In court, it was said that 64-year-old Frank Bexson swore at her and ordered her to take off her scarf.

According to the girl, he also hit her once in the face and once on the shoulder before leaving.

A couple of months earlier he had been arrested, whilst drunk, for "racially abusing" the security staff of a local supermarket and had been given a community service order. When he was sober, Frank, who was diabetic and somewhat prone to be a bit over the top when he'd had a drink, went back to the supermarket to apologise in person to those he had offended.

When he was interviewed regarding the second case, Frank denied punching the girl but he did plead guilty to a charge of racially aggravated common assault.

British law describes "common assault", the least serious of all criminal assault offences, as "when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force". In other words, no blow has to be struck for this crime to have been committed.

Strangely, this offence is considered so trivial that the police are not even allowed to arrest anyone who commits it.

However, equally strangely, it is still an offence for which the person can be prosecuted. Whilst the police cannot arrest for common assault, if there is sufficient evidence, they can arrest for Actual Bodily Harm, and, should this charge be downgraded later, a prosecution may then be brought for common assault.

It does seem, though, that, if there is no evidence of a punch or a slap, i.e. there is no mark to show that a person has been struck, under British law a person should not even be arrested, never mind charged and prosecuted.

There was no such physical evidence in this case.

The teenage Asian suffered no marking or bruising.

However, because, Frank, allegedly, "racially abused" her, the case came to court, he was found guilty of common assault and, despite being a diabetic and in poor health, the 64-year-old was sentenced to four months in jail.

On the 23rd Of September, 2004, less than a fortnight after Frank was imprisoned, he was moved into a cell with a loony-tune by the name of Paul Simpson and, sure enough, after sharing Frank's company for no more than an hour, Simpson attacked the old man and beat him savagely.

When prison Staff arrived Simpson was calmly sitting on his bed, reading a book.

Frank told the guards he had been attacked and asked them to remove him from the cell, saying:

"He's mad. He just kept hitting me."

Simpson later said that he had only hit Frank twice and the extent of his injuries had come about because "he bounced off the walls."

Frank died in hospital 16 days later.

A little while before he was put into the same cell with Frank Bexson, Simpson had asked for a transfer to a psychiatric unit as he wished to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. When a psychiatric nurse refused this request, he posed this question:

"Do I have to go out and kill someone to do so?"

Let me reiterate: a known nutcase asks if his request for a transfer to a cushy number will be granted if he kills someone.

A bit later, he is put in a cell with a frail, old bloke who is not capable of defending himself. Sixteen days later, we have one nut whose wish had come true and one dead "racist".

Putting a psycho in the same cell as an old chap with a bit of an attitude was never going to win the "idea of the year" prize.

At Simpson's trial for murder, the prosecutor, Richard Latham, described Frank as "an unattractive character".

I wonder if Latham has ever used that phrase when he was describing blacks, Asians or eastern European gypsies, who gang-bang, rape, pimp, sell drugs, mug, kidnap and murder.

I know a lot of you out there are unaware of this but attitudes like the one Frank had, do, most often, come from somewhere. They are not always the product of "an unattractive character's" nasty temperament.

For example, was Frank, himself, ever the victim of racial abuse? Had he ever been beaten up by a gang of second-generation immigrants? Had he been ethnically cleansed at some point in his life? Had he lost a job or a flat because some foreigner had been given preference? Had someone he loved been raped, had someone he loved been murdered, prostituted or introduced to drugs by some non-indigenous type?

Richard Latham was bang out of order when he said what he said and he knew it. But the Freemasonic types that populate the judiciary are a special breed. Currying favour with the right crowd is part of the job.

When the Asian youth, Zahid Mubarek, was put in the same cell as the "known racist" Robert Stewart, he ended up dead and both of their names have been in the media and parliamentary spotlight ever since.

Frank, as we all know, will rate very little journalistic attention and his name will never be mentioned in parliament. No MP will ever introduce an Early Day Motion on his behalf and no enquiry will ever be launched by the powers-that-be into his untimely and wholly preventable death.

I wonder if Frank's killer was black?

I wonder if the screw, who put him in the cell with the loony, was a foreigner himself and took umbrage with Frank's racist CV?

I can promise you this, these are questions that we will never get an answer to this side of a civil war.

It's one law for them and...

You know the rest.