My interest was piqued today by the article in the telegraph and the times here and here. Its an old chestnut the issue of illegal downloading of content, but it appears that the capitulation of governments to the overweening and overblown music and film industry is set to continue as Europe and world wide initiatives swing ponderously into action.
I find this all a bit galling when in 2007 the US box office takings amounted to $9.6 billion up 5% on the previous year and part of a trend expected to continue.
Worldwide box office takings also rose to an all-time high of $26.7bn, a figure which only makes the whinging about piracy sound even more pathetic.
I think they should shut up and get on with it, especially considering the recently engineered format wars over Blu Ray and HD that echoes the old VHS/Beta squabbles of the eighties. The only loser in this is the consumer. As an avid collector of film I again see the writing on the wall with my nigh on 2000 DVD's being the equivalent of a bunch of VHS in a few years. Its so upsetting that once again an new format arrives, is grossly overpriced and gives the film industry another excuse to rehash old products that you can get for £2.99 on DVD but cost £24.99 on Blu Ray.
This is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly people will of course buy Blu Ray and replace favourite DVD's over time, but think of the waste! All that plastic, an environmental nightmare in the making.
The solution, retailers should be forced, along with distributors and film makers to organise a recycle facility where if you take in your old DVD of Mission Impossible then you get a copy on Blu Ray for a fiver.
Secondly, in theory you have already paid for the right to own and watch a particular film, so why have to pay for it again?
The solution, as above, with the prices reflecting the reality.
Thirdly, despite illegal downloading happening they are still making a profit and my time in the film business has taught me that people want to own the original. They will pay for it, even if they have seen it. So what's the fuss about in the first place.
Its about control, they want to milk the product by controlling the streams of income as and when they facilitate them. Of course they do and rightly so, but that only works if the realities of content availability in 2008 is taken into account. Whilst the major players fart around with region encoding (so only certain discs work in certain countries), staggered release dates and different windows of availability for different delivery structures (Cable, Satellite, DVD,Blu Ray et al) Joe public will happily download the film illegally in the sheer frustration caused waiting for the months away from release for the film they require.
An excellent example is House, the brilliant series with Hugh Lawrie, Season four is not out until October, nearly a year since season three and way after it's television premiers.
Like wise "The Mist" a fun adaptation of a Stephen King book that has yet to see the light of day in the UK but is available in the US already.
This appalling treatment of their core customers marks the film industry as a slumbering giant, resting on it's own laurels and not racing to be ahead of technological advances and differentiating their marketing strategy accordingly.
End region coding, standardise release dates, be brave enough to recognise that the person who goes to see a film at the cinema is not necessarily the same one who buys the Blu Ray or watches it on Sky and speed up the release to the home market of all films.
They also might wish to consider making some better product as well!
Meanwhile the music industry is experiencing the opposite and as this article in the times illustrates, it is new forms of music distribution that are giving the corporates such a headache.
It is a mess of their own making, as with film they have been cumbersome at addressing the needs of the new millennium and are now paying the price. They have ripped us off for years and now they have the cheek to act aggrieved? People have already bought the same songs numerous times on records, cassettes, eight tracks and CD's, it is hardly surprising that people feel comfortable with downloading songs illegally, they have a certain right to.
The music industry must wake up quickly to save itself from itself. If artists and bands, fuelled by the freedom an internet distribution centre offers them, see this as a chance to cut out the big guys, then they should. The big guys better get with the programme and find new ways of offering quality product at the right price.
The EU, Governments and ISP's should stop interfering and let the wheels of business grind on, the strongest will survive and the weakest will fall. Utilising legislative power to frighten and coerce people into compliance with these business behemoths is not their job, and if that is true then there is an ulterior motive, and its probably about surveillance and keeping checks on Joe Public, not on saving the bedraggled music industry from its own sorry self.
In 2008, we can download any content that can be made downloadable, now get over it, respond with a new business model that attracts us, your customers, back to you, or be prepared to sink under the weight of your own arrogance and ineptitude.
In the final analysis it seems that their is an easier way to force them forward. Instead of increasing the time an item remains copyrighted, we should decrease it. It's currently 100 years. Lets make it 10. A chance for all to make some good money but after that it is in the public domain, then they may sit up and take notice.
Three articles that seem to have some form of convergence to me. The Times on family courts and the Telegraph on child overprotection and the CRB fiasco in the making.
If the appearance of these three articles does not signify the inexorable slide into a police state that we are witnessing I am hard pushed to say what is. Beginning with the dreadful news that innocent people have been wrongly identified as having criminal tendencies by that quango the Criminal Records Bureau. Their response to this is as follows.
"The CRB is acknowledged as an improvement on previous checking arrangement, although checks which do not correctly reveal a persons true criminal record are still clearly regrettable - even if they do represent a tiny proportion of all CRB checks."
Regrettable! Of all the mealy mouthed responses. In our vengeance soaked current culture; shit has a tendency to stick, and I can only hope that those people who find themselves falsely identified can get redress quickly. This I doubt will happen, but when it does, large amounts of compensation should be paid for their troubles, and I mean large. It is not regrettable to those it happens to, I imagine it is devastating and this is not the first time it has happened. Over 3000 people caught in errors by bureaucrats. They should be ashamed.
This checking garbage has evolved into a money making scam, long past its original intention and now a divisive and dangerous virus that attacks social cohesion. The Telegraph readers observations of the paranoia of overprotection that we seem so singularly gripped by, highlights well the current mood in regards to this issue. Read the comments and you will see, hopefully with some surprise, that they too are fed up with it all.
The article continues:
"Ministers are planning a massive increase in the number of criminal records checks carried out on members of the public. The number of checks processed annually by CRB has risen from 1.5 million in 2002-04 to almost three million over the past year. Under future plans, more than 11 million adults - one in four of the adult population in England - will have to be vetted and registered on the authority's database." Has the UK fallen asleep, nodded off or gone to meet the choir invisible? The Home Office estimate that a quarter of the male population have a criminal record of one kind or another. That figure was for 2001 and goodness knows how many there are now with all the legislation that has been passed and the erosion of justice we have seen. Certainly more, and certainly for less.
The checks reveal all, not just convictions, but suspicions and so called soft intelligence that are gathered by the police, social workers et al. This culture of suspicion has reached epidemic proportions and needs to be stopped. Paranoia and policy do not good bedfellows make and I suspect that a lot of people will simply refuse to work with children or the vulnerable.
The Telegraphs article reveals a horrifying situation in the family courts that must be addressed. The secrecy is strangling justice. Many cases have highlighted to me the failings in this division of our justice system, unfortunately they are all anecdotal and supplied by the likes of PAFAA and FASO who struggle valiantly against the over zealousness of some police and social services employees.
The convergence is in the common thread of suspicion and myth that allies the overprotective nature of the child abuse industry and the family courts. As Camilla Cavendish states in her excellent article:
Bill Bache, the indefatigable solicitor who acted for Sally Clark, explained it to me this way. ?Court proceedings are initiated within a day or two. The local authority knows the ropes. Most parents, including the brightest and most articulate, are often too distressed and shocked to think straight. They may well turn up unrepresented. The local authority makes its case, often in lurid terms, stressing that the children are in acute danger and they are requesting an immediate interim care order. There is no time sensibly to evaluate the evidence, therefore, no doubt wishing to be safe rather than sorry, the court grants the order. Suddenly the children are gone.?
Here we have the classic storytelling scenario, make it lurid, dirty and damn the outcome for those involved. When it comes to the perceived safety of children it is again and again seen to be the cause of devastation and miscarriages of justice. For this to occur in secret is a double damnation for the innocent caught in the claws of the child protection industry.
The slightest touch, inappropriate look or utterance could well have you branded as a danger to children and that suspicion could well grow to be so much more. As we have seen in the criminal courts the paranoia we have in regards to children and the vulnerable has led to miscarriages of justice through the undermining of rules of law that have stood us in good stead for years.
