Baby P

[GeraldineMumsnet]

Hi, to make it easier for people who are finding this subject very distressing, we're going to keep all Baby P posts in one thread. If you'd like to discuss this subject, then here is the thread to do so. We'll go on the other threads and link to this one. Thanks very much.

I hope you don't think that serves as a rationale? It makes it no less despicable in my view. There is something fundamentally missing in somebody's heart and soul that they would be driven to predate upon tiny children in this way.

Common?? I would'nt say it's common for step fathers to do that to a child!

If that was the case what was the incubators excuse? She is biologically tied to those children yet she sat back on her fat arse watching porn and looking for a date (so her 'because I loved him' argument does'nt wash!

Thank god that little girl she gave birth to in prison was taken away from then god knows what they would have done to a child who was unable to walk or talk!

As horrible as it is atleast Peter's death saved his siblings so in a way his life was not taken in vain! Although obviously that does not excuse what those animals did.

I do believe yes they may have had crappy childhoods bla de bla but what they did is inexcusable and the reason this kind of crap keeps happening is because there is not enough being done to punish those who do seem to think it's ok to do because they were 'abused' (playing the victim card... nice)

I would be interested in finding out the stats regarding abusers who were themselves abused as children. Obviously if this is regarded as the norm for how they turn out then more needs to be done for the children who today are victims, with counselling and support etc to ensure that they don't go on to end up like these creatures!

I would also question your (scarily cool) use of the word 'common' someguy.

Women put their children at risk by shacking up with men who are not the children's father. The statistics are scary. Would this abuse have happened if the children weren't his? Can't say for sure, but children not living with their biological father are 40 times more likely to be abused.

Obviously most stepfathers will not abuse their children, but women should be extremely careful about their choice of partner when they have children.

It isn't an excuse but explains why the cycle of abuse continues. There are lots of studies into the abused become abusers. It's not a simple causal link because not all abused DO become abusers. It is complex.

It's not so much about the abused becoming abusers, more about trauma (of some description) affecting the development of the child's brain which impacts on future behaviour in some cases. This may manifest itself in lots of ways, not just in abuse. Maybe self harm, violence etc.

If that was the case what was the incubators excuse? She is biologically tied to those children yet she sat back on her fat arse watching porn and looking for a date (so her 'because I loved him' argument does'nt wash!

It's quite comon. Women do it because they are infatuated with the man, who is nearly always the instigator. They are shagging these evil men and that becomes more important than their kids.

Anyway regarding sentencing, the stepfather is eligible for an indeterminate sentence. She on the other hand, having been acquitted in the current case, and found guilty only of 'Causing or Allowing the Death of a Child' under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/ukpga_20040028_en_2#pt1-pb2

The maximum sentence is 14 years. She's been in for 2, so will be out in 5 years tops, with 50% off for good behaviour. That is assuming she survives prison - doubtless word will get round.

The thing is, whether the people who commit these sort of crimes have been abused themselves, whether they are brain damaged, mentally ill or what-have-you, is an aside.

The fact is that people who commit these types of crimes - sexual abuse, rape, violence towards vulnerable - are wired to commit these sorts of crimes. I know with child sex offenders there is a very high chance of reoffence, I would imagine the same is true of rapists and those who like to hurt people who are vulnerable.

They are a different sort of crime from burglary/drug dealing/mugging etc where there are underlying causes (often drug addiction/lack of education so unable to work etc) where the underlying cause can be addressed and the criminal rehabilitated.

IMO (and I am generally a liberal lefty type too) these people are bloody dangerous, and given the reoffence rate should be kept away from society, whether in prison or secure hospitals or other places, until there is zero chance of the committing another crime.

Because the nature of the crime is just so awful that the merest chance that the person will reoffend should mean they are kept away to keep people safe. And because if a person is a psychopath, and they have no empathy, and enjoy violence, then where is their reason not to do it again?

The safety of the public must be paramount in these cases. But it seems to me it's only the cases where there is public outcry where very long/indefinite sentances are imposed.

I cannot believe that a 4 year old was cross examined.

'Because the nature of the crime is just so awful that the merest chance that the person will reoffend should mean they are kept away to keep people safe. And because if a person is a psychopath, and they have no empathy, and enjoy violence, then where is their reason not to do it again?'

Quite. This kind of person maybe not be able to be rehabilitated. IMO paedophiles in particular can't. However it is possible to reduce the risk they pose in some cases by so all the state can do is lock them up and then manage the risk they pose when they are released.

Current legislation for indeterminate sentences allows people to remain in prison beyond their tariff date where the are assessed as posing a continuing risk. Hopefully that will apply to this man.

Longer sentences should be imposed without a doubt and these people should definitely be kept away from society but tragically there are failings in the system that let down the most vulnerable. Ian Huntly - a classic example. It's a very complex situation and becomes more sordid as more is revealed but I'm not sure how it can be stopped from happening again-longer sentences for a start more stringent systems maybe
I just think it can't be oversimplified.

