GUILTY UK - Arthur Labinjo Hughes, 6, killed, dad & friend arrested, June 2020 #3

  • #761
So why didnt she have a say in the matter of funeral?
I'm guessing she did have a say but he wasn't in agreement, and vice versa, until now.
 
  • #762
I'm guessing she did have a say but he wasn't in agreement, and vice versa, until now.
It seems that Mr Richmond is the most effective lawyer of all.
He managed not only to arrange a "slap on the wrist" sentence for his client, but also the decision of Arthur's funeral.
 
  • #763
  • #764
This kind of evil is the master of humiliation.

Yeah god love him, he literally had no break from the stress, a few minutes to rest his little legs in the loo and have a few moments peace, she couldnt even give him that. Has a more evil person walked this earth, i doubt it.
Was thinking about the evening times too,Arthur would have had to wait for them to finish watching tv before he could even go and lie down
 
  • #765
Can you imagine how embarrassing that must have been for him?!
Did she ever say her reason for not letting him go to the loo by himself? You would think TH would just step in here, it was like he had washed his hands of him, wasnt even bothered showering him, so cruel
 
  • #766
I read somewhere in the case, that she would always accompany him to the toilet, he didn't even have peace and time alone to go to the toilet. I think it was to stop him drinking tap water.
That’s what I think the cctv was set up for. To monitor Arthur when he was alone in the living room.

Regarding the layout of the house based on the cctv is the kitchen door to the right and the hall door is to the left?
 
  • #767
  • #768
Nevertheless, he managed to attract the attention of ladies :)
Hidden talents?
Both ladies (cough, cough) convicted murderers. Not much of a talent.
 
  • #769
Both ladies (cough, cough) convicted murderers. Not much of a talent.
Dont need to remind me haha
But still women, no?
 
  • #770
  • #771
  • #772
Can't for the life of me understand why he had the final say on this or his family. Regardless of Olivia being in prison, she had never hurt him. Her statement to the court shown a loving educated woman who nurtered in her son a love of literature and learning and then the poor poor boy was sent to live with his uneducated bullying father and his rough girlfriend. It's beyond tragic.

I find it absolutely shocking and horrifying that a sadistic sperm donor who is involved in the torture and murder of his own child has the legal right to give permission for him to have a funeral and be buried. A monster like him should have no legal right to make a decision like that or have the ability to grant permission for their child’s body to be released for a funeral.

Does mean that a monster like him could refuse to release their child’s body and Arthur could have stayed in the morgue indefinitely? The law needs to be changed regarding this as well

I am glad Arthur is finally going to have a funeral and be laid to rest. I hope a funeral director steps in and he is given the funeral he deserves and not just a basic funeral paid for by the government. His funeral will be absolutely heartbreaking but I am sure he will be given the send off he deserves with people lining the streets.

The interview with Arthur’s Grandmother (His birth Mother’s Mum) on Good Morning Britain this morning was very distressing. It is clear she loved him and cared for him very much and I wish she could have looked after him. She reported the bruising he had and the police and child protective services failed him.

Arthur’s Grandmother said the police took no action after they visited the property and they took no action because they said the home was “neat and tidy”. She said she challenged them and said to them “Do you think all child abusers live in tidy houses?” It is totally wrong that there is an assumption that child abuse only happens in filthy homes with terrible conditions full of rubbish etc. Child abuse can happen in any home.
 
  • #773
Everyone is guilty of bias though. If you saw a spotlessly clean house with children’s toys, nicely decorated bedrooms with beds in them, food in the cupboards, no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, you wouldn’t automatically assume “child abuser lives here”. We are all conditioned to accept what we see on the surface.
 
  • #774
Everyone is guilty of bias though. If you saw a spotlessly clean house with children’s toys, nicely decorated bedrooms with beds in them, food in the cupboards, no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, you wouldn’t automatically assume “child abuser lives here”. We are all conditioned to accept what we see on the surface.
By "guilty of bias" do you mean an average Joe/Jane or a specialist/professional?
How many times we heard:
- He/She was such a nice, quiet person!
- Always said Hello!
Remember Ted B?
A charming psychologist and lawyer.

There are procedures to follow in cases of alleged abuse.
And the bias means nothing, only facts speak.
There is a saying in my country:
Don't value a book by its covers!
 
Last edited:
  • #775
Everyone is guilty of bias though. If you saw a spotlessly clean house with children’s toys, nicely decorated bedrooms with beds in them, food in the cupboards, no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, you wouldn’t automatically assume “child abuser lives here”. We are all conditioned to accept what we see on the surface.
Not acceptable for social workers who ought to have extensive training and know that tidy houses, no drugs/alcohol issues etc etc does NOT automatically equal a non abusive household.
I'm also suck of hearing that some abusive parents can be "clever manipulators" "clever liars" etc. This surely is part of fundamental training of child protection officers. Or can they only determine child abuse if it is visually staring them in the face?
Appalling.
 
  • #776
I’m not in any way saying it’s acceptable, I’m saying it’s a fact. The point is, it’s totally unacceptable for social workers to take it at face value.
 
  • #777
This is the first time I’m hearing that Arthur maternal grandma had also called social services and the police…..

is this new information?!!
I thought all along it was Joanna and Daniel Hughes…
 
  • #778
  • #779
Everyone is guilty of bias though. If you saw a spotlessly clean house with children’s toys, nicely decorated bedrooms with beds in them, food in the cupboards, no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, you wouldn’t automatically assume “child abuser lives here”. We are all conditioned to accept what we see on the surface.

That's the point though they should know better.
Like the people who do horrible things to children the P word. can very often look like normal average men. Not your dodgy man with messy hair tramp looking guy.

The state of the house should not be as important as talking to the children in social care they should know, the average person sure may be easier to fool with a tidy house. But they should be trained to look past that, I mean it was a scheduled visit, how many parents tidy the house before a social worker comes around ? I'd say nearly all of them would make the place spotless.
 
  • #780

Thanks @Dotta hats great progress, very bitter sweet. Some changes to prevent this happen would be brilliant too
I find it absolutely shocking and horrifying that a sadistic sperm donor who is involved in the torture and murder of his own child has the legal right to give permission for him to have a funeral and be buried. A monster like him should have no legal right to make a decision like that or have the ability to grant permission for their child’s body to be released for a funeral.

Does mean that a monster like him could refuse to release their child’s body and Arthur could have stayed in the morgue indefinitely? The law needs to be changed regarding this as well

I am glad Arthur is finally going to have a funeral and be laid to rest. I hope a funeral director steps in and he is given the funeral he deserves and not just a basic funeral paid for by the government. His funeral will be absolutely heartbreaking but I am sure he will be given the send off he deserves with people lining the streets.

The interview with Arthur’s Grandmother (His birth Mother’s Mum) on Good Morning Britain this morning was very distressing. It is clear she loved him and cared for him very much and I wish she could have looked after him. She reported the bruising he had and the police and child protective services failed him.

Arthur’s Grandmother said the police took no action after they visited the property and they took no action because they said the home was “neat and tidy”. She said she challenged them and said to them “Do you think all child abusers live in tidy houses?” It is totally wrong that there is an assumption that child abuse only happens in filthy homes with terrible conditions full of rubbish etc. Child abuse can happen in any home.
This is the first time I’m hearing that Arthur maternal grandma had also called social services and the police…..

is this new information?!!
I thought all along it was Joanna and Daniel Hughes…

Yeah i am only hearing recently that the maternal Gran is saying she called Social Services and the police. I dont remember it being mentioned in court, surely she would have been called in to speak in court if that was the case. Unless she was called in at the very beginning and i missed it
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
2,906
Total visitors
2,996

Forum statistics

Threads
632,112
Messages
18,622,142
Members
243,022
Latest member
MelnykLarysa
Back
Top