Hi everyone, I dont know if this is the right place to ask, but I just wanted to see what people thought about this -
Why do you think that Baby P was taken to hospital by his mother that last time?
Surely she would not have wanted to 'show off' his terrible injuries to the doctors as that would have meant something would have been done.
And, as she knew how it had been caused then surely she wouldnt have give a s*it anyway to bother taking him for medical help.
I just cant get my head around the whole thing, and its been upsetting me for weeks but that question is one maybe you can offer some opinions on.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1078594 wrote: Hi everyone, I dont know if this is the right place to ask, but I just wanted to see what people thought about this -
Why do you think that Baby P was taken to hospital by his mother that last time?
Surely she would not have wanted to 'show off' his terrible injuries to the doctors as that would have meant something would have been done.
And, as she knew how it had been caused then surely she wouldnt have give a s*it anyway to bother taking him for medical help.
I just cant get my head around the whole thing, and its been upsetting me for weeks but that question is one maybe you can offer some opinions on.
From what i have read, she had never taken him to the hospital.
He went to the hospital after a planned visit at the home by the social worker. Baby P was on the sofa with a blanket over him and appeared well so the social worker left.
She returned later un-announced and saw baby P's injurie's. It was the social worker who then drove the baby straight to the hospital, not his mother.
Why do you think that Baby P was taken to hospital by his mother that last time?
Surely she would not have wanted to 'show off' his terrible injuries to the doctors as that would have meant something would have been done.
And, as she knew how it had been caused then surely she wouldnt have give a s*it anyway to bother taking him for medical help.
I just cant get my head around the whole thing, and its been upsetting me for weeks but that question is one maybe you can offer some opinions on.
From what i have read, she had never taken him to the hospital.
He went to the hospital after a planned visit at the home by the social worker. Baby P was on the sofa with a blanket over him and appeared well so the social worker left.
She returned later un-announced and saw baby P's injurie's. It was the social worker who then drove the baby straight to the hospital, not his mother.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1078594 wrote: Hi everyone, I dont know if this is the right place to ask, but I just wanted to see what people thought about this -
Why do you think that Baby P was taken to hospital by his mother that last time?
welcome to the garden!
Baby P would have only been taking to the hospital because it wouldn't stop crying from the injuries!:-5
what boggles my mind.....why didn't doctors see this?
Why do you think that Baby P was taken to hospital by his mother that last time?
welcome to the garden!
Baby P would have only been taking to the hospital because it wouldn't stop crying from the injuries!:-5
what boggles my mind.....why didn't doctors see this?
Life is just to short for drama.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
Odie;1078604 wrote: welcome to the garden!
Baby P would have only been taking to the hospital because it wouldn't stop crying from the injuries!:-5
what boggles my mind.....why didn't doctors see this?
That's the problem with British Society. the hospital, i would guess refered the injurie's to social services and it was them who let the baby down. :-5:-5:-5
Baby P would have only been taking to the hospital because it wouldn't stop crying from the injuries!:-5
what boggles my mind.....why didn't doctors see this?
That's the problem with British Society. the hospital, i would guess refered the injurie's to social services and it was them who let the baby down. :-5:-5:-5
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
oscar;1078609 wrote: That's the problem with British Society. the hospital, i would guess refered the injurie's to social services and it was them who let the baby down. :-5:-5:-5
here...no doctor takes it litely when kids come in even with a bruise, let along broken bones and internal injuries!
here...no doctor takes it litely when kids come in even with a bruise, let along broken bones and internal injuries!
Life is just to short for drama.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
Odie;1078616 wrote: here...no doctor takes it litely when kids come in even with a bruise, let along broken bones and internal damage
Here, i'm sure it depends what area of the country you are in.
I knew of a couple who's toddler had a genuine fall. there was not even a real injury, but they took the baby to hospital for a check up to be sure. Even though he was a police officer, they had social services all over them.
Babay P just happened to live in the wrong part of the country where Haringay council didn't follow up properly.
Still, at least those responsible at Social service's were sacked this week after huge public pressure.
Here, i'm sure it depends what area of the country you are in.
I knew of a couple who's toddler had a genuine fall. there was not even a real injury, but they took the baby to hospital for a check up to be sure. Even though he was a police officer, they had social services all over them.
Babay P just happened to live in the wrong part of the country where Haringay council didn't follow up properly.
Still, at least those responsible at Social service's were sacked this week after huge public pressure.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
oscar;1078622 wrote: Here, i'm sure it depends what area of the country you are in.
I knew of a couple who's toddler had a genuine fall. there was not even a real injury, but they took the baby to hospital for a check up to be sure. Even though he was a police officer, they had social services all over them.
Babay P just happened to live in the wrong part of the country where Haringay council didn't follow up properly.
Still, at least those responsible at Social service's were sacked this week after huge public pressure.
I was torn apart from a cat attack decades ago....they called police in to invesitate when I was in the hospital.....they swore someone had taken a broken bottle to me.
I knew of a couple who's toddler had a genuine fall. there was not even a real injury, but they took the baby to hospital for a check up to be sure. Even though he was a police officer, they had social services all over them.
Babay P just happened to live in the wrong part of the country where Haringay council didn't follow up properly.
Still, at least those responsible at Social service's were sacked this week after huge public pressure.
I was torn apart from a cat attack decades ago....they called police in to invesitate when I was in the hospital.....they swore someone had taken a broken bottle to me.
Life is just to short for drama.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
oscar;1078601 wrote: From what i have read, she had never taken him to the hospital.
He went to the hospital after a planned visit at the home by the social worker. Baby P was on the sofa with a blanket over him and appeared well so the social worker left.
She returned later un-announced and saw baby P's injurie's. It was the social worker who then drove the baby straight to the hospital, not his mother.
As I recall, it was a regular check up. Surely if the child was taken in by the social worker because of injuries, the doctor would have looked instead of considering him to be too grumpy to bother.
He went to the hospital after a planned visit at the home by the social worker. Baby P was on the sofa with a blanket over him and appeared well so the social worker left.
She returned later un-announced and saw baby P's injurie's. It was the social worker who then drove the baby straight to the hospital, not his mother.
As I recall, it was a regular check up. Surely if the child was taken in by the social worker because of injuries, the doctor would have looked instead of considering him to be too grumpy to bother.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1078761 wrote: As I recall, it was a regular check up. Surely if the child was taken in by the social worker because of injuries, the doctor would have looked instead of considering him to be too grumpy to bother.
I stand corrected. From Timesonline:
Days later — and 48 hours before his death — Baby P was taken to St Ann’s Hospital amid further concerns for his wellbeing. During an examination by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, a paediatrician, his mother and her friend supported the child. Despite Baby P’s repeated cries of pain, the consultant missed both his broken back and ribs.
I stand corrected. From Timesonline:
Days later — and 48 hours before his death — Baby P was taken to St Ann’s Hospital amid further concerns for his wellbeing. During an examination by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, a paediatrician, his mother and her friend supported the child. Despite Baby P’s repeated cries of pain, the consultant missed both his broken back and ribs.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
Yes, you see thats what I cant understand. Why was she taking him there along with her friend when they knew the cause of the injury and the likely damage as he had been unable to sit up etc.
All through the details of this hideous crime I have been struggling to understand what this woman was doing. This bit however still seems so odd. It makes me wonder if she was trying to give him up by taking him there, but when they failed to notice she just went back to her lifestyle and obviously the boyfriend carried on.
So sad though, and they will never be punished enough to equate the suffering they cause him. :-1
All through the details of this hideous crime I have been struggling to understand what this woman was doing. This bit however still seems so odd. It makes me wonder if she was trying to give him up by taking him there, but when they failed to notice she just went back to her lifestyle and obviously the boyfriend carried on.
So sad though, and they will never be punished enough to equate the suffering they cause him. :-1
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1079028 wrote: Yes, you see thats what I cant understand. Why was she taking him there along with her friend when they knew the cause of the injury and the likely damage as he had been unable to sit up etc.
All through the details of this hideous crime I have been struggling to understand what this woman was doing. This bit however still seems so odd. It makes me wonder if she was trying to give him up by taking him there, but when they failed to notice she just went back to her lifestyle and obviously the boyfriend carried on.
So sad though, and they will never be punished enough to equate the suffering they cause him. :-1
She didn't take him there. The social worker took him because after making an unscheduled visit she found bruises on him. Next question please.
All through the details of this hideous crime I have been struggling to understand what this woman was doing. This bit however still seems so odd. It makes me wonder if she was trying to give him up by taking him there, but when they failed to notice she just went back to her lifestyle and obviously the boyfriend carried on.
So sad though, and they will never be punished enough to equate the suffering they cause him. :-1
She didn't take him there. The social worker took him because after making an unscheduled visit she found bruises on him. Next question please.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1079028 wrote: Yes, you see thats what I cant understand. Why was she taking him there along with her friend when they knew the cause of the injury and the likely damage as he had been unable to sit up etc.
All through the details of this hideous crime I have been struggling to understand what this woman was doing. This bit however still seems so odd. It makes me wonder if she was trying to give him up by taking him there, but when they failed to notice she just went back to her lifestyle and obviously the boyfriend carried on.
So sad though, and they will never be punished enough to equate the suffering they cause him. :-1
alot of parents abuse their kids...this one again, went unnoticed.
All through the details of this hideous crime I have been struggling to understand what this woman was doing. This bit however still seems so odd. It makes me wonder if she was trying to give him up by taking him there, but when they failed to notice she just went back to her lifestyle and obviously the boyfriend carried on.
So sad though, and they will never be punished enough to equate the suffering they cause him. :-1
alot of parents abuse their kids...this one again, went unnoticed.
Life is just to short for drama.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079040 wrote: She didn't take him there. The social worker took him because after making an unscheduled visit she found bruises on him. Next question please.
July 30: Ms Ward makes her last visit to see Baby P. He is in his buggy and has chocolate smears over his face and hands, and anti-bacterial cream on his scalp - to obscure injuries.
Aug 1: Baby P visits St Anne's hospital, allegedly suffering from fractured ribs and a broken back, paralysing him from the waist down. Dr Sabah al-Zayyat notes bruises to the body and face but does not carry out a full examination because Baby P is "miserable and cranky". In evidence, she insists "he didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold."
The mother and her friend took him.
July 30: Ms Ward makes her last visit to see Baby P. He is in his buggy and has chocolate smears over his face and hands, and anti-bacterial cream on his scalp - to obscure injuries.
Aug 1: Baby P visits St Anne's hospital, allegedly suffering from fractured ribs and a broken back, paralysing him from the waist down. Dr Sabah al-Zayyat notes bruises to the body and face but does not carry out a full examination because Baby P is "miserable and cranky". In evidence, she insists "he didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold."
The mother and her friend took him.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1079056 wrote: July 30: Ms Ward makes her last visit to see Baby P. He is in his buggy and has chocolate smears over his face and hands, and anti-bacterial cream on his scalp - to obscure injuries.
Aug 1: Baby P visits St Anne's hospital, allegedly suffering from fractured ribs and a broken back, paralysing him from the waist down. Dr Sabah al-Zayyat notes bruises to the body and face but does not carry out a full examination because Baby P is "miserable and cranky". In evidence, she insists "he didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold."
The mother and her friend took him.
Your quote doesn't state who took him. You'll notice in my quote he was taken in because of concerns for his well being. Something the mother wasn't bothered about. Or is there something you know that Timesonline don't.
Aug 1: Baby P visits St Anne's hospital, allegedly suffering from fractured ribs and a broken back, paralysing him from the waist down. Dr Sabah al-Zayyat notes bruises to the body and face but does not carry out a full examination because Baby P is "miserable and cranky". In evidence, she insists "he didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold."
The mother and her friend took him.
Your quote doesn't state who took him. You'll notice in my quote he was taken in because of concerns for his well being. Something the mother wasn't bothered about. Or is there something you know that Timesonline don't.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079089 wrote: Your quote doesn't state who took him. You'll notice in my quote he was taken in because of concerns for his well being. Something the mother wasn't bothered about. Or is there something you know that Timesonline don't.
Going from everything i have read, i understand it to agree with you. He was taken after the social worker returned on an un-scheduled visit. She took him to hospital and i have just read that the mother accompanied the social worker. However, the mother did not take baby P to the hospital until the social worker insisted on doing so.
We can only go by what is available to read.
Going from everything i have read, i understand it to agree with you. He was taken after the social worker returned on an un-scheduled visit. She took him to hospital and i have just read that the mother accompanied the social worker. However, the mother did not take baby P to the hospital until the social worker insisted on doing so.
We can only go by what is available to read.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
oscar;1079127 wrote: Going from everything i have read, i understand it to agree with you. He was taken after the social worker returned on an un-scheduled visit. She took him to hospital and i have just read that the mother accompanied the social worker. However, the mother did not take baby P to the hospital until the social worker insisted on doing so.
We can only go by what is available to read.
Love your sig Oscar.:yh_rotfl
We can only go by what is available to read.
Love your sig Oscar.:yh_rotfl
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079142 wrote: Love your sig Oscar.:yh_rotfl
Sing along now :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Sing along now :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079089 wrote: Your quote doesn't state who took him. You'll notice in my quote he was taken in because of concerns for his well being. Something the mother wasn't bothered about. Or is there something you know that Timesonline don't.
If you have a look at the Guardian report there's rather more detail than the timesonline timeline:
On August 1, the mother took Baby P to the child development centre at St Anne's hospital in Tottenham. There he was examined by a consultant paediatrician, Dr Sabah al-Zayyat, who noted that Baby P appeared "cranky" and "miserable" but did not find any indication that he had fractured ribs or a broken back.
However, two medical experts told the court that they believed those injuries would already have been evident.
During the trial, the doctor told the court: "I did examine him. He didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold. He was sitting without support. There was no reason to suspect anything else."
Baby P death: 'They rubbed chocolate on his face to hide the bruises' | Society | guardian.co.uk
The doctor also mentioned during the trial that Baby P was in her room that day for an hour. To be quite honest I'm as puzzled as the thread's starter. I'm also rather puzzled why we're honoured to host the thread, not many people join just to discuss a topical issue.
The issue of whether those injuries, which the child definitely had by the time he was dead, were there on August 1st has gone from a disputed matter in the trial to a hard-and-fast fact in the popular mind. There has been more than one medical expert appear for the prosecution whom I'd not trust to be either fair, honest or impartial. On occasion subsequent appeals courts have agreed with that view. It doesn't affect the fact that the child's mother screwed up unforgivably and the guy who killed him is justifiably out of circulation.
If you have a look at the Guardian report there's rather more detail than the timesonline timeline:
On August 1, the mother took Baby P to the child development centre at St Anne's hospital in Tottenham. There he was examined by a consultant paediatrician, Dr Sabah al-Zayyat, who noted that Baby P appeared "cranky" and "miserable" but did not find any indication that he had fractured ribs or a broken back.
However, two medical experts told the court that they believed those injuries would already have been evident.
During the trial, the doctor told the court: "I did examine him. He didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold. He was sitting without support. There was no reason to suspect anything else."
Baby P death: 'They rubbed chocolate on his face to hide the bruises' | Society | guardian.co.uk
The doctor also mentioned during the trial that Baby P was in her room that day for an hour. To be quite honest I'm as puzzled as the thread's starter. I'm also rather puzzled why we're honoured to host the thread, not many people join just to discuss a topical issue.
The issue of whether those injuries, which the child definitely had by the time he was dead, were there on August 1st has gone from a disputed matter in the trial to a hard-and-fast fact in the popular mind. There has been more than one medical expert appear for the prosecution whom I'd not trust to be either fair, honest or impartial. On occasion subsequent appeals courts have agreed with that view. It doesn't affect the fact that the child's mother screwed up unforgivably and the guy who killed him is justifiably out of circulation.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
spot;1079213 wrote: If you have a look at the Guardian report there's rather more detail than the timesonline timeline:
On August 1, the mother took Baby P to the child development centre at St Anne's hospital in Tottenham. There he was examined by a consultant paediatrician, Dr Sabah al-Zayyat, who noted that Baby P appeared "cranky" and "miserable" but did not find any indication that he had fractured ribs or a broken back.
However, two medical experts told the court that they believed those injuries would already have been evident.
During the trial, the doctor told the court: "I did examine him. He didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold. He was sitting without support. There was no reason to suspect anything else."
Baby P death: 'They rubbed chocolate on his face to hide the bruises' | Society | guardian.co.uk
The doctor also mentioned during the trial that Baby P was in her room that day for an hour. To be quite honest I'm as puzzled as the thread's starter. I'm also rather puzzled why we're honoured to host the thread, not many people join just to discuss a topical issue.
The issue of whether those injuries, which the child definitely had by the time he was dead, were there on August 1st has gone from a disputed matter in the trial to a hard-and-fast fact in the popular mind. There has been more than one medical expert appear for the prosecution whom I'd not trust to be either fair, honest or impartial. On occasion subsequent appeals courts have agreed with that view. It doesn't affect the fact that the child's mother screwed up unforgivably and the guy who killed him is justifiably out of circulation.
There seems to be some confusion over this as I have also read that the social worker made an unscheduled visit and took the child to the hospital. The mother accompanied her. Personally, I can't see the mother taking the child to hospital of her own volition given her general demeanour towards the child.
I haven't got time now but I will look at this again later for anything conclusive.
On August 1, the mother took Baby P to the child development centre at St Anne's hospital in Tottenham. There he was examined by a consultant paediatrician, Dr Sabah al-Zayyat, who noted that Baby P appeared "cranky" and "miserable" but did not find any indication that he had fractured ribs or a broken back.
However, two medical experts told the court that they believed those injuries would already have been evident.
During the trial, the doctor told the court: "I did examine him. He didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold. He was sitting without support. There was no reason to suspect anything else."
Baby P death: 'They rubbed chocolate on his face to hide the bruises' | Society | guardian.co.uk
The doctor also mentioned during the trial that Baby P was in her room that day for an hour. To be quite honest I'm as puzzled as the thread's starter. I'm also rather puzzled why we're honoured to host the thread, not many people join just to discuss a topical issue.
The issue of whether those injuries, which the child definitely had by the time he was dead, were there on August 1st has gone from a disputed matter in the trial to a hard-and-fast fact in the popular mind. There has been more than one medical expert appear for the prosecution whom I'd not trust to be either fair, honest or impartial. On occasion subsequent appeals courts have agreed with that view. It doesn't affect the fact that the child's mother screwed up unforgivably and the guy who killed him is justifiably out of circulation.
There seems to be some confusion over this as I have also read that the social worker made an unscheduled visit and took the child to the hospital. The mother accompanied her. Personally, I can't see the mother taking the child to hospital of her own volition given her general demeanour towards the child.
I haven't got time now but I will look at this again later for anything conclusive.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
spot;1079213 wrote: I'm also rather puzzled why we're honoured to host the thread, not many people join just to discuss a topical issue.
The issue of whether those injuries, which the child definitely had by the time he was dead, were there on August 1st has gone from a disputed matter in the trial to a hard-and-fast fact in the popular mind. There has been more than one medical expert appear for the prosecution whom I'd not trust to be either fair, honest or impartial. On occasion subsequent appeals courts have agreed with that view. It doesn't affect the fact that the child's mother screwed up unforgivably and the guy who killed him is justifiably out of circulation.
Well Im puzzled as to why people what to argue as I wouldnt have asked if I hadnt read enough to be sure that it wasnt someone else who took him. If I am wrong then thats because just like everyone else who is not directly involved you can only read what is written.
And the reason I joined was because it looked like there were plenty of intelligent people in here able to come up with some valid opinions on what they had read etc. As the people I know would rather not talk about it. I figured it would be possible to gain some insight but maybe not.
The issue of whether those injuries, which the child definitely had by the time he was dead, were there on August 1st has gone from a disputed matter in the trial to a hard-and-fast fact in the popular mind. There has been more than one medical expert appear for the prosecution whom I'd not trust to be either fair, honest or impartial. On occasion subsequent appeals courts have agreed with that view. It doesn't affect the fact that the child's mother screwed up unforgivably and the guy who killed him is justifiably out of circulation.
Well Im puzzled as to why people what to argue as I wouldnt have asked if I hadnt read enough to be sure that it wasnt someone else who took him. If I am wrong then thats because just like everyone else who is not directly involved you can only read what is written.
And the reason I joined was because it looked like there were plenty of intelligent people in here able to come up with some valid opinions on what they had read etc. As the people I know would rather not talk about it. I figured it would be possible to gain some insight but maybe not.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1079385 wrote: Well Im puzzled as to why people what to argue as I wouldnt have asked if I hadnt read enough to be sure that it wasnt someone else who took him. If I am wrong then thats because just like everyone else who is not directly involved you can only read what is written.
And the reason I joined was because it looked like there were plenty of intelligent people in here able to come up with some valid opinions on what they had read etc. As the people I know would rather not talk about it. I figured it would be possible to gain some insight but maybe not.
We, on this forum enjoy debate. This means that there are often differences of opinion but we respect each other's opinion.
So you say that you have read enough to be sure that the mother took the child (I presume that you mean the mother). Then you become irate when some of us disagree. If the newspapers are giving different accounts, perhaps you would share your sources so that we might also become assured as you are that it was the mother who took the child. I would like to know why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare.
And the reason I joined was because it looked like there were plenty of intelligent people in here able to come up with some valid opinions on what they had read etc. As the people I know would rather not talk about it. I figured it would be possible to gain some insight but maybe not.
We, on this forum enjoy debate. This means that there are often differences of opinion but we respect each other's opinion.