This appears to be happening in the family courts also, but when the government, the NSPCC and other players in this industry fail to recognise, even with the cases in the public spotlight for all to see, that a witch hunt is occurring, it will take years to change anything. In the family courts that change may never occur at all.
So a suspicion that you are unsuitable as an individual to work with the young/vulnerable, can see you arrested, detained and charged on the word of one person. Or as a parent/carer in general that suspicion will drag you into the Kafkaesque nightmare that the family courts are detailed to be.
That suspicion could be raised by anyone, anonymously if needs be, and for a variety of reasons from malice to an error in judgement of what was seen or believed to have been seen. Once tainted, never cleaned. Any CRB that follows will when requested exhibit this suspicion, and you are probably totally innocent.
So what exactly is my beef? Well, first off this idea of vulnerable people is simply too wide in its definition. According to the Law Commission:
The Law Commission have suggested a broad definition of a vulnerable person, as someone of 16 years or over who: - is or may be in need of community care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness; and
- who is or may be unable to take care of him or herself, or unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation.
It is the last bit that does it, a charter for interference by any do gooder with a fanatical need to justify their own existence through aiding others.
Secondly the definition of a child is as follows
The Children Act 1989 states the legal definition of a child is ?a person under the age of 18?. ?Young person? is not a legal term, for the purposes of the policy and procedures, a young person is someone who might not perceive themselves as a child, but who is still in the age range of the legal definition, and therefore fall within the term ?child?.
Which is utter tosh of course. people over 16 are not by any stretch of the imagination children. They may behave childishly but that is a different matter. Requiring anyone who works with 16-18 year olds to be criminally record checked is a waste of time. Currently teachers, lecturers and others are criminalised for having sex with people in this age group whilst the rest of the population is not. So much for equal application of the rule of law.
We should call for an immediate change in the law so that people over 16 are no longer categorised as children, but adults. Then we can forget having to check anyone who comes into contact with them and save lots of cash all round. Now we can remove the passage from the vulnerable adults statement above. So far so good, or is it?
Next we must exclude irrelevant offences from the checks and only allow convictions to be reported. Not arrests, acquittals, successfully appealed cases and certainly not soft intelligence or mere accusations. In fact, lets make a criminal record part of an individuals right to a private life, so that they never have to disclose it unless the conviction has a direct correlation with the activity they are undertaking. You wouldn't be able to conceal a fraud conviction if applying to work in a bank for example.
That would allow focus on those who wish to make a life for themselves after conviction and would help ensure limiting re-offending by opening up possibilities for employment or learning.
Then we will have a purge of the records so that only verdicts of guilty remain on file in regards to CRB activities. I have no problem with the police keeping information, they obviously have to, they just cannot tell anyone about it.
We need to open up the family courts, and that's easy enough to do, the press can report the case detail without using names and perhaps with a little thought that is how all cases should be reported until conviction. Stop feeding prurient interests I say. Where required a judge could order the case an open one, protecting not only the public interest but those of the defendant.
Next, a full and frank investigation into the working of the NSPCC and other child advocate organisations who seem to be totally out of control and living in a world that is populated by Demons.
Finally, I look to you dear reader, it is time to say no to the nannying ninnies of the child protection industry, I do, have joined the Manifesto Clubs Campaign against vetting and would urge you to do the same.
Say no, next time you are asked to get a CRB when you are not directly involved with under 16's or vulnerable people for a significant amount of time.
Encourage other to say no, lets spread the word. You never know, we may be able to turn back the clock to times when we trusted each other, nurtured those in need instead of stifling them in cotton wool and actively encouraging suspicion and distrust.
We leave a legacy of fractured intergenerational relationships to our children and grandchildren if we do not, and avoiding that should be our goal.
There is something awfully delicious about the news that anti gay activist Stephen Green has had his prophetic ass kicked.
I know its terribly naughty, but I just cannot help taking joy from this whole thing, of course, I feel suitably guilty for doing so, but mmmmmm it's delicious. To add insult to injury there is this marvellous YouTube video where he interprets being shit on by a seagull as a sign from God, I kid you not.
