The tragedy of Baby P (please, no jokes, folks)

Seen a picture of the slag, I'm not sure if it's ok to post it. Her facebook has been closed down though.

Someone at work yesterday said that everyone and anyone that could be linked to having involvement in the Baby P case should be sentenced for murder, including doctors, social workers, etc.

Shame on anyone of you on here who've made a joke of this. Disgusting.

$ilva $hadow wrote:Most laughable post ever.

Cheers. I needed a good chuckle this morning.

Tragic Magic wrote:Someone at work yesterday said that everyone and anyone that could be linked to having involvement in the Baby P case should be sentenced for murder, including doctors, social workers, etc.

Yeah - well you can be responsible for a death through an omission... well.. failure to act..

If you have a duty of care over that person

E.g by blood - a parent

or someone with a contractual duty
(guardian etc)

or someone who has a voluntary duty of care
(a lifeguard at a swimming pool, a policeman on hte street)

I think.

Mini E wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:Someone at work yesterday said that everyone and anyone that could be linked to having involvement in the Baby P case should be sentenced for murder, including doctors, social workers, etc.

Yeah - well you can be responsible for a death through an omission... well.. failure to act..

If you have a duty of care over that person

E.g by blood - a parent

or someone with a contractual duty
(guardian etc)

or someone who has a voluntary duty of care
(a lifeguard at a swimming pool, a policeman on hte street)

I think.

lol. It's not murder by any definition. It's manslaughter at most.

Fatal Exception wrote:

Mini E wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:Someone at work yesterday said that everyone and anyone that could be linked to having involvement in the Baby P case should be sentenced for murder, including doctors, social workers, etc.

Yeah - well you can be responsible for a death through an omission... well.. failure to act..

If you have a duty of care over that person

E.g by blood - a parent

or someone with a contractual duty
(guardian etc)

or someone who has a voluntary duty of care
(a lifeguard at a swimming pool, a policeman on hte street)

I think.

lol. It's not murder by any definition. It's manslaughter at most.

bah - close-ish . havent studied that for about 7 or 8 months

So we all get to decide when the law is applicable and to whom? If we can each decide for ourselves what is right and wrong irrespective of the law, then what standard can be used in passing judgement? Instant death to anyone committing a crime involving a minor? Or is it okay as long as one's actions do not fall foul of the public hysteria generated by the media?

No we don't. But neither does anyone have the right to pass judgement on them or take the moral high ground either. It's rubbish. We all know they are undeserving of protection. Like I said, I'm not the one who wants to pass judgement on them or anyone who wants to harm them, but it's stupid to call other people who would like to mete out punishment to them as being no better than animals and the same as them. Nobody allowed a baby to die, except the paedo and the couple.

The word evil has inevitable religious connotations, I'm afraid. Without any god or other absolute, how can 'pure evil' be defined, other than through human law? Incidentally, I recall reading that the boyfriend was a Satanist, so to his way of thinking, in causing pain to a defenceless child he was probably doing a 'good' thing by carrying out his satanic majesty's pleasure. Not the best example of one being in their 'right mind', but then the majority of the country does have religious beliefs, all of which (by your apparent definition) could be considered not in their 'right mind'.

Even a satanist knows his actions are evil when they are evil. There's no perverse reverse thinking of good being bad and bad being good. If that was the case, they'd commit suicide and self harm to meet their maker.

Not even the right to a fair trial and punishment? Why should they have to face any consequences other than what the legal system deems necessary? Perhaps you recall the murder of Jamie Bulger? Should the killers of that unfortunate have also lost their human rights (despite themselves being children)?

Give them a fair trial. It won't be justice though. Those kids knew what they were doing. Our system allows a lot of miscarriages of justice to happen. Whatever happened with those kids now? Have they grown up to commit more crimes or what? We protected them, as we'll protect the paedo and the couple now.

I'm saying that it's not fair that some people have human rights, but none of us have the right to take them away either, and the law is not fit to deal with it either. It's just injustice and instead of actually explaining to people that carrying out stupid acts of violence to these three will be unjust as well, most of the people wish to just tar them with the same brush and put the on the same level as the three who allowed the baby to die. I dislike people looking down their noses at anyone who is swayed heavily by their emotions and calling them animals. Whatever happened to putting your point across properly? If they're good people, they'll realise their actions are wrong and they'd back down and allow the law to carry out. If they don't obey the law then they are not stooping to the killers level, they're committing a crime in certain circumstances for which they are punishable, but what has anyone done except look down their noses at them? It's the same issue with kids, no one wants to tell them right from wrong, they justwant to tar them with a brush that calls them all feral creatures. What's the point in being smug on your own moral high ground when even you (no not you mic, I know from your post history you understand what you believe) just want to look down on others rather than educate them further on why it's wrong to prevent it happening. Looking down your noses and tarring everyone who wants justice to prevail (in a form that does not meet the law) just makes it look like you're taking the couples side and it's infuriating. Anyone committing the crime would be doing it as a crime of passion but it's not unpreventable.

HOW is it personal to you more so than anyone else?

It's just as personal to everyone else who wants to take the time and see it from both sides. The only people who seem to be looking stupid to me here is the ignorant folks who want to break the law and teach the three a lesson, but I can see where they're coming from and I'd have valid reasons against anyone I'd meet to convince them otherwise; and then there's the other people who just sit on their asses accusing people who haven't broken the law or done anything to prevent the the deaths and saying their just as accountable and it's our own doing by our greed and social ills when it's clearly not.


In retrospect I have worded my argument in the first post wrong. I gave off the idea that I'd like them to be mauled by the public. As much as I'd like it, I do not want it to happen, but the couple must accept responsibility which all the folks who look down their noses at decent folk who are just misguided in their actions seem to want to negate any responsibility the three should take for their own actions.

$ilva $hadow wrote:

So we all get to decide when the law is applicable and to whom? If we can each decide for ourselves what is right and wrong irrespective of the law, then what standard can be used in passing judgement? Instant death to anyone committing a crime involving a minor? Or is it okay as long as one's actions do not fall foul of the public hysteria generated by the media?

No we don't. But neither does anyone have the right to pass judgement on them or take the moral high ground either. It's rubbish. We all know they are undeserving of protection. Like I said, I'm not the one who wants to pass judgement on them or anyone who wants to harm them, but it's stupid to call other people who would like to mete out punishment to them as being no better than animals and the same as them. Nobody allowed a baby to die, except the paedo and the couple.

The word evil has inevitable religious connotations, I'm afraid. Without any god or other absolute, how can 'pure evil' be defined, other than through human law? Incidentally, I recall reading that the boyfriend was a Satanist, so to his way of thinking, in causing pain to a defenceless child he was probably doing a 'good' thing by carrying out his satanic majesty's pleasure. Not the best example of one being in their 'right mind', but then the majority of the country does have religious beliefs, all of which (by your apparent definition) could be considered not in their 'right mind'.

Even a satanist knows his actions are evil when they are evil. There's no perverse reverse thinking of good being bad and bad being good. If that was the case, they'd commit suicide and self harm to meet their maker.

Not even the right to a fair trial and punishment? Why should they have to face any consequences other than what the legal system deems necessary? Perhaps you recall the murder of Jamie Bulger? Should the killers of that unfortunate have also lost their human rights (despite themselves being children)?

Give them a fair trial. It won't be justice though. Those kids knew what they were doing. Our system allows a lot of miscarriages of justice to happen. Whatever happened with those kids now? Have they grown up to commit more crimes or what? We protected them, as we'll protect the paedo and the couple now.

I'm saying that it's not fair that some people have human rights, but none of us have the right to take them away either, and the law is not fit to deal with it either. It's just injustice and instead of actually explaining to people that carrying out stupid acts of violence to these three will be unjust as well, most of the people wish to just tar them with the same brush and put the on the same level as the three who allowed the baby to die. I dislike people looking down their noses at anyone who is swayed heavily by their emotions and calling them animals. Whatever happened to putting your point across properly? If they're good people, they'll realise their actions are wrong and they'd back down and allow the law to carry out. If they don't obey the law then they are not stooping to the killers level, they're committing a crime in certain circumstances for which they are punishable, but what has anyone done except look down their noses at them? It's the same issue with kids, no one wants to tell them right from wrong, they justwant to tar them with a brush that calls them all feral creatures. What's the point in being smug on your own moral high ground when even you (no not you mic, I know from your post history you understand what you believe) just want to look down on others rather than educate them further on why it's wrong to prevent it happening. Looking down your noses and tarring everyone who wants justice to prevail (in a form that does not meet the law) just makes it look like you're taking the couples side and it's infuriating. Anyone committing the crime would be doing it as a crime of passion but it's not unpreventable.

HOW is it personal to you more so than anyone else?

It's just as personal to everyone else who wants to take the time and see it from both sides. The only people who seem to be looking stupid to me here is the ignorant folks who want to break the law and teach the three a lesson, but I can see where they're coming from and I'd have valid reasons against anyone I'd meet to convince them otherwise; and then there's the other people who just sit on their asses accusing people who haven't broken the law or done anything to prevent the the deaths and saying their just as accountable and it's our own doing by our greed and social ills when it's clearly not.


In retrospect I have worded my argument in the first post wrong. I gave off the idea that I'd like them to be mauled by the public. As much as I'd like it, I do not want it to happen, but the couple must accept responsibility which all the folks who look down their noses at decent folk who are just misguided in their actions seem to want to negate any responsibility the three should take for their own actions.

Ignoring the generally laughable (and incredibly contradictory natures) of this post (highlighted one bit)

Just to be clear - it's other people getting on their moral high horses and the moral high ground not you?

$ilva $hadow wrote:

So we all get to decide when the law is applicable and to whom? If we can each decide for ourselves what is right and wrong irrespective of the law, then what standard can be used in passing judgement? Instant death to anyone committing a crime involving a minor? Or is it okay as long as one's actions do not fall foul of the public hysteria generated by the media?

No we don't. But neither does anyone have the right to pass judgement on them or take the moral high ground either. It's rubbish. We all know they are undeserving of protection. Like I said, I'm not the one who wants to pass judgement on them or anyone who wants to harm them, but it's stupid to call other people who would like to mete out punishment to them as being no better than animals and the same as them. Nobody allowed a baby to die, except the paedo and the couple.

The word evil has inevitable religious connotations, I'm afraid. Without any god or other absolute, how can 'pure evil' be defined, other than through human law? Incidentally, I recall reading that the boyfriend was a Satanist, so to his way of thinking, in causing pain to a defenceless child he was probably doing a 'good' thing by carrying out his satanic majesty's pleasure. Not the best example of one being in their 'right mind', but then the majority of the country does have religious beliefs, all of which (by your apparent definition) could be considered not in their 'right mind'.

Even a satanist knows his actions are evil when they are evil. There's no perverse reverse thinking of good being bad and bad being good. If that was the case, they'd commit suicide and self harm to meet their maker.

Not even the right to a fair trial and punishment? Why should they have to face any consequences other than what the legal system deems necessary? Perhaps you recall the murder of Jamie Bulger? Should the killers of that unfortunate have also lost their human rights (despite themselves being children)?

Give them a fair trial. It won't be justice though. Those kids knew what they were doing. Our system allows a lot of miscarriages of justice to happen. Whatever happened with those kids now? Have they grown up to commit more crimes or what? We protected them, as we'll protect the paedo and the couple now.

I'm saying that it's not fair that some people have human rights, but none of us have the right to take them away either, and the law is not fit to deal with it either. It's just injustice and instead of actually explaining to people that carrying out stupid acts of violence to these three will be unjust as well, most of the people wish to just tar them with the same brush and put the on the same level as the three who allowed the baby to die. I dislike people looking down their noses at anyone who is swayed heavily by their emotions and calling them animals. Whatever happened to putting your point across properly? If they're good people, they'll realise their actions are wrong and they'd back down and allow the law to carry out. If they don't obey the law then they are not stooping to the killers level, they're committing a crime in certain circumstances for which they are punishable, but what has anyone done except look down their noses at them? It's the same issue with kids, no one wants to tell them right from wrong, they justwant to tar them with a brush that calls them all feral creatures. What's the point in being smug on your own moral high ground when even you (no not you mic, I know from your post history you understand what you believe) just want to look down on others rather than educate them further on why it's wrong to prevent it happening. Looking down your noses and tarring everyone who wants justice to prevail (in a form that does not meet the law) just makes it look like you're taking the couples side and it's infuriating. Anyone committing the crime would be doing it as a crime of passion but it's not unpreventable.

HOW is it personal to you more so than anyone else?

It's just as personal to everyone else who wants to take the time and see it from both sides. The only people who seem to be looking stupid to me here is the ignorant folks who want to break the law and teach the three a lesson, but I can see where they're coming from and I'd have valid reasons against anyone I'd meet to convince them otherwise; and then there's the other people who just sit on their asses accusing people who haven't broken the law or done anything to prevent the the deaths and saying their just as accountable and it's our own doing by our greed and social ills when it's clearly not.


In retrospect I have worded my argument in the first post wrong. I gave off the idea that I'd like them to be mauled by the public. As much as I'd like it, I do not want it to happen, but the couple must accept responsibility which all the folks who look down their noses at decent folk who are just misguided in their actions seem to want to negate any responsibility the three should take for their own actions.

Ignoring the generally laughable (and incredibly contradictory) naturesof this post (highlighted one bit)

Just to be clear - it's other people getting on their moral high horses and the moral high ground not you?

Getting on the moral high ground knowing both sides is better than getting on the moral high ground while defending one side. What's the point in saying that the three guilty persons should be protected and anyone who tries to harm them are no better than them? It's simply not the case. There are people who are just misguided and very emotional about the subject and even though they'd like to do them harm, they ARE better than the child murderers, because they CAN be reformed and it's not our job to sneer at them when we're fully able to prevent the crimes with understanding rather than being infuriating.


And no those two are not contradictory, because we don't have the right to pass a judgement on them, we're judging them personally, not through law and we know they are undeserving of protection but we protect them to protect innocent people for the greater good.

$ilva $hadow wrote:Getting on the moral high ground knowing both sides is better than getting on the moral high ground while defending one side. What's the point in saying that the three guilty persons should be protected and anyone who tries to harm them are no better than them? It's simply not the case. There are people who are just misguided and very emotional about the subject and even though they'd like to do them harm, they ARE better than the child murderers, because they CAN be reformed and [b]it's not our job to sneer at them when we're fully able to prevent the crimes with understanding rather than being infuriating.[/b]

And no those two are not contradictory, because we don't have the right to pass a judgement on them, we're judging them personally, not through law and we know they are undeserving of protection but we protect them to protect innocent people for the greater good.

You are judging. You're happily judging some worthy (or being able?) or reform, and others impossible - what you clearly mean (from all your posts) it's ok to do what I do, as long as you do it to the same targets.

Of course. We can only sneer at those "We" (who's this "We" btw?) judge unable on reform.

You're a walking contradiction wrapped up in arrogant self-righteous indignation. An amusing package to be sure. (I think my favorite bit was when you said a fair trial wasn't justice, because justice, of course, is what you deem to be an appropriate punishment.)

Tragic Magic wrote:Someone at work yesterday said that everyone and anyone that could be linked to having involvement in the Baby P case should be sentenced for murder, including doctors, social workers, etc.

Bearing in mind that most of the British public are thick, it should come to no surprise that people spout utter bollocks like this.

Hexx wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:Getting on the moral high ground knowing both sides is better than getting on the moral high ground while defending one side. What's the point in saying that the three guilty persons should be protected and anyone who tries to harm them are no better than them? It's simply not the case. There are people who are just misguided and very emotional about the subject and even though they'd like to do them harm, they ARE better than the child murderers, because they CAN be reformed and [b]it's not our job to sneer at them when we're fully able to prevent the crimes with understanding rather than being infuriating.[/b]

And no those two are not contradictory, because we don't have the right to pass a judgement on them, we're judging them personally, not through law and we know they are undeserving of protection but we protect them to protect innocent people for the greater good.

You are judging. You're happily judging some worthy (or being able?) or reform, and others impossible - what you clearly mean (from all your posts) it's ok to do what I do, as long as you do it to the same targets.

Of course. We can only sneer at those "We" (who's this "We" btw?) judge unable on reform.

You're a walking contradiction wrapped up in arrogant self-righteous indignation. An amusing package to be sure. (I think my favorite bit was when you said a fair trial wasn't justice, because justice, of course, is what you deem to be an appropriate punishment.)

Justice is not what I deem to be appropriate punishment, I'm judging personally, not going out of my way to bring these child killers up to my level like you seem to be doing. It's stupid to say anything of the sort that anyone who wishes harm upon the three as being as bad as them. There's a massive difference which you do not seem to get. I can only judge personally, but it has no basis on their punishment, the law does, even if I see the law as being unable to deliver the appropriate punishment, I won't argue it because it protects the innocent too for the greater good. I'm judging selectively yes, but you're tarring everyone who wishes harm upon the three as being just as bad when clearly they are not. It's easy to get wrapped up in emotions and make a mistake, whereas their crime (the three) is all premeditated. Satanists or not. Ridiculous.


Edit: And referring to the bolding you've done, look at the magnitude of the crime versus crimes that have not happened but innocent folks who are emotionally moved to want to inflict sufferance upon the criminals. There's a big difference. And by 'we' I mean you, happy to refer to them as being just as bad as the criminals. Because they are not.

$ilva $hadow wrote:[Justice is not what I deem to be appropriate punishment, I'm judging personally, not going out of my way to bring these child killers up to my level like you seem to be doing. It's stupid to say anything of the sort that anyone who wishes harm upon the three as being as bad as them. There's a massive difference which you do not seem to get. I can only judge personally, but it has no basis on their punishment, the law does, even if I see the law as being unable to deliver the appropriate punishment, I won't argue it because it protects the innocent too for the greater good. I'm judging selectively yes, but you're tarring everyone who wishes harm upon the three as being just as bad when clearly they are not. It's easy to get wrapped up in emotions and make a mistake, whereas their crime (the three) is all premeditated. Satanists or not. Ridiculous.

They already are, like it or not, "on your level" - they are exactly the same, have the same rights etc etc. The very fact that you don't think they are speaks volumes. I don't have to raise them up, I (and others) have just pointed out it's you that's putting them down...

It's hardly "out of my way" to assume everyone, no matter what they've done, deserves to be treat the same rights.

Re: Bold - Nope. I'm not. That's a position you've tried to push onto several people who've called you on your shocking points. I don't think anyone's said that.

Edit: And referring to the bolding you've done, look at the magnitude of the crime versus crimes that have not happened but innocent folks who are emotionally moved to want to inflict sufferance upon the criminals. There's a big difference. And by 'we' I mean you, happy to refer to them as being just as bad as the criminals. Because they are not.

You haven't answered my question about how you're so accurately able to judge how "able" the various parties are to be reformed.

Nothing like swinging generalisations based on pre-conceptions and emotions.

And matey boy - I'm in no way part of your "We", or all the things you think the "We"'s think/have done in your posts. I'd assumed its the usual style of "wot I think must be common sense, I'll assume the majority agrees with me".

Taking pleasure in the harm of another human is wrong. You can not take the moral high ground with blood on your hands, be it the blood of the like minded individuals.

No Hexx I have answered it. I am NOT able to accurately judge someone, which is why I am unwilling to interfere with the law and not willing to preach violence against the three. How hard is that to comprehend? It's just my personal view that I believe that there's a difference between criminals and crimes which is why they carry different sentences, and for those who wish violence upon the three, well so be it, the three have it coming, my taxpayer money is going to protect them but if they can't be saved, I'm not going to lose sleep over it or care about it. If there was somewhere they could be put where they could live on their own without being a part of the society then I'd support that but that brings up the issue on who is to judge, which again I won't get involved in.



And no they are not on my level at all. I've committed no heinous crime, legally speaking they are on my level, but other than that, they are nowhere near comparable to me at all. I'm not even asking for their rights to be taken away because I can't judge, but I'm pissed off at those who would absolve these three of responsibility of their actions by blaming me for not campaigning for social services and for not giving to charity. I'm not inherently evil to want to harm others, even criminals, so they are not on my level even though I wish they'd pay more so than they ever will but I will not campaign for that nor will I actually act upon it or preach it. But I am not on the same level as they are for wanting them to be punished however harshly, it's my personal opinion which I will not act upon in anyway because I realise the ramifications of it and the slippery slope that path will take us down. It's not my fault the baby died, I won't take responsibility, but the three should take their responsibility without crybabies brown nosing them publicly and saying it's our fault as a society.

I stopped at the first sentene

$ilva $hadow wrote:No Hexx I have answered it. I am NOT able to accurately judge someone,

There are people who are just misguided and very emotional about the subject and even though they'd like to do them harm, they ARE better than the child murderers, because they CAN be reformed and [b]it's not our job to sneer at them

The clear inference being, child murders can't.

Dude. Get your arguement straight (or at least consistent), then come back. Might help you stop making such an ass of yourself - or you can continue this Richard Littlejohn style self assured rants

And no they are not on my level at all. I've committed no heinous crime, legally speaking they are on my level, but other than that, they are nowhere near comparable to me at all.

Ah. I see. Your method of self congraluation is to identify people you're better than. Got it.

but the three should take their responsibility without crybabies brown nosing them publicly and saying it's our fault as a society.

WTF? Who the hell is "brown nosing" them. I hadn't realising "they deserve to be treated the same as everyone else" was brown nosing.

Fatal Exception wrote:

Mini E wrote:

Tragic Magic wrote:Someone at work yesterday said that everyone and anyone that could be linked to having involvement in the Baby P case should be sentenced for murder, including doctors, social workers, etc.

Yeah - well you can be responsible for a death through an omission... well.. failure to act..

If you have a duty of care over that person

E.g by blood - a parent

or someone with a contractual duty
(guardian etc)

or someone who has a voluntary duty of care
(a lifeguard at a swimming pool, a policeman on hte street)

I think.

lol. It's not murder by any definition. It's manslaughter at most.

Murder requires the act, in this case an omission of duty of care from those in a contractual agreement, and the foreseeability of the consequences of ones omission. The consequences being death.

The social workers, doctors etc had a duty of care over the child. It needs to be determined whether the average person could foresee the consequences of their omission.

If the result could be foreseen, and the act (omission) brought about the result, then they could be charged with murder. Basically, (if) the child dying could be foreseen by a social worker, yet they failed to act.

I think. I dunno, I dropped Law after 2 months of doing it.

@ Igor - Personally, I think it's a stretch to identify murder with what was essentially negligence at worse. If a child of mine died as the result of an NHS screw-up I would definitely expect adequate compensation, but not for the incompetents to be charged with murder (unless it were proven to be intentional) and certainly not to face some spurious death penalty - especially at the hands of mob justice.

Having a duty of care is one thing, but quite how our social system can be expected to intervene with total inerrancy - and in the face of subterfuge and deceit on the part of the parents - is beyond me. While it may be shocking to consider the number of mistakes, the blame once again seems to be falling on the few professionals that had direct contact, ignoring a system and society that festers with many more un-highlighted examples of such cruelty and neglect.

And what about the boy's real father - where were the grandparents and neighbours? Didn't the admittedly dysfunctional family have friends or even acquaintances? How can none of them have seen anything amiss? Are they not at least as worthy of implication, if not guilt or punishment?

The real tragedy is that soon the media will move on to the next big story and baby p will be forgotten, only this time we won't even know his name.