Affrayed to death

Here’s another story which involves the hierarchy of protected characteristics:

Four members of a girl gang who inflicted a “sustained and horrific” bus stop attack on a frightened Egyptian student who later died have been given non-custodial sentences.

Mariam Moustafa, 18, suffered a stroke which left her in a coma after being “pushed so hard” that she was slammed against a bus shelter on 20 February last year, and died almost a month later on 14 March.

After admitting affray in connection with the street assault, two 18-year-old women, who can now be named as Rochelle Dobbin and Netesha Lewis, and two 16-year-old girls were handed referral orders by a district judge at Nottingham youth court on Wednesday.

When news first broke of an unprovoked attack on an Egyptian woman in Nottingham, the media was quick to assume it was racially aggravated. However, when the ethnicity of her assailants became known they fell silent.

Lewis launched a violent attack on the student, punching her repeatedly and accusing her of being responsible for a social media account called “Black Rose”.

Moustafa was punched several times during an attack “fuelled by social media” near a bus stop in Parliament Street, Nottingham, at 8pm, while her friend Pablo Jawara tried to protect her.

So it was a premeditated attack. Nevertheless:

The district judge described the teenagers as “aggressive” and said they should be “condemned” for their actions. They were spared detention because the court should “avoid criminalising young people unnecessarily” and the teenagers could only be sent to custody as “a last resort”.

Well, we wouldn’t want to criminalise a gang of girls who beat another to death, would we?

At Nottingham crown court on Friday, Mariah Fraser, 20, was ordered to spend eight months in a young offender institution

For those of you who thought young offenders institutions were for minors, you were mistaken. It seems they’re for violent adult criminals in cases where judges can’t bring themselves to put them in prison. The Sun has more details about the attack:

She said: “Messages were flying around social media by someone called Black Rose and the girls thought that was Mariam.

“They were shouting things like ‘you watch fam, you’re going to get f***ed up when I see you, I’ll f**k you up again.’

“The six got on off the bus and were shouting abuse at Mariam. It was at this point Mariam collapsed.

“The defendants seemed unconcerned and were laughing.”

You know the legal term protected classes? It’s an American thing but it appears to apply to the UK as well, and it means exactly that. See also here.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

18 thoughts on “Affrayed to death

  1. Too much is being read into this. Both perpetrators and victim were in “protected classes”. The victim died of a pre-existing condition and the prosecution could not link the death to the attack.
    However, the punishment for a coordinated premeditated assault seems lenient, according to MoJ guidelines.
    I can only imagine that the “no vacancy” signs are up in the jails.

  2. Too much is being read into this. Both perpetrators and victim were in “protected classes”.

    Yes, but there is a hierarchy as this blog likes mentioning on what feels like a weekly basis. I have so little faith in the British justice system to believe that were the victim above her attackers in the hierarchy, spare cells would have been found pronto.

  3. Thanks James for the added info. I am curious where you established that as I did wonder why it couldnt be linked and why affray was the charge instead of something more serious.

    On Tim’s point though, the media and a lot of the proper lefties I know were and are utterly desperate to portray this as an attack on a Muslim girl. They also believe that the sentencing was due to the fact the victim wasn’t white (I think these ones didnt research the background of the known attackers). So too people from the same ‘community’ are eager to believe she and thus they by association are victims of a hate crime rather than a unfortunately more ‘common’ case of brutal youths brutalising another youth.

    What matters is this. Religion and ‘race’ had nothing to do with the attack but people out there are actively pushing the idea it was for their own nebulous ends. Most people dont ever bother to delve the slightest on popularly reported crime incidents and just accept a slogan. If people perceive it was a hate crime then its worrying.

    It is worrying for two reasons:

    1) The actual dynamic of such assaults are misdiagnosed and thus will not be dealt with in the most optimum way

    2) This feeds a growing sectarian divide, victimhood, real or imagined is fermenting it

  4. I love the fact that one of the attackers was called Britania Hunter. Predatory, Black British, and with illiterate parents.

  5. Both perpetrators and victim were in “protected classes”.

    The fact that the attackers are on the victim hierarchy at all is the point here. You and I aren’t on it* and would be treated differently (adjusting for age).

    *unless you’re the James Harries.

    ——–

    I read the article linked to at the bottom of this piece and sadly I agree with all comments, including the last one. What is sadder is that I would be overjoyed if such a situation were to come about. That’s where we’re at.

  6. “Religion and ‘race’ had nothing to do with the attack but people out there are actively pushing the idea it was for their own nebulous ends. ”

    So if a group of white thugs had assaulted a black (or muslim) person, who dies as a result that wouldn’t be a ‘racist’ attack either? Or would it become an epoch defining moment in race relations as per the Stephen Lawrence murder? Its odd how every case of a white on non-white assaults are all called racist, yet every non-white on white assaults are explained away by ‘other reasons’.

  7. Incidentally, whats all this ‘can’t link the death to the assault’? I thought if you assault someone and they die within a certain length of time then you’re culpable regardless? I mean she may have had a heart conditions, but it can hardly have been helped by being assaulted can it? Does this mean if you know someone has a dodgy ticker you can come up behind them, set off a firework, and push them over and if they have a seizure its not your fault? My guess is that wouldn’t be the case if you were white…….

