Total revulsion

petallus What is the point of any thread on Gransnet and is it necessary for any or every thread to have a point?

It's to talk about stuff, pet, like all the others > "obv" (trying out a new abbreviation)

I don't know exactly why I don't feel comfortable with this thread.

I understand why it's necessary to have the chance to express moral outrage but there surely isn't much room for a range of views on this one as I am guessing we all feel the same, along with everyone else who knows about the case.

I suppose I almost feel I want to maintain a respectful silence on this one.

Although now I haven't.

petallus yes, completely agree.

Feel free .
But there have also been valid and informative comments about the legal niceties of the case - and IMHO valid opinions have been expressed in a reasoned way.
Do we have to restrict ourselves to opinions on "fluffy" issues then?

Surely, this topic would be talked about 'over the garden wall' which is essentially what this forum is.

I understand that the mother had had an absolutely tragic life herself, having been used and abused since her teens. One has to worry for her sanity when the awful realisation about what she has done comes to her.

I have been interested in this thread because there are some issues arising that are enabling me to undersand how the justice system is (or isn't) dealng with this case. I must have missed some elements of the planning that went into this offence, and now wonder why they aren't convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and reckless arson. I hope the sentences are appropriate.

Surely as members of society we need to understand how something like this can happen. How can we do that without talking about it?

Even merely expressing our horror that it has happened is a valid reason for the thread. Discussing the trial and outcome follows on from that. It is definitely "In the News".

My hairdresser watched the programme about this last night and said it was horrible.

Am I still in the minority in thinking people should be obliged control the number of children they have when we are paying the bill? This excuse for a man had 17!

Kitty not sure I'd want to chat about this 'over the garden wall' either. Some things are just too horrific and, one would hope, almost universal revulsion would be guaranteed. Yes, everyone can express their very own revulsion if they wish but I doubt it leads to any further understanding. I'll shut up and get off the thread.

I am deeply saddened by this and also feel a reluctance to discuss it.
I'm not quite sure why either, but there it is.

(hug) for Butty

I watched a little bit of the programme on BBC last night and if I was chatting to a neighbour over the garden wall the subject may well have come up.

moved you can add me to your minority. For the life of me I cannot understand how this man could have boasted on national telly about his lifestyle, his sordid sex life and his numerous children, whilst demanding (on a clip I saw last night) a bigger house (he actually said something like 'it's the council's responsibility to provide a house for my family), and nothing is done to investigate.

It is pretty clear that he groomed women including his wife and mistress; and I'm going to stick my neck out here and say he too was groomed - by the system.

Butty - I know what you mean. World at 1 was interesting today - Margaret Beckett ( I think she's the local MP) said no general lessons could be drawn from such a case. But I was absolutely shocked by the hypocrisy of Ann Widdiecombe who apparently made a TV programme with the father - oh yes a really typical benefits case- and went on about the poor children when her programme ( for which she would have been handsomely paid) opened them to ridicule and publicity when they wre not able to consent and rewarded the father with the publicity he craved
The number if people being wise after the event sickens me - the schools are being sensible - the children never missed a day and were good, well behaved pupils. Everyone should just shut up - it's sad and awful but what could we possibly learn from it - except not to allow people like the father publicity.

It's manslaughter as he did not intend to kill the children but to 'rescue' them - he was so clueless and utterly without any morals that they died. Channel 5 had a very good programme about it last night that highlighted this man's character. I hadn't realised he'd had tv coverage in both a Jeremy Kyle programme and another one about being a benefit scrounger. He likes young silly women whom he could control, his wife and his mistress being two examples. His mistress left him and he hoped to frame her by setting fire to his house - I also think he hoped to have the council get him bigger house. With 5 children and 3 bedrooms it must have been crowded. Sadly, his sentence won't be a big as he deserves as it was manslaughter - when he is released he will still have a huge sense of his own importance and entitlement. A thoroughly nasty peace of work.
Gracesmum a good thread ignore any negative thoughts from other people.

Total revulsion - well that applies to any decent person's view of the DM's front page today and their treatment of the story - bracketing this case with all people in receipt of benefits . Come on you DM apologists on GN - justify their treatment of the story. I am actually coming round to the feeling that this paper is worse than the Sun because it pretends to be so much more

Thank you, Bluebell - I found the attempt to use this tragic story as a stick to beat large families contemptible.

Please don't let this thread become a stick to beat DM readers with, either. It wasn't what it was about and I don't think bluebell's comment counts as a 'meander'. That really does cheapen the loss of those young lives.

Kitty I agree that it is a shame yet again to have a pop at the DM, especially as the people having a go must have read it. If no one read it it would no longer exist. I don't read a daily paper, just listen to Radio 4 and watch the evening news so I haven't seen whether what is being said is true.

I did hear World at One and didn't react the same as bluebell and didn't see AW as a hypocrit, I felt she was very restrained and careful to say that no one was to blame. I felt that she was trying to avoid any sort of witch hunt of the schools or the social services. Very dignified. I doubt if the programme opened the children to ridicule, I think it probably just showed the father for what he was. AW did comment that she felt the parents were detached from the children which was a good observation no one else seems to have made.

On PM it's just been reported that the children were bullied at school following the tv programme. You know very well that that programme and the DM article have agendas of knocking welfare benefit claimants. Do you really think we should give that sort of publicity to men like him? And who is protecting the children with these types of programmes? I feel the same about a lot of those parenting programmed - really exploiting children. I read the DM on line as an attempt to understand where so much of middle Britain gets its views from - its important to get other views. I still maintain that its front page today was an affront to civilised society - it's sunk lower than I ever imagined possible - and thats saying something!

Am I the only person who feels that the weeping on the news is almost tantamount to a confession of guilt? I felt no surprise at the conviction and I felt that the "father"didnt want to keep his children he wanted to keep "his"child benefits. I read the times and it had a comment about AW that the children did not interact well with him.Esther Rantzen said just now that neglect is a form of abuse and difficult to pinpoint.

stansgran I don't know whether weeping is a sign of guilt. Perhaps unless it has happened to you it is not possible to know how you might feel? I do agree that it appears his main interest was in getting the benefits. I just heard a reporter, who knew him some time ago, say that he loved his children and appeared to be good with them. Yes, neglect is abuse but would be very difficult to prove. I hope they don't blame anyone for this.

Why don't we have a tearing the hair out emoticon for when threads become as ridiculous as this one has?

But surely it was wrong to make any mention of people having large families on this thread? Was that not opportunistic? This pair are hardly representative of people with many children.

I sometimes think that there is nothing that will shock DM readers - there was little reaction here to their graphic images of men being executed.