A couple have been jailed for nine years over baby torture!

[helium3]

Last Updated: Friday, 7 September 2007, 12:53 GMT 13:53 UK




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6983491.stm

Couple jailed over baby torture

Ikram (l) and Parveen protested their innocence
A couple have been jailed for nine years for abusing a 17-month-old boy who was sliced with a knife and burned with cigarettes.
Sumairia Parveen abused stepson Tahla Ikram before his death in September 2006, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Parveen, 24, and the child's father Abid Ikram, 31, from west London, were convicted of causing or allowing the child's death at an earlier hearing.

Ikram received a further 12 months for perverting the course of justice.

The child's many wounds included a broken thigh and shin and three fractured ribs, the court heard.

His injuries were ignored for days, causing him to scream as his broken bones ground together.

The couple, from Ealing, spent more than a week during the trial protesting their innocence.




'Caring father' tortured son
Questions over Tahla's death

Ikram told the court he "would never have hurt" his son while Parveen insisted she had loved Tahla as if he "was my own".

Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith said the final assault on the boy, breaking a leg that had already been fractured, "must have been a brutal attack".

He told the pair: "You both know what really happened, and to protect yourselves and each other, have chosen not to tell the truth about it."

They were convicted of the "causing or allowing" offence, which does not require the individual who inflicted the fatal blow to be identified.

Both were banned for life from working with children and Parveen was recommended for deportation after her sentence.

No sentence can be long enough for causing the death of an innocent child

Det Insp Colin Welsh

After the hearing, Det Insp Colin Welsh said: "This is one of the first convictions since this [causing or allowing an offence] legislation was brought in.

"No sentence can be long enough for causing the death of an innocent child by those who should have protected him."

The court heard how the boy's father stood by and did nothing while the abuse happened.

Ikram had been formally cautioned for child neglect in March 2006 after police found Tahla alone at home.

The boy was placed in foster care but within months he was handed back to Ikram. By this time, Parveen had given birth to her own child.

She moved in with Ikram after walking out on her husband but she hated Tahla who she felt threatened their relationship.

Systematic abuse

Jeremy Donne QC, prosecuting, told jurors Parveen clearly regarded Ikram's son as an "obstacle" to their affair. She began to "hate" him and then either to hurt him or allow him to be severely injured.

The court heard how Tahla was repeatedly taken to hospital, but seeing a different doctor each time probably prevented his mounting injuries being recognised as systematic abuse.

The child finally died in his cot on 6 September last year. A doctor who examined him said he looked like a car accident victim.

A post-mortem examination discovered a marrow fat embolism from the untreated broken thigh had invaded his lungs, starved his brain of oxygen and caused death.




9 f@@king years for torturing and indirectly kiiling a child WTF?
should have been life with no parole.

[Flagg]

Helium, do you remember that case a few weeks back about the little 5 year old girl that got abused for a month and eventually died, AFTER social services had declared the place a safe haven for the kid?

Reading about cases like this, PISSES ME OFF SO MUCH! I seriously wonder what the **** is with the human race at times, what other animal TORTURES its young?

An eye for an eye I say, those people took that little babies life so they should forfiet theres. Bring back Capital Punishment. Evil ****ing cvnts like that do not deserve to be walking this planet.

[bpm1]

they should be executed, nothing less

[helium3]

all i can say is that if we were to bring back the death penalty we would have to be 110% sure that they had commited the crime, then they can burn in hell.

[bpm1]

all i can say is that if we were to bring back the death penalty we would have to be 110% sure that they had commited the crime, then they can burn in hell.

one of the dangers of having such a severe law is executing an innocent person. i believe for justice to be served, in some instances, death has to the consequence. i think sending them speadily to hell is justice IMO.

[Tock]

(sarcasm button ON)

Crazy heterosexuals.

These two heterosexuals did this terrible thing to this child; all of them must do this sort of thing to children.

Therefore, because these people are so awful, we must keep them from adopting children, and ban heterosexual marriage.


