if this mother wasn't coping then wtf didn't she ask for help rather than paying someone 20 f****ing quid to look after her child?

[wannaBe]

so very very for this little boy. here

i might have to this in a mo.

I blame the people who murdered this child, for the childs murder. I blame them as they were violent bastards.

I do not blame the state of their house for murdering the child.
I do not blame a drug for murdering a child.
I do not blame their ages on murdering the child.

I blame them.

Living in those conditions (which I haven't seen) and living that lifestyle. May be a consequence of their obvious instability. But their lifestyle didn't make them murderers, murderers is what they were.

"poor mum"!!!
She should be sent to jail for neglect. That poor little boy, it break my heart. How could she leave her son over night for so many days with strangers. Rest in peace child.
And how many more children are out there suffering like this?

MojoLost - have you read the thread?

Agree with everything you have said, ImSoNotTelling.

Competitions about the irrelevance of squalor and addiction are a bit odd. God knows what the social services do all day since neither of these factors points to an increased risk to a child.

I think some people on here are arguing for the sake of arguing.

But would they have left their 3 year old in that bedsit? With those two?

I think that crack users should have their children removed yes. I think that if a non user is living with them then that non user has a choicc - to leave the crack addict thus taking their children away from potential harm, or stay with the crack addict and have the children removed. Much the same as people who choose to remain in seriously violent relationships where the children are perceived to be at risk.

Why is there is perception that crack will automatically make you a violent abusive arsehole, in a way that other drugs will not?

You can't have it both ways.

Either remove all children from addicts.

Or not.

You can't pick and choose substances based on stereotypes of users, and arbitrarily remove their children.

Wouldn't it be better if SS correctly assessed those that come to their attention, identify whether the carers are abusive or not, and then take appropriate action?

IMSONOT

You are obfuscating and diverting. This is not about middle class abusers, or different types of drugs (Which if you paid attention I only mentioned one specific addiction, which you are assumine I mean to cover all addictions, wrongly). We are talking about crack addicts and a particular type of person because thats what this case is about.
if it was about upper class alcoholics who killed a child we'd be talking about them, its isn't so we aren't.

I'm not making judgements on people based on their class, but on their actions. You don't live in squalor just because you are poor, you don't take crack just because you are poor, you don't kill children because you are poor.
But these people did live in squalor, did use crack, did kill a child. And the parents apparently handed over their child, abdicating responsibility for him, to these people. They were wrong. That is all.

You say you leave your children with your parents and your father drinks heavily. If there was ana ccident or incident to them that he caused because of his alcohol use, and you knowing that he would be drunk left them with him, do you not think that you would bear some responsibility for what happenned?

Not a dig, but do you think the same for alcoholics as well?

Oh, and I'm quite happy to say that being a crack addict does in fact make you a pretty shitty parent.
So stone me.

To I'msonottelling I am not asking you to justify your child caring arrangements to me - I am only stating that Im personally would not expect anyone looking after my child to consume a bottle of wine.

You may have other factors you consider, such as your mother, who may not consume, I am not saying you are neglectful - I am just saying that I would not have someone looking after my child who consumes a bottle of wine while doing so. Do you understand that it is merely my point of view - I do not really know why I bothered posting or why you chose to bring up the bottle of wine in the first place.

If you are going to remove all children from people who use cocaine then you will have a care service under rather a lot of strain, and filled with children who will be extremely damaged by being suddenly removed from loving caring families.

And you won't have the resources to see to any other people, who really are abusing their children.

"But these people did live in squalor, did use crack, did kill a child"

As you said, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Your last paragraph was unnecessary, runnybottom.

cocaine is not crack. Loving caring parents and crack addict is an oxymoron, in the vast majority of cases.

well I don't see SS chasing all the middle class addicts around to ensure that their children are being looked after............oh no because they're middle class and well off and otherwise perfectly safe to have their children.

but there is surely a difference between different addictions. You could drink a bottle of wine a night and your partner maybe doesn't drink at all and is therefore responsible. The difference though between alcohol and crack is that crack is illegal. So eve if you're not using the crack but your partner is, by staying with the crack addict you are still buying into all that involves, the dealers, the crime, the illegal activity, and that's before we get to the effects of crack on the body.

ermm it's called crack cocaine, freebase, crack, cocaine powder - all cocaine.

www.doitnow.org/pages/177.html

Crack coccaine and what it does to kids ....

Or perhaps because the middle classes hide it better and come to the attention of SS less? And because middle classes tend to abuse cocaine as opposed to crack, with less obvious effects?

FFS, only on MN can you be shot down for saying that crack addicts (not even all drug addicts, just them) aren't very good child carers! Are you so determined to be the opposite of the daily mail that you have to be so painfully uber-pc?

This is a joke.

wannabe - so what about all the celebrity/middle class cocaine users? Are they not also buying into all that it involves? There have been plenty documentated in recent years who have carried on their careers and "family lifes" while at the same taking cocaine on the side.

Oh and try learning a little about the drugs and their effects before having such strong opinions on them. Crack and coke, very different.

"cocaine is not crack"

?????

What do you think it is then?

I think that you are maybe basing your views on your tabloid reading runnybottom, rather than having any actual knowledge of these substances.

wannabe it is perfectly possible to use illicit substances of all sorts without anyone being "exposed". Posh rich people have posh rich dealers, they are not exposed to the "street" side of things at all.

I am paying devils advocate here to a certain extent, because obviously these people were horribel awful people. And they did have that lifestyle. What I am arguing against is the stereotypes and certainties about different types of peopls and what they are capable of.

only realy difference between crack and powder cocaine is that it takes longer to peak with powder and it's slightly more expensive

yes of course they've bought into it too. The difference though is that the celeb cocaine user invariably has a nanny or two to look after the kids while they are out indulging in their habbit.

And just because they have rich dealers doesn't mean that it's any less dodgy. The drugs come from the same places, the same people are involved, the only difference is that they can generally pay for quality drugs that haven't been cut with some other dodgy substances that you might buy on the street.