Who am I?

An individual, of no great importance, who is unable to see the natural world as a place for competition. I catch fish, watch birds, derive immense pleasure from simply looking at butterflies, moths, bumble-bees, etc - without the need for rules! I am Dylan and this is my blog - if my opinions offend? Don't bother logging on again - simple!


Friday 7 August 2015

What if ?

On 26th June 2015, I made a post which contained reference to a crime. For the time being let's just assume that I'm in the business of writing plots for the T/V soaps. I've got a character who's a proper scum bag! In trouble with the law, and out on bail, awaiting trial for some misdemeanour, or other!
The scene starts with this guy (it has to be a bloke!) causing trouble in the local shopping mall - the constabulary get involved and "caution?" the individual before ushering him on his way. Some time later, that same day, the police are once again called to deal with this individual - who is now kicking off outside his (ex) girlfriends house! Same scenario - a caution and on your way! Now this is where the plot moves from every day to unbelievable (much like East Enders - never been in an East End Pub and not heard a swear word!) This character is so screwed up that he's aware of an elderly lady, living alone, and has planned to break into her home. He doesn't do this for any other reason than to rob her? Oh, no - he breaks in to beat and rape her - some soap plots just beggar belief,  except this isn't a soap opera - it happened! The individual was arrested within 24 hours - DNA evidence and a guilty plea never in doubt. Then the "human rights (we, the UK tax payers, pay their huge fees) legal bods" get involved and suggest that this guy (and I use the term very loosely) enter a guilty plea, but claim insanity!
You what? He wasn't insane when the police intercepted him twice, on the very same day, he wasn't insane when he'd previously been in court, and allowed out on bail. What are the UK tax payers funding a legal system for when such depraved and abhorrent individuals are given a defence at our expense? I'd pull the trigger myself, and consider it a service to the community, to rid the gene pool of such an individual. But no, we all have ensure that his human rights aren't infringed, just like he considered his victim, and pay to keep him locked up in some safe environment where he can avoid the wrath of civilised society.
I know what I think, but I will ask the question - "What if that had been your mum?" Human rights - I'd swing first. Now let me point out, like all good soaps do - that any similarity between this post and real life is purely coincidental - so I am in no way prejudicing a legal case, perish the thought!


  1. Dylan - what was the title of your last post "Time to lighten up" - calm down old mate.
    Unfortunately the scenario that you have just painted above, is pretty much the norm these days, so much so that I read in the papers this week that some police forces won't be attending burglaries and other "minor" offences anymore. It's also becoming very clear that the only people that don't have "rights" these days are us normal, law-abiding citizens. Lets face it, even illegal immigrants now are being put up in hotels and given £35 a week spending money.

    1. Derek, you are absolutely right. However, unlike reading a newspaper report, this whole unsavoury affair has affected my neighbour. It was her 88 year old mother who was the victim and I have witnessed, first hand, the trauma and distress that followed this abhorrent crime. So whilst I have to agree that this type of crime is no longer exceptional - it doesn't make it acceptable because it hasn't effected you directly. It had been bugging me for nearly six weeks - I've said what I feel needed saying, now I'll attempt to resume normal service? Thanks for your input - it was most welcome. Dyl

  2. Dylan,
    Well obviously I wasn't aware of how close to home your example was and would almost certainly of re-acted in the way that you did, sorry if I got things a tad wrong.