am IBU to be ablsolutely disgusted that baby Ps mother

[issey6cats]

will be released after serving just 4 years in prison for the murder of baby P shes still young enough to go on to have other children, and its a disgrace that what baby P suffered is thought to only carry 4 years punishment

I hope she gets recognised and lynched. That vile Jason Owen (the paedo brother of the murderer), hasn't been though. Pity.

I don't usually agree with the 'string-em-up' brigade, but if there's ever a woman who deserved to rot in jail it was her.

Don't forget, as well as allowing her partner to batter the baby to death, she also did nothing whilst her was repeatedly raping her two-year old daughter.

They do take children from parents at birth if there is a significant risk there. I know someone it happened to, SS were called when she was taken to hospital in labour and the baby was removed more or less right away.

I would imagine (only from knowing the circumstances that the baby was removed from the person I know) that this would probably be the case here too.

I seriously don't think that SS would let her keep anymore, would they? Surely that would just be such a massive risk. And tbh, the cost of the constant supervision required for her to keep another child would have to come into consideration?

I find it very very uncomfortable to read post after post filled with violent fantasy regarding these people.

It doesn't make anything better, talking like this.

TBH the other kids have probably been adopted

Not all the posts obviously

I remember reading that she has contact.

Children define themselves by their parents. I feel desperately sorry for them and hope they are getting, and will continue to get the help they need.

Thanks MrsJay, you never can tell you? If she's lost all her remaining children, and won't get to keep any future ones, that's a permanent punishment. Christ, those poor kids.

I am completely unconcerned that she has been released. In her case I believe that the outside will be more of a prison than the four walls of a cell

Would they not be with their father, or too identifiable in that setting?

she has served her time and is no threat to society - she wasn't convicted of murder either OP - this is what happens - it's the law - it's hardly shocking

I am also wondering what people want/expect to happen?

Yeah I suppose your right, I was thinking along the rehabilitated arguement I suppose. Thinking back I remember a boy I went to school with having his baby sibling took away almost at birth - I think his mother was a heroin addict maybe? There were one or two other toddler-ish siblings that got taken into care too, but the oldest two (aged about 9 & 7 at the time) stayed in the mother's care. If sterilisation can't be enforced I just wonder how a blanket ban on ever being able to rear your own children can be. But like I said, just thinking aloud really.

I agree, Pato, and also with notunder for saying 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'

It was an appalling thing to happen and she's clearly a deeply damaged and dysfunctional person. But wishing for her to rot, die in jail or be lynched is also deeply uncomfortable to read.

MrsDeVere, you're probably right about his older siblings but what about the baby she was pregnant with when Peter died?

I feel even sorrier for her last child. Both of his biological parents complicit in killing his half-sibling. I hope he or she is well-placed and that support for the entire family is being given.

As others have said there was no evidence or any legal way to pin the deeds on either the mum, the boyfriend or the lodger.

I don't believe she is redeemable, but she has served her sentence

It doesn't matter that she didn't inflict the blows that killed Peter. She enabled his suffering every single day.

She hasn't served long enough and, as other posters have said, reality is that she will be safer in prison.

That link was interesting DawnDonna, Ive read about some of that stuff but not seen that article before.

It is all very sad.

Given the situation with the relative and how that scandal was "resolved" I have always wondered if she was allowed a certain amount of leeway with SS. As in, they tried to be sensitive to her fear of them and she abused it.

I think what people want/expect to happen is that people who fail the really basic level of care for their children i.e. keeping them safe from rape and murder in their home by people who you bring into their lives and then sanction in their actions, would not be able to be parents again.

And while that isn't realistic and the legislation it would require would be an affront to a civilised society I think it's entirely understandable.

Because we look at that little boy and we see our children and we feel powerless to protect other children if people like this are able to just walk out of prison after a pretty derisory length of time.

And that is understandable isn't it?

The baby she was pregnant with at the time Peter died was made available for adoption (I read that in a newspaper at the time). It's generally not too difficult to find a home for babies, so I assume the baby was adopted. That said, I'm sure the media publicity was extremely offputting for many of the pool of potential parents and might have made it hard to find a home (just my guessing). I can't imagine (as an adoptive mum) having thay kind of public glare over my childs background and birth parents. I honestly don't think I would ever agree to adopt any child whose case had that much media publicity, unless it was my own family. I really truly feel for that babies parents, assuming baby was adopted. Most adopted children have photographs of their birth parents and are told at least their bith paarents first names. But these children, and this baby in particular? Even saying 'your birth parents are called Tracy and Steven' might be enough if the child ever told anyone else. How could you ever give the child a photo without them potentially then recognising the same face on a newspaper front page. What if they ever googled their background?

Kind of got side tracked then, but basically I think it was a truly terrible decision to lift the media injunction on names. Really really unfair on the children. All about media and public baying for blood.

As to her being released, well, she's served her sentence and I trust the Parole Board to do their job. She'll never be able to keep any babies born to her in the future IMHO. She's already 32, in 10 years she'll likely not even be able to have children any more.

I don't think it is long enough especially as she played ahuge part in the tragedy of that poor baby, I hadn't heard before she knew about her daughter being abused.

Lets hope that social services never allow her another child,

Surely she would be recognised no matter where she goes now