London Orbital

Puzzled by your ban on the member who has simply pointed out the obvious about Fiona McKeown.

The woman appears to be an unfit mother who should be prosecuted for negligence. Scarlett was only a minor who deserved to be looked after - Ms McKeown can blame local police, politicians, whomever she wishes.

But any responsible version of parenting would hold her mostly to blame.

In any case, why would anyone defend a freeloader who uses taxpayers' money to fund an expensive holiday for her large family in India?

The woman is a disgrace - she should be made to pay back her dole money - the purpose of social security is to provide essentials for the genuinely needy.

She should also be put on trial as aiding and abetting her daughter's rape and murder. Then her guilt - or otherwise - can be properly assessed.

We might then begin to see some improvement in parenting standards in this country.

Cleopatra

I didn't like what Claire said about single mothers in general, I did not expect her to be banned for her thoughts though, I have read her blog and yes, it makes for some interesting reading and regardless of what the blog says I am convinced Claire is a male poster.

Claire's opinions on the mother who left her daughter are very strong, however, when I first read the story on the BBC news website my instant reaction was why did the mother leave her CHILD while she went travelling. It said that she left him with a tour guide but nothing more on the subject. I had assumed by the hippy look of the child and the mother that they regularly travelled to Goa and got to know the locals. If what Claire says is true, that it was the first time they went on holiday to this place and the mother knew that she was not only taking drugs and having sex with a man she had just met, then yes, I do believe this to be a case of neglect. I do not believe she should be punished for this as the suffering she is going through now is punishment enough.

Why Claire brought up the dole I have no idea, does Claire know something that we don't? If so, how can a woman who lives on the dole afford to take all of her children to Goa? I can just about afford Haven this year.

I do not like the way Claire puts all single parents in the same bracket (slags and slappers) but I did not think it justified a ban, perhaps a warning. It seems to me that Claire can only see things in black and white.

Anyway, is that you Claire under a different alias?

__________________
"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."

The Bear

I’m not, she made libelous remarks and by your implicit support of what she wrote you are now partaking in those same libels.

There is no evidence that by leaving her in the care of the people that she did that she might reasonably expect that the girl WOULD be looked after.

That is an opinion and in MY opinion is incorrect.

Where is the evidence that she was a "freeloader", or that she used taxpayers money to fund anything?

That is libelous.

There is no evidence whatsoever that she in any way knowingly aided her daughters demise.

To even suggest that she should be arraigned before a court is in itself under the circumstances and the context that you have done so a libelous statement.

Sorry, I must report this post.

Roland

Some people and their 'holier than tho' attitude makes me sick.

I'm sure when she left her she did so all be it mistakenly thinking she was safe.

For her mistake she's paid a price beyond contemplation and now you think she should be put on trial for it.

I'm sure your the perfect person who does all things perfectly some people aren't.

I'm sure the women had her faults setting her daughter up to be raped and murdered I'd strongly doubt was one of them.

London Orbital

Bear - Scarlett was a 15-year old girl below the legal age of sexual consent.

She therefore deserved the active protection of her single parent in Goa - an area which is noted for crime and prostitution, & especially child prostitution. (You'll easily find a good many reports to this effect if you look online.)

Scarlett deserved - and had the legal right to expect - her mother's active protection. This is not really a matter for your (or my) 'opinion'.

No evidence she was a freeloader? Well, how exactly would you describe someone who uses £7,000 dole money to fund a long, expensive holiday abroad for her large family.

The purpose of social security was never to provide the underclass with the sort of luxurious foreign holidays that ordinary taxpayers - who are forced to fund these freebies - often cannot even afford themselves, since of course they are impoverished by high levels of taxation.

If you doubt that she actually used her dole money to fund this trip, check out just about any of the newspapers this week - the Daily Mail, for example.

All guilty of libel, are they? How surprising.

And I would suggest (as my opinion in this instance) that weight of evidence against Ms McKeown appears to be sufficiently strong for me to wish the matter be definitively settled - one way or another - in a court of law.
After all, if she's innocent, she's innocent.

I assure you that no-one would be more delighted than me to see her cleared of all these charges, since of course the poor woman must be going through an agonising time - having lost her daughter and all.

Lastly, Bear - your habit of reporting people whom you happen to disagree with (it seems in order to try and get anyone you disagree with banned from this site) is somewhat disagreeable, if I may say so.

This is surely a democratic forum where different points of view can be expressed - not only your point of view.

London Orbital

Cleopatra – very well said for supporting Claire’s right to say what she did without being banned from the site.

However, I’m truly amazed that you should be surprised by Claire bringing up the dole or that you should think she knows something you don’t. I mean - don’t any of you people read the newspapers? These sort of points have been made time and time again in most of the right wing tabloids over the past week.

For the record, Claire isn’t a man, although I am (and I am not Claire under a different alias, by the way). I’m a BNP member from East London – something that I shall definitely establish in my other posts. On the other hand, Claire happens to be a member of an ethnic minority who would not – at least as the party rules stand at present – be permitted to join the BNP.

London Orbital

It isn’t a question of my being ‘holier than thou’ or of being perfect.

It is though a question of wanting to see certain minimum standards of parenting being restored in our society.

I’d like to see more strong marriages which would lead to more strong, financially independent families. And I do not want to see legions of dysfunctional lower-class spongers subsisting their entire lives on the dole. None of these improvements will happen just by accident. For a start, people need to re-learn how to take marriage seriously. They certainly should not be spoon-fed with handouts – which operate on a corrupt, preferential system of ‘greatest need’- into establishing more & more broken families in which children are just not looked after properly.

Moreover, in such families they are obviously not themselves taught - by both precept and example – how to become effective parents themselves.

Of course I agree with you – I’m sure too she did not ‘set her daughter up to be raped and murdered’. This would be an extraordinary accusation to make. What she was though – in my opinion – was a negligent and irresponsible parent.

Why? Because people like her aren’t taught, or encouraged, to be anything else. If prosecuting this woman succeeds in bringing these sort of matters to more people’s attention (so that our ghastly dysfunctional society which has been totally corrupted by liberalism can improve) then it will be worthwhile, in my opinion.

Aardvark

Prosecuting this lady will have no effect on parenting in this country.

The only issue should now be the welfare of the remaining children.

Ashley Mote went to the Carribean whilst on benefits that he had stolen, but the BNP interview him on their TV channel. Presumably, as he used the housing benefit to put his kids through public school, IIRC, that was acceptable.

Judging by the numbers of kids she has Mrs McKeown probably gets a large amount of legal benefits. If she doesn't drink or smoke (for instance), buys in bulk, grows her own etc then she might well be able to save for the holiday of a lifetime over many years. Scarlett, aged 15, had never had a holiday apparently.

Rich children are also not looked after properly. Wealth and parenting do not go hand in hand. The Duke of Marlborough is a wealthy man; his son has a long record of drug use and has been imprisoned. It can happen to anyone.

__________________
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

gina

Claire is from an ethnic minority and got barred! Cassie posts racial abuse against Scottish people and the moderators think nothing? There is bias on BDF in favour of certain people and certain views. Claire should have been warned and herpost deleted. She is chinese-malay and not so easy with our language. Aardvark you were unfair in your decision.

Populist Lee

This thread smells very iffy.

Claire's ban has nothing whatsoever to do with her ethnicity.
Why are the two newbies bringing this detail into the equation?

__________________
ENGLISH POPULISM
Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats
who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World
to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism


POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET