LONDON -- A surge of stabbings in London was blamed Monday for the city overtaking New York's monthly murder tally for the first time in modern history. Fifteen people were murdered in London during February, compared to 14 in New York, according to police figures.

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever

This is proof that removing guns from the populace won't lower the murder rate, it just lowers homicide via guns. In London, people are killing each other with knives.

Quote
Prana

This is proof that removing guns from the populace won't lower the murder rate, it just lowers homicide via guns. In London, people are killing each other with knives.

That's right. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. And now they want Knife Control. And I just read about Acid Attacks, which I never even heard of and that now they want Acid Control.

I'd much rather be shot with a gun than attacked with a knife or have acid thrown at me.

And - if guns are outlawed in the UK, how come there is gun crime there at all? Just like here in Chicago and places guns are banned, the gun crime is so high...

Gee, could it be that -

CRIMINALS (Criminals do almost all the crimes, mostly in cities) WILL GET GUNS ILLEGALLY OR KILL AND COMMIT CRIMES WITH WHATEVER MEANS THEY CAN, WHILE LAW-ABIDING LEGAL GUN HOLDERS WILL HAVE THEIR GUNS CONFISCATED BY GUN CONTROL NUTS AND ARE TOTALLY DEFENSELESS, SO CRIME WILL GO UP!

Duh!

Why do Libs refuse to admit that fact?

(Because they have an agenda - disarm the citizens)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2018 11:33PM by Jennifer.

>Why do Libs refuse to admit that fact?

We got the message from the non-Libs.

It is clear.

No abortion.

Guns are good for us.

Pretty soon children in schools will have guns.

And babies can be trained with gun toys.

Pregnant mothers can carry guns under their belies.

And when they are fatalities we can say:

It is not the child fault when he shot his school teacher because he thought his grade was unfair.
The problem was that the teacher while writing on the board did not have time to load his gun. So what we need are guns that can fire themselves when the carrier is in danger. The child exercised his second amendment right but the teacher did not have a self firing gun. So let's go back to the gun manufacturers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2018 12:51PM by RawPracticalist.

Thanks for pointing out, RawPracticalist, that when I list those who Kill, Rob and Rape us -

Criminals, Gangs, Rapists, Thieves, Drug Addicts

- those who will get Illegal Guns or use some other weapon no matter if there is Gun Control -

I forget to list these people -

THE MENTALLY ILL or NUTS or INSANE PERSON - whatever you want to call it. I think I did say "Psycho" once.

So -

Your example of a Mentally Ill Person commiting a crime is among those who will get ahold of and use a (usually) illegal gun or use some other weapon and do their harm no matter if there is Gun Control or not.

By a large margin, the only people who Gun Control controls is the Legal Law-Abiding people who use guns for Self-Defense. Gun Control will leave the Regular Law-Abiding Citizens Defenseless against the Criminals, Gangs, Drug Addicts, Thieves, Rapists AND MENTALLY ILL Psycho who do almost all the Crime

And this is key -

There are hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands or whatever, of instances of guns being used for Self-Defense and to Stop Crime than the type of Random Gun Crime you used as an example.

Quote
Jennifer

There are hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands or whatever, of instances of guns being used for Self-Defense and to Stop Crime than the type of Random Gun Crime you used as an example.

As has been reported recently -

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

[reason.com]

Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is "to advocate or promote gun control." (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)

But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.

Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"**—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun.

>The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.

Which means that there are probably more than 100 millions U.S. adults who go about their lives every day without carrying guns


I have many friends, colleagues at work who come everyday to work without guns, they raise their families without guns.

They enjoy life in the park, at the beach without guns.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2018 05:30PM by RawPracticalist.

Yes, but what if they lived in the 'inner city' where all the criminals commit all the crime...

Anyway, CNN said this -

Less than a third of people own guns.

"We don't know how many people own guns

There is no countrywide database where people register whether they own guns (the law doesn't allow it). We have to rely on surveys instead. High quality telephone polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. According to the General Social Survey, which has a much higher response rate than telephone polls and interviews people in person, a relatively lower 32% of Americans said in 2016 that they lived in household with guns. The gap between telephone and GSS surveys has existed in some form for 20 years, so it isn't just a one-off difference."

[www.cnn.com]

Quote
Jennifer

Quote
Jennifer

There are hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands or whatever, of instances of guns being used for Self-Defense and to Stop Crime than the type of Random Gun Crime you used as an example.

As has been reported recently -

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

[reason.com]

Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is "to advocate or promote gun control." (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)

But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.

Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"**—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun.

