Ah joy, it’s obviously a domestic day chez moi today. The washing machine’s on the go (I still love having one, after years of going to laundrettes etc., although I do miss hearing the local gossip as much), the shopping’s been done (and Christ I hate shopping, but it’s not too bad first thing in the morning (well, 10am on a Sunday) when most of the gimps are still asleep.

One of the big changes in my life once I’m driving (yeah, I know, I know, 30 and still not passed the test – hey ho) is that I’ll shop in the 24hour supermarkets, and do it at the most antisocial times (Insomnia has it’s good points, you just have to work to find them) so I don’t have to deal with crowds of cretins and their screaming bastard brats. *Takes a deep breath and calms down again*

And now I feel more relaxed, as my fridge is filled (god, I’m sad sometimes) so I’m going to read the paper, and vegetate a bit before doing other domestic stuff like hoovering and cooking. Maybe even have some breakfast. Now there’s a thought….

Relating to one of my own earlier (and very short) additions to this blog, and also to Gert‘s comment, I’m glad that these two have been jailed, him for 12 years, her for 10. Of course, with our wonderful jail system, they’ll both be out within 5 years – and she’ll still be of breedable age. She’s only 20, so there’s plenty more opportunity for her to do the same again.

I’m sorry, but when I read paragraphs like “It took two hours for pathologist Dr David Rouse to list all 64 of Ainlee’s injuries – which included 10 cigarette burns and scalded feet where she had been made to stand in hot water. ” I start thinking that maybe people who do this should have their reproductive organs removed as part of the punishment. I’m sure that’s inhumane, but fuck that, so was what they did to their own child.

I’m going to paraphrase from the BBC story, because the paragraphs (well, more accurately the content of them) infuriate me.

[She] had been cautioned by police in 1999 after neglecting another child…
By 2001 the social services file was closed on the family because [the parents] refused to co-operate…
two home visits by doctors had been made under police escort…
But there was no evidence of any ill-treatment towards the child up to the point when she was last seen in August 2001…
[The Head of Newham Social Services] added: “When you have families who are deliberately setting out to deceive you and manipulate the situation, unless you concentrate on the child, it is very difficult to protect the child and sadly we did not maintain these standards in this case.”

The other thing that really gets to me is this sentence : “The couple’s other two children are now in the care of Newham social services.“. So why did they pick on their third child? And the other children are now in the “care” of the same Social Services section that didn’t spot a child with 64 injuries. The same social services that “failed to protect” (by their own admission).

And this story got pretty much missed, as expected by Gert, because of Yasser Fucking Arafat, Milly Dowder, a countryside march, and rumty-tumty other things. I’m not going to link to them individually, but hell, if you want to read all that crap go read the news.

Yes, it’s Sunday, and yes (in reference to Green Fairy‘s comment yesterday, it’s not even half past seven and I’m awake.

Gee, thanks Insomnia.

Hope everyone else gets a decent sleep/lie-in.