Emma Tustin and Thomas Hughes #2

[Westcoasthippydreamgirl]

Just wanted to clarify something from the previous thread, about the school not doing enough to find out why he wasn't in, as I have a daughter the same age.

Reception and Year 1 were allowed to go back to school on Monday 8th June 2020 in England. It was socially distanced capacity classes. At my school we had a 'consultation' about a week before. Out of my daughter's class of 30, only 14 went back because parents were still very fearful of covid. The school were so overwhelmed they just said ok and carried on with what they could.

Arthur died only a week later on 16th June so I don't think the school missed anything by not checking up on him. If he left school in March 2020 not deemed at risk then I fail to see why they should have realised he was at danger just because he didn't come back in June because so many other families made the same choice.

 

[Lucas2018]

@Kneadwine you're definitely not alone, my little boy who’s 3 said he was hungry after nursery today so I gave him a snack then burst into tears thinking of that little boy who must have been absolutely starving hungry all the time

 

[elikayute]

Just wanted to clarify something from the previous thread, about the school not doing enough to find out why he wasn't in, as I have a daughter the same age.

Reception and Year 1 were allowed to go back to school on Monday 8th June 2020 in England. It was socially distanced capacity classes. At my school we had a 'consultation' about a week before. Out of my daughter's class of 30, only 14 went back because parents were still very fearful of covid. The school were so overwhelmed they just said ok and carried on with what they could.

Arthur died only a week later on 16th June so I don't think the school missed anything by not checking up on him. If he left school in March 2020 not deemed at risk then I fail to see why they should have realised he was at danger just because he didn't come back in June because so many other families made the same choice.

I think it’s the lack of joined up working. Apparently Arthur had been known to social services for 3 years. He was vulnerable, having been removed from his mothers care because he went to prison, and then those bruises were photographed in the April. Maybe there’s something around schools needing to be notified when social services are involved, so they can continue to be a watching eye. Perhaps the school would then have insisted on a visit and seen how weak he was. Perhaps spontaneous follow up visits where bruises are photographed but not seen in person.

 

[BattleAxing]

Wether people like it or not. Social need to take the blame here too. I've seen them act very heavy handed to mothers who have had mental health or difficulties with an ex partner yet anyone can see from the outside they adore their children. Perhaps these women are easy targets? God knows but I've seen loving mothers have their children removed for alot less. Real cases are ignored, probably because they spend so much time and resources on families who don't need them. Any suspicious bruise on a child should increase visits and at the very least spoken to the child alone! I don't see how Arthur wouldn't have been a big flag on their radar with him being witness to a severe DV incident and his main carer going to jail. That is child protection tit and the social workers involved in this case deserve their heads to ROLL. Probably too busy nit picking at a loving but slightly struggling mother instead.

 

[Cubalibra]

I cant imagine what her other children had to endure- they were in the house too, listening to him constantly crying, being shouted out,
beaten. All these horrible memories, a life time of nightmares. That witch caused irreparable damage to her children.

 

[thaliamay]

Wether people like it or not. Social need to take the blame here too. I've seen them act very heavy handed to mothers who have had mental health or difficulties with an ex partner yet anyone can see from the outside they adore their children. Perhaps these women are easy targets? God knows but I've seen loving mothers have their children removed for alot less. Real cases are ignored, probably because they spend so much time and resources on families who don't need them. Any suspicious bruise on a child should increase visits and at the very least spoken to the child alone! I don't see how Arthur wouldn't have been a big flag on their radar with him being witness to a severe DV incident and his main carer going to jail. That is child protection tit and the social workers involved in this case deserve their heads to ROLL. Probably too busy nit picking at a loving but slightly struggling mother instead.

Agree with what youve said, I find it unbelievable they only asked him to pull up his top, saw what they thought was a small bruise (how!!?? - it's obvious it was only the bottom of that large bruise photographed) and were content with that. To call concerned family members Malicious, also unbelievable.


Just one thing though, I don't believe Arthur was there to witness Gary's death. I've read lots on the case and can't see a child being present, I believe he was elsewhere at the time. If anyone can show me evidence he was there, fine, but I've certainly not seen that mentioned and it def would be.

 

[GobShyte64]

I cant imagine what her other children had to endure- they were in the house too, listening to him constantly crying, being shouted out,
beaten. All these horrible memories, a life time of nightmares. That witch caused irreparable damage to her children.

They will no doubt have a lot of trauma to unpack. More kids in the system cuz of that scruffy scrote!

