Emily Harbour from Fleetwood Close in Newbury, has narrowly escaped jail, after leaving her children, 2 boys aged 4 and 14 months ‘Home alone’ amongst excrement and rotting food.
Ms Harbour aged 22 admitted two counts of wilful abandonment and two counts of wilful neglect on July 5th this year. Newbury magistrates imposed a six month jail sentence suspended for 2 years on Thursday (July 28th).
Concern had previously been raised by the children’s GP surgery because health visitors had been unable to gain access to the children.
Ms Harbour is allegedly receiving in excess of £10,000 per annum in various benefits, in addition to accommodation provided by a local housing association.
This case has been reported in the national press and the Daily Mail sent a reporter and a photographer along to the court.
Young mum living below the povery line and with little parenting skills, getting no help from family (obviously - since the conditions came as a shock to them) lax professional bodies (although they knew as far back as 2007 there were problems - they did nowt) goes walkabout for 90 min.
What do we think is a fitting punishment here?
Locking her up at a doubtless huge increase in costs to the taxpayer?
Crucifixion?
Burn the Witch!
Apart from this girl, who now has a prison stretch hanging over her, can we think of any others associated with this case who should be shouted at for failing in their parenting, paternal or professional duties?
I think having her name spread across the 'National Bigot' will be 'punishment' enough, but perhaps this person, her family and boyfriend, have no shame?
Not just parenting skills lacking in the younger generation.
I recently witnessed a 16 year old in a local catering establishment who had to be taught how to use a broom to sweep up. Before this she was holding the broom handle in a vertical position instead of at an angle. I would have thought basic intelligence would have made her realise that this was not correct.
Not just parenting skills lacking in the younger generation. I recently witnessed a 16 year old in a local catering establishment who had to be taught how to use a broom to sweep up. Before this she was holding the broom handle in a vertical position instead of at an angle. I would have thought basic intelligence would have made her realise that this was not correct.
I know some old people who can't use a computer...how thick is that!
OT: this is an example how being a single parent in an association house can back-fire.
There are a few considerations here according to the Mail report which might have set some alarm bells ringing. Firstly, the health visitor had been unable to visit the children since they were a few months old. Social services had been called once before in 2007 for a similar abandonment, albeit with a fifteen year old babysitter in the house. There was no running water in the house. If it had been cut off by Thames Water, why had they not at least informed the Housing Associaton or social services. She stated that the house had been broken into five weeks earlier but had the police attended or was this a lie. Her statement suggested she was being evicted shortly. If this was so, why had the Housing Asscotiation not reported that to Social Services as there were children involved, or was this another lie. The financial input of £900 per month from the taxpayer and the fact that she was living in a three bedroom house seems to me that if she was below the poverty line and she can still afford her fags, judging by the photograph, why was the father of the children also not in court for failing to support his offspring and why had the benefits people not asked the same question.
Sad when this happens, especially when it's on your doorstep.
Spare the sympathy. She's a 22 year old adult, it's not societies fault, the grandparents fault, social services fault etc etc. It's HER fault - she should have been banged up - end of !
Spare the sympathy. She's a 22 year old adult, it's not societies fault, the grandparents fault, social services fault etc etc. It's HER fault - she should have been banged up - end of !
How come if someone crashes into bollards it's their fault, but if someone neglects their children it is society's. Utter rubbish. People are responsible for their cars, but not for their children?
How come if someone crashes into bollards it's their fault, but if someone neglects their children it is society's. Utter rubbish. People are responsible for their cars, but not for their children?
How come if someone crashes into bollards it's their fault, but if someone neglects their children it is society's. Utter rubbish. People are responsible for their cars, but not for their children?
So that includes her parents being responsible for her then? ( you see, you can't have it both ways)
I really don't know why some people are basing reactionary views on an as yet unsubstantiated story in the Daily Hate.
Although I do notice that not one of them has come up with a length of prison sentence that would make her parenting skills better. Few have asked, where was the Father? Wasn't he guilty of some neglect...especially as she has previous on this. So did knowing their daughter had a lack of skills make her parents call in from time to time? (clearly not).
This those children have clearly needed help for some years.
So that includes her parents being responsible for her then? ( you see, you can't have it both ways)
I really don't know why some people are basing reactionary views on an as yet unsubstantiated story in the Daily Hate.
Although I do notice that not one of them has come up with a length of prison sentence that would make her parenting skills better. Few have asked, where was the Father? Wasn't he guilty of some neglect...especially as she has previous on this. So did knowing their daughter had a lack of skills make her parents call in from time to time? (clearly not).
This those children have clearly needed help for some years.
Threep.
She is 22 for god sake. She is one of a minority (thankfully) of "adults" who think it's perfectly acceptable to put their own social life before their childrens safety. Her upbringing has nothing to do with it, she is pure selfish - like the McGanns - they too thought it was OK to leave their children. No-one is questioning why social services didn't intervene with the McGanns before they went on holiday are they ?
