Jump to content

Parents of Edlington torture brothers could face charges.


Quillan
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the reports are to be believed and they all seem to agree on the facts, the father was a violent, drug using, drunken slob who should never have been allowed near children. In a more caring society, the police and social services would have ensured that the man was removed a long time ago. The mother was weak and overwhelmed by seven children which she should never have had.

The need of strong decent fathers is clear as is the need for a kind of community surveillance which can get social services and the police to act. And perhaps the ability to care for and about young people and a willingness to clean out the booze/drugs/violence etc to which they are subjected. The laissez faire society is the other guilty party.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A child's character and attitudes are formed even before they start school. These children started commiting crimes whilst in primary school, including attacking their teachers.

BUT, social services have yet again let down the families, but especially the vctims and their families.  Sadly it's so un-PC to take away feral and out of control children from toxic and dysfunctional homes.

Since they had extensive criminal records so young,   bells- or even sirens,  should have been ringing, but no doubt the mother, who could not cope with seven difficult or damgerous boys,  would have opposed this.  Such children need to be removed early as babies- not as teenagers.

Too many human rights.

Tegwini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently they moved because social services had been contacted over 30 times about these kids where they lived previously and a couple of reports were made in the brief (I think it was 3 weeks) time they were at the new address prior to the offences.

My wife at times has to type up the harrowing reports from social workers and this scenario (drink, drugs, abuse etc)  is repeated all the time. In fact she would say that in 80%+ of the cases one parent is on drug's, booze and is abusive to the other adult and the children and the other (usually the mother) simply can't cope and they end up in a downwardly spiraling slippery slope to the pit of despair. On average the social workers are getting 8 new cases a week and they simply can't cope. Each time home visits have to be made, each person and child interviewed and all the family have to physiologically examined before anything is done and the whole process takes months. On top of that there is a nice little 'earner' going on with solicitor's who specialise in defending these people, all at the expense of the tax payer and so it goes on and of course its always the children who suffer. Perhaps with the government in charge and it still going down the pan they might realise that them taking control is not the answer. Personally I don't know what the answer is, I know what I would like to do but thats an emotional reaction but one thing is for sure the system yet again has failed the most vulnerable (the children) and needs to be dramatically changed. But then we know this, how many different reports has there been with recommendations and how many of those recommendations have been actioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting thread. In my opinion the blame lies with society which has created the parents who have continued the trend.  In twenty years time, I'm sure, there will be a similar news story as the next generation take over.  Are parents to be blamed then? Maybe we need to consider sterilisation as well as removal of the children as babies.  Isn't that the obvious, though not politically correct, solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Richard51"]Maybe we need to consider sterilisation as well as removal of the children as babies.  Isn't that the obvious, though not politically correct, solution?
[/quote]

I don't see a problem with sterilisation to a point. This can be done with implants that have a certain life span. At the end of that life span the person can be interviewed and accessed to see if they are 'fit' to be a parent. I guess the problem with sterilisation is pictures in peoples minds of 'victims' being tied to a table and some form of intrusive surgery being done against their will which is not a nice thought.

A friend of mine who suffers from diabetes and was obese was offered a gastric band by the French state on the condition she had an implant so as not to have children for the next 'X' years. No implant, no band, she took the implant and the band.

So in cases that we are talking about a parent could be asked to say ditch the abusive partner, take regular counseling and have an implant or alternatively sent to jail and the children taken in to care.

As I said I don't really know what to do for the best but it is clear that a major re-think is required and something clearly has to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the money spent on social workers and lawyers was given to those at the lower end of the social scale there would be no poor people and this sort of behaviour would eventually come to an end.

But the way the UK social stalinist state is set up they thrive on this sort of thing to write even more reports and have vastly overpaid social services employees.

It is incredible that the Judge in the case was not even allowed to read the report on the failings and exactly what went in the social services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at one time involved in dealing with similar families.

The answer, Dog, is NOT money - NOT NOT NOT...never...

There is a cycle here - you can look at these families, look at their backgrounds, look at how the previous generation has behaved, and the generation before that.....there is a definite repeating behaviour.     Throwing money at them is not the answer.     We saw that with a Lottery winner - who still went on and made many people's lives miserable because of his 'couldn't give a damn attitude' to his neighbours and his criminal, drug and drunk behaviour.   Money can never replace morals, self-respect, responsibility and a sense of right and wrong.

 There are families who will never amount to anything, who DON'T want to work, who prefer life on the 'welfare'...and their children see that and they grow up to be exactly the same.     These children do not see the point of behaving decently - because they have never seen decent behaviour from their parents (what parents ??).      They don't see the point in working;  and they're not interested in the discipline and self-respect that comes with work.      I've heard them - 'the why bother, me Mum says social have to get us new washing machine, new whatever'....I've heard them, I've seen them, I've worked with them.......and I don't think anyone who hasn't worked with such families really knows exactly what the problems are.     In the social workers/loopy left-wing paradise such people don't exist, or it's always the fault of society......well, no in many cases it's deliberate choices by these families.   They do know better - and they are NOT INTERESTED.

