Clapham Acid Attack
Discussion
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/acid-attack-...
Several hurt including police officers, two young children and their mother. Suspect seemingly still at large.
WTF is wrong with the world, who’d throw acid at little kids FFS.
Several hurt including police officers, two young children and their mother. Suspect seemingly still at large.
WTF is wrong with the world, who’d throw acid at little kids FFS.
Edited by Southerner on Wednesday 31st January 23:31
ChocolateFrog said:
Apparently from one of the witnesses he was slamming, presumably his own 3 year old, off the floor.
'Attacker smashed child on the floor', witness says
I can't think of much worse of a crime.
And it’s difficult to think of any punishment currently available here that fits that crime, frankly. Carelss removal of limbs by a blindfolded surgeon during an anesthetic shortage, perhaps.'Attacker smashed child on the floor', witness says
I can't think of much worse of a crime.
Gareth79 said:
Pic on this live thread - looks like it would sting a bit!
https://news.sky.com/story/clapham-chemical-attack...
Sadly, my first thought was “if that’s what he’s done to himself what must his victims look like?” https://news.sky.com/story/clapham-chemical-attack...
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clapham-attack-linked-to...
It’s “male entitlement” over women, says a chairty. You might be forgiven for thinking that it was, in fact, just f*ked up extreme behaviour by an extreme scumbag of the vilest sort.
“ActionAid UK said that acid attacks are in response to ‘harmful patriarchal norms.”
The same article quotes the follwing figures:
“Last year, Acid Survivors Trust International (ASTI), a UK-based charity, found that the number of chemical attacks had risen dramatically. Their Freedom of Information request showed that attacks increased by 69% in 2022 when compared to the year before, with a total of 710 attacks.
Of that figure, 339 victims were women, and 317 were men; in 48 cases, the gender of the victims was unknown.”
So very nearly half of all recorded victims were men; I’m unsure how that demonstrates “male entitlement over women” or “patriarchal norms” as being the root cause. Not entirely sure this charity have hit the mark on this occasion, seems unhelpful and inaccurate to me. No figures are given regarding the assailants.
The reported geography is interesting, though:
“The highest number of incidents occurred in Northumbria, with 183 attacks that year, followed by London and Merseyside.”
It’s “male entitlement” over women, says a chairty. You might be forgiven for thinking that it was, in fact, just f*ked up extreme behaviour by an extreme scumbag of the vilest sort.
“ActionAid UK said that acid attacks are in response to ‘harmful patriarchal norms.”
The same article quotes the follwing figures:
“Last year, Acid Survivors Trust International (ASTI), a UK-based charity, found that the number of chemical attacks had risen dramatically. Their Freedom of Information request showed that attacks increased by 69% in 2022 when compared to the year before, with a total of 710 attacks.
Of that figure, 339 victims were women, and 317 were men; in 48 cases, the gender of the victims was unknown.”
So very nearly half of all recorded victims were men; I’m unsure how that demonstrates “male entitlement over women” or “patriarchal norms” as being the root cause. Not entirely sure this charity have hit the mark on this occasion, seems unhelpful and inaccurate to me. No figures are given regarding the assailants.
The reported geography is interesting, though:
“The highest number of incidents occurred in Northumbria, with 183 attacks that year, followed by London and Merseyside.”
Edited by Southerner on Thursday 1st February 19:43
Seasonal Hero said:
turbobloke said:
Are you suggesting it's fake news or expressing shock and horror following a long hard look?
Apparently Ezedi has a 2018 conviction for a sex offence from Newcastle Crown Court, which appears to be before the successful asylum application.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abdul-ezedi-...
https://www.three.fm/news/uk-news/clapham-chemical...
Doesn’t need a hard look. The wtf is wondering how the hell he had it granted after that. Apparently Ezedi has a 2018 conviction for a sex offence from Newcastle Crown Court, which appears to be before the successful asylum application.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abdul-ezedi-...
https://www.three.fm/news/uk-news/clapham-chemical...
valiant said:
Which doesn't answer how do we deport someone to somewhere where we have no diplomatic relations with.
However he got here and gained asylum is immaterial now that he's here. He's our problem
Yes, we need to seriously look at how one gains asylum and if necessary, procedures and policies need to be tightened up but today, for now, we have to work with the rules as they are which means deportation ain't happening.
Purely out of interest then, does this essentially mean that asylum is eventually guaranteed for anyone from a country that the UK doesn’t have a political relationship with? In the case of this repugnant scumbag, media reports are that his successful claim for asylum followed two unsuccessful attempts, so what happens if no such “third time lucky” claim eventually gets through? How do we process a person that we don’t wish to grant asylum to but whose home country we aren’t able to deport to? Is this the actual cause of cases like this, simply that once they arrive we can’t remove them anyway?However he got here and gained asylum is immaterial now that he's here. He's our problem
Yes, we need to seriously look at how one gains asylum and if necessary, procedures and policies need to be tightened up but today, for now, we have to work with the rules as they are which means deportation ain't happening.
swisstoni said:
Southerner said:
valiant said:
Which doesn't answer how do we deport someone to somewhere where we have no diplomatic relations with.
However he got here and gained asylum is immaterial now that he's here. He's our problem
Yes, we need to seriously look at how one gains asylum and if necessary, procedures and policies need to be tightened up but today, for now, we have to work with the rules as they are which means deportation ain't happening.
