In this day it seems that being a parent and trying to do the right thing, is now treated with suspicion and in this case a disgusting betrayal of parenthood.
I think this is an intrusion into a parents life, and we hear all the time about parents being shit ones, and letting their kids do exactly what they want. Yet when a parent does what most DECENT parents do, you are treated as a common criminal.
You cannot now smack your child ( well you can if you do not leave a mark :shock: ), and now it seems you cannot even tell them off or threaten them with a smack.
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why we have kids and parents that really do not give a monkeys about anything or anyone.
This Mother should have been awarded not treated in this way. This off duty policeperson, has obviously had the correct training at Hendon, in line with the loony left.
Where does this leave parents now if they cannot parent? Where does society go when the very basic fundamentals of being a good parent, are now being turned into this madness.
Big Brother IS watching YOU......you have been warned. The motto is....be a shit parent and there is no need to worry but, be a good parent with morals and responsibility, and get treated in this disgusting way.....what a country we now find ourselves in.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Taking away parents right to parent?
How can you support the reason that this is PC gone mad when you were one of the first people to say that the authorities should have done more for Baby P?
This is a classic example of the authorities being damned if they do or damned if they don't. The officer heard a threat and decided to report it. Before he reported it he needed to find out where they lived so he followed them home. If he walked away and did not report it and the mother hurt the children severly then you would be the first to call for him to be sacked.
I like the threads you start, but I do get confused on where you stand. You always say that you are consistant but this is an example where you are not.
Without going into a looney left rant.......can you explain where you stand on what authorities should do? Use this case as an example but with two end results. The first where the children are killed after the policemen witnessed the threat and done nothing and the second where he followed them home but there was no abuse. This is not to wind you up but I am trying to work out your way of thinking and need this explained to me.
Dave_Notts
This is a classic example of the authorities being damned if they do or damned if they don't. The officer heard a threat and decided to report it. Before he reported it he needed to find out where they lived so he followed them home. If he walked away and did not report it and the mother hurt the children severly then you would be the first to call for him to be sacked.
I like the threads you start, but I do get confused on where you stand. You always say that you are consistant but this is an example where you are not.
Without going into a looney left rant.......can you explain where you stand on what authorities should do? Use this case as an example but with two end results. The first where the children are killed after the policemen witnessed the threat and done nothing and the second where he followed them home but there was no abuse. This is not to wind you up but I am trying to work out your way of thinking and need this explained to me.
Dave_Notts
Sex God
I did a course many moons ago called critical thinking leading to the Cambridge thinking skills certificate. It was quite frightening how media, for me especially I found newspapers the worst, can manipulate the way in which people perceive whats written. All the papers do it, whether its the Guardian or the times with its slant on intellectualism and leading those who think they think clever into perceiving what they write is correct clever thinking or the Sun or Mail that scream out Scandal in three inch red headers giving the guy eating his honey nut loops a reason to spit out his dummy in the 30 seconds he has before he has to commence work.
Finding the middleway is not easy is it :sad:
Finding the middleway is not easy is it :sad:
The law, as far as I know does permit parents to smack their children, but not in public. Personally I do give mine a slap if they are naughty, but some people go too far. There is a line that one must never cross, that is where a smack for being naughty becomes a beating because the parent has lost control (or never had control). Child abuse cannot and must not be tollerated in any way shape or form. Then again neglect is a form of abuse, and so failure to teach ones children how to behave should be treated in the same way. The prisons are full of adults who were more or less dragged up by parents who for one reason or another couldn't or wouldn't teach them the diference between right and wrong. And even more tragic is the fact that some abused children grow up to be abusive parents. Social workers in my opinion are so busy looking for problems with people who refuse to be told what to do that they are missing cases like Baby Peter and Damilola before him. I have, as a single parent had experience of this, and my children are all happy and loving individuals. I was once told off (well it was an attempt to tell me off) because there was no pillow in my 7 month old son's cot, anyone who knows anything about babies will know that it is safest not to put a pillow in a babies cot, and I enjoyed shooting this person down in flames. This was my fifth child and here was a young woman with no children trying to tell me how to look after mine.
If the people in those kind of professions were trained to listen as much as they are to shoot their mouths off they might do a better job. But then they are bound to know more about parenting than actual parents, they have qualifications!! Anyway they tried their bullshit with me for as long as they were allowed to do so, then the door was slammed firmly and permanently shut behind them. My youngest wad 7 years old last week and although slightly autistic he is doing just fine. :0)
If the people in those kind of professions were trained to listen as much as they are to shoot their mouths off they might do a better job. But then they are bound to know more about parenting than actual parents, they have qualifications!! Anyway they tried their bullshit with me for as long as they were allowed to do so, then the door was slammed firmly and permanently shut behind them. My youngest wad 7 years old last week and although slightly autistic he is doing just fine. :0)
Reading behind the slant that the mail puts on the facts, its quite interesting to consider the moral dilemma described.
Ask yourself what would run through your mind if you saw a mother threaten to give her distressed children " a hiding like the one you had earlier". I confess I would have probably minded my own business. I wish I had the courage to do what the guy in he story did and follow the matter up.
I dont really understand how this can be described as "political correctness gawn mad". Seems like a simple moral debate to me.
Ask yourself what would run through your mind if you saw a mother threaten to give her distressed children " a hiding like the one you had earlier". I confess I would have probably minded my own business. I wish I had the courage to do what the guy in he story did and follow the matter up.
I dont really understand how this can be described as "political correctness gawn mad". Seems like a simple moral debate to me.
Davey the two most valid points here are IF the authorities were so bothered, why did it take so long for her to get any visit? Surely IF there had been real concern they would have turned up at her house the same day?
Also she is now going to be kept on file, for years....why? Now they have carried out their investigations and found nothing, why does she have to be kept on file?
That is like having your DNA kept on file when you have been proved to have done nothing wrong, it must surely go against her human rights....now I am using that one like others do.
The baby P case as you well know, is completly different, for reasons we all know about and am not going to go around in circles.
Of course the authorities were right in looking into this case. Of course if you see a parent threatening a child with " what they got earlier " they have to act on that. But the problem that I see is IF they thought there was a genuine threat, why did it take what a month for them to turn up? The child could have been dead by then. Had they of turned up on the day and done their investigations there and then, they would have found no evidence of abuse, other than an irate Mother.
But oh no....they leave it for yonks then turn up, and even when there is no evidence whatsoever, they deem her enough of a risk to put her on their files. I do not think that should be allowed IF nothing was found that put those kids in danger.
If a child is being abused and is reported then for sure act, but not so much later that the child could be dead, and yet they " thought " something was wrong.
I always thought that when someone is reported the Social workers acted straight away? So WHY the delay?
Also she is now going to be kept on file, for years....why? Now they have carried out their investigations and found nothing, why does she have to be kept on file?
That is like having your DNA kept on file when you have been proved to have done nothing wrong, it must surely go against her human rights....now I am using that one like others do.
The baby P case as you well know, is completly different, for reasons we all know about and am not going to go around in circles.
Of course the authorities were right in looking into this case. Of course if you see a parent threatening a child with " what they got earlier " they have to act on that. But the problem that I see is IF they thought there was a genuine threat, why did it take what a month for them to turn up? The child could have been dead by then. Had they of turned up on the day and done their investigations there and then, they would have found no evidence of abuse, other than an irate Mother.
But oh no....they leave it for yonks then turn up, and even when there is no evidence whatsoever, they deem her enough of a risk to put her on their files. I do not think that should be allowed IF nothing was found that put those kids in danger.
If a child is being abused and is reported then for sure act, but not so much later that the child could be dead, and yet they " thought " something was wrong.
I always thought that when someone is reported the Social workers acted straight away? So WHY the delay?
As an edit....
The Mothers words
" She said: 'If no one stands up to this oppression, this political correctness, parents will lose responsibility for their kids and the state will take over".
Seems like the State already have.
Remember it could be any parent that faces this course of action, if you dare to threaten your kids when out in public.....bear that in mind the next time you are out and shout at your kids....you never know who is watching you, or following you home.
Soooooo seriously taken it takes SIX yes SIX weeks for somebody to turn up.....oh yes they took it so seriously did'nt they?
The Mothers words
" She said: 'If no one stands up to this oppression, this political correctness, parents will lose responsibility for their kids and the state will take over".
Seems like the State already have.
Remember it could be any parent that faces this course of action, if you dare to threaten your kids when out in public.....bear that in mind the next time you are out and shout at your kids....you never know who is watching you, or following you home.
Soooooo seriously taken it takes SIX yes SIX weeks for somebody to turn up.....oh yes they took it so seriously did'nt they?
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Six weeks is way too long.
I dont see any harm in keeping records of this sort of incident.
As a believer Benny in peoples human rights, am suprised you support this. :shock:
IF one of your kids did something and was investigated by the police, and they then found nothing to charge him/her with, would you be happy for them to keep those records on file for years to come?
With no certainty that someone will not look at them, say if he/she was going for a job?
How can things be kept on file when NOTHING has been found? They cannot do that with DNA if a suspect is arrested, so why should it be any different for a Mother who has commited NO I repeat NO crime whatsoever?
People not long ago on here,were bleating on about too many CCTV cameras out there and how it infringed peoples rights.
But it seems ok now for Social Services and the Police, to keep records of incidents where no crime has been commited, except a parent trying to do the right thing.
Six bloody weeks these idiots took to turn up, yes they were really concerned about those kids. :shock:
With all this Human rights rubbish bounding about at the moment, I am suprised this can be allowed, just because a Mother took stern action.
Soon a parent will not be able to even tell their kids off. No wonder there are so many teachers and the Police today, and everyday, faced with kids that know no boundaries, have no respect. It seems the norm now for parents to not want to parent but when you try to do the right thing, you could possibly end up like this woman....tarred with the Big Brother...we are watching you, tab!
A dreaful example of crazy Britain.....I still cannot believe six weeks ffs.
Quote by kentswingers777
Six weeks is way too long.
I dont see any harm in keeping records of this sort of incident.
As a believer Benny (why do u do this?) in peoples human rights, am suprised you support this. :shock:
IF one of your kids did something and was investigated by the police, and they then found nothing to charge him/her with, would you be happy for them to keep those records on file for years to come? With no certainty that someone will not look at them, say if he/she was going for a job?
Not the same thing is it really?
How can things be kept on file when NOTHING has been found? They cannot do that with DNA if a suspect is arrested, so why should it be any different for a Mother who has commited NO I repeat NO crime whatsoever?
I dont know, I think there are special rules when it comes to child protection.
People not long ago on here,were bleating on about too many CCTV cameras out there and how it infringed peoples rights. But it seems ok now for Social Services and the Police, to keep records of incidents where no crime has been commited, except a parent trying to do the right thing.
I thought it was social services keeping the records not the police, in order to protect the children.
Six bloody weeks these idiots took to turn up, yes they were really concerned about those kids. :shock:
I agree 6 weeks is too long.
With all this Human rights rubbish bounding about at the moment, I am suprised this can be allowed, just because a Mother took stern action.
It would be interesting to see this taken through the courts I agree.
Soon a parent will not be able to even tell their kids off. No wonder there are so many teachers and the Police today, and everyday, faced with kids that know no boundaries, have no respect. It seems the norm now for parents to not want to parent but when you try to do the right thing, you could possibly end up like this woman....tarred with the Big Brother...we are watching you, tab!
I think that is a little melodramatic.
A dreaful example of crazy Britain.....I still cannot believe six weeks ffs.
Quote by kentswingers777
Davey the two most valid points here are IF the authorities were so bothered, why did it take so long for her to get any visit? Surely IF there had been real concern they would have turned up at her house the same day?
Thats why they were more than likely dealt with by letter and saved officer time to those that are more priority. There is not an endless amount of money or resources so someone somewhere will have to make a judgement call. In this case looks like they done just that. Made a call that a threat was witnessed but since her name wasn't on the register and no other complaints were in about her they dealt with it as they saw fit. Perhaps next time the god fearing lady will not threaten to give her kids a hiding in public again. Should she have her file kept open for 14 years? I think that is another debate about a number of records being kept on files somewhere.
So anyway, did you want him to do something or just to turn a blind eye without the benefit of hindsight?
Dave_Notts
I dont agree with smacking children, do you smack your other half or other adults when they do something wrong, I dont think so, so why smack a kid. I reason with my kids and it has always worked.
I dont see anything wrong with the actions of the PC, what if the child was regularly being smacked, what if that child turned up dead in a few weeks, how do you think the PC would have felt if he hadnt followed his actions through.
I dont see anything wrong with the actions of the PC, what if the child was regularly being smacked, what if that child turned up dead in a few weeks, how do you think the PC would have felt if he hadnt followed his actions through.
Quote by Dave__Notts
Davey the two most valid points here are IF the authorities were so bothered, why did it take so long for her to get any visit? Surely IF there had been real concern they would have turned up at her house the same day?
Thats why they were more than likely dealt with by letter and saved officer time to those that are more priority. There is not an endless amount of money or resources so someone somewhere will have to make a judgement call. In this case looks like they done just that. Made a call that a threat was witnessed but since her name wasn't on the register and no other complaints were in about her they dealt with it as they saw fit. Perhaps next time the god fearing lady will not threaten to give her kids a hiding in public again. Should she have her file kept open for 14 years? I think that is another debate about a number of records being kept on files somewhere.
So anyway,did you want him to do something or just to turn a blind eye without the benefit of hindsight?
Dave_Notts
Davey are you paying proper attention here?
I already said that I had no problem with them acting on that ( do you want what you got earlier )threat. Of course they should have done something.
But did what exactly? Followed her home and then six weeks, ya paying attention Davey ...six weeks later they turned up.
Don't give me that old story about " Thats why they were more than likely dealt with by letter and saved officer time to those that are more priority. There is not an endless amount of money or resources so someone somewhere will have to make a judgement call ".
Money? Resources ? Judgement call? This was a child that had been threatened in a public place fgs. The officer done the right thing, but the others must have worked for Harringay Council.
With all that has happened of late they should have, no without any doubt should have turned up that day.....period.
A childs life could have been in danger and money and resources do not come into it. IF I reported a neighbour about serious concerns I had about a child, I would expect them to turn up with a Police officer, within the hour. No excuses ever for that.
This was not a burglary which we would expect them to take six weeks to get round to seeing you, but a child.
Now they have found NOTHING at all, she should be taken off of their files. But I know what Social services are like, I know the way they operate and I would not trust them as far as I could throw a tank. Do they never learn?
:wink: :wink: 
Master of Sex
Quote by kentswingers777
This was a child that had been threatened in a public place fgs. The officer done the right thing, but the others must have worked for Harringay Council.
With all that has happened of late they should have, no without any doubt should have turned up that day.....period.
A childs life could have been in danger and money and resources do not come into it. IF I reported a neighbour about serious concerns I had about a child, I would expect them to turn up with a Police officer, within the hour. No excuses ever for that.
This was not a burglary which we would expect them to take six weeks to get round to seeing you, but a child.
Is it me or is this the complete opposite to the viewpoint you started this thread with?
Quote by kentswingers777
As an edit....
The Mothers words
" She said: 'If no one stands up to this oppression, this political correctness, parents will lose responsibility for their kids and the state will take over".
Seems like the State already have.
Remember it could be any parent that faces this course of action, if you dare to threaten your kids when out in public.....bear that in mind the next time you are out and shout at your kids....you never know who is watching you, or following you home.
Soooooo seriously taken it takes SIX yes SIX weeks for somebody to turn up.....oh yes they took it so seriously did'nt they?
She also said..."How dare you behave like this. If you carry on like this you're going to get another hiding like the one you had earlier".
If i heard anyone say this ,i would be concerned!
Also your original,contridicts what your later say on in this thread...
Quote by kentswingers777
In this day it seems that being a parent and trying to do the right thing, is now treated with suspicion and in this case a disgusting betrayal of parenthood.
I think this is an intrusion into a parents life, and we hear all the time about parents being shit ones, and letting their kids do exactly what they want. Yet when a parent does what most DECENT parents do, you are treated as a common criminal.
You cannot now smack your child ( well you can if you do not leave a mark :shock: ), and now it seems you cannot even tell them off or threaten them with a smack.
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why we have kids and parents that really do not give a monkeys about anything or anyone.
This Mother should have been awarded not treated in this way. This off duty policeperson, has obviously had the correct training at Hendon, in line with the loony left.
Where does this leave parents now if they cannot parent? Where does society go when the very basic fundamentals of being a good parent, are now being turned into this madness.
Big Brother IS watching YOU......you have been warned. The motto is....be a shit parent and there is no need to worry but, be a good parent with morals and responsibility, and get treated in this disgusting way.....what a country we now find ourselves in.
Quote by kentswingers777
I already said that I had no problem with them acting on that ( do you want what you got earlier )threat. Of course they should have done something.
you seem to have back tracked your original statement...as now being more annoyed about it taking 6 weeks rather then your original remarks that the police officer was of the loony left brigade!
Sometimes i think you rant so much you can't even keep up with your own statements.
your rants are becoming quite entertaining now..."Alf"
I am paying attention, and as the two posters above me have pointed out that was not your original point. It was a loony leftie having nothing better to do. Never mind confusing me, you seem to have confused yourself.
Anyway, I suspect any report is looked at with the information that is being held and acted on accordingly. I know you say that resources are not important, but they are. If the manager does not have extra resources then they can only do so much within their budget. Somethings will be investigated and somethings won't. In a perfect world they will all be investigated..........but then again in a perfect world I would have a big willy.........
.......instead of this huge monster that I have to carry about
Dave_Notts
Anyway, I suspect any report is looked at with the information that is being held and acted on accordingly. I know you say that resources are not important, but they are. If the manager does not have extra resources then they can only do so much within their budget. Somethings will be investigated and somethings won't. In a perfect world they will all be investigated..........but then again in a perfect world I would have a big willy.........
.......instead of this huge monster that I have to carry about
Dave_Notts
Quote by Jewlnmart
This was a child that had been threatened in a public place fgs. The officer done the right thing, but the others must have worked for Harringay Council.
With all that has happened of late they should have, no without any doubt should have turned up that day.....period.
A childs life could have been in danger and money and resources do not come into it. IF I reported a neighbour about serious concerns I had about a child, I would expect them to turn up with a Police officer, within the hour. No excuses ever for that.
This was not a burglary which we would expect them to take six weeks to get round to seeing you, but a child.
Is it me or is this the complete opposite to the viewpoint you started this thread with?
My original comments still stand to a point with the way in which this was done.
Davey made me realise that there is another side to this, which I have taken on board. See I can be persuaded to change sometimes.
I have different opinions now than when I started this thread. At the start it did seem to me like a Big Brother scenario, but of course when a child has been talked too like this, that person had to act.
A parent has a right to chastise it's children in a supermarket, but not in the way this woman did. In hindsight alarm bells were obviously ringing for this Policeman.
So I have listened to others opinions and have changed mine to a degree. I have been accused many times of ignoring others, but on this occasion I admit my original comments were a bit over board.
It still remains it took six weeks to speak to her though, and at the time it was a significant concern for someone to follow her home and report her, yet they still did not act.
And that Powers is about as close as you will ever hear me saying I may have got it wrong.
Alf. :wink:
Quote by Dave__Notts
I am paying attention, and as the two posters above me have pointed out that was not your original point. It was a loony leftie having nothing better to do. Never mind confusing me, you seem to have confused yourself.
Anyway, I suspect any report is looked at with the information that is being held and acted on accordingly. I know you say that resources are not important, but they are. If the manager does not have extra resources then they can only do so much within their budget. Somethings will be investigated and somethings won't. In a perfect world they will all be investigated..........but then again in a perfect world I would have a big willy.........
.......instead of this huge monster that I have to carry about
Dave_Notts
Now mrs777's eyes have opened.
Quote by kentswingers777
And that Powers is about as close as you will ever hear me saying I may have got it wrong.
Alf.
Alf (I like that name, reminds me of that furry alien)
I don't think this debate was about right or wrong but about perceptions. You confused the feck out of me (and I am very easy to confuse) but some valid points in there that should be addressed.
For example, why not investigate all complaints and how much extra resources would be needed for this. Then put this to the public and say "To ensure child safety we will need to have x amount of tax" and this should be ring fenced for child safety and not expenses or the like.
Dave_Notts
Master of Sex
Someone on page 1 said that parents are still allowed to smack their children as long as it's not in public.
Not so!
A friend of mine slapped her 15 year old daughter after the daughter told her to "f*ck off". The next day, the daughter reported my friend to the Police. My friend was then arrested and given a caution for assault. Something she'll have on her record for the next 5 years. This incident happened in the privacy of their own home.
Not so!
A friend of mine slapped her 15 year old daughter after the daughter told her to "f*ck off". The next day, the daughter reported my friend to the Police. My friend was then arrested and given a caution for assault. Something she'll have on her record for the next 5 years. This incident happened in the privacy of their own home.
Quote by Kaznkev
yeah and? if i went and hit a 15 yr old i would be arrested
Why should the fact you gave birth to someone give you the right to beat them?
I do not think a slap constitutes the word beat.
There is a distinct difference between the two.....
Ah there is a naughty step in the room.
Quote by Dave__Notts
And that Powers is about as close as you will ever hear me saying I may have got it wrong.
Alf.
Alf (I like that name, reminds me of that furry alien)
I don't think this debate was about right or wrong but about perceptions. You confused the feck out of me (and I am very easy to confuse) but some valid points in there that should be addressed.
For example, why not investigate all complaints and how much extra resources would be needed for this. Then put this to the public and say "To ensure child safety we will need to have x amount of tax" and this should be ring fenced for child safety and not expenses or the like.
Dave_Notts
I would have thought ALL complaints were investigated where child abuse is concerned?
IF you asked the public to possibly pay more tax for anything, with the ammount of tax we already pay, I think it would be a resounding vote loser,and a feck off.
I do not know what the heck local councils spend all their money on ( I can guess though ), but don't you think we already pay enough tax or council tax as it is? I know I bloody do.
For my four grand a year business rates I get absolutely nothing for it, we even have to pay a private firm to empty our bins. :shock:
So I think I already contribute enough in taxes, it is not my fault if they deem to spend it on other whacky things.
Quote by kentswingers777
I do not think a slap constitutes the word beat.
There is a distinct difference between the two.....
A slap constitutes assault.
If the slap causes bruising, that constitutes assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In fact, if you want to get pedantic, and accurate, verbally threatening someone constitutes assault IF the person being threatened is fearful of their safety as a result.
More irrelevancies:
There is (as yet) no limit to the length of time dna data can be held "on file" (irrespective of the european court of human rights)
Being arrested means the police can obtain samples off your body sufficient to obtain dna: Without your consent and with force. INTIMATE samples can only be taken by doctors/nurses.
Quote by JTS
I do not think a slap constitutes the word beat.
There is a distinct difference between the two.....
A slap constitutes assault.
If the slap causes bruising, that constitutes assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In fact, if you want to get pedantic, and accurate, verbally threatening someone constitutes assault IF the person being threatened is fearful of their safety as a result.
More irrelevancies:
There is (as yet) no limit to the length of time dna data can be held "on file" (irrespective of the european court of human rights)
Being arrested means the police can obtain samples off your body sufficient to obtain dna: Without your consent and with force. INTIMATE samples can only be taken by doctors/nurses.
actually not entirly true assault is when a bruise is created either redening of the skin or a bruise on the skin
there is a limit now on how long dna can be held for if your innocent it has to be destroyed and not allowed to be used for other crimes if you are found guilty they can look further into there data base and possibly find other crimes you may have done
Quote by kentswingers777
Davey the two most valid points here are IF the authorities were so bothered, why did it take so long for her to get any visit? Surely IF there had been real concern they would have turned up at her house the same day?
Also she is now going to be kept on file, for years....why? Now they have carried out their investigations and found nothing, why does she have to be kept on file?
That is like having your DNA kept on file when you have been proved to have done nothing wrong, it must surely go against her human rights....now I am using that one like others do.
The baby P case as you well know, is completly different, for reasons we all know about and am not going to go around in circles.
Of course the authorities were right in looking into this case. Of course if you see a parent threatening a child with " what they got earlier " they have to act on that. But the problem that I see is IF they thought there was a genuine threat, why did it take what a month for them to turn up? The child could have been dead by then. Had they of turned up on the day and done their investigations there and then, they would have found no evidence of abuse, other than an irate Mother.
But oh no....they leave it for yonks then turn up, and even when there is no evidence whatsoever, they deem her enough of a risk to put her on their files. I do not think that should be allowed IF nothing was found that put those kids in danger.
If a child is being abused and is reported then for sure act, but not so much later that the child could be dead, and yet they " thought " something was wrong.
I always thought that when someone is reported the Social workers acted straight away? So WHY the delay?
So, the info from the shop incident and the police goes into the system. It throws up that nothing is known. A multi agency risk assessment meeting or similar will have been held. At the multi agency risk assessment meeting the police, the social work team, the school and the NHS people will have compared notes. They'll have come up that there's nothing known, and no cause to put the children on the at risk register. But how to close the file off, and double check the MARA conclusions? Why not send plod round to see them, point out what's been seen and what it can mean, and get a look at the family in the process?
As for record keeping, well, frankly, parents who lack effective ways of managing child behaviour and who have poor temper control are a higher risk factor for abuse. Knowing if there's an emerging pattern requires record keeping.
As a quick question though, why, when the exact time scale is in the the Daily Mail story, do you describe it as 'yonks'? Why do you assume there was a delay?
Quote by Big1gaz1
I do not think a slap constitutes the word beat.
There is a distinct difference between the two.....
A slap constitutes assault.
If the slap causes bruising, that constitutes assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In fact, if you want to get pedantic, and accurate, verbally threatening someone constitutes assault IF the person being threatened is fearful of their safety as a result.
More irrelevancies:
There is (as yet) no limit to the length of time dna data can be held "on file" (irrespective of the european court of human rights)
Being arrested means the police can obtain samples off your body sufficient to obtain dna: Without your consent and with force. INTIMATE samples can only be taken by doctors/nurses.
actually not entirly true assault is when a bruise is created either redening of the skin or a bruise on the skin
there is a limit now on how long dna can be held for if your innocent it has to be destroyed and not allowed to be used for other crimes if you are found guilty they can look further into there data base and possibly find other crimes you may have done
Wrong on the definition of assault - the confusion arises from a foolish ruling in R v Fagan that assault was generally synonymous with battery. Common assault, which does not require force but merely the apprehension that the application of force may follow, is still an offence under of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act; Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which you describe, is stil charged under , Offences Against the person act 1861.
prosecutions are rare now however since the Public Order Act provides a range of offences that can be deployed much more easily...
More info here -
