Thursday, 26 February 2009

"Disgusted" that her black boyfriend killed the wrong man

The aged trollop above goes by the deceptively refined sounding name Antionette Richardson, albeit she would probably answer to anything you like if you pay her enough for her next fix.

Richardson is in the news today having been convicted of the manslaughter of 57 year old Kevin Tripp in a Merton branch of Saisbury's supermarket. It was actually her bit of black rough who landed the fatal blow, as they do, but Richardson was found guilty of incitement, in that she encouraged him in the act.

Following a day of light shoplifting with her boyfriend Tony Virasami, the delicate Antionette went to buy some cigarettes, but became involved in an altercation with a young male shopper in the queue at the tobacco counter. Accounts differ as to whether she had barged in front of him, or he in front of her, but Richardson decided that he had offended her (which must have been challenging) so she phoned Virasami and told him to come and "deal with him".

When the bull like Virasami (pictured above) arrived, Richardson pointed out the man who had offended her, however, Virasami misunderstood who she was pointing at, and, instead of "dealing with" the man Richardson wanted him to, he haunched a violent attack on the innocent and slightly built Mr Tripp, who was knocked to the ground, hitting his head on the ground causing fatal injuries.

Virasami had little option other than to plead guilty to manslaughter given that the attack was captured on close circuit TV. However, his slatternly partner initially pleaded not guilty, and claimed that she was "disgusted when Virasami attacked the wrong man", with the implication that she would have been quite happy if he had killed the right one. (A fact confirmed to the jury by the close circuit TV recording which showed her standing next to the fatally injured Mr Tripp, and urging Virasami to "find the right guy")

The full extent of the couple's criminal life was revealed following the conviction.

Virasami - who has a string of convictions for petty theft and handling stolen goods dating back 20 years - was under a curfew and on bail for shoplifting. He was wearing an electronic tag when he launched the unprovoked attack. Meanwhile Richardson, a heroine adict, has a 16-year criminal record. She has previously received community orders, conditional discharges and fines, for charges including deception, handling stolen goods and theft.

That all sounds very familiar doesn't it?

So, why am I bothering to write about sordid and tragic little event just like so many others repeated day after grim day in South London.

Because Virasami and Richardson are the hidden story of interracial relationships in Britain today. They are nothing like the airbrushed, politically correct or glamorous fantasy images we are presented with daily on TV and in glossy magazines, but they are the ugly truth, just not what the media wants us to believe.

Both now await sentencing, let us hope that the judge puts them away where they can no longer do damage for a long time.


Anonymous said...

From the looks of her nose, she has had plenty of loving from him.

Mr Cognisant said...

I believe the ill-fated Mr Tripp himself indulged in miscegenation; perhaps therefore the story was quite safe to high-light, unlike similar stories, as brought to public attention by the British National Parties racism cuts both ways leaflet, or What this case does emphasize is the level of thuggery in contemporary society, itself a product of primitivism, whilst not condoning inter-relationships it must of course always be remembered, that a child has lost a father and a partner its mate, condolences to them all and I wish them peace and a hoped for lessening of their pain.

Mr Cognisant said...

Oh and lady Albion, may I just say, I find your weblog an excellent read and as I have related to the Greenarrow, I have oftentimes wished to post certain articles but have baulked for copyright reasons, thank you for the read.

notareargunner said...

When I was 15 I was attacked an severely cut about the head, thirty nine stitches and fifteen clips.
My assailant was a black, adopted into a well meaning Scouse family, with his entourage of thugs and the obligatory white lady in tow.
Three days later, when I started to get my vision back, I was warned that my outburst of your dead you black bastard could jeopardize a conviction.
I am now into my sixties and every time I walk passed a white woman with a black man I go cold.
It is the legal system that now and, as was then, is held in contempt.

alanorei said...

He probably socked the nearest 'evil' whitey within reach.

Re: his 'partner,' I wonder if that's a picture of Chery Cole years from now.

Time will tell. It always does.

Anonymous said...

Helen Porter said...

extended eugenics? - get your facts clear:

The beliefs of racists are biologically naive, and ignore the
well-known phenomenon of "hybrid" or "mongrel" vigour, where crosses
are more healthy, and, in the case of animals, more intelligent, than
pure breeds. One reason for this phenomenon is that many undesirable
genetic traits are recessive and linked by race. A white person, for
example, reduces the chances of a child with cystic fibrosis almost to
zero by marrying someone who isn't white.

Specific claims for inferiority of other races will be dealt with
elsewhere. The argument for preventing intermarriage may be analysed
independently of these: it suffers from a gross logical flaw common to
racist arguments from statistics to segregation, which in its general
form goes like this:

* Property X is desirable.

* Property X has, or may have, a genetic component.

* There is a statistical difference in average X-ness between black
people and white people of which the genetic component is so tiny that
most experts don't even agree that it exists. But we do.

* Therefore, we should discriminate against black people.

The problem here is that if it was a good idea to discriminate against
people on the grounds of lack of X, then it would be far more sensible
to reason as follows:

* Property X is desirable.

* Therefore we should discriminate against people lacking in X-ness,
regardless of color.

So, for example, if the racists could achieve their Holy Grail and
demonstrate that black people on average have very slightly lower IQ
scores, and if I cared, this would be no reason why, in my matrimonial
preferences, I should rate a dumb blonde above a black genius. On the
contrary, I should still go on judging people's intelligence, not by
the color of their skin, but by their intelligence, exactly as I do

Yet the racists, with their concern for the precious genetic heritage
of the white race, are not campaigning to prevent smart white men from
marrying dumb blondes: although this happens, I am told, quite
frequently. And this calls into question the integrity of racists who
offer this argument against interracial marriage. It's almost as if
they had some other reason for opposing "miscegenation", such as being
racist bigots.

One curious by-product of racist views on interracial marriage is the
curious but oft-repeated assertion that interracial marriage is
unnatural because black people are not attractive, combined with a
willingness to debate the point with anyone who does in fact find this
or that black person attractive. It need hardly be pointed out that if
they were right, there would be no need for them to argue the point, nor to establish laws against miscegenation.

what bigoted, bored nazi housewife, racist, bimbo you have justdisplayed you are!!!

alanorei said...

Re: clarity of facts. Apart from a vague reference to a particular disability known to be a hereditary disease (something you neglected to mention but which probably explains your assertion), your lengthy diatribe, Helen, does not contain a single objective fact. It is merely an outpouring of hearsay and speculation, ending, typically for someone of your apparent persuasion, with recourse to the notorious ad hominem argument, immediately demonstrating the paucity of your so-called 'facts.'

Some genuine facts on the matter of race are as follows:

Paul Broca published a study in 1864 on hybridity in the human race. He found that, in South Carolina, where white Anglo-Saxon males had cohabited with negresses, the mulatto offspring were "little prolific and short-lived." See

He also reported that "the union of the Caucasian women with negroes is very frequently non-productive."

J.H. Van Evrie, M.D. reached the same conclusions after studying "several thousand cases of mixed blood" and published the results of his research in 1868. A CD entitled Vatican Assassins 3rd Edition, by American Baptist writer Eric Jon Phelps, summarises Van Evrie's work and is obtainable via ebay.

Van Evrie concludes that the mulatto progeny of white males and negresses, who then inter-breed with other hybrids, are by the 4th generation "as absolutely sterile as may be assumed as the natural and impassable barrier of this abnormal and exceptional being."

He adds that "it is in the female hybrid that this tendency to most apparent. Many of them are incapable of nourishing or taking care of their offspring, and together with miscarriages and the numerous forms of disease connected with maternity, they are often found to have had a large number of children, not one of whom reached maturity."

It follows that your conclusions, Helen, about race mongrelisation, are as spurious as your alleged facts are nebulous.

P.S. If you venture to challenge the above, I would urge that you please specifically refute, with evidence, the material provided, rather than embarking on yet another tedious dissertation with little or no substance.

Anonymous said...

As Helen Porter has reposted her comment which she previously posted incorrectly under "untold dangers", I'll repost my reaction to it here as well. Keith_SA

"...the curious but oft-repeated assertion that interracial marriage is unnatural because black people are not attractive, combined with a[n] [un]willingness to debate the point with anyone who does in fact find this or that black person attractive. It need hardly be pointed out that if
they were right, there would be no need for them to argue the point, nor to establish laws against miscegenation."

No one claims that the white race or that any race is perfect. The point is that it is natural for the vast majority of any given race to prefer their own. Experience in the real world tells us that this is so. Only in the liberal dominated modern world with their attempts at social engineering has this been attempted to be overturned - just so they can attain the ultimate adolescent fantasy of absolute "freedom" and godhood.

Yes there have always been some whites with something missing upstairs, or lacking in sensitivity and sensibility who have found blacks attractive as sexual partners. The tragedy today, is that for so many years the destroyers of normality (the leftists) have been allowed to peddle their perversions and lies - that racial and sexual boundaries are unimportant, and this has had the effect of bringing Britain to the verge of destruction. The "precious genetic inheritance" is about more than merely high IQ - its about everything, from physical features to racial character.

Even if whites had the lowest IQs, I as a white would still prefer my race - one has a natural affinity for one's own. If you have only lived in mostly white areas with whites in control - this might not be so clear to you. Live among mostly blacks, (and if you can break free of leftist "goodthinking") you'll soon see what I mean. Rather a thousand times that "smart white men" marry "dumb white blondes" than the horror of them miscegenating with even "smart" black woman. Far from calling into question the integrity of "racists", this proves their integrity!! "Racist bigot" is an unatural perverted concept that can only maintain its currency with the force of a totalitarian media and government behind it. In fact "anti-racists" are bigots - they are the ones trying to enforce their anti-natural prejudices on normal people who like their own race.


Anonymous said...

Oh, oh - I was too hasty - someone else was quoting Helen Porter.


Sarah Maid of Albion said...

No problem Keith, as Anonymous 28 February 2009 08:52m, who re-posted Helen's comments apparently agreed with her, your rebuttal is quite appropriate.

This is also a more suitable place to discuss the issue