View Full Version : Want to know where your taxes are going?
... to give this evil woman a make over :angry::angry::angry:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Baby-P-Tracey-Connelly-The-Mother-Of-Baby-Peter-May-Get-A-New-Identity-After-She-Is-Free/Article/200908215358277?lpos=Home_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15358277_Baby_P%3A_Tracey_Connelly%2C_ The_Mother_Of_Baby_Peter%2C_May_Get_A_New_Identity _After_She_Is_Free__
moonstorm
11-08-2009, 12:50
This is just so wrong. I can't say anymore without swearing!!!
t is "highly likely" she will be offered the same protection
It's not guaranteed that she will get a new identity. She's not even up for parole yet.
Hopefully she will get shanked in prison then we won't have to keep her.
Chloe O'brien
12-08-2009, 01:09
The sad fact is they will get a new identity and a new life. All these procedures have been put in place. Somewhere in the home office there is a safe with three shiny new pastports and three shiny new lives. the minute these sick b******s are released they will be put on a plane with a new life, because the justice system in this country is too cowardly to jail a murder for life and mean life.
It was the same when James Bulger was murdered. His killers new identitis and new lives had already been arranged while they were on remand. The only way they will be prevented from having a new life is if the other prisoners take matters into their own hands.
Hannelene
12-08-2009, 06:35
Why would they think of releasing her? After she has committed such an awful crime?
Why would they think of releasing her? After she has committed such an awful crime?
She said she was sorry.. how pathetic.. Sorry doesn't bring that beautiful boy back.. sorry doesn't make up for the fact that she sat on a computer while her vicious boyfriend murdered her son... Sorry, in this case, really is NOT enough
Hannelene
12-08-2009, 09:18
Why would they think of releasing her? After she has committed such an awful crime?
She said she was sorry.. how pathetic.. Sorry doesn't bring that beautiful boy back.. sorry doesn't make up for the fact that she sat on a computer while her vicious boyfriend murdered her son... Sorry, in this case, really is NOT enough
I thought she would be jailed for the rest of her life for something so horrific it would be wrong to release her
Why would they think of releasing her? After she has committed such an awful crime?
She said she was sorry.. how pathetic.. Sorry doesn't bring that beautiful boy back.. sorry doesn't make up for the fact that she sat on a computer while her vicious boyfriend murdered her son... Sorry, in this case, really is NOT enough
I thought she would be jailed for the rest of her life for something so horrific it would be wrong to release her
For what she was charged with, she couldn't get a life sentence. The maximum sentence is 14 years for causing or allowing a death.
It couldn't be proved which of the three actually administered the blow that killed Peter therefore causing or allowing a death was the most they could be charged with.
It was probably obvious to the police who killed Peter and who stood by and let it happen but that counts for nothing in a court of law. You can't point the finger and lay charges without sufficient evidence.
The sentences they all received weren't enough. Peter suffered for too long because of the failings of social services. I would say I hope they've learnt their lesson but I won't hold my breath as this is the council (Haringey) that allowed Victoria Climbie to be murdered and did nothing.
Hannelene
12-08-2009, 18:24
I know it's the same council where Victoria Climbie died too :(
How long did her great aunt get for that in jail?
I think Baby P's mum - well all of them should be jailed for life as they will never change and shouldn't be allowed a change of identity
Victoria's great-aunt Marie Therese Kouao and Carl Manning (not sure of the relation) both got life for murder and child cruelty.
Hannelene
12-08-2009, 20:03
Thanks for finding that out for me
If they got life why couldn't the killers of Baby P get the same?
They were charged with different things. Causing or allowing a death is a lesser charge than murder so carries a lighter sentence.
Hannelene
12-08-2009, 20:08
Thats a shame :(
If it was another country like America they probably would all be locked up for life without parole or even death
Chloe O'brien
12-08-2009, 23:51
There should be no measure of time which a murderer should serve. If they have taken a life then they should be locked up in a 6x4 foot room with a bowl to wee in and a smelly blanket to sleep on until God decides to end their misery. But there is too many PC doo-gooders who claim it's against human rights to treat people like that, but were the fook were those do-gooders when little Peter was getting the sh1t kicked out of him and unless the law is changed sadly baby Peter won't be the last innocent child to be failed by our society.
unless the law is changed sadly baby Peter won't be the last innocent child to be failed by our society.
And - dare I say it - Haringey social services, who seem to have an inherent lack of responsibility and the ability to let children be beaten to death and then say "It's not out fault."
It is these people who are responsible for Peter's death. If they had have done their jobs properly and taken him into care, he'd still be alive (which has been recognised by the second review). If they had done their research, looked around the home and found men's clothing there, they would have looked the step father up and found he had previous convictions against children, they would have found the step father's brother was on the run with an under age girl.
I don't give two hoots about paperwork, too many cases and all those excuses. Any social worker who cares about the children would have taken time to assess the situation and not just be fobbed off or done half a job.
Sixty odd times the social workers saw the family and still they did nothing. Social services allowed Peter to be killed through their neglectful work and they should be made culpable. Sacking three people does not make up for their short comings.
Is that all Peter's life was worth? Mother five years, stepfather ten years, an indeterminate sentence for the paedophile step uncle (likely to be out in three years) and three people's jobs?
DaVeyWaVey
13-08-2009, 00:29
All I have to say is: our criminal justice system is absolutely ****e.
Haringey social services - absolutely appalling!! I hope they are holding their heads down in shame!!! Can't believe they have failed other children too :(
Hannelene
13-08-2009, 20:43
Why doesn't the Home Office look at revising the laws when it comes to murder instead of letting people that commit horrific crimes like this to walk free?
The CPS can't charge someone with murder unless they have specific evidence, whether that's forensic evidence or a confession, against the person, regardless of what laws are in place.
We all know that ONE of the three killed Peter but there is NO evidence to say which one did it. Circumstantial evidence doesn't stand up in court and what the police think doesn't come in to it. Murder is a serious charge, the CPS can't go charging people without evidence.
A change in the law wouldn't change the fact that there is NO evidence against these people to convict them of murder.
Hannelene
13-08-2009, 21:08
So in less then 15 yrs time they all will be free to possibly start a family again? This is crazy!
I don't know if any of you are aware but the step father got a longer sentence for raping a two year old than he did for what happened to Peter. He got ten years for rape and that's why he'll be inside for longer than the other two.
The step father and mother (I can't remember their names) both had other charges brought against them for other children and that's why there was an injunction against naming them so they could have a fair trial. The step father was tried for rape and the mother was on trial for cruelty against a child (not sure if it was the same child). The mother wasn't found guilty.
From BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8194873.stm)
Barker and Connelly could also not be named initially because they were involved in another trial and there was a risk of prejudice.
On 1 May, Barker was convicted of raping a two-year-old girl but Connelly was cleared of a child cruelty charge.
With the second trial complete, the trio were then sentenced for causing the death of Baby Peter.
Hannelene
14-08-2009, 19:39
Will these people ever be allowed around children again or will they be placed on the sex offenders register when released?
Part of the step father's parole could be that he signs on the sex offenders register and that may be the case for the brother but not for the mother.
I don't know if they will be allowed children again. The mother will never see her existing children ever again due to her convictions. Whether she is allowed to raise another child is for social services and the courts to decide, although I highly doubt she will get to keep any further children.
Hannelene
14-08-2009, 19:45
Thanks for all the info I am so shocked that this was allowed to happen to a child :(
Its amazing what goes on behind closed doors and how people can be so cruel to defenceless children.
What interests me is why the mother allowed this to happen to only one of her children. What made him the target and why didn't his mother protect him? Was it because he was so young he couldn't defend himself or tell anyone or because he was the only boy? And why didn't his two older sisters tell someone what was going on? I'm not saying it was their fault that it got to such a point where Peter died. Where were the neighbours when the abuse was going on?
Hannelene
14-08-2009, 19:54
Thats what I don't understand why this child? What happened to the others? How did they escape from harm?
Nobody knows what happened to the others apart from social services and the adoptive families. According to the BBC Peter has two older sisters and a baby brother who was born while the mother was on remand for his death.
Its rather sad to think that the family have probably been split up when they were adopted. The adoption process works by a couple choosing the age range of the children they want, babies are like gold dust. To find a set of parents willing to take a newborn and two girls aged 5+ (at an estimate) who are from an abused background is difficult.
I wonder what became of the three older childen's biological dad. Maybe he has the two girls.
Hannelene
15-08-2009, 04:42
I wonder too!
The three people responsible for the death of baby Peter Connelly have appealed against their sentences.
Peter died in Haringey, north London, in the care of mother Tracey Connelly, 28, her partner Steven Barker, 33, and Barker's brother Jason Owen, 37.
Connelly, Barker and Owen received minimum prison terms of five, 12 and three years respectively for causing or allowing Peter's death.
The Court of Appeal confirmed all have lodged appeals against their sentences.
A spokeswoman for the Court of Appeal said: "The appeals are currently being looked at by a judge.
"A decision is expected within the next three to four weeks."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8211779.stm
This is apalling. I wonder what new evidence they have that wasn't presented at their trial.
GossipGirl
22-08-2009, 15:09
I wonder what new evidence has been found too? I hope whatever happens that time is added to their sentences
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.