Amidst all the euphoria of spud cannons and "I'm going home really soon, hurrah", something happened recently that really made me think. Yesterday, Roy Whiting was convicted of sexually abusing and murdering Sarah Payne, an eight-year-old schoolgirl. The evidence against Whiting was conclusive (or enough so, at any rate) and he was sentenced to life imprisonment with the added recommendation that he should never be allowed parole. So far, so good (from the point of view of justice being done), but I have noticed something: Whiting has been so far demonised by the media (this is possibly justified) that certain laws no longer seem to apply. When Whiting was taken from court, people were screaming such things as "I hope you rot!" and "You should be dead!" Threatening violence against anyone is a criminal offence under the Public Order Act, so why are these people allowed to commit crimes just because he committed a far worse one? The same thing has happened before: in the case of Jon-Benet Ramsay (I think that's spelt right) there was no really conclusive evidence against the girl's parents, but TV stations and newspapers were constantly screaming "Guilty!" Technically, this is libel, but they get away with it because it's generally accepted in the general public that Jon-Benet's parents murdered her. Of course, I'm not excusing what Roy Whiting did: it was a terrible thing to do (for some reason, it seems worse than Timothy McVeigh's terrorist actions). I'm just wondering how the law can so easily be suspended.

Phil-"Any thoughts on this greatly appreciated"-bee