BS: Huntley Guilty

Subject: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 08:13 AM

Breaking news on the Soham murder trial here..

Hopefully Holly and Jessica's parents can at least find closure and some measure of peace.

As I read on it made me wonder how, once again, anotherone slipped through the net. Sad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Sweetfia
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 08:36 AM

Yes, thank god the bastard's been found guilty!

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 08:42 AM

The catalogue of errors and incompetence discovered about the vetting process in Humberside beggars belief! However, we can all rest easy in the knowledge that the Force has undoubtedly met its targets re-the fining of speeding motorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: alanabit
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:23 AM

Point taken Harvey, but statistics show that our children are far more likely to be killed by speeding motorists than they are by perverts. Unfortunately there is no totally effective protection against either.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:39 AM

Thank god he will be in prison for a long time. Hopefully in this case Life will mean Life. What about the vedict on Maxine Carr???

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 10:22 AM

She's got 3 1/2 years for "conspiring to pervert the course of justice".

Which seems excessive to me, sinc etherre's no efvidence whatsoever linking her to the deaths of the children, or indicating that she covered up for her partner after she'd hesard anuything to suggest he might have been lying to her.

I suspect that a lot of people in a situation where someone they trusted needed an alibi to cover them against something they were sure they hadn't done would be likely to have gone along with providing it.

She might well have been able to rationalise it, telling herself that she were actually helping to stop the police wasting time on following up a false trail. And of course there have been a number of cases where innocent people have been imprisoned for many years, where a false alibi might actually have served to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Foolish but not wicked. I'd have thought "time served" might have been nore appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 10:23 AM

She's got 3 1/2 years for "conspiring to pervert the course of justice".

Which seems excessive to me, since there's no evidence whatsoever linking her to the deaths of the children, or indicating that she covered up for her partner after she'd heard anything to suggest he might have been lying to her.

I suspect that a lot of people in a situation where someone they trusted needed an alibi to cover them against something they were sure they hadn't done would be likely to have gone along with providing it.

She might well have been able to rationalise it, telling herself that she were actually helping to stop the police wasting time on following up a false trail. And of course there have been a number of cases where innocent people have been imprisoned for many years, where a false alibi might actually have served to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Foolish but not wicked. I'd have thought "time served" might have been more appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 11:44 AM

Still if she was released immediately, she would probable have to be provided with a new identity for her own safety. Presumably as she's been in custody for a year and a quarter, she will probably be released in less than two years, when things have had a chance to quieten down somewhat.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 01:59 PM

Had she not given the alibi, it may have resulted in Huntley being arrested sooner and the family's may have been spared a little of their pain but it would not have saved the children as they were aleady dead. So perhaps the sentence may be a little harsh but she did lie and who knows what the truth was or what she really knew. Perhaps this will be established before she is released?

One can only hope that the vetting system will be urgently improved as a result of this case, as I agree that it was the failure of the vetting system that directly led to these children's terrible fate.

When you think that one of the children was a witness to the death of her friend before being killed herself, you realise how terrified they must have been. A terror that Huntley seems unable to understand.

It was strange but nice to hear the journalists clapping the families at the press conference - as it seemed to be genuinely expressed respect. Hopefully they can now be left alone.

This may sound more than a little insesitive but given the publicity that Vodephone have received every time that photo of the girls in their Man Utd shirts was shown - perhaps they could find a way of repaying this?

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 02:29 PM

"Who knows" - but the principle of "innocent until proved guilty" should mean that, unless there is compelling evidence to indicate that she knew, or believed, that Huntley was lying when he said that the girls had been unharmed when he last saw them walking away, ot is necessary to accept that she did not know, and did not believe .

From what I've read of the trial there was no such evidence, and I don't think there was any real suggestion by the prosecution to that effect.

Her offence was that she lied, and the reason she gave for that appear convincing. Her punishment already has been pretty terrible, which is why I think "time served" would have been an appropriate penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 02:41 PM

Sorry McGrath but she new him from Humberside, provided him with an alibi on a rape charge there, went to Soham with him, got a job as a teaching assistant at the same school as him, provided him with an alibi there, - isn't some kind of pattern emerging here which seems more than coincidence and perhaps the jury and others were duped in her case. The latest news reports show that he was known to the police in Humberside the local press had reports on him. She's no angel and it might be safer for a lot of kids, not to mention her that she spend a little more time inside. They were calling her a second Myra when she was inside and perhaps she was/is.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 02:46 PM

Yes Alanabit, I accept your stricture. To expand my point..The harrassing of motorists with cameras in places where they are obviously put to raise revenue rather than save lives is a scandal. As a regular traveller to gigs I see this more and more. The police are given revenue targets to reach and the man hours and technology necessary to reach these targets means other things go by the board. In this case what's gone by the board should be the sole raison d'etre of the police force, and two girls have died simply because of their incompetence.More and more the police are undertaking tasks that take them further and further from their point of origin. People want protection of life and property and the arresting of those who threaten them as the major priority of policing, not the getting of a sixty quid fine for driving at 33 in a 30 mile zone.If needs be let's have a new force to deal with travellers and release the police to do what they should be doing every minute of the day...to use soapspeak.."catching villains"!

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Ed.
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 02:49 PM

I'd agree with McGrath on the Maxine Carr verdict: Foolish but not wicked, to which I'd add manipulated and scared.

From what I understand, she'll have to spend another month in prison (which will probably be helpful to her, in allowing feelings to die down) and then be released.

I think that the (oft maligned) British justice system has done pretty well here.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:06 PM

Ed
Only if you accept helping a child murderer groom his victims is foolish - or have you missed the main news buletins.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: alanabit
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:13 PM

Fair enough Harvey. I can't disagree with you there. In Germany, where I live, I have really learned to loathe the swine who race up and down the street which my children have to cross and I cannot use an Autobahn without having some bastard tailgating me even when I am overtaking. I must be reaching that certain age, because I have begun to get peeved about it! You have put your point in a clear perspective though.
I agree with McGrath about Maxine Carr. Essentially, this unhappy young woman loved a very bad man. She is not the first woman to suffer this misfortune and I won't be tempted to boo and jeer her simply because she was part of such a horrible tragedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Ed.
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:21 PM

Guest, Van

I don't believe that Maxine Carr helped Huntly groom his victims . Neither did (most importantly) the jury, or almost all the people who have contributed to this thread.

I've no idea why you are posting your outlandish views, but I think that you'll find that democratic justice disagrees with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:25 PM

Too many "perhapses" there, stated or implied, Van. "Perhapses" aren't enough when it comes to jail.

But the main issue is, as Harvey pointed out, what is wrong with a system where a man with so many suspicious things in his record could get a job as a school caretaker? In that context, "perhapses" carry more weight.

I think that the whole business of writing references needs a thorough reappraisal. My experience is that people are frightened and advisedly so, of writing honest references. They get written in a coded form, so if you're trying to fill a job you learn to read between the lines, which in itself can lead to unfairness and misunderstanding. If there's no mention of someone being honest this can be taken as an indication that the writer thought they were dishonest, but was too circumspect to say so. But of course it might mean have meant nothing of the kind.

I'd like to see a system where honest references would be privileged. People should have a legal right to see what has been written about them, but only when there is clear evidence of malice and distortion is a reference should there be any comeback for the writer. (And if there is evidence proving such malice or distortion the penalties should be serious.)

...................

Now for some thread drift - maybe it belongs in a new thread:

I'm not with Harvey though, when it comes to speeding and speed traps. Speed limits, in my experience, are not set too low, and they should be adhered too. In fact much of the time they are too high, especially in towns.

If people choose to break the limit, and they get fined for it, tough. If the effect of that is to raise money, that's killing two birds with one stone. We need money to spend on public services, and if motorists in a hurry feel like contributing, that seems OK ("Fine for them, fine by me".)

I'm against having some speed cameras placed preferentially in places where they can't be seen, in the hope of catching people. No, I'm in favour of all speed cameras being concealed, so that there's no point in trying to look out for them and drive slower in their vicinity.   

Actually I'd really like some kind of onboard system to identify speeders. Augmented by a siren on the roof to alert people.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: okthen
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:31 PM

I would normally apply the "benefit of doubt" but I could not accept his version of events, and it appears 11 of the jurors couldn't either, I wonder how that 12th juror feels, now that his previous record has been revealed.
I ALMOST felt sorry for him when I learned his wife of a few days ran off with his brother, and that his mother left his father to live with a (female) security guard, but not sorry enough matter, there are plenty of people who have suffered far worse and still become responsible members of society.
I hope the Home Office learn from this and that some criteria is more important than abiding by the data protection act. It is (IMO)pathetically incompetant that details of sexual offences should be withheld from other police forces when doing background checks for people working with children. These inadequacies were well known but nothing was done, I hope someone better informed than I can tell me when "criminal incompetance" applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:31 PM

The history of the couple was not made available to the jury nor the public until after the trial as this would have prejudiced the case. I still assume you have only heard the verdict not the additional reports so far broadcast. I don't pretend to be right and like you thought she was a dupe but I feel that the picture is more complete now and we can draw other conclusions. I don't think that mine are outlandish they are a reasonable assessment of the facts available. A woman lives with a man who she twice gives alibis. One time it worked the other time it didn't. The man had a history of accusations of attacking or molesting young women and girls. Its not leaping to conclusions and it ain't rocket science. You're not a plod by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dead Horse
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:33 PM

Would any of you feel so sad for poor Maxine if Huntley had gone on to kill more young innocents?
I believe the court acted correctly, tempering justice/mercy.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: s&r
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:37 PM

I can only hope that their parents may now find some small element of closure.

My admiration for the dignity and control which they have shown throughout is something which I have to express.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:59 PM

Watching the news now seems to be showing Maxine in a new light as a violent person with a serious drink problem as well as an infatuation for Huntley.

Could just be everyone coming out of the woodwork of course but even the local police seem to be of the opinion that she is not the victim she is trying to portray. I will not jump on the bandwagon but I will not be jumping to her defense either. I think we may never realy know unles she either changes her statements or does something else. By which time it will, of course, be too late.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:08 PM

Focussing on Maxine Carr is focussing on the less important issue here, it seems to me - the big one is the fact that the process of vetting people employed to work in a school went so disastrously wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:09 PM

Thread drift I'm afraid, but McGrath, I'm not defending speeding motorists. I'm attacking a system set up to make money, deflecting police from their primary job.It's the difference between the sheriff and the bounty hunter.The sheriff has a whole policing job to do, the bounty hunter has to do just one thing to get his money. We're turning the police into bounty hunters and that can't be right.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:14 PM

Maxine Carr also helped with that as well though, Kevin. While I agree with you on what is important I would not discount Carr's role in assisting Huntley to get where he was. Nor would I be so quick to jump to her defense or try to move the spotlight away from her possible complicity. Let us hear the facts and full background before any knees bgin jerking eh?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:19 PM

Given the employment situation in this country, and also given the number of people actually employable, it's not hard to see how people slip through the net.

I personally know of one infant school (5-10 yr olds)teacher, who has a conviction for assault and should not have taught anyone for 5 years after the conviction or anyone under 18 after that. However, within 6 months of his crime, he walked into another job in another town and for all I know is still employed there.

I had to explain to my 7 year old daughter what rape was today. I didn't know what it was till I was 16.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:33 PM

The thing is, I'm not that concerned about the individual failings of Maxine Carr. I am concerned about the danger to vulnerable people that is involved in the present system of vetting. Children's homes, care workers, schools...Most of the time when things go wrong, it's low profile stuff that only gets attention in the local paper.

If this horrible case can focus attention on that issue, and get things improved, that will be one positive thing coming out of it.

...............

Thread drift continues - I agree that fining motorists for speeding should not take up the time of the police. There have to be better ways of doing it. An dthen they could spend more time on chasing criminals, including those who are driving dangerously in other ways.

If there are motorists who voluntarily lay themselves open to a fine or disqualification by going over the limit, and that can pay for more hidden speed cameras, or some sort of tachometer equivalent in every car, good. And if there's money over to pay for other things, that's good too, though I'd sooner they just drove slower.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:44 PM

I did not know of her giving Huntly an earler alibi when I first posted and this does change my view.

If we make the pretty fair assumption that Huntly was resposible for the rape where Maxine Carr said she was with him the first time - he would most probably have been taken out of circulation then. He would have had a criminal conviction for rape, even with this flawed system this surely would have shown up and prevented him getting the school job. This rape victim then would have received some justice and Holly and Jessica would still be alive.

You could argue that Maxine Carr was more a cause of their death than a faulty vetting system?

Liz: That may have been hard to do but you may obtain some consolation from the fact that your daughter may be a little safer with that knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: s&r
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:56 PM

I really don't believe traffic policy and brutal murder belong in the same thread
stu

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:03 PM

I believe there was a DNS test in that case, after which the police decided not to proceed - which would seem to imply that in that case the false alibi was to cover him for a case in which he was not actually guilty. If so, that might have made her more likely to have gone along with the alibi this time.

However I still think this is a peripheral issue. Huntley did in fact have a criminal record even aside from this - and it never showed up in a way that stopped him, getting the job. How could that happen, and how often does it happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dave Wynn
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:19 PM

Should the previous convictions of a defendant be kept secret until the verdict? It is a rule that only seems to assist the recidivist.

Spot

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:22 PM

One problem with that in this case is that he doesn't appear to have had any convictions for that kind of thing, just for burglary.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: 8_Pints
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:09 PM

The more difficult question is what made Huntley into this kind of a monster in the first place?

Bob vG

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 10:25 PM

Van,

Have been hearing stuff on BBC Radio 4 all day about the trial results, previous charges/allegations concerning Huntley, etc -- but haven't heard anything about Maxine Carr providing an alibi for Huntley in Humberside -- nor about her helping him to "groom" children... what's your source of info? (Just curious.)

Cheers,

YY

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: open mike
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:34 AM

what is "vetting"
seems it should have something to do
with veterinarians...guess not/?

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:44 AM

vetting=the police checking process, that applicants for jobs working with children, the eldery, and other vulnerable groups [disabled folk/them with learning problems etc], go through.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 05:49 AM

John9 I always find it strange how serious threads seem to help you to spell and type :-)

I do feel sorry for Maxine Carr over one facet of the case. She was obviously very attached to both of the girls. It must be extremely painful for her to know that her friendship with them was probably the reason that they went round to the house in the first place and allowed Huntley to get them inside. It also seems likely that the fact that she had gone to Grimsby on her own for the weekend was responsible for Huntley's state of mind that evening. Maxine Carr cannot be blamed for any of these things, but they will be a very heavy cross for her to bear for the rest of her life.

I don't think that she is the sort of person who will be able to shrug things off easily, unlike Huntley. It is definitely very unfair indeed to compare her in any way with the late Myra Hindley as I have heard people do.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Arnie
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 07:15 AM

I was amazed to learn that the jury returned a majority verdict on Huntley, 11-1. That means that one juror actually did not believe that the bastard was guilty of murder. That juror must be extremely guillible to be taken in by Huntley's explanation that he killed the girls by accident!

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: GUEST,T-boy
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 08:19 AM

The police are blaming the Data Protection Act, and I reckon they've got a point.

You can't expect to be protected from a prying State unless it also gives protection to murderers, rapists etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: GUEST,T-boy
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 08:20 AM

... And having done jury service, I can tell you it's quite hard to find anybody guilty of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 08:24 AM

In England & Wales (don't know about Scotland), anyone who is employed to work with children has to have a police check. This is to make sure they have no convictions or reports against them to indicate they are unsuitable. Until the check is done, they are not allowed to be left alone with children. I expect the checks will become much stiffer now, and maybe they'll be needed for a wider range of jobs.

don't know what the situation is now, but a couple of years ago the Thames Valley Police were way behind with their checking -- several months. Many new teachers were unable to have a class to themselves for ages. Maybe they'll assign more manpower to it now ...

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: harvey andrews
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 10:20 AM

or maybe the manpower will be allocated to the new speed cameras and their fines, set to treble by 2004. The treasury has made five and a half million pounds from this so far. One in five of the driving population criminalised. I think this is important in this case as it's all about the allocation of manpower and it has just been stated on the news that the depts dealing with the vetting of people like Huntley are undermanned.
If one thing comes out of this terrible case it has to be the need to get policemen back to policing the areas the people demand.
This is in no way to condone speeding drivers by the way. I repeat, it's all about the use of the police force in our society. Catching motorists is a piece of cake and it pays good money so it gets the resources. Catching Huntleys doesn't seem to have the same priority with the government and the police force as it does with the citizens of Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: s&r
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:18 AM

Harvey - why don't you just pay your speeding fine or start a new thread.

Respect the seriousness of this one

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:20 AM

I was amazed to learn that the jury returned a majority verdict on Huntley, 11-1. That means that one juror actually did not believe that the bastard was guilty of murder. That juror must be extremely guillible to be taken in by Huntley's explanation that he killed the girls by accident!

As often in these case it would be interesting to know what this juror felt when they became aware of all of Huntley's previous activity. Or if they would change their verdict if they could.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:26 AM

One thing is, he did have a conviction agains him for burglary, and this in itself would have been enough to rule him out as a caretaker.

Passing on suspicions about things for which he wasn't convicted, that's more complicated. I feel there should maybe be a different standard of proof for references than there is for convictions, just as there is in civil cases as opposed to criminal.

A criminal conviction rightly requires proof "beyond a reasonanle doubt", a civil decision uses "on the balance of probabilities" - perhaps, when it comes to working with vulnarable people, the standard should be "reasonable grounds for suspicion".

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:53 AM

Yorkshire yankee - check out to-day's Guardian for some of the views i was putting forward. i had signed off by the time you posted last night.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: harvey andrews
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 03:18 PM

S&r.... I have no idea why you're not getting my point. Huntley murdered the girls because he slipped through the net over and over.I'm simply pointing out what many consider to be the reason why the British police force is not concentrating on its primary task.It is being used extensively as a stealth tax collector and is losing the trust and respect of the British people.
This is a VERY serious issue indeed. And, no, my licence is clean thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 03:34 PM

I doubt if failings on the part of the police in this case can really be put down primarily to the fact that some of their time is taken up by dealing with the kind of thing harvey mentions.

I could be wrong. But there were clearly serious failings, and they need to be identified. I gather one was that Ian Huntley was also know as Ian Nixon, and whoever it was checking up on the computer only looked up under Nixon, though both names were clearly on record.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Ed.
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 04:36 PM

GUEST,Van

You must have got a different copy of the Guardian than me. The leader and Martin Kettle's and Blake Morrison's pieces, make it clear that (in their views) Carr is in no way another Myra Hindley, or 'groomed' the children as you suggested.

You might be better off buying The Sun or Daily Star as your source of news tomorrow if that's the type of thing that you wish to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: vectis
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 08:27 PM

Sexual offences are notoriously difficult to get convictions on. Only 2% of alleged offence go to court and of them only 2% result in guilty verdicts. The odds are with the rapist every time. This is why the CPS only go to court with the strongest cases.
Huntley had had a lot of allegations made against him but hadn't been to court and found guilty of any of them.
Police checks only say if there have been any convictions; if there are none then the check comes back clean.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 02:49 AM

The 'grooming' issue may be a little uncertain but it would seem to be well established that Maxine Carr did provide Huntly with previous alibi, did provide another in order to protect him in this case and most probably would have been prepared to lie in order to protect him again - had her evidence allowed him to 'get away' with the murder of these poor girls.

Remember too that she knew, taught and professed to like these two girls and that it was most probably this that led to the girls to trust Huntly enough to enter, what they probably thought of as Maxine Carr's house.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 05:57 PM

The sneakiest thing was the way that the police force in question tried to blame the Data Protection Act for their incompetance in not keeping records they should have, and making these available when Huntley applied for a job in a school.

They appear to have been pig-ignorant of what the Data Protection Act actually says about this kind of thing. Or perhaps just floundering around for any kind of excuse.

Once again, focussing attention on Maxine Carr is looking in the wrong direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:38 PM

There are two aspects to the vetting issue but I agree that the Data Protection Act is less of a factor than the police not updating their records as they should be doing.

The thing about Maxine Carr is that the public are not so sure about her involvement/guilt/punishment as they about Huntley - who we are at least pretty sure will not ever be released for us to worry about.

I am not so sure that this is the wrong direction, for the reasons I have already given but I am pretty appalled at some of the press coverage about her. Probably because they sense this public uncertainty, elements of the press seem determined to stir-up public feeling toward her - which is bound to cause problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 07:05 PM

It's more fun circling round an individual who's been judged and punished, rather than concentrating on an institution that is in a position to make the same kind of mistakes again, unless it's changed. It's called "mobbing" when birds do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 07:08 PM

I saw the newspaper banners today about Maxine Carr saying she had 'Got Off lightly'. I did not buy the papers unfortunately so cannot give an opinon.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 07:13 PM

Tabloid headline - Enuf said ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Huntley Guilty
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 05:31 PM

Van,

It has taken me a while to get round to it, but I finally did as you suggested and checked the Guardian of 18th Dec (did it online, as I don't subscribe to or read the Guardian regularly). Did a search, using the key words "Maxine Carr" and "grooming"; one article turned up.

Its third paragraph does indeed say "it was suspected she may have groomed the girls."

However, further down (~20th paragraph) it also says "But detectives have found no evidence that Carr groomed the girls or knew in advance Huntley had any plans to try to abduct a girl."

So perhaps (for whatever reason) you didn't get a chance to read the entire article? If you didn't, I can see how you might have reached the conclusion you did...

Cheers,

YY