Wherein we break the law
By saying fuck the murderers and the laws that protect them.
The now-infamous British case of Baby P:
The Deceased: Peter Connolly
The Murderers: Tracey Connolly (the so-called mother), Stephen Barker (the step-father, naturally), Jason Barker (his brother)
The Crime: Using Peter as a punching bag until dead.
The law is shielding the names of these parasites due to the fact that Tracey has recently given birth (in jail) and her HUMAN FUCKING RIGHTS must be protected.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming of Muslim-hating and begging for money.
And Lord save us from the social workers!
It’s laughable that in this day and age of the internet that courts still try to keep the names of murderous criminals secret. Now that you live in the States, Rightgirl, maybe you should start a site that simply lists the names of those whose identities are protected under the Young Offenders Act.
Comment by BillyHW — November 13, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
I can’t even click over.
Comment by Stacy — November 13, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Stacy, I clicked over. And I got this far in the article that was linked:
The very sad fact is you cannot stop anyone who is determined to kill their children.
And I couldn’t read any more. I feel sick. This poor baby was utterly failed by everyone. And Wendy, you did good posting the names of the people responsible for killing this baby. Why the hell should THEY be protected? No one protected Baby P.
Comment by Tammy — November 13, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Peter. His name was Peter.
Comment by Right Girl — November 13, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Thanks for making sure his name will never be forgotten. God Bless Peter.
Comment by caltechgirl — November 13, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Hi, just a correction - the lodger’s name is Jason Owen and was using Connolly’s address as a hide-out from people who were ‘after him’. Unfortunately no-one got him though…His 15 year old girlfriend was shacked up with him at Baby P’s cesspit of a ‘home’. So there’s a fourth person who could have saved the babe.
I’ve written a couple of articles about these monsters on my blog if you want to have a read - I named and shamed yesterday. Let ‘em arrest me - freedom of speech is what it’s all about.
http://www.culturedviews.com/wanted-for-compliance-to-child-abuse-and-murder-haringey-council-north-london/2008/11/12/view.htm
http://www.culturedviews.com/tracey-connolly-a-name-to-be-reviled/2008/11/13/view.htm
and one about the standard of parenting in the UK today:
http://www.culturedviews.com/has-the-uk-bred-its-worst-ever-generation-of-parents/2008/11/13/view.htm
Thanks and keep stirring ‘em up!
Comment by Wendy — November 14, 2008 @ 3:27 am
Sorry, my mistake. Have just learned that Jason Owen is in fact the brother of Stephen Barker and is named as Jason Barker.
Apparently his surname was changed to protect his brother’s identity…can you believe that!!
Comment by Wendy — November 14, 2008 @ 4:37 am
Here are all their names
The excuse for a mother: Tracey Connolly
The murderers :
Tracey Connolly and Steven Barker, who live in Penhurst Road, Tottenham, and Jason Barker, of Wittersham Road, Bromley, south-east London
The incompetent doctor Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat
Comment by Nora Drevinsky — November 14, 2008 @ 7:12 am
“Sorry, my mistake. Have just learned that Jason Owen is in fact the brother of Stephen Barker and is named as Jason Barker.”
Heck, that’s okay. Anyone can accidentally falsely accuse someone of murder as part of their own self-righteous crusade. Fuck those silly laws enacted just to prevent that.
Comment by balbulican — November 15, 2008 @ 10:55 am
I don’t want to protect their identities. I’d like them to be hunted until they beg for their lives.
But there’s got to be a good reason why none of the newspapers has named Baby P as you can bet they would love to.
Sometimes you get cases where a husband has raped his wife, and then you can’t name the husband because it would identify who the victim of the rape is.
Or maybe there is another court case that we don’t know about, and the identity of Baby P’s mother is an issue. So if we name her, she might get off that charge, because you can bet every tax penny we pay for legal aid that lawyers will do everything they can to get their clients off.
And if they can do it by saying their clients can’t possibly have a fair trial because their names are published, and all over the internet, then that will mean they would get off whatever crime it is they are - hypothetically - charged with.
So by posting these names, you’re probably doing them a favour. Or you’re doing one of their victims harm.
Just so you know.
Comment by not a journalist — November 15, 2008 @ 11:15 am
NaJ - While I do understand the reasons behind the law, in this case it is meant to protect the “mother”s human rights. She gave birth in prison and gets to keep her baby, because we all know what a good mommy she is.
The trial is over and the victim is dead. This wasn’t a rape case, it was murder.
Balb, I assume you also stood behind the Crown’s prerogative to have the trial regarding the royal family 5 years ago held in secret because it was the royal family? And don’t ask me what the hell it was about (all I heard was sex tape and royal family member), since I was living there at the time and wasn’t allowed to know.
RG
Comment by Right Girl — November 15, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Well, Agatha Christie always said that it is the protection of innocence that one should be primarily driven towards - not protection of the murderer. Interesting ethical comments from a mystery writer!
In North America, you have many rights as a convicted murderer - and while I respect the commitment that the Catholic church demonstrates to protecting life, I can’t help but be convinced that the liberal illuminati are strangely inconsistent in their upholding of abortion rights, but not capital punishment. It’s okay to dispose of an innocent, whose existence depends upon you, but not to execute a murderer?
What moral confusion.
Comment by Gippergal — November 15, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
“Balb, I assume you also stood behind the Crown’s prerogative to have the trial regarding the royal family 5 years ago held in secret because it was the royal family? And don’t ask me what the hell it was about (all I heard was sex tape and royal family member), since I was living there at the time and wasn’t allowed to know.”
Gosh, that’s a bit of a leap, isn’t it?
You identify the wrong person as a murderer in a little spate of blog-vigillantism, I point it out. Sorry, what does that have to do with secrecy and the royal family?
Comment by balbulican — November 15, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
I did not mis-identify a murderer, Balb. Oddly enough, there is more than one Wendy on the planet, and one of them just happens to read here and comment.
As a rule I post comments as RightGirl, as you know. On the rare occasion I use my name, it is my FULL name.
Comment by Right Girl — November 15, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
None of that trio are innocent of this crime. That has been well and truly proven; that child had handmarks from each of them on his poor little body.
Why was Jason Barker named as Jason ‘Owen’…? only so his brother would not be identified - and his brother was the sadistic boyfriend. There’s nothing innocent at all about this evil trio - they do not deserve to be protected.
Self-righteous I might be - but I am no child killer.
Also, that Royal Family scandal - it involved Princess Margaret’s son.
Comment by Wendy — November 16, 2008 @ 7:10 am
Please stop this “outing” stuff.
We’re all upset about this - some of us feel anger, some of us feel desperate pity and despair. Can we all please remember that there are other children involved here and that is why the courts have ordered that the family remain incognito.
There is a possibility that with the right support and care these children will go on to have healthy relationships and lead productive lives within their communities. Please don’t make their healing less possible. Please don’t consign them to the same fate as their mother and their sibling.
Comment by H — November 17, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Jason Barker changed his name himself to Owen because he was on the run from people, his own family I believe, for child sex offences. He had a 15 year old girlfriend, and they dug a hole in the back garden to hide her in if the police came because she was a runaway.
Comment by nelly — November 17, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
The mother’s “human rights”? You mean to tell me we’re supposed to consider her a human?
I think there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.
And count me in on ‘naming and shaming’. I say post their names and addresses on every site you can. I plan to…
Comment by anemone — November 17, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
The sad thing is, they will be ‘protected’ in prison and probably live a life of luxury at the tax payers expense … and then get new identities when they are released early for good behaviour.
As a tax payer I would rather hang all four (yes I also include the 15 year old who was paid by the taxpayer to look after Peter) in fact I would prefer to let them all starve to death slowly.
Comment by Raine — November 17, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
To whoever Wendy is well done for naming those monsters. I did receive a text today with the names and addresses. After reading this i have now forwarded to everyone i know. Rest in peace baby peter
Comment by susan keeley — November 18, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
I cant believe how many people think the same about this case!! as for the name and shame I agree, i didnt realise that other children were involved but i have to say that by now they will have moved well out the area and probably given new identities themselves so it really makes no odds. I just feel sorry for them growing up with those role models and possibly images that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, but i am sure when they are they are older they will understand that this is something that needs to be done, too often now the law is seemingly protecting the wrong people and things are getting so bad as there doesnt seem to be any punishment or consequence as horrible or drastic as the crime. its all very confusing and disappointing!!!
Comment by Pink — November 18, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
[...] This post has proven very popular this week, and I’m glad I could be of some use to the Brits who have been kept in the dark by their courts. [...]
Pingback by Girl On The Right » Blog Archive » Comments and Tracey Connolly — November 18, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
i also received a text message with the details of the guilty parties and will not be passing it on, purely on the basis that Chinese whispers can be fatal. What happens in years to come when that little baby is victim of a vigilante act upon its mother, the baby didn’t asked to be born into such circumstances.
I am not attacking anyone on here, i also am disgusted by the actins of these sicko’s but please do think before doing anything rash.
Comment by Nuttyzebra — November 19, 2008 @ 8:35 am
WHAT MOTHER
Comment by Vikki — November 19, 2008 @ 11:53 am
This case is so sickening. Here are my questions:
1. this subhuman (I can’t use the word mother) lived in subsidized housing, which was found again and again to be filthy beyond comprehension, outright dangerous, and she was allowed to stay?
2. The slob had other people living there. Again, isn’t that against the “council flat” rules?
3. She was smart enough to fill out the requisite paperwork to get her “child benefit” (presumably why she kept having them) , so how can defend any of her other actions?
4. Who’s paying for her legal defense?
5. Who’s lobbying the UK government to remove the incentive for lazy slobs like this to have children for the sole purpose of having said children support their shiftless, homicidal asses?
6. Where were the neighbors? Surely they heard something?
Comment by Jeanette — November 19, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Look, it’s really rather simple. Most of us Brits with a keyboard can, and have, found the names of the three adults involved in this case. But naming them in full really can screw up court cases in the UK - it has happened before - hence the general will of the major online, print and broadcast press has been to avoid naming and shaming them for now. The sentence in the first case - against the stepdad and the ‘lodger’ - will be passed on December 15th and it is quite possible that the British tabloids will name all three in full at that point. It appears, however, that other criminal proceedings are also active. Hence the three names have been withdrawn from press coverage for now.
Comment by McNulty — November 19, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
STOP OUTING THIS INFORMATION!
You people who are trying to ‘name and shame’ the parents do NOT understand British law and are causing HARM.
This is only the first case that they have stood trial for. There are more pending. All you people sharing their names are risking them walking free from future trial!
YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING, BUT YOUR ‘NAMING AND SHAMING’ WILL STOP THEM BEING PROSECUTED FOR OTHER CRIMES THEY MAY HAVE COMMITTED.
Comment by Me — November 20, 2008 @ 11:19 am
This ‘naming and shaming’ thing is a result of the extreme anger that society is feeling after having read about so many of these types of cases in recent times. In the UK press there is at least one story a week, every week, regarding the death of a small child at the hands of his/her ‘parent’. It happens too damn often now and people are fed up with it. Each time the authorities say the same old stuff - ‘lessons will be learnt. Blah blah blah…’ and then yet another child slips through the ropes and it happens again.
No lessons have been learnt to date but I think this time a society angry enough can ensure changes are made. If we do not shout the authorities will not listen.
The legal profession - trying to protect these three with anonymity - are forgetting one thing. The original reports of the story from August 2007 are still published online on the news sites - and those reports publish in full the names and addresses of these three people. It was not going to take people long to track these sites down and discover their names.
If the lawyers (paid by for by the taxpayer) go ahead and use all their usual loop-holes to get reduced sentences for these three on the sole basis that they have been named - if they try that excuse (and lawyers will do anything to win a case) - then, I suspect, they will have public anger in the UK on a scale never seen before.
Comment by Wendy — November 21, 2008 @ 3:32 am
What I want to know is if the 15 year old has been named yet. I have it on good authority (from a friend who is touch with someone that has spoken to the 15 yr old’s aunty) that this girl is a liar, and that she laughed with them when they were torturing her. Coming off with the pitifull story that she was innocent is bull! She knew it was wrong ffs, she even helped bury the mobile fones with the nasty vids of the torture on them! And why couldn’t she pin point exactly where they were hidden??? Because the videos most probably incriminate her too!!!!
Comment by connie — November 21, 2008 @ 8:13 am
sorry i meant to say she laughed with them when they tortured him
Comment by connie — November 21, 2008 @ 8:14 am
If only the government had the balls to bring back capital punishment as a deterent and for justice in cases like this…..
Comment by Nicky — November 21, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Anonymity is to protect Baby P’s siblings, of whom one is the baby his mum had whilst on remand. Consider how distressing an experience these children have already had, and how much more ashamed they have the potential to feel if the adults are named. Stepfather is also due to face abuse charges for the 2 older siblings and naming may prejudice a fair trial, enabling him to escape justice. The case for publishing names was unarguable in court because it protects the children, something you all want to do?
Comment by helensparkles — November 22, 2008 @ 10:56 am
I know it is wrong to wish dead to someone, but I just cant help it. After reading all the things they did to this little beautiful child, who only wanted some love and attention, I cant see what else would bring justice for baby P. Maybe someone can send them a cake with a stanleyknife and pliers in it, so they can play with themselves. Sorry for wishing death on somebody, but jail is to good for these people. Dont want to lower myself to their level, but I just cant help feeling this way. i wish I never saw his picture, it keeps haunting me. I tried to imagine how people lived in that family, how could it go on and on. i see a baby in his dirty cot crying for help and no one gives a damn abouth him, the only thing he gets is a fist in his face, so he dies, dirty, alone, cold, in pain, not loved, but silent, so he wouldn’t bother anyone anymore, never again……
Rest in peace little man!
Comment by Saralin — November 24, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
visit http://www.babypmemorial.webs.com
and leave your prayers for this lovely brave little tot who lost his life. Dear Lord Jesus, we hold up all little children who are suffering abuse and pray you will give them the love and peace they deserve and an end to their pain, Amen.
Comment by row — November 25, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
a simple search of genealogical websites provides us with a Tracey M Cox born in June 1981 in Leicester to a mother with the maiden name O’Connor… Tracey M Cox marries Kenneth Connelly in Haringey in 2003… There are only 3 children born to a mother with the maiden name Cox and a father called Connelly in the registers which are only on line until 2005 and hence do not include Peter… All 3 are girls all are born in Enfield … The eldest born March 2000, next Sep 2001, last Dec 2004…. The eldest girl has the same middle name as the mother Tracey… I will not give these getails out but they are in public domain… Incidentally the webiste I used is a paying one for genealogy… Iused genealogical techniques to find this.
Comment by anony mouse — November 28, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Have we now fogotten about poor little peter and all the other children like him. All posts now seem to have gone quiet, the British public yet again go quiet because it’s happening to someone elses child. When are we going to take to the streets and demand protection for all children or is it simply that we don’t care enought?
Comment by Michelle — December 8, 2008 @ 10:59 am
I am extremely angry and upset by this case but people must stop naming them, there is a reason that only Owen has been named this is not to protect the parents its to protect baby P’s sister. Owen is not included in the case against them for his sister, they are being done for seriously abusing baby P’s sister also and the courts have banned their names being known so that it does not effect his sisters case, as the monsters lawers could get them off by saying it was an ‘unfair trial’, we all want closer for Baby P but his sister and other siblings also deserve justice and closer. By all means when all cases are dealt with let everyone know their names and pictures, I hope someone circulates them around every prison in Britain, but until this date please let justice be done. This is also why the case has been changed from the 15th December because of breaking the anomity ruling. This case may never be held if the monster get away with unfair trial due to public medling.
I hope they get everything they deserve but you people are putting this case at risk. If this happens Baby P may never get justice.
Comment by T — December 9, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
The texts did mention the names of all three, the mother, boyfriend and lodger (brother of the boyfriend) but its very rare to come across her maiden name…just her name by marriage! We want to see the British Laws modified and we also want to see tougher sentencing for people like the three already mentioned. There are protests around the Uk in March 2009, come and join us! x
Comment by Erica Wilson — January 11, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
hi, for the above post, her maiden name was cox.
Comment by slinky — January 13, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Peter deserves to be called by his name, that poor baby.
Comment by Nicole — March 15, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
does anyone know anything about the waste of space,15 year old girlfriend of the evil lodger,shes sure got blood on her hands,little coward,she watched,and did nothing to help.
Comment by anntoinette — March 16, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Mary, I think her name is, says she is suicidal and was afraid of Peter’s stepfather, and thinks about Peter everyday. You know what? When I was 15, if I saw that horror, I would somehow, some way, told the police and saved that baby.
Comment by Nicole — March 16, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
thanks nicole,any girl of that age would help a dog knocked down in the street,this cow was protecting her sicko boyfriend,HOW could she be so evil,her tears dont fool anyone,to little to late,and now we should feel sorry for her,NEVER,if i got my hands on her,id drag her through the streets,and make her answer to US THE PUBLIC,sorry but it all makes me so upset.
Comment by anntoinette — March 16, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
She should also be NAMED AND SHAMED,she gets away scott free.
Comment by anntoinette — March 16, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Does anyone know anything about sentencing?
Comment by Nicola — April 1, 2009 @ 12:48 am
Trial starts again on APRIL 11th 2009.
Comment by Debbie — April 2, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Thanks Debbie, it’s been so quiet lately. Where did you read that? I check everyday for news and haven’t found anything.
Comment by Nicola — April 3, 2009 @ 1:48 am
I to look everyday for any news,but cant find anything,may be the new trial os on now,and we wont hear till its all over,i also wonder when they are being sentenced,surly they cant be holding another,with being sentenced for the first.
Comment by anntoinette — April 15, 2009 @ 11:06 am
Tracey Connolly appeared yesterday in Court 8 at the Central Criminal Court in London for the start of her sentencing - Stephen Barker also. At last the process is moving on - names were published publically in full on the daily court status.
http://www.culturedviews.com/tracey-connolly-sentencing-begins-today-in-court-8-old-bailey/2009/04/15/view.htm
Comment by MissCulture — April 16, 2009 @ 3:01 am
This is not a recommencement of trial - the trial formally concluded in November last year. Sentencing procedures began yesterday April 15th.
Comment by MissCulture — April 16, 2009 @ 4:34 am
Thanks for the info.
Comment by Nicola — April 18, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
Think there may be another trial for another offence. Hence the delay in the original sentencing for Baby P’s tormentors.
Comment by TJ — April 24, 2009 @ 11:52 am
When do children begin to use the internet? About eight years old? Younger? Let’s say it’s age eight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8030299.stm
This means that the girl attacked by Baby P’s stepfather will start to use the internet in about four years’ time, or her classmates will. This site isn’t hard to find if you plug in the right names. So I ask you, please consider whether or not you want to let the friends and acquaintances of a rape victim know she was raped. If you remove their names, there is a possibility she can keep that information private.
Perhaps she’ll be open about it. But let’s give her that choice shall we?
Comment by not a journalist — May 2, 2009 @ 6:11 am
They got fuck all time people! My heart is broken yet again!! She probably won’t do 3 years and that brute will be out by 2017!!!!
Jesus, Baby Peter deserves better than this. That bitch of a mother tortured him too as did that paedo lodger who only got 3 years max?
What kind of a judicial system is this? Can ye sit around in Britain and take this bullshit?
Janice.
Comment by janice harnett — May 22, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Does anyone know if ever identities are going to be exposed?
Comment by janice harnett — May 22, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Folks, Anonymous and everyone can ye find out for me how long they can keep their identities hidden please. Because if they consider witness protection for these cretins forget it public. Will someone tell me why they can’t release their names yet?
This sentancing was a terrible blow to me. I have 2 little girls one who would be Peter’s age if he allowed live now and the other is about the age when he died. My heart breaks on both counts
My last post was edited so all I can say is that they rot in hell but I hope if they live to come out of there that people don’t forget. I don’t live in England but if I did I would be watching their departure.
Janice.
Comment by janice harnett — May 22, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
I read on the web last week there is a THIRD trial to take place, involving one of the older girls and a DOG. God knows what those bastards did to her - as for Peter’s family coming out of the wood work to sue, they ALL let him down, his natural father did not notice much did he? how about the gran, who is a violent alcaholic (Connelly was put into care herself because of this) and the grandfather is also a paedophile. I believe that had a paedophile network within the family unit and they covered for each other - wouldn’t surprise me if the bloody social workers were in on it as they seemed to miss so much.
Comment by nelly — May 24, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
A third trial???? Where are you getting your info?
Comment by Nicola — May 25, 2009 @ 1:37 am
When are we going to see a picture of the vile and dispicable Barker?
I went to White Hart Lane 2 weeks ago and finally found out where Peter lived in Penshurst Road Tottenham.
I’m gutted that I was less that 500 yards away from the house where all this happenend
God I wish we could of saved him
Comment by Mark Scott — May 27, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
I think everbody if this story was to get to the papers there is a lot of shit that would come out.
If your information is correct Nelly then this whole family is major fucked up and the poor children suffered because of it. One thing that grates on my mind to this day though is the natural father. I will never understand that he could not see his son was dying. There is something not right about a father not knowing that his 17 month old defenceless son was being bashed to death in front of his nose. He had him a weekend before he died and he was in a bad way for Gods sake! This defies logic!
This running of sentances concurrently also folks is pure bullshit. If the dispicable Barker was to be tried for something else, it would make no odds to that bastard as it would mean no more time for him. I hope someday we get to see his rotten face. I echo the question again, why are they still shielding them. I hope someone has the answer to this question.
Comment by Jan — May 29, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
I agree with you Jan about the father. The weekend the father had him, it was stated that already Peter’s fingernail and toenail were missing. How could he not have noticed that? Not only that but he was said to have had bruising and had lost ALOT of weight. I’ll never understand how he handed him back, police warning or whatever, I would have taken him to a hospital where they would have examined him and found non-accidental injuries. Maybe he’d still be alive.
I have no idea why they are still hiding identities unless something else yet to come but I can’t find any info like Nelly stated. I did hear though the identities would be released in August.
Comment by Nicola — May 29, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Thanks Nicola,
I will keep an eye out. God it is not going to make nice reading though when their identities are released. We are going to hear more unimaginable stories about the rotters that they are and more than likely the horrible disfunctional families that they came from!
Jan.
Comment by Jan — June 6, 2009 @ 8:15 am
The father has a lot to answer for,ive talked about this subject on FB,only to be attacked by do-gooders,but HOW did he not notice such injuries?the child was dying,and looked like a belsen victim,as stated by the grandmother,ever when the poor baby was dead the stupid father viewed his sons body,and believed it was a cot death,he again didnt see all the marks bruising ect,i would have run to the nearest police station and showed the missing finger tips,nails,the little mite weighted the same as a healthy five mth old,he was never feed,again the father didnt see this.I think at this stage they are all low life scum,the hole bloody family,and the baby paid the price.As for the 15yr old,lost for words,wish her nothing but shame and bad luck for the rest of her pityfull life,the COWARD.
Comment by anntoinette — June 13, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Hi Anntoinette,
To that 14 year old bitch. I hope her conscience kills her. It is unreal what she witnessed and could have stopped. I hope her nightmares are many and she rots in hell!!!
The ex husband allowed his little daughter, Peter’s sister to be raped by this monster! He didn’t know about that either? At the end of the day, he didn’t care enough and that is what is boils down to. If he was normal like you, me, my family, your family, he would have seen that little Peter and his sister and others probably in that den of hell were suffering. Nobody who cared about a child would let a child die like he did and miss blatantly obvious signs!
As for her friends, holy shit. They had a 1st birthday party for Peter and nobody could touch him seemingly!! The monster had him and wouldn’t let him go. What kind of warped fuckers were at that party that they couldn’t see the bruises and the pain in his eyes? I’ll tell you what kind probably, alcoholics, junkies and wasters.
I’ll say no more because all of this smells of shit. Prior to this I actually haven’t cursed but now I will because I curse all of them. What the whole lot of them did to little Peter left an unbelievable hole in my heart, sadness. I never wanted to believe humans could be so cruel.
Anyway, until the next time. I am always hoping to hear Sky News that one of them are got at there and won’t make it out alive. I am one of the most charitable people in the world and Will never happen probably but I live in hope!
Comment by Jan — June 13, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
I feel the exact same way as you both do. I’m still searching the news everyday in hope of hearing one of those bastards has been got to in prison. It’ll be a good day and the only justice we’ll ever see for Peter and his sister seeing the UK law system is pathetically lame. I hope there will be a change in the sentences after the review but it could also be rejected and wouldn’t be the first time. Nothing surprises me anymore. Yeah the whole family are a disgrace. The father has a cheek trying to sue the council because he sat and done nothing just like they did. He just wants money. The 15 year old, she’s as guilty as the other three losers and should have been on the stand and tried like an adult for the ‘causing and allowing the death of’. She was too interested in her own problems to do anything, as was Jason Owen but we all know he participated in the torture. I can’t believe how light he got off, considering he was investigated for the torture of his own grandmother but charges were dropped because the grandmother died. I believe any person around Peter, that includes the grandmother, should be put to trial for turning a blind eye. The social workers, the doctors and police who failed to pass on information to each other resulting in his death, should all be punished, not just losing their jobs. I’d imagine the 15 year old took the police off the scent when they were trying to find the mobile phones that had the torture filmed on them. I despise her and the rest of them.
Comment by Nicola — June 13, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
Baby Peter’s Sentancing Remains Unchanged.
(Article today on MSN) :-The Attorney General has decided against referring the sentences handed down in the Baby P case to the Court of Appeal.
Baroness Scotland announced last month that she was considering whether the jail terms given to the three people convicted over the little boy’s death were “unduly lenient”.
But she concluded on Tuesday there was “no realistic prospect” of the Court of Appeal increasing their sentences.
(My Note ) : - Meanwhile the Monsters lawyers have started appeal proceedings for his rape and Peter’s unlawful death convictions.
If he is successful then there really is no Justice in this world!!
When this is concluded we may all get to see his horrible face at last.
Comment by Jan — June 16, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
I’m disgusted hearing the appeal was rejected but not in the least surprised. Again, Peter and the little girl have been let down. It’s sickening. These three losers should hang by the neck. I hate to think of them getting out and doing the same all over again because that’ll more than likely happen. I doubt a little holiday camp time will do any good.
I have seen the boyfriend’s face. He’s a big guy and it kills me thinking someone that size punching a baby to death and raping a two year old. The whole world needs to see his and the mother’s face and never forget what they look like. They’ll forever be looking over their shoulders. Just wondering why it’s taking so long for someone to get to them in prison..
Comment by Nicola — June 16, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
Hi All, i too seen a picture of the sick pig,the boyfriend,hes big and fat,cant believe the poor little baby could survive such blows from such a strong fella,he must have had a hugh will to live,a beautifull brave little boy,how sad i am,nobody helped him,i wish i could line them all up and shot them,15yr old,grandmother,FATHER,absent im sure,theirs a group on FB,asking for money to send the father on a fucking holiday,CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?DAM DOGOODERS,im now banned from that group cos,i said NEVER,Would i give money to a father that didnt see his son much,didnt notice any injuries,missing finger nails,under feed,ect,you should all take a look,ADMIN and ass hole,TERESA ROBINSON.
Comment by anntoinette — July 8, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
ITS CALLED BABY P HOLIDAY FUND.
Comment by anntoinette — July 8, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Why would anyone want to give him money??? Are they insane? What good did he do exactly? He done absolutely nothing for his son, stood by like the rest of useless family and cast it aside. I’m shocked you were banned. They need their heads looked at!
What gets to me is how he thought Peter had died of cot death..? Stated in The Independant:
“He at first believed Peter was a victim of cot death and only found out a week later about the injuries inflicted on his son”.
“And told of the day he arrived at the hospital to learn his son was dead: “I saw his little, limp body just laying there, naked except for a nappy. I could not believe what was happening, I could not believe that was my son. He appeared to be asleep and I just wanted to pick him up and take him home”.
Was he blind?? We’ve all seen the computer graphics of his injuries. Was he so used to seeing him with bruises perhaps? He shouldn’t get a penny.
Comment by Nicola — July 15, 2009 @ 2:19 am
Anntoinette, what kind of numbskulls are these do gooders? Holiday Fund my arse! The last thing the public should do is donate to something like this. Let them donate to a worthy cause like the NSPCC who save little children like little Peter. That man’s son was dying and he was too stupid to see it. Blind, didn’t care, who knows? His only son whom he supposedly loved to bits was being maliciously battered in that hell hole and he was left to die there? Beggars belief folks, I am lost for words!
I started off months ago feeling sorry for the father but the more this case progessed the more unbelievable I found his lack of interest in his son. They said he was a good man but what good man doesn’t try to save his little 17 month son from certain death. He married this witch, he knew what she was like, he left her as she was filth but he also left his son with her.
No donation from me people, never. The only place that man should be going is to visit his conscience!
Comment by Jan — July 21, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
I will never forget baby Peter Connolly folks. Would you believe that he was born on my nephew’s birthday and was murdered on my mother’s!
This year when I am giving my mum her card, I will be thinking of him. It really is very sad indeed.
Comment by Jan — July 21, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
I won’t forget him either. I still think of him everyday. It just saddens me to the core. My daughter is 16 months now and so close in age to Peter when he was killed. I just can’t get over how anyone could hurt a child. It haunts me.
Comment by Nicola — July 25, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Hi Nicola
You hit the nail on the head there. Haunts is the word. Who would have thought that a little child that we never knew would make such an impact on our lives. As he is never too far away from our thoughts I am sure he is really not that far away from us at all!
I have always hoped that when we think about a loved one that has left this life, there is chance that maybe they are thinking of us too?
Comment by Jan — July 28, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Publication Ban
This was in place in order to protect Peter’s 3 older sisters. The 2 year old one was raped by the boyfriend; he was convicted of this.
The reality is that it is a useless publication ban, as the identities of the the 3 are easily available online, and that the daughters will not keep that name.
I’d say that the whole lot of the social agencies that were supposedly looking at this case should be prosecuted as well. And Sharon Shoesmith the women who lost her £110,000.00 ministry job is suing for wrongful dismissal. The Government should be suing her for all the money she took as 16 month old Peter Connolly was left to die in a pool of his own urine and blood.
Comment by Thomas Finnley — July 31, 2009 @ 3:13 am
Too right Thomas. All of them should have been held accountable!
Seeingly that waste of space that was his so called mother is now appealing her sentance. She now claims she knew nothing of what went on and now that she has thought about it all she can’t bear to think about Barker and what he did. She wants nothing more to do with him. What a load of horse shit!
That woman thinks the rest of the world are pure stupid. Actually she is deranged!! If the British legal system let her walk early then they are more stupid than she.
She will be hunted down when released as will the other two gurriers! Karma my friends, KARMA. Baby Peter will get his day!
