From the Guardian today: -

A childminder who crayoned the word "******" on the forehead of a two-year-old girl in her care narrowly escaped jail yesterday after a judge accepted pleas that she was "ignorant rather than evil".

Fay Stockley, 57, was told by the recorder of Derby that she had done a "wicked thing" which most people would consider deserved a prison sentence. But he suspended a six-month term for a year on the grounds that she had not understood the nastiness of what she had done".

Read the full story here:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,1571393,00.

Think that one is best left to the judge who knows all the facts of the case.

I don't think it could have been done without malicious intent. Therefore I think she should have received something harsher than just a suspended sentence. As for whether it should have been a jail term however, I'm still unsure.

Earlier thread on this here:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59763

... and the link doesn't work!

Originally posted by cgksheff
Earlier thread on this here:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59763

... and the link doesn't work!

Apologies - although this is a poll.

Personally i think she should have recieved a jail term for the action. Even if it was just 28 days, there is quite simply no excuse.

Look at her though. You just know that she won't learn anything from what ever happens to her. Have her put down, do us all a favour!

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
Look at her though. You just know that she won't learn anything from what ever happens to her. Have her put down, do us all a favour!

I agree.

I for one am totally in favour of a tolerant society, i think anyone who is found not to be tolerant should be put in front of a wall and shot.

A major issue here has to be what she was doing in that sort of job?

I don't believe jail would help her reform - a more appropriate punishment would be appropriate community service, with jail as a punishment for her if she didn't show.

Joe

Don't judge others until you know the whole story...which you never will. You can not pass a sentence when you know very few facts of the matter. I somehow feel that the judge's decisions was more qualified that those that you make.

Originally posted by goose
I agree.

I for one am totally in favour of a tolerant society, i think anyone who is found not to be tolerant should be put in front of a wall and shot.

Is this an example of YOU being tolerant? Me thinks that your own firing squad would pull the trigger on you in this instance. Tolerance applies to all society in all circumstances. It does not mean we can demonstrate INTOLERANCE at someone else's actions. Think about it.

Originally posted by Babooshka
Don't judge others until you know the whole story...which you never will. You can not pass a sentence when you know very few facts of the matter. I somehow feel that the judge's decisions was more qualified that those that you make.

Read the full story

Originally posted by Babooshka
Is this an example of YOU being tolerant? Me thinks that your own firing squad would pull the trigger on you in this instance. Tolerance applies to all society in all circumstances. It does not mean we can demonstrate INTOLERANCE at someone else's actions. Think about it.

Sense of humor by-pass, it was supposed to be a joke!

Theres always one :rolleyes:

We have judges, jurors, court cases for a reason. Rulings in court are not based on a newspaper report.

Originally posted by Babooshka
We have judges, jurors, court cases for a reason. Rulings in court are not based on a newspaper report.

True, but we are still entitled to an opinion. Given that this is from the lefty Guardian i think that we can read between the lines and draw our own conclusions about the case.

Anyway judges and jurors are not always right, just ask OJ Simpson.

How stupid does she think people are? I don't think the spelling mistake she refers to (a N for a T) is a ligitamte excuse, then to change her story to it being a "little bit of fun" and an "in joke", she was trusted by this childs parents to protect her and keep her safe.

This trust has been misplaced and as such she should be made an example of. Absolutely disgusted that a grown adult can be so juvenile and irresponsible with such a precious thing as a child!!:rant:

Well, in law they ARE always right. The decisions made in law are legally right, no matter what decision they have made. What you mean is that you may not agree with their decision.

Originally posted by Babooshka
Well, in law they ARE always right. The decisions made in law are legally right, no matter what decision they have made. What you mean is that you may not agree with their decision.

If they ARE always right then why do we bother with appeals?

Originally posted by JoeP
A major issue here has to be what she was doing in that sort of job?

I don't believe jail would help her reform - a more appropriate punishment would be appropriate community service, with jail as a punishment for her if she didn't show.

Joe

she was not a registered childminder. therefore illegal. I wouldn't leave my kids in the hands of someone who wasn't registered, who had had no training unless they were family, ie my mum. would you??:loopy:

I haven't voted for this very reason, if she was registered I would say that she does deserve a jail sentence, however I think that the people who left there kids with her should learn a lesson from this too.
I do believe that she should go to jail for not being registered, especially if the parents thought that she was!

Simply because the person on trial disagrees with the sentence passed. No matter what a jury etc decides, or whenever it decides, be it in a first hearing or an appeal. Their decision is always right. If an appeal is successful then THAT decision is right too. No matter what or when a judge makes a decision, it is always right...by law. eg if you stabbed me and you were found not guilty of the crime, then that would be right. Do you see what I mean?

PS ..if you are a goose, why have you got that cute little frog thing going on?

Originally posted by Babooshka
Simply because the person on trial disagrees with the sentence passed. No matter what a jury etc decides, or whenever it decides, be it in a first hearing or an appeal. Their decision is always right. If an appeal is successful then THAT decision is right too. No matter what or when a judge makes a decision, it is always right...by law. eg if you stabbed me and you were found not guilty of the crime, then that would be right. Do you see what I mean?

I know what your getting at but if a decision is overturned on appeal then the original decision is wrong - i believe. Lets agree to disagree :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Babooshka
PS ..if you are a goose, why have you got that cute little frog thing going on?

eh? :confused:

Is it not a frog? What is that sweet green blob behind which you hide?

PS. If a ruling is overturned, it is just that. Overturned. Not declared wrong.

Originally posted by Babooshka
Is it not a frog? What is that sweet green blob behind which you hide?

PS. If a ruling is overturned, it is just that. Overturned. Not declared wrong.

Ah... you had to try and get the last word! :hihi: -Overturned or wrong, makes no difference in my eyes.

I think its a frog - look at it long enough and it will blink at you.

Could it be another case of the media spicing a "story"up for a headline.What gets me is why did it have to go to court costing a lot of money.Surely a strong telling off would have sufficed,dont think shell be looking after any more kids.

I have a friend in California who was sentenced to death in 1982. His sentence was OVERTURNED in 1993. He is now a lifer. They have still ruled him guilty of the crime. For those who support the death penalty, or goose perhaps, if , for example, you were in favour of the death penalty (not saying you are) then this situation means that, in your way of thinking, although a death penalty supporter believes that murder deserves a sentence of death, the first death sentence passed must have been wrong, hence being overturned, even though he was found guilty for a second time.

My point is, a death penalty supporter will feel that the ruling being overturned was the wrong decision, not the first ruling of a death sentence. Only the law can decide what fits.

Originally posted by Babooshka
I have a friend in California who was sentenced to death in 1982. His sentence was OVERTURNED in 1993. He is now a lifer. They have still ruled him guilty of the crime. For those who support the death penalty, or goose perhaps, if , for example, you were in favour of the death penalty (not saying you are) then this situation means that, in your way of thinking, although a death penalty supporter believes that murder deserves a sentence of death, the first death sentence passed must have been wrong, hence being overturned, even though he was found guilty for a second time.

I am not in favour of any corporal punishment btw, i'm not sure what your trying to say here.

The basics of my argument is that judges decisions are not always right, and this is recognised iby the law when a decision is found to be wrong (overturned).

Originally posted by Babooshka
My point is, a death penalty supporter will feel that the ruling being overturned was the wrong decision, not the first ruling of a death sentence. Only the law can decide what fits.

Think your on to a whole new issue here.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Babooshka
I have a friend in California who was sentenced to death in 1982. His sentence was OVERTURNED in 1993. He is now a lifer. They have still ruled him guilty of the crime. For those who support the death penalty, or goose perhaps, if , for example, you were in favour of the death penalty (not saying you are) then this situation means that, in your way of thinking, although a death penalty supporter believes that murder deserves a sentence of death, the first death sentence passed must have been wrong, hence being overturned, even though he was found guilty for a second time. [/QUOTE


A simple yes or no will do..:confused:

How can a "story" about some silly woman crayoning somethin on a childs head end up with a debate about the death penalty?:confused: :confused:

No I know, the point I was making was not reference to your beliefs but to your way of thinking.

Take for example a death penalty supporter...(that is capital punishment by the way). Let's say, just for example, that it is you. A man receives a death sentence for a crime of murder. You are pleased and believe it is the RIGHT decision. An eye for an eye and all that. However, later on the sentence is overturned to life without parole....bearing in mind that this man is still guilty of murder. You then feel that this new ruling is WRONG. However, to someone else, the overturning would be RIGHT. In this instance, you would not agree that overturning the death sentence was right would you? Yet, with your way of thinking (and now I am speaking about your true beliefs) you suggest that if any decision is overturned then it must have been wrong to start with. Back to the (pretend) death penalty supporter in you....could you accept that the death sentence was, therefore wrong, if you hold such strong beliefs that the murderer should be executed? Your present way of thinking would suggest that you would have to.

Originally posted by goose
I agree.

I for one am totally in favour of a tolerant society, i think anyone who is found not to be tolerant should be put in front of a wall and shot.

superb example of tolerance.

Not a new issue, just my point of saying that you can't call a legally made decision wrong. Just trying to give a reverse example. I only refer to a death penalty case, with which I am familiar, to use as an opposite example to opinions on overturning a legal ruling..not as an introduction to a debate on the matter.

Originally posted by littleboo
she was not a registered childminder. therefore illegal. I wouldn't leave my kids in the hands of someone who wasn't registered, who had had no training unless they were family, ie my mum. would you??:loopy:

I haven't voted for this very reason, if she was registered I would say that she does deserve a jail sentence, however I think that the people who left there kids with her should learn a lesson from this too.
I do believe that she should go to jail for not being registered, especially if the parents thought that she was!

if she mislead the parents into claiming to be registered, it would have taken them little time to find out.
they will have opted for a cheaper childminder & not bothered to ask for her credentials.

Originally posted by willman
superb example of tolerance.

It was a JOKE!! :help:

& u made that clear in your post !!

Originally posted by willman
& u made that clear in your post !!

Sorry i thought it was obvious!

you never can tell on here, i think it depends which way the winds blowing.

(wos gonna blame it on the time of month - but the feminists would be after me)

A decision made by the Courts is the legal judgement of a case, nothing to do (necessarily) with what is morally 'right' or 'wrong'.

There have been many many cases where it is generally agreed that the morally wrong conclusion has been reached. Legality does not necessarily have anything to do with morality and the terms 'right' or 'wrong' suggest moral implications.

People go for appeals because they believe a decision to be the 'wrong' one. Just because a legal decision is made does not make it 'right'.

PS - I understood your joke Goose!

Originally posted by chickmonk
PS - I understood your joke Goose!

Cheers chickmonk - i'm wasted on this audience :hihi:

Originally posted by Babooshka
Not a new issue, just my point of saying that you can't call a legally made decision wrong. Just trying to give a reverse example. I only refer to a death penalty case, with which I am familiar, to use as an opposite example to opinions on overturning a legal ruling..not as an introduction to a debate on the matter. this is all well and good babooshka,but what about this poor indian you"ve left in is bare feet two moons ago for christs sake!!!!