i forgot that study, ....

They only take into account the crimes he's been convicted for.

Which was one rape and numerous assaults.

He hasn't been tried for all the other alleged rapes, so why can't he be tried for them now?

he can be tried for anything he has not been tried for

the evidence was considered and not proceeded with, but as more folk
have come forward since the trial there could well be charges brought.

he may well plead guilty...as refusal to do so would suggest he is not ever
fit for release if found guilty after another trial

why would it be anybodys fault from back then?

the standards of evidence were such that this kind of evidence was rarely
brought to court back then,

its a different and better standard now

Why would a certain person react to which government was in power, surely this is about justice ?

Then he mentions labour, i dont know why.


Why does he go on about leftie bashing when the fred is about justice ?

You posted this.
dave1357
@ screaming beneath the waves If he had been given a life sentence and if as donny said the judge instructed that he wouldn't be released if he posed a threat, what would be the point in putting more women through cross examination and spending vast amounts on legal aid and court expenses?  Starmer's decision was quite obviously correct.  The obviously wrong decision is that of the parole board, but rather than attack them, you choose to make a cheap political point.

Then followed with this.
dave1357
Because if just one or two of the 75 possible further offences had been placed on his record, no parole board could conceivably have decided he would ever no longer pose a threat.
utter nonsense the parole board would be quite aware of his background.  [i]To be truthful they have prob been told by the Tories to let people out and disregarded the judge's instructions.[/i]

Hypocrisy at it's best.

My problem with Starmer, and reason for linking him to this fiasco, is nothing to do with his politics. I've voted Labour in every general election since 1983 until last year's one, and that was on account of the party being hijacked by aristocratic Stalinists, being led by a privileged Trotskyist, and indulging Islamic fundamentalism, none of which have brought anything other than fear and suffering to ordinary people.

The reason I want to highlight Starmer's role is his desire to overturn the EU referendum result. That result was cross-party. I voted leave for the same reason Wedgwood Benn and Peter Shore campaigned against it in 1974 - you never submit to a supranational, undemocratic bureaucracy or judiciary, however much you might like what they're offering right now. Because you never know what they might be forcing on you in the future. As Wedgwood Benn used to say, a bad democracy is always better than a good king.

But Starmer is working to overturn that result, and his only justification for doing so is that he knows better than the electorate. And this case just highlights what his whole career at the Crown Prosecution Service suggested - he's lacks competence, insight and any basic sense of responsibility.

Even today he's protesting that what the CPS did in this case while he was being paid to head it was nothing to do with him. That is not the sort of person I trust to overrule the electorate.

I'd suggest that Labour between 1983 and the last one was a bit like voting Tory. screaming.

10 years? This story brings me back to that one about the woman who let another woman believe she was a man and they had consensual sex but one wore a blindfold.
I'm not even sure that was a crime (see below) as such but because she pretended she was a man in the first trial she was given EIGHT YEARS!!!!!

So she get's 8 for that, and this vermin who raped like 100 women using drugs is let out after 10?
How anyone who works for our legal system can justify that, I can't comprehend how they could try, my dead cat could tell you it was wrong.

And the thing about that womans case was: What if one of us tonight had sex with a man pretending to be a woman but in addition they said they were "transgender" and didn't tell us they were born a man .. what's the difference? If you felt you were tricked and complained, rather than them getting done you'd probably be looked at for a "transphobic hate crime".

The system and society is turning into a madhouse.

porky doesn't like his golden boy being found out to be like the rest of the suits and careerists ho ho

Aye he probably will, but a shame one or more women will have to suffer horrors just to put him back where he is already.

Has Golden Boy apologised yet?

So now we are told the government will not appeal this decision despite all the noise from ministers. Still, they got some good headlines in the Tory press and that's what counts.

Why is it that government ministers are forced to play god?

There's a certain irony that the very people who create the laws, that tie the hands of the judges, are then required to amend them on demand.

The parole board's role is to assess the likelihood of re-offending and behaviour inside surely. Their hands are pretty much tied to protocol and procedure.

It's the sentencing that is the issue, and that is down to LEGISLATION.