The words on this poster speak volumes. People who start out committing sadistic acts on helpless animals go on to do the same atrocities on human beings. This man, Stephen Barker, is the perfect poster boy for such a campaign – he is the man who participated in the torture and horrific death of baby Peter Connolly. His was the fist that slammed into the face of that poor little boy on the last night of his life, his were the hands that bent the little boy backwards over a sofa until his spine snapped…
And yet this depraved creature has used the legal process – OUR legal process – to object to his face and name being used on this poster. He has claimed that his reputation has been ‘ruined’.
Excuse me but am I MISSING something here…? his REPUTATION ! what bloody reputation are we talking about – this beast has a reputation for one thing only – child abuse !!!
His legal team – and yes he still has one that we taxpayers are funding – responded with this tripe:
Tim Bittlestone, of solicitors Leslie Franks, wrote to PETA: “Mr Barker was acquitted of murder. Your campaign poster is therefore libellous. Please remove it or we will institute proceedings against you”.
How nice to know that our legal profession are willing to stick their necks out so far as to use legal technicalities to further defend this evil monster. The poster is appropriate and speaks for itself. This creature is NOT simply a child abuser but a sadistic torturer and killer as well no matter what fancy terms Mr Bittlestone and Co wish to apply – facts are facts and here is the most blatant fact of all: Stephen Barker is a murderer and there is one dead baby to prove it.
Copyright © 2007-2010 Cultured Views. All rights reserved.
How laughable…..if it werent so disgusting. I believe that we (U.S and Brits) have gone too far in the civil rights department…animals like Barker are exploiting the system at the expense of the rest of us (Baby P). So much money has been spent on Barker….we could have lodged Baby Peter at The Four Seasons with a loving nanny AND a governess until he was of age if we had our priorities in order! When a person is guilty, they are guilty! The pedulum needs to swing in the direction of what is right, fair and decent.
Well said and you have raised a very interesting point. I would be very interested to know how much his legal expenses currently stand at – in fact the bill for all three of them!
It has been used as an excuse time and time again that social services let these babies go because of understaffing and cost cutting and yet the tax payer has to shell out what is quite possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds just to defend the likes of this one creature.You are very correct – it would pay to relocate these children into a kind of luxurious custom built creche until they turn 18 rather than spend the same amount time and time again defending the bastards who kill them.
Thanks – you have given me food for thought…an issue I will try and look into.
I don’t believe it is possible to go “too far in the civil rights department”. However,I do believe ‘civil rights’ end with conviction. If Barker’s solicitors wish to continue to represent him in any issue connected to the case,it should be ‘pro-bono’. After all,the British taxpayer has already paid them substantial fees.They are just trying to extend their ride on the ‘Gravy Train’.
Perhaps that was not the best phrase to use Paul but what I am trying to express is that the protecting the so called “rights” of people like Barker is infringing upon MY rights to not waste money on scum and is actually taking away from things such as….Social Services. Why is the coffer never empty when its time for a convicted, violent criminals to drum up frivolous litigation? We never seem to hear that “there just isnt the money for your 4th appeal” or “there just isnt the money for you to sue Corrections because you dont like the food”….not to mention the costs that arent even considered, extra officers to transport these animals back and forth from prison to court and additional security. I am in complete agreement that greedy lawyers perpetuate these appeals and lawsuits and let us not forget, many politicians are lawyers.
It also seems that Tracy Connolly’s “right” to keep her children trumped poor Peter’s right to live. One persons rights should not harm those of another or society’s as a whole. In closing, Wendy, it would be interesting to know what the running costs of Steven Barker have been to the British taxpayer, and I would be willing to bet that he is living in far better conditions than little Peter ever did.
Mary you can bet your boots that creature is NOT living in the same squalor that poor little Peter had to exist in. For a start prison rights activists would not stand for it if prisoners had to wade their way through dog excrement to get to their dining room for their meals – which was the case in Peter’s home at Penhurst Road, Tottenham …and they would be fed three square meals a day rather than have to scratch out in the dirt like Peter was seen doing by neighbours.
He would be enjoying protective custody – as Tracey Connolly also does – so nobody is able to touch a hair on his head and hurt HIM!
And now he receives protection from public shaming courtesy of his legal firm – there’s no doubt about it, the rights are all on the side of the criminal nowadays.
Mary,I do agree with what you say,in general. I believe that ‘civil rights’ should be suspended,or at least severely curtailed,on conviction – or at the prison gate. But our ‘Justice’ system is a bit of a misnomer,in my opinion. It’s not about ‘truth and justice’,'did you do it or not?’,but who can afford the ‘better’ legal team. Or if the state (tax-payers)will pay for the best,on your behalf. This particular case is further proof of that. And always the ’shyster’ lawyers win. It increasing seems to me to have very little to do with ‘right and wrong’,or morality.
And Wendy,I don’t particularly disagree with what you say,either. But there are many thousands of honest,hard-working people in this country that live in infinitely worse conditions than the ‘average’ prisoner in Britain. It’s obscene! Those that know how to ‘play the system’ – whether they be crooks,benefit cheats,lawyers or politicians (with their veneers of respectability),they all have their golden tickets for the gravy train. And the ordinary,hard working tax-payer funds this skewed morality. Again,I say this case is just another,tragic example of this. Baby Peter was betrayed by many ‘professionals’,and now his tormentors are being protected and cared for by the same laws and ’standards’ that they hide behind,whilst being rewarded hansomly. And everybody blames everybody else,with the odd scapegoat thrown to the wolves.This just is not right,IMHO!
Paul and Wendy you are both so correct and it seems that the vast MAJORITY are not happy with the current state of affairs….I think its fair to say that most people would like to see very harsh sentences, including the death penalty, for people that harm innocent children. Why a small group of policy makers seem to be able to circumvent the will of the majority should be brought to light and scrutinized. “Veneers of respectability”….I love that statement, it is so accurate, the hypocisy has no boundries. It is a giant smokesceen put in place to justify jobs and positions that exsist to protect the criminal and line the pockets of lawyers and politicians. Its of little matter to me, I dont care if these “laws and standards” are abolished as I am certain I will never be facing trial for hurting a child,or anyone else for that matter, I do care a great, great deal if a little boy is neglected, tortured and killed and no one is there to help. I do care if that little boys murderer spends only a few years in jail, playing cards and watching cable and then gets released to hurt more people. We need to demand accountability from our elected officials. And I was never a PETA supporter until this ad.
the Peta ad is so very true.
Like Gandhiji has said, ” The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
R.I.P Peter XXX