I can't argue with the sentiment of hounding the b'stard. Likewise I wonder how the limp-wristed, misguided fools on the parole board will feel if he re-offends. If he does re-offend then somebody must be held accountable for his premature release.
A bit of context will probably not alter some of the 'redkneck' opinions on here, but for what it's worth. The Parole Board has no function in regard to the original sentence handed down. It must assess whether the offender still presents a danger to the public. It will assess that based upon evidence presented to it by the Probation Service. Perhaps some more relevant wider questions here are: why did only six charges arise from what were reported to have been over 100 complaints? Why did the judge originally fix the minimum term to serve as 8 years? Why did the Attorney General at the time (Baroness Scotland) not refer the original sentence to the Court of Appeal under the 'unduly lenient' principle? Although it may be anathema to many on here, there may actually be reasons for all of those things. It's as well to inquire first before sounding an opinion too loudly.
Not condoning his actions one bit, but he was convicted of "one rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and 12 drugging charges committed from July 2007 to February 2008". The 100, 200 or 500 other assaults (depending where you read), came to light after this conviction. Unless he's charged and re-tried, he's done his time for what he was found guilty of. You'd expect he'll be re-arrested on his release and then put back through the courts.
Or it may be that Amber Rudd will consider whether a judicial review of the parole board's decision is appropriate if the critical voices become too loud. She could only do that though if she was convinced that the board had not made it's decision in accordance with the appropriate principles, or that it was a decision that no properly advised parole board could reasonably have reached.
Obviously they were reasons at the time. This is a complete & utter **** up & it is right there is such an outcry. If there isn't a judicial review we are leaving no sane person with any faith in our legal system. I'm a left leaning liberal, but also I'm concerned about women's rights & safety. The police seem to be largely to blame, by not investigating this case seriously.
He was given an indefinite sentence at the time, with a minimum of 8 years. Since that time all these other complaints have been made & ignored. It is totally pathetic & anyone who defends what has happened must be insane.
Redneck opinions? Is that what you consider outrage over his release to be? Nobody said that the parole board had any say in his original sentence but they have considered him to be safe for release and this is the point people are a little angry about. Even taking the unproven allegations out of the equation he has served less than a year for each of the victims he was convicted for. Sorry but considering the nature of his crimes I find this to be obscene. If this make me a redneck then pass me a banjo. I don't find anything you have said anathema, I understand the reasons and the restrictions that leave certain hands bound but that doesn't make it right nor does it make it any easier to accept.
But where were you when the original sentence was handed down - it was well publicised as was the fact that he was not being charged with many more similar offences? Why were you not shouting for a longer sentence, for him to be charged withal offences, for his boll**** to be chopped off , for women to be respected and protected etc 8 years ago?
Article in i Newspaper more or less saying the same. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/man-raped-hundreds-women-released-prison-9-years/
A longer sentence than an indefinite one, that was a MINIMUM of 8 years? It is f-ing disgraceful. This rapist should have never been allowed out ever again.
