• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Two brothers who tortured boys in South Yorkshire granted indefinite anonymity
<<
<
3 of 5
>>
>
Brandy211
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by benjamini:
“Why is it Karma that 11 year olds will face retribution? Today we heard on the news that hundreds of adult men raped little boys , sexually abused little boys and no mention of retribution for them. Why is that ?
I'm not making excuses here, but as always the torch brigade want to flay children while I'm utterly gobsmacked that there is no bloody mention about adult men raping wee boys. No outrage, no anger , no shame. Why is that ?”

The outrage is saved for those raped little boys when they end up raping other little boys, while the man gets off scott free.
benjamini
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“The outrage is saved for those raped little boys when they end up raping other little boys, while the man gets off scott free.”

There's a truth indeed. I'm appalled at the shameful way we treat crime and criminals.n
BirdyBee
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“I disagree that the boys behaviour was ingrained in their DNA.

They apparently grew up in a filthy house with doors covered in grease.They had a mother who had seven boys in the space of nine years, the family were known to social services for 14 years before the offence took place.
Both parents were drug dependents, the father regularly beat their mother. The boys smoked 20 cigarettes a day, drank cider and vodka & were allowed to smoke cannabis their father grew. They were also allowed to watch violent and porn dvds.
The court heard their mother confided "intimate" details with them.
They were free to roam the streets and create the same havoc they saw daily at home.
Their 14 year old brother had been sent to a youth offenders a few months before.
Neighbours said the street were fearful of the family.
The two boys were in foster care at the time of the offence. When confronted by the police, their mother said "The boys are nowt to do with me".

These boys had never known what a normal life is, probably until they were detained.
Not only did they have neglectful, drug addicted, violent, parents but also another 5 brothers who may also have been a bad influence on them.
One of the boys sobbed in court, as their defence read out about their father,s behaviour towards their mother.

They weren't born with this behaviour, it was taught.”

I completely agree. I don't know what the answer is.

Their parents are to blame? I believe that if they had been brought up in a stable loving home, then they would have not engaged in such sickening behaviour.

I would also hazard a guess if we could delve into the parents' childhood, there would also be a history of a 'chaotic childhood' there. So who do you blame and where does it end? So sad all round.

I don't think SS can win. Damned if they do. Damned if they don't. I don't dispute that mistakes were made in this case. But I don't think we see the whole picture. How many children does the average social worker oversee? How many cases at any one time? They are criticised at every turn. They cannot reveal details of cases where they successfully step in, so it's one sided. And it's impossible to know if it was a success until you have hindsight.

It must be a thankless task. I could not do it. But I accept they are not superheroes. They cannot save every abused child. However horrific this story is, it's the tip of an iceberg. Such horror goes on everyday behind closed doors.

Social Services are not the cause or the solution. It's just a system put in place to try and help some.
Brandy211
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by BirdyBee:
“I completely agree. I don't know what the answer is.

Their parents are to blame? I believe that if they had been brought up in a stable loving home, then they would have not engaged in such sickening behaviour.

I would also hazard a guess if we could delve into the parents' childhood, there would also be a history of a 'chaotic childhood' there. So who do you blame and where does it end? So sad all round.

I don't think SS can win. Damned if they do. Damned if they don't. I don't dispute that mistakes were made in this case. But I don't think we see the whole picture. How many children does the average social worker oversee? How many cases at any one time? They are criticised at every turn. They cannot reveal details of cases where they successfully step in, so it's one sided. And it's impossible to know if it was a success until you have hindsight.

It must be a thankless task. I could not do it. But I accept they are not superheroes. They cannot save every abused child. However horrific this story is, it's the tip of an iceberg. Such horror goes on everyday behind closed doors.

Social Services are not the cause or the solution. It's just a system put in place to try and help some.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-17547667

The only one,s getting the blame are the boys themselves, who were after all young children who had been failed massively.
The Government had already ordered a takeover of Doncaster Children,s services a month before the attacks took place.
tiacat
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by seacam:
“Yes it is, their age and the depravity and depth these two sank to.”

Im afraid it isnt, I work with children like this every day at this age. Its only luck (or bad luck) that means that they managed to hurt others in the way they did.
a01020304
10-12-2016
If they are old enough to be jailed then they are old enough to be named. they commited a crime so should be named like anyone else that does a crime.
they will get away with the crime as they will never have to admit to being in prison when going for jobs as if it is declared then their identity will be made public.
seems one law for one age and another for others.
Hank Schrader
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by Hieronymous:
“Not quite the same thing but I was, somehow, reminded of this


Not sure who took the video nor why but is this right?”

That's one of the most disturbing videos I have ever seen on YouTube. That vile bitch should be arrested for child abuse. I hope social services have seen this and are taking the appropriate action.
seacam
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by tiacat:
“Im afraid it isnt, I work with children like this every day at this age. Its only luck (or bad luck) that means that they managed to hurt others in the way they did.”

Again, it is not children are not capable of unthinkable cruelty to each other and I am sure you work with kids having done things that would take breath away.

The point I was disputing or making is that level of depravity, that level of cruelty by children towards children would be reported on, it was and is a rare occurrence.

But I am only to well aware the level of violence shown by young children towards others has increased but some of that is down to discipline or lack of it.
anne_666
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by academia:
“Perhaps a properly severe sentence would satisfy the public. Such a short sentence is ludicrous considering the horrific nature of the crime. The same situation arose in the Bulger case - one of the boys seems to have gone on to make something of his life, the other not, continuing in very nasty behaviour.
A 50-50 chance of success isn't good enough considering the threat to children these two pose.”

I doubt it and we don't know what threat they pose. The Bulger case was murder.

Originally Posted by GusGus:
“"If the public could be trusted not to take the law into their own hands and inflict violent retribution on offenders who, no matter what their crimes, have been caught, tried and punished according to law, then there would be no need to grant anonymity."

Simple answer, keep them away from the public. Don't let them out ”

Any other exorbitant suggestions? Why not read and comprehend the quote and leave behind the archaic eye-less and tooth-less biblical fantasy to ludicrously condone equally criminal violence.

Originally Posted by benjamini:
“Indeed, we love to scape goat and social services are sitting ducks. I'm sure there were indeed failings and there will always be in these situation, social services do a bloody thankless job. But it's the parents who turn out these deeply damaged feral children with no boundaries, no life skill, often brought up in chaotic poverty stricken violent homes who are ultimately responsible. SS are merely a sticking plaster on a whole hideous sub culture few of us want to recognise or know about.”

I agree, no doubt one or both the parents were raised in the same way and dysfunction isn't limited to any single section of society.

Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“I disagree that the boys behaviour was ingrained in their DNA.

They apparently grew up in a filthy house with doors covered in grease.They had a mother who had seven boys in the space of nine years, the family were known to social services for 14 years before the offence took place.
Both parents were drug dependents, the father regularly beat their mother. The boys smoked 20 cigarettes a day, drank cider and vodka & were allowed to smoke cannabis their father grew. They were also allowed to watch violent and porn dvds.
The court heard their mother confided "intimate" details with them.
They were free to roam the streets and create the same havoc they saw daily at home.
Their 14 year old brother had been sent to a youth offenders a few months before.
Neighbours said the street were fearful of the family.
The two boys were in foster care at the time of the offence. When confronted by the police, their mother said "The boys are nowt to do with me".

These boys had never known what a normal life is, probably until they were detained.
Not only did they have neglectful, drug addicted, violent, parents but also another 5 brothers who may also have been a bad influence on them.
One of the boys sobbed in court, as their defence read out about their father,s behaviour towards their mother.

They weren't born with this behaviour, it was taught.”

Of course it was taught. The root of most human behaviour and there will never be a miracle solution.

Originally Posted by Hank Schrader:
“That's one of the most disturbing videos I have ever seen on YouTube. That vile bitch should be arrested for child abuse. I hope social services have seen this and are taking the appropriate action.”

A relatively inoffensive example of the toxic influences children like the two in question experience.
Brandy211
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by a01020304:
“If they are old enough to be jailed then they are old enough to be named. they commited a crime so should be named like anyone else that does a crime.
they will get away with the crime as they will never have to admit to being in prison when going for jobs as if it is declared then their identity will be made public.
seems one law for one age and another for others.”

Not all jobs ask for convictions to be disclosed.

Those that do, still have to respect the rehabilitation of offenders act. Depending on ages and sentences some offences are considered spent after a certain period & therefore don't have to be disclosed, that is unless they are applying for a job that involves working with children, the elderly or vulnerable.

Not all children who may commit an offence when young, do the same in adult life.
If every person who ever got on the wrong side of the law never worked, people would have something to say about that too!

An 11 year old child may not be the same person he was when he is 25. Should he be on the dole until he is 70 because no one would employ him due to what he did when he was 11?
Brandy211
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by seacam:
“Again, it is not children are not capable of unthinkable cruelty to each other and I am sure you work with kids having done things that would take breath away.

The point I was disputing or making is that level of depravity, that level of cruelty by children towards children would be reported on, it was and is a rare occurrence.

But I am only to well aware the level of violence shown by young children towards others has increased but some of that is down to discipline or lack of it.”

Those children would be acting out/displaying the same behaviour they experience or see at home.
Its seen everyday in school playgrounds etc
The old saying, violence breeds violence.
Children might treat another child how they see their father treat their mother.
That might be the only way they were taught to deal with a situation...With violence.
How would they have empathy when they may have never been shown it by others?

When their role models abuse them, they will go on to abuse others unless its nipped in the bud, or they are removed from their carers who are supposed to be protecting them, but instead are causing them serious harm.
anais32
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by a01020304:
“If they are old enough to be jailed then they are old enough to be named. they commited a crime so should be named like anyone else that does a crime.
they will get away with the crime as they will never have to admit to being in prison when going for jobs as if it is declared then their identity will be made public.
seems one law for one age and another for others.”

Firstly, if they go for any job requiring a criminal record check, that will be disclosed - no matter what they call themselves. Because their conviction is never spent. Get that? Never spent. Unlike the Bulger case there has been no full change of identity because their names were not released on conviction. They have changed their names but the whole process of witness protection that goes into the Bulger pair, Mary Bell and Maxine Carr will not apply in this case. The only thing which is similar is the injunction prohibiting identification.

They did not 'get away' with the crime. They were put through full adult crown court proceedings (with the minor adjustments which only happened because the ECtHR judgement on the Bulger case); convicted of one of the most serious violent crimes in the rulebook; given what is effectively a life sentence with a five year detention term. They will be on licence for life. They pleaded guilty so were spared a trial.

In most other civilised countries, they would not even have been charged.

And someone asked why they weren't charged with attempted murder. They were originally but attempted murder is very, very hard to prove in court. Unlike murder (which only requires an intent to cause serious harm), there has to be an absolute intent to kill which requires a fairly strictly defined mens rea. It would have been impossible to prove in a ten year old.

Essentially the state chose to deal with this in the best way it could - for all involved. Them pleading guilty to a lesser charge avoided the young victims being put through the trauma of a trial, and for the perpetrators, it avoided the unpaletable, unedifying circus that ended up being the Bulger trial. It seems lessons have been learned.
anais32
10-12-2016
I'd also say that I'd agree with the poster above who thinks we are likely to get more of these. Unless the popular press and some of the less restrained members of the public can rein it in, injunctions like these prohibiting identification of offenders are likely to become more and more common - particularly for those convicted as children.

I will be interested to read the judge's reasoning though (which will be published in due course). Because these two were released around 18 months ago I believe to almost no press interest at all. There seems to have been a scrabble to get this to the high court with almost no time to spare until the youngest reached eighteen (when the original prohibition on identification was due to expire). My guess is there was going to be a tabloid expose and/or a family member of one of the victims had made threats. There must certainly have been a very strong case because there was virtually no opposition to the order unlike in the Bulger case where every tabloid group appealed.
GusGus
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“I disagree that the boys behaviour was ingrained in their DNA.

They apparently grew up in a filthy house with doors covered in grease.They had a mother who had seven boys in the space of nine years, the family were known to social services for 14 years before the offence took place.
Both parents were drug dependents, the father regularly beat their mother. The boys smoked 20 cigarettes a day, drank cider and vodka & were allowed to smoke cannabis their father grew. They were also allowed to watch violent and porn dvds.
The court heard their mother confided "intimate" details with them.
They were free to roam the streets and create the same havoc they saw daily at home.
Their 14 year old brother had been sent to a youth offenders a few months before.
Neighbours said the street were fearful of the family.
The two boys were in foster care at the time of the offence. When confronted by the police, their mother said "The boys are nowt to do with me".

These boys had never known what a normal life is, probably until they were detained.
Not only did they have neglectful, drug addicted, violent, parents but also another 5 brothers who may also have been a bad influence on them.
One of the boys sobbed in court, as their defence read out about their father,s behaviour towards their mother.

They weren't born with this behaviour, it was taught.”


If these domestic conditions and the situation were known to Social Services for 14 years before the offence, then these boys and their siblings should have been removed and taken into Care well before any of this happened
It is the fault of the SS who spend forever having meetings after meetings, and take no actual action.
It happens again and again, their philosophy of keeping a family together just does not work
anais32
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“If these domestic conditions and the situation were known to Social Services for 14 years before the offence, then these boys and their siblings should have been removed and taken into Care well before any of this happened
It is the fault of the SS who spend forever having meetings after meetings, and take no actual action.
It happens again and again, their philosophy of keeping a family together just does not work”

Have you read the Serious Case Review? Those failings were admitted. There was absolutely no attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

I believe the eldest one was even thrown out of the window by his father on one occasion and came into school with fractures and burn marks. Several times the boys were brought to hospital with 'non accidental' injuries.

Of course they should have been removed. They should have been removed from birth. Their mother was known to be susceptible to violent men and was an habitual drug user.

But it wasn't only social services. It was doctors, schools, and just about every agency they came into contact with. They were eventually removed. But by then it was too late.
anais32
10-12-2016
And by the way, on several occasions multi-agency meetings were arranged but no-one from Doncaster Social Services actually attended!

One occasion Doncaster Social Services even turned up to the wrong house!

And criminality was learned by these two. They were often taken out by criminal members of the family to burgle properties.
Arcana
10-12-2016
This is a particularly disturbing case. However, what's interesting to me with these cases generally is that if you can see how the children's behaviour was caused to a significant degree by the behaviour of their parents, how can you not accept that the causation of the parent's behaviour may go back to their parents. And so on.....

Until we properly grasp this point, we will never break the cycle. We need to examine the causes of the behaviour of everyone involved here - children, parents, social workers, doctors etc - and ask how we can better organise our society and institutions in fundamental ways. This should include the idea that some of the freedoms we obsess about may be part of the problem.
anais32
10-12-2016
Part of the problem is the belief (which is relatively new) that the worst family is better than the best institution. If that were the case, anyone who went to boarding school would be dysfunctional no-hopers. Public school boys are, after all, products of institutions.

These boys would have been locked up in secure children's homes which are the gold standard when it comes to institutions. They are expensive but that doesn't mean there aren't things we can learn in a non secure setting. We should also make more use of intensive foster care.

I hope they go on to lead completely uneventful lives and we never hear of them again to be honest.
academia
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“I doubt it and we don't know what threat they pose. The .


e.”

Youngsters as damaged as this pair are are not 'cured' in five years of learning to say what psychiatrists and social workers want to hear. Years of abuse from their earliest days are not undone in 5 years, possibly not ever. The age they are at now is a tumultuous one even for normal children - and the authorities choose to release them before they are stabilised. They indulged in horrendous sexual sadism at a very early age - those 'thrills' will stay with them. That is how we know they pose a threat. It is a gamble to release them so soon, a gamble with other children's lives.
I supose there's no use iin going on about it since they're out now. But we will hear from them again.
anais32
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by academia:
“Youngsters as damaged as this pair are are not 'cured' in five years of learning to say what psychiatrists and social workers want to hear. Years of abuse from their earliest days are not undone in 5 years, possibly not ever. The age they are at now is a tumultuous one even for normal children - and the authorities choose to release them before they are stabilised. They indulged in horrendous sexual sadism at a very early age - those 'thrills' will stay with them. That is how we know they pose a threat. It is a gamble to release them so soon, a gamble with other children's lives.
I supose there's no use iin going on about it since they're out now. But we will hear from them again.”

This is crude gibberish backed up with nothing but a 'hunch'.

They are now adults. One is 19, one is 18. They were released when they had served their minimum terms - as all juveniles are bar highly exceptional cases.

Now these two didn't kill but that was more luck than anything else; but what we know of children who do kill and carry out horrific acts like this that they rarely do the same in adulthood. I can only think of one case (Jesse Pomeroy) and I'm pretty well read on this issue (and in fact he didn't kill as an adult, he killed again as a child). We also know that about 50% of children who have committed these kind of grievous crimes go on to have virtually no problems; while the other 50% have problems of varying degrees. This may be mental health, addiction issues; or it may involve further offending (or all three). But I can think of very few cases where there was anything like the horror of the initial crime. None in fact.

If your thesis was correct, then Mary Bell (someone who killed twice as a child) would have still have 'the urge'. This is clearly not the case at all.
LakieLady
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by Horace Wimp:
“i would like that they take this un- deserved piece of good fortune and reward us by living the rest of their lives without resorting to criminality, but you and I know that's not going to happen.”

We don't know anything of the sort. We have no idea what sort of people they grew up into.

Mary Bell has led a blameless life since being released.
anais32
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“Mary Bell has led a blameless life since being released.”

Well actually I believe she was caught attempting benefit fraud once. But certainly not one hint of any violence.
LakieLady
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by tiacat:
“It centered on not being able to put adequate services into place prior to the children being accommodated. Reading between the lines its about not being able to accommodate the children earlier.”

That's interesting. Have you any idea if that was because there was no appropriate accommodation available or because the appropriate orders hadn't been granted?
anais32
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“That's interesting. Have you any idea if that was because there was no appropriate accommodation available or because the appropriate orders hadn't been granted?”

The processes were diabolical. There had been several attempts at multi-agency meetings to which the representatives from Doncaster Social Services simply did not attend. With no explanation given. They even turned up to the wrong address once. It wasn't the fault of individual social workers so much as the catastrophic disaster that was Doncaster Social Services and the terrible management.

They haven't improved. A couple of years ago, Childrens Services in the area was completely removed from Doncaster Council. It's governance was atrocious. It competed with Haringey for 'run by a bunch of muppets' status.
LakieLady
10-12-2016
Originally Posted by tiacat:
“It might be that had they got an order and removed the children earlier, it might not have happened but it would have to have been much earlier and the difficulty with removal isnt really understood by the general public. They think you can go in and grab children and take them into care.”

Spot on.

There's nothing more frustrating than everyone doing their best for a child at risk only for some loon of a judge to allow them to stay with their scarily dysfunctional family. (Although judges giving domestic abusers a slap on the wrist when they breach non-molestation orders comes a close second).
<<
<
3 of 5
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map