We have all been there I am sure, felt a bit cheesed off because we couldn't go someone as there was no babysitter available ? Any self respecting adult would have to accept the fact they couldn't go out - sadly there are some that don't and really need to grow up.
So that includes her parents being responsible for her then? ( you see, you can't have it both ways)
I really don't know why some people are basing reactionary views on an as yet unsubstantiated story in the Daily Hate.
Although I do notice that not one of them has come up with a length of prison sentence that would make her parenting skills better. Few have asked, where was the Father? Wasn't he guilty of some neglect...especially as she has previous on this. So did knowing their daughter had a lack of skills make her parents call in from time to time? (clearly not).
This those children have clearly needed help for some years.
Threep.
You haven't answered the point though. How come people are responsible for some "crimes" and not others?
You haven't answered the point though. How come people are responsible for some "crimes" and not others?
Where did I say they weren't. It's you who seems to have ducked the parenting issue. If parents are to blame (as you say) then hers must be for her.. As I said you can't have it both ways.
I see no-one of the 'burn the witch' persuasion has yet answered the question as to how long the sentence should be to make her learn better coping skills.
She is 22 for god sake. She is one of a minority (thankfully) of "adults" who think it's perfectly acceptable to put their own social life before their childrens safety. Her upbringing has nothing to do with it, she is pure selfish - like the McGanns - they too thought it was OK to leave their children. No-one is questioning why social services didn't intervene with the McGanns before they went on holiday are they ?
We have all been there I am sure, felt a bit cheesed off because we couldn't go someone as there was no babysitter available ? Any self respecting adult would have to accept the fact they couldn't go out - sadly there are some that don't and really need to grow up.
Oh god, where to start?
Her upbringing has lots to do with it. Your home life, your family life, your domestic life all have a bearing on how you turn out. It's plain daft to say it doesn't. Unlike the Mcganns (who you've now added to the mix) as far as I know, unless you know better, they did not have a history with their local social services. This girl does.
You then say "there are some that don't and really need to grow up". I'll ask again...how long should the prison sentence be to get this girl to grow up? and how would you monitor it?
Oh, and a word to the wise, try not calling all those who disagree with you 'scum' someone tried that in the other place and got the whole thread removed. But I'm sure with your upbringing you'd know better than to do that.
I had my first child at 29, I had absolutely no experience in childcare whatsoever. I went home with a day old baby, my husband worked full time and so did my mum. I was left completely to my own devices - with no parenting skills. (In my mum's day her parents would have come and stayed for weeks, but then most woman have to work these days.)
However, my head wasn't so far up my own back-side that I didn't bother to look after my son, nor did I have better, more thrilling, things to do. It makes me seethe listening to a whole load of excuse, she is old enough to know better and should be punished accordingly - about a year in my reckoning. Something far worse could have happened to those children, and she needs to be held responsible.
How come if someone crashes into bollards it's their fault, but if someone neglects their children it is society's. Utter rubbish. People are responsible for their cars, but not for their children?
Clearly that's over-simplifiying this, and you well know it. I don't for a second think that this is society's fault, but the womans upbringing and the support from other family members will have the largest impact on how she acts as a mother to her children. How one acts toward others both in the family and outside of it is something that is learned over a lifetime. If this woman was neglected or had nothing much other than a negative experience of family life when she was young then it's completely likely that that is how she will act herself.
Perhaps the most obvious error in the "bollard" comparison is that one is required to pass a test (both written and practical) to ensure that they can demonstrate they have learned all that is required to be safe on the roads. Reading road signs, and understaning the differences between them, is part of this. Put short - if you can pass a theory test that shows you know how to read road signs, you can't then complain when you don't heed their advice.
However - and this is the only way the comparison works - if there was no test required to drive, and you had only ever witnessed your driving instructor driving through red lights, cutting other people up, speeding and ignoring road signs and displaying to you that this is the way you should drive a car, then you could possibly rightly argue that it wasn't your fault when you hit some bollards.
You honestly think that after a year in prison she will suddenly be a better parent? I don't think anyone is saying that this woman has done nothing wrong, or that the way she acted wasn't her fault. Rather, it's how she is dealt with that will determine whether or not this happens again with her, or wether she can be educated/rehabilitated in such a way that she does become a fit parent, and her kids can see that someone can turn their behaviour around and learn. Otherwise her kids stand a very real chance of doing the same when they are older. If that can be done then that surely is better than just locking someone up for a year, and have them be the same or worse when they get out.
You honestly think that after a year in prison she will suddenly be a better parent? I don't think anyone is saying that this woman has done nothing wrong, or that the way she acted wasn't her fault. Rather, it's how she is dealt with that will determine whether or not this happens again with her, or wether she can be educated/rehabilitated in such a way that she does become a fit parent, and her kids can see that someone can turn their behaviour around and learn. Otherwise her kids stand a very real chance of doing the same when they are older. If that can be done then that surely is better than just locking someone up for a year, and have them be the same or worse when they get out.
No ! I don't think a year in prison will make her a better parent in the slightest, but I doubt any parenting course would either. But she does need to be punished regardless, child neglect is surely a criminal offence ?
Clearly that's over-simplifiying this, and you well know it.
Not at all. Threepwood has on numerous occasions taken the view that people are responsible for themselves. Buses in Northbrook Street as another example, but here, apparently it is not the mother's fault that she neglects her children.
As to the prison question, a prison sentence isn't the answer. Foster care, education and eventually very close monitoring are a more suitable way to respond.
You see with cars and buses, I think it's important to take into account account many factors. For one thing if we didn't have rising bollards in Newbury, I wouldn't have a clue in the split second it takes to make a mistake to know what they are. With buses, I may not hear them because I might be deaf or have in ipod in. But Threepwood is "hardline" on these topics. But just like the childcare issue, I think that there are many shades of grey. So in fact, I am not simplifying things at all.
...but here, apparently it is not the mother's fault that she neglects her children.
I'm not sure that anyone on this forum has said that it isn't her fault. Unless you can show otherwise.
Quoted from 26
For one thing if we didn't have rising bollards in Newbury, I wouldn't have a clue in the split second it takes to make a mistake to know what they are.
I am reluctant to turn this into another bollard thread but, honestly, the ignoring/not seeing of the warning signs and the choice to wait behind a vehicle in front as the bollards lower, and to then choose to try and follow that vehicle through is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "split second". There are many opportunities in that chain of events where one can decide to change their course of action.
No ! I don't think a year in prison will make her a better parent in the slightest, but I doubt any parenting course would either. But she does need to be punished regardless, child neglect is surely a criminal offence ?
I take it from this that you think that retribution is the most important issue. Does punishment make anyone a better person in society? You may say yes, this will stop others from doing the same thing. Does it mean that the reasons for her actions will be understood and dealt with early in other similar cases? It seems to me that, whilst her actions have been completely out of order, there is a reason why this has happened and that needs to be properly sorted out for her and others in a similar position. I don't pretend (unlike the papers) to understand the circumstances and making a punitive judgement without the full facts is not a road that I would go down.
You can only compare like with like. If someone has a history of driving into bollards, so much so that outside agencies were alerted and became involved, and the family of that person still knowingly let them go out driving again with no supervision, then of course they would be partly to blame if the bollards were hit.
Far from being responsible for her own actions I suspect it would be more accurate to say she in fact seemed not to shoulder any responsibility for her offspring or her actions. Didn't particularly care, probably didn't WANT to care, other things to do rather than sit indoors looking after her kids all day and every day. All of which is reprehensible.
But quite how you're going to make her a better member of society by making her share a bottom bunk with 'Big Judy' for a year is beyond me.
You can only compare like with like. If someone has a history of driving into bollards, so much so that outside agencies were alerted and became involved, and the family of that person still knowingly let them go out driving again with no supervision, then of course they would be partly to blame if the bollards were hit.
Far from being responsible for her own actions I suspect it would be more accurate to say she in fact seemed not to shoulder any responsibility for her offspring or her actions. Didn't particularly care, probably didn't WANT to care, other things to do 2008 than sit indoors looking after her kids all day and every day. All of which is reprehensible.
But quite how you're going to make her a better member of society by making her share a bottom bunk with 'Big Judy' for a year is beyond
Threep.
I doubt Peter sutcliffe will be a better member of society after 30 years either, but it doesn't mean that he shouldn't be there. Prisons are primarily about punishment after all. It doesn't mean that I think that this woman should go to jail, but let's not forget that prison's primary purpose is as a punishment.
Frankly also, the child is likely to become like the mother, part of a rotten underclass that now exists. Perhaps as the parents we now know are to blame, we should launch a program of sterilisation? After all, they will never be responsible for themselves.
You can only compare like with like. If someone has a history of driving into bollards, so much so that outside agencies were alerted and became involved, and the family of that person still knowingly let them go out driving again with no supervision, then of course they would be partly to blame if the bollards were hit.
Far from being responsible for her own actions I suspect it would be more accurate to say she in fact seemed not to shoulder any responsibility for her offspring or her actions. Didn't particularly care, probably didn't WANT to care, other things to do rather than sit indoors looking after her kids all day and every day. All of which is reprehensible.
But quite how you're going to make her a better member of society by making her share a bottom bunk with 'Big Judy' for a year is beyond me.
Threep.
Ah ha common ground at last ! Think you are absolutely right - she just didn't care. (Which is something as a parent I will never understand !)
