A few weeks before Christmas in 2014 Wrightson was made to plead for her life as the girls forcibly restrained her, only stopping the assault to pose for pictures, which the younger girl – said to be obsessed with her phone – sent to friends on Snapchat with the caption “Nah xx”. They were caught on CCTV leaving Wrightson’s home at around 11pm and returning at 2am, when they continued to torture her for another two hours. They finally left the house at 4am and even called police to give them a lift home using them as a “taxi service”; again they took a picture and shared it on Snapchat.Excuse me? "Called the police to give them a lift home"? Needless to say, the girls were "in care" (which, in the circumstances, seems a darkly ironic phrase). The BBC News site provided more details:
...once the girls "decided to bring their activities to an end" at about 04:00 GMT, the younger girl texted her carer to come and get her. However, when she got no response, she phoned the police, he said.
Jurors were told when their police "taxi" did not come quick enough they called again, saying it was "freezing".
Once inside the police van, they were described as laughing and joking and "seemed to be in high spirits".The wretched little beasts - who tried to blame each other for the crime during the trial and failed to show any remorse whatsoever - were yesterday sentenced to a minimum of fifteen years, leaving behind a host of unanswered questions: Why were they in care in the first place? Who was the "carer" who failed to answer their call requesting a lift "home"? Where was "home"? How was a drink-sodden wreck like Ms. Wrightson able to afford rent and to pay for alcohol and cigarettes, not only for herself, but - apparently - for a number of local teenagers into the bargain? Are the police in the habit of providing transport for any young person who phones them in the middle of the night, or is this chauffeur service only available to those who are already a burden on the state? Why did the police not instigate an immediate investigation to discover why two young girls - who must have smelled of drink, given that they were merrily swigging cider while torturing their victim - were roaming the streets unsupervised at four in the morning? If the children of sober, middle-class taxpayers were routinely allowed to behave in this fashion, wouldn't the authorities haul them over the coals for failing in their duty as parents - and doesn't the same rule apply to those for whom the state is acting in loco parentis? Given that the two killers were wandering about for several hours drinking and smoking and listening to loud pop music with other children in the early hours of the morning, are we to assume that Cleveland Police are too busy providing a taxpayer-funded Uber -style service to members of the underclass to actually bother, you know, patrolling the town they're paid to guard?
The authorities could, of course, help us to understand how this whole depressing, sordid, tragic mess came about by giving us all the relevant background information. But they're unwilling to enlighten us - we're not even allowed to know the names of the two killers:
[Mr. Justice] Globe rejected a challenge by the press to lift an order that gives the two girls anonymity. The order was challenged by Times Newspapers, Daily Mail-owner Associated News, and Newsgroup, citing public interest due to the grave nature of the crime. However, objections were raised by Hartlepool borough council and Cleveland police over the welfare of the teenagers and the possibility of reprisals against their families.Two children under the care of Hartlepool Borough Council were so poorly supervised that they were able to carry out a horrific crime in the middle of the night and were then driven away from the murder scene by the police - who apparently failed to spot that they were, according to one witness, "covered in blood" - and now, when the authorities would appear to have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty on a number of levels, the welfare of the murderers and their families is their overriding concern? Or is it just a fig-leaf to hide their well-deserved embarrassment?
I'll admit to having little idea how the state spends our taxes to "care for" the underclass (I was going to write "control the underclass", but that seems way beyond them). I've only ever visited one home for troubled teenagers (in Tunbridge Wells, believe it or not). This was back in the early '80s. It was a ghastly experience, especially as it was obvious that the spectacularly wet, chaotic, chummy, laissez-faire regime presided over by the leftie who was showing me around was the exact opposite of what the kids needed - let's face it, you have to be some kind of ideologically-driven idiot to believe that allowing slovenliness, temper tantrums, profanity and a lack of respect for authority will help turn children with severe behavioural and emotional problems into responsible, confident adults. From the dribble of information we receive - usually via trials - it seems that the anything-goes approach exemplified by the home I was taken round has since become the norm. Despite practically every British TV crime drama these days trying to convince us that all children's homes used to be run by dementedly-strict, sexually-abusive sadists (and I expect some were) it's not clear that the current "anything goes" approach is serving the kids - or society - any better.
Anyway, I have to go down the shops, but I can't be bothered to walk all that way. I know - I'll call the police!
Reading about this atrocity and about the little girl who was systematically beaten to death by her "parents" in Derby [they are being sentenced to-day] I suspect both cases -putting the horror aside if possible - will take their well-worn, weary course. As everybody involved seemed to be or had been in care or under some sort of supervision by the social services [like Victoria Climbie in 2000 and Peter Connelly in 2007] there will probably be
ReplyDelete1. A serious Case Review. Lots of meetings, lots of files, lots of jargon-laden nonsense.
2. A scapegoat [s] inside both Hartlepool and Derbyshire County Council will be identified and fired.
3. Scapegoat [s] will be re-instated by a tribunal and compensated for unfair dismissal [in the Baby P case Haringay paid Sharon Shoesmith a reputed £680,000 and a legal bill of £200,000]
4. The police will remain very quiet ["nothing to do with us"].
5. The psychopaths will soon be amongst us again. After being sentenced in 2007 Peter Connelly's mother [Tracey Connolley] and one accomplice [Jason Owen] were released respectively in 2013 and 2011. They have both been given new identities and are living in accommodation funded by the taxpayer. Her partner, Stephen Barker, is not due for release until 2019 because he was also convicted of raping a 2-year old boy]. The aunt of Victoria Climbie was sentenced to 22-years and as a French citizen was transferred to the French jail system [why?]; her partner is still locked up in the UK [I think]. And so it will go on....
In the Spectator of 2nd April 2016 Fraser Nelson wrote about the return of eugenics and what advances have been made in that subject. Here are two brief excerpts for those who have not read it:
"Extrapolations are now made about how far the quality of human stock worldwide has been eroded by health care and welfare."
"When it comes to screening out personality flaws such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence...you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children." [The latter is a quote from Julian Savulescu , editor of "The Journal of Medical Ethics".]
I thought that humanity had once again reached the bottom of the barrel when ISIL burnt alive the Jordanian fight pilot in a steel cage, but apparently we can still match them here at home.