They were always going to win to be fair. It’s just the way the law is, I think the law needs to be updated, because “virtual lynch mobs” didn’t exist before.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I only see chaos descending with families who were under the same judges looking for reviews of their cases if they’ve had children removed when they didn’t agree with the ruling.
No good can come of this.
Luckily two have since retired. That leaves one who will be the biggest target. It’s even possible that one judge was overruled by the other two when making the decision, so potentially they will target someone who didn’t want to award custody but wasn’t able to prevent it.
Pile ons aren’t a fan of nuance. Or reason.
Pile ons aren’t a fan of nuance. Or reason.
I don’t think it is just the public’s thirst for retribution though.
Part of being a judge is that the court system is open and transparent - and that means their names are public. It won’t “put people off being a judge” like has been claimed as if naming them was out of the norm, it’s following the normal practise and that’s why the media won the case.
If other parents ask for a review on the back of it, so be it. If the correct decision was made, it won’t be overturned and everyone should always have the right to ask for a review if new information comes out.
Yes it might be other parents with their children taken but equally parents, SS or others might ask for a review of some cases like Sara’s where the child wasn’t taken or custody was granted to an unsuitable parent and that might well save another child’s life.
He's been moved to Frankland after his attack apparently. Monster mansion fits well with him.
I agree but hope that I am wrong and people don't react in the way that so often happens. I'd have more sympathy if it were a recent judgement but it wasn't.
The judges have been named today. When explaining their decision to lift the reporting restrictions it made sense to me, that the norm is for transparency and that the trial judge wasn’t following the law, as cabal pointed out above. There is a little detail about the process involved in them gaining custody as well, as initially it was Olga who was given the kids. Then for whatever reason they all wanted to change the agreement by consent but the judge wasn’t happy and ordered full SW investigations and reports before making her decision. So again, it seems confirmation that it was multiple bad decisions by many agencies and not a single person or action that put Sara in harm’s way. I don’t think the red tops will report it like that, I think they will focus on things like the judge telling Olga she should shake BB hand and be grateful to her.
I really don’t think reading most of the articles it is a witch hunt like was suggested it would be, the reporting seems very balanced and pointing out it was a whole set of issues of which the judges decision was only one part.
Whether people will appeal other decisions by her now, who knows - but if she’s largely dealt with other decisions based on reports from the same SS department I absolutely think anyone should have the right to ask for a review to see whether the right decision has been made given what has come out about a catalogue of errors in this case.
Yes, perhaps that does mean parents who have rightly had their kids taken will “waste some of everyone’s time”/have the same result but as I said above it could also mean another Sara out there has their case reviewed and a child (or children) could be saved because of that. Which is exactly why this transparency is so important.
Whether people will appeal other decisions by her now, who knows - but if she’s largely dealt with other decisions based on reports from the same SS department I absolutely think anyone should have the right to ask for a review to see whether the right decision has been made given what has come out about a catalogue of errors in this case.
Yes, perhaps that does mean parents who have rightly had their kids taken will “waste some of everyone’s time”/have the same result but as I said above it could also mean another Sara out there has their case reviewed and a child (or children) could be saved because of that. Which is exactly why this transparency is so important.
Last edited:
If any judge was going to be “online witch-hunted” or whatever it should have been justice Hogg when she ordered Ellie Butler be returned. It was the way it was done too. In Sara’s case it’s shocking to me that one sibling went into care but Sara and another were sent to live with a known domestic abuser. Sorry if it’s been asked but at what age do the family courts take the child’s wishes into account? Just out of interest ?
We believe the oldest sibling isn’t a child of Urfan, just Olga.
Thanks, sorry I have read the thread just a lot to take in
There were a lot of little details hinted at or not really clarified at first. Like that Olga was thought to have learning difficulties, had an older son, BB’s two older daughters had severe learning difficulties? additional needs etc
Precisely and it didn’t happen to Justice Hogg, nor did anyone suggest JH shouldn’t have been named - again highlighting how absolutely unprecedented the decision to grant anonymity randomly to the judge in this case was.
Even the tabloid reporting around the judge in Sara’s case that I’ve seen so far has been really balanced and largely pointing out the decision was made based on a report from an inexperienced SW that appears to have pained a very different picture to the reality of life with US and BB.
Really makes you wonder whether the initial motivation was “there’ll be a press witch hunt” or if it’s more “we don’t want scrutiny of some of the horrendous mistakes made in this case so we’ll blame the press and say that’s why we can’t release details”.
In the last thread I said that Urfan would probably end up joining a Muslim gang in prison.
According to the Daily Mail, since he was attacked in prison, he's under the protection of a Muslim gang:
According to the Daily Mail, since he was attacked in prison, he's under the protection of a Muslim gang:
I new this would happen the muslim gangs are rife in the prisons
He’s not got a lot of gangs he can join, really. He’s not a dealer or a muggy.
Of course! He didn’t do anything wrong.
All he did was “legally punish” his young daughter in accordance with Sharia Law.
b!!!
How is ”legally punish” in line with Sharia, that makes no sense?
Do you know if there was a Sharia ruling?
He wasn’t living in accordance with sharia, are you just being racist?
I think OP was referring to that as US himself used the words ‘legally punished’ when he reported Sara’s death. We said on the thread at the time that he could have been claiming sharia law, but he didn’t acknowledge that he went way beyond that.
Claiming sharia law but saying he (accidentally) went too far would (possibly) be a way to be accepted by a Muslim group in prison.
I agree, it’s clear this is what @Mollywobbles meant and it’s pretty disingenuous to suggest otherwise when she was directly quoting a line he used.