Rapist to have legal costs paid for by his victim

Originally Posted by andyl

Both indicators are down.

Should get the people that do those figures to do my tax return then. That needs to reduce even when i am earning more.

Originally Posted by Bill C

Should get the people that do those figures to do my tax return then. That needs to reduce even when i am earning more.

Well it might not be falling in Bronx-like Cheshire!! But it is falling nationally. Of course, you may choose not to believe it (as many others do, but there is a significant body of evidence to show that is the case).

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Bill C

He should spend some of it paying for his 24 hour security,That he is or was getting at tax payers expense.

You mean the security he's needed because newspapers print details of where he lives and idiotic vigilantes think they have the right to take the law into their own hands...?

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Graham

You mean the security he's needed because newspapers print details of where he lives and idiotic vigilantes think they have the right to take the law into their own hands...?

I don't always agree with vigilantes, but thing might be different if I was personally affected.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by david.ewles

I don't always agree with vigilantes, but thing might be different if I was personally affected.

I don't agree with vigilantes full stop.

To say that I would change my tune if it was me that was affected would be sheer hypocrisy.

[Hom3r]

Look at that Stephen Lawrence kid that was murdered the police knew who did it but they walked out of court laughing and saying upyours to the system. In that case they deserve a good kicking.

Originally Posted by Graham

You mean the security he's needed because newspapers print details of where he lives and idiotic vigilantes think they have the right to take the law into their own hands...?

Simple he should not of broke the law in the first place then he would not have needed the protection. Anyway as far as i am concerned he can go rot in hell i cannot stand sex attackers they are amongs the lowest of the low.
__________________

Originally Posted by david.ewles

Look at that Stephen Lawrence kid that was murdered the police knew who did it but they walked out of court laughing and saying upyours to the system. In that case they deserve a good kicking.

Well said. But don't let the tree hug-in loony libs near them. They will end up letting them sue the victim.

[eric@]

Originally Posted by Graham

You mean the security he's needed because newspapers print details of where he lives and idiotic vigilantes think they have the right to take the law into their own hands...?

I 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.

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.

Were he to be where he belonged, this discussion would be unnecessary.



.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by david.ewles

Look at that Stephen Lawrence kid that was murdered the police knew who did it but they walked out of court laughing and saying upyours to the system. In that case they deserve a good kicking.

The Stephen Lawrence case was an absolute travesty caused by, as the MacPherson report said, "instititutional racism" in the Police Force.

But it is not down to you, me or anyone else to decide that, because *we* don't like what happened, we should start "administering justice" (read "getting revenge") ourselves.
__________________

Originally Posted by Bill C

Simple he should not of broke the law in the first place then he would not have needed the protection.

So anyone who breaks the law is thereby "fair game" to any bigotted vigilante?

Anyway as far as i am concerned he can go rot in hell i cannot stand sex attackers they are amongs the lowest of the low.

Wonderful, great.

Now try reading this story about a guy who did *NOTHING* wrong, yet, because of the actions of some narrow-minded (or should that be "like minded"?) individuals who share your opinions, had his business, his family and practically his whole life *DESTROYED* by petty vigilantes.

Read it and tell me that you think the people who persecuted him were doing the "right thing".

Well said. But don't let the tree hug-in loony libs near them. They will end up letting them sue the victim.

Yes, we've seen your prejudices, thank you.

Now try doing a little research and a bit of thinking instead of trotting out the same tired old bigotted nonsense.
__________________

Originally Posted by eric@

I 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.

I think you mean "right wing minded"...

We have a system whereby someone who is convicted and found guilty of a crime is sentenced to jail and then released "having paid their debt to society".

Unfortunately it seems that some "right minded" (or, as above, "narrow minded") people aren't willing to accept that.

Amongst those right minded people (many millions),

<irony>

What is the readership of the Daily Mail?

</irony>

it is inevitable that some may take action against people of this kind, feeling that †œthe systemââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� had failed.

Were he to be where he belonged, this discussion would be unnecessary.

He was in jail. He has served his time. His sentence is *OVER*.

It is not for you or those "millions" of "right thinking" people to take matters into your own hands if you don't like the way the system works.

[eric@]

Graham,

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�

Originally Posted by Graham

I think you mean "right wing minded"...

We have a system whereby someone who is convicted and found guilty of a crime is sentenced to jail and then released "having paid their debt to society".

Unfortunately it seems that some "right minded" (or, as above, "narrow minded") people aren't willing to accept that.

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

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?

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"

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�

However, a large proportion of our population think that the system has failed when it allows a serial sex attacker such as this to be free to roam our streets. Whilst not condoning their actions, it is inevitable that some will seek to administer rough justice. Hence the need to protect released prisoners such as these.

Originally Posted by Graham

What is the readership of the Daily Mail?

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

Originally Posted by Graham

He was in jail. He has served his time. His sentence is *OVER*.

It is not for you or those "millions" of "right thinking" people to take matters into your own hands if you don't like the way the system works.

I absolutely agree.


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.



.

[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.

[eric@]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Yes I do disagree with what the system has done. I believe that serial rapist should never be released back into open society.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

I have no wish to politicise this discussion; I have little doubt that the majority of the population wish to keep serial sex attackers away from open society, regardless of their political leaning. (Although as you point out, I have no proof, it is just a gut feeling).

Certainly there are a vociferous bunch of people of certain political leaning that will defend the most bizarre activities in the name of †œcivil libertiesââ‚ ¬ÂÂÂÂ�. Personally, I think they have lost the plot when they extend their campaign to include the †œrightsà¢ÃƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Âà ‚Â� of serial rapist.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

As a general principle I agree, however, when the system releases serial rapist (who by the very nature of their description are likely to commit similar crimes again) it makes this very correct principle hard to defend.

Hence, it is my belief that the system is failing when it releases people (who are likely to do real harm to their fellow citizens) back into open society.





.

[AndrewJ]

I give up.. this country is nuts.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by eric@

I have no wish to politicise this discussion; <snip>

Certainly there are a vociferous bunch of people of certain political leaning that will defend the most bizarre activities in the name of †œcivil libertiesââ‚ ¬ÂÂÂÂ�. Personally, I think they have lost the plot when they extend their campaign to include the †œrightsà¢ÃƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Âà ‚Â� of serial rapist.

Pardon me if I suggest there seems to be a slight contradiction between these two paragraphs.

And I remind you again of what I said (and which you quoted and agreed with) just below here:

As a general principle I agree, however, when the system releases serial rapist (who by the very nature of their description are likely to commit similar crimes again) it makes this very correct principle hard to defend.

Hence, it is my belief that the system is failing when it releases people (who are likely to do real harm to their fellow citizens) back into open society.

Maybe it is failing, or, at least, maybe it has failed in the case of this man.

However it has *not* failed in the context of this thread where this woman who, I can only assume was very poorly advised, decided to sue for compensation and lost her case because her action was taken outside of the period the law permits.

[BBKing]

vociferous bunch of people of certain political leaning that will defend the most bizarre activities in the name of †œcivil libertiesâ₠¬Â�

I disagree that they're of a 'certain political leaning', whatever that may mean (left-wing, presumably). Quite a lot of them are judges, who aren't usually card-carrying communists, being overwhelmingly middle-aged white males who went to good schools and universities*.

I think the defining feature isn't political leaning, rather an awareness of why the rule of law is necessary (to provide a peaceful way of resolving disputes and stop vigilante justice, for starters) and why, in order for this necessary environment to come about, the law has to apply to everyone equally, or no one. That this includes the dregs of society is regrettably necessary, unless someone would care to propose a better solution?

I could throw a large cat amongst the pigeons by pointing out the existence of a vociferous bunch whose historical and political education is lacking to the extent that they want to use a few examples puffed up in tabloid newspapers to chuck out millennia of British legal history, apparently dismissing the correct operation of the law as passed by the Mother of Parliaments as 'bizarre activities'. What tends to amuse me is that such radical thinkers often think of themselves as 'conservatives'. Anarchists would be more appropriate.

* Mind you, that was where the KGB used to recruit...