'Psychopathic' father jailed for baby murder

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/eng…ambridgeshire/8524167.stm


    Olusola Akinrele, 34, was sentenced at the Old Bailey for killing seven-week-old baby Leeya, who died in December 2006 with a catalogue of injuries.
    Nigerian Akinrele, who lived in Cambridgeshire, denied murder. The court heard he had overstayed his visa.
    A judge ordered his automatic deportation on completion of his term.
    Leeya died in Ipswich Hospital when a life-support machine was turned off 12 days after ambulance staff found her apparently lifeless body in her Whittlesey home.
    The court heard more than three weeks before, Leeya had suffered 22 broken ribs, a fractured skull and a fractured thigh.
    Judge Clegg said: "When she was not asleep, Leeya must have been in excruciating pain."



    this is so upsetting :( how can anyone do this shit? :( that poor fucking baby. WHY do people harm something so vunerable & precious?
    children are a gift... :(

  • im speachless and nearly in tears thinking of the pain that poor small innocent baby was in. what a waste of a life and yet the b*****d that did it lives. how he lives with himself i dont know so i guess thats suffering enough

    it is impossible to be unhappy whilst wearing my baby in a tattoo style mei tai!!!

  • I am working with the NSPCC right now, which is heartbreaking, but here's a fact. 1 in 5 children in the uk suffer severe abuse at the hands of there parents in the uk.

  • very sad, my job right now is full of them. 1.2 million children suffered recorded abuse last year. :( why have kids if you don't want them, seems crazy to me x x x

  • it does seem crazy hunny
    i think some people are in love with the idea of having kids then when it becomes a reality its too much for them

    then theres the women ground down by violent men i know no excuse but it happens

    then theres just your sickos

    its a sad reality and it needs addressing but how i dint know i know the nspcc and childline etc di lots but once the front door shuts who knows what is happening

  • I am working with the NSPCC right now, which is heartbreaking, but here's a fact. 1 in 5 children in the uk suffer severe abuse at the hands of there parents in the uk.


    Surely it's not that many? what classes as "severe abuse"? I know its a lot but 1 in 5 seems a bit crazy.

    All the folk that she forgot sing and dance and watch her rot! Homeless, hopeless, poor and ill, come and drink your fill. "No such thing as society?’ No such thing as Maggie....!

  • its a fact Neyni, I am working every day with these stats, shocked the hell out of me. Severe abuse is what they term as 'life threatening or long term effect', I'm not entirely sure what that means though as far as boundries.

    1.2 million children phoned childline in 2009, recording there abuse, only half of those calls got answered.

  • I am working with the NSPCC right now, which is heartbreaking, but here's a fact. 1 in 5 children in the uk suffer severe abuse at the hands of there parents in the uk.


    I doubt that the level of child abuse is, in fact, 1 in 5 as you say. This would represent an epidemic if true. Are these NSPCC figures? The NSPCC is a self serving organisation that uses dubious TV & press ads to push its influence & whinges about statutory services whilst having charitable status and paying its executives inflated salaries. The organisation blames social workers whilst ignoring its own failings. Self serving scaremongering is no answer to the very real problem of child abuse.

  • I doubt that the level of child abuse is, in fact, 1 in 5 as you say. This would represent an epidemic if true. Are these NSPCC figures? The NSPCC is a self serving organisation that uses dubious TV & press ads to push its influence & whinges about statutory services whilst having charitable status and paying its executives inflated salaries. The organisation blames social workers whilst ignoring its own failings. Self serving scaremongering is no answer to the very real problem of child abuse.




    THAT IS UTTER SHITE! YOUR FACTS ARE COMPLETELY INCORRECT AND I ADVISE YOU TO STOP LISTENING TO SCAREMONGERING AND ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH INTO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BEFORE POSTING. :curse:

  • THAT IS UTTER SHITE! YOUR FACTS ARE COMPLETELY INCORRECT AND I ADVISE YOU TO STOP LISTENING TO SCAREMONGERING AND ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH INTO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BEFORE POSTING. :curse:


    OK, then, back up your figures by quoting sources. And then grow up!


    Then maybe you could have a look at this for a start: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/…imbie-coverup-669605.html


    I also suggest that you talk to LA Social Workers before reacting like this.

  • sorry PTM, but I do a lot of hard bloody work with NSPCC and get really hacked off when all people can do is critisise the work they do. I have seen the fantastic work they have have acheived.

    1 in 5 is the recorded level, abuse can range from neglect, bullying to sexual abuse.

    I am out of this thread guys because with single minded, corrupted views I am not likely to keep it civil.

  • Indeed not.

    Neither is there any way of checking the '1 in 5' statistic, which seems to be so utterly overinflated as to wreck any chance of credibility.



    prevention of the cruelty to children act will give you the stats. of which there wouldn't be one without the NSPCC.

  • prevention of the cruelty to children act will give you the stats. of which there wouldn't be one without the NSPCC.


    :S


    Do you mean the Act from 1889?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Yes I do, thank you for pointing out the correct name.


    Is that where the 1 in 5 stats come from? If not, where are they from?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • i can only speak from personal experience here as i don't have any stats to back up what i'm saying.


    i have always worked with kids and young adults since i was old enough to start working and i have, unfortunately, seen a lot of cases of abuse.


    i have been involved in reporting this abuse through various avenues over the years, and my number one choice for reporting abuse is via the NSPCC as i have seen the results with my own eyes and they always deal with both the child and myself fantastically.


    reporting abuse through social services only puts yourself in danger as they have a "policy of openess" (or at least they did last time i reported anyone to them) and that puts the reporter in a great deal of risk.


    the police weren't as useful as they could have been either when i involved them in an incident as well.


    but the NSPCC have helped the child in every circumstance i have been involved in, as well as protecting my anonymity. so for that reason alone i will always support them.


    as for the statistics - unfotunately i belive they could be true. just from using my own eyes, and having worked with children and been sent on numerous child protection courses (i worked with very severely disabled children for nearly ten years, so admitedly they were more vulnerable to abuse than most).


    i would be interested to know if your opinions on the NSPCC are formed just from newspaper reports or from your own, first-hand experience?

    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” -Mark Twain

  • I don't mean to put doubt into a really serious issue, but I know they're a charity, and regardless of how awesome a charity is, I don't trust any of them. Of course the agenda is to do good, but they rely on funding, so with everywhere, things get exaggerated, but by exaggerating things like this, if/when people find out they're incorrect, they think its all balls, when the number they have still upped it from is shocking (just not, they think, shocking enough) If it looks like they aren't needed or arent doing enough, the funding gest stopped, so every year figures are twisted around, not for evil-ness, but to keep funding.


    Stardust, I'd say because you worked in care homes it would be a biased veiw as there'd be loads there.. for example, of the people I know I can count on one hand the people who were in care homes (of course they could be choosing not to tell anyone, but thats unlikely) and I just find it hard to belive every one in five people I know was abused "severely" as a child, I'm feeling lots of things are put into that stat that possibly wouldn't be classed as "severe". Like for example my mum was on the at risk registar, so like their figures would be "did you know THIS many parents are classed as at risk!!" when it was only because she'd had so many boys they thought she'd beat me up ??

    All the folk that she forgot sing and dance and watch her rot! Homeless, hopeless, poor and ill, come and drink your fill. "No such thing as society?’ No such thing as Maggie....!

  • Stardust, I'd say because you worked in care homes it would be a biased veiw as there'd be loads there..


    actually, the care home is the only place where i didn't report any abuse via the NSPCC. so i don't think it is a biased view point. it was looking after kids with severe disabilities, not kids who had been put into care.


    but yes, i worked in a care home. i also worked on playschemes every summer since i was 15 until i started in the kids home and in various other settings as well. lots of babysitting, via agencies, worked in a creche and of course working in a kids area on the festivals and looking after kids at various events. i have encoutered abused kids in many places unfortunately.

    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” -Mark Twain

  • as for the statistics - unfotunately i belive they could be true. just from using my own eyes, and having worked with children and been sent on numerous child protection courses (i worked with very severely disabled children for nearly ten years, so admitedly they were more vulnerable to abuse than most).


    I, personally, would like to see some well grounded evidence before claims are broadcast across the nation regarding 1 in 5 (and action built upon it).


    Quote

    i would be interested to know if your opinions on the NSPCC are formed just from newspaper reports or from your own, first-hand experience?

    The NSPCC have been pulled up several times over the years:


    * FULL STOP not being able to shown to actually have helped anyone: http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci…childrensservices.comment


    * The "Baby Names" booklet: http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi…rtising.childrensservices


    * Non-resident parents, usually Fathers, Demonised: http://www.publications.parlia…0302/debtext/60302-18.htm


    * Left-of-centre Uni Professor criticises them as "anti-parent": http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA361.htm


    * The whole Satanic Abuse claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm


    * The anti-Home-Education comments: http://www.christian.org.uk/ne…-school-child-abuse-slur/


    * The recent bit of shock dramatic advertising on the back of a tiny sample of stats from one study: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8515601.stm


    The biggest issue though is the refusal (or inability) to offer well grounded data to support their claims.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."