After the UK released Mohammed despite his history of rape and murder, he went on to kill another woman
- Mahamunimodi Team
- 1 day ago
- 2 min read
In 2006, Mohammed Azim committed a horrific act: he tied up a man and drowned him in a canal. Six years later, he was released from prison. But barely had he regained his freedom when he unleashed another wave of violence—smashing a bottle over a woman’s head, dragging her by her hair, and subjecting her to a brutal sexual assault.
Eight years after that, Azim was once again out on the streets, this time facing the court for the murder of 19-year-old Lilly Whitehouse. His pattern of extreme violence had only escalated.
The last time he appeared in court, deeply disturbing CCTV footage exposed the sheer brutality of his actions. At just 31, Azim was captured attacking a woman at a bus stop: he struck her head with a bottle, dragged her by the hair into a nearby factory, and subjected her to a 25-minute rape. The harrowing footage, recorded by the factory’s security cameras, revealed the terrifying reality of the threat he posed.
For these crimes, Wolverhampton Crown Court sentenced Azim to a minimum of 16 years in prison. Judge Michael Challinor made it clear that he was a serious danger to the public, emphasizing that he should only be released if a parole board deemed it safe. Yet Azim did not even serve half of that sentence. Once again, upon release, he returned to committing the most heinous crimes.
This is the stark reality for a country that repeatedly fails to safeguard its women. When societies release dangerous offenders back into the public without proper safeguards, history tragically repeats itself. The primary responsibility of any nation is the protection of its citizens, particularly its women and children. Instead of shielding them from men like Mohammed Azim, the UK appears to prioritize the rights and rehabilitation of offenders—sometimes even importing new risks—while the safety of the innocent is compromised. When murderers, rapists, and terrorists are treated as the real victims, the moral foundation of the state itself is called into question.
Comments