Dave looks like a science teacher from high school who’d let you use the bunson burners
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The amazing Dave Jagger. What was every ones opinions on Brad I think he was oright.
I also agree that FS probably should have received higher sentence in my opinion, but I also think that the judge was very informative and the trial was fair so the sentencing did not seem overly lenient either. If the public want to complain about it that is the their right, if it is deemed to low I am sure the next judge will take all matters into account and make a wise judgement. It is the process of law to be able to complain about sentencing and we are lucky to live in a country where our views are taken seriously.
As for FS being in DV relationship or low IQ like I have always said that to me is no excuse, it is a part of the picture but it doesn't mean she could not see all that prolonged abuse and do something about it.
Also, her asking to plead guilt to cruelty charges could show remorse but it is also a tactic the solicitor will suggest doing to show that they have accepted responsibility this is too show the defendant in a good light so this could be true remorse or it could just be that FS was advised to do so.
There were not cruelty charges on the table, so to say she does consider herself guilty of cruelty on some parts allows her to say yes I was bad, but only on this bit and if the charges were on the table that is what I should be found guilty of not Causing or Allowing. It allowed her to say I realise now that it was cruelty but even that she did not really take full responsibility as she said she did not realise it was cruel whilst she was doing it which how can you think you are guilty of something if at the time you did it you did not consider it a bad thing?
However, after getting all that off my chest, I must agree that it seems to me someone is stirring this page up, it is either a troll looking for a reaction but to me it seems much more likely to be a family member of SB. Everyone is entitled to their views I couldn't agree more but this seems very suspicious that these comments are now being posted when the trial has been finished for a while now.
As for FS being in DV relationship or low IQ like I have always said that to me is no excuse, it is a part of the picture but it doesn't mean she could not see all that prolonged abuse and do something about it.
Also, her asking to plead guilt to cruelty charges could show remorse but it is also a tactic the solicitor will suggest doing to show that they have accepted responsibility this is too show the defendant in a good light so this could be true remorse or it could just be that FS was advised to do so.
There were not cruelty charges on the table, so to say she does consider herself guilty of cruelty on some parts allows her to say yes I was bad, but only on this bit and if the charges were on the table that is what I should be found guilty of not Causing or Allowing. It allowed her to say I realise now that it was cruelty but even that she did not really take full responsibility as she said she did not realise it was cruel whilst she was doing it which how can you think you are guilty of something if at the time you did it you did not consider it a bad thing?
However, after getting all that off my chest, I must agree that it seems to me someone is stirring this page up, it is either a troll looking for a reaction but to me it seems much more likely to be a family member of SB. Everyone is entitled to their views I couldn't agree more but this seems very suspicious that these comments are now being posted when the trial has been finished for a while now.
Last edited:
She not only knew about the abuse but partook in it. Filmed it, is reported to have bent Stars fingers back as a punishment and her low IQ didn’t hinder trying to conceal the abuse and bruises when a social worker visited.
I’m not personally interested in SB, clearly no one is making excuses for her and too right! I feel she should have got longer but it seems a long sentence to me, she is hardly the type to behave herself in prison either. What I don’t like is FSs minimal sentence and people making excuses for her. I hope they both get what they deserve in prison. Inciting violence or not it is a feeling from quite a majority of people against people who commit crimes against children.
I have only really ever dipped in and out of this thread and been an observer rather than a frequent poster feel that this thread is dominated by about 4-5 people who appear to spend all day and night here and to be fan girls or relatives of FS. Any differing opinion posts are either deleted or they’re driven away and mocked with “inside jokes”. The nature of this thread certainly doesnt reflect the feelings you see anywhere else. It does not matter if people have joined in the discussion after the trial has finished. It is a public forum and to my knowledge no rules on who or when anyone chooses to partake.
I’m not personally interested in SB, clearly no one is making excuses for her and too right! I feel she should have got longer but it seems a long sentence to me, she is hardly the type to behave herself in prison either. What I don’t like is FSs minimal sentence and people making excuses for her. I hope they both get what they deserve in prison. Inciting violence or not it is a feeling from quite a majority of people against people who commit crimes against children.
I have only really ever dipped in and out of this thread and been an observer rather than a frequent poster feel that this thread is dominated by about 4-5 people who appear to spend all day and night here and to be fan girls or relatives of FS. Any differing opinion posts are either deleted or they’re driven away and mocked with “inside jokes”. The nature of this thread certainly doesnt reflect the feelings you see anywhere else. It does not matter if people have joined in the discussion after the trial has finished. It is a public forum and to my knowledge no rules on who or when anyone chooses to partake.
Fair enough, I probably am of the same view as you in many ways, but it did come across as if you may have an agenda or be from SB camp, I stand corrected on that.
I have in the past on this thread sometimes felt that I was having to explain why I had the opinion I did on FS being culpable regardless of DV or low IQ, that changed somewhat when they released the photos of the bruising and it was hard to doubt that FS did have knowledge of abuse. Although with the possible increase of sentence it seems that people have revisited that sympathy for FS which is fine we all have different views. I have at times felt that posters have thought I am unsympathetic to DV or low IQ but that has definitely not been the case.
I have also questioned FS involvement in the abuse, and if she was in the room when the fatal blow occurred which could be possible on both counts as only two people really know the true facts of that day and that is FS and SB and both have a need to lie so their account cannot be trusted.
I have no real view on increasing the sentence, but I do think the public view it as too lenient it should quite rightly be looked at again. I trust the judge will look at the case without prejudice and do the right thing whatever that may be
I have also heard a lot when people have an opposing view 'have you actually read the trial transcripts' I have found this patronising at times as just because you have a different view or opinion it doesn't mean you haven't read them. It just means two people can read the same thing and have different views because they are different people with different life experience, values etc. I have also found it bizarre that people worried that jury members may not have the same view as them or may see things in different way... to me that is what a jury should be, made up of very different people who do have own opinions and not just conform to the majority.
Last edited:
This this this! And what I was totally trying to explain albeit a bit less well constructed than yourself. I get quite emotive about cases involving children as do many others.
No worries I am certainly not of the SB camp. As I say I don’t see many people defending nor making excuses for what she has done. It’s all pretty self explanatory when it comes to her. However I do believe there are a fair amount of people from the FS camp/family/friends hanging around here. I’ve never seen such passion on defending someone who yes may not have murdered her child, but partook in, was aware of and concealed the abuse. Yet being tattle, will berate Mrs Hinch for not putting mittens on her kids. I am genuinely interested in why there are a few members here who are very passionate in sympathy towards FS and what drives that passion. Yet my question remains unanswered and I am instead faced with “inside jokes”, laugh emojis, attacks or told to join a Facebook group they seem to know more about than me. I’ve been in a domestic violence relationship myself, it was coercive and I was young and naive at the time and put up with it for many years. However as soon as my abuser showed signs of turning on my children I was out in a shot. There is no excuse not to! No matter how easily led you are.
Have I read the transcripts? Yes. And like you say everyone will have a different perspective of them. I agree… It is quite patronising when the only answer certain people seem to have is “bet you haven’t read the transcripts”. I really do hope FSs sentence is revisited and she gets a lot longer. 8 years for allowing the death of one’s own child? I’ve known drug dealers to get more!
I have to disagree with this, yes not everyone in domestically violent relationships are the same and some don't protect their kids but that is unlawful all parents have a duty of care to children and if they do not act on that then they are culpable in the eyes of the law, no matter how scared or coerced they are. The law is black and white even if people are different, the law protects each person of the land and as such it cannot waiver on this because some people protect their children and some choose to turn a blind eye
That's not what I said. The other poster said 'lots of people are in domestically violent relationships and still manage to protect their kids'. Yes, that's the case - but some don't. So I am not sure why it's so hard to believe that FS didn't manage to protect Star. It's like saying 'plenty of people manage to go out for an afternoon jog and not get murdered', 'plenty of people manage to gamble on the horses and not lose their life savings' - just because 'plenty of' people do it, it's not the hard fast rule.
That is what you are saying though and you’re still saying it in this post!
Have YOU read the transcripts? There is literally evidence she failed to protect Star, it’s really not that hard to believe that she didn’t protect her. I don’t mean to paraphrase but as stated by the member above, regardless of IQ levels and coercion, the moment one decides to give birth to a child, they by law enter a contract of a duty of care towards said child, which FS failed. Star unfortunately died, what more evidence that she didn’t protect Star would you like? They were both using quite severe methods of discipline. There were messages passed back and forth between them that indicate such too. The evidence is all there that she knew about the abuse, failed to protect her daughter and let her die at the hands of another monster.
I am not arguing here. I am stating fact.
She didn’t get a minimal sentence though, the starting point is 1 year and maximum 14 she got 8.
If you think drug dealers should get less than 8 years theres seriously something wrong with you!
I'm not talking about the trial here. You can look back at every single thread and you'll see my name. What I'm saying is your argument is literally baseless - just because 'plenty of' people manage to do something, it doesn't make it the rule. There will always be exceptions. Unfortunately, FS was that exception. She was the victim of a domestically abusive relationship AND she failed to protect Star, and ultimately made her the victim too.
I end the argument about this here as you are contradicting yourself now.
I just don't get what you mean then, I maybe getting it confused but I was meaning that for those who are not like everyone else then the law is there to punish them for not doing so
I didn’t say drug dealers should get less did I? If I did feel free to quote me. I do believe people who fail to protect their children should get more. Regardless of IQ levels.
Maybe I'm not explaining it well. The other poster said something along the lines of;
'being in a domestically abusive relationship is no excuse, plenty of women are in domestically abusive relationships and manage to protect their children'.
And yes, this may well be the case. But it wasn't the case in this case, therefore that argument is invalid. The facts of the case are the facts, regardless of what 'plenty' of other people manage to do, or not.
I think she got a minimum sentence of the band she was put into if I remember correctly there was that guide wasn't there that judge spoke about
It is a rule though, it is a rule of law. Yes people may break that rule as people are different but if they do the law steps in
Sorry I meant the rule as in 'the way it will always happen' - i.e. 'exception to the rule'.
It is no excuse. As said by the other member and myself once you give birth to a child you enter a duty of care towards that child.
I have never, and would never, say it's an excuse.
So do you think FS protected her child or not? As you made two very conflicting statements which I have quoted. Surely it is one or the other?