BABY P's 'mother' gets 10 years

[shinyshoes]

Must serve a min of 5.

Told ya, that's exactly what I said yesturday

Cunting disgrace

The thing that bothers me with all this and similar cases, is that this one is in the public eye, there has been a furore, the longest sentences possible will have been applied due to public feeling (not matter what the courts may say) and the people won't be released any time soon, the media will be watching.

Yet there are many other children killed every year by their families - i wonder if they feel the weight of the law to the same extent. What happens when the media isn't watching.

Of course, there are many 'angles' one can take on a case such as this but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pair of them are out of prison in five and ten year's time respectively - this just seems to be the way the prison system works atm.

Edam, the article you referred to was very interesting and scary. I think I remember that Standard investigation. What a mess our children's services have become.

prison sentances thease days are too soft they should take a leaf out of the usa life means life

Longtalljosie the bloggers got the names from the BBC site, I know I did although I didn't share them. Back in November when the case was first in the news there was a related link naming all three. It stayed up for days. Bit hypocritical if you ask me

Someguy has posted about it at length on the main Baby P thread, it's the last post and worth looking at.

Wouldn't surprise me if the CPS appeal the sentences as being too lenient.

Before I say my bit I am no way protecting or saying the sentence these two got is fair, in fact I am appalled they didn't get a bigger 'minimum' sentence, BUT I work in a prison (for 17 years) and wanted to give you some facts about the sentence they got.

They were given an Indeterminate for Public Protection (IPP) sentence which basically is similar to a life sentence, the minimum sentence bit is how long they will serve before being considered for parole. This sounds awful and an outrageously short time, but in my experience of IPP offenders they serve way over that minimum time, (not long enough for my liking) but way over.

For what those people have done, I think they will spend a very long time in prison as there is no 'end' to their sentence, so they can be made to stay in prison.

I know this information is not going to make any of us feel any better about this tragedy and that beautiful little boy

Ninkynork - not at all. It's not hypocrisy, it's a genuine problem in the internet age.

It's frequently the case that legal situations change very quickly - so something which had been fine to say no longer is. News Online will withhold pages if old stories contain information which is now against court guidelines for the duration of the trial.

But of course, anyone can save web pages - frequently they're there on Google referenced via other sites. Particularly if it's a high profile case.

I think the main Baby P thread was taken down. Mostly because people were putting Mumsnet at risk of contempt of court by insisting on trawling the internet, finding old articles which hadn't been deleted, and linking to them. Despite being repeatedly told this risked contempt of court, and identifying the victim of a sexual assault.

In no way am I suggesting Peter's mother deserves sympathy but I bet none of us are suprised she has been a victim of abuse herself. And how did she end up in a care home anyway. For all the grandmother's remorse this was a clearly highly dysfunctional family where a degree of abuse and neglect must have been tolerated by alot of them. The new boyfriend only escalated things to a horrifying new level unfortunately.

Shows us how dehumanising abuse can be and the effects go on through generations. What kind of an adult would Peter have been if the poor soul had made it. How damaged would he have been.

So so sad.

am with you fifitot

The main Baby P thread is right here on the front page of this section:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/649364-Baby-P

I do see your point about potentially scuppering justice in this internet age though and on reflection I think that the judge did the best he could under the circumstances and in a way the pressure from the media, The Sun campaign, public opinion was a really good thing.

I also feel very sorry for the young Baby P's Mum if it was indeed her in the Islington cases. How hellish were those homes if she considered her own children's home life to be acceptable? If a 12 year old had had enough experience of sex to begin to use it as a commodity for survival then perhaps no wonder she might have thought that the BF raping her toddler was a mite out or order as opposed to being shocked and horrified as we are.

They do say that when traumatic events happen the victim remains frozen emotionally at that age.

I'm not excusing her in any way and stand by by previous posts on the subject, but the whole damn thing is so bloody bloody awful. Especially when you consider that perfectly lovely children are taken from horrific OR perfectly loving homes and placed in such "caring" environments that they become damaged forever. And their children, and their children's children. Please God the cycle will have been broken for P's older sisters.

Quite, Ninky.

There must be hundreds of people who were children in Islington childrens' homes during Hodge's reign. They will still be suffering.

I remember Hodge issued an appalling attack, trying to discredit one of the survivors of the regime she oversaw, telling the papers he was nuts. Think she had to retract that one.

But I'm appalled that the government keeps calling on Laming, with his background. No wonder Haringey kept failing to protect children - the guy at the very top of the system, whose recommendations were taken as gospel, has at the very best a disgraceful history of failing to protect children himself.

edam, very disturbing article.