Errant Mum post removed, Big Brother protects those found guilty in public court Options

[user23]

Well according that newspaper article she has pleaded guilty to it, so I assume she has already been charged which kind of makes it more than just an allegation now.

Nowhere in the article does it say she pleaded guilty to "leaving her kids in conditions of sqaulor for months on end" which you have claimed that she had.

Perhaps you should withdraw your accusation and apologise to her.

[Strafin]

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.

[Squelchy]

No, because the court reports say that she did

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.

[user23]

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.

I'm not defending her, I'm asking you why you are accusing a named individual of actions when there seems no evidence to support your assertions. She pleaded guilty to leaving her children alone for a few hours, not "leaving her kids in conditions of sqaulor for months on end" as you claim.

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.

[Strafin]

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.

[user23]

I don't need to publish anything on here, it is all in the articles already posted.

This is untrue.

Nowhere does it says she pleaded guilty to leaving her kids in conditions of squalor for months on end.

[Squelchy]

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,

You can't, because, let's face it, you're a liar*. You do not have access to the law reports, neither have you seen them or read them. Your idea of 'court report' is in fact 'story in the tabloid wot I read'

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.

[Strafin]

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.

[Sidney]

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.

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.

[Strafin]

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.

[On the edge]

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.

[user23]

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.

Wasn't the charge "Wilful Neglect and Abandonment" so how could she have done anything else?

For someone who keeps mentioning "law reports" this is certainly a major misunderstanding and perhaps explains your errors in judgement.

[Strafin]

For someone who keeps mentioning "law reports" this is certainly a major misunderstanding and perhaps explains your errors in judgement.

User, please quote on here any of my posts where I have used the term "law reports".

[user23]

User, please quote on here any of my posts where I have used the term "law reports".

You haven't. We were using it as a term of derision.

[Roost]

You haven't. We were using it as a term of derision.

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.

[user23]

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.

There's no need to pick holes with Strafin when he posts things like "she pleaded guilty to will full neglect as well as the abandonment". I wonder if he likes both types of music, Country and Western?

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.

[Strafin]

Classic, argue an invalid point, try to be clever, get caught out and then put me on ignore. Very grown up.

[On the edge]

Classic, argue an invalid point, try to be clever, get caught out and then put me on ignore. Very grown up.

Wholly agree with this. Its this type of behaviour that brings this type of debate into disrepute. Quite sad really.

[user23]

Wholly agree with this. Its this type of behaviour that brings this type of debate into disrepute. Quite sad really.

Actually it's being proved consistently wrong, arguing more and more desperate and unproven assertions and insulting others by suggesting posters are "into child abuse" that brings this type of debate into disrepute.

Sometimes as in life, you just have to walk away from the discussion with this type of person.

They should not deserve your time.

[On the edge]

Certainly, just 'walking away' is honourable.