 

[Kneadwine]

Thanks for everyone’s reassurance that I am not alone. Like another poster, I also feel like I have no right to feel this distraught. I simply cannot shake it off and can’t imagine not constantly thinking about Arthur.
As a family, we were all lucky that no one suffered financially during lockdown. I was the only one still (frontline) working, but on days off I enjoyed the lovely weather, catching up on stuff, chatting with neighbours and our wonderful family zoom chats. Now I think I will always think of lockdown as the time when Arthur was being tortured.
I went to pick my grandson up from school today as I really needed to see him. His trust in us and his total innocence just highlighted how terrible this crime against Arthur was. And to think he tried to get help and wasn’t heard.
I have also been thinking of his poor grandma and how things need to change so that grandparents have a voice. If that evil woman hated Arthur so much, why didn’t they send him to live with his Nan?
I’m assuming she HAD to return him due to the father (I use that term loosely) having full custody, and I can only imagine how hard that was. But in all honesty, I think I would have run away with him and s*d the law.
To think he is still lying in a cold mortuary haunts me. The only thing that consoles me is that he is out of pain and that no one can hurt him anymore.That’s the only thing I can cling onto.
Sorry for waffling on but I just needed to ‘talk’ to likeminded people

 

[bluecups]

Thanks for everyone’s reassurance that I am not alone. Like another poster, I also feel like I have no right to feel this distraught. I simply cannot shake it off and can’t imagine not constantly thinking about Arthur.
As a family, we were all lucky that no one suffered financially during lockdown. I was the only one still (frontline) working, but on days off I enjoyed the lovely weather, catching up on stuff, chatting with neighbours and our wonderful family zoom chats. Now I think I will always think of lockdown as the time when Arthur was being tortured.
I went to pick my grandson up from school today as I really needed to see him. His trust in us and his total innocence just highlighted how terrible this crime against Arthur was. And to think he tried to get help and wasn’t heard.
I have also been thinking of his poor grandma and how things need to change so that grandparents have a voice. If that evil woman hated Arthur so much, why didn’t they send him to live with his Nan?
I’m assuming she HAD to return him due to the father (I use that term loosely) having full custody, and I can only imagine how hard that was. But in all honesty, I think I would have run away with him and s*d the law.
To think he is still lying in a cold mortuary haunts me. The only thing that consoles me is that he is out of pain and that no one can hurt him anymore.That’s the only thing I can cling onto.
Sorry for waffling on but I just needed to ‘talk’ to likeminded people

I just popped over the garage for some milk and there was a little lad in there about Arthur's age dressed in a Marvel superhero outfit, twirling around looking pleased as punch. It choked me up and I had to leg it up another aisle so he didn't see me crying, and I'm not prone to emotional outbursts in public. What is absolutely staggering is the contrast between the public's genuine grief for a child they never knew and the cruelty meted out by the people who were supposed to be caring for him. It's almost impossible to process.

 

[Jumbojet1251]

Arthur can finally be at peace. After being alone in life, and alone in death he can now receive the reverence he deserves.

Arthur's killer father Thomas Hughes agrees to release body


#

 

[Kneadwine]

I just popped over the garage for some milk and there was a little lad in there about Arthur's age dressed in a Marvel superhero outfit, twirling around looking pleased as punch. It choked me up and I had to leg it up another aisle so he didn't see me crying, and I'm not prone to emotional outbursts in public. What is absolutely staggering is the contrast between the public's genuine grief for a child they never knew and the cruelty meted out by the people who were supposed to be caring for him. It's almost impossible to process.

Just the sort of thing I would do. Bless Arthur loving his superheroes
I don’t know anyone who isn’t disgusted by this. I just hope lessons will finally be learnt (because they don’t seem to have despite promises after enquiries into the deaths of poor Daniel, Victoria and Peter )

 

[bluecups]

Arthur can finally be at peace. After being alone in life, and alone in death he can now receive the reverence he deserves.

Arthur's killer father Thomas Hughes agrees to release body


#

"Mr Richmond added: 'I have spoke to him and said this can't go on. He has instructed me to say that Arthur's remains, after a service with his family, must go to his mother's family for her to have a funeral and she must have control of his ashes. He does hope he can give Olivia a tiny scrap of peace.'

Errr.....what? How come TH is calling the shots and saying his family will hold a service first? He killed the poor child, this has duck all to do with him and his family. He nor his family should have any say in Arthur's funeral arrangements.

 

[Kneadwine]

"Mr Richmond added: 'I have spoke to him and said this can't go on. He has instructed me to say that Arthur's remains, after a service with his family, must go to his mother's family for her to have a funeral and she must have control of his ashes. He does hope he can give Olivia a tiny scrap of peace.'

Errr.....what? How come TH is calling the shots and saying his family will hold a service first? He killed the poor child, this has duck all to do with him and his family. He nor his family should have any say in Arthur's funeral arrangements.

He should have been made to give up all rights to his body when he was arrested. He clearly didn’t want him in life, so why should he have been allowed to decide what happens to him in death
Poor Arthur has lain cold and alone for 18 months. That clearly shows he has no remorse

 

[avabella]

I'm not in any way victim blaming or family shaming, so I hope this isn't taken this way - Daniel Hughes claimed they had spoken as a family of breaking down the door and taking Arthur (after the severe bruise picture was ignored - so I'm assuming it would have still been visible at this time). He says the police advised him he would be arrested for kidnap and his child removed from him? Is there truth to this? Anyone in the force could confirm?

I genuinely think if I was in that position, and I was *certain* he was being abused, I'd like to think I'd take my chances? Surely if you save a child from certain abuse, any charges against you would be dropped? Or am I looking at this in a very simplistic way?

