Private Property Is Private Property No Matter Who It Belongs To…

There was a great deal of unwarranted hysteria on Twitter yesterday over this case:

The abuser, a church-going professional in his 50s, has requested the return from police of his computer and phone which are understood to contain family photographs taken during the eight years that he was in a relationship with the victims’ mother.The children are said to be highly distressed at the prospect of the images being returned to their stepfather, who is currently serving a nine-year jail term after being convicted last year.

There’s no need to worry, though:

Police said yesterday that the devices do not contain any indecent images and they have no grounds not to hand them back.

So this is a fuss about nothing.

No, wait. It’s not. It’s yet another case of an aggrieved victim demanding that the law bend or break to suit her:

But the family says that their return would be a breach of their right not to be subjected to “inhuman or degrading treatment” under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act.

The children have been traumatised by the attacks and will not sleep alone in their beds, said civil rights group Liberty, which has taken on the case. The older girl has a history of self-harming. “I feel like I don’t want to live any more,” she said in a witness impact statement to the court.

This family are, one presumes, not members of some small Amazonian tribe who believe photography is stealing their souls? So what is their objection?

The man has been found guilty and imprisoned for his crime, what more can the State do, within the law?

Police said the equipment was seized but not used at court as it contained no indecent images or other evidence of criminality. “In such cases, the law is very clear that the police have no option but to return the equipment to its owner in its original condition,” it said.

A police spokesman said “We sympathise with the personal reasons for the request being made and recognise we are in a difficult position that may seem contrary to public opinion. However, as the police, we must operate impartially within the law as it stands.”

So…you’ve agreed to give it back? As you are legally obligated to do?

The force has not yet returned the items pending further legal advice and attempts to reach a compromise.

What ‘compromise’? The equipment and the data on it belongs to this man without question, and should be returned. No matter the ‘upset’ it might cause.

Or are all our laws now to be based on who has the most hurt feelings?

8 comments for “Private Property Is Private Property No Matter Who It Belongs To…

  1. Furor Teutonicus
    April 12, 2014 at 10:19 am

    So, it is now out of Police hands and belongs in the civil court.

    Easy, hand it over to the court baliffs, and they keep it until a decision is made as to potential damages, or otherwise.

    As I see it, the police, at this point have no more responsibility in the matter.

    • April 13, 2014 at 7:27 am

      Sadly, the police commissioner seems to think otherwise:

      “He told the Echo: “It’s totally and utterly wrong that the family should have been put in this position – or any other victim for that matter.

      “I’ll go to court before he gets his devices back with the pictures on them.

      “We’ll fight this tooth and nail.

      “I have spoken to the police but I think they don’t have a leg to stand on as far as the law is concerned.

      “They have to give the property back.

      “This needs to be blocked legally first of all and then dealt with through a change in the law.

      “It’s a gaping legal loophole that must be closed.””

      Was that what was anticipated when this post was created? I think not.

      • Furor Teutonicus
        April 14, 2014 at 10:40 am

        Some one, a LOT of someones are not doing their jobs.

        Where is the “media” outcry on this commissioners comments?

        Where are the politicians and the judges telling him to go screw himself “it is not for the police to make law, but enforce the law as it is.”?

        Where are the screaming mob that got the “Sus” laws changed?

        They can not ALL be dead. Found themselves a nice little harbour whereby they do not want to, or are TERRIFIED of “rocking the boat?”

        Sell out bastards.

  2. April 13, 2014 at 3:13 am

    I thought the same thing. He might be a detestable individual but he’s been imprisoned for the crimes he committed. Since there are no crimes on his computer the police are right to state that they have to hand it back intact.

    It reminds me of the outcry when the Righteous found out about Gary Glitter getting royalties from the playing of his music. Another detestable individual but his music wasn’t criminal.

    Well, ‘D’you wanna be in my gang’ was borderline.

    Either we have specific punishments for specific crimes or we just take every offender out the back and shoot them.

    The scary part is, an awful lot of people would support that.

    • April 13, 2014 at 7:29 am

      Read the comments in that article in the ‘Bournemouth Echo’. There’s more of them than you’d think!

    • April 13, 2014 at 7:32 am

      Some are just breathtaking:

      “glendower2909 says…

      Come on Plod. You are always trying to get the public on side. So lose the laptop. Not hard.

      Who’s gonna moan.”

      Yes, knowingly break the law & destroy private property on the instigation of a mob. That’ll make people trust the police again!

      There just aren’t enough facepalms in the world! 🙁

  3. April 13, 2014 at 5:24 am

    Odd, innit, with people’s property and accusations of crime. It never seems to worry ‘victims’ when it is considered in a divorce case. The ‘putative’ victim (mostly woman it turns out) are not just happy to have half or more of whatever is going, but demand it, regardless of how it was obtained or for what purpose. Even a chap’s golf clubs aren’t safe and just look at the ‘getting his rocks off’ uses he puts them to!!

    • April 13, 2014 at 7:32 am


Comments are closed.