Tracey Connelly Is The Real Victim Of Baby Peter Connelly
Baby P - Peter Connelly - Watch: Forgiving the victim Tracey Connelly, Steven Barker’s abuse, the Sun’s failed war on social workers and a media debate…
At the apogee of the media storm, the Sun launched a campaign to sack the social workers. Now read on…
Sky News: “Revealed: Evil Pair Behind Death Of Baby P”
Sky is the sister organ to the Sun:
She was involved with social workers throughout her childhood and knew how to manipulate them.
Might it be that the social workers are not to blame?
Daily Telegraph (front page): “Baby P’s killers unmasked”
Connelly knew exactly how to exploit the system to ensure she had internet access and the latest television.
The Sun is not listening, just saluting it own (failed) campaign to sack them all:
The Sun (front page): “The Killers of Baby P”
THE Sun’s petition demanding all social workers in Baby P’s case be sacked was the biggest campaign in newspaper history. Readers were furious when no one carried the can for the 17-month-old’s death.
Yes, they did. Their names are Tracey Connelly, Steven Barker and Jason Barker. They did it. But it’s easier to go for the social workers. They, after all, can be sacked and shamed in the media and as carers made to, well, care.
How newspapers love a campaign, it being what marks them out from all the other papers. So what the campaign failed - so long as we did it.
Back to Tracey Connelly, and the Mirror wasnts us to know:
Daily Mirror: “A lesson in caring”
While it is almost impossible to forgive Connelly, we should remember she too was a victim of a dismal childhood, brought up by a mother with drink and drug problems.
Tracey Connelly the victim? Cue then for this from the Times:
Times: “Connelly had nothing in her past that would hint at the horrors to come.”
Got that? Nothing.
The Guardian (front page): “Judge lifts ban on identification of Baby P’s mother”
In the life and times of Tracey Connelly there are few redeeming facts.
So says Sandra Laville. She knows. Connelly is not then the Express’s “The evil mother of poor Baby P”. Tracey Connelly is now a victim:
An absent father who was a sex offender, a neglectful mother, and another relative who was lured into a paedophile ring in one of the biggest children’s home scandals of the late 20th century. It is easy to vilify Connelly.
Yes. It is. See the Sun and Express’s front pages that both call her “evil“.
Described as selfish, calculating and manipulative by the trial judge, she once told on an internet networking site how instead of nurturing her baby son, she spent her days drinking vodka, watching pornographic films and having sex with her new boyfriend Steven Barker, a man who had an IQ of 60 and was himself the product of an abusive background…
Well, so he claimed.
Connelly has said that her experience with social services as a girl made her “terrified of social workers”. But the police believe her experiences within the care system also made her knowledgeable about ways to dupe the authorities.
So, back to the social workers. How’s that campaign to sack them going? Let’s have heated debate…
For the full story read: Baby P’s Mum Tracey Connelly And Stephen Barker, In Pictures
Posted: 11th, August 2009 | In: Media Comments (13) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
August 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
..I wasn’t condoning prison retaliation, C&C, but it exists, no matter whether we like it or not.
..but I agree that life should mean life - that should go without saying.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
C&C. Too true. I have returned from another site where the merits of capital punishment via torture are being discussed. Presumably live on Saturday night TV. After the watershed of course, we have to think of the little ones. They can’t or won’t see that it’s the same thing
August 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I can never accept ‘prison retaliation’. That makes us as bad.
what they need is solitary confinement for life and for life to mean life.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I agree, Ironside - some people are not fit to be walking the streets, but I suggest it should go further..
..having taken away so many of the child’s human rights, they should forfeit their own - no protection, no anonymity, no financial support from authorities - nothing….
if they were assaulted in prison and beaten up, at least they would know the reason.
what (logical) reason did they have to inflict such horror and pain on a small child, tortured and terrified by the very people who should have protected him from the world…?
it is enough to break your heart.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
The post-mortem examination revealed Baby P had suffered:
• Eight broken ribs and a broken back, with another area of bleeding around the spine at neck level.
