to think that if those care workers had done what they did to NT kids rather than learning disabled adults the sentences would have been more severe?

[Greensleeves]

I watched the documentary about Winterbourne View and it was one of the saddest things I have ever seen. I think the sentences are a joke. Wayne Rogers in particular delighted in torturing powerless people who couldn't defend themselves.

I can't help wondering whether the sense of public outrage, and the severity of the sentences, would have been greater if the victims had not been SN adults?

and

theres a book on teh stamford thing called " are we all Nazis"
well there was in Germany where i read it

CailinDana I think you make a very good point and do not find your post disgusting.

you can think all you like about sentencing would have been higher.

You are all simply wrong. Sentencing is a very complicated procedure and not just plucked out of thin air.

The fact that they are vulnerable is definitely aggravating.

Maureen - so what would a teacher normally get for a series of similar physical assaults on a pupil? What would a group of teachers get, acting as a gang?

The workers were people in positions of trust and the victims were especially vulnerable. If these are the sentences that the guidelines would say are appropriate, I'd hate to see what sentence someone would get for repeated assaults on people who are not considered vulnerable.

People are quite reasonably surprised that such serious crimes don't attract any lengthier sentences. That seems entirely fair to me - even if you disagree.

OK, I've dug out the bit of Panorama on JS I found linguistically disturbing (as opposed to all the other disturbing bits).

It's from 15:40.

"He had a reputation as somebody who preferred girls at the younger end of the spectrum. And other people I've spoken to have confirmed that 'the younger the better' was his motto when it came to women."

The elision is so complete that the speaker's now using "women" to refer to 14-yr-old girls, as well as "girls" to refer to women.

How far up does this spectrum of "girls" go, anyway, that 14 is at the younger end?

I don't for a moment imagine the speaker is condoning Savile, and indeed he is explicit in his language just before. But this clip illustrates how, in a different context, language could be so blurred as to have open discussion of an adult having sex with 14-year-olds, and then get-out-of-jail-free with the claim the listener has misconstrued it. All because "girl" is a synonym for "woman".

Sentencong should bemuch harsher Maureen. Maybe you might have a little compassion if you need to be looked after yourself and suffer at the hands of an evill pig.

The issue with sentencing is a tricky one. People always think ANY sentence should be longer, then in the same breath agree that prison doesn't work ( reoffending rates etc)
However I think we all agree that prison is often a suitable punishment to show disapproval etc and often to keep victims safe.
There obv needs to be a sliding scale of tariffs so that rape, arson murder etc can attract the highest ones.

Remember if they pleaded guilty they will get the mandatory third off.

Interestingly sentencing exercises with the general public almost always show that when they see the guidelnines, paperwork and range of options available as a sentencer would, they almost ALWAYS under sentence despite what they think they will do at the start.

'You can think all you like about sentencing would have been higher'

Well that's good then.

Sorry, wrong thread.

The suspended sentence will have some probation requirements attached to it (like one has a few hundred hours of unpaid work) for which ANY SINGLE breach in that time ( for one it is two years)it is suspended will mean that the sentence is activated in whole or in part.

It is almost impossible to give an opinion on sentencing without having been in court with the paperwork and guidelines tbh.

no right thread Paggy! :)

it is wrong they should be locked up for a very long time

Cailin, your argument is specious, illogical and offensive. Choosing to abort a foetus that would become a disabled person (remember; it is not legally a person) does not make anyone a hypocrite for wanting disabled people to be treated airly and equally. How ridiculous! A foetus cannot be compared to a living human who has been born, for a start, and women who abort are not doing so specifically to cause harm to the foetus for their own sick amusement and pleasure. Taking your line of illogic, it could be argued that you are fucked-up and hypocritical to care about disabled people when you are so hateful towards women who abort. It is not 'fucked-up' to want the best for living disabled people if you would have, or agree with, a termination on certain grounds - it is merely being a rational, mature adult who is capable of sophisticated thinking beyond black and white simplicities and applying it flexibly to different situations. If you cannot see the distinction, then I truly feel sorry for you.

The decision to abort a foetus in these circumstances is incredibly hard and traumatic and people who choose to do not need the sort of kneejerk teen-style nastiness you came out with making them feel even worse than they do already. Aborting a foetus is not 'killing a child'. I consider myself lucky to have never been put in that situation.

yanbu.

I was also thinking about how things might (maybe?) improve if care workers were paid a better wage. The thought of any Tom, Dick and Harry being shunted off benefits and working in a care home just because it's a job is asking for trouble IMHO.

Meglet there are cases where some of them are doing workfare in care homes.

I watched this documentary too and am absolutely disgusted at these sentences.

johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/chris-grayling-to-staff-care-homes-with-unpaid-teenagers/

maureen

its not always going to be a few hundred hours of unpaid work. it may be in this suituation but a suspended sentance will not always mean that, i.e my exh suspended sentance for 3 dv related offences 2 year ss only onther requirements were to attend a dv group at probation no unpaid work. in the first year of that he was in court and pled guilty to 2 other offences one further assult and a breach of a none mol. he walked out of court with a 400 fine and nothing else.

anyway. stuff like this is the reason i am terrified about my dc's ever ending up in a place like this. to many of them are shockingly crap or abuse happens.

CailinDana - I can understand the point you're making and don't think it's a vile thing to say. I don't think it's incorrect to assume that parents want a healthy child and envisage family life with neurotypical, physically able children, until nature or an accident turns these thoughts on their head.

Fundamentally, if you choose to have pre-natal screening of any sort, unless solely to prepare for a lifestyle you hadn't envisaged with a disabled child, you are placing a form of judgement on that life. I hold my hands up and say that (hypothetically), I would choose to abort if screening showed up certain disabilities. I know that one cannot prevent accidents etc that can change a life in a second, but if something is within one's control, then that's a choice I would want to exercise.

I don't know if there is research on countries where abortion is outlawed (are there any countries with a blanket ban on abortion, regardless of reason?) as to whether care is better/more compassionate for those with disabilities?

Anyhow, not sure how much this detracts from underlying horrors of what went on in that care home. I think the fact that care work is woefully underpaid and that people with no sense of having a caring vocation go into that line of work is clearly a major issue. But how on earth does one regulate how inherently caring and compassionate an individual is?

I don't think anything Cailin said is wrong - what she is doing is drawing a distinction between what the NHS would do (allow abortions for children with DS up to term? or 24 weeks?) and what parental choice is.

I would probably choose to abort a child with Downs Syndrome as I would not want to/be unable to look after them. This does not mean that I think a person with Downs has less of a right to live than a neuro-typical person. It just means I don't want to look after them.

The fact the NHS does it shows that society in general (as far as an institution can represent society) does think they are less of a person (they are not just validating parental choice) IMO.

no often is though. Sometimes it is hard to find something that probation will work with.

Freckled - abortion is completely illegal in Ireland, except in extreme circumstances. Abortion for Down syndrome is definitely not allowed. I have no idea though if there is a generally higher level of compassion towards people with disabilities there or not. I do know disabilities are definitely more visible there, perhaps because there are just more people with disabilities like Down syndrome as they are not aborted. Also, things like the Special Olympics are a very big deal, whereas I haven't heard a mention of it since I moved to the UK. I think the attitude to disabilities is more that you get on with it (not necessarily with any more good grace though) rather than you can do something about it IYSWIM.

LFC - that's what I'm trying to say, although I would go further and say that if you wouldn't look after a child with disabilities yourself, and would go so far as to abort an otherwise wanted child because of a disability then your opinion on how people with disabilities are cared for isn't very valid. You don't want anything to do with people with disabilities so don't pretend you do in order to act all outraged when something like this happens. It annoys me intensely when people wring their hands over something like this and act all indignant while at the same time the people they feel such compassion for wouldn't even exist if they had happened to be their child. It just comes across as so hypocritical to me. If you hand on heart say "I would abort a child with disabilities" - fair enough, that's your choice. But don't then go on about how they should be cared for. You would not even want that child if it was your own flesh and blood, so don't pretend to care.

I really don't think abortion has anything to do with these crimes. It's a distraction from the real issue here, which is the horrible abuse of actual living breathing human beings. You can't justify that abuse by saying 'so what, the NHS would allow you to abort any of these people before they had been born', fgs.

I'm not saying "so what," edam. I'm saying that in a society where an unborn baby is selected by NHS tests for abortion because of a disability, then disability will inevitably be seen as a blight that needs to be eradicated. It is relevant when you're talking about how people are treated, because it all goes back to where the awful attitude of these people might have originated.

If children were tested for left handedness and aborted for that, don't you agree that would say something about how we view left handed people?

CailinDana i get you
imo discrimination starts before birth,
nt + 24 weeks
disabled = up to term

it all starts with that, so no wonder disabled people are treated so badly.
as some one said earlier you only have ot look on mn to see how attitudes are.
getting all upset over some ones post yet again side lines an important topic.
so instead of talking about abuse of disabled people.
we have to apologise for upsetting someone over thier choice, this happens every time even though there is a whole topic on mn for people to talk about that.

it scares me as my dd will need care for the rest of her life.

It does detract from the fact that people with disabilities are seen as 'lesser' and at times not human.

That's the issue here. The staff admitted to using these human beings as a distraction from boredom, like they were playthings.

People with disabilities were treated like shit long before abortion was legalised, actually. You are derailing the thread.

And your suggestion that banning abortion makes Ireland a better place for children is laughable. Have you forgotten about endemic child abuse?

I think it is desperately unfair to try to twist the thread, and tell people they aren't allowed to post or care about the human rights of disabled people, if they are pro-choice. It's insulting and it's exploiting this horrible case to pursue your own separate agenda. If you want to have an abortion discussion, start one of your own, don't climb on the back of vulnerable people who have been treated appallingly.