What has happened to the rule of law in England?

[ByQuaintAzureWasp]

I read the article below and was dumbfounded.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/schoolgirl-13-died-after-bed-33247080

A girl has died and the police are not allowed to interview the children?

It's as clear as daylight that this was arson and the girl was killed as a result.

Absolutely bonkers!

From the article they are saying it was one of the other children who started that fire and the previous fire when the victim was asleep.

The rule of law very much still applies.

What has happened here is that the parents have refused further intervention, and from reading between the lines I would bet the proverbial farm that this family is already known to SS due to previous incidents and at least one of the children has some kind of additional needs.

This is not the first fire that happened in that house. Six months previously "another member of the family" had set fire to a bed. The parents refused additional safety measures then.

Maybe they were under the age of criminal responsibility or disabled and not considered responsible.

It doesn't specify the age of the children or their level of understanding, and infers they would not be capable of taking part in a purposeful interview, given social services didn't support them being interviewed.

Would you want them to go through it so you can point a finger? It doesn't even make clear if any of the other children were over the age of criminal responsibility.

From what is shared it seems it was accepted the overall culpability was on parents failure to supervise

The family were clearly well known to Social care. So likely that the kids have additional needs or behavioural issues. There seems to be a lack of engagement from the family with services trying to help them.

Reading between the lives, it's fairly obvious it was one of the children and they are either too young or otherwise not able to be held accountable for their actions. So what would be the point? Everyone knows what happened, the family are already heavily involved with social services. The report won't comment on what will happen in future - if the children will be taken into care, or whatever might happen.

There's nothing to be gained from further traumatising the children who didn't do it. I expect they all know which one it was anyway.

"It's correct to say that they couldn't interview the other children because of the damage that it would cause to them. That the family have indicated that interviews would cause too much harm to the children and they would have to relive the incident. This was supported by the children's social care, and this prevented evidence being gathered."
However, Merseyside Police found no evidence to suggest any third party outside of the home had been involved.

Yes, it's clear as day that it was arson, but don't you think the above points are important? If the childred are below the age of criminal responsibility, what is the benefit of making them relive the event? They are clearly under social care already. They are clearly already traumatised. So what do you want to happen?

That poor girl. I really hope that she didn’t wake up at all when this happened.

Hopefully social services being involved with the family will prevent this happening again. It’s very hard to tell for certain if anyone should be or is being held accountable for this child’s death, and if so, who that should be. Yea, you can automatically blame the parents fully or whoever it was who started the fire but doesn’t mean that is right.

A child is dead and everyone seems to be just... shrugging their shoulders. In a sane world, the parents would be jailed for neglect and the remaining children placed in care.

It's tempting but too simplistic to look at it this way.

Firstly you'd have to prove they were negligent - and before you say it, the incident itself is not proof.

Then if the parents are jailed, the state has to fund care for a number of children, some of whom may have additional needs, and we must consider the additional trauma that would inflict on the children.

And then there's the awful possibility that no-one has considered in this thread - was it self-inflicted.

Ultimately what we have here is a family who will already be going through the worst possible hell. They have lost a child. That is worse than any jail time you could mandate.

The pros and cons of trying to criminalise a dead child / a child with additional needs / a child below the age of criminal responsibility and / or the parents of several traumatised children need to be weighed up. I doubt it would be in the public interest.

People are not shrugging their shoulders. It's bloody obvious that things are happening in the background, including very heavy social services involvement. But not everything needs to be public. Young children have rights, and that includes the right to privacy and not having their circumstances reported in the tabloids.

If one of those children is a firebug, with parents who clearly aren't up to the task of managing the issue, then the rest are in danger - I think the parents' grief and potential emotional damage of the other children takes a back seat to that, but I see I'm in a minority here.

But again, you do not know what is happening in the background. You have no right to know, and it is none of your business. You seem to be outraged that nothing is happening, bat that is definitly not the case. The coroner noted that there is very,very heavy involvement with social servies. That's all you need to know.

The rule of law very much still applies

Sorry, but that doesn't seem the case. When someone is in jail for the Post Office scandal, then I could start to agree (partially).

Dreadful case in the OP. 2026 is a tearful year so far.

Are there any other news reports out in the public domain you'd like to tell me I have no business having an opinion on in a pompous tone, or just this one?

I don't know. Are there any other stories where you admit you think that pointless emotional damage should be inflicted on chldren?

You're right, they're clearly all perfectly safe in that home and I'm just cruel. And fortunately, social services are famous for never getting it wrong.

It is because of the rule of law that this has happened.

The "firebug" may well be the one who died.

The children have a right to privacy which is absolutely as it should be. You seem to think nothing is happening when the coroner made it very clear ss are involved. Why do you feel you have a right to know what is happening? You don't.

However I do believe the rule of law is in difficulty of functioning properly due to 14 years of austerity under the tories. It's going to take quite a few years to clear backlogs in the criminal justice system let alone civil matters.

It says in the article they believe she was asleep when the fire was started so unable to save herself.

So children can set fires, kill somebody and their parents can refuse for them to be interviewed? Sorry but I can't get my head around that.

I dont feel I have a right to know what happened. I feel that when a 13 year old is killed as she lies sleeping there should be some justice.

Can all parents just refuse to have their children interviewed?

If the child is a) that mentally ill that they are starting fires and b) below the age of criminal responsibility, then what exactly would you be hoping to achieve from interviewing them?

The police can compel interviews with minors. There is nothing that requires them to get the parents permission.

Clearly in this case it is not felt that it would be of any use to drag them into a cell and subject them to an interview.

@ByQuaintAzureWasp i think you need to re read the article, the reason the children weren't interviewed was a police decision, supported by children's services.
The police won't interview for many reasons, a common one being if there is no chance of prosecution.