So as stated above, (please read the whole article at the link above at Reason website; I only posted a few of the paragraphs) the CDC and Gary Kleck have conducted the most comprehensive research on Defensive Gun Use thus far.

This post by RHB is an example of the numerous articles by the Lib Media stating the Bogus DGU (Defensive Gun Use) Statistics of the VPC (Violence Policy Center) the Libs use to advocate their Gun-Control Agenda.

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

As I previously stated, and the Reason Website states, the CDC Survey and Kleck Survey shows the most comprehensive research on DGU - Defensive Gun Use

So they banned guns, then they banned knives, now acid attacks are rising ...

ACID TRAUMA Acid attacks in the UK – is London the worst affected and where else have they been carried out?

There has been an alarming spike in corrosive liquids being used to maim victims in muggings or punishment attacks

[www.thesun.co.uk]

RECENT years have seen an alarming rise in the number of acid attacks taking place in the UK - with London seeing particularly severe spike.

There are plans to further restrict the sale of corrosive substances — buy why are such brutal attacks on the rise?

Acid attacks in London alone have soared in recent years

How common are acid attacks in the UK?

The UK has one of the highest rates of acid attacks per capita in the world, according to Acid Survivors Trust International (ASTI).

It claims the country does not have "tight controls on acid sales" or "legislation specific to acid attacks".

ASTI's figures reveak the number of recorded attacks have increased more than two-fold from 2012, when there were 228 recorded crimes, to the 601 attacks in 2016.

Last year was widely regarded as the worst ever with more than 400 incidents reported in the six months to April 2017 alone.

Where are acid attacks being carried out?

London has emerged as a hot spot for acid attacks in recent years, with more than half of incidents taking place in the capital.

The number of cases more than doubled from less than 200 in 2014 to 431 in 2016, with Scotland Yard focusing on specific parts of the city.

Newham, in East London, had three times more acid attacks than the next highest borough, with almost 400 of London's 1,500 reports over the last five years happening there.

The borough borders Hackney which also saw a spate of attacks in the summer.

Nearby Barking and Dagenham was the second biggest hot spot, whereas wealthier areas such as Kensington and Chelsea had the lowest level of attacks.

Vast areas of East, North and South London were declared "no-go zones" by terrified delivery drivers because of the acid attack epidemic.

Areas such as the West Midlands and Essex have also seen large rises in acid attacks in recent years as reports soared from 340 in 2014 to 843.

But attacks have been happening in quieter spots including Buckinghamshire where nurse Joanne Rand died after acid was thrown over her as she sat on a bench.

Why are acid attacks on the rise?

Many acid attacks appear to be gang-related, which helps explain the rocketing number of cases in small areas of major cities.

Criminologists believe gang members may be swapping guns and knives for acid as a weapon of choice because possession is hard to monitor — but its impact on victims can be devastating.

Dr Simon Harding of Middlesex University, said: "Acid was once a weapon of last resort but may now be the first.

"It's used by gangs, if a business deal goes wrong or someone owes money. People can have a legitimate reason for having them."

What is being done about it?

Then Home Secretary Amber Rudd said she had plans to ban the sale of corrosive substances to under 18s.

The policy would bring acid in line with the law on the possession of knives in a public place and anyone caught could be imprisoned for up to 4 years.

She told the 2017 Tory Party Conference: "Acid attacks are absolutely revolting. You have all seen the pictures of victims that never fully recover.

"Endless surgeries. Lives ruined. We are going to stop people carrying acid in public if they don’t have a good reason."

Shopkeepers have stopped selling bleach and corrosive substances to kids and London cops have been given 1,000 acid crime response kits.

Officers are also due to get extra medical advice and protective clothing.

THE ACID ATTACKS OF LONDON’S MUSLIM NO-GO ZONES

A splash from the acid test of multiculturalism

[www.frontpagemag.com]

Things are going smashingly well in Londonistan.

The City of London has the highest murder rate in the land. While the authorities launch investigations into pork being left at a mosque or a hijab supposedly being torn off, crime continues to rise.

Gun control has worked so wonderfully well that gun crime in London rose 42%. When gun control advocates insist that we should be more like the UK, London’s 2,544 gun crime offenses probably aren’t what they have in mind.

But gun control does work in London after a fashion. Those gang members who can’t lay their hand on a firearm must make do with a sharp blade. Knife crimes in London rose 24% to 12,074 recorded offences. 60 people were stabbed to death last year.

Why? Here’s a hint from the Metropolitan Police’s assistant commissioner. “There are complex social reasons why more young people are carrying knives and this cannot be solved by the police alone.”

