i think this should at least be gbh

[ladysybil]

if an adult were attacked in this way, and then left to suffer, wouldnt there be a jailterm at least?
story

I would have preferred not to read that, thanks. But yes, that 'man' should be in prison for quite a long time.

Misguided???

it was right there on the bbc news page. it made me angry. i wanted to discuss it with someone. i cant very well do that with my seven year old child, can i?

so it wasnt sexually motivated. fine, we get that. but not all harm against kids is motivated in that way. this was a deliberate, braindead , act of cruelty. why wont he be jailed?

Good grief that is just awful.

He should have received a hefty jail term for that. And, sorry but I refuse to believe that it wasn't sexually motivated.

WTF???? A nappy is there to be soiled for God's sake. What they hell else is it for?

He sounds totally and utterly deranged.

I have a 3mth old baby, the rage is indescribable. Someone doing that to my baby wouldn't need to worry about official sentencing, ever again.

I can't believe that the judge basically implied that the only reason he would need punishment is if it was sexually motivated.

For christ sake most 5 year olds would know that you don't shove things into a baby in this way.

What the hell did this bloke thing was going to happen - even if he hadn't damaged the bowels removing the wipe the poor baby was going to suffer a major and agonising blockage.

People make mistakes yes and they shouldn't always be punished for genuine mistakes, but almost killing a baby to save a dirty nappy is not a mistake that can be forgotten/forgiven in this way.

isnt gbh to KNOWINGLY cause harm, nnot rekclessly. obv intent was hard to prove

yes intent seems to be the stumbling offence i think

..block

I actually feel sick, that poor baby. He should definitely be imprisoned.

So basically we can all inflict pain on someone so long as we have the get out clause of not knowingly causing harm?

i dont know the exact details of what constitutes gbh and what doesnt. but, i do know that the vast majority of people know that sticking things into human orifices will hurt. those who dont know this perhaps have quite severe special needs, but i dont know enough about sen to say that as a fact.

even if he had been lobotomised, andd didnt know that he would cause so much damage, the fact remains that he did. isnt that the difference between manslaughter and murder?

yes.. really.
Intention is a big part of sentencing.

but oyu have to prove it I think.

that is disgusting.

I would have to say that the outcome of this case is shocking.

"misguided intervention rather than as an act of malice."

He was not misguided in his behaviour, that is way beyond making a mistake in attempt to sort something out. It is just sadistic.

It reads that he is not the child's father...

there was another thread on this earlier....i hid it...i feel sick. that poor,poor baby

actually,i couldnt read the whole thing

They ought to shove a wipe up his arse !

I think he needs a brick shoved up his arse and his mouth gaffer taped so he can can't tell anyone the unbearable pain he is in.

So any one of us could go around sticking sharp objects into our fellow creatures and hitting them with bricks and then turn round and say "well, I was misguided, I didn't know that would hurt them, you can't prove that I acted with intent"?