-
Posts
-
@tinkerbell wrote:
Cas how do you go about emailing your MP because I would like to do the same. Like you said, if the people responsible got sacked it would be at least a small justice. Hopefully public opinion will rule.
If you have a local paper or magazine, that would tell you who yr local MP is,,,,or you could contact your local council, tell them where you live and they would give you the name of yr local MP.
I wasn’t sure so I googled Romford MP’s and that was how I found my one.
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:
@cas wrote:
Iv’e followed the lead of some of the posters on the link today and mailed my own MP. Have simply said that i’m disgusted at the whole scenario, the appalling statements made by that woman, who shouldn’t be asked to resign, who should be sacked! along with anyone else who had dealings with this case.
Iv’e also said that I feel that the peadiatrician, who examined that little boy, days before his death, be struck off!,,,,,,,how can someone who calls themselves a doctor ”miss” broken ribs!
None of it will bring this baby back. If tho, a public inquiry is called and it also re-opens the police investigation into the whole matter, brings further, more serious charges against his abusers, and the sacking of all those in supposed authority, it would be a small justice.
I,ve just mailed my MP too Carol. And as for that “doctor”, what a joke. Where did she do her training then, in bloody teletubbie land? Useless the lot of them. :evil:
@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.
Everything seems to be aimed at the doctors here and social workers… sure they messed up.. especially the doctor it seems who missed a broken back and paralysed from the waist down so i read :shock: but why are the perpetrators of the crime still alive, kill them, put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger. If no one elese wants to do it i’ll volunteer
@pete wrote:
Everything seems to be aimed at the doctors here and social workers… sure they messed up.. especially the doctor it seems who missed a broken back and paralysed from the waist down so i read :shock: but why are the perpetrators of the crime still alive, kill them, put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger. If no one elese wants to do it i’ll volunteer
And I,ll help you pete, np atall. :twisted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6950686.stm
/revulsed too.. GET them !
her online name is “have pmt,need choc” ..
@pete wrote:
Everything seems to be aimed at the doctors here and social workers… sure they messed up.. especially the doctor it seems who missed a broken back and paralysed from the waist down so i read :shock: but why are the perpetrators of the crime still alive, kill them, put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger. If no one elese wants to do it i’ll volunteer
inciting murder, tut!
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???
I think one of the reasons may be that she had another baby whilst on remand. sorry to contradict PB, but the article was also written LAST year while they were first arrested. We know now that the charges of Murder have been dropped, and they all stand for the lesser charge of ” allowing a child to die”.. In light of the possibility of her being set free, they wont be able to name them now,to protect the identity of the new baby girl. This child was taken from Connoly at birth, despite hooh hah from social workers,back then that “she” was not able to Bond with the baby, and innocent until proven guilty malarky !
Thats the only reason i can think of.
She seems a cunning barstird, and has played the social work department ALL her life, she seems to think she has inside information and has been bragging she will be OUT BY XMAS, and re united with the wee girl !The mind boggles !
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!