A child betrayed
EVEN truly evil killers rarely get a whole-life jail term.
We challenge anyone to read about the suffering and death of little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes without concluding that monstrous Emma Tustin must never again breathe free air.
The same goes for his father Thomas Hughes, who did not deliver the fatal blows but might as well have done for all the months of merciless and horrific torment he inflicted on his son.
“Neglect” doesn’t begin to cover it.
This was sadistic, remorseless cruelty which, without this pitiless pair being stopped, could only ever lead to one outcome.
And they were not stopped, not nearly.
For much the same reason the killers of Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka and Peter Connelly — Baby P — were not: A catastrophic and shameful failure by social workers and the police.
The first lockdown gave Tustin and Hughes cover to starve, beat, terrorise, poison and torture six-year-old Arthur with impunity — even recording it on smartphones — while conducting a normal family life elsewhere in the house.
But Covid restrictions cannot excuse the scandalous failure of officials to protect this highly vulnerable child.
By April 2020 Arthur had a mass of bruises a relative reported to social services.
They visited, saw little they worried about, complacently swallowed the couple’s lies and left satisfied he was safe.
Police ignored photos of injuries sent by Arthur’s worried uncle — and incredibly threatened to arrest him for breaking Covid rules if he went to the house.
We are sick of hearing how “lessons will be learned” every time one of these appalling scandals occurs.
They never are.
How could officials possibly overlook again such clear evidence of abuse?
Their shameful incompetence cost Arthur his life. It must cost them their jobs.
LITTLE in the known universe can match the vastness of Meghan Markle’s self-regard.
Yesterday the former B-list TV actress won a court ruling that the Mail on Sunday printed too much of a letter she wrote to her father — despite her tailoring the language specifically because she suspected it might be published.
She even had to apologise for misleading the court over a “lapse of memory”.
Yet still the Appeal Court found for her and against the free Press.
How the “Duchess” gloated, absurdly posing — despite her record — as a brave campaigner for the truth.
If it wasn’t already obvious that the rich and famous will use privacy laws to crush negative coverage, Meghan left no doubt about it.
Her ultimate aim? To “reshape a tabloid industry”.
And there we have it.
Harry has long hated the Press.
His wife detests that she cannot control it — have it churn out positive PR for her as suffocatingly bland as her Instagram feed.
But free speech MUST prevail over entitled, thin-skinned, megarich hypocrites.
We pay for your stories!
Do you have a story for The Sun news desk?