Forgetting for the moment the pitiful politician trying to further his career on the back of the death of a toddler, I do wonder about the (majority) who express disgust and horror at his mother's release.

What do they get out of it?

Of course (yawn) what she did was appalling; beyond comprehension. But what do people get from howling against a decision by professionals that she is now safe to release? Why do they do it?

I suspect the people who howl the loudest are trying to make themselves feel better for their own shortcomings. I am suspicious of them.

amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/30/...-prison-dominic-raab

Why are so many afraid to show compassion?

Wyot wrote:
Forgetting for the moment the pitiful politician trying to further his career on the back of the death of a toddler, I do wonder about the (majority) who express disgust and horror at his mother's release.

What do they get out of it?

Of course (yawn) what she did was appalling; beyond comprehension. But what do people get from howling against a decision by professionals that she is now safe to release? Why do they do it?

I suspect the people who howl the loudest are trying to make themselves feel better for their own shortcomings. I am suspicious of them.

amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/30/...-prison-dominic-raab

Why are so many afraid to show compassion?

You can show compassion and at the same time realise that the process of rehabilitation that we are using is not conducive to an accurate prediction of re-offending.

(not this case in particular. I have avoided most of it)

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:


You can show compassion and at the same time realise that the process of rehabilitation that we are using is not conducive to an accurate prediction of re-offending.

(not this case in particular. I have avoided most of it)

You may be correct there Honey. In this particular case, though, it is hard to see how she can be a risk at all; however rehabilitated or not she is. The circumstances are so specific and she will never be allowed to care for a child again. If she had another it would be removed at birth...

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
Wyot wrote:


You can show compassion and at the same time realise that the process of rehabilitation that we are using is not conducive to an accurate prediction of re-offending.

(not this case in particular. I have avoided most of it)

You may be correct there Honey. In this particular case, though, it is hard to see how she can be a risk at all; however rehabilitated or not she is. The circumstances are so specific and she will never be allowed to care for a child again. If she had another it would be removed at birth...

Well, I wouldn't want that for either the mother or child.
I just wish there was a way to let prisoners live a happy life without hardship, but to be well away from other people just in case.

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:


Well, I wouldn't want that for either the mother or child.
I just wish there was a way to let prisoners live a happy life without hardship, but to be well away from other people just in case.

I would certainly want it (removal) for the child in her case, before the cord is cut...In that sense, fuck her.

As an aside, don't assume "the prisoners" are more dangerous than the people you know and trust. No one is born a "prisoner".

I totally agree WYOT - another shocking example of how media and politicians allow hype to dominate thinking. They are quite right to do so when the vast majority of the public is so gullible. Sold as a simplistic extreme story, the woman should never be allowed out of prison and never allowed to give birth. In reality, of course, dedicated professionals have judged her a changed woman, totally rehabilitated. But that is not a GOOD STORY.

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
Wyot wrote:


Well, I wouldn't want that for either the mother or child.
I just wish there was a way to let prisoners live a happy life without hardship, but to be well away from other people just in case.

I would certainly want it (removal) for the child in her case, before the cord is cut...In that sense, fuck her.

As an aside, don't assume "the prisoners" are more dangerous than the people you know and trust. No one is born a "prisoner".

What I mean is that by being separated from the mother at birth, the child has already been damaged (according to all the studies we choose to ignore when it comes to surrogacy) so the practice of repeatedly removing new babies is not protecting them as it should, and the awful effects on the mother causes them to repeatedly replace the babies only to lose them at birth.
It is so horribly sad.

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:


What I mean is that by being separated from the mother at birth, the child has already been damaged (according to all the studies we choose to ignore when it comes to surrogacy) so the practice of repeatedly removing new babies is not protecting them as it should, and the awful effects on the mother causes them to repeatedly replace the babies only to lose them at birth.
It is so horribly sad.

Yes it is terribly sad Honey. While no system is perfect, though, I am sure it is only done in extreme circumstances, where any harm done to the baby would be nothing compared to leaving them with the mother/father unit. And then probably because of the childhood the mother/father in turn suffered (I wonder what baby P's mother's childhood was like?). Early intervention is key to breaking these cycles; and the child has to come first.