Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Nowhere To Hide...

So, the MSM has caught up on what the Internet has known since almost the beginning of the story - the identity of the oxygen thieves who tortured and murdered a little boy with the collusion of his mother.

The usual crowd are out on 'CiF' taking out an onion for the victim.

No, not Baby Peter, or the other children spawned by this creature, of course:
Connelly's history speaks of a real, rather ordinary, even vulnerable woman whose own parents appeared unable to care for or protect her, not as a cipher of evil. Her story is not unique. Many of the mothers who are involved in care proceedings relating to their children have been in care themselves, and suffered abuse at the hands of their own parents.
And yet, Anna, they mostly manage to refrain from inviting in unsuitable men to torture and kill their children, don't they?

So, in that sense, there's nothing 'ordinary' about Connolly.

The 'Independent' pre-emptively blames the internet for any future success at appeal:
Foremost among the grounds of appeal being sketched out by lawyers representing the killers of Baby Peter will be the claim that prejudicial coverage on the internet denied their clients a fair trial.

At the time of the prosecutions last year, websites were ablaze with abusive speculation concerning the identity and motives of those accused of such a monstrous crime.
They go on to make the point that British justice is still unsure about the Internet and how to handle it:
There then appears to be a double standard at work, where the law is incapable of punishing flagrant breaches of court orders by internet transgressors while imposing draconian sentences on the mainstream media for committing much less serious breaches. The internet was born into a lawless cyberspace and has little respect for the fusty orders of the High Court.
There's the real victim! The MSM...


Oldrightie said...

Hard to argue with, AP.

JuliaM said...

Some are doing their best over there at 'CiF'.

But for all they shriek and wail about 'Daily Mail readers' infesting their cozy echo chamber, I think they've badly misjudged this one. Even the usual bleeding hearts are starting to realise the welfare state may not be the solution to all 'poverty' problems it was cracked up to be...

Raedwald has a great take on it.

woman on a raft said...

This article is a good one for legal detail.


Pat said...

It occurs to me that the lady involved most probably did have "issues" from her own upbringing that were not in any way her fault. Ideally she should be dealt with with kindness and understanding. I'm sure that a similar case could be made for her lover and his brother.
However, his is the real world, and one ideal must be balanced against another. It is also (in my humble opinion) an Ideal that babies should not be tortured to death.
My view is that the latter ideal is more important than the former, and hence that action should be taken to dissuade others from following this example- i.e. that the dissuasion is more important than the kindness and understanding- else we will have to deal with an ever increasing number of such cases and an ever increasing number of babies will be tortured- and let us not forget that those tortured short of death are the most likely future claimants for kindness and understanding.
I seriously doubt that the law ever effectively stopped gossip and hence believe that the only effect of the sub judice law has been to prevent people profiting financially from court cases- which of course bloggers do not.

JuliaM said...

"This article is a good one for legal detail. "

Indeed: "Thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent on the impossible task of concealing the role of the council..."

They should be sued for it, like Dame Shirley Porter was.

"My view is that the latter ideal is more important than the former..."

Indeed. And besides, there's an awful lot more abused children that go on to NOT torture their own children to death than DO...