The People 'Interested In These Matters', Judge? Why Don't You Be More Explicit About Who They Are?

On 22 January 2022, 11 boys entered a CCTV blind spot at the intersection of two roads in Stretford, Manchester. Only 10 left alive. Sixteen-year-old Kennie Carter was stabbed, his last words heard by his older brother to whom he was on the phone at the time: “They’ve stabbed me in my heart, bro.”

What happened in that CCTV blind spot has been the focus of a six-week trial at Manchester crown court, at which 10 Black boys, ranging in age from 12 to 16 at the time of the killing, stood accused of murder. Described as “a jigsaw with pieces missing” and “a net that had been cast wide” by lawyers defending the boys, the trial was the latest of several high-profile joint enterprise prosecutions involving large groups of Black youths in Manchester.

These trials attracting the attention of the usual suspects, of course, the ones who think that it's somehow 'unfair' that those whose hands aren't the ones holding the knife should be punished. Especially if - as is usually the case - they are black.

The controversial legal doctrine allows prosecutors to charge multiple people with the same crime. It can be applied even if a defendant played no active role but is found to have encouraged or assisted the main perpetrator. What it means to assist or encourage can fall to the the jury to interpret.

And the jury, mercifully free of critical race theory, seems to often take the view that if you're involved to the point of being part of the gang, you're just as guilty, which upsets the progressives. 

The contention surrounding the legal doctrine was not lost on the judge. Before the jury was even sworn in, Judge Julian Goose was heard warning the lawyers present about the term. “I’m not a fan any more of the words ‘joint enterprise’; it raises concern amongst people interested in these matters,” he said.

A coy and judicial way of saying 'activists and race hustlers', m'lud? 

But while the phrase was avoided, the principle behind the doctrine was clear. Despite the lack of CCTV at the moment of the stabbing, there was no question over who had caused the death. Everyone involved in the trial, including the defendant himself, agreed that the fatal blow was struck by Boy A, then 14, who cannot be named for legal reasons. He argued he was acting in self-defence after Kennie produced a knife. The prosecution said the knife was his own.

And if that won't work win over the jury, how about a bit of 'they was good boys, they dindu nuffin'? 

There was no evidence that any of the other nine defendants ever had any weapons or played any active role in the killing. Three of the boys said they were around the corner on another street and so did not even witness the events. Two of the boys, one of whom was just 12 at the time, were described as having abnormally low IQs. Another, who was 13 at the time, was autistic and had ADHD. And yet, Boy A was found guilty of murder and another three convicted of manslaughter after the Crown Prosecution Service argued that, through their presence at the scene, they intentionally assisted or encouraged Boy A in his actions. All nine boys had denied that suggestion.

And the jury clearly said 'pull the other one!'... 

“It’s collective punishment,” said Gloria Morrison, the founder of the campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association (JENGbA). “It messes with the whole idea of what young people, or anybody, thinks justice is. What benefits can there be of locking up a child who hasn’t actually done the crime?”

Pour encourager les autres, Gloria... 

Remember This, The Next Time Police Demand More Powers…

…especially when they try to tell us they won’t be misused:

Sussex Police is facing questions over its use of a law designed to tackle serious crime to investigate an inspector suspected of divulging police information to outsiders including journalists.

They can’t be trusted, can they?

Graham Cox, a retired detective chief superintendent with Sussex Police, said Mr Lyons may have been able to argue some of the information disclosed, taken individually, was in the public interest.

He added he was “uncomfortable” with the force’s use of RIPA for an internal disciplinary investigation.

Mr Cox said: “I do question the proportionality of that. I don’t think that is what the act was brought in for.

“It was brought in to regulate the investigation of serious crime – whatever you might feel about Lee Lyons’ conduct, I am not sure any of it amounted to serious crime.

“If you were being investigated for misconduct in your workplace, your employers would not be able to use the resources of the police to do it. I think there has been a quite a lot of mission creep with RIPA over the years.”

He added its use made officers “scared” to talk to the press, which would ultimately be bad for police and the public.

You know, I’m not sure the police’s reputation can take very many more hits, can it? Hopefully, their union will aid this officer in ….

Oh.

Matt Webb, chair of the Sussex branch of the Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file-officers, said he was comfortable with the way Mr Lyons’ case had been handled.

*speechless*

Deputy chief constable Ms Pinkney told The Argus that Mr Lyons’ disclosures had created “extra pain” for victims and damaged the public’s faith that they can “entrust their information to us”.

“The public have a right to trust their police – they have a right when they tell us something to know that we will hold that carefully,” she said.

They’ve seen how you pull out all the stops – including potentially illegal ones – to nail a dissenter in your own ranks. Why on earth would they think they might get treated any better?

"We couldn't be under that system any more."

Well, the system ain't finished with you, Mr King...

In the video, Mr King told how they had wanted to leave the hospital because the NHS could not fund the proton beam treatment that they wanted for their son.

'We couldn't take it any more - not knowing and not being able to question anything in fear that they say, "Sorry Mr and Mrs King, emergency protection order, you're no longer allowed in the ward",' he told the camera.

'Under that stress, our son has grade four brain tumour, we couldn't discuss or question them at all in fear that our son would be in that ward all day long by himself without his parents being able to come in.

'We couldn't be under that system any more. I was going to get the money to pay for the proton beam therapy but they have prevented that now because the Spanish police are involved and I can't do want I wanted to do.'

Does that spell it out for everyone sufficiently?

For all those people who carped and cavilled and sanctimoniously declared 'A child's life is at stake!', as if that meant we shouldn't dare question the state which only has our best interests at heart, because we are stupid sheep who should never seek to exercise free will if that free will might not be in complete accordance with the state's will?

The NHS didn’t want them to get treatment in Marbella. And they successfully suborned the police to ensure that that happened.

And now they plan to extradite the parents, so they won’t even be able to stay by their terminal son’s bedside, an act of such monstrous, stubborn & wilful cruelty that I've now got even more reasons to be ashamed of my country.

Mr and Mrs King's hearing - which will be closed to the press and public - may take place as early as tomorrow.

The couple are expected to oppose extradition so defence lawyers can then argue at a new hearing they should be released on bail for humanitarian reasons.

If they oppose extradition, the extradition judge would have to decide whether to release them on bail or remand them in custody.

It's up to you, Spain. Are you going to show the compassion and humility that the UK can't seem to muster?

Nice Idea, Shame About The Execution…

Abbotsford, BC (British Columbia, that is. It’s not a date, despite the dinosaur thinking involved!):

On Tuesday morning city workers pulled up to the green space along the railway tracks not far from the Salvation Army's Centre of Hope and began dumping chicken manure on the ground to deter the homeless from camping there.

Right. Because the smell of the chicken manure is far sweeter than the smell of tramps...?

They mayor wasn't impressed at this display of initiative:

Arriving at the camp, Barman told the media he was dismayed by the incident.

"I came to apologize to those who were affected," said Barman, after speaking with some of those affected by the city's actions.

"Like many residents, I'm embarrassed, deeply ashamed and sorry for what happened," he said. Barman said he had no prior knowledge about the plans to use manure to disperse the homeless. It's not yet clear how the concept was chosen, he said. 

After a round or two of drinks, perhaps?

"We're reviewing how that decision was made," said Barman. "Regardless of how it happened, we are going to learn to do better."

My suggestion? Elephants. They’re bigger than chickens, after all…

Oh, and no, he wasn't apologising to the town so much, for the waste of public money; he was apologising mostly to the bums!

Still, it was nice to see that, in Canada, they don't engage in mealy-mouthed blame-shuffling:

On Wednesday, Abbotsford city manager George Murray took responsibility for the city's decision to dump the manure.

"As city manager, I take this situation very seriously and retain full responsibility for the manner in which we dealt with this incident," he stated in a press release.

"I am deeply sorry for our actions."

Refreshing, no?

Another Guardianista Uses 'The Royal We'...

… I think there's another truth to bring into the mix here – a truth that's hit me in the face over the last few months, but one most people seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge. It's this: many of us who are running cars don't need them.

Our betters have spoken! Do as you are instructed, proletariat!

We think we need a car, but we don't. And when we're brave enough to give it a try, we realise we can manage perfectly well without one – while saving a fortune in the bargain.

And spending it on public transport costs, taxi hire and those delightfully chic little hire-car schemes you get in the post areas (and nowhere else)...

Eight months on, I wonder whether we'll ever own a car again. The idea that you "have" to own a car, especially if you live in a city, is all in the mind. I live – and many other city-dwellers do too – in a community that has never been better served by public transport, and yet car ownership has never been higher. We wring our hands, as the RAC is doing today, over rising car costs, but we'd be better off asking something much more basic. Do I really need a car?

I asked myself. Turns out the answer's 'Yes'. So sod off!

Simon Hughes Cheers The Illiberal Democrats…

Today the average deposit on a home across the UK has reached £65,000. In London it is £100,000. We have reached the point in Britain where it is simply impossible for people to buy a home without significant help from their parents, grandparents or some other benefactor.

Actually, that’s totally misleading – that statement should instead read “We have reached the point in Britain where it is often impossible for people to buy a home in the area they prefer to live and work without significant help from their parents, grandparents or some other benefactor.”

Liberal Democrats are therefore energetically exploring new ideas to increase access to housing. Nick Clegg's announcement on Sunday that we will work out how parents and grandparents can use other assets such as pension funds to help fund first purchases by their young people is hugely welcome.

Really? It went down like a cold cup of sick, actually.

But we must also increase the supply.

Ah, here we go. Building on the green belt, again? Well, yes. But there’s another angle:

Dealing with land banks by imposing use-it-or-lose-it planning permission, or the long-held Liberal policy of land value taxation, will free up land we need to build on. But I am clear that many of these measures to improve the supply of housing will be ineffective unless we also look at the demand created by second homes and the massive influx of foreign capital into the housing market.

But we should turn a blind eye to the massive influx of foreigners, I assume?

In London, 60% of new housing last year was bought by foreign investors – a misallocation of an increasingly scarce resource on an unacceptable scale.

Only a modern LibDem could possibly describe the buying and selling of private property a ‘misallocation’…

Local authorities should be able to introduce optional-use clauses to prevent housing from being bought unless it is going to be lived in.

And how would that work? What defines ‘lived in’? For how long? I mean, never mind the illiberality of the idea, what about the logistics? But then, might as well go the whole hog Soviet, eh?

But no matter how much we improve access to home ownership there will always be some people for whom home ownership is just not appropriate, desirable or possible. Many will be in need of social housing: These people often make an extremely important contribution to our society. they may be in jobs that are essential but pay little, or they may be out of work for long periods because they are carers or sick or disabled. They should have as much opportunity as anyone else to live near to their employment, children's school, family and friends.

And just how do you plan to give them that ‘opportunity’?

To achieve this every community needs a diverse mix of housing, principally planned to meet community need rather than simply market demand.

Ahhh, central planning for people’s lives! What could be less liberal?

That is why Liberal Democrats across the country should oppose those councils, such as Southwark, who sell their more valuable housing in order to fund the building of new council housing somewhere else. Such a policy will create ghettos. In London it would gradually wipe out social housing from large parts of our capital city and create unacceptable physical divisions in our community.

So, to prevent this awful situation of people being free to live wherever they want and can afford, we will take away that choice.

You’ll live where we tell you to, or else!

Just what is Hughes smoking these days?

Meanwhile, In The ‘Guardian’, It’s All The Fault Of The Greedy Corporations!

The arrest of a teenager by police investigating abuse of Olympic diving star Tom Daley on Twitter has led to calls for a new initiative…

Hurrah! A good, hard look at the law and a repealing of those parts that leads to such nonsense, I hope.

Oh. Wait.

… educating the public about the ease with which a tweet can end with a jail sentence.

I…

What?

Atalie Matthews, an associate at Bindmans, a law firm specialising in human rights law, said mobile phone companies should provide advice to schools and shops and make children and adults aware of the serious consequences that can flow from sending abusive messages, including jail sentences and hefty fines.

"I think mobile phone companies should give out more advice when people buy phones, because let's face it, most children live online these days. These companies make unbelievable amounts of money and they should take the initiative and help educate everyone," she said.

Where to start?

Firstly, rather than warn everyone about the potential for being arrested under a nonsensical law, how about we change the nonsensical law? 

Secondly, aren’t you forgetting something, sweetie? Twitter isn’t a phone-only system. Are you going to demand Dell, Apple and all other computer manufacturers address this too?

I shouldn’t joke. You probably are:

Matthews added that the onus should be on Vodafone, O2 and others to put notices up in shops and have information leaflets in phone packs about what is legal and what is illegal to say in a tweet.

That’s going to be one huuuuuuuuuge information pack, if it has to cover all of that!

So, what are the laws we are talking about?

… section 127 of the Communications Act, 2003, which is now being seen as a catch-all for all internet commentary. It prohibits messages or other matter sent by means of "public electronic communications network" that are of a "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

Offences may also be committed under the Malicious Communications Act of 1988, which was originally designed to combat "poison pen" letters, and the Public Order Act 1986, which covers offences committed on a mobile phone while on the street, according to lawyers.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could also be invoked after just two abusive messages.

If you’re thinking that none of these are post-Twitter, you’d be right.

Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP, who successfully campaigned to have the Blasphemy Act abolished and has been subject to his own fair share of trolling, said that the public and Twitter have responsibilities too.

"It's not necessarily in the public interest to prosecute every case of a tweet that contains an ingredient that may breach the Malicious Communications Act. What we don't want is to get people in the habit of going to the police for something that is a non-credible threat like Paul Chambers' tweet," Harris added. He said the onus is on Twitter users to block followers, not to retweeet abuse and report offences.

But, he added, this has to be coupled with Twitter improving its reporting systems. "They should remove people who are racist and abusive...

It is in Twitter's interests not to have the police involved," he said.

It’s in ALL our interests, actually.

When Did We Decide This?

'This' being the idea that changing our habits and our lives and accepting restrictions in response to a terrorist threat was a good thing, and not something that would mean the terrorists have won?

Not much more to say about the M6 bus debacle that hasn't already been said by SBML, Leg-Iron or Anna but I was struck by just how many comments to websites and especially newspapers seemed to think that this - the sight of innocent passengers herded onto the tarmac and guarded by gun-toting police for hours - was acceptable.

Acceptable because 'You can't be too careful!' and 'What if it had been a real incident!' and 'Well, there's the Olympics to think about, after all!'....

All said as if that was a perfect justification for the way the passengers were treated!

The police, of course, are in CYA mode, and idiots like these are helping them do it:

The police spokesman added: 'Given the nature of the report, we responded swiftly and proportionately, treating the information as credible and extremely seriously.'

The force rejected suggestions it had over-reacted and said a 'sufficient number of officers attended the incident'.

Oh, right. It wasn't a case of 'Send everything!!!' then? Because I couldn't help but think it'd be a god time to be a mugger or bank robber in Tamworth while this was ongoing...

Over at Inspector Gadget's blog the attempt to excuse the inexcusable has reached epic proportions:

Oh, gawd!! Why stop there? I mean, if you are going to make up a scary story to excuse your overreaction, make it a GOOD one!

Go for weaponised anthrax, bio-engineered Ebola, or maybe even VX (‘Your muscles freeze, you can’t breathe, you spasm so hard you break your own back and spit your guts out. But that’s after your skin melts off’).

Hell, say you suspected the zombie virus from ‘The Walking Dead’. You aren’t going to look any stupider than you already do.

Historical London Souvenirs, But Thoroughly Modern Disability Harassment!

Sangeeta Uppaladinni visited the capital on her first long trip for more than a year after her sight worsened due to a genetic condition.

She was browsing in Historical London Souvenirs, near Paddington, when she was ordered out by a staff member - leaving her “shaken” and “harassed”.

And why was she ordered out?

Ms Uppaladinni, 42, said: “I was browsing for a souvenir and a man ordered me to get out of his shop, saying dogs are not allowed.

“I continued shopping because I know I have a legal right to be there with my dog, which is specially trained.

“He kept harassing me but I dug my heels in and refused to leave. He then said “blind people like you should not be in my shop.”

“He told me “You can call the police or take me to court but I’m not allowing you in.”

Did she call the police? No.

“I showed him my ID and he said he did not want to read it and said “get out, now.”

So she got out, despite knowing she had every right to be there...

Now, pause to consider which identity group we might be talking about here. Yup, you got it:

A worker at the shop said: “The member of staff involved has been disciplined. The shop’s owners are Muslim so there is a general policy of no dogs.

“We have a sign at the door which says guide dogs are allowed - but he did not know it was there.”

Clearly, if what he said to Ms Uppaladinni is correct, he knew full well that he was out of line. He was well aware of the risk of being taken to court, he just didn’t care.

And why should he? That risk is vanishingly small, thanks to the cringing acquiescence of everyone involved!

Ms Uppaladinni said she had no plans to seek legal action but wanted to make shopkeepers aware of the fact that guide dogs should always be permitted.

Oh, give me strength…

David Kent, Engagement Officer for London with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association said: “Legally she is allowed in the shop. We campaign tirelessly to make sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen.”

A bit less campaigning and shaking your head sorrowfully, and a bit more suing & referring to council’s Trading Standards teams to reinforce the message, might help, Mr Kent.

Or you can continue to whinge about it in the newspapers and let people like this know they face few consequences for their actions.

Your choice.

London Olympics; Outdoing Beijing In Every Sense Of The Word…

Media and civil liberties groups have expressed alarm after the managers of an Olympic venue pledged to intercept and question anyone seen photographing or filming the site, even from public land, and defended security guards who wrongly tried to invoke terrorist laws to prevent footage being shot of the arena.

Oh, here we go…

John Toner from the National Union of Journalists said he would seek an urgent meeting with managers of the O2, saying their tactics had no basis in law. "I'm stunned, and what they say is utterly outrageous," he said.

But perhaps it was just a one-off incident?

As an experiment, the Guardian attempted to shoot video footage of the O2 arena from a public road on its southern edge, only a few minutes' walk from the main entrance.

Very quickly the reporter was challenged by O2 security guards, who made a series of demands with no basis in law. They ordered that the filming stop – "We've requested you to not do it because we don't like it" – and that they be shown any existing footage. Asked on what basis they could demand this, one replied: "It's under the terrorist law. We are an Olympic venue." Another added: "You have, for want of a better word, breached our security by videoing it [the O2]."

At one point they refused to allow the reporter to leave. One said: "It's gone too far for that."

Give someone on minimum wage, with little education, a badge and a uniform, and what do you expect? It’s happened before, after all; numerous times with the police, who aren’t on minimum wage and who you’d expect to have a damned good grounding in the law!

While such overreach is not uncommon it is often followed by a management apology.

Or, in the case of the police, after an embarrassing court case is lost…

But with the Olympics, it seems all is quite different!

An O2 spokesman defended the guards' approach.

Wait. What?

He said: "On the basis that [the reporter was] filming areas of the O2 that are not usually of interest to the public, our security staff's approach and handling of the situation was entirely appropriate."

No. It wasn’t. They had no basis in law to demand what they demanded, and no basis in law to stop anyone leaving public property!

What part of that don’t you understand?

Oh, wait. It seems the police don’t understand it any better themselves…

The incident at the O2 was eventually resolved after guards called police, who also asked to see the video footage, citing the Terrorism Act. The reporter was allowed to leave after neither he nor the police could properly operate the camera to replay the footage.

Note that: not because he was right, and they realised he was right on the point of law, not because they realised they were making an embarrassing spectacle of themselves - because they couldn’t work the camera…!

