Woman who had 13 children taken into care is pregnant again

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:41 am

Theresa Winters: I’ll flee abroad to keep my 14th baby | The Sun |News

The only thing i like about 'The Sun' newspaper is the brilliant straight talking 'Gaunty'.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... nters.html

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:14 am

Lost for words....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:17 am

mikeinie;1223333 wrote: Lost for words....
I know the feeling...... that's why i added no comment.

Don't you just love 'Gaunty's' questions?

I was expecting her to reply 'Am i bothered?' anytime.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:24 am

mikeinie;1223333 wrote: Lost for words....

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:28 am

Peg;1223337 wrote: I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. Only In Britain Peg......... Only in Britain

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:46 am

I fel sorry for the desperate women trying every thing they can to have a baby,,, having to read about this woman:(

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:45 am

Lots that I'd like to say - restraint and tact prevents me....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:51 am

Imladris;1223383 wrote: Lots that I'd like to say - restraint and tact prevents me....

For once, i have even refrained myself

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:21 am

quite a bit of refraining going on here:rolleyes::yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:24 am

kazalala;1223417 wrote: quite a bit of refraining going on here:rolleyes::yh_rotfl Well, i wouldn't dream of being opinionated or rude

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:27 am

oscar;1223421 wrote: Well, i wouldn't dream of being opinionated or rude

of course not!:eek::D

but i forgot my refraining hat so i'll say ,,, what a selfish t@at! shes not even botehred about trying to get any of her existing children back,, just wanting to win a battle against social services! :-5:-5

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:42 am

kazalala;1223424 wrote: of course not!:eek::D

but i forgot my refraining hat so i'll say ,,, what a selfish t@at! shes not even botehred about trying to get any of her existing children back,, just wanting to win a battle against social services! :-5:-5 I think you've hit the nail on the head there....... just a battle with social services.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:44 am

oscar;1223326 wrote: Theresa Winters: I’ll flee abroad to keep my 14th baby | The Sun |News

The only thing i like about 'The Sun' newspaper is the brilliant straight talking 'Gaunty'.

SunTalk’s Jon Gaunt grills mum-of-13 Theresa Winters | The Sun |News

14th.........and they have no money....can't say here what I want.

now they're going abroad to make a movie.....huh

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:35 am

I've tried, twice, to post something constructive about this specimen but all that comes out is filthy and odious. How can this woman possibly be allowed to continue to procreate ~ at our expense ~ while her previous offspring are taken from her. She is clearly unfit to mother children

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:44 am

Snowfire;1223471 wrote: I've tried, twice, to post something constructive about this specimen but all that comes out is filthy and odious. How can this woman possibly be allowed to continue to procreate ~ at our expense ~ while her previous offspring are taken from her. She is clearly unfit to mother children

agreed

hello not seen you around for a while:)

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:46 am

kazalala;1223479 wrote: agreed

hello not seen you around for a while:)

I've been hiding behind the sofa 'till Oscar goes away

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:51 am

neighours daughter had a kid, then a second, third and fourth....all the by same man.....they do not live together...never have.

soaking the system just to have a kid.

get off your ass and get a job just like the rest of us.:-5:-5

and I'm paying school tax's for this?

I don't even have kids!

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:56 am

Snowfire;1223480 wrote: I've been hiding behind the sofa 'till Oscar goes away

ahhhh you got hungry didnt you:sneaky::yh_rotfl

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:18 am

w. T. F. ??????

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:03 pm

Snowfire;1223480 wrote: I've been hiding behind the sofa 'till Oscar goes away

You know that's not true. :sneaky:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:09 pm

Snowfire;1223471 wrote: I've tried, twice, to post something constructive about this specimen but all that comes out is filthy and odious. How can this woman possibly be allowed to continue to procreate ~ at our expense ~ while her previous offspring are taken from her. She is clearly unfit to mother children It gets worse...... a report in the Express today by her sister reveals some of the children that have been taken into care have genetic defects and this new baby will very likely be born the same.

Daily Express | UK News :: Stop my sister having babies

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:13 pm

oscar;1223527 wrote: It gets worse...... a report in the Express today by her sister reveals some of the children that have been taken into care have genetic defects and this new baby will very likely be born the same.

Daily Express | UK News :: Stop my sister having babies

:eek::eek:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:15 pm

Odie;1223529 wrote:

:eek:
Exactly !!!

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:18 pm

oscar;1223531 wrote: Exactly !!!

I could not believe what that article said!

she is doing this out of spite.:-5:-5:-5

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:32 pm

Odie;1223533 wrote: I could not believe what that article said!

she is doing this out of spite.:-5:-5:-5

It's something I would call child abuse...did you see the pix of those two...he looks likes he perpetually stoned. Losers.

Post by **Sunshine** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:32 pm

some people will do anything for money. Why did it take 13 previous children to show that this woman is not operating on the same plane as most normal people. Her partner isn't much better either.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:33 pm

Sunshine;1223540 wrote: some people will do anything for money. Why did it take 13 previous children to show that this woman is not operating on the same plane as most normal people. Her partner isn't much better either.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl I'm sure nobody want's that picture on the mantel

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:48 pm

qsducks;1223541 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl I'm sure nobody want's that picture on the mantel It'll be interesting to see what happens when the baby is born. Your right, he definately looks a sandwich short of a picnic.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:10 pm

A sewing needle and some tinned copper wire comes to mind.

Or perhaps some fishing line.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:14 pm

OpenMind;1223566 wrote: A sewing needle and some tinned copper wire comes to mind.

Or perhaps some fishing line.

I'd tend to agree but you would have thought that face of hers would have had a similar effect.

No stop. I'm being unkind

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:18 pm

Snowfire;1223568 wrote: I'd tend to agree but you would have thought that face of hers would have had a similar effect.

No stop. I'm being unkind

They used to use paper bags in the past. They're porous though. Unfortunately, carrier bags have small holes punched into them.

The Fat Slags.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:21 pm

If they do go abroad to keep this baby, what will they live on if they have been dependent on benifit for seventeen years?

What happens if the baby is born with the same defects abroad?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:49 pm

oscar;1223326 wrote: Theresa Winters: I’ll flee abroad to keep my 14th baby | The Sun |News

The only thing i like about 'The Sun' newspaper is the brilliant straight talking 'Gaunty'.

SunTalk’s Jon Gaunt grills mum-of-13 Theresa Winters | The Sun |News

I personally think Gaunty is a belittling obnoxious twit. Here we have two people who must be mentally impaired being ridiculed by Gaunty. So that's ok is it?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:29 pm

Betty Boop;1223586 wrote: I personally think Gaunty is a belittling obnoxious twit. Here we have two people who must be mentally impaired being ridiculed by Gaunty. So that's ok is it? I have re-read the articles and can not see anything that suggests either of them are mentally impaired. If they were indeed mentally impaired, why have social services allowed them to rack up 13 previous children? In fact, the way she seems to be carrying out her vendetta against social services, gives me the impression that she knows exactly what she is doing.

'Gaunty' is probably only asking the same questions as half the country would probably ask her.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:43 pm

oscar;1223600 wrote: I have re-read the articles and can not see anything that suggests either of them are mentally impaired. If they were indeed mentally impaired, why have social services allowed them to rack up 13 previous children? In fact, the way she seems to be carrying out her vendetta against social services, gives me the impression that she knows exactly what she is doing.

'Gaunty' is probably only asking the same questions as half the country would probably ask her.

No, it doesn't mention that they are mentally impaired, but one can only assume that they must be. The average person would work out that this next child will no doubt be taken away too and would not want to put themselves through that trauma. The pair of them can only focus on one thing, the current pregnancy, that's it, nothing else matters, no other emotion or signs of trauma are visible over what has gone before.

Does social services have the ability to force sterilisation on people that are mentally impaired - not to my knowledge they don't!

They have been offered counselling in the past, I'd say that social services have attempted to work with them but the couple refused this help.

I don't know what the answer is, but belittling them in that interview was not right, he didn't discuss anything with her, he talked down at her.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:48 pm

Betty Boop;1223609 wrote: No, it doesn't mention that they are mentally impaired, but one can only assume that they must be. The average person would work out that this next child will no doubt be taken away too and would not want to put themselves through that trauma. The pair of them can only focus on one thing, the current pregnancy, that's it, nothing else matters, no other emotion or signs of trauma are visible over what has gone before.

Does social services have the ability to force sterilisation on people that are mentally impaired - not to my knowledge they don't!

They have been offered counselling in the past, I'd say that social services have attempted to work with them but the couple refused this help.

I don't know what the answer is, but belittling them in that interview was not right, he didn't discuss anything with her, he talked down at her. I felt quite sorry for her until i saw the article in the Express from the sister saying she is doing this out of spite. That's what makes me think she knows exactly what she is doing. You can bet gaunty asked alot more questions but was edited.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:05 pm

oscar;1223613 wrote: I felt quite sorry for her until i saw the article in the Express from the sister saying she is doing this out of spite. That's what makes me think she knows exactly what she is doing. You can bet gaunty asked alot more questions but was edited.

Maybe someone should feel sorry for her, do we know what goes on behind closed doors?? Everyone is quick to judge, how do we know she's not under his control? We actually know very little, only what the media has whipped up.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:22 pm

Betty Boop;1223620 wrote: Maybe someone should feel sorry for her, do we know what goes on behind closed doors?? Everyone is quick to judge, how do we know she's not under his control? We actually know very little, only what the media has whipped up.
I have to agree about the media but the sisters interview sounded very genuine especially her concerns that this baby would be born with the same defects as other children.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:11 am

oscar;1223623 wrote: I have to agree about the media but the sisters interview sounded very genuine especially her concerns that this baby would be born with the same defects as other children.

Again, we only know what that particular paper decided to print.

It is a concern that the baby could be born with defects, it's already conceived and a living being though, it's on it's way whether we approve or not. That brings us back to should social services be allowed to sterilise those considered mentally impaired?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:07 am

I looked at the Sun site and saw and heard the interviews . How is someone condemned as an unfit mother if she smokes during pregnancy? Plenty of women smoke when pregnant .....I don't get it. :-2

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:17 pm

Betty Boop;1223665 wrote: Again, we only know what that particular paper decided to print.

It is a concern that the baby could be born with defects, it's already conceived and a living being though, it's on it's way whether we approve or not. That brings us back to should social services be allowed to sterilise those considered mentally impaired? Since the Sun article, there has been many other articles even in the broadsheets.

This brings us back to the question of weather social services can sterilise those deemed to be mentally impaired. Of course not, especially given SS's track record for getting it wrong. It then goes to the question of 'Where does it lead' if any authority is allowed to sterilise anyone they deem not fit. How long before they decide Downs Syndrome adults can not concieve or amputee's?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:41 pm

Some Nazis thought it was a good idea to "cleanse" the racially inferior, the physically imperfect, the mentally challenged, the sexually different to create a better Fatherland, a purer master race. Compulsory sterilisation was a tool in fashion at the time. History does seem sometimes to go in circles. Are any of you advocating a return to that way of thinking?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:44 pm

AussiePam;1223875 wrote: Some Nazis thought it was a good idea to "cleanse" the racially inferior, the physically imperfect, the mentally challenged, the sexually different to create a better Fatherland, a purer master race. Compulsory sterilisation was a tool in fashion at the time. History does seem sometimes to go in circles. Are any of you advocating a return to that way of thinking? Good god no Pam however i do believe that as the lady in question had already had children with genetic disorders that mean their childrens brains are affected, caution should have been taken.

Good to see you back :-6

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:33 pm

AussiePam;1223875 wrote: Some Nazis thought it was a good idea to "cleanse" the racially inferior, the physically imperfect, the mentally challenged, the sexually different to create a better Fatherland, a purer master race. Compulsory sterilisation was a tool in fashion at the time. History does seem sometimes to go in circles. Are any of you advocating a return to that way of thinking?

oscar;1223877 wrote: Good god no Pam however i do believe that as the lady in question had already had children with genetic disorders that mean their childrens brains are affected, caution should have been taken.

Good to see you back :-6

Iguess noone told them about birth control or snipping tony in the nuts.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:02 am

It's a shame Oscar that there seems to be no cure yet for irresponsibility and that stupidity is not an indictable offence.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:56 am

AussiePam;1223875 wrote: Some Nazis thought it was a good idea to "cleanse" the racially inferior, the physically imperfect, the mentally challenged, the sexually different to create a better Fatherland, a purer master race. Compulsory sterilisation was a tool in fashion at the time. History does seem sometimes to go in circles. Are any of you advocating a return to that way of thinking?

Not at all, that was the point I was getting at. It's ok for everyone to judge. It's even ok to say that Social Services sometimes get it disastrously wrong. So why is it ok here to take the media coverage evidence alone and damn the couple involved, could it not be that maybe Social Services have it disastrously wrong once again? We do not really know the full facts at all.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:56 am

Betty Boop;1223948 wrote: Not at all, that was the point I was getting at. It's ok for everyone to judge. It's even ok to say that Social Services sometimes get it disastrously wrong. So why is it ok here to take the media coverage evidence alone and damn the couple involved, could it not be that maybe Social Services have it disastrously wrong once again? We do not really know the full facts at all.

And the point I was trying to make was not about this individual case at all, but about the principles involved.

Has Social Services or anyone else in the UK these days the legal power to enforce sterilisation on anyone in any circumstances, against their wishes? I doubt it. But please enlighten me if I'm wrong here.

If such a power does exist, then hopefully there will be due process not just media hype, personal opinion and mindless chatter.

If no such power exists - would UK citizens wish to see their lawmakers enact such a power, what administrative arrangements would be made and what human rights safeguards would there be?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:44 am

AussiePam;1223973 wrote: And the point I was trying to make was not about this individual case at all, but about the principles involved.

Has Social Services or anyone else in the UK these days the legal power to enforce sterilisation on anyone in any circumstances, against their wishes? I doubt it. But please enlighten me if I'm wrong here.

If such a power does exist, then hopefully there will be due process not just media hype, personal opinion and mindless chatter.

If no such power exists - would UK citizens wish to see their lawmakers enact such a power, what administrative arrangements would be made and what human rights safeguards would there be?

We were both making the exact same point then

No one can force sterilisation on anyone and long may it stay that way.