Is this for real?

u8myufo

u8myufo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,354
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
If it is I am finding it hard to digest,no wonder this country is f***ed up.If the 9 years was not bad enough,personaly I think all judges should be put under a point scoring system or something similar based on the sentance they hand out to the convicted person.After their decision has been looked into and found not to be substantial enough then they should get a mark against them.Once they reach a pre determined score then they need striking off, end of.No doubt the do gooders will come along and find some reason that it would not be fair.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-15/mum-faces-jail-if-she-refuses-to-write-to-ex-who-slit-her-throat/
 
Absolute joke & typical of the way the country has gone! :mad:

I understand he's still the children's father (tbh if I was in charge he wouldn't get out of prison at all, nor know anything about his kids, but that isn't the main issue) but surely there is a less hurtful way of keeping him informed if that's the way it has to be. :rolleyes:
 
Just to add, I guess she can't be told exactly what to write, so if it were me I would put something like........"Kids doing well at school. They now have a happy fulfilled life. They hate what you did & don't want to hear your name mentioned & unlikely to want to see you anytime soon etc etc ............."
 
Last edited:
It is terrible what has happened to her, I cant help feeling though there is more to this story.

I would take a guess that the court order was already in place before these events took place.

She should go back to the courts and have the order overturned
 
Keith W said:
It is terrible what has happened to her, I cant help feeling though there is more to this story.

I would take a guess that the court order was already in place before these events took place.

She should go back to the courts and have the order overturned
Click to expand...


But he is in prison for these crimes so how could a court order be made prior to it ?

I'd ignore the ruling and take my chances in court
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I agree that on face value this looks very unjust and serves to punish the victim/s (the kids that had to see it all happen) but like Keith said, there may be more to this story than in that article.
Is it possible that the letters and photo's of the kids are part of an agreement that the father never tries to see them again once released?

Surely social services would never allow the father to have any custody rights with the kids once he's out of prison.
 
OldCarlos said:
Just to add, I guess she can't be told exactly what to write, so if it were me I would put something like........"Kids doing well at school. They now have a happy fulfilled life. They hate what you did & don't want to hear your name mentioned & unlikely to want to see you anytime soon etc etc ............."
Click to expand...

She certainly should not be that polite!! If I was her I'd write the letters and make sure the !@£$% >?)(*& is under no illusion about what a worthless piece of excrement he is.
 
If this is absolutely necessary, social services should send him photographs and a short, formal, note confirming that the children are well once a year. That's all. There's no way the victim should be compelled to communicate with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Gremlin said:
But he is in prison for these crimes so how could a court order be made prior to it ?

I'd ignore the ruling and take my chances in court
Click to expand...

Different cases

A custody/contact case could have been held and a court order made before any of this happened
 
2 different courts, 2 different issues.

Like it or not, he is still the father of the 2 children, and his/her issues with each other are irrelevant to that. The fact he is their father means they have every right to have contact with him, and him with them.

A families court making the order they have is not unusual, whether the father (or mother) is in prison or not.

The Family court has made an order, it's not optional for the mother to refuse to do it, unless of course she wants to do some time for contempt.

That is a separate issue from the sentence of a criminal court.

This is a non story, peddled for the Jeremy Kyle generation.
 
It is only a non issue when you aren't the one forced to do that. Surely a more considered option could have been envisaged to let's say one of the grandparent if they so desire write to their son and do this. Or social services who are helping the family.

Although strictly speaking im more in the camp of do the crime then do the time. No point now crying about your rights, he just shouldn't have done what he did and then he wouldn't have this issue now.
 
Bernie174 said:
Like it or not, he is still the father of the 2 children, and his/her issues with each other are irrelevant to that. The fact he is their father means they have every right to have contact with him, and him with them.



This is a non story, peddled for the Jeremy Kyle generation.
Click to expand...

" Like it or not, he is still the father of the 2 children, and his/her issues with each other are irrelevant to that. The fact he is their father means they have every right to have contact with him, and him with them. "

Another do gooder in the making I see,people like this do not deserve these kinds of rights,which is where it is all falling down.


" This is a non story, peddled for the Jeremy Kyle generation. "

f*** me, you are good at weighing things up arn`t you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
u8myufo said:
" Like it or not, he is still the father of the 2 children, and his/her issues with each other are irrelevant to that. The fact he is their father means they have every right to have contact with him, and him with them. "

Another do gooder in the making I see,people like this do not deserve these kinds of rights,which is where it is all falling down.
Click to expand...
This is more to protect the rights of the children, who are entitled to have a meaningful relationship with both natural parents.

Also, what is "all falling down"? We're a happier, less criminal, less violent society than we have ever been in the modern era.
 
Gremlin said:
But he is in prison for these crimes so how could a court order be made prior to it ?

I'd ignore the ruling and take my chances in court
Click to expand...

you don't take your chances with contempt, when you are ordered by a judge to do something you do it, or you will go to prison. Her best chance is to go back to the court and get the order changed. Try to get these regular updates the responsibility of social services. On the face of it it does seem an insensitive ruling but like a couple of posters have said there may very well be much more than the article is telling us.
 
Three times a year.
A piece of paper typed more or less along the lines of "The children are well, doing fine in school". A few photos of the boys and a school report. Job done.
That will satisfy the courts, and she doesn't have to address him personally, as in "Dear Jason, I hope this finds you well....blah blah", nor keep a day to day diary of the kids activities.
What he did to her was vile, but risking robbing the kids of (effectively) the only remaining parent if she's found in contempt, is selfish.
 
" This is a non story, peddled for the Jeremy Kyle generation. "

f*** me, you are good at weighing things up arn`t you?
Click to expand...

Proving my point.

Back to the main subject. The children's rights to a relationship with their father are the prime concern, if that's do gooding, then so be it. Have you considered that they may want to have that relationship? No, thought not.

Again, it's TP's favorite habit of second guessing people who have all the evidence and expressing outrage by proxy based on....Erm, a press report, that contains none of the evidence.
 
fabs said:
Ok, a couple of posts removed and someone on the naughty step.

Can I just remind everyone that personal abuse will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...
What posts, what have I missed, I'm always late to the party :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
it does seem wrong on the face of it , but its worth remembering that we are dealing with a journalists interpretatation of what he was told by the woman about what the judge said... theres plenty of scope there for chinese whispers.
 
Bernie174 said:
2 different courts, 2 different issues.

Like it or not, he is still the father of the 2 children, and his/her issues with each other are irrelevant to that. The fact he is their father means they have every right to have contact with him, and him with them.

A families court making the order they have is not unusual, whether the father (or mother) is in prison or not.
Click to expand...

Agree however the decision is ridiculous, Common sense needs to prevail here he did this horrendous crime in front of the children. By doing that he has no right at all in my eyes to see of or hear from them again. In fact I don't honestly believe he deserves to be let free from prison, he is clearly an aggressive maniac it takes some certain mental state to take a knife to someone and in particular a calculated attack.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I'm really hoping you missed some words out of that bit :eek:
Click to expand...

Lol I did indeed the blooming work laptop have to hoover my hand over trackpad as it sometimes selects bits then I over type :banghead:. Should have proof read it. :p luckily I'm not in prison.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Three times a year.
A piece of paper typed more or less along the lines of "The children are well, doing fine in school". A few photos of the boys and a school report. Job done.
That will satisfy the courts, and she doesn't have to address him personally, as in "Dear Jason, I hope this finds you well....blah blah", nor keep a day to day diary of the kids activities.
What he did to her was vile, but risking robbing the kids of (effectively) the only remaining parent if she's found in contempt, is selfish.
Click to expand...

I would agree, the headline isn't all that accurate, and quite sensationalist.

In the story it says:
Allman told The Sunday People today that under custody laws she must send updates of the couple's five-year-old sons, along with photos, or face contempt of court.
Click to expand...

So no letters (in the normal sense) needed, it doesn't even say she has to write the updates, just he must get them.
 
Am I the only person wondering why he was not charged with attempted murder? If you cut someones throat then surely the odds are against that person surviving, and a person would not do that unless they intended to kill the person.

I hope that she has one draft message which she can send at the times requested - "All good with the kids, hope that you shuffle off your mortal coil ASAP - LOL"
 
andy700 said:
Am I the only person wondering why he was not charged with attempted murder? If you cut someones throat then surely the odds are against that person surviving, and a person would not do that unless they intended to kill the person.

I hope that she has one draft message which she can send at the times requested - "All good with the kids, hope that you shuffle off your mortal coil ASAP - LOL"
Click to expand...

may be it was plead down

or may be the CPS thought they couldnt guarantee a conviction on a more serious charge (by the same token it could be argued that if she survived he can't have meant to kill her as an effective throat cutting is almost uuniformly fatal)
 
Trying to slit someone's throat has to be one of most up-close and personal ways to try and kill someone. Horrible.

If there's no stipulation as to the content of the letters and photos, perhaps the first one could be: "Dear Jason, hope you enjoy the enclosed photos of your sons with their new daddy at Christmas."
 
looking on the brightside he won't have much fun in the general population ... with a bit of luck the cowardly f*** will suffer an 'unfortunate fall in the showers'
 
Common sense needs to prevail here he did this horrendous crime in front of the children.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, and a shame it isn't being. Whatever you think of the father, whatever you think of what he did, and you don't have the full picture of that, the right remains with his children. That right is to have contact with him. It matters not one jot what went on with the children's parents, that is between them alone.

The Judge in this case has ruled on that separate matter, with all of the facts before them. People on here are ruling on nothing but hearsay.

For the record, not that it matters, there are a large number of people who are, or who have been inside who are great mothers and fathers.

Am I the only person wondering why he was not charged with attempted murder?
Click to expand...

Possibly because the evidence wasn't there. There is a huge amount more to proving a charge than, it says in the paper, so thats it guilty, next case.
 
But it's not just between the parents, he did it in front of the children so it involves them also. What kind of father slits the throat of a child's mother in front of them? We aren't talking about him going to jail for theft etc. What if he did end up killing her, then the children would have no mother and their psycho father would be in jail - what a nice future for the children he would have left them. I don't think the children should be denied knowledge of him, but he should lose his fatherly rights until he is out.
 
Last edited:
What is so difficult to understand here?

but he should lose his fatherly rights until he is out.
Click to expand...

It is not HIS right, it is the CHILDREN'S right. Not the fathers, not mothers, not anyone else's, it's the Children's. How much more clear does it need to be made?

A Judge, with all the evidence has made a decision on behalf of the children, that evidence would include the transcripts of the criminal trial. Are you somehow better qualified to make that decision, and better informed based on a few lines in a press report?

Since when is it your right or duty to deprive children of the opportunity to know their father?

The parents disagreements with each other are their concern. That disagreement does not affect the children's rights. They are theirs to have and a Courts to protect.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
What is so difficult to understand here?



It is not HIS right, it is the CHILDREN'S right. Not the fathers, not mothers, not anyone else's, it's the Children's. How much more clear does it need to be made?

A Judge, with all the evidence has made a decision on behalf of the children, that evidence would include the transcripts of the criminal trial. Are you somehow better qualified to make that decision, and better informed based on a few lines in a press report?

Since when is it your right or duty to deprive children of the opportunity to know their father?

The parents disagreements with each other are their concern. That disagreement does not affect the children's rights. They are theirs to have and a Courts to protect.
Click to expand...

So if the Children want nothing to do with him then... DONE ..... Nope she can still be sent to Jail which is counter productive.

No where I can find that the children have or haven't said that they want anything to do with him so what you are also saying is conjecture.
 
Tintin124 said:
So if the Children want nothing to do with him then... DONE ..... Nope she can still be sent to Jail which is counter productive.

No where I can find that the children have or haven't said that they want anything to do with him so what you are also saying is conjecture.
Click to expand...

end of the day she 'could be' , the original article said 'may be' - but the truth of the matter is that she probably wouldnt be because if she were to be found in contempt the court would consider the needs of the children in sentencing and its very unlikely that she'd be sent to jail in these circumstances.
 
big soft moose said:
end of the day she 'could be' , the original article said 'may be' - but the truth of the matter is that she probably wouldnt be because if she were to be found in contempt the court would consider the needs of the children in sentencing and its very unlikely that she'd be sent to jail in these circumstances.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree Pete, I just get frustrated at those who get on there high horse and then do the exact opposite of the people they are berating hence are being the same.
 
Bernie174 said:
What is so difficult to understand here?



It is not HIS right, it is the CHILDREN'S right. Not the fathers, not mothers, not anyone else's, it's the Children's. How much more clear does it need to be made?

A Judge, with all the evidence has made a decision on behalf of the children, that evidence would include the transcripts of the criminal trial. Are you somehow better qualified to make that decision, and better informed based on a few lines in a press report?

Since when is it your right or duty to deprive children of the opportunity to know their father?

The parents disagreements with each other are their concern. That disagreement does not affect the children's rights. They are theirs to have and a Courts to protect.
Click to expand...

And how many times do judges order regular contact visits between abusive parents & their children, after they have been removed by social services & placed in care for their safety? .....FAR too often! Often to the mental detriment & well being of the child.

If he HAD killed the mother he would be serving a life sentence & depending on extended family, the children would possibly have been taken into local authority care initially & they could even be adopted. The father wouldn't have any `updates` then!
 
Last edited:
Tintin124 said:
So if the Children want nothing to do with him then... DONE ..... Nope she can still be sent to Jail which is counter productive.

No where I can find that the children have or haven't said that they want anything to do with him so what you are also saying is conjecture.
Click to expand...
Actually I think that is inaccurate. Whilst I emotionally don't agree based upon the information presented, we mustn't forget that the judge is the one who has had access to ALL of the information and as stated will be experienced and act with best intentions of the children first.

As such I find anyone arguing against the judge being on very thin ice.
 
dejongj said:
Actually I think that is inaccurate. Whilst I emotionally don't agree based upon the information presented, we mustn't forget that the judge is the one who has had access to ALL of the information and as stated will be experienced and act with best intentions of the children first.

As such I find anyone arguing against the judge being on very thin ice.
Click to expand...

I agree the information isn't there for us all to see, but the principle of forcing the victim to make/keep contact with the perpetrator of a vicious crime is wrong. How can anyone try to forget such a horror?

re the judges making decisions in the best interest of the child..........hmmm. Maybe in principle, yes, but in practice they don't have to deal with the aftermath or the mental issues children suffer.
We as a society are too soft & focus too much on the needs of the guilty!
 
Last edited:
Tintin124 said:
So if the Children want nothing to do with him then... DONE ..... Nope she can still be sent to Jail which is counter productive.

No where I can find that the children have or haven't said that they want anything to do with him so what you are also saying is conjecture.
Click to expand...

The children are simply too young for any opinion to be considered by the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top