Thursday, 28 May 2009

What really is at stake? An humble opinion.

From ALEX WEST, in Aachen, Germany
Published: 27 May 2009, in The Sun

(…) This is how the confrontation unfolded:  

THE SUN: Can you speak to us about Madeleine McCann?  

HEWLETT: I don't know what you're talking about.  

THE SUN: Did you have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?  

HEWLETT: No answer  

THE SUN: Could you tell us where you were when Madeleine McCann disappeared?  

HEWLETT: It's got nothing to do with you.  

THE SUN: Why don't you eliminate yourself from the inquiry for the sake of the McCanns?  

HEWLETT: I don't have to speak to you. F*** off.  

THE SUN: Why haven't you spoken to the detectives?  

HEWLETT: I will. Just f*** off out of here. I've done nothing wrong.  

THE SUN: Well, you've been on the run for more than 30 years and you're wanted for questioning by West Yorks Police.  

HEWLETT: What for? I don't believe it. 

THE SUN: A sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl in 1975. At this point Hewlett, who lives in Aachen with partner Mariana, 33, and their six kids, let fly with another four-letter volley before leaping from the wheelchair and dashing inside the hospital. (…)

This is a typical example of what is at stake here.

No, it’s not the incredible obnoxious manner with which one has the shameless gall to call the words above “news”.

No, it’s not the two-faced way of being in life of this WEST fellow: The McCanns are obviously innocent, as they haven’t in any way been PROVEN guilty, but Mr. HEWLETT is guilty, or treated as such, just because someone, with clear intent, associated his name to Maddie.

No such thing as innocent until proven guilty for such Mr HEWLETT. Only for beauties such as Kate, Gerry and all those vilified pretty people who were victim of a UKO (Unidentified Kidnapping Object) whilst on holiday.

No, it’s none of that. All that could be squashed into a blended undrinkable mixture of stupidity and arrogance, which, although unacceptable, is recurrent in this UK whenever and wherever the Maddie issue comes up. Or doesn’t.

What is at stake is what I call, "the right that some have to be above the Law, or be it".

Let’s see if I can make my point. One commentator to a post where I intentionally misquoted Orwell by saying “All animals (suspected pedophiles) are equal, but some animals (suspected pedophiles) are more equal than others", said the following: One of the men in the photos is a convicted, serial paedophile. The other is not. What is it about the difference that people like you do not understand??”

First, let me tell you upfront that what people like myself don’t understand is people like yourself. But that isn’t the subject of this post. Might be in the future. Second, when you refer to “one of the men” I’m deducing that you’re speaking about HEWLETT and not PAYNE.

So let's get back to one very important word this unfortunate soul has said about HEWLETT: CONVICTED.

This means one thing, at least to me. That this man has stood before a legitimate Court of Law, his deeds judged, his crimes punished and has done the time, whatever time he was sentenced to do.

I’m not going to debate on whether his sentence was adequate or not. Can only give you a hint, and that is to say that I think that no condemned pedophile should ever walk the streets again. But that is me. I’m not Society.

Society decided that this gentleman should be punished and after his punishment completed is to walk around like the rest of us, with the exact the same rights as us. I personally disagree but that was Society's decision.

I have not heard that he's an escaped convict. Just a CONVICTED individual for a crime he committed.

Legally, he has paid his debt to society. You may not agree to that, as I don’t, but, tough luck, that is what he has done.

He has, as said, as much rights as you and me. The thought creeps the heck out of me, but that is the way civilized society has structured itself. Those are the rules of the game. Or should be the rules.

So when the McCanners pounce upon this man, they are not just being two-faced about justice, but that they are being JUSTICE itself disregarding completely what Society has determined.

They've decided that this man should have no right to privacy, no rights at all. Should be lynched if for nothing else for saying "another four-letter volley ."

What legitimacy do the McCanns PRIVATE detectives have? None.

Why then this so adamant obligation to speak to them as if they are legitimate representatives of the Law?

And how is it possible for all this to be put down in written word on a national paper of one of western’s civilized nations?

Because, my friends, they KNOW that they are "the Law". That’s why.

The UK has become a Far-West land where the sheriff with the biggest pistol sets the Law. And if he sets it, he’s above it.

No, the McCanns are not innocent until proven guilty, "conceptually". They are innocent, because they have determined to be so.

That’s why they go on Oprah.

That’s why they can say one thing today, another tomorrow on national TV, on national newspapers.

That’s why they are so shameless.

And all the legitimate judicial entities of what was once a great empire, just watch passively. Completely and absurdly inactive.

And when they do something, it’s always in the protection of those that most harm the prestige they should have but have so unequivocally given up their right to have.



    Background Information on Raymond Hewlett.

  2. Why would there be the need of a rogatory process and West Yorkshire Police to come to Germany and take his DNA if he was convicted before? They sure as hell had his DNA already. Was it a PR act for future purposes? Now that the WYP are in charge of a mock "review"?

  3. Hi Johanna...Also same detective involved, from all those years ago.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.