FlyTheNest

Can't Chakrabarti have a word?

AngryAsWell wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Further important background info

https://rightsinfo.org/appeal-black-cab ... ffects-us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I confess I'd forgotten this was the same case.

Maybe there was lack of evidence because the Met cocked up?

Thanks for the link. Throws a bit more light on the issue.

I think this is the key to understanding subsequent decisions. If physical evidence wasn't taken at the time of an initial complaint, the capacity to pursue a successful conviction is severely hampered. Giving testimony in court is harrowing for victims. If you can put the offender away for some considerable time on the testimony and evidence from the strongest cases, where do you draw the line in continuing to prosecute cases with less and less chance of success due to insufficient evidence, given the impact on the witness of appearing in court?

Police procedures dealing with rape cases has been improved considerably since the failings in this case came to light.

Uber's failures to deal with safeguarding and reporting of offences was taken very seriously when considering the renewal of their licence.

These actions to better safeguard people, especially women, are far more important to me than the length of Warboys sentence. He has served 10 years. Many rapists are never successfully convicted, of those that are, a significant percentage re-offend. There is one Warboys, there are a lot of potential rapists. The public interest, for me, is served by taking complaints by women seriously, investigating them properly, taking the safeguarding of passengers using public transport and mini-cabs seriously, funding women's refuges properly and by absolutely not, under any circumstances, handing over something as vitally important to the safety of the public as probation services to the private sector.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Burgon is a populist lightweight.

If the details of probation decisions need to be made public, that'll have newspapers stirring shit a hundred times a week. The parole board will just get far so cautious that the prison population rockets. Not to mention that it's personal to the offender, and I can't believe a court would say different.

I can well see how it could make parole boards more cautious. That said, they're usually chaired by judges, and they're quite robust usually.

They'd have to get more cautious if the media was getting stuck into the details of their decisions. It would make reoffending more likely.

The Probation Service, not a private provider, will be overseeing Worboys. Grayling made sure the useless inefficient public sector was stuck with the most serious offenders.

Work that one out.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

The system shouldn't be changed. The point of the reasons being private is that it helps the offender address them and go straight after release.

Does that apply where the decision is to release? I'm minded to accept the parole board chair's view, but am open to persuasion.

I think it does. but I'm not sure.

@RichardBurgon
4m4 minutes ago
More
Following the John Worboys decision, I've submitted parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State asking whether he plans to change Parole Board rules to increase the transparency of its decisions and seeking clarity on how it prioritises which IPP cases are dealt with first.

When they think somebody looks like they're worth considering for release, they... get considered for release.

Actually, hang on, this could be interesting.

https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole/life- ... -sentences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The government will apply for parole on your behalf if you have a life or indeterminate sentence - you don’t need to do anything.

The government set the process in train?!

That would be a bombshell.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Probation Service, not a private provider, will be overseeing Worboys. Grayling made sure the useless inefficient public sector was stuck with the most serious offenders.

Work that one out.

Quite. Only the public sector could be trusted with the serious ones. Grayling was just a vandal.

@Willow904
Good post

Willow

Good post

So Burgon is a populist lightweight for calling for the same thing that Hugo and Cooper were earlier?

I understand your point Tubby but fail to see why you singled out Burgon

His point on the IPP treatment is also a fair one. Hugo insinuated that Starter would be at fault if he took IPP into consideration when making a decision to prosecute when now they have been abolished

Does anyone know if the criteria are applied even though they have been abolished...and I mean really know and not surmising

I feel again this has become a bit of Labour bashing for reasons I do not understand and based on very flimsy evidence

We have someone who claims to be an expert but then has called for the parole board reasoning to be released and also doesn't seem to have any definitive knowledge about the application of laws. He also called on Starter to comment on the case when surely it would be inappropriate, if not legally problematic, to do so

I wrote a blog post about Worboys if interested

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2018 ... hy-punish/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a waste of time arguing with fundamentally untrustworthy sources of information.
Accord is impossible.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/d ... an-insult/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 wrote: Hugo insinuated that Starter would be at fault if he took IPP into consideration when making a decision to prosecute when now they have been abolished

o

I don't usually bother, but that isn't right.

IPP was abolished prospectively by Kenneth Clarke in 2012. It applied to Worboys, and still does to thousands of others.

My claim, again, was that if Starmer decided not to prosecute on the basis that it was not in the public interest, because Worboys was already detained indefinitely, that looks in retrospect like a mistake.

Again, my criticism is of IPP, not in this case of Starmer (though I found his explaation hopelessly confused).

Can I say on this legal discussion today that by far the best contribution was Willow's above

The original poster intended to use it as a way to undermine Starmer (why he is so anti-Starmer is anyone's guess) and it has transpired in the discussion that none of us here, or in the media, know if there is anything untoward with the decision, and even if there is, why that is the case

There have been statements made that suggested people knew more than they really did and they have come apart within a few posts - the reality being that none of us are expert in this field and that the whole discussion was a lot of froth really

It has been used as another way of bashing certain Labour politicians, Starmer and Burgon in the main, for some unknown reason and, as I said above, on very flimsy evidence - when those doing the bashing seem to have no real clue either

I suggest anyone who wants to take anything intelligent away ignores pretty much all the posts apart from the one from Willow above which actually some some really interesting thoughts - thanks for that Willow

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/malp ... evels-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malpractice for GCSEs, AS and A levels: 2017

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote: Hugo insinuated that Starter would be at fault if he took IPP into consideration when making a decision to prosecute when now they have been abolished

o

I don't usually bother, but that isn't right.

IPP was abolished prospectively by Kenneth Clarke in 2012. It applied to Worboys, and still does to thousands of others.

My claim, again, was that if Starmer decided not to prosecute on the basis that it was not in the public interest, because Worboys was already detained indefinitely, that looks in retrospect like a mistake.

Again, my criticism is of IPP, not in this case of Starmer (though I found his explaation hopelessly confused).

Can you show me the evidence that he decided not to prosecute for the reasons you describe....and, even if he did, would not saying it was a mistake be based on hindsight and the knowledge that these instruments of sentencing have now been abolished - something he would not have been privy too.

It looks very much that you are scraping around looking for a reason to attack Starmer - your initial attempts this morning failed so you are now trying another approach

He's an expert in globule maneuoverings to avoid being attached to a wall,or maybe Wack-A-Mole a more apt description.

Eric_WLothian wrote:A little light relief here:

Nigel Farage asks Twitter for questions for Michel Barnier - with predictable results

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... el-barnier" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I particularly like this response:

Tim Concannon
@TimCWrites
Replying to @Nigel_Farage @MichelBarnier
Mr Barnier, Why would a group of rich tax dodgers, shady tech billionaires, nom dom press barons, intelligence chiefs in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, and Russian oligarchs want the UK to leave the EU, just as you close tax loop holes? I'm stumped. #AskBarnier

8:29 PM - Jan 4, 2018

This is pretty comprehensive.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AAW "RICE"-reminder.

PF-feed Constance reminder,you've left the tin opener out of her reach.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Sam Freedman would be a good replacement for Toby Young on that board.

How could anyone claim he was a lefty?

Cja -your apology proportionality has taken a dip recently,I think you should apologise.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ary-school" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Decision
Iford and Kingston C of E Primary School

SpinningHugo wrote:Julie Bindel, righteously furious

She is a horrible TERF.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Julie Bindel, righteously furious

She is a horrible TERF.

I disagree with Bindel about most things, but I think she must be right that Worboys shouldn't be being released, and we need to analyse why.

Horrible people can be right sometimes, and this is tbh a bit of a no-brainer.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Julie Bindel, righteously furious

She is a horrible TERF.

I disagree with Bindel about most things, but I think she must be right that Worboys shouldn't be being released, and we need to analyse why.

On what basis? Is the parole board wrong? If the parole board cannot be trusted to make this decision then who should make it - should there be a political input into these decisions?

Tubby called Burgon a 'populist lightweight' for suggesting the decisions of the parole board should be opened up for scrutiny (which could be similarly applied to Cooper who has essentially said the same). We could also open up the CPS files to scrutiny on why he was not prosecuted for other crimes as well. You also seem to call for this information

I am confused as to who decides he should not be released - should it be a political decision or should it go back to the courts to decide?

I assume the parole board will have all relevant information and be in a better place than us to decide it is right or not - and parole seems to be automatically applied for so the timing of the decision is not really a surprise either

I feel very uncomfortable with this release but I am also very uncomfortable with politicians and the media getting heavily involved int he decision-making process too. If the reasons cannot be released as they are 'lightweight populism' then i am not sure what can be done - judicial review?

HindleA wrote:Cja -your apology proportionality has taken a dip recently,I think you should apologise.

I can't. I've done nothing wrong.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Horrible people can be right sometimes...

(cJA edit)
Indeed, it happens all the time

Cja -I'll apologise then.

Tubby called Burgon a 'populist lightweight' for suggesting the decisions of the parole board should be opened up for scrutiny (which could be similarly applied to Cooper who has essentially said the same). We could also open up the CPS files to scrutiny on why he was not prosecuted for other crimes as well. You also seem to call for this information

I hadn't seen what Cooper said. If she said that (and she's certainly done silly stuff before on eg immigration), she's the same as Burgon and should know better.

A review of CPS files is a good idea.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Tubby called Burgon a 'populist lightweight' for suggesting the decisions of the parole board should be opened up for scrutiny (which could be similarly applied to Cooper who has essentially said the same). We could also open up the CPS files to scrutiny on why he was not prosecuted for other crimes as well. You also seem to call for this information

I hadn't seen what Cooper said. If she said that (and she's certainly done silly stuff before on eg immigration), she's the same as Burgon and should know better.

A review of CPS files is a good idea.

and Hugo as well who has been saying the same thing? He is a lawyer apparently so he should know....

A review of the CPS files would be useful too see if there is any possibility of further convictions but the fundamental issue is that the parole board have made this unpopular decision and you do not want them to say why so by what mechanism could the decision be reversed...and by who?

If the CPS files do find that Starmer made the decision not to prosecute because of IPP (which may have been the right decision at the time) you can imagine the baying for blood from the Brexit press and if he is brought down by this then you can probably forget Labour being able to maintain their move towards a better resolution of the Brexit chaos......

Just had a thought about the Toby Young thing. Is the regulator thing he's been appointed to another Quango? I thought there was meant to be a "bonfire" of those?

I'm not really all that fussed what Hugo says, HSOM. I expect the shadow Lord Chancellor to be better than he is though.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm not really all that fussed what Hugo says, HSOM. I expect the shadow Lord Chancellor to be better than he is though.

and what is particularly wrong with this

Burgon said: “The John Worboys case shows it’s time for greater transparency of the Parole Board’s decisions. The Parole Board says that the current rules are preventing public disclosure of the reasons behind its decisions.

“The government needs to take action to put an end to this untenable situation. It must urgently set out plans to amend the current rules so that the public can have greater confidence in Parole Board decisions.”

It does not mean they need to release all the details but I can see no reason why they cannot explain the criteria they use and how they cam to a decision - we see the details of a judgement and the grounds sentencing from a judge so why not hear from the parole board as well which takes on a quasi-judicial role here.

Is justice supposed to be open and transparent process?

The principle is risk of reoffending. I don't think you can say much more than that, because it's confidential and personal to him.

I'm sure the judge that passed the sentence expected him to be released now, and I'm not exactly turning cartwheels myself. But I think you have to give the Parole Board and parolees space.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The principle is risk of reoffending. I don't think you can say much more than that, because it's confidential and personal to him.

I'm sure the judge that passed the sentence expected him to be released now, and I'm not exactly turning cartwheels myself. But I think you have to give the Parole Board and parolees space.

and that is fair enough.....

Bits of justice are transparent and bits aren't. Younger offenders don't have their names revealed. Nor do new identities of released prisoners.

Nor would I reveal the communications between the Parole Board and a prisoner. Just the decision is fine.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The principle is risk of reoffending. I don't think you can say much more than that, because it's confidential and personal to him.

I'm sure the judge that passed the sentence expected him to be released now, and I'm not exactly turning cartwheels myself. But I think you have to give the Parole Board and parolees space.

and that is fair enough.....

Answering your question a bit better, they can likely go a bit further with generalities about addressing offending behaviour, but not all that much.

CPS clarifying that Starmer didn't personally take the decisions on Worboys (which is very slow of them, what have they been doing sine this story broke?)

SpinningHugo wrote:CPS clarifying that Starmer didn't personally take the decisions on Worboys (which is very slow of them, what have they been doing sine this story broke?)

so you were wrong then

Must resist.....

[youtube]9SewAjLJB-Q[/youtube]

Ed Miliband‏Verified account
@Ed_Miliband
Following Following @Ed_Miliband

What an absolutely ludicrous, incompetent, absurd, make it up as you go along, couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery bunch of jokers there are running the government at the most critical time in a generation for the country.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The CPS didn't exactly sprint out of the traps.

Others did.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The CPS didn't exactly sprint out of the traps.

I don't think they took that long really.......perhaps didn't expect the loony right to make the link to Starmer and look to blame him as quickly as they could