DOES DEAR OL' CHLOE HAVE A SUPPORTER?
I had these two 'anonymous' emails today, Saturday, 06 July 2002. Can't be Chloe unless she has had a brain transplant! (Or has found out how to use the spell checker .......... badly!)
|
Date submitted: Fri Jul 5 19:39:28 GB 2002 Description of pages: You are a stupid old man IP address: 195.92.67.68 ******************************************************************************** Date submitted: Fri Jul 5 20:37:50 GB 2002 Description of pages: The excerpts from statements that this man has put onto his website from private court reports were made from a half hur only interview and now have been strongly disputed as accurate in the Scottish courts who have found no real proven evidence to corroberate what has been reported. They have returned the child to his grandmothers care and discharged the order. You are committing an offence by putting court reports onto your website so be careful what you do. IP address: 195.92.67.71 |
Now!? Has she got another bed mate who likes her romping around in her red undies - (Sean69?)? (No way Jose - not at her age!!)
Now! Wonder who it is who's ISP is Planet Online? We know that the writer is certainly not on this planet?
Now! Wonder if it is the one who chucked her out of his house telling her, "F*** off, and don't come back!"
Now! Wonder if the first is Chloe and the other ANO?
Now! Let's look at the facts.....................
1. Jnr. is 16yo in 5 months time and will be able to chose where he lives. Therefore, there could only be one more hearing before he ceases to be the responsibility of the social welfare people. It was expedient and cost efficient to just lift the order. The order has been in force for ten years! In that time she was not allowed to see him without close supervision.
2. "half hour interview" I have a pile of documents two inches thick of reports by many responsible people of various professions. You are 'clutching at straws' and showing your vulnerability, ol' darlin'!
3. As she has challenged the accuracy of my pages, this allows me to support my actions by collating the reports that I have, and placing photostats of the actual documents on this site.
4. They have not "returned him to his grandmother's care". They have just terminated the order due to his age. He can now live where he pleases.
5. "strongly disputed" Rosemary West strongly disputed the evidence!
6. Why sent me anonymous emails - who is worried about revealing their identity? Cowards?
7. As I have said elsewhere, one of them will end up killing the other one, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Chloe, remember Britannia Road, Ilford about 1955? "Be careful of wearing a yellow scarf - I see you being strangled by it."
8. You now have your meal ticket back again and you will be able to con the authorities for money, clothes, holidays etc. (that is what the child welfare said you were up to). Especially as now you will be able to make him ill and claim that he is disabled with 'special needs'!
Quote from Child Social Welfare Dept.
"Carl has suffered emotional harm because of the emotional instability of Chloe. This harm has been compounded by the variety of labels attached to Carl, by her, over the months. These have included attention deficit disorder, mental illness, syndrome of pyrolunia hyperactivity, chemical sensitivity and so on. There is a strong suggestion of the child's behaviour being treated (by Chloe) with both prescribed and non prescribed medication placing him at additional risk of avoidable physical harm."
Oh! and why not phone his school in Scotland and thank them for giving him the lap top?