London terror attack.

[RPWC]

Yet again a terrorist released from prison early goes on to to commit atrocities upon release. At least this time he was on the p9lice radar and taken down before too many people were injured. When will the authorities learn that once a terrorist, always a terrorist and they should NEVER be released.. Twice it has been proved that they never shake off their extremist views, how many more innocent people have to get injured or killed to make them realise that these vile parasites need locking up and the key thrown away.

[KWIL]

The charge should be High Treason an we know what the penalty for that is.

[macafee2]

and what of those that sign off on their release, that think they are safe to walk the streets? Do victims and their families have the right to sue?

macafee2

[Bogbrush82]

Originally Posted by KWIL

The charge should be High Treason an we know what the penalty for that is.

Was. A certain Mr T. Blair changed that as soon as he took office.

[wraymond]

Congratulations. I've been searching for a long time for a suitable use for that final word!

[Stevie25]

Originally Posted by Bogbrush82

Was. A certain Mr T. Blair changed that as soon as he took office.

Could a Conservative Government - who have been in Power for the last 10 years - not have modified the Law by now?
That’s what needs to be answered.

[wraymond]

I was halfway through writing a post on this before realising it was familiar ground so, rather than new stuff, here’s mine again.

From April 2018.

‘There are several issues arising from this tragedy. The reduction of sentences in recognition of a guilty plea is frequently presented as a way of allowing the genuinely remorseful to accept their responsibility as a demonstration of their rehabilitation. Is there anybody at all who seriously thinks the idiot in this case falls into that category?

The best way to recognise this, apparently, is to reduce the penalty. That presupposes the full sentence is a deterrent. I wonder just who thinks that and what the likelihood is of them in their walk of life being a victim. It’s all rubbish of course, the primary objective being to mitigate the costs of prosecution by the state and the legal aid for the defendant.

Another benefit, of course, is the reduction of pressure on prison places and the necessarily huge expenditure involved in prison building. The idea that the inbuilt policy in the first place does not deter the criminal seems to be lost in translation.

In this particular case I was sure I had read somewhere that the maximum sentence for the death of a victim in such circumstances following a verdict of guilty was 9 years per victim. It seems the mathematical expertise of a certain Ms. D. Abbot is shallower than at first thought.’

Nothing much changes except the names of those responsible for judgement. Of course, once again the lives of the deceased and their innocent families are wrecked beyond repair. Maybe now the voices of hand-wringing apologists who move securely and in very different circles will be moderated. With a massive and unassailable majority all it needs is the stroke of a pen.

[Bogbrush82]

Originally Posted by Stevie25

Could a Conservative Government - who have been in Power for the last 10 years - not have modified the Law by now?
That’s what needs to be answered.

Not without a working majority no. With an 80 seat one however? Quite possibly.

Problem you have now unfortunately is that if they did bring it back, the terrorist in question would be classed as a martyr, and quite frankly they don't deserve to be classed as human.

Although I suppose if you used an all female firing squad it might make them think twice.

[MissMoppet]

Lockup for life? Well maybe . . . but . . . hasn't prison proven to be many times over a way of learning how to be a better criminal? I have a brave friend who used to teach in prisons - 50%+ of inmates are illiterate by the way - but facilities and resources were so cut back as to be almost valueless. What a short-sighted policy, but then again, entirely in keeping with the hang-'em, flog-'em philosophy of this government. Seems to me you either give up and spend £63000 a year on locking them up for ever -or invest a whole lot less and try and make them see the errors of their ways. Is it not the policy of despair to plan otherwise?
“A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”(Dostoyevsky and others)

[RPWC]

Originally Posted by Bogbrush82

Not without a working majority no. With an 80 seat one however? Quite possibly.

Problem you have now unfortunately is that if they did bring it back, the terrorist in question would be classed as a martyr, and quite frankly they don't deserve to be classed as human.

Although I suppose if you used an all female firing squad it might make them think twice.

Good reply, the martyrdom thing is what they all yearn for and I totally agree they are not fit to be classed as human .