Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I know that area. It's a large area of allotments, a few acres of woodland, a golf course, a country park and some farmland. It's quite extensive.

And, the search area was very wide, considering they were last spotted in Newhaven back on the 8th Jan, over 7 weeks before their arrest.
 
I have read the OP but i am nevertheless unclear as to the reason the pair were "on the run" in the first place.It seems as though their lifestyle had been peripatetic since at least September of last year.Not that any of this means much now.
 
I have read the OP but i am nevertheless unclear as to the reason the pair were "on the run" in the first place.It seems as though their lifestyle had been peripatetic since at least September of last year.Not that any of this means much now.
I suspect it had a lot to do with (so I've read somewhere) the mother's previous children being removed from her care. I haven't verified this however.
 
A typical piece of coverage by Tom Rawsthorne in the Daily Mail:

"Taxi drivers who ferried them around described them as being ‘paranoid’, requesting to know if their vehicles had interior cameras and suddenly changing where they wanted to be dropped off."

"Paranoid"? The state really has been after them, putting 200 police after them according to reports. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

That’s quoting the taxi drivers, who were describing the behaviour of the couple. Also, can you fuck off thanks
 
Mrs Doesn't post here, so I will post her comment.

'The body was found near where they were arrested, what the fuck have the police been doing all this time?'. I echo her sentiment.
They said "remains", not "body". A significant difference, implying deterioration. When Nicola Bulley was pulled from the river, they spoke of 'a body'.

It is all so horrible and sad but I'm suspending judgement on plod's actions re arrest and subsequently until we've heard more.
 
Ditto on 2 and 3. But it's important why so many people have been led to think as you do when you write "They’re obviously not well and not responsible parents".

First they came for women who bore children in the back seats of motor vehicles and who didn't hand their babies over to medics for inspection, and then next they may be coming for you and me.

I find this case very upsetting too. And I'm not looking for a fight either. But you think it's patently obvious they're not well, by which I assume you mean mentally, and that they're not responsible parents, and neither of those points is either obvious or even apparent, to my mind as an opponent of the surveillance state and Chairman DMail Thought. Courageous in not kowtowing to the state, is what I'd call them. Why TF should a woman have to tell medics and the state that she's pregnant, or that she's just had a baby?

Because pregnancy is risky to mother and fetus, that's why. If you're not monitored through pregnancy there's greater risk of health complications and death. There's a greater risk of DV during pregnancy too. Little things like that.
 
If their baby died because of lack of care while his or her parents were in custody, I can't see how a manslaughter charge will stick.
 
"First they came for women who bore children in the back seats of motor vehicles and who didn't hand their babies over to medics for inspection, and then next they may be coming for you and me."

What a fucking idiot.
Clearly we see things very very differently.
Good luck with crafting some ideation though.
 
If their baby died because of lack of care while his or her parents were in custody, I can't see how a manslaughter charge will stick.
Although it's very unlikely anyway that this is the scenario, leaving a baby on its own and then keeping its whereabouts secret would probably count as child neglect, and therefore manslaughter if the baby dies as a result.
 
Last edited:
A trip to specsavers beckons
"Given we'd been hunted down as enemies of the people despite not being suspected of having done anything against the law, we were scared of what might happen to our child if we revealed our child's location to you."

Everything the police and media have said for almost two months then becomes evidential. Plus of course everything that happened during custody gets gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

What's the crown's answer to that?

"All along, the police were only trying to help. You were criminally negligent in not helping them help. You're anti-police and you were willing to let your baby die rather than help the police", mixed with "The police didn't have the resources to follow you covertly - who do you think you are?" Will that work?

Can't you see that the state has been making an example of these people?
 
Crafting ideation? Rich. your posts have been full of deluded nonsense.
Stop insulting me and make a grownup contribution if you can. Maybe look up "deluded" too. And "nonsense". You're not even good at insulting. Read the Daily Mail to fire yourself up if necessary.
 
"Given we'd been hunted down as enemies of the people despite not being suspected of having done anything against the law, we were scared of what might happen to our child if we revealed our child's location to you."
"So scared, in fact, that we decided that it would be better for the child, on balance, if we just allowed it to die of hunger or hypothermia."
 
"Given we'd been hunted down as enemies of the people despite not being suspected of having done anything against the law, we were scared of what might happen to our child if we revealed our child's location to you."

Everything the police and media have said for almost two months then becomes evidential. Plus of course everything that happened during custody gets gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

What's the crown's answer to that?

"All along, the police were only trying to help. You were criminally negligent in not helping them help. You're anti-police and you were willing to let your baby die rather than help the police", mixed with "The police didn't have the resources to follow you covertly - who do you think you are?" Will that work?

Can't you see that the state has been making an example of these people?
Shut up you stupid cunt.
 
"Given we'd been hunted down as enemies of the people despite not being suspected of having done anything against the law, we were scared of what might happen to our child if we revealed our child's location to you."

Everything the police and media have said for almost two months then becomes evidential. Plus of course everything that happened during custody gets gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

What's the crown's answer to that?

"All along, the police were only trying to help. You were criminally negligent in not helping them help. You're anti-police and you were willing to let your baby die rather than help the police", mixed with "The police didn't have the resources to follow you covertly - who do you think you are?" Will that work?

Can't you see that the state has been making an example of these people?
The crowns answer to that is that once born the child is an independent human being whose existence should not depend on whether their parents were fucking lunatics or not. They have a right to life. They're not their parents' property.
 
"Given we'd been hunted down as enemies of the people despite not being suspected of having done anything against the law, we were scared of what might happen to our child if we revealed our child's location to you."

Everything the police and media have said for almost two months then becomes evidential. Plus of course everything that happened during custody gets gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

What's the crown's answer to that?

"All along, the police were only trying to help. You were criminally negligent in not helping them help. You're anti-police and you were willing to let your baby die rather than help the police", mixed with "The police didn't have the resources to follow you covertly - who do you think you are?" Will that work?

Can't you see that the state has been making an example of these people?
It's depressing how the internet allows nuttiness to masquerade as insight and dominate the discourse - as if there are two equally valid views: on one side a whole range of reasonable views and on the other, a perfectly valid (yet nonsensical and inconsistent) alternative.
 
"Given we'd been hunted down as enemies of the people despite not being suspected of having done anything against the law, we were scared of what might happen to our child if we revealed our child's location to you."

Everything the police and media have said for almost two months then becomes evidential. Plus of course everything that happened during custody gets gone over with a fine-tooth comb.

What's the crown's answer to that?

"All along, the police were only trying to help. You were criminally negligent in not helping them help. You're anti-police and you were willing to let your baby die rather than help the police", mixed with "The police didn't have the resources to follow you covertly - who do you think you are?" Will that work?

Can't you see that the state has been making an example of these people?
Rather than withering on about 'the state', please consider child safeguarding and child protection legislation and procedure.

You are backing the wrong horse here, Sparky.
 
Stop insulting me and make a grownup contribution if you can. Maybe look up "deluded" too. And "nonsense". You're not even good at insulting. Read the Daily Mail to fire yourself up if necessary.

You seem to read the DM more than me and are delusional in your framing of this whole sad affair. Drivvling on about state percecution, this couple being made an example of etc, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom