Convicted of 19 rapes, suspected of over 100, getting out after 10 years

1000/1  a woman being on the parole board

lets hope he doest let down those who have shown immense leniency to him

iirc judge said he should not be realeased until he no longer posed a threat?

I would think this would be the mind set of the guardian style parole board.

'And don't be a naughty boy again'

I am very much aquainted with this approach.  So many are let out - at least the parole board are safe .  fk the general public - well he has and they are virtually condoning it with this action.

He should never be getting out, let alone after 10.

should rename leniency  - I would call it dangerous and  insanity

dangerous and insanity is to others,

leniency has clearly been shown to him, too much so imo, but ....

There are some seemingly odd decisions made. John Tanner who murdered his girlfriend Rachel McClean was released after only 11 years.

Should have been destroyed .

Probably get a job with uber.

After a hearing about his case in November, the Parole Board decided to approve his release with "stringent" licence conditions.
He will have to report to probation staff every week and is barred from contacting any of his victims.

From the OPs link.
Stringent conditions? Having to sign in each week hardly stringent and not to have contact with any of his victims was surely a give.
Madness to take a chance on this vile creature.

Turns out that Keir Starmer is the man responsible for his release. (Yes, that Keir Starmer - the Labour clever-clogs battling to keep us in the EU, on account of Remainers like him being more intelligent than the rest of us.)

A huge scandal is breaking over how the inexplicable decision has been made to release serial rapist John Worboys from prison. Worboys was convicted of one rape, five sexual assaults and 12 charges of drugging women, before 75 further women came forward with complaints against him. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided that because Worboys had been given a life sentence, he should not be prosecuted for the further cases. If he had been, there is no way he would be being released from prison. The DPP at the time? Keir Starmer… Huge questions to answer here…

https://order-order.com/

The Other fella who had Murdered his two previous Partners and Released again to Murder a 3rd Beggars Belief ,IB spot on Uber with Dodgy ID  ...  With the Civ Lib mob about anything can and Does happen regarding Crime and Punishement .

@ 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.

Quite right Dave. SFBTW is talking utter nonsense - as usual.

women through cross examination and spending vast amounts on legal aid and court expenses?

Surely every victim is due justice, costs shouldn't come into that. As regards putting them through the ordeal of a trial then again surely as they came forward in the first place they were looking for justice.

TWO cases where the Culprits should not see the Light of Day again One has been released twice to Murder Twice ,Lord only Knows what will will happen with TAXI man ..

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.

How do you know that none of those 75 women didn't want to see him in court? It must have surely been in the minds of one or two of them when they made the effort to come forward and make their complaints.

Punishment fails to Fit the Crime Time and Time again in this Country ,Luvvies standing round back slapping that the Civ Libs
of all are Being up held ,Perhaps if One of these types had been Drugged and Sodomised in the back of his cab they
would have a different outlook on matters ..

@ akabula as you well know plenty of cases aren't prosecuted due to scarce resources.  So re-prosecuting someone who was already getting life would just mean other people not getting any justice at all.  It is absurd to blame Starmer.  As I said the blame lies solely in the parole board (who would have been fully aware of the other unprosecuted cases).

But how could the parole board take those other cases into account when the DPP hadn't tried to prosecute him for them?

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.  To be truthful they have prob been told by the Tories to let people out and disregarded the judge's instructions.

The parole board isn't a court.  They listen to the crims representatives and various authorities.  They took some sort of advice that he wasn't a danger.  There is no way they weren't aware of the further allegations.

But that's my point. Because the parole board isn't a court, the complaints of the 75 further women remained just that - complaints. Were they credible? Impossible to be sure, with Starmer having decided they weren't worth pursuing.

To be truthful they have prob been told by the Tories to let people out and disregarded the judge's instructions.

Worboys was given an indefinite sentence with a minimum of 8 years. The judge was unable to give a life sentence, because what Worboys was actually charged with was not severe enough.

Four years later a European Court ruling deemed such indefinite sentences, intended to protect the public, illegal. Hence the current government being forced to allow Worboys a chance of parole.

So you know that Starmer believed that the sentence was indefinite at the time of his decision and still attack him?

The culpable body is the parole board.

Starmer, of all people, should have anticipated that the European Court of Human Rights would overturn a sentence imposed by a UK court. Partly because that's the sort of knowledge and foresight that was supposed to make him worth the £600,000 per year the Director of Public Prosecutions earns; and partly because by seeking to overturn the Referendum result we know that he's advocate for European court rulings taking precedence over UK ones.

It would be good if we could lock Starmer  up , for treason

neither the European court , or the British court system is fit for purpose
This is not a unique case , it is the norm

Every thread where it's possible. This being no exception, one of the many 'right-wing fanboys' HAS to get some sort of anti-Labour or 'leftie' comment in.

If this can be used to hijack the thread so much the better.
Amazing how you so rarely (if ever) read on here how bad the current government is.

It is precisely why the forum is what it now is.

Starmer ultimately is responsible , he didn't understand the possible outcome of his decision
He is incompetent .

Jimmy Savile police missed three chances to take case to trial, DPP admits
Britain's most senior prosecutor has apologised to women abused by Jimmy Savile as he disclosed that police missed three chances to take him to trial.

Mr Starmer said: "I accept the conclusions reached by Ms. Levitt QC and, in the interests of transparency and accountability I have decided to publish her report in full. In doing so, I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9795128/Jimmy-Savile-police-missed-three-chances-to-take-case-to-trial-DPP-admits.html

A primary school teacher accused of sending ‘lewd’ sex messages to a teenage boy who then committed suicide has been cleared after a dramatic last-ditch intervention by Government lawyers.

A judge was set to rule on the case of Iwan Harding, 34, after a trial heard he sent sexually explicit text messages to 16-year-old Anthony Stubbs about having sex in his school uniform.

But yesterday the senior legal advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, ordered the CPS in Wales to drop the prosecution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362458/Primary-school-teacher-accused-sending-sex-texts-boy-killed-cleared-Government-intervenes.html

starmer the glamour boy  of the right in the party exposed again
as I have always said - a placeman - trying to take the party backwards
placed in a safe seat etc etc

he ignored any other women raped who came forward - he knew all about and as in other cases interfered


people like him are irresponsible but NEVER responsible for their actions
yet there are people on here (probably not even members) who glorify and build him up as something
positive in the party  - he has been found out again

you havnt always said that

Is this guy is going to be supplied with a new ID ?  Mandatory sex change op could be best all round

starmer exposed as just another suit/careerist - pure self interest
what were they doing selecting something like that for a safe seat?

Theodore Johnson ... Jon Venables ... John Worboys .....

Get these out into the news all within a couple of days of each other.
Is this to dilute the impact on public

timed to get brexshambles and nhshambles off the front page?

but that would suggest the press was doing the government want!!!!

The press wouldn't do that! All journalists are lefties.
Aren't they?

It is absurd to blame Starmer.  As I said the blame lies solely in the parole board (who would have been fully aware of the other unprosecuted cases).

Bob Neill, Chair of the Commons Justice Committee: "The Parole Board is, rightly, independent of government, and, of course, can only deal with cases for which a prisoner has actually been convicted, rather than where there may be suspicion. There are separate questions for the CPS to answer about their charging decisions in this case."

In other words, the Parole Board was NOT able to take into account the 75 other cases, precisely because the Crown Prosecution Service (Head of which was Keir Starmer) chose to ignore them.

i forgot that study, ....

starmer is all over this and several others
and they are fawning over him as the next leader
and he has only been an mp for a couple of years
hey ho
a media darling - well he has the 'right' credentials !!??

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?

just seen them avoid starmer's involvement all together on sky news  hey ho

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

Loads of blame to the nearest Labour linked person - no matter how tenuous the link.
Never miss an opportunity, eh?
Actually, the ultimate blame should surely be with the Home Secretary, shouldn't it?
That's how it usually works with such stories.

The geezer who committed the crimes should have his cok cut off and be left to P out of a tube and at least one of his hands removed too as a warning to others.
And not let out for at least 50 years.

However this isn't the result - but at least the thread gave more opportunities for 'Leftie-bashing' didn't it?

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

But he did TEN YEARS.
Marcel Proust says that if you were to meet yourself from 10 years ago, you would find yourself unbearable.
He'll never be in a "position of trust" again.
So why do we have to keep feeding him.
Whats the point of prison otherwise?
And I voted Tory last time.

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 ?

If you're asking the ether about me(!) and it looks like you are.
It is in response to the blame game started earlier in the thread.
Otherwise, yes, I agree with you.

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.

STUDYFORM
Every thread where it's possible. This being no exception, one of the many 'right-wing fanboys' HAS to get some sort of anti-Labour or 'leftie' comment in.
If this can be used to hijack the thread so much the better.
Amazing how you so rarely (if ever) read on here how bad the current government is.
It is precisely why the forum is what it now is.

You fail to comment on dave and his cheap point about the Tory party? More hypocrisy?

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.

Jesus, is there any thread left where some absolute balloon can't turn it into some vindictive bashing of a person who voted against brexit.


Get over it, you won. Stop acting like toddlers ffs.

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

1983 was the first general election I could vote in. Even I'm not that old.

If you think voting for Michael Foot in 1983 was a bit like voting Tory, then that just shows how hopelessly off-with-the-fairies the current metropolitan Labour party is, and why it lost seats like North East Derbyshire, Stoke-on-Trent South, Mansfield and Walsall North lost year. You can't imagine how alienating that sort of remark is to a Labour voter who remembers what it was like back in 1983, 1987 or 1992, if you favoured the policies of Foot or Kinnock over those of Thatcher or Major.

Keep calling us Tories, and you'll keep losing general elections.

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.

starmer's fingerprints are all over this - he is the type to take my party back to blair's time

sorry but the golden boy (only been an MP 5 mins) who you all smarm over and want as leader has been found out

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

bound to  go back to his evil ways...........be back behind bars by the end of the year .....if not sooner

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.

I hope something comes from this. From the BBC News site.

The government is doing "everything we can" to make sure rapist John Worboys stays in prison, Conservative party chairman Brandon Lewis has said.

The Parole Board has said ex-black cab driver Worboys, jailed in 2009 for assaults on 12 women, can be released.

But the government is considering challenging that decision in court.

Mr Lewis said it was crucial victims were "properly protected", while a lawyer for victims said releasing Worboys would "put many women at risk".

Justice Secretary David Gauke is looking into the possibility of applying for judicial review, but will only proceed if there is a good chance of success.

If a judge finds the Parole Board did not follow the correct process or reached its decision on the wrong basis, that decision would be quashed and Worboys would have to make a fresh application for parole.

The Parole Board said it was "confident correct procedures were followed" in the case.

Has Golden Boy apologised yet?

Never met a black cab driver who wasn't a fecking know all.... just saying

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.

I agree with emitdeb, one of 'em won Mastermind.

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.

Fresh allegations being investigated.. He ain't going nowhere.
Always thought he'd probably be rearrested on release..