Sunday 13 February 2011

"We're gonna ride this thing out, not for fun, for safety."

Via Timdog at 'Make It Stop!' in the comments:
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?

And it isn't like there isn't plenty of warning, as The Angry Exile points out:
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?
The 45-year-old suffered the humiliation of being arrested by police at his church while conducting a funeral...
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?

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...

9 comments:

Zaphod said...

Steam is coming out of my ears.

Richard said...

"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'."

Crazy. How do we know whether it is a truthful allegation or not until it has been tested in a court? The police will decide whether the allegation is 'truthful' - before anything his been put before a jury - and will prosecute or not on that basis. Hardly reassuring for those of us who believe that the finding evidence bit and the finding guilty bit should be separate in any decent legal system.

Uncle Badger said...

Keir Starmer (the clue is in his forename) is a political activist put in place by the Blair junta to do its mischievous work in the law.

His removal should have taken place within hours of the current junta having seized power.

That it didn't tells us all we need to know.

Angry Exile said...

I honestly don't know whose actions I'm more disgusted with in this case...

Yeah, there's so much choice. I think I'll have the lying, selfish, bitch manipulating the police and judicial system for entrée and the complete mong of a judge who thought there wasn't anything malicious about it for main course. No need for the dessert menu - I'll be fucking full.

MTG said...

There are many contrived injustices which are only marginally less disgusting than those arising through incompetence and laziness.

Uncle Gus said...

If those guidelines come into force, eventually they'll have to arrest the whole of the male population. WTF are they thinking of?

The clue, of course, Is in the word "guidelines" - in other words, laws that they only have to follow or enforce if they feel like it. Pure 1984.

David Gillies said...

Uncle B.: how right you are. That the vile Dame Suzi Leather (who frankly has no place in public life except as a name on a business card taped inside a phone booth in King's Cross) has still not been ejected also underscores how much this administration is just another example of, "meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss." Seems we will get fooled again. And if I try that cathartic "Yeaaaah!" that kicks off CSI: Miami too many times my neighbours will complain.

JuliaM said...

"How do we know whether it is a truthful allegation or not until it has been tested in a court? "

Exactly! And these are top lawyers?!?

"His removal should have taken place within hours of the current junta having seized power."

Indeed.

'The UK government - less successful at takeovers than a tin-pot banana republic.'

It's not a ringing endorsement, is it?

" No need for the dessert menu - I'll be fucking full."

I'll take the police as that wafer-thin mint... :)

"If those guidelines come into force, eventually they'll have to arrest the whole of the male population. WTF are they thinking of? "

Well, that. What better way to grow that DNA database?

"...this administration is just another example of, "meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss." Seems we will get fooled again."

Indeed. *sigh*

Anonymous said...

so i woz goin out wiv me mates and this guy woz lookin at me tits, you know cus i had em oot. anywho, he didn't even get us some WKD or give us some money so he is a rapist init?