In a statement from the website of Christian Voice the interfering god botherer whines about the state of affairs that has erupted from his pitiful attempt to charge the Director General of the BBC with blasphemy.
'It should be enough for Mark Thompson and Jonathan Thoday that they got away with blasphemy, insulting God and the Lord Jesus Christ, at least in this life. For these rich, powerful men to pursue me into the bankruptcy courts over money I don't have would be vindictive.'
What an arrogant chap he is! Firstly Mr Green, Mark and Jonathan did not get away with anything, they won you ninny, yes, beat you, roundly trounced your ridiculous action and in the process gave immense joy to the likes of me who find your anti gay activities distasteful and outdated claptrap.
Secondly, whether they are rich or powerful is besides the point. You wouldn't go to a top class restaurant, gorge yourself stupid then bet your mate on a toss of a coin the price of the meal unless you had the money would you? It just goes to illustrate the righteous cause mentality that drove you to believe you could not possibly lose the case, subsequently allowing you to do just that.
Thirdly, your definition of vindictive is obviously a one sided affair considering the hate you spout about gay people and I can only hope that this has taught you a well needed lesson. Unfortunately the tenor of your statement above seems to show otherwise.
He continues:
'How are people with limited means expected to bring actions of public importance against public bodies or wealthy people? It is outrageous that a public-spirited individual should be dissuaded from upholding standards of public decency in a public body because of the fear of adverse, grotesque costs orders.'
Public, the public Mr Greene? Surely you mean the latest group of noisy ne'er-do-wells blabbering on about their particular fairy in the sky, acting as if they have a messianic remit to impose a group delusion on the rest of us.
Public, public decency Mr Greene? Surely you mean the decency of a group of bigots obsessed with where, when and up whom a man puts his willy.
Public, public spirited Mr Greene? The action was anything but, God, whoever he is, whether he is and whatever he is; does not need your help. He has survived since time immemorial in one form or another. Mean spirited is the term you need, as in "Having or characterized by a malicious or petty spirit.".
Ergo, some would say it's actually a good thing that mean spirited bigots like you should be dissuaded from taking such actions. If you were right you would have won, wouldn't you?
Maybe a bit of bankruptcy will teach you some humility and with a bit of luck force the closure of your (in my opinion) vile site.
If that should occur and you do find yourself a bit strapped for cash can I recommend a career at Heinz, something makes me think you would fit right in.
I can imagine that just when the gay community begins to relax they are rather miffed that this can happen.
Coming right after the disgusting comments from Irish MP Iris Robinson this illustrates perfectly two opposites of homophobia, the obvious (rancid Robinson) and the not so obvious (Heinz capitulating to bigots and intolerance for the sake of a few pounds)
In truth, the latter is by far the worst as the PM can and will hopefully chastise this vile woman immediately. The link to the petition on-line shows a good number (over 7000) of names and that is heartening.
When we come to Heinz the case is not so straightforward and reeks of old fashioned ideology in regards to gay people. To whit:
"The corporation decided to withdraw the light-hearted Deli Mayo commercial within days of its launch because it was "listening to its consumers"."
It wasn't, not really, it was listening to the intolerant and embarrassed, consumers they may have been but that is a secondary concern.
"The ASA said viewers had complained that the Heinz scene depicting two men giving each other a quick kiss goodbye was "offensive", "inappropriate" and "unsuitable to be seen by children"."
Viewers? Bigots more like. There is nothing wrong with homosexual expressions of affection. They would not moan if it was a heterosexual display of affection would they? As to it being unsuitable for children this is simply hate in caring form. There are gay children, we do not want to deal with it but there are, and positive depictions of same sex relationships such as this are a great help all round.
The glorious, and most hidden vote for a homophobic agenda comes from Heinz themselves.
"Nigel Dickie, a spokesman for Heinz UK, said the Deli Mayo ad was intended as "a humorous take on a slice of life" but the company had decided to pull it last week, before the ASA complaints, because of "consumer feedback". Mr Dickie added: "Heinz is a global company and we respect all universal rights. The advertisement was intended to be humorous, not designed to cause offence to anyone. Clearly it failed in its intent to amuse and that is why we took the decision to withdraw it." He said the company apologised if the short-run campaign, which had been due to run for five weeks, had offended anyone." Mr Dickie apologies for offending people when that which he is apologising for is not capable of offending people. To quantify that, two people kissing, as in this case in a quick peck, is by definition not able to be classed as offensive by society in anyway at any time and to anyone.
Clearly some people have taken offence, but we should treat them for what they are, bigoted, intolerant and quite frankly ridiculous.
What Heinz has done is bowed to pressure (for money or the saving of it by avoiding lost sales) from people twisted with hate . Heinz will profit from this insult to the gay community. If I paid to have a TV channel rant a hate speech against Muslims, Hindus, Blacks or any other minority I would rightly be vilified and arrested for a hate crime. If I did it to make or save money I would be even further lambasted.
This inverse and pernicious kind of homophobia harms, it does immeasurable damage to the young who are exposed to the bigots who are trying to protect them, and to the thousands of gay men and woman who still face danger on the streets and do not need to have their safety undermined further by the ASA, Heinz or the media's failure to recognise this for what it is.
Besides, gay people are equal or they are not, it cannot be both ways. What is acceptable from a straight point of view is also acceptable from a gay one, if not then we are being discriminated against as a group, and that is exactly what has happened here.
Richard Webster hosts a link to the recent article by Mark Smith of the journal of the International Child and Youth Care Network.
Both Richard and Mark rightly express dissatisfaction and concern over the nature of the enquiries into historical and current child abuse cases that have plagued the UK for nearly 20 years as they seem to breed false allegations by there very nature. I have quoted Richard before in regards to the excellent articles on the Jersey case and also to praise the book "The Secret of Bryn Estyn"
(Once again get it if you have not yet!).
A number of organisations exist to help those who have been falsely accused, sterling work has been carried out at PAFAA (People against False Accusations of Abuse) a support organisation for falsely accused people that has been running for some years. It has any number of cases that do not relate to the care home business but do have similarities in multiple complainants, compensation claims, recovered memories and malicious accusations that are seen in Richards?s book and in his writing on the website.
In addition FACT represents falsely accused teachers and was set up specifically because of the North Wales care home cases, its remit remains quite narrow, but the work includes newsletters and demonstrations.
The BFMS (British False Memory Society) deals specifically with recovered memory syndrome but also offers support to anyone who requires it along with FASO (False Allegations Support Organisation) who seem to have a particular interest in the social services side of the issue.
These are purely UK based organisations, many exist world wide. In fact a peek at the world situation in regards to the entity that child protection has become can be quite illuminating. America is ahead of us with draconian punishments, particularly in the less enlightened states (stand up Georgia)) where an obvious vein of insanity has taken hold.
Australia seems a little behind, but a conversation with a friend over there revealed that the witch hunt has started and he will keep me informed as to its progress.
Ireland has had similar problems. Richard also discusses this on his website.
I have not read Marks writings before but it certainly hit the nail on the head when it comes to illuminating how these cases are problematic. Not least because the story of an individual mans persecution and vilification is so horrifying, but in particular, referencing the current Jersey fiasco, because this passage struck a chord.
?One of the first questions that springs to mind for me is why on earth are the police bothering with the archaeological dig? Anyone with any knowledge of how cases of historical abuse are prosecuted knows that forensic evidence isn?t required. All that is required is the similar accounts of two or more alleged victims - and that?s what makes this whole business a scary one for those who have worked in residential child care.?
He is quite right in that assertion, except, in my opinion, two areas, in that it only requires one story to start the ball rolling and that this is scary for people who work in child care. It is of course, but I am afraid that the net spreads wider than that and although the brilliant work of Richard Webster, Frank Furedi and Mark himself cannot be faulted, it may be time to expand the discourse to take in cases that do not fall into the category of child care. I believe, though cannot yet prove that the insidious, witch hunt has more victims outside of child care than in.
It did not take me long to find examples from some of the support sites mentioned of men whose lives had been ruined, along with their families, because 25 years ago when they were 19 they had sex with a 15 year old, allegedly.
Like wise a fellow in his late 50?s whose boyfriend of many years suddenly left him for someone else and then returned a few years later and accused him of abusing him when he was underage. Subsequently it was revealed, he had accused four other men. It is astounding that the powers that be do not question this ridiculous state of affairs.
After reading some of the stories over at Gay Monitor I must say that I find the fate of gay men particularly concerning as they seem to have even more stacked against them, not least of which because of the old myth that all gay men are child molesters and that the mind boggles as to how they can get a fair trial with the amount of latent homophobia that still exists, despite societies protestations to the otherwise.
It is time we recognised that adolescent men have been fiddling with other men since time began. I have no idea why, nor do I care. I do care that we bring about an end to prosecution of the innocent or those guilty of little or nothing. Just because a 15 year old has a blow job off a twenty year old it does not mean they are damaged. The damage comes later on when they are ostensibly straight and family men. When they realise that compensation is payable, that the police always give a sympathetic ear, even if they were with the guy for years as a friend or lover.
They realise, that when the little secret that they have had sex with men more than once comes out and the only way to avoid their own downfall is to accuse the men of some sexual crime.
They realise when the latent homosexuality in them will not go away, and they do dreadful things out of loathing and self hate.
They realise all too late the consequences of the path they take, but by then the damage is done, they have to live with the destruction the child abuse industry perpetrates on others lives, they too become a victim.
It appears in many cases this could be the truth, the child abuse industry is a machine, voracious, gorging and bloated. As Mark mentions, why do the dig if you need no forensics? To feed the machine I believe; on stories that thrill the twitching curtain brigade and keep the gravy train running, that fuel the media, influence policy and maintain funding streams for dubious organisations and loathsome police bodies.
We too are to blame, the salaciousness about our culture allows us to be fascinated whilst disavowing the realities, to look but because of moralistic reasons not our truly prurient ones, another part of the fallacy.
So, is it time to put a stop to this nonsense? I know that many have already let their voices be heard and have done so with vigour and tenacity. I am just so sick of hearing about men who come screaming out of supposed ?silent hell? after many years to state that they had a fiddle with someone older when they were fifteen and it has laid waste to their lives. Utter garbage.
We need a statute of limitations, an end to compensation, a review of all historic abuse cases, judicial power to set higher requirements for proof over and above oral testimony, an enquiry of all organisations that benefit from this in any way to ensure that they are not infected with ?righteous cause mentality? and the return to some sense, before more lives are sacrificed to satisfy the current needs of the inadequate, who utilise their mistakes of the past as a contemporary excuse for their own weaknesses and crummy lives.
As a final note, we should consider lowering the age of consent and getting real about young people and sex, that way we can prevent this nonsense happening to this generation of children and all those that follow, our legacy of idiocy and vehemence will not be welcomed. I know very few will agree with me, but I did say consider, we owe it to the innocent and persecuted, particularly those children we find guilty of sexual offences. To quantify, the majority of the men who have been arrested in Jersey were underage when the abuse is supposed to have taken place, will they be tried as children? of course not, but they will pay the price as adults for doing what may very well have come naturally to many of their peers at the time, and I suspect many children today. Bear in mind the media didn?t tell you that did they, then ask yourselves why?
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"
|
Blog Directory ID: 2875
Blog URL: http://professorsapient.blogspot.com/
Google Pagerank: N/A
Blog Description: Social Comment and cultural blog on any subject. Controversial at times.
Blog Category: Culture Blogs
Blog Owner: Bazz
Blog Added: May 30, 2008 05:14:12 PM
Audience Rating: General Audience
Blogger/BlogSpot
Blog Country: 
United States
My Yahoo! 
Report Blog Listing - 
Refer Blog Listing - 
Print Listing
Total Visits: 19
Blog Rating: 4.00
Rate Blog: 
