The murder of Jo Yeates instilled a feeling of horror and genuine sympathy and concern for her family and friends. But that doesn’t justify the treatment of Chris Jeffries, the suspect released on Police bail now living at a secret address.

In British law we have an ancient right of innocence until proved guilty. This assumption is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial, where juries dispassionately consider solely the evidence put before them and give a verdict which has to be “beyond reasonable doubt”. If Chris Jeffries is guilty then he is only guilty as tried by a court of jurors taken from twelve men and women, and not by slur, innuendo or stories about his eccentric teaching which have absolutely no relevance at all.

Take one example. It has been stressed that Chris Jeffries has lived alone for some years. If this is a relevant fact then anyone living alone is a murder suspect should any murder be committed in their vicinity. But it is not relevant.

And another example: Chris Jeffries was an eccentric teacher who got angry and threw books at students. If this is relevant then any eccentric teacher (including perhaps this writer, who did once throw a Wellington boot at a student) is similarly suspicious. And so it goes on. You cannot generalise from “a black man once mugged me” to “all black men are muggers” (that’s of course assuming Mr Jeffries is guilty, which is the issue in question).

Kant would have none of this. His contribution to philosophy is huge, not least his principle, often misquoted, “do not treat people simply as a means to an end, but always also as an end in themselves”. This means that every human being has rights, dignity and is worthy of respect and (vitally) to equal treatment. Or put it another way – “how would you feel if you were Chris Jeffries today”?

There is no place in a moral society for vigilantes, trial by media, or innuendo or invalid generalisation.