[Graham]

Originally Posted by eric@

I stand by my original statement †œI would think he needs security because the majority of right minded people abhor the fact that we have a system that allows people like this to settle in open society.ââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

And I stand by my opinion that we have an independant judiciary and it is far better that *THEY* make decisions about who should be in or out of jail and where they can settle than some ill-informed "right thinking" (in their own minds) citizenry who think that lynch mobs are a good way of dealing with problems.

By right, I intended to mean people who think in the correct way, not a political leaning as you seem to have implied.

You used the experssion "the majority of right minded people". I was merely using irony to point out that it seems to be mostly those on the *political* right wing (hence "right wing minded") who seem to agree with you.

This guy had been jailed several times previously for committing sexual attacks, including rape, two attempted rapes and three indecent assaults. His latest release was after serving a term for an attempted rape of a 59 year old.

I can only ask, how can one justify releasing such a person to live in open society, regardless of political leaning? He is a proven, serial sex offender. Perhaps you would care to explain?

I am not the one you should be asking for explanations from.

Ask the Judge, ask your MP. If you don't like the way the system works, use *LEGAL* methods to get it changed, but don't assume that just because *you* don't like it, it is necessarily *wrong*.

Similarly, I stand by my statement thatââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� Amongst those right minded people (many millions), it is inevitable that some may take action against people of this kind, feeling that †œthe systemââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� had failed them"

Who are these "many millions"? Where did you get this figure from? Can you back it up with anything or is it just hyperbole to make your opinion sound more valid?

And, once again, just because someone thinks "the system has failed them" it does *not* justify lynch mobs.

I did not say, or imply, that I disagreed with a system that released someone who had served a sentence and †œpaid their debt to societyââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ�

Then *why* did you ask me "how can one justify releasing such a person to live in open society, regardless of political leaning?"?

Why did you say "Were he to be where he belonged, this discussion would be unnecessary."?

The implication certainly seems to me to be that you disagree with what "the system" has done!

I will ignore you newspaper remark as I feel it adds nothing to the discussion and was only added to inflame.

It was *IRONY* I believe I pointed this out when I made it...!!!

I absolutely agree.

You "absolutely agree"...??

See my questions above.

However, I would think that a more responsible attitude would be rather than arguing for the rights of serial sex attackers, peopleââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s time might be better spent campaigning for their eternal incarceration.

Fine, that is your opinion and you are free to hold it.

However please *don't* make the mistake of claiming that I am "arguing for the rights of serial sex attackers", nor that (as I am sure some will want to believe) that I "think criminals should have more rights than victims" because that would be to (as usual) completely misunderstand where I am coming from.

I do not and will not pick and choose who has rights and who does not. *EVERYONE* should have the same rights whether they have been convicted a crime or not. If they have been convicted of a crime they should, yes, lose *some* of those rights (eg liberty) whilst paying their debt to society, but once it has been *paid* they should have their rights restored.

You have the right to petition Parliament through your MP and campaign for "eternal incarceration", I have the right to campaign for *everyone's* rights.

You take your path, I will take mine.