Baby P's mother to be released

12:19tickingbird

I agree she should be sterilised, she could be having baby after baby who would be placed in care and she might object to them being adopted, she obviously has rights (not sure about this). Imagine 18 years down the line discovering she is your birth mother how awful would that be.

I’m not being emotive or angry. I’m not talking about all abusers. There is no question of doubt in the case of Connolly. How you can be ok with babies being removed at birth but not with sterilisation isn’t rational.

Lucca

Dickens I agree with this
I am very 'liberal' minded, but there is a point at which you have to say that something is just wrong, when it clearly is wrong. And leaving children in the care of those you've described, hoping for the best by keeping the family together, is wrong, on every level and in every sense of the word

I think this woman should most certainly be closely monitored if she is released and possibly educated about choosing not to have more children (I can’t cope with the concept of forced sterilisation but you get my drift)

I think this woman should most certainly be closely monitored if she is released and possibly educated about choosing not to have more children (I can’t cope with the concept of forced sterilisation but you get my drift)

I don't quite know what the answer is - but like you, cannot support forced sterilisation. That opens up a can of worms, for obvious reasons.

Fortunately, she will reach an age when child-bearing will be impossible.

It's such an emotive subject, but I think one needs to attempt some rationality in spite of that. Making decisions based on emotion and anger is dangerous. We can be spurred by it, but not make decisions in the heat of such emotion.

Close monitoring is the best we can hope for. But deeper more fundamental changes in the way we treat people who are drug-addicted or alcohol addicted, damaged etc, is something maybe we should be looking at rather than closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Dickens I agree with this
I am very 'liberal' minded, but there is a point at which you have to say that something is just wrong, when it clearly is wrong. And leaving children in the care of those you've described, hoping for the best by keeping the family together, is wrong, on every level and in every sense of the word

I think this woman should most certainly be closely monitored if she is released and possibly educated about choosing not to have more children (I can’t cope with the concept of forced sterilisation but you get my drift)

Sorry I meant some years later.

tickingbird

^There are some individuals who, clearly, are not fit to be trusted with children, their own or anyone else's^.

I agree with you Dickens on most of your points. However, in the case of the above point what do you suggest? I’ve been told that because, in this case, there’s a strong argument for sterilisation in my view, I’m irrational and therefore my arguments are to be ignored. Do we just allow women such as Connolly to carry on having child after child only to have them whisked away at birth? A baby conveyor belt with prospective adopters waiting in line?

The woman is obviously unfit to care for children and, of course, it’s awful that her own upbringing was inadequate but the priority for all agencies must be the children and the adults second. These cases maybe complex and challenging but this isn’t a social experiment. Children are being subjected to living hells and, in many cases, death must be merciful relief. It’s about time we started to be judgemental and put the child’s welfare far above the adult’s human rights. It’s not that these abusers don’t know it’s wrong. Their many ways of hiding the abuse from others indicates this.

There are women who have been wrongfully accused of harming killing their children and this has only come to light some years earlier. You simply cannot introduce a measure like that into a civilised society.

If Tracey Connolley has any more children they should be immediately placed for adoption. Their rights should be absolutely first and foremost.

There are some individuals who, clearly, are not fit to be trusted with children, their own or anyone else's.

I agree with you Dickens on most of your points. However, in the case of the above point what do you suggest? I’ve been told that because, in this case, there’s a strong argument for sterilisation in my view, I’m irrational and therefore my arguments are to be ignored. Do we just allow women such as Connolly to carry on having child after child only to have them whisked away at birth? A baby conveyor belt with prospective adopters waiting in line?

The woman is obviously unfit to care for children and, of course, it’s awful that her own upbringing was inadequate but the priority for all agencies must be the children and the adults second. These cases maybe complex and challenging but this isn’t a social experiment. Children are being subjected to living hells and, in many cases, death must be merciful relief. It’s about time we started to be judgemental and put the child’s welfare far above the adult’s human rights. It’s not that these abusers don’t know it’s wrong. Their many ways of hiding the abuse from others indicates this.

Yesterday it felt like we, grannies for heaven's sake, were being moved towards mob rule and anarchy. I felt quite despairing when I went to bed.

Thank you to those who write such thoughtful posts and bring us sanity back into the discussions.

Vintagejazz

I agree with Dickens.

There seems to be so much focus now on keeping families together, and sometimes that is disastrous for children.
There needs to be more balance. We have gone from a time when some children were forcibly removed from their mothers and adopted for very dubious reasons, to one where the most inadequate, chaotic, dysfunctional and neglectful parents are encouraged to keep their babies and given chance after chance after chance at the expense of the safety and mental well being of their tiny children.

You're right about "balance" Vintagejazz

Dysfunctional, chaotic, drug / alcohol addicted parents, are always going to pose a risk to their children.

And this cannot be ignored for the sake of 'keeping the family together'. It might be more convenient economically to do that, but it's at the expense of babies like Peter.

I am very 'liberal' minded, but there is a point at which you have to say that something is just wrong, when it clearly is wrong. And leaving children in the care of those you've described, hoping for the best by keeping the family together, is wrong, on every level and in every sense of the word.

I agree with Dickens.

There seems to be so much focus now on keeping families together, and sometimes that is disastrous for children.
There needs to be more balance. We have gone from a time when some children were forcibly removed from their mothers and adopted for very dubious reasons, to one where the most inadequate, chaotic, dysfunctional and neglectful parents are encouraged to keep their babies and given chance after chance after chance at the expense of the safety and mental well being of their tiny children.

There’s a book called Dangerous Families by Dale etal, published in the 1980’s. The assessment before therapy model it sets out is IMO still excellent.

What choice is there though? If she lives under her own name she will be attacked and probably killed by mobs or vigilantes.

Bignanny2 Fri 06-May-22 21:14:35
And that’s a bad thing - how ?????

I would say it's a "bad thing" because you're advocating a society run by mobs and vigilante groups, and if you don't comprehend how dangerous that is, then I suggest you look at the case of a doctor (Dr Cloete) forced from her home after vigilante mobs daubed her walls with anti-paedophile graffiti.

She worked at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, as a paediatrician. The Police believe the mob got confused between the meaning of the two words - paediatrician and paedophile.

Law and Order exists for good reason, otherwise society would break down completely with various mobs running around dealing out rough justice as and when they felt like it.

Whatever happens to Baby P's mother - nothing will erase the fact of his death, it won't bring him back nor will it mitigate the suffering he endured.

Perhaps it would be more constructive and useful to demand our 'care' system investigates and assesses more closely the background of people like Peter's mother (her own mother neglected her and her siblings).

There is something profoundly and fundamentally flawed about a system that allows social workers to be fobbed-off my manipulative parents whose children are deemed 'at risk' and who appear to be accorded more 'rights' than the children in their care.

There are some individuals who, clearly, are not fit to be trusted with children, their own or anyone else's. If you examine Peter's mother's own background and history, it's quite clear she falls into this category. He should have been removed from her care long before she was allowed to continue with her erratic, self-absorbed, chaotic life.

Well said Iam. And thank you to all those who work, not just talk about, this very difficult area.

It seems that the support for ‘those like her that fight for those tiny children’ doesn’t include the police, probation, criminal justice, social workers, doctors, health visitors, teachers and many others, who spend their working lives trying to keep children safe.
In the period when Peter Connolly was horrifically abused and murdered, there were about 30,000 children who were the subject of child protection plans. Research at that time 2009, showed an average of a child killed each week by parent or caregiver. Of the 30,000 on child protection plans, about 2 of those children were killed. That suggests our safeguarding procedures help some children.
Acknowledging this doesn’t mean I don’t care, don’t share the distress about the suffering children endure. It’s shameful to have so many children in need of protection in our country.
Services and culture do matter. We have huge numbers of problem drinkers and drug users who are parents. Dependent substance misuse isn’t compatible with good enough parenting. Yet we slash services that might make a difference

Allsorts, I really don't believe these people are evil - just very sick - so that explains our different views on how we deal with them. I don't want revenge, just simply want them kept secure and well away from the rest of us.

Chestnut. God bless your mother and those like her that fight for those tiny children.

What price a child's life? The life he should have had, loved and nurtured by his I own mother. She is evil.Whoever makes these decisions needs sacking. I don't care what happens to the vile woman in prison, no way should she be out and live her life, possibly have more children, no new identity. If this happens I hope she's found and knows no peace.

Bignanny2

No one seems to have mentioned that she’ll probably be given a new identity and anonymity which will be funded by the tax payer.

Do you seriously believe that they can release a person such as this back into society 'as is' ,
Of course they give them new identities.
At the very least she will .moved to accommodation in a new area.
She will have a new name.
She will have her accommodation and other expenses paid for.

Who do you think pays for all of this?

Amberspyglass. people are entitled to their own opinions on here!this murderer has been given a chance of freedom. Her child never got the choice.

You might be interested in the case of little Sarah Phillips who was murdered by her stepfather as far back as 1983. My mother was way ahead of her time. She was deeply upset and championed her cause. She wrote to the papers about the case. This is what she wrote.
(you may find this upsetting)
I remember the front page of the Daily Star of July 27th, which I still have, showing the photographs of little Sarah Phillips and her brutal parents, who caused her death by very harsh ill treatment. She couldn’t run to the Police Station - she was only 16 month old when she was admitted into hospital the first time after vomiting for two days, and showing signs of obvious ill treatment. Her arm was bruised, which showed she had been gripped very tightly, and she had bruises on her thighs and back, but the Welfare Officer sent her back to her parents when she was discharged. The second and third times, she was admitted unconscious, both times showing signs that her head had been shaken severely, the third time her eyes not focusing, which showed on X-ray haemorrhage on one side of the brain, and STILL returned to her brutal parents. The fourth time admitted unconscious again, bruised with fracture of the skull and bronchial pneumonia. She died the next morning. Her poor little defenceless head must have felt as if it was going to explode.

My mother had a plaque made in her memory and it was placed in the Brownie garden of the local church where it still resides. the church remember her in their prayers every year because of my mother.

I often think my mother is in heaven, waiting to greet these little souls as they arrive, because that is exactly what she would want to do. She cared for little children deeply and would want to bring them peace after their suffering on earth.

DaisyAnne - I'm not 'threatening' anything, just well aware that there'll be those with a lynch mob mentality out to get her.

To me, it seems obvious that anyone who could torture a small child is very unwell, certainly not 'normal'. A whole-life sentence means that they are kept safely away from society and looked after. There's no possibility of repeat offending.

It's true, it's really hard to have an actual "conversation" Iam64.
I too have typed and deleted. There are just SO many complex problems which are too often met with simplistic bite-sized "solutions".

What is 'depressing', oh no wait! horrific is there are human beings who are torturing children right now as we sit tapping at our keyboards.

I think most people just give up volver
I have typed and deleted so many responses today on various thread!

This thread is so depressing. To think that this is how some grown women think. Thank goodness none of you are in charge of anything to do with this case.