Jump to content
IGNORED

This is justice ?


Spoons

Recommended Posts

The scum bag also know as john worboys is being released later this month after being put in prison in 2009 for raping over 100 women using alcohol and drugs to do so.

And a parole board made up of three people say this bloke is no longer a risk to the public? 

Words fail me.

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, phantom said:

Now this has hit the press there is no way he will be released

This decision will RIGHTLY be changed

It probably will but it makes you wonder how many more of these get under the radar - someone`s obviously leaked something in this case and rightly so but how many more of these scumbags are out there living their lives among normal people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
13 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

It probably will but it makes you wonder how many more of these get under the radar - someone`s obviously leaked something in this case and rightly so but how many more of these scumbags are out there living their lives among normal people.

Very true and potentially very worrying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Spoons said:

The scum bag also know as john worboys is being released later this month after being put in prison in 2009 for raping over 100 women using alcohol and drugs to do so.

And a parole board made up of three people say this bloke is no longer a risk to the public? 

Words fail me.

 

I think that there may be a lack of knowledge about the case and the reality of the story behind the headlines.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/man-raped-hundreds-women-released-prison-9-years/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/no-keir-starmer-not-rapist-11802060

(I don't like the political slant to the Mirror article but the point about WHY this has happened is valid/interesting)

- sentencing guidelines from 2009

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/%2B/http:/www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/docs/web_SexualOffencesAct_2003.pdf

 

I really hope that Worboys is now prosecuted for some of the other alleged rapes and offences. I believe that there is now stronger evidence, and certainly more accusations. Does any one know if the number of accusations is a factor in the reliability of evidence?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paddy31 said:

I think that there may be a lack of knowledge about the case and the reality of the story behind the headlines.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/man-raped-hundreds-women-released-prison-9-years/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/no-keir-starmer-not-rapist-11802060

(I don't like the political slant to the Mirror article but the point about WHY this has happened is valid/interesting)

- sentencing guidelines from 2009

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/%2B/http:/www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/docs/web_SexualOffencesAct_2003.pdf

 

I really hope that Worboys is now prosecuted for some of the other alleged rapes and offences. I believe that there is now stronger evidence, and certainly more accusations. Does any one know if the number of accusations is a factor in the reliability of evidence?

 

 

The point is it should never have got to this, the minute the 70 + new claimants started to surface there has been 8 years to build and mount another case to ensure that this man should not or never be released and for whatever reason that has failed to happen.

But the biggest joke is that the parole board telling us that he no longer poses a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The point is it should never have got to this, the minute the 70 + new claimants started to surface there has been 8 years to build and mount another case to ensure that this man should not or never be released and for whatever reason that has failed to happen.

But the biggest joke is that the parole board telling us that he no longer poses a threat.

How do you know he does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RedDave said:

Eh?  You said it’s a joke that we are told he isn’t a danger.  Just asking how you know.

Well let's look at the performance so far of the sainted parole board in this case, the most important people in the process are his victims and guess what, they have never been contacted for their input or even pre warned that he was up for parole or warned that he had in fact won his parole, so far so good then, I mean what else could possibly go wrong?.

Source:- The head of the parole board himself Nick Hardwick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Well let's look at the performance so far of the sainted parole board in this case, the most important people in the process are his victims and guess what, they have never been contacted for their input or even pre warned that he was up for parole or warned that he had in fact won his parole, so far so good then, I mean what else could possibly go wrong?.

Source:- The head of the parole board himself Nick Hardwick.

Some were not contacted, and others were. And as you say, this is an error.

However, you don't have all the facts here and there is always a risk of misjudging a situation when you lack information. No one outside that parole board does have the facts, which is a problem in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paddy31 said:

Some were not contacted, and others were. And as you say, this is an error.

However, you don't have all the facts here and there is always a risk of misjudging a situation when you lack information. No one outside that parole board does have the facts, which is a problem in itself.

The error was not building another case, they have had 8 years to do this.

Genuinely I am at a loss to know what more information is needed and exactly how any information could make any difference in this case, genuinely perhaps you could enlighten me?, the only relevant information could be miscarriage of justice, which clearly there has not been in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The error was not building another case, they have had 8 years to do this.

Genuinely I am at a loss to know what more information is needed and exactly how any information could make any difference in this case, genuinely perhaps you could enlighten me?, the only relevant information could be miscarriage of justice, which clearly there has not been in this case.

You, EMB, lack the information to be able to make a case. We (the public) do not possess all the facts and can't judge the situation based on the limited data we have.

I am also concerned that, on the face of it, there is a rapist being released from prison. All I am saying is that we both know that there are facts that are not in the public domain, and laws which govern what can be done in this case.

For example, you point out that there are over 70 cases against Worboys which have not been prosecuted. Do you know what the evidence is in those cases? We know that Worboys drugged his victims, and that some of the victims were unable to give any reliable testimony as a result. The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and perhaps the evidence in these cases is flimsy. I don't know. That is why I was asking if the number of accusations can be a factor in establishing a case.

Furthermore, Worboys has only been found guilty of one rape (and 18 other charges) and was given an indefinite sentence (i.e. he is to be kept in prison until he is no longer a danger to the public). We don't know what information the parole board have and so it is premature to judge.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that we should be concerned and that on the face of it the case needs to be reviewed. But, I'm sure you'll agree that we don't have all the information and that it is sensible not to leap to conclusions. 

Let's assume that those concerned have followed the law and applied it correctly. We have no evidence to the contrary. The government are making enquiries  and checking in to this by asking Prof Hardwick to testify to the select committee.

I believe the victims' barrister is pushing for the CPS to file new charges against Worboys based on the cases that haven't been tried yet. I hope they are successful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Wouldn’t it be likely that now he would be unable to have a ‘fair trail’ given the publicity?

Also, earlier on R5 an expert surmised that the reason some of the cases weren’t put to trial at the time, is that they might be flimsy and if they collapsed, it could endanger the other cases and result in him getting off all charges.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paddy31 said:

You, EMB, lack the information to be able to make a case. We (the public) do not possess all the facts and can't judge the situation based on the limited data we have.

I am also concerned that, on the face of it, there is a rapist being released from prison. All I am saying is that we both know that there are facts that are not in the public domain, and laws which govern what can be done in this case.

For example, you point out that there are over 70 cases against Worboys which have not been prosecuted. Do you know what the evidence is in those cases? We know that Worboys drugged his victims, and that some of the victims were unable to give any reliable testimony as a result. The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and perhaps the evidence in these cases is flimsy. I don't know. That is why I was asking if the number of accusations can be a factor in establishing a case.

Furthermore, Worboys has only been found guilty of one rape (and 18 other charges) and was given an indefinite sentence (i.e. he is to be kept in prison until he is no longer a danger to the public). We don't know what information the parole board have and so it is premature to judge.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that we should be concerned and that on the face of it the case needs to be reviewed. But, I'm sure you'll agree that we don't have all the information and that it is sensible not to leap to conclusions. 

Let's assume that those concerned have followed the law and applied it correctly. We have no evidence to the contrary. The government are making enquiries  and checking in to this by asking Prof Hardwick to testify to the select committee.

I believe the victims' barrister is pushing for the CPS to file new charges against Worboys based on the cases that haven't been tried yet. I hope they are successful.

 

I'm sorry Paddy I am still unconvinced, once more genuinely they found enough evidence to convict from the original 19 victims but you say maybe the other 70 or more might be unconvincing?.

And then firstly you say it's only 1 rape as if only one rape out of 19 sexual assaults is acceptable, again genuinely what possible indisputable evidence could be presented to a parole board to convince them that he is no longer a danger?, I am genuinely asking, because from where I am sitting it can only possibly be the opinion of other people/professionals who have monitored him in a male only environment for a start.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I'm sorry Paddy I am still unconvinced, once more genuinely they found enough evidence to convict from the original 19 victims but you say maybe the other 70 or more might be unconvincing?.

And then firstly you say it's only 1 rape as if only one rape out of 19 sexual assaults is acceptable, again genuinely what possible indisputable evidence could be presented to a parole board to convince them that he is no longer a danger?, I am genuinely asking, because from where I am sitting it can only possibly be the opinion of other people/professionals who have monitored him in a male only environment for a start.

 

I don't know what evidence the board had and I wouldn't know what is adequate to allow release as I am not an expert. Neither of us are and we have no clue about the law in this case, which is why I'd say that making any assertion that

In your second paragraph, you suggest that I think that 1 rape is acceptable. That is a pretty unpleasant reading of what I said, and if you didn't mean to be quite so rude and confrontational, I think it would be good if you clarified.

I made the factual statement that he has only been found guilty of 1 rape. The other offenses were 5 sexual assaults, 1 attempted assault and 12 drugging offenses. This might explain why his minimum tariff is seemingly so low.

I don't know what evidence was presented by the 70+ alleged offenses, but the evidence for the cases that went to trial was compelling. Police found a "rape kit" in the boot of his Fiat Punto, containing champagne miniatures, plastic gloves, a torch, vibrators, condoms, sleeping tablets and an ashtray he used to crush drugs.In a safe in Worboys' garage police found hand-written notes outlining his planned explanations if he was questioned again following his 2007 arrest. These papers were not used in court because he claimed to have written them for his solicitor. Worboys' DNA was recovered from a semen stain in one woman's underwear, a wristband belonging to another woman was found in his house and a third victim's address was found in his notebook. Forensic evidence linked a vibrator found in his car to another victim. 14 women testified at his trial, but even so he was cleared of several charges.

Do you know what evidence the other women had? For all we know, the women have made an allegation and have no evidence other than knowing what happened to them. While we believe the victims, if they don't have evidence like they had for the first trial, they may be in the horrible position of being unable to progress their cases.

The investigation by the Met was deeply flawed. The first reports to police concerning suspicious incidents experienced by women in black cabs dated from 2002. Over a period of six-years, 14 women between 18 and 34 years of age, all in the professions, complained to the police of assault or other worrying experiences in a taxi, all of which had similarities. The police failed to link them. Eventually the number of reports convinced police that they were dealing with a serial rapist and eventually they arrested Worboys.

The commander of Greenwich police was moved on due to failings in this inquiry. The handling of Worboys' case was brought before the IPCC who concluded that proper investigations could have prevented some of the attacks. Five officers had complaints against them upheld, but all were allowed to remain in their jobs. This decision was criticised by one of the victims and her lawyers, who say that she was laughed at by the police when she reported her assault.

I wonder if the botched investigation has any bearing on the prosecutions?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right.

I've been thinking about this:

17 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I'm sorry Paddy I am still unconvinced, once more genuinely they found enough evidence to convict from the original 19 victims but you say maybe the other 70 or more might be unconvincing?.

And then firstly you say it's only 1 rape as if only one rape out of 19 sexual assaults is acceptable, again genuinely what possible indisputable evidence could be presented to a parole board to convince them that he is no longer a danger?, I am genuinely asking, because from where I am sitting it can only possibly be the opinion of other people/professionals who have monitored him in a male only environment for a start.

 

You are right. I can't think of any thing that Worboys could have done that would persuade me that he is not a risk to the public, unless he is about to die. This is a poor state of affairs and I am angry that he has been released. It is a shame that the parole board are not allowed to make their reasoning public.

I think my points in the earlier post are valid, and we should not rush to judgement of the people on the parole board or politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Paddy31 said:

I don't know what evidence the board had and I wouldn't know what is adequate to allow release as I am not an expert. Neither of us are and we have no clue about the law in this case, which is why I'd say that making any assertion that

In your second paragraph, you suggest that I think that 1 rape is acceptable. That is a pretty unpleasant reading of what I said, and if you didn't mean to be quite so rude and confrontational, I think it would be good if you clarified.

I made the factual statement that he has only been found guilty of 1 rape. The other offenses were 5 sexual assaults, 1 attempted assault and 12 drugging offenses. This might explain why his minimum tariff is seemingly so low.

I don't know what evidence was presented by the 70+ alleged offenses, but the evidence for the cases that went to trial was compelling. Police found a "rape kit" in the boot of his Fiat Punto, containing champagne miniatures, plastic gloves, a torch, vibrators, condoms, sleeping tablets and an ashtray he used to crush drugs.In a safe in Worboys' garage police found hand-written notes outlining his planned explanations if he was questioned again following his 2007 arrest. These papers were not used in court because he claimed to have written them for his solicitor. Worboys' DNA was recovered from a semen stain in one woman's underwear, a wristband belonging to another woman was found in his house and a third victim's address was found in his notebook. Forensic evidence linked a vibrator found in his car to another victim. 14 women testified at his trial, but even so he was cleared of several charges.

Do you know what evidence the other women had? For all we know, the women have made an allegation and have no evidence other than knowing what happened to them. While we believe the victims, if they don't have evidence like they had for the first trial, they may be in the horrible position of being unable to progress their cases.

The investigation by the Met was deeply flawed. The first reports to police concerning suspicious incidents experienced by women in black cabs dated from 2002. Over a period of six-years, 14 women between 18 and 34 years of age, all in the professions, complained to the police of assault or other worrying experiences in a taxi, all of which had similarities. The police failed to link them. Eventually the number of reports convinced police that they were dealing with a serial rapist and eventually they arrested Worboys.

The commander of Greenwich police was moved on due to failings in this inquiry. The handling of Worboys' case was brought before the IPCC who concluded that proper investigations could have prevented some of the attacks. Five officers had complaints against them upheld, but all were allowed to remain in their jobs. This decision was criticised by one of the victims and her lawyers, who say that she was laughed at by the police when she reported her assault.

I wonder if the botched investigation has any bearing on the prosecutions?

 

I thought long and hard about that part of my reply and it's the use of the word 'only' that I have a problem with, although I accept that is not what you meant.

The rest of your reply showing the amount of premeditation that Worboy's employed during these offences shows exactly why 1). the sentence was woeful, 2). the decision not to appeal the sentence was woeful and 3). the decision not to use the subsequent 8 years to build a case to ensure that this man never sees the light of day again to at least attempt to right the wrongs of points 1 and 2 and more importantly makes the parole board decision even more bizarre.

Where we can fully agree is the your points about the botched investigation (although as I said that could have been remedied). Recently it has become evident that the Met have become woeful at investigating rapes and sexual offences, but again I fail to see how that could impact on the parole board decision.

 

5 minutes ago, Paddy31 said:

Right.

I've been thinking about this:

You are right. I can't think of any thing that Worboys could have done that would persuade me that he is not a risk to the public, unless he is about to die. This is a poor state of affairs and I am angry that he has been released. It is a shame that the parole board are not allowed to make their reasoning public.

I think my points in the earlier post are valid, and we should not rush to judgement of the people on the parole board or politicians.

We rush to judge not only because the decision to allow the parole is bizarre, but because the parole board have singularly failed to have once considered the feelings of the victims and or the new claimants during their deliberations and that is unforgivable and somebody needs to give us answers as to why this was allowed to happen because it is wholly unacceptable and perhaps that somebody has failed in their job and needs to be removed, as for politicians the then DPP needs to answer why once a lot more claimants came forward he never pushed for new charges and the then attorney general has to answer as to why she never appealed the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What complete utter ******* mess. 

The parole board chairman has resigned, however the chief executive and the 3 board members remain in post and and the Injustice secretary David Gauke who refused to bring this case to the high court should also resign and has had the temerity to claim that the parole board need to change it's operating procedures FFS.

https://news.sky.com/story/decision-to-free-black-cab-rapist-worboys-overturned-11307067

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/03/2018 at 17:39, Esmond Million's Bung said:

What complete utter ******* mess. 

The parole board chairman has resigned, however the chief executive and the 3 board members remain in post and and the Injustice secretary David Gauke who refused to bring this case to the high court should also resign and has had the temerity to claim that the parole board need to change it's operating procedures FFS.

https://news.sky.com/story/decision-to-free-black-cab-rapist-worboys-overturned-11307067

The politicians have the ideas. It's up to everyone else to make them work, therefore if the ideas don't work then it's not the politician's fault!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Midred said:

The politicians have the ideas. It's up to everyone else to make them work, therefore if the ideas don't work then it's not the politician's fault!

This particular politician is the justice secretary as in the title off my OP, it was completely obvious that in this particular case an injustice had been perpetrated by the parole board, the first priority of any government is the protection of it's citizens and as the justice secretary he could and should have fought this ruling in the high court on behalf of the government and more importantly the people he represents, instead of 2 brave women who had to do this privately. The fact the case was won proves that his original decision not pursue it was a completely wrong decision, the fact that he is now claiming that the parole system needs overhauling proves that he is trying to shift the blame, I know that this is a forlorn hope but he should admit his mistake and fall on his sword, this politicians 'idea' about not pursuing this in the high court was just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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