So I would say yes - in certain circumstances sterilisation (male and female) ought to be made compulsory.....some people are a definite waste of space, don't want to be helped, and are a drain...

If it meant no more unwanted, unloved, uncared for and neglected and abused children  - then morally that is a simple decision.

If it means that more decent children are protected then as a society I would say that it is morally right such steps are taken.

Oh dear ......nuclear bunker time I think !!! Byeee....

Chessie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the other side of the coin is that sometimes it goes wrong in the other direction. My cousin who is a 'born again christian' (stay with me, it's important) was one of a group of social workers who took part in an investigation in to satanic child abuse in the Orkney Islands (South Ronaldsay to be exact) back in the early 90's. This, if you remember, resulted in almost all the children being forcibly removed from their families in a dawn raid. It all turned out to be totally incorrect and as a result £6M (about 11M in today's terms) was spent on an enquiry with the result that the children were returned to their parents. Many of the 100 odd recommendations from the report have never been implemented. Some of the children who are now adults are continuing their fight through the courts to seek compensation.

Strangely my cousin still believes to this day that it was the right decision and that they (the social services) did nothing wrong and that she was guided by god in a fight against satan. She is still involved in social services and is now (I am told) in a very senior position. She was, and probably still is, of the belief that all members local, national government and the judiciary are satanic child abusers. As is typical in these professionals the bigger the cock-up the further up the ladder you go. Needless to say I have had nothing to do with her for many years and that if anyone needs help it is her.

So it seems to me that every time something like this happens over the years it ends up in an enquiry that cost's the tax payer a load of money (you can bet your bottom dollar there will be one over this). Not in some ways a bad thing, the trouble is all these recommendations are made yet nothing is done. Perhaps if all these recomendations over the years had been implimented this would never have happened, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Quillan - my description of 'your' social workers - self-righteous power-mad idiots.   The same people who believe in Man-made Global Warming and the Commie Party.

It's time there were more mature social workers who've had more life experiences.

It's time we - as a society - decided that the behaviour of other people's children IS a concern of ours.    I remember there was a time when if you saw a child misbehaving or doing something dangerous or risky to their own lives it was possible to either grab them to prevent them walking straight into traffic or down a river bank or to stop chasing ducks.  It was possible to tell a strange child that 'NO - you don't do that' - without any problems.

Now - you dare NOT do it.   You will be at the receiving end of abuse by parents, or be accused of being a paedophile, and you can't take photos in lots of places because we're all terrorists.

And before anyone starts squawking - remember it's the Government and the barmy 'left wing idiots' who've decided that we're all paedophiles, terrorists, drug-dealers or whatever....and I RESENT feeling that innocent men are all made out to be paedophiles.   When a grand-mother tells her grand-children 'be careful of any man, don't talk to any man' - what sort of message does that send out.

Most men aren't paedophiles; most men aren't terrorists.   Most families are decent.   

But it's the nutters in high places who are the dangerous ones.   The nutters who have no common-sense.

Society has gone totally 'bonkers' - we've lost all common-sense and self-respect.

Social workers just pussy foot around the real problem families;  I've encountered the social workers who all take the line 'but the mother loves the child and that must come first'.    Social workers have been brain-washed for the last 30 odd years, by the same brain-washing in teacher training colleges - by the left-wing wishy-washy hippy-dippy Polly Toynbees of this world.   Where everything is pink and fluffy and people are always good, and if things go wrong then it's always somebody else's fault.

I'm a sick of it.   It's time the UK started to talk about responsibility, and morals, and right and wrong.  

Oh dear - I wish I didn't have insomnia.....and the bunker's a bit cold at the moment !!

Chessie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where should our sympathy be in this matter?

Having some exposure to the law in this regard I know Social Services people and indeed Probation Officers who say they are over-run and literally cannot be everywhere!

As to Probation consider that every week people are released on licence from Jail for as you know if someone gets five years then he will serve 30 months less whatever time he or she was in custody. Then for the rest of the licence they turn up every week or 14 days tick a box in Probation and then on their way. It is like Sunday School. Nothing positive happens.

I truly believe that we are what we are then add to the fact that children are born into a society which has lost it their parents have lost it then the children equally lose it.

Here none of us will truly understand what happened what was behind it save for what we have read and seen on TV.

But after the event for the concept of charging the parents to come into play it must have been so very bad and indeed sad.

In my years in the law I have never heard of Parents being dragged in and charged and I wonder what they will be charged with?

Take this further parents charged found guilty imprisoned what happens to the rest of the family parents go to jail never change habits we look after them in jail?

