If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Tracey Connelly, Steven Barker and Jason Owen
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
These three, of course, are the evil cunts whose identities were previously protected by a court order in the Baby Peter Connelly case. The court injunction expired a little over 24 hours ago and they've since been named all over the press. Not that you couldn't have got the names beforehand - anyone with an internet connection would have been able to obtain them since November last year. But I digress.
With this being silly season, there's not much in the news. There's now talk in the press of them being given new identities - there's even a thread on Have Your Say asking "Should the identities of criminals be protected?". But it seems a fair enough question, so I thought I'd ask it here.
My opinion? If the likes of a paedophile like Jason Owen, or a baby-rapist such as Steven Barker were subject to a vigilante attack and ended up being seriously injured or killed, I can't say I'd be too upset. I suspect a fair few people would pop open the champagne were harm to come their way. I think it was right to name them - but the bloggers and mindless idiots who "outed" them on the internet behaved with incredible irresponsibility.
Generally speaking, I can't see any reason why the identities of criminals should be protected indefinitely. When one commits a heinous, serious crime, one should be punished thoroughly for that - and I think having their identities revealed and reputations destroyed should be part of the price one has to pay. Over to you...
With this being silly season, there's not much in the news. There's now talk in the press of them being given new identities - there's even a thread on Have Your Say asking "Should the identities of criminals be protected?". But it seems a fair enough question, so I thought I'd ask it here.
My opinion? If the likes of a paedophile like Jason Owen, or a baby-rapist such as Steven Barker were subject to a vigilante attack and ended up being seriously injured or killed, I can't say I'd be too upset. I suspect a fair few people would pop open the champagne were harm to come their way. I think it was right to name them - but the bloggers and mindless idiots who "outed" them on the internet behaved with incredible irresponsibility.
Generally speaking, I can't see any reason why the identities of criminals should be protected indefinitely. When one commits a heinous, serious crime, one should be punished thoroughly for that - and I think having their identities revealed and reputations destroyed should be part of the price one has to pay. Over to you...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I suppose you've got to look at it irrespective of the individual case. Should the criminal justice system be about rehabilitation? In most cases yes. Are certain prisoners likely to be vulnerable after prison? Yes. I would guess the most common use of this sort of thing would be for ex-gang members, for example, who would be at risk of revenge attacks. So it should be an option, and that will be a judgement that's made if and when they're ever released.
And let's face it, the most high profile case of this being used were for Jamie Bulger's murderers, and quite rightly so. It was a terrible case, but it's far worse that some people are willing to threaten the lives of two men for something they did when they were 10 years old ffs, and indicitive of the type of media-led idiots we seem to be talking about.
All the other papers/news outlets have instead truthfully reported that although it is a possibility, the chances are they will never be released.
I sincerely hope they all die in prison, there's a special place in hell reserved for them.
Equally, it appears that Steven Barker has an IQ of around 50 and also grew up with sexual and physical abuse as a child. Again, it doesn't excuse, but it can explain behaviour.
I don't think we should put everyone in moral incontinence pants and excuse behaviour, but it isn't as easy as going "evil blahblahblah evil scum blahblah".
Although to the couple who leave flowers on Peter's grave every day, even though they don't know him or the family, I say one thing: grow up you sad fucks.
It also thought relevant to bring Maxine Carr (from the Soham case) into the story, complaining that Tracey Connelly would be given the same level of protection as "Soham liar Maxine Carr". The only thing missing was an offer of a free pitchfork and torch for every reader.
I can expect that kind of bullshit from the likes of the S*n, but a suppossedly quality news broadcaster?
Regardless of the crimes in question, fuck vigilantism to be honest.
In the context of the comments you've just made berating other people for goonish rhetoric, I think that statement is more than a little strong and quite unnecessary.
Not really. I think it's pathetic and I think going on and on about it to the papers is even more pathetic. Someone told Metro what they did- I expect that it was the two people laying the flowers. What a cynical thing to do, telling the papers how wonderful you are.
If you don't agree that's different, but I think the description perfectly described how pathetic they really are. Just as those morons who set up Facebrook 'memorial' groups are pathetic too.
I don't think these three people should come out of prison for a very long time, but there's normally more to life than people being monsters for the fun of it. I personally doubt how much Connolly could do to stop what was happening, given her alcoholism, but I do think she knew what was happening.
Did you read anything I wrote?
Do you think that being sexually, physically and emotionally abused as a child- one of Connolly's close cousins was the main victim and then recruiter for a violent paedophile ring in London, and the evidence is Connolly was involved too- and then becoming an alcoholic in adult life is a bed of roses?
People often end up like this because they've already had a life of hell. It doesn't excuse what they do, but it can help us understand why.
:yes: This was my first thought when the names were revealed on Facebook earlier this year.
Just goes to show what a real tragedy the cycle of abuse really is
Yes, i did, and i was simply saying what i think.