Suicide: CSA strikes again

I was browsing on Facebook earlier and saw a post by one of the groups I follow, which had posted a link to an article on The Guardian’s website.

A father hanged killed himself after being asked for £11,000 in child support. 

I. Sandywell, 45, hanged himself after receiving numerous letters from the Child Support Agency (CSA) demanding him to pay £11,000 (£520 a month) in backdated payments for his 22 year-old son. 

The victim’s wife, J Balsamo, told the inquest that she had received a telephone call from her husband on the day of his death, sobbing over his fears of not being able to support her and pay their mortgage. The couple agreed to discuss the matters later that evening, however, upon arriving home, Balsamo found Sandywell’s body. 
She also told the inquest of the 2-year battle Sandywell was in with his ex-wife following their divorce in 2001. 
Balsamo also said that it was hard for absent parents and that the CSA do not take people’s lives into account. 

The inquest also heard that CSA had still been sending letters to Balsamo demanding the money owed to be paid from Sandywell’s estate. They even sent an email saying; “Sorry for your loss, please accept this letter as a claim on I’s estate for the outstanding amount of £9,000.” 

So basically because Sandywell’s ex-wife went through CSA for maintenance payments and someone made an arse of working out the original amount Sandywell was required to pay, he ended up not being able to cope and thought death was the only answer. This is a disgrace.
Sandywell isn’t the first suicide case caused by CSA and I’m sure he won’t be the last. How many more suicides have to be committed before the CSA procedures change or are abolished altogether?

In my opinion, there shouldn’t be a government agency arranging maintenance payments between parents. If the parent’s are mature enough to conceive the child, then surely they are mature enough to amicably arrange payments of financial support for said child?
Obviously I know that people aren’t mature enough to arrange this themselves, but surely CSA should suggest a mediation option before getting involved and arranging the amount to be paid by the absent parent?
It would be a lot easier if CSA took living expenses into account but they don’t, they work out the amount to be paid before tax is deducted. For example; A earns £20,000 a year, CSA would then work out a figure based on this then take that figure from the paying parent after their tax has been paid. This means that after CSA, tax and National Insurance (NI) has been deducted, A would have £1123.93 a month to pay all their bills, rent, travel expenses etc.

And what rubs salt into the wounds even more is the fact that if the mother/parent who the children live with, claims benefits they will still receive their full benefits plus their CSA payments, this is because the tax on the CSA has already been paid by the paying parent.
So the parent the children live with, if they do claim full benefits, would have a greater income than the parent who is working full-time. Where is the justice in that?
Surely if a parent receives full benefits and claim CSA, they should have their benefits reduced by the amount they receive in CSA?
And it is utter bollocks that CSA claim the payments are to “help keep a roof over the children’s heads” because if full benefits are being claimed then the receiving parent will have no or a very small amount of rent to pay.

It is a complete and utter disgrace and it also goes to show how it is easier to pop out kids and screw the father out of money rather than getting a job to support your children. The whole system is bullshit!

Why so blue?

MOTHER SAYS SHE IS OUTRAGED HER 5 YEAR-OLD SON WAS SENT HOME FROM SCHOOL BECAUSE HIS HAIR WAS BLUE‘- Headline of an article on the DM’s website.

Now, call me old fashioned but should parents really be allowing their 5 year-old children to go to school with blue hair?

The article stated that the child picked up the blue hair gel after having his hair cut at his local barbers and that his mother was called by the school to take him home and bring him back when it was washed out.
His mother told sources that she was outraged and that the hair gel was bought because it was the same colour of his favourite football team. It also matched the school uniform…

Regardless of if it matched the schools uniform or not, if it is school policy not to go in with brightly dyed hair then parents should understand when they get called in to take their child home and not to return them to school until it is washed out.

It isn’t rocket science and I really don’t understand why his mother was making such a big deal out of it. End of the day common sense would tell any reasonable parent that sending your child to school with blue hair might result in them being sent home.

Society these days really makes me wonder.

Parental responsibility

What would you do if your child was severely disabled, had no quality of life whatsoever, and your local NHS who were caring for the child told you that because of the condition, your child should only receive palliative care and be allowed to die?
Would you, like me, see that ending their suffering would be kinder? Or would you fight the NHS and the courts in order to keep your child alive for as long as possible?

I was reading an article on the DM’s website which detailed the above situation. Parents of a severely disabled 2 year-old are appealing an application made by their local NHS to allow their son to die.
The NHS stated that the child, who requires full-time NHS care, is “neurologically disabled” and should “be allowed to die”. The also believe that the child’s quality of life is so poor that he should only receive palliative care and bring in an ‘end of life’ plan. However, the parents are claiming that he recognises them and is happy when they are all together.

The High Court is yet to make a decision on this appeal, however, it must be a difficult decision to make. I know that there will be legal factors to take into consideration, but surely the High Court can see that allowing the child to die would be less cruel then prolonging the suffering?

I know the child is 2 years-old and I know that this is every parents worst nightmare, but as a parent, I can see both sides of the situation. I wouldn’t want my child to die but I also wouldn’t want them suffering in this manner, and no matter how painful it would be, I would choose to relieve my child of any pain and suffering rather than drag it out just because I didn’t want to say goodbye.

I will probably get called heartless for this post, don’t get me wrong I understand that this is difficult for the family, I just think that sometimes we have to look beyond our own suffering in order to do what is right.

 

Justice? For Poppi

If there is one thing I cannot stand it’s cases that have resulted in the death of a child due to cock ups by “professionals” who are supposed to protect children. The Daily Mail and other media sources campaigned to have the details of the Poppi Worthington case released and they are horrifying to say the least.  
Poppi Worthington was 13 months old when she was subjected to horrific sexual assault by her father, Paul, that resulted in her death in December 2012.  

On the night of the assault- assault seems to mild a word in fairness- Poppi was a bit ‘snuffy’ but otherwise well. Her mother put her to bed at about 7pm. Poppi’s mother then watched television downstairs and at about 9pm Paul went upstairs with his laptop and went to bed. He admits he checked out some sports results which he had put bets on then watched some porn- which he told police involved adults- before falling asleep.  

Poppi’s mum, at about 2am, went to get the laptop for her own personal use as Paul slept.  

Paul gave his own version of what happened that night, however, the judge was not convinced. He claims he was woken in the early hours by a scream or cry for Poppi’s room. He went into her room and he claims that he found her ‘rigid and stiff’.  

He gave her a cuddle and took her into his bedroom and laid her on the bed crossways. He brought a clean nappy from downstairs, but did not change her, and got back into bed. After a few minutes he says, he put out his hand and touched Poppi and found that she had gone “limp”.

He then ran downstairs wither her and called out to her mother to get an ambulance. The call to 999 was made at 5.56am and the ambulance arrived at 6:05am. The paramedic described Poppi as being ‘very pale, waxy and obviously not breathing’.

In the ambulance the cardiac monitor showed that Poppi’s heart was not beating. On the way to the hospital birth paramedics and her father tried reviving her. 

On arrival at 6:11am, Poppi was taken immediately to the resuscitation room. A locus consultant paediatrician led the challenging attempt to restart Poppi’s heart, which continued for 57 minutes, during which she received fluids and adrenaline.

Poppi was pronounced dead at 7:07am.   

The police were obviously present, they arrived at the house before the ambulance left, one officer remained with the family until 7:22am when she was relieved of her duties whilst the other went with the family to the hospital.  

At 9:40am a crime scene investigator attended and took photographs and a video.

At 10:15am, Detective A Sadler, attended the hospital with a colleague and inspected Poppi’s body. Upon inspection, they noticed some blood trickling down her leg when they moved her body. Poppi’s mother and father were then spoken to by the police at the hospital.  

During the course of the morning, Paul was permitted to go to the toilet where he could of washed away any crucial DNA that would have been evidence if a criminal case was brought against him. Swabs were not taken from him until later that afternoon.

There were other crucial evidence that was lost during the attempt to save Poppi’s life. The gloves the paramedic wore were thrown away, the stretcher sheet, which had blood and other bodily fluids on it and which might have held significant evidence, was not preserved.  

A police officer saw a used nappy on the floor near the fireplace in Poppi’s home. The nappy was believed to be the last one Poppi had worn but her paternal aunt had put it in the bin and it was never retrieved.  

Other items which were not preserved for forensic analysis included Poppi’s pillow, her clothing, the bedsheet from her parents bed or any other items that may have been used during the assault.  

Conveniently, the laptop owned by Paul ‘went missing’.

The scene at the house was not secured as a crime scene and no reconstruction with the parents took place.

Cumbria County Council held a meeting on the day of Poppi’s death, a paediatrician with responsibility to safeguarding children said Poppi had suffered from chronic constipation and this may have accounted for the blood coming from the top of her legs. This was obviously wrong, she did not suffer from constipation, but it was accepted as fact at the time and probably had a bearing on many important decisions that followed.  

Poppi’s body was transferred to the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital on December 14th and an X-ray revealed two broken bones in one of her legs.  

Mr Justice Jackson concluded that in the absence of any proper investigation into the injury, the cause could not be determined.  

Common sense might dictate that this might have given cause for concern over the other five children, then aged between 13 months and 8 years-old, remaining in the care of Mr & Mrs Worthington.

However, it was another 4 weeks after Poppi’s death before they were examined by doctors, although no sign of injury was found. No X-Ray’s were taken.

Experts said Poppi’s injuries would have caused significant pain that would have been apparent to the parents. Both parents denied knowledge of the injuries.

Two pathologists were instructed by the coroner to examine Poppi’s body, however, because of ‘other commitments’ the examination didn’t take place until 5 days after Poppi’s death.  

One of the pathologists was deeply concerned when they found bruising and tearing. The next day they contacted Detective Sadler to express concerns that Poppi had been subjected to a ‘penetrative act’.

Despite the gravity of the charge, another officer, DCI Forrester, would not permit even basic tests to be conducted, refusing to authorise forensic testing of any samples or items sized, apart from Poppi’s blood.

On the 24th of December, one of the pathologists contacted DI Sadler to state that she believed that Poppi had not died from natural causes but as a result of an unlawful act. However, despite these concerns, the pathologist did not complete her report into Poppi’s death until 6 months later- June 25th 2013.

She explained that in such a severe case, she wanted to have all the laboratory results before making an official finding. Although usually, pathologists provide preliminary findings to the coroner.

The report issued by the other pathologist was not filed until July 2013, had filed an interim report in February, found no evidence of death by natural causes-such as a seizure etc- in her report either.  

Despite the postmortem report having yet to be published, poppi’s body was released and she was buried on February 19th 2013.

In August 2013, M Scarborough of LGC Forensics, a forensic science organisation with laboratories all over the world, was instructed by police to carry out forensic tests.  

Scarborough found that Poppi’s DNA was present on an intimate part of Mr Worthington’s body, identified from the swab taken on the afternoon of Poppi’s death, although not to the degree that might have been expected had he committed an unlawful act, and it was noted that this could have been the result of secondary transfer (from his hands to his penis during urination). 

Even though there had been a clear suggestion of sexual assault, Cumbria Constabulary failed to use a paediatrician with specialist knowledge of investigating sexual abuse.

Having considered the various reports, police arrested Mr Worthington and Poppi’s mother on August 27th 2013 and placed them on bail.  

The mother was to have no unsupervised can contact with a child and the father was to have no contact with a child under the age of 13. They were interviewed and papers relating to the case were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in November 2013.

In September 2013, the council became aware the mother was having unsupervised contact with her children and two months later, the children were finally removed from the house and put into foster care.  

On March 28th 2014, a two-week fact-finding hearing was held at the High Court in London, where all available evidence was heard. 

Justice Jackson found in his findings, police officers involved in the case were removed and replaced. The Independent Police Complaints Commission began an investigation.

In June 2014, Cumbria County Council applied to the judge for a secrecy order to keep all facts about Poppi’s death, including the actions of the police, social workers and medical staff, suppressed for 15 years. The council’s solicitors argued that ‘disclosure of alleged shortcomings by agencies might be unfair to the agencies’.  

In July 2014, Associated Newspapers and other media groups, requested that Justice Jackson refused Cumbria’s sweeping request and the judge rejected the council’s call for secrecy. However, Mr Worthington’s name was not released to the public until December 2014 after another campaign for openness at yet another hearing.  

Full details of the circumstances surrounding a death are usually given during an inquest, however, at Poppi’s inquest, held by coroner I Smith in October 2014, no details were given.  

The inquest took place nearly 3 years after her death, delayed possibly as a result of the police investigation and lasted just 7 minutes. 2 days later Smith retired.

On January 14 2015, Cumbria’s new coroner, D Roberts, requested a fresh inquest.  

The National Crime Agency then instructed pathologist Dr Cary to examine Poppi’s case.

He suggested that Poppi may have died from a haemorrhage caused by infection but Justice Jackson rejected this theory as there was compelling evidence to support the sexual assault allegation.

However, 2 days later the CPS said there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges.

Justice Jackson was not finished there. In March 2015 he disclosed that Poppi’s father, Mr Worthington, who must have been pleased with the pathologists infection theory, requested another Family Court fact-finding hearing and 8 months later the judge ordered a new fact-finding hearing to e held in Liverpool in November 2015. The hearing took place over 5 days at a substantial cost to the taxpayer.  

On January 19th 2016, Justic Jackson’s findings of Poppi’s death being caused by the sexual assault she suffered at the hands of her father was made public.  

Mr Worthington’s sister told sources that “he has had to leave the country because of the persecution. People keep knocking on my door asking where he is, but he is not here… He is not even in this town, he has gone. He had to leave because of all the persecution over Facebook… He is devastated. He hasn’t done ‘owt and is being accused of something horrendous as this”  

The CPS have now confirmed that they are reviewing the case of their decision not to pursue criminal charges following he High Court family judge’s ruling.  

So will there be justice for Poppi? Will her father be sentenced? Or will he simply get away with murder? And what about the so-called professionals who failed to bring him to justice and who basically made a complete arise-end of the investigation? Will they be struck off? Will they have to face consequences for making such a mess of things?  

My guess is that we will never know.  

A smashing birthday bash

It really infuriates me that some people think that it is acceptable to abuse the hard working people who provide emergency services to those in need. It equally annoys me that a number of “emergencies” that paramedics attend to are caused by idiots having too much to drink and not being able to handle their alcohol. This was the case in an article I was reading on The Chronicle Live website. 
A woman from Newcastle has been sentenced to 18 weeks in prison for causing £7500’s worth of damage to an ambulance after she had been on a “four-day drink blender” to celebrate her 30th birthday.  

The ambulance had been called to assist Ms Wheeler after she had suffered a suspected seizure and a self-inflicted injury to her face.
When paramedics tried to treat her injuries she became so violent that ambulance crew had to leave the ambulance for their own safety.  

Wheeler then went on to cause significant damage to the vehicle. She used a fire extinguisher to spray the insides of the ambulance, used a black marker to draw on the walls and damaged vital equipment.

As a result of Wheeler’s sabotage, the wrecked ambulance had to be taken off the road for 17 days. The paramedics at the scene were also unable to attend any calls for 5 hours after the incident.

When the police arrived to arrest Wheeler, she assaulted them and resisted arrest. One officer was hit in the face and they had to use CS spray in order to carry out the arrest.  

In court, Wheeler pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.  

The court had been told that Wheeler suffered from significant mental health problems and had been diagnosed with depression, psychosis and personality disorder. She also had a history of self harm.

In mitigation, her solicitor claimed that her mental health problems, coupled with the misuse of drugs and alcohol, led to her pattern of behaviour.

Wheeler was previously convicted for 2 offences of assaulting a police officer in November 2014.

Her solicitor commented: “This is something Miss Wheeler greatly regrets because the ambulance service have assisted her time and time again in the past and she is very grateful to them… She deeply regrets what she did. She is not on drink and drugs all the time but when she is, she behaves really badly. She wants it to stop.”

Magistrates sentenced Wheeler to 18 weeks in prison and ordered her to pay £500 compensation to the ambulance service.  

£500 compensation for causing £7500’s worth of damage to an emergency vehicle which was out of service for 5 hours? That is a disgrace! And what, may I ask, is prison for 18 weeks going to achieve? They might as well have sentenced her to a holiday camp. 18 weeks of doing absolutely nothing and having no responsibilities during that time… How is that a punishment?

And what about the people who needed the assistance of the ambulance that night? Someone could have died because of her alcohol and drug fuelled actions. Then what would have happened? Would she still have received 18 weeks?  

I just hope the next time she needs the services of the police or an ambulance they refuse to attend to her. It’s the least she deserves after all. But that would never happen, if she needed the assistance of the emergency services and they did refuse to attend to her, she would sue them for a very large sum and play the victim card. Also the staff refusing to attend would also be putting their jobs at risk by failing to provide the service they are employed to do. It is an utter disgrace!  

Words kill

I absolutely despise bullies. There is nothing ‘hard’ about making someone feel completely worthless, which is what happened to 14 year-old Ashleigh Bowes. 
Ashleigh was found dead at her family’s £180,000 home in Cheshire after she has taken an overdose on a tablet that was used to treat anxiety. She revealed in her journal that she had been mocked because her family couldn’t afford popular food brands. She also claimed that “very bitchy” girls had bullied her because her mother used a motorbike to get around. 

One of Ashleigh’s journal entries stated “I trusted you. I thought you would understand you were rude the other day. Words kill. Taking the piss out of my food and my mum. We are poor…” “We can’t have the big brands like you do.” 

The police discovered Ashleigh had made a 5 minute video ‘selfie’ in which she said she had a bust up with other girls at a park.

The inquest heard the Ashleigh had been treated for an eating disorder and feared classmates would find out. The coroner, Alan Moore, recorded a verdict of suicide.

Ashleigh’s mum stated to sources that Ashleigh was teased by close friends who targeted her weaknesses and that “parents should take from this that minor teasing needs to be stopped.” 

For more information on bullying, please visit http://www.bullying.co.uk 

Birthday wishes

What do you want for your birthday? I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t attacking a young woman to fulfil a sick fantasy. Unfortunately this is what happened to 18 year-old Summer Gregg. 

Summer was tortured for over 2 hours by a trio of thugs as a birthday wish for one of her attackers. The trio (Jay Blades, James Canning and Amy Gaines) had been friends of Summer’s and had attacked her whilst at Blades flat. They spat on Summer, beat her and repeatedly slapped her, they also attacked her with a metal chain and forced her to act like a dog as they filmed it. She was also urinated on, punched in the face and even overheard the 3 scumbags talking about how they were going to kill her. 

The attack came to an end when the trio invited a fourth party to Blade’s flat to “finish the job”- only to have her call an ambulance instead. The fourth girl and Blades then followed Summer to the hospital and instructed her to tell the police she had been attacked in the street. Luckily they were overheard by a hospital employee whilst discussing how they had to delete the photos and videos of the attack. 

Summer suffered horrendous bruising, a fractured elbow and burst blood vessels in both of her eyes from the attack. She had to spend 3 days in hospital and her arm was in a case for 6 weeks. She also admitted that she thought about jumping 50ft out of an 8th floor window in order to stop them attacking her further. 

Summers attackers have been sentenced to 9 years and 6 months in prison after pleading guilty to false imprisonment and wounding. Gaines and Canning were sentenced to 5 years in a Young Offenders Institute and Blades was sentenced to 4 years, 6 months in a Young Offenders Institute.  They initially denied the charges before finally admitting to what Judge Julian Goose described as a “prolong and degrading attack […] An appalling episode of cruel and violent behaviour to a vunerable woman”. 

Summer stated; “I think they should have got longer sentences because they could be out in 2 years, which isn’t enough for what they’ve done to me. I also think they should have gone to an adult prison because they were adults when they did it.” 

Poor girl. I mean why they were sentenced and put in an YOI is beyond me! Surely they’re old enough to be placed in an adults prison? The trio were aged between 20 and 21 so surely that falls under the scope of being an adult? It is scum like Blades, Canning and Gaines who make a sheer mockery of the English Legal System. Where is the justice of putting them in a cushy YOI? They were tough enough to commit the crime so they should have to face equally tough consequences, just like any other adult offender would have to. 

Big demands

The topic of being “too fat to work” really annoys me, so you can imagine how I felt when I came across an article on the DM’s website about a woman who claims she can’t work because of her size. 

Anna Curtain, 30, weighs 29 stone and claims that she is too fat to have ever worked and that she feels too self-conscious to look for a job. She  was offered a £9500 gastric band operation, fully funded by the tax payers of Britain, but turned it down after considering the potential risks of the procedure. 

But here’s the best bit… She is now demanding a personal trainer funded by the NHS (or should I say the hard working tax payers?). Oh and she is also calling for the NHS to give overweight people access to personal trainers, diet classes and gym memberships all free of charge as it would be a “better use of public money”. Apparently. 

Anna told sources that she has always been over weight and left school when she was 13 years-old because she was being bullied, but this only led her to getting bigger as she spent her days at home eating. By the time she was 18 she weighed 19 stone… Why didn’t her parents do anything about her eating habits? Surely they noticed their daughter putting on so much weight? 

However since she was offered the gastric band operation she has managed to lose 4 stone by following a juice diet. Which leads me to wonder why she needs to have the NHS fork out money to provide her with weight loss support, I mean she managed to lose 4 stone on her own, so she’s proved that she can do it. Why can’t she exercise without it costing the Great British public? Going out for a walk and pushing yourself a little further each day doesn’t cost anything and it would be just as beneficial as spending an hour or so in a gym. 

I know I may sound harsh but I honestly don’t see why people should have services funded by the NHS when they can do something about their weight themselves. I’m not saying it’s easy but it is only as hard as people make it and if they really want to do it then they will stop coming up with excuses and get off their arses. 

For fruit’s sake

Schools are constantly taking it too far when it comes to health and safety, first there was the scandal of a school banning triangular flapjacks because they were “a danger to pupils if thrown”. Now, in another school in England, fruit juice is being banned from children’s lunch boxes.

The primary school in Kent have banned children from taking fruit juice to school as part of a health drive to cut down on sugary drinks, stating that pupils will only be allowed to consume water or milk during the day.

This all came about after campaigners found many children’s juices contain at least 6 teaspoons of sugar- more than what is in a can of Coca-Cola.
New advice also recommends that children aged between 4 and 6-years-old should consume no more than 19g of sugar (approx 5 sugar cubes) per day. Children aged from 7 to 10-years-old should not consume more than 24g of sugar (approx 6 sugar cubes) per day.
And for those children aged 11-years-old and over, the recommendations state that no more than 30g (approx 7 sugar cubes) per day should be consumed. Therefore, the recommendations mean that one can of Coke, containing 35g of sugar, would take a person over their daily limit of 30g of sugar for adults.

The headteacher of the primary school states that her decision has prompted a mixed response, with some parents arguing their children could dehydrate at school if they dislike water or milk. She told sources; “a child will not dehydrate themselves. They will drink water when they’re thirsty and if water is the only option they will drink it.” Does she have any idea how stubborn children can be? If they don’t like water they will simply refuse to drink it. End of.

The pupils have also called the ban ‘unfair’ and have complained how their friends at other schools are not having to obey these rules.

However, the school’s police does not extend to sugary foods, with fresh fruit, cakes, biscuits and hot puddings available from  the canteen, although it is requested that chocolate is not included in lunch boxes.

Other schools across England are implying similar measures with one in Dagenham even pouring sugary drinks down the sink if pupils take them to school.

Is all of this getting a little out of hand? I mean, yes I understand that all the recommendations are to reduce health problems in children etc but not all children like water or milk, and if a child doesn’t like something then there is no way they will consume it. No matter what anyone says.

Scum of the earth

I first read about Rachael and Naomi Fee- the scum of the earth couple who beat their toddler to death over a period then tried pinning the blame on a 7-year-old boy- while I was recovering from giving birth to my daughter. To say I was sickened would be an understatement.

Rachael and Naomi Fee denied all charges of murder brought against them at the High Court in Glasgow, but have also been charged with ill-treating and neglecting 2 boys over a 2 year period. The trial is set for 2016. The couple also pleaded not guilty to attempting to defeat the end of justice by falsely informing a 999 operator, paramedics, police, friends and family members that a 7-year-old boy was responsible for the child’s death.

Liam- the child the couple murdered- suffered repeated blunt force trauma to his head and body on numerous occasions in March 2014.
It is alleged that on various occasions between January 2012 and March 2014, the women failed to provide Liam with adequate exercise or mental stimulation by leaving him in his pushchair for long periods of time, pulling a blanket over his face and leaving him in a darkened room.
It is also claimed that they failed to provide him with enough food and gave him medication intended for another child and Calpol to keep him quiet and make him sleep.

They’re also alleged to have compelled one of the boys to stand naked under a cold shower as a punishment for wetting the bed, bound him in a cage made from a metal fire-guard, with cable ties, string and a dressing gown cord, placed items on him as well as striking him.
It is also claimed that they forced the boys hand into Liam’s mouth after he died, before the arrival of the police and paramedics. The women have also been accused of tying the second boy naked to a chair in their bedroom where they kept rats and snakes, and slapped him if he moved.

The couple, originally from Tyneside, moved back to the area after Liam’s death but an angry mob, consisting of hundreds of villagers, gathered outside their house, demanding they were evicted. Eggs and other items were thrown at their house and dozens of police were called to keep order, before removing the women and their belongings, out of the house and taking them away in vans. It is reported that the women are now temporarily residing in Edinburgh whilst officials seek a more permanent residence for them until the trial.

Both women are currently on bail and their trial is set for 4th of April 2016 at the High Court in Livingston by Judge Lady Rae.

No matter what the outcome of the trial is, no matter how long they are sentenced for, there will never be justice for Liam. These women are vile, sick individuals who don’t deserve the protection of the law.