Well, we could start by recruiting enough social workers, so each individual isn't trying to grapple with an overwhelming case load. And make sure the focus of the job is on keeping children safe, not spending 80 per cent of your time filling in forms. Better training and support - and pay.

Edam that is something that has been bugging me too especially with the outcry over this case!

Of course there were several failings by all the individuals involved but the social worker, maria something, yes she should have took a closer look bla de bla but if she had'nt been rushing to see another what probably 10 or so children in that day whilst having to contend with countless amounts of paperwork and more demands.

Thing is though do people actually want to be social workers? Would you like to be scrutinised, put under intense pressure and most likely be villified at the slightest little mistake which quite frankly anyone could make whe you are put under thsi kind of strain?

I wanted to do it but when I actually sat down and spoke to a few social workers I quickly changed my mind!

People need to lay off these people who on the main are trying to help but without the government and the rest of SS behind them are pretty much powerless!

Also meant to say it was stated several times that before the 'mother' met him Peter was already on the at risk register because of bruising and cuts. I may be wrong but I'm sure I remember hearing that.

The thing I am interested in is the sentencing and how awful violent criminals who commit crimes against the person seem to often get off more lightly than those involved in things which I don't think are half as bad.

I'm thinking about white collar crime, burglary, armed robbery where no-one is hurt etc all attract high sentances.

And yet terrifying violent sex criminals often get away with a year or two.

Unless like in this case, ian huntley etc there is a huge public outcry.

Why the discrepancy? Is it because sex crimes are predominantly commited against women and children and so are not treated as being such bad things by the criminal justice system?

Bella that is a good point too.

I know it's not the same but my mums attacker was given 2 years probation no tag, curfew nothing.

He lives 2 streets away from me, found out yesterday he has since 'apparently' tried to snatch a 10YO girl from toilets in the town centre, carries a machete in his trousers at all times and everytime I see him he has a big joint hanging out his mouth . I have to say I really do want kill him most days but I know if I did anything to him I would most likely be jailed

Yet if I was to go break into a house I'd probably get 2 or more years. Yeah because that's justice!

I know with the Baby Peter case the sentencing is on 21st May IIRC I am not too fussed about it because after what they done no sentence will ever be enough so what's the point in worrying?! As frustrating as it is this is what my mums case taught me.

That is appalling about you mum, I am so sorry she was assualted and that the bastard has got off scott free despite being found guilty... Which is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I would far rather have my house burgled than be raped, any day, but the criminal justice system doesn't seem to see it like that for reasons I can't understand.

Is it because with burglery etc there are insurance claims and there is a financial pressure to be seen to be doing something? Whereas if a woman gets raped it only affects (possibly ruins) her life and that of her family?

I have real trouble with all of this.

BBBB sadly white collar crime, burglary, armed robbery etc involve loss of money and possessions. That's how I have always understood it. The weight of the law is there primarily to protect property. Look at the lack of security surrounding schools, hospitals and nurseries, (containing vulnerable people who used to be considered property) compared to say banks and military barracks

Yes, social workers are under huge amounts of pressure and are often disempowered by burocracy. Also people are always really keen to malign them when things go wrong, no wonder there are not enough people wanting to train. There must be ways to cut some of the paperwork and speed up decision making. I'm appalled that people that kill infants get off so lightly. It devalues their lives and is one of the most appalling crimes imaginable.

I am inclined to think it is an outdated sexist viewpoint then ninky.

Crimes which affect men, who hold the money, treated harshly. Plus murder.

Crimes which affect women and children not so important, because as you rightly point out, it wasn't so long ago that they were irrelevant, powerless and of no consequence. And still are in many parts of the world

sorry to come so late to this

please could someone explain to me who has raped what lttle girl? Is it peters sister?

The boyfriend og Baby P's mum, the man who has been convicted of killing him, has now also been convicted of raping a 2 yo girl two years ago.

The identity of the girl is not known.

Baby P was 17 months old when he died so he could have had a sister who was two, nearly three but I doubt it. The mother's Bebo page at the time mentioned a four year old girl. The family did have friends who had children and who were known to have speculated that perhaps Peter had died of loneliness. Perhaps the toddler was a child who had been looked after by the the mother and stepfather which is why she was being tried for cruelty to the child ie not stopping the abuse. Wonder why she wasn't found guilty? God it's upsetting.

it is so terrible

i am sorry bit i have no sympathy for child abusers of any age

i could say rude things about what should be done to them........and mean it....

shits all of them

As far as I understand it, there seems to have been a policy in place in Harringay to keep children with their birth parent as far as possible. Knowing the council quite well, I would not be surprised if there weren't some degree of over-compensation for the fact that (as far as I understand) baby p's mother was a traveller and so is classified as a coming from a minority community. I think that was probably the case with Victoria Climbie too - a misguided unwillingness to interfere in cases where there are what might be considered cultural differences.

Yes, that was an issue with Victoria Climbie, social workers assuming it was 'normal' for African parents to be strict to the point of their children being scared. Apart from being stupid, it's tending towards racism to assume a whole continent full of different countries has one approach to parenthood.