Tim Worstall

Good Grief: Mary Warnock Edition

Now this is a surprise, finding the Baroness Warnock speaking good sense on a subject.

Before one is found guilty, one must be shown to have done something
wrong. The rule of law cannot be to run over our dreams and nightmares.
…
But it must also apply fairly, drawing distinctions between those who
have committed crimes and those who have been merely attracted towards
them. A man must show guilty intent before he can be convicted and
there is a difference between intention and fantasy.

The only thing which would have improved this rumination on the difference between paedophilia the act and paedophilia the pornography is if she had made clearer the difference between complements and substitutes. Does the consumption of pornography increase the number of acts (or rape, or paedophila, etc) or is the viewing of it an alternative to the act? Most of the reports on papers I’ve seen seem to say substitute: that is, that more pornography leads to fewer acts.

But then it’s also true that that is the language of economists, so no wonder she didn’t use it. The Great and the Good in the UK don’t do economics.

In

16 responses

  1. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    “The Great and the Good in the UK don’t do economics”
    Given th deeply flawed nature of much economic theory, that’s maybe just as well.

    Reply
  2. windowlicker Avatar
    windowlicker

    Let’s not forget that Langham paid for his pornography (something the MSM has been backward in reporting). Dame Mary offers the get out that we can’t be sure that he was buying the real thing. However, I’m pretty sure he was convinced it was genuine, and that is what matters.
    On the more general point that Dame Mary’s argument could be applied to lots of things which the law deems it an offense merely to possess, try: drugs, guns, explosives.

    Reply
  3. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    It doesn’t seem to be entirely clear whether he paid for it or not. It seems to have the peculiar claim that he purchased CP from the P2P networks. This isn’t actually possible ; you can purchase access to some networks, you can download for free from others. But paying to access P2P doesn’t support the production of CP – if anything you are supporting general piracy. It’s actually very difficult to sell CP anyway ; any organisation such as the Credit Card cos. will put themselves into the firing line if they are used to pay for it.
    I don’t doubt Langham is a shit and deserves to be in jail. However, much of this trial, including the abusive use of technological terms and bringing in a nutjob complainant stink – and are commonplace these days.

    Reply
  4. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “Let’s not forget that Langham paid for his pornography (something the MSM has been backward in reporting).”
    Well, it seems he didn’t – the images in the trial came from peer-to-peer services, as Paul above points out. They were said to have come from Limewire, although the original bust appears to be initiated by Op Ore.
    The moral arbiters commenting over at the Magistrates Blog are fond of waving this around as if, because no money changed hands, Langham’s crime is not therefore a crime at all….
    See, it’s apparently ok to watch violent pedophile porn so long as you don’t whip out your credit card.

    Reply
  5. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “..bringing in a nutjob complainant…”
    God, the CPS can’t win, can they? If they’d patted her on the head & told her to run along, they’d be crucified for that!
    What should they have done?
    Carol Sarler in the ‘Times’ yesterday, as part of a rambling, incoherent piece that seemed to be saying that celebrities shouldn’t be judged like the rest of us, seemed to think a separate trial should have been held for the girl’s accusation.
    If it had been held after the porn verdict, people would be claiming he can’t get a fair trial because of it.

    Reply
  6. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Julia, perhaps they should have concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence on the underage charge, and not prosecuted – in other words, treated Langham as if he were a crony of Toni rather than an actor employed to satirise Toni’s regime.

    Reply
  7. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Well, JuliaM, they should have looked to see if she was a credible witness ; she clearly wasn’t and this is simply smear tactics. It requires very little effort to discover this, and the Police aren’t interested, as they act as prosecutors.
    The worst case is Stretton in the Western Isles ; the fact that every interview the supposed “satanists” were different people didn’t stop the CPS.

    Reply
  8. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    …. and as you clearly know naff all about the legal system, it is very easy. You prosecute Langham for the Child Porn. Then you prosecute him for the Child Abuse. You forbid the media from printing anything about the first trial until the second is complete. It’s not complicated.

    Reply
  9. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “..treated Langham as if he were a crony of Toni rather than an actor employed to satirise Toni’s regime.”
    Heh, yes. I wonder if the Truther types will crawl out of the woodwork to say the prosecution were out to get him for ‘In the Thick of It’?
    “Well, JuliaM, they should have looked to see if she was a credible witness ; she clearly wasn’t…the Police aren’t interested, as they act as prosecutors.”
    You say with the benefit of hindsight…?
    And it’s the CPS who now act as prosecutors, not the police, who simply pass on the evidence to them. And you say I know ‘naff all’…? LOl!
    “You forbid the media from printing anything about the first trial until the second is complete.”
    This is the UK, not Russia. Any requested reporting resatrictions would be challenged, quite rightly so.

