Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:52 GMT
>Quite why police allowed a seven-month-old baby to be held in detention alongside his parent is unclear.
Presumably they reckon the baby is better off with his/her mother than without. They're probably right I reckon...
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:52 GMT
Let's see. The baby's surname is Aryan, the parents' is Anderson and Mr Anderson's brother's is Philips?
Yeah, right and I'm J. H. Christ.
I reckon the reason that they're all being held is that the Police are trying to work out who the f*** they all really are.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:52 GMT
.... I recon that this might better for the child than putting him in orphanage. The thing that babies need most, (apart from water, food and other stuff that is usually provided in prison to adults), is parents attention. And no, disposable nappies are not a must; although I hope that some nappies and medical care are provided.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:52 GMT
Stating the bleedin' obvious......
"Quite why police allowed a seven-month-old baby to be held in detention alongside his parent is unclear. ®"
Very likely it's because a seven-month-old baby is generally not competent to look after itself whilst Mum's in chokey.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:58 GMT
..he's 7 months old and doesn't care whether he is in prison but cares a lot about where his mummy is?!
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:58 GMT
UK prisons have Mother and Baby units, and the best place for a child under 12 months is with a parent.
Unless there is a good reason to separate them, what's the problem? It isn't as if the rugrat knows it's in prison.
Mine's the one with the baby carrier.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:58 GMT
...Aryan rights!
Mine's the white robe.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:58 GMT
The baby's being held in detention because there's nowhere else for it to go (unless you think an orphanage is better than a detention centre).
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:58 GMT
There was a show on the National Geographic channel about this. It's apparently the norm in India for small children to stay with their mothers in prison until they reach a certain age.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 13:58 GMT
We're locking more women up in the UK than ever before - and no, it's not because they're committing more serious offences, it's because they're receiving short jail terms for crimes which would previously have attracted fines or community punishments, like fraud (as is alleged here), or are being remanded where they would have been bailed. Guess what? A lot of them have kids too. Who are held in British jails. Don't see any fuss being made over that on the Reg. Try http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-Prison-Families-Imprisonment-Criminal/dp/1843922452
Full disclosure: Book is by my my very clever wife.
WTITA? because, well, there isn't much of one...
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 15:42 GMT
You'll find that babies are kept with mothers in the UK wherever possible. Contary to what you read in the daily arse wipes, social workers are very reluctant to split up families unless the child is in danger of physical or emotional risk. Putting a 7 month in prison, is proberbly better than it being in foster care or an orphanage, in fact it may be a wake up call for the parents.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 15:47 GMT
"Guess what? A lot of them have kids too. Who are held in British jails. Don't see any fuss being made over that on the Reg."
I'm sure all a baby would have to do is say .."Excuse me, I'd like to speak to the governor. It is my poor mama that the judge sentenced to jail as punishment for losing her way and not I. I demand to be allowed to leave".. and they'd be free to go.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 16:30 GMT
A web search came up with the following use:
The Register.
Comments on ‘Moody's drafts in lawyers to probe ratings code 'screw-up'’
"Bug"? By Nick Palmer.
..... WTITA? if only because I'd like to be sure that there IS one...
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 20:09 GMT
WTITA: Where's The IT Angle. A common complaint heard around here.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 20:09 GMT
@TeeCee...
Note the comon 'P' in all those names. South Indian names do not 'work' like British names. Nor are they simply reversed, with 'surname' first, like eg Japanese names.
In fact, it varies according to state and community --- but there is nothing peculiar about this set of names.
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 20:10 GMT
I hate to state the obvious...but stupid people get my goat...I think his icon gave it away...
Where's
The
I
T
Angle?
JHC... come on people! When I was a lad they used to jail imbeciles... {sigh}
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 20:10 GMT
What's the IT Angle.
I think the IT angle was that a computer was involved somewhere...
Posted Thursday 5th June 2008 21:45 GMT
<----- it's this!
What's The IT Angle? == WTITA.
Your brand-spanking-new acronym!
Posted Friday 6th June 2008 09:54 GMT
Their spamming must have involved viagra and other such penis-related stuff.
Now they are in penal detention.
Posted Friday 6th June 2008 09:54 GMT
"hate to state the obvious...but stupid people get my goat"
FO
Posted Tuesday 10th June 2008 09:27 GMT
I hope the kid is getting a good feed of vindaloo daily as well as mother's milk to wash it down in place of raita!
Shame on the Indian Police, reminds me of George Orwell's novel 1984.
Does this count as a future criminal record against the child for being imprisoned before reaching the age of one year?
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here
Back to the article
