Tustin and Hughes thread 2

[Bagelsandbrie]

Continued from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4416690-Emma-Tustin-is-a-murderer

Does anyone know how they found out that they had made Arthur stand in the hall and how they got the video of him in the house?

Ironically, and you'll love this. ET installed the living room CCTV supposedly on the advice of her hairdresser friend to have evidence that he was not being abused by her.

From that CCTV footage, and the fact that Arthur was forced to sleep on the floor of the living room in view of the CCTV, the police were able to establish how long Arthur was stood out in the hall based on his absence from the living room during his waking hours.

When the police initially arrived at the scene, she tried to knock the camera behind the TV so they wouldn't spot it.

• I don't believe for a second a child that weak had the energy or will to head but and hurt himself further as well. Sadly I think he'd probably already passed out and her being violent meant his head hit her or her shaking him his head inadvertently hit her. I don't believe for a moment he was capable of that, it took him several minutes to gather his duvet and walk a few steps across the living room.

Her behaviour in the police cam footage is just so bizarre. I don’t know anyone who, after finding a child unconscious, calling ambulance etc and having him taken away to hospital who would start telling the police all about the child’s bad behaviour.

@Drinkingallthewine

Does anyone know how they found out that they had made Arthur stand in the hall and how they got the video of him in the house?

Ironically, and you'll love this. ET installed the living room CCTV supposedly on the advice of her hairdresser friend to have evidence that he was not being abused by her.

From that CCTV footage, and the fact that Arthur was forced to sleep on the floor of the living room in view of the CCTV, the police were able to establish how long Arthur was stood out in the hall based on his absence from the living room during his waking hours.

When the police initially arrived at the scene, she tried to knock the camera behind the TV so they wouldn't spot it.

I love the fact she basically set up her own prosecution.

Thank you.
I couldn’t understand where it had come from.
Thank god it was there, there was no question what they had put him through by viewing it.
Heartbreaking.

Mary because she's sort of trying to give excuses for what she had done except she can't tell us what she did in reposnse to his so called behaviour because that's admission of guilt.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

Her behaviour in the police cam footage is just so bizarre. I don’t know anyone who, after finding a child unconscious, calling ambulance etc and having him taken away to hospital who would start telling the police all about the child’s bad behaviour.

She was defensive wasn’t she. Just evil

Totally planning her defence- but she didn’t realise she had jumped in with it too early and was showing her hand. Not that it mattered, there was more than enough evidence to convict her.

@Naughtynovembertree

Mary because she's sort of trying to give excuses for what she had done except she can't tell us what she did in reposnse to his so called behaviour because that's admission of guilt.

Yep. Pre emotive Ass covering.

*emptive!

I think there needs to be a police officer attached to social work teams. Perhaps then, less experienced or intimidated social workers (very common sadly) van ho about their proper job with less fear.

I think she smacked her own head with his when shaking him.

The least sentence I can pass on you is one of 21 years. There will be concurrent terms of 9 years for the offences of child cruelty. You will serve 2/3 of that term less any time you have spent in custody and will then be released on licence until the expiry of that term.

Hughes will be out in 13 years. He's 29 now, will be early 40s then. Plenty of time to shack up with other women or father more children himself. And he will.

Surely this can't be right? Can the sentence be appealed as too lenient?

The grandparents were so worried about him. He used to stay with them and cry when she came to pick him up. What would have happened, legally, if they'd refused to hand him over?

I like the idea of increasing powers to conduct more thorough investigations, of allowing for those investigations to be instigated by family members, of allowing for concerned family members to take a more active role in protecting children in extreme circumstances without being seen as "kidnappers", but the questions of resources and potential misuse of these powers crops up for me here. What do you think?
I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if anyone has already commented. But, I am also on gransnet as well as mumsnet, and there are many threads about not allowing grandparents access to their grandchildren.
In some cases it may be justified, but I think many cases are simply a result of family arguments. Denying access to grandparents can be seen as punishing the grandparents, for whatever reason.
This should not be allowed, unless there is reasonable evidence to suggest that grandparents might pose a threat.

... and child protection social workers live in absolute fear that any of their cases at any time could become tragedies. In the knowledge that they face criminal and disciplinary procedures for any professional oversight. Every day HAS to be a good day.

Would you do this job for £35K?

I think there are whole sections of our society where stuff like this will go unchallenged and unreported because these people have such a low bar for what is acceptable treatment of a child. At the hairdressers house for example the hairdresser heard Arthur screaming (after he’d already spent 4 hours standing facing a wall in her hallway) and asked Tustin what was happening. Tustin said “oh Tom’s pressure pointing him and it hurts” - you’d think at that point the hairdresser would down tools and march out to find out what the fuck was happening in her own house, ring 999 or whatever, but nope. She said “oh okay” and carried on doing Tustins hair, for another few hours. These are the sort of people we’re dealing with. How does anyone get through to these people? Change the way they think about these things? It’s just horrific.

Hive at that point I imagine kidnap charges.
Unfortunately many in laws will say the child cries when mum comes to get them and many would like to take their gc and do a better job

However in this case due to his circumstances surely his gp should have been identified as important in Arthur life and regular visits written into the plan somewhere??

Surely this can't be right? Can the sentence be appealed as too lenient?

It doesn’t seem right at all. 13 years for his son’s life?

Yy bagels absolutely.

The hairdresser had also had a similar situation which is why she suggested the cctv.

A very very low bar indeed and pressure needs to be brought to bear on witnesses in these situations.
So the pressure to protect themselves and report out weighs the fear of reporting.

I also hope Hughes mum fully appreciates what her son did. So easy to blame tustin but at the end of the day that child was his child

@Naughtynovembertree

Yy bagels absolutely.

The hairdresser had also had a similar situation which is why she suggested the cctv.

A very very low bar indeed and pressure needs to be brought to bear on witnesses in these situations.
So the pressure to protect themselves and report out weighs the fear of reporting.

Absolutely.

@Cassimin

When my foster son was removed the social worker was accompanied by the police. Foster carers get ‘surprise’ visits from social workers. They look at the child’s bedroom and speak to the child alone. After 10 years this still happens to us, I don’t mind, nothing to hide but I don’t know what they think we are going to do to his bedroom after 10 years! They can also look around the house and check fridge and food cupboards. Some of these parents are very good at manipulating people, inexperienced social workers and police will get the wool pulled over their eyes. I’ve had Sw fresh out of uni visiting me, very few of them stand a chance. Does anyone know how they found out that they had made Arthur stand in the hall and how they got the video of him in the house?

In the Baby P case, Peter's mother smeared chocolate all over his face to cover the bruising, the social worker clearly lacked the basic common sense or nous to wipe the child's face. This is basic stuff, this should be taught, the lengths manipulative people will go to should be taught. Question everything, take nothing at face value.

and there are many threads about not allowing grandparents access to their grandchildren.

Slightly off topic but I think relevant to the discussion of how children are viewed by some, not as people, but as property of their parents. The term “access to” is an issue IMO. Children aren’t property to be accessed. They are people that grandparents can have contact with. It’s a small point but the language we use matters and is reflective of how we view things. We would never say we wanted access to our mothers, we would say we want to see her, we want a relationship with her, we want to have some contact with her. Not access to her like she is a room we want to get into because we have a right.