Comment by Jan — August 6, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Well today their anonymity runs out at midnight and tomorrow they will be revealed to the public. I know we all know their names but at last they will be identified.
RIP Baby Peter x x x
Comment by Jackie — August 10, 2009 @ 1:48 am
We will keep an eye on the papers. I bet you’ll have friends coming out of the woodwork queuing up to sell whatever story they have to the papers for whatever they can get!
Still it will be worth it because the whole country and further will know what they look like and what scum they all are. As it is, he is a marked man inside. I have no doubt there will be people on the outside looking forward to getting their hands on them all! Now they will have no doubt as to what their true identities are.
Comment by Jan — August 10, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
I saw the TV last night and its going to cost the British Taxpayer £1million a year to protect these scum whedn theyare out.
They even said that SHE will probably get plastic surgery to change her face before she comes out - which is 3 years at the least!
It makes me sick!
Comment by Jackie — August 12, 2009 @ 4:27 am
And surprise, surprise Peter’s father is going to sue! He’s seemingly looking for 200K. We could all see that coming eh!
That’s another one to watch. Great country if he wins the case. This is the man who handed his little boy to monsters and left him to die…. Jesus I will never understand how this man did that and how he can live with himself since. It absolutely stinks!!
Comment by Jan — August 13, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
does anyone know the name of the 15 year old, i have read that someone thought her name was mary but thats the grandmothers name (also traceys middle name) ?
i went to the house 37 penshurst road (which is the first road on the left as you come out of the station at white heart lane theres a beauty salon and chip shop on the corner, just incase anyone who wanted to go )
i just stood outside looking up at this house, which looks normal on the outside and i just thought of all the terrible things that happend to gorgeous little baby peter in that house.i wanted to kick down the black front door and go to baby peters room just to feel close to him.to let him know i love him, and hes not alone no more but obviously its 2years 2months to late.
i cant understand how could this have happened why arnt social workers doing their jobs and more importantly why wasnt the inhuman bitch tracey so uncapeable of protecting her children.
i know someone who knows baby peters natural father and they have told me things i didnt know nor am i going to repeat but it did open my eyes abit and whilst i whole heartedly agree he could have saved his little beautiful baby and he is to blame too, he too had been lied to and unfortuantly brought the lies which ultimately is the biggest mistake of his life, the biggest mistake of baby peters life, im not trying to defend him i just think theres a bigger picture and hes not allowed to say anything to the public so people will never hear what he has to say, and so people including me will always just presume he wasnt a good dad and he failed his son. he will never be forgiven not by me, you , his daughters but most of all his self.
did u know hes not even allowed a photograph of his son beautiful baby peter up in his home just incase somebodys sees it then will know who he is.
Remember the 3 little girls (not including the one born in prison) have had a disgusting life seen their brother being tourtured so much so he died,lived in a house with so many deranged people,one was raped and christ knows what else they all went through. the only normality they know and the only one they trust is their dad (as although not many people would discribe him as it but his children have stated he is a good dad and presumably the only one to have shown them love),
the oldest daughter is 9 years old and can read so shes going to see what youre writting about her father which will surely cause her more hurt. i am not a do gooder, if it wasnt for the the other children id be cursing their dad, i would do anything to go back and save baby peter to change what had happened but i cant no one can,(and that breaks my heart) all anyone can do to help baby peters family (sisters ) now is protect them and shield them from anymore hurt so please think of them theyve been through too much
Comment by annonimous — October 5, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
i never knew you when you were alive beautiful baby peter but now i know who you are i will never ever forget you, ull live on in my heart forever as if you were one of my own i love you little one rest in peace xxxx
Comment by annonimous — October 5, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
After completing the second program, you must complete four years of qualifying teaching service that will fulfill your service obligation for the second program and the remaining year of your service obligation for the first program. ,
Comment by Alex98 — October 22, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
It is comforting to read that other people still think of little Peter everyday…I look at his picture and my heart aches. I love him so much. It is amazing to have such strong emotion for a baby that I have never met, an ocean away. I wish I could turn back time and save him. I hope that there is a God and that baby Peter can feel how much he is loved and cherished.
Comment by Renee — November 5, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Hi Renee
Yes we all still think of him loads. The little fella is never too far from our thoughts and in our hearts. Personally I don’t think I will ever forget him. I do hope some day I get to meet him and give him a big kiss and cuddle.
Rest in Peace little Peter Connolly and all the other little angels taken so cruely from this earth by scum like the Barkers and Connolly.
Jan.
Comment by Jan — November 14, 2009 @ 4:34 pm