Primark breast-feeding row mother charged with perverting the course of justice

A woman who claimed a security guard snatched her baby from her breast during a row in a Primark store has been charged with perverting the course of public justice. It follows a police investigation into claims by the mother that she was assaulted by the security guard as she breast fed her nine-month-old baby at the store in Humberstone Gate, Leicester, on July 13. Caroline Starmer, 28, from Leicester, will appear at Leicester Magistrates' Court on August 24, police confirmed on Tuesday. A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "A 28-year-old woman has been summoned to appear at court charged with intent to pervert the course of public justice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11767747/Primark-breast-feeding-row-mother-charged-with-perverting-the-course-of-justice.html


Glad to see the Police are taking action here.

Cuchulain wrote:A woman who claimed a security guard snatched her baby from her breast during a row in a Primark store has been charged with perverting the course of public justice. It follows a police investigation into claims by the mother that she was assaulted by the security guard as she breast fed her nine-month-old baby at the store in Humberstone Gate, Leicester, on July 13. Caroline Starmer, 28, from Leicester, will appear at Leicester Magistrates' Court on August 24, police confirmed on Tuesday. A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "A 28-year-old woman has been summoned to appear at court charged with intent to pervert the course of public justice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11767747/Primark-breast-feeding-row-mother-charged-with-perverting-the-course-of-justice.html

Glad to see the Police are taking action here.

It's a classic case of the police taking sides. You arrest someone as a bargaining chip to get them to drop their own lawsuit.

The simple way to stop this is to refuse to settle via plea bargain. Refuse to sign anything that compromises your position. Force the prosecutor to take the sham case to trial, face the public ridicule before a jury and before the press, and then file charges against the police for false arrest, and against the prosecutor for prosecutorial misconduct.

Be sure to file charges with agencies against their licenses. Hopefully, you can get them disbarred. But you will be successful if you simply get them fired or provide grounds for a civil lawsuit, and appeal to the court of appeals, and appeal to the Supreme Court. In any case, you will tie tying up their lives for the next decade, all by saying a simple word: No.

I thought it was a simple case of her lying?

nicko wrote:I thought it was a simple case of her lying?

About what? Breasts leak milk? Boy...you been away on the front too long.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I thought it was a simple case of her lying?

About what?  Breasts leak milk?  Boy...you been away on the front too long.

?
What's that got to do with her lying?
Security guard didn't snatch the child
Mummy doesn't get the compo she anticipated

That's the point.  She didn't lie. It's a ruse to protect the corporate interests.

Your laws about speech are authoritarian and tyrannical.  It's a clear indication that truth is not your country's priority.

The way to nick this is to call the police on their bluff.  Make them prove their charges in court, under oath.  If they lie, they will be found out in their annual polygraph test and be dismissed.

Original Quill wrote:That's the point.  She didn't lie.  It's a ruse to protect the corporate interests.  

Your laws about speech are authoritarian and tyrannical.  It's a clear indication that truth is not your country's priority.

The way to nick this is to call the police on their bluff.  Make them prove their charges in court, under oath.  If they lie, they will be found out in their annual polygraph test and be dismissed.

Annual polygraph test? Have you been sniffing the Harpic again?
Worry about US justice

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:That's the point.  She didn't lie.  It's a ruse to protect the corporate interests.  

Your laws about speech are authoritarian and tyrannical.  It's a clear indication that truth is not your country's priority.

The way to nick this is to call the police on their bluff.  Make them prove their charges in court, under oath.  If they lie, they will be found out in their annual polygraph test and be dismissed.

Annual polygraph test? Have you been sniffing the Harpic again?
Worry about US justice

Yes, an annual polygraph test.  Most reputable law enforcement agencies require that their licensed police officers take an annual polygraph exam in order to determine if they have lied under oath.  There are defenses, but it's a legitimate process.

I do worry about US justice.  But, that is not incompatible with other things as well.  The UK has some major flaws in its criminal justice system.  

By criminalizing what should be civil law matters they leave the door open for inverse corruption.  At the very least, they set up an altogether too cozy relationship with local businesses. If the woman lied in bringing charges, there are civil remedies. It corrupts the process to offer the coercive power of criminal charges to commercial interests.

The UK also has no fundamental guarantee of freedom of speech.  In part, that is because the UK does not have a written Constitution; but also in part, that is because they do not have a commitment to freedom of speech.  In the US, we have the First Amendment.

All in all, I’d rather be here.

Original Quill wrote:

Nems wrote:

Annual polygraph test? Have you been sniffing the Harpic again?
Worry about US justice

Yes, an annual polygraph test.  Most reputable law enforcement agencies require that their licensed police officers take an annual polygraph exam in order to determine if they have lied under oath.  There are defenses, but it's a legitimate process.

I do worry about US justice.  But, that is not incompatible with other things as well.  The UK has some major flaws in its criminal justice system.  

By criminalizing what should be civil law matters they leave the door open for inverse corruption.  At the very least, they set up an altogether too cozy relationship with local businesses.  If the woman lied in bringing charges, there are civil remedies.  It corrupts the process to offer the coercive power of criminal charges to commercial interests.

The UK also has no fundamental guarantee of freedom of speech.  In part, that is because the UK does not have a written Constitution; but also in part, that is because they do not have a commitment to freedom of speech.  In the US, we have the First Amendment.

All in all, I’d rather be here.

You are white and rich, Im sure you would!

As for the lying woman meh court will deal.
Worth bearing in mind the guy is a Primark security guard, not law enforcement.
He is there to stop them nicking the knickers. Primark may be popular but I don't think they are after world domination, besides Tesco have that sorted.

Quill, you think you know all, in fact you know fuck all!!!

Nems wrote:
You are white and rich, Im sure you would!

As for the lying woman meh court will deal.
Worth bearing in mind the guy is a Primark security guard, not law enforcement.
He is there to stop them nicking the knickers. Primark may be popular but I don't think they are after world domination, besides Tesco have that sorted.

The point is: the criminal court shouldn't be in a position to deal with it. It is legal extortion, bordering on political crimes, quite typical of dictatorships. It's dabbling in the devil for a modern democracy to use criminal law to settle civil disputes.

I am aware the guy is a loss prevention officer for Primark. Ironically, I defend guys like him in CIVIL lawsuits, as my firm represents major retailers in these areas throughout the west.

It's offensive to me that a nation uses the coercive powers of criminal law to lay on favors to their local business interests, over citizen interests. This is why I think it's nonsense for Brits to keep insisting that the US is more conservative than them. Britain is the ultimate big business lackey, as has been my observation over the years.

Every once in a while I gain a morsel of insight into how profound and farsighted the founding men of this nation were. To include in a foundation document such rights as freedom of speech and religion, due process and equality of law, was a stroke of brilliance that surpassed passing fads like capitalism, socialism and the new inverted totalitarianism.

Sometimes we still look back on the old world and say, shame.

When the original story was posted here I never believed it.
I cannot see any one, snatching a baby away from a mother's breast whilst she is breastfeeding

All a load of coswallop.

eddie wrote:When the original story was posted here I never believed it.
I cannot see any one, snatching a baby away from a mother's breast whilst she is breastfeeding

All a load of coswallop.

This is true you did say this was the case.
I wondered if there was an element of racism to her false claim, though it seems more than anything attention seeking.

nicko wrote:Quill, you think you know all,  in fact you know fuck all!!!

Well, that was a fun retort. Keep up the profound insights, nicky.

Original Quill wrote:

Nems wrote:
You are white and rich, Im sure you would!

As for the lying woman meh court will deal.
Worth bearing in mind the guy is a Primark security guard, not law enforcement.
He is there to stop them nicking the knickers. Primark may be popular but I don't think they are after world domination, besides Tesco have that sorted.

The point is: the criminal court shouldn't be in a position to deal with it.  It is legal extortion, bordering on political crimes, quite typical of dictatorships.  It's dabbling in the devil for a modern democracy to use criminal law to settle civil disputes.

I am aware the guy is a loss prevention officer for Primark.  Ironically, I defend guys like him in CIVIL lawsuits, as my firm represents major retailers in these areas throughout the west.

It's offensive to me that a nation uses the coercive powers of criminal law to lay on favors to their local business interests, over citizen interests.  This is why I think it's nonsense for Brits to keep insisting that the US is more conservative than them.  Britain is the ultimate big business lackey, as has been my observation over the years.

Every once in a while I gain a morsel of insight into how profound and farsighted the founding men of this nation were.  To include in a foundation document such rights as freedom of speech and religion, due process and equality of law, was a stroke of brilliance that surpassed passing fads like capitalism, socialism and the new inverted totalitarianism.

Sometimes we still look back on the old world and say, shame.

She claimed her baby was snatched by a secuirity guard.
The store then looked at the CCTV which showed she was lying.
Clearly the Police have seen the CCTV and hence why she is in court for lying and rightly so. As not only has she made a mockery of women who do breastfeed in public that are harrassed, but she has also wrongly publically accused someone of a wrong they never did.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The point is: the criminal court shouldn't be in a position to deal with it.  It is legal extortion, bordering on political crimes, quite typical of dictatorships.  It's dabbling in the devil for a modern democracy to use criminal law to settle civil disputes.

I am aware the guy is a loss prevention officer for Primark.  Ironically, I defend guys like him in CIVIL lawsuits, as my firm represents major retailers in these areas throughout the west.

It's offensive to me that a nation uses the coercive powers of criminal law to lay on favors to their local business interests, over citizen interests.  This is why I think it's nonsense for Brits to keep insisting that the US is more conservative than them.  Britain is the ultimate big business lackey, as has been my observation over the years.

Every once in a while I gain a morsel of insight into how profound and farsighted the founding men of this nation were.  To include in a foundation document such rights as freedom of speech and religion, due process and equality of law, was a stroke of brilliance that surpassed passing fads like capitalism, socialism and the new inverted totalitarianism.

Sometimes we still look back on the old world and say, shame.

She claimed her baby was snatched by a secuirity guard.
The store then looked at the CCTV which showed she was lying.
Clearly the Police have seen the CCTV and hence why she is in court for lying and rightly so. As not only has she made a mockery of women who do breastfeed in public that are harrassed, but she has also wrongly publically accused someone of a wrong they never did.

You are not on the jury, didge. Let's wait and see what comes out at trial, and not jump to conclusions.

At this point, I am only questioning using the coercive powers of criminal law to twist arms in civil law matters. Only when the civic entity is party do we see such audacity over here. I have often had to kick the ass of some wayward town or county out of court when they try it over here. But in the case in point, they are doing it for local business interests.

So much for civil rights.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



She claimed her baby was snatched by a secuirity guard.
The store then looked at the CCTV which showed she was lying.
Clearly the Police have seen the CCTV and hence why she is in court for lying and rightly so. As not only has she made a mockery of women who do breastfeed in public that are harrassed, but she has also wrongly publically accused someone of a wrong they never did.

You are not on the jury, didge.  Let's wait and see what comes out at trial, and not jump to conclusions.

At this point, I am only questioning using the coercive powers of criminal law to twist arms in civil law matters.  Only when the civic entity is party do we see such audacity over here.  I have often had to kick the ass of some wayward town or county out of court when they try it over here.  But in the case in point, they are doing it for local business interests.

So much for civil rights.

I never claimed to be the judge.

What I am aware of is a woman went public with a wrongful accusation which was initially supported by breastfeeding groups.

Ask yourself why they have since dropped their support then?

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are not on the jury, didge.  Let's wait and see what comes out at trial, and not jump to conclusions.

At this point, I am only questioning using the coercive powers of criminal law to twist arms in civil law matters.  Only when the civic entity is party do we see such audacity over here.  I have often had to kick the ass of some wayward town or county out of court when they try it over here.  But in the case in point, they are doing it for local business interests.

So much for civil rights.

I never claimed to be the judge.

And then you proceed to judge:

What I am aware of is a woman went public with a wrongful accusation which was initially supported by breastfeeding groups.

Ask yourself why they have since dropped their support then?

They are not the jury, so what does it matter?  You can't prejudge these matters.  Leave it to the courts.  

I question the procedure of using criminal courts to adjudicate civil matters.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



I never claimed to be the judge.

And then you proceed to judge:

What I am aware of is a woman went public with a wrongful accusation which was initially supported by breastfeeding groups.

Ask yourself why they have since dropped their support then?

They are not the jury, so what does it matter.  You can't prejudge these matters.  Leave it to the courts.

Incorrect the breastfeeding mother group did after initially supporting her to their mistake.

So again why is it they stopped supporting her?

Does the evidence show she was lying?

What about the accused, who is a victim here wrongly claimed to have abducted her child?

