Baby P's father gets £75,000 libel damages from The People

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

MarillionFan replied

5 March 2012, 13:12
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

Forgetting the whole terrible case to do with Baby P the paper named him as a sex offender saying he had raped a 14 year old girl. Doing that alone is just outrageous. Double the 75Kthat and a hefty fine on the paper wouldn't have been out of order IMO.

WHS

You just can't go around calling Wilmslow a nonce.
Leave a comment:
BrilloPad replied

5 March 2012, 13:12
Originally posted by russell View Post

But why didn't he notice the abuse when he had his visiting time?

Baby P's father in kidnap bid | The Sun |News

Of course this is from the sun - I wonder if it is true?
Leave a comment:
BrilloPad replied

5 March 2012, 13:09
Originally posted by russell View Post

But why didn't he notice the abuse when he had his visiting time?

Did he have any visiting time? It is quite easy for the RP to deny access to the NRP.
Leave a comment:
russell replied

5 March 2012, 13:07
But why didn't he notice the abuse when he had his visiting time?
Leave a comment:
northernladuk replied

5 March 2012, 13:01
Forgetting the whole terrible case to do with Baby P the paper named him as a sex offender saying he had raped a 14 year old girl. Doing that alone is just outrageous. Double the 75Kthat and a hefty fine on the paper wouldn't have been out of order IMO.
Leave a comment:
BrilloPad replied

5 March 2012, 12:18
Originally posted by eek View Post

Also the father wasn't involved in the neglect of Baby P. He wasn't in the house at the time as it was Mum, Boyfriend and Boyfriend's brother who neglected him.

But why did father leave? Once he forced out or one of these feckless fathers who don't take any responsibility?
Leave a comment:
eek replied

5 March 2012, 12:17
Originally posted by doodab View Post

Informed non-speculation.

The people published an allegation that he was a convicted sex offender. It wasn't true. I'm surprised it was only £75k, I would have given him more.

Also the father wasn't involved in the neglect of Baby P. He wasn't in the house at the time as it was Mum, Boyfriend and Boyfriend's brother who neglected him.
Leave a comment:
BrilloPad replied

5 March 2012, 12:11
AllI know is Mrs BP will be in a bad mood when I get home tonight. Baby BP was about 14 months when the news first broke - She thinks of baby P very often.
Leave a comment:
doodab replied

5 March 2012, 12:03
Informed non-speculation.

The people published an allegation that he was a convicted sex offender. It wasn't true. I'm surprised it was only £75k, I would have given him more.
Leave a comment:
AtW replied

5 March 2012, 11:27
Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

All uninformed speculation welcome.

You invite comments about somebody who just won money in a libel lawsuit?
Leave a comment:
shaunbhoy replied

5 March 2012, 11:21
Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

BBC News - Baby P's father gets £75k libel damages from The People

Is this a case of an innocent man forced out of his child's life then sufffering a second time?

Or a feckless father who abandoned his child and deserved the people story and should now give the money to charity?

I guess the truth will lie between the two - but as ever with cuk let us not bring facts into a decent argument.

All uninformed speculation welcome.

I don't blame him for leaving that heartless munter of a wife, and I am astonished that he was ever able to impregnate her in the first place.
Leave a comment:
BrilloPad started a topic Baby P's father gets £75,000 libel damages from The People

5 March 2012, 11:16
Baby P's father gets £75,000 libel damages from The People

BBC News - Baby P's father gets £75k libel damages from The People

Is this a case of an innocent man forced out of his child's life then sufffering a second time?

Or a feckless father who abandoned his child and deserved the people story and should now give the money to charity?

I guess the truth will lie between the two - but as ever with cuk let us not bring facts into a decent argument.

All uninformed speculation welcome.
Tags: None