  8. I considered this third world living even for Nottingham before I got to the second paragraph on the various racial differences at play.

  9. @Jim

    It is well known that ethnically African peoples cannot be racist because of patriarchy or something. Please report to a re-education camp where you can be properly brainwashed

  10. @Jim,

    There was and is no evidence I have seen which suggests the motivation for the attack had anything to do with her religion or ‘race’. Plenty of people claim it is based on a perverse wishful thinking. Unless someone can indicate even the slightest racialist element to that attack and motivation then I am pretty happy to dismiss such claims out of hand.

  11. There was and is no evidence I have seen which suggests the motivation for the attack had anything to do with her religion or ‘race’.

    Doesn’t matter. Under UK law, I declare it was a racist attack. That’s all you need…

    Because The Times has refused to mention the ethnicity of the attackers, some readers have assumed the attackers were white. One BTL commentator expressed outrage over the sentencing, saying that with a white victim and non-white attackers the result would have been different.

    My comments pointing out that the attackers weren’t white disappeared into the ether.

  12. This one is not about boring old ethnicity this is a good old fashioned and dyed in the wool rooting, tooting racial scrum with African, Arabic and Anglo Saxon races getting it on.

  13. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

    Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

    1. Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
    2. Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill (“gross negligence manslaughter”); and
    3. Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death (“unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter”).

    One would normally assume 3) applied here

    Unlawful Act Manslaughter
    The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.

    Dangerousness
    An objective test must be applied to the question as to whether an accused’s unlawful act, from which death results, was dangerous

    But,

    Causation
    The prosecution must establish that the unlawful act was a cause of the death without an intervening act to break the chain of causation – R v Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim 151

    “novus actus interveniens”

    I’m guessing lots of stuff happened in between, because the other elements (assault etc) that would have resulted in an unlawful and dangerous act.

  14. “There was and is no evidence I have seen which suggests the motivation for the attack had anything to do with her religion or ‘race’.”

    Hmm, funny that, because every other time this happens, when its a white assailant and non-white victim, suddenly the need for evidence to declare the incident a ‘race hate’ crime isn’t required.

    In fact according to ‘the law’ (yes, that invention of the white patriarchy) any incident that the victim ‘considers’ to be racially motivated, IS racially motivated. And guess what, the victims family considered it exactly that. But of course the law doesn’t apply when one of the protected groups are in the dock, then its brush it all under the carpet time, pronto. Which the Notts police quickly did, as you are, inventing the need for there to be ‘evidence’ of racial motivation, when the law requires none at all.

  15. Whether the attack was racially motivated or not seems to be a side issue, really, but a few observations:

    1. This was immediately declared to be a racially motivated attack when certain people assumed that the attackers were white. It’s that which is important here. That need by some people to find white racists to vilify to feed the narrative they are emotionally invested in.

    2. The girls who were apparently involved are of a group more likely to engage in this sort of behaviour, and any lower class whites unlucky enough to live in close proximity will often be dragged down to almost the same level.

    3. When the perpetrator and victim are of different racial/ethnic/cultural backgrounds, that will likely be a factor in the motivation for the attack, even if not the primary one. There will be less empathy and more antipathy felt, even if only slight.

    That is all.

  16. “This was immediately declared to be a racially motivated attack ”

    No, it was immediately ruled out as a racially motivated attack, within days of it happening, by Notts police, who held a special press conference to make that very clear (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/19/attack-on-mariam-moustafa-not-racially-motivated-say-police) The reason being that at the time video footage was already circulating showing the ethnicity of the assailants (though the actual identities may not have been known), and it was public knowledge that the assailants were not white.

    Obviously subsequently, as the case progressed and reports appeared in the press, many people reading about the case for the first time would have been unaware as to the race of the attackers, as the press have studiously avoided mentioning that fact. And the videos have not been re-published due to reporting restrictions one assumes.

    So many people who missed the original reporting of the case will have assumed a ‘whites killing Muslim girl’ scenario, and screamed ‘racially motivated attack’, completely unaware of the facts at hand.

  17. Years ago in Seattle, there was a news story that I heard on the radio, saw on television, and read in the newspaper.

    A married couple was walking in the University district. The woman was pregnant. They came upon two black men beating a white man. The couple tried to help the white man. One of the assailants said “Get out of here or we will kill you and your white baby, too.”

    All three places I heard/saw the story ended with “There was no indication that this was a racially motivated attack.” You can just imagine what the story would have been had the races been reversed.

    For years in Seattle, you knew the race of the criminal if the news story did not mention the race. If the criminal were anything but black then the race would have been disclosed. It was not unusual to see stories that went something like this:

    “Police are asking the public to be on the lookout for a man wanted in connection with a vicious assault. The man is described as being 6 feet tall, 180 pounds, with black hair and brown eyes. Do not approach the man as he is considered very dangerous.”

  18. For years in Seattle, you knew the race of the criminal if the news story did not mention the race.

    Ah yes, I’ve written about that before. Tim Blair coined the term “men of no appearance” to describe the people who appear in such reports.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *