Jump to content

sentenced


Syd

Recommended Posts

Brothers Sentenced For Boys' Sadistic Torture

Alison Chung, Sky News Online

 

Two brothers who attacked two boys in a sadistic 90-minute ordeal of violence and sexual humiliation have been sentenced to a minimum of five years in custody.

 

 

The pair, who are aged 11 and 12 and who cannot be named, attacked their victims in Edlington in South Yorkshire last April.

 

Mr Justice Keith, sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court, described the brothers' behaviour as "appalling and terrible".

 

"The fact is this was prolonged, sadistic violence for no reason other than that you got a real kick out of hurting and humiliating them," he said.

 

The pair lured the nine and 11-year-old to a secluded spot before the torture began

 

The victims - who are uncle and nephew - were strangled, hit with bricks, made to eat nettles, stripped and forced to sexually abuse each other.

 

The elder boy was seriously injured when pieces of a ceramic sink were dropped on his head.

 

The brothers had pleaded guilty to causing their victims grievous bodily harm with intent, robbery and intentionally causing a child to engage in sexual activity.

 

They had also admitted causing another 11-year-old actual bodily harm a week before the torture incident.

 

Sky's north of England correspondent Gerard Tubb said the younger offender had been described by one Britain's top psychiatrists as being in danger of becoming a "seriously disturbed psychopathic offender".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I have missed something here

 

1) These children have been prosecuted

2) The authorities are now examining the evidence to see if they can prosecute the parents for serious neglect

 

BUT

 

3) I cannot recall anyone saying that they are looking at the evidence to see if they can prosecute all of the service providers that have totally and utterly failed these two boys.

 

Why do they never do that I wonder, isn't it about time the buck stopped somewhere amongst these manderins too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which two boys are you referring to? If it is the two thugs, some people are just plain evil! If it's the two victims, then who would have guessed what could happen to them.

 

I'm sorry, but I think that some people are beyond help. Anyway, this blame culture we have, where it's always someone else's fault, doesn't take into account that some people are just nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "nasty bit applies to the parents and by God I hope they get what is coming to them!

 

But the children are only a product of what they have grown up with. On the news this morning it seems that this "toxic family" was known to social services for 14 years. So with the children who committed this awful crime being 9 and 11 at the time - this means that even c. 4 years before they were born - this family was on the at risk radar.

 

Serious questions need to be asked about why such a hands off approach was seen as being suitable and why when these little sods had ASBO's and were in trouble just about everywhere they went, that social services did nothing?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are the service providers not being prosecuted for neglect also.

 

In my book they carry a very heavy responsibility for this awful event.

They won't listen to anyone, fully believing in the mantra that "They Know best" and leaving everyone in no doubt of that yet without even pausing for breath they cockup like this on a fairly regular basis and are NEVER brought to account.

 

Baby "P" was MURDER by neglect but what happened to the people who let down baby "P", NOTHING

 

Children are NOT born evil and downright nasty they are born innocent and sweet but they grow up into what our society makes them, so who is responsible

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd - 2010-01-23 9:38 AM

 

So why are the service providers not being prosecuted for neglect also.

 

In my book they carry a very heavy responsibility for this awful event.

They won't listen to anyone, fully believing in the mantra that "They Know best" and leaving everyone in no doubt of that yet without even pausing for breath they cockup like this on a fairly regular basis and are NEVER brought to account.

 

Baby "P" was MURDER by neglect but what happened to the people who let down baby "P", NOTHING

 

Children are NOT born evil and downright nasty they are born innocent and sweet but they grow up into what our society makes them, so who is responsible

 

Syd,

I honestly think that some people are in fact born to be evil, it just takes a number of years to show itself.

And the first ones to spot that evil are friends and neighbours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KOTR

I respect your point of view but cannot accept it.

 

How have you learned all of the things that you know, mostly from your parents, friends and neighbours.

 

If your friends, neighbours and parents had been like the parents that these two lads have grown up with, don't you think that you just may have grown up to be a greatly different person to that which you are today.

 

The answer to that is YES you would

 

Think about this, it takes many HUNDREDS of people to raise a child ie everyone that a child comes into contact with has some impact on that childs future life no matter how small that impact.

 

Where do you think children of that age learned or even could think up the sexual abuse acts that they carried out on their victims, were they born with that knollege already in their heads

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd,

There are a lot of very intelligent people who turned to a life of evil, why they do no one knows.

Manchester has had its fair share of evil murders in the Moors Murders, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley for example.

This case is still very fresh in Mancunians minds, I dont think a week goes by when I dont think of poor Mrs Winnie Johnson and her son Keith who is buried somewhere up on Saddleworth moor, that poor woman has had a life of sheer hell.

It says on the front page of this mornings Daily Mail that a catalogue of social work failures is to be kept secret, that to me is totally unacceptable, we need clarity and openness so lessons can be learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the very intelligent people who turned to a life of evil, were adults when they turned to crime and they did it because of something that they learned in their life time they were not born with that knollege so they were not born evil, I believe no one is
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd - 2010-01-23 11:25 AM

 

Yes, but the very intelligent people who turned to a life of evil, were adults when they turned to crime and they did it because of something that they learned in their life time they were not born with that knollege so they were not born evil, I believe no one is

 

All I can say is, "there but for the grace of god go I"

I suppose it will be a case of wait and see how long it will be before these two kids are released back into the community, 5 or 10 years??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd - 2010-01-23 11:37 AM

 

"there but for the grace of god go I" is exactly right.

These kids didn't get a good start in life and the people who we pay inflated salaries to look after their interests have let them down VERY badly[/quote

 

As per usual the buck will be passed and no one will be sacked and it will go on and on until the next high profile case rises to the surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

So just who would you prosecute Syd?

 

The social worker at the sharp end - more often than not underpaid, undervalued, overworked and with an impossible case load often three times the recommended level and simply unable to be proactive as he/she is too busy just trying to stay on top of the reactive needs?

 

The line manager just trying to balance an already impossible case load, which is remorselessly expanding everyday, with a reducing budget and falling staff numbers and rock bottom staff morale?

 

The director of social services trying to make an inadequate budget work?

 

The local authority budgetary panel for not allowing enough money in the first place?

 

The government for consistently expecting more to be done but consistently paying lip service to allocating enough funding year after year?

 

I am privileged to have several social workers as good friends and believe me most of them are genuine honest caring hard working people and they are as frustrated as you and I with the current system.

 

Yes of course there are bad social workers but more often than no, because there are not enough of them in the first place, they are allowed to continue because it's better than nothing at all.

 

Like everything else we get what we pay for and if we don't pay we don't get! To add insult to injury there are not enough people to even cover for training - so in may cases training does not happen.

 

Nothing will improve until the government return all social and health issues to one umbrella agency - the NHS. That will at least stop the continual infighting, bitching and budget preservation tactics that currently consume both time and resources in both NHS and Social Services over what constitutes one agency's remit and what constitutes the others.

 

Having done that there then needs to be sufficient funding from Westminster or it will continue to operate as it does - making the best of a bad job and muddling along from catastrophe to cock up.

 

Making a scapegoat might make some feel better but will achieve nothing else other than the destruction of someone's career and even less inclination to whistle blow.

 

Would you want to do the job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In cases such as these I would prosecute the Social Services, the police, the local authority and the parents, each one has failed to provide the service that they assure us they are providing.

 

It is the responsibility of the Director of Social Services that his staff are up to the job , this being the case there is no point in prosequteing the monions it has to be the top men

 

When you accept a position then you have to accept the responsibilities that come with the pay cheque.

 

At some stage there has to be a stop put to this continueing buck passing.

Let's get brutal, where does the buck stop, in my business it stops with ME and if that is the case with me then the buck should stop with the Director of Social Services in this case because he is operateing an inadequate service.

Hard as it may be, an example has to be made and by prosecuting some of the top manderins then it will focus their attention on just what they are supposed to be providing.

 

If you were offered a position with a budget that you knew would make it imposible for you to fullfil the responsibilities of that position then would you be fool enough to take it.

The answer to that question is YES if there was no chance of you being held responsible when things whent wrong. BUT the answer would be a resounding NO if you knew that when things went pearshaped you would be held legally responsible.

This would mean that no one would take a position unless that position was adequately funded or to be trendy "adequately resourced"

 

Then we would get the service that the a**eholes keep telling us that they are providing when they blatently are not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

Perhaps if we stopped being vindictively politically correct for a minute, ditched the blame culture and started looking for reasons from those involved - or uninvolved - without fear of retribution - with the sole purpose of preventing anything similar happening again we might get somewhere better and quicker?

 

Prosecute the social services? How would that help? Fine a local authority, police department or whatever thus removing more funds from the front line to return to government coffers for 're-allocation' maybe? How will that help?

 

I have knowledge of one director of social services who took the job knowing it was a poisoned chalice but determined to do his best to bring about improvements.

 

As the years passed he was unable to do so mainly for reasons already outlined and as he became less able to change things so he became more disillusioned with the system and more concerned with securing his own sanity and pension rights - do you blame him - maybe in an ideal world you would - but I don't as there is every risk that any successor would fare no better?

 

The problem is most senior managers and civil servants are close to retirement age and all they want to do is keep their head below the parapet in case someone blows it off to protect the rest of the system - which might just prevent them from getting their noses quite as deeply in the publicly funded retirement trough as they might have otherwise managed.

 

What would most people do - turkeys don't often vote for Christmas do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then if you wish, drop the prosecution of the Social Services and the police and the local authority and instead prosecute the heads of each service personally. Make them each personally liable.

 

Something desperate has just GOT to be done to change their attitude towards their responsibilities. It is not just these cases it is endemic throughout all the civil service too.

 

How I regret not being the dictator of this country.

 

With regard to "being vindictive" I don't think I am being vindictive I think we are being made mugs of by these stuffed shirts.

 

If your friend took the position knowing that he couldn't deliver the service then I believe he was just sanctioning the very thing that I am ranting on about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

The only way forward is for honesty and integrity to return to our society from government and industry downwards and from children and parents upwards and for cover ups and blame shifting to stop for fear of drastic over reaction and retribution from a frustrated public.

 

To stop seeking to blame and punish for what at worst is negligence and at best is human fallibility - but very rarely with malicious intent - and that alone should be the sole reason for punishment - not simply being stupid, inadequate or overworked.

 

Those who seek to right wrongs by using the media after their own organisation has covered things up should be guaranteed their income and pension rights if their whistle blowing is proven correct but it becomes impossible for them to continue in their chosen career.

 

But more than anything else drop the blame culture and start a reasons why and how to prevent culture.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd - 2010-01-23 5:13 PM

(snip)This would mean that no one would take a position unless that position was adequately funded or to be trendy "adequately resourced"

(snip)

And then there would be complaints about unfilled posts (which would mean more cases would not be properly managed) and/or tax hikes to provide "adequate funding".

 

Syd - 2010-01-23 5:13 PM

At some stage there has to be a stop put to this continueing buck passing.

Let's get brutal, where does the buck stop, in my business it stops with ME and if that is the case with me then the buck should stop with the Director of Social Services in this case because he is operateing an inadequate service.

Big difference is that it is YOUR business, in which YOU make the decisions about funding and the work that will be carried out within that budget - just exactly the same as it is with MY business.

 

In a local authority, though, it is often the case that someone will take on a job on the basis of a given budget and then find that budget is slashed because of decisions taken by central government - exactly what is happening now to pay for bailing the banks out. Are people supposed to resign from their jobs when that happens?

 

When the government forces funding cutbacks does it repeal legislation in order to lessen the workload? Of course not.

 

There are good and bad in all walks of life but, in the main, what happens when jobs are under-funded is that the people doing them try their best to compensate.

 

By all means let us have prosecutions when there is prima facie evidence that somebody has failed as a result of their own fault but otherwise lets all of us open our eyes and admit that whatever levels of service we require have to be funded by US.

 

Graham

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2010-01-23 9:33 AM

 

I get the impression that some of our 'social services' are more about filling in forms and ticking boxes, than applying common sense.

 

 

:-(

Oh malc you are so right .

 

When the girls got adopted last week they said you have to come to court with the children !

I said what for ? oh you get a picture with the judge AND THE GIRLS WILL LOVE IT ?

Hello I dont think so ,would the girls really know what was going on ? NO

Would the girls be able to look back at the picture and know anything ? NO

I said we wont be coming ,Oh but you must she said .

No I wont and thats why we employed a solicitor if you think we are dragging both girls down to London not being able to park will end up with a ticket or clamped and besides all that is fred well enough ? suppose she has a crap day just to get a piccy with the Judge and the Lord Mayor ??? poke it I said . This is all about come pat me on my back and stroke my ego . Added to that for each one the borough gets adopted they get cash for fulfilling their adoption quota ...shove it .

 

What have they ever done to help the girls Nothing .

Oh I fianlly got ahoist 3 weeks ago no bloody good but there you go .

We still sleep on the front room floor when she is home discusting .

Truth is its BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi GJH

Not sure that I can put into words just what I am trying to say but will have a try. Please don't take offence at anything as to me this is just an open discussion

 

"And then there would be complaints about unfilled posts (which would mean more cases would not be properly managed) and/or tax hikes to provide "adequate funding".

 

Yes exactly and the government of the day would then have that responsibility thrust onto thier shoulders because they would have been shown to be responsible

 

"In a local authority, though, it is often the case that someone will take on a job on the basis of a given budget and then find that budget is slashed because of decisions taken by central government"

 

The person involved should then stand up and report that he can "no longer deliver that service" because of those cuts and wash his hands on it then refer his complaint to the government rather than support and cover up the impact of those cuts in the slimey way that they do.

They are supposed to be PUBLIC servants not government puppits

If the government want to suspend child care then make them come out and say that they are suspending child care.Would any government like to do that. If the individuals at the heads of each department could be held legally responsible for their actions and those of their departments then YES they would resign and if it was carried out throughout the country then the government of the day would be in difficulties and may not wish to make these cuts.

The end result would be the government having to send in their own "rescue" teams to run every social service in the country and finding this to be far more expensive

 

If in your own private life you found that your expenditure was greater than your income would you cut corners and say not insure your car but still run it, well that is the same as what these headless chickens are doing, still runnig a service but without insurance but is us the public that are at risk not the head of department. It simply isn't good enough for them to "try their best to compensate". If the money isn't there I would like someone to explain to me just how you can compensate, and it they have had any education at all they should know that.

 

 

The heads of departments accept high responsibility jobs with salaries to match, EVERYTHING that happens in that department is their responsibility be it good or bad. If something good happens, Whoo !! whose's name is splashed on the front page of every paper, who basks in all the limelight, who takes all the plaudits.

 

Now when something goes wrong can we get a name, can we see the whitewash sorry report, no it is kept secret, everything is kept secret and it stinks.

 

If as a result of your negligence while driving someone dies, what charge will you face, or would it all be hushed up. So if because of your or your departments actions someone dies then you should face the same prosecutions.

Personal liability will make for a more expensive service but christ will it very quickly make for a better service.

 

Yes I know this is all pie in the sky but it would certainly improve things for the care of the nation, sorry to have gone on and on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syd - 2010-01-24 12:01 AM

 

Hi GJH

Not sure that I can put into words just what I am trying to say but will have a try. Please don't take offence at anything as to me this is just an open discussion

 

I'm not going to take offence Syd.

 

"And then there would be complaints about unfilled posts (which would mean more cases would not be properly managed) and/or tax hikes to provide "adequate funding".

 

Yes exactly and the government of the day would then have that responsibility thrust onto thier shoulders because they would have been shown to be responsible

 

But the point is that that is the case now. 75% of local government funding comes from central government and central government has the ability to ring fence parts of that funding. Balls was given the chance to ring fence child protection budgets when Laming reported on the Baby P case last year (see Here) but he failed to do so. I wonder why? Could it possibly be that such a move would actually clarify responsibility?

 

Remember also that it is this government which merged children's social services and education services in response to Laming's report on the Climbie case - which resulted in educationalists with no social work background (and vice versa) heading up departments, rather than those with specific qualifications. That HAS to be central government responsibility.

 

"In a local authority, though, it is often the case that someone will take on a job on the basis of a given budget and then find that budget is slashed because of decisions taken by central government"

 

The person involved should then stand up and report that he can "no longer deliver that service" because of those cuts and wash his hands on it then refer his complaint to the government rather than support and cover up the impact of those cuts in the slimey way that they do.

They are supposed to be PUBLIC servants not government puppits

If the government want to suspend child care then make them come out and say that they are suspending child care.Would any government like to do that. If the individuals at the heads of each department could be held legally responsible for their actions and those of their departments then YES they would resign and if it was carried out throughout the country then the government of the day would be in difficulties and may not wish to make these cuts.

The end result would be the government having to send in their own "rescue" teams to run every social service in the country and finding this to be far more expensive

 

Sorry, but it simply doesn't work that way. Local authorities go to central government for support on all sorts of matters all the time when their budgets prove inadequate. On some occasions (usually when publicity means that central government has no choice, e.g. last years floods in Cumbria) they receive support but when central government can bury it they don't (see comment above re Balls' response to Laming).

 

If in your own private life you found that your expenditure was greater than your income would you cut corners and say not insure your car but still run it, well that is the same as what these headless chickens are doing, still runnig a service but without insurance but is us the public that are at risk not the head of department. It simply isn't good enough for them to "try their best to compensate". If the money isn't there I would like someone to explain to me just how you can compensate, and it they have had any education at all they should know that.

 

Comparison with running an uninsured car is inappropriate. What happens is that staff are (explicitly or implicitly) expected to put in unpaid overtime. Private companies can decide not to take on work that cannot be funded but that is not an option in local authorities, which have an obligation to try to do everything which legislation says they have to.

 

The heads of departments accept high responsibility jobs with salaries to match, EVERYTHING that happens in that department is their responsibility be it good or bad. If something good happens, Whoo !! whose's name is splashed on the front page of every paper, who basks in all the limelight, who takes all the plaudits.

 

Now when something goes wrong can we get a name, can we see the whitewash sorry report, no it is kept secret, everything is kept secret and it stinks.

 

I take it you're referring to the statement in the Daily Mail "There was also growing fury about the secrecy surrounding the report into the case by the Doncaster Children's Safeguarding Board. Only the 11-page executive summary of the report was published. This meant that the names of those who failed - along with details of the worst of the blunders - were kept secret.".

 

The only accurate part of that is the second sentence - and that, when one looks at the Doncaster Council web site, appears to be in line with DCSB practice. Whose fury are they talking about? Note that they do not say. Has anything really been kept secret? Anyone can use the Freedom of Information Act to request the full report and there would have to be a public interest reason for it not being provided. Has the Daily Mail (or anyone else) asked to see the full report? Note that they do not say.

 

The truth, unsavoury as it may be, is that we, as a society (in exactly the same way as provision for winter gritting), only fund so much and do not provide sufficient funding to cater for extremes like this tragic case. That is the fault of our society (represented by central government) and not individuals who are (in most cases) trying to do their best.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...