Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

am IBU to be ablsolutely disgusted that baby Ps mother

267 replies

issey6cats · 08/10/2013 16:55

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

OP posts:
ShakeAndVac · 08/10/2013 20:29

dandydorset People have the right to bodily integrity. This means that they should not be subjected to medical procedures against their will.

Did she give a shit about the rights of her child and the right to lead a decent life away from fear and pain? No.

dandydorset · 08/10/2013 20:30

sky thanks cant say i agree on this individual case though

dandydorset · 08/10/2013 20:32

i do understand you cant change he law for 1

but i was really asking if by magic you could this on individual,would you still say no

ShakeAndVac · 08/10/2013 20:32

If you make legislation that allows for one woman to be sterilised you put every woman at risk. That included you and your daughters and sisters.

If, then, hypothetically, someone else murdered/tortured their child, even if it was a 'daughter or a sister' why should they be allowed to be able to have more and more babies that they could hypothetically torture again?
Just because 'they can?'
Why does the rights of evil trump those of innocent victims?

AngelsLieToKeepControl · 08/10/2013 20:33

why to those that dont agree with her being sterilzed,why not

Because to force anyone to have an operation against their will is very dodgy ground. If we started deciding who can, and can't get pregnant based on things that have been done in the past then where does it end? If she got pregnant would you agree to a forced abortion?

However much she doesn't deserve to have children, and I think if she does have any more they should be taken from her I would 100% not agree to her being sterilised against her will. To give someone else the power to make that decision for another human being would impact on us all.

skylerwhite · 08/10/2013 20:33

Well, that's the hard part, dandy, you can't pick and choose to whom you grant rights such as bodily integrity. It's easy to grant these rights to law-abiding citizens. But no society can call itself civilised if it forces medical procedures even on those who have committed the most repellant criminal acts.

MrsDeVere · 08/10/2013 20:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

skylerwhite · 08/10/2013 20:35

^If, then, hypothetically, someone else murdered/tortured their child, even if it was a 'daughter or a sister' why should they be allowed to be able to have more and more babies that they could hypothetically torture again?
Just because 'they can?'
Why does the rights of evil trump those of innocent victims?^

As appears to have happened in this case, other or subsequent children born to this woman have been taken into care.

AKissIsNotAContract · 08/10/2013 20:37

Good point that no one is calling for the men involved to be sterilised. One of the men involved has already been released and no one seemed to notice

ShakeAndVac · 08/10/2013 20:38

As appears to have happened in this case, other or subsequent children born to this woman have been taken into care.

Well, that's good to hear, then, at least they're away from it.
What if she managed to get pregnant later on though, and managed to slip through the net (stranger things have happened) and managed to either conceal the fact she was pregnant or took off so they'd be none the wiser?
Would that be possible? Would we even want there to be a small window of doubt, however tiny?

thebody · 08/10/2013 20:38

a sign of a civilised society is how we treat our most vulnerable.

the adults involved here tortured and killed this child and violated others.

many people world wide have shocking childhoods and go on to be good parents.

they choose and enjoyed inflicting pain on a child. all of them should still be in prison as it's not just about rehabilitation it's about justice for the victim and punishment.

I don't believe in forced medical procedures as that puts doctors in a dreadful position but any children she does have will be removed at birth anyway. thank god.

friday16 · 08/10/2013 20:41

At least sterilizing her means no other poor little innocent would have the sheer misfortune to be born and possibly condemned to a life of misery,

Yeah, because government sterilisation of "unfit" mothers never goes wrong and never results in hideous injustices. Sweden was doing it up until the 1970s. There's always good reasons in the individual cases, and the overall results are always horrendous. What about people who have serious learning difficulties and can neither give meaningful consent to sex nor possibly raise a child? What about women who are alcoholics whose children are highly likely to have FAS? Drug addicts? People who've had a few children more than the judgier end of MN think they should? Once you cross that line, there's no way back, and each individual criteria is progressively less shocking.

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough". Discuss.

finallydelurking · 08/10/2013 20:42

I'd never realised at the time that there were other children involved. How horrific. I hope enough work is able to be done with all her daughters to break the cycle.

froken · 08/10/2013 20:46

Any future child that was born to this lady would be taken into care with no access and no chance of going home to their mother. Because they would be automatically perminantly taken into care they would have the chance to be adopted very early I would imagine the chance of a young child/baby who has suffered no neglect would have a high chance of finding a permanat loving family.

It is terrible to say that she should be steralised. We don't steralise people in this country.

I don't think it is unreasonable that she has been released, I don't think she is a danger. She will never be allowed to be a mother and will have no chance to inflice neglect/abuse on children. The longer she stays in prison the more money she will cost.

AngelsLieToKeepControl · 08/10/2013 20:49

So what would be the criteria for sterilising women (or men) against their will?

Look at the case of Sally Clark who was convicted of murdering her sons but was completely innocent. I'm sure at the time of her conviction people would have been crying out for her to be sterilised, and that is just one case out of many (but its the only name I can remember right now).

The law, quite rightly, is not based on emotions and knee jerk reactions. There would be wider implications for us all if anyone was forced to be sterilised.

friday16 · 08/10/2013 20:50

We don't sterilise people in this country.

We do, of course, every day: vasectomies are performed and tubal ligations are performed routinely. The issue is consent.

SaucyJack · 08/10/2013 20:51

There have been other cases in the news where other women have been legally forced to use long-term contraception because they've been judged mentally incapable of foreseeing the consequences of not using contraception and bringing a child into the world themselves.

I genuinely don't understand why women such as Tracey Connelly cannot be subject to this legislation. Regardless of whether you think her failings are due to damage from her own abusive childhood or that she's just a plain ol' cunt- she has clearly demonstrated beyond any doubt that she is fundamentally incapable of being a fit mother.

friday16 · 08/10/2013 20:54

Look at the case of Sally Clark who was convicted of murdering her sons but was completely innocent

Sally Clark was convicted in 1999, before Mumsnet existed. She might have been more sympathetic than Connelly (Boden, LLB, etc) but I am inclined to suspect that the AIBU thread the day of her conviction, had AIBU existed, would have called for her to be executed for murdering two babies.

It's just a shame she didn't.

friday16 · 08/10/2013 20:55

I genuinely don't understand why women such as Tracey Connelly cannot be subject to this legislation.

Because she is not mentally incapable under the terms of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, presumably.

tinyturtletim · 08/10/2013 21:06

akiss he was released but called back to prison in April I read somewhere

Lilka · 08/10/2013 21:07

I genuinely don't understand why women such as Tracey Connelly cannot be subject to this legislation

All these cases hinge on mental capacity

Tracy DOES have mental capacity to make medical decisions for herself, and the capacity (as far as we know) to understand what the consequences of having a baby will be

It's just not a comparable situation

You can't force any medical treatment on someone who has capacity to make their medical decisions themselves. People in this country have the right to autonomy - they can refuse or accept all medical treatments as they wish

There is no other way a civilised society can do things.

tinyturtletim · 08/10/2013 21:07

She will obviously be given a new identity, so how will anyone I.e a midwife / health visitor / social services know who she really is?

finallydelurking · 08/10/2013 21:07

Surely she will be offered sterilisation though? With strong words of advice to consent to it? It must be preferable to be sterilised than to go through a pregnancy knowing the child will be instantly removed? If she doesn't understand that choice, would she then be subject to the 2005 act?

Lilka · 08/10/2013 21:08

Yes, Jason Owen is back in prison, he was recalled in April

skylerwhite · 08/10/2013 21:09

finallydelurking are you saying that if she doesn't agree to be sterilised, she will have demonstrated that she is mentally incapable?