It's interesting that this is a criminal case rather than a civil case - ie, libel or whatever. As far as I can see, the woman didn't actually complain to the police, she claimed it on the internet, yes?

I'm pleased though - it's too easy for people to make false accusations with impunity, so yes, she should be prosecuted. I think there is CCTV evidence that the assault did not happen.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are not the jury, so what does it matter.  You can't prejudge these matters.  Leave it to the courts.

Incorrect the breastfeeding mother group did after initially supporting her to their mistake.

So again why is it they stopped supporting her?

They are irrelevant.  Move on.

Cuchulain wrote:Does the evidence show she was lying?

To my knowledge, the jury hasn't decided.  Wait to see.

Cuchulain wrote:What about the excused, who is a victim here wrongly claimed to have abducted her child?

They have civil courts to handle that.  Liable and slander are claims under tort law.  If A and B have a dispute over the boundary between their respective pieces of property, is it is fair if the police step in and say: Arrest A, because he has slandered B's right to his property!?

In the present matter, shouldn't they arrest the loss prevention officer for his denial?  Okay?  It's the same thing.  Only, the authorities favor local business interests.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Incorrect the breastfeeding mother group did after initially supporting her to their mistake.

So again why is it they stopped supporting her?

They are irrelevant.  Move on.

Cuchulain wrote:Does the evidence show she was lying?

To my knowledge, the jury hasn't decided.  Wait to see.

Cuchulain wrote:What about the excused, who is a victim here wrongly claimed to have abducted her child?

They have civil courts to handle that.  Liable and slander are claims under tort law.  If A and B have a dispute over the boundary between their respective pieces of property, is it is fair if the police step in and say: Arrest A, because he has slandered B's right to his property?

In the present matter, shouldn't they arrest the loss prevention officer for his denial?  Okay?  It's the same thing.  Only, the authorities favor local business interests.

Point 1) The evidence points to the fact she is lying.

point 2) That evidence comes from the CCTV wihich refutes her claim.

Point 3) She went public with this for attention and as seen she lied, as the Police have now chartged her, after the store also proved that no such abduction had happened.

Point 4) You are claiming now the store and the Police are involved in a conspiracy.

Conclusion: You are being absurd.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are irrelevant.  Move on.



To my knowledge, the jury hasn't decided.  Wait to see.



They have civil courts to handle that.  Liable and slander are claims under tort law.  If A and B have a dispute over the boundary between their respective pieces of property, is it is fair if the police step in and say: Arrest A, because he has slandered B's right to his property?

In the present matter, shouldn't they arrest the loss prevention officer for his denial?  Okay?  It's the same thing.  Only, the authorities favor local business interests.

Point 1) The evidence points to the fact she is lying.

point 2) That evidence comes from the CCTV wihich refutes her claim.

The evidence has not been heard yet.  And if you are not appointed to the jury, you will never see it.

Cuchulain wrote:Point 3) She went public with this for attention

And you've seen the psychology report or something that says what her motives were?  

Cuchulain wrote:and as seen she lied, as the Police have now chartged her, after the store also proved that no such abduction had happened.

The Police are part of the problem.  They should not be making these decisions.  There is nothing criminal about her conduct, and if she lied that is a civil matter.

Didge wrote:Point 4) You are claiming now the store and the Police are involved in a conspiracy.

Pretty much, yep.  That's what I would call it. Criminal law is often misused to place a rubber approval stamp on involvement in civil matters.  Think of the Selma March.

The evidence does not need to be heard to make a case does it not?

The evidence does not need to be heard but seen to make an arrest?

Lets see how much you are going to be wrong, how about a million dollars, that she is guilty?

She made a claim that her child was snatched from her, after investigating it was clearly shown she lied, as no evidence pointed to her child being abducted
Clearly the CCTV evidence is damning.

DOH

You are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing which is utterly boring

Cuchulain wrote:The evidence does not need to be heard to make a case does it not?

The evidence does not need to be heard but seen to make an arrest?

So you don't believe in trials.

Cuchulain wrote:Lets see how much you are going to be wrong, how about a million dollars, that she is guilty?

Haha...she's being tried in the UK. From what I hear, they don't even believe in trials!

Cuchulain wrote:She made a claim that her child was snatched from her, after investigating it was clearly shown she lied, as no evidence pointed to her child being abducted
Clearly the CCTV evidence is damning.

DOH

You are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing which is utterly boring

I'm quite serious. It's just that you have no concept of rights and the theories behind them. You are more the follower of the ideas of others. Whatever is current, and most easily remembered in the news.

You have to think about some of this stuff...sometimes.

Bored, like I say you are arguing for the sake of arguing, its not even a debate anymore, enjoy talking to yourself again.

I don't understand what the problem is. She made a claim that someone snatched her baby from her, and she's being tried to establish if that claim was false or not.

As I said, I'm not sure why it's not a civil case as it could be a case for libel. but hey ...

eddie wrote:When the original story was posted here I never believed it.
I cannot see any one, snatching a baby away from a mother's breast whilst she is breastfeeding

All a load of coswallop.

Exactly.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The point is: the criminal court shouldn't be in a position to deal with it.  It is legal extortion, bordering on political crimes, quite typical of dictatorships.  It's dabbling in the devil for a modern democracy to use criminal law to settle civil disputes.

I am aware the guy is a loss prevention officer for Primark.  Ironically, I defend guys like him in CIVIL lawsuits, as my firm represents major retailers in these areas throughout the west.

It's offensive to me that a nation uses the coercive powers of criminal law to lay on favors to their local business interests, over citizen interests.  This is why I think it's nonsense for Brits to keep insisting that the US is more conservative than them.  Britain is the ultimate big business lackey, as has been my observation over the years.

Every once in a while I gain a morsel of insight into how profound and farsighted the founding men of this nation were.  To include in a foundation document such rights as freedom of speech and religion, due process and equality of law, was a stroke of brilliance that surpassed passing fads like capitalism, socialism and the new inverted totalitarianism.

Sometimes we still look back on the old world and say, shame.

She claimed her baby was snatched by a secuirity guard.
The store then looked at the CCTV which showed she was lying.
Clearly the Police have seen the CCTV and hence why she is in court for lying and rightly so. As not only has she made a mockery of women who do breastfeed in public that are harrassed, but she has also wrongly publically accused someone of a wrong they never did.

Blimey didge good post

I just read that she did indeed report the alleged incidence to the police, and didn't just put it on the internet. In that case, it's no mystery why she's being charged.

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



She claimed her baby was snatched by a secuirity guard.
The store then looked at the CCTV which showed she was lying.
Clearly the Police have seen the CCTV and hence why she is in court for lying and rightly so. As not only has she made a mockery of women who do breastfeed in public that are harrassed, but she has also wrongly publically accused someone of a wrong they never did.

Blimey didge good post

I've agreed with Didge on three separate issues lately - it's very worrying.

quill its really quite simple....


she made a False CRIMINAL charge against someone

that in english law is a criminal offense...perverting the course of justice

I do also beleive that the guard does have the right to civil proceedings seperately from the criminal charge...

A mother who lied on Facebook that a security guard at Primark had stopped her breastfeeding her baby has been warned she could be jailed.

Caroline Starmer, 28, posted that a guard at the retailer's Leicester store had snatched nine-month-old daughter Paige from her breast on 13 July.

She wrote: "My 9.5-month-old daughter started crying, needing a feed and the queues were pretty long, so to save my daughter the upset, and the other customers too, I decided to find a quiet spot out the way of others and feed her discreetly.  Within five minutes of doing so, I was approached by a security guard who asked me to vacate the premises to feed my daughter.  I stood my ground and stated my rights, that I can legally feed where I want.  Just for the security officer to physically remove my daughter from my breast and walk down the store with her, saying if I wanted my daughter, then I was to come and get her. My confidence is shot, and my poor daughter hasn't been herself all afternoon."

Her Facebook post was widely reported in the media.

The mother has now admitted lying about the incident and is to be sentenced on 3 December for intending to pervert the course of justice.

At Leicester Crown Court, Judge Simon Hammond told Starmer: "This is a very serious matter. The court will consider a custodial sentence."

In a statement issued at the time, Primark said: "The CCTV footage, reviewed by store management, shows the customer in the Leicester store quite clearly during the time in question.  We can see no evidence that she was approached by anyone during this period.  (The security guards on duty) categorically deny behaving in the way alleged.  Furthermore the individuals do not fit the description given by the customer."

http://news.sky.com/story/1558282/primark-breastfeeding-mum-warned-of-jail-term

Why lie????!