Meh, do they really need to go on a course to be told do not sexually abuse their new baby?
Any lack of training or being told what to do isn’t an excuse in this case
Last edited:
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Any lack of training or being told what to do isn’t an excuse in this case
Especially when one is a self confessed “clean freak”!!!!If I was on the jury I'd be wondering who in their right mind would put their nappy-less baby in a dry clean cot
Clutching at straws because there's nothing he can say to justify what he knows he was doing.
There is zero chance that he comes across as any way reliable or reasonable.
all this videoing and making out JV was this kind, attentive father is making me feel ill.
Also noticed this videoing they’re showing is right at the start from March/April, probably when he still saw Preston as a novelty.
Poor little baby
Also noticed this videoing they’re showing is right at the start from March/April, probably when he still saw Preston as a novelty.
Poor little baby
Good point well made.
Deffo not an excuse but shines a spotlight on the adoption agency involved here which can only be a good thing. I think before handing out vulnerable babies and children (especially to men that don’t have any experience) there should be more in place than the odd VR lesson. What a duck up.
I know we shouldn’t laugh but straight away he’s regurgitating the same old bull. How did this thick hat become a head of year at a school, what school was it, borstal?
Many will disagree because it just isn't a realistic proposal or position to take. Believe me, I understand the horror and the outrage at what this poor darling baby suffered at the hands of these monsters and I understand that gut reaction of 'men shouldn't be able to adopt, full stop' but it isn't realistic. We've discussed it before on here but women abuse too. The vast majority of adopted children are cherished and loved. Why should the actions of these two sick f*cks mean that a) potentially excellent people are denied the opportunity to adopt and b) children in care languish in the system, never knowing the love of a stable home and care of loving parents for life.
If we start calculating risk and putting measures like that in place, then why stop there- men are statistically more likely to murder- so therefore they should all be under house arrest or thrown in jail, just in case they offend? Come on, it's just not realistic.
Yeah I completely agree with this in general, I just think that in this case no amount of safeguarding courses or education would have stopped this from happening because they only had bad intentions.
Although he was probably lying through his teeth, How was it meant to be the Foster carers job or responsibility to give adoptive parents ''baby classes'' And werent things like the sleep routine suggested by the foster carer dismissed in any case?
Surely baby classes is where the social workers and adoption team should have been? Surely there are loads of courses and support for new parents in how to support their babies and children? Or at least there were years ago. Wasnt this the kind of stuff Early start centres used to run? Even now the local mother and baby weigh ins at the library or mother and baby groups all suggest and discuss and support each other with this kind of stuff.
And as for this idea of Free willy time..... give me strength!! As others have said, why would you bath a baby and put him in a clean cot without a nappy on? What happens if he falls asleep and you have to disturb him to get him out? What happens if he wees all over the bedding?
Surely baby classes is where the social workers and adoption team should have been? Surely there are loads of courses and support for new parents in how to support their babies and children? Or at least there were years ago. Wasnt this the kind of stuff Early start centres used to run? Even now the local mother and baby weigh ins at the library or mother and baby groups all suggest and discuss and support each other with this kind of stuff.
And as for this idea of Free willy time..... give me strength!! As others have said, why would you bath a baby and put him in a clean cot without a nappy on? What happens if he falls asleep and you have to disturb him to get him out? What happens if he wees all over the bedding?
He’s saying he didn’t try and hide footage he recorded but he did delete things that were later recovered didn’t he?
Thing is I hope the jury see through the nice videos. An abuser can beat their spouse to death and chronically abuse them but you will also find videos and photos of them being nice to them.
Also shows that JV is obviously really good at putting on the right mask when he needs it - if he'd listed "watching videos of child sexual abuse on the dark web" under hobbies on his CV he'd have never been let near a school, let alone managed to become a teacher, head of year, and safeguarding lead. He managed to manipulate all the professionals around him into thinking he was a decent, responsible, citizen who would be a suitable adoptive parent. He even delayed part of the adoption process to get his Year 11s through their exams - maybe this was a deliberate ploy to make the social worker think "oh how lovely, he wants to support these kids, and then be able to focus fully on adopting when they get approved ".
I can actually believe that the adoption agency didn’t provide baby care classes. Their job is to assess suitability as adoptive parents, and go over any particular issues that may arise due to the baby being removed at birth (attachment issues, potential drug and alcohol exposure, therapeutic parenting techniques, and so on).
Adoption agencies don’t provide basic baby care classes any more than the NHS does to expectant couples. The assumption is you either know, from growing up around babies, or you figure it out yourself as you go.
Framing it as “the foster mum told us what to do” is a clear attempt to frame all their failures around being advised badly by her.
Adoption agencies don’t provide basic baby care classes any more than the NHS does to expectant couples. The assumption is you either know, from growing up around babies, or you figure it out yourself as you go.
Framing it as “the foster mum told us what to do” is a clear attempt to frame all their failures around being advised badly by her.
I absolutely hate the way he’s coming across as kind of smooth and together. I have to keep telling myself that this part will have been rehearsed
That's what I had read, too.
A pp said that statistically the highest domestic risk to a child is an unrelated male - (I expect the most common instance is boyfriends of women who already have children) - all risk assessment on behalf of the child must be done without fear or favour.
It has become taboo to question whether two men should adopt or have surrogate children together but nothing should be taboo when safeguarding childten. I'd expect any gay male couple who really wanted to parent to understand that they would be subject to any extra monitoring and background checking for as long as needed, based on the statistical risks that apply. And the same would go for any fostering and adopting couples - it isn't the same as having your own children, the state is in the position of allowing you to undertake the care of a child who is not yours and who has already lost their natural parents, so has a very serious responsibility to that child, adult wants / 'rights' to have a child don't come into it - your past behaviours, your finances, your beliefs, the stability of your relationship, all these elements should be legitimately investigated regardless of intrusion and I'd expect anyone being investigated to be entirely patient about that.
That's why I don't get how these two seemingly didn't have effective scrutiny - new adoption of a non-verbal young child should be a situation where monitoring is high, surely? That's why that love-heart from Preston's social worker bugs me. Did this pair escape more scrutiny because they were 'professionals' so 'respectable' and seen as low risk and - yes, possibly - as 'gay dads'. I've seen too many instances of highly-qualified professional women (in my job) gushing over gay male colleagues and bosses not to think that's another potential bias. Once there's been even an unconscious decision to treat someone as lower risk based on feelings, that's a cascade of hazards, like the witless biddy who decided Lucy Letby was a bullying victim and took her out for coffees instead of investigating.
I don't think there needed to be any dark web plot (and yes, uncatalogued web interaction and use of browsers to access uncatalogued content can be uncovered) for these two to get into this. It's possible to be a gay couple and also abusers, like Brady and Hindley were a straight couple, the Wests were a married couple with children - it may be that had they not met, the more passive partner in each couple wouldn't have committed the same crimes but they had the propensity to go along with it.
This is why safeguarding should be rigidly set protocols in every single instance, regardless of whether it inconveniences or offends adults. And if lack of resources ever prevents full scrutiny then it can't work at all.
Get in! The arrogant wick has got on the stand! I shouldn’t be flippant but I’m getting the popcorn out, I can’t wait to watch him hang himself.
‘Defendant denies intentionally taking an indecent photo
"Were you intentionally trying to take an indecent photo of his genitals?" asked the KC.
"No, not deliberately," Mr Varley says.
Mr Varley explains Anne Geddes is a New York photographer who takes pictures of babies in towels or plant pots with lots of focus on the feet. He says growing up there were a lot of her photos around the house and he tried to take that style of photos when he had his own child.’
What the actual f???? Why would anyone have photos like that everywhere? Random photos of babies on the wall next to photos of Nan on holiday or paintings of a Spanish harbour or whatever? Am I an artless phillistine or is that really weird? Also if true it certainly had an interesting effect on the young mind of this cretin.
"Were you intentionally trying to take an indecent photo of his genitals?" asked the KC.
"No, not deliberately," Mr Varley says.
Mr Varley explains Anne Geddes is a New York photographer who takes pictures of babies in towels or plant pots with lots of focus on the feet. He says growing up there were a lot of her photos around the house and he tried to take that style of photos when he had his own child.’
What the actual f???? Why would anyone have photos like that everywhere? Random photos of babies on the wall next to photos of Nan on holiday or paintings of a Spanish harbour or whatever? Am I an artless phillistine or is that really weird? Also if true it certainly had an interesting effect on the young mind of this cretin.
- Status