Comparing Apples And Oranges...

Joan Smith gives tongue on the Levi Bellfield trial and the concern over questioning by the defence:

There is a problem here.

Well, Joan, at least you got something right, for once. Sadly, that's the only time.

First, no matter how ghastly Bellfield is, he is entitled to a defence.

A fact which, so far as I'm aware, no-one has denied. It's the conduct of that defence that has raised questions.

Questions which may well be unanswerable to everyone's satisfaction, but nevertheless, ones that we are entitled to ask.

Second, the "extremely personal" matters raised by his barrister, Jeffrey Samuels QC, were distasteful but relevant in a trial which turned on misogynistic attitudes to women. As well as looking at the movements of known sex offenders who lived near Milly's home, detectives would have been remiss if they had not scrutinised the behaviour of people close to her.

Indeed, they would. And people would rightly be scathing of them if they did not consider him a suspect, because it often is the case that the 'nearest and dearest' turn out to be the killer.

They became suspicious of Bob Dowler when the following facts emerged: he kept pornographic material at the bottom of a chest of drawers in his bedroom; Milly was hugely distressed when she came across a magazine containing "probably extreme pornographic material... a fetish nature... latex and bondage" a few months before her disappearance; Dowler lied to detectives about his movements on the day of his daughter's abduction, failing to tell them that he stopped at a motorway service station to view pornography; he kept further "extreme" material in a desk in the hallway and in a sitting room; he kept bondage gear in a box in the loft, including a rubber hood and a ball-shaped gag.

Even if Milly hadn't disappeared, it is hard to see why possession of such material by the father of two teenage daughters should ever be treated as an entirely private matter.

In the initial police investigation, maybe. In the subsequent defence, however, it's quite another matter. Particularly when Bellfield had no intention of taking the stand himself...

But Joan has a hobby horse, of course, of course...

Looking at extreme pornography and acquiring restraints for use during sex are worrying behaviours, and it isn't hard to imagine circumstances – a custody battle, for example – in which they might even be interpreted as potentially abusive.

'Worrying' for whom? And yes, during a custody battle, all things would be open. Such as whether the wife was a willing participant is such matters.

But of course, our Joanie glosses over that. That doesn't take her where she needs to go.

Indeed, what is so extraordinary about the outpouring of sympathy for Bob Dowler is that so many commentators have been willing to overlook what this might imply about his feelings towards women, while rightly denouncing Bellfield's misogyny in the strongest possible terms.

That's because the vast majority of people can draw a distinction that seems to escape you (and those of your ilk, such as Harriet Harman, Vera Baird, Julie Bindel...); there's a vast gulf between, shall we say, less-than-vanilla-tastes in sex, and serial rape and murder.

Bellfield's hatred of women and violence towards them was well-known among his partners, acquaintances and co-workers.

While Mr Dowler kept his own personal tastes hidden from his daughters and was distraught when they found them. Can't you even see the blatant contradiction here when you've written it down?

Or are you so blinded by your own ideology you plan on riding your hobby horse into a wall?