Surely the question should be

[Grumpmeister]

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. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27284337

[Steve]

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

[apc2010]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html

 

[Grumpmeister]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html

 

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.

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?

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?

[Barman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622284/BREAKING-NEWS-Violent-armed-robber-Skull-Cracker-strikes-80-miles-away-open-jail-held.html

 

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.

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?

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?

 

[Nick]

If he had an electronc tag they could find him easily 

[Barman]

If he had an electronc tag they could find him easily 

Like we can find you....? 

[Baldy]

If he had an electronc tag they could find him easily 

.....and send a signal to give him a shock every now and again. 

[Grumpmeister]

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. 

[Nick]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27336796 

[Barman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27336796 

 

[Grumpmeister]

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.

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

[Steve]

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.

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

A real 

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.

[Nick]

Send them to Cyprus you say? 

[Steve]

Send them to Cyprus you say? 

I hear pickpockets have a tough time there