The Virtual Pub

Come Inside... => The Commons => Topic started by: Grumpmeister on May 06, 2014, 06:14:12 AM

Title: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on May 06, 2014, 06:14:12 AM
Why the hell was someone who was given 13 life sentences for a spate of violent armed robberies in a bloody open prison in the first place.  Banghead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27284337 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27284337)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on May 06, 2014, 01:30:44 PM
Because the idiots in 2002 said he could be paroled in 2010. We're lucky he wasn't freed then.


______________________________
Your local friendly tapatalking heretic
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 on May 07, 2014, 02:02:23 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html)

 whistle:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on May 07, 2014, 02:22:43 PM
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html[/url])

 whistle:


Its good to see that the chair of the Parole Board is so grounded and down to earth that he can see the danger of letting an obvious recidivist with a history of absconding and therefore blocks any such move. Oh wait, he didn't, instead he defended the decision to allow an obviously dangerous man out on day release.

Quote
Being allowed out on day release is an essential part of a prisoner’s integration into society,

‘I think putting all prisoners in open conditions is an essential step to their integration. Otherwise, we as a society simply have to put up with paying for their accommodation in prison for the rest of their lives


Well call me an unfeeling bastard Sir David but in cases like this I think society would be perfectly happy in paying for his prison accommodation for the rest of his life as it means that the public are protected from them. When the hell did saving money on keeping prisoners become more important than the safety and well being of the public at large?

Quote
There has got to be a system which manages the transition from prison to the outside world.’
Sir David said ‘decisions are not taken lightly’ if a prisoner tells the board they have left their violent past behind them.
‘We cross-examine the prisoner to see if he’s simply paying lip service,’ he said.
‘What we are not testing is whether he is likely to escape. What we are concerned with is the risk to the public of serious further crime


Well you've done a bang up job so far, the fact that you are defending allowing someone serving 13 life sentences is reprehensible to say the least and if you had any sense of shame you would resign both as the head of the parole board and as a service judge immediately as it is clear you have lost any sense of perspective with regards to serving the public trust and protecting the innocent. Anyone with even half a brain could have looked at his criminal history and incidents of absconding and been able to join the dots so why couldn't you?
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on May 07, 2014, 02:27:49 PM
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html[/url])

 whistle:


Its good to see that the chair of the Parole Board is so grounded and down to earth that he can see the danger of letting an obvious recidivist with a history of absconding and therefore blocks any such move. Oh wait, he didn't, instead he defended the decision to allow an obviously dangerous man out on day release.

Quote
Being allowed out on day release is an essential part of a prisoner’s integration into society,

‘I think putting all prisoners in open conditions is an essential step to their integration. Otherwise, we as a society simply have to put up with paying for their accommodation in prison for the rest of their lives


Well call me an unfeeling bastard Sir David but in cases like this I think society would be perfectly happy in paying for his prison accommodation for the rest of his life as it means that the public are protected from them. When the hell did saving money on keeping prisoners become more important than the safety and well being of the public at large?

Quote
There has got to be a system which manages the transition from prison to the outside world.’
Sir David said ‘decisions are not taken lightly’ if a prisoner tells the board they have left their violent past behind them.
‘We cross-examine the prisoner to see if he’s simply paying lip service,’ he said.
‘What we are not testing is whether he is likely to escape. What we are concerned with is the risk to the public of serious further crime


Well you've done a bang up job so far, the fact that you are defending allowing someone serving 13 life sentences is reprehensible to say the least and if you had any sense of shame you would resign both as the head of the parole board and as a service judge immediately as it is clear you have lost any sense of perspective with regards to serving the public trust and protecting the innocent. Anyone with even half a brain could have looked at his criminal history and incidents of absconding and been able to join the dots so why couldn't you?


 happ096
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Nick on May 07, 2014, 05:37:25 PM
If he had an electronc tag they could find him easily  whistle:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on May 07, 2014, 05:49:11 PM
If he had an electronc tag they could find him easily  whistle:

Like we can find you....?  whistle:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy on May 07, 2014, 05:49:44 PM
If he had an electronc tag they could find him easily  whistle:

.....and send a signal to give him a shock every now and again.  Thumbs:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on May 09, 2014, 05:35:08 AM
I'm not entirely certain I want to know the answer but if this is the standard approach to parole and open prisons then how many currently unsolved crimes have been committed by other individuals who were approved but should not have been under any circumstances.  rubschin:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Nick on May 09, 2014, 05:46:16 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27336796 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27336796)  noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on May 09, 2014, 05:59:48 AM
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27336796[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27336796[/url])  noooo:


 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on May 16, 2014, 08:09:01 PM
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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630322/Fears-public-safety-ministers-admit-one-10-criminals-kept-minimum-security-open-prisons-convicted-murderer.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on May 16, 2014, 08:22:44 PM
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.


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

A real  Banghead Banghead Banghead

Even if the release schedule these bastards are given was acceptable (and it's not) they still have it all wrong with those Open Prisons for the last months.  They should be their grimmest time so they leave with firm reminders of something they fear.
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Nick on May 16, 2014, 08:23:46 PM
Send them to Cyprus you say?  rubschin:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on May 16, 2014, 08:26:28 PM
Send them to Cyprus you say?  rubschin:
rubschin:

I hear pickpockets have a tough time there
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy 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:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Nick on May 16, 2014, 09:19:33 PM
Apey could take them out for a beer  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy 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:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman 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.


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


Madness....  noooo:

It is absolutely no wonder why most of them come out and return to a life of crime....
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister 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:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister 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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631976/Convicted-murderer-robber-run-fail-return-prison-let-day-release.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister 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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635646/18-run-criminals-named-infringes-personal-privacy.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman 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.

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


 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy 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.

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


 noooo:


 noooo: noooo:

Another reason to evict these tossers from current gubberment or potential re-gubberment. Vote for UKIP.  Thumbs:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister 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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657207/Violent-prisoner-hitched-lift-escaping-jail-got-car-policeman.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve 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

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

 Banghead indeed
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman 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

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


 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister 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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30228964)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 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.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30228964[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30228964[/url])


 noooo: noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister 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.
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on November 27, 2014, 04:50:23 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.

I'm all for 'three strikes'....  Thumbs:

But in the 'States they extended it to drug crimes and the prisons simply overflowed with drug users/dealers...

I'd go for pretty much all crime providing there was a serious attempt at training/rehabilitation after the first crime.

So basically, you commit a crime, you are punished and returned to society with some chance of living a normal life... so you have received some life skills/training/qualifications or whatever and if you can't find a job one would be found for you - even if it is painting coal white.

Thereafter you are just punished for increasingly long periods.

Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on November 27, 2014, 05:02:42 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.

I'm all for 'three strikes'....  Thumbs:

But in the 'States they extended it to drug crimes and the prisons simply overflowed with drug users/dealers...

I'd go for pretty much all crime providing there was a serious attempt at training/rehabilitation after the first crime.

So basically, you commit a crime, you are punished and returned to society with some chance of living a normal life... so you have received some life skills/training/qualifications or whatever and if you can't find a job one would be found for you - even if it is painting coal white.

Thereafter you are just punished for increasingly long periods.
Yep

Something like doubled sentence each successive offence.

Some people in the so called justice system really do not get it they you actually have to deter crime because some people are never ever going to be good and yes we really can build enough prisons to cope.  Not that we'd need them, once a few were looking at 20 year stretches for their 10th offence a whole lot of criminals would think again.

And don't get me on automatic release after half a sentence has been served  Banghead
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy on November 27, 2014, 07:47:51 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.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30228964[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30228964[/url])


 noooo: noooo:


Hang him by his ballcock's  cussing:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on February 03, 2015, 11:50:20 AM
Unbelievable, the decision on whether to allow someone to be able to post bail has to balance out the good of the individual vs the good of the public so why the hell are these violent bastards being allowed it.  Banghead

Quote
Magistrates have been under mounting pressure in recent years to remand fewer suspects into custody to ease the burden on over-stretched prisons.

But critics said the figures proved that too many dangerous criminals were being released until their trial date – despite the risk to the community.


Here is a thought, if there isn't the capacity to hold them build more prisons and convert these so called open ones into properly secure facilities. It isn't bleedin' rocket science.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937167/One-killing-week-thug-bail-Offenders-committed-two-rapes-week-sexual-assault-child-day-await-trial.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937167/One-killing-week-thug-bail-Offenders-committed-two-rapes-week-sexual-assault-child-day-await-trial.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on February 03, 2015, 06:10:10 PM
Yep whoever grants the bail has to face criminal negligence charges unless they can show they gave proper consideration to the risks
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy on February 03, 2015, 09:51:20 PM
Yep whoever grants the bail has to face criminal negligence charges unless they can show they gave proper consideration to the risks

 Thumbs:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on February 04, 2015, 07:08:16 PM
This animal decides to repeatedly smash a beer bottle into the head of the poor lass who turned him down leaving her traumatised and all he gets is to pay 2 and a half grand in compensation, 150 hour community service and a suspended sentence. The justice system in this country has 3 roles, serving the public trust, protecting the innocent and upholding the law of the land. Exactly which one did letting an obviously violent man out on a suspended sentence and what is going to happen the next time he decides to glass a woman for turning him down?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on February 04, 2015, 07:15:54 PM
This animal decides to repeatedly smash a beer bottle into the head of the poor lass who turned him down leaving her traumatised and all he gets is to pay 2 and a half grand in compensation, 150 hour community service and a suspended sentence. The justice system in this country has 3 roles, serving the public trust, protecting the innocent and upholding the law of the land. Exactly which one did letting an obviously violent man out on a suspended sentence and what is going to happen the next time he decides to glass a woman for turning him down?

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url])


You forgot deterring further crime

IMHO 5 years and no parole would be the minimum to make sure that need was met.  It may be a shame when a life is ruined by being imprisoned but it really is the lesser of two evils
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 on February 04, 2015, 07:17:09 PM
This animal decides to repeatedly smash a beer bottle into the head of the poor lass who turned him down leaving her traumatised and all he gets is to pay 2 and a half grand in compensation, 150 hour community service and a suspended sentence. The justice system in this country has 3 roles, serving the public trust, protecting the innocent and upholding the law of the land. Exactly which one did letting an obviously violent man out on a suspended sentence and what is going to happen the next time he decides to glass a woman for turning him down?

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url])



 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on February 04, 2015, 07:20:22 PM
This animal decides to repeatedly smash a beer bottle into the head of the poor lass who turned him down leaving her traumatised and all he gets is to pay 2 and a half grand in compensation, 150 hour community service and a suspended sentence. The justice system in this country has 3 roles, serving the public trust, protecting the innocent and upholding the law of the land. Exactly which one did letting an obviously violent man out on a suspended sentence and what is going to happen the next time he decides to glass a woman for turning him down?

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url])


You forgot deterring further crime

IMHO 5 years and no parole would be the minimum to make sure that need was met.  It may be a shame when a life is ruined by being imprisoned but it really is the lesser of two evils


IMHO the justice system will only begin to work in  favour of the general public when those that hand down these sentences are held accountable for their outcome...

Sort of like happens in the real world of business...

So, if they let this (obvious) thug out and he re-offends those that made the decision are sacked and lose all pension benefits...

I bet they'd be building new prisons pretty bloody quickly....
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on February 05, 2015, 12:51:51 PM
This animal decides to repeatedly smash a beer bottle into the head of the poor lass who turned him down leaving her traumatised and all he gets is to pay 2 and a half grand in compensation, 150 hour community service and a suspended sentence. The justice system in this country has 3 roles, serving the public trust, protecting the innocent and upholding the law of the land. Exactly which one did letting an obviously violent man out on a suspended sentence and what is going to happen the next time he decides to glass a woman for turning him down?

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939297/Petite-5ft-2in-clubber-repeatedly-glassed-face-burly-bottle-wielding-thug-rejected-advances.html[/url])


You forgot deterring further crime

IMHO 5 years and no parole would be the minimum to make sure that need was met.  It may be a shame when a life is ruined by being imprisoned but it really is the lesser of two evils


IMHO the justice system will only begin to work in  favour of the general public when those that hand down these sentences are held accountable for their outcome...

Sort of like happens in the real world of business...

So, if they let this (obvious) thug out and he re-offends those that made the decision are sacked and lose all pension benefits...

I bet they'd be building new prisons pretty bloody quickly....


Indeed.  Sadly our laws, sentencing guidelines and prison budgets are set by those that have round the clock police protection.
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on March 09, 2015, 12:44:57 PM
A drug dealer who was already on a weeks release is given extra time out so that she can go and see 50 Shades of Grey with another inmate who was convicted of stabbing a taxi driver and almost killing him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html)

I don't know why I am upset by this any more, it's obvious that the criminal justice system has been completely emasculated by cost cutting and the importance of the 'ooman right' of the prisoner which means that idiocy like this has become commonplace.

Stop the train, I want to get off.  Banghead
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 on March 09, 2015, 01:07:04 PM
A drug dealer who was already on a weeks release is given extra time out so that she can go and see 50 Shades of Grey with another inmate who was convicted of stabbing a taxi driver and almost killing him.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html[/url])

I don't know why I am upset by this any more, it's obvious that the criminal justice system has been completely emasculated by cost cutting and the importance of the 'ooman right' of the prisoner which means that idiocy like this has become commonplace.

Stop the train, I want to get off.  Banghead


 noooo: noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on March 09, 2015, 01:38:20 PM
A drug dealer who was already on a weeks release is given extra time out so that she can go and see 50 Shades of Grey with another inmate who was convicted of stabbing a taxi driver and almost killing him.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html[/url])

I don't know why I am upset by this any more, it's obvious that the criminal justice system has been completely emasculated by cost cutting and the importance of the 'ooman right' of the prisoner which means that idiocy like this has become commonplace.

Stop the train, I want to get off.  Banghead


 noooo: noooo:

 noooo: noooo: noooo:  Banghead


Quote
A Scottish Prison Service spokesman told MailOnline today: 'We wouldn't comment on individual prisoners.'
Cos you haven't got a clue where they are perchance?
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: boogs on March 09, 2015, 03:36:05 PM
A drug dealer who was already on a weeks release is given extra time out so that she can go and see 50 Shades of Grey with another inmate who was convicted of stabbing a taxi driver and almost killing him.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985888/Fury-heroin-dealer-woman-stabbed-taxi-driver-given-day-release-watch-Fifty-Shades-Grey.html[/url])

I don't know why I am upset by this any more, it's obvious that the criminal justice system has been completely emasculated by cost cutting and the importance of the 'ooman right' of the prisoner which means that idiocy like this has become commonplace.

Stop the train, I want to get off.  Banghead


Werds just fuckin fail me  cussing: cussing: cussing:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on March 17, 2015, 11:45:31 AM
839 inmates including 50 murderers have walked out of open prisons in the last 4 years.  Banghead

Well at least we now know how much the safety of the public is worth to those in charge.

Quote
'The cost per place of a typical local prison for males is £30,357, while the cost per place of a male open prison is £17,251. This new evidence shows that open prisons are cheaper partly because the prisoners are not properly supervised.'


How can anyone justify placing habitual violent offenders in open prisons where they can simply walk out of the door? Case in point, Adam Walsh was convicted of armed robbery and was considered so dangerous by the trial judge that he was given an ‘indeterminate sentence for public protection’ basically keeping him inside indefinitely as he is considered a danger to the world outside. So who had the genius idea of putting him in an open prison?

How many people have become victims because of a fucking cost cutting exercise by consecutive governments.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997385/Hundreds-dangerous-prisoners-including-50-murderers-absconded-prison-four-years.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997385/Hundreds-dangerous-prisoners-including-50-murderers-absconded-prison-four-years.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on March 17, 2015, 12:17:36 PM
839 inmates including 50 murderers have walked out of open prisons in the last 4 years.  Banghead

Well at least we now know how much the safety of the public is worth to those in charge.

Quote
'The cost per place of a typical local prison for males is £30,357, while the cost per place of a male open prison is £17,251. This new evidence shows that open prisons are cheaper partly because the prisoners are not properly supervised.'


How can anyone justify placing habitual violent offenders in open prisons where they can simply walk out of the door? Case in point, Adam Walsh was convicted of armed robbery and was considered so dangerous by the trial judge that he was given an ‘indeterminate sentence for public protection’ basically keeping him inside indefinitely as he is considered a danger to the world outside. So who had the genius idea of putting him in an open prison?

How many people have become victims because of a fucking cost cutting exercise by consecutive governments.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997385/Hundreds-dangerous-prisoners-including-50-murderers-absconded-prison-four-years.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997385/Hundreds-dangerous-prisoners-including-50-murderers-absconded-prison-four-years.html[/url])

 Banghead Banghead
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 on March 17, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Maybe a start... rubschin:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31920906 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31920906)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on March 19, 2015, 04:56:16 AM
It gets worse, post conviction bail?? Who the hell came up with the concept and can we get the names of the judges who thought it would be a marvellous idea to grant it to people convicted of rape and child abuse.

Quote
In 2013, post-conviction bail – which judges grant while they wait for sentencing reports – was given to 95 rapists, 115 people with manslaughter convictions and 1,105 convicted of sex offences against children.

Incredibly, almost a third of all sex offenders dealt with at crown court are given bail while they await sentencing.

In the same year, 248 offenders on post-conviction bail – including 26 people guilty of violence, 11 sex offenders and 63 convicted of theft offences, including burglary – failed to turn up for sentencing.


What's next, scrapping the police altogether?  Banghead

Quote
A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said: 'Bail decisions are a matter for the court in individual cases based on the facts that are presented to the court at the time of the hearing. 'Legislation imposes a strict statutory framework within which courts must make their decision.'


Bullshit, if there was truly a strict statutory framework in place then the people being allowed to go home while waiting for the pre sentencing reports would be those guilty of lesser crimes, not violent sexual predators including those who target children. But hey, as long as your family is safe it doesn't matter that a large number of our judges are obviously not fit for purpose and are endangering the public as a result.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on March 19, 2015, 08:48:23 AM
It gets worse, post conviction bail?? Who the hell came up with the concept and can we get the names of the judges who thought it would be a marvellous idea to grant it to people convicted of rape and child abuse.

Quote
In 2013, post-conviction bail – which judges grant while they wait for sentencing reports – was given to 95 rapists, 115 people with manslaughter convictions and 1,105 convicted of sex offences against children.

Incredibly, almost a third of all sex offenders dealt with at crown court are given bail while they await sentencing.

In the same year, 248 offenders on post-conviction bail – including 26 people guilty of violence, 11 sex offenders and 63 convicted of theft offences, including burglary – failed to turn up for sentencing.


What's next, scrapping the police altogether?  Banghead

Quote
A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said: 'Bail decisions are a matter for the court in individual cases based on the facts that are presented to the court at the time of the hearing. 'Legislation imposes a strict statutory framework within which courts must make their decision.'


Bullshit, if there was truly a strict statutory framework in place then the people being allowed to go home while waiting for the pre sentencing reports would be those guilty of lesser crimes, not violent sexual predators including those who target children. But hey, as long as your family is safe it doesn't matter that a large number of our judges are obviously not fit for purpose and are endangering the public as a result.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html[/url])


 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 on March 19, 2015, 09:48:27 AM
It gets worse, post conviction bail?? Who the hell came up with the concept and can we get the names of the judges who thought it would be a marvellous idea to grant it to people convicted of rape and child abuse.

Quote
In 2013, post-conviction bail – which judges grant while they wait for sentencing reports – was given to 95 rapists, 115 people with manslaughter convictions and 1,105 convicted of sex offences against children.

Incredibly, almost a third of all sex offenders dealt with at crown court are given bail while they await sentencing.

In the same year, 248 offenders on post-conviction bail – including 26 people guilty of violence, 11 sex offenders and 63 convicted of theft offences, including burglary – failed to turn up for sentencing.


What's next, scrapping the police altogether?  Banghead

Quote
A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said: 'Bail decisions are a matter for the court in individual cases based on the facts that are presented to the court at the time of the hearing. 'Legislation imposes a strict statutory framework within which courts must make their decision.'


Bullshit, if there was truly a strict statutory framework in place then the people being allowed to go home while waiting for the pre sentencing reports would be those guilty of lesser crimes, not violent sexual predators including those who target children. But hey, as long as your family is safe it doesn't matter that a large number of our judges are obviously not fit for purpose and are endangering the public as a result.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html[/url])


 noooo:


I think Max Clifford got that too........ rubschin:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy on March 20, 2015, 11:29:45 AM
It gets worse, post conviction bail?? Who the hell came up with the concept and can we get the names of the judges who thought it would be a marvellous idea to grant it to people convicted of rape and child abuse.

Quote
In 2013, post-conviction bail – which judges grant while they wait for sentencing reports – was given to 95 rapists, 115 people with manslaughter convictions and 1,105 convicted of sex offences against children.

Incredibly, almost a third of all sex offenders dealt with at crown court are given bail while they await sentencing.

In the same year, 248 offenders on post-conviction bail – including 26 people guilty of violence, 11 sex offenders and 63 convicted of theft offences, including burglary – failed to turn up for sentencing.


What's next, scrapping the police altogether?  Banghead

Quote
A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said: 'Bail decisions are a matter for the court in individual cases based on the facts that are presented to the court at the time of the hearing. 'Legislation imposes a strict statutory framework within which courts must make their decision.'


Bullshit, if there was truly a strict statutory framework in place then the people being allowed to go home while waiting for the pre sentencing reports would be those guilty of lesser crimes, not violent sexual predators including those who target children. But hey, as long as your family is safe it doesn't matter that a large number of our judges are obviously not fit for purpose and are endangering the public as a result.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001663/The-rapists-killers-allowed-home-bail-convicted-210-sent-home-2013-awaiting-sentencing.html[/url])


 noooo:


I think Max Clifford got that too........ rubschin:


 lol:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on March 23, 2015, 05:53:24 PM
In prison for committing 2 murders but allowed out for the day??? Whoever it was decided to grant this guy day release should be taken to court themselves.  Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2015, 06:38:26 PM
In prison for committing 2 murders but allowed out for the day??? Whoever it was decided to grant this guy day release should be taken to court themselves.  Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html[/url])

This won't end until they bang up some of the parole board for OKing this.  It's manslaughter by gross negligence

Why not start with this case?  It'd only take one parole board member looking at a 5 year stretch to change the whole attitude

Won't happen though will it
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy on March 23, 2015, 10:50:09 PM
In prison for committing 2 murders but allowed out for the day??? Whoever it was decided to grant this guy day release should be taken to court themselves.  Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html[/url])

This won't end until they bang up some of the parole board for OKing this.  It's manslaughter by gross negligence

Why not start with this case?  It'd only take one parole board member looking at a 5 year stretch to change the whole attitude

Won't happen though will it


 Thumbs:

Steve.....Correctomundo.  Thumbs:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on March 24, 2015, 12:26:53 AM
In prison for committing 2 murders but allowed out for the day??? Whoever it was decided to grant this guy day release should be taken to court themselves.  Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007720/Triple-killer-murdered-Good-Samaritan-let-day-release-catastrophic-failure-prison-bosses.html[/url])

This won't end until they bang up some of the parole board for OKing this.  It's manslaughter by gross negligence

Why not start with this case?  It'd only take one parole board member looking at a 5 year stretch to change the whole attitude

Won't happen though will it


I agree, unfortunately the only way I can see this happening is if a victim of one of these day release scrotes turns out to be a friend or relative of someone in the cabinet.  noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on April 01, 2015, 10:50:29 PM
Just when I thought it couldn't get any more idiotic 2 judges have ruled that it is illegal for dangerous and violent prisoners to be kept from being transferred to open prisons even if they have a history of escaping.  Banghead Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021675/Banning-dangerous-criminals-open-prisons-ILLEGAL-history-escaping-judges-rule.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021675/Banning-dangerous-criminals-open-prisons-ILLEGAL-history-escaping-judges-rule.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on April 02, 2015, 05:39:10 AM
Just when I thought it couldn't get any more idiotic 2 judges have ruled that it is illegal for dangerous and violent prisoners to be kept from being transferred to open prisons even if they have a history of escaping.  Banghead Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021675/Banning-dangerous-criminals-open-prisons-ILLEGAL-history-escaping-judges-rule.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021675/Banning-dangerous-criminals-open-prisons-ILLEGAL-history-escaping-judges-rule.html[/url])


doublefacepalm
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy on April 02, 2015, 07:05:39 AM
Just when I thought it couldn't get any more idiotic 2 judges have ruled that it is illegal for dangerous and violent prisoners to be kept from being transferred to open prisons even if they have a history of escaping.  Banghead Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021675/Banning-dangerous-criminals-open-prisons-ILLEGAL-history-escaping-judges-rule.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021675/Banning-dangerous-criminals-open-prisons-ILLEGAL-history-escaping-judges-rule.html[/url])


doublefacepalm


 doublefacepalm doublefacepalm
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on April 15, 2015, 03:40:31 PM
I'm sorry but if an individual is 'almost too dangerous to be sent to prison' doesn't that mean he should NOT be allowed to go free with just a slap on the wrist and orders to attend a relationship management course.  Banghead

Quote
After a trial at Halton Magistrates' Court, she told him: 'You acted like a caveman, dragging the victim by her hair and assaulting her over a period of months between April and September.
'You are almost too dangerous for me to send you to prison because you need work done on you.


Call me heartless but I'd say that he should have the 'work' done to him while locked away from any other potential victims.  noooo:

Serve the public trust
Protect the innocent
Uphold the law

Well out of a potential score of 3 you manage sweet FA with that decision.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040062/Thug-repeatedly-attacked-girlfriend-dangerous-jail.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040062/Thug-repeatedly-attacked-girlfriend-dangerous-jail.html)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Baldy on April 15, 2015, 06:06:34 PM
I'm sorry but if an individual is 'almost too dangerous to be sent to prison' doesn't that mean he should NOT be allowed to go free with just a slap on the wrist and orders to attend a relationship management course.  Banghead

Quote
After a trial at Halton Magistrates' Court, she told him: 'You acted like a caveman, dragging the victim by her hair and assaulting her over a period of months between April and September.
'You are almost too dangerous for me to send you to prison because you need work done on you.


Call me heartless but I'd say that he should have the 'work' done to him while locked away from any other potential victims.  noooo:

Serve the public trust
Protect the innocent
Uphold the law

Well out of a potential score of 3 you manage sweet FA with that decision.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040062/Thug-repeatedly-attacked-girlfriend-dangerous-jail.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040062/Thug-repeatedly-attacked-girlfriend-dangerous-jail.html[/url])


 Banghead Banghead
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on April 15, 2015, 08:41:50 PM
I'm sorry but if an individual is 'almost too dangerous to be sent to prison' doesn't that mean he should NOT be allowed to go free with just a slap on the wrist and orders to attend a relationship management course.  Banghead

Quote
After a trial at Halton Magistrates' Court, she told him: 'You acted like a caveman, dragging the victim by her hair and assaulting her over a period of months between April and September.
'You are almost too dangerous for me to send you to prison because you need work done on you.


Call me heartless but I'd say that he should have the 'work' done to him while locked away from any other potential victims.  noooo:

Serve the public trust
Protect the innocent
Uphold the law

Well out of a potential score of 3 you manage sweet FA with that decision.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040062/Thug-repeatedly-attacked-girlfriend-dangerous-jail.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040062/Thug-repeatedly-attacked-girlfriend-dangerous-jail.html[/url])


 Banghead Banghead
Banghead Banghead Banghead
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on May 03, 2015, 10:12:19 AM
A convicted child rapist who fled his country to avoid prison with five arrests over here for assault, GBH and attempted rape before beating and sexually assaulting an 89 year old is being given a secret home to protect his 'human' rights despite the fact that if the police had done their jobs properly he would have already been deported.

A human wouldn't rape a child, a human wouldn't beat and sexually assault women. These are the actions of a depraved animal who should either be put down or locked away for the rest of his life in order to protect the public, he should certainly not be given a home and have his details suppressed so that his victims or the people unwittingly living nearby aren't placed at risk.

Why the hell are the rights of the criminal more important than those of the victims or potential victims.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights)

Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on May 03, 2015, 10:45:41 AM
A convicted child rapist who fled his country to avoid prison with five arrests over here for assault, GBH and attempted rape before beating and sexually assaulting an 89 year old is being given a secret home to protect his 'human' rights despite the fact that if the police had done their jobs properly he would have already been deported.

A human wouldn't rape a child, a human wouldn't beat and sexually assault women. These are the actions of a depraved animal who should either be put down or locked away for the rest of his life in order to protect the public, he should certainly not be given a home and have his details suppressed so that his victims or the people unwittingly living nearby aren't placed at risk.

Why the hell are the rights of the criminal more important than those of the victims or potential victims.

[url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url] ([url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url])


 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 on May 03, 2015, 12:43:02 PM
A convicted child rapist who fled his country to avoid prison with five arrests over here for assault, GBH and attempted rape before beating and sexually assaulting an 89 year old is being given a secret home to protect his 'human' rights despite the fact that if the police had done their jobs properly he would have already been deported.

A human wouldn't rape a child, a human wouldn't beat and sexually assault women. These are the actions of a depraved animal who should either be put down or locked away for the rest of his life in order to protect the public, he should certainly not be given a home and have his details suppressed so that his victims or the people unwittingly living nearby aren't placed at risk.

Why the hell are the rights of the criminal more important than those of the victims or potential victims.

[url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url] ([url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url])


 noooo: noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: barmisspah? on May 05, 2015, 03:17:30 PM
A convicted child rapist who fled his country to avoid prison with five arrests over here for assault, GBH and attempted rape before beating and sexually assaulting an 89 year old is being given a secret home to protect his 'human' rights despite the fact that if the police had done their jobs properly he would have already been deported.

A human wouldn't rape a child, a human wouldn't beat and sexually assault women. These are the actions of a depraved animal who should either be put down or locked away for the rest of his life in order to protect the public, he should certainly not be given a home and have his details suppressed so that his victims or the people unwittingly living nearby aren't placed at risk.

Why the hell are the rights of the criminal more important than those of the victims or potential victims.

[url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url] ([url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url])


Hear hear
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Marley's Ghost (Imbiber of Spirits) on May 06, 2015, 10:26:30 AM
A convicted child rapist who fled his country to avoid prison with five arrests over here for assault, GBH and attempted rape before beating and sexually assaulting an 89 year old is being given a secret home to protect his 'human' rights despite the fact that if the police had done their jobs properly he would have already been deported.

A human wouldn't rape a child, a human wouldn't beat and sexually assault women. These are the actions of a depraved animal who should either be put down or locked away for the rest of his life in order to protect the public, he should certainly not be given a home and have his details suppressed so that his victims or the people unwittingly living nearby aren't placed at risk.

Why the hell are the rights of the criminal more important than those of the victims or potential victims.

[url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url] ([url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574551/Romanian-rapist-could-strike-again-secret-home-protect-rights[/url])


Hear hear


It's just another example of the contempt we're held in by these metropolitan elite scroungers . . .

We don't matter to them - unless there's an election in the offing, at which point they will lie even more imaginatively . . .
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on May 06, 2015, 05:59:50 PM
What the hell do you mean you can't help her, you could easily argue that this man needs psychiatric treatment so use the section of the Mental Health Act that allows you to detain someone for assessment. Given that he was convicted for indecent exposure and deliberately performing sex acts in full view of her, not to mention that when his home was raided they found a hoard of illegal weapons including machine guns there is more than enough justification to consider placing him in a secure unit for the forseeable future.

Quote
A feud between the neighbours began in 2002 when she installed a gate on the lane at the entrance to both properties.
This prompted a near decade-long campaign of terror, with Ward following Miss Dunford wearing only socks, shouting abuse and knocking on her windows.

Despite repeated complaints to police, the authorities acted only when Miss Dunford supplied them with hours of CCTV footage.
When police raided Ward’s property in 2011 they found a cache of weapons, including machine guns.

The pervert admitted 11 counts of exposure, three charges of possessing a prohibited firearm and a range of other firearm offences.

A Sexual Offences Prevention Order prohibiting Ward from going within 200m of Miss Dunford’s home was made, but the order was changed by Judge Peter Armstrong at a later hearing, allowing Ward to approach the property from all sides.
k

And yet again another judge, completely removed from the real world, puts the priorities of the criminal ahead of the victim. After all, if this guy was no danger to Miss Dunford then the police wouldn't have given her £5k to install CCTV and build a panic room because they can't protect her.

The whole 'we can't do anything about this until he does something violent' crap has been a major issue for years now. A while ago an ex of my sister decided to take his frustrations out on my parents as dad worked away. This meant that mum had 6 months of the little shite vandalising the back gate, driving past slowly when she walked the dog and hundred of abusive and threatening phone calls. So trusting in the system they contacted the police and gave them the evidence they had collected (mainly recordings of the phone calls that had been left on the answerphone). And what happened? We ended up with a pathetic excuse for a constable that made PeeWee Herman look like Dirty Harry and spent each time he was there saying that there was nothing they could do and then talking about HIS personal problems.

My question is a simple one, why the hell aren't we making sure that the public can be protected from people making serious threats BEFORE they escalate into violence? Oh of course, silly me that would take away some of the all important rights of the criminal.  cussing:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on April 01, 2016, 10:52:11 AM
Are you taking the piss? Prison should be as unpleasant as possible in order to shock the scrotes into obeying the law, yes give them opportunities to develop new skills so that they have a chance of finding work afterwards but the idea of making custody as close as possible to life in the community in order to make it more civilised is a slap in the face to the victims of their crimes.

Quote
The measures are crucial to the vision of Justice Secretary Michael Gove, who has called for a prisons revolution, bolstering rehabilitation and educating inmates to end the ‘lock ’em up or let ’em out’ debate.


Yes rehabilitation is important but there also has to be a fear of being locked up again, turning prisons into little more than holiday camps for criminals isn't going to improve crime rates as they aren't going to give a toss about ending up in prison again.

Quote
In an internal teleconference call to prospective staff, Mr Trent said: ‘We’re looking at how we can make the experience as normal as possible. They’re also going to have a phone in their room so they can ring their children at night and say goodnight. That’s pretty normal.’

He said the aim of the prison was to ‘offer hope’ to inmates and ‘change behaviour through reward, rather than punishment’, adding: ‘I don’t call the men in custody prisoners and I don’t call them offenders.

‘Because it’s a basic principle, isn't it? If you call somebody something you don’t want them to be, they’re more likely to be it. The rooms in which they live, calling them rooms rather than cells is really important. And if you call it a room, how do you make a cell a room? And that’s giving them ownership of it and how they live in there and how they keep it clean and tidy.


If you call someone something that you don't want them to be it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy? Are you fucking serious? You are an ex Royal Marine, look at the training you went through and tell me that even though parts of it would have been hell on earth you weren't a better person for having gone through it. THAT is the approach we should be using, especially when they are getting to the end of their sentence.

Yet again we see the results of having a cabinet minister with absolutely no experience or qualifications germane to his position.  Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518316/The-cushiest-jail-Britain-Prisoners-phones-rooms-say-goodnight-children-warders-knock-entering.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518316/The-cushiest-jail-Britain-Prisoners-phones-rooms-say-goodnight-children-warders-knock-entering.html)

For the love of God please tell me that this is an April Fool's article.  noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on April 01, 2016, 01:50:49 PM
Are you taking the piss? Prison should be as unpleasant as possible in order to shock the scrotes into obeying the law, yes give them opportunities to develop new skills so that they have a chance of finding work afterwards but the idea of making custody as close as possible to life in the community in order to make it more civilised is a slap in the face to the victims of their crimes.

Quote
The measures are crucial to the vision of Justice Secretary Michael Gove, who has called for a prisons revolution, bolstering rehabilitation and educating inmates to end the ‘lock ’em up or let ’em out’ debate.


Yes rehabilitation is important but there also has to be a fear of being locked up again, turning prisons into little more than holiday camps for criminals isn't going to improve crime rates as they aren't going to give a toss about ending up in prison again.

Quote
In an internal teleconference call to prospective staff, Mr Trent said: ‘We’re looking at how we can make the experience as normal as possible. They’re also going to have a phone in their room so they can ring their children at night and say goodnight. That’s pretty normal.’

He said the aim of the prison was to ‘offer hope’ to inmates and ‘change behaviour through reward, rather than punishment’, adding: ‘I don’t call the men in custody prisoners and I don’t call them offenders.

‘Because it’s a basic principle, isn't it? If you call somebody something you don’t want them to be, they’re more likely to be it. The rooms in which they live, calling them rooms rather than cells is really important. And if you call it a room, how do you make a cell a room? And that’s giving them ownership of it and how they live in there and how they keep it clean and tidy.


If you call someone something that you don't want them to be it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy? Are you fucking serious? You are an ex Royal Marine, look at the training you went through and tell me that even though parts of it would have been hell on earth you weren't a better person for having gone through it. THAT is the approach we should be using, especially when they are getting to the end of their sentence.

Yet again we see the results of having a cabinet minister with absolutely no experience or qualifications germane to his position.  Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518316/The-cushiest-jail-Britain-Prisoners-phones-rooms-say-goodnight-children-warders-knock-entering.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518316/The-cushiest-jail-Britain-Prisoners-phones-rooms-say-goodnight-children-warders-knock-entering.html[/url])

For the love of God please tell me that this is an April Fool's article.  noooo:
Sadly I doubt it is such.  It is Gove we're talking about

Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on August 08, 2016, 02:07:31 PM
You would think that after all this time without an escape making it into the news that it is just possible those in charge have learned their lesson and stopped sending violent thugs to open prisons....

Guess again.  Banghead

Quote
Gavin Owens, 33, absconded from HMP Hollesley Bay in Suffolk, where he was serving an indeterminate sentence for slashing a man's throat during a 2008 street fight.

He was jailed for attempted murder, GBH and ABH following the vicious attack.   


So attempted murder isn't enough to get someone sent to a proper prison then? I wonder how many people will fall foul of this shitehawk before he ends up back in custody.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729297/Dangerous-prisoner-serving-life-sentence-slashing-man-s-throat-street-fight-run-escaping-open-prison.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729297/Dangerous-prisoner-serving-life-sentence-slashing-man-s-throat-street-fight-run-escaping-open-prison.html)

Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on August 08, 2016, 02:18:31 PM
You would think that after all this time without an escape making it into the news that it is just possible those in charge have learned their lesson and stopped sending violent thugs to open prisons....

Guess again.  Banghead

Quote
Gavin Owens, 33, absconded from HMP Hollesley Bay in Suffolk, where he was serving an indeterminate sentence for slashing a man's throat during a 2008 street fight.

He was jailed for attempted murder, GBH and ABH following the vicious attack.   


So attempted murder isn't enough to get someone sent to a proper prison then? I wonder how many people will fall foul of this shitehawk before he ends up back in custody.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729297/Dangerous-prisoner-serving-life-sentence-slashing-man-s-throat-street-fight-run-escaping-open-prison.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729297/Dangerous-prisoner-serving-life-sentence-slashing-man-s-throat-street-fight-run-escaping-open-prison.html[/url])


 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on August 08, 2016, 02:56:01 PM
You would think that after all this time without an escape making it into the news that it is just possible those in charge have learned their lesson and stopped sending violent thugs to open prisons....

Guess again.  Banghead

Quote
Gavin Owens, 33, absconded from HMP Hollesley Bay in Suffolk, where he was serving an indeterminate sentence for slashing a man's throat during a 2008 street fight.

He was jailed for attempted murder, GBH and ABH following the vicious attack.   


So attempted murder isn't enough to get someone sent to a proper prison then? I wonder how many people will fall foul of this shitehawk before he ends up back in custody.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729297/Dangerous-prisoner-serving-life-sentence-slashing-man-s-throat-street-fight-run-escaping-open-prison.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729297/Dangerous-prisoner-serving-life-sentence-slashing-man-s-throat-street-fight-run-escaping-open-prison.html[/url])


 noooo:

 noooo: noooo:

This may be all my fault.  I have long advocated 'throw away the key' sentencing for scum like this, maybe I should have said it clearer as  "throw away the key but keep the lock"
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on January 04, 2018, 09:24:49 PM
Jesus Christ, with convictions for 12 attacks and being the prime suspect in over 100 more this is probably the most prolific serial rapist in UK history who's pre sentencing report clearly stated that he was a repetitive predatory sexual offender and you have decided to let him out?? Not to mention taking that decision without informing any of his victims??  Banghead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html)

Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: apc2010 on January 05, 2018, 07:06:19 PM
Jesus Christ, with convictions for 12 attacks and being the prime suspect in over 100 more this is probably the most prolific serial rapist in UK history who's pre sentencing report clearly stated that he was a repetitive predatory sexual offender and you have decided to let him out?? Not to mention taking that decision without informing any of his victims??  Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html[/url])



 noooo:
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on January 06, 2018, 09:40:44 AM
Jesus Christ, with convictions for 12 attacks and being the prime suspect in over 100 more this is probably the most prolific serial rapist in UK history who's pre sentencing report clearly stated that he was a repetitive predatory sexual offender and you have decided to let him out?? Not to mention taking that decision without informing any of his victims??  Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html[/url])



 noooo:

noooo: noooo:

Some people deserve second chances, not him. For that bastard they should have a second go at throwing away the key
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on January 06, 2018, 10:28:18 AM
Jesus Christ, with convictions for 12 attacks and being the prime suspect in over 100 more this is probably the most prolific serial rapist in UK history who's pre sentencing report clearly stated that he was a repetitive predatory sexual offender and you have decided to let him out?? Not to mention taking that decision without informing any of his victims??  Banghead

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235813/John-Warboys-freed-prison.html[/url])



 noooo:

noooo: noooo:

Some people deserve second chances, not him. For that bastard they should have a second go at throwing away the key


Starmer and Scotland should have done their jobs properly in the first place and made sure that all the allegations were investigated and charged accordingly. The fact that they are dodging questions by saying it happened 9 years ago just shows how little regard they have for the public.

If 100 more people came forward then it's safe to assume that there are significantly more victims who were to ashamed to say anything about it and to make things worse there are reports that the Met have taken 2 victims to the supreme court in order to avoid paying them compensation for completely fucking up their cases.
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on January 16, 2018, 10:08:28 AM
Fuck me, I don't even know where to start about this deranged 'psychologist'  Banghead

https://order-order.com/2018/01/15/worboys-psychologist-spent-career-calling-for-soft-justice-for-sex-offenders/
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on January 16, 2018, 10:25:23 AM
Fuck me, I don't even know where to start about this deranged 'psychologist'  Banghead

https://order-order.com/2018/01/15/worboys-psychologist-spent-career-calling-for-soft-justice-for-sex-offenders/
FFS this case just gets worse

The Parole Board apparently said they were “confident” he wouldn’t reoffend

Well that’s fine just as long as they’re so confident that if he does we can seize all their possessions to compensate any victims and then nail gun the Parole board members naked to a tree in the lions enclosure at Longleat

Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on January 16, 2018, 10:45:21 AM
Fuck me, I don't even know where to start about this deranged 'psychologist'  Banghead

https://order-order.com/2018/01/15/worboys-psychologist-spent-career-calling-for-soft-justice-for-sex-offenders/
FFS this case just gets worse

The Parole Board apparently said they were “confident” he wouldn’t reoffend

Well that’s fine just as long as they’re so confident that if he does we can seize all their possessions to compensate any victims and then nail gun the Parole board members naked to a tree in the lions enclosure at Longleat



I can't believe that she is still taken seriously in the field after publishing “Can paedophiles be good people?” Anyone stupid enough to ignore the wealth of data showing just how likely people who watch child porn are likely to offend and telling us we only need to worry about a paltry number of watchers and then try and compare child sexual abuse to being in a bar room brawl has no place anywhere in the healthcare sector. I've seen my fair share of brawls while tending bar, everything from 2 drunks incapable of hitting someone directly in front of them all the way up to a full scale riot spreading across the entire club and out on to the main street and not one of them could be compared in any way shape or form to some sick bastard getting their jollies by abusing a child.
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on March 04, 2018, 09:40:35 PM
just when I thought the Worboys case couldn't get any worse, it now looks like we will have to fork out £300k a year for a 24/7 protection detail for this bastard once he is released.  Banghead

http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/04/black-cab-rapist-john-worboys-will-given-24-7-protection-costing-300000-year-7359307/ (http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/04/black-cab-rapist-john-worboys-will-given-24-7-protection-costing-300000-year-7359307/)

Lets not kid ourselves here, this bastard is an evil serial predator who may be under the 'strictest licence' but shouldn't have been allowed out in the first place. Plus to add insult to injury, because the costs of this will be covered by the taxpayer his victims are having to pay in part for his ongoing protection.
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on March 04, 2018, 09:57:17 PM
just when I thought the Worboys case couldn't get any worse, it now looks like we will have to fork out £300k a year for a 24/7 protection detail for this bastard once he is released.  Banghead

[url]http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/04/black-cab-rapist-john-worboys-will-given-24-7-protection-costing-300000-year-7359307/[/url] ([url]http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/04/black-cab-rapist-john-worboys-will-given-24-7-protection-costing-300000-year-7359307/[/url])

Lets not kid ourselves here, this bastard is an evil serial predator who may be under the 'strictest licence' but shouldn't have been allowed out in the first place. Plus to add insult to injury, because the costs of this will be covered by the taxpayer his victims are having to pay in part for his ongoing protection.

When they can't be arsed to protect people that are being stalked how on earth do they justify this

IF he gets that parole they should give him the choice.  Go out in the big wide world at your own risk with the same protection Jo/Jane Average gets or withdraw your parole application


Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Barman on March 05, 2018, 06:59:15 AM
just when I thought the Worboys case couldn't get any worse, it now looks like we will have to fork out £300k a year for a 24/7 protection detail for this bastard once he is released.  Banghead

[url]http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/04/black-cab-rapist-john-worboys-will-given-24-7-protection-costing-300000-year-7359307/[/url] ([url]http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/04/black-cab-rapist-john-worboys-will-given-24-7-protection-costing-300000-year-7359307/[/url])

Lets not kid ourselves here, this bastard is an evil serial predator who may be under the 'strictest licence' but shouldn't have been allowed out in the first place. Plus to add insult to injury, because the costs of this will be covered by the taxpayer his victims are having to pay in part for his ongoing protection.

When they can't be arsed to protect people that are being stalked how on earth do they justify this

IF he gets that parole they should give him the choice.  Go out in the big wide world at your own risk with the same protection Jo/Jane Average gets or withdraw your parole application


^^^ what he said ^^^
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Grumpmeister on March 31, 2018, 11:17:53 PM
Stabbing a young mother in the chest 10 times, killing her only gets you 11 bloody years? And having shown no remorse for the act her murderer is getting moved to an open prison in preparation for her release?  Banghead

http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/31/family-mum-18-stabbed-death-heartbroken-news-killer-set-released-7431409/ (http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/31/family-mum-18-stabbed-death-heartbroken-news-killer-set-released-7431409/)
Title: Re: Surely the question should be
Post by: Steve on April 01, 2018, 08:41:36 AM
Stabbing a young mother in the chest 10 times, killing her only gets you 11 bloody years? And having shown no remorse for the act her murderer is getting moved to an open prison in preparation for her release?  Banghead

[url]http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/31/family-mum-18-stabbed-death-heartbroken-news-killer-set-released-7431409/[/url] ([url]http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/31/family-mum-18-stabbed-death-heartbroken-news-killer-set-released-7431409/[/url])

Only 15 when the crime was committed that's why