Author Topic: Surely the question should be  (Read 9595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 22643
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #45 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
Some days I think the only thing keeping me from becoming homicidal is that the voices can't agree on which weapon would be the most fun.

Online Steve

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 35644
  • Reputation: -2
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #46 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.

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

 Banghead Banghead
Well, whatever nevermind

Offline apc2010

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 48863
  • Reputation: -2
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2015, 12:37:03 PM »

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 22643
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #48 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
Some days I think the only thing keeping me from becoming homicidal is that the voices can't agree on which weapon would be the most fun.

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 122646
  • Reputation: -41
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #49 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.

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


 noooo:
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline apc2010

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 48863
  • Reputation: -2
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #50 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.

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


 noooo:


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

Offline Baldy

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 14085
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #51 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.

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


 noooo:


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


 lol:

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 22643
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #52 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
Some days I think the only thing keeping me from becoming homicidal is that the voices can't agree on which weapon would be the most fun.

Online Steve

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 35644
  • Reputation: -2
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #53 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

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

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
Well, whatever nevermind

Offline Baldy

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 14085
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #54 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

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

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:

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 22643
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #55 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

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

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:
Some days I think the only thing keeping me from becoming homicidal is that the voices can't agree on which weapon would be the most fun.

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 22643
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #56 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
Some days I think the only thing keeping me from becoming homicidal is that the voices can't agree on which weapon would be the most fun.

Offline Barman

  • Administrator
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 122646
  • Reputation: -41
  • Since 1960...
    • Virtual Pub!
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #57 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

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


doublefacepalm
Pro Skub  Thumbs:

Offline Baldy

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 14085
  • Reputation: 0
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #58 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

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


doublefacepalm


 doublefacepalm doublefacepalm

Offline Grumpmeister

  • Power Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 22643
  • Reputation: -24
  • Prankmeister General
Re: Surely the question should be
« Reply #59 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
Some days I think the only thing keeping me from becoming homicidal is that the voices can't agree on which weapon would be the most fun.