Horrible story - child poisoned with salt.

[Tinker]

here

I think you're right Bunglie, because a man was involved, they're not accused of having a non-existent illness.

I'm just horrified that people can get such a light sentence. 5 years for a child's life. They'll be out in 2.

Collision, the so-called 'Ready Brek' case was misreported - Ready Brek has no added salt. The couple were weaning at 3months and giving the baby gravy granules (!) but they also had a dodgy past including a child who had severe burns...

But they will be the longest 2 they could possibly imagine, caligula....it will be very very nasty for them.

Good.

I really do not understand all the details of this case, something does not add up in my mind or seem right. However, I thought they were charged with manslaughter or something like that, which has a minimum 10 sentence I thought. I know that the maximum sentence for child cruelty is 10 years, but 5 years does seem very lenient to me, I agree with you Janh, it will not be pleasant for them, but then I am glad of that, but surely the social services dept who aprooved the adoption placement must have some responsibility as well?

I'll let you know if I hear any more about the social services involvement from my father. There is an investigation, of course, but I'm not convinced that they are usually constructive.

Very good points about MSbP, Bunglie and Caligula.

"The prosecution claimed the university-educated pair, who bought a five-bedroom house worth £500,000 to accommodate their new family, became disenchanted with Christian when he rejected Mr Gay.

Just days into the 13-week placement, Mr Gay, 37, described Christian as "brainless", "a vegetable" and "a zombie" when he rang his case worker to demand to know what was wrong with him."

Disenchanted ????????????? Does that warrant poisioning a toddler ? What a truly horrible pair. They disgust me, I hope they get all they deserve in prison.

I wonder if sometimes the circumstances of the children up for placement - in this case 3 young vulnerable siblings who ideally should be placed together - overrides some of the subtle doubts during the approval process. It is not straightforward to get approved, but being white, middle class,financially secure and the "right" age would have definitely counted in their favour. It is not one individual who approves potential adoptive parents or places such cases, but a panel, although obviously the decisions are based upon a series of individual reports.

and for the little boy and the foster parents. I suppose we don't know what has happened to the other children.

Liz, they have been successfully re-adopted apparently.

Message withdrawn

But I'm wondering why they would give it to him as a punishment? It's perverse - not like washing mouth out with soap for swearing - not connected with anything he'd done - and why so much?

They didn't want him, they just wanted the other 2 who were younger and mouldable and not damaged by earlier neglect, I think they were very lucky to get off with manslaughter, frankly.

Message withdrawn

beyond words

Message withdrawn

I am sorry but if someone gives a child enough salt to kill them how can it have been an accident? If they thought it would not harm him then why was it done? I really do not understand. I would of thought that every parent knows that too much salt is dangerous whether you are an adult or a child. As I said I do not think we can have the whole story as something really does not add up.
I hope his sibblings are getting counselling, and I mean proper counselling not from a crazy Social Services psychologist (no disrespect meant to the non-crazy ones), but they must be in shock. Torn away from loving Foster Parents, placed with a family who did not seem to really want them (although I know that is my speculation) and then to loose a brother, only to be placed with yet another family and adopted. It must be very traumatic for them.

This makes me sooooooooooooooooooo

stupid nasty evil thick fg b*ds, hope they rot in HELL!!!!!!!!!!

This is sooo sad. What I can't understand though, is that the Judge said social services were not to blame. But they placed 3 special needs children, under the age of 3 with foster parents with NO parenting experience. Then the father apparently rang social services to complain that the oldest child (the one who died) was brain dead and an idiot.

How can social services not have a part of the blame?

I think they murdered him, but it would have been tricky to prove and they might have been found not guilty.

The siblings were very young at the time, Bunglie - the youngest about 5 months? And the other one under 2. So I would hope they would not be too traumatised by it.

BBC News report during the trial in November :

They weren't special needs - I haven't seen that anywhere - Christian was neglected early on and there were worries about his development but I haven't heard anything like that about the younger ones.

It's a really weird story isn't it? It makes no sense to me.

From the information that we have I am afraid that I have to agree with you Aloha.
I can understand the CPS not charging them with Murder, but they could have been charged with more than just one charge of manslaughter surely. I really thought that they should have been imprisoned for longer.
I always feel sad and angry at things like this, but as I have said I do not think that we have all the facts and I agree that the Social Services must be responsible for some of this.

Sorry JanH. I picked up they were sn when listening to one of the radio stations yesterday (can't remember which though). Maybe they were just referring to the older child who had suffered horribly before.

Message withdrawn

His speech was late and he was a bit behind for his age but that was all, as far as I can see.