Baby P killers finally named

[edesignuk]

187681187680187679

L-R: Tracey Connelly [mother], Steven Barker [boyfriend], Jason Owen [brother of Barker] - The Trio (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7727641.stm).


The couple responsible for the death of 17-month-old Baby Peter have been named after a court anonymity order expired.

The boy died at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly and her partner Steven Barker, of Haringey, north London.

The third defendant in the case has also been named as Jason Owen, 37, Barker's brother. Baby Peter's surname, Connelly, has also been released.

In May Connelly, 28, and Barker, 33, were jailed for five and 12 years for causing or allowing the death of Peter.

Peter had more 50 injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken back, when he was found dead in a property in Penshurst Road, Tottenham, in August 2007.

It emerged Owen had changed his name to avoid being connected to the killing of Peter.

Owen, 37, who was jailed for three years, was staying at the home in Tottenham, which is within the borough of Haringey, with his 15-year-old lover.

It has also been revealed that the brothers were charged with assaulting their own grandmother, Hilda Barker, who lived in Whitstable, Kent, in 1995, in an attempt to make her change her will.

That case was dropped when Mrs Barker, 82, died before giving evidence, but she told police she had been locked in a wardrobe by the pair. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8194235.stm).

Note these faces. They'll all need a good kick in the teeth when they're out again all too soon :( :rolleyes:

[juanm]

Pommy trash... :(

[djellison]

Pommy trash... :(

What are you inferring by this? These people are quite clearly the absolute scum of the earth. But every country has people who are absolute scum, and there's nothing about being British that is inherently less or more scum-like about anyone else.

[jessica.]

What are you inferring by this? These people are quite clearly the absolute scum of the earth. But every country has people who are absolute scum, and there's nothing about being British that is inherently less or more scum-like about anyone else.

I kind of think this was meant in slang really.

But they (the killers) are trash.

[niuniu]

Hatred stirs.. They should slowly lower these scum into vats of acid. Millimeter a minute.

[CHAOS STEP]

I'm not sure what purpose publishing the pictures serves.

This means that these people will have to have new identities etc and will cost everyone more in the long run.

The only benefit in publishing the pictures is that the newspapers sell more copies, that's what it's all about I guess.

I hate all this OMG they were baby killers! hysterics too.

[iBlue]

I'm not sure what purpose publishing the pictures serves.

This means that these people will have to have new identities etc and will cost everyone more in the long run.

The only benefit in publishing the pictures is that the newspapers sell more copies, that's what it's all about I guess.

I hate all this OMG they were baby killers! hysterics too.

It was inevitable. And I really resent that those pieces of absolute scum will get new identities. I think that's BS. If you screw things up so bad for yourself under your own identity then that's just too damn bad. How about a little personal accountability? I think it's inappropriate that anyone should have to pay to give people like that a new start in life. The mother will be out in 2012, I think I heard. That makes me sick.

And you "hate" that people are upset they over baby killers? Have you read the details about this case? It's well and truly disturbing.

[BoyBach]

I'm not sure what purpose publishing the pictures serves.

This means that these people will have to have new identities etc and will cost everyone more in the long run.

The only benefit in publishing the pictures is that the newspapers sell more copies, that's what it's all about I guess.

I hate all this OMG they were baby killers! hysterics too.


I agree. And no doubt these newspapers will be the ones that complain about the cost of protecting them when they're released.

On a more serious note: how the hell did she get knocked up in the first place!? :eek: :o

[Cabbit]

It was inevitable. And I really resent that those pieces of absolute scum will get new identities. I think that's BS. If you screw things up so bad for yourself under your own identity then that's just too damn bad. How about a little personal accountability? I think it's inappropriate that anyone should have to pay to give people like that a new start in life. The mother will be out in 2012, I think I heard. That makes me sick.

And you "hate" that people are upset they over baby killers? Have you read the details about this case? It's well and truly disturbing.

They look like a bunch of drug addicts, i can only hope they are and once there free of that maybe then they will realise what they have done.
But on regards to them getting new identities and such, you understand that this is not a trial by media. The law says you do the time fitting your crime then you are re integrated into society and will hopefully be a better person for it.

[Heilage]

Okay, so the whole thing is pretty horrible. There was a lot of news about it here in Norway too, and I have a strong resentment towards them.

But, if they have been found guilty of a crime, they do their time and are released, is it right for the community to prosecute them further in social stigma? One can always disagree with the sentence they were given, but it doesn't give the right to make life worse for ex-convicts when they actually get out of jail. It proves to be counterproductive to their possibly new and constructive life.

Just a thought.

[edesignuk]

Okay, so the whole thing is pretty horrible. There was a lot of news about it here in Norway too, and I have a strong resentment towards them.

But, if they have been found guilty of a crime, they do their time and are released, is it right for the community to prosecute them further in social stigma? One can always disagree with the sentence they were given, but it doesn't give the right to make life worse for ex-convicts when they actually get out of jail. It proves to be counterproductive to their possibly new and constructive life.

Just a thought.As reasonable as what you say is, I just find it impossible to be nice and politically correct with things like this.

Everything these people have done is completely and utterly sickening beyond words. I cannot believe they've only been put away for such a short time.

They all have lost any right they might have once held to being treated with any compassion what so ever.

I'd laugh my arse off if any of them were beaten to a bloody pulp in or out of prison.

[Heilage]

As reasonable as what you say is, I just find it impossible to be nice and politically correct with things like this.

Everything these people have done is completely and utterly sickening beyond words. I cannot believe they've only been put away for such a short time.

They all have lost any right they might have once held to being treated with any compassion what so ever.

I'd laugh my arse off if any of them were beaten to a bloody pulp in or out of prison.

Screw political correctness, civil society does not have the right to condemn people who have paid their debt. If they did, we should just have put every single criminal to death immdiately, since they lose any chance to get their life together anyway.

It does give me comfort to know that prison will not treat these people kindly. People who molest/kill children are the absolute lowest class in prisons, and they are likely to get whooped around pretty good. If they survive, I'll be surprised.

[edesignuk]

Screw political correctness, civil society does not have the right to condemn people who have paid their debt. If they did, we should just have put every single criminal to death immdiately, since they lose any chance to get their life together anyway.I understand, and you're probably right...doesn't stop my loathing for these people and my hope that they suffer horribly though.
It does give me comfort to know that prison will not treat these people kindly. People who molest/kill children are the absolute lowest class in prisons, and they are likely to get whooped around pretty good. If they survive, I'll be surprised.hmmmm, well, they will probably end up being isolated for their own protection - which also irritates me, they **** up their lives and torture a defenceless kid to death and they deserve protection!?

Maybe we'll get lucky and a prison guard will accidentally leave their cell door open...

[skunk]

As Heilage rightly says, we have to rely on the criminal justice system to hand down a suitable and commensurate penalty. Once the penalty has been paid, there is absolutely no justification in punishing them all over again.

[Dagless]

And I thought all these crazy weird punishment lists were only composed by mothers on Facebook.

Yes it's not great what happened and they should be put away for a very long but I'm quite surprised at the reactions of many. I also think it's wrong publishing their info like this. All it does is ensure they get proper protection once they're out.

[edesignuk]

Yes it's not great what happened and they should be put away for a very long but I'm quite surprised at the reactions of many"Not great", I hardly think that even begins to cover it. The mother will be out in a few short years, and the others won't be far behind. It's disgusting.

[BertyBoy]

Well, if you read the details of the whole case, you'll find it incredible that they get away with such a short prison sentence. 25 years each would be enough to fit the crime and ensure the safety of society. I'm not looking for any painful experiences for these three, but a punishment to fit the crime.

ps. which one is the girl, looks like three blokes.

[nick9191]

If you look at the 3 pictures from left to right its like evolution is taking place.

[CHAOS STEP]

It was inevitable. And I really resent that those pieces of absolute scum will get new identities. I think that's BS. If you screw things up so bad for yourself under your own identity then that's just too damn bad. How about a little personal accountability? I think it's inappropriate that anyone should have to pay to give people like that a new start in life. The mother will be out in 2012, I think I heard. That makes me sick.

And you "hate" that people are upset they over baby killers? Have you read the details about this case? It's well and truly disturbing.


I think your response pretty much proves the point I was making.

[iBlue]

I think your response pretty much proves the point I was making.

Care to elaborate? At least when the other posters in this thread disagreed, they had something worthwhile to say about why.

[Heilage]

hmmmm, well, they will probably end up being isolated for their own protection - which also irritates me, they **** up their lives and torture a defenceless kid to death and they deserve protection!?

Maybe we'll get lucky and a prison guard will accidentally leave their cell door open...

Aw hell no. Send them to general population. Let them see what even other criminals think of people who do such horrible things to children.

It should be mentioned that I think all of these people should have gone to jail for life. Or somewhere around the range of maybe 50 years. But I still stand on my previous point in this thread, they have been convicted by a jury of their peers. But what sentence they SHOULD have gotten is a completely different discussion altogether.

[CHAOS STEP]

Care to elaborate? At least when the other posters in this thread disagreed, they had something worthwhile to say about why.

Ok terrible crime committed, people tried and convicted, during which time the Social Services et al are shown to have a myriad of shortcomings.

Action (sort of taken) and efforts made to (attempt to) ensure that in the future this will not be overlooked by Social Services (despite that the same was said after the case of Climbié).

And you (and countless others) seem to focus on the aspect that is least likely to have any effect, and in some instances such 'obsession' can have the reverse effect. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8062099.stm)

Yes these people have carried out an appalling crime, but that has been done and the criminal justice system is there to deal with that.

The media is there to serve their interests alone. They know that child murders and peodos get people reading, so they dissect the grisly details to the masses (who seem to lap it up and want more (which is a double bonus it seems)).

So publishing their photos serves no purpose at all, except to sell papers.

Your insistence that upon the expiry of their sentences they should be let free 'to the lions' is a sort of lynch mob mentality that the media likes to foster.

Justice was perhaps not served, but a Lynch mob is also not justice either.

Efforts should be focused on the procedures and actions of the Social Security / Child protection services and a focused review of the criminal justice system with regards to sentencing policy.

So do we see updates from Lord Laming's report plastered on the front pages?

Apparently not when a brace of mugshots and recycled hysteria will do instead.



Did I really need to type all that?

If you read your own response it comes across like you're one of those hysterical facebook mums braying for the blood of a child killer.

- I know you're not but I had hoped you may have read what you said and could see that I might ... just ... slightly have a point.

[barkmonster]

Hatred stirs.. They should slowly lower these scum into vats of acid. Millimeter a minute.

Someone remembers the episode of Doctor Who where there was a Slitheen plot to nuke Cardiff.

:D

Your right though. I always think in situations like this, torture for about 5 solid years with serious attention paid to the prevention of suicide followed by the death penalty should be the norm.

[BoyBach]

Your right though. I always think in situations like this, torture for about 5 solid years with serious attention paid to the prevention of suicide followed by the death penalty should be the norm.


Thankfully this is Britain and such nonsense is well, nonsense.

They'll do their time at Her Majesty's Pleasure and then thanks to the faux moral outrage of our press they'll have a considerable sum of money spent on them for protection. No doubt the press will then wheel out some more fauxtrage about said financial outlay to sell even more copies.

[Freeþinker]

I'm surprised that those assumed to be fair-minded on this issue are so condemning of the press for releasing these pictures.

Consider the heaps of praise given to journalists who travel to some Third World country to call attention to some real or imagined genocide there, yet when it comes to despicable crimes in your own country, it's considered too rash to call attention to such crimes. That is a moral inconsistency.

I will never understand the most doctrinaire liberals in the UK (as opposed to the more mature, realistic ones) who are so quick to go after the media on this topic but then are silent about the media manipulating the public with issues like the past war in Yugoslavia. The doctrinaire liberals were very quick to identify friends and foes of humanity in that conflict when there were so few people of any ethnicity who behaved with scruples in that horrible war.

By the way, the most well-spoken defender of the death penalty was a British liberal, John Stuart Mill, who felt that it was acceptable to put murderers to death in cases of aggravated murder. There was one philosopher who was more obedient to reason than to doctrine. I wish more people in the UK (and here in the US) were guided by his insights.

[Heilage]

No one is condemning the press for giving attention this case, but it's questionable from an ethical point of view to release their names and photographs, thereby making sure that they are unable to ever come back to society after they have served their time.

[skunk]

I'm surprised that those assumed to be fair-minded on this issue are so condemning of the press for releasing these pictures.The publication of these photographs does nothing to further justice or the rule of law.

By the way, the most well-spoken defender of the death penalty was a British liberal, John Stuart Mill, who felt that it was acceptable to put murderers to death in cases of aggravated murder. There was one philosopher who was more obedient to reason than to doctrine.Not the only instance of Mill talking bollocks, I'm afraid.

[iBlue]

Ok terrible crime committed, people tried and convicted, during which time the Social Services et al are shown to have a myriad of shortcomings.

Action (sort of taken) and efforts made to (attempt to) ensure that in the future this will not be overlooked by Social Services (despite that the same was said after the case of Climbié).

And you (and countless others) seem to focus on the aspect that is least likely to have any effect, and in some instances such 'obsession' can have the reverse effect. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8062099.stm)

Yes these people have carried out an appalling crime, but that has been done and the criminal justice system is there to deal with that.

The media is there to serve their interests alone. They know that child murders and peodos get people reading, so they dissect the grisly details to the masses (who seem to lap it up and want more (which is a double bonus it seems)).

So publishing their photos serves no purpose at all, except to sell papers.

Your insistence that upon the expiry of their sentences they should be let free 'to the lions' is a sort of lynch mob mentality that the media likes to foster.

Justice was perhaps not served, but a Lynch mob is also not justice either.

Efforts should be focused on the procedures and actions of the Social Security / Child protection services and a focused review of the criminal justice system with regards to sentencing policy.

So do we see updates from Lord Laming's report plastered on the front pages?

Apparently not when a brace of mugshots and recycled hysteria will do instead.



Did I really need to type all that?

If you read your own response it comes across like you're one of those hysterical facebook mums braying for the blood of a child killer.

- I know you're not but I had hoped you may have read what you said and could see that I might ... just ... slightly have a point.

I do think you have a point, I do know what you mean and I don't DISagree with anything you wrote, other than the parts where you appear to be putting words in my mouth. Read what I wrote again and stop trying to categorize me with hysterical facebook mums just because I am horrified by their crimes. My not having a great appreciation for having to pay to give scumbags like these new identities because they committed heinous crimes doesn't seem so unreasonable either.

The whole thing is horrible and I don't think I am out of line in thinking so.

[remmy]

In some areas social services are extremely poor or lazy. There are a few of cases were they have either ignored what was happening, or even taken a child who was being abused and beaten back to those who were abusing.

[Freeþinker]

iBlue, I sympathize with your position. You are assumed to be less morally evolved than those who are attacking the press and defending the anonymity of the three.

I notice how often opponents of the death penalty are quick to use shaming to silence those who favor harsher punishments for aggravated murder. Here’s the kind of argument that has been repeated since the eighteenth century: “You see how eager you are to kill the murderer. You are not so different as the one you would hasten to kill.” (Yes, I have chosen the words of this straw man argument, but inevitably one will hear something like it.)

This kind of thinking, that all killing is equally morally wrong, is the kind of untenable argument made from deontological philosophy or fundamentalist religious thought. It makes no attempt—no, it hides from—any consideration of conditions under which one would be willing to kill. And the person who re-asserts this argument doesn’t really believe it inwardly. The following hypothetical scenario shows how we all really feel deep down about sharing our communities with people who've done monstrous deeds.

You consider moving into one house where the real estate agent informs you that one of your neighbors would be someone who has served time in prison for murdering a small child. In a different neighborhood, you look at buying a house where the agent tells you that one of your neighbors served some time in prison after he killed someone who had murdered his baby nephew. The houses are both equally desirable for their prices, but you must decide which neighbor you would be willing to live close to. Whether one pretends that all killing is the same or whether one believes that some murders are far worse than others, in neither case would any sane person prefer to live near the child killer or feel indifferent to living near either person. All of us know deep down that there is a difference in the circumstance under which someone would end a human life and that we are far better off not sharing fellowship with despicable people like those who’ve had their identities revealed. It is neither intellectually honest nor morally defensible to oppose the death penalty in all cases. John Stuart Mill believed the death penalty could be justified for aggravated murder with as much certainty as he believed that women had the right to vote, animals deserved to be protected from torture, slavery must be abolished, and people deserved the right to voice unpopular arguments.

We are not monsters for wanting to see murderers banished from the living. We are human and responsible.

If you have seen the movie Truman, you may recall the revealing scene when the killer that Truman Capote has defended in his journalistic writings reveals that he hopes to be released from prison after a new trial and that he first plans to visit Truman as a free man. Truman Capote’s eyes widen in alarm as he realizes what could be the most dangerous outcome if his mass-deception of the public succeeds. He may have to live in the same community as the murderer he might have helped to set free. Most opponents of the death penalty are like Truman Capote.

[skunk]

John Stuart Mill's views were formed in a time when forensic science was in its infancy. There are countless examples of people being wrongly convicted of the most heinous crimes. Just one innocent person put to death to satisfy your moral judgement and outrage is too many. Consider also the case of the last incumbents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 10 Downing Street: they wilfully sent their armies to rain down random and indiscriminate destruction on hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including children (one must always remember to include the children, it makes for so much better an argument) in the service of who knows what misguided and dishonestly marketed end. To select for execution and scapegoating only those who are easily identifiable, without political cover and responsible for destroying individual, personalised victims, and leaving untouched those who responsible for causing the massacre of men, women and children in vast numbers seems a little inequitable.

[Freeþinker]

John Stuart Mill's views were formed in a time when forensic science was in its infancy. There are countless examples of people being wrongly convicted of the most heinous crimes. Just one innocent person put to death to satisfy your moral judgement and outrage is too many. Consider also the case of the last incumbents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 10 Downing Street: they wilfully sent their armies to rain down random and indiscriminate destruction on hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including children (one must always remember to include the children, it makes for so much better an argument) in the service of who knows what misguided and dishonestly marketed end. To select for execution and scapegoating only those who are easily identifiable, without political cover and responsible for destroying individual, personalised victims, and leaving untouched those who responsible for causing the massacre of men, women and children in vast numbers seems a little inequitable.

If you wish to change the topic to war rather than capital punishment, you may say what you like, but you’re already pre-supposing that I’m holding a pro-Iraq War position. You may say all the things you like about the needless loss of too many lives in that war, (and I’ll eagerly agree with you as quickly as I assert that economic sanctions kill far too many innocent people while in effect strengthening the role of the dictator.) By comparison to war in general, however, the death penalty in the US has not claimed but a thimbleful of lives.

You use the frequently employed argument that says that no one had the right to put people to death in an age when forensic science was so rudimentary. There are two reasons why this argument is tenuous.

The first point to consider is that in the old days people relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses more than forensics experts. Forensic science, like any field that uses tall jargon and impressive formalisms, is easy to spin so that ordinary people are swayed by sketchy conclusions of its mendacious experts. Barry Scheck, head of the erroneously named “Innocence Project,” manipulated a jury with his testimony and helped the defense team sway the jury to find OJ Simpson not guilty. (I say that the Innocence Project is erroneously named because our legal systems in the US have never existed to prove innocence. Defense lawyers have merely had the responsibility of pointing to insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, which is not the same thing as evidence for innocence. ) In the old days, people knew their neighbors better-–they were nosier--and people cared less about respecting everyone’s privacy. That was one of the main reasons that reliable eyewitnesses were instrumental in convicting murderers in those days. There certainly were cases where innocent people were put to death, but there were also innumerable instances of innocent people walking free because of the lack of any eyewitness. The opponents of the death penalty rarely invoke that fact.

The second point to consider is that if you believe so strongly in forensic science, whether you concur with me or not over the obfuscatory abuse of science in expert testimony, then you must concede that murder convictions today hold even greater validity than ever before. I never made the argument (when I stated Mills position) that we should build a time machine and ensure the executions that took place in the past. I have argued, implicitly, that we should CONTINUE the death penalty. Yes, I understand that it is still possible to put innocent people to death.

Consider this point: Even if every single person in the US on death row were innocent, the total number of people executed would scarcely stack up to an impressive number. More people in the US die every year from slipping and falling in bathrooms in the US than from executions. Your energy would be better spent staging a protest outside a wholesale business that sells ceramic tiles and bathtubs. But no, you don’t get to look as heroic doing something like that. You are after all trying to prove that you are among the best of humanity because you stand ready to defend those painted to be the worst.

[skunk]

If you wish to change the topic to war rather than capital punishment, you may say what you like, but you’re already pre-supposing that I’m holding a pro-Iraq War position.No, I am not.

You use the frequently employed argument that says that no one had the right to put people to death in an age when forensic science was so rudimentary.No, I did not use any such argument.

The second point to consider is that if you believe so strongly in forensic science, whether you concur with me or not over the obfuscatory abuse of science in expert testimony, then you must concede that murder convictions today hold even greater validity than ever before.I do not and I must not.
I never made the argument (when I stated Mills position) that we should build a time machine and ensure the executions that took place in the past.I never suggested that you did.
Consider this point: Even if every single person in the US on death row were innocent, the total number of people executed would scarcely stack up to an impressive number. More people in the US die every year from slipping and falling in bathrooms in the US than from executions.I cannot see any relevance in this assertion whatsoever.
But no, you don’t get to look as heroic doing something like that. You are after all trying to prove that you are among the best of humanity because you stand ready to defend those painted to be the worst.Your entire argument seems to be based on some agenda of your own unrelated to anything I have posted. Why dress it up as a reply to my post? :confused:

[edesignuk]

Baby P three in sentence appeal

The three people responsible for the death of Baby Peter Connelly have appealed against their sentences.

Peter died in Haringey, north London, in the care of mother Tracey Connelly, 28, her partner Steven Barker, 33, and Barker's brother Jason Owen, 37.

Connelly, Barker and Owen received minimum prison terms of five, 12 and three years respectively for causing or allowing Peter's death.

The Court of Appeal confirmed all have lodged appeals against their sentences.

A spokeswoman for the Court of Appeal said: "The appeals are currently being looked at by a judge. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8211779.stm).