I do like a bit of reality so when the press go on about the mother of baby P getting fitness classes and a host of other life enhancing benefits when she is released, I'm not actually shocked.
It's not unusual for those with "issues" to have their every need tended to. Don't fancy getting up to take your kids to school - no problem, social services will send a taxi round each day to collect them and do it for you. House a tip - well can't expect you to get off your arse from trawling Internet chat rooms, social services will ensure somebody comes in to clean your house for you. Making it up am I? I don't think so.
The lady in question Tracey Connelly had more breaks than many, but chose to live the way she did indulged by society. Still it didn't save her son from a horrendous death. No doubt all the agencies will look at themselves and their policies in the hope that it will never happen again. Well unfortunately it will as long as we excuse feckless individuals the need for some personal responsibility.
When she gets out she should get nothing. How do we have a "duty of care" towards her? She and her ilk should have no anonymity or protection unless the threat towards them is real and assessed as such from hard intelligence not wishful thinking. I rather like the thought that she should suffer a bit of fear and should constantly be looking over her shoulder. I doubt it will compare to the fear that young baby suffered.
When is a political party going to come out and pledge to repeal parts of The Human Rights Act?