Baby P's mother to be released

What upsets me the most is that children used to safe mostly and it was almost unheard of fir the sort of things that are done to children today to happen, now anything goes sadly , what have we become ?

Apologies. That should read the adoptive mother must have gone through rigorous checks.

The baby I mentioned above, killed by his adoptive mother must have gone through some rigorous checks. He was a beautiful child and just a year old.
It is reported that she said 'No one told her that babies were so demanding'. She said she hated him.
How did she get through the process? How?

MissAdventure

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.

It’s far from the first time that the psychiatrists, parole boards and social workers have been fooled by these cunning, cruel despicable people.
Everybody is so keen to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe they’ve been rehabilitated that these horrible crimes will keep on happening. The news is full of stories like this and it never stops.
When do we see the light?

And murder other people on their behalf?

I don't know much about this woman other than her crime -and it was an appalling crime. However, just looking at her photo which was widely shared I'm left with two thoughts. One is that she doesn't look very bright (and all that that implies re genetic inheritance and life experience) and the other is that she'll be a target for vigilantes.

That is what babies tend to do to rational people.
Rationally, we should probably give up on them after being woken up every night for months on end.
Or when they have a tantrum because we won't let them eat sweets and watch "tellytubbies" at 2am.
It's a basic human response to want to nurture children and protect them.

nahsma

I have no doubt that the Parole Board understands what it is there to do - carefully sift the information, look at the history - before making an UNbiased, NON political decision. Occasionally they get things wrong, which is unfortunate, but the Board members, like us, are human, and mistakes are sometimes made. Dominic Raab weighing in with a clearly political dog-whistle is vile. Remember Tories calling High Court Judges “enemies of the people”? When the government of the day complain because they don't like judicial decisions, we're on a very slippery slope - the Nazis used to complain about German judges… until they got rid of the ones who didn't toe the party line. That worked out well. Not.

We're not allowed to mention Nazis apparently nahsma. Even when the comparison is very accurate indeed.

Any human being can do what this person did is worthy of ever again becoming a parent be it their own by birth or adoption.

maddyone

volver I know it was just a thought but best to think of it as opinions that we do/do not agree with.

I think that every single poster on here abhors what happened to little Peter. It’s how society moves forward with these very difficult cases isn’t it?
Nonetheless I feel that five years minimum sentence was very lenient but as history has shown, she’s served a lot longer than that.

But maddyone some opinions are not to be respected. Sorry. But that's my opinion

Anybody who argues for assassination, or forced sterilisation, or complains about how much it costs to keep someone in prison, has moved beyond rational discussion. And look at this thread; there are people raging about this woman; people who don't really know anything about the case, when it happened or even the sex of the victim.

It seems that there is a switch that goes off inside some people's heads that makes them irrational, and off they go, on the "string 'em up" pathway . And anybody who disagrees is considered some sort of apologist for criminals.

volver

MissAdventure

All if those things sound pretty reasonable for someone involved in the torture and death of their own child to me.
Nothing at all like a fictional TV programme, sadly for Peter.

Reasonable?

Sorry, I didn't realise we'd moved back to medieval times.

What she did to that helpless little boy was worse than medieval.
I’d have gone for the death penalty, there are just too many of these awful crimes, but of course we’re more civilised than that.
At least sterilise her.

I have no doubt that the Parole Board understands what it is there to do - carefully sift the information, look at the history - before making an UNbiased, NON political decision. Occasionally they get things wrong, which is unfortunate, but the Board members, like us, are human, and mistakes are sometimes made. Dominic Raab weighing in with a clearly political dog-whistle is vile. Remember Tories calling High Court Judges “enemies of the people”? When the government of the day complain because they don't like judicial decisions, we're on a very slippery slope - the Nazis used to complain about German judges… until they got rid of the ones who didn't toe the party line. That worked out well. Not.

volver I know it was just a thought but best to think of it as opinions that we do/do not agree with.

I think that every single poster on here abhors what happened to little Peter. It’s how society moves forward with these very difficult cases isn’t it?
Nonetheless I feel that five years minimum sentence was very lenient but as history has shown, she’s served a lot longer than that.

So she’s 40 now is she? The probability of her having another child is poor, but not impossible.

Life should mean life and she should be given an hysterectomy or something like that to stop her from having more children. You can’t expect to kill someone then let loose two years later. Like nothing as happened. That poor little girl will never get a chance to live so why should she. Totally disgusting and anyone who thinks it right really needs to take a good look at themselves for thinking it’s right for her to be let out.

She let an innocent child be bullied and murdered and now she's to be let out ,on benefits and housed at our expense ,able to have another defenceless little child.Wheres the justice?Can't understand why these dreadful women are not sterilised .

I would happily pay more for Social Services if I thought it would make them more efficient in protecting babies and children. But they would need to find staff who are capable. With every case we've seen there were countless missed opportunities where injuries were ignored, visits refused and the condition of the child overlooked. Excuses excuses excuses.

I also have very little faith in their ability to follow and monitor all these hundreds of child murderers once they're released. For years and years.

He did.

Dominic Raab launches scathing attack on the Parole Board after it rejected his appeal against the decision to free the mother of Baby P, who died after months of abuse.

The justice secretary had claimed that the decision to release Tracey Connelly, who was jailed indefinitely with a minimum term of five years in May 2009, should be reconsidered on the grounds of irrationality, but a judge upheld the original decision.

It means Connelly, 40 – who was convicted of causing or allowing the death of her 17-month-old son, Peter, at their home in Tottenham, north London, in 2007 – could be out within weeks. Raab reacted angrily, proposing a “fundamental overhaul” that would curb the board’s independence.

Raab, who is also the lord chancellor, tweeted: “Tracey Connelly’s cruelty towards her son, baby Peter, was pure evil. The decision to release her demonstrates why the Parole Board needs a fundamental overhaul – including a ministerial check for the most serious offenders – so that it serves and protects the public.”

When it announced its initial decision in March, the board said that all professional witnesses supported Connelly’s release in evidence at the hearing and the secretary of state’s representative confirmed this recommendation was accepted. It added that witnesses told the panel Connelly posed a low risk of reoffending.

Connelly was released from jail in 2013 but was returned to prison two years later for breaching her parole conditions. She was subsequently refused parole in 2015, in 2017 and again in 2019.

The board said in a statement on Thursday: “Following the reconsideration application from the secretary of state, a judge has ruled that the decision made by independent Parole Board members to release was not irrational, as stated in the reconsideration application, and the original decision is upheld.”

Her release will be subject to her living in designated accommodation and strict limitations on her contacts, movements and activities.

Raab had also claimed that there was a failure to take account of all the evidence, excessive weight was given to the purported effectiveness of external controls and that insufficient reasons were given, but the judge rejected all of those arguments.

A power to seek reconsideration of a Parole Board decision if a party believes the decision was irrational or unfair was introduced in 2019 after the uproar surrounding its decision to release John Worboys, the black-cab rapist.

The decision to release Worboys was overturned by the high court in March 2018 after two of his victims challenged it and in November of the same year, the board overturned its own decision. But the political row led to the then chair of the board, Nick Hardwick, losing his job. He later accused the justice secretary at the time, David Gauke, of chasing headlines and compromising the integrity of the justice system over his handling of the case.

The legacy of the Worboys case was also behind the decision announced by the Parole Board on Wednesday to allow victims to attend parole hearings, after a government manifesto pledge. Trials will begin next month.

Connelly’s boyfriend, Steven Barker, and Barker’s brother, Jason Owen, were also jailed in 2009 for causing or allowing Peter’s death.

In 2020-21, the Parole Board released 4,289 offenders and directed that 12,154 remain in prison (74%). Of those released, 27 committed a serious further offence, a rate of 0.5%. Official statistics show that life-sentenced prisoners are significantly less likely than those who did not receive a life sentence to commit a serious further offence after release by the board.

The minister of justice can ask for review of the case, I'm sure.

The minister of justice shouldn't be allowed to overrule the judiciary based on public opinion.

We're not living in an authoritarian or populist-run state yet.

As I have said, the minister for justice would disagree with you.

Not being a suitable babysitter does not equate to being beyond redemption, does it? I know a few people who I wouldn’t leave with small children, but none of them is a criminal, so I don’t see the equivalence there at all. I’m sure that there are many hardened criminals who are great with children, too.

There will be reasons why the people who have arrived at the decision to release Connolly have done so. Unless we all think that we should be able to overturn their decision based on some sort of superior instinct, but without having a background in criminology, or child protection, and without access to the relevant reports, we have to accept that they know more than we do.

It was just a thought maddyone.

I don’t think people who have had children have clouded judgment per se, any more than I think people who don’t have children have clouded judgment per se. People don’t have clouded judgment, they have opinions. We may or may not agree with those opinions.

I don't have any children. Never have.

Maybe that helps me avoid having clouded judgement.