Gangland UK Read online

  To the memories of:

  Damilola Taylor, aged 11, murdered 27 November 2000; Letisha Shakespeare, 17, and Charlene Ellis, 18, murdered 2 January 2003; And Gary Newlove, 47, murdered 10 August 2007.

  Contents

  Title page

  Dedication

  Prologue

  Introduction

  1 Early British Gangs

  2 The Brothers Gunn

  3 Goldfinger – Mr Kenneth James Noye

  4 The Kray Brothers

  5 The Richardsons

  6 Thomas ‘Tam’ McGraw and the Scottish Gangs

  7 The Essex Boys

  8 The Adams Family

  9 The Wembley Mob

  10 Bert Wickstead – Gangbuster

  11 The Securitas Crew

  12 The Great Train Robbers

  13 Street Gangs UK

  14 Triads UK

  15 Our Journey Through Gangland UK

  Copyright

  Prologue

  If this book does not wake Britain up, nothing will, for it has been researched and written while gang-related crime in the UK has reached epidemic proportions to become a social disease. Indeed, we are suffering a global pandemic and, like any deadly virus, it causes suffering, death and destruction on a massive scale, in which the un-inoculated suffer the worst. The cause is gangland crime, and it is here to stay in the UK, for there is no current antidote.

  The incubation of this social disease goes back a century or more and, despite the warnings, the writing was always on the wall. Ever resourceful law enforcement agencies across the world have been more than eager to stamp it out. There have always been a handful of ‘bent’ coppers to be ‘bought’ by the gang masters; the majority of police officers, though, are genuinely dedicated to ‘protect and serve’.

  ‘Hamstrung’ is the word to describe law enforcement today in the agencies’ fight against the criminal underworld and, wherever one looks, the problem is always the same – lack of social commitment by government, who offers mealy-mouthed promises to tighten up on gang-related crime. This approach is merely window-dressing whose sole aim is to appease the populace when votes are required. The truth is that police forces up and down the country are shackled by lack of funding, overtime restrictions, top-heavy civilian management – and they are managed by pen-pushers and penny-counters who do nothing but extract valuable financial resources from an already restricted law enforcement budget.

  At the time of writing, the present Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, is planning to slash the numbers of British policemen and women by some 12,000 officers; British police are fighting over decent pay scales; British prisons have become so overcrowded that magistrates and judges are being ‘advised’ not to send anyone, other than the most serious of offenders, to jail. And current Government figures show that four out of five people convicted of carrying knives are not being sent to prison.

  Until now, guidelines have suggested that a high-level community order should be imposed on those caught and convicted of carrying knives – the weapon of choice for wannabe gangsters. Other options are to impose a fine of up to £1,000 or sentence the offender to up to 12 weeks’ custody. But, according to ‘new’ guidelines issued by the Lord Chief Justice on 20 February 2008, yobs who slash victims with a knife could receive no more than a community service order; new advice issued to the judiciary said that an offender who carries out a common assault with a weapon should not necessarily be handed more than a community sentence.

  In Hampshire, a total of 160 people were found guilty of possessing a blade when they appeared before magistrates in the county in 2006, but only 29 of them were sent to prison, according to Ministry of Justice figures. And this comes after figures were released showing the number of people convicted of carrying a knife in the county rocketing by 65 per cent compared with the previous decade. In all courts, a total of 37 people, aged between 10–17, were convicted of carrying knives in Hampshire in 2006, up from 33 in 2005. And that’s just Hampshire… what about the real, hardcore counties, towns and cities?

  The writing on the wall? Today, following the guidelines of their American counterparts in gangland crime, many British inner-city gangs mark the territorial boundaries of their turf with graffiti – a bit like street dogs pissing their mark against a pub wall. But the Government has done exactly that, too! This Government, along with previous governments, has consistently failed to address the social disease that is street crime – which inevitably leads many of the so-called ‘shot-callers’ into organised crime. Street crime is, and has always been, the breeding ground of many of the characters featured throughout this book.

  Most of the ‘big-time’ gangsters in this book would pour scorn on the scum who infest our streets today. Many of those from the ‘old school’ would give the young street hooligans the thrashing of their lives if they overstepped the mark. The Krays, the Richardsons, the likes of Kenny Noye… they would take these yobs and chavs and give them a lesson in the subtle art of ‘social communication’ that they would never forget, starting with, ‘Don’t piss in your own backyard.’

  But the message from the ‘official’ graffiti – the message sent out to youngsters today from Government, and now the judiciary – is that street crime, and young gang crime, does pay.

  I do not think that there could be anyone above the age of consent in the UK who does not recognise the name Anthony Edward ‘Tony’ Martin. A small-holder, after being plagued by burglars at his farm in Norfolk, on the night of 20 August 1999, struck back at his assailants using lethal force.

  Two yobs, persistent burglars the pair of them, broke in and were surprised by Tony who held a shotgun. Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, attempted to flee, being the gutless cowards they were, both suffering gunshot injuries. Fearon was shot in the leg, Barras fatally in the back. A third accomplice, 33-year-old Darren Bark, drove off in the getaway car. All from Newark-on-Trent, Fearon was sentenced to three years in prison, and Bark to 30 months, with an additional 12 months arising from previous offences.

  On 23 August 1999, Martin was charged with the murder of Barras, and the attempted murder of Fearon – wounding with intent to cause injury to Fearon, and possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. Tony Martin was given a mandatory life sentence.

  The case became a cause célèbre for some as a result of Tony shooting the two burglars. The issue attracted considerable media interest and polarised opinion in the UK to a greater degree than usual. To some, he is seen as trigger-happy and unstable, who wilfully killed a fleeing boy using an illegally held shotgun. To others – the majority of decent citizens anxious to protect their properties, as well as the lives of themselves and their families – he is a wronged man and an example of how the British legal system supposedly punishes victims and rewards criminals.

  Over the years, Martin had been burgled several times, losing £6,000 worth of furniture. He complained to the police and complained about police inaction over the robberies. Some have expressed doubts that those incidents had, in fact, taken place at all. Police interests are arguably best served by this allegation. But can they always be trusted?

  That was in 1999, and again the wheel has turned full circle, with a similar case occurring in Skelmersdale, Lancashire. On 17 February 2008, 25-year-old Liam Kilroe was on bail, and on the run, after having been charged with two robberies. A quick glance at his criminal CV makes one wonder what on earth the authorities were thinking when they let him back out on to the streets.

  A 34-year-old storekeeper, Tony Singh, was attacked at 9.40 pm after a 13-hour day minding his corner shop. Kilroe appeared at the window of the businessman’s Ford Focus car, smashed it with the handle of his knife and demanded the shop’s takings. Mr Singh fought back a
nd, during the struggle, the knife ended up embedded in Kilroe’s chest. He died from this single wound. At the time of writing, Mr Singh was arrested and could have faced a possible murder charge.

  Kilroe’s CV puts this all into perspective: 1999 – Assault; 1999 – Burglary; 2002 – Possession of Cannabis; 2002 – Possession of an offensive weapon; March 2002 – Robbery of a store in Skelmersdale, threatened a woman worker with a knife and stole £170.00; Robbery of a newsagent’s in the same town, another female worker threatened, £50 taken; Robbery of a post office in the same town, again using threats of violence, £8,000 stolen; Sentenced to four years in a young offenders’ institution; October 2006 – armed robbery at another Skelmersdale post office, struck the postmaster on the head with an imitation firearm and fled empty-handed; November 2006 – Armed robbery in Croston, Lancashire, threatened a woman with a handgun and stole £8,000; February 2008, dies after a bungled mugging.

  Mr Singh’s desperate act of self-defence came just a week after a gang of three youths were jailed for beating and kicking to death 47-year-old Garry Newlove, a father of three who confronted them while they were smashing up his wife’s car on 10 August 2007.

  Recidivist offender Adam Swellings, 19, Stephen Sorton, 17, and Jordan Cunliffe, 16, were found guilty of murder at Chester Crown Court. Two youths, aged 15 and 17, were acquitted. Later, as the killers faced inevitable life sentences, Mrs Helen Newlove said it was ‘a shock’ to have learned of the release on bail of Swellings on 10 August 2007 – the day her husband died.

  Helen added, ‘We knew Swellings had previous convictions, but it was a shock to hear he had been released that day. I’m absolutely disgusted. These magistrates, it’s unbelievable. They let him out and they walk the streets. He’s not taken a blind bit of notice of the conditions of bail. He’s gone out, got drunk and taken drugs and my husband has been left dead… Until this Government puts into place an effective deterrent, the youths of today know all too well they can play the system and get away with it. As far as I’m concerned, life should mean life. After all, the tariff for murder is mandatory, but why, as the justice system does not uphold this sentence?’

  The gang roamed the streets drunk on cheap, strong cider and high on cannabis looking for trouble. More often than not, they found it. They threatened anyone who crossed their paths and terrorised a young schoolgirl. She told how Swellings – nicknamed Swellhead – said he would kill her.

  Another local resident, electrician Steve Ormerod was subjected to an almost identical attack that had left Garry Newlove dead. They knocked him to the ground and kicked him repeatedly. On the night they murdered Garry, they were ‘bladdered’ on booze. Stephen Sorton alone had downed around ten bottles of Stella Artois and a 3-litre bottle of cider.

  The official police response to all of this? ‘Local officers are frustrated because they do not have the time, the resources or the infrastructure to provide the support we would like to give residents.’

  Excuse the language, but it is a fucking disgrace.

  Introduction

  ‘Gil. You’ve got to liven him up, put the fear of God into him, mate, and he knows it’s only down to you that he’s walking about and breathing fresh air.’

  TERRENCE ‘TERRY’ ADAMS, TO HIS ENFORCER, GILBERT WYNTER MI5 TAPES(1997)

  According to a 2006 report published by the Home Office, almost half-a-million British youngsters belong to teenage gangs. The fear is that some youngsters could graduate to the adult gangs involved in drug-dealing and serious theft found in most major cities and members of gangs were far more likely than other youths to have been expelled from school, to have friends who have been in trouble with the police and to be regularly drunk. Today, in a society where cans of lager can be cheaper than bottled water, many of Britain’s youth have a bleak future.

  Current statistics show that almost half-a-million youngsters regularly break the law and intimidate their communities. Many have taken illegal drugs, carry weapons and have been involved in serious violence, as well as vandalising property and frightening passers-by. Indeed, with an already over-stretched police force, and a criminal justice system reluctant to incarcerate young offenders, aligned with an overcrowded penal system, the rule of law in our society is seriously under threat.

  More than a third of youths have committed at least one serious offence – including assault, burglary, mugging, stealing a car or selling hard drugs. Nearly two-thirds have committed a serious offence of some sort; more than a quarter have committed a criminal offence; and more than a quarter have committed a series of crimes. One in eight carries a knife, underlining fears over increasing numbers of stabbings on Britain’s streets but, unlike the USA, only one in a hundred have carried a gun. Illegal drugs have been taken by 45 per cent, while 11 per cent have used a Class A substance such as heroin, crack or cocaine. Four in ten gang members said they had threatened or frightened victims, 29 per cent had used force or violence, 36 per cent had written graffiti and 31 per cent had vandalised property. These are the serious gangsters of tomorrow.

  The average gang was found to have about 15 members, making them a formidable and intimidating force on any street. Similar numbers of girls and boys are involved in gangs, with 14 or 15 being the prime ages for membership. About half were mainly male, 40 per cent comprised both sexes, and 10 per cent were all or mainly female. 60 per cent were all white, 31 per cent were racially mixed, 5 per cent were Asian-only and 3 per cent black only. A third said their group had a name. Almost 40 per cent had a leader, and 15 per cent had rules for members. Almost 90 per cent had a specific place – such as a park, street corner or square – where they hung out.

