He fell into a coma and died five days after he was involved in a dispute, fell, and hit his head on the ground outside the Ocean Rooms night-club.
At the website of Unite against Racism, this is said:
"Jay Abatan, a 42- year old black man was attacked by a gang in Brighton... His brother Michael and a friend... were also attacked".This is how Harmit Athwal, of the Independent Race and Refugee News Network, reported the case on 29 April 2004:
"Jay Abatan, a 42-year-old Black man and father of two, died five days after being attacked by a gang ... Jay had been out with his brother and a friend... They left the club and were getting into a cab when they were attacked by a group of white men... he was punched and kicked to the ground".What do you think of when you think of a ‘gang’ attacking three black men? Five, six, seven or more skinheads with tattoos on their eyeballs beating up three pity-the-poor immigrant types minding their own business? Yep, that's what I'd think too.
The ‘gang’ of white men that Unite against Racism and the spokesman of the Independent Race and Refugee News Network mention, actually, consisted of just two blokes, Graham Curtis and Michael Bell.
Interesting, don't you think, that Harmit Athwal and the UAR website were not brought to book under ‘Incitement to Racial Hatred’ legislation. Weren’t they both, very obviously, guilty of trying to stoke up the fires of resentment in the hearts of their black readerships by suggesting that there were many more white attackers than there actually were?
Athwal and UAR also lied when they said that other members of Jay Abatan's group were attacked. Just one punch was thrown that night. The Solicitor General, discussing this case in the House of Commons, no less, said some very interesting things. To whit:
"It was clear that there was no evidence of joint enterprise".The Solicitor General also said:
"The group containing the two defendants were all white. The other group were of white, black and other ethnic backgrounds".Interesting that she should describe the ‘all white’ twosome as a group as well, don't you think? and what should we make of the fact that ‘the other group were of white, black and other ethnic backgrounds?’ To me this suggests that there might have been more than just the Abatan brothers and Jeffers in the other group. In fact, we know there were at least four people there.
Harmit Athwal says Jay Abatan was ‘punched AND KICKED.’ Well, Jay Abatan's brother and friend are on record as having said they did not see Jay hit, let alone kicked. This depiction of events is pure fantasy.
Compare Athwal’s report with the 10 June 2003 BBC article which says:
"After leaving the Ocean Rooms night-club an argument broke out when the brothers and their friends tried to get into a taxi. Believing the taxi to be theirs, Mr. Abatan asked two men inside it to get out, while two other men stood beside him. His brother Michael then saw Jay fall to the floor.Thus, before the confrontation occurred, there were two white men in a taxi. Three blokes, at least two of whom were not white, approach the same taxi, one of them pokes his head through though the door and orders the white men out. Whereupon, the black bloke doing the ordering gets thumped.
Forensic reports showed he had received at least one blow to his face and a fractured skull from when he hit the pavement... Statements passed to the BBC and confirmed by Sussex Police revealed one of the two men standing next to Mr. Abatan was Graham Curtis".
Somewhat predictable, wouldn‘t you say? I mean, would you stick your head into somebody else's taxi at the end of the night and tell the occupants to get out? I wouldn’t. I’d be thinking I might get a smack in the mouth if I did. Alternatively, if someone with a couple of pals behind him to back him up, stuck his head into the taxi I was in and ordered me out, I could well clock the tw*t. If you're an Englishman, a proper one that is, you might just do the same.
At some point, according to the BBC account, Graham Curtis must have got out of the cab because a witness stated he was ‘standing next to Mr. Abatan.' Sounds like the type of bloke who wasn't ever going to scuttle off after landing a sneaky punch to me. Sounds like a bloke who had just belted a cheeky so-and-so and was man enough to see if the fellow he had just whacked or his pals wanted to continue the bother.
As previously stated, it seems that Michael Bell did not involve himself in this confrontation, which means that, if Graham had got out of the taxi after Jay Abatan had been punched, he was facing at least two, possibly more, adversaries, who were capable of doing him harm. Maybe the police or those present know better. If they do they haven't said so. In fact, the Sussex police said this after Graham Curtis' trial:
"It was a tragic argument over a taxi. No one has admitted to striking Jay and no one witnessed who assaulted him".Harmit Athwal continues:
"In December 2000, as a result of Essex police inquiry, the original investigating team in Sussex was replaced by another team. The new head, detective superintendent Ken Probert, announced that the murder was being treated as a 'racist killing' - two years after it took place".Par for the PC course, I'd say. Athwal also said:
"Michael Abatan... strongly feels that lessons from Stephen Lawrence inquiry have yet to be effectively implemented by the criminal justice system".Stephen Lawrence, eh? I wondered when he'd be making an appearance.
Peter Bottomley, Jay Abatan's constituency MP, also asked Sussex police for assurances that the investigation ‘would have been the same if the victims had been white and the suspects had been white.’
A police spokesman said:
"We take racially-motivated crime very seriously and if we find race was a motive we can bring aggravated charges. We have done that on a number of occasions".Detective Inspector Young, who was in charge of the case, added:
"Race never has and never will have a bearing on the way we investigate violent crime and it certainly did not in this case."Inspector Young also said:
"We wanted and still do want justice for Jay and his family".The local newspaper reported thus at the time:
"Detectives insist there was no element of racism in their approach. They say the tragic truth is that there was not enough evidence to convict anyone of killing Mr. Abatan... Witnesses said the incident had been over in seconds and Michael Abatan admits he did not see who hit his brother".On 24 May 2000, in the House of Commons, the Solicitor General said:
"No witness actually saw Jay Abatan being punched... There was no evidence of joint enterprise and if both defendants were to be pursued for manslaughter then there was no prospect of a successful prosecution against either of them.So, what do we have here? Manslaughter charges were brought. Amazingly, in this politically correct day and age, they were dropped. Graham Curtis and Peter Bell were then charged with affray and causing actual bodily harm. The jury acquitted them. In May 2000, after Graham was found not guilty of any crime, Michael Abatan said:
Of the circumstantial evidence available the stronger evidence was against the first defendant, (Graham Curtis) who on the evidence available was the closer of the two men to Jay Abatan at the crucial time and who had allegedly made a comment in the taxi after the incident was over: 'I only hit him once'.
The second defendant was further away and had distanced himself from the argument at the time it was taking place in a comment to an independent witness. The decision was therefore made that the manslaughter case against the second defendant would be discontinued, unless the outstanding DNA evidence provided a link between him and Jay Abatan.
On 24 June, the day of the committal proceedings, the results of the DNA evidence were obtained. The results added nothing to the prosecution case against the second defendant. Consequently, in accordance with the decision reached in conference, the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the manslaughter charge against the second defendant. It pursued the manslaughter charges against the first defendant.
However, the magistrate refused to commit the first defendant for manslaughter because of what he held was insufficient evidence. Notwithstanding this decision the prosecution, after taking counsel's advice, decided to pursue the charge of manslaughter at trial in the Crown Court. A draft indictment, which included the manslaughter charge, was therefore lodged at Lewes Crown Court on 22 July 1999...
However, on 30 September 1999, following legal argument, the resident judge at Lewes Crown Court granted the defence application to have the manslaughter count struck out. In the light of this ruling there was nothing further the Crown could do to pursue the manslaughter allegation.
The trial of the defendants on the two remaining counts, affray and causing actual bodily harm to Michael Abatan, commenced on 2 May 2000...
On 9 May 2000 the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both counts against each defendant...
The group containing the two defendants was all white. The other group were of white, black and other ethnic backgrounds. On the face of the statements available to the prosecution, many of them made on the day of the incident, nothing was said to indicate that Jay Abatan died as the result of a racist attack. Indeed one witness, who is not white, stated to the contrary. 'I do not believe that this incident was a racially motivated attack'. This did not mean that the Crown Prosecution Service treated the incident any less seriously. At all stages of the inquiry they were alert to the possibility that this was a racist attack but this has simply not been borne out by the evidence".
"My brother followed the Lawrence case. Everyone tells me that things have changed but they haven't. They have actually got worse. If a white person had died that night it would have been totally different. Jay and I would have been charged with murder and jailed for life. I am outraged and angry... I have given the legal system time to run its course and it has given me nothing. It hasn't given my brother anything... I want justice for Jay".The mother of Jay Abatan's two children, Tanya Haynes, said much the same:
"I probably was less aware of prejudice because I am from a white middle-class background. Now I am acutely aware of it. I believe that there would have been a different charge if Jay had been a different colour...Jay Abatan was unfortunate, there is no doubt about that, and, perhaps Graham Curtis was lucky not to have done any time for causing Jay Abatan's death. (If he did strike Jay he should also have admitted it) However, Michael Abatan and Tanya Haynes were dead wrong to say what they did. The police these days are terrified of being labelled as racist and they will bend over backwards to ensure a conviction in such a case as this if humanly possible.
I believed in good and that there are people who are there to protect us, to do justice. I no longer have that belief. I think people hold innate racism and prejudices and although people will talk about such issues, at the end of the day there remains certain racist elements".
The Solicitor General also said:
"One witness, who is not white, stated to the contrary. 'I do not believe that this incident was a racially motivated attack'."Does this not count? Should this statement be disregarded because it doesn't fit the anti-racist bill? The simple truth is that, if Jay Abatan had been white, no one would have heard of him. It would have been A.N. Other small-time Friday night tragedy. That is the reality.
This too is the reality. After Graham Curtis and Peter Bell were acquitted, the police, harried by a plethora of race campaigners, PC watchdogs, Peter Bottomley and the Abatan family, continued to keep Graham under surveillance.
His home in Brighton was raided and ‘turned upside down’ by officers who seized computer equipment and checked his mobile phone calls. Friends and relatives, some from as far away as Australia, were visited by police who asked about his movements. The police never found anything they could charge him with. Nevertheless, a friend, Mark Owen, said:
"Graham had years of it, of police asking questions".
"When will this stop?"It stopped when Graham Curtis, a father-of-two from Eastbourne, committed suicide in June 2003.
Score another Brit for the PC Crowd.
On 9 September 2004, the BBC website reported thus:
"Three senior police officers are to face a misconduct tribunal over the killing of tax specialist Jay Abatan. The hearing will examine alleged failures in the Sussex Police inquiry into his death. A superintendent and two detective inspectors will appear.Like I said, the police will bend over backwards.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said the three officers will be questioned about how they led the investigation into Mr. Abatan's death. The IPCC said one high-ranking chief police officer, who has since left the Sussex force, may also now be disciplined by his or her current police authority".
Jay Abatan has been mentioned many times in Parliament.Those who did so have, most notably, included Peter Bottomley, Charles Clarke, Ross Cranston, Harriet Harman and Lord Goldsmith. Jay Abatan's brother has also been mentioned.
16 MPs also signed an EDM commemorating Jay Abatan. These were:
For the Tories: Peter Bottomley.
For New Labour: Harry Barnes, Jeremy Corbyn, Ann Cryer, John Cummings, Jim Dobbin, Bill Etherington, Alice Mahon, John McDonnell, Mohammed Sarwar, Alan Simpson, David Taylor and Rudi Vis.
For the Lib Dems: Colin Breed, Andrew George and Mike Hancock.
Unlike Jay Abatan, no MP, not even Nigel Waterson, Graham Curtis's own MP, ever bothered to mention him in parliament. Nor did they ever sign an EDM commemorating him. This, ladies and gentlemen, is where we are now.
Here are some of his PC credentials:
"This House notes the recent upsurge in inflammatory media coverage depicting asylum seekers as disease carriers and terrorists, notes how damaging such reports can be to people who have come to this country, in search of a safe haven and freedom from political persecution but also have HIV; believes that such media attention only fuels racism and stigma which is wholly counterproductive to the necessity to treat such individuals with respect and compassion; and urges the Government not to succumb to this media pressure".Now, doesn’t it seem to you that a politician whose first instinct would put the welfare of a would-be immigrant who is HIV-positive, before any thought of the dire consequences that the importation of such diseases might have upon his constituents, poses an enormous threat to the wellbeing of those who elected him.
The unthinking sympathies of such politicians place the health and happiness of the native born population at tremendous risk. If the electorate would protect themselves and their children from the blinkered generosity of these politically correct bleeding hearts, such ‘generosity’ should not be tolerated. When, if ever, have our politicians bee as keen to act with such charity towards us?
Bottomley signed a great many Early Day Motions sympathetic to and supportive of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants since New Labour came to power. However, he did not sign an EDM critical of Abdullah Azad, who had offered to sell UK passports to those whose immigration status was in question.
He also signed an EDM criticising the decision to deport Nigerian immigrant, Sunday Ogunwobi, and his family. Ogunwobi is still here many years after the first EDM was introduced on his behalf and was, last time I looked, a Hackney Councillor.
He also signed an EDM which expressed outrage at the deaths of Damilola Taylor and Abdi Hamza.This EDM suggested that their deaths were general British 'problems of violence and anti-social behaviour' and not specific black on black crime. In fact, Damilola and Abdi were stabbed to death by two different gangs of murderous, black teenagers.
Bottomley also signed an EDM which eulogised PC Kalawant Sidhu, who fell to his death while chasing a criminal over rooftops in 1999. He also signed two EDMs mentioning Asian, Rohit Duggal, and the black youth, Rolan Adams.
He also signed an EDM criticising the proposed deportation of asylum-seeker, Edneth Gotora.
Bottomley also signed an EDM which sympathised with the Gypsy, Gareth Price, who was found hanging in his cell at Lancaster Farms Young Offenders Institution. However, he never signed an EDM expressing sympathy with the 13-year-old English boy who lost his life in a stolen car that Price was driving, nor did he sign an EDM expressing sympathy with the English girl that Price raped twice.
Nor did Bottomley sign the EDM sympathising with Joseph Scholes, an English boy who hanged himself in prison who was younger than Price. In fact, I don't believe that Bottomley has ever signed any EDM expressing sympathy with the many indigenous British men, women and children who have committed suicide in prison.
Bottomley also mentioned Stephen Lawrence many times in Parliament and signed 9 EDMs commemorating him, one of which eulogised his parents, Neville and Doreen.
However, I’m almost certain that he hasn't mentioned any of the many native Britons who have lost their lives at the hands of first and second-generation immigrants and he has NEVER signed an EDM commemorating such a death.
Check out the bias of the liberal left in The Guardian's reportage of the Abatan case.