Baby P's mother to be released

You are right grandtante, we shouldn't assume. However, she was released on parole in 2013 and recalled in 2015 for breaching the conditions of her parole by 'Developing personal relationships online and inciting another resident in her accommodation to engage in inappropriate sexual behaviour.:

Yes Zoejory. Two different cases. That was my fault for mentioning another case.

Never be released any one who tortures and kills a child should be locked up for life

The bible does actually mention righteous anger, when Jesus threw people out of the temple.
I'm an atheist too, but much of the bible is filled with anger and an "eye for an eye" teachings.

volver

GrauntyHelen

@volver clearly you have been very selective in your Bible reading Jesus has a lot to say about forgiveness and love

???

No children and an atheist. Haven't read the bible for a good 50 years.

Does he say that we should kill people or cut their internal organs out? That's not how I remember it...

Don't know why I bothered with this thread at all really.

I did warn you volver !

I've just read through from my first comment and I do think there are useful perspectives and some good questions. Does it make a difference if you are a mother? Possibly. Does it make a difference if you've been exposed in any kind of way to child cruelty in real life? Probably. Does it make a difference if one of your core values is retribution/punishment? Almost certainly. I think this is very difficult territory but we are at least having a conversation, so I'm glad you bothered volver.

Kate1949

Yes Zoejory. Two different cases. That was my fault for mentioning another case.

Thank you! And not your fault at all. I do have a habit of just reading comments hither and thither.

Thanks argymargy

Silvertwigs

@ NotSpaghetti. My daughter is a senior social worker, I’m a paramedic and most of my fam are medical. We are constantly up against this rhetoric that you spout! When do they ever learn, bring on privatisation and accountability!! ?

I'm sorry, Silvertwigs, but I'm a bit confused about the rhetoric idea and are you suggesting we should be privatising essential services such as social care? I think that would be a disaster. We saw what happened when there was a "privatisation" of the probation services!

Having worked with social workers I know that at one point in my area the children's team social workers had a caseload twice the size they were supposed to. A good friend was a Directors of Children’s Services in a neighbouring "patch" and I know how stressful that job was, how hard it was to retain experienced staff - primarily because of the workload.

I'd be interested to understand how privatisation is a good thing (from someone still in the field- which I am not).
But maybe it was something else I "spouted" that you think is rhetoric?

This is a genuine question as I really don't understand. Sorry.

The ‘eye for an eye’ quotation comes from the Old Testament I’m sure. Jesus taught forgiveness and turn the other cheek, but that was in the New Testament. Very different. I believe Christians try to live by the teaching of Christ, not by the retribution often found in the Old Testament.

As angry as some people are that she's being released, that is the law at work.
She's served her sentence. Thats where it went wrong imo. Despite her myriad of issues I wholeheartedly believe she should have received a whole life tariff.
I am not in agreement with the Government having authority over parole hearings and decisions though.
If the Government want changes then address the (often ridiculous) sentences that are handed out to serious violent/sexual/deviant offenders.
Maybe even spend some money on services that are meant to support people before they commit offences (drug and alcohol services for example) and make the job of the social worker better by more pay etc, thereby enticing more staff to ease workloads.
Or you could boast you introduced free bus passes to keep the pensioners from freezing to death in their own homes ??‍♀️ just saying......

I think Jesus righteous anger when he threw out and overturned the tables was new testament.
Possibly wrong, trying to remember my o'level R.E.

Yes it was MissA.

The whole point of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' was to curb the desire for disproportionate revenge, so 2 eyes wouldn't be taken for one eye and a set of teeth for one tooth.

The first part of the bible and it's teachings were wiped out by the new testament anyway, I think.

I must have taken in more than I thought in those lessons.

MissAdventure

I think Jesus righteous anger when he threw out and overturned the tables was new testament.
Possibly wrong, trying to remember my o'level R.E.

You’re correct MissA. The life of Jesus was entirely in the New Testament. The coming of the Messiah was forecast in the Old Testament, but the life of Jesus and what happened afterwards is entirely covered by the New Testament.

I think anyone who thinks that it’s right for her to be let out of prison should go back and read all the injuries and torture that was inflicted on that beautiful boy, not able to defend himself in any way, what did he do to deserve it, I think she should be sterialized before coming out and he should be castrated and I was also hoping for them to get their comeuppance in prison. Look at John venables giving two identities, housing and jobs it makes me madddddddd.

MissAdventure

The first part of the bible and it's teachings were wiped out by the new testament anyway, I think.

I must have taken in more than I thought in those lessons.

Yes again MissA, the old laws written in the Old Testament were wiped away by the new laws given by Jesus. As the hymn says
A new commandment I give unto you
That you love one another as I have loved you.

You were listening in those lessons.
Interestingly our laws are based on the Ten Commandments though.

Just for the record, Emma Tustin, stepmother of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes was given life with a minimum of 29 years for murder. Her partner given life with a minimum of 21 years for manslaughter. She actually killed the child. She has tried to kill herself three times in prison. The Court of Appeal is reviewing their jail terms.

Am I allowed to at least think that I hope she succeeds next time she tries?

That is a huge difference in sentences though.
Was it because there was public outcry at their original sentences, or was that for little Starr's "parents/step parents?

I think anyone who thinks that it’s right for her to be let out of prison should go back and read all the injuries and torture that was inflicted on that beautiful boy

Absolutely Levil4

As someone pointed out, people are hardly thinking of getting a coach party together for a spot of public lynching (despite a certain poster trying to imply that they are)

People are, however, within their rights to be shocked and voice their disgust at a system that offers such short lenient sentences to people who commit such despicable cruelty and torture towards children, and to addinsult to injury they are given all the help possible to start a new life.
And I don't buy all this "but they had tough childhoods" as an excuse.
Or another favourite "it's inhumane to sterilise her because its her human right to breed"
Well some people should never be allowed to have children.
This woman is one of them.

Who on earth makes these decisions?

NotSpaghetti, thanks for continuing to post. It’s another polarised extreme here. Simplistic, angry suggestions to respond to complex, challenging problems

"A certain poster"? ?

Could be anyone.

Baby P is interred at same cemetery where my parents’ ashes lie. I occasionally visit his memorial when I’m there and mourn for his horrifically sad, short life.
I wonder if our underfunded prison system has rehabilitated his hideous mother to being a functional person in society? I doubt it. Have no answer as to what to do with her. I sincerely hope she stays away from children.