JOURNALISM, much of which is now Left-wing lobbying by other means, swung into action after Wayne Couzens was sentenced to a whole life tariff for the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard.
Sky News, which rivals the BBC for its promulgation of Left-liberal dogma, immediately hijacked the appalling case to start talking about domestic violence and more feminist policies in the police.
Not long after news of the sentencing broke, a Sky News presenter, Jayne Secker, asked a former police officer whether more women in the police were needed. It beggars belief that this suggestion was really meant as a serious antidote to a sexual maniac committing crime. Of course it wasn’t: it was just another way to introduce identity politics into a high-profile news story. Soon the discussion moved to domestic violence, though the question of whether Couzens was a wife-beater was not raised. Neither was the question, does the common and horrible crime of domestic violence lead to the rare crime of abduction, rape and murder? Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, reportedly had a happy and stable home life; at any rate his wife visited him in prison for many years.
Then came the inevitable suggestion that the police were ‘institutionally sexist’. The Left remember how much traction they gained from the fallout of the Stephen Lawrence murder. The Macpherson report deemed the police ‘institutionally racist’. Violent crime, particularly among minorities, has ever after risen as the police tip-toe around areas where they might be accused of racism, but the Left merely look the other way and imagine the report as a triumph of ‘social justice’.
It is never long before such debates get down to talk about wolf-whistling and ‘toxic masculinity’ – the question of whether coarse and uncivilised behaviour leads to abduction, murder and rape is not raised. Crime statistics would be very different if it did. If the law instructs police to arrest a man for wolf-whistling, will it stop the rare and terrible crime of abduction, rape and murder? Of course not, but we will be one step closer to the sort of Left-wing totalitarianism that many wacko journalists and lawyers dream of, and that is the real agenda.
Common sense died years ago in Left-wing media circles and any criminal case, no matter how upsetting or vile, is fair game to them.
The entire Everard case has opened a seam of elite stupidity, hypocrisy and posturing. Sir Keir Starmer, who currently wears the cardboard crown of the Labour Party, jumped on the bandwagon by demanding more laws to protect women. Laws that homicidal maniacs such as Couzens will simply break, along with all the existing laws he broke on that dreadful night he kidnapped Sarah Everard.
Dame Vera Baird, the victims’ commissioner, told the Guardian that violence against women and girls should be made ‘a strategic policing requirement to give the issue central direction and extra resources’. Dame Vera added: ‘Without that it will just muddle on, being ignored as if it were a low-level crime.’
Isn’t it interesting that such a person admits without reproving comment that low-level crime is being ignored?
There is a lot of such demands being made and there will be more to come. Where were all these people and their demands and indignation when the story broke about the Rotherham sex gangs?
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) ruled that police in Rotherham ignored the sexual abuse of women by mainly Pakistani men to avoid accusations of racism. As the Times reported last January, ‘a chief inspector told a missing child’s distraught father that the town “would erupt” if it was known that Asian men were routinely having sex with under-age white girls.’
Did this case and many others like it lead to ‘the national conversation’ we are having now about Couzens’s monstrous crime? If it did, I don’t remember it. The Left-liberal elite were not interested.
Ditto the epidemic of gang and knife crime across Britain in general and London in particular. For many years there has been an annual obscenely large death toll of young people that is reported and forgotten. The Left-wing media elite never call for more robust policing or harsher deterrents on those occasions. Instead they parrot the completely ineffectual prescriptions offered by neo-Marxism: a little bleating about ‘poverty’, more public spending on ‘youth services’ and a weakening of drug laws.
This is revolting hypocrisy and reveals the sinister and cold-blooded thinking that identity politics leads to: the outrage over murder is subject to its victim’s status in the pecking order of Left-liberalism and/or the ‘optics’, i.e. how the case will look to the public and whether it will advance or frustrate the elites’ agenda.
So, what could have stopped Couzens? It is perfectly true that the police will have to answer the basic question of why an officer being investigated for indecent exposure was allowed to carry on in his post. But the idea that being suspended or sacked would have stopped Couzens going out and posing as a police officer is highly questionable, perhaps absurd. After all, he had already pretended to be an undercover officer: it has to be faced that psychopaths and sex maniacs have a tendency to ignore laws.
It may be the case that a society less saturated with disrespect, violence and extreme pornography may see less in the way of sex crimes. Official figures suggest this. As our society and standards of civilised behaviour frays, offences rise. Sexual assaults, for example, have tripled in recent years.
But any rationalising or curtailing of the trend towards radically selfish social/sexual behaviour – in which women and young people are so often the losers – tends to be deemed ‘bourgeois’ or ‘repressive’ by Left-wing dogma.
It may also be the case that the reintroduction of the death penalty, if only theoretically, for heinous crimes of undisputable guilt, might result in the atmosphere of exceptional gravity and moral seriousness that should accompany a murder charge: it might cause some potential killers to stay the lethal blow. Again, the data suggests this: a 174 per cent increase in homicide in the 35 years between the suspension of the death penalty in 1965 and 2000, compared with an 8 per cent rise in the 35 years before suspension.
Of course, it is pointless to discuss the reintroduction of the death penalty in Britain as, like reform of the health service, the subject has been placed beyond rational discussion – by the Left-wing elite.
Ultimately, troubling and depressing as it is, the only certain thing that could have stopped Couzens’s vile and shocking crime was Couzens himself. The Left’s politicking in the face of evil is shameful and pathetic.