theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Where is the out cry by society for the loss of this lady


Where is the out cry by society for the loss of this lady

Author
Message
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 379, Visits: 627
Hi
We have all read recently about the response by society and politicians for the treatment a "celebrity" received by the media.
I read the article linked below and asked myself "
 so where is the response and outrage by society and the media for this unfortunate lady by the politicians and the justice system they impose or is it because she is an offender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51620770


Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Edited
6 Months Ago by JASB
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 139, Visits: 651
JASB - 25 Feb 20 1:25 PM
Hi
We have all read recently about the response by society and politicians for the treatment a "celebrity" received by the media.
I read the article linked below and asked myself "
 so where is the response and outrage by society and the media for this unfortunate lady by the politicians and the justice system they impose or is it because she is an offender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51620770
It's hard to avoid a conclusion that Caroline Flack's situation was treated differently to that of other offenders awaiting prosecution, in the papers at least, because of the nature of her offence. Her victim didn't want to press charges, but that is quite common and wouldn't stop the CPS from acting 'in the public interest'. In various tabloids, his injuries are described as "just a scratch" - a textbook example of minimisation and denial, that other offenders would be pilloried for, if they attempted it. Domestic violence is still viewed by many tabloid readers as a private, family matter and not an area where the law should interfere. That view was broadly reflected in the newspaper coverage.

The mental health effects of being prosecuted were presented by the press as being the justification for not acting against her, yet in most other cases, the offender would be blamed for bringing that mental anguish on themselves, by virtue of their offending. Following Operation Ore, 38 people in the UK, committed suicide after being charged with indecent image offences and another 24 took their own lives following Operation Notarise. No sympathy for their emotional suffering was expressed in the media.

So why are some offenders considered so dangerous that will always be at risk of further offending? It's partly about public fear of certain types of offender. Violent and sexual offenders are always singled out because of that, but many of those on IPP are there because of their untreatable mental health or behavioural problems.

This tragic case was a lady suffering from BPD and we know our jails are stuffed full of people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. Everyone on an IPP is reviewed regularly, at 6 monthly intervals, to see if they are still dangerous (contrast that with the SOR where a review is only allowed after 15 years!). Nevertheless, if they haven't responded to the available treatment, they won't be let out.

In the public view, the reason why someone is in jail matters less than the fact that they are in jail. Once a jury declares someone guilty, the condemnation is universal and the reasons why they offended; their mental health, their adverse childhood experiences etc, are all swept away in the rush to punish and to avenge the victims. The individual then ceases to exist and only their offence remains. It can define that person's identity forevermore, particularly if society will not allow them to be rehabilitated. That could mean a lifetime in jail on an IPP, or a lifetime on the SOR. From a public consciousnes point of view, that life sentence then gives official confirmation to the view that the person can never change, can never be forgiven for what they did and therefore they will never be deserving of understanding or sympathy. 



JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 379, Visits: 627
punter99 - 27 Feb 20 10:20 AM
JASB - 25 Feb 20 1:25 PM
Hi
We have all read recently about the response by society and politicians for the treatment a "celebrity" received by the media.
I read the article linked below and asked myself "
 so where is the response and outrage by society and the media for this unfortunate lady by the politicians and the justice system they impose or is it because she is an offender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51620770
It's hard to avoid a conclusion that Caroline Flack's situation was treated differently to that of other offenders awaiting prosecution, in the papers at least, because of the nature of her offence. Her victim didn't want to press charges, but that is quite common and wouldn't stop the CPS from acting 'in the public interest'. In various tabloids, his injuries are described as "just a scratch" - a textbook example of minimisation and denial, that other offenders would be pilloried for, if they attempted it. Domestic violence is still viewed by many tabloid readers as a private, family matter and not an area where the law should interfere. That view was broadly reflected in the newspaper coverage.

The mental health effects of being prosecuted were presented by the press as being the justification for not acting against her, yet in most other cases, the offender would be blamed for bringing that mental anguish on themselves, by virtue of their offending. Following Operation Ore, 38 people in the UK, committed suicide after being charged with indecent image offences and another 24 took their own lives following Operation Notarise. No sympathy for their emotional suffering was expressed in the media.

So why are some offenders considered so dangerous that will always be at risk of further offending? It's partly about public fear of certain types of offender. Violent and sexual offenders are always singled out because of that, but many of those on IPP are there because of their untreatable mental health or behavioural problems.

This tragic case was a lady suffering from BPD and we know our jails are stuffed full of people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. Everyone on an IPP is reviewed regularly, at 6 monthly intervals, to see if they are still dangerous (contrast that with the SOR where a review is only allowed after 15 years!). Nevertheless, if they haven't responded to the available treatment, they won't be let out.

In the public view, the reason why someone is in jail matters less than the fact that they are in jail. Once a jury declares someone guilty, the condemnation is universal and the reasons why they offended; their mental health, their adverse childhood experiences etc, are all swept away in the rush to punish and to avenge the victims. The individual then ceases to exist and only their offence remains. It can define that person's identity forevermore, particularly if society will not allow them to be rehabilitated. That could mean a lifetime in jail on an IPP, or a lifetime on the SOR. From a public consciousnes point of view, that life sentence then gives official confirmation to the view that the person can never change, can never be forgiven for what they did and therefore they will never be deserving of understanding or sympathy. 



Hi
Thank you for your words which; in my opinion, will have empathy from most readers due to their own personal experiences.

At my age my emotional development gained its understanding from a social environment that believed males should just "shrug" traumatic events off and females were "disbelieved". The male held the responsibility for nearly all family matters without questions.

This development was further hindered by the lack of mental support through my years in the military and seeing what humans can do to each other. Though comrades appeared to have the personal psychiatric maturity to compute these events. It was only years later and post my offence, I was able to understand that I had not and hide behind a "charade of happiness" 

I suppose one point I am "thinking out loud about", is my concerns on how modern society, in its drive to demonstrate it has matured from its earlier beliefs: I mentioned above, is attempting to distance itself from accepting that they did hold them. To me, this lack of acceptance of the past has the consequence of also not accepting that; those previously held and in some still held beliefs, impact on some individuals to an extent that possibly contributed to their committing offences.

I would also suggest that "nature" itself is not perfect and unfortunately some suffer from neurological impairment from birth or later in life from injury. Again the lack of compassion and understanding of these factors from what we call "normal" humans can and does alienate individuals from society.

I am not saying all offenders have mental issues but that the insufficient or lack of "development" of someone of any age has consequences.

I think most of the readers of my other articles will understand my offence was based on prostitution. I acknowledge my participation was immoral and possibly selfish, but it was also recognised there was no violence, predatory or grooming actions and I will leave it at that. What I do now know is that my use of these ladies did not derive from a sexual desire. Please do not think of me as being naive and so not fully understanding the falseness of this type of "relationship", but more one of my wanting to be able to be in the presence of a female in a non-chastising, non-expectant and so committal free and so unpressurised environment. I am not saying sex did not happen as at times it did. However do not dismiss the power of communication between two "injured" personalities: though I never considered mine to be the greater. I have and always will hold the majority of these ladies with great respect but I also appreciate that I was hiding away from the realities of human behaviour.

When reading this do not think of my being in denial of the impact of my offence but one of wishing to take the opportunity to open up about my own mental concerns and show that they are not always visible to others. This is also one of my reasons for starting this topic on two unfortunate ladies, seen differently by the public, but both with one commonality, mental issues.


I will leave you with this link I recently found.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/a534c571-035c-4423-9dd9-33c8d425f5f3


Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)Supreme Being (2.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 139, Visits: 651
JASB - 28 Feb 20 2:16 PM
punter99 - 27 Feb 20 10:20 AM
JASB - 25 Feb 20 1:25 PM
Hi
We have all read recently about the response by society and politicians for the treatment a "celebrity" received by the media.
I read the article linked below and asked myself "
 so where is the response and outrage by society and the media for this unfortunate lady by the politicians and the justice system they impose or is it because she is an offender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51620770
It's hard to avoid a conclusion that Caroline Flack's situation was treated differently to that of other offenders awaiting prosecution, in the papers at least, because of the nature of her offence. Her victim didn't want to press charges, but that is quite common and wouldn't stop the CPS from acting 'in the public interest'. In various tabloids, his injuries are described as "just a scratch" - a textbook example of minimisation and denial, that other offenders would be pilloried for, if they attempted it. Domestic violence is still viewed by many tabloid readers as a private, family matter and not an area where the law should interfere. That view was broadly reflected in the newspaper coverage.

The mental health effects of being prosecuted were presented by the press as being the justification for not acting against her, yet in most other cases, the offender would be blamed for bringing that mental anguish on themselves, by virtue of their offending. Following Operation Ore, 38 people in the UK, committed suicide after being charged with indecent image offences and another 24 took their own lives following Operation Notarise. No sympathy for their emotional suffering was expressed in the media.

So why are some offenders considered so dangerous that will always be at risk of further offending? It's partly about public fear of certain types of offender. Violent and sexual offenders are always singled out because of that, but many of those on IPP are there because of their untreatable mental health or behavioural problems.

This tragic case was a lady suffering from BPD and we know our jails are stuffed full of people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. Everyone on an IPP is reviewed regularly, at 6 monthly intervals, to see if they are still dangerous (contrast that with the SOR where a review is only allowed after 15 years!). Nevertheless, if they haven't responded to the available treatment, they won't be let out.

In the public view, the reason why someone is in jail matters less than the fact that they are in jail. Once a jury declares someone guilty, the condemnation is universal and the reasons why they offended; their mental health, their adverse childhood experiences etc, are all swept away in the rush to punish and to avenge the victims. The individual then ceases to exist and only their offence remains. It can define that person's identity forevermore, particularly if society will not allow them to be rehabilitated. That could mean a lifetime in jail on an IPP, or a lifetime on the SOR. From a public consciousnes point of view, that life sentence then gives official confirmation to the view that the person can never change, can never be forgiven for what they did and therefore they will never be deserving of understanding or sympathy. 



Hi
Thank you for your words which; in my opinion, will have empathy from most readers due to their own personal experiences.

At my age my emotional development gained its understanding from a social environment that believed males should just "shrug" traumatic events off and females were "disbelieved". The male held the responsibility for nearly all family matters without questions.

This development was further hindered by the lack of mental support through my years in the military and seeing what humans can do to each other. Though comrades appeared to have the personal psychiatric maturity to compute these events. It was only years later and post my offence, I was able to understand that I had not and hide behind a "charade of happiness" 

I suppose one point I am "thinking out loud about", is my concerns on how modern society, in its drive to demonstrate it has matured from its earlier beliefs: I mentioned above, is attempting to distance itself from accepting that they did hold them. To me, this lack of acceptance of the past has the consequence of also not accepting that; those previously held and in some still held beliefs, impact on some individuals to an extent that possibly contributed to their committing offences.

I would also suggest that "nature" itself is not perfect and unfortunately some suffer from neurological impairment from birth or later in life from injury. Again the lack of compassion and understanding of these factors from what we call "normal" humans can and does alienate individuals from society.

I am not saying all offenders have mental issues but that the insufficient or lack of "development" of someone of any age has consequences.

I think most of the readers of my other articles will understand my offence was based on prostitution. I acknowledge my participation was immoral and possibly selfish, but it was also recognised there was no violence, predatory or grooming actions and I will leave it at that. What I do now know is that my use of these ladies did not derive from a sexual desire. Please do not think of me as being naive and so not fully understanding the falseness of this type of "relationship", but more one of my wanting to be able to be in the presence of a female in a non-chastising, non-expectant and so committal free and so unpressurised environment. I am not saying sex did not happen as at times it did. However do not dismiss the power of communication between two "injured" personalities: though I never considered mine to be the greater. I have and always will hold the majority of these ladies with great respect but I also appreciate that I was hiding away from the realities of human behaviour.

When reading this do not think of my being in denial of the impact of my offence but one of wishing to take the opportunity to open up about my own mental concerns and show that they are not always visible to others. This is also one of my reasons for starting this topic on two unfortunate ladies, seen differently by the public, but both with one commonality, mental issues.


I will leave you with this link I recently found.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/a534c571-035c-4423-9dd9-33c8d425f5f3

Anyone who saw the C4 program 'Crime & Punishment' recently, will know the political intentions of IPP sentences were always that it was intended for a very small minority. Committed, career criminals were the original focus, not the mentally ill. Original estimates were that just 800 people would receive one. In fact, more than 8,000 of these sentences were handed down and the then Home Secretary now blames the judges for misinterpreting the legislation and applying it too rigorously. Likewise, I doubt that when the SOR was brought in, they ever envisaged that there would be nearly 60,000 on it, by 2020. Unlike IPP though, the SOR remains in place and the numbers subjected to it, continue to rise.

As a matter of interest, Stephen Merchant (the Office co-creator) is currently filming a comedy drama called 'The Offenders' which focuses on 7 diverse people brought together on a Community Payback scheme. The purpose of the program, apart from entertainment, is to explore what things in their past brought them to that place. It will be interesting to see what types of offence are included. Somehow I doubt that anyone with an SO will be featured, as their type of offending cannot ever be justified...but, we'll see.

GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search