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

[wemakeyousoundb]

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.

not gonna insult you, but you obviously have shit for brains.

Sad ending for this newborn.

 

[Seventy-seven]

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.

So the crown's response to such a defence to a manslaughter charge would be what? "We had to keep 'em locked up because of health and safety, even if the baby died as a result"? Obviously no. So what are they going to say then?

No idea who Sparky is. Presumably it means something in your circles.

 

[Seventy-seven]

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.

One plus many equals two. Who knew? If you cared about putting thoughts together you might grow a brain cell, gain some self-respect, and be able to write coherently rather than attitudinising.

 

[Seventy-seven]

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.

*Drivelling. *Persecution. Argue against what I wrote then. I haven't posted anything deluded. It'd be strange if the police said they were hunting people to help them and didn't suspect them of any crime and didn't want to interfere with their family life (and the police did say exactly that), but in fact the police had good reason to think the people were potential baby neglecters or manslaughterers all along. Do you know of any reason why the police may justifiably have suspected that, and why the view that they probably had no justified basis for such a suspicion is deluded? If so, please post it.

 

[JimW]

*Drivelling. *Persecution. Argue against what I wrote then. I haven't posted anything deluded. It'd be strange if the police said they were hunting people to help them and didn't suspect them of any crime and didn't want to interfere with their family life (and the police did say exactly that), but in fact the police had good reason to think the people were potential baby neglecters or manslaughterers all along. Do you know of any reason why the police may justifiably have suspected that, and why the view that they probably had no justified basis for such a suspicion is deluded? If so, please post it.

Perhaps the way they allowed their child to die might provide a clue.

 

[Seventy-seven]

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.

Thank you for your answer. Let's see whether the crown runs with that.
I agree with all of your premises but they seem completely and utterly irrelevant unless the crown could show that the police were aware all along that the parents were severely mentally ill.
"Hunt the loonies - whoop whoop whoop - oh look what the loonies have caused to happen" seems to be your attitude. Your reason for thinking they are both loonies is what, though? Avoiding medics and surveillance doesn't make a person a loony, a bad parent, or any kind of criminal.

The police are spinning like fnck, using the word "remains" rather than "body".

 

[Seventy-seven]

Perhaps they way they allowed their child to die might provide a clue.

Please re-read the question. Do you think the police had a time machine?

 

[JimW]

Please re-read the question. Do you think the police had a time machine?

No, but clearly their assessment of the situation fitted reality more closely than yours.

 

[Raheem]

Please re-read the question. Do you think the police had a time machine?

They had reason to be concerned that the baby might die.

 

[Serge Forward]

 

[editor]

Thank you for your answer. Let's see whether the crown runs with that.
I agree with all of your premises but they seem completely and utterly irrelevant unless the crown could show that the police were aware all along that the parents were severely mentally ill.
"Hunt the loonies - whoop whoop whoop - oh look what the loonies have caused to happen" seems to be your attitude. Your reason for thinking they are both loonies is what, though? Avoiding medics and surveillance doesn't make a person a loony, a bad parent, or any kind of criminal.

The police are spinning like fnck, using the word "remains" rather than "body".

You're fucking unhinged and all your wild speculation is based on minimal reality and evidence.

 

[Duncan2]

Seventy Seven seems to want to cast the State in the role of Herod but we in fact know nothing of their previous parenting history if any.

 

[friedaweed]

Shut up you stupid cunt.

That's unfair and not a word we use freely on these boards. In one of his posts he's used the word "attitudinising" which shows a potentially higher level of intelligence, hiding behind the loonspudery, than youre giving him credit for.

 

[xenon]

*Drivelling. *Persecution. Argue against what I wrote then. I haven't posted anything deluded. It'd be strange if the police said they were hunting people to help them and didn't suspect them of any crime and didn't want to interfere with their family life (and the police did say exactly that), but in fact the police had good reason to think the people were potential baby neglecters or manslaughterers all along. Do you know of any reason why the police may justifiably have suspected that, and why the view that they probably had no justified basis for such a suspicion is deluded? If so, please post it.

What you wrote is conjectural idiocy. Here’s one for a start, they failed to register the birth. Disappeared. Left at an abandoned car which caught fire. With a baby, in January. Do you think maybe that’s not the best health and safety regime for an infant? And that’s the stuff we do know.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

I remember when this story first broke back in January during that cold snap we had down here, & thinking how a new born baby camped out in the woods would cope with such an extreme.

 

[Tones]

Avoiding medics and surveillance doesn't make a person a loony, a bad parent, or any kind of criminal.

It does when it results in the death of a child!

 

[A380]

For posterity:

A doorbell camera captured audio of them as well as video supposedly.

The filth thought maybe "an ‘anti-police’ or ‘anti-establishment’ individual might have been persuaded to help them", according to Tom Rawsthorne in the Heil.
The filth and other state hunters know exactly what they are doing here.
The message is don't fsck with the state.

Posts at Reddit saying there might be something a teensy bit iffy about hunting people down who weren't suspected of committing any crime whatsoever (and the police said exactly this) have been shadowbanned. Dogwhistle-racist ones saying she "must be out of her mind to have anything to do with a man like that" are being allowed to circulate, though, as of course is anything that says because they were hunted, and then they were arrested, they deserve everything they get. It seems that every scumbag in a position of even petty hierarchical authority is going "whoop whoop whoop", spiced with "I hope the baby is OK". Plus rumours are being spread that they had three children grabbed from them before.

You are witnessing a foxhunt that may yet turn into an honour killing (of her), lynching (of him), and child sacrifice (of their baby) all rolled into one, for a regime that of course has nothing but decency, propriety, proper family life, and the public interest as its motivation.

Let's hope the child doesn't die somewhere because the police are holding the parents captive until they tell them where the child is so they can kidnap him or her.
The manslaughter arrest seems to be a straightforward abuse.

They already seem to have been held for ~40 hours. Doesn't a magistrate have to be involved if it's for more than 36 hours? Or are they using anti-terrorist powers?

A four-season sleeping bag in a tent and boiling water on a camping stove for a hot water bottle and there'll be no problem in the southern England climate in winter.

But logic goes out of the window during Hate Week, especially where an interracial couple is concerned and the man was convicted of rape 34 years ago, she was in a Christian cult (oooh, in Nigeria too) that she walked out of by 2006, she's no better than she ought to be, and oooh, look at the price of that house that someone in her family has some connection with, and didn't her auntie once marry a lord in waiting for the royal family, and blah blah the fscking Daily Mail - why won't it die?

Agreed, £15K isn't much at all. I'd have thought more.

It reminds me of the Julian Assange case. Remember when the Brits played as if they had no intention of grabbing him the moment he left the Ecuadorean embassy so they could try to hand him over to the USA?

Now in this case, the police said all they wanted to do (all 200+ of them) was to ensure mum and kiddie got "medical attention" - as if there is any fscking reason to believe they need it, or the state has any right to give medical attention to an adult who doesn't want it - but they used language such as "on the run" and "turn themselves in" and "convicted violent sex offender" as if they were talking about wanted criminals....and then as soon as they find them they capture them.

Anyway...the 36 hours ran out this morning. If it wasn't extended by a magistrate, and assuming the filth haven't invoked antiterrorism, they're being held unlawfully, right?

Leave them alone. Stop watching them.

You gotta hand it to someone who gives birth in the back of a car and then makes a run for it without telling the state. I'm on their side.

Perhaps they'll be explaining why they're continuing to hold them after the 36 hours allowed?
They should be charged or released. Same applies to everyone in police custody.

Bear in mind that the two people against whom the police have insufficient evidence to charge with anything have the responsibility for looking after a small child.

For the record, the police say they have applied for another 36 hours. They said that about 1 hour ago, at about 2.30pm today, by which time they'd already held them for 41 hours given they were arrested around 9.30pm on Monday.

This is a disgraceful case. I hope they have a damned good lawyer who attacks the hunt, what the police have been saying to the media, and the arrests.

A child may be at risk, very grave risk, wholly because of the police actions.

Interesting that the police said they'd applied for an extension, not that they'd been granted one.

What's the basis for why they've been held since the 36 hours expired at 9.30am?

Another question - why have the Met taken over the search?

Having a baby without telling medics and the state, followed by evasion of medics and the state.

Also I believe there's something else about the couple that really gets Daily Mail readers going, and it's not the supposed market value of that big house they keep showing photos of.

Are you sure you understand how the arrest system is supposed to work? The police arrest you on suspicion of what they tell you they're arresting you for. Then the moment they have enough evidence to charge you, they're supposed to charge you and then arrange for you to appear in court without delay.

What would you do if someone kidnapped you and said you had to tell them where your child was because they wanted to, cough, check the child was OK, and you had reason to believe their actual intention was to capture your child? If the someone was the police and they could only hold you lawfully for x hours, whether or not you told them anything would depend on whether you'd made arrangements for someone to look after your child for that long, surely?

The police and media are acting extremely nastily in this case, and they may yet achieve an honour killing, lynching, and child death combo - all blamed on the victims, cough cough, Daily Mail, cough.

They shouldn't have hunted them. Now that they have captured them, they should let them go, apologise, pay them compensation, and NOT follow them anywhere. There is no reason to suspect they've committed a crime. And the police prior to the arrest said exactly that. Don't let that fact go down the memory hole.

Why do you type such nonsense? It's perfectly legal for parents to leave a baby of any age with someone else while they go to the shops.

Yes. But it is an abuse for the police to apply for an extension of custody when they've arrested someone on suspicion of X if the real reason is that they suspect them of Y and are gathering material for an arrest or charge for Y. That comes under "Just wait in the cell while we find some evidence." Although it does happen quite a bit.

So all parents who are out and about without their babies should be arrested?
Or only those who evade medics and try to evade surveillance, neither of which is illegal?

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.

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?

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.

Clearly we see things very very differently.
Good luck with crafting some ideation though.

"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?

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.

So the crown's response to such a defence to a manslaughter charge would be what? "We had to keep 'em locked up because of health and safety, even if the baby died as a result"? Obviously no. So what are they going to say then?

No idea who Sparky is. Presumably it means something in your circles.

[

 

[cupid_stunt]

You are witnessing a foxhunt that may yet turn into an honour killing (of her), lynching (of him), and child sacrifice (of their baby) all rolled into one, for a regime that of course has nothing but decency, propriety, proper family life, and the public interest as its motivation.

Their constant use of 'hunting' rather than the correct term of 'searching', FFS they were not riding to hounds, and the various other dim-witted comments does suggest
Seventy-seven is a 'Freeman on the Land' loon.

 

[Pickman's model]

Their constant use of 'hunting' rather than the correct term of 'searching', FFS they were not riding to hounds, and the various other dim-witted comments does suggest
Seventy-seven is a 'Freeman on the Land' loon.

Let out your inner pedant. But bring as it means to search for something as well as to chase something I don't think you're on a winner here

 

[maomao]

Seventy-seven is surely going to take all their words back if the baby died before they were arrested (which seems likely at the moment).

 

[Pickman's model]

I remember when this story first broke back in January during that cold snap we had down here, & thinking how a new born baby camped out in the woods would cope with such an extreme.

Badly

 

[Pickman's model]

Seventy-seven is surely going to take all their words back if the baby died before they were arrested (which seems likely at the moment).

You've such faith in human nature

 

[Seventy-seven]

There is now a poll: Should a woman have the right to give birth and look after her baby without informing medics or the state?

The blurb states: "Please assume that nobody has good reason to believe (or suspect) that the woman may neglect or mistreat her baby. That is a different scenario and I don't think anyone would disagree that public officials with responsibility in the field of child welfare should be able to require access to the child in those circumstances."

There is another poll too (separate): Should parents have the right to home-educate their child without sending them to school or informing the state?

The blurb for that one states: "Please assume that nobody has good reason to believe (or suspect) that the parents may fail to discharge their statutory responsibility to ensure that their child is properly educated, or may neglect or harm or abuse their child. That is a different scenario and I don't think anyone would disagree that public officials should have the right to require access to the child in those circumstances."

Thank you to everyone who has voted in either poll.

 

[klang]

Christ on a pushie.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Christ on a pushie.

fixed wheel?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Talk about a discrete entrance

 

[klang]

fixed wheel?

Too good for em

 

[Indeliblelink]

Papers are saying the couple had been seen at the local fish & chip shop and a food bank in Brighton as far back as 11th February but they were never seen with a baby and never purchased baby supplies from any shops they used.

Constance Marten's baby could have been dead for 2 weeks before couple arrested

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon visited J & E Fish Bar in Brighton at night in the weeks before being arrested - but never seen on CCTV with the baby, a local businessman has claimed

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[seeformiles]

Seventy Seven today

 

[Seventy-seven]

Is it normal in Normsville to have a doorbell camera these days?
Perhaps some of the gang here will know.