Dog Posted 31 October, 2011 Author Posted 31 October, 2011 http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/10/30/soham-liar-maxine-carr-gives-birth-to-a-baby-boy-102039-23523889/ I wonder if she'll call him Ian?
miserableoldgit Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/10/30/soham-liar-maxine-carr-gives-birth-to-a-baby-boy-102039-23523889/ I wonder if she'll call him Ian? I thought that you meant Alan.
Matthew Le God Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 It beggars belief. What does? Are you suggesting she shouldn't be allowed children?
Dog Posted 31 October, 2011 Author Posted 31 October, 2011 What does? Are you suggesting she shouldn't be allowed children? Sorry, didn't realise you were the father. What's next, she'll become a childminder?
SuperMikey Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 She had the baby "earlier this year" - great journalism there.
Dog Posted 31 October, 2011 Author Posted 31 October, 2011 I just hope that Reverend Huntley doesn't perform the Christening.
Dog Posted 31 October, 2011 Author Posted 31 October, 2011 Why? You know where babies come from right? Would you stick your di
Matthew Le God Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 (edited) What's next, she'll become a childminder? Is she not on the sex offenders register? Her crime was perverting the course of justice by giving a false alibi. Yes, she was very wrong, but she didn't kill the girls or do anything to them. She has now served her time for her crime. Quite why you think that needs he stopped from being near children or having children of her own I don't know! Edited 31 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God
pedg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 Can probably guarantee a lot of that story is fabricated and any figures are exaggerated. Nothing like having someone who can't sue the paper for lying to produce a story that appeals most to the reader. Personally i am more annoyed at the money Thatcher is getting for staying alive.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 I would not go as far as dog but mlg and Adrian have put forward a very naive point of view. I used to act for parents, and kids, in care proceedings and have seen the kind of abuse which would sicken anyone. Sadly, there are many vulnerable women out there who lurch from one wrong un to another, thus exposing their kids to all sorts of dangers.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 I would not go as far as dog but mlg and Adrian have put forward a very naive point of view. I used to act for parents, and kids, in care proceedings and have seen the kind of abuse which would sicken anyone. Sadly, there are many vulnerable women out there who lurch from one wrong un to another, thus exposing their kids to all sorts of dangers. But you don't actually know this is the case here.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 But you don't actually know this is the case here. Didn't say it was, just a general observation from many years experience. She could be the rare exception to a common pattern. I hope for the kid that is the case.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 Didn't say it was, just a general observation from many years experience. She could be the rare exception to a common pattern. I hope for the kid that is the case. How is it a rare exception just because she showed one severe error of judgement (and besides no one actually knows what Huntley was like besides his obvious monstrous side.) If I had a girlfriend who turned out to be a terrible person, would that mean that all my future girlfriends would be very likely to be similar?
Chez Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 Her crime was perverting the course of justice by giving a false alibi. Yes, she was very wrong, but she didn't kill the girls or do anything to them. She has now served her time for her crime. Quite why you think that needs he stopped from being near children or having children of her own I don't know! her crime specifically was knowingly protecting a child killer. Sounds like great mother material to me.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 her crime specifically was knowingly protecting a child killer. Sounds like great mother material to me. Didn't she believe that he didn't do it? Genuinely I don't know but it's one thing lying for your boyfriend and another knowing that they had killed someone and then lying.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 How is it a rare exception just because she showed one severe error of judgement (and besides no one actually knows what Huntley was like besides his obvious monstrous side.) If I had a girlfriend who turned out to be a terrible person, would that mean that all my future girlfriends would be very likely to be similar? The rare exception point refers to vulnerable women who struggle to spot wrong uns and continually expose themselves and their kids to danger. I have been involved in probably 100 plus cases where women have let dangerous men into their lives, and their childrens, again and again. Some women can move away from that and credit to them, but many cannot. Dont get me wrong, Carr may have had a sudden injection of judgement. That would make her a very rare breed.
Saintandy666 Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 I thought she only lied because she believed Huntley when he said he didn't do it. I bet he was a convincing ****er. Either way, she has served her time and I hope learnt her lesson, but the media should leave her alone now.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 The rare exception point refers to vulnerable women who struggle to spot wrong uns and continually expose themselves and their kids to danger. I have been involved in probably 100 plus cases where women have let dangerous men into their lives, and their childrens, again and again. Some women can move away from that and credit to them, but many cannot. Dont get me wrong, Carr may have had a sudden injection of judgement. That would make her a very rare breed. I'm not sure I agree that one lapse of judgement on her part (however bad that lapse was) means that a woman is then in the minority if she doesn't make that same error again and I'm not sure that 100 cases that you have dealt with proves your point, but we will have to agree to disagree
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 I thought she only lied because she believed Huntley when he said he didn't do it. I bet he was a convincing ****er. Either way, she has served her time and I hope learnt her lesson, but the media should leave her alone now. Amazingly I agree with you here.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 I'm not sure I agree that one lapse of judgement on her part (however bad that lapse was) means that a woman is then in the minority if she doesn't make that same error again and I'm not sure that 100 cases that you have dealt with proves your point, but we will have to agree to disagree Where kids are involved you must err on the side of caution. The "she's done her time so let's give her a chance and hope for the best" approach is somewhat risky. Defo one where we must agree to disagree.
Chez Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 Didn't she believe that he didn't do it? Genuinely I don't know but it's one thing lying for your boyfriend and another knowing that they had killed someone and then lying. a man brutally kills two young girls and next minute your fella asks you to provide a false alibi for him. She protected a child killer.
bridge too far Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 a man brutally kills two young girls and next minute your fella asks you to provide a false alibi for him. She protected a child killer. But did she know he'd killed those little girls or was it a case of him saying to her 'I'm in a spot of bother so can you please say ...........(whatever)?
Saintandy666 Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 But did she know he'd killed those little girls or was it a case of him saying to her 'I'm in a spot of bother so can you please say ...........(whatever)? She was in Grimsby at the time so had no idea whether he did it or not, but foolishly choose to believe him and gave the alibi when he needed it. He conned her. She was stupid to lie, and she rightly served jail time, but that should be that.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 Where kids are involved you must err on the side of caution. The "she's done her time so let's give her a chance and hope for the best" approach is somewhat risky. Defo one where we must agree to disagree. As someone who works closely with chldren on a daily basis I am fully aware, however I see nothing in her crime that makes her a continuing danger to children. I don't know her and so it is difficult to make a judgement without a number of assumptions. There are many crimes that have come from a lapse of judgement but that doesn't mean that that person who had the lack of judgement should be permanently barred from having children in case they make an error in the future.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 She was in Grimsby at the time so had no idea whether he did it or not, but foolishly choose to believe him and gave the alibi when he needed it. He conned her. She was stupid to lie, and she rightly served jail time, but that should be that. Yep.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 But did she know he'd killed those little girls or was it a case of him saying to her 'I'm in a spot of bother so can you please say ...........(whatever)? She gave him a false alibi for the time that the kids died. She was aware that the girls were missing and that the alibi was false. She was dishonest and should have realised that the two matters were linked.
The Kraken Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 But did she know he'd killed those little girls or was it a case of him saying to her 'I'm in a spot of bother so can you please say ...........(whatever)? "I'm in a spot of bother?" Yeah, that's not underplaying it at all. Huntley had previous form for burglary, various counts of sex with a minor, and was arrested for rape (Carr also provided an alibi for him in that case). He was suspected by police to be a serial sex offender; and yet the person who supposedly knew him best had no problem in agreeing to lie for him to such a shocking crime. She derailed the investigation for 2 weeks, time in which Huntley could easily have absconded and the parents could never have found some form of justice. Didn't get long enough inside IMO.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 As someone who works closely with chldren on a daily basis I am fully aware, however I see nothing in her crime that makes her a continuing danger to children. I don't know her and so it is difficult to make a judgement without a number of assumptions. There are many crimes that have come from a lapse of judgement but that doesn't mean that that person who had the lack of judgement should be permanently barred from having children in case they make an error in the future. You may be right about her - who knows. As I say, I have made a general observation.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 She gave him a false alibi for the time that the kids died. She was aware that the girls were missing and that the alibi was false. She was dishonest and should have realised that the two matters were linked. If someone I loved came to me and said something like 'the police are trying to make it looked like I killed someone. If you just say I was with you then they will go away'. If I had a low IQ and was blinded by my affection for that person then I can't say I wouldn't do something similar and display a lapse of judgement. There is no suggestion that she knew he was guilty and lied to cover it up.
Chez Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 as soon as he asked for an alibi she had to have known. Two children had been brutally murdered and they had been in their house. She knew. She lied. She protected him. She didn't kill them, but she knew who did. The judge thought the same.
Matthew Le God Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 (edited) Chez and Egg... What are you suggesting? That the state should intervene and have her sterilised for perverting the course of justice? Edited 31 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 You may be right about her - who knows. As I say, I have made a general observation. Based on 100 cases you have been involved with. Hardly definitive though I accept your right to an opposing opinion.
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 as soon as he asked for an alibi she had to have known. Two children had been brutally murdered and they had been in their house. She knew. She lied. She protected him. She didn't kill them, but she knew who did. The judge thought the same. Did the judge think that? I genuinely don't know enough of the details.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 So are you suggesting the state should intervene and have her sterilised for perverting the course of justice? Yes, it was a child murder case, but she wasn't directly involved in the offence, just the cover up. What makes you ask that?!? What a stupid question. Course she shouldnt be sterilized! She can have kids, thats her right. The issue is the safety of her child if she brings another wrong un into her kids life
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 What makes you ask that?!? What a stupid question. Course she shouldnt be sterilized! She can have kids, thats her right. The issue is the safety of her child if she brings another wrong un into her kids life So what would you suggest? Anyone who displays a lack of judgement should have their children taken off them in the future for their own protection?
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 If someone I loved came to me and said something like 'the police are trying to make it looked like I killed someone. If you just say I was with you then they will go away'. If I had a low IQ and was blinded by my affection for that person then I can't say I wouldn't do something similar and display a lapse of judgement. You highlight the point about vulnerability which exposes kids to danger. Stupidity doesnt negate the risks.
Matthew Le God Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 What makes you ask that?!? What a stupid question. Course she shouldnt be sterilized! She can have kids, thats her right. The issue is the safety of her child if she brings another wrong un into her kids life So if you are fine with her having the right to have children, what exactly are you proposing should happen?
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 You highlight the point about vulnerability which exposes kids to danger. Stupidity doesnt negate the risks. I'm still struggling with what you're trying to say.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 So what would you suggest? Anyone who displays a lack of judgement should have their children taken off them in the future for their own protection? No.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 I'm still struggling with what you're trying to say. Im struggling with your lack of grasp of a simple concept.
egg Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 So if you are fine with her having the right to have children, what exactly are you proposing should happen? Probably what is happening, ie social services will keep tabs on the situation and act accordingly.
Saintandy666 Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 I think what egg is saying is to have some sort of check up system by social services/police to make sure everything is okay, which is what I'm sure happens anyway due to her protected status. Edit: Egg beat me to it!
hypochondriac Posted 31 October, 2011 Posted 31 October, 2011 Probably what is happening, ie social services will keep tabs on the situation and act accordingly. OK well that makes sense. I imagine that already happens anyway.
hypochondriac Posted 1 November, 2011 Posted 1 November, 2011 Don't see why not, if he passes the required interviews and does things in the correct manner.
trousers Posted 1 November, 2011 Posted 1 November, 2011 Don't see why not, if he passes the required interviews and does things in the correct manner. I wasn't asking if anyone thought she should pass the adoption criteria, rather, would she pass them under the existing criteria?
hypochondriac Posted 1 November, 2011 Posted 1 November, 2011 I wasn't asking if anyone thought she should pass the adoption criteria, rather, would she pass them under the existing criteria? I see. Are you allowed to adopt with a criminal conviction? Anyone know?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now