Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Whilst compulsory sterilisation might be one solution to this …. who gets to make THAT decision??? Oh and don’t forget the armies of lawyers queueing up to defend their Human Rights will you!!!
I didn’t realise that this was originally announced in a “Gay” magazine …. well that explains everything doesn’t it?
If I’d known this, then I wouldn’t have wondered how “he” got pregnant.
True Bat … but I’m kinda left wondering why it is that we (i.e. ‘society) have to pay millions so as to prevent people from killing, maiming, or ill treating their children.
Yes Ruby, you are quite right. In my haste to “literally explode” i missed the year. So the Media are now staying within the law (as to naming or identifying minors) whereas at the time they didn’t necessarily have to do this.
I know that it is the current fashion to bash social workers – if only to get them to use the well worn phrase “Lessons can and will be learned” etc etc. HOWEVER, we mustn’t lose sight of the obvious.
It was the mother (and her two male colleagues / lovers) who did this killing. SHE was untimately responsible and lied time and time again to cover up her ghastly misdeeds.
I’m left thinking and wondering how many other murderous mothers are stopped by the timely intervention of the social services? OK they missed this one (and I’m sure many others) but we really need to accept that THEY didn’t torture and kill this child … its own mother did that.
@bat wrote:
……………It isn,t natural. Men don,t have babies, women do. End of story.
Well quite clearly men DO have babies Bat …. contrary to your expectation of the natural order of things.
The thing that intrigues me is not the fact that he appears to be ”pregnant” but how he became pregnant in the first place.
Did he do ”it” to himself??? Did some bloke do ”it” to him??? Or even more bizarre – did a female do ”it” to him …. thus completing the first known example of 100% gender role reversal in history.
I think that we ought to be told!!!
You know, I’m really really puzzled by aspects of this awful matter. Rubyred very helpfully posted a link to the BBC website going back to August, (see previous page on this thread). As this information is STILL in the public domain I quote it here:
@bbc website August 2008 wrote:
Mother on toddler murder charge
A woman and two men have appeared in court charged in connection with the death of her 17-month-old son.
Tracey Connolly, 25, and Stephen Barker, 31, from north London, are accused of murder and allowing or causing the death of a child under 16.
Mr Barker’s brother Jason, 35, is charged with allowing or causing the death of a child under 16.
They were remanded into custody by Highgate magistrates until a hearing at the Old Bailey on 23 November.The boy, named Peter, was declared dead at North Middlesex Hospital, north London, on 3 August. A post-mortem examination carried out at Great Ormond Street Hospital proved inconclusive and further tests were due to be carried out.
Detectives were called to the hospital after concerns were raised by staff, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said.
Miss Connolly and Steven Barker, who live in Penhurst Road, Tottenham, and Jason Barker, of Wittersham Road, Bromley, south-east London, all appeared in court on Friday.ALL the people involved in this matter have been very clearly identified (including the murdered child) and their address or location details provided. So I am totally unclear as to why the Media cannot name them now “for legal reasons” (i.e. the matter involves a child). Could it be that charges hadn’t been brought then? Maybe somebody could enlighten me.
The other thing that surprises me is that the post mortem initially failed to find a cause of death (“proved inconclusive). With the appalling catalogue of injuries inflicted on poor Peter (Baby P) surely something must have struck the pathologist as slightly odd about the body sufficient to be able to indicate a likely cause of death – i.e. beaten and tortured to death.
I CAN see that a murder charge could not be substantiated as it would have been impossible to actually prove which specific person delivered the fatal blow – but how about conspiracy to murder, which carries life imprisonment???
Ok we won’t.
@cas wrote:
Someone on that site now released the mothers name,,,,,,,,Tracey Connelly.
PB, while I understand the sentiment behind the not naming and protecting the baby’s identity,,,,,,doesn’t really make much difference to him now does it.
As for any further children she may have, I personally don’t think she should ever be allowed to see them again! She should almost certainly be forcefully sterilised / prevented from having any further children. Sadly tho, that will never happen :twisted:
As it happens I agree with you on this. However, the law as it stands prohibits the Media from identifying ‘children’ – and to name the woman involved in this (or, apparently, her partner) would have just this effect.
She is currently in prison awaiting sentence – which hopefully will reflect the enormity of her crime rather thasn the public outcry for vengeance – so I assume that any other children that she may have are already ‘in care’.
With this in mind, their lives could STILL be blighted by unnecesary Media intrusion – if it were allowed.
In my view the law is absolutely correct on this point.
Apparently Cas, they’ve named the lodger who was connected by way of family to the dead child, but they cannot name its mother or her ‘partner’ (father???) as to do so would reveal the child’s identity and more importantly, the identities of any other children that this useless woman might have brought into the world.
I also picked up in this morning’s paper that Haringey council were given £10 MILLION towards the cost of running their social services BUT they apparently diverted this money into their education budget as it presented a better image to the electorate and enabled them to secure more votes.
Given that they are one of the leading Left wing local authorities in London, if not in the entire country, and you could put up Calligula’s horse for election with the absolute certainty of it being successful (provided it was said to be a LABOUR supporting horse) – I really don’t see why they are in the slightest bit concerned about their electorate.
