Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Errant Mum post removed
Posted by: gel Aug 1 2011, 06:39 PM
Odd the post I started re young Mum abandoning her parental responsibilities/ appearing in local court, has been canned.
Not getting jailed seems to be the norm in Newbury for such events;
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/Article.aspx?articleID=12631
Here's another similar example in Cumbria; whether it's worse or less than the removed thread, you decide 
; at least in a car they were spotted/ potentially saved.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-mum-who-left-kids-in-red-hot-car-sentenced-by-court-1.863610?referrerPath=news
The Daily Star were far from impressed either with Newbury party;
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/203922/Scum-mum-leaves-boy-4-home-alone/
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 07:13 PM
There was some quite malicious language used.
Posted by: user23 Aug 1 2011, 07:31 PM
I'm not surprised it was removed.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 1 2011, 07:52 PM
Good.
Heres what you can do though,.....instead of standing around bleating and belly-aching whinging and whining, why not actually do something about it?
Over to you.....(put up or shut up)
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-magistrates-and-tribunal-judges/judges-career-paths/becoming-a-magistrate
Click on the link above.
Posted by: Sidney Aug 1 2011, 09:44 PM
Not getting jailed seems to be the norm in Newbury for such events;
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/Article.aspx?articleID=12631
Here's another similar example in Cumbria; whether it's worse or less than the removed thread, you decide
; at least in a car they were spotted/ potentially saved.http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-mum-who-left-kids-in-red-hot-car-sentenced-by-court-1.863610?referrerPath=news
The Daily Star were far from impressed either with Newbury party;
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/203922/Scum-mum-leaves-boy-4-home-alone/
Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 1 2011, 09:52 PM
The NWN own the forum and moderate it. They are therefore jointly responsible for any civil suit.
The descriptor used clearly specified who it was targeting, so I can understand the decision. Not sure the whole thread had to be deleted, but it is their ball, so they get to pick the team.........
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 10:00 PM
And while you continue to use it, you both condemn this thread to the same fate, and you do no good to your image either. It is their forum and they make the rules. It could be argued that your language was inflammatory and likely or intended to incite violence or hatred. May I suggest you moderate your tone?
Posted by: Sidney Aug 1 2011, 10:00 PM
The descriptor used clearly specified who it was targeting, so I can understand the decision. Not sure the whole thread had to be deleted, but it is their ball, so they get to pick the team.........
Freedom of speech ?? Stick and Stones ?? All sorts of cliche's spring to mind !
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 10:02 PM
You are not free to incite hate and you are certainly not free to write what you want. Your language is evidently offensive and not necessary.
Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 1 2011, 10:03 PM
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right - it is constrained by law. Move on
Posted by: Decarix Aug 2 2011, 01:37 AM
Freedom of speech pretty much doesn;t exist on media forums such as the internet. You're bound to offend SOMEONE even if the majority agrees with what you are saying no matter WHAT you say.
Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 2 2011, 06:01 AM
Rubbish, and that is not the issue. Someone can feel offended, but the Courts and Law set the standard for what is unlawful.
(I hope that did not offend)
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 2 2011, 07:16 AM
If a couple of 'knee-jerks' come on here and start calling anyone who disagrees with them "scum" and they cite the Mail and the Star as their sources, then I for one am happy to line up against them.
You can tell a lot about a person from the company they keep, (as the saying goes). I wouldn't want to be in the company of people like that. It appeared unthinking and unreasonable and didn't show them up in a very good light. However, I think some of the statements made 'in the small print' of the thread were the most likely reason the admins got cold feet.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 2 2011, 08:22 AM
For someone who claims to be the smarter brother, you don't half let yourself down sometimes. Nobody called forum members scum, so you either didn't read it, didn't understand it or are just trying to cause trouble. The woman in the story who had been convicted of serious neglect was called names. Whether you like it or not the news story was in several media outlets, so just because someone reads a different newspaper to you, it doesn't mean thair views are worth any less than your own. As for knee jerk, I would say most of the posts on here are knee jerk, it's a live forum, you read a post and then respond if you want to. There is no going away and thinking about it for a bit for most on here I would have thought, but I will assume that you will try and take the high ground and claim you do.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 2 2011, 08:42 AM
That's shows you maybe weren't about when the last posts were written.
So to enlighten you....'Sidney' said that if anybody defended the girl that made them 'scum' too.
and quoted 'gel' who also said those opposed were 'scum'.
That was just about the last post written before the thread was removed.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
However, I still doubt if that was the reason the thread was stopped
Posted by: Squelchy Aug 2 2011, 09:13 AM
Oh yes they did.
Posted by: Weavers Walk Aug 2 2011, 09:17 AM
gel and sidney both said that forum members defending her were scum also.
Posted by: FactFile Aug 2 2011, 09:25 AM
Smarter than you though. have to agree here. Forum members saying this woman and her family needed help not incarceration were called scum by those two already named. Think before you speak. I expect some clever trevor will be able to dig the abuse out of google's cache. Unless admins have wiped that as well. But I read the name calling with my own two eyes.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 2 2011, 11:00 AM
Perhaps if people might have the intelligence to avoid using the presumed offensive term, we might then have a thread up longer than a few days! 
Posted by: Sidney Aug 2 2011, 03:00 PM
You can tell a lot about a person from the company they keep, (as the saying goes). I wouldn't want to be in the company of people like that. It appeared unthinking and unreasonable and didn't show them up in a very good light. However, I think some of the statements made 'in the small print' of the thread were the most likely reason the admins got cold feet.
As this particular thread is still here I am assuming you are right about "the small print." (Either that or admin are on holiday) You are also right about "knee-jerks" but as a parent I fail to see how this case (and others like it) can be defended ?
Whilst my post was considered offensive, many forum members seem to believe this "poor girl" needs help, and Gel and I are the villians !!?? I think the main concern should be for the children now surely ? Where do you draw the line at helping these poor unskilled parents ? Baby P's parents ? The McGanns ? Hard as it may seem there are people out there who just don't care !!
Posted by: Bloggo Aug 2 2011, 03:12 PM
Whilst my post was considered offensive, many forum members seem to believe this "poor girl" needs help, and Gel and I are the villians !!?? I think the main concern should be for the children now surely ? Where do you draw the line at helping these poor unskilled parents ? Baby P's parents ? The McGanns ? Hard as it may seem there are people out there who just don't care !!
Although I don't support your use of what is an offensive term to other Forum users I personally agree that the rights of the child are sometimes traded against those of the uncarring and downright criminal parents and I know all cases are different but any right thinking individual must consider the child first. After all he/she has no choice but to accept the abuse.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 2 2011, 03:22 PM
'Uncaring' 'Criminal'??? WTF - How can you use such terms about these poor people?? You really are SCUM Bloggo!!!
Posted by: Sidney Aug 2 2011, 03:43 PM
So will we be debate whether she got off lightly ? Whether she should have the children back ? or is that all too taboo, and might cause offence to some delicate little souls? Or shall we just discuss allotments and WBC, which on the scale of things is trivial .... must keeps us amused ??
Posted by: Rosewinelover Aug 2 2011, 03:52 PM
Should she have the children taken away - YES
Are people like her **** - I think so, yes. I do not think others in the forum are **** because they 'defended' her - not everyone sees the bad in people, even with children involved. Personally, a childs life and future should not be left in the hands of a parent who verbally/physically/mentally abuse them - every child deserves to live in a home where they are loved.
Oh and Sidney - bring something about the allotments into this and every one will be discussing it.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 2 2011, 04:33 PM
I can't remember anyone defending her actions. Some people did describe how throwing the person in gaol wouldn't necessarily help. I think everyone on here would think what the person did was an abominable thing, but some on here have a different approach to how best deal with it.
The S word, to me, is not far short of the C word, and is not the most fitting to describe any member on this form.
Did the parent deserve gaol? Yes. Would that have been an effective punishment? Who knows. Do I think she got off lightly? No, but only because I think her card is marked, and I would not trade her situation for mine anyday soon. Even if she avoided gaol.
Posted by: Rusty Bullet Aug 2 2011, 04:41 PM
Well I read and re-read the posts and I couldn'tt see anywhere or anyone suggesting the little ones should remain with this woman. I couldn't see anyone defending her parenting skills. All I could see was one lot saying she'll need help to continue to grow into a more useful member of society, and another lot saying she had to be put in prison, and name calling on those who didn't support their views. This abuse along with the lock-up calls seem to be based on one article in the Daily Mail which was then picked up by two other tabloids. Since at the moment there is no way of knowing how accurate parts of this story are it is quite surprising that the 'lock-up' side became quite so rude and adamant.
Posted by: user23 Aug 2 2011, 07:22 PM
Posted by: On the edge Aug 2 2011, 07:29 PM
Daily Mail seems to have taken a lot of stick for what was essentially printed in our very own local paper. Seemed factual, if curt. Could see nothing sensational in what was written at all. In case you are wondering, my daily read is the Times.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 2 2011, 09:00 PM
Rupert needs all the help he can get at the moment.
One of 'gel's' initial rants was that the NWN hadn't covered the story. How odd.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 3 2011, 07:06 PM
You are right I wasn't around for that, I went to Whitby! Perhaps I was a bit quick to have jumped in there. Sorry.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 3 2011, 07:08 PM
There were people (whilst I was reading) who were tyring to imply that the Daily Mail had over egged the whole thing and that those criticising were getting worked up over nothing. I have to say this annoyed me too.
Posted by: Bloggo Aug 4 2011, 07:59 AM
I can only appologise TDH. I did not mean to be offensive, don't want to upset anyone.
Posted by: Andy1 Aug 4 2011, 08:48 AM
Does that include middle class parents who leave their children whilst going across the road for dinner ????
Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2011, 08:52 AM
What is your definition of middle class? Any abandonment is as wrong as its against the law.
Posted by: Andy1 Aug 4 2011, 08:57 AM
It's just a lable, but I just meant someone who was fairly affluent. I totally agree, which was my point, sorry if I didn't get that across
Posted by: Bloggo Aug 4 2011, 10:37 AM
In my opinion, yes.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 4 2011, 10:59 AM
Did the McCanns not leave a Daughter called Madeleine....
Posted by: Bloggo Aug 4 2011, 11:14 AM
They did and it was wrong.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 4 2011, 12:10 PM
And they paid the ultimate price and a lesson that some find hard to learn judging by the original story.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Aug 4 2011, 02:21 PM
It really irks me when people say they are paying the ultimate price...No they are not, their daughter is - dead or alive.
Agree, people do not learn from the Mcanns stupidity...'Some' parents couldn't care less.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 4 2011, 03:39 PM
It irks me when people are pedantic. As parents, they paid the ultimate price.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Aug 4 2011, 03:48 PM
As parents they failed - badly.
Posted by: HeatherW Aug 4 2011, 05:24 PM
I just read this in the NWN and I was horrified. Parents must make the effort to make sure that their children are totally safe at all times and if that means going without (even a boyfriend) then that should be so. Sometimes I wonder why young girls want to have children if they regard other things more important than their own responsibilities. Unless they have children to get more money from social? I am not saying this is the case here, but it has been known to happen.
Posted by: user23 Aug 4 2011, 07:45 PM
Some otherwise sensible folk at lot older have been known to value an evening meal out, over the safety of their children.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2011, 08:36 PM
Bad parenting occurs right across the social spectrum. Its probably worse for the 'upper end' as no one quite believes what are thought to be professional will do such things - so detection takes far longer. Wasn't there a case recently involving two Doctors?
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 4 2011, 09:02 PM
---
Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2011, 09:31 PM
I agree. As they say it takes two to tango. Both parents are responsible, even if one is left alone holding the baby (no pun intended). There are many bad parents of both sexes.
Posted by: Andy1 Aug 5 2011, 06:05 AM
Pedantic you say, the parents have paid the ultimate price. No! The child has paid the ultimate price for the parents actions.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 5 2011, 07:48 AM
Your point has been made already. As a parent, I cannot think of anything worse for my being partly responsible for losing my child, it would be worse than my death. I was talking from the point of view of the parent. The fate of the child, which is currently speculative, goes without saying.
Can you think of anything worse for a parent than being partly responsible for losing your child?
Posted by: Andy1 Aug 5 2011, 09:46 AM
Can you think of anything worse for a parent than being partly responsible for losing your child?
I can't think of anything worse. But then to me society seems to dictate that one case is a bad mistake and the other should have the book thrown at them because of the social standing based on the news paper
Posted by: gel Aug 5 2011, 09:57 AM
Newbury Today still don't seem to have covered this news story; is it in the paper (NWN?)
Posted by: Rosewinelover Aug 5 2011, 11:33 AM
Can you think of anything worse for a parent than being partly responsible for losing your child?
Partly responsible - where on earth do you get partly from? This was no accident, they were left alone on purpose so mummy and daddy could eat and get merry.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 5 2011, 11:45 AM
It is all supposition, but I am assuming they didn't deliberately get rid of their daughter. As the fate of Madeleine McCann is officially unknown to the authorities, I'll presume she was abducted by a third party. I take this to mean that the McCann's were not totally responsible for her disappearance. The point is, even if the parents were at home, it would not have meant their daughter was perfectly safe from abduction. In other words, leaving their children alone was not the only reason the abduction occurred.
At the end of the day, Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a horrible thing to happen, we can all agree on that.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 5 2011, 11:47 AM
The difference between the two cases, is that the McCanns left their daughter alone (unacceptable) but the Newbury woman left her kids in conditions of sqaulor for months on end, and left them alone on more than one occasion. The McCanns made a very selfish and costly mistake, the Newbury woman is guilty of prolonged systematic abuse.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 5 2011, 12:30 PM
I agree with that in principle. However, the Public are 'supposed' to empathise with the McCanns and give to the 'Find Madeleine' appeal. If we were to give the Nwbury Woman £000's of pounds perhaps she could afford child care and not be such a 'bad mother'?No excuse for her behaviour but it's interesting how things pan out.
Posted by: Rosewinelover Aug 5 2011, 12:49 PM
At the end of the day, Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a horrible thing to happen, we can all agree on that.
Yes, I can agree on that..Actually debating over this, that and the other wont bring her back. I just find it terrible and it makes me so upset when I think of this, so i'm probably better off not discussing it anymore anyway.
(I think the situation with the Newbury women is slightly worse than the Mcanns for the time scale of neglect...All though I suspect Maddie is continuing to endure on going abuse - if she is alive
)
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 5 2011, 01:29 PM
(I think the situation with the Newbury women is slightly worse than the Mcanns for the time scale of neglect...All though I suspect Maddie is continuing to endure on going abuse - if she is alive
)I understand totally what you mean. As insensitive as it might sound, it is probably better not to dwell.
Posted by: user23 Aug 5 2011, 04:56 PM
Posted by: Andy1 Aug 5 2011, 07:42 PM
We all know how well the tabloids can print the truth
Posted by: Strafin Aug 5 2011, 10:02 PM
Well according that newspaper article she has pleaded guilty to it, and she has already been charged which kind of makes it more than just an allegation.
Posted by: user23 Aug 5 2011, 10:16 PM
Perhaps you should withdraw your accusation and apologise to her.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 5 2011, 10:57 PM
No, because the court reports say that she did, the police statements allude to that, and she pleaded guilty. You are one of the few people who are trying to defend her. To be honest the whole thing sickens me, and the fact that you and others are defending her is a shocking revelation as to just how bad our society is becoming. I didn't see the posts which were removed from the other thread but I think I would have agreed with some of them and have a much lower opinion of some people on these boards than I ever have before.
Posted by: Squelchy Aug 6 2011, 12:40 AM
Excellent, it's the man with all the facts again. Could you post a link to the court reports? They don't have to be transcripts, just the LAG ones will do.
Then we've got them by the balls, you see. By proving that she pleaded guilty to leaving them in conditions of squalor for months on end, then we''ll be able to see that that was what she was charged with. After all you can't plead guilty to something you haven't been charged with can you?
Let's move on this one. Your access to the Court reports rather than just a newspaper story will prove vital.
Posted by: user23 Aug 6 2011, 07:55 AM
What is a "shocking revelation as to just how bad our society is becoming" is that fewer and fewer people seem to be able to think for themselves, instead being guided into making knee-jerk reactions and unfounded statements by the tabloids. Beware though, for those who are unfairly accused on boards like this are within their rights to seek out those who wronged them and in order for financial recompense.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 6 2011, 01:27 PM
I don't need to publish anything on here, it is all in the articles already posted. If I put the court transcript up the argument would be that it is just an interpretation, or that those in court may not have told have told the truth. I am sure if the storey had appeared in The Guardian this conversation would be quite different, because some people are unable to think for themselves and just do whatever the left wing broadsheets tell them. I am not going to get into a huge debate about it, some people think child abuse is acceptable if poor people do it. Some people work for the council and are unwilling to admit that there could have been any sort of failure on their part. I think some people need to have their hard drives checked.
Posted by: user23 Aug 6 2011, 02:30 PM
Nowhere does it says she pleaded guilty to leaving her kids in conditions of squalor for months on end.
Posted by: Squelchy Aug 6 2011, 03:52 PM
F.Y.I. The Guardian, is in fact wholly owned by a charitable trust thus has no proprietor to tell it which direction to take. Suprised you didn't know that.
Interesting though that you believe that the tabloids might have put their own spin on it but you still quote them as 'Law Reports'
*you could easily prove me wrong by telling us where you read the 'Law Reports' as you called them. No links needed. Just to help you, and before you make anything else up, magistrates courts don't use stenographers.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 6 2011, 05:17 PM
Squelchy, I have already said I am not going to get into an argument with someone who is into child abuse. I have not said I have seen the court transcripts, I said that they are referred to in the articles, which they are. In fact there is a lot included in the articles that you choose to ignore because the story originated in the daily mail.
Posted by: Sidney Aug 6 2011, 06:41 PM
Thank you Strafin ! It was I who got stick for suggesting anyone who defended her behaviour was of a similar "ilk". I find it completely inexcusable regardless of her "class", "marital status" etc etc. I feel it is "political correctness" gone mad.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 6 2011, 06:52 PM
The report in the NWN gives a fair bit of detail as well, and she pleaded guilty to will full neglect as well as the abandonment.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 6 2011, 06:58 PM
The press report of what was said in court about the state of the home included a view of the time the refuse had been there. Coupled with the other information a man sitting on top of a Clapham omnibus could reasonably surmise that the occupants had been living like that.
Frankly none of the press reports have been inflammatory and again, that same man on the Clapham bus, when reading the words can be forgiven his feeling of disgust.
Although such a standard has not been codified into law - we all know that this is not how society expects children to be looked after.
If there was any element of doubt or the mitigating circumstances compelling - the case would never have come to court - there would have been no reason.
By the way, this was all published in papers of record and there has been time to object. So like it or not, this time we can believe what we read in the press.
Posted by: user23 Aug 6 2011, 07:21 PM
For someone who keeps mentioning "law reports" this is certainly a major misunderstanding and perhaps explains your errors in judgement.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 6 2011, 08:14 PM
User, please quote on here any of my posts where I have used the term "law reports".
Posted by: user23 Aug 7 2011, 12:04 PM
Posted by: Roost Aug 7 2011, 12:38 PM
Really? Didn't seem that way to me.
From an outsiders perspective it seemed as tho you were trying to pick holes with Strafin, focused on a particular phrase and were then reminded that said phrase had not actually been used. Only my perception, of course.
Posted by: user23 Aug 7 2011, 12:54 PM
From an outsiders perspective it seemed as tho you were trying to pick holes with Strafin, focused on a particular phrase and were then reminded that said phrase had not actually been used. Only my perception, of course.
Anyway, back on topic, from what I gather the original thread was removed because some forum members with far right leanings started name calling. It seems this thread is descending in a similar fashion with a comments such as "I am not going to get into an argument with someone who is into child abuse" directed at another forum member so I'm putting the offender on Ignore.
Some folk just don't know how to play nice.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 7 2011, 02:33 PM
Classic, argue an invalid point, try to be clever, get caught out and then put me on ignore. Very grown up.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 7 2011, 02:54 PM
Wholly agree with this. Its this type of behaviour that brings this type of debate into disrepute. Quite sad really.
Posted by: user23 Aug 7 2011, 03:11 PM
Sometimes as in life, you just have to walk away from the discussion with this type of person.
They should not deserve your time.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 7 2011, 03:25 PM
Certainly, just 'walking away' is honourable.
Posted by: Jayjay Aug 7 2011, 05:59 PM
Anyway, back on topic, from what I gather the original thread was removed because some forum members with far right leanings started name calling. It seems this thread is descending in a similar fashion with a comments such as "I am not going to get into an argument with someone who is into child abuse" directed at another forum member so I'm putting the offender on Ignore.
Some folk just don't know how to play nice.
Will you also put the member who said 'let's face it, you're a liar*' on ignore, or is it just one particular members name calling you object to?
Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 8 2011, 08:33 AM
The simple, legal truth is the woman pleaded guilty to the allegation, which probably stated something along the lines of "On * January 20**, at Newbury in the County of Berkshire, Wilfully neglected and abandoned........
That is the bare detail of what she admitted. the circumstances as described to the Court/reported in the newspaper are not 'admitted', because the niceties of the system mean that allegation was not put to her to be challenged. I remember she said the turmoil was due to a recent burglary (I suspect the offender was trying to find a way out....).
So she admitted leaving the children in the house, uncared for, on the one occasion, with the mess described 'explained'. She did not 'admit' she was responsible for the mess, nor that it was the normal state of affairs.
So 'Mr Average' will draw all the conclusions he likes, and may well be right, but what is described as 'defending' the woman seems to be actually a plea to watch points so the debate can continue and not fall foul of 'excessive vigour'.
I have come across children in such squalor myself. It is no fun, I assure you. However, such 'parents' do wriggle and squirm to justify themselves, and will grip on to any inaccurate comments to demonstrate how people lie about them and they are not so bad after all.... However unbelievable you may think things are, there is someone, somewhere acting in just that way. Not in the slums of Mexico City, but here in the UK.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 8 2011, 08:55 AM
That is the bare detail of what she admitted. the circumstances as described to the Court/reported in the newspaper are not 'admitted', because the niceties of the system mean that allegation was not put to her to be challenged. I remember she said the turmoil was due to a recent burglary (I suspect the offender was trying to find a way out....).
So she admitted leaving the children in the house, uncared for, on the one occasion, with the mess described 'explained'. She did not 'admit' she was responsible for the mess, nor that it was the normal state of affairs.
So 'Mr Average' will draw all the conclusions he likes, and may well be right, but what is described as 'defending' the woman seems to be actually a plea to watch points so the debate can continue and not fall foul of 'excessive vigour'.
I have come across children in such squalor myself. It is no fun, I assure you. However, such 'parents' do wriggle and squirm to justify themselves, and will grip on to any inaccurate comments to demonstrate how people lie about them and they are not so bad after all.... However unbelievable you may think things are, there is someone, somewhere acting in just that way. Not in the slums of Mexico City, but here in the UK.
Very good post.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2011, 12:27 PM
Quite agree! And so for some 'parenting' hasn't moved on since 1900.
Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 8 2011, 03:02 PM
We who are perfect have to put up with lesser beings.....
Posted by: Strafin Aug 8 2011, 03:33 PM
She was charged with and pleaded guilty to two counts of neglect, and also was charged with two counts of abandonment. Neglect and abandonment. Please note the that she was charged with neglect.
Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 8 2011, 05:13 PM
No-one denies what she was found guilty of - statute-wise. What I believe is the issue to be guarded over is the language used to describe the offender, and the extent to which she 'admitted' the gory details such that we can say it was 100% admission of everything mentioned and that was the normal state of affairs every day. The two counts of neglect and abandonment arise from the one finding on the day - two children found alone in squalid conditions. She did not admit it was so the day before.
That is not defending her, just trying to keep a highly valid debate on track. My initial tongue in cheek comments about the liability of social workers etc are not totally 'wrong'. In my view the parents are always 100% responsible unless found incapable. However, once Social Services become involved they take a legal accountability and one could wonder how it is that a home could be in such a state with children there. The neighbours and parents too should be examining their positions........
Posted by: Strafin Aug 8 2011, 05:21 PM
I was making the point as to what she was charged with as several people have tried to say that she was not charged with neglect. She was.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2011, 07:07 PM
Its not a matter of perfection its simply a matter of abiding by rules set by society. Hate the sin, love the sinner as the old saying went.
Posted by: Cognosco Aug 8 2011, 09:11 PM
Suffer little children? What does this say about our society today. Will it ever be differernt?
Posted by: On the edge Aug 8 2011, 09:37 PM
No it won't be different - not 'till this world ends.
Posted by: JeffG Aug 8 2011, 09:47 PM
Not quite sure what you're getting at. "Suffer" in that context is an archaic form meaning "allow" or "permit".
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)