Author Topic: Surely the question should be  (Read 4538 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Baldy

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 14085
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2014, 09:13:13 PM »
Send them to Cyprus you say?  rubschin:

To Foggy's house and have to listen for many hours of her blabbing.  noooo:

Poor Apey.  noooo:

Offline Nick

  • Needs to get out more...
  • ******
  • Posts: 85585
  • Reputation: -102
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2014, 09:19:33 PM »
Apey could take them out for a beer  :thumbsup:
Warning: May contain Skub
Cat sitter extraordinaire
Semi-professional crocodile

Offline Baldy

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 14085
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2014, 09:23:12 PM »
Apey could take them out for a beer  :thumbsup:

It would be good fun until it was time to pay the bill.  noooo:

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 115318
  • Reputation: -40
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2014, 03:51:57 AM »
So it appears that almost 10% of criminals in open prisons are convicted murderers or are guilty of violent crimes including those against children. I'm well aware that the constant bickering between the treasury and the home office with regards to prison funding has meant that more lenient sentences have become the norm in a lot of cases but when did public safety come to be worth so little.

Quote
In a Parliamentary Written Answer the Coalition said more than 350 murderers and 70 people serving sentences for manslaughter are in open prisons, which have minimal supervision.
In December 2013, figures showed that 363 murderers were housed in such institutions, almost 10 per cent of the 4,092 inmates in open prisons across England and Wales.
Other prisoners include those convicted of attempted murder, wounding, assault and attacks in children.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630322/Fears-public-safety-ministers-admit-one-10-criminals-kept-minimum-security-open-prisons-convicted-murderer.html


Madness....  noooo:

It is absolutely no wonder why most of them come out and return to a life of crime....
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 19720
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2014, 06:58:42 AM »
And nothing will change until one of the victims is either an MP, family member or important 'backer'   cussing:
Life is all about finding people that are your kind of crazy.

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 19720
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2014, 09:35:57 PM »
Another 2 have done a bunk, one convicted of murder the other of armed robbery. BOTH out on day release  Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631976/Convicted-murderer-robber-run-fail-return-prison-let-day-release.html
Life is all about finding people that are your kind of crazy.

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 19720
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2014, 01:14:42 PM »
It get's even better now, apparently criminals on the run cannot be named now as it infringes their privacy and is unfair.  Banghead

Quote
In a letter to the Mail, a spokesman for the National Offender Management Service’s Security Group justified the decision not to name the current batch of absconders. 
It said: ‘I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, but in this case we will not be providing it to you as it is exempt from disclosure.
‘We will not be able to provide the names of absconders as we are not obliged... to provide information that is the personal information of another person if releasing would contravene any of the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998.’


Are you seriously telling me that there is no provision anywhere in the DPA that allows you to release information when it is in the public interest, say for example when you have convicted murderers doing a bunk.  Banghead

Tell you what, here's a bit of radical thinking the MP's, instead of giving yourselves an extra 3 weeks off 'because you have run out of laws to debate' try doing what you were elected for and fix idiocy like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635646/18-run-criminals-named-infringes-personal-privacy.html
Life is all about finding people that are your kind of crazy.

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 115318
  • Reputation: -40
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2014, 01:32:04 PM »
It get's even better now, apparently criminals on the run cannot be named now as it infringes their privacy and is unfair.  Banghead

Quote
In a letter to the Mail, a spokesman for the National Offender Management Service’s Security Group justified the decision not to name the current batch of absconders. 
It said: ‘I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, but in this case we will not be providing it to you as it is exempt from disclosure.
‘We will not be able to provide the names of absconders as we are not obliged... to provide information that is the personal information of another person if releasing would contravene any of the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998.’


Are you seriously telling me that there is no provision anywhere in the DPA that allows you to release information when it is in the public interest, say for example when you have convicted murderers doing a bunk.  Banghead

Tell you what, here's a bit of radical thinking the MP's, instead of giving yourselves an extra 3 weeks off 'because you have run out of laws to debate' try doing what you were elected for and fix idiocy like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635646/18-run-criminals-named-infringes-personal-privacy.html


 noooo:
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline Baldy

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 14085
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2014, 04:53:36 PM »
It get's even better now, apparently criminals on the run cannot be named now as it infringes their privacy and is unfair.  Banghead

Quote
In a letter to the Mail, a spokesman for the National Offender Management Service’s Security Group justified the decision not to name the current batch of absconders. 
It said: ‘I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, but in this case we will not be providing it to you as it is exempt from disclosure.
‘We will not be able to provide the names of absconders as we are not obliged... to provide information that is the personal information of another person if releasing would contravene any of the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998.’


Are you seriously telling me that there is no provision anywhere in the DPA that allows you to release information when it is in the public interest, say for example when you have convicted murderers doing a bunk.  Banghead

Tell you what, here's a bit of radical thinking the MP's, instead of giving yourselves an extra 3 weeks off 'because you have run out of laws to debate' try doing what you were elected for and fix idiocy like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635646/18-run-criminals-named-infringes-personal-privacy.html


 noooo:


 noooo: noooo:

Another reason to evict these tossers from current gubberment or potential re-gubberment. Vote for UKIP.  Thumbs:

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 19720
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2014, 09:51:30 PM »
Just when you think the whole situation can't get any more ridiculous. A violent prisoner convicted of a premeditated attempted murder, having already absconded once already from an open prison, does a bunk and ends up being given a lift to the nearest train station by...............wait for it...................a police officer.  Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657207/Violent-prisoner-hitched-lift-escaping-jail-got-car-policeman.html
Life is all about finding people that are your kind of crazy.

Offline Steve

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 29141
  • Reputation: -1
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2014, 09:53:21 PM »
Just when you think the whole situation can't get any more ridiculous. A violent prisoner convicted of a premeditated attempted murder, having already absconded once already from an open prison, does a bunk and ends up being given a lift to the nearest train station by...............wait for it...................a police officer.  Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657207/Violent-prisoner-hitched-lift-escaping-jail-got-car-policeman.html

 Banghead indeed
Well, whatever nevermind

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 115318
  • Reputation: -40
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2014, 06:47:06 AM »
Just when you think the whole situation can't get any more ridiculous. A violent prisoner convicted of a premeditated attempted murder, having already absconded once already from an open prison, does a bunk and ends up being given a lift to the nearest train station by...............wait for it...................a police officer.  Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657207/Violent-prisoner-hitched-lift-escaping-jail-got-car-policeman.html


 noooo:
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 19720
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2014, 04:14:47 PM »
News just in, Wheatley has won an appeal on the sentence he was given for carrying out an armed robbery after walking out of an open prison. So now instead of having to serve 10 years before being eligible for parole he now only has to serve 8 Banghead

Now lets not forget here that this recividist has 23 previous convictions for robbery, two for attempted robbery, 18 for related firearms offences and was already serving a LIFE SENTENCE when he did a bunk while on day release.

Quote
Mr Justice Cranston, who along with Lady Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Knowles, reduced the tariff, added that he still faced a "very considerable period" behind bars.

"This was a very serious offence and the fact that it occurred when the appellant was on day release must clearly be a matter for public concern," he said.


Evidently this was such a serious crime that combined with his history led you to make the decision to reduce the amount of time he would have to wait before he is eligible for parole. Now I know that the three of you will never leave your ivory towers and venture into the real world but this bastards victims, not to mention the general public as a whole, have a right to know what the hell possessed you to make that decision.

He may spend a considerable time behind bars as you say but in the case of an unrepentant violent thieving thug like Wheatley the needs of the many should take priority and he should never be allowed even the slightest chance of parole.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30228964
Life is all about finding people that are your kind of crazy.

Offline apc2010

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 47179
  • Reputation: -2
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2014, 04:17:55 PM »
News just in, Wheatley has won an appeal on the sentence he was given for carrying out an armed robbery after walking out of an open prison. So now instead of having to serve 10 years before being eligible for parole he now only has to serve 8 Banghead

Now lets not forget here that this recividist has 23 previous convictions for robbery, two for attempted robbery, 18 for related firearms offences and was already serving a LIFE SENTENCE when he did a bunk while on day release.

Quote
Mr Justice Cranston, who along with Lady Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Knowles, reduced the tariff, added that he still faced a "very considerable period" behind bars.

"This was a very serious offence and the fact that it occurred when the appellant was on day release must clearly be a matter for public concern," he said.


Evidently this was such a serious crime that combined with his history led you to make the decision to reduce the amount of time he would have to wait before he is eligible for parole. Now I know that the three of you will never leave your ivory towers and venture into the real world but this bastards victims, not to mention the general public as a whole, have a right to know what the hell possessed you to make that decision.

He may spend a considerable time behind bars as you say but in the case of an unrepentant violent thieving thug like Wheatley the needs of the many should take priority and he should never be allowed even the slightest chance of parole.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30228964


 noooo: noooo:

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 19720
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2014, 04:27:46 PM »
It wouldn't take that much to work out the details of something along the lines of the American '3 strike' system. Founf guilty of three serious or violent crimes and it's an immediate 25 years to whole life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Build a special high security prison for these animals somewhere in the middle of nowhere and keep them away from the public.
Life is all about finding people that are your kind of crazy.