Baby P

[John]

irrespective of Evil or Not Evil. any death of a child is very sad.

 

Esp when some cases could be stopped with a more dligant Social Care System.

[Sebrof]

irrespective of Evil or Not Evil. any death of a child is very sad.

 

Esp when some cases could be stopped with a more dligant Social Care System.

 

If you type your posts in a word-processing program, then paste them here, the spell-checker will save you from the embarassment of showing the world, and your constituents, that your education was not all it might have been.

 

The WP program will also help with capitalisation, though most people can manage to remember that the first letter of the first word in a sentence is always capitalised. Initial capitals are also used for proper names, like John and Faragher, but not for ordinary words like "evil" and "not evil". The same applies to "social care system". To be pedantic just for a moment, systems can't be diligent, but people can.

 

English is full of inconsistencies, but there are a few rules. In fact, quite a lot. One is that a hard G, as in "gosh", is almost always succeeded by A, O, or U. A soft G, as in "diligent", is likewise succeeded by E or I.

 

So if you can't remember how to spell "diligent", apply the soft/hard rule and you will at least narrow your choice of vowel from five to two. Statistically, you should then be correct 50% of the time, rather than only 20% of the time if you ignore the rule.

 

S

[John]

I really don't think this is the time or the place to correct a slight spelling mistake , the issue is a little bit more than that.

[thebees]

I don't understand peoples want to know their names, hardly ever likely to know or bump into them and if you did? pah, I'm not thinking about them or the child, its of no consequence. It's all a bit too sad.

[thesultanofsheight]

I really don't think this is the time or the place to correct a slight spelling mistake , the issue is a little bit more than that.

 

Slight. There's only four words that stand out as being correct in context.

[homarus]

irrespective of Evil or Not Evil. any death of a child is very sad.

 

Esp when some cases could be stopped with a more dligant Social Care System.

 

If you type your posts in a word-processing program, then paste them here, the spell-checker will save you from the embarassment of showing the world, and your constituents, that your education was not all it might have been.

 

The WP program will also help with capitalisation, though most people can manage to remember that the first letter of the first word in a sentence is always capitalised. Initial capitals are also used for proper names, like John and Faragher, but not for ordinary words like "evil" and "not evil". The same applies to "social care system". To be pedantic just for a moment, systems can't be diligent, but people can.

 

English is full of inconsistencies, but there are a few rules. In fact, quite a lot. One is that a hard G, as in "gosh", is almost always succeeded by A, O, or U. A soft G, as in "diligent", is likewise succeeded by E or I.

 

So if you can't remember how to spell "diligent", apply the soft/hard rule and you will at least narrow your choice of vowel from five to two. Statistically, you should then be correct 50% of the time, rather than only 20% of the time if you ignore the rule.

 

S

 

 

 

Feel the love

[Addie]

I really don't think this is the time or the place to correct a slight spelling mistake , the issue is a little bit more than that.

 

Slight. There's only four words that stand out as being correct in context.

 

"There's"?

 

That's the best you can contribute towards this topic, 'sheight'?

 

Too frightened to address the topic, perhaps?

[Sebrof]

I really don't think this is the time or the place to correct a slight spelling mistake , the issue is a little bit more than that.

 

Slight. There's only four words that stand out as being correct in context.

 

"There's"?

 

That's the best you can contribute towards this topic, 'sheight'?

 

Too frightened to address the topic, perhaps?

 

There is really very little point in addressing this topic. It is fortunately a very rare occurence, and the powers-that-be are dealing with it as well, or as badly, as they can be expected to.

 

It was a horrific thing, but hand-wringing on this forum isn't going to make a jot of difference.

 

I feel for the social workers almost as much as for the victim. They have a horrendous task, with little in the way of thanks when things go right, and terrible consequences when they don't.

 

Unfortunately, we live in a world where we think every problem has a solution. Sadly, that's not true. Horrors like this can't be avoided totally, however hard we try.

 

S

[Amadeus]

Ok, it seems some internet hero vigilantes still didn't get it - DO NOT POST information that the courts have made clear is NOT in the public domain. In this instance, the names of the parents - do it again and the banhammer will come down!

[P.K.]

Be aware that the most common reason for "their names were not released for legal reasons" is because "THEY ARE EITHER ON TRIAL FOR SOMETHING ELSE AS WELL OR VERY SOON WILL BE!"

 

Whipping up public outrage by naming them could prejudice that legal process. So if you REALLY want to see them get their just desserts then desist - please.

[Lee54]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/c...icle5162711.ece

[Skeddan]

Ok, it seems some internet hero vigilantes still didn't get it - DO NOT POST information that the courts have made clear is NOT in the public domain. In this instance, the names of the parents - do it again and the banhammer will come down!

Mightn't it be a good idea to remove post#64 in this thread. Just a suggestion - entirely up to MF.

 

I'm not having you whining and complaining like a little girl about what we can and cannot do on our site in this thread too. Either shut the fuck up or get the fuck out of this thread.

 

/backs slowly out of thread....

 

ETA following removal, nothing wrong with what is now post #64

[Lee54]

If the courts have said that the accused names can not be used, then why have some of the UK papers published the names, thats where I read them yesterday, or is this something that has happened today.

I would agree with what PK has said, the release of too much information before the trial is over could put the end result in doubt, it could also lead to those being accused taking legal action and being compensated.

Why not lock the thread untill its known for sure what can and cannot be said.

[vicky]

what computer game do u no of murders or destroys a baby in that way? or in the way that they did. how can that be compared to a film or computer game? if u believe in that then what games or films are u watchin or playin

[vicky]

I'm sure parents like myself find it just unbelievable that anyone could treat a child, especially their own child, in this way. Which pretty much makes any other comment superfluous i.e. it's hard to think of anything sensible to say about them because they're completely beyond comprehension.

 

But before they start blamestorming social services just remember it wasn't the social services that committed these horrendous crimes. But why isn't the charge one of murder?

no true it wasnt social services who commited this terrible crime but they could have prevented it?