Nothing...!

It’s five years since the TV presenter killed herself after being charged with assaulting her partner. Her mother Christine wants the world to know what the police, crown prosecution service and media got wrong.

So says the blurb of a subheading to this article by her mother. Prompting my response. 

Caroline Flack was one of Britain’s most successful presenters – and also one of the most talked about – when she was arrested in December 2019 and charged with assaulting her partner, Lewis Burton.

She lost her job as the host of Love Island ....

 She was sacked? 

-....– she stepped down in order to not detract attention from the show.

 Oh.

She lost her home ...

What? Who evicted her, and how?

....– it was so besieged by the press that she never went back there after her arrest.

  Oh.

She felt she lost the public, too, especially with the drip-drip of damning (crucially, incorrect) detail in tabloids and across social media.

Ah, I see where we are going with this. It was social media that dunnit, folks!  The TwitterBeasts killed Beauty! 

When she took her life nine weeks later, in February 2020, the narrative shifted. Now there were tributes to her talent as well as stories of her struggle with mental illness. The criminal case was awkwardly glossed over and grouped in with this, as sad evidence of her troubled mind. The correctness of her prosecution, though, was barely questioned.

Even Nazir Afzal, a former prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), appeared on breakfast TV to stress that “We as a country have said we need to take domestic abuse seriously”. The CPS, he insisted, could only “follow the evidence”.

We'll gloss over quoting establishment-stooge Afzal, a DEI hire busted flush if ever there was one. But wasn't he quite right? Domestic violence is domestic violence. 

In Caroline Flack: Search for the Truth, Christine Flack attempts to do just this, to follow the evidence. For years, she has been haunted by the possibility that Caroline did, in fact, receive “special treatment” and was prosecuted only because the police and CPS feared the scrutiny that came with a celebrity like Caroline. They couldn’t be seen to do nothing.

Thay can't win, can they? If they do or if they don't... 

The previous night, Caroline and Burton had been out separately, returning late to Caroline’s flat in north London. They had both been drinking, and went to bed. Burton was sleeping when a woman messaged him. Caroline read it. She was drunk, angry and upset when she went to wake him. The inquest heard that she later told police: “I had his phone in one hand and mine in the other. I whacked him round the head. There was no excuse for it. I was just upset. I admit I did it. He was cheating on me.”

As blatent a confession as any copper has probably ever heard. 

The inquest heard that a huge row ensued where Caroline became hysterical. When Burton threatened to call the police, Caroline begged him not to. (“If you call the police, I’m done.”) When he did, she harmed herself and by the time police arrived, she was seriously injured, frenzied and half-naked.

No different to many a domestic violence scene cops have to roll up to, no doubt. 

“While Jody (her sister) was outside the police station, a police officer went out and told her: ‘It’s all right – the CPS has thrown it out. Just wait here for her,’” says Christine. That initial CPS document judged that prosecuting wasn’t in the public interest because there was no history of domestic violence and Caroline was 40 with no previous convictions. It noted that Caroline had repeatedly admitted the assault and that the injured party, Burton, did not support a prosecution.

And there it would have ended and she'd have got away with it, if not for one honest copper. 

Shortly after, though, a detective inspector came on duty and intervened. She had a shooting to deal with that night, as well as a vulnerable missing person and, according to the documentary, this DI had no history of challenging CPS decisions. But she chose to appeal against this one, arguing that there had been no clear admission of guilt (the coroner found that Caroline had admitted to hitting Burton) and that “she has caused significant injury” to Burton. As a result, Caroline was charged with assault by beating.

As she should have been. 

She knows she is treading a very fine line here. Christine is adamant that she doesn’t want to minimise the harms caused by domestic abuse.

No, just the ones caused by her daughter.  

The Description Of The Complainant That I Fully Expected...

A fire service worker has won an unfair dismissal case after he was sacked for 'assaulting' a female shopper at Tesco who pushed to the front of the self-checkout queue. London Fire Brigade's Ryan Shearwood was getting his lunch from Tesco when he got into a bust-up with another customer, a tribunal heard. Mr Shearwood, a mechanic with the fire service, was waiting by the self-checkout tills when he called the woman out for skipping the queue.

Good for him! But no good deed goes unpunished, I guess… 

There was an altercation and the woman claimed she was 'shoved to the ground' by Mr Shearwood, it was heard. The woman later complained to the London Fire Brigade, claiming she was 'physically assaulted' by Mr Shearwood during the lunchtime row. Mr Shearwood argued he did not shove her and said all he did was simply extend his elbow to the side to 'defend' himself from being 'barged out of the way'. Mr Shearwood, a fire hydrant technician, was fired for misconduct after the fire service investigated the incident and concluded he had assaulted her.

Wait, what skills do the Fire Brigade have to investigate anything other than arson? And why weren’t the police involved? 

There was a lack of CCTV footage because Tesco would not release it unless there was a police investigation, and it was then destroyed after 30 days.

Seems the complainant went straight to the FB and none of them said, ‘Wait, let’s see if there’s a case to answer before firing him’ As I’m reading this, I’m thinking there can only be one possible reason for this sort of overreach…

'He is an extremely unreasonable person and even the staff were saying a simple apology or acknowledgement of the misunderstanding of the situation could've rectified it, but he refused to do so. '

Calling me names and escalating the situation further by loudly saying there was something wrong with me and I have "mental health issues" which I know was a predictable attempt to paint me as angry crazy black woman, which is not something that I take lightly at all.'

Aha! I love it when I’m proved right!  

The judge added the fire brigade did not carry out a fair investigation on procedural grounds.

You’re not kidding! 

A decision on compensation will be made at a later date, with a hearing listed to take place next month.

I hope the tribunal soaks the FB for every penny they can! 

I Don't Want To Hear The Met Police Whining About Lack Of Funding Anymore...

...not when they are wasting it like this:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recommended that the former Love Island presenter receive a caution after an incident with her boyfriend in December 2019, but this was overturned after an appeal from the Met Police and she was instead charged with assault by beating.

Flack was found dead in February 2020 aged 40 and a coroner later ruled she killed herself after learning prosecutors were going to proceed with an assault charge.

And why shouldn't they? Why should her status as a (minor) celebrity spare her the same charge that would be applied to some drunken Romford slapper reeling out of a nightclub having assaulted someone in the ladies?  

The Met has now said it is making “further enquiries” into potential new witness evidence relating to the actions of officers in appealing against the initial CPS decision not to charge Flack.

Incredibly, it appears the higher ups in the Met Police have got wind that some officers in their farce might just have carried out their job 'without fear or favour' and they are determined to nip that sort of thing in the bud in case it catches on!  

The TV star’s mother, Christine Flack, told the Mirror: “We won’t stop until we get the truth. Something very unusual happened to Carrie at the police station that night, but no one kept a proper record explaining why.”

“As a family, we have been left with important unanswered questions.”

Your daughter decided the police would never dare arrest her and charge her for assault on her boyfriend. Thankfully, she was wrong. QED. 

Why No Charge Of Racially Aggravated Assault?

The court heard that Taj, of Hyrst Garth, Batley, and Hussain, of Dark Lane, Batley, pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent after their case was listed for trial in December last year.

Prosecutor Adam Walker said the victim and his friend were walking the dogs when one of the animals sniffed at another man. He subjected the pair to racist abuse before summoning the occupants of the Audi. The car followed the dog walkers and four young men got out. Hussain was the driver and others were armed with metal bars and lump hammers, the court heard.

So it was a targeted attack. Shouldn't that carry a heavy penalty? Heavier than 6 years? Maybe the mitigation was amazing?

Simon Hustler (Ed: Ooh, nominative determinism!), solicitor advocate for both defendants, conceded that it was a joint enterprise attack but that they were ‘at the back of the charge.’

So they were slower than the others. So what? 

Hussain said he made a terrible decision to get involved while Taj described the incident as ‘incredibly stupid.’ Mr Hustler said the men were not racists and neither had been assessed by the probation service as being at a high level of reoffending.

What a shocker! Who on earth ever gets labelled as 'high risk of offending' by those clowns?

The recorder conceded that the defendants now accepted their actions were stupid and had expressed remorse. He ordered forfeiture of Hussain’s Audi and the forfeiture and destruction of the weapons used in the attack.

And the racial abuse? They get off scot free for that? 

H/T: HarleyTory via Twitter

"What Do We Want?" "Equality!"

"When do we want it?" 

"Oooh, hang on a minute..."

Yes, that extraordinary exchange flooded Twitter with OUTRAGE! that the AA might not put ladies first. 

And as with any social media firestorm, when the boss waded in, in an attempt to pour some oil on the troubled waters (no doubt to the horrified stare of anyone the AA has employed as a media consultant) it didn't really go as he expected:

Ouch! I think I need more popcorn...

"Exams is hard, innit fam?"

Exams should use simpler language and have hard questions at the end to avoid ‘demotivating’ pupils, Ofqual has said.

*rolls eyes*

It is, of course, the drive for 'equality'. The wrong sort, naturally.  