Those complex social reasons would seem to involve stabbing other people. But like Islamic terrorism, stabbings in London are one of those things that can’t be solved by the police. Unlike people saying mean things about Muslims on Facebook and Twitter which the Met cops are well equipped to solve.

Still the authorities have been doing their best to tackle stabbings with a knife ban. Carry a knife without a “good reason” and you can get four years in prison. Good reasons for carrying knives include using it as a prop in a production of Romeo and Juliet, taking it to a museum or “religious reasons”. The ban, which covers “sword-sticks”, samurai swords and “zombie knives” that are sold to fight zombies, isn’t working.

But it’s working well enough that many of the gangs responsible for the violence are turning to acid.

Acid attacks in London rose from 162 in 2012 to 454 last year. There have already been 199 acid attacks this year. Five acid attacks just happened in London in the space of little more than an hour.

And so the obvious new solution is drain cleaner control.

The push is on to “license” corrosive substances while banning anyone from carrying drain cleaner unless they have a good reason. When the public is banned from buying drain cleaners, then finally everyone in London will be safe. It’s worked for guns and knives. Bound to work for acid. And being stuck with a clogged toilet, like Allah Akbar car rammings, is the price we must all pay for diversity.

It’s easy to blame and ban inanimate objects. And it avoids any discussion of the perpetrators.

Newham is the London borough with the highest number of acid attacks. It also has the second highest percentage of Muslims in the UK. 398 acid attacks occurred in 5 years in the area named as “the most ethnically diverse district in England and Wales”. 33% of Newham consists of non-UK passport holders.

But surely that’s some sort of random coincidence.

Except that the place with the third highest number of acid attacks is Tower Hamlets. Tower Hamlets is a Muslim no-go zone. It has one of the smallest native British populations in the country. 35% of the population is Muslim. Most of those are Bangladeshis with a healthy sprinkling of Somalis.

There were 84 acid attacks in what has been dubbed “The Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets”.

Also, entirely by coincidence, Bangladesh has the highest rate of acid attacks in the world. But if anyone suggests that these two statistics are related, the Met police will investigate them for hate crimes.

The second highest acid attack location in London was Barking and Dagenham, a growing Muslim enclave which elected its first Muslim mayor whose plans include holding an Islamic festival “for the whole community—regardless of religion”.

Barking is a wonderful place where you have the choice to be Muslim or Muslim. Regardless of religion.

The native British population made up 80% of Barking in 2001. Now it’s fallen to less than half. According to the 2011 census figures, "All religious groups have increased except for Christian and Jewish religions". This was where Islamists brandished signs reading, “British soldiers go to hell”.

Now why in the world might Barking be a haven for acid attacks?

Fifth on the acid list is Redbridge where the native British population fell by 40,844 in a decade. The last census showed British and Irish natives fleeing Redbridge while Pakistanis and Bangladeshis stormed in. The Christian and Jewish population fell while the Muslim population rose 11%. So did the acid attacks.

Pakistan has one of the highest rate of acid attacks in the world. It lags behind Bangladesh. But fortunately Redbridge boasts a diversity of both Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. And acid attacks.

But surely this is yet another unfathomable coincidence. Like 2 + 2 equaling 4.

Hackney, sixth on the list, was where a Sharia patrol pal of the Muslim beheaders of British soldier Lee Rigby, posted videos boasting “British people will never be safe on the streets of London.”

They certainly aren’t safe in Hackney.

At 14%, Islam is the second largest religious group in Hackney. The indigenous British population has fallen to 36%. That’s down from 44% in 2001. And, according to officials, it’s “reflective of Hackney’s increasing diversity which currently marks it out as the 6th most ethnically diverse borough in London after Newham, Redbridge, etc…”

Sixth in diversity and sixth in acid attacks.

Of the remaining four on the list, three, Croydon, Ealing and Hilingdon, were white minority or bare majority areas. Meanwhile Kensington and Chelsea, which have a decisive majority, have the lowest rate of acid attacks. So naturally the media has tried to blame the attacks on British natives.

But the numbers don’t lie.

London is experiencing a splash of the acid test of diversity. That burning feeling on your face is the thrilling sensation of corrosive multiculturalism eating away at British communities.

Banning guns, knives, drain cleaner, plungers and ostrich feathers won’t address the problem. The fallacy of gun control, knife control and acid control is that inanimate objects don’t kill people.

Guns don’t shoot themselves. Knives don’t unsheathe in broad daylight and stab pedestrians. Bottles of acid don’t knock on cars and then splash the occupants when they roll down the window.

Immigration imported acid attacks to the UK the way that it imported gangs of Muslim men stabbing waitresses in eateries while shouting, “This is for Allah”.

Allah and acid are both imports from the Muslim world.

Murders in London, like murders in most major American cities, are driven by gang violence. Behind the shootings, stabbings and acid attacks are gangs. Many of those gangs are made up of first and second generation migrants and settlers from the Muslim world. The UK’s prisons bulge with Muslim convicts. And these criminal gangs naturally feed recruits into Islamic terrorism as they do in Iraq and Syria.

Banning drain cleaner won’t stop acid attacks. Drain cleaner control is no solution. Migration control is.

Immigration from violent societies prone to terrorism is the acid that is eating away at Europe. Migration advocates have splashed acid on Britain, on America, on Australia and on Canada. The bombings and stabbings, the child rapes and acid attacks, are the burning sensation of the attack.

But the corrosive acid does its work in less sensational ways. When Britons no longer feel at home in their own communities, when mosques replace churches and synagogues, when Sharia patrols march through the streets, when English is drowned out by Urdu and Arabic in the streets, that is also the acid of immigration eating away at the flesh and bone of a nation.

Acid attacks don’t immediately kill. They maim and disfigure. Newham, Barking, Tower Hamlets and so much of London have been left maimed and disfigured so that longtime residents no longer know them.

Britannia has had acid splashed in her lovely face. Her clear features have been scarred and mutilated. Now, from London to Manchester, from Birmingham to Bradford, she suffers and burns.

Wow, she's a scary skag ...

12 years is not a life sentence - they should have thrown acid over her like she threw on her boyfriend. An eye for an eye.

'An act of pure evil': Student who threw acid on ex-boyfriend who later died jailed for 12 years

[www.yahoo.com]

Berlinah Wallace was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 12 years for throwing a corrosive substance with intent following a four-week trial at Bristol Crown Court, but was acquitted of murder.

Mark Von Dongen later died by euthanasia.

Wallace, 48, purchased a bottle of 98% concentration sulphuric acid and viewed 82 websites about it – including post-mortem images – after her former partner said their relationship was over.

She threw the liquid over the engineer as he slept in bed at her flat in Westbury Park, Bristol, in September 2015, and laughed as she told him: ‘If I can’t have you, no-one else can.’

The 29-year-old was left in a coma for four months, suffered extensive burns to his body, was blinded in one eye, paralysed from the neck down and had to have his lower left leg amputated.

Mark died by euthanasia January 3, 2017 after his application was approved by three consultants who decided he met the criteria of ‘unbearable physical and psychological suffering’.

Jailing Wallace, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies told her: ‘Your intention was to burn, disfigure and disable Mark van Dongen so that he would not be attractive to any other woman.

‘It was an act of pure evil.’

She went on: ‘You chose your moment for the attack.

‘It occurred when Mark van Dongen, wearing only boxer shorts, was asleep in the bed which you had shared in your flat.

‘Vulnerable, almost naked, he awoke but had no real opportunity to avoid the focus of your acid attack, namely his face and then his body.

‘Immediately before you threw the acid you said to Mark, ‘If I can’t have you, no-one can’.’

In the days before the attack, Mark’s new girlfriend, Violet Farquharson, had received a series of silent phone calls in the middle of the night.

Mark met a police officer the following day, September 3, but the messages were not deemed threatening and Wallace was issued with a warning.

His work colleagues recalled how Mark, who worked as an engineer, was ‘scared’ of his South African girlfriend, and had said she was violent.

The judge told Wallace: ‘Having carried out this horrific attack you then told lie after lie.

‘When interviewed by the police you sought to place the blame upon Mark van Dongen, falsely alleging that he had poured the acid into the glass on your bedside table intending that you should drink it.

‘It was an account which you gave in September 2015 and maintained throughout this trial.

‘This has completely ruined our lives – financially and as a family. Our home has fallen apart.

‘I hope we can start to pick up the pieces and rebuild when I go back to Belgium.’

Mr van Dongen added: ‘I never knew she [Wallace] was like that. She really pulled the wool over our eyes from day one.

‘I hope she messes up in prison and never qualifies for parole, and never comes out.’

Senior Investigating Officer Detective Inspector Paul Catton said: ‘This was an extremely unusual and challenging case and one which affected a great number of people.

‘Today’s sentence, which I believe is the first life sentence handed to someone involved in an acid attack, reflects the gravity of the crime Wallace committed, her refusal to accept responsibility and the horrendous consequences her actions had.’



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2018 11:14PM by Jennifer.