So you say that you have read enough to be sure that the mother took the child (I presume that you mean the mother). Then you become irate when some of us disagree. If the newspapers are giving different accounts, perhaps you would share your sources so that we might also become assured as you are that it was the mother who took the child. I would like to know why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079040 wrote: She didn't take him there. The social worker took him because after making an unscheduled visit she found bruises on him. Next question please.
Im not irate, I can just sense when someone who has already changed their mind on a thread wants to be dismissive.
Its pointless anyway as none of you know anymore than I do, we all read the same papers. I suppose I was just trying to get some other reasonable opinions as to what she was thinking, to try to stop mulling it over in my own head. However speculation is not really the right thing to do it will all come out soon enough. Bye
Im not irate, I can just sense when someone who has already changed their mind on a thread wants to be dismissive.
Its pointless anyway as none of you know anymore than I do, we all read the same papers. I suppose I was just trying to get some other reasonable opinions as to what she was thinking, to try to stop mulling it over in my own head. However speculation is not really the right thing to do it will all come out soon enough. Bye
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1079385 wrote: Well Im puzzled as to why people what to argue as I wouldnt have asked if I hadnt read enough to be sure that it wasnt someone else who took him. If I am wrong then thats because just like everyone else who is not directly involved you can only read what is written.
And the reason I joined was because it looked like there were plenty of intelligent people in here able to come up with some valid opinions on what they had read etc. As the people I know would rather not talk about it. I figured it would be possible to gain some insight but maybe not.
Don't let that put you off. We are a great bunch here on FG with many catoragrys but the current events and political threads do get a little heated. No-body takes it personally and every members posts are as welcome as the others. Of course, there are some members who are more intelligent than others and I've been shouted down myself. When i first joined, i was like you where i just didn't have enough hours in the day to google and read every newspaper report. You can only go by what you have read and state your opinion.
And the reason I joined was because it looked like there were plenty of intelligent people in here able to come up with some valid opinions on what they had read etc. As the people I know would rather not talk about it. I figured it would be possible to gain some insight but maybe not.
Don't let that put you off. We are a great bunch here on FG with many catoragrys but the current events and political threads do get a little heated. No-body takes it personally and every members posts are as welcome as the others. Of course, there are some members who are more intelligent than others and I've been shouted down myself. When i first joined, i was like you where i just didn't have enough hours in the day to google and read every newspaper report. You can only go by what you have read and state your opinion.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1079392 wrote: Im not irate, I can just sense when someone who has already changed their mind on a thread wants to be dismissive.
Its pointless anyway as none of you know anymore than I do, we all read the same papers. I suppose I was just trying to get some other reasonable opinions as to what she was thinking, to try to stop mulling it over in my own head. However speculation is not really the right thing to do it will all come out soon enough. Bye
Hey your entitled to your opinion as much as the next person whether you post a joke, an introduction or a serious news item to debate.
Dont let some peoples opinions run you off a forum. Jeez if most folk did that this place would be a ghost town.:yh_rotfl
Baby P was taken to St Ann’s Hospital amid further concerns for his wellbeing. During an examination by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, a paediatrician, his mother and her friend supported the child. Despite Baby P’s repeated cries of pain, the consultant missed both his broken back and ribs.
The next day his mother was called to the social services office. She was told by police that she would not be prosecuted after consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service.
On the very same evening, back at the family home, Baby P received a fatal blow to his mouth, knocking a tooth out. After 17 months of agony, the tiny child finally succumbed. The next day he was found dead in his cot.
After 17 months of unimaginable cruelty, Baby P finally succumbed - Times Online
Its pointless anyway as none of you know anymore than I do, we all read the same papers. I suppose I was just trying to get some other reasonable opinions as to what she was thinking, to try to stop mulling it over in my own head. However speculation is not really the right thing to do it will all come out soon enough. Bye
Hey your entitled to your opinion as much as the next person whether you post a joke, an introduction or a serious news item to debate.
Dont let some peoples opinions run you off a forum. Jeez if most folk did that this place would be a ghost town.:yh_rotfl
Baby P was taken to St Ann’s Hospital amid further concerns for his wellbeing. During an examination by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, a paediatrician, his mother and her friend supported the child. Despite Baby P’s repeated cries of pain, the consultant missed both his broken back and ribs.
The next day his mother was called to the social services office. She was told by police that she would not be prosecuted after consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service.
On the very same evening, back at the family home, Baby P received a fatal blow to his mouth, knocking a tooth out. After 17 months of agony, the tiny child finally succumbed. The next day he was found dead in his cot.
After 17 months of unimaginable cruelty, Baby P finally succumbed - Times Online
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
On Wednesday 1 August, his mother and the childminder took Baby P to the Child Development Centre at St Ann's Hospital where they saw consultant paediatrician Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat. She examined him and found bruises on his face and around his shoulder blades. She prescribed antibiotics and referred him for more tests at Great Ormond Street and North Middlesex hospitals. She also advised the mother to keep an appointment with P's GP the next day.
taken from the Independant.
Oscar I have read as much as I can stomach, not because I have plenty of hours in the day. I dont, but this particular case has upset me alot and I have found myself struggling to understand how it has happened. But as I said, theres no need to debate it. I was looking for something other than the responses here, but its not going to be possible to find the answer I want, only other peoples speculation.
And anyway, I dont need to be a newbie for others to pick on, I have plenty of status in reality. So thanks for the offer to stick around and the back up Chezzie but I dont think I will be.
taken from the Independant.
Oscar I have read as much as I can stomach, not because I have plenty of hours in the day. I dont, but this particular case has upset me alot and I have found myself struggling to understand how it has happened. But as I said, theres no need to debate it. I was looking for something other than the responses here, but its not going to be possible to find the answer I want, only other peoples speculation.
And anyway, I dont need to be a newbie for others to pick on, I have plenty of status in reality. So thanks for the offer to stick around and the back up Chezzie but I dont think I will be.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079389 wrote: We, on this forum enjoy debate. This means that there are often differences of opinion but we respect each other's opinion.
So you say that you have read enough to be sure that the mother took the child (I presume that you mean the mother). Then you become irate when some of us disagree. If the newspapers are giving different accounts, perhaps you would share your sources so that we might also become assured as you are that it was the mother who took the child. I would like to know why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare.
The thing is, the newspapers aren't giving different accounts. Some say taken by the mother, some say taken to but none I've seen say taken by anyone who wasn't the mother. You've seen one, you tell us, but you've not let us read it. It would remove the tangle if you did.
As for "why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare", she'd made earlier visits with the expressed intention (made, I think, when arranging one of the visits, possibly the first) to get social services off her back. It might not be the most attractive motive in the world but it's a powerful one.
So you say that you have read enough to be sure that the mother took the child (I presume that you mean the mother). Then you become irate when some of us disagree. If the newspapers are giving different accounts, perhaps you would share your sources so that we might also become assured as you are that it was the mother who took the child. I would like to know why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare.
The thing is, the newspapers aren't giving different accounts. Some say taken by the mother, some say taken to but none I've seen say taken by anyone who wasn't the mother. You've seen one, you tell us, but you've not let us read it. It would remove the tangle if you did.
As for "why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare", she'd made earlier visits with the expressed intention (made, I think, when arranging one of the visits, possibly the first) to get social services off her back. It might not be the most attractive motive in the world but it's a powerful one.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
spot;1079621 wrote: The thing is, the newspapers aren't giving different accounts. Some say taken by the mother, some say taken to but none I've seen say taken by anyone who wasn't the mother. You've seen one, you tell us, but you've not let us read it. It would remove the tangle if you did.
As for "why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare", she'd made earlier visits with the expressed intention (made, I think, when arranging one of the visits, possibly the first) to get social services off her back. It might not be the most attractive motive in the world but it's a powerful one.
That sounds good reason. If previous newspaper reports are true, then she was pretty devious at hiding injurie's and manipulating social services. I also read in one report that the social services had Baby P down as 'a clumsy child with a high pain threshhold'. It's a good tactic, to take the baby to hospital and claim he had had an accident if that's what she did.
I'm wondering if some-where in her, by taking the baby to hospital, was she in her own way, trying to stop the abuse on her baby by the partner? Was she deliberayely trying to have it discovered so he was actually taken away and away from the partner. Then again, she was expecting another baby by him. A lot just doesn't add up.
As for "why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare", she'd made earlier visits with the expressed intention (made, I think, when arranging one of the visits, possibly the first) to get social services off her back. It might not be the most attractive motive in the world but it's a powerful one.
That sounds good reason. If previous newspaper reports are true, then she was pretty devious at hiding injurie's and manipulating social services. I also read in one report that the social services had Baby P down as 'a clumsy child with a high pain threshhold'. It's a good tactic, to take the baby to hospital and claim he had had an accident if that's what she did.
I'm wondering if some-where in her, by taking the baby to hospital, was she in her own way, trying to stop the abuse on her baby by the partner? Was she deliberayely trying to have it discovered so he was actually taken away and away from the partner. Then again, she was expecting another baby by him. A lot just doesn't add up.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
spot;1079621 wrote: The thing is, the newspapers aren't giving different accounts. Some say taken by the mother, some say taken to but none I've seen say taken by anyone who wasn't the mother. You've seen one, you tell us, but you've not let us read it. It would remove the tangle if you did.
As for "why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare", she'd made earlier visits with the expressed intention (made, I think, when arranging one of the visits, possibly the first) to get social services off her back. It might not be the most attractive motive in the world but it's a powerful one.
Well, I was going to go through as many reports as I could find but I haven't really got the time. The thread starter is disappointed at not getting any new opinions on the matter and doesn't appear to want to stay with FG. I think the whole thing has been put in the past now by the general public. The case has shocked the nation to the extent that the current child abuse case simply doesn't seem to have registered in people's minds. They've become numb as it were. I certainly haven't heard anyone mention it at work other than myself. No one wanted to know.
As for "why the mother took him to be examined when she otherwise showed a complete disinterest in the child's welfare", she'd made earlier visits with the expressed intention (made, I think, when arranging one of the visits, possibly the first) to get social services off her back. It might not be the most attractive motive in the world but it's a powerful one.
Well, I was going to go through as many reports as I could find but I haven't really got the time. The thread starter is disappointed at not getting any new opinions on the matter and doesn't appear to want to stay with FG. I think the whole thing has been put in the past now by the general public. The case has shocked the nation to the extent that the current child abuse case simply doesn't seem to have registered in people's minds. They've become numb as it were. I certainly haven't heard anyone mention it at work other than myself. No one wanted to know.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079670 wrote: Well, I was going to go through as many reports as I could find but I haven't really got the time. The thread starter is disappointed at not getting any new opinions on the matter and doesn't appear to want to stay with FG. I think the whole thing has been put in the past now by the general public. The case has shocked the nation to the extent that the current child abuse case simply doesn't seem to have registered in people's minds. They've become numb as it were. I certainly haven't heard anyone mention it at work other than myself. No one wanted to know.
It does seem to have died out. I think it will start up again if they make 'Ed Balls' report open to the press. I'm just glad Shoesmith and her cronie's were sacked or resigned.
As on the other thread, cases of 'shock factor' like the baby shaken to death, Shannon matthews and The gang rape of the 14 year old girl have become quite 'the norm' of late. If it carrie's on like this, crimes will get worse if the public loses that shock horror factor.
It does seem to have died out. I think it will start up again if they make 'Ed Balls' report open to the press. I'm just glad Shoesmith and her cronie's were sacked or resigned.
As on the other thread, cases of 'shock factor' like the baby shaken to death, Shannon matthews and The gang rape of the 14 year old girl have become quite 'the norm' of late. If it carrie's on like this, crimes will get worse if the public loses that shock horror factor.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
oscar;1079675 wrote: It does seem to have died out. I think it will start up again if they make 'Ed Balls' report open to the press. I'm just glad Shoesmith and her cronie's were sacked or resigned.
As on the other thread, cases of 'shock factor' like the baby shaken to death, Shannon matthews and The gang rape of the 14 year old girl have become quite 'the norm' of late. If it carrie's on like this, crimes will get worse if the public loses that shock horror factor.
I hope not.
As on the other thread, cases of 'shock factor' like the baby shaken to death, Shannon matthews and The gang rape of the 14 year old girl have become quite 'the norm' of late. If it carrie's on like this, crimes will get worse if the public loses that shock horror factor.
I hope not.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
only1?;1079605 wrote: On Wednesday 1 August, his mother and the childminder took Baby P to the Child Development Centre at St Ann's Hospital where they saw consultant paediatrician Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat. She examined him and found bruises on his face and around his shoulder blades. She prescribed antibiotics and referred him for more tests at Great Ormond Street and North Middlesex hospitals. She also advised the mother to keep an appointment with P's GP the next day.
taken from the Independant.
Oscar I have read as much as I can stomach, not because I have plenty of hours in the day. I dont, but this particular case has upset me alot and I have found myself struggling to understand how it has happened. But as I said, theres no need to debate it. I was looking for something other than the responses here, but its not going to be possible to find the answer I want, only other peoples speculation.
And anyway, I dont need to be a newbie for others to pick on, I have plenty of status in reality. So thanks for the offer to stick around and the back up Chezzie but I dont think I will be.
Hello Only1? and welcome to the garden...If you left, you'd really miss out on some good friends and discussions in the FG. Members are not being mean, just passionate about their beliefs:-6
taken from the Independant.
Oscar I have read as much as I can stomach, not because I have plenty of hours in the day. I dont, but this particular case has upset me alot and I have found myself struggling to understand how it has happened. But as I said, theres no need to debate it. I was looking for something other than the responses here, but its not going to be possible to find the answer I want, only other peoples speculation.
And anyway, I dont need to be a newbie for others to pick on, I have plenty of status in reality. So thanks for the offer to stick around and the back up Chezzie but I dont think I will be.
Hello Only1? and welcome to the garden...If you left, you'd really miss out on some good friends and discussions in the FG. Members are not being mean, just passionate about their beliefs:-6
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1079670 wrote: Well, I was going to go through as many reports as I could find but I haven't really got the time.I've checked through all 25 matching "baby p and august 1" on Nexis and none of those mantioned anyone other than the mother taking her baby to the clinic that day.
Think about it - if it had been social services it would have involved a court order to take the child. It simply didn't happen.
Think about it - if it had been social services it would have involved a court order to take the child. It simply didn't happen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
spot;1080318 wrote: I've checked through all 25 matching "baby p and august 1" on Nexis and none of those mantioned anyone other than the mother taking her baby to the clinic that day.
Think about it - if it had been social services it would have involved a court order to take the child. It simply didn't happen.
I don't dispute what you say, Spot. But I know I definitely read an article that stated that the social worker took the child and the mother went with them.
I'm not overly familiar with the law, but I thought there were emergency provisions for children already suspected of being abused or considered at risk. A court order would otherwise take too long. But, as I say, I haven't got time now to check these things. There is nothing more I can add without researching these things and I don't like making assumptions for the sake of it.
Think about it - if it had been social services it would have involved a court order to take the child. It simply didn't happen.
I don't dispute what you say, Spot. But I know I definitely read an article that stated that the social worker took the child and the mother went with them.
I'm not overly familiar with the law, but I thought there were emergency provisions for children already suspected of being abused or considered at risk. A court order would otherwise take too long. But, as I say, I haven't got time now to check these things. There is nothing more I can add without researching these things and I don't like making assumptions for the sake of it.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
OpenMind;1080772 wrote: I don't dispute what you say, Spot. But I know I definitely read an article that stated that the social worker took the child and the mother went with them.
I'm not overly familiar with the law, but I thought there were emergency provisions for children already suspected of being abused or considered at risk. A court order would otherwise take too long. But, as I say, I haven't got time now to check these things. There is nothing more I can add without researching these things and I don't like making assumptions for the sake of it.
I agree, i distinctly remember reading at least 2 reports that the social worker returned un-announced and took the baby to hospital and the mother tagged along. If i get time, i will try ti find the reports and put a link in.
I'm not overly familiar with the law, but I thought there were emergency provisions for children already suspected of being abused or considered at risk. A court order would otherwise take too long. But, as I say, I haven't got time now to check these things. There is nothing more I can add without researching these things and I don't like making assumptions for the sake of it.
I agree, i distinctly remember reading at least 2 reports that the social worker returned un-announced and took the baby to hospital and the mother tagged along. If i get time, i will try ti find the reports and put a link in.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
oscar;1080779 wrote: I agree, i distinctly remember reading at least 2 reports that the social worker returned un-announced and took the baby to hospital and the mother tagged along. If i get time, i will try ti find the reports and put a link in.
That would be appreciated.
That would be appreciated.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
Timeline: Key events in baby case
Here are key events surrounding the case of 17-month-old boy Baby P who died in Haringey, north London, in August 2007 after suffering a series of injuries:
1 March 2006: Baby P is born.
June 2006: The boy's mother begins a relationship with a new boyfriend.
November 2006: The boyfriend moves into the home of Baby P's mother.
December 2006: Baby P's mother is arrested after bruises are spotted on the boy's face and chest by a GP.
January 2007: The boy is returned home five weeks after being put in the care of a family friend.
February 2007: A whistle-blower, former social worker Nevres Kemal, sends a letter about her concerns over alleged failings in child protection in Haringey to the Department of Health.
12 March 2007: Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) inspectors meet Haringey officials to discuss concerns raised by Ms Kemal in the letter sent by her lawyer, which was dated 16 February 2007.
April 2007: Baby P is admitted to North Middlesex hospital with bruises, two black eyes and swelling on the left side of his head.
1 April 2007: Ofsted takes over responsibility for inspecting children's services from the CSCI.
May 2007: After seeing marks on the boy's face, a social worker sends Baby P to the North Middlesex where 12 areas of bruises and scratches are found. The mother is re-arrested.
30 July 2007: Injuries to Baby P's face and hands are missed by a social worker after the boy is deliberately smeared with chocolate to hide them.
1 August 2007: The boy is examined at a child development clinic.
2 August 2007: Police tell the mother she will not be prosecuted after her case is considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.
3 August 2007: Baby P is found dead in his cot.
11 November 2008: Jason Owen, 36, from Bromley, and the 32-year-old boyfriend of the boy's mother are found guilty of causing the death of Baby P. The boy's mother had pleaded guilty to the same charge.
Maybe it was the May 07 hospital visit you saw OM?
Here are key events surrounding the case of 17-month-old boy Baby P who died in Haringey, north London, in August 2007 after suffering a series of injuries:
1 March 2006: Baby P is born.
June 2006: The boy's mother begins a relationship with a new boyfriend.
November 2006: The boyfriend moves into the home of Baby P's mother.
December 2006: Baby P's mother is arrested after bruises are spotted on the boy's face and chest by a GP.
January 2007: The boy is returned home five weeks after being put in the care of a family friend.
February 2007: A whistle-blower, former social worker Nevres Kemal, sends a letter about her concerns over alleged failings in child protection in Haringey to the Department of Health.
12 March 2007: Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) inspectors meet Haringey officials to discuss concerns raised by Ms Kemal in the letter sent by her lawyer, which was dated 16 February 2007.
April 2007: Baby P is admitted to North Middlesex hospital with bruises, two black eyes and swelling on the left side of his head.
1 April 2007: Ofsted takes over responsibility for inspecting children's services from the CSCI.
May 2007: After seeing marks on the boy's face, a social worker sends Baby P to the North Middlesex where 12 areas of bruises and scratches are found. The mother is re-arrested.
30 July 2007: Injuries to Baby P's face and hands are missed by a social worker after the boy is deliberately smeared with chocolate to hide them.
1 August 2007: The boy is examined at a child development clinic.
2 August 2007: Police tell the mother she will not be prosecuted after her case is considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.
3 August 2007: Baby P is found dead in his cot.
11 November 2008: Jason Owen, 36, from Bromley, and the 32-year-old boyfriend of the boy's mother are found guilty of causing the death of Baby P. The boy's mother had pleaded guilty to the same charge.
Maybe it was the May 07 hospital visit you saw OM?
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
oscar;1080779 wrote: I agree, i distinctly remember reading at least 2 reports that the social worker returned un-announced and took the baby to hospital and the mother tagged along. If i get time, i will try ti find the reports and put a link in.
It would make all the difference to the question put in the opening post. August the 1st is the date in question, that's the one hospital inspection when the injuries - according to the medical experts - ought to have been detected.
It would make all the difference to the question put in the opening post. August the 1st is the date in question, that's the one hospital inspection when the injuries - according to the medical experts - ought to have been detected.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
'Miserable and cranky'
The prosecution claimed the child's back and ribs would have been broken before 1 August, when his mother took him to a child development clinic at St Ann's Hospital where he was seen by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat.
In a police interview Dr Al-Zayyat said she had been unable to carry out a full physical examination because he was "miserable and cranky".
But in court she said Baby P only cried for a minute or so before she began her physical examination and he was in the room with her for over an hour.
BBC NEWS | UK | A short life of misery and pain
The prosecution claimed the child's back and ribs would have been broken before 1 August, when his mother took him to a child development clinic at St Ann's Hospital where he was seen by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat.
In a police interview Dr Al-Zayyat said she had been unable to carry out a full physical examination because he was "miserable and cranky".
But in court she said Baby P only cried for a minute or so before she began her physical examination and he was in the room with her for over an hour.
BBC NEWS | UK | A short life of misery and pain
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
What point was that, Chezzie? Are we about to go in a circle?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
A question thats really bugging me (Baby P)
August 1st.
Everything I have read says Baby P's mother took him to the hospital on that day.
Everything I have read says Baby P's mother took him to the hospital on that day.