chikrodah

Gina, you're entitled to your opinion, but forum etiquette would suggest you take time to absorb a little of this forum's standards and style of debate before you post in the way you have here. Two out of three posts complaining about existing members when it's unlikely that you know the full background.

Unless, of course, you're nothing but another troll.

We've had a statistically improbable number of new members today, with an unlikely proportion posting threads pro a banned member and anti this forum's values.

Are you related to Claire and LO by any chance?

Aardvark

PL, Thanks for that point. My niece is half-Vietnamese so I have oriental relations and would not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity (once got a free meal at a Vietnamese run Chinese restaurant because I was family!).

Claire cut and pasted a part of her blog onto this and, I would guess, other fora and discussion groups. She advocated that site members pressurise the police to prosecute a named individual in a particularly offensive fashion. One only has to look at the recent damages and apology made to the McCanns to realise that such an irresponsible attitude could backfire on Claire and this forum.

A check of Claire's previous posting record shows that this forum was being spammed to draw members to her website. A whole thread was devoted to puffing her website.

In the light of complaints made and the way Claire was abusing the site I decided to ban her indefinitely. My decision alone. I notified it to the other moderators and nobody has come to her defence or suggested I revoke the ban.

I am not biased. I am very patient and have taken a lot of flack and abuse from some people without ever trying to ban them. I'm able to defend myself on this forum, Mrs McKeown is not.

As far as I am concerned the matter is dealt with.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Cleopatra

What is it with Chinese girls and their prejudices of British women? I have encountered another Chinese girl on the internet with similar views of a woman's role, she spent over a year posting insulting comments regarding single British parents. This very same girl worked in a Chinese restaurant and became pregnant herself (shock, horror, before marriage), it's OK though, because she married him when she was four months pregnant so that's acceptable. This girl was only 17, I couldn't believe her views on single parents and sex before marriage being disgusting, but what shocked me was the criticism that only women received and not men regarding sex before marriage.

Imagine if the guy had left her when he found out she was pregnant, she would have been just the same situation as many "British slags/sluts".

As for Claire being not so easy with our language I understood everything she typed/said.

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

Cleopatra

Funnily enough, I haven't bought a newspaper in over a year. For a start, I don't have time to read a daily newspaper, secondly, I got sick of the sh.it that many were spouting, thirdly, the celebrity obsession just piddles me off and last but not least it is a massive waste of money as I watch the news daily and the newspapers print their stories on the net.


The fact that this woman can afford a luxury holiday flabbergasts me.

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

Aardvark

'luxury'?

Did Mrs McKeown say she was on a luxury holiday or did the papers?

£7 grand for 9 people doesn't buy 'luxury' as I understand it. Flights start at about £500 pp adult return for bucket shop tickets. There are no doubt deals, but I suspect that the family were living a basic lifestyle. I doubt it was 5 star hotels and taxis everywhere.

The papers are interested in selling papers. 'Spongers on luxury holidays' sells more than teetotal, vegetarian, non-smoking family save hard for once in a lifetime treat.

There might be more than meets the eye, but I'd rather wait for the authorities to take the appropriate action based on facts rather than prejudice.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

The Bear

Scarlett had the right to be not deliberately placed into a position of obvious risk by anyone, her mother especially, but there is NO EVIDENCE let alone proof that is what happened. There is no legal right to expect her mothers active protection beyond that.

How about maybe thrifty?

Actually if you care to look into the FACTS the woman sold off some property she had in order to fund her trip of a lifetime plusm it was also partly funded, and we know not to what extent, by another person.

Whoo Hoo!

The “UNDERCLASS”!

Once again, Smithers! Release the dogs!

For your information, rightly or wrongly, the social services lot (whatever they call themselves these days) DO fund holidays for the disadvantaged as a policy, and as part of the benefit system either directly from central government, from some local councils, and from (often government supported) charities.

As for describing what Mrs McKeown as taking a luxurious foreign holiday, well all I can say is that from what I have read the word “luxurious” has no place in what her and her family were taking part in!

Educational, yes. I’ve no doubt that other than the terrible thing that happened to Scarlett the experience very educational, but luxurious?

Nah!

That’s just silly.

But let’s hover a moment about the delightful word “underclass”. Pretty close to “Untermenschen for my taste but there you go, that’s just me.

What is YOUR description of someone who is “underclass”?

Go on, go for it!

If you (and others) take the time and trouble to read and then to understand what has been written about the woman and her family then maybe a picture will emerge that is somewhat at odds with the one that you presently imagine.

Let’s have a go and let’s use the gutter press as primary sources. Take The Mail article dated 12th March.

In it Mrs McK is described and correctly as being a Romany Gypsy. Now taking verbatim what was written

“The family would grow their own vegetables on their nine-acre plot of land in Bideford, take water from their borehole, and sell the occasional puppy or pony to subsidise the only regular income they had, which came in the form of state handouts.”

The implication being that the reliance was on benefits, but there is no evidence that such was the case. It could well have been the other way around.

Let’s carry on.

” Residents in the nearby village of Bradworthy universally described the children as polite and well-mannered.

Sometimes they attended school, sometimes their mother would teach them at home.”

So we have a large family living under less than ideal circumstances with kids that are UNIVERSALLY described by locals who knew them as being polite and well-mannered.

And with a mother who combined state and home schooling.

At this point I’m thinking that for all her eccentric lifestyle she could teach most parents in this country a thing or two.

Now let’s get to the tragic events

” When the family embarked on a six-month holiday to the hippy beach paradise of Goa, taking with them eight of the children, no one was surprised.
The trip was to be an early Christmas present from Mr Clarke, partly funded by the sale of one of the family ponies.”

Two points. The use of the description “hippy beach” holiday and “Luxurious” holiday are mutually exclusive. I’ve been on both. I know.

Next did you notice how the holiday, probably more like an experience for the kids, was funded?

An early Christmas present from Mr. Clark and the proceeds from the sale of one of the families ponies. Do YOU know the financial status of Mr Clark? I don’t! He could be worth a mint for all we know!

Now let’s look at how that article finishes.

” One Bradworthy villager, who declined to be named, said: "Fiona was very proud of being a Romany gipsy.
"It's hardly surprising the way they lived that Scarlett would have been left on her own.

"They were like Red Indians running around in the woods here. You would see the kids riding horses without saddles and they were clean but unkempt.

"You would see two or three-year-olds out in the middle of winter with only a T-shirt on. They would ride bikes in the road with lorries coming by.

"But the kids were always polite. I think they belonged in Goa really. But I'm not sure how you afford all those tickets to Goa when you're on benefits."

So what do I read from that. A family living in an unconventional manner with a proud Romany mum taking very good care of them and bringing them up to be clean and polite if a little unkempt at times.

The younger ones hardening off to a life that saw central heating as a fire in the middle of a clearing and probably a damm sight healthier than the sickly asthma ridden milk sop kids that are in most modern homes, and a woman expressing an interest on how they could afford to pay for a cheap trip to a cheap place when she didn’t even know all the facts about how the funding had been put in place.

Mrs McKewan deserves pity for the disaster that has befallen her and her family and praise for bringing up what to all accounts are decent well behaved kids who sound like they are models that many others should aim for as examples of how to be.


That the evidence may or may not be sufficiently strong for anything is your opinion. To publish that in your opinion the woman has acted in an illegal manner is where you put your head in a legal noose.

What charges? The only person making any charges is yourself and in that lies the issue.

Dear heavens, If I were to bleat about everyone that I disagree with the “complaints” section would have wall to wall Bear! This is not about disagreement, it IS about the law and the exposure that one can so easily find one in when expressing opinion that reflects badly on the character or actions of a third party.

Of course! It’s great for being just that! But once the boundary that sets aside comments that are actionable from fair comment is when the danger starts for all and sundry.

kernow

Bad parenting in my youth was looked upon as a disgrace, nowadays it appears to almost be the norm!

Cleopatra

The most important thing is that Scarletts murder is solved. If I were the mother I would have done exactly the same thing in alerting the worldwide media that the Goan authorities were trying to cover up the murder so as not to affect tourism. This to me is the most important thing.

The crticism that Scarlett's mother is receiving is only to be expected. Nobody in their right mind would do what she did, I don't care if she has a hippy outlook on life. A parents job is to protect their children. She did not do this, however, what's done is done... poor judgement, poor parenting and yes, even neglect in this case. What the family are going through right now is unbearable, there is little point asking for the mother to be prosecuted as she was obviously not directly involved in her child's murder. I think what leaves many hostile to this woman is the lack of blame/remorse she takes regarding her daughter's death. I am very sorry if this upsets anyone but this woman clearly neglected her parental responsibility. To me, she has done no different to the women who toddle off on holiday leaving their kids behind and asking the neighbours to check on them once in a while.

As for the woman being on benefits, I do not think that has anything to do with poor parenting; which is what the newspapers and Claire are trying to imply. When I split with my partner of 8 years I too had to go on benefits, it was a struggle I can assure you, I can also assure you that the income support department most definitely did not offer to fund a holiday. Even now, at a better financial stage in my life I would struggle to afford two weeks away with the kids, so it amazes me that this woman could afford a £7000 holiday.... she did sell a pony but said she saved £200 per week out of her benefits to fund it.

Look at it this way, if Scarlett had not been attacked but had rang home to speak to her dad and told him that her mother had left her on her own and she needed money, what do you think the papers would be saying then?
I have little doubt of the love this woman has for her daughter, that much is obvious and I hope she gets justice for Scarlett.

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

London Orbital

What is "obvious risk"? If the risk was extremely obvious then the girl could only have been placed in such a situation with malign intent. But it would not be necessary to accuse Ms M. of malign intent merely to say that she was negligent. However, your point appears to be that if she did not actually cause the girl deliberate harm then she is not culpable in any way. But that is not what good parenting means.

There is no evidence we are aware of as yet - although if I were a member of the Goan police that is what I should be trying rather hard to find at this moment, since it appears Ms M. is determined to blame all and sundry for her own parental failings when she has only herself to blame.

If she were thrifty she would not be receiving benefits. And if she has other sources of income - such as selling ponies and property - then these should all be declared and deducted from her benefits. Anyway, I should imagine the sources of >snipped< or gypsy income are rather hard to pin down. This is all the more reason why the welfare state should be totally abolished in any case.

I mean, provided she is financially independent - by which I mean not living on benefits which is just money confiscated from other taxpayers - I really couldn't care less whether or not she lives in a caravan, has nine children with several different surnames (did you know, by the way, that underclass mothers refer to two children that were produced by the same father as "twins" - great isn't it?) and allows them to get raped & murdered in far-eastern sex-tourism resorts.

What I object to is that the welfare state is encouraging and funding this sort of feckless, broken-down society. It's expensive and dangerous and immoral.

Aardvark

Child benefit is not means tested therefore there is nothing to deduct.

People out of the country for more than a certain time lose other benefits such as housing benefit (which is probably not applicable in this case in any event).

Income support, if paid, is income and not capital based. Sale of a person's posessions to raise money is not considered to be income.

Tax credits are an area that I know nothing about, but I suspect again that they are income based.

Even if you are on benefits you are allowed to retain a proportion of your savings (£3000 in the case of housing benefit).

Most benefits are there for all of us to fall back upon, as I have had to on occasion. Benefits are paid according to strict rules and benefits assessors carry out regular checks. If people are overpaid benefits then they can be recovered. If benefits are claimed fraudulently then people are prosecuteed and can be ordered to repay them.

I am surprised that the BNP interviews and gives succour to the most notorious benefit fraudster of recent years - the convicted criminal Ashley Mote MEP. Perhaps, LO, as a BNP member you think it is okay for middle class white businessmen to go to the Carribean whilst on housing benefit (public school education and all that), but it is wrong for travellers to do the same? Ashley Mote, after all, is not a member of the 'underclass'; don't you mean 'untermensch'?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008