy alliance with Salima – Rahman’s feisty and distrustful 24-year-old daughter.

Unable to convince the skeptical authorities that the attack on the ship is anything other than a desperate fabrication by Dov, their only hope is a junior police officer. But he has motives of his own. And with the net closing in on the fleeing Israeli operative, Dov and Salima find themselves caught in a race against time to stop the attack before hundreds of innocent people are killed.

I have to confess that I had reservations about Hidden Menace, because on re-reading, it does seem to stereotype Arabs somewhat. I say "stereotype" rather than "demonize" because the book does have some "good" Arabs too - i.e. those who oppose terrorism. But I still can't escape the feeling that I have created stereotypes and effectively sold my soul to the realms of Hackdom, as it were.

This is not what I am about - normally. I like to think that I possess a modicum of literary sophistication. To this end, I try to avoid stereotypes in my characterization, just as in my use of language I avoid cliches like the plague. On the other hand, controversy sells. Look at good ol' Jeremy Clarkson raising hell by suggesting that public sector workers who go on strike against unilateral attempts to breach the pension provisions of their contracts should be shot. A silly off-the-cuff comment that is quintessentially Jeremy Clarkson. In other words, the kind of low-brow, man-in-the-pub macho talk upon which Clarkson has built his stag-party reputation.

And guess what? All of a sudden, everyone's talking about Jeremy Clarkson just when his star was fading. It seems that just as being outrageous can buy the untalented their proverbial 15 minutes, it can also breathe a new lease of life into the talented but erratic.

And while we're on the subject of talented but erratic, let's get back to talking about me! My new book may not be a literary masterpiece. As with cars that's my other book. But it is what I would call an excellent Velvet Underground piece - in other words, a Loo Read.

And as for that cheap shot at publicity.... well here's my contribution to the debate: Jeremy Clarkson should be shot! Now would somebody kindly report me to the Director of Public Prosecutions - PLEASE!!!!!!

Branson bags Northern Rock at taxpayer’s expense

2011-11-23T01:06:00.000-08:00

Branson bags Northern Rock at taxpayer’s expense

Christmas (commerce) is coming

2011-11-02T13:10:00.000-07:00

So with halloween over and Guy Fawkes night almost upon us, we are now entering the Christmas rush, when shops start selling like mad as frantic customers venture out into the cold, dark streets to buy presents for family and friends, big gifts, little gifts, special gifts for that special person and stocking fillers.

A few years ago, a survey showed that the Scots are actually the most generous people in Britain but that Yorkshiremen lived up to their miserly reputation. Then a couple of years later another survey showed that the people of Yorkshire are the most generous but that the Scots lived up to their reputation. So is this just a case of you-can-prove-anything-buy-surveys? Well actually, no. The surveys contained a lot of useful information once you actually looked at their methodology.

The first survey - in which the Scots came out on top - looked at how much people spent on Christmas presents. The Scots led the country at £401 (this was quite a few years ago) whereas our friends from Yorkshire averaged a mere £80. But in the second survey, the basis of comparison was how much they gave to charity. And here the roles were reversed, with the Yorkshire people showing as the most generous and the Scots coming out as misers.

But this all serves to illustrate a very good point made many years ago by James (the amazing) Randi when he dismissed palmists, astrologers, dowsers, tea leaf readers and phrenologists et al over their alleged ability to discern human traits from unscientific and obviously irrelevant "evidence." He pointed out that it is meaningless to say that some one is "generous" not only because it was most people want to hear, but also because people can be generous in some respects and mean in others. The same can be said of intelligent, friendly, courageous, introvert, extrovert or any other human characteristic.

But to return to generosity and Christmas, I would venture to suggest that it is a time when lonely people yearn not for others to be generous, but for the kind of human company that would enable them to be generous - i.e. some one to buy Christmas presents for and some one to go Christmas shopping with. Of course one can treat oneself to an iPad, iPod or iPhone or an amazon Kindle or any one of the countless gadgets or celebrity books or cookbooks that flood the shops at this time of year. or even go on a holiday abroad. But it's not the same as having some one to share it with.

At least if your a Scotsman.

