Blog Archive


Monday, November 17, 2008

This story from Britain is quite easily the most disgusting one I've read in a long time, but one that is, unfortunately, not that rare. The murderers are profiled here.
The picture painted of [the mother] in court was of a woman who was at best uninterested in her baby.

Her own father said she spent much of her time lying on the sofa smoking and complaining about how tired she was.
When she was awake, she spent much of her time on the internet, gossiping in chatrooms and playing online poker.

Her home was described as disgusting. When police searched it, they found dog mess and human faeces on the floor and rat holes burrowed into the walls. The bodies of dead chicks, mice and a dismembered rabbit were strewn around.
The 32-year-old [boyfriend] was an unemployed handyman who could neither read nor write.
Relatives said that as a child he tortured guinea pigs, once skinning one alive. He also snapped the legs off a frog.
He spent a lot of time alone with Baby P, which is when much of the abuse took place.

He kept a Rottweiler dog at the family home and it was suggested in court that some of Baby P's injuries might have been inflicted by the animal.

He was also said to have shaken and punched the little boy, swinging him around by his legs and spinning him round on a chair until he fell off.

If he was ever confronted about his treatment of the baby, he claimed he was trying to "toughen him up". He even tried to train the boy like his dog. When he clicked his fingers, Baby P would touch his forehead to the floor for fear of being punished.

On the day the baby died, paramedics said they found the boyfriend standing in the hallway of the house, apparently unconcerned.
It's telling that such depraved evil can occur on a frequent basis in England. The world is in significant decline where the supposedly civilized West is more barbaric than Mogadishu. The mother didn't care that her son was being slowly tortured to death by her sociopathic boyfriend while the social workers were more concerned with perpetuating their horribly inefficient bureaucracy than helping the least of these. Of course, the proposed solution will undoubtedly be MORE social service bureaucracy. All of this is largely the fault of the liberal intelligentsia, who falsely claimed, as Melanie Phillips wrote this week, "that all lifestyles must be considered equal and that no one has right to pass judgment on anyone else." Ms. Phillips continues:
Government policy, egged on by activist judges who deliberately voided family law of ‘moral judgments’ on the basis that there was no right or wrong in family life because it was always just too complicated to untangle, accordingly penalised marriage, rewarded adultery, further incentivised lone parenthood and systematically normalised irregular relationships.

The outcome is a shattered social landscape of lost and abandoned children, raised in households of gross emotional chaos and physical and moral squalor. Such is the breakdown of the basics of civilised life that some of these children have never used a knife and fork by the time they enrol at school; their earliest words are obscenities, and aggression and violence are their instinctive response whenever they are thwarted.

Neglect is routine; love, responsibility and discipline wholly absent; under-age sex or sex with relatives or step-relatives commonplace; drug abuse, crime and systematic dishonesty a way of life. And these massively damaged children grow up into massively damaged parents.
Those who warned of the individual harm and social catastrophe that would result were vilified as bigots. The only judgment to be permitted was that judgment of anyone’s lifestyle was wrong.
Under this monumental pressure, academic research into family life was systematically corrupted to claim falsely that no serious harm was done to children from the fracturing of the family.

The truth about family life was deliberately concealed. Research shows a vastly greater risk of violence and abuse by boyfriends or stepfathers than biological parents or married spouses. A recent American study says a child is 50 times more likely to be abused by a non-biological parent.

In Britain, however, official statistics years ago stopped distinguishing between married and unmarried households, so it became impossible to identify the risks from unmarried relationships. Instead, ‘progressives’ claimed falsely that husbands and fathers posed the greatest risk to women and children.
Here in America, there is a tendency to believe that we're safe from the results of such radical postmodernism; "that could never happen here in the land of opportunity and Judeo-Christian values." Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.


Recent Comments


Darius' book montage

The Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel The Main Thing
Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God
Overcoming Sin and Temptation
According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible
Disciplines of a Godly Man
Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem
When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor. . .and Ourselves
The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith
Respectable Sins
The Kite Runner
Life Laid Bare: The Survivors in Rwanda Speak
Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak
A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, ... anabaptist/anglican, metho
Show Them No Mercy
The Lord of the Rings
Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass
The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming
The Chronicles of Narnia
Les Misérables

Darius Teichroew's favorite books »