Purely out of interest then, does this essentially mean that asylum is eventually guaranteed for anyone from a country that the UK doesn’t have a political relationship with? In the case of this repugnant scumbag, media reports are that his successful claim for asylum followed two unsuccessful attempts, so what happens if no such “third time lucky” claim eventually gets through? How do we process a person that we don’t wish to grant asylum to but whose home country we aren’t able to deport to? Is this the actual cause of cases like this, simply that once they arrive we can’t remove them anyway?However he got here and gained asylum is immaterial now that he's here. He's our problem
Yes, we need to seriously look at how one gains asylum and if necessary, procedures and policies need to be tightened up but today, for now, we have to work with the rules as they are which means deportation ain't happening.
With a Greggs voucher and a free latte at the airport to help smooth the deal.
Might the lack of an immediate description from the police be due to him having been deemed dangerous to the public, to avoid any further victims owing to attempted heroics?
Plus of course his police mugshot or whatever it is looks nothing like him now, and until they retrieved CCTV they wouldn’t have known that his face was hanging off.
Plus of course his police mugshot or whatever it is looks nothing like him now, and until they retrieved CCTV they wouldn’t have known that his face was hanging off.
borcy said:
Southerner said:
valiant said:
Which doesn't answer how do we deport someone to somewhere where we have no diplomatic relations with.
However he got here and gained asylum is immaterial now that he's here. He's our problem
Yes, we need to seriously look at how one gains asylum and if necessary, procedures and policies need to be tightened up but today, for now, we have to work with the rules as they are which means deportation ain't happening.
Purely out of interest then, does this essentially mean that asylum is eventually guaranteed for anyone from a country that the UK doesn’t have a political relationship with? In the case of this repugnant scumbag, media reports are that his successful claim for asylum followed two unsuccessful attempts, so what happens if no such “third time lucky” claim eventually gets through? How do we process a person that we don’t wish to grant asylum to but whose home country we aren’t able to deport to? Is this the actual cause of cases like this, simply that once they arrive we can’t remove them anyway?However he got here and gained asylum is immaterial now that he's here. He's our problem
Yes, we need to seriously look at how one gains asylum and if necessary, procedures and policies need to be tightened up but today, for now, we have to work with the rules as they are which means deportation ain't happening.
J210 said:
The Ferret said:
So the news now saying he may have fallen in the Thames and could be dead.
Sounds like a load of b
ks to me and an excuse for the lack of ability to find a man with half his face missing in London.
All the CCTV in London and they cant find him hmmmm. Sounds like a load of b
ks to me and an excuse for the lack of ability to find a man with half his face missing in London.Let me guess we need more CCTV and facial recognition to stop this happening again.
Biggy Stardust said:
otolith said:
Being persecuted for a personal characteristic - such as being the "wrong" religion, or an atheist - remains a factor in asylum decisions but as I understand it our existing rules mean that as a convicted sex offender he should not have been given leave to remain.
Are you suggesting that someone official screwed up? I'm shocked. Doubtless they will be held accountable for this error & it will never happen again.TopTrump said:
Kind of puts you off open water swimming...
Slightly morbidly fascinated by the idea that the police go looking for a body and end up finding several others. How exactly do they “look” for them; the water in the Thames is hardly crystal clear and it must be absolutely full of foreign objects, are there certain ‘traps’ that they only check from time to time? We can all appreciate that plenty of souls have met their end in the river, yet it somehow “looking” for them still seems a slightly bizarre concept.blueg33 said:
texaxile said:
More than likely sepsis would have set in by now, according to the wife who is a Nurse. Sepsis needs treatment, it doesn't "just get better" if left alone.
Without treatment a wound like that will fester until it scabs over unless treated very quickly and properly. Given this piece of human filth didn't seem to rinse off his injuries, one can only hope it has set in and is giving him severe pain.
As it is visually pretty serious, it is very probably going to lead to further complication without treatment, hopefully.
With any luck he's convulsing due to a bacterial infection which will finish him off, all we can hope for is that those who may have protected him will also be held accountable.
I always assumed that the water he bought at Sainsbury’s was to rinse it off. Without treatment a wound like that will fester until it scabs over unless treated very quickly and properly. Given this piece of human filth didn't seem to rinse off his injuries, one can only hope it has set in and is giving him severe pain.
As it is visually pretty serious, it is very probably going to lead to further complication without treatment, hopefully.
With any luck he's convulsing due to a bacterial infection which will finish him off, all we can hope for is that those who may have protected him will also be held accountable.
Edited by texaxile on Sunday 11th February 23:29
cossy400 said:
Or more likely just some complete tw@t who’s seen the other scumbag in the news. I particularly like how having tasered the idiot they then wallop him firmly with a riot shield as well, nice work chaps!pocketspring said:
Southerner said:
cossy400 said:
Or more likely just some complete tw@t who’s seen the other scumbag in the news. I particularly like how having tasered the idiot they then wallop him firmly with a riot shield as well, nice work chaps!
We can only hope that his intention was to flee somewhere and live the high life as whatever vile sort of hero he thought he was, but instead unintentionally completely ruined his own life by burning himself and ended up desperate and dying in agony and panic in the river. Seems a fitting end to the story.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff