Baby P's mother to be released

Like everyone else I detest what this woman has done to her child. However like Galaxy & Doodledog I would be very concerned about enforced sterilisation. We have seen the results of eugenics theories and in my lifetime I have seen the sterilisation of women with learning disabilities. It's another slippery slope we don't want to go down. There are long term contraceptive injections available, why could this not be one of the conditions of her parole.

Dickens You have quoted from the Andrew Anthony piece I linked to back on page 4 of this thread. The generational history of this family and Connolly's life have been horrific. Nobody can condone what she did and allowed to happen to her child but it's easy to see the trajectory. It's not an isolated case.

I get very angry when the very politicians who have been responsible for undermining social services and health care start making a noise about cases like this for personal political gain.

In 2019 Raab saw the majority in his once safe Surrey seat slashed to only 2243 ahead of a strong Lib Dem candidate. His majority in 2015 was 28616, in 2017 23298. Precarious indeed for the Deputy Prime Minister. In Thurday’s local elections, the Tories lost six seats on Elmbridge Borough Council which is largely covered by Dominic Raab's parliamentary seat of Esher and Walton to the Lib Dems.

Raab needs a popular campaign if there is to be a leadership challenge or a general election which could see him put of power. Seeking to undermine the legal system by being disingenous about this case is low indeed. I urge people to read Andrew Sperling’s thoughts on this case including:

Presumably the Conservative party and their advisers hope that attacking lawyers and judicial decisions will help them defeat Starmer's Labour Party and lay the groundwork for leaving the European Convention on Human rights.

He concludes with:

Building lots of prisons and blaming courts, Parole Boards and lawyers will not solve serious and complex social problems. But perhaps it might win some votes.

Of course the most important thing is to prevent it happening again Doodledog but I disagree that the perpetrators are unaware or do not care about "the price"/consequences of their actions.

In my opinion they know exactly what they're doing and what they can expect if they're caught but they're willing to take the chance because the consequences aren't severe enough to make them stop.

Good post OakDryad

Nannee49

Of course the most important thing is to prevent it happening again Doodledog but I disagree that the perpetrators are unaware or do not care about "the price"/consequences of their actions.

In my opinion they know exactly what they're doing and what they can expect if they're caught but they're willing to take the chance because the consequences aren't severe enough to make them stop.

I think that if we are talking about crimes with a 'gain' (eg theft/robbery or fraud - things that benefit the criminal financially) then they might weigh up the cost of getting caught against the potential gain of getting away with it. Even most murders have a 'gain' - in detective stories it is an inheritance or a love affair, and in the news it is more usually about status in a gang, or motivated by anger, or committed under the influence of drink or drugs. The perceived benefit of killing someone seems, at the time, to be worth the risk of getting caught.

Child cruelty doesn't (to me) have an obvious gain at all. What would the perpetrator(s) be weighing up? If a tired, inadequate parent snaps and hits or shakes a child, it is one thing. Nobody would excuse it, but we might understand why it happened. This is different.

I'm not saying I understand cases like Baby P - I really don't - and I don't have the answers, but I do think that this sort of crime is particular. It's not like other ones at all, and needs particular consideration, I think.

OakDryad

^It was reported at the time that the then Attorney General considered referring the sentence to the Court of Appeal for being unduly lenient – but it seems no such referral was ever made, no doubt because the sentence was appropriate for the offence for which Connolly was actually convicted [which was ]“causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person” – not murder or manslaughter.

I urge people to read this ...

davidallengreen.com/2022/05/the-lord-chancellors-extraordinary-tweet-about-the-tracey-connelly-case/

... and then consider what Raab's motives are for being disingenous.

Thanks for the link OakDryad. It shows:
Tracy Connolly was subject to indefinite imprisonment for public protection after being convicted of causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable person. Minimum term 5 years.
Her release depends on whether further detention Is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. The people entrusted with assessing and recommending decided public safety wouldn’t be risked by her release
She remains on licence and can be recalled.
She will be carefully monitored. It’s not unknown for women in her position to agree to sterilisation or long term contraception because they’re aware if they become pregnant it’s extremely unlikely they will be allowed to bring the child up.

I do think that an absolute condition of her release should be that she will never again be allowed care or responsibility for another child.

There should be absolutely no question of individual social workers arguing that she is entitled to bond with a new baby, or her family should be kept together.That would be gambling with the safety and life of a helpless child and people's ideologies have no place there.

OakDryad Sat 07-May-22 16:23:36

Dickens You have quoted from the Andrew Anthony piece I linked to back on page 4 of this thread. The generational history of this family and Connolly's life have been horrific. Nobody can condone what she did and allowed to happen to her child but it's easy to see the trajectory. It's not an isolated case.

Yes, I mentioned that it was from The Guardian but forgot to mention the name of the author. I didn't read all the comments - sorry to duplicate!

It just struck me as such a compelling description of the environment in which Peter was living - along with his siblings. One which would ring alarm bells for most people. A fifteen-year old girlfriend... and snakes.

AA spent months investigating the case. As he said...

The savagery was the culmination of generations of abuse and dysfunction, a dreadful violation that was far from inevitable but that had none the less been incubating for decades. The scene of the crime itself seemed to contain all the potent symbols and sordid realities of the feckless, desensitised version of contemporary life.

It's grim reading. That last sentence sticks in the mind. Has it always been like this - or are we as a society sliding into this ever-growing dystopian underworld?

(I think it might have been The Observer - I often mix up the two, and AA wrote for both).

Vintage jazz it isn’t about individual workers or ideologies. It’s about a legal framework aimed to safeguard children . There isn’t a law thst states there can be a condition of release that an individual can’t be allowed care or responsibility for a child

I know Iam. But there really should be.

I am feeling that babies and children lives are not valued very much

Sorry Vintagejazz, I share the feelings about the dreadful suffering this little boy and so many others live and die with.
The quote Dickens put in her post, from ANdrew Anthony puts it so well.
One of the most frustrating things about safeguarding is the way the pendulum swings with little reference to the whole body of research. For example, children in care/from care have worse educational and employment histories than the non care population.
Reaction - bring less children into care. By the time children become ‘looked after’ huge damage has been done. Somehow that element is missed. The reality is safeguarding is an expensive business, we don’t invest enough in support or preventive work.

I think there’s many misunderstandings and from some posters downright ignorance.

Describing female sterilisation as having “organs removed” against their will is nonsense. If sterilisation is performed there are no organs being removed- it’s not major surgery.

Secondly, this is not eugenics. Eugenics is a form of social engineering. Stopping undesirables breeding in order to improve race. I don’t advocate this and this thread is not about denying Connolly breeding rights for that reason.

I don’t actually believe the woman is inherently evil. I think she is a pathetic individual, of low intelligence who happened to become enamoured of a sadistic psychopath. Barker also raped her two yr old daughter. He’s 6’4” - it doesn’t bear thinking about. That she was useless as a mother is evident but I doubt she, herself, was purposely cruel to the children.

Upon her first release she was found to be sending nude pics of herself to male ‘fans’. What type of man would be a fan of hers? A pretty sick one I should imagine. No normal man would be attracted to her in light of her history so this is a cause for concern. They most likely would have a child and the thought horrifies me. Steps must be taken to ensure that can’t happen. Social Services are stretched enough as it is so can’t be expected to monitor her continually. At the very least she should have some kind of guaranteed contraception in place but not everyone can get on with hormone implants and the coil can be removed and isn’t 100% effective anyway. So - what’s to be done? Keep her locked away until she’s too old to conceive or offer her the choice?

As it stands she and the men she attracts are a danger to any child she may have.

Just to add - let’s not forget she was already pregnant when Peter died so having baby after baby was just the way she lived her life.

The scene of the crime itself seemed to contain all the potent symbols and sordid realities of the feckless, desensitised version of contemporary life.

Feckless? When I said the same yesterday I was asked what that had to do with it???

tickingbird

^The scene of the crime itself seemed to contain all the potent symbols and sordid realities of the feckless, desensitised version of contemporary life.^

Feckless? When I said the same yesterday I was asked what that had to do with it???

Andrew Anthony is a journalist who has attracted a lot of controversy over his views expressed in his book "The Fallout: How a Guilty Liberal Lost His Innocence"

To quote the Amazon blurb about the book...

In 2001 Andrew Anthony occupied a comfortable position within the liberal left media. A successful Observer and Guardian journalist, he believed he was on the right side of the argument - the left side. But after the events of 11 September, he noticed that many colleagues and friends seemed determined to understand the perpetrator rather than support the victim.

America, in their view, had it coming. In rejecting that analysis, Anthony set out on the painful process of unpicking the prejudices that had come to shape progressive, liberal and wider public opinion.

The Fallout is a polemical memoir, an account of Anthony's political education in Thatcher's Britain and his stark mid-life reassessment. It's a book about crime and violence, liberty and society, principles and practice, and about vital questions that no longer match their received answers.

I suppose he could have used the word "irresponsible", but basically it means the same thing. I don't want to start another bun fight on here, so I'll withhold my opinion.

Dickens

In 2001 Andrew Anthony occupied a comfortable position within the liberal left media. A successful Observer and Guardian journalist, he believed he was on the right side of the argument - the left side. But after the events of 11 September, he noticed that many colleagues and friends seemed determined to understand the perpetrator rather than support the victim.

America, in their view, had it coming. In rejecting that analysis, Anthony set out on the painful process of unpicking the prejudices that had come to shape progressive, liberal and wider public opinion.

I suppose he could have used the word "irresponsible", but basically it means the same thing. I don't want to start another bun fight on here, so I'll withhold my opinion.

I’m aware of Andrew Anthony but don’t understand why you felt the need to give me a potted history, or why it would lead to a bunfight. Please explain.

Tracey Connolly has been described as not unintelligent. Apparently she did her GCSEs and acquired quite a few.

Her early life has left her damaged and dysfunctional and that has made her an easy target for perverted and abusive men, many of whom also had abusive and neglectful childhoods.If she had been removed from her parents early on who knows what she would have made of her life?

Instead the vicious cycle continues.

I worry about posts on social media which express hatred for perpetrators of child abuse or any abuse. Everybody knows how terrible this behaviour is. It smacks of sadism when some commentators spell out their own inner rage. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment. Sometimes we think it should be whole life tariff. It’s ok to express that in my opinion but on the whole the less attention is given to an about these criminals the better. What does it say about us if we publicly express such desire to inflict similar evil on the perpetrators of evil? I prefer to say nothing in these cases.

Vintage jazz

I respect your opinion

Thank you Ning74

I agree and am relieved to read the more reasoned posts on this sad matter.

Good post Ning74.

I agree with Aveline too.

Vintagejazz

Tracey Connolly has been described as not unintelligent. Apparently she did her GCSEs and acquired quite a few.

Her early life has left her damaged and dysfunctional and that has made her an easy target for perverted and abusive men, many of whom also had abusive and neglectful childhoods.If she had been removed from her parents early on who knows what she would have made of her life?

Instead the vicious cycle continues.

Good post Vintagejazz

That reasoning would mean earlier intervention and more children being removed from abusive parents which, imo, would be the right way forward.
More early intervention too, for parents/single mothers who are struggling, need support before they may be targeted by would-be abusers.

Which all needs more funding.

I'm a bit tired of hearing the 'neglectful and abusive childhood' line. I had a neglectful and abusive childhood. One of my brothers took his own life because of it. None of us went on to inflict pain and suffering of others.