Grandmother found not guilty

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2953444.ece

The grandmother of the 5 year old girl killed by a pit bull terrier has been found not guilty of her manslaughter despite admitting to letting the dog in the house when it was banned for simular behaviour and to drinking two bottles of wine and smoking ten spliffs. Is this judgement right ? She was certainly guilty of stupidity and negligence but was the manslaughter decision correct ?

If she's bitten then kid then that would be manslaughter. In a sad accident like this I think she's probably been punished enough. Did you see the photos? The woman's supposed to be 45 and looks 20 years older - a good cosmetic arguement against drink, drugs and setting your dog on your grandaughter.

What possible good would it have done to lock her up?

oops, that should have been 'if she'd bitten THE kid'. Fingers going too fast

Id tend to agree but the fact she has been charged with nothing riles me.

Looked at another way, she's already got a life sentence of being known as 'that woman who let the dogs eat her grandchild'.
Tragic.

She can always up her spliff intake to take the thoughts away

Thats not funny Jas. This story makes me feel sick.

From the limited facts I heard she certainly sounded negligent, especially given her alcohol and drug intake however those that continued to keep the dog and also left someone in charge of their child who clearly was not responsible were also negligent in my opinion.

Just proves my theory that some people should not be allowed to reporoduce.

Theres another couple of 'iffy 'parents in the news now trying to blame everyone but themselves for an accident where their kid drowned.

Good point. What were their kids doing out playing near a lake without supervision?

It's often the case that the people shouting loudest about the failings of the authorities are trying to shout down the doubts they must have about their own behaviour.

I remember and interview with the father of Billie Jenkins (just after her step-father got out following his appeal). Her natural father was mouthing off and the interviewer said 'well maybe if you'd been a better father and not been in prison it might not have happened'.

Personally I can't see what the CSO's could have done - there were already people in the water, two more would have made little difference especially if the kid was (sadly) already dead.

Agree with the overall sentiment about parents quick to pin the blame BUT in this case it seemed to me the CSO's were a bit spineless. After all aren't they there to protect and serve ??

Actually I'm not sure that they are. I think they are there to wander around making people feel secure and to have chats with hoodies and hand out asbos.

Rule number one is probably 'don't be a dead hero'. If they weren't trained to deal with the situation, the local force could probably get sued if they jumped in. I believe one of them was off looking for the emergency services so he/she could make sure they got there as soon as possible. In an incident like this where there are already people in the water, chances are they might be more useful on the bank.

I don't know the whole story but I'll bet the papers have blown it up out of all proportion. Now lets get back to asking where the parents were and what two young kids were doing playing by a lake and whether the little girl actually drowned her brother by ducking him under to save herself.

Not such a nice scenario as slagging off coppers, is it, but the should they/shouldn't they debate makes a nice smoke screen for the parents.

My paper said that the brother jumped in to save his sister then he didnt surface. Some fishermen jumped in and pulled out the girl but couldnt find the boy. When the CSO's turned up they rang for a trained policeman to attend who pulled out the boy when they arrived.

Id like to think if I was passing I would have jumped in to try to help save the boys life, infact I know I would. The CSO was only following the 'rules' but I think sometimes rules and regulations get in the way of doing whats right.

The girl apparently clambered onto her brother to keep herself about the water, pushing him under in the process. When the CSO's appeared, there were (according to a couple of reports that I heard) already some fisherman and some other passers-by in the water.

What I find amazing is hearing David Blunkett (who I actually really like and am very disappointed in) saying that in their shoes he'd have jumped in and had a go. What a great idea - a blind man hunting for a child in a lake, what could be more daft than that?

koshkha wrote:

The girl apparently clambered onto her brother to keep herself about the water, pushing him under in the process. When the CSO's appeared, there were (according to a couple of reports that I heard) already some fisherman and some other passers-by in the water.

What I find amazing is hearing David Blunkett (who I actually really like and am very disappointed in) saying that in their shoes he'd have jumped in and had a go. What a great idea - a blind man hunting for a child in a lake, what could be more daft than that?

I would say standing on the side and letting the child drown quite frankly.

Sorry, but if there were already people in the water then other going in could have made it worse.

And yes, a blind man going in would have been stupid.