A UK legal issues forum. Legal Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Legal Banter forum » Legal Newsgroups » uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) (uk.legal) An unmoderated forum to discuss all aspects of legal issues within the UK.

Tags: ,

Baby P, etc



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 14th 08, 12:22 PM posted to uk.legal
Frederick Williams[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Baby P, etc

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?
--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.
  #2  
Old November 14th 08, 10:47 PM posted to uk.legal
Frederick Williams[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Baby P, etc

Frederick Williams wrote:

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?


The answer to the second question is no.

--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.
  #3  
Old November 14th 08, 10:50 PM posted to uk.legal
Mr X[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 635
Default Baby P, etc


"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
Frederick Williams wrote:

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?


The answer to the second question is no.

Indeed the father has been giving a satement today. I will, however, ask
why he didn't get involved earlier.


  #4  
Old November 14th 08, 11:11 PM posted to uk.legal
Svenne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 749
Default Baby P, etc

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:22:10 +0000, Frederick Williams
wrote:

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?


The names and adresses of the adults involved in the death of Baby P
and a photograph of his mother can be found he

www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1551

Svenne
  #5  
Old November 15th 08, 11:07 AM posted to uk.legal
The Todal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,901
Default Baby P, etc


"Mr X" wrote in message
...

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
Frederick Williams wrote:

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?


The answer to the second question is no.

Indeed the father has been giving a satement today. I will, however, ask
why he didn't get involved earlier.


His story seems to be that the defendants concealed the abuse not only from
the healthcare professionals, but from him. He has many supportive remarks
about the healthcare professionals.

I'd like to think that if I were in his position, a father seeing my young
son, I'd have picked up on any injuries or any apprehension about returning
to his mother. Still, people have happily sent their kids to boarding
schools for centuries.


  #6  
Old November 15th 08, 12:59 PM posted to uk.legal
IANAL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,900
Default Baby P, etc

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:07:50 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"Mr X" wrote in message
...

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
Frederick Williams wrote:

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?

The answer to the second question is no.

Indeed the father has been giving a satement today. I will, however, ask
why he didn't get involved earlier.


His story seems to be that the defendants concealed the abuse not only from
the healthcare professionals, but from him. He has many supportive remarks
about the healthcare professionals.

I'd like to think that if I were in his position, a father seeing my young
son, I'd have picked up on any injuries or any apprehension about returning
to his mother. Still, people have happily sent their kids to boarding
schools for centuries.


Surely no more than ten years or so.
  #7  
Old November 15th 08, 06:17 PM posted to uk.legal
Darcy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Baby P, etc

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:59:56 +0000, IanAl wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:07:50 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"Mr X" wrote in message
...

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
Frederick Williams wrote:

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?

The answer to the second question is no.

Indeed the father has been giving a satement today. I will, however, ask
why he didn't get involved earlier.


His story seems to be that the defendants concealed the abuse not only from
the healthcare professionals, but from him. He has many supportive remarks
about the healthcare professionals.

I'd like to think that if I were in his position, a father seeing my young
son, I'd have picked up on any injuries or any apprehension about returning
to his mother. Still, people have happily sent their kids to boarding
schools for centuries.


Surely no more than ten years or so.


From the BBC news :Old Bailey Judge Stephen Kramer told the
27-year-old mother and her 32-year-old boyfriend, who cannot be named
for legal reasons, and Jason Owen, 36, that they faced "substantial"
terms in prison.

Surprise surprise,
Its almost as if the judge is apoligising for having to jail them.
Lets see a real long realistic term of imprisonment to deter others,
lets say 25 years must be served.
But i bet they will be out in 6-7 years.

D
  #8  
Old November 15th 08, 07:23 PM posted to uk.legal
Svenne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 749
Default Baby P, etc

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:17:03 +0000, Darcy wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:59:56 +0000, IanAl wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:07:50 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"Mr X" wrote in message
...

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
Frederick Williams wrote:

Baby P, its mother and her boy friend are all unnamed (and unnameable,
it seems). What is the reason for that? Is the boy friend the father
of baby P?

The answer to the second question is no.

Indeed the father has been giving a satement today. I will, however, ask
why he didn't get involved earlier.

His story seems to be that the defendants concealed the abuse not only from
the healthcare professionals, but from him. He has many supportive remarks
about the healthcare professionals.

I'd like to think that if I were in his position, a father seeing my young
son, I'd have picked up on any injuries or any apprehension about returning
to his mother. Still, people have happily sent their kids to boarding
schools for centuries.


Surely no more than ten years or so.


From the BBC news :Old Bailey Judge Stephen Kramer told the
27-year-old mother and her 32-year-old boyfriend, who cannot be named
for legal reasons, and Jason Owen, 36, that they faced "substantial"
terms in prison.

Surprise surprise,
Its almost as if the judge is apoligising for having to jail them.
Lets see a real long realistic term of imprisonment to deter others,
lets say 25 years must be served.
But i bet they will be out in 6-7 years.


I believe the maximum term they face is 14 years.

I expect her to get somewhere around 2 years and the men about 4 or 5.

Svenne
  #9  
Old November 15th 08, 10:26 PM posted to uk.legal
Richard Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,136
Default Baby P, etc

In message , Darcy
writes

From the BBC news :Old Bailey Judge Stephen Kramer told the 27-year-old
mother and her 32-year-old boyfriend, who cannot be named for legal
reasons, and Jason Owen, 36, that they faced "substantial" terms in
prison.

Surprise surprise,
Its almost as if the judge is apoligising for having to jail them.


What on earth makes you say that? It's utter garbage.
--
Richard Miller
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2009 Legal Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Internet Advertising - Tesco - 0% credit cards - Free Advertising - Daily funny video