Another Gullible Member Of The Judiciary

[Canary42]

The judge sucked up all the "remorse" expressed by the defendants. Crocodile tears.

In reality the child should be taken into care immediately, this lying couple are obviously totally unsuitable parents.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17337396.parents-in-court-after-boy-aged-4-finds-and-swallows-cocaine-at-home/?ref=mr&lp=2

[Peter Pedant]

they try to keep the child in the family
as it is now well known that the results of care ( for the child ) are disastrous.

[johnny.5]

but if it was bleach, washing gel capsules , vodka etc.etc. would it then be less serious ?
I Think Not

[Mamyalynne]

Those who dealt with parents, the Father in particular are better placed than I am to comment on their remorse and/or suitability.

I can see Johnny's point too, should all incidents that happen through oversight or neglect within the home result in removing a child?

It's an honest question and not a slur on your premise.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//they try to keep the child in the family
as it is now well known that the results of care ( for the child ) are disastrous//

Well known? In all cases?

[Canary42]

/// I can see Johnny's point too, should all incidents that happen through oversight or neglect within the home result in removing a child? ///

Depends on the nature of the neglect IMHO.

[Peter Pedant]

yup well known
Laming report
Looked after children in England and Wales are significantly over represented in the criminal
justice system. In England, children in care are five times more likely to be cautioned or
convicted of an offence than children in the general population.i
Although only 1% of
children in Englandii and 2% of those in Walesiii are looked after, the 2015-16 survey by HM
Inspectorate of Prisons found that 37% of children in young offender institutions and 39% of
those in secure training centres have experience of local authority care.iv

and no - not in every case - of course not

[vetuste_ennemi]

Back to the "the results of care ( for the child ) are disastrous" post.

Its follow-up:

" In England, children in care are five times more likely to be cautioned or convicted of an offence than children in the general population"

Well, he's making a statistical case which I agree with.

But the broad brush stroke term "vulnerable children in care will be further damaged by the carers" is a stereotypical insult which wouldn't be allowed in other contexts a would be classified as "hate speech".

The qualification "not in all cases" in a subsequent post came a bit late, didn't it?

As well as window cleaner and computer geek I've been a "carer". For three girls, one pubescent and two younger, from my own wife's partly dysfunctional family. The girls had suffered in two cases physical abuse by a step-mother, and worse still in the other sexual abuse, not by the step-father, but by the step-father's father.

AB is over-represented by the great and the good. But I wonder how many of this moral elite has shared my experience.

[Peter Pedant]

erm sorry - to understand something
I mean to REALLY understand something I need to have done or had it done to myself ?
being an agreeable soul - yeah OK - this is AB after all
but what about rape or murder ?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Was that last post your version of throwing pennies at a beggar, Peter?

[vetuste_ennemi]

I will readily (if enviously) defer to you on gon IQ and knowledge.

I don't concede the moral high ground so readily.

Geddit?