Well, That Was In Another Country, And Besides, The Wench Is Dead..

Hours before Katie Madden took her own life, she had a tense phone call with her former partner Jonathon Russell. Russell was on bail after allegedly assaulting Madden – he was banned from contacting her – but the conversation took place nevertheless.

Like the tango, it takes two to make a phone call. Why didn’t she hang up?

There was a witness to the call who gave evidence to the inquest into Madden’s death. Mason Jones, a friend of Madden’s, said Russell was “vile” and “abusive”. Although Jones said he could not remember the exact words Russell used, he said: “I recall Jon saying at least once that he was in control of the town and would end her life if she didn’t do it herself.”

Which she promptly did. And her family is OUTRAGED! that he’s not being charged as a result, as is the ‘Guardian’, apparently…

In the days leading up to Madden’s death, her mother, Bernadette Sutton, had told police and social services that she was concerned about the threat Russell posed to her daughter. “By this point, I thought he would kill her or she would take her own life,” Sutton said, in a statement. Nigel Parsley, the coroner, concluded that Madden died by suicide while the balance of her mind was disturbed, but he also cited her relationship with Russell, with whom she had two children, as a contributory factor.“Kate’s toxic relationship, in conjunction with Kate’s known mental health conditions, affected her state of mind and therefore contributed to her death,” he said.

Is that a crime that carries a charge, then?  

Despite this, no police investigation into Bignell’s role in Barter’s death has ever been launched and the Crown Prosecution Service says there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Seems not. 

Inquests have a different burden of proof to criminal courts, finding on the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. There is no criminal due process and nobody is convicted or acquitted.

In other words, coroners get to grandstand and sympathise with the grieving family and it costs them nothing, so they do it. And it seems this one wasn't prepared to sign off on something they could be criticised for later: 

In Katie Madden’s case, although the coroner acknowledged that a toxic relationship contributed to her death, he did not make any finding of unlawful killing. Almost two years on, Madden’s family say Russell has not been investigated in relation to any of the inquest findings or any alleged abuse. This is despite admitting at the inquest that he gave Madden a black eye weeks before she died.

Have the police charged him with assault then?  

Police closed the assault investigation just days after Madden was found hanged at her home in Lowestoft, Suffolk. “The idea that it would just be dropped because she died – it should never be the case,” her mother says.

The police have to cut their cloth according to the CPS's budget. With no live complainant, it's not hard to see why they aren't preapared to go to trial, is it?  

"Unintended Consequences? Never Heard Of Them!"

A new criminal offence of intentionally deceiving a person into engaging in sexual activity should be created to address confusion in the law around consent, legal experts and lawyers have said.

The new offence of inducing sexual activity by deception would cover both making of false representations as well as failing to disclose information.

As such, it would potentially apply in future to cases such as those involving “spy cops”, in which undercover police officers adopted fake personas and conducted sexual affairs with female activists.

Hmmm. Isn't it also going to apply to transgender people who aren't forthcoming about their real sex?

 I'm going to need two of these!

Doomed To Failure...

The proposals were released following a climbdown by the commission this month over its call for new laws criminalising hate speech.

It has withdrawn a proposal that it should become a crime for anyone to stir up hatred in their own homes.

They'd have got away with it if not for you meddling kids freedom campaigners! 

But they don't give up, they just switch tactics...

Laws on upskirting introduced two years ago make it illegal to take a mobile image from under a woman's clothing. However, they do not extend to pictures taken from above, down a female's top to capture an image of her bra, cleavage or breasts.

The commission called for sweeping new rules which would outlaw a range of attempts to take intrusive pictures. It would also outlaw efforts to humiliate someone by posting faked pornographic pictures of them.

Who knew this was even an issue worthy of the time? How many cases can there possibly be, anyway? 

Professor Penney Lewis, of the Law Commission, said: 'For victims, having their intimate images taken or shared without consent can be an incredibly damaging and humiliating experience. However, the law does not adequately protect victims from this behaviour.

'Our proposals would reform the existing law and ensure that victims are given the protection they need.'

Assuming victimhood seems to be everyone's goal these days. Now it can be gained because someone took an image of you? 

Its new law would not only give victims of 'intimate image abuse' lifelong anonymity but would remove the need for prosecutors to prove that whoever took the picture intended to cause distress.

The commission said: 'We have heard from many victims that requiring proof of a specific motive has led to no prosecution taking place.'

It's utter madness. We have people being stabbed to death in the street because they were in the 'wrong' postcode, and here's a bunch of well-fed civil servants fretting over who cropped a picture out of the paper and superimposed it over a still from 'Debbie Does Dallas'.. 

'What If' Is No Basis For Overbearing State Agencies...

Helen Daykin's little girls spent almost 24 hours with the body of their father after his sudden death.

When she rang in the morning she thought he was busy with the school run, then later that he might have lost his phone as there was no answer. At teatime, her mother drove over but couldn't open the door because Chris had left the keys in on the other side.

The milk was outside, the windows dark, so the police were called to break down the door.

 A terrible tragedy. But nothing's ever just that any more.

Pearl, who was four years old, had started school just a few weeks earlier. Iris was two.When a child doesn't attend, a school will normally call their contact number to check whether they are ill.

Pearl's school had tried Chris's number, but didn't ring Helen.

The school did nothing wrong here. They did what they were supposed to, but in her grief, and to assuage the sense of guilt that she must inevitably feel, this has now become a crusade. No longer just a sad codicil, this is now a lever to demand change, to insist someone 'do something':

Helen wants all schools to overhaul how they check up on children who don't arrive at school. She says second and third contact numbers and home visits should be part of their plans.

And, because she holds the status of 'grieving mother', bandwagon-jumpers everywhere will now scramble to unite behind her, no matter how ludicrous her demands.

Helen's campaign for better awareness is being backed by the Good Grief Trust charity, which has provided support through her bereavement.

Its founder, Linda Magistris, said: "A parent dies in this country every 22 minutes, and that could be one of those parents that are by themselves, nobody knows they're by themselves with the children."

And if the children are under school or pre-school age, do we just shrug? Logically, the next step is to demand that there be some system set-up for these parents too. Where will it end?

In October 2016 Esther had a fatal epileptic fit, and Chadrack who had special needs, spent two weeks in their flat unable to get help.

The coroner's report describes how school staff called his mother's number several times. They also tried to visit twice, but couldn't get into the block of flats.

The coroner called for the government to make changes and set out the policy subsequently put in place at Chadrack's school:

Three contact numbers are kept for every child

If a pupil fails to attend with no explanation, someone is immediately sent to the family home

If there is no response, the police are contacted

They will be delighted, I'm sure. Where's all the money and spare staff time for this coming from?

As we all lead increasingly less stable & more chaotic lives, the demand to 'stop bad things happening' risks fuelling an increasingly overbearing state apparatus - for our own good, naturally!

Jim Gamble (Ed: Wait, this one..?) wants the government to go further.

As chair of the independent safeguarding board in Hackney he commissioned a report after Chadrack's death which has yet to be published. He says the government needs to "breathe life" into policies to put child safety first, and prevent another tragedy if a loving parent like Esther dies unexpectedly.

Well, if anyone knows anything about hugely expensive, overbearing but ultimately futile government projects, it's Jim!