Baby p's bruises hidden with chocolate by mother--the first picture

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:39 pm

We have had a few threads on the tragic case of baby P.

Tonight, The Daily Mail releases the photograph of the toddler's face deliberately covered with chocolate to hide injurie's from a visiting social worker.

Surely this deception can not be the mind of a sub intelligent mother but a cold calculating killer?

FIRST PICTURES: The chocolate smile that hid the terrible scars of abuse on tragic blue-eyed Baby P | Mail Online

The social worker left, duped.

Today in court for the first times in weeks after baby P's horrific injurie's were shown to the jury, the mother broke down in tears. Only because the judge told her she was facing a long prison sentence.

el guapo · Post by **el guapo** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:42 pm

hope they burn in hell

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:44 pm

el guapo;1059272 wrote: hope they burn in hell

I'll second that and add.... may the prisons wardens accidently leave them alone with other inmates.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:46 pm

That kind of stuff just RIPPS my heart out.:-1 The same fate should happen to the abuser:mad::mad::-5

el guapo · Post by **el guapo** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:46 pm

oscar;1059274 wrote: I'll second that and add.... may the prisons wardens accidently leave them alone with other inmates.

and enough sheets to hang them selfs

pinkchick · Post by **pinkchick** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:01 pm

This story made me sick to my stomach:mad:

There really are people out there who should never be allowed to be parents!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:12 pm

Baby P's mother crie's in court after being told she's going to prison

Baby P's mother sobs.. for her own jail time | The Sun |News

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:23 pm

oscar;1059291 wrote: Baby P's mother crie's in court after being told she's going to prison

Baby P's mother sobs.. for her own jail time | The Sun |News why did they not show her face. she is over 18. why protect that monster:mad:

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:24 pm

I dont want to take this thread too far off topic because this is a very important topic. But I just wonder......we have to have a license for everything. To run a business, to drive a car......even a manicurist needs a license. Why is it that you dont have to have a license to parent children? It is the biggest responsibility that any person undertakes in their life. The quality of the child's whole life really depends on their unbringing. It is not fair that anyone can just pop out a kid....and the kid is at the mercy of "the luck of the draw".

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:27 pm

wildhorses;1059302 wrote: I dont want to take this thread too far off topic because this is a very important topic. But I just wonder......we have to have a license for everything. To run a business, to drive a car......even a manicurist needs a license. Why is it that you dont have to have a license to parent children? It is the biggest responsibility that any person undertakes in their life. The quality of the child's whole life really depends on their unbringing. It is not fair that anyone can just pop out a kid....and the kid is at the mercy of "the luck of the draw".
A very good idea but in this country you would have the likes of baby P's mother claiming it breached her human rights.

The reason their identity is kept secret for one is fear of reprisals against them but frankly i'd leave them to the mercy of the public.

Two, they could insist they were not getting a fair trial due to media attention.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:56 pm

oscar;1059304 wrote: A very good idea but in this country you would have the likes of baby P's mother claiming it breached her human rights.

The reason their identity is kept secret for one is fear of reprisals against them but frankly i'd leave them to the mercy of the public.

Two, they could insist they were not getting a fair trial due to media attention.

That is exactly what would happen here in USA. But I think it is high time that the safety of the child should trump the human rights of the parents. This awful case is evidence that no one is protecting the child. Babies are either lucky or they are unlucky.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:27 am

wildhorses;1059325 wrote: That is exactly what would happen here in USA. But I think it is high time that the safety of the child should trump the human rights of the parents. This awful case is evidence that no one is protecting the child. Babies are either lucky or they are unlucky.

It should just never have happened. One of the senior social workers is accussed of lying in another case of 'Victoria Climbie' where a little girl was starved and tortured. The fact that it's the same council and same heads of social services is contemptable.

In the mail last night there was a story about one of the junior workers who wrote letters to Parliment warning them this would happen again after 'Victoria Climbie's' case. She was sacked by these chiefs who then launched a witch hunt on her accussing her of threatening a child and began to investigate her child as well. The fact that she successfully sued these cheifs for 'Unfair dissmissal' and they dropped their witch hunt against her shows just how evil this council and social services department really are at covering their own arsses.