It's Not Just Babies!

A couple beat and starved a vulnerable man to death after he was sent to live with them by social workers, a court heard. Rubin Blount, 28, resembled a 'walking skeleton' in the weeks before his death and was seen scavenging for food in bins, it is claimed. When he died he weighed just seven stones and had suffered multiple rib fractures, a fractured spine and cigarette burns, jurors were told.

How did he end up with them? Well, Reader, of course it's social services, who are giving Nazi camp guard and train signalling staff a run for their money in the 'sending people to their death' stakes. The only different thing here was they did it to an adult. 

She told jurors that Newton was a 'sort of step-brother' to the victim, having been raised by Mr Blount's father. But she said the defendants - who were described in court as 'recovering drug addicts' - kept Mr Blount in their council house 'for their own financial benefit' and abused him 'for their own fun and kicks'.

because everyone knows that recovering drug addicts are just as responsible as gay men! 

The court was told Mr Blount, who had a low IQ and learning disabilities, spent the first 20 years of his life living with his parents Eric and Jeanette Blount, until there were 'some concerns' in 2015 which led to him moving in with the defendants.

out of the frying pan and into the fires. Did they do any due diligence at all? 

Miss Josephs said : 'It was agreed with all including social services that he would move in with the defendants.The court heard James managed his finances and bank card, receiving £1,100 in benefits for all three of them into Mr Blount's account. The walls of their 'disgusting' house, which had no heating, were covered in mould and stank of urine, Miss Josephs said.

Guess that’s ‘no’ then! 

 Miss Josephs told jurors: 'You may have questions or concerns about how it is he was left to live with these people…without any ongoing support. 

'These may be valid questions, but they are for another day.

And don't bother asking them, they've probably already written their statement, with promises to 'learn lessons'. they have form, after all.

It 'Sends A Message' All Right...

...the message being 'there can be no consequences whatsoever for this behaviour' even when you're caught:

A teacher who was investigated by police for potentially grooming a young student by buying her clothes and giving her hundreds of pounds has avoided being banned from the profession. A misconduct hearing into Guy Hewett’s actions ruled that details of his actions being published online by the watchdog would be “sufficient” enough and “send a message about his behaviour”.

He's done this despite being warned, doesn't that make him more of a risk? 

It was also revealed Mr Hewett’s actions took place despite him receiving a written warning from the school not to contact any students by email, message or social media.

As a result, Mr Hewett was arrested by police, which led to a disciplinary hearing by the school a month later.

And the police investigation? 

A week later the police concluded its investigation with no further action taken...

*sighs* 

Mr Hewett’s health condition is mentioned in the report but redacted due to privacy reasons. It was suggested by the panel whatever this condition was, there was a “clear causal link” between his health and the behaviours demonstrated.

What sort of 'health condition' causes you to behave like this?