Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Inikalord, Jun 10, 2014.
Secret court jails gran Kathleen Danby who hugged her granddaughter | Mail Online
I don't see a problem here. She was told by a court of law not to make contact, and she did anyway.
we don't know the whole story yet, it could be a case of over zealous power hungry dipshits they definitely exist out there, but maybe the grandmother had abused the granddaughter in the past too? I dunno yet.
Yea, that article gave very little reason why she wasn't allowed to see her grandchild or why the child was even removed from her parents in the first place. Outside of mentioning that her father stopped her from running into traffic once, they gave almost no info on the background of the entire situation. Bad article is bad.
Fucking terrible article, print is dead.
The daily mail? Misrepresenting a situation? Shocking, I know.
Courts like this aren't so much secret as behind closed doors to keep details regarding minors out of public discourse, and a lot of family court systems in other nations work the same way. It's tough to tell without the ruling, but there could be a very good reason this grandmother was not supposed to have contact with her granddaughter.
Biased as it may sound, the fact that this story seems to only show up on conspiracy-hound blogs is telling for me.
Yeah, I understand breaking a restraining order, but all that article says over and over again is "she hugged the kid, she's sentenced to three months in jail."
What the hell did she do to get that restraining order in the first place?
Finally, something stupid happens that isn't in the USA.
I find it odd that she was sentenced, but no one's gone to the trouble of enforcing it. Either the story's complete bullshit (which is likely) or there's more to the story and she didn't commit a crime. Either way, it's pretty fucked up and stuff like this should never happen.
Irrelevant. She disobeyed a court order. Now she pays the price.
yeah it seems fucked up, but so much information is missing i cannot judge it.
I know it's irrelevant to this case. I said right there that I'm aware she broke the restraining order. It's a no-no, tsk tsk, shame on her.
I'm just curious as to what she did that warranted the restraint in the first place. Usually there's some kind of back-story to catch us up. This article doesn't say.
Then again, it's not like they had access to the back-story anyway, seeing how it's "kept secret from the public". But that still makes me wonder what she did that started this mess.
On another TF site (the Allspark), there is a swear filter that substitutes certain words.
F*ck becomes "hug"
So when I see this headline on a TF forum, my mind goes to much freakier places.
I'd not sure where the problem is. The Grand Daughter has learning difficulties and is living in care. Any contact with her Grand Mother or Father has a negative impact on her life. It's mentioned in the article that,
So presumably while the Grand Daughter loves her Dad and Grandma and wants to be with them, they cannot care for her because of her learning disabilities create situations where her Dad is arrested and convicted for trying to restrain his daughter from running into traffic during a tantrum?
The Grandmother even says,
Which to me is somebody who is disregarding the medically arrived ruling that contact with the Grand Daughter has a negative impact. The way I see it is the Father and Grandmother cannot look after the girl because of her Learning disabilities, ie, if they do look after her she could very well die so she has to live in care, but any unsupervised contact between the Teen and her Father/Grandmother leads to mental anguish for the girl making her situation worse.
It fucking sucks balls, but it's in the best interests of the teenage girl.
The article seem more like a slur on a particular judge, at the end of the article they have reference to a totally different case that he ruled on? What for? To make us hate the Judge who denies the Grand Daughter familial love!
She is sentenced to 3 months, she might spend 24 hours and be let go on probation, parole, etc. They won't make her spend the whole 3 months in there.
This story makes for some shocking headlines, but there's so much info missing, and so much bias in it, as to make it a useless article.
Plus it's from The Daily Mail...as if that's not enough to begin with.
Someone broke the rules, someone got punished. I fail to see what the huge argument is over.
I love that commercial
Separate names with a comma.