Prison used to be a punishment, a deterent, not sure if it works anymore ??!! I do however, think there needs to be clear lines in the justice system ie xyz crime = 3 years etc. I really think she should have been locked up for a crime. As she has walked away it just sends out signals that it's OK to leave your kids unsupervised in squalor
I doubt Peter sutcliffe will be a better member of society after 30 years either, but it doesn't mean that he shouldn't be there.
Steady on, you see that bit where I said you can only compare like with like? Are you comparing this girl to Sutcliffe? Do you think there is anything comparable in what they've each done?
Sutcliffe was banged up because he was deemed by the judge to be a menace to society, and that the rest of us would ALL be safer with him off the streets.
As she has walked away it just sends out signals that it's OK to leave your kids unsupervised in squalor
No she didn't. She was found guilty, and given a custodial sentence of 6 months. This has been suspended for two years which means that if she is brought back before the court again for anything she will not only be tried and given a sentence for that event (if she's found guilty) but this 6 months would automatically become active.
She therefore has good reason to stay out of trouble, and good reason to try and become a better mum, plus her family will have time to take stock, possibly re-aquaint themselves with her, go round to the Father and read his horoscope for him if he don't step up to the mark, and Social Services will have time to work with her and maybe try and get her help, and that could range from psychiatric to a simple more formal education.
Steady on, you see that bit where I said you can only compare like with like? Are you comparing this girl to Sutcliffe? Do you think there is anything comparable in what they've each done?
Sutcliffe was banged up because he was deemed by the judge to be a menace to society, and that the rest of us would ALL be safer with him off the streets.
Threep.
I'm not comparing her with anyone. I'm simply making the point that just because prison won't make her a better person is not an argument to keep her out.
As I said earlier, the problem we have is an underclass for whom work and social responsibility are anathema.
....... given a custodial sentence of 6 months. This has been suspended for two years which means that if she is brought back before the court again for anything she will not only be tried and given a sentence for that event (if she's found guilty) but this 6 months would automatically become active.
Threep.
and will probably run concurrent with the second sentence effectively meaning she got away with it!!!
From what I understand from the conditions in her 'home', she'd see prison as a holiday camp: clean, someone else to do the cooking and lots of her mates there to pass the time of day. If retribution is what you're after (and it seems it is, which is fair enough) she should be put under house arrest. A system of justice which involved the guilty being punished using the means they'd inflicted on their victims seems worth considering to me. I wouldn't admit this in public, but between you and me I'd have been all for Peter Sutcliffe being stabbed to death with a screwdriver. But you'd a pretty much infallible system of justice before you introduced that kind of retribution so, on balance, probably not a good idea.
Meanwhile, just for some light relief, here's some total perimeter defense integration related video
This those children have clearly needed help for some years.
Threep.
Exactly, that is what social services and other agencies are for, to identify parenting problems where children are at risk as they clearly were here and to do something about it. It's a strange thing, that the NSPCC never seem to be involved in these stories of neglect although they do some good adverts on the TV. However, she is an adult and must have known she was neglecting her children, but like you, I can't see what a gaol sentence would do but the fact of the matter is that she is guilty of a criminal act and she certainly should be under a supervision order but if she no longer has care of the children, a suspended sentence is like getting away with it.
What do you think should be done then Threep, we do not have a parenting college for crap mothers nor a residential home for delinquent mothers so should she go unpunished, should the social services be hung out to dry, should she lose her place in society by having her accomodation taken away. Should she have the kids back for another go with strings or are they just her passport to an easy life not having to work for a living and being given free housing by the taxpayers.
Her parents/grandparents were shocked but it is quite possible that they have given up on this little madam due to her way of life or her attitude to life. Now, they perhaps have to bear the burden. If she no longer has responsibility then take her out of the communty for six months. At the end of the day, it's the children that need a good and loving home but we don't really know if she has shown some remorse and wants to try again or if she is sat in her three bedroom house or round her boyfriend's thinking,"Got away with that one".
Ah sorry, she was the defence attorney, I see now. However, she is doing her job, distasteful as it may be and I doubt she chose this case as she was on a hiding to nothing but at least she managed to get a guilty plea out of her client rather than wasting taxpayers money with a crown court trial. I don't think that the defence lawyers are allowed to refuse a case where scalleywags have a court appointed legal team and where the client, is in receipt of legal aid.
Ah sorry, she was the defence attorney, I see now. However, she is doing her job, distasteful as it may be and I doubt she chose this case as she was on a hiding to nothing but at least she managed to get a guilty plea out of her client rather than wasting taxpayers money with a crown court trial. I don't think that the defence lawyers are allowed to refuse a case where scalleywags have a court appointed legal team and where the client, is in receipt of legal aid.
So why would she be viewing this with interest... Or more to the point why would user feel the need to mention it? Strange.
Logged
Male
