Preston woman who fell from Blackburn car park is named

Lancashire Telegraph: TRAGEDY Police and ambulance behind Blackburn shopping centre where a woman died TRAGEDY Police and ambulance behind Blackburn shopping centre where a woman died

A MOTHER who jumped off the top of a multi-storey car park after losing custody of her daughter has been named at the opening of an inquets into her death.

Sharon McKenzie, 32, of Ravenswood, Preston, died after plunging 90ft from the top of The Mall car park on Thursday afternoon.

Blackburn Coroner’s Court briefly heard how she had been to Blackburn County Court that morning, but lost a custody hearing.

She was immediately spotted sat at the edge of the building.

The inquest was adjourned.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:55pm Wed 7 Dec 11

Lifeinthemix says...

There is something very wrong with a country which cannot consider the ramifications of its holier than thou mechanics. The childs interests have not been served here, the child has lost its mother.

RIP Sharon
There is something very wrong with a country which cannot consider the ramifications of its holier than thou mechanics. The childs interests have not been served here, the child has lost its mother. RIP Sharon Lifeinthemix

4:53pm Wed 7 Dec 11

Gaz M says...

My heartfelt condolences to Frank and his family at this sad time God bless and ease your pain my old friend.
My heartfelt condolences to Frank and his family at this sad time God bless and ease your pain my old friend. Gaz M

6:01pm Wed 7 Dec 11

mazx4 says...

Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x
Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x mazx4

6:14pm Wed 7 Dec 11

neosmummy says...

social services are a set of **** who use children as numbers not children!
R.I.P. Sharon x
social services are a set of **** who use children as numbers not children! R.I.P. Sharon x neosmummy

7:45pm Wed 7 Dec 11

dwdarwen says...

Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken
Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken dwdarwen

7:51pm Wed 7 Dec 11

Excluded again says...

Without wanting to comment on this case - because I don't know the details - I wonde rif those having a go at Social Services jumped to their defence in the Baby Peter case. When Haringey Social Services left the child with the mother.

The number of cases of children being taken into care has more than doubled since the Baby Peter case, as everyone criticised Social Services for judging the boy would be better left with his mother.

People said they wanted Social Services to move quicker to take children into care. Be careful what you wish for.
Without wanting to comment on this case - because I don't know the details - I wonde rif those having a go at Social Services jumped to their defence in the Baby Peter case. When Haringey Social Services left the child with the mother. The number of cases of children being taken into care has more than doubled since the Baby Peter case, as everyone criticised Social Services for judging the boy would be better left with his mother. People said they wanted Social Services to move quicker to take children into care. Be careful what you wish for. Excluded again

8:47pm Wed 7 Dec 11

Lifeinthemix says...

Excluded again wrote:
Without wanting to comment on this case - because I don't know the details - I wonde rif those having a go at Social Services jumped to their defence in the Baby Peter case. When Haringey Social Services left the child with the mother.

The number of cases of children being taken into care has more than doubled since the Baby Peter case, as everyone criticised Social Services for judging the boy would be better left with his mother.

People said they wanted Social Services to move quicker to take children into care. Be careful what you wish for.
Baby P was a complete set up, why not google it and learn for yourself.

when the elite want a new industry, they do what needs to be done to get public opinion to support the changes without letting real aims of the scam out of the bag.

this is what happens when fiat currency becomes god
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: Without wanting to comment on this case - because I don't know the details - I wonde rif those having a go at Social Services jumped to their defence in the Baby Peter case. When Haringey Social Services left the child with the mother. The number of cases of children being taken into care has more than doubled since the Baby Peter case, as everyone criticised Social Services for judging the boy would be better left with his mother. People said they wanted Social Services to move quicker to take children into care. Be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]Baby P was a complete set up, why not google it and learn for yourself. when the elite want a new industry, they do what needs to be done to get public opinion to support the changes without letting real aims of the scam out of the bag. this is what happens when fiat currency becomes god Lifeinthemix

7:34am Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

Lifeinthemix wrote:
There is something very wrong with a country which cannot consider the ramifications of its holier than thou mechanics. The childs interests have not been served here, the child has lost its mother.

