Harsh ?

Heckler · 10-10-2015 10:29am #1

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/10/mother-jailed-after-son-drowned-as-she-checked-facebook

Harsh in my opinion. The bit about the kid being nearly knocked down isn't great but I think the blaming on her more concerned about facebook is a bit much.

Accidents can happen in a heartbeat and it seems she tried to save the child as soon as she coped as to what was happening.

You can't watch kids 24/7. Accidents happen and its tragic but on the face of it 5 years seems lengthy.

Perpetrators of intentional savage assault get away with suspended sentences.

I'm taking this on the article. There may be more than meets the eye.

Very Bored · 10-10-2015 10:36am

From the article it sounds like she didn't watch her kid at all nevermind not being able to watch him 24/7.

donegaLroad · 10-10-2015 10:36am

children need constant supervision when playing in, or near water.

It is really sad, but this girl was found to have seriously neglected her child before when she allowed him to play in the road, and almost got hit by a car as a result.

The 5 year sentence should be a warning to other parents who are in the habit of starring into their iphones while their children wander around the place unsupervised.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 10:38am

From the article -

Barnett, who has since moved to Nottingham, was interviewed by police and gave officers varying accounts of what happened in the garden of her former home.

The court also heard how she had let Joshua play out in the road when she lived in Hull in August 2013. Neighbours contacted social services after he narrowly avoided being hit by a car. Barnett pleaded guilty to four counts of child cruelty.

Judge Jeremy Richardson told her: “Your son died due to your neglectful conduct. You will have to live with that for the remainder of your life. For a parent to behave as you did, repeatedly, amounts to consistently bad parenting.

For four counts of child cruelty, I don't think the sentence was at all harsh tbh.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 10:40am

Very Bored wrote: »

From the article it sounds like she didn't watch her kid at all nevermind not being able to watch him 24/7.

One incident of nearly being knocked down. Hows that translate to never minding her kid ?

Tipsy McSwagger · 10-10-2015 10:43am

The court also heard how she had let Joshua play out in the road when she lived in Hull in August 2013. Neighbours contacted social services after he narrowly avoided being hit by a car. Barnett pleaded guilty to four counts of child cruelty.

Any decent mother would have taken this as a massive eye opener and been a lot more vigilant to knowing where their son was at all times. Mistakes can be made by parents but you learn from them and become extra cautious if your child has a habit of wandering off.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 10:44am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

From the article -

For four counts of child cruelty, I don't think the sentence was at all harsh tbh.

In this PC bull**** world 'won't somebody think of the children age' denying a child a bar of chocolate or access to facebook is considered an act of child cruelty. Until I hear what those 4 charges were actually for I'll hold off judging her.

Very Bored · 10-10-2015 10:46am

@Heckler Who the hell lets their two year old play in the road? I have a six year old and I wouldn't let him do it.

Penny Tration · 10-10-2015 10:49am

He was two when he died in March 2014. She let him play alone on a road in August 13, so he could have been even younger than 18 months.

Sounds like the first incident didn't cop her onto herself so yeah, I agree with the sentencing

Very Bored · 10-10-2015 10:54am

Exactly, letting an eighteen month old play out in the road unsupervised. Doesn't equal good parenting in my book.

And can we put this c**p that denying a kid a chocolate bar or access to Facebook is seen as child abuse to bed? No it is not, that's hyperbole in the extreme. But neglecting your child is abuse in most people's eyes, politically correct or otherwise.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 10:57am

Heckler wrote: »

In this PC bull**** world 'won't somebody think of the children age' denying a child a bar of chocolate or access to facebook is considered an act of child cruelty. Until I hear what those 4 charges were actually for I'll hold off judging her.

I wasn't judging her, I was saying that a five year sentence for four counts of child cruelty isn't harsh. She has already plead guilty to those four counts, and been judged, and sentenced. Denying a child a chocolate bar or access to facebook isn't considered an act of child cruelty one is likely to be charged with as a criminal offence.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 10:58am

Very Bored wrote: »

@Heckler Who the hell lets their two year old play in the road? I have a six year old and I wouldn't let him do it.

I agree if thats what happened. May be a case of just once the toddler got loose. Sure if she let him out like that lock her up.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 10-10-2015 10:58am

We need more sentencing like this to send a message. There was an inquest here this week where a baby died as a result of the airbag deploying while the 3 month old was on his mother's knee as she drove on the wrong side of the road and crashed. No criminal case was brought.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 11:03am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't judging her, I was saying that a five year sentence for four counts of child cruelty isn't harsh. She has already plead guilty to those four counts, and been judged, and sentenced. Denying a child a chocolate bar or access to facebook isn't considered an act of child cruelty one is likely to be charged with as a criminal offence.

I was being facetious about the chocolate bar etc. When i was a nipper the wooden spoon across the back of the legs for a transgression was, while not often, used. This would be considered child abuse/cruelty these days.

LDN_Irish · 10-10-2015 11:06am

Heckler wrote: »

In this PC bull**** world 'won't somebody think of the children age' denying a child a bar of chocolate or access to facebook is considered an act of child cruelty. Until I hear what those 4 charges were actually for I'll hold off judging her.

You couldn't make it up. Except that's exactly what you just did.

Penny Tration · 10-10-2015 11:08am

Heckler wrote: »

I was being facetious about the chocolate bar etc. When i was a nipper the wooden spoon across the back of the legs for a transgression was, while not often, used. This would be considered child abuse/cruelty these days.

What has that and your previous post got to do with a mother leaving her toddler unsupervised, resulting in him nearly being hit by a car and ultimately dying after the second time?

Very Bored · 10-10-2015 11:13am

@Heckler Its unlikely her neighbours are so cruel as to report her to social services for an accident. Its likely to have been a repeated thing and the near accident was the final straw. I have a number of neighbours with kids. In similar circumstances I would support all but one of them because I know with them it would be an accident. The other I would report because she doesn't bother her a**e minding her kids at the best of times.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 11:13am

Heckler wrote: »

In this PC bull**** world 'won't somebody think of the children age' denying a child a bar of chocolate or access to facebook is considered an act of child cruelty. Until I hear what those 4 charges were actually for I'll hold off judging her.

Here's a fact for you ....... her child is dead.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 11:20am

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You couldn't make it up. Except that's exactly what you just did.

Fair enough. Like I said I was being facetious but theres no doubting that parenting 2 decades has changed and in my opinion for the worse.

When I was young we were out all hours playing rounders, kick the can etc. if I didn't get home for dinner my mother knew I was being fed by my buddys mother.

Nothing has changed in terms of dangers to kids except the hysterical nonsense spouted by social media especially Facebook where idiots burn down a pediatritions clinic because they don't know the difference between someone who abuses children and someone who saves them.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 11:23am

Heckler wrote: »

Fair enough. Like I said I was being facetious but theres no doubting that parenting 2 decades has changed and in my opinion for the worse.

When I was young we were out all hours playing rounders, kick the can etc. if I didn't get home for dinner my mother knew I was being fed by my buddys mother.

Nothing has changed in terms of dangers to kids except the hysterical nonsense spouted by social media especially Facebook where idiots burn down a pediatritions clinic because they don't know the difference between someone who abuses children and someone who saves them.

Nothing has changed???

Awareness has changed ......... and parents have had to change along with it ........ not sure if you're joking or not?

LDN_Irish · 10-10-2015 11:28am

Heckler wrote: »

Fair enough. Like I said I was being facetious but theres no doubting that parenting 2 decades has changed and in my opinion for the worse.

When I was young we were out all hours playing rounders, kick the can etc. if I didn't get home for dinner my mother knew I was being fed by my buddys mother.

Nothing has changed in terms of dangers to kids except the hysterical nonsense spouted by social media especially Facebook where idiots burn down a pediatritions clinic because they don't know the difference between someone who abuses children and someone who saves them.

Actually agree with you about FB and the missing people being circulated for years despite being found the same day the post was made. Or scaremongering about "the new way gangs are finding women to rape" etc etc.

Dunno if things have really changed the worse. There are kids playing outside my house right now. I was in my aunt's house last night and my son played outside with his friends. He's 6. I don't let my 2 year old out to play on her own. It's about assessing risks, this woman didn't do that. Would you leave a small child to play around a pond without supervision?

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 11:29am

Heckler wrote: »

Fair enough. Like I said I was being facetious but theres no doubting that parenting 2 decades has changed and in my opinion for the worse.

When I was young we were out all hours playing rounders, kick the can etc. if I didn't get home for dinner my mother knew I was being fed by my buddys mother.

Nothing has changed in terms of dangers to kids except the hysterical nonsense spouted by social media especially Facebook where idiots burn down a pediatritions clinic because they don't know the difference between someone who abuses children and someone who saves them.

Can you fathom at all why this woman was charged with four counts of child cruelty?

newacc2015 · 10-10-2015 11:38am

Gavin Repulsive Passenger wrote: »

We need more sentencing like this to send a message. There was an inquest here this week where a baby died as a result of the airbag deploying while the 3 month old was on his mother's knee as she drove on the wrong side of the road and crashed. No criminal case was brought.

I'm sorry but we have been handing putting ****ty parents in jail for hundreds of years. Yet we still have ****ty parents. Even death sentences for neglect parenting probably wouldn't do much.

Some people just lack intelligence. Personally I think everyone in receipt of child benefit should be made do a parenting course. I guarantee it never crossed that mother's mind to put a safety net on that pond. Instead of just putting ****ty mothers in jail to make it clear to others to be better mothers. Why not give parents the knowledge to be better parents ?

Heckler · 10-10-2015 11:42am

MadDog76 wrote: »

Nothing has changed???

Awareness has changed ......... and parents have had to change along with it ........ not sure if you're joking or not?

I'm not joking at all. Kids are too closeted and wrapped up in woolly blankets. We are living in a paranoid age where noone is to be trusted.

Penny Tration · 10-10-2015 11:43am

Heckler wrote: »

I'm not joking at all. Kids are too closeted and wrapped up in woolly blankets. We are living in a paranoid age where noone is to be trusted.

So it's okay that she left a toddler unattended on a road and at a pond?

Heckler · 10-10-2015 11:45am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can you fathom at all why this woman was charged with four counts of child cruelty?

Of course I can. But give me the details of this cruelty. UK judges have a history of conflating what I would call pissy offences into melodramas.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 11:47am

newacc2015 wrote: »

I'm sorry but we have been handing putting ****ty parents in jail for hundreds of years. Yet we still have ****ty parents. Even death sentences for neglect parenting probably wouldn't do much.

Some people just lack intelligence. Personally I think everyone in receipt of child benefit should be made do a parenting course. I guarantee it never crossed that mother's mind to put a safety net on that pond. Instead of just putting ****ty mothers in jail to make it clear to others to be better mothers. Why not give parents the knowledge to be better parents ?

We've been putting murderers, rapists and thieves in prisons for hundreds of years too ......... prison isn't preventative (and it doesn't generally rehabilitate), it's punishment and/or preventative of future crimes by an individual.

Human beings to do not need to be taught that a vulnerable child is at almost constant risk if left unsupervised .......... "I'm sorry your Honour, I didn't realise my 2 year old didn't know that he couldn't swim" ......... bullsh*t in my opinion.

osarusan · 10-10-2015 11:48am

Heckler wrote: »

I'm not joking at all. Kids are too closeted and wrapped up in woolly blankets. We are living in a paranoid age where noone is to be trusted.

I don't think this particular case should be championed as an example of your cause.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 11:50am

Heckler wrote: »

I'm not joking at all. Kids are too closeted and wrapped up in woolly blankets. We are living in a paranoid age where noone is to be trusted.

I'm not paranoid .......... I don't trust anybody I don't know with my children, I don't trust my children to be 100% aware of the dangers that surrounds them, that's my job ......... I'm a realist.

Samaris · 10-10-2015 11:53am

newacc2015 wrote: »

Some people just lack intelligence. Personally I think everyone in receipt of child benefit should be made do a parenting course.

Because obviously it's only the poorer people in society that would ever harm or neglect their kids.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 11:55am

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm not paranoid .......... I don't trust anybody I don't know with my children, I don't trust my children to be 100% aware of the dangers that surrounds them, that's my job ......... I'm a realist.

Its this social media driven paranoia that allows distressed children to be ignored for fear that if someone, especially a male, trys to lend a hand they'll be branded a pedophile. If I saw an upset child I'd ask for a females help before I ever approached them. Thats a sad reflection on our current society.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 11:57am

Heckler wrote: »

Of course I can. But give me the details of this cruelty. UK judges have a history of conflating what I would call pissy offences into melodramas.

You have the details - four counts of child cruelty, which the woman herself pleaded guilty to. The result of her child cruelty is that a child is dead. The only person trying to turn anything into a melodrama here is yourself with your claims about denying a child chocolate and access to facebook is child cruelty, when it's made clear from the article that it was quite a bit more than that, to the point where at one point neighbours called social services after the child was nearly knocked down when playing on the road, and then the child drowned while the woman was engrossed in her phone.

According to this, the maximum sentence she could have received is 10 years -

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years imprisonment

So five years at least is appropriate for four counts of child cruelty.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 12:00pm

Samaris wrote: »

Because obviously it's only the poorer people in society that would ever harm or neglect their kids.

Isn't child benefit paid to all parents though, regardless of their means?

I take the poster's point, though I don't necessarily think parenting courses would actually make any measurable difference to how some parents choose to raise their children.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 12:01pm

Heckler wrote: »

Its this social media driven paranoia that allows distressed children to be ignored for fear that if someone, especially a male, trys to lend a hand they'll be branded a pedophile.

I think you're the one being sensationalist with that statement .......... I personally don't use Facebook, Twitter etc. and never have so my concerns for my children's well-being stem from my own common sense regarding the world we live in as well as acknowledging the fact that children are not yet fully aware of the world they've been born into .......... it's my job to protect them until they can protect themselves.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 12:03pm

Heckler wrote: »

Its this social media driven paranoia that allows distressed children to be ignored for fear that if someone, especially a male, trys to lend a hand they'll be branded a pedophile. If I saw an upset child I'd ask for a females help before I ever approached them. Thats a sad reflection on our current society.

Were it not for the fact that this woman was so engrossed in her social media activities, the child might still be alive. That's not a sad reflection on society, that's a sad reflection on this woman's attitude towards her child's safety.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 12:06pm

No I don't have the details. Do you know what falls under the auspices of child cruelty in the UK ? I don't. Could be a smack on the ass. would you consider that an act of child cruelty ?

Samaris · 10-10-2015 12:07pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Isn't child benefit paid to all parents though, regardless of their means?

I take the poster's point, though I don't necessarily think parenting courses would actually make any measurable difference to how some parents choose to raise their children.

Ah, if that's the case, I take it back. It sounded like one of the usual digs on AH about people on benefits.

Regarding the woman in this case, I'm not sure. Some reports say she was charged with child neglect, some with child cruelty, and those two things are very different.

The NSPCC were called after her son and another child (some reports list the second child as being hers as well, some indicate an unrelated child) were playing near a road in 2013, inadequately dressed and with no shoes on, and were nearly hit by a car. She wasn't charged for that.

If it was this situation alone, it would be very harsh, even though she had been warned about the pond and should have covered it over. But there just isn't that much information available as regards neglect/cruelty, which makes it rather hard from an outside perspective to say whether or not the sentence is harsh or not.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 12:10pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Were it not for the fact that this woman was so engrossed in her social media activities, the child might still be alive. That's not a sad reflection on society, that's a sad reflection on this woman's attitude towards her child's safety.

Gimme a ****ing break. I'm not on facebook, don't even own a smartphone but to blame the woman for the childs death for being on social media is a fallacy. What if 10 years ago a mother was in the hallway tied to a land line phone and took her eyes off a child for 5 minutes ?

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 12:11pm

Heckler wrote: »

No I don't have the details. Do you know what falls under the auspices of child cruelty in the UK ? I don't. Could be a smack on the ass. would you consider that an act of child cruelty ?

You may have a point to a certain degree and that's for every individual parent to assess and balance out as they see fit whilst taking the law into account .......... but what has your point got to do with this particular case???

Her child is dead ......... her child is dead because she neglected him ............ 5 years is lenient even if she had never neglected him prior to death .......... she was supposed to protect him because he couldn't protect himself.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 12:16pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

You may have a point to a certain degree and that's for every individual parent to assess and balance out as they see fit whilst taking the law into account .......... but what has your point got to do with this particular case???

Her child is dead ......... her child is dead because she neglected him ............ 5 years is lenient even if she had never neglected him prior to death .......... she was supposed to protect him because he couldn't protect himself.

My whole point is the degree of neglect. Anyone can take the eye off a kid and a tragedy can happen. The article make it seems like she was facebooking and taking selfies while the boy drowned in the background. Sensational headlines sells papers.

Good god is there any parent alive who lost a child from taking a moments eye away ? Every second week in farming accidents. There was even an RTE ad campaign in the 80's about covering water barrels etc on farms. Those poor parents don't get 5 years in prison for not keeping a laser eye on their kids. Whats the difference ? Child drowns in water barrel. Child crushed by reversing tractor. Tragic but no jail time. Could be argued bad parenting.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 12:23pm

Heckler wrote: »

Gimme a ****ing break. I'm not on facebook, don't even own a smartphone but to blame the woman for the childs death for being on social media is a fallacy. What if 10 years ago a mother was in the hallway tied to a land line phone and took her eyes off a child for 5 minutes ?

Heckler wrote: »

My whole point is the degree of neglect. Anyone can take the eye off a kid and a tragedy can happen. The article make it seems like she was facebooking and taking selfies while the boy drowned in the background. Sensational headlines sells papers.

Good god is there any parent alive who lost a child from taking a moments eye away ? Every second week in farming accidents. There was even an RTE ad campaign in the 80's about covering water barrels etc on farms. Those poor parents don't get 5 years in prison for not keeping a laser eye on their kids.

You might have a point if it were only one count of child cruelty, but four counts, resulting in the death of a child?

And do the neighbours usually call social services when an accident happens?

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 12:26pm

Heckler wrote: »

My whole point is the degree of neglect. Anyone can take the eye off a kid and a tragedy can happen. The article make it seems like she was facebooking and taking selfies while the boy drowned in the background. Sensational headlines sells papers.

Good god is there any parent alive who lost a child from taking a moments eye away ? Every second week in farming accidents. There was even an RTE ad campaign in the 80's about covering water barrels etc on farms. Those poor parents don't get 5 years in prison for not keeping a laser eye on their kids.

The "mother" in this case has a history of neglect/cruelty/not giving a sh*t and her child eventually died regardless of the "degree" of neglect in previous instances ...... another poster mentioned that this is not the best case to use to champion your cause no matter how valid it may be .......... I think you should heed that advice and pick another case.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 12:44pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

The "mother" in this case has a history of neglect/cruelty/not giving a sh*t and her child eventually died regardless of the "degree" of neglect in previous instances ...... another poster mentioned that this is not the best case to use to champion your cause no matter how valid it may be .......... I think you should heed that advice and pick another case.

Hang on a second. First of all your use of quotation marks around the word mother is inflammatory and designed to bias readers from the start. Now we've gone from cruelty (which has a wide definition in UK law) to neglect and not giving a ****.

I'm not condoning her actions at all. But just because a Judge in the UK says so doesn't make it right. Judges **** up all the time. Have a look around boards where there are lengthy threads on Judges giving out stupid lenient sentences for violent assaults sometimes resulting in even death.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 12:52pm

And what is a prison term going to do for this woman that her own guilt ridden mind won't do ?

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 12:53pm

Heckler wrote: »

Hang on a second. First of all your use of quotation marks around the word mother is inflammatory and designed to bias readers from the start. Now we've gone from cruelty (which has a wide definition in UK law) to neglect and not giving a ****.

I'm not condoning her actions at all. But just because a Judge in the UK says so doesn't make it right. Judges **** up all the time. Have a look around boards where there are lengthy threads on Judges giving out stupid lenient sentences for violent assaults sometimes resulting in even death.

But the judge could only determine the length of her sentence, after she had pleaded guilty to four counts of child cruelty. It was up to the CPS to make the case in the first place, and they could only do that after an investigation was carried out by police, the police whom this woman had given different accounts to each time.

So even if the judge had monstrously fcuked up (as you're quite right, they do tend to do that sometimes), that still doesn't negate the actual facts of the case that were presented as evidence, which quite possibly amounted to more than denying access to facebook, or chocolate bars. Parents in the UK, like here in Ireland, have a ferocious amount of leeway with regard to how they raise their children, so it would be ridiculous to assume that these charges were brought on any sort of trivial basis.

Very Bored · 10-10-2015 12:56pm

Echoing what an earlier poster said about it being difficult for a male to help a child these days. My natural instinct when a child falls over is to help them up, ask them are they ok and take them to their parents. I try to curb the instinct as much as possible but sometimes it takes over as we are instinctive beings. But when I do I always start panicking because I know how vulnerable I am in that moment. If I was a woman I doubt I would feel that way. It was also perfectly normal behaviour from an adult when I was a child.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 12:58pm

Heckler wrote: »

Hang on a second. First of all your use of quotation marks around the word mother is inflammatory and designed to bias readers from the start. Now we've gone from cruelty (which has a wide definition in UK law) to neglect and not giving a ****.

I'm not condoning her actions at all. But just because a Judge in the UK says so doesn't make it right. Judges **** up all the time. Have a look around boards where there are lengthy threads on Judges giving out stupid lenient sentences for violent assaults sometimes resulting in even death.

I was being kind even referring to her as a "mother" ......... this individual is responsible for the death of her own child ffs!

I don't care if it's called neglect, cruelty, careless, stupid or whatever ......... the end result is the same, the result being her child is now dead due to her actions (or inactions) .......... she fully deserves her sentence plus some in my opinion.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 12:59pm

Heckler wrote: »

And what is a prison term going to do for this woman that her own guilt ridden mind won't do ?

In prison, this woman can undergo rehabilitation and counselling and a number of other services that will be made available to her, that would not be available to her outside of prison.

A custodial sentence is as much a rehabilitative measure as it is a measure of punishment for the fact that she was convicted of four counts of child cruelty. Bringing up examples of other cases, does not negate nor diminish the severity of the crime in this particular case, nor should it. If anything, it only serves to show that those crimes should be punished more severely.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 1:00pm

Very Bored wrote: »

Echoing what an earlier poster said about it being difficult for a male to help a child these days. My natural instinct when a child falls over is to help them up, ask them are they ok and take them to their parents. I try to curb the instinct as much as possible but sometimes it takes over as we are instinctive beings. But when I do I always start panicking because I know how vulnerable I am in that moment. If I was a woman I doubt I would feel that way. It was also perfectly normal behaviour from an adult when I was a child.

I still help a fallen child to his/her feet and I've never had an issue with it .........

Heckler · 10-10-2015 1:04pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the judge could only determine the length of her sentence, after she had pleaded guilty to four counts of child cruelty. It was up to the CPS to make the case in the first place, and they could only do that after an investigation was carried out by police, the police whom this woman had given different accounts to each time.

So even if the judge had monstrously fcuked up (as you're quite right, they do tend to do that sometimes), that still doesn't negate the actual facts of the case that were presented as evidence, which quite possibly amounted to more than denying access to facebook, or chocolate bars. Parents in the UK, like here in Ireland, have a ferocious amount of leeway with regard to how they raise their children, so it would be ridiculous to assume that these charges were brought on any sort of trivial basis.

Yup on the trivial argument. Again I was facetious about the chocolate but I do wonder what constitutes a conviction or even a basis for possible prosecution in a UK court. I have a feeling it could be something very minor.

Don't have any link but a case of a fella having a drunken piss against a wall, done for indecent exposure and put on the sex offenders register for seven years. That kind of nonsense.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 1:08pm

Heckler wrote: »

Yup on the trivial argument. Again I was facetious about the chocolate but I do wonder what constitutes a conviction or even a basis for possible prosecution in a UK court. I have a feeling it could be something very minor.

That's a point of discussion for another thread/case .......... you are asking if a 5 year sentence is too harsh for this woman who is responsible for the death of her child .......... the answer (my answer) is no, it is definitely not harsh at all ....... it might actually be quite lenient.

Harsh ?

Comments