Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
Another terrible outcome wrought upon innocent parents due to the fecklessness and absolute determination to play god in other people's lives from Britain's social workers, despicable scum that have stolen a child away from it's parents. I don't know how these creatures sleep at night, ironically they probably sleep like the babies they steal away, their conscience is clear as they're so assured they're doing the right thing. I hope the parents are fortunate enough to get the help they need and an understanding judge who realises the injustice that has happened here.
Huge majority of rickets are purely due to inadequate diet and/or lack of exposure to sun. There are documented cases of mothers passing on condition to kids but again mostly due to inappropriate diet/lack of exposure to sun during pregnancy. Rickets as a result of kindney/liver malfunctions are rarer still. VitD deficiency is more pronounced in people with darker skin colour. Without knowing exact details I doubt that anyone here is in a position to say one way or another, not that that will stop anyone in doing so.
Doctors are instructed to report borderline cases, quite rightly, to social services.
Unfortunately social services are hugely underfunded, and as a result, the quality and quantity of staff is inadequate. Some staff that I've met are simply superb, but they are fighting loosing battle. Posts from mouth breathers like Mastodon above will do nothing to improve quality of people applying for positions. Very, very difficult job, both physically and emotionally, and all for minimum wage, or less.
Doctors are instructed to report borderline cases, quite rightly, to social services.
Unfortunately social services are hugely underfunded, and as a result, the quality and quantity of staff is inadequate. Some staff that I've met are simply superb, but they are fighting loosing battle. Posts from mouth breathers like Mastodon above will do nothing to improve quality of people applying for positions. Very, very difficult job, both physically and emotionally, and all for minimum wage, or less.
Mastodon2 said:
Another terrible outcome wrought upon innocent parents due to the fecklessness and absolute determination to play god in other people's lives from Britain's social workers, despicable scum that have stolen a child away from it's parents. I don't know how these creatures sleep at night, ironically they probably sleep like the babies they steal away, their conscience is clear as they're so assured they're doing the right thing. I hope the parents are fortunate enough to get the help they need and an understanding judge who realises the injustice that has happened here.
Do you really believe that the world is as black and white, cops and robbers,goodies and baddies as that? Does complexity not enter your world? Do you really think that social workers don't act according to their (possibly very flawed) judgments as to what is is the best interests of a child? Do you really think that people get an unpopular and not very well paid job because they want to "play God"? The rickets angle is interesting. I know almost nothing about rickets (other than that you can get it from eating Greggs, obvs). I have no idea whether the parents here had been negflectful in some way, but would be interested to hear more of the condition from people who actually know about it.
jjlynn27 said:
Huge majority of rickets are purely due to inadequate diet and/or lack of exposure to sun. There are documented cases of mothers passing on condition to kids but again mostly due to inappropriate diet/lack of exposure to sun during pregnancy. Rickets as a result of kindney/liver malfunctions are rarer still. VitD deficiency is more pronounced in people with darker skin colour. Without knowing exact details I doubt that anyone here is in a position to say one way or another, not that that will stop anyone in doing so.
Doctors are instructed to report borderline cases, quite rightly, to social services.
Unfortunately social services are hugely underfunded, and as a result, the quality and quantity of staff is inadequate. Some staff that I've met are simply superb, but they are fighting loosing battle. Posts from mouth breathers like Mastodon above will do nothing to improve quality of people applying for positions. Very, very difficult job, both physically and emotionally, and all for minimum wage, or less.
You really are a very strange person indeed............. you try to put yourself up as an intellectual expert on just about every subject and then you go and spoil anything that might actually be of interest by calling people names - "mouth breather" is just one example. Do you really expect anyone to take notice of your posts or are you just posting for your entertainment?Doctors are instructed to report borderline cases, quite rightly, to social services.
Unfortunately social services are hugely underfunded, and as a result, the quality and quantity of staff is inadequate. Some staff that I've met are simply superb, but they are fighting loosing battle. Posts from mouth breathers like Mastodon above will do nothing to improve quality of people applying for positions. Very, very difficult job, both physically and emotionally, and all for minimum wage, or less.
To be fair, Mastodon's post (assuming that it isn't a bit of trolling) does come across as rather Daily Mailyish and mouth breathy. Can people really see the world in such crude and simplistic terms? I suppose so, as otherwise the Mail and its internet equivalents would not do so well.
alfie2244 said:
You really are a very strange person indeed............. you try to put yourself up as an intellectual expert on just about every subject and then you go and spoil anything that might actually be of interest by calling people names - "mouth breather" is just one example. Do you really expect anyone to take notice of your posts or are you just posting for your entertainment?
I'm just posting for my own entertainment. That is the purpose of forums. I'm absolutely devastated that my posts don't meet your approval, completely and utterly crushed. jjlynn27 said:
I'm just posting for my own entertainment. That is the purpose of forums. I'm absolutely devastated that my posts don't meet your approval, completely and utterly crushed.
I don't think that is the purpose of forums. If you're only posting for your own entertainment then why not write your posts in a local text file? Then delete it. Breadvan72 said:
To be fair, Mastodon's post (assuming that it isn't a bit of trolling) does come across as rather Daily Mailyish and mouth breathy. Can people really see the world in such crude and simplistic terms? I suppose so, as otherwise the Mail and its internet equivalents would not do so well.
People can see the world in a myriad of different ways and sorry to say but the way you view it is no more valid that anybody eases' view.Do I not remember social services refusing a fostering of 3 children because the potential foster parents were members of UKIP?
Telegraph link ok for you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alli...
creampuff said:
Martin4x4 said:
Ad-hominem attack followed by ignorant rhetoric based on a lack of comprehension.
Nice try.
Which specific bits of your post are correct then? Specific bits. I can easily link you to public domain information which directly contradicts everything you have written, what can you point to to support what you have said?Nice try.
You said a criminal finding of not guilty still means there could be on the balance of probability some abuse occurred. But the prosecution entered no evidence of abuse at all.
You said Rickets is a result of inadequate diet. The NHS's own website lists genetic, liver, kidney and intestinal problems as also causing rickets.
I'll point out were you are incorrect.
You conflated media opinion with the criminal judges decision to dismiss the case to draw a conclusion about the family court case. Frankly if you cannot see the absurdity of that I really cannot help you.
Media opinion has no burden of proof which is very different from that required for a civil case, which is also very different from that required criminal case. If that is not obvious to you I'm really not sure how to aid your comprehension.
The primary cause of rickets IS vitamin D deficiency if you want to speculate based on edge cases then Occam's razor requires that you provide evident that the rickets has a different explanation in this case.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 10th October 15:09
jjlynn27 said:
alfie2244 said:
You really are a very strange person indeed............. you try to put yourself up as an intellectual expert on just about every subject and then you go and spoil anything that might actually be of interest by calling people names - "mouth breather" is just one example. Do you really expect anyone to take notice of your posts or are you just posting for your entertainment?
I'm just posting for my own entertainment. That is the purpose of forums. I'm absolutely devastated that my posts don't meet your approval, completely and utterly crushed. 
ks off at your own posts all day long?http://www.createaforum.com/free-forum-hosting.php
alfie2244 said:
Why not start your own forum and then you can laugh your bks off at your own posts all day long?
As much as I'm flattered by your creepy and unwanted attention, can you please stop derailing this thread. You don't have to like my reasoning, or my posting style or anything else. If you find them offensive there is a report link. Use it. If it helps, I really don't care what you think about anything. ks off at your own posts all day long?Martin4x4 said:
The burden of proof is on you to prove were my statements are incorrect, claiming my post is "entirely incorrect" is clearly just ignorant under both meaning of the word.. Feel free to post specific rebuttals and I will address those individually.
I'll point out were you are incorrect.
You conflated media opinion with the criminal judges decision to dismiss the case to draw a conclusion about the family court case. Frankly if you cannot see the absurdity of that I really cannot help you.
Media opinion has no burden of proof which is very different from that required for a civil case, which is also very different from that required criminal case. If that is not obvious to you I'm really not sure how to aid your comprehension.
The primary cause of rickets IS vitamin D deficiency if you want to speculate based on edge cases then Occam's razor requires that you provide evident that the rickets has a different explanation in this case.
I rebutted each and every one of your three blatantly wrong statements. I used information in the public domain to do this. This information about the trial includes factual, not opinion, statements in the press. You are free to look this up yourself, but you have failed to do so. The symptoms and causes of rickets are in the public domain, in many websites and you have failed to read this. Where is your proof that the cause of rickets in this case is neglect? At least two reports from medical experts (one from the defence and one from the prosecution itself) have failed to find evidence of mistreatment. If you have better information then please share. I'll point out were you are incorrect.
You conflated media opinion with the criminal judges decision to dismiss the case to draw a conclusion about the family court case. Frankly if you cannot see the absurdity of that I really cannot help you.
Media opinion has no burden of proof which is very different from that required for a civil case, which is also very different from that required criminal case. If that is not obvious to you I'm really not sure how to aid your comprehension.
The primary cause of rickets IS vitamin D deficiency if you want to speculate based on edge cases then Occam's razor requires that you provide evident that the rickets has a different explanation in this case.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 10th October 15:09
That the prosecution offered no evidence is in the public domain. That the prosecution commissioned their own expert opinion, which concluded there were unlikely to be any bone fractures at all is in the public domain. What exactly do you think it means when somebody is charged with an offence and the prosecution offers no evidence?
You use the terms family court and civil case interchangeably in your post. You do not even appear to know what the difference is.
Anyway back to the timescales here.
It seems extraordinarily quick to adopt the child out. As I said there was a TV documentary about this couple either in 2013 or early 2014 which I saw and I clearly remember other cases involving the disease Rickets being discussed along with the apparent then NHS thinking that Rickets was no longer present as a disease in this country. I also posted some previous links from around 2012, where children had been wrongly removed form their parents as a result of Rickets being mistaken for abuse.
So it seems that the possibility of Rickets being the caused of the supposed bone fractures must at least have been raised with the case workers by 2013, given this case already had TV publicity by then. The case workers seem to have ignored this and it seems only very, very recently, perhaps this year, did the prosecutors commission an expert opinion from a radiologist. An expert opinion which found no evidence of abuse.
What was going on between 2013 and 2015 when the child was adopted out, that nobody involved in prosecuting this case or involved with the welfare of the child by this stage removed from the birth parents, thought it would be a good idea to get further medical opinion?
It seems extraordinarily quick to adopt the child out. As I said there was a TV documentary about this couple either in 2013 or early 2014 which I saw and I clearly remember other cases involving the disease Rickets being discussed along with the apparent then NHS thinking that Rickets was no longer present as a disease in this country. I also posted some previous links from around 2012, where children had been wrongly removed form their parents as a result of Rickets being mistaken for abuse.
So it seems that the possibility of Rickets being the caused of the supposed bone fractures must at least have been raised with the case workers by 2013, given this case already had TV publicity by then. The case workers seem to have ignored this and it seems only very, very recently, perhaps this year, did the prosecutors commission an expert opinion from a radiologist. An expert opinion which found no evidence of abuse.
What was going on between 2013 and 2015 when the child was adopted out, that nobody involved in prosecuting this case or involved with the welfare of the child by this stage removed from the birth parents, thought it would be a good idea to get further medical opinion?
Edited by creampuff on Saturday 10th October 18:43
alfie2244 said:
People can see the world in a myriad of different ways and sorry to say but the way you view it is no more valid that anybody eases' view.
That sort of relativism is a bit silly, I suggest. Leaving aside my views versus those of Mastodon, I make the general point that not all opinions are equal. Would you say that, for example, a person who is a crazed white supremacist, or who sincerely believes that electricity is made by tiny invisible creatures with pointy hats, or that the world is flat, or who thinks that cannibalism should be routinely acceptable has a view of the world that is as valid as anyone else's?creampuff said:
...
What was going on between 2013 and 2015 when the child was adopted out, that nobody involved in prosecuting this case or involved with the welfare of the child by this stage removed from the birth parents, thought it would be a good idea to get further medical opinion?
Good question, but we may not find out the answer, because the prosecutors and social services teams will be bound by confidentiality. What was going on between 2013 and 2015 when the child was adopted out, that nobody involved in prosecuting this case or involved with the welfare of the child by this stage removed from the birth parents, thought it would be a good idea to get further medical opinion?
Breadvan72 said:
alfie2244 said:
People can see the world in a myriad of different ways and sorry to say but the way you view it is no more valid that anybody eases' view.
That sort of relativism is a bit silly, I suggest. Leaving aside my views versus those of Mastodon, I make the general point that not all opinions are equal. Would you say that, for example, a person who is a crazed white supremacist, or who sincerely believes that electricity is made by tiny invisible creatures with pointy hats, or that the world is flat, or who thinks that cannibalism should be routinely acceptable has a view of the world that is as valid as anyone else's?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11916...
eta
"But no charges were brought against him after police received supportive telephone calls from "many dozens of people- including MPs, former public school headmasters, Jps and even a Lord Chief Justice", the court heard yesterday.
It was also revealed that there had been "two thousand letters of support...including letters from cabinet ministers and Royal Family".
Edited by alfie2244 on Saturday 10th October 19:13
I shouldn't suffer fools, but I just cannot stop myself trying to help unfortunates. However to be helped, you first need to recognise you are not only wrong, but that you are also too incompetent to recognise just how wrong you are. Simply restating the opposite without adding any evidence in not a rebuttal, it just exposes how foolish you are to start with. Here is some help regarding the semantics of the word rebuttal.
As to your claim about my incorrect facts.
1) UK Family court proceedings, such as this case are secret and cannot be reported. Hence the wild and wacky situation, we find our self in, were the Family court is held up for trial by media without any evidential burden. Clearly this works to convince morons.
2) If you reading comprehension skills were a little better, Google could help you understand the distinction between the criminal vs civil burden of proof and the fact the Family court uses the balance of probabilities.
3) Personally I don't need to use google to know that "The most common cause of rickets is a lack of vitamin D or calcium in a child’s diet.
My only mistake here was believing that this sort of stuff is actually widely know, clearly not.
As to your claim about my incorrect facts.
1) UK Family court proceedings, such as this case are secret and cannot be reported. Hence the wild and wacky situation, we find our self in, were the Family court is held up for trial by media without any evidential burden. Clearly this works to convince morons.
2) If you reading comprehension skills were a little better, Google could help you understand the distinction between the criminal vs civil burden of proof and the fact the Family court uses the balance of probabilities.
3) Personally I don't need to use google to know that "The most common cause of rickets is a lack of vitamin D or calcium in a child’s diet.
My only mistake here was believing that this sort of stuff is actually widely know, clearly not.
Breadvan72 said:
Can you please provide a verified source for that alleged comment? Who said it? When? What were the exact words? I doubt that any law Lord from the last century or so would have said any such thing. The legal system has many flaws, but silly assertions like the one quoted above don't advance the discussion very far.
had a quick look, can't find the quote i saw. if you say it is incorrect i would tend to accept that. will have a better look when i have a bit more time. i agree with your last sentence ,but remember arses like me need to be able to vent so non aholes like you can put us straight . otherwise i would remain ill informed ad infinitum 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff