Baby P's mother to be released

volver

Forcible sterilisation is assault. Did you know that?

The Nazis thought it was a good idea to stop people procreating if they didn't like them. Even in the US, where they think guns are a good idea and are making abortion illegal, forcible sterilisation hasn't been allowed since the 1960s, I believe.

Somebody above said that people aren't thinking this through. True that.

Not just Nazi Germany - forced sterilisation has been carried out in many so-called civilised countries up until at least the 1970s.
Sweden, for instance, Switzerland, Canada and many others.

Good post Vintagejazz.

It goes without saying that Social Services needs more money, and we need more far more social workers. I may be wrong but we do seem to have had more cases of children killed by their parents or their parent’s partners recently. This is probably a reflection of too few social workers and consequently inadequate supervision of such parents.

I would have been happy for the parent of Baby P to remain in prison, but it’s not down to me. I was surprised to read on here that the case arose in 2009. It didn’t seem so long ago. Time flies by the older you get. That’s why I initially said it was unbelievable that she was being released. Realising that it was actually more than ten years ago changed my perspective slightly, although I would still be more than happy for her to serve a full term of twenty years. By then she wouldn’t be able to have any more children anyway and she doesn’t appear to be a threat to anyone else in society.

ARGYMARGY
I am not in any kind of keyboard lynch mob and neither am I a part of any string them up brigade...I also was not shouting....I just have strong opinions on people who take babies lifes in such a horrific way

As long as this woman is never allowed have care or responsibility for a child again and is extremely closely monitoring I don't think she is a danger to society.

Without monitoring, however, I think she could be as she appears to be very damaged, lacking in any boundaries and desperate for male attention and approval. As a result she seems to be very easily influenced and, with the wrong men, open to assisting with or covering up dangerous and criminal behaviour.

However I'm no expert, it's just my opinion.

Thanks Franbern for what I saw as a constructive post
One issue is in the specialisation of social work. It’s a positive but it does mean inexperienced workers in children teams. Pre specialisation teams were generic so you could do a safeguarding children, safeguarding elderly, assessment of whether an individual with learning difficulties needed more support or a section under the mental health act - occasionally in the same day. Within genetic teams workers would focus on their preferred area, working closely with colleagues when out of their main area
Safeguarding is complex. Working with parents who have learning difficulties challenging
It’s worth noting that some parents living in the community would have been in long stay special hospitals, not having children, nit so many years ago
Resources have been devastated. Social workers pilloried looked down on. I’ve heard students say their tutors strongly advise against working with children and families because they’ll be broken if something goes wrong

tickingbird

^The Nazis thought it was a good idea to stop people procreating if they didn't like them.^

You should be ashamed of that statement.

This isn’t about genocide and being Jewish and you know damn well that I’m Jewish.

This is in order to stop another baby going through hell.

I’m appalled by the level you’re prepared to sink.

I didn't know you were Jewish.

I'm not ashamed of stating historical fact.

Do you not know that it’s happened before with social services going to court in order to have someone sterilised?

Got links?

The woman who was sterilised for medical reasons doesn't count. I'm looking for women sterilised for judicial reasons because society doesn't think they should breed.

Good post NotSpaghetti

The Nazis thought it was a good idea to stop people procreating if they didn't like them.

You should be ashamed of that statement.

This isn’t about genocide and being Jewish and you know damn well that I’m Jewish.

This is in order to stop another baby going through hell.

I’m appalled by the level you’re prepared to sink.

I don’t believe in the death sentence and I don’t wish this woman dead. Nor do I agree with forcible sterilisation. I place my trust in the laws and safeguards that already exist and I know that any child she may bear in the future will be on the at risk register before birth, and I sincerely hope that the baby would be removed at birth as her parenting skills are patently non existent. I hope she wouldn’t be ‘supported’ to bring up her child as I think the baby would deserve a better life than anything she could offer.

Whilst I don’t believe in the death penalty I do believe that offenders who have killed or enabled the killing of another person, should serve the twenty years we are told is the sentence for murder, but of course this sentence is often reduced, although the person remains on license when released. It seems to me that twenty years in prison for these crimes is not unreasonable.

I wondered how long it would be before the Nazis were brought into the discussion. As for sterilisation being assault - what nonsense. Do you think it’s not happened before? Do you not know that it’s happened before with social services going to court in order to have someone sterilised?

As for asking what living a feckless life on benefits has to do with it - it has a lot to do with it and I’m amazed anyone could be so blinkered.

Forcible sterilisation is assault. Did you know that?

The Nazis thought it was a good idea to stop people procreating if they didn't like them. Even in the US, where they think guns are a good idea and are making abortion illegal, forcible sterilisation hasn't been allowed since the 1960s, I believe.

Somebody above said that people aren't thinking this through. True that.

Iam64 and others have made some interesting and thoughtful remarks here but there is a lot of unpleasantness. Why can't we talk about this in a civilised way?

Also, I wonder why "they’re always fully clued up on how to live a feckless life on benefits" is even relevant to the situation?

Also, I seem to remember she was originally sentenced to a "minimum of 5 years" so she has to be released at some point. I said yesterday, there will be genuine multi-agency decision making going on about her release and these people will have access to more complete information thank the ordinary person in the street. I would rather the people who have had to make this decision actually were the ones who made it. I am glad a politician can't just override it under mob rule pressure.

But yes, we should be spending more on social care and support services (such as Surestart) and should be supporting social workers instead of demonising them.

Lets all agree we should pay much higher taxes and hopefully then we can have better training, better retention of experienced workers, better services all round and be more able to implement the findings of the Baby P inquiry.

People calling for assassinations and forcible sterilisations? That's not a valid view.

Assassination isn’t a valid view I agree. Sterilisation is a valid view in a case such as this. I daresay that if she and others like her had the choice of staying in prison or being sterilised they’d take the latter.

Like everyone I am sickened by the baby P case and so many other similar cases. I do not have the experience to be able to offer solutions. The priority here is to ensure the people responsible are NEVER again in a position to repeat their crimes. It is not for me to dictate what those measures should be. It is not about revenge or punishment it is about not letting this happen again. I do question about how much power social workers have? So many times we learn of parents being given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if children were removed immediately from an abusive environment and placed with adults who will nurture them and never returned as children to their abusers , lives will not be forever damaged or lost. The child is the priority not the abusive adults.

So, how did it help you to know the details? How does it help Baby P? How does it make any difference to how you are going about your day today?

It really didn’t help me at all. I didn’t need to know any of that, and as I said just a couple of posts up would have gone out of my way not to read it. So thanks for that, tickingbird. A trigger warning would have been appreciated.

So, how did it help you to know the details? How does it help Baby P? How does it make any difference to how you are going about your day today?

The only difference it makes is to stir up disgust and influence your view of the case. We're not the jury, we're not the judiciary and we don't get a say.

Forcible sterilisation IMO isn't a desire for revenge, it's common sense that anyone who can partake in, witness and cover up such terrible abuse, should never be able to have a child again.

Good post Doodledog ^why pour so much money into imprisonment, aftercare and so on, but so little into prevention^; why indeed.

tickingbird

Always the same condescending comments from those holding differing views on this particular subject. Accusations of lynch mobs etc.

Most people have strong feelings about child murderers, far more so if it turns out that the child has been actively tortured by the adults. It’s probably the worst crime anyone can be convicted of.

Baby Peter was undoubtedly tortured by a sadistic boyfriend and Connolly allowed it. The other man was her boyfriend’s brother. He didn’t participate but didn’t do anything to stop it. The family dogs were set on him for fun, he had bite marks on his head. His fingernails had been pulled out. His spine had been snapped and his final injury was caused when he was crying in his cot and the boyfriend said he’d shut him up - he did - for good. At the post mortem one of his front teeth was found in his stomach. He’d been hit so hard he’d swallowed his tooth.

She not only conspired to cover up what was going on by smearing his face with chocolate but denied there was a man living there because she didn’t want to lose any benefits. Strange that they’re always fully clued up on how to live a feckless life on benefits, provided by children they neither want or can be bothered to care for.

As for deserving a second chance, she’s already had one. She was released before but was sent back to jail when it was found she was sending naked pictures of herself to male “fans”.

Also, let’s not forget she was pregnant when arrested and had the baby in prison. Well meaning(idiotic) social workers argued she should be allowed to bond with that child. The police (thank goodness) wouldn’t allow this and it was discussed in parliament and social services were overruled. Obviously there are some on here with that sw mindset that believe she should be allowed to get on with her life and have more children. I believe she’s forfeited the right to have more children and should be sterilised. Not out of revenge but in order to protect any children she may have and with the type of man that she allows into her life.

Absolutely heartbreaking to read these details. What a monster/s.

I mean this respectfully Chestnut.

That is a valid view. I may or may not agree with it, but it is a valid view.

People calling for assassinations and forcible sterilisations? That's not a valid view.

Murder at this level should incur a total life sentence. For the rest of their lives. This is not a crime of passion, it involves a unforgiveable level of cruelty and lack of empathy for the suffering of a baby. None of these baby murderers should be released, not ever.

People who do not wish this person to be killed, or do not wish her to be forcibly sterilised, are not minimising the seriousness of the crime. We are just not savages and don't believe in blind revenge that goes on for the whole of a person's life.

Others disagree with that stance, but those who want her dead should consider that this is exactly why we have a justice system. So that feelings of revenge do not govern how we treat people.

I don't know if she should be in prison forever, I'm not a criminologist. I know that the criteria that govern sentencing are much more complicated than I realise.

Always the same condescending comments from those holding differing views on this particular subject. Accusations of lynch mobs etc.

Most people have strong feelings about child murderers, far more so if it turns out that the child has been actively tortured by the adults. It’s probably the worst crime anyone can be convicted of.

Baby Peter was undoubtedly tortured by a sadistic boyfriend and Connolly allowed it. The other man was her boyfriend’s brother. He didn’t participate but didn’t do anything to stop it. The family dogs were set on him for fun, he had bite marks on his head. His fingernails had been pulled out. His spine had been snapped and his final injury was caused when he was crying in his cot and the boyfriend said he’d shut him up - he did - for good. At the post mortem one of his front teeth was found in his stomach. He’d been hit so hard he’d swallowed his tooth.

She not only conspired to cover up what was going on by smearing his face with chocolate but denied there was a man living there because she didn’t want to lose any benefits. Strange that they’re always fully clued up on how to live a feckless life on benefits, provided by children they neither want or can be bothered to care for.

As for deserving a second chance, she’s already had one. She was released before but was sent back to jail when it was found she was sending naked pictures of herself to male “fans”.

Also, let’s not forget she was pregnant when arrested and had the baby in prison. Well meaning(idiotic) social workers argued she should be allowed to bond with that child. The police (thank goodness) wouldn’t allow this and it was discussed in parliament and social services were overruled. Obviously there are some on here with that sw mindset that believe she should be allowed to get on with her life and have more children. I believe she’s forfeited the right to have more children and should be sterilised. Not out of revenge but in order to protect any children she may have and with the type of man that she allows into her life.

This is a subject that is going to raise people's emotions to a very high level. The article brings back what a dreadful crime this was and everyone's reaction will be extreme.
I do not think this person should be released, ever, she took the life of that poor little boy and he suffered dreadfully.
However, although I will never change my view that she should be kept locked up for ever, I respect other's will have different opinions and I understand the poster who wished death on her.