There just aren't words to describe what's wrong with
this story. But I'll have a stab at it...
A judge has slammed a family's 'reprehensible' behaviour for taking an £18,000 pay-off from a teacher who sexually abused their four-year-old son instead of notifying police.
'Reprehensible'..? Try 'criminal', your honour!
And what did they do with the money? Not that it should matter, but I'm a
little curious - pay off a loan shark threatening the family, life-saving surgery?
It'd have to be something pretty vital to make such a desperate bargai...
Oh:
Paedophile Gerard Raffell, 42, walked free from court despite admitting repeated abuse of the child between 2004 and 2005 until his parents discovered his crimes.
Shockingly, instead of reporting him to the police, they demanded £18,000 for a deposit on their new home in return for silence.
Well,
Mark, does that blow all the dials on your
Home-Owner-Ism Meter, or what..?
But the best is yet to come. And by 'best' I mean 'worst':
Judge Ian Alexander QC said Raffell had effectively already been fined and punished for his crime and the unusual circumstances had made sentencing difficult.
Wait, what? Seriously? Where did this judge get his law degree, out of a cornflake packet?
Judge Alexander said: 'This is a very troublesome case. In 2004 and 2005, you behaved disgustingly.
'You were a close friend and you were a school teacher but you sexually interfered with a young child.'
All things that the state views as making a crime even more heinous, right?
'This is not a usual case. You were bought off by the child's parents who received £18,000 from you in order not to go to the police.
'That is reprehensible behaviour on their part. But you complied with that position.
'It's made a quandary and I am quite satisfied you need treatment. You need some assistance to prevent the inclination that you have.
'I could not in all conscience be able to send you to prison for a period long enough to receive that treatment, bearing in mind you have already been there six months.'
Oh, FFS..!
And just to put the rancid cherry on the top of this particularly unpleasant cake....
Peter Saunders, Chief Executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) said he was 'flabbergasted' by the case.
He said: 'In my 13 years working for charity I have never heard of such a despicable episode and the parents of that poor child obviously need some sort of help.'
Wait, I'll read that bit again...
...the parents of that poor child obviously need some sort of help...
*speechless*
Update: Excellent post on this here at
The Salted Slug's blog...
All things that the state views as making a crime even more heinous, right?
ReplyDelete'This is not a usual case. You were bought off by the child's parents who received £18,000 from you in order not to go to the police.
Reprihensible hay?
Well in that case I presume this judge, if such a case ever comes before him, will be equaly as forcefull on any one having sought "damages" under the new sharia law courts that the "Government" have introduced to the U.K?
For replys.
ReplyDeletecompensayshun innit! Duzzit matter where fwom?
ReplyDeleteWhat're those phrase, 'Living off the proceeds....', 'Aiding and abetting...' etc when they get taken off the statute books?
ReplyDeleteMy computers calender must be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt's April the 1st isn't it?
I'm no legal expert but I'd have thought that pimping out your 4 year old child would be worth at least a few years in the nick.
ReplyDeleteConspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Interfering with a witness. Cruelty. Neglect. Blackmail. Extortion.
ReplyDeleteYep, all three of them should be dumped in the same prison cell.
Clearly there is something wrong with my eyes or perhaps brain as reading the story it appears the judge sentenced him to serve no time in prison whatsoever. I mean, really ...
ReplyDeleteAren't the parents combining in a way that seems entirely logical two contemporary and increasingly popular precepts:
ReplyDelete1) Avoid all unnecessary interaction with the state and its agents.
2) Try and turn any given situation to one's advantage wherever amd whenever possible.
The £18k should have been put into a Trust Fund for the lad.
ReplyDeleteWell, Mark, does that blow all the dials on your Home-Owner-Ism Meter, or what..?
ReplyDeleteMay well do.
Dug up the pre-sentencing coverage.
ReplyDeleteJudge Ian Alexander said: "This case is very different to the one I thought it was. I am staggered. I have never come across this before and I am not sure how it affects the sentence. He has effectively been fined £18,000 outside of the judicial system"
I will explain it to Judge Ian Aleaxander. It makes no difference except, perhaps, as an aggravating factor. What it definitely isn't, is weregild. We don't have that aspect of the Germanic system, and even if we did it would have to be a formal agreement before a duly appointed court as a reparatory payment. Compensation doesn't 'pay for' a crime, it isn't a licence or tax, it merely offers the victim a token of reparation.
I'm against the further medicalization of this matter. These are not ill people, although they are sick; these are wicked people who make excuses to do what they know to be wrong. It is time we stopped pandering to this twaddle.
"Well in that case I presume this judge, if such a case ever comes before him, will be equaly as forcefull on any one having sought "damages" under the new sharia law courts that the "Government" have introduced to the U.K?"
ReplyDeleteOooh, I wonder...
"My computers calender must be wrong.
It's April the 1st isn't it?"
*sigh* If only...
"I will explain it to Judge Ian Aleaxander."
It seems a bit pointless. The lights may be on, but clearly, no one's at home.
The missus told me about this on the phone yesterday, and I knew you'd be all over it first, Julia. Daily Mail junkie.
ReplyDeleteMrs Slug is a bit closer to this case than most, and so I went into it in some depth over here