RIP Sharon
How do you know?

What facts do you have?

You are becoming the thing you hate the most – a fabricator of lies.
[quote][p][bold]Lifeinthemix[/bold] wrote: There is something very wrong with a country which cannot consider the ramifications of its holier than thou mechanics. The childs interests have not been served here, the child has lost its mother. RIP Sharon[/p][/quote]How do you know? What facts do you have? You are becoming the thing you hate the most – a fabricator of lies. jack daniels

7:35am Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

neosmummy wrote:
social services are a set of **** who use children as numbers not children!
R.I.P. Sharon x
"who use children as numbers not children"

What the hell are you talking about?
[quote][p][bold]neosmummy[/bold] wrote: social services are a set of **** who use children as numbers not children! R.I.P. Sharon x[/p][/quote]"who use children as numbers not children" What the hell are you talking about? jack daniels

7:38am Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

Excluded again wrote:
Without wanting to comment on this case - because I don't know the details - I wonde rif those having a go at Social Services jumped to their defence in the Baby Peter case. When Haringey Social Services left the child with the mother.

The number of cases of children being taken into care has more than doubled since the Baby Peter case, as everyone criticised Social Services for judging the boy would be better left with his mother.

People said they wanted Social Services to move quicker to take children into care. Be careful what you wish for.
well said. I lost count of the number of numbskulls who screamed that social services should have taken the murdered twin from t'other month into care, eveb though NOBODY had told them.

It seems some of these idiots want it both ways
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: Without wanting to comment on this case - because I don't know the details - I wonde rif those having a go at Social Services jumped to their defence in the Baby Peter case. When Haringey Social Services left the child with the mother. The number of cases of children being taken into care has more than doubled since the Baby Peter case, as everyone criticised Social Services for judging the boy would be better left with his mother. People said they wanted Social Services to move quicker to take children into care. Be careful what you wish for.[/p][/quote]well said. I lost count of the number of numbskulls who screamed that social services should have taken the murdered twin from t'other month into care, eveb though NOBODY had told them. It seems some of these idiots want it both ways jack daniels

7:41am Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

Life in the mix V’s social services

Some people make a difference in this world everyday

Others just sit a computer and create mindless drivel for a website nobody reads?

Hmm… which one are you lifey?
Life in the mix V’s social services Some people make a difference in this world everyday Others just sit a computer and create mindless drivel for a website nobody reads? Hmm… which one are you lifey? jack daniels

9:35am Thu 8 Dec 11

Lifeinthemix says...

I am the one who is happy for all to have their opinions.

the proof is clear...

a child has lost its mother, the childs interests have not been served.
I am the one who is happy for all to have their opinions. the proof is clear... a child has lost its mother, the childs interests have not been served. Lifeinthemix

10:59am Thu 8 Dec 11

ladysal says...

dwdarwen wrote:
Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken
And your basis for saying that is what? SHe had just been told she was never getting her daughter back. Most mothers live for their children, the idea of being without them is impossible to live with.
As a mother with no mental health issues who came close to losing her child through illness, I know exactly how Sharon must have felt. I still thank God after six years that it didn't happen to me.
RIP Sharon, hope you find peace.
[quote][p][bold]dwdarwen[/bold] wrote: Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken[/p][/quote]And your basis for saying that is what? SHe had just been told she was never getting her daughter back. Most mothers live for their children, the idea of being without them is impossible to live with. As a mother with no mental health issues who came close to losing her child through illness, I know exactly how Sharon must have felt. I still thank God after six years that it didn't happen to me. RIP Sharon, hope you find peace. ladysal

11:54am Thu 8 Dec 11

ossym says...

Thank you macduke for bravely speaking out earlier with great dignity to clarify your views, which I would give higher weight than any expert.

But even if what people have been discussing was not applicable in this case I still think that it is right and proper for the public to raise questions on these subjects when things go so tragically wrong.

The SS system has created its own machinery and logic bubbles at great public expense, and is supposed to work for the benefit of the public especially the vulnerable, ie ALL the vulnerable.
Many people have been systematically greatly damaged by the SS system through slavishly and blindly following certain practises/protocols.

When they took this lady's daughter away did they create self fulfilling prophecy?
I think most people would be be very distressed after having a child taken from them.

It was commented that this lady on the day she passed away refused support offered to her by SS, which may reflect on her experience of previous “support” received from SS.

I do also have sympathy for the dammed if you do, dammed if you don't argument as well but I still think it is healthy for these issues to aired, as hopefully if done well a better way may be found.

The truest adage I know of is ;

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Or as someone once said:

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure”.

Knowledge is nothing without wisdom and compassion, we all have experience of such experts in whatever field pervert truth or justice for their own ends (consciously or otherwise).

The worlds greatest expert may not know enough or be wise enough to correctly handle some of these situations, but common-sense would say “if in doubt leave it out” in this case that could mean leave child removal out until you are SURE it is the best thing to do in practise.
Were any other ways explored to enable this lady to keep her child originally?
Once this lady lost her child one could easily imagine a sure decline in any problems she may have had.

Once again I thank macduke for his patience at this difficult and emotional time and hope that everybody involved gives this lady's daughter a fair chance at good life after all she has been through, the family and friends chance to grieve and that events such as these are reviewed fairly and independently in relation to the SS system and all its actions from day one.

RIP lady.
Thank you macduke for bravely speaking out earlier with great dignity to clarify your views, which I would give higher weight than any expert. But even if what people have been discussing was not applicable in this case I still think that it is right and proper for the public to raise questions on these subjects when things go so tragically wrong. The SS system has created its own machinery and logic bubbles at great public expense, and is supposed to work for the benefit of the public especially the vulnerable, ie ALL the vulnerable. Many people have been systematically greatly damaged by the SS system through slavishly and blindly following certain practises/protocols. When they took this lady's daughter away did they create self fulfilling prophecy? I think most people would be be very distressed after having a child taken from them. It was commented that this lady on the day she passed away refused support offered to her by SS, which may reflect on her experience of previous “support” received from SS. I do also have sympathy for the dammed if you do, dammed if you don't argument as well but I still think it is healthy for these issues to aired, as hopefully if done well a better way may be found. The truest adage I know of is ; “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Or as someone once said: “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure”. Knowledge is nothing without wisdom and compassion, we all have experience of such experts in whatever field pervert truth or justice for their own ends (consciously or otherwise). The worlds greatest expert may not know enough or be wise enough to correctly handle some of these situations, but common-sense would say “if in doubt leave it out” in this case that could mean leave child removal out until you are SURE it is the best thing to do in practise. Were any other ways explored to enable this lady to keep her child originally? Once this lady lost her child one could easily imagine a sure decline in any problems she may have had. Once again I thank macduke for his patience at this difficult and emotional time and hope that everybody involved gives this lady's daughter a fair chance at good life after all she has been through, the family and friends chance to grieve and that events such as these are reviewed fairly and independently in relation to the SS system and all its actions from day one. RIP lady. ossym

1:12pm Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

mazx4 wrote:
Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x
b*llsh*t.

Social Services would never take away your kids as a one off.

I'd bet my last penny both you and/or your husband are 'known to services'.
[quote][p][bold]mazx4[/bold] wrote: Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x[/p][/quote]b*llsh*t. Social Services would never take away your kids as a one off. I'd bet my last penny both you and/or your husband are 'known to services'. jack daniels

1:22pm Thu 8 Dec 11

GadgetGirl_2410 says...

dwdarwen wrote:
Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken
I am sorry but it does not show that she was clearly mentally unstable! Exactly how are you qualified to make such a judgement?! The poor woman lost her child and obviously could not cope. It shows a deep love and devestation at a great loss. You have no right to say such things about this poor woman.
[quote][p][bold]dwdarwen[/bold] wrote: Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken[/p][/quote]I am sorry but it does not show that she was clearly mentally unstable! Exactly how are you qualified to make such a judgement?! The poor woman lost her child and obviously could not cope. It shows a deep love and devestation at a great loss. You have no right to say such things about this poor woman. GadgetGirl_2410

1:29pm Thu 8 Dec 11

GadgetGirl_2410 says...

jack daniels wrote:
mazx4 wrote:
Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x
b*llsh*t.

