Minneapolis Finder Forum MN
RegisterSearchTutorialsMemberlistLog in
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
British Child Torture Case Shocks World
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post British Child Torture Case Shocks World 
http://news.aol.com/article/baby-p-killers-finally-unmasked/611335

A criminal case in which a British mother allowed her rapist boyfriend to torture her child to death has shocked England and the world. Now taxpayers are furious at plans to change the suspects' identities and place them in police protection to avoid community wrath, at a cost of millions.

What have these beasts done to deserve special protection by authorities? Where were these millions available to protect the life of this poor tortured child when he needed it?

The nuts are running the asylum. A classic case that exposes the welfare nanny state for what it is- a sop to relieve the consciences of progressives while doing nothing to intervene in the lifestyles that put people on the dole. Hopefully all the doctors and social workers that examined this child will get the sleepless nights that they deserve.

Reply with quote
Post  
Ugh, what a disgusting story. I have a really hard time believing, though, that someone found guilty of raping a 2 year old girl was allowed to live in a home with an infant, or that these monsters will be free after a mere three years. I think the "public" likes, yes likes, sinking their teeth into stories like this and using them as examples of how everything they disagree with is ruining the world--the absence of religion, the "nanny state," etc. That's a twisted and sick proclivity in and of itself. "Aha, finally a horrifying case that proves that I'm right and you're wrong! Thank God!"

Reply with quote
Post  
"That's a twisted and sick proclivity in and of itself. "Aha, finally a horrifying case that proves that I'm right and you're wrong! Thank God!"

As I've pointed out repeatedly, Dora, I have no problem with providing the basics of life to human beings. I would do the same for a dog in distress.

Where I have a problem, and where I find it to be truly twisted and sick is the unbalance in which we write checks to people but fail to demand any lifestyle accountability to go with it. Show me the harm in teaching people the number one life lesson that working adults are given: if you live a crazy, irrational life of dissipation, you will soon lose your source of support, and pay the consequences for it. We do people no favors by creating a social system in which you are accountable to no one for your actions until you cross the line into criminality and it comes to the attention of authorities. Those of us who work for a living face the consequences of our actions long before things reach that point, and it would do others well to learn the reality of that.

Reply with quote
Post  
What would you suggest, thrice? Shooting people whose lifestyles we disapprove of but who haven't "crossed the line into criminality"? Or letting them live on the streets? Because we already do the latter.

Reply with quote
Post  
Not suggesting that at all, Dora. What I'm saying is that "them what pays the band, calls the tune". People who expect the public to support them should not expect that such support comes without strings. Rather than cut the expenses of welfare programs, I'd increase them, by bringing in a cadre of people whose job it is to visit and monitor the lives of people who are on the public dole.

Let's not even deal with the homelessness issue for now, because you well know that most of the chronic single homeless are mentally ill or chemically dependent or both, and are a different problem.

Let's cut to the chase. I'm no more or less noble than anyone else, and there's nothing I'd like better than having an assured income with no responsibilities to anyone. At the moment, I call that "vacation", and I hate to see it end. Someday I'll call it "retirement". While most of us require some kind of self supporting activity to fulfill ourselves, the idea of not having to work for a living is attractive to all of us. That's why we plunk down our money to play the lottery by the billions. But it's not a realistic option for most.

At some point, sometimes human nature requires that we be compelled by others to do things we don't want to do, including working. We don't need a "Nanny State". We need a "Mommy State", in which those of us who want to stay up all night, and then get high and watch TV all day get kicked out of our beds by Mommy and told to either go to school or go get a job. I know it's not that simple for single parents with small kids, but it's really not brain surgery to have some kind of regular monitoring to keep them on a positive path and not simply pay and ignore them until somebody calls the cops on them or a body in the house starts stinking...

Reply with quote
Post  
.22 cal to the head, and charge whatever family can be found for the bullet.

there is no place for people like this on earth. send them back to the manufacturer.

Reply with quote
Post  
It's pretty apparent from the story that the British legal system is far more concerned about the well being of the convicted killers than it ever was for this child. No way in hell they're going to face serious consequences in this system turned upside down.

Reply with quote
Post  
A classic case that exposes the welfare nanny state for what it is- a sop to relieve the consciences of progressives while doing nothing to intervene in the lifestyles that put people on the dole.

Nonsense. The welfare nanny state is primarily concerned with the welfare of children, who studies have shown to be better off raised by family members, with some horrific exceptions. We generally let the able-bodied childless shift for themselves, as we (and they) should.

Given that nannies tend to be professionals who competently and compassionately tend to the welfare of other people's children, a welfare nanny state is exactly what we need until we figure out how to better limit the right to procreate.

Reply with quote
Post  
"Given that nannies tend to be professionals who competently and compassionately tend to the welfare of other people's children, a welfare nanny state is exactly what we need until we figure out how to better limit the right to procreate."

And in a roundabout way, Odin, I think that's what I proposed. I think you'd agree that simply writing checks and handing out vouchers falls quite a bit short of "tending to the welfare". From what I've observed over a long time, there's little or no monitoring of lifestyle or child well being unless the family is reported to child protection authorities by police or school officials who see evidence of abuse or neglect. Seems to me the horse is out of the barn by that point. Every family in those circumstances should receive regular and frequent visits (to accompany mandatory education and work readiness programming) so that intervention doesn't have to wait until the damage is already done. It would actually cost more than the current program, but would yield better results in the long run IMHO.

Reply with quote
Post  
And sadly, in this case the "family" did receive regular and frequent visits. But there was no follow up, the people were just going through the motions to collect their civil service paycheck (it seems).


"Peter had been visited some 60 times by doctors, police and social workers before his death"



60 visits. The kid was 17 months old. They were out there once a week or more, presuming they didn't start visiting until they had some indication there was a problem. What exactly do they need to see before they decide to take a kid away from his abusers?

Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum