Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #29

[SouthAussie]

"It has been revealed that Bill Spedding and his wife Margaret were questioned about their treatment of children by the NSW Family and Community Services department only a few days before the washing machine repairer's property was searched for two days last week by police.

However, detectives were unaware of the FACS questioning, which resulted in three young people being taken from the home, The Daily Telegraph reported."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hildren-removed-care-time-police-swooped.html


It does say the treatment of children (generic). Not the treatment of her grandchildren.

 

[SouthAussie]

This is a couple of years before the Supreme Court decision in regard to William.

Hence I would say that MSM were taking into account s105 and not identifying the mother of children in care, just like they did with Karlie and Brendan prior to the ruling.

I think that even after the ruling allowing Allanna Pearl Smith to chatter about William's foster care status on Walking Warriors FB page (and consequently also allow MSM and everybody else to talk about it), others would have to go through the same kind of court case to reveal the foster status of any other foster children ... and consequently their bio parents identity.

This was a one-off case, to date. And was eventually and finally allowed because the court thinks that there is a good chance that William is deceased.

 

[sosocurious]

Three of the children who had been living with him and his wife have since been removed, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The mother of one of the children who had lived with the Speddings said she now wants the child back. “They should be home with me,” the mother, who cannot be identified, said...........

The mother said her child was *removed from her home by FACs *because of a domestic situation. She has turned her house into a shrine to the lost child.

The child’s room is untouched and she has not taken the Christmas tree down since the child was removed early in 2011.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...e/news-story/73350ebd1be700109fa5a5eb5bb06d0c
Family Services quizzed ‘person of interest’: Children were removed from tradesman Bill Spedding’s care

There is either more than three children that have lived with the S's
Or one of the three could have a different mother ..imo

I understand it could be bad reporting but the refer to the child more than once.

 

[Bohemian]

I think that even after the ruling allowing Allanna Pearl Smith to chatter about William's foster care status on Walking Warriors FB page (and consequently also allow MSM and everybody else to talk about it), others would have to go through the same kind of court case to reveal the foster status of any other foster children ... and consequently their bio parents identity.

This was a one-off case, to date. And was eventually and finally allowed because the court thinks that there is a good chance that William is deceased.

Has the NSW C&YPP Act been amended since the Supreme Court decision? I have a vague feeling it has for some reason.

 

[SouthAussie]

Has the NSW C&YPP Act been amended since the Supreme Court decision? I have a vague feeling it has for some reason.

I don't think so. Unless you have something to the contrary?

When I look at s105, it looks exactly the same to me. And this version is current as at Dec 2017.


105 Publication of names and identifying information
(1) The name of a child or young person: ...... blah, blah, blah ..... must not be published or broadcast in any form that may be accessible by a person in New South Wales whether the publication or broadcast occurs before any proceedings have commenced, during the proceedings or after they are disposed of.

The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until:
(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or
(b) the child or young person dies,
whichever occurs first.

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caypapa1998442/s105.html

 

[Bohemian]

I don't think so. Unless you have something to the contrary?

When I look at s105, it looks exactly the same to me. And this version is current as at Dec 2017.


105 Publication of names and identifying information
(1) The name of a child or young person: ...... blah, blah, blah ..... must not be published or broadcast in any form that may be accessible by a person in New South Wales whether the publication or broadcast occurs before any proceedings have commenced, during the proceedings or after they are disposed of.

The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until:
(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or
(b) the child or young person dies,
whichever occurs first.

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caypapa1998442/s105.html

Maybe in the works?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...e/news-story/ebffac594289e6f01dad97249b7d081b

 

[SouthAussie]

Three of the children who had been living with him and his wife have since been removed, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The mother of one of the children who had lived with the Speddings said she now wants the child back. “They should be home with me,” the mother, who cannot be identified, said...........

The mother said her child was *removed from her home by FACs *because of a domestic situation. She has turned her house into a shrine to the lost child.

The child’s room is untouched and she has not taken the Christmas tree down since the child was removed early in 2011.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...e/news-story/73350ebd1be700109fa5a5eb5bb06d0c
Family Services quizzed ‘person of interest’: Children were removed from tradesman Bill Spedding’s care

There is either more than three children that have lived with the S's
Or one of the three could have a different mother ..imo

I understand it could be bad reporting but the refer to the child more than once.

It completely amazes me that Spedding was allowed to be near any young children, when requiring a Working With Children Check.

For example, anyone providing kinship care or foster care needs that check, as I referenced above. People in grandparents groups need that check ....

He said every person who came to GAPA had to get a working with children check.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/william-t...andparent-support-groups-20150905-gjfrug.html

There is something that slips through the system when pedos like GAPA's former president Paul Bickford, and former GAPA member Anthony Jones, are allowed to be part of these groups. We all know that pedos don't suddenly start offending when they become grandparents.

If they are even thought to be involved in child sex offences, have even "just" attempted a child sex offence, any hint of impropriety in that area .... they are not supposed to achieve success in that check.

.

 

[SouthAussie]

Maybe in the works?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...e/news-story/ebffac594289e6f01dad97249b7d081b

Can you give us the headline or a sentence from the article, so we can view it?

 

[Bohemian]

Can you give us the headline or a sentence from the article, so we can view it?

Headline: ‘NSW government bid to protect privacy of children in care’

 

[Bohemian]

Headline: ‘NSW government bid to protect privacy of children in care’

Article reprinted here:

http://www.peteraclarke.com.au/2017...hes-to-increase-privacy-for-children-in-care/

 

[SouthAussie]

Article reprinted here:

http://www.peteraclarke.com.au/2017...hes-to-increase-privacy-for-children-in-care/

Thanks.

That says to me that FaCS want to tighten the law, so that a precedent set in William's case - where his death is uncertain, not a positive as is required by s105 - can't be used again.

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

Imagine what the foster parents are thinking right now with all the media releases on KT's & BC's recent and past behavior being revealed. I'm sure they were well aware of what William and his sister were subjected to long ago that resulted in them being put into foster care. I'm certain they thought they were these kid's safe haven. They must ask themselves constantly 'what if they were never taken from their original homes'. ...'would William still be alive ?' 'Would he have been better off?'....

.I'm thinking now that William and his sister were indeed saved from a volatile environment but at the whim of a truly evil person, William was taken away to an even worse scenario. Absolutely no fault of the foster parents. Not sure that will make them any more at peace though


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bohemian]

Thanks.

That says to me that FaCS want to tighten the law, so that a precedent set in William's case - where his death is uncertain, not a positive as is required by s105 - can't be used again.

Thankyou x I haven’t heard anything more since it was tabled.

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

I guess that we can consider whatever we want as reasons for why Karlie is continually in this kind of situation. We will never really know.

Personally, I am sick and tired of parents who bring children into this world and do not put the children first, all the time. I don't care what their excuse is. If you are not capable of being a good parent, don't be a parent. If you are going to be self-focused, don't be a parent. Use birth control, all the time, until you are capable of doing everything you can to give any children a good, stable life. Even when life sometimes blindsides you. Stability for your children is a must.

Children are not cute teddy bears to provide the unconditional love that people desire. I fear that too often that is the motivation for young people having children.

In the meantime, I hope that while Karlie decides if she is going to finally put her nose to the grindstone and sort herself out, someone is watching over her children. Someone stable.

Can't like this post enough South Aussie


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

A bit more info - it is the DM though.

When the officers arrived Tyrrell launched into a sweary tirade, saying 'yous(e) are c***s', police alleged. The tirade continued even after they asked her to stop because children were present.

'The accused became very angry when (the) Constable ... asked the (boy) what the marks on his legs were.
'The accused has grabbed (the child's) leg and stated 'none of your f***ing business,' police alleged.
The facts said when the officer began to speak to Tyrrell she said 'f*** off ranga c***', police alleged.

At this time the accused has began to draw saliva into her mouth by making a throat clearing noise. 'She has then recoiled her head back and projected her lips forward, launching saliva from her mouth towards (the constable).'
The hocked up spit landed on the police officer's right eyebrow and cheek.
Tyrrell spat on the officer again before police restrained her on the ground and handcuffed her.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Tyrrells-mum-spitting-cop.html#ixzz55f3fOdtu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

​

Charming behavior! I just can't correlate that with the face of the happy, confident and beautiful pics of William and believe that he was not better off with his new family.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[they'll get you]

Charming behavior! I just can't correlate that with the face of the happy, confident and beautiful pics of William and believe that he was not better off with his new family.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Absolutely! Taking William from that environment was the best thing possible and oh what a windfall to find such caring parents for them.
The blame and the unfounded guilt the ff must going through but it’s NOT their fault at all. I hope the know that and I hope they can ride through all the steps of grief and realise that’s what happened is not their fault at all. I hope, one day they believe that truly in their hearts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[frogwell]

Thanks.

That says to me that FaCS want to tighten the law, so that a precedent set in William's case - where his death is uncertain, not a positive as is required by s105 - can't be used again.

I hope that doesn't succeed. I wonder about how many other children have gone missing in the care of the minister, who we haven't heard about because of the child's need for privacy.

 

[Wexford]

Three of the children who had been living with him and his wife have since been removed, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The mother of one of the children who had lived with the Speddings said she now wants the child back. “They should be home with me,” the mother, who cannot be identified, said...........

The mother said her child was *removed from her home by FACs *because of a domestic situation. She has turned her house into a shrine to the lost child.

The child’s room is untouched and she has not taken the Christmas tree down since the child was removed early in 2011.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...e/news-story/73350ebd1be700109fa5a5eb5bb06d0c
Family Services quizzed ‘person of interest’: Children were removed from tradesman Bill Spedding’s care

There is either more than three children that have lived with the S's
Or one of the three could have a different mother ..imo

I understand it could be bad reporting but the refer to the child more than once.

Was it possible it was due to some sort of legal requirement? The age of the three kids maybe? Only one could be mentioned as he was over a certain age? I'm just guessing. It was confusing at the time.

 

[SouthAussie]

I hope that doesn't succeed. I wonder about how many other children have gone missing in the care of the minister, who we haven't heard about because of the child's need for privacy.

If they were young children, I think we would have heard about it. As we did with William, due to extensive searches etc.
If they were teens, who knows. Teens, I believe, are sometimes classed as runaways, when they perhaps may not be. Whether they are in a foster situation or not.

Though I am not sure how revealing that a child is a foster child is going to make any difference to the situations. It has made no difference to William's situation, and never was going to. A fruitless exercise imo ... other than Allanna Pearl Smith - and everyone else - can now speak about it publicly.

There are good foster parents, like Williams. There are good biological parents, like mine.
There are also bad parents in both categories.

 

[SouthAussie]

Was it possible it was due to some sort of legal requirement? The age of the three kids maybe? Only one could be mentioned as he was over a certain age? I'm just guessing. It was confusing at the time.

One father, two mothers? Maybe? Neither mother kept their child/ren safe from the father and/or domestic violence and/or were all drug dependent and neglectful?

If Margaret has a son like this, that could explain why she appears to be accepting or non-believing of Spedding's 'ways'. Blind devotion.