In a landmark case a judge in London has condemned a toddler, to five years hard labour for mouthing the words 'mummy riot, mummy riot' and shaking his rattle at the same time, whilst taken for a stroll by his nanny in London's wealthy enclave of Notting Hill. The toddler who cannot be named for legal reasons, is alleged to have mouthed the words, the day before the riots spread across the capital.
The mum a leading London socialite is said to be distraught as the time taken out of her diary to focus on the case has led to her missing some important summer parties and delays to her August holiday. Her career and reputation in the Notting Hill circle following the verdict are in ruins.
The nanny felt compelled to call the police after seeing images of riots and looting spreading across London and across the country, after remembering the shocking words the toddler shouted in the street. The police raided the house the following day, and the mum and toddler were called in for questioning, at which the police sent them direct to the specially-convened night sittings of the London magistrate courts to sentence the looters.
Due to the high volume of cases the toddler was refused bail, until the case could be heard due to severity of the allegations. Finally this week, a full week after being arrested, the toddler's case was heard.
When he arrived at court the toddler was crying and having huge temper tantrums. The police had to restrain the child, who has at this point lying on the court room floor refusing to move until someone sang him the nursery rhyme London's Burning.
The judge asked the toddler to be given a dummy and reminded him that this song and outburst was not helping his case.
The mum was the first person to be called to the stand. "What sort of child have you brought up that thinks it is ok to encourage people to destroy people's livelihoods and enjoys listening to London's Burning," grilled the prosecution. The mum denied any wrong doing, and pinned the blame on the nanny as she was a busy fashion designer and socialite who couldn't spend time with her child.
The nanny who was questioned, broke down in tears and through an interpretator explained how the stress of working for a high maintenance mother together with the last few days had been too much. In a disclosure that saw the defence team shaking their heads, the nanny admitted that the toddler's favourite TV show was Fireman Sam and she was powerless to stop him watching it.
"Did the child enjoy the buildings burning when he watched this programme," asked the prosecution. "I can't remember," she replied wiping away tears. "Why did you let him watch this dangerous stuff", the prosecution continued to press. "Please it is not my fault, he is such a bully", she said as she pointed at him, a relief came over her as she finally was able to speak the truth. "He would threaten me with his rattle if I didn't do what he said. I knew there was something evil about him when he laughed as he watched such destruction, watching Fireman Sam is worse than listening to gangsta rap."
The prosecution turned its attention to the toddler and asked for Fireman Sam to be played on the TV screen. As the images of a burning building appeared, the kid started to clap, laugh and babbled something incoherent. The furious judge asked for the toddler to be silenced and for the TV to be turned off before anyone else got ideas from the subversive programme.
The rattle that the toddler was holding when the incident happened was brought out by the prosecution lawyer. The nanny screamed in fear and ran out of the court room. The lawyers proceeded to shake the rattle in front of the toddler. The toddler held out his hands to ask for the rattle but the lawyer refused, leading to the toddler screaming, spitting and throwing his toy at the lawyer. The mum fainted in shock and some of the public in the gallery began to shout obscenities at the toddler.
As the judge called for order to restore calm, the defence pleaded for leniency as this could happen to any toddler, that he was unable to talk properly, and argued that he was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time.
The presiding judge still angry at the toddlers delight in Fireman Sam took a strict interpretation of the law, "This incident happened at a time when collective insanity gripped the nation. Your outburst on the street and your actions in this court are quite disgusting. You took advantage of the tense situation and in your warped fantasy world, wanted to bring destruction to the streets just like in the TV series, Fireman Sam. And in court you have shown how you have disregard for law and order by throwing your toys out if the pram. Well you need to learn that this behaviour is unacceptable and that this country will not tolerate toddlers thinking they are above the law."
There were gasps around the court room as the five years hard labour sentence was confirmed, some shouted, 'that's too lenient', whilst others from his nursery school shook their rattles in protest. The judge has said the hard labour will start once the toddler is able to walk but in the mean time will be under house arrest with no TV or any organic baby food.
The judge turned to the mum, who he said would be stripped of her double barrelled surname and would be sent to prison with her child when it could start walking. As the toddler was led away, the mother shouted out, "I wish I had adopted a child from Hackney, you have brought shame to my career and I will be ostracised from the circle of friends." The nanny was ordered to be deported to which the nanny screamed in delight.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron has praised the trial as setting an example for any future troublemakers and that age is no longer an excuse to claim special privileges. He also highlighted that the toddler showed no remorse in court which was a clear sign that swift justice had to be done. He accused the liberal press, Early Learning Centre and Mother Care who have criticised the verdict, as condoning yob culture in toddlers.
The Judicial Communications Office, which issues statements on behalf of judges defended the decision, "When passing sentences judges consider many factors, including the punishment of offenders, the reduction of crime by deterrence, and the need to protect the public. This toddler was dangerous and guilty as hell. The streets will be safer."
