Toddler badly bitten over 15 times by feral kids at play centre.

Its what kids do!!

"A toddler was scarred for life after being bitten more than 15 times by kids at a soft play centre.
Seventeen-month-old Willow-Ivy Doherty suffered the “nightmare” during a day out with her mum Becky, brother Tucker, six, and sister Aurora, three.
Becky, 33, said: “She looks like she’s been savaged by a dog, not a child.”
The single mum of six took her three youngest to Little Bees in Seacroft, Leeds, and sat watching from a table overlooking the indoor play area.
She was looking at Aurora when she heard another mum scream: “Oh my God, whose baby is this?”
She said: “She had pulled the boy off Willow. He had hold of her neck. Becky raced over to find Willow-Ivy blue and not breathing and the boy standing “with a big smile on his face, with blood all around his mouth”.
She said she believed he was two and was with his brother, aged four.
She said she shouted “where is your mum?” but the boy’s mother did not come forward until staff were giving Willow-Ivy first aid.
Becky said: “She kept shouting ‘That’s what kids do, that’s what kids do!’ over and over.”
Becky took Willow-Ivy to hospital where she was given injections for Hepatitis B and treatment for her cuts.
She suffered four to her face, two to her fingers, three to her back, several to her head, one to her ear, one to her shoulder, one to her wrist and one to her leg."


Distressing pics on link.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toddler-scarred-life-after-being-13553253

"The owner of Little Bees, who did not wish to be named, confirmed that she helped Willow-Ivy but said: “We are not a nursery. The children need parental supervision.”

Correct, we have taken our young kids to this type of play centre over the years. If you have any sense you watch them like hawks.
Apart from making sure little ones dont get hurt by bigger kids there are climbing frames and lots of places where a small child could hurt themselves. Why any parent would take their eyes off such young kids is a mystery.

Sounds like she need an attorney to sort it out.  Have the authorities been notified that they have some aggressive teething going on in their jurisdiction?

Yes, get the Lawyers involved, the leeches will always love a chance to make more money !

nicko wrote:Yes,  get the Lawyers involved, the leeches will always love a chance to make more money !

Well, you could always go and kill the little boy.

Lots of children bite, not usually as bad as this, I know it would be frowned upon now but mother's used to bite (pretty gently just enough to be noticed I suppose) their child, if they had done it to another child or them and it seemed to work. They maybe realised by example how unpleasant it could be. Thankfully I never had to consider that.

Vintage wrote:Lots of children bite, not usually as bad as this, I know it would be frowned upon now but mother's used to bite  (pretty gently just enough to be noticed I suppose) their child, if they had done it to another child or them and it seemed to work. They maybe realised by example how unpleasant it could be. Thankfully I never had to consider that.

Or, the mother taught the child that it was somehow an acceptable stratagem in response to--whatever--anger or frustration. We had a nanny with my youngest daughter. Daughter had just started biting she picked up from a boy at play. One day I came home at lunch to pick up some documents, and caught the nanny responding to biting by biting. Put a stop to it, telling the nanny she was just reinforcing the behavior.

Never respond to bad by doing the bad. It just normalizes it.

You are probably right but I can only go on experience and I know this was the method most mothers used when I was young and it seemed to work there was no biting when I was at my primary school. Maybe it reinforces the behaviour in a few children.
Its the same with mild physical chastisement and I don't mean beatings, its not the done thing now but happened to most of my friends. We are told that it reinforces the idea that if you don't get your own way or someone disagrees with you your fist recourse is to hit them, I don't find that that was true either, none of us has grown up to be thugs, quite the contrary.
Reasoning with me about my behaviour was something that grew as I grew, at first I was firmly told no and physically removed from something if I was doing something wrong, then as I grew it was explained to me why I shouldn't behave so, if I carried on I was sent to my room and couldn't play out, very rarely and I mean rarely I did get a smack if I behaved badly enough.

I have rarely felt the need to hit anyone and never have, neither have I bitten anyone, I firmly believe my upbringing has enabled me to control myself and to conduct myself with decorum especially in public. Even quite young children knew the social niceties all those years ago.
Yet these days I am surrounded by children who appear 'let loose' in public areas running around screaming in shops and supermarkets, yelling and fighting on a bus trip recently. much to the annoyance of all the other passengers and going to anywhere to eat these days is pure hell, the noise levels are astounding, I'll give you that this is bad parenting of any kind. Its not just about the comfort of other people its also the safety of the children surely. Assaults on each other, even by young children have increased to a startling degree these days, I have to think there is a connection with lack of actually being a parent nd feeling able to say no and enforce that and not trying to be a friend too early in your child's life.
Anyway, I am an old fogey and quite often start a sentence with 'in my day' so what do I know.

I often say "in my day" and if my children and Grandkids are in ear shot, they all shout IN MY DAY !

Funny how every generation say the same things at a certain time in their life and in many cases become as conservative as their parents even though when you are young, you think that's just never going to happen.
If I start a sentence with 'in my day' my daughter my daughter says 'ah yes in olden times when knights were bold'.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:Lots of children bite, not usually as bad as this, I know it would be frowned upon now but mother's used to bite  (pretty gently just enough to be noticed I suppose) their child, if they had done it to another child or them and it seemed to work. They maybe realised by example how unpleasant it could be. Thankfully I never had to consider that.

Or, the mother taught the child that it was somehow an acceptable stratagem in response to--whatever--anger or frustration.  We had a nanny with my youngest daughter.  Daughter had just started biting she picked up from a boy at play.  One day I came home at lunch to pick up some documents, and caught the nanny responding to biting by biting.  Put a stop to it, telling the nanny she was just reinforcing the behavior.

Never respond to bad by doing the bad.  It just normalizes it.

I dont agree with biting a toddler when it bites, and I certainly would not tolerate a nanny doing so....she would have been sacked on the spot.
However, also (back in my day ) I knew mums who did this....I always thought it was barbaric tbh, no matter how 'gently' they said they did it.....a bite is a bite and you dont teach children it's wrong by doing the same to them.

Original Quill wrote:Sounds like she need an attorney to sort it out.  Have the authorities been notified that they have some aggressive teething going on in their jurisdiction?

To what purpose.
The play centre cant be held responsible and the mother of the two feral kids probably doesnt have any money if she were to be sued.
Social services should be involved, it's not normal behaviour for 2 small children aged 2 and 4 to attack a defenceless 17 month old in this way.
Something is badly wrong in that family.

Vintage wrote:You are probably right but I can only go on experience and I know this was the method most mothers used when I was young and it seemed to work there was no biting when I was at my primary school. Maybe it reinforces the behaviour in a few children.
Its the same with mild physical chastisement and I don't mean beatings, its not the done thing now but happened to most of my friends. We are told that it reinforces the idea that if you don't get your own way or someone disagrees with you your fist recourse is to hit them, I don't find that that was true either, none of us has grown up to be thugs, quite the contrary.
Reasoning with me about my behaviour was something that grew as I grew, at first I was firmly told no and physically removed from something if I was doing something wrong, then as I grew it was explained to me why I shouldn't behave so, if I carried on I was sent to my room and couldn't play out, very rarely and I mean rarely I did get a smack if I behaved badly enough.

I have rarely felt the need to hit anyone and never have, neither have I bitten anyone, I firmly believe my upbringing has enabled me to control myself and to conduct myself with decorum especially in public. Even quite young children knew the social niceties all those years ago.
Yet these days I am surrounded by children who appear 'let loose' in public areas running around screaming in shops and supermarkets, yelling and fighting on a bus trip recently. much to the annoyance of all the other passengers and going to anywhere to eat these days is pure hell, the noise levels are astounding, I'll give you that this is bad parenting of any kind. Its not just about the comfort of other people its also the safety of the children surely. Assaults on each other, even by young children have increased to a startling degree these days, I have to think there is a connection with lack of actually being a parent nd feeling able to say no and enforce that and not trying to be a friend too early in your child's life.
Anyway, I am an old fogey and quite often start a sentence with 'in my day' so what do I know.

I agree with a lot of what you remember Vintage, I feel sorry for kids of today. Many (obviously not all) parents are glued to their phones all the time instead of paying attention to their babies and kids.
We were in a shop yesterday when we heard a blood curdling scream, a little lad aged about 2 came flying round a corner playing some sort of whooping game. He collided with my OH, who stepped back quick so he wouldnt hurt the kid and in doing so knocked  into a display of boxes...they fell over with a huge clatter.
The assistant rushed over thinking my OH was hurt (he wasn't) grabbed the kid and called out for his parent. Mother sauntered up mobile in hand pushing his pushchair (empty of course) completely oblivious to the nuisance he was being.

The assistant told her off I am happy to say.

It is a shame children are allowed to put themselves in potential danger and inconvenience to others. I grew up with classmates who were neglected for want of a better word, my OH best friend used to get locked in the house alone when he was quite young while mum and dad went down the pub, later they'd let my OH stay in the house with him, for some reason they wouldn't allow him to stay at my OH house until they came home, it was the same with those in my class only they took the kids with them and they sat outside with a bag of crisps in almost any weather, I presume if it was bad they'd be left at home. Yet these children grew up to be very good parents themselves and decent people to know. I can only think they learned from seeing their friends' families and from having to behave at school. One family, no one ever saw the father but there was a child each year for eight years, the mother had a boyfriend in the end and they'd go away for the day in his car leaving the kids at home the older ones to take care of the babies with a pan of cooked potatoes to eat, strangely these children idolised their mother until the day she died and treated her like a queen. It's a funny old life.

What race and religion were the kids, so we know what to blame?

3 American 2 Canadian 1 Cherokee !

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Or, the mother taught the child that it was somehow an acceptable stratagem in response to--whatever--anger or frustration.  We had a nanny with my youngest daughter.  Daughter had just started biting she picked up from a boy at play.  One day I came home at lunch to pick up some documents, and caught the nanny responding to biting by biting.  Put a stop to it, telling the nanny she was just reinforcing the behavior.

Never respond to bad by doing the bad.  It just normalizes it.

I dont agree with biting a toddler when it bites, and I certainly would not tolerate a nanny doing so....she would have been sacked on the spot.
However, also (back in my day ) I knew mums who did this....I always thought it was barbaric tbh, no matter how 'gently' they said they did it.....a bite is a bite and you dont teach children it's wrong by doing the same to them.

That's my reaction as well

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Sounds like she need an attorney to sort it out.  Have the authorities been notified that they have some aggressive teething going on in their jurisdiction?

To what purpose.
The play centre cant be held responsible and the mother of the two feral kids probably doesnt have any money if she were to be sued.
Social services should be involved, it's not normal behaviour for 2 small children aged 2 and 4 to attack a defenceless 17 month old in this way.
Something is badly wrong in that family.

I said "sort it out." It doesn't have to be all about a recovery. Even you are barking up wrong trees, showing that an attorney would be nice...don'cha think? Again, have the authorities been notified?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

To what purpose.
The play centre cant be held responsible and the mother of the two feral kids probably doesnt have any money if she were to be sued.
Social services should be involved, it's not normal behaviour for 2 small children aged 2 and 4 to attack a defenceless 17 month old in this way.
Something is badly wrong in that family.

I said "sort it out."  It doesn't have to be all about a recovery.  Even you are barking up wrong trees, showing that an attorney would be nice...don'cha think?  Again, have the authorities been notified?

What could an attorney do in a case like this?
Yes the authorities were informed....read the link in the op.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I said "sort it out."  It doesn't have to be all about a recovery.  Even you are barking up wrong trees, showing that an attorney would be nice...don'cha think?  Again, have the authorities been notified?

What could an attorney do in a case like this?

Tell you want to do. You're already barking up wrong trees. Couldn't hurt, don'cha think?

Syl wrote:Its what kids do!!

"A toddler was scarred for life after being bitten more than 15 times by kids at a soft play centre.
Seventeen-month-old Willow-Ivy Doherty suffered the “nightmare” during a day out with her mum Becky, brother Tucker, six, and sister Aurora, three.
Becky, 33, said: “She looks like she’s been savaged by a dog, not a child.”
The single mum of six took her three youngest to Little Bees in Seacroft, Leeds, and sat watching from a table overlooking the indoor play area.
She was looking at Aurora when she heard another mum scream: “Oh my God, whose baby is this?”
She said: “She had pulled the boy off Willow. He had hold of her neck. Becky raced over to find Willow-Ivy blue and not breathing and the boy standing “with a big smile on his face, with blood all around his mouth”.
She said she believed he was two and was with his brother, aged four.
She said she shouted “where is your mum?” but the boy’s mother did not come forward until staff were giving Willow-Ivy first aid.
Becky said: “She kept shouting ‘That’s what kids do, that’s what kids do!’ over and over.”
Becky took Willow-Ivy to hospital where she was given injections for Hepatitis B and treatment for her cuts.
She suffered four to her face, two to her fingers, three to her back, several to her head, one to her ear, one to her shoulder, one to her wrist and one to her leg."


Distressing pics on link.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toddler-scarred-life-after-being-13553253

The simple solution is better supervison. There is no way around it. A properly supervised child does not get bitten 15 times. No tot ever bit my child, they'd have had to get past me first!

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

What could an attorney do in a case like this?

Tell you want to do.  You're already barking up wrong trees.  Couldn't hurt, don'cha think?

Yes, you said that once already.
What would an attorney say in a case like this....other than ask for a fat fee?

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:Its what kids do!!

"A toddler was scarred for life after being bitten more than 15 times by kids at a soft play centre.
Seventeen-month-old Willow-Ivy Doherty suffered the “nightmare” during a day out with her mum Becky, brother Tucker, six, and sister Aurora, three.
Becky, 33, said: “She looks like she’s been savaged by a dog, not a child.”
The single mum of six took her three youngest to Little Bees in Seacroft, Leeds, and sat watching from a table overlooking the indoor play area.
She was looking at Aurora when she heard another mum scream: “Oh my God, whose baby is this?”
She said: “She had pulled the boy off Willow. He had hold of her neck. Becky raced over to find Willow-Ivy blue and not breathing and the boy standing “with a big smile on his face, with blood all around his mouth”.
She said she believed he was two and was with his brother, aged four.
She said she shouted “where is your mum?” but the boy’s mother did not come forward until staff were giving Willow-Ivy first aid.
Becky said: “She kept shouting ‘That’s what kids do, that’s what kids do!’ over and over.”
Becky took Willow-Ivy to hospital where she was given injections for Hepatitis B and treatment for her cuts.
She suffered four to her face, two to her fingers, three to her back, several to her head, one to her ear, one to her shoulder, one to her wrist and one to her leg."


Distressing pics on link.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toddler-scarred-life-after-being-13553253

The simple solution is better supervison. There is no way around it. A properly supervised child does not get bitten 15 times. No tot ever bit my child, they'd have had to get past me first!

I agree, the toddler wasn't being watched.....and neither were the two little monsters who savaged her.
Both mothers need to go to parenting classes, the mother of the kids who repearedly bit has been referred to social services, they need to intervene before those two kids get any older....because normal children of 2 and 4 dont act like that.

No there's something very wrong where a child bites likes this then smiles and looks pleased with himself for a job well done.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

The simple solution is better supervison. There is no way around it. A properly supervised child does not get bitten 15 times. No tot ever bit my child, they'd have had to get past me first!

I agree, the toddler wasn't being watched.....and neither were the two little monsters who savaged her.
Both mothers need to go to parenting classes, the mother of the kids who repearedly bit has been referred to social services, they need to intervene before those two kids get any older....because normal children of 2 and 4 dont act like that.

she had a 6 year old a 3 year old and a 17 month old. how on earth did she think she could keep watch on all 3 when it's hard enough watching just 1.

on the rare occasions i have taken my children to such places there has been a group of us adults and we didnt sit at tables we were all constantly walking round keeping watch on everything. the only time we sat at tables is when we hauled the kids off and they sat with us. i dont know for sure but to not notice your own kid screaming after being bitten so many times tends to suggest she was engrossed in some FB post or something.

quite chilling that the mother of the biter seemed to think ''that's just what kids do''. wtf? on my patch they would do it once and once only.

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree, the toddler wasn't being watched.....and neither were the two little monsters who savaged her.
Both mothers need to go to parenting classes, the mother of the kids who repearedly bit has been referred to social services, they need to intervene before those two kids get any older....because normal children of 2 and 4 dont act like that.

she had a 6 year old a 3 year old and a 17 month old.  how on earth did she think she could keep watch on all 3 when it's hard enough watching just 1.

on the rare occasions i have taken my children to such places there has been a group of us adults and we didnt sit at tables we were all constantly walking round keeping watch on everything.  the only time we sat at tables is when we hauled the kids off and they sat with us.  i dont know for sure but to not notice your own kid screaming after being bitten so many times tends to suggest she was engrossed in some FB post or something.  

quite chilling that the mother of the biter seemed to think ''that's just what kids do''.  wtf?  on my patch they would do it once and once only.

Chilling is the right word...it's like something out of a horror movie.
Some kids do bite, they should be watched like a hawk when round other children till they understand its wrong. I have never known of any kid who repeatedly bites over and over again in a sustained attack on another child.

I agree about keeping watch all the time when in these play areas, how can one adult watch 3 small children when they are running riot? Not meaning to blame the victim here but had the mother been watching her toddler she wouldnt have been hurt.
The mother of the 2 boys who attacked the little girl seems to have more serious issues if she thinks it's acceptable for her children to attack a young innocent toddler in such a violent way.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tell you want to do.  You're already barking up wrong trees.  Couldn't hurt, don'cha think?

Yes, you said that once already.
What would an attorney say in a case like this....other than ask for a fat fee?

The first thing I would do is make sure that the authorities were fully apprised, and that any agencies that overlooked children, or child-care or child-play facilities, were informed.  These agencies are established for this purpose, however they can't function unless the reports reach them.

Then a lawyer could inform people as to liability--remember, a 'no' answer is as informative as a 'yes' answer.  Then, make sure the child receives proper medical attention.  Then, insurance matters.  A lawyer provides the interface between people and all of the institutions (agencies, courts, medical and hospital facilities, etc.) of civil society, so lawyers can help shepherd things through the system.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes, you said that once already.
What would an attorney say in a case like this....other than ask for a fat fee?

The first thing I would do is make sure that the authorities were fully apprised, and that any agencies that overlooked children, or child-care or child-play facilities, were informed.  These agencies are established for this purpose, however they can't function unless the reports reach them.

Then a lawyer could inform people as to liability--remember, a 'no' answer is as informative as a 'yes' answer.  Then, make sure the child receives proper medical attention.  Then, insurance matters.  A lawyer provides the interface between people and all of the institutions (agencies, courts, medical and hospital facilities, etc.) of civil society, so lawyers can help shepherd things through the system.

The police, NHS, and social services were involved Quill, to bring in a lawyer would cost money, I doubt a woman who has six kids wouldn't be able to afford legal fees.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The first thing I would do is make sure that the authorities were fully apprised, and that any agencies that overlooked children, or child-care or child-play facilities, were informed.  These agencies are established for this purpose, however they can't function unless the reports reach them.

Then a lawyer could inform people as to liability--remember, a 'no' answer is as informative as a 'yes' answer.  Then, make sure the child receives proper medical attention.  Then, insurance matters.  A lawyer provides the interface between people and all of the institutions (agencies, courts, medical and hospital facilities, etc.) of civil society, so lawyers can help shepherd things through the system.

The police, NHS, and social services were involved Quill, to bring in a lawyer would cost money, I doubt a woman who has six kids wouldn't be able to afford legal fees.

Money? A lawyer is too expensive? What if the child had cancer? Would a physician be too expensive?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The police, NHS, and social services were involved Quill, to bring in a lawyer would cost money, I doubt a woman who has six kids wouldn't be able to afford legal fees.

Money?  A lawyer is too expensive?  What if the child had cancer?  Would a physician be too expensive?

You forget that we have free healthcare here Quill.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Money?  A lawyer is too expensive?  What if the child had cancer?  Would a physician be too expensive?

You forget that we have free healthcare here Quill.

A fortuitous circumstance, but my point is still made. TY for reminding me.  Nevertheless, you shouldn't ignore threatening conditions and responsibilities because you don't want to spend the money.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


You forget that we have free healthcare here Quill.

A fortuitous circumstance, but my point is still made. TY for reminding me.  Nevertheless, you shouldn't ignore threatening conditions and responsibilities because you don't want to spend the money.

The point is that the woman wouldn't need a lawyer because there would be no health costs involved.

Jules wrote:

The simple solution is better supervison. There is no way around it. A properly supervised child does not get bitten 15 times. No tot ever bit my child, they'd have had to get past me first!

How is that the better solution, unless you expect people to constantly have eyes 24/7 in the back of their heads as well as the front?

The solution, is to understand why this has happened.

What drove toddlers and infants to do this?

None of them know any better. So was this something they picked up innocently and mistakenly or badly taught?

Was this seeing parents kissing and mistaking this for biting on the neck or body?

Or were the children actually allowed to cause harm this way normally at home?

Remember, this is very young children, who have little comprehension to what is right or wrong

What is wierd is how the child never screamed themselves and was only found by another adult after most of this had happened

It sounds very weird to me, unless people are covering up as to what actually happened. Was this something else and actually child abuse by others?

I would also then question whether the child then actually needs to have medical tests on pain levels. As that would be a worry, as to why, she clearly never screamed at such an attack. As noboy claims she did cry out.

Were the other children simple acting out like family pets and mistakenly never knew the harm this could present?

You do not need any lawyer for this but medical and psychological experts

The story really does not add up to me, for a number of factors as the mother was there

A child on the receiveing end of such bites will cry out in pain. If the child did, what then and why did the parents never investigate?

To busy on their phones or chatting?

I agree that the kid would have been screaming unless she couldn't. It's said that she was blue and not breathing. That's weird.

Raggamuffin wrote:I agree that the kid would have been screaming unless she couldn't. It's said that she was blue and not breathing. That's weird.

Indeed Rags and i am surprised this was not even questioned in the article

She had countless marks on her body

Something does not sit right here to me

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A fortuitous circumstance, but my point is still made. TY for reminding me.  Nevertheless, you shouldn't ignore threatening conditions and responsibilities because you don't want to spend the money.

The point is that the woman wouldn't need a lawyer because there would be no health costs involved.

Really?  That's all your lawyer does? I wouldn't choose him either.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that the woman wouldn't need a lawyer because there would be no health costs involved.

Really?  That's all your lawyer does?  I wouldn't choose him either.

What would you want a lawyer to do then? By the way, lawyers are sometimes female you know.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that the woman wouldn't need a lawyer because there would be no health costs involved.

Really?  That's all your lawyer does?  I wouldn't choose him either.

Seriously why are you talking about lawyers here?

When nobody has an idea what has really occured here?

Typical manipulative laywers mindset and centered on money, as a means to an end. Hence your point on spending money

You have no concern of finding out the truth, but to manipulate the situation

We worry ourselves at Policticians, but most of them were and are lawyers

Capitalism was never the issue here, but how Lawyers have become corrupt and you eloquently prove that.

What if the reality here is an actual criminal case of child abuse?

That requires proper investigation, by the police and not lawyers. They will only be the next part, when there is enough evidence.

How about you center on the story and not your obsession of talking about yourself and your inflated ego?

One thing truely worries me about this whole case.

Have toddlers, been used as an excuse to cover up child abuse by others?

As most of this does not make any sense

To have so many injuries all over the body and for that child to make no sound. And claims of the child being found not breathing and blue. Would mean this child would have been smothered and not able to breath. Such a child would kick out with every means and scream in pain at such injuries. A child of four is simple not mentally clever enough to be able to be so calculated with force, to be able to stop a child crying out with pain and not leave any marks of such force holding them down. Denying them able to breath and nobody even notice. It simple is irrational and illogical that such an event did not go unnoticed. Where there was many children and people.

This is why this whole story stinks to high heaven. If that child was found not breathing, then there would be far more marks of bruisning, where she was held down and not allowed to breath. There was multiple marks on her body from bites, not holding her down and all happenning, within the eyes of adults and her mother close by.

There is no account of any form of resuscitation either, which if a child is not breathing CPR should be given. As is taught how to with toddlers when they stop breathing. None of this is even talked about. Only the injuries sustained.

So much of this does not add up and even more so, that this child had a 6 year old brother there. Who must have stood by and not noticed anything? And not went running to the mother or helped his sister? Okay some brothers do not get on with their sisters, but someone this age and we are expected to believe they never saw this?

Such injuries never happened within seconds and it takes time. As there is multiple injuries. That take considerable force through biting that cause bruising. They are not simple bites, but prolonged bites. That could cause such bruising and cuts. Yet not once was there any witness to this child screaming out in pain? Or any other injuries to how a child would be forced and held down. On the wrists, neck etc with hands. There would be much more bruised areas from this. Yet there is no on the arms or legs, neck, mouth and nose. That simples makes no sense, if she was found not breathing and blue.

The whole story stinks and does not add up at all

Phildidge wrote:One thing truely worries me about this whole case.

Have toddlers, been used as an excuse to cover up child abuse by others?

As most of this does not make any sense

To have so many injuries all over the body and for that child to make no sound. And claims of the child being found not breathing and blue. Would mean this child would have been smothered and not able to breath. Such a child would kick out with every means and scream in pain at such injuries. A child of four is simple not mentally clever enough to be able to be so calculated with force, to be able to stop a child crying out with pain and not leave any marks of such force holding them down. Denying them able to breath and nobody even notice. It simple is irrational and illogical that such an event did not go unnoticed. Where there was many children and people.

This is why this whole story stinks to high heaven. If that child was found not breathing, then there would be far more marks of bruisning, where she was held down and not allowed to breath. There was multiple marks on her body from bites, not holding her down and all happenning, within the eyes of adults and her mother close by.

There is no account of any form of resuscitation either, which if a child is not breathing CPR should be given. As is taught how to with toddlers when they stop breathing. None of this is even talked about. Only the injuries sustained.

So much of this does not add up and even more so, that this child had a 6 year old brother there. Who must have stood by and not noticed anything? And not went running to the mother or helped his sister? Okay some brothers do not get on with their sisters, but someone this age and we are expected to believe they never saw this?

Such injuries never happened within seconds and it takes time. As there is multiple injuries. That take considerable force through biting that cause bruising. They are not simple bites, but prolonged bites. That could cause such bruising and cuts. Yet not once was there any witness to this child screaming out in pain? Or any other injuries to how a child would be forced and held down. On the wrists, neck etc with hands. There would be much more bruised areas from this. Yet there is no on the arms or legs, neck, mouth and nose. That simples makes no sense, if she was found not breathing and blue.

The whole story stinks and does not add up at all

well, the hospital and the police seemed to think it adds up ok

gelico wrote:

Phildidge wrote:One thing truely worries me about this whole case.

Have toddlers, been used as an excuse to cover up child abuse by others?

As most of this does not make any sense

To have so many injuries all over the body and for that child to make no sound. And claims of the child being found not breathing and blue. Would mean this child would have been smothered and not able to breath. Such a child would kick out with every means and scream in pain at such injuries. A child of four is simple not mentally clever enough to be able to be so calculated with force, to be able to stop a child crying out with pain and not leave any marks of such force holding them down. Denying them able to breath and nobody even notice. It simple is irrational and illogical that such an event did not go unnoticed. Where there was many children and people.

This is why this whole story stinks to high heaven. If that child was found not breathing, then there would be far more marks of bruisning, where she was held down and not allowed to breath. There was multiple marks on her body from bites, not holding her down and all happenning, within the eyes of adults and her mother close by.

There is no account of any form of resuscitation either, which if a child is not breathing CPR should be given. As is taught how to with toddlers when they stop breathing. None of this is even talked about. Only the injuries sustained.

So much of this does not add up and even more so, that this child had a 6 year old brother there. Who must have stood by and not noticed anything? And not went running to the mother or helped his sister? Okay some brothers do not get on with their sisters, but someone this age and we are expected to believe they never saw this?

Such injuries never happened within seconds and it takes time. As there is multiple injuries. That take considerable force through biting that cause bruising. They are not simple bites, but prolonged bites. That could cause such bruising and cuts. Yet not once was there any witness to this child screaming out in pain? Or any other injuries to how a child would be forced and held down. On the wrists, neck etc with hands. There would be much more bruised areas from this. Yet there is no on the arms or legs, neck, mouth and nose. That simples makes no sense, if she was found not breathing and blue.

The whole story stinks and does not add up at all

well, the hospital and the police seemed to think it adds up ok

On an investigation where they think its kids?

What else would they conclude gelico, if that was the story told to them?

Phildidge wrote:

gelico wrote:


well, the hospital and the police seemed to think it adds up ok

On an investigation where they think its kids?

What else would they conclude gelico, if that was the story told to them?

also no one who was at the play centre has disputed this

Obviously the small kids were  not being watched by the two mothers involved.
These places are noisy, if a child cried it may not have been heard. One of the boys had hold of the toddlers neck, thats possibly why she was blue and not breathing.
Yes the boys were young, but both attacked the little girl, if a 2 and a 4 year old both set about a 17 month year old, especially if the older boy was choking her, that would explain why she wasn't screaming.
These play centres have lots of aparatus, tubes where kids can hide, possibly a ball pool, in short lots of crannies where kids are not immediately visable.

If as reported the mother of the boys was saying ''thats what kids do", obviously they are allowed to terrorise other kids.
The police are taking no further action, hopfully social workers will.

Syl wrote:Obviously the small kids were  not being watched by the two mothers involved.
These places are noisy, if a child cried it may not have been heard. One of the boys had hold of the toddlers neck, thats possibly why she was blue and not breathing.
Yes the boys were young, but both attacked the little girl, if a 2 and a 4 year old both set about a 17 month year old, especially if the older boy was choking her, that would explain why she wasn't screaming.
These play centres have lots of aparatus, tubes where kids can hide, possibly a ball pool, in short lots of crannies where kids are not immediately visable.

If as reported the mother of the boys was saying ''thats what kids do", obviously they are allowed to terrorise other kids.
The police are taking no further action, hopfully social workers will.

Okay, the claim was she was not breathing and she was blue

Where is the marks over her mouth, nose and throat?

These would all need to be held in order to stop any screaming from pain or any form of fighting back from pain

The child was bitten all over and this child never screamed on countless occasions?

You are telling me, that a child making continued screaming noises in pain is not going to make people look up?

Kids laughing screeching, is far removed from kids screaming in pain

I mean to say this is what the boys do has no relevance and to me is a misdirection

Its thrown in, as if to claim this is what boys do.

Is it?

Can you provide other examples, where a young girl is bitten multiple times, never screaming throughout and then turns blue and is not breathing as claimed?

What areas that cause bruinsing are associated with asphyxiation?

gelico wrote:

Phildidge wrote:

On an investigation where they think its kids?

What else would they conclude gelico, if that was the story told to them?

also no one who was at the play centre has disputed this

How many were there and saw the child before and after?

Kids turn up with cuts and bruises all the time do they not?

Some are definately bite marks, but how can we guage the size of them gelico

What I am questioning is the claims to this story

It does not add up and either the mirror has got many aspects wrong or there is more to this than meets the eye

Phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:Obviously the small kids were  not being watched by the two mothers involved.
These places are noisy, if a child cried it may not have been heard. One of the boys had hold of the toddlers neck, thats possibly why she was blue and not breathing.
Yes the boys were young, but both attacked the little girl, if a 2 and a 4 year old both set about a 17 month year old, especially if the older boy was choking her, that would explain why she wasn't screaming.
These play centres have lots of aparatus, tubes where kids can hide, possibly a ball pool, in short lots of crannies where kids are not immediately visable.

If as reported the mother of the boys was saying ''thats what kids do", obviously they are allowed to terrorise other kids.
The police are taking no further action, hopfully social workers will.

Okay, the claim was she was not breathing and she was blue

Where is the marks over her mouth, nose and throat?

These would all need to be held in order to stop any screaming from pain or any form of fighting back from pain

The child was bitten all over and this child never screamed on countless occasions?

You are telling me, that a child making continued screaming noises in pain is not going to make people look up?

Kids laughing screeching, is far removed from kids screaming in pain

I mean to say this is what the boys do has no relevance and to me is a misdirection

Its thrown in, as if to claim this is what boys do.

Is it?

Can you provide other examples, where a young girl is bitten multiple times, never screaming throughout and then turns blue and is not breathing as claimed?

What areas that cause bruinsing are associated with asphyxiation?

These places are noisy, kids are shouting and screaming all the time, maybe no one heard her, if you have spent time in these places when they are full of kids you will know that's possible, especially if they were out of sight.

I dont think mentioning what the mother of the 2 boys said is misdirection....any mother who thinks that's normal behaviour is obviously not teaching her children how to act, in turn they will be violent with other kids, possibly copying what they see in the home.
The staff at Little Bees, the police, and the dr's who treated the little girl haven't questioned the mothers story.

What do you think has happened?

Syl wrote:

Phildidge wrote:

Okay, the claim was she was not breathing and she was blue

Where is the marks over her mouth, nose and throat?

These would all need to be held in order to stop any screaming from pain or any form of fighting back from pain

The child was bitten all over and this child never screamed on countless occasions?

You are telling me, that a child making continued screaming noises in pain is not going to make people look up?

Kids laughing screeching, is far removed from kids screaming in pain

I mean to say this is what the boys do has no relevance and to me is a misdirection

Its thrown in, as if to claim this is what boys do.

Is it?

Can you provide other examples, where a young girl is bitten multiple times, never screaming throughout and then turns blue and is not breathing as claimed?

What areas that cause bruinsing are associated with asphyxiation?

These places are noisy, kids are shouting and screaming all the time, maybe no one heard her, if you have spent time in these places when they are full of kids you will know that's possible, especially if they were out of sight.

I dont  think mentioning what the mother of the 2 boys said is misdirection....any mother who thinks that's normal behaviour is obviously not teaching her children how to act, in turn they will be violent with other kids, possibly copying what they see in the home.
The staff at Little Bees, the police, and the dr's who treated the little girl haven't questioned the mothers story.

What do you think has happened?

You think the kids running around acting around making noises is the same is a child screaming in pain?

Seriously?

So I do not believe its possible

Yes is misdirection of what was said by people involed

The child was supposed to have not been breathing

There was no marks on the neck, mouth or nose, to restrict breathing

Why?

Unless the story is telling or fabricating many porkies

Hw many injuries did that child have?

Then calculate how many bites that is?

Then calculate how many times two mouths have to move to another body part

Are you telling me in that time that child would not struggle and scream?

Then tell me why then parents would ignore that scream?

I think it's pretty obvious both parents were neglectful....you watch your child when they are in these places.
It was down to another woman who reportedly saw the little girl ...
"she heard another mum scream: “Oh my God, whose baby is this?”
She said: “She had pulled the boy off Willow. He had hold of her neck. Becky raced over to find Willow-Ivy blue and not breathing and the boy standing “with a big smile on his face, with blood all around his mouth.

It's possible the mother was exaggerating about the little girl not breathing, but looking at the photos of the childs face and body, covered in bites and scratches....maybe that's exactly what happened.

Syl wrote:I think it's pretty obvious both parents were neglectful....you watch your child when they are in these places.
It was down to another woman who reportedly saw the little girl ...
"she heard another mum scream: “Oh my God, whose baby is this?”
She said: “She had pulled the boy off Willow. He had hold of her neck. Becky raced over to find Willow-Ivy blue and not breathing and the boy standing “with a big smile on his face, with blood all around his mouth.

It's possible the mother was exaggerating about the little girl not breathing, but looking at the photo's of the childs face and body, covered in bites and scratches....maybe that's exactly what happened.

Based on what?

Their children playing?

That has to be the most dumbest view point you have made and based on kids playing

So what you are saying is thast kids playing together should be by their side 24/7?

Not a reality in any universe.

The children were near to them, hence why I question the validity of the story

TO blame the girls mother on this, based on the story, is sheer nonesense, unless it was a coverup

Your whole argument is in hindsight

Parents have not got eyes in the back of their heads.

Its why my brother, 4 years older than me. Was so accident prone. He was able to lock my mother out before he was one. So good at climbing. That they pushed his cot, to the wall and there bed next to this. He still got out. He got into so many accidents

The only way the parents are to blame, is if they committed child abuse.

Any other reason is horseshit, period

I dont agree Didge. You watch a 17 month old like a hawk when they are in places where older kids are dashing about playing.
You certainly watch a 2 and a 4 year old if they are in the habit of biting other kids.

If you dont they stand a good chance of getting hurt or hurting some other kid.

A parent can be blamed for neglect, they dont have to abuse the child themselves.