Plans to boost ‘equality’ say GCSE and A-level papers must not disadvantage diverse groups such as migrants.

The regulator also wants papers to avoid mentioning ‘contexts’ some pupils may be unfamiliar with, such as travel or social experiences.

Or being able to go from one postcode in London to another without being stabbed?

The advice will not apply where complex language and cultural knowledge is tested, like in English and history...

Yet!

...but will be relevant in maths and science, particularly in scenario-style questions.

I can't wait to see the scenarios they will put in instead! 

The consultation on the proposed guidance, which opened yesterday [Mon], will close on January 24.

Why bother? It's undoubtedly already decided. 

Natalie Arnett, senior equalities officer for school leaders’ union NAHT, said: ‘It’s important that Ofqual ensures it considers the range of learners and seeks to put in place proactive measures to address any disadvantage or differing impact they may face.’

The fact that a union has a post like this tells you all you need to know, doesn't it? 

Let's Try That Headline Again...

One witness said the woman had already walked on the roof of the white Toyota Prius at the traffic lights in Romford Road before jumping on to the black Fiat.

@AminNumeroUno said: 'Literally just saw this in Forest gate, its just crazy these days in east London. For those asking the back story behind this, she jumped from the roof of the white Prius to the bonnet of this car, then up the windscreen to the car roof'.

He added: 'What happened next... well she crossed the road and moved to another car lol'.

'Driver defends his property from yet another drunk, drugged, mentally ill (or all three) lunatic on the streets'

There. That's more accurate, isn't it? 

And spare me the 'no gentleman hits a lady' platitudes, because no lady gets smashed off her tits on whatever she was on and expects to behave as she likes with no consequences.

Clearly, More Of A Threat Than Usman Khan...

...but to just whom, I'll leave to you, Reader.

Police found a hoard of Nazi-era daggers, far-right literature and a framed Ku Klux Klan certificate in Nicholas Brock's bedroom in Berkshire.

Are those illegal to possess, then? 

The 53-year-old was found guilty in March of three counts of possessing materials which could be of use in preparing terrorist acts.

Compare and contrast the response to this 'potential terrorist' with that to Usman Khan, the actual London Bridge terrorist... 

Edward Butler, defending, said there was no evidence his client intended to carry out an attack.

That doesn't seem to matter much, since even when there is, usually the authorities do nothing. 

Det Ch Supt Kath Barnes, head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East, said: "The material Brock had in his possession is dangerous and concerning.

"He had books which would provide techniques on how to fight, assisting someone who was potentially preparing a terrorist act."

Anyone with a Tom Clancy or Andy McNab novel on the shelf has 'books that would provide techniques on how to fight', don't they?  

H/T: Crimebodge

DCC Julie Cooke, Like Most Police These Days, Doesn't Understand The Law...

...not when there's Common Purpose virtuesignalling to be done! 

Surely she didn't really say that? But yes. Yes, she did.

Is ignorance of the law a prerequisite for a police officer these days? It must be. There can't be any other explanation, can there?

Where's The Equality?

A woman who posted naked pictures of her ex-boyfriend in an online 'revenge porn' attack has had her jail term suspended after an appeal.

Was that all she did? Reader, it was not...

...she left key marks in his car, included the inscription of one particularly offensive expletive.

Ashraf also sent an abusive e-mail to the man's employer calling him 'absolutely disgusting' and saying he had 'assaulted many girls.'

Police were contacted and when she was interviewed she claimed her victim had in fact taken intimate pictures of her without her consent and sent them to friends.

It's amazing that the police didn't immediately turn around and begin investigating him.

In mitigation Peter Du Feu said his client, a university student, had spent four days of her sentence behind bars.

He added that she had hopes of a placement at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and that was now in jeopardy.

Well, yes. Why would the US want someone with a criminal record?

But that's not mitigation, it's what we call 'consequences'...

Sentencing, Judge Nigel Daly called Ashraf's behaviour 'particularly nasty' and said while the jail length was 'appropriate,' it could be suspended.

She was jailed for 18 weeks suspended for two years and must complete 15 rehabilitation days and pay compensation.

Why? Where's the justice?

*Rummages For Tiny Violin*

The Oxford Bangladeshi Islamic Centre and Mosque had been due to mark the religious holiday Eid al-Adha in Leys Pool and Leisure Centre's main sports hall yesterday, but instead had to squeeze 300 people into three sessions at its Cowley Road building.

It came after frustrated organisers spent more than a week trying to sort out booking problems with the Blackbird Leys leisure centre, which is owned by the city council and managed by Fusion Lifestyle, only to be told a full event management plan including 'anti-terrorism measures' was required at the eleventh hour.

Welcome to England, where overwhelming paperwork must be completed in triplicate before the council will let you do what you need to do.

What's that?

'But you're Muslims', you say..? Well, so what?

The operations manager added if the information, including a safeguarding policy, stewarding/security plan, medical plan, waste management plan and anti-terrorism measures, as well as public liability insurance confirmation and employers liability insurance confirmation, was not provided by 2pm the following day the event could not go ahead.

Mr Hoque said he was 'shocked' as the mosque had never been asked to provide this level of detail before, and it had not been mentioned when he had made the booking initially.

Times change, Mt Hoque. We need all that now. I wonder if you know why?

The Blackbird Leys resident added the mosque had been holding events at the centre for years, with the last Eid booking in 2016, but their treatment by leisure centre had left them feeling 'unwanted'.

Gosh! How to sum up my concern with your feelings?

That'll do it!

What Do These Incidents Have In Common?

A veteran shopkeeper in Bream, near Lydney, is mystified as to why he had a window shattered in apparent catapult attack by vandals.

Police believe a BB gun or catapult was used from Garrick House multi storey car park which shattered a pane of glass at Waitrose.

A cygnet was found dead in North Dorset after possibly being shot at with a catapult, say police. PC Rob Hammond, of Blandford Neighbourhood Policing Team, discovered the cygnet on the River Stour at Stour Meadows in Blandford on Saturday evening.

Well, none of them apparently warrant an armed response:

Nor increased police patrols.

Sounds Like You'll Be Having Some Interviews Without Coffee With The Met Later, Mayor...

...and not just because it's Ramadan, either.

They are literally refusing to even speak about the terrorist flags, our country is lost. pic.twitter.com/PRDCscE4bO

— Caolan Robertson (@CaolanRob) June 18, 2017

What have our police become? The arrogance and indifference conceal fear, fear that they might be shown up as what they are, impotent in the face of domineering aggression from a favoured minority.

Nope, Need An Electron Microscope To Spot The Difference...

Dexter Neal died in hospital after being bitten by Jade Dunne's dog Ruby at her home in Halstead, Essex, on the afternoon of August 18 last year.

Dunne, 29, pleaded guilty to being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control, resulting in death, at an earlier hearing.

She was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for two years, at Chelmsford Crown Court on Tuesday.

She was also disqualified from owning a dog for 10 years and ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work.

Meanwhile, PC Clare Ferdinand is never ever charged. So it would seem Jade's lawyers were not on the ball, since I'm still baffled as to how there's any material difference in this case.

I did wonder if this particular dog had a history of human aggression, but if that came out in court, it's not been reported:

Ruby was a rescue dog who was rarely walked, had shown no aggression towards humans in the Dunnes' home before but “sometimes didn't like other dogs” and had to be muzzled when walked.

She said Dunne could not reasonably have foreseen the attack.

Just like PC Clare Ferdinand?

We Return Again To The 'Spot The Difference' Competition...

Jade Dunne, 29, was charged today after the death of Dexter Neal.

Well, well, well....

It's 'Spot The Difference' Time Again...

Case no 1: A woman owns a dog that savages to death another woman's child in Halstead. She is immediately arrested for allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control.

Case no 2: A woman owns a dog that savages to death another woman's child in Colchester. She is not immediately arrested for allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control, and in fact, the police make a point that they are not treating the case as a criminal one.

So what's the difference in these cases? Is Colchester a far more lenient place than Halstead? They are, after all, both in Essex, covered by the same farce force. Is the breed a factor (American bulldog vs 'Staffie cross')? They are both legal breeds not covered by the DDA.

Of course, the cynical might just say that the difference here is in the person who owns the dog being a fine upstanding police officer in this second case.

But that can't be true, can it? Don't the police on social media always say how feared the PSD are, how keen they are to 'make an example' of any police officer transgressing, in order to uphold the image of the police service as one above reproach?

So there must be some other critical difference. I await the full picture in order to discover why such a different approach has been taken in the second case. As, I'm sure, Jade Dunne's lawyers will be doing...

*settles in with popcorn*

Perhaps Someone Should Be Checking Her Benefits?

This was the shocking moment a thug punched a woman in the face in a row over parking.

The 49-year-old, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, was knocked to the ground with one blow in the vicious attack in Hornchurch, east London. Police said her jaw was broken in four places.

Awful! What monsters! What’s the world coming to?

