Morning:
8°c
Baby P mother could be freed in three years
Paul Cheston and Tim Ross22 May 2009
Baby P's mother could be freed in little more than three years after being sentenced for his death today.
The 27-year-old's mouth gaped open as she was told she will have to serve a minimum of just five years before being eligible for parole from her indeterminate sentence.
She could walk free in August 2012 because of the time she has spent in prison.
Her boyfriend, 32, who “caused or allowed” the death of Baby Peter and raped a two-year-old girl, can apply for parole in just over eight years after being jailed for life.
Their lodger, Jason Owen, was also sentenced to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum “tariff” of three years, meaning he could be out in just over two.
Children's charities condemned the leniency of the sentences, handed down at the Old Bailey by Judge Stephen Kramer.
NSPCC chief executive Andrew Flanagan said: “We are disappointed that the minimum tariff was so low.
It raises the question of how bad the abuse has to be before offenders get a longer minimum term in prison.
“Peter suffered sustained abuse leaving him with horrendous injuries. Two of his abusers could walk free at a time when Peter should be a schoolboy with a new world in front of him.”
The row over the sentence came as a fresh inquiry into the 17-month-old's death revealed that Haringey social workers had ignored legal advice to take Baby P into care, condemning him to seven months of abuse that led up to his “horrifying” death.
Both the mother and her boyfriend, now aged 32, were cleared by a jury last November of murder and manslaughter charges but convicted of “causing or allowing” the baby's death.
Peter was found dead in a blood-spattered cot in August 2007, having suffered a broken back and fractured ribs.
At the Old Bailey the toddler's mother, her boyfriend and the lodger, showed no emotion as the judge condemned their conduct.
He said the indeterminate sentences would protect the public from people who posed a serious threat to children in the future.
“Any decent person who heard the catalogue of medical conditions and non-accidental injuries, steadily mounting in seriousness, suffered by Peter can not fail to have been appalled,” he told them.
“Your alleged ignorance of what was happening to Peter in that small house defies belief.”
He told the mother, who pleaded guilty to causing or allowing Peter's death, she was “a manipulative and self-centred person with a calculating side as well as a temper”.
The mother has been held in solitary confinement since her son died. She returned to court 15 minutes after the sentence because her barrister, Paul Mendelle QC, said he had not been prepared for an indeterminate sentence.
The judge told the boyfriend: “I am satisfied on the evidence that, whatever your role and motivation, you played a major role in the events which culminated in Peter's death.”
He was also convicted earlier this month of raping the second child — a two-year-old girl who he forced to go through the ordeal of giving evidence by not pleading guilty.
The man has been held in the same segregation unit for his own protection as Soham child killer Ian Huntley and is likely to remain under threat of attack from fellow prisoners for the rest of his sentence.
The boyfriend is to appeal against the rape conviction, claiming it contravened his “human rights”.
Reader views (82)
Will someone explain to me how in the USA rape means life meaning life. Yet, in this country it's a joke? What cruel and sadistic scum. How come she gets off so lightly?
- Carole, west bromwich england, 11/08/2009 02:41
Report abuse
They say that, that evil peice of garbage could be out in THREE YEARS, That cowardly FILTH punched and tortured a poor DEFENCELESS BABY.
- Agnes & Robert, VANCOUVER ,CANADA, 03/07/2009 16:11
Report abuse
Children do not seem to matter in the UK; have they mattered at any time. There are no laws against adultery and the procreation of often unwanted offspring - and the likely damage caused thereto. Nor do we seem to care about making money out of them via state handouts, when it is our choice to have them.
"Children in need"? "Child protection"? The talk goes on; the cash pours in. But nothing changes:the money, it seems, is all that matters.
The responses by all decent people to this story, however, will mean that Baby Peter did not live in vain.
- Peter Seekings-Foster, Mildenhall, Suffolk., 25/05/2009 21:33
Report abuse
I am saddened by the weak justice system. Also at the way children are treated in the UK, due to the apathy of so many people in society, as typified by this case. Police, social workers, doctors, various professionals, relatives, childminders, friends, neighbours - 30 or more people were closely involved with baby Peter, and turned a blind eye. Not one was willing to speak out or take a stand. Shame on them! That such a large group of people chose to do nothing - what does this say about society? All it takes is apathy and a society that does not do enough to protect and value children, for evil to take place.
No doubt, right now there are another 30 people who are turning a blind eye to a childs suffering. A lot of changes need to be made in attitudes, society’s values, the justice system, child protection, etc., or we will all be dragged down into accepting the standards of those who do not value themselves or anyone around them, and those who facilitate their behaviour. We need to be willing to stand up for what we believe in, and stop the apathy.
- John, Australia, 25/05/2009 09:51
Report abuse
A re-trial is a must with a different judge
- Agnes & Robert, VANCOUVER BRITISH COLUMBIA, 25/05/2009 06:39
Report abuse
Why do they bother to give him a "life" sentence? He'll be out in 8 years, free to rape and murder other children. Life sentence should mean LIFE.
And why are child murderers and rapists being held seperately? I'm sorry, but that's more of an expense for taxpayers. These people did the crime. So why are they being given special treatment? They were aware that rape and murder sends you to jail, and that even among criminals, they are the lowest on the totem pole. All this shows is that the system is more worried about protecting these people then ensuring that the sentence is so heinous, that they and other potential victims better think again before hurting children.
- Beth, Illinois, USA, 24/05/2009 14:53
Report abuse
I hope this case is taken to appeal as 'unduly lenient'. If these 3 had conspired to defraud the taxpayer, committed armed robbery or caught with 'terrorist literature', they would have been given far greater substantial terms. This shows, yet again that our Judiciary and Laws put more value on material things than human life. That said, baby Peter can only hope that whilst these three devils are in prison, they are handed down a sentence by other prisoners, which will be far more fitting that the one handed down by Judge Kramer who was clearly sympathetic to their plight.
- Joannie, London, England, 24/05/2009 13:12
Report abuse
Amber Mitcham,I highly appreciate your words.We feel ashamed on British Justice.November of murder and manslaughter charges but convicted of “causing or allowing” the baby's death. Amazing mother, her boyfriend and the lodger, showed no emotion as the judge condemned their conduct.
We have a jungle life in most civilised country.....
God helps us.
- M A Sular, London, 24/05/2009 13:04
Report abuse
Her boyfriend, 32, who “caused or allowed” the death of Baby Peter and raped a two-year-old girl.
Very amazing such cases should be sever punishment, so that other should learn a lesson. It is highly shocked news 32 years man raping 2 year old girl. Are we inhuman?? Are we animals?? Shame on us....
Very shameful for the society. There should be capital punishment....
- M A Sular, London, 24/05/2009 12:49
Report abuse
The natural father is obviously devastated but can I ask where he was when all this was going on. The loving grandparents seem to have not noticed anything either. This woman has got off so lightly it makes me feel ashamed of British justice. I only hope nothing happens to this judge's grandchild and wonder how he will feel then. May this bby rest in peace and forgive all those who failed him.
Amber in Mitcham
- Amber In Mitcham, Mitcham Surrey, 23/05/2009 21:33
Report abuse
THERE HAS GOT TO BE A RE-TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE
- Agnes&Robert, vancouver canada, 23/05/2009 21:01
Report abuse
Sorry Judge Kramer, you are just as bad as the uncaring, inefficient social care workers who let a child be tortured and murdered. Wearing a fancy wig and robes makes you feel good, an ego trip, but you are just a tool of the political establishment. You are the broom to do their dirty work, but you can't even do that properly!
- Anne Wotana Kaye, London, England, 23/05/2009 10:53
Report abuse
Any judge that is allowing the parents to get out of jail for less than life is taking part in allowing serious abuse/murder to children.
- Sheila Oneill, Chichester, 23/05/2009 08:17
Report abuse
Riva Flexer the problem is Jugdes do not live in the real world
- Ge, Cornwall, 23/05/2009 06:45
Report abuse
When first i heard of the horror this beautiful baby endured, i cried for a week!! i could not erase it from my mind until a similar tragedy happened in my city a few weeks later! these tragedies actually sent me back into therapy to try and understand why.....please keep these horrible people in prison for the rest of their lives...
- Barbara, syracuse ny usa, 23/05/2009 02:38
Report abuse
Shame on you Judge Kramer. The sentencing you gave these two so-called human beings is far too lenient considering the hell that little baby endured.Pity we don't have the same judicial service as the US, cos then they would have been locked up for life;where life means life!! Mr Brown please take note!
- Maureen Cohen, London, 22/05/2009 23:44
Report abuse
I am disgusted with those sentences.
A defenseless little boy was killed by these people, and they will be out in a few yrs! Shame on the judiciary of this country.
- Adam, Sale, 22/05/2009 22:19
Report abuse
The lenient sentence does not surprise,we have judges just like Stephen Kramer in Australia and there is more support for the offender than the victim.
Kim. Australia.
- Kim, Australia, 22/05/2009 21:52
Report abuse
the sentences make me feel just as sick as i did when i read the actual case in the news paper. What do you have to do to get a real harsh sentence? It seems like you can do anything and get away with anything now a days.
- Zara Bushell, Wirral, 22/05/2009 21:18
Report abuse
If it happend to be his grandchild who suffered the injuris baby Peter suffered, what would be the sentence handed down by this judge?
- R.F., Yorks, UK, 22/05/2009 21:03
Report abuse
Although the Judge gave an indeterminate sentence the minimum tariffs are insufficient. If we had a history of common sense decisions from the parole board then fair enough, however we all know that these people will be out not long after their minimum tariffs are up, claiming they are reformed people and we are cruelly infinging on their human rights etc etc.
The pictures of Baby P ahould be presented to the parole board before every request to ensure they have no illusions about who they are making a decision on.
- Jw, Lancs, England, 22/05/2009 17:13
Report abuse
Something is seriously wrong with the justice system in the UK. What message has this judge sent to the people?
- Riva Flexer, United States, 22/05/2009 16:53
Report abuse
Perhaps every decent person in society has got it wrong; maybe raping and torturing children is, while not acceptable, not really such a bad thing. Perhaps the judges are correct to impose what many regard as a ludicrously lenient sentences for child abuse.
Then again, maybe society should rise up and kick our current judiciary and the politicians who instruct them, right into touch.
Just a thought.
- Martin, Cheltenham, 22/05/2009 16:17
Report abuse
Yet another case that shows how pathetically out of touch the judicary is
If the judge, the despicible Stephen Kramer, honestly believe that raping one toddler and killing another warrants a mere ten years, he's little better than the scum he's sentencing
Conclusive proof, if it were needed, that the criminal justice system in this country is squarely on the criminal's side
And I say that as an out and out liberal
- Tim Jones, Hove, East Sussex, 22/05/2009 16:16
Report abuse
It also means however, that she could serve a lot more than three years. This means that after 5 years in prison, the parole board COULD let her out, and she'd be supervised for another 10 years. They can also decide that she SHOULDN'T be let out, and then she can apply again after another two years and so on INDEFINATELY.
As opposed to a fix tarif, where she would be automatcally released after less than half the time. And then she would be supervised for a short time after.
I think the judge was pretty clever. Now it's up to the parole board to do the right thing!
- Juma, london, uk, 22/05/2009 16:01
Report abuse
Is the judge senile? What human being could possibly believe 5 years adequate punishment for what that mother allowed to happen to her own child? To me she is no better than Myra Hindley and they did the right thing with that one, never let her out. Same should go for this hideous excuse for a human being.
- D Woodstock, London, 22/05/2009 15:59
Report abuse
This sentence is appalling, and certainly not justice for this poor little boy who knew nothing but abuse and pain during his short life here. A total system failure from start to finish!
- Pam, Michigan, USA, 22/05/2009 15:44
Report abuse
The vast majority of contributers to this blog do not appear to understand what the sentences handed down actually mean. All were given life terms. That means they will never be free from the sentence passed. The tariff set gives the authorities a guide as to when the judge deems it appropriate for parole to be considered. It is not automatically granted. Furthermore the conditions of parole, if released will last for life. In reality, if released, they will have to ask permission to do things that we take for granted.
In this case, the prosecution were unable to prove who delivered the the blow(s) that actually killed baby Peter in those appalling circumstances. Given that, and the guilty plee from his appallinmg mother, the judges hands were tied as to the sentence length passed.
The fact that all three of this inadequate scum got indeterminate sentences is a mark of the revulsion felt by the court for their crimes. Sentences in the past for crimes like this have been as little as 3 years without any controls after the sentences have finished.
I would like to have seen the tariffs a higher but the sentences are certainly adequate enough.
