Gathering and presenting evidence from a four year old girl of serious sexual assault some two years previously is a tremendous challenge. The youngest witness I ever had to deal with in this respect was a six year old girl assaulted by her father. One has two pressures; not to add to the trauma and to ensure that the best evidence is presented in the best way. The molester must meet just desserts, the child must not be harmed.
My concerns were re-ignited by the case of Baby P's sister. The investigators of today have the technical resource of cctv both at interview stage and at court. However, at the end of the day one has to remember that the duty of a defending counsel requires him to ensure that prosecution evidence is tested. How far should he go? Might any temerity on his part open an appeal process - I would imagine there would be far greater resistence to subject the child to another bout of questioning should a retrial be considered.
I was, therefore, interested to read this comment on the process.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Ghurka home?
I've held off on the debate about immigration rules for Gurkha troops. However, I suspect that the Brown-beaters have now boarded the bus to Outrage City as the story allows them lineage beyond any likely to be generated by the right or wrong of the actual immigration rights debate.
In my time I was stationed in close proximity to Gurkha troops. I was in a military police unit that was 85% Gurkha troops. I undertook a number of investigations involving them. I cannot say there was anything different about them in their make-up. They seemed to have a similar ratio of good and bad. Fat and thin. Good parents and not very efficient parents. So - nothing unusual there. They had officers who would not accept that Gurkhas could or would do anything wrong and saw them as paragons of virtue; this level of support was far in excess of that normally experienced with British officers and their British troops. There has been much said about the level of bravery in action. Our current troubles have demonstrated that bravery in other Nationals and Regiments is far more common than might be imagined. I do tend to think that there is a level of amok higher amongst Gurkha troops than others. My analysis of citations (In the old Indian Army) (Modern times but not complete) does suggest that they tend to rush into situations that are desperate.
They were recruited under terms that got them out of Nepal and into the British army. Their terms of service differed from British soldiers. There was no promise of resettlement in UK at the end of their period of service. Their pension was less on the basis that the cost of living in Nepal allowed them a commensurate life style to British pensioners for less. Now, there are a number who wish to retire here. I can see no reason why they should receive any special treatment. They were fully aware what they were getting into. Maybe they see it as unfair that they should have risked their lives in our service. They were fully aware what they were getting into. They may think that living in UK is their right. They knew what etc. etc. I can sympathise with their wish to leave Nepal but why here? There are considerable Gurkha communities in Hong Kong and in Brunei that they could join. There is talk of a debt of gratitude - where does this end? Think of those who supported the British cause in the colonies we have now surrendered - are we not grateful to them?
No - I think we have gone soft in our modern times. Do they have grounds for coming here? Yes, but individually no more than any other immigrant.
In my time I was stationed in close proximity to Gurkha troops. I was in a military police unit that was 85% Gurkha troops. I undertook a number of investigations involving them. I cannot say there was anything different about them in their make-up. They seemed to have a similar ratio of good and bad. Fat and thin. Good parents and not very efficient parents. So - nothing unusual there. They had officers who would not accept that Gurkhas could or would do anything wrong and saw them as paragons of virtue; this level of support was far in excess of that normally experienced with British officers and their British troops. There has been much said about the level of bravery in action. Our current troubles have demonstrated that bravery in other Nationals and Regiments is far more common than might be imagined. I do tend to think that there is a level of amok higher amongst Gurkha troops than others. My analysis of citations (In the old Indian Army) (Modern times but not complete) does suggest that they tend to rush into situations that are desperate.
They were recruited under terms that got them out of Nepal and into the British army. Their terms of service differed from British soldiers. There was no promise of resettlement in UK at the end of their period of service. Their pension was less on the basis that the cost of living in Nepal allowed them a commensurate life style to British pensioners for less. Now, there are a number who wish to retire here. I can see no reason why they should receive any special treatment. They were fully aware what they were getting into. Maybe they see it as unfair that they should have risked their lives in our service. They were fully aware what they were getting into. They may think that living in UK is their right. They knew what etc. etc. I can sympathise with their wish to leave Nepal but why here? There are considerable Gurkha communities in Hong Kong and in Brunei that they could join. There is talk of a debt of gratitude - where does this end? Think of those who supported the British cause in the colonies we have now surrendered - are we not grateful to them?
No - I think we have gone soft in our modern times. Do they have grounds for coming here? Yes, but individually no more than any other immigrant.
Of course I love you. Now go to sleep
There are a real mass of reasons that I find this law report amusing. A wife of seven years standing handcuffs herself to her husband in order to gain more of his attention. As the survivor of more than 50 years of marriage, I cannot see her reason for such desperate measures. Then, when he attempts to free himself, she attacks him so violently he has to call for police assistance. She ended up in court.
The reporter than inserts this observation " It seems unlikely the marriage can be saved." Well, he does seem to be very perceptive there. Another small giggle comes from his name - Gary Slapper. Shame the story was not about a wayward wife aka old slapper.
Mind you - he was somewhat lucky with the handcuffs.
The reporter than inserts this observation " It seems unlikely the marriage can be saved." Well, he does seem to be very perceptive there. Another small giggle comes from his name - Gary Slapper. Shame the story was not about a wayward wife aka old slapper.
Mind you - he was somewhat lucky with the handcuffs.
Parents who care
There seems to be no depths to which human beings will not sink. The initial set of events - the death of the boy Peter - was horrific but the same man has now been found guilty of even worse behaviour.
The girl was not identified and there has been no disclosure of her parent's identity. I would conclude that she was a sister of the boy we now know as Peter. His mother, the partner of the killer and rapist, has been found guilty of a lesser charge connected with the sequence of the multiple rapes.
We will hear repeated calls for the crucifixion of the social care workers who are already in the Hall of Blame for Peter's death. That is understandable at first take but it does seem they were trying to brush out floor waters with a rake. The work load we have had disclosed must surely mitigate against even half-way protection. A phrase I have found telling was 'Social workers do not kill children'. For all we can know, the workers may well have had events on their work load where the risks were more apparent and gave priority to these. In the case of Peter and, in my conclusion, his violated sister, there would be no parental suspicion as to what was going on in a house of horrors but I see these events as another example of where we are in parenting. We have all forms of swift communication and surveillance but still failed these two kids. Punishment of the two involved here will do little to correct this - those involved right now in child abuse and neglect will just say 'they won't catch me' and continue their evil ways.
Just a small image of what I mean - how did the parents allow this to happen? Why did the photographer or bystanders not intervene? It may seem amusing but it illustrates just what I mean by negligent parenting.
The girl was not identified and there has been no disclosure of her parent's identity. I would conclude that she was a sister of the boy we now know as Peter. His mother, the partner of the killer and rapist, has been found guilty of a lesser charge connected with the sequence of the multiple rapes.
We will hear repeated calls for the crucifixion of the social care workers who are already in the Hall of Blame for Peter's death. That is understandable at first take but it does seem they were trying to brush out floor waters with a rake. The work load we have had disclosed must surely mitigate against even half-way protection. A phrase I have found telling was 'Social workers do not kill children'. For all we can know, the workers may well have had events on their work load where the risks were more apparent and gave priority to these. In the case of Peter and, in my conclusion, his violated sister, there would be no parental suspicion as to what was going on in a house of horrors but I see these events as another example of where we are in parenting. We have all forms of swift communication and surveillance but still failed these two kids. Punishment of the two involved here will do little to correct this - those involved right now in child abuse and neglect will just say 'they won't catch me' and continue their evil ways.
Just a small image of what I mean - how did the parents allow this to happen? Why did the photographer or bystanders not intervene? It may seem amusing but it illustrates just what I mean by negligent parenting.
Lost for ever?
The media today is re-focussing in the little girl Madeline McCann. It is the second anniversary of her disappearance. We have seen a computer-generated update of the initial Missing Person photograph. As a media cynic ('there is nothing they will not do to increase sales'), I have the idea that if the parents had not initiated this fresh outburst of activity, then the Media would have. We do not seem to hear whether anyone has counselled them that the child has been murdered; I think it would be a kindness for some scientific exposure of this possibility.
There is a perception amongst investigators that abducted children are murdered with a very short time of their being taken. This is summed up as " Seventy-four percent of children who are kidnapped and later found murdered are killed within the first three hours after being taken, and 99 percent are killed within the first 24 hours". Note this is related to 'found murdered' and not to the totality of abductions, This finding is supported by other statistics that the prime reason for he children being taken is sexual gratification and once used in this manner, the child is an embarrassment to the abductor.
As the parent of four children, one of whom was lost due to cancer, I cannot imagine how it would effect me to have this 74% theory explained and confirmed, Equally, I cannot think how I could live the rest of my life not knowing what had happened. I have my doubts about what is described as the process of closure.The alternative is so horrific that I think there should be some procedure put into operation to at least offer this to parents and family. It would need the most careful handling - I think of the term 'being cruel to be kind'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)