IN THE Times on Saturday there was a handy guide on what to do should you find yourself a victim of an attack with a corrosive chemical.
That’s lovely, to have to know in Britain 2024 that ‘administering quick first aid is crucial in the event of an acid, alkaline or corrosive substance attack’. This advice comes after the horrific attack by one Abdul Shokoor Ezedi on a mother and her two daughters, aged three and eight, in Clapham last week. I didn’t really want to talk about this, as others have done such a good job, but I was too angry not to.
On Saturday the 31-year-old mother remained ‘very poorly’ and sedated in hospital, with her injuries thought to be ‘life-changing’. Lord, have mercy.
We are told by the Times that ‘A bystander who suffered injuries in the south London chemical attack has described how she had ‘never witnessed anything so horrific in my life’. The bystander, Rachael, who displayed immense courage in going to the incident, said: ‘I realised that the mum, her entire face was covered with the liquid and I knew it was some sort of acid or something.’
As the Times’s how-to guide explains: ‘The severity of the damage depends on the concentration of the acid and how quickly it is washed off with water. In some cases, the skull may be deformed and ear cartilage burned off. Inhalation of the acid vapours can also cause breathing problems . . . The attacks often result in permanent damage including lifelong scarring, with many victims requiring multiple surgeries to recover. Attacks with corrosive substances are often aimed at the face, meaning they can affect the eyes and cause blindness. Most survivors are women and girls.’
Bearing that in mind, we can assume the mother will never be the same again after this attack. We can only pray for her and her traumatised children.
For the decision-makers who put Abdul Shokoor Ezedi on the streets of Britain we must reserve our red-hot anger. I encourage you to be red-hot in your anger and absolute disgust with these people. If you are not, there is something morally wrong with you.
In an excellent piece, Matthew Goodwin explains [he uses an alternative spelling of the name]:
‘In 2016, Abdul Shakoor Ezedi entered Britain illegally from Afghanistan in a lorry.
‘He then applied for asylum, twice, and was turned down on both occasions.
‘Was he then removed from Britain?
‘Nope. He stayed in the country.
‘In 2018, Ezedi committed a sexual assault and indecent exposure.
‘What happened then?
‘He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he did not go to jail.
‘What happened after that?
‘Well, having been convicted of a serious crime, Abdul Ezedi applied for asylum for a third time.
‘This time he was . . . successful.
‘Because now he claimed he was “a Christian”, which was endorsed by a priest.’
And there we have it. What this amounts to is a veritable army of do-gooders who have left this man free to get from Newcastle upon Tyne all the way to Clapham in south London to douse a mother and her two daughters with a burning chemical.
Abdul Ezedi should not have been on the streets of Britain five times over.
Abdul Ezedi should not have been in Britain because you should not be able to cross a border in a lorry illegally. That’s 1.
Abdul Ezedi should not have been on the streets of Clapham because he was denied asylum. That’s 2.
Abdul Ezedi should not have been on the streets of Clapham because he was denied asylum for a second time. That’s 3.
Abdul Ezedi should not have been on the streets of Clapham because he then committed a sexual offence and should have been jailed, but he received a suspended sentence instead. (Of course he did.) That’s 4.
Abdul Ezedi should not have been on the streets of Clapham because after his conviction for a sexual offence any normal country would see him deported. But he wasn’t because apparently the deportation regime doesn’t trigger for a suspended sentence. But even if it was triggered, we know Abdul Ezedi would not have been deported because some immigration/human rights lawyers would have said deporting him was mean and nasty and in breach of his family life, or some such garbage. That’s 5.
Then the priest came along, and reading his Bible found that it said, Happy are those who commit sex offences and break into countries illegally, theirs should be the Kingdom of Heaven, yes, let me swear to the fact that Abdul Ezedi is now a Christian. Wow, I feel so good about myself right now. Ta-da! Abdul Ezedi now has asylum!
Of course he does, because the lunatics are running the bloody asylum.
So all of this, all of this do-gooding, by these idiots, by these absolute morons, means there is a mother lying in hospital in London right now with horrific burns to her face that she will never recover from.
I bet the priest is fine. I bet the judge who gave the suspended sentence is A-ok. The person who granted him asylum is probably sipping a coffee right now. Bet their kids are fine: their kids were not repeatedly thrown to the ground, they won’t suffer from PTSD for the rest of their lives.
As Goodwin says: ‘We are led by a new elite —comprised of left-leaning judges, lawyers, Home Office officials, supranational courts, hapless politicians, and the surrounding charity industrial complex— which seemingly has no problem at all with open borders, illegal immigration, and allowing the likes of Ezedi to stay in Britain.’ He calls these fools ‘the Luxury Belief Class’.
The worst thing about the Luxury Belief Class, as Goodwin says, is their sense of moral superiority. They have nothing, absolutely nothing to feel superior about. They have devoted themselves to undermining borders, the rule of law, the safety of women and children, and the way of life of decent law-abiding people. These elites should be shunned and shamed wherever they go. This is an all-out attack on the law-abiding majority of Britons. I’m angry. You should be too.