Idiot Nearly Kills A Baby And Walks Free

[Eric Blair]

this makes me angry and at risk of sounding like the daily mail, what the hell was the mitigation in this case?

"I reject as baseless any suggestion that his behaviour was sexually motivated"

Lord Turnbull

Judge

so what?

BBC NEWS link

A man who left a three-month-old child fighting for life after forcing a baby wipe into his bottom to prevent a dirty nappy has been admonished.

Graeme McArthur, 39, from Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire, admitted endangering the boy's life in February last year.

But at the High Court in Glasgow, judge Lord Turnbull described his actions as "misguided intervention rather than as an act of malice".

It is unclear if the injured child will make a full recovery.

At an earlier hearing, the court heard how the incident occurred as McArthur, who was looking after the child, changed his nappy.

The wipe was deliberately put into the child's body in a bid to stop him from soiling his nappy.

The next day in a bid to remove the wipe using his fingers, McArthur caused significant internal injuries, including a perforated bowel.

The baby's mother later took him to a local GP as he was quiet and pale and whimpering.

The doctor immediately arranged for an ambulance to take the child to Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride.

When he was admitted, the baby was close to death and had to be resuscitated.

He was then transferred to Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow and underwent a four-and-a-half hour operation to repair his bowel.

During the operation the wipe was removed from inside the child's abdomen.

A consultant paediatrician was of the opinion that the pain for the baby would have been excruciating.

[Guest theboltonfury]

this makes me angry and at risk of sounding like the daily mail, what the hell was the mitigation in this case?

"I reject as baseless any suggestion that his behaviour was sexually motivated"

Lord Turnbull

Judge

so what?

BBC NEWS link

A man who left a three-month-old child fighting for life after forcing a baby wipe into his bottom to prevent a dirty nappy has been admonished.

Graeme McArthur, 39, from Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire, admitted endangering the boy's life in February last year.

But at the High Court in Glasgow, judge Lord Turnbull described his actions as "misguided intervention rather than as an act of malice".

It is unclear if the injured child will make a full recovery.

At an earlier hearing, the court heard how the incident occurred as McArthur, who was looking after the child, changed his nappy.

The wipe was deliberately put into the child's body in a bid to stop him from soiling his nappy.

The next day in a bid to remove the wipe using his fingers, McArthur caused significant internal injuries, including a perforated bowel.

The baby's mother later took him to a local GP as he was quiet and pale and whimpering.

The doctor immediately arranged for an ambulance to take the child to Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride.

When he was admitted, the baby was close to death and had to be resuscitated.

He was then transferred to Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow and underwent a four-and-a-half hour operation to repair his bowel.

During the operation the wipe was removed from inside the child's abdomen.

A consultant paediatrician was of the opinion that the pain for the baby would have been excruciating.

My bird started crying when she read this last night.

It really is disgusting, and I don't think this story has been Mailified at all.

[Riedquat]

If the guy didn't believe he was causing any harm or likely to do so, and was just idiotically stupid, then what's the point of sending him to prison? I've never understood calling for blood when there's no malice involved (or no gross negligence from someone who did know better but just didn't care).

[Danny Deflation]

this makes me angry and at risk of sounding like the daily mail, what the hell was the mitigation in this case?

"I reject as baseless any suggestion that his behaviour was sexually motivated"

Lord Turnbull

Judge

so what?

BBC NEWS link

A man who left a three-month-old child fighting for life after forcing a baby wipe into his bottom to prevent a dirty nappy has been admonished.

Graeme McArthur, 39, from Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire, admitted endangering the boy's life in February last year.

But at the High Court in Glasgow, judge Lord Turnbull described his actions as "misguided intervention rather than as an act of malice".

It is unclear if the injured child will make a full recovery.

At an earlier hearing, the court heard how the incident occurred as McArthur, who was looking after the child, changed his nappy.

The wipe was deliberately put into the child's body in a bid to stop him from soiling his nappy.

The next day in a bid to remove the wipe using his fingers, McArthur caused significant internal injuries, including a perforated bowel.

The baby's mother later took him to a local GP as he was quiet and pale and whimpering.

The doctor immediately arranged for an ambulance to take the child to Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride.

When he was admitted, the baby was close to death and had to be resuscitated.

He was then transferred to Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow and underwent a four-and-a-half hour operation to repair his bowel.

During the operation the wipe was removed from inside the child's abdomen.

A consultant paediatrician was of the opinion that the pain for the baby would have been excruciating.

Fecking disgraceful.

Oh, by the way, welcome to Britain.

[Danny Deflation]

If the guy didn't believe he was causing any harm or likely to do so, and was just idiotically stupid, then what's the point of sending him to prison? I've never understood calling for blood when there's no malice involved (or no gross negligence from someone who did know better but just didn't care).

The above logic could also be applied to drivers who kill people while texting on their phone.

The man should be doing time.

[Guest theboltonfury]

If the guy didn't believe he was causing any harm or likely to do so, and was just idiotically stupid, then what's the point of sending him to prison? I've never understood calling for blood when there's no malice involved (or no gross negligence from someone who did know better but just didn't care).

If someone is quite that stupid, then prison is the best place for him.

What's next in his repetoire? Seeing if petrol stations are flammable?

No malice? That needs to be explained.

[I_Claudius]

My bird started crying when she read this last night.

It really is disgusting, and I don't think this story has been Mailified at all.

100% agreed; this story is so depressing.

This scumbag deserves to do some time imo, he can't be that stupid and in any case even if he was I didn't think ignorance was a defence.

[Riedquat]

The above logic could also be applied to drivers who kill people while texting on their phone.

The man should be doing time.

No it shouldn't because it's not the same logic. Is there anyone who doesn't know that you're not supposed to text whilst driving, and if they do just thinks that they're better than that and can manage thank you very much. If someone doesn't know they're doing wrong and has no intention of doing wrong they shouldn't be punished. Stupidity isn't a crime. Who can honestly claim not to have done something really stupid at some time or another? Most of us are just lucky that our stupidity hasn't had any serious consequences.

[Guest theboltonfury]

No it shouldn't because it's not the same logic. Is there anyone who doesn't know that you're not supposed to text whilst driving, and if they do just thinks that they're better than that and can manage thank you very much. If someone doesn't know they're doing wrong and has no intention of doing wrong they shouldn't be punished. Stupidity isn't a crime. Who can honestly claim not to have done something really stupid at some time or another? Most of us are just lucky that our stupidity hasn't had any serious consequences.

You cannot seriously think that there is an adult alive who thinks it's actually ok to stuff tissues in a child's anus?

As I said, if there is, then prison is the best place.

[Riedquat]

If someone is quite that stupid, then prison is the best place for him.

What's next in his repetoire? Seeing if petrol stations are flammable?

No malice? That needs to be explained.

Malice would've been doing this to deliberately hurt the baby - that would be utterly beyond contempt and prison would be too good if it were the case.

If someone accidentally blows up a petrol station and somehow manages to convince me that they honestly had no idea that that would be the result, then I'd take the same view. If they'd chucked a lighted match at one then sauntered off thinking "could blow up, but probably won't and I don't really care one way or the other" then they should be in prison.

[Riedquat]

You cannot seriously think that there is an adult alive who thinks it's actually ok to stuff tissues in a child's anus?

As I said, if there is, then prison is the best place.

There are plenty of very stupid people around, so yes, I do think that there are such people. Do you think this man was deliberately trying to hurt the child, or thought that there was a risk of hurting the child? Just because it's obvious to us doesn't mean it was to him.

[Eric Blair]

No it shouldn't because it's not the same logic. Is there anyone who doesn't know that you're not supposed to text whilst driving, and if they do just thinks that they're better than that and can manage thank you very much. If someone doesn't know they're doing wrong and has no intention of doing wrong they shouldn't be punished. Stupidity isn't a crime. Who can honestly claim not to have done something really stupid at some time or another? Most of us are just lucky that our stupidity hasn't had any serious consequences.

is there anyone who doesn't know that stuffing a wipe up a baby's anus to prevent a soiled nappy and then trying to fish it out with their fingers is likely to cause pain and injury? or are you just playing devil's advocate?

re. the malice, it was 2-fold:

1/ he was trying to save himself the inconvenience of changing the nappy by blocking up the child's rectum (would he do that to himself if he had diarrhea?)

2/ he put his fingers in and caused the injuries to save himself the embarrassment of having to explain 1/

[I_Claudius]

There are plenty of very stupid people around, so yes, I do think that there are such people. Do you think this man was deliberately trying to hurt the child, or thought that there was a risk of hurting the child? Just because it's obvious to us doesn't mean it was to him.

There was a case in the states a few years back where a couple were camping in a wildlife park with their toddler and came across an adolescent bear.

They thought it would make a cute photo opportunity to have a picture taken with toddler and bear which unfortunately was proving to be not interested in having it's photo taken; in order to entice the bear to come closer they covered the babies hand in honey. You can probably guess the rest.

I have no doubt their was no malice intended in what those parents did but I don't think it should go unpunished either.

[Riedquat]

is there anyone who doesn't know that stuffing a wipe up a baby's anus to prevent a soiled nappy and then trying to fish it out with their fingers is likely to cause pain and injury? or are you just playing devil's advocate?

No, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I honestly believe that there are some people that stupid.

[Riedquat]

I have no doubt their was no malice intended in what those parents did but I don't think it should go unpunished either.

I'd hope the realisation of what they'd done was worse for them than any punishment that could be imposed on them.

[I_Claudius]

I'd hope the realisation of what they'd done was worse for them than any punishment that could be imposed on them.

So would I; not sure that hope should override any judicial punishment tho

[K.O. Johnny]

You don't need to prove malice, you need to prove wrecklessness - there's a very important difference.

[lurker07]

It seems the fact that he lives in Cambuslang may mean he has certain undiagnosed mental problems.

Having visited there, it has a good chance of going unnoticed.

[Bossybabe]

this makes me angry and at risk of sounding like the daily mail, what the hell was the mitigation in this case?

"I reject as baseless any suggestion that his behaviour was sexually motivated"

Lord Turnbull

Judge

so what?

BBC NEWS link

A man who left a three-month-old child fighting for life after forcing a baby wipe into his bottom to prevent a dirty nappy has been admonished.

Graeme McArthur, 39, from Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire, admitted endangering the boy's life in February last year.

But at the High Court in Glasgow, judge Lord Turnbull described his actions as "misguided intervention rather than as an act of malice".

It is unclear if the injured child will make a full recovery.

At an earlier hearing, the court heard how the incident occurred as McArthur, who was looking after the child, changed his nappy.

The wipe was deliberately put into the child's body in a bid to stop him from soiling his nappy.

The next day in a bid to remove the wipe using his fingers, McArthur caused significant internal injuries, including a perforated bowel.

The baby's mother later took him to a local GP as he was quiet and pale and whimpering.

The doctor immediately arranged for an ambulance to take the child to Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride.

When he was admitted, the baby was close to death and had to be resuscitated.

He was then transferred to Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow and underwent a four-and-a-half hour operation to repair his bowel.

During the operation the wipe was removed from inside the child's abdomen.

A consultant paediatrician was of the opinion that the pain for the baby would have been excruciating.

Clearly, the man is either barking mad, or some kind of paedophile. Either way, he should be removed from a position to endanger more children. Incarcerated. For life.

[okaycuckoo]

Malice would've been doing this to deliberately hurt the baby - that would be utterly beyond contempt and prison would be too good if it were the case.

If someone accidentally blows up a petrol station and somehow manages to convince me that they honestly had no idea that that would be the result, then I'd take the same view. If they'd chucked a lighted match at one then sauntered off thinking "could blow up, but probably won't and I don't really care one way or the other" then they should be in prison.

Mythbusters have busted that myth - a discarded match/cigarette will not light a trail of petrol and blow everyone in a 100m radius to smithereens.If you lose a condom inside her indoors, should you go to prison?ps. google chrome won't let me put paragraph breaks in - suggestions?

[I_Claudius]

If you lose a condom inside her indoors, should you go to prison?

I'm scratching my head to see any comparison between what this nob jockey did and having a condom malfunction.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

[daniel stallion]

this makes me angry and at risk of sounding like the daily mail, what the hell was the mitigation in this case?

"I reject as baseless any suggestion that his behaviour was sexually motivated"

Lord Turnbull

Judge

so what?

BBC NEWS link

A man who left a three-month-old child fighting for life after forcing a baby wipe into his bottom to prevent a dirty nappy has been admonished.

Graeme McArthur, 39, from Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire, admitted endangering the boy's life in February last year.

But at the High Court in Glasgow, judge Lord Turnbull described his actions as "misguided intervention rather than as an act of malice".

It is unclear if the injured child will make a full recovery.

At an earlier hearing, the court heard how the incident occurred as McArthur, who was looking after the child, changed his nappy.

The wipe was deliberately put into the child's body in a bid to stop him from soiling his nappy.

The next day in a bid to remove the wipe using his fingers, McArthur caused significant internal injuries, including a perforated bowel.

The baby's mother later took him to a local GP as he was quiet and pale and whimpering.

The doctor immediately arranged for an ambulance to take the child to Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride.

When he was admitted, the baby was close to death and had to be resuscitated.

He was then transferred to Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow and underwent a four-and-a-half hour operation to repair his bowel.

During the operation the wipe was removed from inside the child's abdomen.

A consultant paediatrician was of the opinion that the pain for the baby would have been excruciating.

I'm definitely with you on this one.

There is no way in this wold that someone who believes it is okay to do this to a baby for reasons of convenience, even if they thought it would do no physical harm, should be able to escape quite harsh punishment.

[ccc]

It seems the fact that he lives in Cambuslang may mean he has certain undiagnosed mental problems.

Having visited there, it has a good chance of going unnoticed.

Yes. Some people really have no idea of the dumbness of some people in the West coast fo Scotland. It is unimaginable.

The scheme on BBC Scotland gives a decent insight.

[Bosh]

Very disturbing story. Sounds more like a child molester than a thicko. If he thought he was doing no wrong then why not tell the mother what he had done..?

His silence alone is worthy of prison, Actually the judge should do some porridge as well....

For those that have given this monster the benefit of doubt, I would ask you to consider trying to stick a wet wipe so far up your own a-rse that you can not get it back out. Keep in mind that you are an adult and your ring piece is considerably bigger....

I can't believe he got away with this :angry: