Flashing judge…

The Mirror reports this morning that Lord Justice Richards, cleared of flashing on trains last week, has been accused of exposing himself to two other women, it emerged yesterday. British Transport Police will now interview Sir Stephen about these allegations.

(As far as I can ascertain, from a quick tour through the online versions, mainstream broadsheets have not covered this story as at 6.30 am Monday 18th June. The Mail and The Sun cover the story)

UPDATE 1.10 pm Monday 18th June

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Martin George on this. Witchhunt? Evidence?

UPDATE 19th June

The Guardian covers the story

UPDATE 20th June

Telegraph report

Extract: “The inquiry raises the prospect that Sir Stephen might be re-interviewed.

However, police sources said that, while the women were spurred to come forward by reports and pictures of his case, he is not a suspect.”

8 thoughts on “Flashing judge…

  1. Quite worrying.

    In the early 90s in the Northeast a primary school teacher was accused and convicted of indecency towards children in his care (this is from memory; the school was in Benwell and I don’t recall the exact charges – Lexis Nexis wasn’t forthcoming). The teacher was convicted when a number of pupils came forward after a letter was sent by the school to the childrens parents asking whether or not there had been any impropriety from the teacher. (The teacher had suffered and unsubstantiated accusation, hence the letter).

    In the early 2000s a GP from Liverpool was accused of impropriety by a number of patients (and subsequently gaoled). Problem is, same modus operandi as above. Unsubstantiated allegation followed by letters to all of his patients.

    Aren’t these accusations against M’Ludd following this well worn, obvious and iniquitous rut?

  2. ‘Root’, take a look at Martin’s link in point 3, above; particularly for the words ‘witch hunt effect’.

    Martin – do you have any academic links to the ‘witch hunt effect’ particularly its misuse?

  3. It doesn’t have to be a witch hunt. There was undoubtedly a flasher, so it’s not unlikely that there were three victims, possibly more.

  4. John – I’m talking about a ‘witch hunt effect’ not a witch hunt. The latter implies some sort of active process; while the former, I think, is some sort of passive process. In the two examples I gave (see comment 1), I am not intending to express the view that when the school sent letters to the pupils’ parents they intended to begin a witch hunt; however, a ‘witch hunt’ atmosphere (and hence a witch hunt effect) would have been generated by this action. Similarly, for the cases of the GP and Richards LJ. The former two cases being one of incompetence (at the least) while the Richards LJ case being an unfortunate side effect of reporting to a large population.

    Lastly, I do not disagree with your last point about the existence or otherwise of a ‘flasher’.

  5. This is a very unfortunate case and it is becoming murkier by the minute. I would imagine that under the McNaughton rules that the new eye witness identifications are now hopelessly contaminated from an evidentiary point of view. But from a lay persons perspective (as opposed to a defence advocate) one would postulate that if 3 people were to swear on oath that person A committed a particular offence then that would appear to be very persuasive. There is also – as I understand it – no research that indicates that this particular form of perverted sexual proclivity; which clearly carries a huge component of irrational compulsion – is any more or any less likely to be associated with any one group of persons of any particular academic achievement or social standing than another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>