Thursday, 25 December 2008

The Unheard of Murder of Troy Hurst

Ladies and gentlemen, what you are about to read is at least as powerful an indictment of institutional incompetence and malpractice as that which, allegedly, pervaded the police enquiry into Stephen Lawrence's death.

However, you will never have heard of Troy Hurst or his murderer. They did not fit the politically correct ideal of victimhood and barbarism. If the facts of this case became widely known, precisely the opposite effect as that deliberately induced by the Brit-destroying agenda of the 'institutional racist' brigade.

When you come to the end of this tale, take a moment to reflect upon the furore stoked up by our parliamentarians and the media as regards the killing of Stephen Lawrence and compare that with the stony silence which accompanied Troy's death. When you've done reflecting, if you are not assured that there is something very rotten in the state of this nation, you are not one of us.

On 25 May 2000, Troy Hurst was attacked outside his home on the Stroud Green council estate, Muswell Hill, London anddied on the way to hospital.

Troy was stabbed in the neck groin, chest and stomach by Albert Reid, a violent black bully, who was hated and feared throughout the estate on which both men lived. The knife used to kill him was subsequently recovered from his home. Troy was due to give evidence against Reid at an eviction hearing brought by Barnet Council on the day of his death.

At Reid’s trial, Troy’s brother, Anthony, told the court that his family had suffered months aggressive unpleasantness from Reid leading up to the fatal attack. He said:

"It was weird and strange and I couldn’t understand it. We didn’t even know him."
Troy’s mother, Christine, blamed Barnet Council for her son’s death. She said:

"Justice has not been done. The killer ran amok on the estate and Barnet Council did nothing. I don’t want this to happen to anyone else because we have gone through hell".
Christine was persistent in her criticism of the council and eventually she won the right to have her son’s death investigated at an inquest after permission for such had, originally, been refused.

Granting the inquest, Lord Justice Rose said that there was evidence of a 'very high degree of risk' which called for 'positive action from the authorities to protect life.'

He added:

"It was a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party which was, or ought to have been, known to the authorities".
Keir Starmer QC stated that, at the time of the killing, both Barnet Council and the Metropolitan Police knew Troy’s killer was 'capable of carrying out threats of violence up to the level of death.'He added:

"Had the Metropolitan Police and the London Borough of Barnet acted differently, the death may have been avoided. Both the police and the council knew Reid had violent tendencies and had attacked his neighbours".
What follows is a partial transcript of the Inquest into Troy’s death.

"In February 1997, there was a CRIMINT intelligence report entry that police were called to a fight between Mr. Reid, who had threatened to kill another man, and that other man. It is recorded that Reid had ‘lots of previous for assault and assault on the police’, and was ‘very violent and may carry weapons’ all shown on the police national computer: ‘If there are any calls to his address exercise CAUTION as it looks like he’s causing problems with neighbours’.

In October, 1997, the first complaint was received by the Housing Office in relation to an alleged assault and threats by Reid to kill a former tenant. Reid was formally warned by the police for punching another in the eye.

In March, 1998, Troy Hurst applied to Barnet Council for a transfer. In July 1998, Reid assaulted a former tenant of the estate… that tenant was later approved for a management transfer on the grounds that he was living in fear of Mr. Reid.

On 23 July 1998, a tenant reported to the Housing Officer that she had been assaulted by Reid, who had threatened her with a bladed article… The police advised the Housing Officer not to visit Reid.

In November, 1998, the Housing Office received a complaint of Reid threatening others because he believed tenants were talking about him, and there were similar complaints to the Housing Officer in December 1998 and January 1999…

On 20 January 1999, there was a CRIMINT intelligence report of assaults on an elderly lady and her son, a postman…

On 11 February, Reid was arrested under section 136 of the Mental Health Act, by reason of several assaults by him over the past two years on local residents and neighbours. The Crisis Team was caused to assess him, but they did not section him. The view was expressed that he was slightly paranoid and he was ‘definitely violent and officer safety should be considered when dealing with him’. A police officer formed the impression that Reid was mentally unstable.

He was, however, released without charge.

On 10 March 1999, a man reported that he had been threatened by Reid with a six inch knife… the view was expressed in one of the police reports that it was likely that there might be further disputes between the two parties involved in the future.
The Housing Office was informed that Reid had threatened a tenant and that he was being charged with harassment. On 17 March, for that offence, he was arrested and charged…

When police went to Reid’s address at 100 Cromwell Road, he had a large carving knife on the chair by his bedroom door, within arm’s reach. The view was expressed by the police that Reid was ‘ready to go over the edge at any minute and is very volatile’, and in capital letters appears this:


At that stage, the Housing Office initiated proceedings to have Reid evicted. Thereafter, in April, 1999, Reid appeared for harassment before the Magistrates, and a notice seeking possession was served…

The Housing Officers received material from the police describing six incidents…

On 13 April 1999, Reid attended a meeting at the Housing Office. He denied any wrongdoing against the lady and her son, the postman, and said that he was being laughed at and talked about, and he went on to complain about Troy Hurst…

In May 1999, in the presence of Troy Hurst’s father, there was an attack by Reid on an Asian shopkeeper. In late May 1999, Reid was found guilty by the Magistrates of harassing the lady and her son. There was, at that time, a police note that Reid was ‘definitely suffering some sort of mental illness paranoia.' All calls to the addresses were to be treated as urgent, as Reid was ‘definitely violent.’

On 22 May, he was arrested for affray and actual bodily harm, it being said that he had pulled a knife from his waistb and and, in an unprovoked attack, tried to slash Tony Hurst, that is Troy Hurst’s father, across the face. Troy Hurst heard his father’s cries for help, and frightened Reid off with a baseball bat… The police record indicates: ‘No matter what happens... REMEMBER OFFICER SAFETY when dealing with this deranged male’.

The Housing Office were informed by the police… At the beginning of June, there was a note made in police records that any calls to 100 Cromwell Road were to be treated as urgent.

During June, Reid made a number of appearances before the Magistrates and was ultimately convicted of using threatening words and behaviour towards Troy Hurst and Tony Hurst, and he was sentenced to three months imprisonment, concurrently on each and concurrently to a sentence of one month imposed for his conduct towards the postman. Troy Hurst gave evidence at that trial.

In early December, 1999, Reid contacted the Council’s Housing Officers in response to the summons for possession, and threatened to kill Tony Hurst, if he was evicted.

In December 1999, the Housing Officers requested an adjournment of the hearing fixed for the possession proceedings on 9 December because Reid had been punished… and they did not want to aggravate matters because there were only two witnesses…

On 2 March 2000, there was a disturbance at a shop in Cromwell Road. The police national computer recorded in relation to Reid that there were ‘warning signs of VIOLENT AND MENTAL’.

In mid-March, an 11-year-old boy was assaulted by a man believed to be Reid, who ran off.

On 3 April, Reid attended the Housing Office and said that he was having trouble with his neighbours. He admitted he had been acting aggressively towards them... He was told that the Housing Office had received complaints from the Hursts and from another neighbour as to Reid’s behaviour… Reid was told that Troy Hurst was to be interviewed about the allegations. The Housing Officer’s note says:

‘Reid gave the impression that if we didn’t deal with the matter he was complaining about in general, he would deal with the matter himself... I was concerned that there was a risk he would cause injury to other residents and advised Miss Lam to inform the police’.

It is then recorded that Miss Lam contacted Police Sergeant Mortimer, which resulted in a CRIMINT entry being made on 11 April. The information recorded was to the effect that possession proceedings were being taken against Reid…

Reid had said he still believed his neighbours were conducting a whispering campaign against him, and he told the Housing Officer that if this continued, he would take the law into his own hands:

‘This subject has come to the notice of police on numerous occasions for threatening and assaulting his neighbours. He is very violent powerfully built and suffers from paranoia... I am extremely concerned re his latest threat as I believe that this man is extremely dangerous and has the potential to seriously injury or kill’.

In the second week of May, further information was received by the police from the Housing Department, referring to the imminent possession proceedings on 25 May and saying:

‘Should it go in Barnet’s favour, Albert Reid has threatened to get even with the people who give evidence against him… he is very capable of carrying out this threat’.

On 12 May… the submission is made by Mr. Starmer that, had the proceedings… been criminal proceedings rather than civil proceedings, Troy Hurst would have qualified for protection as a vulnerable witness.

On 17 May, Troy Hurst made a witness statement in relation to Reid, and in support of the eviction proceedings.

On 19 May, Reid punched another neighbour and produced a knife, with which he threatened the neighbour. The police records again say: ‘It is apparent that Reid is a dangerous individual and if approached by officers would not hesitate to use violence.'

On 24 May, Miss Lam of the Housing Office received a telephone call from Reid at about 4.30 pm:

‘He wanted to know who was complaining against him and he also strongly denied harassing any of the residents on the estate. He stated that the council were taking sides against him... He asked me if the complainants were either the man who lived downstairs from him or a lady who lived across the road. I told him, no.'

As it seems to me, whatever was intended by Miss Lam in answering that question, the effect of the answer which she gave was inevitably to narrow down in Reid’s mind the identity of the possible witnesses against him.
I come to the events in relation to 25 May 2000. Miss Lam went to the County Court. She described Reid sitting alone, not looking at her, and she noticed that he was agitated and angry.

In court, he requested information about who he was supposed to be harassing… Before the proceedings finished, Reid got up; he was very angry, and left the room. The judge decided the case would be heard on the first open date at the end of June, and he also recommended that security should be present at the court…

During the hearing, Reid repeatedly shouted at the judge. He was very angry, and Miss Lam recorded that she herself felt very threatened by his behaviour:

‘He was more suspicious, boarding [sic] on being paranoid’.

The Council had sought injunctive relief, but the judge declined to grant interim relief. Thereafter, Miss Lam telephoned Troy Hurst, according to the claimant, to say that Reid was to be evicted within 28 days, and told him to be on his guard, and it was suggested she also contacted the police. I say ‘according to the claimant’, because Miss Lam does not, apparently, recall this. The police have no record of any such conversation, and say in their evidence that Miss Lam did not contact them. Pausing on that aspect, if indeed there was no contact between the Housing Officer and the police, that may well raise the question in the circumstances: why not?

At 19.12, Tony Hurst telephoned the police. At 19.19, police officers arrived at the Hurst’s house. They spoke to Troy, who was having problems with a neighbour, whom he described as ‘a big black bloke from across the road’. Both Troy and his father appeared agitated…

One of the officers, Constable Wright, who had visited this scene, informed control at 19.26 that no knife was seen, that Reid had left the address and was making his way to 102 Cromwell Road, and the officers would visit there.

He, at that time, appeared calm, but evasive… Constable Wright took a quick look in the front room and behind the front door, which, it will be recalled, was where a knife had been on an earlier occasion. There did not appear to be any knife, or any other kind of weapon… The police then left, Troy Hurst apparently confirming that he would not be going out that night.

At 19.42, there was a 999 call from the Hurst’s premises received by the police. It was recorded as:

‘Male concerned... has now returned and threatened to shoot the informant. No weapon seen. Suspect lives at 102 Cromwell Road N10 and it is believed he has now returned there. If ... Trojan Firearms Unit required please...
At 19.49, the CAD operator made an entry (‘No Units Available’) and there was further evidence that: ‘In the normal course of events a suspect with a firearm would generate an immediate police response. However as I had been told by the two officers that the male had not been armed on the initial call and that the suspect had already left the scene, I decided that the response was not immediately required’.

At 19.50 Constable Knight informed control that the male was not armed on the previous call. At 20.07, the CAD operator made a telephone call to Mr. Hurst senior, who confirmed ‘that the police were not required, as the man had left’…

At 21.30, it was reported that Troy Hurst had returned home. At 21.45, there was an emergency call in respect of the fatal incident and, two minutes later, an emergency call was made for an ambulance".
Unbelievably, at Reid’s trial, he was acquitted of murder, the jury convicting him of manslaughter only.

They decided that he was acting in self-defence. This because, at the end of his tether, Troy had asked Reid outside. He was offering a man much bigger than himself the chance to settle it with their fists. David Paget QC, the Judge at Reid’s trial said:

"It may be that you believed Troy Hurst that night was armed and of course I ACCEPT THAT YOU WERE PROVOKED".
Reid was JAILED FOR just 10 years.

Christine Hurst said this:

"Nobody wanted to speak about this until somebody lost their life. They thought ‘Oh, it happened on a council estate. Council tenants don’t matter’. Troy was cheerful, extroverted. But over the last two years of his life he became depressed. He didn’t like where he was living, and he wanted to get out…

I was broken-hearted when I was told Reid was convicted of manslaughter. He could be out on parole next May, or have his sentence reduced. Is that justice?"
A council statement at the time of Troy’s death said:

"We have concluded that without the benefit of hindsight, THERE IS LITTLE THAT THE OFFICERS MIGHT HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY AND THAT THE COUNCIL ACTED PROPERLY AND WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS based on the information available at the time".
I say that Albert Reid, a fearsome black bully, who had threatened and assaulted his neighbours on many occasions prior to the day he killed Troy, was guilty of murder not manslaughter.

I say that Barnet Council, by their aggressive inaction, aided and abetted the man who murdered Troy. I say that the police, who should have known better, did likewise.

I say that Judges like David Paget, who feel obliged to excuse the behaviour of creatures like Reid by suggesting that he was 'provoked,' should not be presiding over the administration of justice because 'wisdom' such as he dispenses encourages the bad and disheartens the good.

"We have concluded that… there is little that officers might have done differently and that the Council acted properly… based on the information available at the time".
Thus spake Barnet Council soon after Troy’s death.

The brute-coddling policies of those who would rather see ten thousand Troy Hursts murdered than have one Albert Reid suffer at the hands of common sense and reason, are distressingly ordinary nowadays. As are the disingenuous responses that they proffer to their critics.

Troy Hurst’s death was one of many that was entirely predictable and could have been prevented if the criminals and sociopaths within the minority communities had been treated with the severity that their behaviours ought to have invited. But that’s not how it is, is it? If the price of immigrant advancement results in the evolution of an Albert Reid or two, so be it.

If you were to surf the world wide web, you would only find the briefest of reports of Troy Hurst’s death mentioned at the websites of a few local newspapers. Contrast this with the number of times Stephen Lawrence has been mentioned by the media over the last 18 years.

If you didn’t manage to discover Lord Justice Rose’s judgement at: you would not even have been able to establish that Albert Reid was black. Contrast this with the fact that the ethnicity of Stephen Lawrence’s killers has been loudly trumpeted by the politician and the journalist ever since he lost his life.

These days a fanfare of publicity will accompany the obligatory inquiry that follows almost any death of a black or Asian man if the lawyers are able to argue that that death occurred as a result of white aggression, irresponsibility or negligence. There was no such fanfare for Troy Hurst.

You have never heard of him or his killer.

And yet the unbelieveably limp-wristed and sloppy attitude to the welfare of those whom Barnet Council were duty bound to care for is catalogued for all to see in the above report. Such massive governmental negligence should certainly have been exposed in a public enquiry.

But Troy Hurst was white and Albert Reid was not. It’s a bit of the jigsaw that doesn’t fit the puzzle, you see.

Albert Reid,a violent, black bully-boy who was allowed to threaten and intimidate all who had the misfortune to meet him by the local authorities, murdered a good man whom everybody liked named Troy Hurst.

Reid, who had previous convictions for burglary, arson, criminal damage, assaulting a police officer and using threatening behaviour and harassment, was sentenced to just 10 years for manslaughter after being cleared of murder by a jury, who 'believed' his plea of self-defence. This despite the fact that Troy's killer stabbed himsix times in the throat, head, groin and stomach.

When Troy was unarmed.

I say that that those who deliberately set out to subdue and destroy a system that would have sorted out an Albert Reid long before he decided to kill a decent man are guilty of aiding and abetting murder.

The politicians, the judges, the Barnet Councils are all guilty of the murder of Troy Hurst.

That’s what I say.

What do you say?

PS. After he was imprisoned in Bullingdon Prison, Reid made more than 30 formal complaints about prison conditions and facilities. Most of these complaints contained the phrase 'institutional racism.'

PPS. Despite the fact that, in March 2003, Reid held a female warder hostage for over half an hour with a weapon he had fashioned out of razor blades, his sentence for the manslaughter of Troy Hurst was reduced to eight years on appeal.

A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE by Christine Hurst

No comments:

Post a Comment