As to the young people sentenced yesterday they are too young to go to prison but are currently in a secure unit. When they are old enough into prison.

Much later in the piece someone has to decide they are no longer a threat to society. Do you really think that someone is going to take that leap of faith.

The two young men are there for a very very long period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Dog having read your positing I thought I would respond on the lawyer front!

Do not believe all or any of what you read in the press about lawyers and their fees. Here I do not have to defend lawyers per se they can do that themselves as can I.

However are Barrister colleague of mine drove from Gloucestershire to Birmingham Crown Court last week to make an application and he was legally aided.

Due to be heard at 10.00 court busy was not heard until 15h.00 then drove back to Gloucestershire. His fee for that £90 from that overheads pension arrangements for the future fees in Chambers that sort of thing.

Do you think that is fair remuneration?

HMG are cutting back (and so they should) on Legal Aid and so much so that Barristers who are independent members of the Bar are now joining forces with the CPS and becoming employers with leave pension and the like. Of course they will only every prosecute never defend that is how bad it is getting.

Final point did you notice that everyone at the hearing from a legal standpoint was in civilian clothes not a wig or gown in sight. Obviously they did not want to frighten the young people!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="dragonrouge"]Here none of us will truly understand what happened what was behind it save for what we have read and seen on TV.

But after the event for the concept of charging the parents to come into play it must have been so very bad and indeed sad. In my years in the law I have never heard of Parents being dragged in and charged and I wonder what they will be charged with? Take this further parents charged found guilty imprisoned what happens to the rest of the family parents go to jail never change habits we look after them in jail? [/quote]

I would have thought that, if what we are told is correct, that child abuse would be one charge. As you know we always think about abuse as being physical but it is mental as well. Letting children of that age watch horror and pornography films must carry some form of penalty as a starting point.

I don't know what happens to the rest of the family if they are charged as I rather hope the remaining 5 children have already been taken in to care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One spin off from this terrible story is that the papers show rows of neglected and semi-direlect houses. WHY can't these houses be re-furbed and used to house the immigrants and asylum seekers that at present seem to be in houses costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds and notably found in the most expensive areas of London. Surely this would create employment for local builders/decorators,the benefit money would be spent in local shops and the area might improve as a result. Pity it wasn't done some years ago and there may have been less social problems with the extra input from Government sources where Immigrants.Asylum seekers are involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="chessie"]
I was at one time involved in dealing with similar families.

The answer, Dog, is NOT money - NOT NOT NOT...never...

There is a cycle here - you can look at these families, look at their backgrounds, look at how the previous generation has behaved, and the generation before that.....there is a definite repeating behaviour.     Throwing money at them is not the answer.     We saw that with a Lottery winner - who still went on and made many people's lives miserable because of his 'couldn't give a damn attitude' to his neighbours and his criminal, drug and drunk behaviour.   Money can never replace morals, self-respect, responsibility and a sense of right and wrong.

 There are families who will never amount to anything, who DON'T want to work, who prefer life on the 'welfare'...and their children see that and they grow up to be exactly the same.     These children do not see the point of behaving decently - because they have never seen decent behaviour from their parents (what parents ??).      They don't see the point in working;  and they're not interested in the discipline and self-respect that comes with work.      I've heard them - 'the why bother, me Mum says social have to get us new washing machine, new whatever'....I've heard them, I've seen them, I've worked with them.......and I don't think anyone who hasn't worked with such families really knows exactly what the problems are.     In the social workers/loopy left-wing paradise such people don't exist, or it's always the fault of society......well, no in many cases it's deliberate choices by these families.   They do know better - and they are NOT INTERESTED.

So I would say yes - in certain circumstances sterilisation (male and female) ought to be made compulsory.....some people are a definite waste of space, don't want to be helped, and are a drain...


If it meant no more unwanted, unloved, uncared for and neglected and abused children  - then morally that is a simple decision.

If it means that more decent children are protected then as a society I would say that it is morally right such steps are taken.

Oh dear ......nuclear bunker time I think !!! Byeee....

Chessie


[/quote]

I also worked on Saturday morning for some years for social services at a home for Intermediate Care. The boys all came from very poor households and had rarely spoken to adults as their parents were either at work, had departed the home or had left temporarily through drugs to escape the slum.

I am not suggesting you give each family a one off lottery cheque just slowly dripping money into the poorer end of society and not wasting it on social workers and lawyers. Or are you suggesting that the middle class better of families are as bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="dragonrouge"]Dear Dog having read your positing I thought I would respond on the lawyer front! Do not believe all or any of what you read in the press about lawyers and their fees. Here I do not have to defend lawyers per se they can do that themselves as can I. However are Barrister colleague of mine drove from Gloucestershire to Birmingham Crown Court last week to make an application and he was legally aided. Due to be heard at 10.00 court busy was not heard until 15h.00 then drove back to Gloucestershire. His fee for that £90 from that overheads pension arrangements for the future fees in Chambers that sort of thing. Do you think that is fair remuneration? HMG are cutting back (and so they should) on Legal Aid and so much so that Barristers who are independent members of the Bar are now joining forces with the CPS and becoming employers with leave pension and the like. Of course they will only every prosecute never defend that is how bad it is getting. Final point did you notice that everyone at the hearing from a legal standpoint was in civilian clothes not a wig or gown in sight. Obviously they did not want to frighten the young people![/quote]

Sounds like your barrister friend is now in the real world. In business you often have to do boring mundane things that you cannot charge for at all, it just comes with the job.

My experience of lawyers does not come from the papers - for instance you should start visiting the drinking holes the go to on a friday night and it would open your eyes, or the places they go for luncheon and discuss the trials they are working on - that is prosecution and defence having a little chat over lunch deciding when to end things and how as they want to go fox hunting the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sensible, honourable Chessie I agree with both your posts - you're not alone there, although so many think that throwing money at problems will solve them- history proves otherwise.

Quillan - I know what you mean about social workers.  They have enormous power and minimal qualifications.

 For them decision-making can be difficult as they can be damned whatever they do,  BUT so many do have looney left wing views and would usually prefer to leave an  obviously abused child with its parents rather than rock the boat by removing a damaged child before it's too late.

Tegwini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

drug users/alcoholics should never be deemed fit parents, how can it ever be in the interest of the child to be left with such parents. If only one parent is a user then that parent should be removed from the family and the remaining parent should be given the support. The parents should only be able to be resposible for the children when they can prove to be fit to care for them
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dog I am in that profession and I really find your comments objectionable. Listen to this I come from let us say a very working class background and my late Father who worked on his belly in a seam of coal 2'9" wide always but always fought for the underdog. I have carried out my last five cases on a pro bono basis and continue to do so.

I do not go to drinking holes and as for prosecution and defence agreeing the way forward then obviously very you have a penchant for wine and it undoubtedly shows.l

Your views are without substance.

I have but always thought as a Dog as a man's best friend. I have changed my mind.

Come and see me and come back to the Uk and I will pay that will open your eyes. You are asleep at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="tegwini"]
Sensible, honourable Chessie I agree with both your posts - you're not alone there, although so many think that throwing money at problems will solve them- history proves otherwise.

Quillan - I know what you mean about social workers.  They have enormous power and minimal qualifications.
 For them decision-making can be difficult as they can be damned whatever they do,  BUT so many do have looney left wing views and would usually prefer to leave an  obviously abused child with its parents rather than rock the boat by removing a damaged child before it's too late.

Tegwini
[/quote]

From what my wife tells me there are several problems that the social services have. They seem to break down in to two separate groups, each group having or causing its own problems.

There are some areas where social services jump in very early on and remove the child or children, like within days (and sometimes hours) of somebody reporting them. This brings on a problem where the parents or parent then challenge the removal through the courts, usually at the tax payers expense. Unfortunately this action requires an independent set of reports which are usually carried out by both sides at great expense. Again at least one side, if not both get the costs paid for by the state or to put it bluntly the tax payer.

The other groups are those that leave the child or children in place which is how these sort of situations arise. I am sure Dragonrouge will know more about this bit than others but some sort of ruling was given some time back that unless there is an exception social workers are not allowed to separate siblings. In the case of the family we are talking about all 7 children would have to be taken in to care and if fostered go to the same home, this is not an easy thing to do. The other issue is money. The social services budget comes from the regional government budget. In some areas they are very well funded in others they are not. The average cost of placing one child in to care including paying the carers, social services staff, admin etc, etc is on average between £700 and £800 per week depending on which part of the country you live. So taking the average as £750 it would have cost around £5,250 per week or nearly $23k per calendar month to put this families children in to care and in many cases social services simply don't have the money.

Another interesting fact is, having listened to some interview tapes, that many of these women who are involved with alcoholic, drug taking abusive partners for some strange reason defend their partners to the point where the children come a very definite second. Some are quite happy for their kids to go in to care if it means they can stay with their partner. Now like my wife, I (and I am sure others reading this comment would) find it very difficult to understand this and it leaves me totally mystified and devoid of any logic, I simply can't get my head round it yet sadly its true. Its almost like one of us is living in a totally different reality.

Very tempting as it is at times (just look at my cousin) I don't think it's fair to tar all social workers with the same brush. Like all professions there are good and bad. Imagine being a good worker but end up working in one of the under funded  regions, it must be demoralising and depressing to know what the problems are but not being able to do anything. The real issue is not to dissimilar too the NHS where it's almost a post code lottery when it should be of equal quality of service across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...