Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Nov 18
01:14
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Dec 17
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/27/rapist-given-chance-see-victims-child-local-authority/
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 32
|
By:
And he aint the first by all accounts what a fcuked up bent twisted world some are forced to live in.
|
|
By:
you have to laugh - not sure there is anything else one can do - assuming this is correct.
|
|
By:
Don't vote Labour would be a good starting point.
|
|
By:
First they covered it up , now they want to exacerbate the pain. How can people in these areas vote for Labour?
|
|
By:
Rotherham Council again.
Nuff said. |
|
By:
flush - you may not have any idea what these people are like - I have been a member for over 40 years -
it is amazing I still have my card in one piece!!! |
|
By:
The lady looks about 30 Was raped by "MAD ASH" when she was 14 how long has this been Going on
 |
|
By:
Since they realised they can more or less do what they like with impunity, I would imagine.
|
|
By:
Labour will always be in power in Rotherham, as the people from the same background as the paedo's outnumber the yorkshire folk
|
|
By:
What a sickening story, dirty cants want stringing up.
|
|
By:
Let’s not forget, when UKIP tried to stage a meeting in Rotherham, partly to highlight the scandal of the M****m Paedophile Rape Gangs in the town, they were forced to cancel the event after ‘protests’ (i.e. thuggery).
Without a trace of irony, these ‘protesters’ held up signs stating their opposition to ‘Racism’ and some mysterious phenomenon they called ‘BIGOTRY” ….. seemingly oblivious to the sickening racism-driven rape that sexually-underaged white girls had been subjected to in Rotherham for decades. . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2942549/Farage-forced-cancel-public-appearance-scandal-hit-Rotherham-protestors-surround-Ukip-office.html |
|
By:
The auto-correct has done the business on 'BIGOTRY'. The 'protestors' spelled it somewhat differently in the photographs in the above link.
|
|
By:
Filth .. and why did the stupid Tart keep the baby ffs
  |
|
By:
This is obviously quite ludicrous and I doubt the Council has acted brilliantly but it seems to me that the (very secretive) Family Courts may be the real problem here.
|
|
By:
Definition of 'Family' required
|
|
By:
Don't ask me. That's what they are called.
|
|
By:
Decisions like this beggar belief.
|
|
By:
Imprisoned for 35 years for grooming and sexually abusing young white girls at Rotherham the convicted offender is now asking for a say in how a young lad born as result of his sexual assault on a young girl be brought up. How insensitive and arrogant is that? The Law is an ass! On the other hand proceeds from a crime eg monies, assets, etc, the state could confiscate these ill-gotten gains legally. But rape, no the offender has a say legally. How absurd and wrong!
I think the state ought to insist this offender's dick be castrated to make sure he cannot repeat the heinous crime. |
|
By:
User Reynard • November 28, 2018 3:04 PM GMT
Definition of 'Family' required Point being that someone who rapes and impregnates a child is , by definition , a family member  |
|
By:
Now I know what is meant by the term "You can't choose your family"
|
|
By:
I suppose technically he is the father,but I agree with your sentiments Reynard. It appears the rapists/abusers are being allowed to cross-examine their victims in these courts (since most of them stopped being able to get Legal Aid ) but we don't really know because everything there is unreportable.
|
|
By:
Denzil; i didn't see this topic so will post this on here as someone has just called me "mouse" on another one. Very unflattering
i'm still a bit 50/50 over this. This woman has suffered enough, is agreed, and i fully understand her reasons for going 'public' My problem, as such is how old is her son and is he in care? If he is in care then it's no surprise the council did what they did, if she has full custody then what about his rights for being 'outed' so to speak. No one is being very clear at the moment |
|
By:
Would you consider Mr Muldoon to be more flattering then?
 |
|
By:
why didn't you answer me on your own topic - or are you trying to ruin this one ?
|
|
By:
This one is better and didn't see it when I created mine on the same theme.....
|
|
By:
well i won't be answering anything you say on this one; so keep it to the theme please
|
|
By:
Baphornet I recognise the point you are making but no way should this savage be allowed any contact with his son whether he's with the mother or in care.
Human Rights have been quoted but he should have lost most of his rights the moment he was convicted. Something else to despise the ECoHRs for. |
|
By:
More people aware of this the better so multiple threads fine as some good posts can be lost due to personal niggles etc.
Baphornet the fact that it is even a thing is my problem just don't know how there aren't rules in place that completely stop even the remotest possibility of this situation. |
|
By:
i agree with you both. I was just thinking of the child-youth-man? If he knew nothing about this until the Services contacted him, what a shock, and then his mother goes public. He may still be a ward of court? Thats just it, we don't know his age
|
|
By:
I think if a decision whether the child needs to know or not about who his father is the authority concerned could do that when he's 18 years old and not before - if so, the Law is an ass!
i also believe had this multiple child rapist perpetrated his crime anywhere except Britain eg America, he'd would have been probably sentenced to death let alone given a say how the child (if the child had a say whose his father was the rapist would never be the one) be raised. I'd chop his head off without a moment's hesitation given the severity of his crime; he's wasting food, time and resources in jail. |
|
By:
that's my only issue; his age. Btw when i say 50/50 i did mean whether she should have gone public. I don't think i made that clear
|
|
By:
I must admit I had assumed the child was in the custody of the mother. "Baphornet" might well be right in thinking it possible he is in care. In which case it's a LITTLE easier to see why the Council did what they did (or the court ordered them to ). I still think it's quite wrong though that the convicted rapist should have any say wherever the child is.
|