It’s strange that they went to places where they would be spotted on CCTV, thinking about the kebab place where the baby was on the bench and then in the pushchair. Wouldn’t you be looking out for cameras and go to places where you couldn’t see any? Get takeaway food and then shelter somewhere quiet? They were so cautious in the beginning when they were zig zagging across the country by taxi, they must have really dropped their guard for some reason.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
This to me is the weirdest part of all. Why she consistently stuffed the baby down her massive coat and zipped it in. It was obviously going to bring a high risk of suffocation, and personally I think this is the most obvious explanation- we’ve seen her doing it, it’s deadly, I think she probably did suffocate Victoria whether asleep or not.
even take away the freezing tent, this was so dangerous and so obviously wrong. She’s thick as mince
Agreed.
I’m just suggesting a possible concurrent aggregating factor.
Along with possible hypothermia and dehydration.
We’ll probably never know what really happened.
Last edited:
I thought she said in her police interview they hadn’t realised there was a public hunt for them and they went back underground when the public started recognising them and pointing and taking photos in east London? Then they fled to the south coast and started camping.
I agree, they’re not remorseful whatsoever. They don’t seem able (or willing) to see that they are the reason she died.That’s got to have something to do with why the previous children were removed. I’d bet my life she was given the opportunity to put her children first and leave him in order to be with them and be their mother but she chose him over and over again. Even after losing some already. That is so unforgivable.
There would’ve been a long and drawn out process from her falling pregnant to the first child being removed. Unfortunately I know a very violent rapist and as well as that horrific crime he is also convicted of sexually assaulting a child - but has incredibly gone on to father multiple children quite freely. In my experience authorities are very sluggish when dealing with him - in fact they won’t deal with him at all when I, myself, have made multiple reports and contacted them directly (not even anonymously!) with details, evidence and addressesI find myself thinking the sex offenders register isn’t as robust as people are lead to believe, the prison system is tit - no-one is being rehabilitated, the probation service is even worse and children’s services are no longer fit for purpose. I hold a very dim view of the police also
That’s why I think these two are going to be out in no time at all, having more children and they’ll be free to do so as is their human right, right!? They can’t and won’t be stopped and they know it. They don’t give a duck, they are not remorseful and this is all just a mere formality. In my opinion.
I wonder if the sleeping in tents before was something to do with her trust limiting her funds because of him. I have no idea but if her family weren’t keen and she was seen to be being irresponsible, there might have been a clause where the trust payments could be stopped.
Also agree that she could and should have made whatever changes were necessary to properly care for her other children. She would have been able to access all the support in the world. The only thing might be if she was mentally unwell enough to not be able, but that certainly doesn’t seem the case.
If she’s released while she’s still able to conceive, she will. Absolutely.
I’m sorry you’re not being listened to on the person you know. I can’t imagine the feelings of being ignored over something like that x
---
Oh yes you’re right. They’d only just got the pushchair in the kebab shop footage and then they dumped it later that day didn’t they.
I think they might be telling at least part of the truth about wanting to find a flat in London - they were back in areas they’d lived in before and probably then panicked when they realised they were front page news. If so, that’s another point where they could and should have realised that they couldn’t carry on.
Last edited:
the previous thread included reasonings they’d had the children removed, it was covered in the court timeline. As well as the lack of medical care and the disgusting living conditions in the tent, Constance had, for one of the children, Indeed spent some time alone in some kind of mother and baby foster care. The professionals monitoring her had warned her that her sleeping practises were unsafe, so there was a history of this.That’s got to have something to do with why the previous children were removed. I’d bet my life she was given the opportunity to put her children first and leave him in order to be with them and be their mother but she chose him over and over again. Even after losing some already. That is so unforgivable.
There would’ve been a long and drawn out process from her falling pregnant to the first child being removed. Unfortunately I know a very violent rapist and as well as that horrific crime he is also convicted of sexually assaulting a child - but has incredibly gone on to father multiple children quite freely. In my experience authorities are very sluggish when dealing with him - in fact they won’t deal with him at all when I, myself, have made multiple reports and contacted them directly (not even anonymously!) with details, evidence and addresses
I must have totally missed this! Do you know where roughly in the thread?
Just to say, SIDS is an unexpected and unexplained death.
Suffocating in a coat is neither unexpected or unexplained, so however she died, IMO they’re criminally negligent. Probably grossly negligent, if CM had suffocation risks explained before. Not that you should need an explanation as, eh, everyone needs to be able to breath
Suffocating in a coat is neither unexpected or unexplained, so however she died, IMO they’re criminally negligent. Probably grossly negligent, if CM had suffocation risks explained before. Not that you should need an explanation as, eh, everyone needs to be able to breath
Will try and find it x
This is something that always infuriates me. Like when a child on SS radar is harmed people always jump in to blame SS. I know it’s literally their JOB to assess risk and protect kids but if the parents weren’t such c&@£s in the first place then the child wouldn’t need protecting. Especially where the parents have lied and hidden things.
For SW it seems to be, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I think the Police would have thought long and hard, in consultation with others, before making the decision to seek public help. The risk to the poor baby must have been deemed extremely high, likely informed by factors we know nothing of yet, for them to take this route.
I assume the previous habit of living in tents plus newborn in middle of winter was determined enough risk for them to appeal. It seems unfortunate that most of the people who saw them early on didn’t bother to ring 999 instead taking pictures or alerting CM and MG that they were being looked for.
I actually think there was more, as the police knew they had access to money so could presumably live in hotels and AirB+Bs, as they had been.
Yep, she would have pretty much been guaranteed the option to go to a parent and child assessment centre for each baby and given the chance to parent them - courts might even have allowed MG to attend too, regardless of him being a convicted SO (we’ve had courts grant men that have had CSA material on their phones etc even if it is not in CSC wishes) though it would be incredibly unlikely a centre would allow men like that in, thankfully! If not, she would have been told she could parent the child (and be assessed in a centre) but have no relationship with him, so it looks like it’s him that she chose every time - hence why she hid her pregnancy this final time and went on the run cause she knew the choice she’d have to make.That’s got to have something to do with why the previous children were removed. I’d bet my life she was given the opportunity to put her children first and leave him in order to be with them and be their mother but she chose him over and over again. Even after losing some already. That is so unforgivable.
There would’ve been a long and drawn out process from her falling pregnant to the first child being removed. Unfortunately I know a very violent rapist and as well as that horrific crime he is also convicted of sexually assaulting a child - but has incredibly gone on to father multiple children quite freely. In my experience authorities are very sluggish when dealing with him - in fact they won’t deal with him at all when I, myself, have made multiple reports and contacted them directly (not even anonymously!) with details, evidence and addresses
Fwiw I don't think MG was the sole problem and if she had separated from him she would have probably still had her children removed.
Yes his past is horrific but would that be enough to have his future children removed. His crime wasn't against a child. I'm sure there is a social worker amongst us perhaps they can explain more but plenty of people with criminal pasts have children. Look at Mary Bell for one.
I remember she was in a mother and baby unit with a foster carer I believe and was told about falling asleep on the sofa etc.
From what I understand the first three were all removed at once, then the fourth she left at hospital and then she ran with Victoria. Is that right?! So at one point they 3 kids with them living in a tent.
Yes his past is horrific but would that be enough to have his future children removed. His crime wasn't against a child. I'm sure there is a social worker amongst us perhaps they can explain more but plenty of people with criminal pasts have children. Look at Mary Bell for one.
I remember she was in a mother and baby unit with a foster carer I believe and was told about falling asleep on the sofa etc.
From what I understand the first three were all removed at once, then the fourth she left at hospital and then she ran with Victoria. Is that right?! So at one point they 3 kids with them living in a tent.
I honestly don’t think his conviction alone would be enough for them to give CM the choice between her kid and him.
It was years ago, it wasn’t a child, and as far as we know he’s never reoffended. There would be SS involvement and risk assessment but I don’t think it would be mandatory removal so CM needs to pick between him and the kids at all.
Whether it should be is a second question.
It was years ago, it wasn’t a child, and as far as we know he’s never reoffended. There would be SS involvement and risk assessment but I don’t think it would be mandatory removal so CM needs to pick between him and the kids at all.
Whether it should be is a second question.
A p&c carer or unit would not want a convicted SO in regardless of when it happened, due to there being other (vulnerable) women there. So if CSC / courts were giving the opportunity to parent alone to CM (ie they both need an parenting assessment because of previous neglect concerns etc, but he cannot be assessed as no where would have him due to his conviction - so ultimately she cannot have a relationship with him ). She’d choose him and forfeit the assessment I bet, which is most likely why she hid the pregnancy / went on the run.
For this time I agree but not originally.
I doubt she’d have wanted to comply with them particularly by Victoria anyway, regardless of him and his previous convictions.
Didn’t they search every single b&b in one town early on? That’s mammoth.
They were allowed to initially keep their first three children? So if there was an issue with MG's conviction you think they wouldn't have let them, although it would be classed as a major safeguarding concern.
- Status