Posted: May 01, 2015 8:32 pm
Er, hang on a minute. If he was subject to the list of abuses cited in that article, then he's a victim of crime by definition. Poisoning a dog is a criminal offence, as is slashing car tyres, and tampering with the mail is an offence against the Crown, which usually brings stiff penalties. So how come he has been told he has no redress with respect to all of this? And how the fuck does "ecclesiastical law" manage to supersede the statute book here in the 21st century?