Max, who I have a lot of time for as I agree with much of what he says, wrote this:
North Kent police have said that a 35-year-old man was subsequently arrested, on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and rape, along with a 33-year-old woman. They were both from the Gravesend area and were detained in a North Kent police station. However, they have now been released on bail.Here's my problem.
Released on bail?
WTF! A one month old baby has been raped!
Who is the 35-year-old man, that is walking free after raping a one month old baby? Is he the father or is he the boyfriend of the 33-year-old woman that has also been released on bail? Do we presume she is the mother? Someone, somewhere out there must know who these loathsome, disgusting and unbelievable evil people excuses for human beings are!
It’s time to name and shame.
With respect to Max, we don't as yet know that anyone's walking free after raping a baby and so no it's not time to name and shame. It's time to thoroughly investigate, identify the guilty party(s), build an absolutely watertight case with extra attention to detail given to all the human rights - yes, I know, but hear me out - of any initial suspects and the eventual accused. And there are two reasons - first is that we all know the police screw up from time to time and arrest the wrong people, and right this second we can't honesty say that those arrested are guilty of anything. Suspected, yes, sure, but right now they haven't even been charged and in law they are innocent 'til proven guilty, just the same as everyone else. This is not a triviality. This is not showing more concern for the human rights of the perpetrators, who I repeat are not as yet known to be the perpetrators, than it is for the victim. This is absolutely essential for law to work at all. As Bolt's Sir Thomas More put it:
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!The second reason is more prosaic. I'm appalled by this crime and I want to know that someone is punished for it. I want to hear that they got the bastard, that he was tried, convicted and locked away like an animal. And if he appeals I want to be confident that he's got no hope at all and the Appeals Court will reject it in very short order because the police and CPS did a thorough job, cutting no corners and respecting the accused's rights at every step of the process. I said they were important, and that's why - it's not just that some accused really are innocent but also that you don't want it to become a get out of jail free card for the guilty ones later on.
Naming and shaming now, if the eventual accused is indeed the one who gets named, puts that all that at risk if the defence persuades the court that it's prejudiced the jury and a fair trial is no longer possible. And before we start launching into defence barristers, see above - if you'd been charged and you were innocent you'd be wanting the barrister to do absolutely everything, play every angle at every stage, to get you out of there and back to your life, and if we want that for innocents accidentally put on trial or maliciously fitted up then it's got to be done for the crims too. It's not perfect but that way we know. If there's no trial, no guilt can ever be proven, and I don't trust British mobs to get it right when people have been known to attack the house of a paediatrician.
The disgust I feel over the idea that someone of technically the same species could do this to a tiny baby meant that I struggled to blog anything right away. There is no just punishment for this, none. There can't be. We're not a society that tortures people to death over extended periods anymore, and we're the better for it, but even if we were I'm not even sure Leg-iron's suggestion of hacking their legs off at the knee and standing them in salt is enough. Death certainly isn't, and not just because it'd be sending him off to a hell I don't believe in but because even if I'm wrong and there is one the bastard would get the opportunity of absolution before he got the rope or the needle or whatever. Spending the remainder of his miserable existence hearing the whispers, knowing from the beginning that the first beating - and worse - will come sooner or later, and then over the years learning from the less than gentle ministrations of fellow prisoners that the most frightening sight is an absence of screws and the worst sound is the small metallic click of a door that should remain shut being quietly unlocked, being moved for his safety and living in terror of the moment that who he is and what he's in for will become known in the new prison, that might well be the closest thing a civilised society can do for a just punishment.
We should want as many waking moments of this creature's remaining life as possible to be filled with nervous fear, and as many filled with terror and pain as other guests of Mrs Majesty's prison system are able to supply. The best chance of all that happening is to name no names except to police officers. If folks on the blogosphere or Twitter or Facebook blab enough to screw up a trial, or even any chance of there being a trial, then they'd almost be accessories to the crime. Because the perpetrator of this evil will go free and those who named him will all have helped. Jeez, if he gets a new ID and life somewhere at taxpayers' expense the blogs and twitterers and facebookers might as well have clubbed together and bought the bastard a ticket abroad and a clean docs.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. Quite often so is justice.
Macheath · 694 weeks ago
It is surely only a matter of time before a high-profile case of this kind is undermined in the way you describe - I sincerely hope it isn't this one.
My recent post Be careful what you wish for...
Tom · 694 weeks ago
a) Steaming world class incompetence
b) They're so appalled by the deed that they think being torn apart by a mob is the only acceptable outcome for the perps.
c) A deliberate exercise in provocation.
I plump for c) witth a dash of a)
There are more nasty things happening out there than make the "news" and in such a case it's clear that the baying mob would be easily whipped up - it's made for howling tabloid headlines - something that even the dimmest bulb copper would see....
I actually hope it's incompetence and a slip - but actually, my gut tells me that there's a clear opportunity here for the judiciary to leverage the hysteria into the weird worlds of the secret courts.....
Don't get me wrong - if it's true - to hell with them - but - if it's not?
thylacosmilus 62p · 694 weeks ago
And all it'd cost is two 'disposables'...
Incidentally, AE (and O/T) but I just used your 'contact me' form to send you a link to something you might like. No idea if it worked, though, as it dumped me at your Wordpress signin page! If it didn't, I can repeat here in the comment body.
Angry_Exile 90p · 694 weeks ago
Angry_Exile 90p · 694 weeks ago
d) they didn't yet have the evidence to make charges stick and they knew it would take longer than the police custody limit to gather that evidence.
e) they're not even sure they've actually arrested the right person yet.
I think from the police p.o.v. d) is almost a certainty. They will (I hope) be taking their time in order not to miss anything, to gather absolutely every scrap of evidence and build as close to an unassailable case as they can. Would we want them and the CPS to rush to court with what they've got now and the bastard ending up being found not guilty because an incomplete case made for reasonable doubt? Or getting off on appeal with a big compo payment? Not me. They'll want to nail him and they'll want to be sure they get it right and they'll want to be sure that he'll have no way out.
Longrider · 694 weeks ago
My recent post Online Postage
thylacosmilus 62p · 694 weeks ago
Angry_Exile 90p · 694 weeks ago
thylacosmilus 62p · 694 weeks ago
Note that the official lines - such as they are - don't say that. They say 'injuries consistent with....
Angry_Exile 90p · 694 weeks ago
Tom · 694 weeks ago
Angry_Exile 90p · 694 weeks ago
jameshigham · 694 weeks ago
Angry_Exile 90p · 694 weeks ago
Tom · 694 weeks ago
I know all the stuff about arrest etc... what I also know is that many appalling cases never make it out to the media and quite a few never make it to court.
It is perfectly possible for the police to interview people without arresting them and initiating the formal process.
The whirlwind of outrage whipped up around this has picked up all sorts of objects that are obscuring the view...
It is patently an extremely emotive subject and I can't help feeling that it has been handled quite oddly.
If you've been following the saga of the missing children that Christopher Booker has been investigating then your "something's not quite right here" beeper should be buzzing away.
Angry_Exile 90p · 694 weeks ago
I know all the stuff about arrest etc... what I also know is that many appalling cases never make it out to the media and quite a few never make it to court.
Fact of life, I'm afraid. Sometimes crims are clever and the evidence just ain't there. Again, that's something we have to accept unless we want to see the jails half full of innocent people who couldn't prove they were innocent.
It is perfectly possible for the police to interview people without arresting them and initiating the formal process.
True, but this places many restrictions on the police too. A quick arrest means they can scoop up evidence they might otherwise not have had immediate access to, and which could have been destroyed or disposed of by the time an arrest is made. Which approach is correct depends on the case and it's just second guessing the police to wonder if it was the right one in this instance. They had their reasons and if it makes a solid case and a conviction then it was likely the correct decision.
... I can't help feeling that it has been handled quite oddly. </>
We'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing the police have done so far seems unprecedented so it's not surprised or worried me.
If you've been following the saga of the missing children that Christopher Booker has been investigating then your "something's not quite right here" beeper should be buzzing away.
I have, but at the moment I can't see a convincing reason to think there's a connection. My other favourite razor is Occam's, and if you accept that there are some seriously sick fucks walking this Earth then you don't need to multiply any entities at all. This is all subject to revision as more becomes known but this is what, a couple of days old? With what we know so far it's entirely consistent with sicko assaults child and police going bloody carefully so anyone they end up charging doesn't get off on a technicality.
Tom · 694 weeks ago
I'm still uneasy about it - it's so predictable - guaranteed outrage, the tabloid hysteria, the streets full of oiks (how exactly does that work?), the grotesque allegations - it really is a toxic brew -. In a world where worthless twats are granted superinjunctions - stuff like this has the capacity to nuke ordinary lives (The Chris Jefferies case) . A couple of weeks of considered and diligent investigation should be allowed in private - not in the national spotlight. I'll bet that the area is now absolutely crawling with tabloid scum waving bunches of bank notes.
I don't think for a minute that there's a targeted TPTB conspiracy in this case - but I do wonder about extant rules and procedures applying in a case like this. Maybe it's just that the procedures have been utterly compromised / mashed by "management " & policy changes - Hanlon's razor again. Now if it turns out that social services were involved .. and the perps were clients...
It's truly ghastly - if only a portion is true.
"Lynch mobs" and tabloid screeching - both should be stamped on very hard indeed. Personally I think the actual reporters and editors individually in the Jefferies case should have been heavily fined (a year's salary seems about right) and in some cases imprisoned. The idea that he had to sue the actual newspaper company to recover is wrong - these people want their name on the bye-line/masthead - there should be direct consequences for their individual actions.
This one is set to play out under the spotlights of the tabloids.
I find it jarring that the press can keep provincial gun crime almost completely out of the nationals pretty much all the time - but when something like this turns up - blam - it's everywhere. There is something rotten in this beyond the deed .
As you say - it's subject to revision and no doubt more will come out - I for one shan't be seeking out the story.
No doubt lessons will be learnt. The first one was learnt a hundred and fifty years or so ago - outrage sells.