  The Home Office has determined gang membership to be more common among youths from less affluent families and, to a lesser degree, among those not living with both parents. It was also discovered that youngsters were often prompted to join gangs after they had become victims of crime themselves. But this is nothing new. As we shall learn from the older criminals and gangsters featured throughout this book, their formative years and social imprinting was exactly the same as the modern-day hooligan, so no surprises there.

  One 21-year-old thug has said that ‘being in a gang means something. You matter if you got a gang… you’re important. You look after each other.’ Gang life came to an end for this youth six years ago when he was placed in a young offenders’ institution for murder.

  It would be fair for the reader to ask at this point a question along the lines of: ‘So, what has all this got do with a book called Gangland UK?’ Well, it has everything to do with such a book because the facts contained in these pages should send out a clear message to every parent whose children are gravitating towards gang-related crime. Every single gangster or robber featured within these pages has come undone. Many have been murdered. Most have been imprisoned for long periods of time, and a good few are locked away for the rest of their lives. So, the gangsters are not role models in any shape or form for the youths of today.

  Many look back at the Krays with some form of reverence, but this book exposes them for what they truly were and, compared with other criminals featured here, they were not that ‘big-time’ after all – unless one imagines that walking into a pub and blasting a man’s head off in cold blood to be something of a social achievement.

  Today, we live in a society where a delinquent regards an ASBO as a badge of honour, and something to be proud of. In most inner-city areas, a significant number amount of council housing and state benefits are handed out willy-nilly to bone-idle parents who are too lazy to pry themselves away from their plasma TVs; their kids run the streets, out ’til all hours, keeping boredom at bay through petty crime and generally making a nuisance of themselves until, eventually, they fall foul of the law. Do the parents care? Some do, but in many cases, not at all. And the same can be said of all the parents of the criminals featured in Gangland UK.

  I would suggest that every mature, old-fashioned crook who is mentioned in this b
ook might give the kids of today a little hard advice: ‘Sonny, you little shit, crime just don’t pay…’ but let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth – from the villains and gangsters themselves.

  1

  Early British Gangs

  ‘I am the porter that was barbarously slain in Fleet Street… by the Mohocks and Hawkubites was I slain, then they laid violent hands upon me. They put their hook into my mouth, they divided my nostrils asunder, they sent me, as they thought, to my long home, but now I am returned again to foretell their destruction.’

  REVEREND DIVINE IN THE PAMPHLET CALLED THE SPIRIT (C1715)

  Gangs have been a fairly consistent feature of the urban landscape of Britain. In the 17th century, British gangs routinely vandalised urban areas, were territorial, and were involved in violent conflict with other gangs. From time immemorial, wherever there have been large populations of people, there have always been groups of ill-doers who prey on the law-abiding and innocent. In the memorable words of historian Christopher Hill: ‘The 17th century lived in terror of the tramp.’

  The Mohocks was such a gang that brought mayhem to the streets and alleyways of London during the early 18th century. Taking their name from the Mohawk native American Indian tribe, they attacked men and women, disfiguring their male victims and sexually assaulting the females.

  The Mohawks (originally meaning ‘man-eaters’) were the native people of New York, but how a bunch of British thugs adopted their name in the 18th century is anyone’s guess. Today, the Mohawk, or Mohican, is a hairstyle which consists of shaving either side of one’s head, leaving a strip of long hair down the middle.

  The gang was also known as the ‘young bloods’, which was later shortened to ‘bloods’. This name is possibly the origin of the British sense of the adjective ‘bloody’, which was not considered particularly impolite until that time. However, while they entertained themselves by cutting off noses, hands and inflicting all manner of pain and suffering on others, they were claimed by many to be ‘young gentlemen’ because they didn’t rob anyone. Matters came to a head in 1712, when a bounty of £100 – a huge sum in those days – was issued by the Royal Court for their capture.