Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[bobo the clown]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Well, I guess the babies will be (already have been) taken from them. At some point let out for adoption with NO POSSIBILITY of the women making contact.

In which case names will be changed. So name the fckrs.

[LeverEnd]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Well, I guess the babies will be (already have been) taken from them. At some point let out for adoption with NO POSSIBILITY of the women making contact.

In which case names will be changed. So name the fckrs.

A bit like the whole teacher pupil running off to France thing, I think they have been named earlier and then reporting restrictions were put in later. Seems a bit pointless but people in their area will know who they are, and to us it really makes no difference whether we know or not. Certainly hope that is the case re adoption.

[bobo the clown]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Well, I guess the babies will be (already have been) taken from them. At some point let out for adoption with NO POSSIBILITY of the women making contact.

In which case names will be changed. So name the fckrs.

A bit like the whole teacher pupil running off to France thing, I think they have been named earlier and then reporting restrictions were put in later. Seems a bit pointless but people in their area will know who they are, and to us it really makes no difference whether we know or not. Certainly hope that is the case re adoption.

No ... not like that in this case. Once the Social believe the kids are in danger they will move in on them and, if convinced (& I think they will have been in this case) they will take the kids out of danger WAY before any Court case. Indeed, even winning a Court case wouldn't necessarily see them get the kids back. (an awful dilemma that must be).

But these women will already have lost access and will ... unless I'm massively mistaken ... never see them again. Any new kids they will have will be taken at birth.

I'm pretty sure we have some Social Worker types on here who will know the details. Mrs bobo works in Children Social Care and, while she keeps rightly schtum on any cases she deals with what she says goes on when a case comes on TV (unconnected to her) stuns me.

[LeverEnd]

I only meant similar in the timing. They were named, their identities were out there, then reporting restrictions were put in place afterwards.
I can't see that they ever will see them again, unless the kid grows up and wants to see the monster that brought it into the world. I hope they are young enough to never know anything about it or be mentally scarred by it. Some of the other kids won't be I'm very sad to say.

[Montreal Wanderer]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Well, I guess the babies will be (already have been) taken from them. At some point let out for adoption with NO POSSIBILITY of the women making contact.

In which case names will be changed. So name the fckrs.

A bit like the whole teacher pupil running off to France thing, I think they have been named earlier and then reporting restrictions were put in later. Seems a bit pointless but people in their area will know who they are, and to us it really makes no difference whether we know or not. Certainly hope that is the case re adoption.

No ... not like that in this case. Once the Social believe the kids are in danger they will move in on them and, if convinced (& I think they will have been in this case) they will take the kids out of danger WAY before any Court case. Indeed, even winning a Court case wouldn't necessarily see them get the kids back. (an awful dilemma that must be).

But these women will already have lost access and will ... unless I'm massively mistaken ... never see them again. Any new kids they will have will be taken at birth.

I'm pretty sure we have some Social Worker types on here who will know the details. Mrs bobo works in Children Social Care and, while she keeps rightly schtum on any cases she deals with what she says goes on when a case comes on TV (unconnected to her) stuns me.

Surely that cannot be true???

[LeverEnd]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Well, I guess the babies will be (already have been) taken from them. At some point let out for adoption with NO POSSIBILITY of the women making contact.

In which case names will be changed. So name the fckrs.

A bit like the whole teacher pupil running off to France thing, I think they have been named earlier and then reporting restrictions were put in later. Seems a bit pointless but people in their area will know who they are, and to us it really makes no difference whether we know or not. Certainly hope that is the case re adoption.

No ... not like that in this case. Once the Social believe the kids are in danger they will move in on them and, if convinced (& I think they will have been in this case) they will take the kids out of danger WAY before any Court case. Indeed, even winning a Court case wouldn't necessarily see them get the kids back. (an awful dilemma that must be).

But these women will already have lost access and will ... unless I'm massively mistaken ... never see them again. Any new kids they will have will be taken at birth.

I'm pretty sure we have some Social Worker types on here who will know the details. Mrs bobo works in Children Social Care and, while she keeps rightly schtum on any cases she deals with what she says goes on when a case comes on TV (unconnected to her) stuns me.

Surely that cannot be true???

I certainly hope so. I seriously think she should be sterilised whether she likes it or not. I'm not one of the 'hang them from a lamppost' lot but I think any mother who offers her child in such an utterly horrendous way deserves everything she gets and more. For the sake of any future children she should never be allowed to be a mother again.

[bobo the clown]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Well, I guess the babies will be (already have been) taken from them. At some point let out for adoption with NO POSSIBILITY of the women making contact.

In which case names will be changed. So name the fckrs.

A bit like the whole teacher pupil running off to France thing, I think they have been named earlier and then reporting restrictions were put in later. Seems a bit pointless but people in their area will know who they are, and to us it really makes no difference whether we know or not. Certainly hope that is the case re adoption.

No ... not like that in this case. Once the Social believe the kids are in danger they will move in on them and, if convinced (& I think they will have been in this case) they will take the kids out of danger WAY before any Court case. Indeed, even winning a Court case wouldn't necessarily see them get the kids back. (an awful dilemma that must be).

But these women will already have lost access and will ... unless I'm massively mistaken ... never see them again. Any new kids they will have will be taken at birth.

I'm pretty sure we have some Social Worker types on here who will know the details. Mrs bobo works in Children Social Care and, while she keeps rightly schtum on any cases she deals with what she says goes on when a case comes on TV (unconnected to her) stuns me.

Surely that cannot be true???

So you think they should allow 'parents' who have done that to have further children and keep them ?

This is, most certainly, what occurs & Mrs Clown confirmed it when I asked. Obviously not done willy-nilly but people who have done serious stuff ... absolutely.

[thebish]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Yes it's not for their protection but because of the staggering fact that they offered their own children for abuse, and their anonymity is protected. They really should be forcibly sterilised. On no account must they ever be able to conceive again. What a horrendous piece of shit he is. Makes you wonder what the other band members knew/suspected.

unless i am mistaken - it was more than that... on the radio they said that one of the "acts" was carried out by the woman - and the singer-guy watched via skype...

[thebish]

naming the women would make it possible to identify the victim(s), and as the victims must remain anonymous i guess that's why they are too.

Well, I guess the babies will be (already have been) taken from them. At some point let out for adoption with NO POSSIBILITY of the women making contact.

In which case names will be changed. So name the fckrs.

A bit like the whole teacher pupil running off to France thing, I think they have been named earlier and then reporting restrictions were put in later. Seems a bit pointless but people in their area will know who they are, and to us it really makes no difference whether we know or not. Certainly hope that is the case re adoption.

No ... not like that in this case. Once the Social believe the kids are in danger they will move in on them and, if convinced (& I think they will have been in this case) they will take the kids out of danger WAY before any Court case. Indeed, even winning a Court case wouldn't necessarily see them get the kids back. (an awful dilemma that must be).

But these women will already have lost access and will ... unless I'm massively mistaken ... never see them again. Any new kids they will have will be taken at birth.

I'm pretty sure we have some Social Worker types on here who will know the details. Mrs bobo works in Children Social Care and, while she keeps rightly schtum on any cases she deals with what she says goes on when a case comes on TV (unconnected to her) stuns me.

Surely that cannot be true???

in the UK - for serious child-sex offenders (like in this case) - yes - true - and rightly so.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Is prison to punish or to rehabilitate, or both? If a woman serves her time, paying the price to society, she is presumably released to start a life outside bars. Suppose she is completely rehabilitated, marries and conceives. I am surprised that the state could simply take the child away on the basis of a previous crime for which she has already paid the penalty. Still, I assume you are all correct.

[thebish]

Is prison to punish or to rehabilitate, or both? If a woman serves her time, paying the price to society, she is presumably released to start a life outside bars. Suppose she is completely rehabilitated, marries and conceives. I am surprised that the state could simply take the child away on the basis of a previous crime for which she has already paid the penalty. Still, I assume you are all correct.

a wise choice!

[bobo the clown]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25153968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet more investigations on a dead man we all now know to have been evil.

I appreciate that victims of evil ( © definition still awaiting copywrite) deserve recognition but really are further investigations of benefit to anyone other than the lawyers ?

[thebish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25153968

Yet more investigations on a dead man we all now know to have been evil.

I appreciate that victims of evil ( © definition still awaiting copywrite) deserve recognition but really are further investigations of benefit to anyone other than the lawyers ?

I suspect that the investigations might not be solely aimed at proving Saville's guilt - rather, they might also be aimed at discovering complicity in others who might be brought to justice...

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm surprised he found the time to do any TV presenting.

[Prufrock]

Should they have stopped at shipman's first victim?

[bobo the clown]

Should they have stopped at shipman's first victim?

Hardly the same Pru.

I just wonder how much more can be achieved. What more good it does.

I appreciate the complexity and am just thinking aloud. I don't think there is any more evil to come from him. That he messed up 400 lives as opposed to 200 .... I understand that the victims may appreciate some form of closure. Bish's point may be valid too. Yet I do wonder if continuing helps generally.

Just a thought ....

[Prufrock]

Yeah. Fcuk it. The last two hundred were already dead.

[bobo the clown]

Not sure he actually killed any, but hey .... who knows.

[Prufrock]

I meant Shipman.

If it's your case, you want your closure.

I don't think Keith Bennett's family wondered what good it would do.

[bobo the clown]

There will be plenty of the girls Savil interfered with who will have "happily" buried their experiences and moved on who will now be in danger of having all of it trawled up again.

I just put it forward as a thought that this maybe has now little more to be gained.

May I'm wrong, but it's not a view which is necessarily incorrect.