More Killer Kids...

A woman who died inside her home has been named by police after a 13-year-old girl arrested on suspicion of her murder was released on bail. The woman who died in Swindon on Friday was 55-year-old Sarah Forrester, Wiltshire Police have confirmed.

Can't name the suspect, of course. She's a 'child' and so must be protected.

The 13-year-old girl was later arrested on suspicion of murder and taken into custody for questioning. She has since been bailed while enquiries continue.

Bail for murder? Are there any clues that might show if murder by a child was a likely event in this lady's life? 

Ms Forrester worked as a counsellor at The Kelly Foundation, a Swindon charity which supports individuals with severe anxiety, depression and other mental health issues.

That's a pretty big one, eh, Reader? The police churn out the usual predictable boilerplate:  

Ch Supt Guy Elkins, from Wiltshire Police, said: "Our thoughts are with Sarah's friends and family at this awful time.

"An investigation into her death is being led by our major crime investigation team and local residents will continue to see increased policing activity in the area."

He said police are not looking for anyone else in connection with Ms Forrester's death.

And of course, that favoured phrase of the oh-so-modern copper:  

"We continue to urge people not to speculate on the incident," he added.

Urge away, Guy. Me, I'll speculate all I want. It is, after all, still a free country. Despite the best efforts of this wretched government.. 

The Same Old Familiar Story...

A knife-obsessed teenager who stabbed another boy to death was unmasked yesterday after a judge locked him up for at least 16 years.

And in a revelation that will surprise absolutely no-one.... 

Mohammed Umar Khan, 15, was named as the killer of Harvey Willgoose, also 15.

'Wow, what a shocker!' said no-one who reads the news... 

Mrs Justice Ellenbogen yesterday lifted a reporting restriction which had prevented the defendant being named. She accepted arguments from the Press that lifting the restrictions would act as a deterrent to potential offenders while increasing public understanding of the scourge of knife crime.

We understand it all too well, Judge, we understand that blustering about strict penalties for knife crime from the Home Sec is always hot air, because in court, when the rubber meets the road, you and your colleagues go softly-softly. 

It can also now be disclosed that Khan, referred to as Umar throughout the trial, was born and raised in Sheffield – hailing from a Pakistani family.

He was in the same year as Harvey, but had only met him the previous September, when he joined All Saints after leaving his previous school because of bullying.

They always have a poor record, these killer kids. Always. And even when the school authorities want to take action, they are often thwarted by others.

He described a difficult home life during his evidence, claiming his mother had mental issues and his father – who was often in Pakistan and absent from the family home – would beat him for minor indiscretions.

Pity he didn't go too far one day, like so many others in these disfunctional families. It would have afforded Harvey the protection so lacking from the State's minions. 

Social services visited the family in December last year after concerns were reported to them that Khan and his siblings were not being fed properly. The referral stated that the children looked skinny and malnourished, did not own pyjamas and had no sheets on their beds. But, after a visit to the family home, social services concluded no further action was required.

They probably concluded that before they ever rang the doorbell... 

In December last year, his mother found an axe in his gym bag and told the school, which called the police. He was then visited by a police officer who warned him about the dangers of carrying weapons. He insisted that the axe was not his.

That's what police do these days - warn. Never act. 

It's OK, Because 'Life Means Life', Right..?

A teenager who regularly watched videos about serial killers carried out a "vicious and brutal" attack on a disabled schoolgirl.

The 17 year old attacker – who can't be named for legal reasons – stabbed his terrified victim at least 99 times after luring her to a secluded park known as The Orchards in Sittingbourne.

Wait, why can't he be named? He's been found guilty! 

The teenager has now received a sentence in which he will be held in custody for life. An application to lift the order banning his identity being published was turned down.

So when he gets out - and he will get out, probably before the victim's physical scars have faded - no-one can know who he is. Is this justice? 

Get The Leniency Ready For More Killer Kids...

A boy aged 14 has been charged with the murder of a man stabbed to death outside a supermarket.

Ian Kirwan, 53, was knifed in front of horrified shoppers outside an Asda in Redditch, Worcestershire on Tuesday.

Witnesses said the married software engineer was attacked after accidentally bumping into a gang of youths. He died at the scene from a stab wound despite the best efforts of medics.

No, of course he can't be named... 

More Killer Kids Treated With Leniency...

A schoolgirl who killed a talented musician has been jailed for five years after she admitted manslaughter as a result of diminished responsibility.

The 15-year-old girl killed Nimroy Hendricks, 24, in Crawley, west Sussex before she was arrested by police. Alongside her custodial sentence she will also have to an extra four years on extended licence.

The girl, who lived in Crawley, cannot be named for legal reasons.

Of course not. Because then, we might have some warning when she gets out in (probably under) five years, and that will never do... 

A spokesman for Sussex Police said: 'She appeared at court last July charged with murder following an investigation by the Surrey and Sussex Major Crime Team.

'However, expert medical practitioners for the defence and prosecution agreed that that at the time of the offence, the defendant was suffering from a significant abnormality of mind and so the Crown accepted a guilty plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

'She was then remanded for pre-sentencing reports.'

Ah, reports. Does anyone bother to read them? 

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Wolstenholme from the Surrey and Sussex Major Crime Team said: 'If you have information about individuals or groups carrying knives in Sussex or anywhere, please tell the police and prevent another family suffering the unimaginable pain that the loss of Nim has caused.'

Why would anyone bother? 

This Is Why We Have A 'Killer Kid' Problem...

A 16-year-old shooter who blasted a 15-year-old boy in the face with a shotgun has today had his attempted murder sentence...

'Increased', she says, hopefully? 

...slashed by Appeal Court judges.

*sighs* 

Talbot-Lummis, then 16, was handed an extended sentence made up of 24 years in custody and five years on extended licence. However, three senior judges at the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence for attempted murder to 18 years in custody with an extended five years on licence on Tuesday.

Six years off the sentence? For someone who blasted another kid in the face with a shotgun? 

At a hearing in London, Talbot-Lummis appeared via video link to challenge the length of his sentence. His barrister Diana Ellis QC said the sentence was 'manifestly excessive'. She argued that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider the amount of mitigation the teenager had, including his youth, 'dysfunctional' upbringing and the bullying he said he faced from his victim.

The usual excuses. Ones already considered by the trial judge.  

During the original sentencing, Judge Levett said he did not accept 'there was bullying of the scale or the degree suggested'.

So what makes these judges any better? 

Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Julian Knowles and Mr Justice Cotter, said the trial judge was 'in the best position to assess the evidence'. He continued: 'What, with respect, he did not address however was the full effect of the bullying, whatever its level, may have been on the appellant.'

How do you know he didn't? 

They also said the sentencing judge should have taken Talbot-Lummis's youth more into account and reduced the sentence further from the number of years that would have been given to an adult. Lord Justice Holroyde said: 'There was, in our view, no basis for treating the appellant as being more mature than others of his age.'

There's no basis for thinking that you're a bunch of simpering bleeding hearts, either. And yet, I do.