Bad day marc?...:)

Haha no but this women is vile, death to her would be lovely

Well, for a mother to do what she did to one of her children then I whole heartedly agree that any right to bring any other children into this world should be taken away, the British state is already looking after 8 of them.

The sentence didn't fit the crime anyway in the first place, for me this person? should have been sentenced to and had to do at least 10 years.

I wondered just what may have happened had the net closed in earlier and it appeared to her and her accomplices that if caught she would be in massive trouble, that may have resulted in a greater crime being committed and even maybe harm or worse to the child in order to try to get away with it.

For me in cases like this, a new additional crime should be supposed,normally supposition cannot be considered in law but I would in kidnapping cases, especially of children make the charge kidnapping with intent,which would leave open for consideration all the horrific possiblities that may have been the result of this action planned by her.

I really have no sympathy at all for her.she is a despicable Mother,not fit to be one again either.

I think this post is disgusting,she hasn't done her time and no way should she be having her identity changed,the police shouldn't be rewarding these criminals for there crimes and they certainly shouldn't be giving them sentences that people like you and me would laugh at.

What are you, a walking, talking Daily Mail?

Okay then...so her identity isn't protected. Her house is burnt down, she is murdered, and other people are hurt as a result of vigilante action. Now please tell me how on earth that resolves anything? How it works towards eradicating crime, instead of provoking it? And how two wrongs make a right? Let's of course not forget that even if she isn't allowed to see her children, they might not (and this of course is just a wild guess) want her dead, or to be attacked, despite what she did.

I hardly think an eight year term in prison is a 'reward'. There's no denying what she did was wrong, but Christ, what more do you want...blood, piss, sh*t?

..No she didn't serve her time and that is where our law is wrong imo...but what Jack's saying is it really wouldn't be any kind of civilised society at all if we allowed people to...deal with people like her violently...and that will mean they have to be protected

I don't care how the bitch gets treated tbh,I just don't think the Government should be protecting her,afterall she didn't protect her children so why anybody would care what happens to her is shocking.

..or what Jack said...sort of

I'm still a bit shocked this was 2008, I felt sure it was only last year. Time goes by so fast it's scary.

However Jack, she hasn't done 8 years in prison though, in fact from sentencing for the crime she has done just over 3.

A child's welfare and protection should mean much more than that.In my opinion she has hardly had to pay much for the crime at all. people who commit financial crimes get and serve more than she has had to.

Tbh I would have her locked up for life,afterall it's not like she committed a petty crime is it.

..Yes I think this is the problem Joey.....the sentencing should mean just that imo

Exactly on all of this.

Some of the people that get defended is appalling.

.....it's the sentencing that should be looked at...and 8 years should be just that

I would have sentenced her to 15 years with a recommendation she serve a minimum of 10 for this crime so I am more with you on this.

Her accomplices could have panicked if things had got heated and poor Shannon could have been another child statistic as to loss of life, this woman clearly didn't care one hoot about that,not even showing any remorse at her trial either.

Exactly Joey so why some people think we should care about her life when she didn't care about Shannon's or her other childrens lives is beyond me.

Leave her hung out to dry I say,I wouldn't be to upset if somebody shot her dead.:dance:

I am actually half surprised she is walking out of prison at all jf. Prisoners themselves are very intolerant of people who set out to harm children, being the Child's Mother too in this case,she is very fortunate indeed to be even walking out of prison intact.

Because, let me explain:

1) Okay...say we just allow vigilantes to step in, and I don't know, murder her? Along the way many other innocent bystanders are injured, or even killed. Now without even going any further, her children are already left without a mother, and to be honest, I don't think that's something anyone should take away from them, no matter how she treated them. We of course don't know how they feel about her.

2) By allowing such action, you are promoting and enticing violence. Oh hey...look, a criminal has just been released, come beat them up, bring some knives and we'll kill the bitch! Loads of people turn up, exercise their quite worrying need for violence, and everybody acts like they're baying for blood, like it's some bear pit or something. Quite barbaric when you put it like that really. People see this as 'okay', and they think they can take the law into their own hands, and so levels of violence rise, people accused of crimes (not convicted) end up being attacked, and violent crimes in general rise, because this is seen as an 'okay' thing to do. Instead of it being frowned upon, it is essentially promoted. Not good.

3) Two wrongs just don't make a right. It's hypocritical.

Ah, I see. That makes sense now. I admit I didn't read the article in full, and when I saw the '8 years' I did think to myself 'has it really been that long?!', so in which case I understand the concerns here now, and as such I'm in agreement that she has been released too early.

That still doesn't excuse screams and wails for vigilante action though. It doesn't solve anything, it makes matters worse.

I don't agree with vigilantism but I do think that she should be prevented from bringing anymore children into the world, she has proven that she's a seriously unfit mother and has already had 8 children that the state now have to pick up the tab for so she really should not be allowed to have anymore. Not just for the bill the government is paying for those kids but for the psychological damage those poor kids will have to cope with.

I agree with you on number 2 as I don't believe in Vigilantism myself,I just wouldn't be to upset if somebody did kill the bitch is all.

Number 3 on the other hand is not hypocritical as I would be harming a criminal where as she helped harm her innocent Daughter,which one is worse in this hypothisis? I know my answer.

Now to the 8 years thing,I wouldn't call that a long sentence for what she did,she put her Daughter in danger for christ sake.

I don't agree with vigilante action either,rule of law and society need to ensure avoidance of that action.

However, the already horrific trauma she put her child though plus the possible implicataions of what could have occurred if things got really difficult,then seeing as she was sentenced only in January 2009, to be walking out with protection after so short a time for such a rotten crime is likely to bring that very action about as many will be really incensed she is walking free at all so early.

She wasted also so much police time, on searching for Shannon even involving other neightbours in her deceit,while all the time knowing where Shannon was and what she had others do with her own child.

Absolutely and your post shows that she didn't just cause massive trauma to one child's life but to many others too, all hers as well. Despicable.

Well I wouldn't exactly be shedding tears, but I don't think it's something we should be applauding. Murder is murder at the end of the day.

Well yes it is, because it's essentially saying committing crimes is bad, but oh no, don't worry...if you commit a crime it's fine. Exact same thing as the death penalty. Murder is wrong, you must not do this...so what are we going to do? Oh yeah, kill you. I mean it's just laughable.

And I don't think you understood what I meant. By 'has it really been that long?!' I meant it in the sense that eight years seemed far too long ago for this case, I was thinking it only seemed like a few years ago, so that's why I thought 'surely it hasn't been that long since', not that I was thinking 'eight years is a long sentence'.

This doesn't make sense. Your explanation doesn't make it not hypocritical.
It's a double standard

There are laws against violence, murder etc so to condone that anyone can just go and beat someone up or kill them whilst still holding those same laws is hypocritical. No matter what they've done doesn't make it right.

If you killed a murderer, it makes you just as bad as the murderer in question. Yet, somehow you would justify your actions in your own murder.

Like saying "This person broke the law therefore we're permitting the general public to do the same in order to punish them".