So baby P's parents and killers have been named...

Sankari · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:30

RDM said:
Where did you get the £1m a year from?

BBC:

The extra cost of providing security for the three people identified as allowing the death of Baby Peter could rise to £1m a year, a union has said.

dirtydog · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:31

Evangelion said:
BBC:

The extra cost of providing security for the three people identified as allowing the death of Baby Peter could rise to £1m a year, a union has said.

Okay, what is the union's point? That we shouldn't protect them and should allow mob justice to reign?

Yas786 · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:35

I say give them some SAW type games if they want to live

...its sad and sickening that these 3 at some point will be allowed out into the real world...if only justice really did work they would be locked up for life.

^TANK^ · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:41

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

What the hell goes through your mind when you do that to a baby, I'm truely lost for words

.

^TANK^ · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:43

Evangelion said:
BBC:

The extra cost of providing security for the three people identified as allowing the death of Baby Peter could rise to £1m a year, a union has said.

Seriously please somebody tell me thats a ****ing joke please, what an insane world we live in :confused:

.

dirtydog · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:45

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

What the hell goes through your mind when you do that to a baby, I'm truely lost for words.

From what I've read, the people involved spent a lot of their time under the influence of drink or drugs which might help account for their behaviour.

oweneades · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:52

Evangelion said:
BBC:

The extra cost of providing security for the three people identified as allowing the death of Baby Peter could rise to £1m a year, a union has said.

Important bit highlighted in bold there....

^TANK^ · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:53

dirtydog said:
From what I've read, the people involved spent a lot of their time under the influence of drink or drugs which might help account for their behavior.

Believe me when I say I have been there done that in my experimenting days growing up, and at know point did I see a fellow human being let alone a child as a punch bag! So them being off there faces on alcohol and illegal substances doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Sankari · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:54

dirtydog said:
Okay, what is the union's point? That we shouldn't protect them and should allow mob justice to reign?

Was the union making any point at all? I thought they were just pointing out the costs. It's good news for them anyway, since their members will be doing quite well out of the overtime and extra staffing requirements.

wez130 · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:55

oweneades said:
Important bit highlighted in bold there....

even if it was half that, it's still £500k too much

dirtydog · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:56

^TANK^ said:
Believe me when I say I have been there done that in my experimenting days growing up, and at know point did I see a fellow human being let alone a child as a punch bag! So them being off there faces on alcohol and illegal substances doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Well same here mate, I've been intoxicated many times and never felt the desire to beat up a baby but my point is that drink/drugs can make you behave in a way you wouldn't normally do. It wouldn't excuse their actions but it might help explain it. I would like to believe that nobody who is sober and of sound mind would do that to a baby or indeed anyone. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.

dirtydog · 12 Aug 2009 at 12:56

Evangelion said:
Was the union making any point at all? I thought they were just pointing out the costs.

Why were they doing so?

Vonhelmet · 12 Aug 2009 at 13:21

^TANK^ said:
Believe me when I say I have been there done that in my experimenting days growing up, and at know point did I see a fellow human being let alone a child as a punch bag! So them being off there faces on alcohol and illegal substances doesn't wash I'm afraid.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Just because you didn't do anything mental while on drugs doesn't mean that no one else will.

Sankari · 12 Aug 2009 at 13:31

dirtydog said:
Why were they doing so?

Perhaps they were bragging.

salami1212 · 12 Aug 2009 at 14:45

cut off their eyelids and leave them in a sunbed

shauncr91 · 12 Aug 2009 at 14:52

Wossi said:
Someone else used to read the Baby P stuff on facebook I see

Was fun to comment on them.

"Because Baby P will spend his time in heaven browsing Facebook."

Then just leave it and await the ****storm

edscdk · 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59

anticonscience said:
Lock them up for life I say.

thats costs a lot, kill them and spend the money on people who deserve it it?

slambo69 · 12 Aug 2009 at 16:29

edscdk said:
thats costs a lot, kill them and spend the money on people who deserve it it?

Exactly, people complaining about the government cutting benefits for soldiers and then complaining about spending so much to protect sick and twisted criminals...

matt_fsr · 12 Aug 2009 at 16:44

There are certain crimes, where the evidence is indesputed, and the conditions so awful that I believe the death sentence would be purely justified.

These wastes of air, life and everything else are hardly going to be bothered by the loss of their liberty in prison, so it's neither a deterrent nor a punishment, and what it certainly is is a vast waste of money.

And by death penalty, I don't mean 50 appeals over 25 years, then death - I mean evidence, trial, conviction, lethal injection administered by a machine.

Wonder what percentage of the country would support that in this situation eh?

Barks · 12 Aug 2009 at 18:00

Connelly's lawyers are expected to use human rights legislation to argue that she is entitled to live without the fear of vigilante attacks or media intrusion.

This is the final nail in the coffin for the exploitation of human rights legislation as far as I'm concerned. Human rights should be limited to those convicted of serious crimes and I honestly don't see how anyone who wasn't dropped on their head as a child can disagree with this.

"I accept there will be public outrage over the costs of Connelly's new identity but that is what we pay for in a fair justice system."

How do these people get in positions of influence and power within our legal and government system? They need to wake up and smell the coffee because they live in an entirely different world to the rest of us.

It's a shame the government can't use all the money to protect INNOCENT citizens who live in fear and intimidation in poverty, crime stricken areas within the UK. It makes me utterly sick. These people have no idea, no idea.

We have human rights laws because we are not a barbaric society but this case illustrates failure to the highest degree. The solution should not be a dramatic cost to the tax payer.