The release of Baby Peter's mum.

Hey guys! For today's 'Society Dictates', I'm going to be looking at the recent news regarding the release of Baby P's mum. After spending up to 5 years in detention and prison, Tracey Connelly is being released thanks to the decision of the Parole Board.

 

(source: BBC News)

I watched this on the BBC News last night and again on the debate on ITV's This Morning earlier and I just sat and watched in absolute shock as they were discussing the issue. This woman abused, neglected and murdered her child, what right does she have to be released?! Admittedly, she was neglected and abused herself as a child, but is that really an excuse for the death of Baby P? When he died, Baby P had over 50 injuries on his body, ranging from broken bones to bruises and burns. Even though he was visited by outside agencies around 80 times (police, social workers etc), they still failed to see the signs of abuse. In all fairness, Tracey was far from stupid and covered up bruises with chocolate when the social workers visited.. But still, these agencies could've done something to prevent his death if they actually communicated with each other to save that poor, suffering child. He sadly died in August 2007. After the death, Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend, Steven Barker, and her brother, Jason Owen were all arrested and convicted for the same offence. 

 

(source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/baby-p-mum-tracey-connelly-2345633)

Watching the debate on This Morning made me think though, how much will Baby P's mum actually suffer for what she did? For starters, she was in prison for nearly 5 years for the death of her own child. Now she's been released, tax payer's are paying for her to have a new identity, but what will that do? Everyone will know who she is by what she looks like, will they not?! Even though she looks 'different' to her police mugshot, chances are she will still be recognisable to the public eye. If she decides to have children, they will instantly be put into care as she is a danger to any child now, let's be honest! So that'll be awkward if she ever finds someone who wants children for them to find out what she did to her own little boy. She has lots of 'conditions' she must follow to avoid being called back to prison. Frankly, I hope she does get called back to prison.

We learn a lot about the Baby P case in childcare, along with many other cases which follow the same pattern. A child is abused, agencies fail to see this, the child suffers and, in many cases, dies. In my opinion, the mother should NOT have been released after only 5 years. I don't think anyone who has any connection in cases like this (child murder, child abuse of any kind) should get any less that 10-15 years in prison for what they've done. That child has barely had a chance to live and you deprive them of their right to live?! How selfish and deluded can you be. If anyone could do this to a child, they are a danger to themselves and to society in general. The fact that this is a story about a mother abusing and murdering her own child is absolutely disgusting and then only having 5 years in prison is a joke. What kind of message does our justice system give out when it lets people like her free?! No punishment is enough for her to suffer after what she's done, I just hope this has well and truly ruined her life.

For more on the Baby Peter case, visit the case timeline found on the BBC News website. 

'Youngsters must stay in education until 18...'

Hey guys! For today's society dictates post, I'm going to be talking about how young people must remain in some form of education until they're 18. Saying that, it doesn't mean they have to suffer in classrooms for another 2 years after their academic school years. This could be anything! From Level 1-3 diplomas and more hands on learning, youngsters are having to find something to fill an extra two years which may encourage their futures. But what if you don't know what to do? How many will take what they consider to be the 'doss' and easier options...

For example, take the childcare courses at college. These courses are often slated for being easy and, often, people will go on this course as a last resort as they don't have any other option despite the fact the might not even want a career in childcare. What is the point? People see this course as an easy way out as it fills up the two years easily and gets them a good career at the end of it. Admittedly, the lower level courses are a lot easier than the higher level courses (the level 1 childcare course is a lot simpler than the level 3 course) but why waste your time if you're not interested?

Personally, I had no definite idea of what I wanted to do as a career at 16. I had a vague idea but I was never 100%. Schools and colleges expect you to know what you want to do straight away, but not many people do. Sure, they can find courses that they enjoy or that they might need for uni, but what if they discover what they want to do and it's too late?

A lot of people go onto the easier courses, such as childcare or hair and beauty, as it will get them a career a lot easier than some courses. What if they're not right for that work base though? Some people who take child care are being recognised for not being as 'academically challenged' as those on courses such as Biology or Psychology. Admittedly, there has been some evidence to support these claims as some settings have been noted for their worker's lack in spelling on display boards or being unable to help the children they work with. 

In any career, you need to be suitable for the job. If you don't like children or don't like being in a child-based environment, why take the course? At the end of the day, you are in that setting to help scaffold a child and their learning. Imagine what impact you have on them if you are unable to do the simplest of things, like spell simple words? That can easily affect them if they don't have the right role models. It's the same with any course. If you don't like cars, why do a motoring course? If you don't like working with elderly people, why do health and social care?

To sum it up, I think it's great that there are so many courses for these youngsters to do at different levels to suit their own ability. But why label some courses are being 'doss' and easy when you could impact someone else's future? You need to think how your actions could impacts someone else... 

For more on this story, check out the BBC News article here.