I am wondering exactly who has published this piece and why the questions are being asked. I could certainly give my own responses to the points raised but why hide behind a screen name, knowing as i do that police etc do intrude into this sight I would be all the more concerned as to exactly what the motives of "anonymous" are and it is that very anonymity that prevents me responding

(I am the original poster)

The question is interesting and valid irrespective of who asks it, isn't it?

It's a totally genuine question, I have no ulterior motives. I just like to explore the different issues that have to be weighed up. On one hand, we like to see "bad" people get their come-uppance. On the other hand, we don't want to live in a Big Brother world where privacy doesn't exist.

Even if I did put my real name, you most likely wouldn't know who I was. What if I put my name as "John Smith"? Would that make you happy? How do I know you are really George Coombs? I don't know you anyway, so it makes no difference to me.

Do you think I only posted this item to make the identities of the people involved more widely known? I think it's too late for that, considering how many other sites have the full details.

I am the REAL George Coombs. How dare you steal my name!

"why hide behind a screen name" [...] "police etc do intrude into this sight"

I think you answered your own question.

(original poster here)

When George Coombs said "why hide behind a screen name" [...] "police etc do intrude into this sight", I think he was implying I might be a cop posting undercover. What my motivation would be for doing so, I don't know.

Maybe he thinks there is a secret conspiracy amongst cops and prison officers to leak the identities on the internet? (I'm not a cop or similar, BTW, if you believe me)

Ignore these two impostors, and any others who come along.

To anonymous:

While I understood the point of his post, I found it somewhat ironic that within sentences of one another he would demand to know why people choose to be anonymous, and then point out (in another context) that police read the site.

And I agree with your argument: the issue is not who is making a point, but what point is being made. Privacy is a right whose exercise should not entail suspicion from other activists.

Sometimes it's black and white and this sick woman is anything but the gray area. This "child popping machine" had witnessed on a good number of occasions the abuse of her defenceless baby at the hands of a vile, miraculously vertically advanced, spineless parasite that she refers to as her "lovely man". She also allowed a lodger to join in on the torture.

If you'd do your research and view the child welfare records, you'd see the year of abuse and maltreatment of this poor child, who had done nothing in the world to deserve it. She was in the system and could have given the child up for adoption but let's face reality... the cash from child allowance that she was getting from the state which allowed her indulge in her fave pastime, Bebo-ing and other scholarly research on parenting skills (I'm sure). Mind you, most of the pics of her are because of her own posting on social networks.

I'm not going to go further by bringing up the eye witness accounts of the malnourished baby eating dirt or even the professional photo of him with bruises and a black eye , weeks before his death. no, I won't go there cause it's enough to know that the poor soul is dead and according to medical records had undergone long term abuse.

So what that their faces, names and addresses are passed around by and throughout the public? So what? Why should taxpayers pay for their new identities and be given new lives when that poor baby will never get to live out his. He only knew horrors at the people who were meant to protect him from the world. He'll never have the chance to play and grow with mates, never have the chance to have his first crush, start his own family or discover the beauty in this world. His torturers could have given him to the state and he may have had that chance.

The system fails and when it does, the people should have the ability to stand up. Why should tax payers pay for yet another thing they don't agree in. These three are already get less than 14 years and in some cases less than 3 years, perhaps even 16 months for their brutality. This is not justice!

In ref to the social workers... they didn't do their job and should be fired. People who feck up an project/account are canned, even people who show up late for work at McDonalds get the axe. Social workers are entrusted with a most important duty and when they fall short, it's a matter of life or death. If they can't be arsed to be thorough in their work should go see if Starbucks are hiring.


I think you'd be surprised to know that most people that are disgusted and enraged by this are right-wingers- they are humanitarians. Leftism doesn't equate with non-violence. Best to read up on you world history.

I consider myself on the far left, don't believe in capital punishment but am a firm believer that you reap what you sow. They deserve an ass-whooping at the very least.....