Social Services would never take away your kids as a one off.

I'd bet my last penny both you and/or your husband are 'known to services'.
I am sure that this poor woman ISN'T known to the services at all for anything previous.

Because of the media coverage in such cases sometimes the SS are forced into taking children where they would much rather prefer that the children stay in the home. Legislation dictates to a social worker on what they must do.

You have no right to say such things without any foundation and evidence!

It is clear you have no compassion or empathy and seem to think you know everything, when clearly you are a fool.

We should be focussing on the death of this woman and the loss that her child will feel for the rest of her life, not on your petty accusations.

RIP Sharon and I hope your daughter finds peace.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mazx4[/bold] wrote: Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x[/p][/quote]b*llsh*t. Social Services would never take away your kids as a one off. I'd bet my last penny both you and/or your husband are 'known to services'.[/p][/quote]I am sure that this poor woman ISN'T known to the services at all for anything previous. Because of the media coverage in such cases sometimes the SS are forced into taking children where they would much rather prefer that the children stay in the home. Legislation dictates to a social worker on what they must do. You have no right to say such things without any foundation and evidence! It is clear you have no compassion or empathy and seem to think you know everything, when clearly you are a fool. We should be focussing on the death of this woman and the loss that her child will feel for the rest of her life, not on your petty accusations. RIP Sharon and I hope your daughter finds peace. GadgetGirl_2410

1:40pm Thu 8 Dec 11

dwdarwen says...

ladysal wrote:
dwdarwen wrote:
Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken
And your basis for saying that is what? SHe had just been told she was never getting her daughter back. Most mothers live for their children, the idea of being without them is impossible to live with.
As a mother with no mental health issues who came close to losing her child through illness, I know exactly how Sharon must have felt. I still thank God after six years that it didn't happen to me.
RIP Sharon, hope you find peace.
My basis for saying it is she killed her self. If she was of sound mind she would not have done such a selfish thing. But this should have been identified so that some one could help her to got through the difficult vindicate now her daughter and family are left with dealing with what she has done.
I am not saying that losing your daughter wouldn't be upsetting but there was obviously a pre disposition there for her to see this as a solution.
RIP Sharon
[quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dwdarwen[/bold] wrote: Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken[/p][/quote]And your basis for saying that is what? SHe had just been told she was never getting her daughter back. Most mothers live for their children, the idea of being without them is impossible to live with. As a mother with no mental health issues who came close to losing her child through illness, I know exactly how Sharon must have felt. I still thank God after six years that it didn't happen to me. RIP Sharon, hope you find peace.[/p][/quote]My basis for saying it is she killed her self. If she was of sound mind she would not have done such a selfish thing. But this should have been identified so that some one could help her to got through the difficult vindicate now her daughter and family are left with dealing with what she has done. I am not saying that losing your daughter wouldn't be upsetting but there was obviously a pre disposition there for her to see this as a solution. RIP Sharon dwdarwen

1:47pm Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

ossym wrote:
Thank you macduke for bravely speaking out earlier with great dignity to clarify your views, which I would give higher weight than any expert.

But even if what people have been discussing was not applicable in this case I still think that it is right and proper for the public to raise questions on these subjects when things go so tragically wrong.

The SS system has created its own machinery and logic bubbles at great public expense, and is supposed to work for the benefit of the public especially the vulnerable, ie ALL the vulnerable.
Many people have been systematically greatly damaged by the SS system through slavishly and blindly following certain practises/protocols.


When they took this lady's daughter away did they create self fulfilling prophecy?
I think most people would be be very distressed after having a child taken from them.

It was commented that this lady on the day she passed away refused support offered to her by SS, which may reflect on her experience of previous “support” received from SS.

I do also have sympathy for the dammed if you do, dammed if you don't argument as well but I still think it is healthy for these issues to aired, as hopefully if done well a better way may be found.

The truest adage I know of is ;

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Or as someone once said:

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure”.

Knowledge is nothing without wisdom and compassion, we all have experience of such experts in whatever field pervert truth or justice for their own ends (consciously or otherwise).

The worlds greatest expert may not know enough or be wise enough to correctly handle some of these situations, but common-sense would say “if in doubt leave it out” in this case that could mean leave child removal out until you are SURE it is the best thing to do in practise.
Were any other ways explored to enable this lady to keep her child originally?
Once this lady lost her child one could easily imagine a sure decline in any problems she may have had.

Once again I thank macduke for his patience at this difficult and emotional time and hope that everybody involved gives this lady's daughter a fair chance at good life after all she has been through, the family and friends chance to grieve and that events such as these are reviewed fairly and independently in relation to the SS system and all its actions from day one.

RIP lady.
Yes, it is right for the public to raise questions when things go wrong. What is pathetic is when people like you jump to conclusions and proceed to slander social services without the full facts.

Social services developed a frame work to minimise the chance of this happening. What nobody can account for is the unpredictability of humanity. Yes, I’d agree that some people may not have had a successful outcome but compared to the ones that do, the MILLIONS that have had success, never get mentioned. I feel it is unfair for you to demand perfection when it is unachievable.

Have you ever given praise for them as much as you condemn the failures?

Again you jump to conclusion with your statement “It was commented that this lady on the day she passed away refused support offered to her by SS, which may reflect on her experience of previous “support” received from SS.”

You have no facts to support this statement but feel you must include in your slander. If an individual was to decline services, how can social services do anything on the basis ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT WOULD BE DEEMED AS ASSAULT?

How about if she had been detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act which allows compulsory admission for assessment, or for assessment followed by medical treatment, for a duration of up to 28 days. She still would have been away from her daughter and YOU would have complained about that too. What if she had not shown any symptoms of suicide, beyond being upset about the court outcome? Would you have complained about locking up a sane person in a mental ward for 28 days?

Yes, you probably would…..


You then go on about what these ‘experts’ do or do not know. Do you really feel that a social worker can go straight from University and be an all wise all knowing expert on humanity? It’s not possible and you could live a 1000 life times and you would always find something new to learn from.

Nobody is perfect, but at least they try to make things better…


…and I notice ‘an empty can still rattles the most’.
[quote][p][bold]ossym[/bold] wrote: Thank you macduke for bravely speaking out earlier with great dignity to clarify your views, which I would give higher weight than any expert. But even if what people have been discussing was not applicable in this case I still think that it is right and proper for the public to raise questions on these subjects when things go so tragically wrong. The SS system has created its own machinery and logic bubbles at great public expense, and is supposed to work for the benefit of the public especially the vulnerable, ie ALL the vulnerable. Many people have been systematically greatly damaged by the SS system through slavishly and blindly following certain practises/protocols. When they took this lady's daughter away did they create self fulfilling prophecy? I think most people would be be very distressed after having a child taken from them. It was commented that this lady on the day she passed away refused support offered to her by SS, which may reflect on her experience of previous “support” received from SS. I do also have sympathy for the dammed if you do, dammed if you don't argument as well but I still think it is healthy for these issues to aired, as hopefully if done well a better way may be found. The truest adage I know of is ; “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Or as someone once said: “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure”. Knowledge is nothing without wisdom and compassion, we all have experience of such experts in whatever field pervert truth or justice for their own ends (consciously or otherwise). The worlds greatest expert may not know enough or be wise enough to correctly handle some of these situations, but common-sense would say “if in doubt leave it out” in this case that could mean leave child removal out until you are SURE it is the best thing to do in practise. Were any other ways explored to enable this lady to keep her child originally? Once this lady lost her child one could easily imagine a sure decline in any problems she may have had. Once again I thank macduke for his patience at this difficult and emotional time and hope that everybody involved gives this lady's daughter a fair chance at good life after all she has been through, the family and friends chance to grieve and that events such as these are reviewed fairly and independently in relation to the SS system and all its actions from day one. RIP lady.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is right for the public to raise questions when things go wrong. What is pathetic is when people like you jump to conclusions and proceed to slander social services without the full facts. Social services developed a frame work to minimise the chance of this happening. What nobody can account for is the unpredictability of humanity. Yes, I’d agree that some people may not have had a successful outcome but compared to the ones that do, the MILLIONS that have had success, never get mentioned. I feel it is unfair for you to demand perfection when it is unachievable. Have you ever given praise for them as much as you condemn the failures? Again you jump to conclusion with your statement “It was commented that this lady on the day she passed away refused support offered to her by SS, which may reflect on her experience of previous “support” received from SS.” You have no facts to support this statement but feel you must include in your slander. If an individual was to decline services, how can social services do anything on the basis ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT WOULD BE DEEMED AS ASSAULT? How about if she had been detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act which allows compulsory admission for assessment, or for assessment followed by medical treatment, for a duration of up to 28 days. She still would have been away from her daughter and YOU would have complained about that too. What if she had not shown any symptoms of suicide, beyond being upset about the court outcome? Would you have complained about locking up a sane person in a mental ward for 28 days? Yes, you probably would….. You then go on about what these ‘experts’ do or do not know. Do you really feel that a social worker can go straight from University and be an all wise all knowing expert on humanity? It’s not possible and you could live a 1000 life times and you would always find something new to learn from. Nobody is perfect, but at least they try to make things better… …and I notice ‘an empty can still rattles the most’. jack daniels

1:59pm Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

GadgetGirl_2410 wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
mazx4 wrote:
Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x
b*llsh*t.

Social Services would never take away your kids as a one off.

I'd bet my last penny both you and/or your husband are 'known to services'.
I am sure that this poor woman ISN'T known to the services at all for anything previous.

Because of the media coverage in such cases sometimes the SS are forced into taking children where they would much rather prefer that the children stay in the home. Legislation dictates to a social worker on what they must do.

You have no right to say such things without any foundation and evidence!

It is clear you have no compassion or empathy and seem to think you know everything, when clearly you are a fool.

We should be focussing on the death of this woman and the loss that her child will feel for the rest of her life, not on your petty accusations.

RIP Sharon and I hope your daughter finds peace.
What a pile of drivel.

All social services will know that at the heart of the Children Act is a belief that:

"The best place for children to be looked after is within their own homes."

"The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration."

It’s only halfwits like you, and the other mud slingers on here, that haven’t got a clue.
If you truly believe that social services get some twisted satisfaction from taking kids away from their mums, then you need your head testing and this is why I think mazx4 is telling porky pies!

As for ‘compassion or empathy’. I have made no comment on what has happened and I would change the events of that day if I could. I can’t do that; but what I can do is inform ignorant twits like you that it is wrong to blame social services for all the ills in the world.

If you could do it better… step up!
[quote][p][bold]GadgetGirl_2410[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mazx4[/bold] wrote: Social services and the goverment make me sick. they take children away ok we dont know why they felt the need to take this ladys child but why wasnt their help there for her , why was there no support. i hope ss can live with this cause there quick to judge but never give help. they took my 3 children off me for 3 days for a pure accident were my husband tripped on a toy and his brew spilt on my child. And social services said it was neglect. there a waiste of space and time . Ill never have faith in them ever again . R*I*P Sharon . my heart goes out to the family and most of all her dear daughter. thoughts and prayers are with you x[/p][/quote]b*llsh*t. Social Services would never take away your kids as a one off. I'd bet my last penny both you and/or your husband are 'known to services'.[/p][/quote]I am sure that this poor woman ISN'T known to the services at all for anything previous. Because of the media coverage in such cases sometimes the SS are forced into taking children where they would much rather prefer that the children stay in the home. Legislation dictates to a social worker on what they must do. You have no right to say such things without any foundation and evidence! It is clear you have no compassion or empathy and seem to think you know everything, when clearly you are a fool. We should be focussing on the death of this woman and the loss that her child will feel for the rest of her life, not on your petty accusations. RIP Sharon and I hope your daughter finds peace.[/p][/quote]What a pile of drivel. All social services will know that at the heart of the Children Act is a belief that: "The best place for children to be looked after is within their own homes." "The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration." It’s only halfwits like you, and the other mud slingers on here, that haven’t got a clue. If you truly believe that social services get some twisted satisfaction from taking kids away from their mums, then you need your head testing and this is why I think mazx4 is telling porky pies! As for ‘compassion or empathy’. I have made no comment on what has happened and I would change the events of that day if I could. I can’t do that; but what I can do is inform ignorant twits like you that it is wrong to blame social services for all the ills in the world. If you could do it better… step up! jack daniels

2:00pm Thu 8 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

dwdarwen wrote:
ladysal wrote:
dwdarwen wrote:
Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken
And your basis for saying that is what? SHe had just been told she was never getting her daughter back. Most mothers live for their children, the idea of being without them is impossible to live with.
As a mother with no mental health issues who came close to losing her child through illness, I know exactly how Sharon must have felt. I still thank God after six years that it didn't happen to me.
RIP Sharon, hope you find peace.
My basis for saying it is she killed her self. If she was of sound mind she would not have done such a selfish thing. But this should have been identified so that some one could help her to got through the difficult vindicate now her daughter and family are left with dealing with what she has done.
I am not saying that losing your daughter wouldn't be upsetting but there was obviously a pre disposition there for her to see this as a solution.
RIP Sharon
a valid point.

It'll all come out in the wash.
[quote][p][bold]dwdarwen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dwdarwen[/bold] wrote: Clearly mentally unstable which probably contributed into her losing custody of her child. Even so its awful that the child will be without their mother at Christmas. More should have been done to help Sharon cope with the effects of having her daughter taken[/p][/quote]And your basis for saying that is what? SHe had just been told she was never getting her daughter back. Most mothers live for their children, the idea of being without them is impossible to live with. As a mother with no mental health issues who came close to losing her child through illness, I know exactly how Sharon must have felt. I still thank God after six years that it didn't happen to me. RIP Sharon, hope you find peace.[/p][/quote]My basis for saying it is she killed her self. If she was of sound mind she would not have done such a selfish thing. But this should have been identified so that some one could help her to got through the difficult vindicate now her daughter and family are left with dealing with what she has done. I am not saying that losing your daughter wouldn't be upsetting but there was obviously a pre disposition there for her to see this as a solution. RIP Sharon[/p][/quote]a valid point. It'll all come out in the wash. jack daniels

12:43am Fri 9 Dec 11

ossym says...

Jack Denials said

“What is pathetic is when people like you jump to conclusions and proceed to slander social services without the full facts... blah, blah, provoctive statement blah smokescreen blah obnoxious troll ...etc”


What are you talking about? I believe I am voicing some of concerns many people about this case, I am not making any conclusions so how can it be slander?
If you stopped taking those ugly pills and talk to people in a decent manner maybe a constructive conversation could have taken place, or perhaps you are just happy to muddy the waters with your provocative groundless statements.

In some cases families/people have had their lives ruined by downright incompetence by the child protection service, remember this?

(http://www.dailymai
l.co.uk/femail/artic
le-565183/How-social
-workers-took-away-c
hildren-11months-shr
ed-evidence.html)

I will not dignify the rest of your errant minutiae by a response or waste peoples time as it is clear where it is coming from and out of which end.

People want reassurance not your condescending obnoxious smokescreening.
Jack Denials said “What is pathetic is when people like you jump to conclusions and proceed to slander social services without the full facts... blah, blah, provoctive statement blah smokescreen blah obnoxious troll ...etc” What are you talking about? I believe I am voicing some of concerns many people about this case, I am not making any conclusions so how can it be slander? If you stopped taking those ugly pills and talk to people in a decent manner maybe a constructive conversation could have taken place, or perhaps you are just happy to muddy the waters with your provocative groundless statements. In some cases families/people have had their lives ruined by downright incompetence by the child protection service, remember this? (http://www.dailymai l.co.uk/femail/artic le-565183/How-social -workers-took-away-c hildren-11months-shr ed-evidence.html) I will not dignify the rest of your errant minutiae by a response or waste peoples time as it is clear where it is coming from and out of which end. People want reassurance not your condescending obnoxious smokescreening. ossym

5:17pm Fri 9 Dec 11

ossybsting says...

you lot wanna have a look in the mirror
you lot wanna have a look in the mirror ossybsting

11:31pm Fri 9 Dec 11

JessNxXx says...

The Social Discuss Me, I Know Two Daughters That Got Abused By Their Mother, And They Told Social And They Did Nothing, It Toke Them To Walk Out And Never Turn Back To Get Out Of It. Then Yaa Get Causes Like This, WTF? R.I.P Anyway xx
The Social Discuss Me, I Know Two Daughters That Got Abused By Their Mother, And They Told Social And They Did Nothing, It Toke Them To Walk Out And Never Turn Back To Get Out Of It. Then Yaa Get Causes Like This, WTF? R.I.P Anyway xx JessNxXx

9:55am Wed 14 Dec 11

jack daniels says...

ossym wrote:
Jack Denials said “What is pathetic is when people like you jump to conclusions and proceed to slander social services without the full facts... blah, blah, provoctive statement blah smokescreen blah obnoxious troll ...etc” What are you talking about? I believe I am voicing some of concerns many people about this case, I am not making any conclusions so how can it be slander? If you stopped taking those ugly pills and talk to people in a decent manner maybe a constructive conversation could have taken place, or perhaps you are just happy to muddy the waters with your provocative groundless statements. In some cases families/people have had their lives ruined by downright incompetence by the child protection service, remember this? (http://www.dailymai l.co.uk/femail/artic le-565183/How-social -workers-took-away-c hildren-11months-shr ed-evidence.html) I will not dignify the rest of your errant minutiae by a response or waste peoples time as it is clear where it is coming from and out of which end. People want reassurance not your condescending obnoxious smokescreening.
"I believe I am voicing some of concerns many people about this case"

What a couple of dozen comments makes this many people?

You got it wrong again so consider your **** owed, b!tch.
[quote][p][bold]ossym[/bold] wrote: Jack Denials said “What is pathetic is when people like you jump to conclusions and proceed to slander social services without the full facts... blah, blah, provoctive statement blah smokescreen blah obnoxious troll ...etc” What are you talking about? I believe I am voicing some of concerns many people about this case, I am not making any conclusions so how can it be slander? If you stopped taking those ugly pills and talk to people in a decent manner maybe a constructive conversation could have taken place, or perhaps you are just happy to muddy the waters with your provocative groundless statements. In some cases families/people have had their lives ruined by downright incompetence by the child protection service, remember this? (http://www.dailymai l.co.uk/femail/artic le-565183/How-social -workers-took-away-c hildren-11months-shr ed-evidence.html) I will not dignify the rest of your errant minutiae by a response or waste peoples time as it is clear where it is coming from and out of which end. People want reassurance not your condescending obnoxious smokescreening.[/p][/quote]"I believe I am voicing some of concerns many people about this case" What a couple of dozen comments makes this many people? You got it wrong again so consider your **** owed, b!tch. jack daniels

11:38pm Wed 21 Dec 11

flowers22 says...

So very sad to read all the unhelpful comments, clearly so many posted with little understanding of the complex issues involved and less understanding of the complex legislative issues involved. At the end of the day Social Work is a difficult (dirty) job which many many people do not want to get involved in or with- but the same people are quick to criticise and blame- so very sad for all involved flowers 22
I hope City Taxi's made arrangements to replace the flowers
So very sad to read all the unhelpful comments, clearly so many posted with little understanding of the complex issues involved and less understanding of the complex legislative issues involved. At the end of the day Social Work is a difficult (dirty) job which many many people do not want to get involved in or with- but the same people are quick to criticise and blame- so very sad for all involved flowers 22 I hope City Taxi's made arrangements to replace the flowers flowers22

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree