His face stared from the front pages of every newspaper — the wide, trusting, cheeky smile of a giggling six-year-old boy who should have had his whole life before him. We will all be haunted by his pitiful cry of “Nobody loves me” and “No one is going for my food.”
Those pleas accused the system — social services and police — that ignored the obvious signs of abuse, as well as the two wicked adults whose duty was to protect the child from harm.
Is that it?
I believe they also accused lockdown itself and the mindset that wilfully ignored the often unseen dangers of locking down a whole country — and those who still approve such measures.
Arthur Labinjo Hughes could easily have been killed at any moment. Lockdown, however, put many people in danger (both children and those who are victims of domestic violence).
How did this tragic child get a chance?
Arthur Labinjo Hughes could easily have been killed at any moment. Bel Mooney reports that Lockdown was a dangerous tool for many people, including children and domestic abuse victims.
Many of you, like me, will have been almost unable to read the details of what Arthur’s father and his girlfriend did to the boy over those terrible months — and I cannot bear to recall them here. They will likely have wanted the same treatment by their fellow inmates as they began their prison sentences.
This is where the real blame-game begins. Why didn’t social services ignore warnings Arthur was being mistreated? What made a social worker visit Arthur’s home and believe Emma Tustin, his stepmother?
Why was it that the West Midlands Police saw Arthur’s bruises on photographs and concluded there was no further role, when social services had already been involved. What was the point of a grandmother who believed in him? Why wasn’t Arthur asked by the school why he didn’t return to class on June 8, 2019, just nine days before his tragic death?
Failures in government are evident, so all questions should be asked.
Is there not another important question? Is it possible that the Covid lockdown, which was imposed upon Britain in response to Covid’s actions, played a major role in the death of this little boy?
Arthur would have been able to attend school just as usual, but a teacher wouldn’t have noticed his scars, increasing frailty and fearfulness.
Many of you, like me, will have been almost unable to read the details of what Arthur’s father and his girlfriend did to the boy over those terrible months — and I cannot bear to recall them here
What a bitter irony it is to think back to the time when we all were instructed to “Stay home” to ensure that our safety. For Arthur — and many helpless children like him — the national lockdown ensured that the prison called ‘home’ was the last place on earth they were ‘safe’.
Tim Loughton, former children’s minister has said unambiguously that locking down the country’s schools ‘exacerbated” Britain’s child abuse crisis. This lockdown led to increased stress levels and excessive alcohol consumption that made it impossible for children to be outside. It also caused isolation, boredom and anxiety in the children.
NSPCC repeatedly warned of dangers to children during lockdowns. According to the children’s charity, there was a 23% increase in children calling its abuse helpline since the outbreak.
Last year, a friend told me how chilling it was to hear, while jogging past a run-down housing block, a man yelling at a child inside: ‘I f***ing hate you, you little ****, I do!’ After that, a chorus of screaming and crying ensued. Is this what was going on in the home?
For Arthur — and many helpless children like him — the national lockdown ensured that the prison called ‘home’ was the last place on earth they were ‘safe’
One evening I received a lecture from a Left-wing lockdown-avid woman. She said that ‘better safe then sorry’ was a reason to turn the key again on all of us. Everyone (and it is many) that has been brainwashed into thinking the Government must respond to Omicron 2.0 by imposing another lockdown, should remember the 130 areas of bruising medicals discovered on Arthur’s corpse after his death.
The judge described them as “a bruise for every day that lockdown lasts” Lockdown was for Arthur a place of extreme danger, unimaginable pain, and fear. He was unable to go to school, and was cut off from his extended families. This made it impossible for him escape the cruel people who would become his murderers.
Last year, National Education Union leaders supported lockdown — criticising the Government for not taking the decision much earlier, when Sage had advised that schools and colleges should close to tackle infection rate rises.
But what about the children for whom school is the only lifeline in their desperately sad — and fear-filled — lives? Arthur could not make any phone calls. Teachers had to send and receive texts. At this distance it’s easy to tell lies by abusive parents.
The school was closed during its first lockdown, April 2020. Solihull staff contacted Arthur Hughes, the father of Dickens Heath, to request welfare checks.
Thomas painted a beautiful picture of the life of his son. Thomas replied to the school via the messaging platform and claimed that his son was “grand” and had been “enjoying his garden” and decorating his bedroom. He wrote, “Arthur is just plodding along enjoying the sun and messing around in the garden.”
He was a plausible bully who, in his tyranny to his evil companion, wrote: ‘We might have an barbecue at the weekend. Because he is missing his friends a lot, he just wants to be with them now. We appreciate your checking in.
Nikki Holmes of Safer Together, a child protection consulting firm, said that Arthur’s case demonstrated how lockdown “ramped up risk in certain families” and gave the professionals with whom they dealt with only ‘limited oversight.
“Lockdown made things harder to identify when they were wrong.” She said. It is necessary to examine the whole system. Arthur Hughes’ uncle tried to intervene in this awful story.
It almost defies belief that when Daniel reported his concerns about his nephew’s welfare to the police he was brushed off — and actually threatened with arrest for breaching lockdown.
Thomas painted a beautiful picture of the life of his son. Thomas responded to the school’s message platform by claiming that Thomas’ son was a ‘grand’ man who had enjoyed the garden and decorated his bedroom.
Yes, that’s correct. A family member tried to raise alarm and was told he would be arrested if the child’s brother returned to the house.
Lockdown rules were clearly more important than the life of a child. This is a great example of brainwashing.
West Midlands Police detective Laura Harrison stressed the role that isolation played. ‘The manipulation of Tustin’s toxic relationship with Hughes meant Arthur was removed from his life.
“The lockdown prevented professionals from being able to observe him as they would with normal children. Lockdown was a contributing factor, according to me.
“The only professionals that would normally have had contact with Arthur were teachers and doctors. They weren’t able to observe changes in Arthur’s behavior or any bruises on him.”
It is there.
Lockdown rules were clearly more important to a parent’s safety than their child’s.
Of course there are only two real criminals in this case — Emma Tustin and her partner, Arthur’s father.
These were the arms raised, warped minds who devised the tortures, and the hardened hearts that endured the suffering of an innocent baby. They were found guilty of the crime and sent to prison.
If you are so afraid of Omicron that you want to start advocating for even more lockdowns then think about those homes as prisons.
Arthur Labinjo Hughes illustrates how important it is for communities to stay in touch with what’s happening around them.
Arthur Labinjo Hughes will remind you how important it is for communities to stay in touch with what’s happening around them.