Roll on the Olympics! It’s going to be tons of fun.

Coming At This The Wrong Way Round, Surely?

WTF?

Police had been gathering evidence about rowdy groups of drunks who meet in Southchurch Hall Gardens.

They had hoped this would help them secure a designated public place order to help them stamp out the problem.

But they have only received ten complaints so far this year, and a meagre six in 2010.

Well, stop gathering it then! Surely, it’s not a problem after all?

A meeting of the Kursaal Neighbourhood Action Panel heard this had not been nearly enough to secure a ban.

When did people start working backwards from the end point to…

Oh. Right.

This is despite almost 500 people signing a petition in January to back the initiative.

I guess signing a bit of paper shoved under your nose is easier than picking up the phone and making a complaint, then?

Don Johnson, 64, who lives in nearby Southchurch Hall Close…

Blimey! His career crashed in spectacular style, didn’t it!?

… said people were drinking in the park, but the problem the police have is finding whether or not crimes are being committed.

He added: “I’ve seen them sitting there with a can in their hand. I can’t say that’s a crime – if they were committing a crime or if they got up and they were drunk and disorderly, that’s different.”

Precisely. What a shame you seem to know the law so much better than the police…

Officers say they need the public to report incidents. PC Dan Hedges, neighbourhood specialist officer for Kursaal ward, said: “Sixteen calls in two years isn’t going to get anything we want, so if the calls come in we can do something.”

And if the calls don’t come in, there’s no problem and you can go do something else, can’t you?

Move Over, Dr Tony Hill And Aaron Hotchner...

...there's a new criminal profiler in town:

Last night, a senior MP said the disclosures raised serious questions about why Donovan – who was about to take over guard duty on Astute when the shooting happened – had been allowed to go to sea in the first place.

What did they find? A shrine made from the bones of his victims? A murder diary? One of those creepy walls covered in photos of his intended prey, and drawings done in bodily fluids?

Liberal Democrat MP and defence expert Mike Hancock said he planned to quiz Defence Ministers in Parliament about how Donovan was vetted and allowed to join the crew of the £1.2 billion nuclear attack submarine.

‘I am surprised that this man was on a nuclear submarine,’ he said.

‘I would have thought there was tight scrutiny for our submariners, so how on earth he passed I don’t know.

‘I will be questioning what’s going on. I feel very unsure about somebody who has an element of eccentricity about himself – by calling himself Reggie Moondogg, putting it on Facebook – joining the Navy, getting recruited to serve on a nuclear submarine and then being given a weapon to guard it.

‘So there must be some questions about his suitability. I can’t understand how the vetting programme has let this happen.’

Christ, where to start?

So, this buffoon thinks that changing your name, writing bad rap 'poetry' on Facebook and being a bit eccentric is a sure-fire, unmissable clue that you will one day go on a murder spree?

I'd have thought no-one who wasn't a bit eccentric would want to serve on a tin-can at the bottom of the ocean in the first place!

Just wait until he finds out how many of them Twitter. Under assumed names. Aiiieeee! They'll kill us all in our beds!

Speaking of which, I do like his (and the 'Mail's') constant repetition of the words 'nuclear submarine', though. All the better to implant thoughts of 'The Hunt for Red October' and 'Crimson Tide' in the public consciousness. Ignoring the fact that the suspect was just an able seaman, and if they are handing out the launch codes to those lowly ranks, they have a few more problems than someone going tonto with a gun...

One senior naval commander said: ‘It’s beyond belief that this could have happened on a submarine. They are such close-knit communities and it’s like one big family, because the men spend so much time together at close quarters for long periods.

‘We simply do not know what caused this tragedy, but the police and Navy inquiries will find out.’

We don't need them. We have Lib Dem MPs! Just get Mike Hancock on the vetting panel, he can spot a wrong 'un a mile off...

Let's See How Long It Takes The Moderators...

...to zap this one, shall we?

Yes, it's the case of little Nicky (H/T: AlJahom), which is driving the 'CiF' commenters into a froth of outrage.

I can't help but feel that their reactions would be quite different, should the circumstances be different. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical, though....

Police Spokesman:I, For One, Welcome Our New Muslim Overlords…

More than 200 cameras targeted at Muslim suburbs of Birmingham as part of a secret counter-terrorism initiative are to be dismantled, it emerged today.

‘Muslim suburbs’..?

The West Midlands police chief constable, Chris Sims, said he believed all cameras installed as part of the £3m surveillance initiative should be taken down to rebuild trust with local Muslims.

What happened to ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’?

In a statement, Sims said: "I believe that the support and the confidence of local communities in West Midlands police is the most important thing for us in the fight against crime and terrorism.

"We can fight crime and the threat posed by terrorism far more effectively by working hand in hand with local people, rather than alienating them through a technological solution which does not have broad community support."

And when did the police last worry about whether a solution (technological or not) have ‘broad community support’?

Today, a Birmingham council scrutiny committee released its own report, finding senior police officers guilty of "deliberately misleading" councillors over the purpose of the scheme.

Ah, of course. It couldn’t be that councillors sat back and let it happen, right?

There have been no resignations or disciplinary action…

Shocker…

No action is known to have been taken against the assistant chief constable Anil Patani, who had overall responsibility for the project.

I’d guess Patani is bullet-proof. Wouldn’t you?

The Results Of The Investigation, However, Certainly Were…

The actions of a paranoid schizophrenic from Littlehampton who stabbed a stranger to death were "neither predictable nor preventable", an investigation concluded today.

Well, blow me down with a feather!

Father-of-three Daniel Quelch, 34, suffered 82 knife wounds during the frenzied attack in front of two of his children which began as he slept at his parents' bungalow in August 2007.

Benjamin Frankum was arrested at the scene, telling police he had been sent by MI5 to kill Mr Quelch, but he was ruled unfit to stand trial for murder.

A totally unexpected sudden event?

Frankum, who had been in and out of hospital with mental illness since 2001, was ordered to be detained in Broadmoor Hospital, where he remains.

Ah. As expected, then.

NHS South East Coast commissioned a report by Verita into the care and treatment of Frankum - named only in the report as Mr X - by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

At the time of Mr Quelch's death, Frankum was living in a shared house in Littlehampton, supported by a housing association after moving out of a residential home in May 2007 where he had been cared for since leaving hospital in the summer of 2006.

Frankum was diagnosed with "treatment resistant" schizophrenia but over the years doctors had identified a combination of medications which helped control some of his symptoms.

Were there no warning signs, then?

Indeed, there were…

During the summer of 2007, Frankum's family, the housing association and care services were "increasingly concerned" about his behaviour, according to the report.

But professional teams decided the situation did not justify sectioning him.

Well, I bet none of them lived anywhere near the unit, so it’s not like they were at risk when something went wrong.

The investigators said that although they identified a "number of failings and weaknesses in the actions of the statutory services during 2007" they could find "no link" between those and Frankum's actions on August 23, 2007.

"For the reasons that we set out in detail in the report we consider that the homicide was neither predictable nor preventable," it concluded.

"We conclude that there was no reason for the professionals to predict that Mr X was a risk to others.

"We consider that nothing professionals should have done would have prevented the homicide."

In which case, why are we employing these ‘professionals’? Because we seem to be paying Ferrari prices, yet getting a rickety old deathtrap Ford service…

And how is it that a woman who might be putting merely her own health at risk is treated like a wild animal , to be sedated and restrained for unwanted treatment, yet a cannabis-addicted loon (at least, according to the 'Mail' ) is cleared to roam the community despite known problems with his dosages?

It stated that the failure to carry out a formal risk assessment when Frankum moved into the housing association property - which did not have staff based on-site - was "poor practice" but said it accepted the move was the "right move at the time".

Ah, the ‘risk assessment’. Employed speedily on trivial matters by local councils, totally left out of the equation by psychiatrists when dealing with potentially-violent patients…

Following the publication, Mr Quelch's parents Ernie, 66, and Barbara, 62, - joined by elder son Robert Quelch, 42 - described how their son's death had devastated their lives and said they believed the inquiry was a "missed opportunity" to prevent further loss of life by mentally ill people.

"We believe this is a deeply flawed inquiry," Mrs Quelch said. "It does not meet best practice, it did not talk to all the possible witnesses, it is in part inaccurate, and some of the findings are clearly not substantiated by the available evidence.

"But we are determined as a family to do everything we can to ensure that, as far as possible, no other family has to go through what our family has had suffer and endure."

Good luck. You’ll need it.

Personally, I don't think anything will change until each potentially-dangerous mental patient cleared to roam free is provided with the name and home address of the chap or lass agreeing to their release and told that, in case of psychotic breakdown, they should take it up with them...

Of Mice And (Owl) Men...

Characters. Eccentrics. Enthusiasts.

Every town has one, even in 2010, amid the hustle and bustle and hectic life. One such is Southend's Owlman. A partially sighted chap, he can often be seen, with his cane and his little cart on which perches his eagle owls, or his rescued tawny and barn owls, collecting money for wildlife charities in the High Street. He's got his own Facebook page, set up by a member of the public, he's been photographed and uploaded to Flickr, he's been lauded in the local paper.

While shopping a few weeks ago, I thought about him, and realised I hadn't seen him for quite a few months. I wondered if old age or infirmity had finally curtailed his fundraising.

And then I forgot about him. As you do, when you're busy.

Until Friday morning, that is, when I read this story:

A pensioner has been banned from taking his pet owls for a walk due to health and safety concerns.

You're kidding me, I thought. Until I remembered that I live in the UK, in 2010, where this sort of thing isn't as implausible as it would once have been...

Mr Burt, a grandfather-of-one, of Plympton, Devon, says the owls enjoy the fresh air and he often draws a crowd of onlookers.

Known locally as 'The Owl Man', he has a licence to display birds and also collects money which he gives to a local wildlife charity.

But he has now been banned from taking his owls outside - after his local council ruled the daily walks are a health and safety risk.

Say what? Have his owls ever savaged someone, then? Do we need a 'Dangerous Owls Act'?

Officials say he could no longer take the owls out on the grounds that they could be ''spooked'' by traffic and ''run amok'' and attack someone.

Which has never happened, ever. But might do. So can't be too careful, right?

Never mind that the UK is the home of far, far larger birds, some of which occasionally (unhindered by being tethered to a man's wrist by jesses) land on the road and cause havoc.

The council will say that they aren't responsible for them, being wild birds. But guess what? They aren't responsible for Mr Burt's owls either! He is, and has insurance to cover such eventuality.

They say he can still display the birds at schools and care homes but cannot walk them in public because it is not a ''controlled'' environment.

Well, that's mighty generous of them, isn't it? And who knew you needed the permission of the council to walk down a town street with your pet?

Certainly, I rather doubt Plympton is a stranger to the chav spaniel, and they seem pretty unconcerned about anyone walking one of those down the street...

And if you're worried for your safety in Plympton, it's unlikely to be because of owls or elderly men.

So how much council time did this issue take up?

Several police officers, council officials and a dog warden said the birds shouldn't be outside because of the light and noise.

FFS!

OK, calm down. Breathe...

Maybe there was a string of complaints? Perhaps the locals got up a petition, worried by the potential for Owlzilla to break free and rampage through Plympton, eating their dogs and ravishing their wives?

Mr Burt said they only took action because a member of the public complained that the owls should be asleep during the day - which he says is not true.

Ah. Of course. One....single...complaint.

Not surprising any more, is it? But the most surprising thing was the reaction of Mr Burt:

'I've just got to take it, I suppose.'

NO YOU HAVEN'T! There is NO LAW that would allow the council to do this. Even they - while tossing around the word 'ban' like confetti - have been very, very careful not to quote any such law:

A spokeswoman for Plymouth City Council said Mr Burt was banned from taking the owls out in the streets because of health and safety issues.

She said: ''We spoke to Mr Burt about travelling along busy roads with his pets as, in the wild, owls live a nocturnal lifestyle and we are concerned about welfare issues around exposing it to loud and hectic environments.

''There are also safety issues for the public around a large spooked bird of prey running amok on a highway.

''We are more than happy for him to continue showing the animal in controlled environments such as schools and care homes, but to protect him, his pet and the public we have asked that he finds alternative forms of transportation.''

Aha! The weasel word is in the final paragraph. There's no 'under subsection D of the...' mentioned. The council know full well that this case, should it come to court (as it should do) would be thrown out.

But they count on the modern attitude of 'don't make a fuss' in order to get away with it...

Mr Burt...said local people had created a petition to bring his owls back.

NO NO NO! *bangs head on desk*

You don't petition the council for one of your rights back. They had no right to try to convince you they were allowed to take it in the first place!

*sigh* When will people wake up, and stop allowing these people to run their lives?

I wonder now about Southend's Owlman. I wonder if he, too, has been on the receiving end of a visit from a junior council gauleiter-in-training with nothing better to do council official?

And I wonder how long our streets will contain eccentrics, characters and enthusiasts? I wonder how long it will be before we all cower behind closed doors, afraid to walk the streets, not knowing what is 'banned' and what is 'allowed'?

And then I wonder why our parents and grandparents bothered fighting a war at all...

‘They Haven’t Gone Away, You Know’ Redux

Councils are secretly rifling through thousands of dustbins to find out about families' race and wealth.

And what possible reason could they have for that?

Waste audits allow officials and private contractors to check supermarket labels, types of unwanted food - and even examine the contents of discarded mail.

The local authorities are using social profiling techniques to match different types of rubbish to different ethnic groups or wealthy and poor households, as part of a recycling drive initiated by the last Government.

Ah. Right. So they have done this in the past.

Are they still doing it? That’s the question. It’s certainly a question iDave’s mob should be asking.

Why were they doing it?

Householders can then be placed into social categories, which in some areas range from 'wealthy achievers' to the 'hard-pressed' - and subsequently targeted for future leafleting campaigns.

Ah. Well, chaps, the money’s run out. Sorry. We can’t afford leafleting campaigns.

Did they get any useful information out of this?

In Hackney, East London, researchers targeted homes based on their potential ethnic and social mix, collecting data separately on four different groups, including ‘multi-ethnic private flats’ and ‘prosperous young professionals’ flats’.

The study found that ‘as expected’ the ‘educated urbanites’ living in ‘trendy’ flats threw away the least rubbish.

Now, there’s an unexpected piece of information! The typical ‘Guardian’/’Indy’ reader is far more likely to believe the green propaganda (and crucially, not want to be seen as out of step by his fellows) and slavishly follow council instructions!

Do go on...

In Bracknell Forest, Berkshire, researchers sifted through discarded food. They concluded that more than half of it could have been recycled or composted if householders had behaved more responsibly.

Translation: ‘If householders had behaved more responsibly’ = ‘If householders had done as they were bloody well told, the ingrates’…

Any more startling revelations?

In Southampton, officials found that homeowners were more likely to put general waste in the recycling bin in the week after Christmas.

Hmmm, could that be because people traditionally have a lot more food (and therefore food waste) at Christmas/New Year, and that that’s also the period when the refuse services are disrupted?

Wow! that was money well spent, eh?

Not all councils went along with this, either:

Dartford Council, in Kent, has refused to carry out the secret surveys.

Jeremy Kite, who is the council’s Tory leader, said: ‘I strongly object to the analysis and examination of waste put out for collection unless specific permission is obtained from the householder and have intervened to prevent such exercises in Dartford on more than one occasion. I do not believe it is right.’

Good for you. I bet you get back in next year, as a result…

It Seems A Private Company Has A Better Grasp Of Liberty...

...than our new Prime Minister:

Facebook has rebuffed a call by David Cameron for the removal of tributes to the gunman Raoul Moat which have been left on the social networking site.

The Prime Minister condemned the praise being paid to the "callous murderer" yesterday and instructed Downing Street to raise its concerns with the company over the web page of the "RIP Raoul Moat You Legend" group.

And FaceBook said: 'So you're offended? So f*****g what?' Or at least, words to that effect:

But last night the site replied: "Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way as they can and do in many other places, and as such we sometimes find people discussing topics others may find distasteful.

"However, that is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening. We have 26 million people on Facebook in the UK, each of which has their own opinion, and they are entitled to express their views on Facebook as long as their comments do not violate our terms."

Good for them!

Unsettling Reading

Medical staff at a secure hospital unit for psychiatric patients have been forced to alter breath tests after alcohol hand gels were found to produce results equivalent to drinking a pint of beer.

Clinicians at the Orchard Clinic in Edinburgh have revised strict breath tests after they found that the 80 per cent proof fumes from the disinfectant rubs could yield "false positive" results among inmates.

It’s not that – disturbing as it is – that makes such unsettling reading, though.

It’s this:

The unit - which houses "mentally disordered" criminals from across Scotland - has asked clinical staff to "delay" the use of breathalysers or use soap and water instead after a female patient complained when she failed a routine check.

Despite insisting that she had not "touched a drop", the unnamed inmate tested positive for alcohol after returning from a period of weekend leave - and feared losing her privileges as a result.

So she was cleared to leave the hospital – a secure mental hospital – for a weekend’s leave, but not allowed to drink? And this would be checked on her return by use of a breathalyser?

She was, presumably, free to watch what she wanted, eat what she wanted, read what she wanted…but not drink what she wanted?

Now, I can see why this condition might be imposed if alcohol conflicts with medication she may be taking, but if not, how the hell do the medical authorities justify this?

I Think We'll Live With 'Unsustainability' If It Leads To Less Of This...

Current police numbers are not "sustainable" in the face of budget cuts, a senior officer will warn later.

President of the Association of Chief Police Officers Sir Hugh Orde will tell a conference it is "misleading in the extreme" to claim otherwise.

Oh, 'misleading', is it, Sir Hugh Ordure?

Well, your officers know a thing or two about being misleading, don't they?

Two police officers stopped a teenage photographer from taking pictures of an Armed Forces Day parade - and then claimed they did not need a law to detain him.

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old freelancer from Hackney, east London, was photographing police cadets on Saturday when he was ordered to stop and give his personal details by an adult cadet officer who claimed he needed parental permission to capture images of the cadets.

Sadly for the uniformed bullies, this was one photographer who knew his rights and wasn't about to be cowed into giving them.

The student, who works as a freelance photojournalist in his spare time, decided to record his confrontation on his mobile phone, providing an insight into the legal arguments that the officers were using to justify stopping him from taking photographs.

And surprise surprise! Just as in this infamous video, the officers concerned prioved to be talking out of...well, not their mouths, that's for sure...

After arguing his rights in a series of protracted legal debates with officers, the sixth former says he was pushed down a set of stairs and detained for breaching the peace until the parade passed.

He's now said to be thinking of taking action. I hope he does, because police who behave like this should be drummed out of the force:

The audio recording begins minutes later with an officer initially arguing that it is illegal to take photographs of children. He then claims that it is illegal to take images of army members and police officers.

Under laws that guarantee the freedom of press in Britain, there is no restriction on photography of children, police or armed forces in a public space.

Indeed, the dim, lying little bullies will be in hot water with a bit of luck, because they've been told time and time again that this is not to be done - it's already cost them money:

The incident in Romford came just 24 hours after the force was forced to pay compensation to two photojournalists for a similar incident. Marc Vallee and Jason Parkinson took civil action against the Met after they had their camera equipment grabbed by officers in December 2008 while reporting on a protest outside the Greek Embassy.

In a public apology the Met admitted that its officers had “failed to respect press freedom” of the two journalists and agreed to pay them each £3,500 plus legal costs.

So let's hope this chap presses his case and gets treble that.

Maybe then, they'll get the message...