It was reported in the media, can’t remember when or where, that he was on the sex offenders register.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
A lot of papers just seem to refer to him as a convicted sex offender. The Sun says he's a registered offender....
Everything we know about Mark Gordon and his disappearance
AFTER 54 days on the run police found Mark Gordon and his partner Constance Marten – without their newborn. Tragically on March 1, 2023 – two days after the couple were arrested –…
www.google.com
Thanks. I may have read it somewhere else too.A lot of papers just seem to refer to him as a convicted sex offender. The Sun says he's a registered offender....
Everything we know about Mark Gordon and his disappearance
AFTER 54 days on the run police found Mark Gordon and his partner Constance Marten – without their newborn. Tragically on March 1, 2023 – two days after the couple were arrested –…
His crime was horrendous and he was deported so I’d definitely hope for some follow up on him. Maybe placing him on the sex offenders register was the way to do that?
---
This article states he’s registered in the UK as a sex offender too.
Father of missing baby is registered sex offender - BBC News
The baby's mother, Constance Marten, is from a wealthy family but is now estranged from them, say police.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
So if he's on the register that will be another reason for police to be searching for them as early as September, if he has missed when he's supposed to sign/renew and missed regular visits from police.
She may also have missed contacts with SS and maybe Dr if she's on medication.
I'm sure they will have been flagged as on the run well before she gave birth, just because there wasn't a media campaign then doesn't mean the authorities weren't looking for them.
She may also have missed contacts with SS and maybe Dr if she's on medication.
I'm sure they will have been flagged as on the run well before she gave birth, just because there wasn't a media campaign then doesn't mean the authorities weren't looking for them.
If he’s a RSO here I would have thought he would have been charged with breaching the requirements of his registration (by going on the run) along with the other offences. There was no mention of him being charged with that, so I’d assume that he doesn’t have to comply with sex offender registration requirements here.
This may have been answered by others, so apologies if it has, but I’ve been skimming the last ten pages and seen one or two people asking about adoption from birth.
Adoption from birth in this country when the parents are still alive is basically illegal without being illegal.
For children taken into care at birth there are two options: 1) they go into foster care or 2) they go into foster care through the foster to adopt scheme.
The first option is when SS aren’t clear if the child will be put up for adoption in the end, often they are though. SS will firstly try and find a placement for the child with a relative (grandparent, aunt, uncle etc). As a last resort if no family can be found to look after the child, the child will then end up in the care system. For a child going through option 1 they can often have 3/4/5 foster families before the age of two. It’s very disruptive to the child. Some of these children end up being placed for adoption anyway. Some of them end up spending their whole childhoods bouncing from one foster family to another.
The second option is where SS are fairly certain, but obviously never 100% certain, that the child will be put forward for adoption. This option is a lot rarer but becoming more prevalent because it is generally seen as much better for the child if SS are pretty damn sure that the child will be taken entirely from their parents and adopted.
Essentially with foster to adopt, perspective adoptees also become registered as foster carers and for the first year/year and a half of the child’s life they are the child’s foster parent not the child parent. During that year, the parents are given the opportunity to change their circumstances for the better, and to meet certain conditions in order to get custody back of their child. This includes weekly contact sessions with the child.
The reason foster to adopt exists in this country now is because research shows that children who are adopted at birth fair better than those who are adopted when they’re 1 or 2 upwards, as the first year of life is incredibly important for children feeling safe and trusting that they will be looked after. The first year of life is being found to be increasingly more and more important so it’s a way of limiting the impacts of adoption, which is always traumatic for the child.
The court proceedings to adopt a child take months and months. Everyone involved understands the gravity of the situation and it’s never a decision taken lightly.
Some of the reasons a child might be taken from birth and put through the foster to adopt scheme:
- drug abuse
- severe mental health issues where parents are a risk to themselves and the child
- domestic abuse
- previous offences against children (child abuse)
- history of child neglect (leaving children on their own, not providing the basics of food water etc).
- sexual assault
- learning difficulties which means the parents do not have the mental capacity to look after the child
- the child is relinquished. This is really rare nowadays but obviously if the mother is adamant they do not want the child SS cannot force them to, and these children are placed in foster to adopt schemes.
Adoption from birth in this country when the parents are still alive is basically illegal without being illegal.
For children taken into care at birth there are two options: 1) they go into foster care or 2) they go into foster care through the foster to adopt scheme.
The first option is when SS aren’t clear if the child will be put up for adoption in the end, often they are though. SS will firstly try and find a placement for the child with a relative (grandparent, aunt, uncle etc). As a last resort if no family can be found to look after the child, the child will then end up in the care system. For a child going through option 1 they can often have 3/4/5 foster families before the age of two. It’s very disruptive to the child. Some of these children end up being placed for adoption anyway. Some of them end up spending their whole childhoods bouncing from one foster family to another.
The second option is where SS are fairly certain, but obviously never 100% certain, that the child will be put forward for adoption. This option is a lot rarer but becoming more prevalent because it is generally seen as much better for the child if SS are pretty damn sure that the child will be taken entirely from their parents and adopted.
Essentially with foster to adopt, perspective adoptees also become registered as foster carers and for the first year/year and a half of the child’s life they are the child’s foster parent not the child parent. During that year, the parents are given the opportunity to change their circumstances for the better, and to meet certain conditions in order to get custody back of their child. This includes weekly contact sessions with the child.
The reason foster to adopt exists in this country now is because research shows that children who are adopted at birth fair better than those who are adopted when they’re 1 or 2 upwards, as the first year of life is incredibly important for children feeling safe and trusting that they will be looked after. The first year of life is being found to be increasingly more and more important so it’s a way of limiting the impacts of adoption, which is always traumatic for the child.
The court proceedings to adopt a child take months and months. Everyone involved understands the gravity of the situation and it’s never a decision taken lightly.
Some of the reasons a child might be taken from birth and put through the foster to adopt scheme:
- drug abuse
- severe mental health issues where parents are a risk to themselves and the child
- domestic abuse
- previous offences against children (child abuse)
- history of child neglect (leaving children on their own, not providing the basics of food water etc).
- sexual assault
- learning difficulties which means the parents do not have the mental capacity to look after the child
- the child is relinquished. This is really rare nowadays but obviously if the mother is adamant they do not want the child SS cannot force them to, and these children are placed in foster to adopt schemes.
Last edited:
What the hell is this obsession some posters have with ”controlling the narrative”? The only people I have ever heard using that phrase are incurable leftists pissed off that some outlets have a different view to them and use that phrase as they think it says something profound, rather than say what they are actually thinking which is more along the lines of “Whaugh, how dare they disagree with me! I demand their immediate censorship”.
You can’t “control” the media because the media is not, and never has been, one huge homogenous entity. It has always been multiple outlets who approach any given subject from set angles which pander to the prejudices of their readers and writers. This is not new or controversial. If right wing head banging is your thing read the Daily Mail, if you prefer Owen Jones style victimwank try The Guardian. And who the hell reads newspapers in the internet age anyhow?
In the real world any hint of a verdict being influenced by outside sources is a catastrophic failure of the legal process and will result in a mistrial and serious real world consequences for the jurors and the judge. This is the guidance that is given to each jury member.
The consequences are clear and unequivocal. And you’ll notice that when this case approach’s sub judice it will disappear completely from the front pages under threat of contempt of court. It will return to the front pages once the trial is over and a verdict is reached. So if the Martens are indeed spending millions on backhanders and tame journalists in an effort to secure a lighter sentence then this must be one of the most expensive legal own goals in history. And think about it. Anyone who believes that tit is basically saying that all twelve jurors are completely incapable of making a judgement on the evidence as presented and are so empty headed that they are lead around by the nose by the first thing they read. Even under the threat of legal consequences. Projection much?
You can’t “control” the media because the media is not, and never has been, one huge homogenous entity. It has always been multiple outlets who approach any given subject from set angles which pander to the prejudices of their readers and writers. This is not new or controversial. If right wing head banging is your thing read the Daily Mail, if you prefer Owen Jones style victimwank try The Guardian. And who the hell reads newspapers in the internet age anyhow?
In the real world any hint of a verdict being influenced by outside sources is a catastrophic failure of the legal process and will result in a mistrial and serious real world consequences for the jurors and the judge. This is the guidance that is given to each jury member.
The consequences are clear and unequivocal. And you’ll notice that when this case approach’s sub judice it will disappear completely from the front pages under threat of contempt of court. It will return to the front pages once the trial is over and a verdict is reached. So if the Martens are indeed spending millions on backhanders and tame journalists in an effort to secure a lighter sentence then this must be one of the most expensive legal own goals in history. And think about it. Anyone who believes that tit is basically saying that all twelve jurors are completely incapable of making a judgement on the evidence as presented and are so empty headed that they are lead around by the nose by the first thing they read. Even under the threat of legal consequences. Projection much?
It seems like they possibly didn’t consider him a general danger to me, when they initially released the looking for them there wasn’t the line about “don’t approach, just call 999” that there often is when they’re looking for a dangerous person. The tone of it all was the danger to the baby, the police IIRC barely mentioned the conviction or if he was registered?
It's funny, because i've rarely seen it come from the mouth of the general left. Extreme left and alt RIGHT yes. Mostly the latter who love to screech about everything being a conspiracy or a coverup while owning 90% of the media.
It's well documented in cases where people are rich and middle class that the narrative is skewed in their favour. Especially if they have connections to the media. If Toots was just another junkie hooker from a council estate, if the McCanns had been shelf stackers claiming benefits at a Butlins, their entire stories would be different. It's adjacent to (and often intertwined with) "missing white woman/girl" syndrome.
You..... realise that newspapers now have their very own websites? Magic right??
I don’t think there would be any real urgency to find them if he wasn’t considered a danger to the general public or her health omissions only impacted her. It may have been noted somewhere but not given too much consideration.
It’s only after the placenta was found in the burning car, meaning there was a baby involved, that any proper search was initiated in earnest.
I’ve no idea if he was actually on the SO register, it could be erroneous reporting, but it might help explain a few things.
So what you are saying is that the outcome of this trial is in effect settled beforehand by the "narrative" thus making this whole court thing unnecessary?
And that when and if Ms Marten takes the stand any cross examination of her by the prosecution will be pointless. All that matters is the Daily Mail's take?
Wow. Terrifying.
If MG didn’t have a passport, and they were no fixed abode, he wouldn’t have been able to get a new one - even for an in person appointment you can’t do it unless you have you old passport.
They may well have left the country if it was a possibility.
They may well have left the country if it was a possibility.
Hardly. Most people are able to make their own mind up about the veracity of articles in the media, and in certain newspapers in particular, and take some of the more outrageous with a very large pinch of salt.
I read online she's got a solicitor... Does MG?
I don’t think her family would pay for this mega expensive barrister to defend him. As it’s probably them who are paying for her defence, they’ll try and distance him from her I would imagine.
Last edited:
He'll have a solicitor. Likely the duty solicitor initially. I imagine he is entitled to Legal Aid.
Plus her defense might rely on blaming him, at least in part.
There’s a bit of a difference between ‘no influence whatsoever’ and ‘the judge and jury have already decided before arriving.’ The jurors will have already inevitably seen information about the case long before MG and CM were apprehended, and I imagine the judge will too. It’s completely impossible to remove people’s subconscious biases.
Seems many feel the poor baby died when they disposed of the buggy. I don’t see how that could be true as the baby was found on a pile of nappies which, as well as the buggy would no longer have been needed.
I do find it strange they visited a food bank - don’t you have to be referred to these places and why visit one of you have money still? (They were also seen buying fish and chips and also visiting the store for supplies so they still had funds) - very strange place to go if you don’t need to.
Wired they are blowing each other kisses in court-very odd behaviour. Gives me the creeps.
I do find it strange they visited a food bank - don’t you have to be referred to these places and why visit one of you have money still? (They were also seen buying fish and chips and also visiting the store for supplies so they still had funds) - very strange place to go if you don’t need to.
Wired they are blowing each other kisses in court-very odd behaviour. Gives me the creeps.
They withdrew money from an ATM the night they bought the fish and chips.
I believe their cash had run out prompting them to go to a food bank. They then decided to chance it and withdraw cash so they could have a hot meal.
They could have disposed of the buggy when the baby died or before. They may have thought they looked less conspicuous without it. They could have been looking at newspaper articles about themselves and seen the CCTV footage of them with the buggy.
I tend to think the baby was still alive at that point or they would probably not still have nappies.
- Status