Baby P's mother to be released

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

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.

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

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.

Good post Vintagejazz.

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.

MissAdventure

I'm sure she never was a danger to the public.

No, just a coward, who beat a 2 year old leading to his death. Let her stay in prison.

I think there is a knee jerk reaction to anything horrible happening to babies and small children. Before I became a parent, I wasn't one to fawn over babies, my feelings of protectiveness were mainly towards animals which I still have of course. However, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying when becoming a parent I found myself overwhelmed by a baby's vulnerability and how adults around them literally have their lives in their hands and can do much harm if they are damaged themselves and without boundaries. Little lives are completely dependent on and all their trust is in their carer. Possibly that wasn't on my radar once. I feel heartbroken when reading about the brevity of lives and suffering of babies and children at the hands of parents and the "step parent", often a transitory person shacked up with the parent and certainly shouldn't be labelled as such, discrediting all the step parents who are a meaningful and permanent presence in the lives of their step children. I will admit to being overtaken by an almost visceral hatred of what some adults inflict on the small souls in their care. I identify with those feelings of wanting to to tear such abusers from limb to limb,. However I know that having a society that operates on the knee jerk would not benefit anyone. I don't know what the answer is, how long such people should serve before they can be rehabilitated into society, sometimes I think they themselves have suffered so much of their own abuse and their behaviour is simply self perpetuating.

I know I abhor the death penalty and would not want to live in a country that had that, neither do I think it's a good idea to have vigilante groups roaming around to mete out their own brand of justice. I remember such a crowd descending on the home of a "paediatrician" mistakenly mixing that person up with a paedophile living in their area, which rather proves the point of how dangerous a premise mob rule is.

I don't think there is any danger of mob rule by discussing it here.
We're not talking about organising a coach trip to go and "sort anyone out", then stopping for fish and chips on the way home.
.there is nothing at all to reccomend vigilante groups.

It may point to peoples despondency at how the system works, though.

Sorry 10.14 post should have said allowed allowed others to beat a 2 year old leading to hos death.

The services that should prevent these tragedies are understaffed, underfunded, under-trained and under-supported in every way - it is a shitty job. I have every sympathy with the workers on the ground. Their caseloads are unmanageable, their training is inadequate, their support to do the job equally lacking. And they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - slated for taking children away from their families and reviled when cases like baby P happen.

We do not know the reasoning behind this woman's release; but we do know that the services that should keep her safe from herself and any future children she might have safe do not have the capacity to do the job properly.

The problem starts way back: girls with intelligence deficits brought up in inadequate households and prey to evil influences from unscrupulous men - that's where the input needs to start. Bring back Sure Start. Prevention is not popular with political leaders - they think short term.

Miss A I should have clarified not talking about mob rule on GN, I'm probably thinking about when the offender is released into society with a new identity and those who will out and go after them if they can

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.

I have to laugh, I really do. Doesn’t count?? Doesn’t count because you are wrong?

Nope. Facts are facts.

Luckygirl3

The services that should prevent these tragedies are understaffed, underfunded, under-trained and under-supported in every way - it is a shitty job. I have every sympathy with the workers on the ground. Their caseloads are unmanageable, their training is inadequate, their support to do the job equally lacking. And they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - slated for taking children away from their families and reviled when cases like baby P happen.

We do not know the reasoning behind this woman's release; but we do know that the services that should keep her safe from herself and any future children she might have safe do not have the capacity to do the job properly.

The problem starts way back: girls with intelligence deficits brought up in inadequate households and prey to evil influences from unscrupulous men - that's where the input needs to start. Bring back Sure Start. Prevention is not popular with political leaders - they think short term.

Yes I agree. We are talking about a dysfunctional woman whose early and most influential years were chaotic. As a result she is not capable of making safe decisions for herself or any children in her care.
She is part of a vicious circle and seems to have been failed by society, and in turn her Children have also been very badly let down.

This is horrendous! Probably be given a new identity too, really makes me angry

Just as the case of Elsie was used earlier in the week to demonstrate pensioner poverty so one could regard Connelly as illustrative of the many adults who abuse and kill children. As an audience member on last night’s Question Time said, Connelly has already served far longer that her original sentence which was to serve a minimum of five years. Isn’t the real issue that it was very light compared to the severity of the crime which I assume was to do with the joint enterprise involved in Peter’s death and that the men in the household were culpable of much of the harm done to him. It’s also that grey area between being found guilt of (premeditated) murder, (which these people were not) and the infliction of sustained and systematic violence which leads to death.

I agree with Luckygirl3. Connelly’s problems did start way back c/f the 2009 Andrew Anthony article I referenced earlier -on page 4 of this thread.

I am inclined to agree with the QT panellist Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones when he asked: Are some people beyond redemption? We need to be shown that Connelly had redeemed herself. He didn’t offer any suggestions on how that could be achieved. Should, say, the public be made party to the discussions involved in Parole Board decisions? Charlotte Ivers argued that policitans should not be involved in decisions about criminal justice because of the dangers of them bowing to popular pressure in order to be reelected. That would be a very dangerous precedent indeed.

On balance, I think Connelly must be given a chance but at the same time am worried that her monitoring will be carried out by under-funded and and under-resourced services that could result into her falling back into old ways without detection.

Are some people beyond redemption? We need to be shown that Connelly had redeemed herself. He didn’t offer any suggestions on how that could be achieved.

How would we know? There have been instances where Parole Boards have been convinced by prisoners that they have reformed, are ready to be released back into society only to re-offend soon afterwards.

Are some on Parole Boards too ready to believe that everyone has a good side that has been just waiting for a chance to manifest itself? Can Parole Boards be too readily manipulated?

Agree with Not spaghetti.

MissAdventure

I always find it best not to have expectations on how others should behave.
It saves disappointment.

I did make a thread a while back to ask why it was ok to wish death on Putin.

So you would have no laws, MissAdventure or is it that you do not expect people to obey them when overwhelmed by their "opinion".

Yes, her falling back into old ways while under the radar is the real issue. She doesn't seem to be a dangerous person herself but is weak, narcissistic and puts her own needs before her child's. She also, possibly because of her background, seems to be attracted to predatory and dangerous males.

She really does need very close watching I think

New identity, at our expense no doubt. Hope she never has another child.

Given that she has a boyfriend she is going to live with, and that the people who should be overseeing her are so woefully underfunded, is it reasonable to assume it may be somewhat risky to assume all will be resolved now?
Regardless of the reasons why she may be as she is, I'm thinking it's a pity that the risk of harm would be considered worth it, when it is children's lives at stake.

Her human right!!! What about little Peter? All these do good-ers AFTER the murder. Where were they BEFORE.

And re-homed with no financial worries! Does this legitimise murder.

Does this legitimise murder.

No. Of course not.