Jump to content

Parole board away with the fairies


guzzicat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Again, the judge gave an "indeterminate " sentence, this piece of filth kept his head down, was a good boy & got release early before his ageing glands removed his desire to re/offend (& he will). My wife knew one of his victims, a confidant professional lady now a totally changed person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 39TDS said:

Of course I am not defending him or his release, I was just saying the parole board did their job. Sentencing is the judges job.

The fault lies with Sir Keith Starmer; now a Labour MP, who as the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute for a further 75 sex assaults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this episode highlights a massive failure in process, the minimum sentence to be served was far too lenient and that is the responsibility of the judge.

I don't know what options would be open to the parole board if Warboys has been the model prisoner since he was locked up.  He served the minimum term that he must, if he has complied with all requirements to be eligible for parole are the parole board at liberty to keep him locked up?  Do any of the contributors to PW have actual knowledge of the parole process?

For the record I think it is appalling that he has been released, i think it is incredibly offensive and insensitive to the feelings of his victims and I think that the justice system in this case has let the victims down very badly indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

The fault lies with Sir Keith Starmer; now a Labour MP, who as the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute for a further 75 sex assaults.

The Attorney-general, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, also opted not to appeal the lenient sentence that was handed down to Warboys despite a very vocal public campaign proclaiming outrage at the minimum term set.

The fault does not lie with one individual, it is a systemic failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Parole Board based their decision on the cases he was convicted, not the number the Police suspected (around 100). They would argue, correctly, that they did their job. I don't like the decision, but hard to fault what they did.

The ones who should be under the spotlight are the sentencing judge and the CPS, who failed to prosecute the full extent.

Will he have reformed - I seriously doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really ****** me off is that no one in high office is ever made accountable for their poor performance/decisions, seldom do any of them lose their high paid jobs, pension etc or in exceptional circumstances, where their position becomes untenable, they are just moved on to an equally well paid job in another area!.......whereas the ordinary worker is dismissed from employment......with nowt! for what is in comparison, a relatively minor transgression.

The people in the CPS and legal system (and anyone else involved in the case) responsible for poor decisions at the time (and the present!) should be made accountable for their performance/decisions, and if found to have been negligent/incompetent should face sanction up to and including dismissal!.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m rather hoping more victims come forward and fresh proceedings are brought.

Saying that, he’s not daft, has a bundle of money (he’s a millionaire) and he’ll do a ‘Glitter’ and flee the jurisdiction to somewhere sunny and corrupt and before a round two prosecution gets under way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Envy of the World our great legal system ,copied across the globe ,unfortunately for the last 50 years do-gooders and hand ringers have used the its not their fault they wernt breast fed and it made them deprived< scrotum contents> to excuse physco nut job and downright sneaky animals .Instead of life meaning life without parole it means 6 to 8 years and off they go to do it again -no wonder police morale is so low .

Catch the vermin and hope the CPS will take it to court and then pray the judge is in a bad mood so the sentence reflects the crime rather than the usual smack on the wrist:no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, panoma1 said:

What really ****** me off is that no one in high office is ever made accountable for their poor performance/decisions, seldom do any of them lose their high paid jobs, pension etc or in exceptional circumstances, where their position becomes untenable, they are just moved on to an equally well paid job in another area!.......whereas the ordinary worker is dismissed from employment......with nowt! for what is in comparison, a relatively minor transgression.

The people in the CPS and legal system (and anyone else involved in the case) responsible for poor decisions at the time (and the present!) should be made accountable for their performance/decisions, and if found to have been negligent/incompetent should face sanction up to and including dismissal!.........

Correct IMHO.

But will never be rectified as they all use the same pot?

None of them will try to derail the gravy train,  just a squeak about lessons learned.

Edited by old man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TriBsa said:

The fault lies with Sir Keith Starmer; now a Labour MP, who as the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute for a further 75 sex assaults.

Unfortunately the CPS could not prosecute the other assaults as the poor women involved could recall very little due to the strong drugs used on them.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mungler said:

I’m rather hoping more victims come forward and fresh proceedings are brought.

Saying that, he’s not daft, has a bundle of money (he’s a millionaire) and he’ll do a ‘Glitter’ and flee the jurisdiction to somewhere sunny and corrupt and before a round two prosecution gets under way.

has he really got that much money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolf Harris, for example, and other 'celebrities'  have, I understand been accused and convicted of historic sexual offences without any physical evidence, based on his/their alleged victims word against his! How would that satisfy the criminal standard for guilty i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt?".........on the aforementioned example, surely the same goes for this scumbag! If enough women come forward with allegations? He's toast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was only ever convicted of one rape. All the stuff about him being a multiple rapist is inadmissible speculation. They wanted a cheap case and they got a cheap case. 

1 hour ago, paul1966 said:

has he really got that much money!

Almost everybody who owns a house in London is a millionaire, most houses, even small ones, now go £800K +. that's no big deal

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, catchthepigeonmutley said:

Unfortunately the CPS could not prosecute the other assaults as the poor women involved could recall very little due to the strong drugs used on them.    

I don't think that is entirely true, They didn't want 75 witnesses giving evidence and being cross examined. Say minimum of 2 days per witness that would have tied the court up for six months. Its was all about quick and cheap Even if they had just said I drank the champagne and woke up with no knickers on it would have given tremendous weight but at a considerable cost

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...