I see the Law Lords have upset the legal apple cart and managed to give ex-home secretary bully boy Jack Straw a bit of a duffing up. Always a delicious prospect for me as the disagreeable fellow appears to be an authoritarian who constantly tows the party line, rather than a free thinker who should have used his place in power to stop extremist tendency in government instead of encouraging it. His record speaks for itself.
The need to urgently look into addressing the knock on effect of the ruling, which has led to anonymous evidence being brought into question, is not to be doubted, because it appears the justice may have been circumvented, not because some guilty men may go free as Mr Yates states.
"A lot of good work is being undone, and this will play out so badly in terms of those we are trying to reach out to in communities. It almost feels like we have broken our word.
"To see clearly guilty people walking free is just awful.
"Special measures are only used in the most extreme cases, which mean these are our most dangerous criminals, people who have been jailed for up to 40 years. And they could be walking free."
Some cases, where witnesses may be threatened and possibly killed if found to have testified, are in need of some sort of protection policy, but this should not be at the detriment of justice, ever.
Like it or not, agree or disagree, the Law Lords have clearly stated that this case went against the principles of legal justice that have been honed over centuries through laws enacted or repealed, appeal decisions and all the other elements of the machinery of Justice. The trial was unfair and prejudiced the defence. That's enough for me, but obviously not for Mr Yates who seems to be expressing the opinion that it is worth throwing out the principles of justice to reach communities, keep his word and when he sees the clearly guilty being set free.
This is symptomatic of the vindictive and clearly about face thinking of our establishment culture, and of the either absolute blind ignorance or deliberate avoidance of recognising what has been happening to our justice system. The response from the powers that be helps no one, frightens people and simplifies an already complex situation.
Mr Yates, who is assistant commissioner of the Met, appears to be more concerned about guilty men going free, than upholding a justice system that is not their to deal purely with the guilty, but also to protect the innocent. This is a terrible indictment of our systems and processes. Thankfully the police can still apply for this witness anonymity, it does not stop that happening, and each case must be dealt with on its own merits. It must be proved a requirement, and long may that remain so.
This whole situation raises many questions for me, why did it get this far, how did we let it and how in cases of historical child abuse (often years after the alleged event) or rape, that have no forensics, in fact, no other evidence at all, excepting one persons word over another and that is enough to convict, but here they needed seven witnesses?
What does that illustrate? A propensity for juries to believe one type of "story" and not another? Does this open up a whole can of worms about how juries make decisions? Perhaps the Police and CPS are more zealous when it comes to sex cases and know juries convict on the flimsiest of evidence.
I expect this individual (and others) has likely as not, been known to the police for a long time. Possibly a career criminal with an extensive record who did not start of by killing people but has worked his way up like a modern day Scarface.
The police must, of course, bring the strongest case they can but it does seem to indicate an extreme difference between how we see different types of cases, particularly in the distinction between the violent and the sexual.
Doesn't this symptomatic issue, of a society possibly confused between morality and justice, driven by the UK's cultural tolerance for violence and abhorrence of all things sexual, illustrate how wrong we get it?, I suspect so. It appears that statistics on violent crime back me up.
Whilst this lily livered excuse for a Labour Government has been known to harangue and harass protesters, noisy attendants at Labour Conferences and innocent people viewing images or taking photos it has singularly failed to get it right on violent crime. Particularly as this article shows, with young people.
Well that's where it starts, with the young, and this paints a grey and grim image for the future if this is how the young really are, feral and violence driven.
Bring on the comments from the likes of Mrs Olive Dorous-Whinger, "This is symptomatic of violent TV and games and films promiscuity in the young and drugs and drink and rock and roll and e-numbers and bad teachers and common proles and the web thing and mobile phones and(enter thought here) and (here)" (left for you to fill in).
If all the above were dealt with Olive, surely then this man would never have killed and witness protection would not be required? This is of course ass gravy of the first order. What is symptomatic is the tolerance for real life violence we still retain; symptomatic of a culture that has the canker.
If violent crime in the young has risen to such an extent, when we have a state that has the most caring and protective tentacles in the family unit in our history. Controls what parents can do by legal means, interferes incessantly with the private lives of individuals, and dictates what is and what is not the "correct or PC" way to behave, how come violent crime has gone up?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, a favourite phrase of mine states that "after this, therefore because (on account) of this" and is seen as a logical fallacy. Something does not necessarily correlate just because it appears linear.
So am I foolish in drawing the conclusion, that having an overbearing and borderline totalitarian state interfering and mediating in our private lives, linked with a culture that tolerates violent acts, has a direct causal link with the need to provide anonymity and protection for witnesses?
It is certainly stretching it, even for me, and my love of the Polemical.
At the least good reader, can we not research the possibility of correlation? We do it for Olives' violent games at great expense, so why not investigate the state, it's cohort of social service protectors and our policies on how we raise children to the state of crime in the UK.
Is it linked to our tolerance for violence and obsession with sex crimes?
Do we continuously fail to punish severely enough those whom are handy with their fists before they become handier with a gun or knife? This symptomatic spiral has to end somewhere, and I have for years said that it should be directly blamed on parents when their offspring turn out rotten.
This rather blind statement is negated when the state cleverly and surreptitiously dismantles the family unit’s cohesion and starts to play mummy and daddy with possible consequences that are not good.
So what to do, it needs discussion, lets be mischievous for a second and imagine one that takes place between two ill informed but well meaning folk.
So here's how the conversation in the pub may well go.
"Your wife's a witness in that case this week isn’t she?"
"Yeah, she asked for witness protection because Mickey Slack Jaw, you know the one with the limp, permanent Bels Palsy and the googly eyes, is a loon who may kill witnesses"
"Why is he still out and about?"
"Sentences were short."
"Yes, but that's symptomatic of a bad sentencing policy that the judiciary must follow surely."
"Oh, is it?"
"I thinks so, see because Mickey, well, he got banged up for 3 years because he knifed some bloke, it was deliberate as well, but he only got 3 years, it was his fifth offence for violence.
Yet old Bob got 3 years for having diddled with his girlfriend who is now his wife, when she was 17 and he was her teacher, 26 he was, and it was a first offence."
"Dirty git; throw away the key I say?"
"Isn't it a bit strange that Mickey only got 3 years or am I mad?."
"Well, he only stabbed a bloke, never diddled a kid did he, 3 years is about right I think, wonder why he stabbed him though?"
"Must have had a terrible home life to have turned out so bad."
"Well, funny you should say that, Mickey’s dad was a fine man, widowed unfortunately, and a lawyer by profession. Mickey told me when he was caught fighting at 10 he grounded him for 3 months, then when he was caught with a knife at school as a kid of 12 his dad walloped him one, trousers down and all, said it frightened him to death."
"Obviously didn't work though, Mickey’s been in and out of the nick for years."
"Perhaps, he was all right for a few years, buckled down, did well at his studies, then Mickey met a child protection woman at sixth form college a couple of years later when they came to talk about safe internet and sexual abuse as they do now. Mickey told me it was like manna from heaven as he realised what the woman was saying about abuse applied to him.
See, his fear of his father had kept him on the straight and narrow, the old man had been so pleased with his progress that he took him to Africa on Safari and all over the place to encourage him to fly straight, and I suppose he cared for him despite sexually abusing him that time."
"You've lost me, sexual abuse?"
"Well, this woman advertised this telephone line to help abused kids and a few days later Mickey and his old man fell out over Mickey wanting money to out with his mates to town. Was a huge row, Mickey said. So he rang that line and told them what was happening at home and he was referred to a child protection team.
They asked him all sorts of questions and eventually he told them about the knife incident and that was when it all started, they arrested his dad and charged him with sexual abuse of a child! Mickey then discovered he could get compensation for his abuse, you know, money off the state, and he did get lots of it, he told me he elaborated a bit so he would get more. He always was a bit of a devil when we were at school together."
"Bloody hell, what happened next?"
"Well by this time Mickey was 18 and so he got a place of his own with the compensation money, then it all went wrong, his dad committed suicide in prison. Mickey never forgave himself and turned to drugs, end of. He was high when he stabbed that bloke and went back in jail. When he got out he fell in with the wrong crowd again, subsequently he shot a chap, in front of quite a few witnesses, including the wife. Like her they all knew him and his mates so are too scared to give evidence. They have offered them this anonymous business so they can testify."
"But if their all local and Mickey’s mates know who saw what how does that help?"
"Dunno, probably makes em feel better at least"
"So let me get this straight, Mickey was going off the rails at 12 so his dad gave him a thrashing, and then a few years later the child protection team get involved as they have been recruiting at the local school. Mickey gets paid, his dad goes to jail and subsequently kills himself, Mickey goes off the rails, becomes somewhat of a mini Al Capone in the area and then embarks on a life of crime, stabbing and killing along his way. Despite being caught numerous times the judges don't sentence him to long enough because we have problem with accepting levels of violence we shouldn't"
"Yep, on target so far"
"Subsequently your misses, along with the six other folk who can help put him away for long enough, need witness protection to testify against this obviously damaged man"
"That about sums it up"
"Blimey, that's a tale and a half, where did we go wrong as a society to let this happen I wonder?"
"Oh that's easy, it wasn't society it was Mickey’s dad. He bought him a play station 3 at 11 and he had the internet in his bedroom. The child protection team found horror films in Mickey’s closet and porn on his laptop. He was obviously a "wrong un!" and all the good parenting in the world wouldn't have helped would it?"
"So it was the parent’s fault, well how comforting, that explains it all then, drink up, we better get going, I left the squad car on the double yellows and I am in court in an hour over that kid who had S & M pictures on his laptop at university."
"Little bastard, hope they throw the book at him"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment