Letter contents written by Colin Caffell to Ralph Bamber sparks off shootings

[vidvic]

I posted on this a while back Vic.  A witness has recently confirmed that such discussions did take place.  This person is a credible witness with no axe to grind (the witness in fact believes JB is guilty).  The witness did provide witness statements for the trial but appears never to have been asked about this until recently.

My information about the relationship between Colin and Nevill and June is taken from Colin's book.

Fostering ( suggesting over night stays ) or day care support ( mothers help ) ?

[ngb1066]

Fostering ( suggesting over night stays ) or day care support ( mothers help ) ?

I was told fostering.

 

[vidvic]

I was told fostering.
[/]

Isn't that a masterful piece of fence sitting Neil?

[ngb1066]

I was told fostering.
[/]

Isn't that a masterful piece of fence sitting Neil?

Why Vic?  I did not speak to the witness myself so can only report what I have been told.  I do trust the source of my information.

[vidvic]

Why Vic?  I did not speak to the witness myself so can only report what I have been told.  I do trust the source of my information.

Do you see why it's an important distinction though Neil? I'm slightly surprised you didn't ask that question yourself.

[lookout]

Foster carers aren't babysitters. They are a legal requirement ordered by social sevices where there is doubt about the welfare of children. It's not a babysitting service.

[ngb1066]

Do you see why it's an important distinction though Neil? I'm slightly surprised you didn't ask that question yourself.

I did not see the need to ask the question as fostering was the word used.  If the suggestion had been that some child care support was being contemplated it would have had no significance to the case.  This was reported to me as a significant new piece of evidence (albeit peripheral to the main issues in the case) and I believe the person who conveyed this information understood the significance.

 

[vidvic]

Foster carers aren't babysitters. They are a legal requirement ordered by social sevices where there is doubt about the welfare of children. It's not a babysitting service.

As in this case, the carer was approached seemingly by the bamber's, then that is exactly my point. When I'm working I sometimes need help to look after my children, in Sheila's case she needed help to cope with her children on a day to day basis, meaning she could spend more time with her children. This is not foster care. My point completely.

[lonny]

I'm sure there will be more than a few single parents who will feel insulted by the suggestion that because they have to work their children would be better off in foster care.

Those children had problems though, as stated in his letter. I'm sure they probably needed stability away from the obvious problems the parents had.

[Roch]

Isn't the main issue around how Sheila would perceive the suggestion of such help, given her state of mind?  What any rational person might think, no matter which side of the divide they are on is surely irrelevant?

[vidvic]

Those children had problems though, as stated in his letter. I'm sure they probably needed stability away from the obvious problems the parents had.

What problems did Colin have? There's a lot of people seemingly more than happy to surrender children on the forum.

[lookout]

Of course they had problems,Lonny. Pretty bad emotional ones,,,whereby if their school teacher had intervened at  the appropriate times of their visible difficulties,a lot more could,or should have been done.
The school teachers are usually the first to spot any changes,etc which appear concerning children,then it's up to them to contact social services of any concern,so it would have been through social services that the children were placed in foster care.

[vidvic]

Isn't the main issue around how Sheila would perceive the suggestion of such help, given her state of mind?  What any rational person might think, no matter which side of the divide they are on is surely irrelevant?

You could use this argument to explain Sheila's alleged rampage about any subject then, if she had no rational thought?

Roch, when she was at WHF she had help with the children already. If it is a mothers help being approached then this was no different from before. And I simply do not believe that the bamber's would ever have contemplated voluntarily placing them in care, nor had they any right to.

[lookout]

Rochford,,,Sheila was in no fit state to discuss the welfare of the children.This is why there had to be the intervention of the social sevices. Sheila should have been properly dealt with by those concerned in her health. To my mind,the children should  have been the priority in this case,not Sheila,Colin or the Bambers.
This was a job for the authorities concerned in child care. 

[Bridget]

Of course they had problems,Lonny. Pretty bad emotional ones,,,whereby if their school teacher had intervened at  the appropriate times of their visible difficulties,a lot more could,or should have been done.
The school teachers are usually the first to spot any changes,etc which appear concerning children,then it's up to them to contact social services of any concern,so it would have been through social services that the children were placed in foster care.

At the time the children were having problems they were living with Sheila. When they went to live with Colin they settled down and their school work improved. Are you suggesting that that should be ignored, and they should have been placed in care anyway?