Baby P
I first saw this story when Eliza posted it at BabyLune and then again when reader Rosa sent me an e-mail.
Baby P is the name of toddler from England who died from abuse at the hands of his FBO, her boyfriend, and just some guy who hung around with them. Baby P, the 27-year-old ‘mother’ and her 32-year-old boyfriend can not be named for legal reasons. However there is no such protection for ‘the guy’ so he’s 36-year-old Jason Owen.
baby P was abused at the hands of the three for a period of at least 8-months before he died. In that time he was visited 60 times by social services. The doctor who examined Baby P post-mortem stated the child had at least 50 injuries.
No one from social services has been fired over the incident but they’ve been given written warnings? That’ll teach ‘em.
It seems that social services in the UK are just as corrupt and inept as they are here in The States.
Sphere: Related Content
November 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The problem here in England is that child protection is failing for the protectors are dammed if they remove children from parents and dammed if they leave them. Much to the amazement of your Paediatricians, we have hounded out our two most distinguished experts in child protection, Sir Roy Meadow who described Munchausen’s by Proxy and David Southall who gave us covert video surveillance. This has aroused the hatred of all those whose malign take on life is the support of those who hurt children
November 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I think it’s the same council who fucked up the Victoria Climbie case . They said it wouldn’t happen again .
November 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Julie you are right, its the same Council. Interesting as an example of the methods used to discredit paediatricians or release Victoria’s abusers from prison is the suggestion made by a doctor who always comments in these cases and offers himself to those convicted as able to come up with some implausible disease to account for the damaged child’s injuries and fool the Judge and Jury.He is on record as saying she died of Kawasaki disease. Other women who have killed their children have been released by the Court’s acceptance of medially ludicrous alternative diagnoses.
It will always happen again because man is
vile.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I think I remember a doctor called Roy Meadow who gave questionable expert advice and caused cases to be reinvestigated . A solicitor was jailed for killing her baby based on his evidence . I think her name was Sally , can’t remember for sure . She was later released and there was a lot of doubt over the reliability of his evidence in other cases . I always thought Sally was innocent , but I’m sure he hindered the guilty cases too .
November 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Julie, you’re right again.Sally Clark was the solicitor and she was jailed for the murder of her sons Christopher and Harry. Harry was extensively damaged with brain lung and spinal injuries and Christopher had lung changes of suffocation.Some of us like you are of the opinion that Sally was innocent but we are also certain that the boys were killed. You will have to ponder on that conclusion.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Of course, now that they’ve been caught with their pants down (again), they will need to find an “easy” case to justify their continued existence – just like here in the US. They will find a family to destroy for no legitimate reason, fabricate “evidence,” destroy any evidence that exists contrary to their case, and have something delicious to dangle and say “Look, see? We saved the children!”
Every day, another notch in the belt to prove their overwhelming uselessness.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
[...] For those of you unfamiliar with the Baby P situation from the UK can catch up here. [...]
August 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Happened upon this today…about time they can give out the names….
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2580940/The-killers-of-Baby-P-are-named-today-as-Tracey-Connelly-and-Steven-Barker.html
August 11th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Everyone knew their names , not that it’ll do us any good . I’ll recognise the cunt if she moves near me when she gets out . Steven Barker was convicted of raping baby Peter’s 2 year old sister , but the jury couldn’t be told who he was . They’re all fucking scumbags and I hope they die painfully and soon .
August 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Word is the other inmated are waiting to take care of them. And I hope they do. Its a terrible injustice the short amount of time these scumbags recieved. This story is truly one of the most heart breaking things I have ever read. I know Baby Peter is in a much better place now with no more abuse and no more suffering.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
GUARDIAN
Baby P and the power of the internet
The internet told us the identity of Baby Peter’s parents months ago – some fear the online ‘mob’, but it only reflects society
o Charlie Beckett
o guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 August 2009 12.37 BST
o Article history
It wasn’t the Sun that did it. It was the social networkers. The mainstream press is only today telling us the names of the parents of murdered toddler “Baby Peter”. The internet told us months ago. Normally, this would be a cause of rejoicing for web enthusiasts who celebrate its contribution to free expression. But was this digital disclosure or mob mis-rule?
Some people now fear that the internet mob is on the warpath, waving digital pitchforks and brandishing flaming cyber torches. Facebook groups have, in effect, forced the courts to allow mainstream media to disclose the names of the parents of Baby Peter. No doubt those same cyber vigilantes will insist on an online and even offline lynching the moment they leave prison.
This is a difficult case where the popular media should not get too pious. The tabloids would love to have named Tracey Connelly and Baby Peter’s stepfather, Steven Barker, earlier, but they would have been hit by legal action from the courts.
Of course, it is illegal to publish information restricted by a court order even if you are an ordinary citizen or Facebook user but it is much harder to prosecute. The online individual has no institutional reputation or editorial budget to lose.
But once a fact hits the internet it can never be hid again. One estimate is that 500,000 people were on forums discussing the case as the judge attempted to recruit a jury. This raises the issue of prejudice as well as harm to the other siblings involved in the case. But the fact is that we shall have to learn to live with this and efforts should be directed at reducing mob anger not trying to bottle it up.
At my thinktank, Polis, at the LSE we have been holding a series of high-level seminars on Chatham House rules with senior legal figures on these issues. It is clear that the legal system simply does not know how to put the digital genie back in the mainstream media bottle. This may be a good thing overall.
We saw in the Madeleine McCann case how a sizable section of public opinion was ignored by the mainstream media. It then goes underground or online and assumes even more irrational and aggressive tendencies.
Overall, I am sure that it is better that we have the internet space to put uncomfortable and even illegal facts in the pubic domain. No one complained when a blogger forced the Damian McBride story into the open.
But can it hinder a fair trial? Well, in America the unfettered press has not reduced justice to a joke. Although few people in the UK want a similar free-for-all, I think that the internet means we have to look at relaxing restrictions for all journalists.
In the Baby P case, I think that Mr Justice Coleridge got it about right in an impossible situation. Of course, people wanted a name to put to the anonymous horror. It’s not terribly liberal but I understand that it is part of the public process of justice being seen to be done. But the siblings needed to be found homes before that could happen.
The internet only reflects society. If some of what it shows us is unpleasant then it must not be ignored. The challenge is to take the debate online and adjust our institutions to cope with openness and disclosure. Ultimately, that has to be a good thing.
What is certain is that the internet and the many vengeful online groups will see to it that Connelly and Barker’s infamy lives on. The paradox though is that this makes it even more likely that the authorities will have to spend millions of taxpayers’ money on protecting them when they are finally released from prison.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … er-parents
August 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Steven Barker Fellow prisoners of Baby P’s stepfather have been offered £10,000 to blind him — £5,000 for each eye.
The ‘bounty’ is being offered by convicts at Wakefield jail where Steven Barker is being held in a high-security wing.
He is being protected after getting death threats over his part in the toddler’s death.
It came as Baby P’s full name and those of the three people convicted over his death were revealed today after a court anonymity order expired.
Peter Connelly was 17 months old when he died in his blood-spattered cot in his Tottenham home after months of abuse from his mother Tracey Connelly, 28, and Barker, her 33-year-old lover.
It can also be disclosed for the first time that the third defendant, Jason Owen, 37, who was referred to only as their lodger in their trial, is in fact Barker’s brother.
The death of Baby P touched a nation
The three were sentenced in May after being found guilty of causing or allowing the death of Peter in August 2007.
The boy suffered 50 injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken back.
Owen was sentenced to a minimum of three years. Barker, who played the major part in Peter’s death, was given a minimum of 12 years and Connelly a minimum of five years. Barker was later jailed for life, with a minimum term of 10 years, for raping a two-year-old girl.
Barker, a 6ft 4in, 18st bully and sadistic neo-Nazi, is suspected of sex attacks on other children. Father-of-four Owen, a convicted arsonist who changed his surname by deed poll, was staying at Peter’s home with his 15-year-old girlfriend when the abuse occurred.
Connelly, who has four other children, was described as a manipulative and lazy woman who lied repeatedly to social workers and insisted she knew nothing about the attacks.
The bounty being offered to attack Barker was revealed in The Sun today. Connelly is at Low Newton jail near Durham and is in solitary confinement to protect her from fellow prisoners.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Such a crock.
These people dont deserve protection. They didnt protect little Peter !! Let them loose in general pop and let them get whats coming to them.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Hi Ahtnamas, do not worry they will get them..I do not know if you remember the Sutcliffe case….he murdered a lot of prostitutes some years back in England. He was “protected” yet someone managed to take one of his eyes out.
The law in England is pathetic the victims are the last to be thought of…but baby Peters father will be waiting for them to be released.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
IRONSIDE,
Im Samantha (just changed my name, spelled it backwards). We have chatted before, about the Mccann story.
Didnt want you thinking I was someone new poppin up on ya.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I offer up some of my hard earned cash for the inmate that carries out the “deed”…. err…. I mean, THEY offer up some money. Naw, fuck it. I will gladly by someone a carton of smokes.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
This is one of the saddest stories I have ever read. I have been researching the Peter Connelly case for a long time now. It brings tears to my eyes every time I read something about it. I sure hope that someone does take this monsters out because they have a definate chance at freedom not too long from now.
It amazes me that with all his injuries including that of a broken back, causing partial paralysis and several broken ribs…no one including doctors noticed his cries for help.
How could this world fail him so badly? He was seen by a doctor just before his death, while having said broken ribs and back, the doctor did not catch the injuries because apparently he could not be treated becuase he was “cranky and miserable” DAMN RIGHT HE WAS!!! How could a DOCTOR let him leave their care without checking EVERY possible issue? A broken back should be OBVIOUS to any doctor. Yet this child was still murdered. This child was let down BY EVERYONE.
It makes me ill, seeing a case like this, and it makes it worse knowing that they will be given new identities and live off the rest of society for their evil doings. No one protected baby Peter. He was left to die a horrific death, yet these monsters will live in happiness and harmony once let loose from prison…unless someone makes good on those threats, which I am sincerely hoping they do.
The whole world watched as this little babies life was wiped out and washed away as if it was worthless and unwanted. No one can bring him back and there was no justice for poor baby p. My only hope is monsters worse than them haunt them in their sleep and keep watch …just waiting for them to make the wrong move.
Cant wait to see these dirtbags get murdered in viciously cruel ways…Ill be waiting …patiently waiting
January 31st, 2010 at 1:20 pm
i hope them cunts die a slow painfull death
January 31st, 2010 at 2:10 pm