(sarcasm button OFF)

[helium3]

(sarcasm button ON)

Crazy heterosexuals.

These two heterosexuals did this terrible thing to this child; all of them must do this sort of thing to children.

Therefore, because these people are so awful, we must keep them from adopting children, and ban heterosexual marriage.


(sarcasm button OFF)

i see what you are doing but i dont remember anyone saying ban all gays from fostering children because they are all pedophiles, or did i miss something?

actually this can happen with any race or gender, which is why i believe people should be scanned thoroughly before and after adopting.

there are reasons why i believe gay/lesbian couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt but it is another issue, for a start even though hetrosexual marriages can be fraught with disaster it is still a more "natural setting" having a mother and a father.

ok im sure you dont agree, but what needs to be taken into account is what is best for the child.such as will the child be ridiculed or tormented? will the child feel alienated and confused when most other parents have mothers and fathers. 'yes but thats because other people are ignorant and prejudice' i here you cry, ok but does that alter the fact that the child has to go through it? no it doesnt, the impact of these issues on the child could potentially be devastating. there are no garentees in life as to what will happen in a relationship but why not increase the odds by keeping things as normal as possible.you cant always have your cake and eat it.

my final point would be that if you(generic) have chosen to live this life style, you know that sexual incompatibilty issues dont allow you to have children, there are thousends of people desperatley trying to have children but for medical reasons they cant. these people should come first . then if there is a surplus that need care then ok.

anyway, i cannot emphasise enough that this needs to be a selfless decision and full consideration has to be given to the happiness and well being of the child, dont you agree? so even if you dont agree with my other points you must surely agree to the above.

no hate, just common sense.

[bpm1]

i see what you are doing but i dont remember anyone saying ban all gays from fostering children because they are all pedophiles, or did i miss something?

actually this can happen with any race or gender, which is why i believe people should be scanned thoroughly before and after adopting.

there are reasons why i believe gay/lesbian couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt but it is another issue, for a start even though hetrosexual marriages can be fraught with disaster it is still a more "natural setting" having a mother and a father.

ok im sure you dont agree, but what needs to be taken into account is what is best for the child.such as will the child be ridiculed or tormented? will the child feel alienated and confused when most other parents have mothers and fathers. 'yes but thats because other people are ignorant and prejudice' i here you cry, ok but does that alter the fact that the child has to go through it? no it doesnt, the impact of these issues on the child could potentially be devastating. there are no garentees in life as to what will happen in a relationship but why not increase the odds by keeping things as normal as possible.you cant always have your cake and eat it.

my final point would be that if you(generic) have chosen to live this life style, you know that sexual incompatibilty issues dont allow you to have children, there are thousends of people desperatley trying to have children but for medical reasons they cant. these people should come first . then if there is a surplus that need care then ok.

anyway, i cannot emphasise enough that this needs to be a selfless decision and full consideration has to be given to the happiness and well being of the child, dont you agree? so even if you dont agree with my other points you must surely agree to the above.

no hate, just common sense.

well stated

[RA]

9 years isnt enough

[Tock]

i see what you are doing but i dont remember anyone saying ban all gays from fostering children because they are all pedophiles, or did i miss something?

You're smart enough not to paint gays with this "wide brush," but I can't say that for everyone on this board. Some folks use any news story of a man abusing a boy as an opportunity to accuse all gays as child-molesters, and they trumpet NAMBLA as an ever-present danger to children in every community across America.

actually this can happen with any race or gender, which is why i believe people should be scanned thoroughly before and after adopting.

I agree.

there are reasons why i believe gay/lesbian couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt but it is another issue, for a start even though hetrosexual marriages can be fraught with disaster it is still a more "natural setting" having a mother and a father.

My parents were absurdly incompetant; I would have been much better off with just about any pair of gay men. I suppose the same could be said for lots of other folks.

Orphanages are chuck-full of children without parents, and many of them would be better off being adopted by 2 gay guys, instead of being left to the state orphanage. One reason being--at least here in Texas--on the day that a kid reaches his 18th birthday, he's set out into the world on his own, and he is not allowed to return to talk to any of the people who raised him in the orphanage. Essentially, he's got no adults to turn to when he needs to talk to a trusted adult. And that's tough on a 18 year-old.

ok im sure you dont agree, but what needs to be taken into account is what is best for the child.such as will the child be ridiculed or tormented? will the child feel alienated and confused when most other parents have mothers and fathers.

I suppose that could happen. The thing to do would be for teachers in the schools to teach the other schoolkids that not every family has a mom and a dad, and to take a zero-tolerance policy for this sort of bullying (that's what it is).

you cant always have your cake and eat it.

True, but you can always buy two cakes, and eat one, and have one left over. Agree?

my final point would be that if you(generic) have chosen to live this life style,

Which I have not.
Good grief, am I supposed to have these feelings but still do my best to make a marriage work with a woman? If I did, I guarantee that any woman unfortunate enough to be my wife would be truly miserable.

you know that sexual incompatibilty issues dont allow you to have children, there are thousends of people desperatley trying to have children but for medical reasons they cant. these people should come first . then if there is a surplus that need care then ok.

Um, I think the kids would be better off if they were placed with the best people. Better adopt the kids out to excellent gay parents than mediocre heterosexual ones, IMHO.

anyway, i cannot emphasise enough that this needs to be a selfless decision and full consideration has to be given to the happiness and well being of the child, dont you agree? so even if you dont agree with my other points you must surely agree to the above.

I agree completely.
I think you're becoming more agreeable in your old age . . .

[Tock]

one of the dangers of having such a severe law is executing an innocent person. i believe for justice to be served, in some instances, death has to the consequence. i think sending them speadily to hell is justice IMO.

Texas has released a bunch of guys on death row after they were discovered to be innocent. Sometimes the prosecuter withholds evidence that shows they're innocent, sometimes the jury just doesn't like the accused, and sends 'em to jail even though the evidence wasn't really persuasive.

If the prosecuters could guarantee that they'd prosecute only guilty people, and if jurys could guarantee that they'd convict only guilty people, then ya, I'd support the death penalty. But they can't, so I don't.

[Juggernaut]

If someone wants to adopt a child they should be able to do so if they are straight or not as far as I'm concerned. Surly this poor child would have been better off with two men or two women than these POS.

For the life of me I can not understand how a parent can harm or allow their child to be harmed by another.

[helium3]

You're smart enough not to paint gays with this "wide brush," but I can't say that for everyone on this board. Some folks use any news story of a man abusing a boy as an opportunity to accuse all gays as child-molesters, and they trumpet NAMBLA as an ever-present danger to children in every community across America.








I agree.








My parents were absurdly incompetant; I would have been much better off with just about any pair of gay men. I suppose the same could be said for lots of other folks.

Orphanages are chuck-full of children without parents, and many of them would be better off being adopted by 2 gay guys, instead of being left to the state orphanage. One reason being--at least here in Texas--on the day that a kid reaches his 18th birthday, he's set out into the world on his own, and he is not allowed to return to talk to any of the people who raised him in the orphanage. Essentially, he's got no adults to turn to when he needs to talk to a trusted adult. And that's tough on a 18 year-old.







I suppose that could happen. The thing to do would be for teachers in the schools to teach the other schoolkids that not every family has a mom and a dad, and to take a zero-tolerance policy for this sort of bullying (that's what it is).









True, but you can always buy two cakes, and eat one, and have one left over. Agree?







Which I have not.
Good grief, am I supposed to have these feelings but still do my best to make a marriage work with a woman? If I did, I guarantee that any woman unfortunate enough to be my wife would be truly miserable.










Um, I think the kids would be better off if they were placed with the best people. Better adopt the kids out to excellent gay parents than mediocre heterosexual ones, IMHO.







I agree completely.
I think you're becoming more agreeable in your old age . . .

firstly i think this draws us back to my original statement where by all foster parents should be intensly screened.


secondly ,you may be right about me, we seem to have agreed on a few points atleast.