|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 10, 2009 23:23:50 GMT
www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED10%20Mar%202009%2017%3A36%3A24%3A290Mother jailed for death of baby son editorial@hamhigh.co.uk 10 March 2009 YOUNG mother Claire Biggs was sentenced to eight years imprisonment today (Tuesday) for sustained violence against her eight-week-old son culminating in 12 broken ribs, a broken wrist and shoulder blade occurring up to 24 hours before his death. The cause of Rhys Biggs' death in May 2008 could not be ascertained by medical experts but the violence at the hands of his mother would have certainly meant his short life was lived in agony, a court heard today. Judge Lindsay Burn sentencing at Inner London Crown Court told a sobbing Biggs: "Undoubtedly Rhys suffered considerable harm as a result of what you did to him and this must have been prolonged and very obvious to you. You deliberately denied him the medical care he urgently needed. You left him to suffer." Ms Biggs, who lived in a Camden Women's Aid refuge until the birth of her son, was cleared to care for him despite having had an older child taken into care and concerns being raised by midwives at the Royal Free who treated her. After his birth she moved in with a new boyfriend Paul Husband in his home in Newham. He was found guilty of wilful neglect at the court last month but did not appear in court for sentencing today as he was deemed mentally unfit. He will be sentenced at a later date. Ms Biggs' lawyers argued Biggs had diminished responsibility because of the "physical, sexual and emotional abuse" she suffered at the hands of Husband but Judge Burn said he did not believe the abuse existed. He told the court: "I am not saying this lady is someone who never suffered abuse - I accept she has but my finding is that it was not at the hands of Mr Husband as she has claimed. At all times in this case she was in control of herself and what she did." It emerged after Rhys' death that Husband was a convicted child sex attacker but no police checks had been made on him by Camden or Newham Councils social services.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Mar 10, 2009 23:35:32 GMT
A baby killer and a pedo. Why are people like this allowed to walk the streets? The guy should've been doing life for his crimes against children, and the pathetic insult of an 8 year sentance for the woman is a sick, disgusting joke. AH
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 11, 2009 2:12:40 GMT
I find cases like this the most difficult of all to maintain my opposition to the death penalty. As it is I can only feel that a just sentence would have been for both these appalling individuals to be serving at least the next 60 years of their life behind prison bars.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Mar 11, 2009 2:39:52 GMT
A baby killer and a pedo. Why are people like this allowed to walk the streets? The guy should've been doing life for his crimes against children, and the pathetic insult of an 8 year sentance for the woman is a sick, disgusting joke. AH Yes, she's a woman so the man should be guilty. After all, he has previous form and feminists tell us that women are feeble creatures with no will of their own to resist male supremacy. ll the feeble creatures can do is to conform to Victorian ideals of shame at sex for showing them to be no more than passive objects for men's use, no matter how they see it, and envying whatever jobs men have traditionally done as superior to anything women have done because it was the superior men who did them.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 11, 2009 16:34:04 GMT
Eight years, which means she will be out in four; probably to breed again. Some people should be compulsorily sterilised; and in her case without anaesthetic.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Mar 11, 2009 20:29:42 GMT
A baby killer and a pedo. Why are people like this allowed to walk the streets? The guy should've been doing life for his crimes against children, and the pathetic insult of an 8 year sentance for the woman is a sick, disgusting joke. AH Yes, she's a woman so the man should be guilty. After all, he has previous form and feminists tell us that women are feeble creatures with no will of their own to resist male supremacy. ll the feeble creatures can do is to conform to Victorian ideals of shame at sex for showing them to be no more than passive objects for men's use, no matter how they see it, and envying whatever jobs men have traditionally done as superior to anything women have done because it was the superior men who did them. What? I said that the pedo should've been in prison for life for his first offence against a child - Do you disagree with that? I also said that it was a sick joke that the woman only got 8 years (inferring that she should've got a far more appropriate sentence for her evil crimes). AH
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 11, 2009 22:27:00 GMT
A baby killer and a pedo. Why are people like this allowed to walk the streets? The guy should've been doing life for his crimes against children, and the pathetic insult of an 8 year sentance for the woman is a sick, disgusting joke. AH Yes, she's a woman so the man should be guilty. After all, he has previous form and feminists tell us that women are feeble creatures with no will of their own to resist male supremacy. ll the feeble creatures can do is to conform to Victorian ideals of shame at sex for showing them to be no more than passive objects for men's use, no matter how they see it, and envying whatever jobs men have traditionally done as superior to anything women have done because it was the superior men who did them. I'm sorry, but you seem to have mistaken the title of this thread. You're looking for the thread entitled "Why I hate those people I define as feminists". It's . . oh . . over there . . somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 8:32:14 GMT
I do. We know nothing about the nature of this "attack". People can get put on the sex offenders register for exposing themselves or having sex with a willing partner too young to consent. They all seem to get lumped together as "sex attackers" when they are often nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 12, 2009 12:46:52 GMT
Although you are fundamentally correct, Skylark, it seems highly doubtful, given the extent of the abuse involved, that a relatively innocent explanation would be involved.
I honestly believe that both of them ought to be locked up in prison for at least the next 60 years.
As for the extraordinary (and irrelevant) comments about women, I have to say that no one on this board - at least no one that I have come across in posting - takes the view that crime is always the fault of the man and that the woman is a poor manipulated creature.
Even so, sometimes that really IS the case.
That, however, is not germane to the issue in this present matter.
I posted this thread out of my sadness and anger at the suffering of the child and at what I saw as the derisory sentence handed down.
Feminism or anti-feminism has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 12:53:44 GMT
I'm not sure about this idea that every child sex offender has to be locked up for life, just because he is a child sex offender. There is a higher rate of reconviction than for other crimes, but many do not reoffend.
Mr Husband had served his time . Having said that, he is ill, and perhaps he should have been kept in a psychiatric unit for longer for everyone's sake. Sadly some people function better in institutions and it may be this man is one.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 12, 2009 23:41:20 GMT
One of my friends is a professional psychiatrist and she's dealt with lots of sex offenders.
Basically she reckons less than 5% of rapists and less than 1% of paedophiles are capable of being rehabilitated.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2009 14:43:57 GMT
I wonder what made your friend come to that conclusion. All I am going on is reconviction rates. According to this Home Office document, for serious sex offences less than 10 per cent re-offended within six years of their release (the maximum period of the study). serious sex offenders reconviction study
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 13, 2009 15:39:57 GMT
Personal experience of dealing with them, Skylark.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2009 19:47:08 GMT
Yes, Lin, I realise that! But if statistics say that only 10 % re-offend, what in her experience makes her say that the others will do the same?
If she is saying that their mental attitude towards sex hasn't altered , is she also concluding that they won't be able to control themselves? Or what?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 13, 2009 21:28:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 13, 2009 21:58:40 GMT
That's basically her attitude, Skylark.
|
|