    Reply
  10. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    No, JuliaM, the CPS decide whether to charge or not, depending on the evidence provided by the Police.
    The Police *ACT* as prosecutors. They only collect information which leads to convictions and ignore (for example) obvious nutters and blatant collusion (have a look at Anver Sheikh’s case for example). They are interested in getting a “result” (conviction), not in actually discovering what happened.
    It is not “with hindsight”. The most gentle prodding will show they are at kindest very confused and at worst making it up or mad. The Police will not do such ; they frequently will ignore the most obvious problems in the evidence. In the Stretton case, one more honest senior officer pointed out her history and mixed testimony and was ignored.
    The reporting restrictions may well be challenged, but what I describe has happened in the past and is happening now. It is necessary in some cases to avoid the smear campaign which this is designed to create.

    Reply
  11. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “The Police *ACT* as prosecutors. They only collect information which leads to convictions…”
    No, they collect all evidence relating to the crime, it is then up to the CPS and defence to interpret it how they wish.
    If they didn’t collect all evidence, we wouldn’t need the discovery laws, would we….?

    Reply
  12. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “It is not “with hindsight”. The most gentle prodding will show they are at kindest very confused and at worst making it up or mad.”
    The CPS, the department most often critised for not proceding with trials ‘not in the public interest/not enough evidence’ went ahead with this action. So I think they must have thought there was a reasonable chance of winning it.
    And imagine the howls they’d have to face if they refused to prosecute on the grounds the alleged victim was ‘very confused and at worst making it up or mad’.
    The ‘Guardian’ would have to buy a few more barrels of ink…..

    Reply
  13. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    If you seriously believe the Police “collect all evidence” (and disclose it) you live with the fairies. They look down lines which lead to successful prosecutions. This is sometimes known as “no negative statements to be taken”.
    Someone I know was released after a solicitor discovered a Police Memo with “if the defence find documents 123, 456, and 789 we have no case” – which was available and, of course, not disclosed at the individual trial.
    The difference between “a chance of winning it” and it having any basis in justice is entirely different.
    I’m surprised you think prosecuting solely using evidence where the victim is very confused, making it up or mad is appropriate behaviour (all three would apply to Stretton). I can only conclude you are a Police Officer.

    Reply
  14. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “If you seriously believe the Police “collect all evidence” (and disclose it) you live with the fairies. “
    Hmm, don’t think so. You sound like a conspiracy theory nutter who believes the State is out to get him…
    …but also believes the evil minions of the Empire are incompetent enough to leave the incriminating evidence in a file for the heroic defence soliciter to find it!
    “I can only conclude you are a Police Officer.”
    And that clinches it!
    No, I’m not, but it never crossed your mind that anyone other than a police officer would disagree, did it?
    Tell me, do you worry about Black Helicopters too?

    Reply
  15. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    No, I’ve actually *seen* it Julia. It’s not just fantasy. If you read the above post you’d see an example of a Police internal memo which was hiding information to jail a man when they knew they had no case.
    It’s surprising I agree that this document should have been left there at all.
    It was found because the solicitor in question was left with all the paperwork, and went through it very systematically. Still, it exists, the unfortunate man was released and the Police Officers received a reprimand of some sort.
    I’m disappointed that anyone without a vested interest would view the evidence of the mentally unstable as gospel truth, but apparently you do.
    Our Police “Service” is just desperate for convictions. The above case isn’t in the public domain (I don’t know why), but if you want the ultimate in absolutely desperate prosecutions with zero evidence, I suggest you look up the Mitchelhill case.
    This is unique, as far as I know. The supposed victim was asked ten times to say that Mitchelhill assaulted her and refused to do so repeatedly. She then volunteered to appear as a defence witness.

    Reply
  16. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “…the unfortunate man was released and the Police Officers received a reprimand of some sort.”
    So, the system work; an injustice was uncovered, the guilty party punished and you remain alive to tell the tale. Some big conspiracy! Did it ever occur to you that this case, and the other one you mention, are just a few bad apples and not a systemic failure.
    Or do you immediately jump to the conclusion that this goes on in every single case & the others just don’t get found out?
    “I’m disappointed that anyone without a vested interest would view the evidence of the mentally unstable as gospel truth, but apparently you do.”
    Just who exactly is the ‘mentally unstable’ here…?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to PaulCancel reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading