Mother followed home by plain clothes policeman for threatening to smack her child in a supermarket!

[wheelsonthebus]

Extraordinary.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkou t.html

No heather, the mail wouldn't be able to do that anyway

Heather, I think you 'copped out there a bit'.
Right, so it needs to be flagged ?
With what comment next to it ?

There shouldn't be a comment. The woman was found to be .......innocent.

1. they had concerns
2. it was investigated
3. she was proved to be... innocent/ no charges/ etc etc.

There are no charges. The woman was found not to be lacking in... not to be .... her children are not in danger.

So what is the need for any comment ?

They had..... no concerns... found to be negative - please don't nitpick which words I am struggling to use here. you get the gist. she was found innocent. why should ANYTHING be flagged ?

someone please come and help me out here, expressing it.
or is it just me that thinks this ?

Unquietdad - with you - two dealings with the police in the last two years

1. attempted break in - my elderly mum's house when she was in it - the upshot - nice officers but her neighbours (police officers from the same station) managed to get their door changed on insurance using HER CRIME REFERENCE NUMBER ON THE INSURANCE AND TWO WEEKKS OFF FOR STRESS - DIDDUMS - my mum - jack shit. They weren't broken into - the damage to the door was actually their precedessor - my best friend who owned it who was didsty and kept having to break in and hence the very old damage to the door.

1. Saturday - dh in casualty for a violent attack using an illegal weapon about 10 ft from where ds was sleeping and mugged for alot - erm - the sheer incompetence is LAUGHABLE inspite of witness etc. - their receptionist seemed more on the ball. Had to beg a crime number off them. We've now lost his jacket to the police who took if for foresnics - they don't recall this and get very angry if we call.

Hope this mother is really a risk ane this officer is using their dectective instice here. Would love some of that thrown our way.

Sorry to sound bitter - but we've just had insult (and very rude coppers when you tried to call them) added to injury.

Great that the police are on the ball in identifying odd behaviour (makes a change) perhaps we civvies should employ more of this.

I honestly think that he worst of parenting goes on behind closed doors with no hint of issues in public. Hope the mum is either invetsigated and found guilty or completely found to be innocent and her repuation inact.

Oblomov, you seem to be referring more to police/legal type action - in which case, no, she committed no offence (unless you want to go mad with a breach of the peace/threatening behaviour type charge)

I was referring to more social services/parenting type action, which is clearly not warranted on the basis of this isolated event. I mean, one incident does not an abusive parent make. But if it turns out she threatened her kids with 'another hiding' yesterday, maybe last term a teacher was concerned about the kids seeming withdrawn... then a few months later a doctor notices odd bruises...?

I think what I'm trying to say is; as a one-off, not significant. but if it's part of a pattern, could be very important. And there's no way to see if something's part of a pattern unless you record it somewhere.

(It's Heathen BTW, it's a pun )

We weren't there, but I have seen children whose parents say 'You'll get a smacked bottom in a minute" take no notice bcecause they are not in FEAR of such a thing, and I have seen children threatened with you'll get what;s coming to you in a minute" go immeiately quiet and subdued, because the threat is very real, and they are terrified. If I heard parents refer to 'a hiding' 'like the one you had earlier' and saw the children apologise and suddenly behave i would assume that they had been beaten abd were in fear of it again. 'A hiding' isn't a 'smack'. And the police say it was the woman's words and the children's reatiuon that made them follow it up.

Now, as it happens, i DON'T agree with off-duty unofficlai surveillance, and ongoing record keeping, but i would have been happy to know that an incident like that was followed up, and I bet a thread on Mn describing the incident would have had many posts saying 'call ss'.

As for the Christian Institute: one of their main beliefs is physical punishment of children and fighting any legislation by te state to interfere with parents punishing children:
"Parents are expected to exercise loving discipline over their children. As part of this most parents use physical chastisement such as smacking..... That discipline can be painful is clearly accepted in Scripture (eg Hebrews 12:7-11). However, attempts to make the administration of reasonable chastisement a criminal offence should be strongly resisted as should other moves which usurp the authority of parents."

And of course all this could have been so easily avoided had she put them in wellies and macs and taken them outdoors in the rain. I blame modern nesh-ness.

Apologies HeatheN

Interesting contrast with another 'wtf is the world coming to' story today in the Mail. A woman who happens to be in the very early stages of pregnancy called the police to complain about a dangerous driver. Police officer visited her home and then reported her to SS and the midwife for the state of her house (without, of course, asking the woman about it - if she had, would have been told stripped walls were because she was redecorating...).

You couldn't make it up. BUT difference is in that case, the midwife apparently said she had no concerns (the woman is only 12 weeks now, fgs, and decorating is not a crime anyway) and the council has, it seems, said no action needs to be taken and 'none of this will go against [her] in future'.

This is all reported by the woman herself, so not sure what the official wording is, but seems Staffs has a more sensible reaction to over-zealous cops.

I think the policeman did the right thing.

I'm actually rather concerned about her comment on 'moral boundaries' with regard to hitting her children, that she goes to an evangelical church and works in a Christian bookshop (in one of which I was told off by the bookshop owner for not taking his suggestion to buy more books for DD's (muslim & hindu) friends as it was 'my duty as a Christian to spread the Word'), as this would suggest to me that she IS the sort of person who sees nothing wrong with hitting their child (all that 'rod of correction' Proverbs shite). She should be kept on record.

If i was on here whinging that my husband threatened me in the middle of a shop, 'Il give you a good hiding like the one you had earlier' and a police officer had seen, recorded, and action it (albeit, very slowly), he'd be applauded on here.

A police man does the same thing for a CHILD (the most vulnerable members of society), after he hears them get threatened, and he more or less gets called a nosy bastard on here who should find other things to do with his time. Real nice.

She was off duty and could of put herself in danger. Not sure if it was illegal to follow the mother though.

We dont know what really happened here do we as I'll bet about 10% will be true.

The police will have been looking into it and I'll bet it wasnt 6 weeks for the call by the way.

Also the counsil or SW cant keep anything on record unless they have investagated and visited.

I for one am glad she was concerned over this and everything turned out fine because what if it didnt and we were reading about another childs death again.