Baby P's mother to be released

She'd better disappear - or watch her back, don't you think?

Lets hope she is properly monitored, because I know of a few who are tagged that aren't.

Writing in 2009, Andew Anthony who interviewed Connelly’s mother Mary O’Connor:

Almost everywhere you look in this bleak tale, there is evidence or suggestion of child abuse that multiplies into an ever-expanding matrix of dysfunction.

His report recaps the events:

www.theguardian.com/society/2009/aug/16/baby-p-family

The Sky story reports that Connelly will be subject to restrictions on her movements, activities, who she contacts and 20 extra licence conditions. These include living at a specified address, wearing an electronic tag, following a curfew and having to disclose her relationships. She has also been told she cannot go to certain places to "avoid contact with victims and to protect children”.

I understand from other reports that her internet and phone use will be monitored.

Of course, all this presupposes that the various agencies that will now be reponsible for monitoring her will operate efficiently. If they do, any transgression will see her back in jail. She will not be unaware of this and as manipulative (and manipulated) as she has been in the past, she must know this is her last chance to show that she can now behave responsibly.

Possibly it was her boyfriend or the lodger who did it.
It makes little difference really to the outcome at this point.

She rubbed, choclolate over his face to hide his injuries.
That's one example, although it seems some people were quite easily hoodwinked.
I think there were other examples, but I can't remember now.

Why do you think it was the mother that was well able to pull the wool over the eyes of professionals. There were two men living there as well. We don't, as far as I am aware, know the dynamics of their relationships.

Finding your comments very sarcastic DAISY ANN....As I say again I'm not in any MOB and don't consider myself to be an ignorant fool....I know we can't change the law but surely any loving person would agree that she should never be allowed any kind of freedom..

Luckygirl3

Unfortunately the services that are intended to reduce the risks that she might present are underfunded and deeply flawed. That is clear from the fact that she was known to all the services over a period of time but still this tragedy played out.

I think it is more than likely that a pregnancy will be on the cards before long.

The family was well-known Luckygirl and many visits were made but still these tragedies happened. Peter was not the only child to have suffered in that house.
Services may be suffering funding issues now but it was an inexperienced social worker who was allocated that case as far as I remember and prompt action should have been taken to remove those children frm the hell hey were living in.
Police visited the house too - how could they have missed what was going on.
The mother may have a low IQ but she was well able to pull the wool over the eyes of the professionals.
The case sparked outrage as Baby P received 60 visits from social workers, police and health professionals over eight months.

Mine

Totally agree JENNIFERECCLES...

Oh dear. Of course you do.

Totally agree JENNIFERECCLES...

Mine

Sorry you feel like that Volver
I am my own person and not a part of the MOB...You've defo not touched a nerve and I certainly don't wish anyone to be lynched...I just want the punishment to fit the horrible crime that was committed in the murder of a poor innocent little boy

The punishment has legally fitted the crime. What would you achieve by not following the law? I think everyone needs to calm down otherwise the sense of mob rule becomes very apparent. If people don't want to be seen in that light, then they need to talk with reason.

Nothing will bring this child back. We have to try and make the best of this awful situation or we are simply ignorant fools who only respond to our emotions. Wasn't that what these people did when they killed Peter?

'she was not the main perpetrator'. Blimey. It was her child!!

Mine

Don't seem to see many folk who think like you on this one Volver..

Read the thread then. Properly.

I think there is a case for compulsory sterilisation for those unbelievably cruel individuals who kill small children in their care.

Don’t they forfeit the right to reproduce after they caused the death of a defenceless baby?

I don’t believe anybody who is capable of such appalling cruelty will ever change. The evil goes too deep.

Omg she was baby Ps mother...She should have protected her child...What she allowed to happen to her son was inhuman...

Don't seem to see many folk who think like you on this one Volver..

but she was not convicted of murder, nor of manslaughter, but of causing or allowing the death of the child, to which she pleaded guilty.
though i can understand the strength of feeling re this matter, i think we need to remember that she was not the main perpetrator.

Yeah well you might want to re-read the thread and reconsider that Robin49.

No, you seem to be pretty much out on your own with this one Volver.

And everybody else on this thread who thinks like me? Any comments for them?

Or just easier to pick on the mouthy one?

Sorry you feel like that Volver
I am my own person and not a part of the MOB...You've defo not touched a nerve and I certainly don't wish anyone to be lynched...I just want the punishment to fit the horrible crime that was committed in the murder of a poor innocent little boy

You've certainly not touched a nerve with me.
Your opinion has,no bearing on mine whatsoever.

Can I ask why I appear to be public enemy number 1 with the mob, please? Touched a nerve have I? Coming for me next once you've lynched someone else?

Just out of curiosity VOLVER what do you think is the answer as to how baby Ps mother lives the rest of her life.???

Yes, its just like a TV drama.
Except a baby lost his life and died in a blood spattered cot, with his back broken.