Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A MAN WHO killed his partner’s two-year-old son while in his care has been jailed for life after being found guilty of murder in Liverpool.
Craig Smith (28), of Merseyside, was convicted of Teddy Tilston’s murder following a trial at the Liverpool Crown Court today.
The court heard that Smith, who had been looking after the two-year-old, claimed to an ambulance crew that he had drowned in the bath.
However, when they arrived, paramedics found him dead but his clothes and hair were dry.
A full post-mortem examination was carried out on the child’s body, along with additional tests by a Home Office pathologist.
While paramedics were dealing with the death of the two-year-old, his mother was Arrowe Park Hospital with his twin sister, who had suffered a head injury that day while in the sole care of Smith.
Doctors were not satisfied with her explanation that the injury had been sustained by the child hitting her head against a table. Other injuries were discovered, many that had been inflicted some time earlier.
The child’s mother, Ashleigh Willett (25), was also found guilty of child cruelty. She is due to be sentenced at a later date.
Smith was sentenced to life in prison and he was told he must serve a minimum of 17 years before he can be considered for release.
“After Teddy Tilston’s death, one of the paediatricians examined his body and found a catalogue of injuries which, in her view, were not reasonably explained by accidental causes,” Richard Riley from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.
Neither Craig Smith or Ashleigh Willett could give a satisfactory account for the catalogue of injuries suffered by the twins.
“The CPS said that, even if we assume that all the injuries were caused by Smith, then such is the number of injuries to both children that Ashleigh Willett must have known that the children were being ill-treated,” Riley said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe I’m getting old but I have no idea what that article was about
It’s essentially about two guys who made a company based on their popularity online and tried to trademark the word ‘reacts’ among other things. They wanted the ability to remove content which looked anything like theirs (or not, they had a go at Ellen DeGeneres for a scene which only vaguely alluded to their work) and ultimately the right to sue anyone who wouldn’t abide by their wishes.
Essentially, it’s about what happens when trademark laws are taken to a ridiculous extreme.
But wtf is a ‘react video’? Jaysus I’m only 27 and I haven’t a clue…
It’s basically people filming their reactions to things. Usually YouTube videos. How anyone thinks they could trademark that is beyond me
That’s what I thought, but then I thought, Na no one would watch something so utterly mundane…
I actually heard from somebody I watch on YouTube sometimes, a ranter that the Fine Bros went around copyright claiming videos that even had the word “react” or “reaction” in them and some of these videos were from as long ago as 2007! Its absolutely ridiculous what they are doing.
Two arrogant p***ks react to being taken down a peg or two.
Sorry, you can’t take back being douchebags. I hope your subscriber exodus continues.
I can’t blame someone for wanting to protect their work, although the Fine Brothers were not looking to do that. They were looking for the freedom to monetise an entire style of video.
It would be like Disney trying to protect the Star Wars trademark (fully understandable) but also looking for the freedom to sue any other film company that produced something even remotely like it.
One of the problems is their videos are all based off of other people’s content. They make money using other people’s videos and try to trademark something incredibly vague. They certainly were not the first to come up with the concept of a reaction video either.
Prohibited ave become too greedy. They already make a lot from their videos so why attempt to milk more…money makes the world go round I guess…
People have *
I’m not sure if she was successful or not but Paris Hilton wanted to trademark the words, “that’s hot”. Ridiculous!
The great thing about YouTube is that it’s not like television, in the sense that you don’t need a massive team of people to create something. Anyone with a webcam and a computer can make a YouTube video and trying to licence what essentially is a whole genre of videos on the website will ruin the whole thing, in my opinion.
They are nothing without the content other people created.
Exactly Seth.
Exactly! I’m so relieved that they decided not to go ahead. this kind of legalisation of YouTube video formats would have had a drastic effect on how video sharing works and would destroy the notion of the freedom of the Internet. there’s space for anyone to express themselves on YouTube, and this move would have damaged that
Alice I’m surprised they didn’t expect this kind of backlash after what happened to Sam Pepper. And anyway, if you get caught stealing someones idea/video on youtube you get dragged in the comments lmao
very true! there’s a level of courtesy that you follow and if you don’t- you get called out! I’m so relieved it’s been reversed that could have been catastrophic
“YouTube Stars” – what is wrong with this statement? :-)
TV Stars, Movie Stars, no difference really
Well said @Seth.
Hey ho
Two knobs who make videos featuring lots of pretentious people playing up for the camera.
They wanted to trademark their series, as in the kids react and elders reacts!
have your say