Baby P witch hunt

[the7Vabo]

I watched a full documentary on Tik Tok about Baby P today.

The thing I’m most struck by is that social worker/s were fired, a doctor is in permanent psychiatric care, social workers received death threats and in the middle of it all the mother receives a minimum 5 year jail sentence and has been in & out of jail since 2013.

There were clear failing but a lot of it was against the background of an overwhelmed system. In particular the clinic where the doctor worked had been flagged as dangerous to senior management by two doctors who resigned and another doctor was on stress leave. There was no access to notes at this clinic. The doctor who last saw Baby P had no access to notes, wasn’t familiar with procedures around child protection in the UK, was working without the assistance of a nurse who might have helped her. She saw Baby P for a specific reason to rule out underlying conditions that might explain his injuries. She was blamed for missing that he had a broken back but it’s not clear when his back was broken.
Her face was plastered all over the papers and she went to train stations multiple times with thoughts of ending her life, asked for her name to be removed from the register and is now in psychiatric care.

The social worker directly involved might have been able to do more but she did a lot including removing Peter, taking him to hospital, contacting the police and immediately contacting the mother when she heard she had a boyfriend.

The head of the area had serious death threats and was fired.

I know people say the different agencies between them had contact 60 times and they shouldn’t have missed it. But that also means there was a lot of effort being made to protect him.

There were reports written immediately afterwards blaming various social workers, the police and medical staff involved with the exception of that doctor seemed to get off more lightly.

The thing that floors me is the mother got min 5 years and was first released in 2013!!! It’s bloody extraordinary. I saw a clip of her speaking to social workers, she was v convincing!

I just can’t get over how a doctor can have a nervous breakdown but the mother is meanwhile out & about!!!! She back in now for breach of conditions I think. I keep thinking about that doctor.

AIBU?!

The Guardian. EBD is a reason to have a statement snd go to a boarding school for such. It doesn’t necessarily mean a lower IQ. Whet it does mean is a very damaged child with extreme difficulties.

@TizerorFizz

Can you give your evidence for this please?

I can't find anywhere that says Connelly had learning difficulties or special needs.

You said:

You cannot go to a boarding school for EBD as it was called without what was then a statement. A child gets no choice. You don’t understand anything if you believe this. Plus you can have both at the same time! You are in care in the holidays. She clearly had special needs and they were recognised.

What I've read contradicts this. She chose to go to the school and didn't have LD or special needs. I'd be interested to read your source.

Ok, but so? It sounds complacent to say it happens they're sen, so they'll make these choices. It goes back to having decent ss again so when these people are abusing their children, ss can monitor and help remove the child.

My daughter has an IQ of 56 but she would definitely be able to think to put chocolate spread on a bruise.

Great! This is very frustrating as I can't get the info but you have it. Can you share the article or evidence that says Connelly has a low IQ or any kind of special needs? Many thanks.

Yes I thought this about baby Ps dad. If it was all so obvious then why didn't he refuse to hand him back to the mum and make her go through court?

How much of an excuse is low IQ for a crime i
of this nature. If my 6 year old was repeatedly kicking a toddler he would know it was wrong.

It’s not an excuse. It’s a contributing factor. There’s no excuse.

It's no excuse. As I said earlier, Rose West had a low IQ and history of severe childhood abuse as did Fred, but they both knew what they were doing was wrong. Rose therefore faced the full extent of the law.

The idea of a mother harming her child is so abhorrent that we make excuses for their behaviour. However her bf Barker had an IQ of 60 and claims to also have been abused yet no one is making excuses for him.

There's no evidence that Connelly had a low IQ or any kind of disability. She was abused but rather than making her a victim it's just as likely to make her a perpetrator. A psychologist said:

What I see happening is that the mother can develop a narcissistic attitude or way of relating to their child as an extension of themselves and goes on to treat the child with the cruelty, contempt and neglect that they were exposed to themselves.

She was described by the judge as selfish, calculating and manipulative. Her son suffered months of abuse and Connelly was visited many times by agencies yet she colluded with the abuser. She wasn't the victim of abuse, two weeks before Peter died she wrote online about how she was "madly in love with the most amazing guy".

When Barker moved in Peter began to be significantly abused and Connelly turned a blind eye. The judge said that her denial of what was going on defies belief and he didn't believe her naive innocence.

TW
It's absolutely impossible that she didn't know what was going on. Barker broke Peter's back then punched him so hard in the face to shut him up that he swallowed a tooth. He had toe and finger nails ripped out, part of his ear lobe was missing as well as cigarette burns and hundreds of other injuries. He also used to set his dogs on him. It's impossible that she didn't witness any of it.

I am a children’s social worker and this is mine and my colleagues worst fear that a parent could do this and we don’t or can’t see it, people can be so cunning and manipulative it’s awful and then there are parents who just refuse to engage, the law is not on ours or the children’s side and the process to remove children is too long and convoluted- things still need to change, and some of the excuses for partners that people allow around children are beyond belief but they will not believe a word said against them, it’s extremely frustrating

@the7Vabo If you look at the mugshot of Tracey Connelly I think it's fairly obvious that she has some sort of brain damage. It is often the case with women who commit awful crimes. Usually they've been badly beaten by a man (either as a child or an adult) or in some cases quite literally dropped on their head as a baby, and just don't have the same cognitive abilities as other people.

It's a terrible photo. It's certainly not evidence of brain damage.

Her part in concealing sustained abuse for a prolonged period, strongly suggests otherwise.

Whilst I don't think we should assess mental capacity from photographs, I think if you look at other photos of her you'll see very different images.

It’s 100% clear her mother and father (a sex offender) and other relatives failed Tracey as a child. She had a relative involved in a paedophile ring and her childhood was totally blighted by awful people. She, like others in these extreme circumstances, do not thrive. They have needs by definition. We know dc living without love or nurture can do exactly the same to their own dc. They are culpable but we need to understand that such circumstances can very easily produce criminal behaviours. It’s inevitable SS are very worried about such families. They aren’t decreasing in number.

There is always an outcry when dc are removed from families though. Another issue is where such dc should go. Special schools are full to bursting and secure units ditto. It’s well known we have insufficient places for those below 17 to reside and receive the help they need.

Agreed, I don’t think many people take a flattering mugshot and she was presumably tired & stressed.

As others have outlined Baby P had over 50 injuries, very serious injuries that not only did his mother know about but she actively took steps to hide.

Ellie Butler is a similar case except her mother seemed to come from a loving home, but she still picked and supported a man who was abusing their child. They went on national TV as a couple and managed to get Ellie back only to go on to kill her.

There are striking similarities (enough to be pointed out in internal reports) between Tracey Connely's childhood and that of Peter. From neglect and filth to actual abuse. She lived .

I remember watching this a while back, I'm not sure where she got this information but I recall that Tracy connelly not only ignored what was happening to baby P at the hands of her boyfriend and his brother but also the horrific abuse that was happening to her toddler daughter. Apologies if it's the wrong video but I think she said the little girl was the youngest in UK history to give evidence (through I'm guessing a social worker) In court.
Regarding Tracy's upbringing and IQ being a factor.. in my opinion it probably is, just like Rose West. Would they have become such monsters if authorities had scooped them away as children and gave them nurturing upbringing.. Maybe.. But maybe not. We'll never know. I do feel that like Rose West every person who hurt that innocent little boy should never see the outside of a prison wall until they die.

I personally think it’s unlikely they would have done the same thing.
But does that then mean they shouldn’t be held accountable. My gut says no but it’s a tough one.

@the7Vabo understanding why someone does something, and (possibly) where things have gone wrong -so we can prevent/change things in the future- , isn't the same as not holding them accountable.

She should have been on trial, she should have been convicted, she should have gone to jail. No one is disputing that.

Giving details of her childhood and her traumas and abuse and neglect , does not take away from that. It does however open a conversation. A conversation that can only help future children and promote /cause change.

Deeming her pure evil and she should be dead doesn't add anything. It isn't constructive and useful in any way.

Is that last paragraph directed at me??

1. I don’t believe people are inherently evil and 2) I’m anti the death penalty in all situations??!

No , apologies. The last paragraph was a general comment.

Can you please take the time to read my posts.

The point I was making - is that I’m not sure in my view to what extent trauma negates accountability.

You post is exceptionally condescending.

At no point did I say Baby P’s mother was “evil” or that she should be dead?! I’m fact I clearly stated about half way through this thread that I personally don’t believe people can be evil.

I also discussed the impact trauma with other posters.

You for some reason decided to chip in an mansplain why we need case reviews?!

Mansplain? Wtf?

Being treated like TC was as a child would probably have caused her all sorts of cognitive problems. It is often called "developmental trauma" - the child's brain is severely impacted by the environment she/he is growing up in.

There are also conditions like foetal alcohol syndrome, which massively impact decision making.

I have mentioned before that I adopted two children from an abusive/neglectful background. I know a lot of adopters, go on lots of training courses etc. And these two issues - plus attachment disorder - are so debilitating for children from these environments.

This has nothing to do with learning disabilities or autism or adhd. And they are incredibly fixed - you can do your best but often it is impossible to repair the damage.

And i would guess that this would have impacted TC hugely. The book "the boy who was raised as a dog" by Bruce Perry is good for understanding this kind of thing.

This has been answered on the first couple of pages of this thread by a poster from Liverpool who went through various high profile cases.

In short any family member who tried to save the child, including the dad, is threatened with court and in one case was taken to court.

I know from what has happened to me, social workers and healthcare workers pay lip service to equal parental responsibility.

According to what I've read he was a decent dad. Even though Connelly was 16 when they got married. He worked hard and kept the place clean. He moved out after Connelly had an affair with Barker and Barker moved in.

They then moved to Tottenham and although I believe Peter's dad continued to visit and see Peter he didn't contact anyone about him. He saw Peter a few days before his death and Peter's hands were bandaged and he couldn't sleep but Connelly told him it was nothing to worry about.

As far as I know he wasn't threatened with court and didn't try to take Peter away. He did say that he was planning on suing the council for failing to protect Peter though I don't think he did.

Peter was removed for six weeks because of injuries and put into the care of a family friend. I don't know why he wasn't put into the care of his dad. Peter was returned to Connelly and the police told her just before he died that they'd dropped the charges against her.