I have always believed that the law in this country is a horse’s arse, and you can trawl through some of my previous posts to see why. Some of the contradictions are just so inexplicable that they really do defy belief – and sometimes even I find myself scratching my head just to make absolutely sure that they are not just figments of some malicious right-wing imagination.
During what was a series of utterly pointless anti-Government demonstrations in London – which saw among all the chaos a car carrying Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall attacked by screaming left-wing rabble, the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour was seen right in the thick of the action. Not content to throw rubbish bins at police cars, kick at shop windows and shout obsceneties, Gilmour also decided that he would swing around like a monkey from the Cenotaph using a union flag.
Having recovered from this mental state – fuelled by drink and illegal drugs – Charlie Gilmour was clearly embarrassed by what he had done; even so, he ended up receiving a sentence of sixteen months in prison.
Right, let me lay a few things out here. Charlie Gilmour, in spite – or perhaps because of – his cosseted upbringing and partially-completed Oxbridge education, is clearly a prize prat. Perhaps more so for claiming that he had no idea as to why the Cenotaph was a significant monument and why so many people might have taken umbrage to his drug-fuelled stupidity. But a sixteen month prison sentence? One has to wonder who is running the show here: this fool is hardly a danger to society, after all.
No, I’m not going all soft; I would have happily had this useless fop carted off into the middle of Trafalgar Square and pelted with rotten fruit, a public humiliation that would have been followed by six months of community service involving cleaning graffiti, stains and encrusted bird droppings from various momuments using a toothbrush and a small pot of lye. Simply put, a sentence that would have been commensurate with the offence. Instead, he has been thrown into the mix with real criminals and is being locked up for twenty-three hours a day – all at our expense.
But this is only the first half of the piece; to complete the picture, we head off to a world far removed from Charlie Gilmour and his fashionista rioter friends – the northern town of Carlisle and an individual by the name of Kelly Marie Langham, who left her three children in a locked baking hot car while she trapsed off for the best part of an hour. To the hospital? To save the life of somebody who had collapsed in the street? Erm, no. She desperately needed to get to… Cash Converters.
That’s right. While the three children – including an eighteen month old infant – were cooking in temperatures climbing over 40 degrees Celsius, their mother was pawning DVDs for a few pennies.
While – like Charlie Gilmour – Kelly Marie Langham is not exactly criminal of the century, one would have at least expected to have seen the children removed from her care – perhaps moreso given her addiction to amphetamines. Aha! If you add it all up, you can create a clearer picture: mother leaves children in baking hot car to pawn some DVDs so she can get money for drugs. Well, I very much doubt she was saving up for her childrens’ Christmas presents.
In doling out a twelve-month suspended sentence and six month drug rehabilitation order, the chairperson of the bench offered the following:
You are a person of good character but you have had significant problems coping with the absence of your partner, drug use and a lack of secure housing…
Something does not quite add up here. Are we to assume that lack of secure housing makes one leave one’s children in a baking hot car? Are we to suppose that this is something that all single parents are somehow expected to do? Are we to believe that a drug addict is a “person of good character”?
What are we to believe?