Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said the aim was ‘to protect individuals who retract a truthful allegation as a result of pressure or fear of violence, while taking a firm approach to those who make a malicious allegation against an innocent person'.Can you see the problem coming? I bet you can. The 'Mail' reporter can:
However the guidelines will also leave a door open for a woman who makes a malicious and false claim of rape to escape criminal charges - if she can convince prosecutors that she has suffered from domestic violence or threats.And that 'domestic violence' definition has, of course, been stretched beyond all recognition:
There are also new legal controversies over what behaviour constitutes domestic violence. In a landmark Supreme Court judgment last month Lady Hale said that violence no longer means a physical attack or a threat of physical attack but also behaviour that can include shouting or refusing to give money.It's the perfect storm headed towards the British justice system's boat, isn't it?
It wasn’t until five months later – when police discovered more than 200 intimate text messages between the couple on Templeton’s phone – that he was finally exonerated and she was arrested instead.It took five months to check their phone messages..?! What, didn't one of the detective team have the brains to ask their twelve year old son or daughter how to do that right off the bat then?
And so much for prison time, Starmer - she got a suspended sentence. Is that the 'firm approach' you'd like to see them take? What constitutes a VERY firm approach to you, then? Does the judge have to wag his finger at the accused as he says it?
And so much for 'malicious claims will still be subject to prosecution'. All the judge has to do is declare them 'non-malicious' based on...well, I'm not entirely sure what:
James Burbidge, QC, the Recorder of Birmingham, said he accepted Templeton had not acted maliciously when she made the rape allegation...Eh? What was it, then? A practical joke that went wrong?
And while we're at it, just why was it necessary for the police to do this?I don't know about you, but he doesn't look much like Linford Christie to me. Were they worried he'd have it away on his toes if they didn't swoop while he had his hands full, and them so full of doughnuts and coffee and fry ups?
The 45-year-old suffered the humiliation of being arrested by police at his church while conducting a funeral...
What a pity it wasn't a wedding - they could have waited for the 'If anyone here present has any reason why these two shouldn't wed...' bit and said 'Never mind them - get yer cassock off, son, yer nicked!'.
Joking aside, what about the family whose loved one was being buried? Don't they deserve any respect? Couldn't you have waited until the service was over, or did it make you feel like you were in the middle of a Hollywood movie to swoop on the suspect in the middle of a funeral?
I honestly don't know whose actions I'm more disgusted with in this case...