CCTV footage captured by security cameras outside her business on Ardleigh Green Road recorded the entire encounter.

It shows two men pull up outside the pair's cleaning supplies store in a dark-coloured hatchback. Ms Smith and her business partner Keith Edwards, 53, who are walking past as they park, turn on their heels and confront the men as they make their way towards the shop.

The row gets increasingly heated and as one of the men attempts to pass Ms Smith she pulls him away by his hoodie.

She then appears to swipe at the back of his head, but misses. The man responds by swinging a fierce blow at her face which sends her tumbling on to the concrete forecourt.

Ah. That rather puts a different light on things, doesn’t it?

Yes, they shouldn’t park there, yes, there's the age old 'a man should never hit a woman' (Really, ladies? In these days of equality?) but it appears she started it, and is now whinging because she came off worse. Using her Victimhood Poker cards of ‘woman’ and ‘disabled’.

So she’s clearly not that disabled if she can start scraps with younger men, is she?

A Bit Short-Sighted…?

…after all, we don’t want them to breed, surely?

Patients in Basildon will no longer be entitled to free vasectomies or sterilisation treatment due to NHS funding cuts.

Surely this should be exempt from any cuts? Surely!?

Originally, the Basildon and Brentwood clinical excellence group had recommended cutbacks which would see only male vasectomy services withdrawn.

But after a review, the group has also proposed withdrawing the availability of free female sterilisation treatments.

Well, that’s equality for you!

Stop Fining Them, Start Removing Licences!

Shammus Mohammed Afzal admitted breaching the Equality Act when he appeared before magistrates.

The court heard the 26-year-old had been called to pick-up a partially-sighted woman from Helen & Douglas House Hospice charity shop in Magdalen Road on June 17.

But when he arrived he refused to let the dog into his taxi with its owner because he claimed it was “dirty” .

And the punishment? Pretty pathetic. As always.

Afzal, of Clive Road, Cowley, appeared at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on Monday where he was fined £500 – reduced from £1,000 because of his guilty plea.

He couldn’t very well deny it, could he?

He was also ordered to pay £300 court costs and £100 compensation.

That’s, what, a week’s work for a cabbie?

Vale legal democratic services leader councillor Sandy Lovatt branded Afzal’s excuse of the dog being dirty as “lame” and said he had a legal duty to pick up the animal and its owner.

He added: “The law is very clear. If someone requires a guide dog then it must be allowed to travel with them unless they have an exemption.

“In this case the driver made some fairly lame excuses. However, as pointed out by the magistrate, even if the dog had been dirty he would have still had a legal requirement to allow it in his vehicle and he should have been aware of that and had blankets available.”

Yes, he should. But they do it because the chances are they will get away with it, and when they don’t, the punishment is minimal.

Let’s start by removing their licences for a year.

The Green Party: Never Afraid To Tackle The Big Issues

Marriage certificates are "profound unequal" because they fail to recognise the mothers of the bride and groom, MP Caroline Lucas has told the Prime Minister.

*rolls eyes*

She said: “It’s hard to believe that this inequality on marriage certificates still exists. This throwback to the past must be rectified – and quickly.

“The Prime Minister promised to make this change, yet no action has been taken.

"He should urgently address this profound inequality and change marriage certificates to record the details of both the mother and father of the bride and groom.”

And amazingly enough, this is something Cameron has indeed set in motion...

Speaking last summer, Mr Cameron said: “The content of marriage registers in England and Wales has not changed since the beginning of Queen Victoria's reign.

“This clearly doesn't reflect modern Britain and it's high time the system was updated.”

He said he had asked the Home Office to investigate how marriage certification can be reformed to include the details of both parents.

Well, we all know how long it takes the civil service to do anything. I’m sure they’ll consult and deliberate accordingly.

What’s your hurry, dearie?

Ms Lucas is urging fellow MPs to sign the motion to put pressure on the Government into taking action to address the "longstanding inequality".

She was spurred on after seeing an online petition by Ailsa Burkimsher Sadler, which received 70,000 signatures calling for the change.

One supporter wrote: “My mother raised me on her own, making thousands of sacrifices along the way. My dad never did anything useful or kind for us.

"I don't understand why I had to put his name on my marriage certificate. I can't be alone in this.”

The motion notes that "our law should not perpetuate the offensive and outdated message that marriage is a business transaction between fathers".

Hmmm, really? That’s going to be a bit tricky, isn’t it?

Because the Home Office already seems to have accepted ‘the offensive and outdated message that marriage is a business transaction between fathers’, doesn’t it?

Oh, wait. My mistake. That’s only for certain communities.