- Bruce Edwards, London, 22/05/2009 15:41
Report abuse
The usual British justice. Is it any wonder that the British justice system has become the laughing stock of the world?!
- Phil Jones, London UK, 22/05/2009 15:40
Report abuse
A certain well-known cricketer got 13 years this week for smuggling drugs. This in the same week that a vicious mother receives 5 years for premeditated murder. The poor little childs life is worth less than a few cans of smuggled cocaine. 2 things are clearly evident here 
smuggling minute quantities of drugs is deemed to be worse than murder, and drugs are worth more than a young childs life (ii) and the justice system is inherently biased while the war on drugs systematically flawed and blatantly corrupt. It beggars belief!
- Chicken Little, Essex, 22/05/2009 15:28
Report abuse
I think along with these criminals who failed and murdered Baby P, the judges who gave this pathetic sentence, should be locked away with them. We should then throw away the key. What kind of system do we have, if people who commit crimes like these get away with a measly few years?! i'd rather live in a place where criminals get punished adequately (in this case i think the death penalty might be apt) than in this relaxed nonsensical system!
- Judy, london, 22/05/2009 15:19
Report abuse
Frank of the home counties and his cronies. Aren't you just the teensiest bit embarrassed by your continuing inability to understand the subjects you so obviously like to pontificate on?
Judges decide sentencing, not the executive. And being eligible, doesn't mean one will get it. In this case it is very unlikely don't you think? Oh sorry you don't think do you, you just spout off.
Frank wants, seemingly, a society that has no impartial judiciary, no human rights, no social conscience, no compassion and no democracy, unless it conforms to his idea (?) of democracy. There was such a place Frank, it was called the Third Reich.
- Kerry, Purley, 22/05/2009 15:14
Report abuse
and I bet that our taxpayers money is then going to be spent on giving them protection, etc. just give me 5 minutes with them, thats all i'd need.
- Jonny, London, 22/05/2009 15:11
Report abuse
This is Jack Straw's justice.
- Michael Boughton-Fox, Cambridge England, 22/05/2009 15:11
Report abuse
Frank, I believe that it was actually the Major government, in a moment of madness, that introduced automatic 50% remission. It does not apply in this case because a minimum tarriff has been set, albeit an insultingly paltry one. Her early release will come about because time spent on remand is doubled and then subtracted from the tarriff. This makes her 5 year minimun even more of an affront to justice.
Billy Liar promised to get "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", but instead of taking the sensible step of abolishing automatic remission, he introduced the criminals' charter that is the Human Rights Act.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 22/05/2009 15:03
Report abuse
Kh from London - when's the last time you watched the news everytime someone was convicted of paeodphilia and murder? doubtful she/they will get more than 5 years from what i've seen with the way our judicial system works. Alot of people feel exactly as Frank from Home Counties does,its the PC brigade who don't speak up about harsher sentencing to promote change...
- Priscilla, London, 22/05/2009 15:00
Report abuse
Talk about getting away with murder! Yet another weak woman stands by whilst her sadistic boyfriend kills her child. The law regarding these child murders seriously need to be looked at. This offence should carry a life sentence, and out of the two, the mother should receive a longer sentence for not protecting her child. She damn well knew what the boyfriend was doing and turned a blind eye.
The letter to the Judge before sentencing shows what a calculated and cunning woman she was. It was done in the hope of a lighter sentence. There's no way this sentence is a punishment let alone a deterrent, and when it happens again, we'll have the usual handwringing and "lessons have been learned" simpering from Social Services.
They shouldn't be segregated in jail, and now they've been sentenced, why the anonimity? I hope this case is referred to the Attorney General for a harsher sentence.
- Sonia M., St Albans, Herts, 22/05/2009 14:52
Report abuse
let the scum bags come out in a few years, then REAL JUSTICE WILL BE DELT TOT THEM
- Michael, bristol uk, 22/05/2009 14:43
Report abuse
How can 70 years of life can be repaced by a 3 year sentence? All three defendants are guilty of a death they chose to either ignore or contribute to! I would like a petition for far stronger sentences, what message are we sending out? Life is worthless, torture forgivable?
- Steve Hayes, Walthamstow, LONDON, 22/05/2009 14:32
Report abuse
Four children die every week from government neglect, why is that not headline news as well?
- Rhinna, London, England, 22/05/2009 14:32
Report abuse
The sentencing is a disgrace... is a child's life worth so little to the powers that be in this country??
And your final comment that 'The boyfriend is to appeal against the rape conviction, claiming it contravened his “human rights”' is beyond belief!! Who cares for the human rights of these tortured babies??
Hopefully they will all get their just desserts one day... alas not through the courts!
- Jen, Leicester, UK, 22/05/2009 14:27
Report abuse
This is just a joke, lock them up for GOOD!!!!!!!!!!
- Peter, Luton, 22/05/2009 14:25
Report abuse
They should have been detained at 'Her Majesty's Pleasure', that is the only term I know in this country that will give the longest jail term, bar none. It is hard to get out on a sentence under that term as usually from my understanding the home secretary decides whether your a fit to re-enter society.
- Dee London, London, 22/05/2009 14:19
Report abuse
These sentences are an absolute disgrace, and an insult to the memory of this poor little boy.
There is no deterrent against crimes of any sort. it seems human life is worth nothing, not even the life of a defenceless baby. People like these cannot be reformed, and while the death penalty is too good for them, these dispicable people should be locked up until they die.
The whole legal system needs a drastic overhaul.
- Mike, Easington, Uk, 22/05/2009 14:15
Report abuse
Note the reference to "QC" - the leading and top paid rank of barristers. No doubt paid by Legal Aid (ie we taxpayers)!
- Jb, London, 22/05/2009 14:10
Report abuse
Frank,you are 98% correct,the 2% that lets you down is the referal to this Socialist Government,since when did Socialists agree to sell publicly owned companys to the private sector,as I said before,this is the best Conservative Government this Country has had for years,masquerading under the name of Nu Labour,which i must say is a brilliant piece of thinking,taking with them,as they are,working people,and the Trade Union Movement.
- Richard, Streatham, 22/05/2009 14:09
Report abuse
I would have thought minimum tarifs should have been 25 years for the mother, 15 years for the lodger and whole life for the boyfriend. Regardless of the judge's comments the minimum tarifs set send out wholly inappropriate messages regarding the punishment of child-abusers. Most decent human beings can scarcely begin to imagine the depths of depravity to which the boyfriend sank. Not content with murdering Baby Peter he actually raped a 2 year old. Even advanced senility would be no justification for releasing him into freedom.
- Peter, Tivat, Montenegro, 22/05/2009 14:06
Report abuse
Pathetically inadequate sentences. I'm with John Entwistle of Hereford on this topic. Does anyone else remember that, when capital punishment was abolished, the public was promised that life meant whole life in prison?
- Gerry, exeter england, 22/05/2009 14:03
Report abuse
Is this not a case to advocate bringing back the death penalty. There are too many "do gooders" in this country to vote against it, but what would they say if it happened to any members of their family. Why should the tax payer be burdened with having to pay the cost of keeping these people in luxury in gaol and then letting them out to continue where they left off.
- G.S.Rolfe, Worcestershire, 22/05/2009 14:01
Report abuse
Pathetic!!!! what is wrong with these judges?
Abuse of a child equals that of 3 years in prison?
Abuse of a child and raping another equals just 12 years?
Patheyic
- Jen, london, 22/05/2009 13:56
Report abuse
They should both be sterilised so when they get out, they can't reproduce.
- P Staker, London, 22/05/2009 13:41
Report abuse
"" Socialist Societies" the present mob are more Tory than the real Tory party"
Fact, most of them went to university in the sixties, they are part of our liberal establishment!!
This pathetic creature and her boyfriends should never be let out.
- G S Randall, hatfield, hertfordshire, 22/05/2009 13:40
Report abuse
I think that it is disgraceful that the so called parents of baby peter were not originally charged and found guilty of his murder or even on the lesser charge of manslaughter.Poor little defenceless Peter could not defend himself from either his "parents" or the lodger who helped them and in the end he was let down by everybody involved and that includes Harringey Social Services.The parents should be left to rot in jail for at least 10 years or more and certainly not less than the 3 or 5 years that they could be let out. These people do not even deserve to be called human beings and no wonder that the "mother" is in solitary confinement in prison, if all three people were to be left to mix with other prisoners then may be they would get their just desserts and see what it was like for poor little Peter and how he suffered and remember he was not even 2 years old.
- Jane, Lancashire, UK, 22/05/2009 13:39
Report abuse
"With any luck, they'll realise that she will never stop being a danger to children, and she'll never be let out".
It shouldn't come down to luck though, should it?
And just think: when she gets out she'll doubtless be given a new identity - at tax payers' expense of course - so you won't know if she's the woman living next door to you, producing more children, having yours over to play with them...
- M Farbiash, Highgate, 22/05/2009 13:28
Report abuse
It's amazing that 5 years imprisonment can be classed as being imprisoned 'indefinately'. As is typical with such cases, the British legal system compounds the crime by applying pathetic terms of imprisonment which have no relection on the crime committed. This defenless child suffered the cruelest abuse which ultimately led to it's death. Had the adults in question elected to commit a burglary instead it is likely the sentence would have been higher.
- Marnie, Kent, 22/05/2009 13:20
Report abuse
- Richard, Streatham
Was it not this socialist mob that brought in rules stating that offenders only have to do half of their time in prison if they are good?
The weight of Law in this country is now geared towards excusing peoples actions, not punishing them. 'uman Rights Act.
The Liberal-Lefties have come up with so many excuses for the very poor behaviour in certain sections of our society, that is now standard practise to plead broken homes, poor background, ya-da-ya.
People know right from wrong and it their decision and their decision alone to do the right thing or the wrong thing. DON'T blame society for your own personal screw ups.
If you cannot do the time, do not do the crime. But do the time they must.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 22/05/2009 13:19
Report abuse
what is the point of giving someone a sentence which is stated as indefinete, only then for them to be able to apply for parole in 2/3 years time. Sounds like madness to me. The system in this country has gone nuts. Crime does pay it seems as you never get a 'proper' sentence so, go kill someone/rob and rape/molest a child. You only get 2 years and can come right back out, get a flat and cash in your hand to set you up to do the same again. What a wonderful society in which we live...!
- Jenny, London, UK, 22/05/2009 13:19
Report abuse
This poor baby was let down while he was alive and now he's being let down by the "justice" system too - I can't read the rest of this report because it makes me feel sick that his killers will get away with it when they're let out. Life should mean life - lock the scum up, throw away the key and leave them to get on with it inside!! Filth!
- Donna, Kent, UK, 22/05/2009 13:07
Report abuse
Chris Lewis and his mate received 13 years for importing cocaine - fair does as drug smuggling is evil. Yet what price a child's life? For torturing, raping and killing these monstrous perpetrators received far far less than the drugs' mules. The sentences are positively lenient in comparison. She will blub her way through her sentence telling every gullible social worker she's sorry and will out in three. Can anyone one explain to me and the rest of the world how this can possibly be justice?
- Alick, London, 22/05/2009 13:04
Report abuse
KH I don't think the standard are tying to spark a knee jerk reaction to the gov. If they were they could have said that with time already served she could be out in as little as 2 - 3 years. And they have a point.
- Mark, London, 22/05/2009 12:37
Report abuse
the Krays got 30 years for shooting a known villan .These scum bags dont even get that between them and the poor little kid could not even fight back. SCAK THE JUDGE
- Steven Woodfordgreen, london, 22/05/2009 12:33
Report abuse
Why does the judicial system insist on giving criminals concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive sentences?
- Mike, Cyprus, 22/05/2009 12:32
Report abuse
She may have been given an indeterminate sentence, but the minimum tarriff is only 5 years- PATHETIC. Both of them should have been given full life tarriffs.
Rest assured, uless there is a purge of left-liberal apologists from the criminal injustice system after the next general election, this vile creature WILL be out in 5 years.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 22/05/2009 12:31
Report abuse
I agree with Frank, Any parent who allows a child to be tortured to death doesn't deserve a sentence review after 5 years. To be honest I can't think of a severe enough punishment but life without parole would be a good start.
- Tobu, Andover, 22/05/2009 12:28
Report abuse
Poor little boy. I hope he never has to face these monsters again in heaven or another life. They should all serve a minimum of 12-15 years no questions asked!
- Keith, Dublin Ireland, 22/05/2009 12:24
Report abuse
Life means 2-5 yrs these days - these horrendous excuses for human beings should be put in a tiny cell with no 'luxuries' for the rest of their miserable lives being fed dog food! I don't understand what goes through a judge's head when delivering these sentences....madness.
- Priscilla, London, 22/05/2009 12:13
Report abuse
I see they've got away with it then! 3 years for the lodger, he's already served 21 months, so he'll be let free straight away. The mother will be out in about 6 months and the boyfriend in 2 years. This is what you get for torture and murder in England today. I'm surprised they haven't been rewarded with a moat and a duckpond. Just think, they'll be coming to a street near you soon. This is yet another example of how far removed the state is from the people, who would never let these murderers free. They will now be protected and given new names and homes at our expense. The only reason they are not being kept in jail is because it costs money which our MP's need to spend on themselves. It is shameful and it is our fault as a so-called democracy that we have allowed this situation to arise. We have all failed Peter with our apathy and failure to impose our democratic will on our legislature and executive.
- Philly, London, England, 22/05/2009 12:09
Report abuse
typical of this paper to imply this woman will be out in 5 years, in order to spark knee jerk anti government comments from 'outraged of anywhere in Britian', as so wonderfully illustrated by frank from the Home counties - yes frank yours was a typical home counties reaction. well done for being so gullible!! As for baby P mother, i think the sentencing 'indefinately' is the right one, and anyway she will probably be in prison longer than the actual killer as she was the childs mother and let the abuse happen, and women who do this suffer much harsher punishment within the legal system.
- Kh, London UK, 22/05/2009 12:09
Report abuse
Britain is now one large bankrupt sewer.
Light sentences are the norm for this type of depravity.
The truth is though, more people care about the x factor.
- Podonnell, Tottenham, 22/05/2009 12:08
Report abuse
Frank - indefinitely means until she's judged fit to be let out. Five years is the minimum time to be served before that assessment process will begin. With any luck, they'll realise that she will never stop being a danger to children, and she'll never be let out.
- Freya, London, 22/05/2009 12:05
Report abuse
It doesn't matter if it's 10 years, 3 years or life. No matter what she does, she'll have an awful time. Look at her choice of partner. I don't know if she feels remorse for the part she played in her son's death, or merely remorse at being caught. She never have any joy in her life. Her real punishment is simply being her.
- Ben Farrell, London, 22/05/2009 12:04
Report abuse
Frank,blame for such a lenient sentence should be directed at the Judge,for not handing down the maximum sentence,I am not too sure what you mean by " Socialist Societies" the present mob are more Tory than the real Tory party,however it does make one think,the train robber's get 30 years and this person could be walking amongst us in 5.
- Richard, Streatham, 22/05/2009 11:58
Report abuse
"indefinitely" as in once again children in this country are shafted.
- Bj, London, 22/05/2009 11:53
Report abuse
Life imprisonment for them all, which means they never come out, not five years, ten years, maybe longer, not sure, don't know!
- Sue, Orpington, Kent, 22/05/2009 11:50
Report abuse
These monsters should be sent to Broadmoor forever.They must be criminally insane to do what they did.The Govt. has a duty to protect us-- what if they are released and live next to a family with children?I am terrified tht it could be my grandchildren they attack.Everyone involved failed Peter-- Ipray that other children will be better protected.My thoghts and love to Peter's family.RIP Peter-we will never forget you.
- Vicky Stradling, Newport England, 22/05/2009 11:49
Report abuse
Let's not forget time already served and time off for good behaviour. British justice, best in the world.
- Albert Swift, Aberdeen, Scotland, 22/05/2009 11:46
Report abuse
There are occasions where I find myself warming to the death penalty.
- John Entwistle, Hertford, 22/05/2009 11:46
Report abuse
Frank, indefinitely means a review after 5 years - the parole board my decide never to release her...
- Teddy, Islington, London, 22/05/2009 11:42
Report abuse
Why are we still not allowed to know the names of these two?
- Stephen, London, 22/05/2009 11:42
Report abuse
I am stunned the mother is only required to serve a minimum of 5 years. How can that be right or just? If she does do only 5 years she will still be of breeding age when she gets out. This is just heaping shame upon shame.
- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx, 22/05/2009 11:41
Report abuse
Not long enough - the minimum sentences are shameful.
- Ab, London, 22/05/2009 11:39
Report abuse
5 years = indefinitely?
I love socialist societies.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 22/05/2009 11:31
Report abuse