• Numerous bruises, cuts and abrasions, including a deep tear to his left ear lobe, which had been pulled away from his head.
• Severe lacerations to the top of his head, including a large gouge which could have been caused by a dog bite.
• Blackened finger- and toenails, with several nails missing; the middle finger of his right hand was without a nail and its tip was also missing, as if it had been sliced off.
• A tear to his fraenulum, the strip of skin between the middle of the upper lip and the gum, which had partially healed.
• One of his front teeth had also been knocked out and was found in his colon. He had swallowed it.
These are just some of the injuries that this poor baby suffered. No one should be set free to live the rest of their lives in comfort after this. British Justice is too lax….Give them help by all means if that is what they need but behind cell walls.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
…by the way, I know it was unintentional, but the sentence “let’s remember how many children have been saved by the intervention of the SS..” made me do a bit of a double-take….!!
August 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
John Ham - you mean, like Sharon Shoesmith….?
August 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Yampster… the current way of testing IQ and the accompanying table that the psychologists work with, makes 60 a functioning IQ.
Though whether I believe it of this man I’m not sure. If true it would again be some sort of explanation but absolutely no excuse.
And again, I would look to the parents if two brothers have the same perversions, amorality and lack of conscience.
If all three of the people involved had had different upbringings, maybe been adopted at birth, would they be as they are now? Though I guess we could debate that ad infinitum!
August 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
This is not the fault of social workers or “The system”. As even the smallest child knows, there’s always a way around the checks and balances. And anybody who is that bothered, or lucky, will usually manage to avoid detection. For a while at least. The last thing we need is more recriminations, enquiries and departmental resturcturing, as such exercises will merely divert funds and effort from the front line services that stop most instances of child abuse reaching this level.
Lets remember how many children have been saved by the intervention of the SS and be grateful for that, rather than fuelling the rabid blame culture that keeps so many useless people in well paid jobs, and diverts money from the people who actually do the work.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an IQ of 60 has the ability to dress himself. That’s nearly too low to be classed as human. I’m surprised he didn’t get away with it on the grounds of diminished responsibility
August 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
It does seem also that the SS do need to work much more closely with the NHS and the Police and far less Govt nonsense over paperwork and PC and sodding targets - the only obvious one being to reduce the number of injuries and death, and possibly to step back from the idea that the only abuse is sexual.
I was horrified to see that these people will be offered protection and anonymity after leaving jail, it shouldn’t be. That Connelly creature has been quite brazen in her intentions after her release, she still hasn’t grasped the general idea of parenthood apart from the basics of allowing conception.
Humans rights be damned, they do NOT deserve them, and its cases and people like these where I for one lament the loss of the death penalty.
This woman will be approx 30 when she’s let out, how many more children will she bear, then allow to be tortured?
August 11th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I agree that social workers should be far more intrusive in cases of potential child abuse, in order to try and stem this tide of appalling horror cases where the kids end up dead.
who’s fault is it….? undoubtedly that b*tch of a mother and her accomplices and they are being punished; but in the case of the social workers, the question remains, is it the system which is at fault because it is too PC to let them do the job properly or are the people themselves too timid or naive (ie. the wrong type of person) to deal with manipulative evil scumbags, who fob them off with excuses?
my impression (generally speaking) of social workers is that they are very caring people, but if this nurturing element is not coupled with a force of character and a naturally suspicious mind, then this sort of thing is going to happen again and again….
August 11th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Connelly’s background doesn’t excuse what happened but it does go some way towards an explanation.
The abused all too often become the abusers and its time to unfetter the Social Workers who are currently bound by the Childrens Act and let them treat each case in its own right.
There are many parents who, because of their own inadequate upbringing, have no clue how to bring up their own children (that they produce almost annually) and where ‘keeping the family together’ is definitely not the best option.
IMO they should rework the Childrens Act to REALLY protect children instead of pandering to the political correctness that is invading all aspects of Local Authority provisions.