 

[BattleAxing]

Agree with what youve said, I find it unbelievable they only asked him to pull up his top, saw what they thought was a small bruise (how!!?? - it's obvious it was only the bottom of that large bruise photographed) and were content with that. To call concerned family members Malicious, also unbelievable.


Just one thing though, I don't believe Arthur was there to witness Gary's death. I've read lots on the case and can't see a child being present, I believe he was elsewhere at the time. If anyone can show me evidence he was there, fine, but I've certainly not seen that mentioned and it def would be.

Tbh I have only ever read on here that Arthur was a witness to his mother's crime. But wether he was or not a very serious crime was committed where a child is residence. His main care giver given a considerable prison sentence. Domestic violence alone where a child lives always prompts social services referrals and for something so serious, they usually wouldn't put children on anything less than child protection or even an interim care order/pre proceedings. Which would include visits at least every 2 weeks and speaking to the child at regular intervals alone. It speaks volumes that said social worker retired. If they done their job properly they would have seen the drastic change in him, the weight loss, questioned Arthur alone about the bruises and even seen the distress in his eyes!

I know many actual "ground" workers themselves have their hands tied so to speak and always go by what the managers say. Yet these managers couldn't even tell you the colour of the child's eyes! And they make such life changing decisions rarely ever laying eyes on the parents, let alone the child! The system needs a whole shake up.

 

[bluecups]

I'm not in any way victim blaming or family shaming, so I hope this isn't taken this way - Daniel Hughes claimed they had spoken as a family of breaking down the door and taking Arthur (after the sever bruise picture was ignored - so I'm assuming it would have still been visible at this time). He says the police advised him he would be arrested for kidnap and his child removed from him? Is there truth to this? Anyone in the force could confirm?

I genuinely think if I was in that position, and I was *certain* he was being abused, I'd like to think I'd take my chances? Surely if you save a child from certain abuse, any charges against you would be dropped? Or am I looking at this in a very simplistic way?

I feel the same. Personally I'd have been on Cransmore Road banging a drum and shouting into a megaphone about Arthur's condition, telling all the neighbours and shouting the odds until the police got there. And after being released from the police station I'd go back again and again. The family saw the bruises with their own eyes and took photos, they knew it wasn't a baseless allegation so they knew their complaints were genuine. DH wouldn't have had his child removed as it wasn't a made up complaint, if they had smashed the door down and taken Arthur any doctor would have quickly ascertained that he had non-accidental injuries. It wouldn't have been kidnap, it would have been a rescue. I bet they wished they had smashed the door down now, but they were not to blame for his death, ET and TH were.

 

[avabella]

I feel the same. Personally I'd have been on Cransmore Road banging a drum and shouting into a megaphone about Arthur's condition, telling all the neighbours and shouting the odds until the police got there. And after being released from the police station I'd go back again and again. The family saw the bruises with their own eyes and took photos, they knew it wasn't a baseless allegation so they knew their complaints were genuine. DH wouldn't have had his child removed as it wasn't a made up complaint, if they had smashed the door down and taken Arthur any doctor would have quickly ascertained that he had non-accidental injuries. It wouldn't have been kidnap, it would have been a rescue. I bet they wished they had smashed the door down now, but they were not to blame for his death, ET and TH were.

Oh absolutely it's not their fault - I think what I was asking in a roundabout way is - why would the police tell him that? (Or would that be the case if it was a mistaken allegation?) It seems extreme if so.
To have conversations as a family about breaking down a door to someones house is significant and I suppose not done lightly.

 

[carriebooboo]

Did TH have a job when all this was happening? I can't find it mentioned in any of the recaps.

 

[Cubalibra]

I'm not in any way victim blaming or family shaming, so I hope this isn't taken this way - Daniel Hughes claimed they had spoken as a family of breaking down the door and taking Arthur (after the severe bruise picture was ignored - so I'm assuming it would have still been visible at this time). He says the police advised him he would be arrested for kidnap and his child removed from him? Is there truth to this? Anyone in the force could confirm?

I genuinely think if I was in that position, and I was *certain* he was being abused, I'd like to think I'd take my chances? Surely if you save a child from certain abuse, any charges against you would be dropped? Or am I looking at this in a very simplistic way?

I’m not employed by the force but work with vulnerable children. No, you can’t have your child taken away from for alerting child abuse. It’s the whole- I’m such an amazing dad, my family first. Aint got no problem with my nephew getting beaten black and blue! The more I think about it with bucket loads of empathy then more I am annoyed at Arthur’s family.

 

[wakametango 2.0]

If he left school in March 2020 not deemed at risk

His background would have had him classed as a highly vulnerable child. They said he had separation anxiety, was worried his dad would kill him, use a baby voice, school would have known about his mum, he was known by SS from the age of 3. Any children not coming online we’re escalated to our senior management team or year group leaders to chase them up. I think all schools have now learnt how to handle lockdowns better, many didn’t get it right the first time but it’s a huge huge shame. He was a vulnerable child before this.