Nail. Head. Hit.

Why are you even surprised by this? The gap between the rich and the rest of us is now so large that they have effectively risen above the Law as we understand it. Take any major name linked to a crime, whether this case, war crimes, fixing bank rates, or anything you care to mention, the people responsible are never held to account. The Law only applies to the poor. We saw another example of this twisted thinking with the £13 trillion being hidden by the rich avoiding paying tax, so what did the media respond with? The problem of people paying cash in hand for work which is a fraction of the £13 trillion problem, and that matter was conveniently swept under the carpet. It will only get worse.

Since 'Nail. Head. Hit' has already been used, I'll just add that I agree with every word.

"The gap between the rich and the rest of us" ? How do you know I'm not rich ? and the point is that the should not make a difference. Continuing to highlight it does not make it a surprise just in teh same way as not actually being surprised does not mean we should accept it. If that is "just how it is" then surely it needs to change. We see examples, every day, and we do what ? The people "responsible" are US...we allow it to happen. We listen to the media and accept their fiction, even though we know we are being lied to, and we do what ? When I say "we" I don't mean it as a personal dig I mean as a society. We shrug our shoulders, moan a bit, and wait for the next crook to come clean and walk away scott free. I mean Leveson showed us just how deep it runs, how much disregard their is for basic values and how...we just shrug our shoulders, moan and crack on. Like you, I don't accept that this case is "just how it is" the "LAW" is nonsense and is only APPLIED to those who are not in (as Carlin said) The Club. I'm not in it, I don't want to be in it. In fact I want it shut down on the grounds of gross indecency, moral hypocrisy and arrogance and I am basing it purely on the the fact that I no longer accept and comply. PASS IT ON x

I agree with a lot of what you say in your article and in your reply, but the point where we differ is that I don't think anything can be done to cure the problem short of a violent and bloody revolution. Those who are above the law remain above the law, and anyone trying to legitimately bring those to account for their crimes finds themselves the subject of harassment or humiliated in the media, anything to avoid a too close scrutiny of the problems inherent in our society. Corruption, graft, and abuses of power are now so commonplace that most people no longer care and/or accept the situation, those of us who rail against the situation are very much in the minority.

I hear what you say Rob...but violent and bloody revolution wont help us. The law is slowly but surely being shown for what it is...nonsense, a business. Surely not being harrassed or humiliated is the key. Lose the fear of what they can attempt to bring and keep showing them for what they are. Anything other than that plays into the hands of those who can snuff out any violent reaction. I mean they can even decide which "uprising" is just and legitimate and at the same time walk into countries uninvited and by force. Obviously the good guys. There has to be another way. That way has to be to continue exposing what they are until even the most apathetic compliant citizen realises they are being had off and laughed at. Violence and bloodshed. Is not, never has been or ever should be justifiable. All it does is changes the game to something they can cope with and people think is "different". Placate the revolutionaries, even let them think they won, and carry on like nothing happened. When Penn and Teller et al exposed "magic" people stopped going to see and being amazed by magicians. Slowly but surely people in perceived power are being exposed for the frauds they are and in time people will either accept they are stupid or stop complying. Archie Andrews was a vent act..on the radio. People believed it. They even muttered "you can't see his lips move". Keith Harris is now on the dole...go figure. Stupid...will only allow itself to be stupid to a point. I don't think the realisation of how stupid we have been is that far off, mpost of uys already know, some won't allow their pride to admit it. We will be doubly stupid to react in the manner that is already scripted. Revolution and bloodshed, they will have that all day. Time for change, yes. The biggest change has to be how we go about it.

"Just to clarify, here we have a woman walking into THE AMERICAN EMBASSY with 10g of crack cocaine, 2.5g of heroin and 2.35g of diethylpropion." And to clarify further, she is now stone dead because of the monkey on her back. Would you like to dig her up and put her in prison or something? "So, Hans is eventually charged with…forgetting to bury his wife. I reckon a defense of “I was going to do it. I got her ready and I was waiting for the bin-men” should see him walk. I am not for one minute trivialising this whole thing….but having money and donating it to charities, does not deflect from the tragedy," Not for a minute, no. It took longer to read than that. If you're attacking the injustice of the class system, try to demonstrate some of the humanity which that battle implies. You just sound as if you're gloating over a rich dead junkie and the wreckage of her playboy husband. Serves them right for not being poor.

"A junkie with a monkey on her back and the wreckage of her rich playboy husband" Your words, not mine. Perhaps illustrating your yearning for the "traditional class struggle". Personally I got over all that years ago. It's ok to seek equality, regardless of wealth or perceived standing in my book. Just as it is not ok to seek gain from said wealth and standing. I'm sorry I cannot label that with a handy "ism". With regards to digging up Eva and sending her to prison....I'm sure, had it needed to be done to save their own hide, the Rausings would have possibly consider that a viable option.

Brilliant. An article by someone who clearly doesn't understand the law. For the record, he was charged with concealing the body, he wasn't charged with murder or manslaughter. This will only ever receive a suspended sentence, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances. In short, a total non article.

For the record. Hans Kristian Rausing was charged thus: Obstructing a coroner / Intending to prevent a coroner from holding an inquest / Preventing the Burial of a Body An offence under Common Law which carries a Maximum Penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Lest we forget : Driving/Being in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or public place whilst unfit through drink or drugs (Drunk in charge) An offence under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 Maximum Penalty : 3 months imprisonment. 10 penalty points or discretionary disqualification. £1,000 fine. There are, contrary to what the media will have us believe various precedents. If you care to seek them out you see the disparity, plain and simple. In October 2011 a 35 year old female pleaded guilty to preventing the lawful burial of her housemate between 10 March 2011 and 18 March 2011. (8 days, not weeks, not months) The judge said: "It is almost certain XXX XXXXX died of natural causes. But you may have gained a small economic benefit from hiding the fact of his death and using a taxi account in his name. What you did was not only illegal but repugnant to most right-thinking people in society. You will have caused his family a great deal of distress that may last for a long time." Now, you may say but she wasn't a "despicable addict". The Judge certainly doesn't mention it whilst condemning her. I have no idea what her state of mind was after the event. So lets just take it like for like anyway... ....but without the previous, without the driving, without the "I didn't know what was going on" oh and without the millions of pounds of donations to every Tom, Nick and Harry's Dad...they are relevant because the Judge mentioned his leniency towards Hans was tempered with his special philanthopy. So this women what do you reckon, what with your knowledge of the Law and my not understanding it ? Sentence ? She was Detained indeterminately under The Mental Health Act. Likely release date : Indeterminate. BRILLANT !

Whilst the maximum sentence for this type of offence can be life, in the vast majority of cases a suspended sentence is handed down. Therefore saying, as per your title, that he "got away with it" is very misleading. There are undoubtedly many cases where people keep getting away with it, often those with power and influence. These need highlighting to the public so enough outrage can be raised for something to be done about it. This just wasn't one of them. Regarding the case you highlighted, people are not sectioned on a whim. They are properly evaluated by Mental health professionals before any action is taken. To even try and refute that would just make you look silly. In short, i was too harsh with my comments (and therefore apologise) but the context was correct.

you see what happens in the shithole of a country called eire where a bloke got 6 months for sexual assault, but he was rich.

dandini. : You were not harsh you were just ignorant. You also mistook your own ignorance for knowledge. Which is something you still, after being wrong, have not addressed. Can I just try and give you a bit of guidance, For The Record. Nothing I have written is titled "got away with it". I highlighted the Rausing farce because it clearly does actually need an airing. I have no idea what mental state the convicted and lifed off female was in when she was dispatched by a judge who had completely the opposite opinion of this crime than Hans K's judge did. I am therefore not able to confirm or refute. I can categorically state that there was no previous, no drugs, no seedy sordid, despicable addiction and blatent attempts to "conceal" anything. No Prime Ministers brother, no Prince Charles and no sycophantic mourners eulogising over a bloke who died...of natural causes. I can say that Hans was, is or played very well the "bonkers" card. It was that and his money, friends and "despocable (non) illness" that gained him his lenient sentence. He said, the police said, and just about anybody who has received cash from the Hans K and Eva Rausing Trust said..."he's been a bit bonkers for ages" and the judge agreed. SO I can refute the case example because the judge does not give ANY reference to her mental state. Yet she was lifed off. Hans is mental, I believe him we all do. Yet he's in the Jacuzzi in the Bill Oddie Suite at the Copia Nightinghale. You were not too harsh with your comments you were just wrong. I would suggest that when venting spleen against a "non article" filled with facts that you at least try and refute them. Otherwise you have to still pretend you are in the least bit informed, nobody else is and that in this case an apology somehow makes your ignorance valid. The context may very well be correct in reference to something completely different. To try refute that will only make you even more silly. Thank you for apologising for being completely and utterly wrong.

worst part of all of it: they dont pay any tax!! fuckers!! they seem to be doing a pretty good job of killing themselves off, leave em to it...

Francis Allen. 1 - Calm down. 2 - Your response to dandini is not based on fact. It is conjecture. 3. I would suggest that before of accusing people of being ill informed you have a good look at yourself.

I don't advocate violent revolution, I just see it as a consequence of the rich abstracting themselves from reality and putting themselves above the law. Look how quickly and how violent the London riots became over what was initially a small incident. As things get progressively worse the violence will spread from the inner cities and deprived areas to affect the middle classes who in the end could rise up to sweep away the layer of scum floating on the top and reset the whole system until it inevitably collapses in on itself yet again. We're living in the decline of our system and way of life, but we don't see it as people yearn for earlier days when life was simpler and you knew where you stood. I imagine life at the end of the Roman Empire went through similar issues.

@ Mr Chips 1. Im very calm. 2. i can assure your I am basing my teply to dandini on fact. These facts are available should you wish to check them. Didnt take me long to find them so good luck. I have no need for conjecture when its much easier to find and use facts. 3. I would suggest when accusing people of being ill informed you point out the reasoning behind such a conclusion. A counter opinion should surely have some actual basis other than the fact you dont like what you see. Feel free to add some substance, feel free to tell me anything that is not based on fact. I will gladly correct such errors and bow to an obviously superior knowledge. Thanks

I see you have changed the title of your piece. Do i take it that means you have seen the error of your ways? Or are you still claiming to be totally correct and basing things on fact? Looking forward to your response. Usually makes me laugh!

I haven't changed anything. I *NEVER* claim to be totally correct. I do however base things on fact and will use those facts where needed. As in this piece. Now I have asked, nicely, that if there are things in this piece you see as wrong, and you have the facts to tell me why then please, feel free. I also extended the same invitation to Mr. Chips. You are both, as well as eager, welcome to tear the article to shreds. I mean you are still not giving any substance. Until either yourself or Mr. Chips is able to add anything more than "I don't like this, therefore it's lies" then I'm afraid, like Hans, I'm out.

Francis Allen. You say: "It was that and his money, friends and "despocable (non) illness" that gained him his lenient sentence." How would prove this. Facts please.

Which part ? Shall I break it down into three for you ? 1. His dispicable (non) illness. Addiction is *NOT* a disease, illness or anything other than a choice. The circumstances, excuses and even th erecovery industry will have people believe in "the illness". It's not. FACT. 2.His friends. Counting Prince Charles and Alistair Cameron QC as friends along with the heads of Addiction Charities then we can safely say Hans was helped by friends. FACT. 3. Money. Hans has lots of it. FACT. Just to clarify, the judge in his summing up made great mention of Han's "special philanthropy" as Prince Charles described it...The judge summed up.."Had I come to the conclusion that you were no more than a rich drug user, then I would have had no hesitation in taking a similar course to that followed by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Pedder and King where the defendants were similarly drug abusers but without your advantages." he went on "I bear in mind your previous good character, including the contribution you have made, along with your wife, to drug treatment charities." So the bits that say "without your advantages" and "contributions you have made" Thats the bit that bought him leniency. Thats not according to me, thats what the judge said : FACT. I hope this clears up your confusion (or is it blatant ignorance). As I said previously all facts, no conjecture. I think it may be a good idea that you check them out yourself. I mean, I don't mind. I'm just thinking it may save you further embarrassment. Goodbye Mr. Chips.

Laughable. You fall at the first hurdle. His dispicable (non) illness. Addiction is *NOT* a disease, illness or anything other than a choice. The circumstances, excuses and even th erecovery industry will have people believe in "the illness". It's not. FACT. Not a fact. Disputed. You are voicing your OPINION. You obviously get a bit confused between the two. If anyone is making fool out of themselves, it's you. Please explain why addicition is a choice using evidence - other than just because you say so. Give us all a laugh.

The article was interesting and thought provoking- though the subsequent stubborn and rude comments from the writer below have sullied it somewhat

@Mr. Chips....calm down. ADDICTION IS NOT A DISEASE - FACT. What happens now is you bring facts telling me why I am wrong. All those facts (if you do actually bother) will need to override the basic common denominator on which every addiction is based. CHOICE. Not circumstance, hard luck, good luck, social background etc etc. Just that defining moment...YES or NO. If you want me to spend time debating with you then I am more than willing but you have to give more than "you are making a fool out of yourself because I am happy to believe you are wrong without telling you or anybody else why" I have given you facts, I have given you opinion. You have given me abuse. Surely your counter would carry more weight if you stopped laughing and told us what YOU think. Up to you. I'll gladly debate..will you ?

@MBY Stubborn ? If people need facts re-posting because they refuse to read them and accuse me of conjecture then rather than me being stubborn surely it is them being ignorant. As for rude ? In the face of what appears to be wilful ignorance and abuse based on unsubstantiated opinion...I think I have been more than benevolent.

Francis Allen "A junkie with a monkey on her back and the wreckage of her rich playboy husband" Your words, not mine." And what words would you use, after you stopped gloating. perhaps you'd liketo say when the class system ended, and who won. They didn't report it on the news. I realise that senility and apathy sets hits some people before others, and drives them from the real world into an pseudo-intellectual conciept, where they will be safe. But in that case those people should realise that taking part in a political discussion is like coming to a poker game with no stake. "It's ok to seek equality, regardless of wealth or perceived standing in my book. Just as it is not ok to seek gain from said wealth and standing."

@Little Richardjohn Sorry. Not much of that makes sense. Apart from the last quote. Wise words there. Would you like to break the rest down into something coherent? PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHEN THE CLASS SYSTEM ENDED ? For me ? When I realised it was a mechanism put in place to instil fear and enable control. Your assumption therefore is that I must be wrong because you have believed in it for so long it has to be right. Perhaps you are scared of any other alternative than the neat little class divisions programmed into us all...that to actually acknowledge that the "class system" is nonsense and perepetuated ONLY by those who hate it so much...takes a leap of faith. You are not prepared to entertain anything other than that which you already know. It's based on what ? No Change,ever ? Thats great, born to struggle. Not me. I no longer buy into it so it doesn't upset me when somebody doesn't care for it. I can only take it this frustrates you. Then it leads you to dismiss what I have said and without offering anything other than "you are wrong I said so" then resort to insult. Did you say poker ? This is more like Brambley Edge. Is there any chance at all of adding anything other than "your rubbish you are wrong". It's like being heckled by The Krankies and Orville.

Actually Francis Allen, it is you who are totally incorrect. Stating something is FACT (and using capitals to empasise it) doesn't make it so. You haven't actually offered any facts. All you have actually demonstrated is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder. Did mummy not give you enough cuddles as a child? Joke of an article, joke responses. I would say joke of a man too but sadly you aren't very funny, just tragic.

Francis Allen - You just don't get it do you? I can tell you what I THINK about addiction, about whether it is a choice and we can have a nice little tit-for-tat debate about it. The nature of addiction is very complex and unlike you, I don't think it can be summed up in 30 words. As for this idea of 'choice' - most things in life are about choices, you talk as if you've come up with some kind of revelation. Most people would agree that some people are more at risk than others. Why bother considering that though as you have your little tirade. What if I said, addiction is not based on choice. It is a disease. FACT. Only I wouldn't say that though would I? Because I'm not that stupid. You however are under the impression that any half brained opinion you spew out it a fact. That life is all about black and whites. I can't understand how you are completley unable to grasp this premise. I would quit now - you've made a mistake and whatever you say you are not going to look good. Your article is a joke - badly written and full of half truths and assumptions. As are your replies.

ok...so I take it you won't be offering anything other than continually stating you think I am wrong. I did offer to debate. I mean how hard would it be ? You and your FACTS against me and my stupidity, opinion and conjecture ? You, the pair of you, are yet to give any alternative whatsoever other than "That's wrong. I'm right. You are stupid. The End" Do you have a vested interest at all ? I am fully aware of the debate to be had. Which is why I invited you to have it. I don't remember restricting it to 30 words or less just as I don't recall putting across any "revelation". I'm glad you get the whole "choice v disease" thing though. Thanks again...for saying exactly what you have both said in all your previous posts...nothing.

You are the one who wrote the article and you have invited criticism because it was poor. Statements like this: "So, Hans is eventually charged with…forgetting to bury his wife"...embarrasing. "The hypocrisy we see on an almost daily basis in this country is reaching a staggering level" - you don't even follow that up with any kind of reasoning, just some paper thin waffle about having an obituary in the Guardian. Your suggestion that anyone else would have walked away from court in the way that Hans Rausing did is clumsy as is your attempt to substantiate by linking to another case which really doesn't prove anything one way or another. Two different cases, two different sets of circumstances and two different judges. So it comes down to saying 'nothing' and spouting off a load of cringe-inducing ill-informed nonsense then I know which would be my 'choice'.

Well "forgetting to bury his wife" whilst may well be a bit flippant. How about He wrapped his wife in bags, buried there under more bags, of clothing, used a deodorising powder to stifle the smell then sealed off the room with the same tape used to wrap his deceased wife. Hypocrisy on a daily level. You need that spelling out ? Media Politicians, Bankers..do as I say, not as I do. THAT hypocrisy. Paper thin waffle about an obituary in the Guardian ? The Obituary was written by Nick Barton the Head of Action on Addiction. At the time of writing novbody was privy to the details surrounding the case. I linked the cases after I was told here by dandini "he was charged with concealing the body, he wasn't charged with murder or manslaughter. This will only ever receive a suspended sentence, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances. In short, a total non article." So I corrected him and I do believe he realised his mistake and haste in wanting to insult me over actually bothering with facts. A recurring theme here eh ? Again I have told you...not ill-informed, like for like charges, which in summing up has a verbatim which a judge will use to convey the ""horror and inhumanity" of such actions. Again I ask...what are you actually countering my "ill-informed nonsense" with ? Your opinion that it's incorrect ? "So it comes down to saying 'nothing' and spouting off a load of cringe-inducing ill-informed nonsense then I know which would be my 'choice'" ...you chose both ? I'm going to end my input here....how about we both keep an eye on Hans and perhaps other cases (not the same, not the same judges and not the same circusmtances obviously) I mean it's not as if the same charge can be applied the same to everybody. That would be madness eh ? Take Jackjie Powell for example...I bet you don't.

Oh dear...Those Swedish police and their wanting to talk to people in the UK. I'm sure it will all work out fine for Hans. I mean, he's such a nice guy.

Isn't their biggest crime that they neglected to remember their four kids throughout all of this?

Why?????!!!!