Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Aristocrat's daughter on the run with sex offender and newborn

Can't find a direct quote (I remembered it from the radio) but you can see the tone indirectly in these two articles


They didn't say they wouldn't (and nor should they have).
 
Not explicitly but it was all about how they wanted to check on mum's welfare and reunite her with her baby, rather than arrest her.
 
I think a woman who hides a baby somewhere it is unlikely to be found will probably be treated differently to someone who leaves a baby, say, outside a hospital or somewhere else where discovery is very likely. Especially if they lie when interviewed and can't give a reason why they hid the baby in a park. Of course, mental state is a mitigating factor, and reports are happening in that case, but to me there's a logic to why that woman is being charged when other women are not.
 
I think a woman who hides a baby somewhere it is unlikely to be found will probably be treated differently to someone who leaves a baby, say, outside a hospital or somewhere else where discovery is very likely. Especially if they lie when interviewed and can't give a reason why they hid the baby in a park. Of course, mental state is a mitigating factor, and reports are happening in that case, but to me there's a logic to why that woman is being charged when other women are not.
Great. That's not what we're talking about though. At the time, the media reporting looking for the mother of baby Jade was following exactly the same playbook the current media reporting for this case is. I brought up the baby Jade case because were discussing whether people are going to trust the police enough to come forward with information about this case or not. Especially, as had been pointed out, because the last known whereabouts indicate the parents were going to try get someone to commit a pretty serious crime to get them off the UK.
 
Great. That's not what we're talking about though. At the time, the media reporting looking for the mother of baby Jade was following exactly the same playbook the current media reporting for this case is. I brought up the baby Jade case because were discussing whether people are going to trust the police enough to come forward with information about this case or not. Especially, as had been pointed out, because the last known whereabouts indicate the parents were going to try get someone to commit a pretty serious crime to get them off the UK.
When the Met alone have more than a thousand sex offenders in its ranks - let alone stalkers, people who commit malfeasance, wife/gf beaters, fraudsters, corrupt cops etc ad nauseam - it'd be a credulous person indeed who trusted them further than they could throw a lardy cop
 
I think a woman who hides a baby somewhere it is unlikely to be found will probably be treated differently to someone who leaves a baby, say, outside a hospital or somewhere else where discovery is very likely. Especially if they lie when interviewed and can't give a reason why they hid the baby in a park. Of course, mental state is a mitigating factor, and reports are happening in that case, but to me there's a logic to why that woman is being charged when other women are not.
Very much so. Where you abandon a baby is key to the offence; it turns on the whether or not it's somewhere "likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health" - say, the steps of a busy hospital is far less likely to meet that criteria than being hidden in the woods somewhere the baby is likely to be eaten by a fox before being found by a person.
 
Great. That's not what we're talking about though. At the time, the media reporting looking for the mother of baby Jade was following exactly the same playbook the current media reporting for this case is. I brought up the baby Jade case because were discussing whether people are going to trust the police enough to come forward with information about this case or not. Especially, as had been pointed out, because the last known whereabouts indicate the parents were going to try get someone to commit a pretty serious crime to get them off the UK.
At the time, they didn't know whether she was, say, suffering from florid psychosis, or a person of sound mind that had done a wicked and criminal act. And, in fairness, I doubt they know what's gone on here - the mother might be guilty of crimes, or she might have a defence of, say, duress. Even as no great fan of the police, I find it hard to object to them saying what they are, if it means finding the kid.
 
Last edited:
I should think most people would be more concerned about the baby than the mother and in addition I think you'd find that most people won't care about a mother being charged if they put their baby at risk. I really don't see not trusting the police as something that will have any effect on the outcome here.
 
Great. That's not what we're talking about though. At the time, the media reporting looking for the mother of baby Jade was following exactly the same playbook the current media reporting for this case is. I brought up the baby Jade case because were discussing whether people are going to trust the police enough to come forward with information about this case or not. Especially, as had been pointed out, because the last known whereabouts indicate the parents were going to try get someone to commit a pretty serious crime to get them off the UK.
Because that's the media playbook. This couple has, at best, neglected to centre the needs of their newborn, and possibly/probably has committed crimes at this point. It doesn't mean their well-being isn't paramount right now, and that the best way of getting them to come forward is to focus on that, rather than the possible/likely future consequences of their actions (especially given there's a high possibility that they're on the run because of the consequences of their previous actions).
 
Last edited:
they seem to primarily be appealing to the mother rather than father probably tells you that they're fearful for her well-being, too.
 
they seem to primarily be appealing to the mother rather than father probably tells you that they're fearful for her well-being, too.
Are they. I know her father appealed directly to her. Which seems normal and indicates a rift. His mother didn't understand what was happening with her good boy and suggested they'd been kidnapped.
 
just my impression from news was it was more about her. so much of the story is reading between the lines of what's really going on and figured they may well be worried for her too. but who knows, could just be she's the more 'exciting' part of the story due to background.
 
just my impression from news was it was more about her. so much of the story is reading between the lines of what's really going on and figured they may well be worried for her too. but who knows, could just be she's the more 'exciting' part of the story due to background.
A woman who's given birth without (presumably) any pre or postnatal medical checks who's moving from place to place and possibly camping in winter with a newborn? Of course they'll be worried about her as well as the baby.
 
A woman who's given birth without (presumably) any pre or postnatal medical checks who's moving from place to place and possibly camping in winter with a newborn? Of course they'll be worried about her as well as the baby.

And being cohesively controlled by a nutjob.
 
I should think most people would be more concerned about the baby than the mother and in addition I think you'd find that most people won't care about a mother being charged if they put their baby at risk. I really don't see not trusting the police as something that will have any effect on the outcome here.
I wonder if mistrust of social services might be a factor in this case though. The release of the info about the partner’s conviction and talking about the risks to health and sleeping outside. It’s all building a picture of risk and seems to be trying to show the public why they should report sightings because they can’t say why they were running in the first place.

It’s hard to get over the deep suspicion about social workers stealing babies.
 
Neither. It was a reference to the use of the word 'cohesively' (rather than 'coercively') in the post to which I replied.
So bad taste joke.

I dunno, I love a bit of bleak humour and it was obvious you were in part responding to the incorrect word, but joking about coercive control and a possibly dead baby seems to cross over a line. YMMV of course.
 
So bad taste joke.

I dunno, I love a bit of bleak humour and it was obvious you were in part responding to the incorrect word, but joking about coercive control and a possibly dead baby seems to cross over a line. YMMV of course.
I thought I was joking about a poster using the wrong word; to my mind, the joke wasn't about coercive control or a dead baby. But I apologise that it came across that way.
 
A woman who's given birth without (presumably) any pre or postnatal medical checks who's moving from place to place and possibly camping in winter with a newborn? Of course they'll be worried about her as well as the baby.
completely, I get that - I am very much on the 'of course the police want to contact them' side of the fence. I just meant I wondered whether the focus on her was perhaps also because they're worried about his influence and/or the implication she's not able to get out. but just pontificating.
 
Back
Top Bottom