Originally Posted by Royboy39 (Post 659298)

It is obvious that this lady is not fit to have children in her care.
The children have been taken away from her with good cause.
The child abuse that these children suffered was not of the the making of the authorities but of the mother.
She should never in my opinion be allowed to control or parent any child in the future.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 659365)

Totally agree Roy, one of her old mates (she ain't any more) said that she had kids just to keep her in fags and beer, and that she was a very scheming woman and nobodies fool. One can only hope that by the time she gets out she is no longer able to have kids, but if she is steps should be taken to make sure she can't

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 659368)

With hindsight it's all very well her former friends saying now what an unfit mother she was. Why didn't they do something about it before she was charged with kidnapping Shannon?

.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 659368)

With hindsight it's all very well her former friends saying now what an unfit mother she was. Why didn't they do something about it before she was charged with kidnapping Shannon?

This woman must be quite a plausible actress, as not only did she take in her friends and neighbours, who supported the search, but also the media who were queueing up to interview her, when they thought she was the new Kate McCann.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 659283)

well as people are not mind readers, perhaps the comment, should have been qualified? i certainly viewed it the same as others, ya never can tell these days with all the do-gooders in life.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Studio25 (Post 659390)

If course, if that's not what Polly intended, and I'm the only one on AccyWeb who interpreted it as an assertion that any parent engaging in criminal activity is guilty of child abuse, then that makes me the wierdo...
:mosher:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 659418)

fair enough, who else read it your way?:confused:

Originally Posted by Studio25 (Post 659437)

I don't think we'll get many responses to that, as the way someone interprets Polly's post says a lot about the way they look at the world...

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 659444)

didn't expect many as the question was directed at you.:rolleyes: it also speaks volumes as to how you view the world.

Originally Posted by Bob Dobson (Post 659511)

I haven't read most of these posts, but was attracted to the thread heading through mis-reading it. Will some please let me know if there is ever a heading that says 'Stanley Matthews found alive.'

Originally Posted by Studio25 (Post 659390)

I've found something which helps immensely with forums is a variation on doctors' Primum non nocere

First, assume no harm.

"Harm" might be malice, shrouded abuse, ignorance or some personal agenda; but if you read a post without the mindset that the author might be out to stir up trouble, your own response will be nicer. It could even work out that you don't not feel the need to respond at all.

If course, if that's not what Polly intended, and I'm the only one on AccyWeb who interpreted it as an assertion that any parent engaging in criminal activity is guilty of child abuse, then that makes me the wierdo...
:mosher:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 659469)

It would appears that great minds think alike cashy, especially on subjects like this, if people make sweeping statements and don't quantify them they must expect the response which was forthcoming;)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 659627)

Perhaps this might shed a little more light on what was meant.

To quote Polly...

'For some kids their mother going to prison could be a blessing in disguise.
Having work,ed with children for over 20 years I am sure some would get a much better chance in life if they were removed from their natural families.'

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...tml#post524686

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 659640)

thats good, pleased about that, then perhaps the comment should have been quantified?:confused:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 659444)

didn't expect many as the question was directed at you.:rolleyes: it also speaks volumes as to how you view the world.