One small detail in the Raoul Moat story jumped out at me. Keen to deflect criticism of Northumbria police for not acting on a tip-off from Moat's prison that he had basically told them what he intended to do to his ex-partner, their temporary chief constable Sue Sim said at a press conference:
Northumbria Police were not informed that Mr Moat intended to shoot or kill Samantha Stobbart. We were informed on Friday afternoon by Durham Prison that Mr Moat may intend to cause serious harm to his partner. [Statement]
The latter, her emphasis conveyed, would have been par for the course and we could have let it slide, as per. But no, he had to bring
a shotgun to the party and screw up the region’s crime figures.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
There’s something about having been in a relationship with someone that seems to give them an odd degree of licence, if not legally then societally. It reminds me a little of the way that if a man rapes someone he used to go out with, even if it’s many years later and she’s with someone else and anyway it’s rape—there isn’t a jury who will convict him. Because, as apparently “we all know”, once you’ve said yes to a guy, that’s a lifetime’s free pass.
Mind you, Moat reminds me more of the Young British Artists. Everyone’s heard of him because of his outrageous exploits, but no-one wants to read his accompanying tortuous fifty-page essay explaining them.