The junkie, the drug-dealer and the innocent man

2011-08-17T07:44:00.000-07:00

This is a story about the murder of an innocent, vulnerable man called Kevin Tripp (right), by a heroin-addicted, professional shoplifter and slag called Antoinette Richardson and her career-criminal boyfriend Tony Virasami (below), who has criminal convictions stretching over thirty years for robbery, shoplifting, criminal damage, handling stolen goods, drug dealing and driving offences.

The facts of the case are that on the 10th of June 2008, the slag Antoinette Richardson tried to push in front of a young man called Adam Prendergast and his eight-year-old stepdaughter in a branch of Sainsbury’s. Prendergast chided Richardson for her rude behaviour and she responded like the foul-mouthed slag that she is, calling him a “little tramp.” At this point Prendergast lost his temper and told Richardson to “f*** off out of my face.”

Because Richardson was unused to some one standing up to her, and desperate for revenge against the young man who had not allowed her to get away with her pathetic attempts at bullying and intimidation, she phoned her jungle-savage, junkie boyfriend, Tony Virasami, summoning him to the scene.

When he arrived, she incited him to assault Prendergast. Unfortunately because the drug-addicted Richardson slag had difficulty communicating, the scum-bag Tony Virasami – who has not yet mastered such basic skills as understanding human speech – went up to another man, Kevin Tripp, and struck a vicious, murderous blow to his face, killing him.

After the ugly jungle savage had struck the blow, and while Kevin Tripp lay dying on the ground before her eyes, what did the evil, murderous Antoinette Richardson do? Did she make some effort to give first aid to the man whom she knew to be dying as a result of her malicious incitement? Did she summon help for him. Did she show any remorse or regret? Not a bit of it!

Instead, the cheap little junkie slag called out to her boyfriend that he had got the wrong man and said “We need to find the right guy.” Then, like the spineless backstabbing bitch that she is, she fled the scene, leaving Virasami to face the music for the murder that she had incited. So in addition to being ill-mannered, arrogant and vicious, she is also cowardly and treacherous. Fortunately, she was later arrested by police at her home in Sedgehill Road, Catford.

If you’re thinking that she’s a cheap slag who has forfeited the moral right to life, you’re right.

The victim, Mr Tripp was a good man who left behind him a loving partner and a five year old child.

Now when a person assaults another with the intention of either killing or causing grievous bodily harm and thereby causes death, that person is guilty of murder, not manslaughter. And from the force of the blow it is clear that Virasami INTENDED to cause grievous bodily harm. Therefore Virasami was guilty of murder. Richardson must have known Virasami's strength and by inciting him she was knowingly encouraging him to commit grievous bodily harm. therefore she too is guilty of murder.

Yet for some reason the Crown Prosecution Service allowed Virasami to plead guilty to manslaughter. Worse still, the Richardson slag tried to perjure her way out of it altogether, despite video and witness evidence showing her urging the jungle savage to hit Prendergast. In the event she too was found guilty – but again only of manslaughter.

However, the worst was yet to come. Because the criminal-friendly judge – who could have handed down sentences for life-imprisonment even for manslaughter – sentenced Virasami to only four years and Richardson to only eighteen months. These are the kind of sentence one would give if one were a friend of the criminals. Indeed because of time already served and remission, they were soon out on the streets again. No honest judge could think that such sentences are adequate for the crimes they committed.

It is almost inevitable that such sentences will inevitably encourage similar scum to commit similar crimes. Moreover Richardson and Virasami will be emboldened by these sentences. Indeed those scumbags probably think they have a monopoly on deadly violence. But what goes around comes around. They will soon find out that they don’t.

Richard Silverstein exploits Haitian earthquake victims

2011-06-30T16:35:00.000-07:00

Once in a while I like to slum it by reading Richard Silverstein’s attempts to demonize the Jewish state in which he uses the kind of unscrupulous methods that all decent people would rightly find repugnant. I’ve just fallen into the cesspool of his belief system yet again, reading an article he wrote on Israel’s prompt and effective disaster relief in Haiti after the earthquake there – relief which apparently bothers Silverstein immensely. In an article called “The Zionization of Disaster Relief” he subjects his hapless readers to the anti-Zionization of Disaster relief. That is, he uses an article that is ostensibly about disaster relief in Haiti as a peg on which to hang his anti-Israel beliefs.

Not content with limiting himself to the dishonest accusation that the Jewish state gave this assistance for purely publicity reasons (an accusation that is false but wholly in character for Silverstein) it seems that Silverstein has now set himself up as an expert on aid and has decided for others what is best way to help them – even as he sits on his toochas not actually lifting a finger to help them himself. Specifically he claimed that in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, portable toilets and digging equipment were needed more urgently than a field hospital and doctors.

The one thing he omitted was evidence to support this assertion. He also didn’t mention that these other things were also available from other sources more locally based. Nor did he take into account that the Israeli medical team was dispatched before the situation on the ground was clear. Under those circumstances, it was only natural that medical aid was deemed to be the highest priority.

Now Silverstein’s defense would no doubt be that he was actually quoting an article by Yoel Donchin, a former Israeli relief worker who by then worked as Director of Patient Safety at Hadassah hospital.

But Silverstein made no effort to interview or read anyone other than this one disgruntled former employee of the Israel army to get anything like a balanced picture. He simply seized upon words that he knew lent themselves to the demonization of the Jewish state, quoted them freely and looked no further – thereby showing his low regard for the truth and his determination to advance his anti-Israel agenda.

Some facts contained in the article are in fact pro-Israel in their import, but they are so cleverly camouflaged as to effectively negate their pro-Israel connotations. And of course Silverstein makes sure to avoid pointing this out, although he editorializes freely before and after quoting the article to stir up negative feelings towards the Jewish state. Take for example the following passage:

“I understood the purpose perfectly when the head of one of the delegations to a disaster zone was asked whether oxygen tanks and a number of doctors could be removed to make room for another TV network’s representatives with their equipment. (With unusual courage, the delegation head refused!)”

So the Israeli head of the delegation refused. In other words he placed the treatment of the injured above the wishes of the press or any public relations considerations. But that cuts no ice in the biased eyes of Silverstein or his equally mendacious source. Because it was “unusual courage.” So there we have it. When Israel does good it’s all for the wrong reason and when their behaviour doesn’t confirm the anti-Israel propaganda it’s “unusual.”

And Silverstein doesn’t stop there. He publishes a comment from a woman claiming that the Israel medical team didn’t even stay a week. He replies that they stayed 11 days, but does not take her to task for her dishonesty. He then claims, without offering any evidence, that they would have had to stay longer to make a difference – conveniently ignoring the fact that by then, many others had come. Next he publishes a comment from another woman claiming that “Zionists have control over the news media.” This woman is a well-known supportive contributor to Silverstein’s blog noted for her rudeness. On another occasion she described a Jewish contributor as having “reptilian skin” without public comment or warning from Silverstein. In contrast he is quick to warn or ban supporters of the Jewish state who use language that he claims to be impolite, as indeed he did a short while later in the thread about Israeli aid to Haiti.

Finally he allows an off-topic posting accusing Israel of selling arms to the Duvaliers in Haiti (going back a bit). Why this historical alleged information is any more relevant than weapons sales to other dictators by Arabs or Communists, he doesn’t say. But let’s not forget that this is the Jewish state and so it suddenly assumes a great relevance to a posting about recent earthquake relief.

And let’s not forget that Silverstein started it off by criticizing Israel for giving medical aid to Haiti. You can draw the appropriate conclusions about his ethics from that.

Justin Bieber - a matter of taste

2011-06-09T08:20:00.000-07:00

I have noticed, every time I log on to YouTube to listen to my favourite music from the sixties through the eighties, that there is invariably some disparaging comment, contrasting the music of Justin Bieber with the great music of the past. I have seen this on YouTube videos of a range of my favourites from The Seekers to Jethro Tull to Melanie Safka, from Abba to Jim Croce to Dire Straits, from the Alan Parsons Project to Ace of Base. Whilst I certainly prefer all those acts - and many more - to anything that Justin Bieber has done thus far, I think those critics are being unfair to him - on a number of counts.

First of all, let us not forget that Justin Bieber is very young, barely seventeen, and has not really had the time to develop genuine musical sophistication. In spite of this, he managed to teach himself to play the guitar (left-handed), piano, trumpet and drums - and all by the time he was fourteen. To learn to play even one musical instrument is hard. To teach oneself to play four takes a degree of dedication that your average X-factor contestant, or even winner, simply does not have. It is for that reason that I suspect Justin Bieber has the kind of staying power in the music industry to avoid being a hear-today-gone tomorrow supernova, as well as the self-discipline to avoid the all-too-familiar burnout that plagues the likes of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.

But what implication does this have for his music? To answer that question we must look at older musical talent that has stayed the course. They may differ from each in many respects but the one thing they have in common is a tendency to change their styles as they mature, to experiment with different forms and develop new and changing interests in all aspects of music. I am not talking about Madonna reinventing herself every few years, although that is an aspect of the same phenomenon - and she is certain a role model when it comes to an almost Spartan regime of self-discipline. I am talking about people like Tom Jones trying his hand - and vocal chords - at religious music, Bob Dylan risking the wrath of the hippie crowd by picking up an electric guitar or Ricky Nelson moving away from fifties rock-and -oll to become Rick Nelson.

Not every transformation is equally good in the eyes of everyone. I still prefer the old BeeGees in their melodious sixties "Run to Me" style than their pseudo-macho "Staying Alive" era. And I don't like it when sixties or seventies artists re-record their hits at half the tempo, whether it be "Both Sides Now" or "Hello World." But my personal preferences are not the point. It is the capacity to change ones style whilst living by the doctrine "above all to thine own self be true," - as much as Alice Cooper's dictum about separating ones public from by ones private persona - that enables some to stay the course while others fall by the wayside.

And this is the lesson that the old fogies of pop and rock can teach Justin Bieber. As he matures and grows musically, it is inevitable that he will vary his style and experiment with different forms. If he can also avoid the pitfalls that come with being surrounded by yes-men then we can be sure that he will stay the course and enrich the world with his music for many years to come.

NB The picture that goes with this posting is intended as humorous and should not be taken as implying that Justin Bieber has really read - much less endorses - The Moses Legacy or its content.

My books are available for the Kindle

2011-06-05T02:23:00.000-07:00

My books are now available for the Amazon Kindle. Check out the Amazon page on my website.

2011-05-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

The Moses Legacy is a conspiracy thriller of the "ancient meets modern" genre. The story begins when an archaeological dig led by tall, statuesque, Austrian blonde Gabrielle Gusack, finds fragments of stone bearing writing in an ancient script, known as "proto-Sinaitic." Excited by the discovery, Gabrielle persuades Egyptian antiquities supremo Akil Mansoor - who bears more than a passing resemblance to Zahi Hawass - to let her call in the aid of Daniel Klein.

Daniel is an expert on Semitic languages, but more importantly a disciple of Gabrielle's uncle. It is this "past" between Daniel and Gaby that provides the love interest.

Soon however - as is inevitable in thrillers of this kind - things start to "happen". Happen as in people getting killed, people being tracked via their mobile phones and people going down with mysterious illnesses that produce red lesions on the skin. Throw in a secretive private organization in Washington DC, a pretty Irish girl recruited by the Mossad, and some ancient secrets held by the Samaritans and Jordanian Bedouin, and you have all the makings of a ruddy-good, fast-paced, ripping yarn.

Only a month till publication of THE MOSES LEGACY

2011-04-23T04:00:00.000-07:00

A stunning thriller about archaeologists finding thje original Ten Commandments (or did they?) is coming out on May the 26th. You can read all about how it came to be written here in a series of episodes that describers a creative process and the world of publishing. It is almost like a thriller in its own right.

My revamped website

2011-04-08T05:16:00.000-07:00

I am pleased to tell you all that my website has been completely revamped with the help of my friend Eran and can now be seen in all its glory. Because I uninstalled Joomla and replaced it with WordPress, I had to lose the content and start afresh. I had saved some of the old content, but much of it needed improvement anyway, so I took this opportunity to start with a virtually clean slate.

I have put some information about my recent books published by HarperCollins, including sample chapters. You will also find, on the website, information about the background to the books, how I came to write them, the struggles I faced (I hope I have not been too indiscreet) and the hardships of being a writer. This of course is a work in progress. In due course I will also start blogging about my political views, as I do here. Indeed at some point, sadly, this site may fall into disuse :-(

However, in the meantime, please feel free to visit my old/new site and leave comments. All comments must be approved, but I will try to do that ASAP

Prisoners "right" to vote

2011-02-17T09:18:00.000-08:00

I came across a blog about the so-called "right" of prisoners to vote that was so misleading in its arguments that I have to comment on it. The blog, by one David Grace (a self-styled "disgruntled liberal"), argues falsely that MP who voted against giving prisoners the vote were showing "scorn for human rights" and "sheer xenophobia."

This utterly false description of those ethical Members of Parliament who voted against giving prisoners the vote cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The main thrust of Grace's argument is that as the European Court of Human Rights derives its powers from a treaty that was signed by the British government and ratified by the British parliament, it is a matter of "honouring our commitments." He also argues that there is nothing undemocratic about accepting the judgements of the Court. But this argument fails on a number of counts.

First of all the recent parliamentary vote that Grace condemns was just as much a parliamentary vote as the one that ratified the treaty. Is Grace saying that individual MP's must vote in accordance with the Court's ruling and not in accordance with their consciences? That most certainly would be undemocratic. Parliament is as independent of the Courts as the Courts are of parliament. Grace even criticizes some MPs for being absent from the debate and vote, thereby implying that they are not even allowed to abstain, but must vote the way the Court tells them. So much for his commitment to democracy.

Secondly, the ruling that the disenfranchisement of prisoners serving custodial sentences is an infringement of the right to a free and fair election can only be described as a brazen misinterpretation of the Act. No honest judge - and indeed no honest person for that matter - could possibly believe such an interpretation.

When the judges handed down that ruling, they were breaching their oaths of office in which they swore to exercise their judicial functions "honourably, independently and impartially." (That is not to gainsay however that they have complied with the other part of the oath, to "keep secret all deliberations." So much for openness and the rights of the public!)

Grace also conveniently ignored the fact that both victims of crime and taxpayers (who are clearly affected by the decision) were not given any standing to argue their case, despite the fact that its outcome impinges upon them.

There is in fact no conflict between the view that the right to vote is indeed a right and the view that the right can be forfeited by the commission of a crime. After all a person ordinarily has the right to freedom, but that does not mean that the right cannot be forfeited for a while by the commission of a crime.

Grace's logic fares no better then he argues that disenfranchising prisoners has "no value in penal policy."He offers no evidence that granting the right has rehabilitative value.

Having said all of the above, I would also point out that even if one accepts the circuitous logic used by the criminal-friendly judiciary to reach their decision, then one arrives at an interesting conclusion regarding the question of compensation. The “honourable” judges held that the alleged right of (at least some) prisoners to vote, although nowhere stated in the European Convention on Human Rights, is a consequence of the requirement that free and fair elections be held.

But the effect of an election (unlike say health care or humane conditions) is collective rather than individual. Therefore it could be argued, applying the Court’s own logic, that the effect of denying prisoners the right to vote infringes the rights of society as a whole, to a free and fair election!

Accordingly, if one follows this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then the disenfranchisement of criminals must be held to victimize the whole of society and not just the disenfranchised criminal himself.This means that all members of society are entitled to compensation in equal measure. This conclusion may be counter-intuitive, but it is the inescapable consequence of the Court's own logic.

Extract from my latest thriller

2010-07-28T03:20:00.003-07:00

Friday, 5 June 2009 – 7.30

Bethel was nineteen – too young to remember the Sixties and too bored to care about her grandparents’ reminiscences – like how her mother was conceived at the Woodstock festival.

But the sound of Buffalo Springfield’s “For What It’s Worth” was ringing through her head, via the earphones of her iPod, as she stood by the roadside, waiting for help. She knew little of the context of the song and nothing about the closing of the Pandora’s Box nightclub or the Sunset Strip Curfew Riots. But the voice of Neil Young was haunting. It was easy to sleep through high school civics classes – even to sleepwalk through the assignments and exams. She knew a bit about the

Vietnam

wat and the civil rights struggles of the Sixties. But it was all superficial academic knowledge, of the kind she picked up almost by default while daydreaming about the football team quarterback.

It stayed in her mind not as a coherent picture, but as a collection of sound bites: “We shall overcome,” “I have a dream,” “Power to the people,” “Burn, baby, burn!” The voice of anger still echoed across the decades. But it echoed faintly. A time gulf separated Bethel from the turbulence that had almost ripped her country apart. And the time gulf was ever widening, so all that was left of the ringing timbre of history’s voices were the fading reverberations of barely remembered heroes: Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Chicago Eight. Names and slogans to Bethel, but no substance.

But she liked the song. It had a pleasant hook that made it stick in her mind. What really sent shivers up her spine was that haunting phrase at the end of chorus, urging the young listeners to pause and assess the situation. She had no more than the merest inkling of what it meant. Whatever it was had gone down already. It doesn’t really matter, she told herself. It belonged to her grandparents’ generation anyway. She belonged to another generation, the one that was more concerned with finding a job than changing the world

Her full name was Bethel Georgia Newton and she was a mixed bag of human elements. In the looks department she was all bleached blonde and classic cheerleader figure, a carefully cultivated complexion and polished-tooth smile. Neither svelte nor buxom, a kind of perfect “in-between” for her height of five foot six; athletic, but in that soft, not overdone sort of way, with well-toned leg muscles, but not rippling ones. She was middle class and far removed from the culture of the street, yet when it came to experience of life she wasn’t entirely naïve. She might not exactly have been streetwise, but she had tasted the bitter side of life.

She stood by the roadside in her tight-fitting white t-shirt and denim shorts that showed every curve of her firm body, holding out her thumb every time a car went by. She thought it would be easy hitching a ride, with her breasts thrusting out in front, straining against her t-shirt, and the perfect ripe complexion of her thighs showing like white silk in the California sunshine. But people were paranoid about helping strangers by the roadside, she realized now.

A few yards away, her car had broken down and she couldn’t even call for help because the battery of her cell phone was flat. She had made a half-hearted effort to fix the car herself, but she didn’t really have a clue when it came to car engines. So all she could do was flag down a Good Samaritan and ask them to take her to a garage where she could get proper help.

Secretly she was hoping that some good-looking man with technical skills and a cool family fortune would stop and rescue her, not just from the roadside but from the aimless drifting boredom that seemed to have engulfed her life lately. But she would settle for an elderly couple taking her down the road to a pay phone if necessary. Only she wasn’t even getting that. Life was unfair.

But then her luck changed.

An aquamarine Mercedes slowed down as it approached her. A recent model and from the up-market end of the European car industry, the owner was clearly affluent and probably young. By the time it had pulled over by the roadside she could see that the driver, in his late twenties, was a black man.

What would my parents think? she wondered with a smile at the fleeting fantasy of turning up on her liberal parents’ doorstep with this young man in tow.

Think rather than say. She knew that they’d be warm and welcoming. But she wondered if they were capable of walking the walk as well as they could talk the talk. It occurred to her that she didn’t really know her parents. And yet here she was away from home, trying to find herself.

As the young man leaned out, smiling, and asked if she needed help, she could tell from his confident voice that this someone who was going places. She was drawn to his youthful good looks and quiet, cool self-confidence and she warmed to him instantly, even if his diction betrayed the lingering traces of a background that she half suspected he was trying to conceal – or maybe just forget.

He took a look under the hood and after about a minute shook his head and said, “I’m not really all that good with engines. I’m better with people.” He won her over with that line and a disarming smile. Two minutes later she was in the Mercedes and they were rolling along down the road, getting to know each other better. Then, somewhere along the line, she noticed that he had turned off the main road.

She was about to ask where they were going when she caught a glimpse of his profile and saw his lips twist upwards into a smile. But she couldn’t tell if the smile was friendly. And as the first traces of apprehension formed into a knot in the pit of her stomach, she realized that she was too afraid to inquire further.

Click here to read the rest of No Way Out - this exciting thriller...

Bulger killer gets off lightly

2010-07-26T03:23:00.000-07:00

John Venables, one of the two murderers of two year-old James Bulger got off lightly with only a two year sentence for serious child pornography offenses. This is despite the fact that he was already out on life license ("parole" to Americans) for the Bulger murder in 1993.

The amazing thing is that he seems to assume that he will be released on completion of his sentence - or even before that. In fact, because he committed a crime while on license, he breached the terms of said license and consequently his license was revoked. That means that he can only be released if a new license is issued.

Whether that will actually happen depends on the courage of the Home Secretary. I suspect that somewhere along the line, we will be told that under a judicial interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights, the mere act of putting him on a life license (for the murder of James Bulger) instead of a short finite sentence, was itself a "violation" of his "human rights." While such a ruling would obviously be a misinterpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is the kind of interpretation that I can see our criminal-friendly judiciary handing down before they retreat behind gated communities with their police bodyguard.

It is also the kind of argument that I can also see rolling off the tongue of some highly-paid, smooth-talking shyster - highly paid by the taxpayer that is. But if it does happen, then it is only a matter of time before he re-offends.

On the hand, Robert Thompson (the other murderer of James Bulger) is entirely different. Although he received pretty soft treatment at the de facto boarding school to which the authorities sent him, he seems to have gone straight. He is living with his girlfriend and baby and a close female blood-relative. He is quite polite - on one occasion even letting me get on the bus ahead of him despite the fact that he was already at the bus stop when I arrived there.

He doesn't know that I am onto him - although I think he suspects. But I have mixed feelings when I see him. On the one hand I believe that he is a genuinely reformed and rehabilitated character. But on the other hand none of this vitiates the fact that he has the blood of an innocent child on his hands. Moreover it was a long drawn-out vicious murder, not merely a spontaneous lashing out with fatal consequences. He saw his two-year-old victim suffering and heard him crying and pleading with him to stop: yet he carried on. His rehabilitation does nothing to ease the pain of his victim.

Rapist gets off lightly - AGAIN

2010-07-01T04:30:00.000-07:00

Once again, Britain's criminal-friendly judges have let a rapist off lightly. This time the rapist is an 18-year-old man who, when he was a 12-year-old boy raped a teacher. She is still receiving therapy for the psychological trauma that the dirty little scumbag inflicted on her.

The original trial judge correctly stated that the rapist posed a "grave danger." This might be because in addition to being a rapist he was also a drug junkie, a solvent addict, a pyromaniac and a violent young thug. However Lord Justice Hughes, vice-president of the criminal court of appeal, decided that eight years with an extended licence period after release, was sufficient to protect the public from this death-deserving yob. He was backed in this corrupt and depraved decision by Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Mr Justice King.

But what prompted this miscarriage of justice? (And make no mistake, this reduction in the rapist's sentence IS a miscarriage of Justice.) Well it is tempting to speculate that male judges have a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude when it comes to rape. But we must also acknowledge the significant contribution of the rapists lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald QC, who used the best of his abilities to cause his rapist client to be unleashed on society as early as possible. Fitzgerald told the Appeal Court that the original sentence should never have been passed.

Now we should remember that barristers operate according to the so-called "taxi rank" principle of accepting the first "fare" that comes along. Personally I would call this the Red Light District streetwalker principle of going with the first punter that comes along. But I can understand why members of that august profession prefer to compare themselves to skilled workers who have "done the knowledge" rather than members of the oldest profession whom they more closely resemble.

In any event, no one can deny that Fitzgerald did a good job in securing an earlier release for this rapist client. Whilst it is quite likely that he was paid by the taxpayer (through the legal aid system) he was serving not the taxpayer, but his client. And if that means that other women will be raped by his client in the future - something that is highly probable - that is not Mr Fitzgerald's problem.

And what of the victim? Well it is all too easy to forget the victim in all of this. Victims are not entitled to any representation in criminal proceedings. Even victim impact statements are largely ignored by the judges and any change in this policy has been opposed by those who support the criminals. The only "redress" that the law purports to allow the victim is the right to bring a civil lawsuit for financial compensation. But no matter how much money is awarded, if the rapist hasn't got the money (or is able to conceal it) he will not be obliged to pay it. or if he pays it will be a couple of quid a week. And then he can duck the debt by having himself declared bankrupt.

Is it surprising then that in another case going before the courts involves a 15-year-old girl (then 14) accused murdering a man she accused of raping her? As a rape victim says to the man who raped her many years later in my latest thriller No Way Out You think the pain of your victims ebbs into oblivion just because you turned your life around. You think it’s that easy? Don’t you know that for the victims the pain never goes away!"

The answer is: it doesn't. So may be it's time to inflict some pain on the rapists. As a modest first step, if anyone knows the identity of the rapist in this case, would they please reveal it on a website hosted outside the United Kingdom.

Obama forces Union Carbide to pay proper compensation

2010-06-21T10:24:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-16T06:31:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-21T07:39:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-29T07:47:00.001-07:00

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

2010-03-06T07:45:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-15T10:47:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-01T11:14:00.000-08:00

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...