King to go free

Paul K · 21-03-2005, 21:26

Quote:

Jonathan King 'free on Thursday'
Pop mogul Jonathan King will be freed on parole on Thursday after serving less than half of a seven-year term for sexually abusing boys, his lawyer says.
King, 60, had been given a release date of 29 March from Maidstone Prison, but this has been brought forward, said lawyer Giovanni di Stefano.
King's time being interviewed after his arrest has been included in his term.
King was jailed in 2001 for four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences on boys aged 14 and 15.

Media reports
Mr di Stefano said: "The Parole Board has told me he will be let out on parole on Thursday morning between 0800 and 0830, subject to confirmation from Surrey Police."
The police were "confirming" the amount of interview time, he said.
The lawyer said his client had told him of some of his future plans.
"He intends to go back to his home in west London and get back to work. He said he wants to write a musical about Cole Porter."
King was charged for offences committed between 1983 and 1989 after an investigation by Surrey Police.
He denied the charges at his trial and has never admitted his guilt.
Last month, Mr di Stefano said King hoped to see his conviction quashed.
Newspaper reports suggested King's victims had been told he had not been granted early parole and would have to serve his full term unless he accepted his guilt.

3 years 4 months for 6 offences

allieyoung666 · 21-03-2005, 21:27

He is one disturbed man, I would not like to read his mind!!

21-03-2005, 21:31

Tut... This country...

Paul K · 21-03-2005, 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

He is one disturbed man, I would not like to read his mind!!

With the number of deals he has made while in prison I think we can pretty much guarantee that there will be a book deal and lots of newspaper articles over the next week or two. Any one that is proven to have interfered with or seriously harmed children should rot in jail in my opinion.

21-03-2005, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

Any one that is proven to have interfered with or seriously harmed children should rot in jail in my opinion.

Bang on.

allieyoung666 · 21-03-2005, 21:34

But who on earth would want to read about a guy who abused kids, what a sick society if they read those books!!!

Paul K · 21-03-2005, 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

But who on earth would want to read about a guy who abused kids, what a sick society if they read those books!!!

Plenty of people would read the papers unfortunately, personally I'd rather he was ostracised and left to fade into obscurity where he belongs.

punky · 21-03-2005, 21:42

That is a ridiculously small length of time for the offences commited.

I think it is really wrong that he serves under half his sentence. He should at least serve half his sentence. I think there should be a cap on parole, and it be nearer the end than the beginning. Something like... 25% off for good behavior, maximum. And he'd have bloody earn that 25%.

21-03-2005, 21:53

Should there be a cap at all? (OMG not another cap thread!!!)

If they get 7 years then surely they should serve 7 years other wise does it not make a mockery out of the sentences meted out by the judge?

punky · 21-03-2005, 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuftus

Should there be a cap at all? (OMG not another cap thread!!!)

If they get 7 years then surely they should serve 7 years other wise does it not make a mockery out of the sentences meted out by the judge?

well, that's why I said that they would ahve to earn it, not being given it for simply what they are supposed to be doing anyway.They'd have to go above and beyond for it.

It would be nice that certain crimes were parole-free, but I am wondering if that would be discriminatory and therefore illegal.

Paul K · 21-03-2005, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuftus

Should there be a cap at all? (OMG not another cap thread!!!)

If they get 7 years then surely they should serve 7 years other wise does it not make a mockery out of the sentences meted out by the judge?

well, that's why I said that they would ahve to earn it, not being given it for simply what they are supposed to be doing anyway.They'd have to go above and beyond for it.

It would be nice that certain crimes were parole-free, but I am wondering if that would be discriminatory and therefore illegal.

Maybe this countries legal system should stop worrying about what people think and actually give out sentences that make sense. We seem to continually suffer from interference from Europe when it comes to sentencing guilty parties

21-03-2005, 22:07

Then whats the point of the judge saying that you go down for 10 years but if you are a good boy you will be out in 5?

The point I am trying to make (probably not very well) is that they are in prison for a reason, not to be good, if they were good then they most probably would not be in prison in the first place!

MovedGoalPosts · 21-03-2005, 22:08

Unforunately this country yet again shows that the sentence imposed by court has no meaning to what is served.

As for book deals and the like, I thought that nobody was supposed to be able to profit from crime. Is it no illegal to be able to sell a book, or even a story to the newspapers if it is based on what he did?

Presumably though he should now be ignored and banished from public life rather than celebrated, much in the same way that Gary Glitter is no longer welcome.

21-03-2005, 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Unforunately this country yet again shows that the sentence imposed by court has no meaning to what is served.

Thanks, thats what I meant...

goldoni · 21-03-2005, 22:16

Lets just hope he takes a leaf out of Garry Glitters book and moves abroad. He went down like a brick after he came out of Prison.