/ Amanda Hutton Sentence

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
FesteringSore - on 04 Oct 2013
Twelve years for manslaughter; 3 for cruelty. Any thoughts?
Rob Exile Ward on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to FesteringSore: Yes. The woman needed/needs help. I don't see what 15 years in clink will do. It won't bring her son back, it won't rehabilitate her, it won't act as a deterrent to others who are equally f*cked up and it won't make most of us feel any better about ourselves.

Sorry for the liberal/guardian/pinko reflex but someone had to do it and besides, I mean it.
digby - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to FesteringSore:

Had the case revolved around the death of a cyclist I doubt that such a sentence would have been passed.
But hysteria knows no bounds.
Eric9Points - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) Yes. The woman needed/needs help. I don't see what 15 years in clink will do.

Should cure her alcoholism?

I understand your point but then again a few moments thought and I could probably make the same argument for some murder cases.

I don't know enough to really form a strong opinion. It's so far away from anything I know. She had 4 or 5 other children who lived in the house and knew about the dead body in the bedroom? They didn't starve to death, why not? Her 24 year old adult son knew too? Her house would have made a pig sty look like something from Grand Designs? And what about the father? Despite his protestations he obviously didn't give a phuq either.

I think you can be be stupid and careless to the point of wickedness and I guess this is the case here.

off-duty - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) Yes. The woman needed/needs help. I don't see what 15 years in clink will do. It won't bring her son back, it won't rehabilitate her, it won't act as a deterrent to others who are equally f*cked up and it won't make most of us feel any better about ourselves.
>
> Sorry for the liberal/guardian/pinko reflex but someone had to do it and besides, I mean it.

Why focus on the woman who in the words of the trial judge was convicted of "the Unlawful Killing of your then 4.5 year old son Hamzah by reason of your gross negligence in failing to provide him with anything like adequate nourishment over a long period of time. In short you starved him to death."

- a course of conduct that encompassed her guilty pleas to five offences of cruelty to her other five children "causing them to live in quite appalling conditions of squalor "

The reason it she should not be viewed simply as a figure we should be sympathetic toward is due to her "deviousness and entirely purposeful conduct in keeping various Agencies away from you and your children" and includes her behaviour:-
"you spoke of him as being a difficult child and attributed behaviour to him that seems to have made you act cruelly to him. The evidence about you calling him a ‘bastard’ and punishing him for being naughty shows this feature of the case. For instance shutting him in a dark room and on one occasion piling some blankets upon the drawer into which you’d put him. Further, and importantly in the context of Count 1 [manslaughter], purposefully feeding him even less than all the other children(who in fact received less than adequate food themselves).

Let's not forget the way that Hamzah was killed : -
"The Prosecution posed the question at the outset of the case, ‘how is it possible in 21st century Britain for a 4.5 year old child to be starved to death?’ Dr Ward in her evidence said that there were very few cases indeed in the medical literature of
such a thing happening. Although it beggars belief that such a thing can happen it has of course happened here. It has done so through your purposeful, persistent and gross conduct in failing in that most basic and fundamental requirement that is upon every parent to feed her child adequately.
"

Where prison serves a purpose to rehabilitate, deter and act as retribution, in this case retribution might well feature highly. She starved a 4 1/2 year old child to death, purposely hiding her activities from the authorities.
My feelings are with the child who over not just days or weeks but months and years was slowly and almost inexorably deliberately and cruelly starved to death.
.
Tony the Blade on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

She murdered a child, her child,... freedom of liberty is her punishment.

I say throw the f*cking key away!

Sorry if I sound like Popshot/2pints/Sarah G on this, but the thought of killing a defenceless child makes my blood boil.
Jim C - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to Tony the Blade:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> She murdered a child, her child,... freedom of liberty is her punishment.
>
> I say throw the f*cking key away!
>
>
Hard for me to argue with that where children are concerned, I already get enraged when I see mothers who smoke and drink whilst pregnant, so locking up child murderer is a no brainier.
And when in there, it should be cold turkey for drink and drugs, no soft touch programmes.


abr1966 - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to FesteringSore: I thought it was a very light sentance for what she did....it was a truly awful way yo kill a child. 15 years? A sham...
In reply to abr1966: might be there are limitations to the sentencing
andy - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to abr1966) might be there are limitations to the sentencing

I think life's available for manslaughter?
abr1966 - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to abr1966) might be there are limitations to the sentencing

I don't know the technicalities of the tariff?!
Jonny2vests - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Good answer.
aln - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to Tony the Blade)
> [...
> And when in there, it should be cold turkey for drink and drugs, no soft touch programmes.

Good luck when drugs are freely available in prison. People go into prison who've done nothing harder than spliff but come out as junkies.
IainRUK - on 04 Oct 2013
In reply to FesteringSore: obviously don't know the facts, feel she was lucky, obviously addiction is an illness, so mitigating.. but to starve a 2 year old to death.. Again though I think the main lessons here are not a 20-25 year sentence but how this was missed for 2 years.. thats how you stop this happening again. And I dont like singling out social workers as their work load is often shit loads but their should be some basic 'is this kid seen every 6-12 months system'..
Tony the Blade on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
> Good luck when drugs are freely available in prison. People go into prison who've done nothing harder than spliff but come out as junkies.

Do you have any evidence to ball this statement up, or are you guessing?
IainRUK - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Tony the Blade: Come on everyone who hasn't been in prison knows prison is just play stations... TV.. smoking.. drugs and hookers...
aln - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Tony the Blade:
> (In reply to aln)
> [...]
>
> Do you have any evidence to ball this statement up, or are you guessing?

I have life experience and close anecdotal evidence. Are you saying it doesn't happen?
IainRUK - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to aln: mgco3? is that you?
aln - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I'm not mgco3 and don't understand why you'd think that. I'm aln. :)
Timmd on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Tony the Blade:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> She murdered a child, her child,... freedom of liberty is her punishment.
>
> I say throw the f*cking key away!
>
> Sorry if I sound like Popshot/2pints/Sarah G on this, but the thought of killing a defenceless child makes my blood boil.

Does he manner which it happens make any difference?

Ie, a mum sitting sorting out the stocking for her son's first Xmas losing control for a reason she can't explain shaking her baby so he dies, compared to Amanda Hutton?
ads.ukclimbing.com
John_Hat - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) Yes. The woman needed/needs help. I don't see what 15 years in clink will do. It won't bring her son back, it won't rehabilitate her, it won't act as a deterrent to others who are equally f*cked up and it won't make most of us feel any better about ourselves.
>

+1, Agree 100%. Was frankly shocked by the sentence.

Whilst comparative sentencing is a rocky road to go down, considerably less f*cked up people get considerably - in most cases massively - less for rapes, murders or both.

I suspect its becasue its a child and coz she's a woman. The latter really shouldn't make any difference, and I've always been a bit confused as to why child murders are treated so differently, by both the media and the courts.

I know its supposed to be because the child is defenceless, but frankly if a half-dozen blokes with baseball bats attacked me I'd be pretty defenceless too. Or a woman v a few blokes, etc. So defenceless doesn't really cut it for me. I suspect its some throwback to protecting kids for the good of the species because they are the future generation that will care for us in our old age.
girlymonkey - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Tony the Blade:
> (In reply to aln)
> [...]
>
> Do you have any evidence to ball this statement up, or are you guessing?

My husband works with a woman who went into prison for murder, and was a casual user of soft drugs. While in prison she started dealing and using cocaine. She says you can get any drugs you like in prison. She got caught, sentence extended and got help to get clean. This is not always the case though. So yes, definate evidence of it.
FesteringSore - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to abr1966:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) I thought it was a very light sentance for what she did....it was a truly awful way yo kill a child. 15 years? A sham...

I personally think she has got off lightly but hopefully that might countered by the sort of life she might have to lead inside - always having to watch her back etc.
FesteringSore - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> I think life's available for manslaughter?

Yes, I checked that before posting.

Rob Exile Ward on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to FesteringSore: Funny how people relish cruelty being inflicted on someone who has been convicted of cruelty.

Irony not a strong point.
FesteringSore - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) Funny how people relish cruelty being inflicted on someone who has been convicted of cruelty.
>
> Irony not a strong point.
I call it rough justice as, I suspect do a lot of people.

FesteringSore - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: You fall too easily into the trap of having too much feeing for the perpetrator rather than the victim.
Rob Exile Ward on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to FesteringSore: You fall into the trap of thinking in clichés, which is not really thinking at all.

And I'm always baffled by people (off duty is another) who think that because you try and understand what happened, that somehow that means you don't have feelings for the victim. As though there is a finite supply of sympathy, understanding, pity and once you've used it up, it's gone.
IainRUK - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: It's very either or.. black or white.. there's a need to take a side. I do think here its the safety net that needs another look.
Enty - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) You fall into the trap of thinking in clichés, which is not really thinking at all.
>
> And I'm always baffled by people (off duty is another) who think that because you try and understand what happened, that somehow that means you don't have feelings for the victim. As though there is a finite supply of sympathy, understanding, pity and once you've used it up, it's gone.

I think Off Duty feels the same as me. I certainly have pity for this woman and I'm sure off Duty does.
What I find baffling is that in cases like this, even though there might be feelings for both victim and criminal some people seem to speak louder for the criminal.

E
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Enty:

Probably because a lot of people seem to be climbing over each other to espouse harsher and harsher punishments for the guilty.
elsewhere on 05 Oct 2013
Throughout the UK there will be children alive now in similar situations. In a few months or a few years those children will become known when their manslaughter/murder cases are in court.

I'd like to think the Amanda Hutton conviction had some impact on those non-functioning families but I doubt it. None of the many previous convictions seem to have had any relevance to Amanda Hutton or other abusers. I don't see her conviction being very relevant to the fate of the children being abused this Saturday morning.

I suppose there will be yet another report about how this child fell through the gaps and many seemingly obvious signs were missed. I wish somebody had a solution.
off-duty - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) You fall into the trap of thinking in clichés, which is not really thinking at all.
>
> And I'm always baffled by people (off duty is another) who think that because you try and understand what happened, that somehow that means you don't have feelings for the victim. As though there is a finite supply of sympathy, understanding, pity and once you've used it up, it's gone.

I think that when you try and understand what has happened you need to examine the facts of the case.
On occasion, this appearing to be one of them, the circumstances that are revealed are such that you have to be appalled at sustained wickedness, cruelty and neglect.
You can choose to focus on the problems that Hutton suffered - alcoholism, domestic abuse, or you can take a step back from the defence case and examine the reality of her conduct and what she was convicted of.

I think it may be worthy of consideration that the CPS did not decide to pursue the (arguably more lenient) charge of causing or allowing the death of a child, or even a lesser child cruelty offence.
IainRUK - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: You normally are one who pushes the judge saw the evidence? I do think it was lenient.. but the judge saw the evidence. I think she was lucky. I also think things have changed but with 1000's of kids at risk the case loads for social workers is huge..
off-duty - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to off-duty) You normally are one who pushes the judge saw the evidence? I do think it was lenient.. but the judge saw the evidence. I think she was lucky. I also think things have changed but with 1000's of kids at risk the case loads for social workers is huge..

I think the sentence appears reasonable. I haven't suggested anything to the contrary.
Rob appears to think it was either excessive or inappropriate, my posts are in response to his.
IainRUK - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: I actually think its lenient.. but do think they are mitigating circumstances.. so maybe that was why.. but still think the lessons to be learnt are how it was missed.
Eric9Points - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
>

> I think it may be worthy of consideration that the CPS did not decide to pursue the (arguably more lenient) charge of causing or allowing the death of a child, or even a lesser child cruelty offence.

Having thought about this a bit more I'm a surprised she wasn't charged with murder.

Re the effect the sentence will have. I'd like to think it might act as a deterrent. If someone is letting their life spiral out of control then they should understand that if they end up damaging someone else as a result of their own failings then society will take a very dim view of it. It might just be that last incentive for them to get their life in order. Of course we'll never know because you can never tell what didn't happen.
mgco3 - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to aln) mgco3? is that you?

No, not me. Why are you missing me?

Rob Exile Ward on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: I am always surprised - partly impressed, partly anxious - at the credit you give judges. I went to school with one and my cousin is married to another, I did two weeks jury service with another, and though I have the highest regard for their intellect and their integrity, they are where they are ... because they were successful. They really, really haven't had much personal contact with failure, lives spinning out of control, bad behaviour reinforced by equally inadequate peers etc etc.

I don't want to get into a whole 'you haven't heard all the evidence ' type rally because that is self evident. From all I have read and seen (the blocked toilets, the ankle deep detritus in the kitchen, the women not even sober enough to attend the initial hearing) not to mention the fact that she lived with a decaying corpse for 2 years, it's very hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that she is one seriously sick and inadequate individual. I rather wonder whether she won't find prison something of a relief, because patently she can't cope with life on the outside.
Dave Garnett - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I agree completely. I really seems to me to be the behaviour of someone so inadequate as to be mentally ill rather than deliberate wickedness.

As for the inevitable 'how many more times... lessons to be learnt' hysteria, the fact is that there is no law or social system that can completely exclude the possibility of a child being hurt by deliberate intent or sheer bloody uselessness that wouldn't also impose a level of intrusiveness and intervention that most people would find unacceptable. It's simply up to all of us to not turn a blind eye and to take an interest in what's happening around us.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett: 'It's simply up to all of us to not turn a blind eye and to take an interest in what's happening around us.'

Yes. That's it. Or most of it.
Gordon Stainforth - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> I agree completely. I really seems to me to be the behaviour of someone so inadequate as to be mentally ill rather than deliberate wickedness.
>
> As for the inevitable 'how many more times... lessons to be learnt' hysteria, the fact is that there is no law or social system that can completely exclude the possibility of a child being hurt by deliberate intent or sheer bloody uselessness that wouldn't also impose a level of intrusiveness and intervention that most people would find unacceptable. It's simply up to all of us to not turn a blind eye and to take an interest in what's happening around us.

+1 +
off-duty - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I am always surprised... at the ways my posts are misrepresented or misinterpeted.
I didn't use the judge's remarks to demonstrate his infallibility or experience in judging the human condition - nor did I make any suggestion that was the case.
I used the judge's sentencing remarks because they usually provide a good summary of the facts of the case on which the sentence is being given.

If you want to make comment on the sentence and what you think it should or should not have been then ultimately you have to get involved in some form of discussion of the evidence. The facts of the case are, after all, what the sentence is based on.

Undoubtedly she had problems, highlighted by the fact she lived with the body of Hamzah in her bedroom for 2 years.
By her own account (and some other evidence) her descent took place predominantly after his death.
It does not have much bearing on her behaviour from the birth of Hamzah, her cruelty and neglect specifically towards him and culminating in his death.
Those are the facts on which she is being sentenced.

I think it is very easy to draw the conclusion that she is one seriously sick and inadequate individual. That conclusion is far more reassuring than to consider the deliberate wickedness and cruelty of her behaviour as exposed in this case.
off-duty - on 05 Oct 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> I agree completely. I really seems to me to be the behaviour of someone so inadequate as to be mentally ill rather than deliberate wickedness.
>

Unfortunately the facts of this case include deliberate and prolonged cruelty towards Hamzah in particular. The picture is coloured by her current behaviour and the photographs of the disgusting squalor of the house that is in existence now - but occurred subsequent to the death.

> As for the inevitable 'how many more times... lessons to be learnt' hysteria, the fact is that there is no law or social system that can completely exclude the possibility of a child being hurt by deliberate intent or sheer bloody uselessness that wouldn't also impose a level of intrusiveness and intervention that most people would find unacceptable. It's simply up to all of us to not turn a blind eye and to take an interest in what's happening around us.

Yes, I agree.
mgco3 - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to FesteringSore:
> Twelve years for manslaughter; 3 for cruelty. Any thoughts?

The facts of this case make disturbing reading:-

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Amanda-Jane-Hutton-12043-1.law

From the judges own summing up:-

Amanda Hutton was mother to 8 (yes eight) children all to the same , absent , father who had been violent towards her.



The father had not seen the child in at least 2 years. Even if he had seen the child in the 4.5 years of its life it was seriously neglected having died in a babygro made for a child of 6 to 9 months of age.
If the father had seen the child whilst alive there is no mention that he raised any of the issues with the social services.

The father must shoulder some of the blame in this case. Fathering 8 children and being violent to his wife. There are no apparent details of why the parents parted other than it happened in 2008 when the child was 3. The child died in Dec 2009. At that time the child must have been in a state of neglect as , at the time of its death, it was the size of a 6 to nine month old. Yet there is no mention of the fathers part in this. The father did not see the child between Dec 2009 and Sept 2011 and , apart from some anecdotal evidence that he reported his concern to the police, there is nothing to show that he attempted to see any of the children during this period.

The social services must also account for their apparent lack of action in this case.

After the Victoria Climbie and Baby "P" cases senior figures within the government stated "Lessons must be learned". It would appear that, once again, lessons have not been learned. I seriously doubt that anyone, within social services, will accept any responsibility in this case. It will only be a matter of time before we are, once again, horrified at the neglect and suffering of a child or children.

So we had an alcoholic mother with 6 children in her care. She would have been , most probably, receiving benefits and living in social housing. If this does not ring alarm bells with social services and lead to interventions then I would suggest that it is not "lessons " than need to be "Learned" but the whole system needs a full and open independent review. Those in positions of responsibility either need to prove that they can run the service or they need to be replaced by people who can.

The mother in this case is ultimately responsible for the death of the child. There are undoubtedly other single mothers who look after large families on their own and do so to the best of their ability.

In this case she was not only charged with the death of 1 child but with five other offenses of cruelty to her other children too.

She will be eligible for parole in 2021. Eight years for 1 death and 5 counts of child neglect. She got off very lightly. But then so did others in this case.










Sarah G on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) Yes. The woman needed/needs help. I don't see what 15 years in clink will do. It won't bring her son back, it won't rehabilitate her, it won't act as a deterrent to others who are equally f*cked up and it won't make most of us feel any better about ourselves.
>
> Sorry for the liberal/guardian/pinko reflex but someone had to do it and besides, I mean it.

+1. I was surprised at the severity of the sentence. And I was not impressed at the whining the father of the children.

Sxx




Timmd on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
>
> I think Off Duty feels the same as me. I certainly have pity for this woman and I'm sure off Duty does.
> What I find baffling is that in cases like this, even though there might be feelings for both victim and criminal some people seem to speak louder for the criminal.
>
> E

I generally assume that sympathy/compassion etc for the victim(s) just goes without saying, I can't imagine somebody not thinking of the victim(s) of crime(s).

Chambers - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to FesteringSore) Yes. The woman needed/needs help. I don't see what 15 years in clink will do. It won't bring her son back, it won't rehabilitate her, it won't act as a deterrent to others who are equally f*cked up and it won't make most of us feel any better about ourselves.
>
> Sorry for the liberal/guardian/pinko reflex but someone had to do it and besides, I mean it.

So, Rob, given that sick societies produce sick people, how would you set out to make this pile of f*cked-up shit better? Or maybe stop it happening again?

off-duty - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
>
> So, Rob, given that sick societies produce sick people, how would you set out to make this pile of f*cked-up shit better? Or maybe stop it happening again?

That's a fecking big leap you are making there, especially prior to the results of the various serious case reviews that will be forthcoming.
I do hope you are not using the neglect, cruelty towards and death of a 4 year old boy to make some nonsense political point.
Enty - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
>
> So, Rob, given that sick societies produce sick people, how would you set out to make this pile of f*cked-up shit better? Or maybe stop it happening again?

The problem is, the more people we have with this fluffy attitude the more the problem is perpetuated.
When you have people with this attitude working in prisons, as probabtion officers and even judges you end up with a sway towards the crim over the victim.
So a burglar whith 97 offences who had a shitty childhood gets three months prison instead of three years in prison. In the mean time more people get burgled (like I did last year) just because people like Rob feel sorry for the criminals who have had a bad upringing.


E
Chambers - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Chambers)
> [...]
>
> That's a fecking big leap you are making there, especially prior to the results of the various serious case reviews that will be forthcoming.
> I do hope you are not using the neglect, cruelty towards and death of a 4 year old boy to make some nonsense political point.

Well, I don't think I've made any kind of leap at all. I'm not the least bit interested in what social workers have to say about this. I've worked with social workers. Bunch of sick people who are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Do you know what? Thousands upon thousands of people die needlessly every day as a result of the sick society that we live in and that you support.

For all your blathering bollocks about nonsense political points, you are the problem. When people evolve their thinking a bit and stop seeing other people as property we might get somewhere as a species.

off-duty - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Well, I don't think I've made any kind of leap at all. I'm not the least bit interested in what social workers have to say about this. I've worked with social workers. Bunch of sick people who are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Do you know what? Thousands upon thousands of people die needlessly every day as a result of the sick society that we live in and that you support.
>
> For all your blathering bollocks about nonsense political points, you are the problem. When people evolve their thinking a bit and stop seeing other people as property we might get somewhere as a species.

I have written, then deleted, quite a few replies to this post. I'm not entirely sure that I want to even engage with you here.

I honestly don't know what planet you are on that you believe that cruelty and neglect of a child is something that your magic socialist state will cure, let alone blame society (especially prior to the result of any SCR) and I am somewhat taken aback that you appear happy to use the mummified corpse of a 4 year old child to try and make an entirely unwarranted political point about capitalism.
Oceanrower - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: A short while ago I agreed with a post from Al Evans.

Now I find myself agreeing with you about Chambers.

I must be growing up!
Rob Exile Ward on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: There is no problem that will not be cured in the forthcoming socialist state.

I'm beginning to believe that the change will be so profound that not only will all people be perfect, cats will get on with dogs and the lion will lie down with the lamb.

IainRUK - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Sarah G:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
>
> +1. I was surprised at the severity of the sentence. And I was not impressed at the whining the father of the children.
>
> Sxx

Really? She tortured her child?

When I saw your last comment I thought 'you heartless cow'.. then read more and actually agree.. he'd not heard from the kid in 2 years.. so you do have a valid point there I'll grant you.
Chambers - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Chambers)
> [...]
>
> I have written, then deleted, quite a few replies to this post.

I'm very pleased that you've finally learned to modify your blathering bollocks.

I'm not entirely sure that I want to even engage with you here.

Well, you and me both, motherf*cker. 'Cos your knee-jerk bullshit gets uncomfortably close to bothering me, sometimes.
>
> I honestly don't know what planet you are on

Same one as you, brother. I just look at it rationally.

>that you believe that cruelty and neglect of a child is something that your magic socialist state will cure...

Got to stop you there. You're parrotting the same old shit again. Socialism will be a stateless society.
> let alone blame society (especially prior to the result of any SCR)

Aaah! So people are born into a vacuum, are they? Look, a society that is predicated upon the commodification of people is going to lead to some pretty f*cking sick social relationships that have little to do with nurturing. Here's something for you to read.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/05/sold-mum-dad-images-child-abuse

Read that?

Read it again, and ask yourself what the parents were concerned with. And then come back and tell me that abuse isn't an economic imperative.

>and I am somewhat taken aback that you appear happy to use the mummified corpse of a 4 year old child to try and make an entirely unwarranted political point about capitalism.

Unwarranted in your mind. I'm taken aback that you might even think for a moment that I wouldn't point out that millions of children die every year because capitalism doesn't care about what anyone needs if there's no profit in it.

Chambers - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to off-duty) There is no problem that will not be cured in the forthcoming socialist state.
>
> I'm beginning to believe that the change will be so profound that not only will all people be perfect, cats will get on with dogs and the lion will lie down with the lamb.

Keep going. You make my job easier.

IainRUK - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
>
> For all your blathering bollocks about nonsense political points, you are the problem. When people evolve their thinking a bit and stop seeing other people as property we might get somewhere as a species.

How was he seen as property? This is the most random post I've seen on UKC for many years.. you want to make a point so search for a thread you deem suitable and can find a tenuous link... this is an odd find..
Chambers - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to off-duty) A short while ago I agreed with a post from Al Evans.
>
> Now I find myself agreeing with you about Chambers.
>
> I must be growing up!

If you agreed with a post from Al there's no hope for you.

Chambers - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Well, Ian, your posts always look a bit random to me, but let's not get too personal here. Do you have children? Are they your children?

I'm talking about a form of society that commodifies everything, including people. Especially small powerless ones.
off-duty - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to off-duty) In reply to off-duty:
> [...]
>
> I'm very pleased that you've finally learned to modify your blathering bollocks.
>
> I'm not entirely sure that I want to even engage with you here.
>
> Well, you and me both, motherf*cker. 'Cos your knee-jerk bullshit gets uncomfortably close to bothering me, sometimes.
> [...]

An interesting start, considering I have only ever engaged with you on one other thread (as far as I can remember - unless you are indeed another poster masquerading under a pseudonym)

> Same one as you, brother. I just look at it rationally.
>
> >that you believe that cruelty and neglect of a child is something that your magic socialist state will cure...
>
> Got to stop you there. You're parrotting the same old shit again. Socialism will be a stateless society.
> [...]
>
> Aaah! So people are born into a vacuum, are they? Look, a society that is predicated upon the commodification of people is going to lead to some pretty f*cking sick social relationships that have little to do with nurturing. Here's something for you to read.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/05/sold-mum-dad-images-child-abuse
>
> Read that?
>
> Read it again, and ask yourself what the parents were concerned with. And then come back and tell me that abuse isn't an economic imperative.
>

Yes, it's horrible. It's also entirely irrelevant to this thread. If you want to start a thread about child sexual exploitation, child abuse, and modern society, please start another thread. Maybe you can began it with a consideration of why certain people want to sexually abuse toddlers, rather than why people make toddlers available for that abuse.


> >and I am somewhat taken aback that you appear happy to use the mummified corpse of a 4 year old child to try and make an entirely unwarranted political point about capitalism.
>
> Unwarranted in your mind. I'm taken aback that you might even think for a moment that I wouldn't point out that millions of children die every year because capitalism doesn't care about what anyone needs if there's no profit in it.

Again, a point entirely unrelated to this thread, though it is entirely consistent with trying to make an irrelevant political point out of the death of a 4 year old child.
Chambers - on 06 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: I don't usually point out people's particular problems to them, but when it comes to the kind of dangerously blinkered perspective that you display I make an exception.

How can you possibly think that human behaviour is disconnected with the form of organisation in which it manifests?
IainRUK - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to IainRUK) Well, Ian, your posts always look a bit random to me, but let's not get too personal here.

So you mean lets get personal...

Do you have children? Are they your children?
>
> I'm talking about a form of society that commodifies everything, including people. Especially small powerless ones.

How do the 99% of the population commodify their kids? Idiotic statement
off-duty - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to off-duty) I don't usually point out people's particular problems to them, but when it comes to the kind of dangerously blinkered perspective that you display I make an exception.
>
> How can you possibly think that human behaviour is disconnected with the form of organisation in which it manifests?

If we want to talk about blinkers I would suggest that your desire to twist this topic into an argument for your preferred form of society caps any tunnel vision I might be suffering (and then some!)

If you want to link this death to a failure in the very construction of our society, then you are going to have to produce some concrete links. Up until now you have blustered and spouted irrelevancies from the start.
Personally I would wait until after the SCRs are published for a fuller picture.
At present we have a conviction of a woman who appeared to deliberately inflict a level of cruelty and neglect on one of her children in particular that is difficult to comprehend regardless of what political perspective you view it from, and who appears to have deliberately spurned and avoided efforts made to reach out to her.

The only thing you have posted of any relevance (and which incidentally I concur with) is :-
how would you set out to make this pile of f*cked-up shit better? Or maybe stop it happening again?
Chambers - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Chambers)
> [...]
>
> So you mean lets get personal...
>
> Do you have children? Are they your children?
> [...]
>
> How do the 99% of the population commodify their kids? Idiotic statement

Yes, Ian, it was. Completely idiotic. You're just not thinking straight. But it's ok. You aren't alone. But help is at hand.

Let's begin to unravel your thinking...

First off, I never said that 99% of the population commodify their kids. That's the kind of stupid shit that people in the 'Occupy' movement spout. Or anarchists. Leninists, too. I don't know why you attributed such thinking to me, since I've done nothing to suggest that I think that way.

As a revolutionary socialist, I'm interested in why people behave the way that they do. And what I think is that human behaviour is - by and large - determined by the kind of society that we live in. It follows from that that any understanding of human behaviour needs to be based upon a clear understanding of the nature of the society that we live in. This appears axiomatic to me.

Now then, I might be wrong, here. But I think that the best analysis of the nature of the society that we live in is one produced by a bearded motherf*cker from the 1800s. Charlie Marx. Great thinker. Flawed, certainly, and I wouldn't have wanted to be his wife or his girlfriend. But still a great thinker. He had a lot to say about the society that produces us. What it comes down to - to save you the trouble of reading Das Kapital - is that capitalism reduces everything to a unit that can be bought and sold. As an economic system it commodifies everything, or tries to.

So, blaming individuals is just silly and unhistorical.

Mind you, I don't mind your insults. I'd just prefer you made arguments instead.

Chambers - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty: I don't think that you, my friend, are any better at arbitrating what is relevant and what is not than I am. And I'm no expert.

Look, this hand-wringing stuff is beneath us. We need to look for causes. How many children do you want to die? Last time I looked at the statistics it was the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of kids crashing into a mountain every three minutes. Every three minutes. Is that acceptable to you? Or do you just get upset about kids needlessly dying when it makes the papers in Britain?
off-duty - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to off-duty) I don't think that you, my friend, are any better at arbitrating what is relevant and what is not than I am. And I'm no expert.
>
> Look, this hand-wringing stuff is beneath us. We need to look for causes. How many children do you want to die? Last time I looked at the statistics it was the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of kids crashing into a mountain every three minutes. Every three minutes. Is that acceptable to you? Or do you just get upset about kids needlessly dying when it makes the papers in Britain?

If that's your apology for coming on a thread about the death of a 4 year old child and clumsily and entirely irrelevantly trying to turn it into part of your personal crusade for socialism, then apology very much not accepted.
Timmd on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Chambers)
> [...]
>
> The problem is, the more people we have with this fluffy attitude the more the problem is perpetuated.
> When you have people with this attitude working in prisons, as probabtion officers and even judges you end up with a sway towards the crim over the victim.
> So a burglar whith 97 offences who had a shitty childhood gets three months prison instead of three years in prison. In the mean time more people get burgled (like I did last year) just because people like Rob feel sorry for the criminals who have had a bad upringing.
>
>
> E

Wanting to change society so that less people get a raw deal from the outset, doesn't make one fluffy though, or believe in lighter sentences. The number of people in prison with the reading age below that of an adult is ment to be pretty high.

It's a pragmatic thing as much as something fluffy, to want less people to have bad upbringings, or to be disadvantaged while growing up. I was a kid and discovered we'd been burgled for the first time when I got home from school, and it was horrible.

Chambers - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Chambers)
> [...]
>
> If that's your apology for coming on a thread about the death of a 4 year old child and clumsily and entirely irrelevantly trying to turn it into part of your personal crusade for socialism, then apology very much not accepted.

Clumsy I'll accept, but it's just your opinion. Irrelevant I'll reject utterly. You might think that it's possible to separate people's behaviour from the material conditions that produce it, but that's just a manifestation of your sloppy, tabloid thinking.

Absolutely no apology intended. I stand by what I said. Sick societies produce sick people.

Dave Garnett - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]

>
> Let's begin to unravel your thinking...
>

It's pretty clear whose thinking is unravelled round here.

If you're an example of the compassion and rational response we could expect from a revolutionary socialist state, I'll stick with trying to improve what we have thanks.
off-duty - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Clumsy I'll accept, but it's just your opinion. Irrelevant I'll reject utterly. You might think that it's possible to separate people's behaviour from the material conditions that produce it, but that's just a manifestation of your sloppy, tabloid thinking.
>
> Absolutely no apology intended. I stand by what I said. Sick societies produce sick people.

Again, I'm not entirely sure where to start.
You come on to this thread seemingly to push some political point about how this death is all the fault of society, clarifying that to indicate you mean capitalist society.
That in itself is an "interesting" point to debate - obviously one might consider the need to tread carefully around the circumstances of this case to demonstrate your thesis whilst avoiding claims of trying to politically point score over the death of a young child.

Instead, you present zero evidence relevant to this case, instead obfuscating, blustering and producing irrelevant facts about entirely unrelated incidents.
Rather than actually engage with any of the various points you are pulled up on you just regurgitate more socialist cliches and try to emote about "the death of babies".

If this is what passes for rational (or appropriate) discussion in the Socialist Party Of Great Britain than I would suggest that you re-examine your society before you start telling others how to run theirs.

IainRUK - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Chambers: You've made no argument about she commodified her child at all. She was an alcoholic who neglected the child. You do get alcoholic socialists..
Simon4 - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Chambers) You've made no argument about ...

He (she), never makes any arguments about anything, just contorts the debate about any subject into a lengthy and very tedious lecture about his mythical perfect society, where nothing ever goes wrong, everything is naturally harmonious and everyone agrees (with him!).

He does not appear to be the slightest bit phased about the disgusting aspect of using this appalling case to ride his hobby-horse, nor of its utter irrelevancy to the specific situation, it is all grist to his (totally unconvincing) mill.

The only thing surprising about this particular poster is that he did not weigh in on my thread about fuse boxes/consumer units, to say that in a perfect socialist society, no circuit would ever WANT to get overloaded and all electrics would always be safe and never degrade or be badly installed.

Capitalism - it causes electrocution!

After all, under socialism we would have a permanent power cut as no-one would have any incentive to work at a power station, so no-one could possibly get electrocuted. Its an ill wind ..


IainRUK - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to Simon4: Exactly.. he's just picked a topic at random to pick an argument about socialism.. and hasn't actually identified how she did use her kid as a commodity.. IMO that's exactly what she didn't do, she obviously placed very little value in them. There seems to be a lot went wrong here, but her alcoholism was clearly the leading factor which should have been flagged.
Ridge - on 07 Oct 2013
In reply to girlymonkey:
> (In reply to Tony the Blade)
> [...]
>
> My husband works with a woman who went into prison for murder, and was a casual user of soft drugs. While in prison she started dealing and using

First murder, then dealing coke. Before you know it she'll be swearing and dropping litter ;-)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.