Baby P's mother to be released

Volver, Will you be inviting her to Babysit???????

@ Annaram1 just lump them all together in one disgusting dump.

I wouldn’t condone letting other prisoners get to them though. That would ruin the chances of some peoples rehab

I suspect that she will soon be recalled again, given her history of being unable to live without transgressing whilst on licence. I have serious doubts about the monitoring of any tagging she may be subject to, given the poor record of previously contracted-out tagging monitoring companies.
Being on licence means she will have to have regular frequent meetings with her privation officer. Unfortunately, that is not always a guarantee of success, though in many cases it is effective.

@ NotSpaghetti. My daughter is a senior social worker, I’m a paramedic and most of my fam are medical. We are constantly up against this rhetoric that you spout! When do they ever learn, bring on privatisation and accountability!! ?

It is not only Connelly but a lot of other people who have been in the news over the last year and found guilty of torturing and killing young children. For some reason judges are very lenient towards them and never seem to give adequate sentences.

These people are murderers and deserve life in a harsh prison where other prisoners can get at them.

We just don't know Callistemon21 . There was a 2018 Review of the law, policy and procedure relating to Parole Board decisions presented by David Gauke the then Secretary of State for Justice which states:

First, we will immediately increase the transparency of the parole process by amending Rule 25 to remove the blanket ban that prevents the Parole Board from disclosing information about its decision making. While this initial action is in line with the ruling of the judicial review on the Worboys case, we envision more transparency in the system in future.

Gauke resigned from post following the 2019 Tory leadership election.

Did those proposals get any further? Does anybody know? I don't have time today to follow this up.

Does this legitimise murder.

No. Of course not.

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

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

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.

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

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

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".

Agree with Not spaghetti.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.