ChatterBank1 min ago
Baby P - RIP
Following the appauling torture of this poor baby boy at the hands of his carers, and the devastating errors of judgement by authorities; can anyone explain why his Mother & her partner have been granted legal anonymity? They dont fit the age category and they have been convicted of a crime, albeit, not murder as I believe it should be, and there is no mention of any other children to protect from the same family. I cant understand why they cant be named and shamed as they should be. Their lodger was named, why not them?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Meg888. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably because the police would have a multiple murder on their hands when the public found out who they were etc etc. (and rightly so).
These things do have a habit of getting out tho so watch this space.
The Scum will probably end up under police protection at great expense to us, the taxpayer, because their lives will be in danger.
These things do have a habit of getting out tho so watch this space.
The Scum will probably end up under police protection at great expense to us, the taxpayer, because their lives will be in danger.
I asked this yesterday in a post.
Sorry but they will not get what they deserve. They should be doing the Sadam shuffle but hey none were charged for murder so they will be out in probably 3 years.
The Justice system stinks and so does the Social system. Too many do gooders in this country are dragging us down. In days of yore scum were killed off in war, unfortunaltely the days of canon fodder have gone and we are left with the consequence compunded by liberal leftie do gooders.
Sorry but they will not get what they deserve. They should be doing the Sadam shuffle but hey none were charged for murder so they will be out in probably 3 years.
The Justice system stinks and so does the Social system. Too many do gooders in this country are dragging us down. In days of yore scum were killed off in war, unfortunaltely the days of canon fodder have gone and we are left with the consequence compunded by liberal leftie do gooders.
Hanging is far to quick for them.
The punishement needs to be drawn out over a long period of time with as much pain as possible so they can get a taste of the horror they inflicted on a poor, defenceless baby.
Being left in a bare cell with nothing but a water after having something broken and no medical treatment.
The people who didn't do their jobs properly should never be allowed to work in this area again.
Name them so that their families can recieve trouble from naighbours because they didn't do a thing to help this child and the child minder should have her license taken from her.
The punishement needs to be drawn out over a long period of time with as much pain as possible so they can get a taste of the horror they inflicted on a poor, defenceless baby.
Being left in a bare cell with nothing but a water after having something broken and no medical treatment.
The people who didn't do their jobs properly should never be allowed to work in this area again.
Name them so that their families can recieve trouble from naighbours because they didn't do a thing to help this child and the child minder should have her license taken from her.
youngmafbog.
Too many do gooders in this country are dragging us down. In days of yore scum were killed off in war,
unfortunaltely the days of canon fodder have gone and we are left with the consequence compunded by liberal leftie do gooders.
I have frequently blamed the "Do-Gooders" and the "Liberal Left over the state of the country today, BUT!!!! I think your comments are a disgrace and do the cause for a more right wing approach no good what-so-ever. In fact I can only assume that you are actually Left-Wing committing a send-up.
Over the last few days you must have seen what your so called "scum" & "cannon fodder" endured and sacrificed so that the likes of you actually exist and are still free to make such disgusting remarks.
Shame on you.
Too many do gooders in this country are dragging us down. In days of yore scum were killed off in war,
unfortunaltely the days of canon fodder have gone and we are left with the consequence compunded by liberal leftie do gooders.
I have frequently blamed the "Do-Gooders" and the "Liberal Left over the state of the country today, BUT!!!! I think your comments are a disgrace and do the cause for a more right wing approach no good what-so-ever. In fact I can only assume that you are actually Left-Wing committing a send-up.
Over the last few days you must have seen what your so called "scum" & "cannon fodder" endured and sacrificed so that the likes of you actually exist and are still free to make such disgusting remarks.
Shame on you.
Tiger lily: I totally agree with you about the childminder (amongst others); how she had the gall to sit on national TV, hold her head up and say what she knew he was in a bad way yet she still took him home. EVERY person that saw this child & turned the other cheek should be named and shamed - like in Liverpool, when the local rag paraded their names in the local community as the "Liverpool ##" the amount of people who chose to ignore the odd behaviour of the boys taking Jamie Bulger as he was led to his death. I'm hoping the scumbags that done this to baby P will be named & shamed in time.
Goodsoullette: the girl you are thinking of is the 15 yr old lover of the 36yr old lodger. Baby P's mum & b/f were 27 & 32 yr old - too old for age anonymity.
I agree with Gromit on this one.
Goodsoullette: the girl you are thinking of is the 15 yr old lover of the 36yr old lodger. Baby P's mum & b/f were 27 & 32 yr old - too old for age anonymity.
I agree with Gromit on this one.
Over the last few days you must have seen what your so called "scum" & "cannon fodder" endured and sacrificed so that the likes of you actually exist and are still free to make such disgusting remarks.
She's technically right, though. Historically the military has long looked to convicts on death row or people with few prospects for recruitment (who else would join?). In this country it was only until the early twentieth century that conscription (which Brits have a long history of being opposed to) was used as a desperate alternative.
Oh yeah, and why do you assume that people who agree with you are the only 'right-wingers' who exist?
She's technically right, though. Historically the military has long looked to convicts on death row or people with few prospects for recruitment (who else would join?). In this country it was only until the early twentieth century that conscription (which Brits have a long history of being opposed to) was used as a desperate alternative.
Oh yeah, and why do you assume that people who agree with you are the only 'right-wingers' who exist?
and hmmm somewhere else saying she is 24....... Ive no idea Meg888 now. I suppose with both of these people potentially out of prison in the not too distant future it's in the public interest to have them named, it's owed to people with families to make sure they are aware of what they have been capable of.
Kromovaracun
Historically the military has long looked to convicts on death row or people with few prospects for recruitment (who else would join)?
I think you might have watched too many "Dirty Dozen" Films Krom.
But yes historically this is what happened, 'Press Gangs' extreme poverty bestowed on most people's of this country., driven on by the Officer classes/Lords & Gentry. This is the history of this country, a country of sea-farers, a people who discovered, colonised and civilised a large portion of the Globe. An Army who could take on greater nations and win.
But in this day and age to class them as scum & cannon fodder is to serve an injustice upon our present day technical, superior and professional Armed Forces. A very small fraction of posters on this site would have the ability to get into the forces, and even if they did a large proportion would not be able to last the course.
Oh yeah, and why do you assume that people who agree with you are the only 'right-wingers' who exist?
Not quite sure where you are coming from on this. But I generally class 'right-wingers' as those that are in agreement with stricter sentences for crimes, a less politically correct Police Force, and for the indigenous population of this country to get a fairer deal, not a better deal than others, just equal.
I could go on and on, but you should know where I am coming from. On the other hand you generally find that the Left are not very patriotic, would love to see an end to the 'Royals' and anything else that our heritage is based upon. Oh! and the Left seem to shout alot, are very rude, use insulting language etc, etc. (why are the Left so nasty)?
That is why I thought that youngmafbog may be Left because she used words such as "SCUM" & "CANNON FODDER" not very nice don't you know?
Historically the military has long looked to convicts on death row or people with few prospects for recruitment (who else would join)?
I think you might have watched too many "Dirty Dozen" Films Krom.
But yes historically this is what happened, 'Press Gangs' extreme poverty bestowed on most people's of this country., driven on by the Officer classes/Lords & Gentry. This is the history of this country, a country of sea-farers, a people who discovered, colonised and civilised a large portion of the Globe. An Army who could take on greater nations and win.
But in this day and age to class them as scum & cannon fodder is to serve an injustice upon our present day technical, superior and professional Armed Forces. A very small fraction of posters on this site would have the ability to get into the forces, and even if they did a large proportion would not be able to last the course.
Oh yeah, and why do you assume that people who agree with you are the only 'right-wingers' who exist?
Not quite sure where you are coming from on this. But I generally class 'right-wingers' as those that are in agreement with stricter sentences for crimes, a less politically correct Police Force, and for the indigenous population of this country to get a fairer deal, not a better deal than others, just equal.
I could go on and on, but you should know where I am coming from. On the other hand you generally find that the Left are not very patriotic, would love to see an end to the 'Royals' and anything else that our heritage is based upon. Oh! and the Left seem to shout alot, are very rude, use insulting language etc, etc. (why are the Left so nasty)?
That is why I thought that youngmafbog may be Left because she used words such as "SCUM" & "CANNON FODDER" not very nice don't you know?
This is the history of this country, a country of sea-farers, a people who discovered, colonised and civilised a large portion of the Globe. An Army who could take on greater nations and win.
Actually (with a few exceptions) the general rule of thumb for the British up until the late Napoleonic wars was just to provide financial support and let their allies do all the fighting. Obviously this changed, and when those exceptions occured they tended to be successful, but I just thought I'd say your view is ludicrously romantic.
Oh yeah, for the record, I'm not saying the British don't ave a military history to be proud of (we do - it's just very selective), but please bear in mind there's also quite a lot of British military history which is absolutely disgraceful. Look up the Peninsular War sometime with particular reference to Badajoz - it's a good example.
But in this day and age to class them as scum & cannon fodder is to serve an injustice upon our present day technical, superior and professional Armed Forces
I agree. I think youngmafbog does too. Because neither of us have said they still are - his original comment was 'In days of yore scum were killed off in war, unfortunaltely the days of canon fodder have gone'.
Plus, like it or not, the army has a recruitment programme across schools, but they nevertheless still tend to focus their resources on deprived/low-prospect sections. Who else would go?
Take a look at the army's social makeup sometime.
Actually (with a few exceptions) the general rule of thumb for the British up until the late Napoleonic wars was just to provide financial support and let their allies do all the fighting. Obviously this changed, and when those exceptions occured they tended to be successful, but I just thought I'd say your view is ludicrously romantic.
Oh yeah, for the record, I'm not saying the British don't ave a military history to be proud of (we do - it's just very selective), but please bear in mind there's also quite a lot of British military history which is absolutely disgraceful. Look up the Peninsular War sometime with particular reference to Badajoz - it's a good example.
But in this day and age to class them as scum & cannon fodder is to serve an injustice upon our present day technical, superior and professional Armed Forces
I agree. I think youngmafbog does too. Because neither of us have said they still are - his original comment was 'In days of yore scum were killed off in war, unfortunaltely the days of canon fodder have gone'.
Plus, like it or not, the army has a recruitment programme across schools, but they nevertheless still tend to focus their resources on deprived/low-prospect sections. Who else would go?
Take a look at the army's social makeup sometime.
On the other hand you generally find that the Left are not very patriotic, would love to see an end to the 'Royals' and anything else that our heritage is based upon. Oh! and the Left seem to shout alot, are very rude, use insulting language etc, etc. (why are the Left so nasty)?
Talk to any political theorist. I don't think you'll find any ideology is defined by the manners of its members.
My point is that you bandy around the terms 'Left' and 'Right' without considering that even basic levels of consensus within the two hardly exist at all. There's actually a real problem among political theorists among defining 'right-wing' ideologies - which can encompass conservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, fascism, radical conservatism, authoritarianism etc. just off the top of my head.
my point is that you personally - and people who agree with you - will only have one set of beliefs (which probably won't fit in exactly with any of the above) and that you're probably not representative of 'the Right'. Just as the people you're always whinging about aren't really representative of 'the Left' (which encompasses just as broad a spectrum of ideas).
Talk to any political theorist. I don't think you'll find any ideology is defined by the manners of its members.
My point is that you bandy around the terms 'Left' and 'Right' without considering that even basic levels of consensus within the two hardly exist at all. There's actually a real problem among political theorists among defining 'right-wing' ideologies - which can encompass conservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, fascism, radical conservatism, authoritarianism etc. just off the top of my head.
my point is that you personally - and people who agree with you - will only have one set of beliefs (which probably won't fit in exactly with any of the above) and that you're probably not representative of 'the Right'. Just as the people you're always whinging about aren't really representative of 'the Left' (which encompasses just as broad a spectrum of ideas).
1 to 18 of 18
