NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people should not be able to ever have children, this couple seems to fit that charge:


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/14/npois14.xml



Couple are jailed for killing child because he was not perfect
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 14/01/2005)

A wealthy couple who killed their three-year-old adopted son because he was not the "perfect child" they craved were jailed for five years yesterday.

Ian and Angela Gay became incensed that Christian Blewitt didn't live up to their expectations of the ideal family.

Christian Blewitt was force fed salt
Five weeks into an adoption trial period, as their frustration grew, they force-fed him more than four teaspoons of salt as a punishment for refusing his food before dumping him in a cot, where he collapsed. He suffered severe brain injuries, a heart attack and died in hospital four days later.

The prosecution alleged that he had also been either beaten or shaken after doctors found that he had 11 areas of bruising around the brain.

The couple, who had also adopted Christian's younger brother and sister, were cleared of murder but convicted of manslaughter.

Sentencing them at Worcester Crown Court, Mr Justice Pitchers said Christian's behaviour was "hardly out of the ordinary" for a three-year-old, even one that hadn't had Christian's "difficult start" in life. He was taken into care shortly after his first birthday and then spent time with foster parents.

He said the Gays, from Halesowen, West Midlands, were "intelligent people" and had made "a deliberate choice in cold blood" how to punish Christian.

He accepted that it was a single episode of abuse and that they were unaware the dose would prove fatal.

He accused Angela Gay, 37, of being "entirely selfish". Her return to work as Christian lay critically ill showed "where her priorities lay". He added: "You were interested only in what was best for you, not what was best for him.''

As sentence was passed, the Gays held hands and showed no emotion. Having left the dock they embraced before being led away separately.

Mrs Gay's parents, Margaret and Royston Swain, both 61, said they were "completely devastated" by the verdicts. Mr Swain said: "Angela has worked hard all her life and was one of the few actuaries in the UK. She would have been the perfect mother.'' Christian's natural mother, Tracey Osik, 23, said: "I was furious when I heard that they only got five years. It should have been life after what they did to Christian. I might not have been the best mother but they had all the advantages."

Christian's maternal grandmother, Susan Osik, said her daughter "didn't give a damn" about her son or what happened to him, preferring to spend her time nightclubbing.

She said: "Tracey wasn't looking after him properly. All his clothes were wet. I was concerned about his health. He started losing a lot of weight. He had to go to hospital on a drip.

"He didn't have much but that couple had everything. They should have been able to give Christian, his brother and sister a far better life.

"They should have looked after him properly. Five years isn't enough. It was very cruel, and they should throw away the key."

Det Ch Insp Steve Cullen, from West Mercia police, said: "Christian led a brief life and we can at least be thankful that the period he spent with his foster carers were happy times. We are pleased that justice has been done for Christian today."


5 years for this? What the heck is wrong with that judicial system?

too much, i know - how were they to know that salt would kill him? poor gays, they're probably gutted. i think it's been a bit blown out proportion because they were open about the fact that he wasn't living up to their expectations. i'm not saying they were good parents but come on, everyone makes mistakes.

Some people should not be able to ever have children, this couple seems to fit that charge:


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/14/npois14.xml



Couple are jailed for killing child because he was not perfect
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 14/01/2005)

A wealthy couple who killed their three-year-old adopted son because he was not the "perfect child" they craved were jailed for five years yesterday.

Ian and Angela Gay became incensed that Christian Blewitt didn't live up to their expectations of the ideal family.

Christian Blewitt was force fed salt
Five weeks into an adoption trial period, as their frustration grew, they force-fed him more than four teaspoons of salt as a punishment for refusing his food before dumping him in a cot, where he collapsed. He suffered severe brain injuries, a heart attack and died in hospital four days later.

The prosecution alleged that he had also been either beaten or shaken after doctors found that he had 11 areas of bruising around the brain.

The couple, who had also adopted Christian's younger brother and sister, were cleared of murder but convicted of manslaughter.

Sentencing them at Worcester Crown Court, Mr Justice Pitchers said Christian's behaviour was "hardly out of the ordinary" for a three-year-old, even one that hadn't had Christian's "difficult start" in life. He was taken into care shortly after his first birthday and then spent time with foster parents.

He said the Gays, from Halesowen, West Midlands, were "intelligent people" and had made "a deliberate choice in cold blood" how to punish Christian.

He accepted that it was a single episode of abuse and that they were unaware the dose would prove fatal.

He accused Angela Gay, 37, of being "entirely selfish". Her return to work as Christian lay critically ill showed "where her priorities lay". He added: "You were interested only in what was best for you, not what was best for him.''

As sentence was passed, the Gays held hands and showed no emotion. Having left the dock they embraced before being led away separately.

Mrs Gay's parents, Margaret and Royston Swain, both 61, said they were "completely devastated" by the verdicts. Mr Swain said: "Angela has worked hard all her life and was one of the few actuaries in the UK. She would have been the perfect mother.'' Christian's natural mother, Tracey Osik, 23, said: "I was furious when I heard that they only got five years. It should have been life after what they did to Christian. I might not have been the best mother but they had all the advantages."

Christian Blewitt with his natural mother Tracey Osik
Christian's maternal grandmother, Susan Osik, said her daughter "didn't give a damn" about her son or what happened to him, preferring to spend her time nightclubbing.

She said: "Tracey wasn't looking after him properly. All his clothes were wet. I was concerned about his health. He started losing a lot of weight. He had to go to hospital on a drip.

"He didn't have much but that couple had everything. They should have been able to give Christian, his brother and sister a far better life.

"They should have looked after him properly. Five years isn't enough. It was very cruel, and they should throw away the key."

Det Ch Insp Steve Cullen, from West Mercia police, said: "Christian led a brief life and we can at least be thankful that the period he spent with his foster carers were happy times. We are pleased that justice has been done for Christian today."


5 years for this? What the heck is wrong with that judicial system?


1) that’s horrible but saying the whole judicial system is bad off of one incident … not really enough info

2) shit like that happens here and everywhere else too …

Poor kid

too much, i know - how were they to know that salt would kill him? poor gays, they're probably gutted. i think it's been a bit blown out proportion because they were open about the fact that he wasn't living up to their expectations. i'm not saying they were good parents but come on, everyone makes mistakes.
Everyone does not make the mistake of shaking the kid so hard his brain bruses ... nor killing him ...

OH MY GOD....please let me in a room with these people for 30 minutes with my choice of power tools. :mad:

OH MY GOD....please let me in a room with these people for 30 minutes with my choice of power tools. :mad:
Mornin peachy ... would probably join you :fluffle:

Some people should not be able to ever have children, this couple seems to fit that charge:

5 years for this? What the heck is wrong with that judicial system?

It's not a problem with the judicial system per se.. They're only charged with manslaughter... It was a jury that decided that they should be charged with manslaughter and not murder. There is also a lack of evidence: it's vastly circumstantial.

The people are heartless bastards though. No doubt about that...

*sighs*

too much, i know - how were they to know that salt would kill him? poor gays, they're probably gutted. i think it's been a bit blown out proportion because they were open about the fact that he wasn't living up to their expectations. i'm not saying they were good parents but come on, everyone makes mistakes.

Are you kidding me? Poor Gays?? Blown out of proportion?? What the hell kind of expectations can a 3 year old possible be held to? 3 is a toddler who doesnt know anything except cartoons and that he doesnt like peas! Was he not quoting Shakespeare at the age of 3?? Did he wet the bed one too many times?? Was he unable to do fractions?? What expectations can one have for a 3 year old that could lead to such dissapointment ?? This child is dead thanks to these people.....and you think we should feel sorry for them? Everyone makes mistakes my ass....these people ARE a mistake

OH MY GOD....please let me in a room with these people for 30 minutes with my choice of power tools. :mad:

yeah but after you've made them a coffee table and fixed their shelves what would you do?

these are the kind of people who'd put salt in their coffee. i could never get comfortable

Mornin peachy ... would probably join you :fluffle:

Hey doll! Come pick me up on the John Deere and we'll ride over to the jail and handle this little matter.

It's not a problem with the judicial system per se.. They're only charged with manslaughter... It was a jury that decided that they should be charged with manslaughter and not murder. There is also a lack of evidence: it's vastly circumstantial.

The people are heartless bastards though. No doubt about that...

*sighs*
Exactly, there is a lack of proof of deliberate intent to kill so it would not be right to charge them with murder. We are fortunate to live in a society that still tries, at least, to believe in innocent until proven guilty. Trial by media is something else and is guilty if it makes a better story. One should be very careful about judging any case like this based on third hand evidence. Yes they committed a terrible deed and now that has destroyed their own lives too now. This "nice" successful middle class couple will never be the same again and that will punish them the rest of their days.

Hey doll! Come pick me up on the John Deere and we'll ride over to the jail and handle this little matter.
Lol if I only owned one :) (that would be hella long way to drive on a tractor lol)

yeah but after you've made them a coffee table and fixed their shelves what would you do?

these are the kind of people who'd put salt in their coffee. i could never get comfortable

Patch the hole in the roof.

yeah but after you've made them a coffee table and fixed their shelves what would you do?

these are the kind of people who'd put salt in their coffee. i could never get comfortable

I wont describe what I'd do, but its safe to say that someone would be opening their ketchup bottles for them from now on.

Exactly, there is a lack of proof of deliberate intent to kill so it would not be right to charge them with murder. We are fortunate to live in a society that still tries, at least, to believe in innocent until proven guilty. Trial by media is something else and is guilty if it makes a better story. One should be very careful about judging any case like this based on third hand evidence. Yes they committed a terrible deed and now that has destroyed their own lives too now. This "nice" successful middle class couple will never be the same again and that will punish them the rest of their days.
But they managed to find enough evidence for manslaughter … but a sentence of only 5 for manslaughter? (even in MN that is hella light) (I can understand why murder did not stick but still …)

But they managed to find enough evidence for manslaughter … but a sentence of only 5 for manslaughter? (even in MN that is hella light) (I can understand why murder did not stick but still …)
"In English law, homicide can divided into several offences, including:

* Murder - Killing of another person whilst having either the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
* Manslaughter - Unintentional and unlawful killing of another person.
* Infanticide - Intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is based on intent."
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)

Therefore in the UK manslaughter means there was absolutely no proven intent to kill. What you are punishing then is negligent or stupid behaviour resulting in a death and so the sentence reflects this definition.

I wont describe what I'd do, but its safe to say that someone would be opening their ketchup bottles for them from now on.


so you think that care in the community is preferable to jail time for these two. you're more liberal than itook you for

But they managed to find enough evidence for manslaughter … but a sentence of only 5 for manslaughter? (even in MN that is hella light) (I can understand why murder did not stick but still …)

I definitely agree they deserved a harsher sentance than 5 years. They'll probably be out in 2. That is a travesty of justice. They should at least be looking at 10 to 15 with no chance of parole.

"In English law, homicide can divided into several offences, including:

* Murder - Killing of another person whilst having either the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
* Manslaughter - Unintentional and unlawful killing of another person.
* Infanticide - Intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is based on intent."
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)

Therefore in the UK manslaughter means there was absolutely no proven intent to kill. What you are punishing then is negligent or stupid behaviour resulting in a death and so the sentence reflects this definition.
I understand that but even so 5 is light for a manslaughter (which reflects the same lack of intention) over here … usually in the order of 7 + years average

I definitely agree they deserved a harsher sentance than 5 years. They'll probably be out in 2. That is a travesty of justice. They should at least be looking at 10 to 15 with no chance of parole.
So if you are involved in a car crash, someone dies and it is decided you are at fault?
If we put people away for that long on for accidental actions then we will rapidly end up with more people inside prison than out. The UK already imprisons a higher percentage of its population (and for longer) than any other European country, more even than Turkey which is deemed to have a poor human rights record.

so you think that care in the community is preferable to jail time for these two. you're more liberal than itook you for

What do you mean care in the community? Have I not had enough coffee yet?

So if you are involved in a car crash, someone dies and it is decided you are at fault?
If we put people away for that long on for accidental actions then we will rapidly end up with more people inside prison than out. The UK already imprisons a higher percentage of its population (and for longer) than any other European country, more even than Turkey which is deemed to have a poor human rights record.
We are not saying the whole judicial system needs to go this way … just that it APPEARS this individual case is a bit light for someone convicted

What do you mean care in the community? Have I not had enough coffee yet?

sending people round to open their ketchup for them, heading round to sort out their house with power tools, fuck it whynot kidnap some kids and poison them in their front room, just for kicks

I understand that but even so 5 is light for a manslaughter (which reflects the same lack of intention) over here … usually in the order of 7 + years average
They will serve 2.5 to three years and most likely be on parole for about five years after that. We tend to reserve harsh sentences for deliberate actions.
A man was recently sent to prison for three months for repeatedly urinating in public places - and that isn't a jailable offence. He broke a magistrate court order to stop it. That should be harsh enough for anyone.

They will serve 2.5 to three years and most likely be on parole for about five years after that. We tend to reserve harsh sentences for deliberate actions.
A man was recently sent to prison for three months for repeatedly urinating in public places - and that isn't a jailable offence. He broke a magistrate court order to stop it. That should be harsh enough for anyone.
Again not trying to comment on the whole setup of the legal system over there (not familiar enough with it) just this individual case

Exactly, there is a lack of proof of deliberate intent to kill so it would not be right to charge them with murder. We are fortunate to live in a society that still tries, at least, to believe in innocent until proven guilty. Trial by media is something else and is guilty if it makes a better story. One should be very careful about judging any case like this based on third hand evidence. Yes they committed a terrible deed and now that has destroyed their own lives too now. This "nice" successful middle class couple will never be the same again and that will punish them the rest of their days.The prosecution alleged that he had also been either beaten or shaken after doctors found that he had 11 areas of bruising around the brain.What about "the rest of the days" of poor little Christian? How mentally sick do you have to be to force feed a child that much salt? Let's not forget the fact that there was some evidence of brain damage due apparently to trauma. How hard and long do you have to shake and/or otherwise physically abuse a child for 11 separate incidents of trauma to be found? Damned hard, and a damned lot! As a child I survived being thrown across rooms into walls, down stairs, beatings (punches) - what did they do to this poor little guy that killed him?

These people should never again see the light of day.

what did they do to this poor little guy that killed him?



shook him and fed him salt. read the articles

We are not saying the whole judicial system needs to go this way … just that it APPEARS this individual case is a bit light for someone convicted
OK, fair point, looking at here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo971125/text/71125w01.htm) it appears that it is round about average (1996 but I can't find any more recent)

So if you are involved in a car crash, someone dies and it is decided you are at fault?
If we put people away for that long on for accidental actions then we will rapidly end up with more people inside prison than out. The UK already imprisons a higher percentage of its population (and for longer) than any other European country, more even than Turkey which is deemed to have a poor human rights record.


Those are case by case scenarios. If someone rear ends me and kills my 6 year old because they were following too close, and they are convicted for manslaughter, chances are their sentence would be a lot less (if any jail time) than someone who was a drunk driver and resultd in the same. Or in this case, they were punishing their child because he didnt meet their expectations. That has a hint of intent and malice to it. These people didnt exactly accidentally spill too much salt into this childs mouth. It was force fed. And the brain bruising is no accident. So the sentencing is going to be different for true "Accidents" in comparison to those manslaughter charges that were actually murder, and were plead to a lesser charge for sake of court time.And re: this case- I expressed my disbelief that this was an accident

shook him and fed him salt. read the articlesDuh!

A bit of a rhetorical question, as well as designed to get others to think. Shook him, my ass. They had to do a damn site more than "shake" him for 11 separate incidents of brain trauma to be in evidence.

OK, fair point, looking at here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo971125/text/71125w01.htm) it appears that it is round about average (1996 but I can't find any more recent)
Yeah about a 4 year average (roughly ... lets say 4.5 -5 year) though personlay would like to see it fall under the "life sentiences" catagory

sending people round to open their ketchup for them, heading round to sort out their house with power tools, fuck it whynot kidnap some kids and poison them in their front room, just for kicks


What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about making these people suffer by breaking their arms and legs and stuff....


????

I agree that it was manslayghter, ther isn't enough proof for murder, but 5 years? come on, they did something not by accident, like knocking someone over in a car, they force fed him salt, and shook him, you can't do that by accident, can you?

Those are case by case scenarios. If someone rear ends me and kills my 6 year old because they were following too close, and they are convicted for manslaughter, chances are their sentence would be a lot less (if any jail time) than someone who was a drunk driver and resultd in the same. Or in this case, they were punishing their child because he didnt meet their expectations. That has a hint of intent and malice to it. These people didnt exactly accidentally spill too much salt into this childs mouth. It was force fed. And the brain bruising is no accident. So the sentencing is going to be different for true "Accidents" in comparison to those manslaughter charges that were actually murder, and were plead to a lesser charge for sake of court time.And re: this case- I expressed my disbelief that this was an accident
At least in USA there are separate “Degree’s” of manslaughter … reflecting intent (murder reflecting forethought) but don’t know the British system

I agree that it was manslayghter, ther isn't enough proof for murder, but 5 years? come on, they did something not by accident, like knocking someone over in a car, they force fed him salt, and shook him, you can't do that by accident, can you?
Salt is extremely poisonous, few people realise that so I think it is entirely reasonable to say that someone could administer salt without being aware of the fatal effect it can have at relatively low doses.

There is no way to bring Christian back.

The sick bastards that killed him should be locked away forever, for two reasons:

1. To prevent them from killing another child.
2. To let everyone know that if you kill a child, your life is to all intents and purposes over.

Salt is extremely poisonous, few people realise that so I think it is entirely reasonable to say that someone could administer salt without being aware of the fatal effect it can have at relatively low doses.
I'll grant you that. How about the brain injuries? Evidence of child abuse. Severe child abuse.

At least in USA there are separate “Degree’s” of manslaughter … reflecting intent (murder reflecting forethought) but don’t know the British system
Yes, as my post early showed: in the UK if there is proven intent it is murder, if not it is manslaughter.

Salt is extremely poisonous, few people realise that so I think it is entirely reasonable to say that someone could administer salt without being aware of the fatal effect it can have at relatively low doses.
Still not classified as an “accidental” feeding … they chose to force feed him something that was poisonous (un intentional results but ignorance usually is not an excuse, maybe a mitigating factor though)

Salt is extremely poisonous, few people realise that so I think it is entirely reasonable to say that someone could administer salt without being aware of the fatal effect it can have at relatively low doses.

Yes it sure is....

Its a sad world when we have to start putting warning labels on salt.


But it might not be a bad idea after this :(

I'll grant you that. How about the brain injuries? Evidence of child abuse. Severe child abuse.
The cause of death was salt poisoning while there was evidence of other abuse that was not the cause of death. It may be you feel it should be taken into account and it sounds like it was. Not all manslaughter cases result in a custodial sentence. It is often a suspended sentence for less severe cases.

Yes it sure is....

Its a sad world when we have to start putting warning labels on salt.


But it might not be a bad idea after this :(
Yup that way if someone is going to abuse a child the know the exact effects of shoving salt down his throat

Still not classified as an “accidental” feeding … they chose to force feed him something that was poisonous (un intentional results but ignorance usually is not an excuse, maybe a mitigating factor though)
It is the reason intent was not proven and why they were tried for manslaughter which automatically carries a lower tariff. If they did not know it was poisonous then you cannot say they deliberately fed it to the poor boy to kill him. They maintained it was to punish.

Incidentally I have no problem with them being jailed at all. I am just trying to explain where the sentence came from in terms of the UK legal system, hope you all got that :)

It is the reason intent was not proven and why they were tried for manslaughter which automatically carries a lower tariff. If they did not know it was poisonous then you cannot say they deliberately fed it to the poor boy to kill him. They maintained it was to punish.

Incidentally I have no problem with them being jailed at all. I am just trying to explain where the sentence came from in terms of the UK legal system, hope you all got that :)


Over here, a lawyer would probably say that the kind of punishment that was inflicted was cruelty to children and then when a death results from cruelty to children, they can be charged with murder. They would get a stronger sentence I think over here. But I know nothing of the UK legal system.

Over here, a lawyer would probably say that the kind of punishment that was inflicted was cruelty to children and then when a death results from cruelty to children, they can be charged with murder. They would get a stronger sentence I think over here. But I know nothing of the UK legal system.
Here a point such as the intent of an act that results in a criminal prosecution is an important issue. The sytem of precedence means that judges have a degree of freedom to write law in each case. Over the centuries the general feeling has been that an unintentional killing is less culpable than an intentional murder and so our sentencing laws relect that. It is only in the age of tabloid media sensationalism that this has started to change.

It is the reason intent was not proven and why they were tried for manslaughter which automatically carries a lower tariff. If they did not know it was poisonous then you cannot say they deliberately fed it to the poor boy to kill him. They maintained it was to punish.

Incidentally I have no problem with them being jailed at all. I am just trying to explain where the sentence came from in terms of the UK legal system, hope you all got that :)
I know you don’t … but you mistake my intent

I am not TRYING to say they should be up for murder … I am saying even in the manslaughter range with as bad as this appears the sentence was light

Over here, a lawyer would probably say that the kind of punishment that was inflicted was cruelty to children and then when a death results from cruelty to children, they can be charged with murder. They would get a stronger sentence I think over here. But I know nothing of the UK legal system.
That or they would compleatly slip through ... we have had our own issues over here too

I know you don’t … but you mistake my intent

I am not TRYING to say they should be up for murder … I am saying even in the manslaughter range with as bad as this appears the sentence was light
No I got that too :)
Glad we got that sorted as this is rather interesting.
It is to do with the range of sentences traditionally handed out for manslaughter here - the average is about one third the average for murder (average time in prison not including parole or licensing afterwards). In the US how does an accidental manslaughter sentence compare with a murder sentence?

No I got that too :)
Glad we got that sorted as this is rather interesting.
It is to do with the range of sentences traditionally handed out for manslaughter here - the average is about one third the average for murder (average time in prison not including parole or licensing afterwards). In the US how does an accidental manslaughter sentence compare with a murder sentence?

HA! Depends on the SOBing lawyer! Like UT said, they could have quite possibly been aquitted. I mean look at OJ.....

The cause of death was salt poisoning while there was evidence of other abuse that was not the cause of death. It may be you feel it should be taken into account and it sounds like it was. Not all manslaughter cases result in a custodial sentence. It is often a suspended sentence for less severe cases.I understand all that. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion:

1. This is NOT a "less severe" case. The child is dead - that's pretty severe.
2. People who do these kinds of things should be locked away forever. Perhaps the next set of "parents" would think twice before abusing the next child - possible keeping that child, and other children, alive.

Incidentally I have no problem with them being jailed at all. I am just trying to explain where the sentence came from in terms of the UK legal system, hope you all got that
I refer you to this Snub Nose 38

Over here, a lawyer would probably say that the kind of punishment that was inflicted was cruelty to children and then when a death results from cruelty to children, they can be charged with murder. They would get a stronger sentence I think over here. But I know nothing of the UK legal system.

One of the problems, I think, is that cruelty to children is legal in the UK. Parents have the legal right to beat their children as "punishment", against the advice of, for instance, the Human Rights Court in Hague. :( They are also allowed to shake them (as long as it doesn't severely injure them), and to practice viciousnesses like this force-feeding of salt for the sole purpose of relieving their own feelings of anger, frustration and inadequacy as parents. "Accidents" like this one easily happens when violence towards children is seen as a legitimate ingredient in child-rearing. I have been shocked many times at seeing parents openly hitting small 2-3 year olds on the street, in England. :(

Cruelty and beating is not legal. Reasonable punishment or smacking is currently legal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland smacking is illegal. If you see someone hitting a child and you consider it too hard, report them. Just because they are not caught and prosecuted does not mean it is legal.

One of the problems, I think, is that cruelty to children is legal in the UK. Parents have the legal right to beat their children as "punishment", against the advice of, for instance, the Human Rights Court in Hague. :( They are also allowed to shake them (as long as it doesn't severely injure them), and to practice viciousnesses like this force-feeding of salt for the sole purpose of relieving their own feelings of anger, frustration and inadequacy as parents. "Accidents" like this one easily happens when violence towards children is seen as a legitimate ingredient in child-rearing. I have been shocked many times at seeing parents openly hitting small 2-3 year olds on the street, in England. :(

Oh my

Cruelty and beating is not legal. Reasonable punishment or smacking is currently legal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland smacking is illegal. If you see someone hitting a child and you consider it too hard, report them. Just because they are not caught and prosecuted does not mean it is legal.

I read about a 12 year old boy being beaten by his stepfather with a garden hose till he had to go to the hospital, and the English court called it "reasonable punishment". He (the boy) took it to the Human Rights Court, who concluded that the British have a problem.... but so far they have refused to do anything about this law. I am glad to learn that smacking is illegal in Scotland, though. Even if it's not hard, seeing people hit their small children, for instance for not walking fast enough, is very sad and it only confuses the child and makes him/her scared and upset. I have even seen mothers smacking their small children to stop them crying!

I read about a 12 year old boy being beaten by his stepfather with a garden hose till he had to go to the hospital, and the English court called it "reasonable punishment". He (the boy) took it to the Human Rights Court, who concluded that the British have a problem.... but so far they have refused to do anything about this law. I am glad to learn that smacking is illegal in Scotland, though. Even if it's not hard, seeing people hit their small children, for instance for not walking fast enough, is very sad and it only confuses the child and makes him/her scared and upset. I have even seen mothers smacking their small children to stop them crying!
I agree more with your point when you put it like that. It mostly comes down to a lack of parenting skills. In the case you mention above it sounds like a mistake was made that shouldn't have been. Do you have a link to anything on it as I never heard of it before and I would like to read more?

Just a thought but I remember reading somewhere that kids don't like certain foods for an instinctive self survival reason, that it might not suit their young system yet... I'd need to look it up though...
Hell I only started eating ginger last year and now I can't get enough of the stuff. Feeding a kid salt? Come on these people were not fit to be parents, that is no way to punish a child. 4 Spoons? They are off their heads and should not be allowed out in the public.

I agree more with your point when you put it like that. It mostly comes down to a lack of parenting skills. In the case you mention above it sounds like a mistake was made that shouldn't have been. Do you have a link to anything on it as I never heard of it before and I would like to read more?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9809/23/child.beating.law/

Here is a link to an article about the case... it is a while ago, though, and I got some of the facts wrong. It wasn't a garden hose, but a stick... and the boy was 9 years old, not 12. It's the same case, anyway, and I think the article is interesting. Britain was fined 50.400 $ and as far as I remember told that it had to put their laws up to standard... but nothing has happened, yet, as far as I know.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9809/23/child.beating.law/

Here is a link to an article about the case... it is a while ago, though, and I got some of the facts wrong. It wasn't a garden hose, but a stick... and the boy was 9 years old, not 12. It's the same case, anyway, and I think the article is interesting. Britain was fined 50.400 $ and as far as I remember told that it had to put their laws up to standard... but nothing has happened, yet, as far as I know.
Thanks

You know part of the problem is lack of understanding of how our system works. For example just because there was this law: "Until 1891, for instance, British men could legally beat their wives with a stick, provided it was no thicker than a man's thumb. Under the law, husbands were also allowed to lock up their wives as a punishment." Doesn't mean you could as other laws made it illegal. For instance there is a law that says it is legal to shoot a Frenchman inside the city walls of Southampton with a longbow. However the law on murder would still come into effect.

So although there is "A British law allowing parents to claim that beating their children is reasonable punishment has been ruled illegal by a European court and must be changed, according to a judgment delivered Wednesday" there are also laws prohibiting child abuse. This is why the judgements in cases sometimes seem to not be uniform as our laws are a mosaic. This also leads to the occasional mistake as I would agree happened in that boy's case.

Thanks

You know part of the problem is lack of understanding of how our system works. For example just because there was this law: "Until 1891, for instance, British men could legally beat their wives with a stick, provided it was no thicker than a man's thumb. Under the law, husbands were also allowed to lock up their wives as a punishment." Doesn't mean you could as other laws made it illegal. For instance there is a law that says it is legal to shoot a Frenchman inside the city walls of Southampton with a longbow. However the law on murder would still come into effect.

So although there is "A British law allowing parents to claim that beating their children is reasonable punishment has been ruled illegal by a European court and must be changed, according to a judgment delivered Wednesday" there are also laws prohibiting child abuse. This is why the judgements in cases sometimes seem to not be uniform as our laws are a mosaic. This also leads to the occasional mistake as I would agree happened in that boy's case.

There are apparently two laws in the UK protecting children from violence, the Offences against the Person Act of 1861, and the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933. But they aren't sufficient, according to the HR Court (which is in Strasbourg, not in Hague, as I erroneously said). Here's a link to the court's judgement: http://www.nospank.net/avuk.htm

I agree that dragging up a law that was abolished in 1891 is really beside the point.... but it's CNN ;)

There are apparently two laws in the UK protecting children from violence, the Offences against the Person Act of 1861, and the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933. But they aren't sufficient, according to the HR Court (which is in Strasbourg, not in Hague, as I erroneously said). Here's a link to the court's judgement: http://www.nospank.net/avuk.htm

I agree that dragging up a law that was abolished in 1891 is really beside the point.... but it's CNN ;)
I know ;) but it was handy to illustrate the point.
I would also say that since 1998 there has been a serious overall of child protection so it may well be different now. Also a law prohibiting smacking has been proposed, however the right wing press (the same ones who call for stricter sentencing) campaign that it is a breach of the parents civil liberties to be banned from smacking. Interesting one that...

Going back to the malicous and incompetant Gay family.

They received a 5 year jail term, will probably only serve 18months to two years, but they will live a life of hell from now on. The real sentencing has been done by the press. There is no community in Britain that will accept them living in the region in the future. They will never be able to obtain employment. (Yes I know that you can not refuse employment on the grounds of time served criminal conviction, but you can always find another reason.) Their families are currently suffering, I can promise you that.

Crime against children, of any type, in the UK is nearly always punished in the most severe way imaginable, by the community, not by the system.

(If they were here in Latin America, they might survive six hours in jail, but then again maybe not. Crime against children is thought of as deserving death by the criminal community here.)

I know ;) but it was handy to illustrate the point.
I would also say that since 1998 there has been a serious overall of child protection so it may well be different now. Also a law prohibiting smacking has been proposed, however the right wing press (the same ones who call for stricter sentencing) campaign that it is a breach of the parents civil liberties to be banned from smacking. Interesting one that...

Yes, that's an interesting one... with a twist of upside-down looking-glass surrealism... Nice talking to you, Nevaeion, I do hope the parents' liberties will be the ones to suffer this time. :)

Crime against children, of any type, in the UK is nearly always punished in the most severe way imaginable, by the community, not by the system.
Very true. In fact the accusation that someone has harmed a child is enough for them to be attacked, verbally abused and hounded out of their homes. Even if the accusation is a proven lie.

Yes, that's an interesting one... with a twist of upside-down looking-glass surrealism... Nice talking to you, Nevaeion, I do hope the parents' liberties will be the ones to suffer this time. :)
You too and I agree. :)

Duh!

A bit of a rhetorical question, as well as designed to get others to think. Shook him, my ass. They had to do a damn site more than "shake" him for 11 separate incidents of brain trauma to be in evidence.

Perhaps someone has already responded to this but -

Shaking a child roughly frequently causes brain injury or death in a child. 11 separate incidents of brain trauma could occur from one incident of shaking. I'm not saying it did, but it is possible.

One reason there are so many parent support groups out there is because shaking a child when one is angry is very easy to do. If a kid is having a temper tantrum or has been screaming for the last four hours and you don't know what to do and don't have anyone to turn to - well, sometimes parents lose it. Most people don't realize that shaking can have results as bad as or worse than hitting. Generally, the people who shake their child in anger are restraining themselves from hitting the child. The do not realize that violent shaking could even be worse than striking the kid.

I am in no way condoning the actions of these people or anyone who violently shakes their child. I have long believed that anyone who is about to have a child - or adopt or foster one - should be required to fulfill parental training courses. If you can't legally drive a vehicle without a license, why should you be allowed to responsible for a child without a license proving that you are fit to do so? But despite my liberal tendencies in other matters, people call me a fascist when I make these statements.

There can be no acceptable excuse for abusing a helpless child. None. Especially when it winds up killing the child.

I speak from the following expericene. I was physically abused as a child (beaten, tossed against walls, tossed down stairs, etc.). And I have four children, now grown (24, 22, 20, 17) who were NOT abused as they grew up.

Abusive parents should be jailed for very long terms.
Abusive parents where a child dies should be jailed for life.

Too bad there isn't the death penalty in the UK.

Too bad there isn't the death penalty in the UK.

Even if there was, capital punishment would not be applied in a case where the verdict was manslaughter and not murder.

Even if there was, capital punishment would not be applied in a case where the verdict was manslaughter and not murder.

The bruised brain would be enough to get a murder conviction in the US, much less the salt.

Don't be too sure about a murder conviction for shaking a baby. According to the 'National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome' "

...In America last year, approximately 1,200 - 1,400 children were shaken for whom treatment was sought. Of these tiny victims, 25 -30% died as a result of their injuries. The rest will have lifelong complications. It is likely that many more babies suffered from the effects of SBS and no one knows, because SBS victims rarely have any external evidence of trauma.

The New York State Senate passed legislation (S.1936A) in April 2004, that would make "Shaken Baby Syndrome," where a child suffers serious, even fatal head injuries as a result of reckless, abusive treatment, a violent felony crime punishable by up to seven years in prison. The bill makes a person who is 18 years or older who recklessly causes serious physical injury to a child under the age of seven, guilty of the crime of Assault in the second degree, punishable by up to seven years in prison. The bill also adds to the legal definition of "serious physical injury," as it relates to children under seven, a subdural, intercranial or retinal hemorrhage- injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome. The bill, sponsored by Senator Nicholas A. Spano of Westchester, was sent to the Assembly.

Even in the States, shaking babies is not considered murder, even if the baby dies, probably because they can't prove intent to kill, same as this British case.

http://www.dontshake.com/Subject.aspx?categoryID=14&PageName=SBSInNews.htm

A decent article on why prosecutors will go for charges less than murder on child death cases.

http://www.childpro.org/ldsmedia%201998/ldsmedia%201998%2001.htm

Yes, it depends on where you're tried. But, in Britain, it would be impossible to get murder for it.

In the US, in the right jurisdiction, they could get murder.