Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
John Worboys: Fresh Sex Assault Claim Investigated
http://
"BBC Home Affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said Worboys could remain in custody if the police investigation was speedy and led to criminal charges"
"BBC Home Affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said Worboys could remain in custody if the police investigation was speedy and led to criminal charges"
Answers
lets hope that despite the parole board we can find a way to keep this lowlife in clink.
18:34 Tue 23rd Jan 2018
Anyway, back to the subject..
// A new sexual assault allegation made against rapist John Worboys is being investigated by Scotland Yard.
The claim, which dates back to 1997, several years earlier than the date when it was thought Worboys' offending started, was reported to police this month. //
In other words, some victim who'd never spoken out before was so disgusted by the decision to release him they thought now would be the right time to do so.
It's being taken seriously because it's a new allegation, and not one of the hundreds they've written off which would be too difficult to resurrect having already effectively binned them.
Let's hope justice is done and he stays inside.
// A new sexual assault allegation made against rapist John Worboys is being investigated by Scotland Yard.
The claim, which dates back to 1997, several years earlier than the date when it was thought Worboys' offending started, was reported to police this month. //
In other words, some victim who'd never spoken out before was so disgusted by the decision to release him they thought now would be the right time to do so.
It's being taken seriously because it's a new allegation, and not one of the hundreds they've written off which would be too difficult to resurrect having already effectively binned them.
Let's hope justice is done and he stays inside.
Spicerack - // I don't like politicians interjecting themselves into legal matters to bolster/gain popularity by pandering to the mob. //
That is a seriously important point that has been missed on the thread thus far.
The Parole Board are - as indeed they should be - beyond the reach of political interference, as one Minister has found out to his cost.
From the sidelines, it looks to all of us as though a severe error has been committed by the Parole Board, and this may well be the case.
But the simple fact remains - the PB is part of due legal process, and it is not for us as the public to overturn their decision on the basis that we think it is wrong.
That is trial by mob rule, and it has no place in a civilised society.
If another case is proved against Mr Warboys
That is a seriously important point that has been missed on the thread thus far.
The Parole Board are - as indeed they should be - beyond the reach of political interference, as one Minister has found out to his cost.
From the sidelines, it looks to all of us as though a severe error has been committed by the Parole Board, and this may well be the case.
But the simple fact remains - the PB is part of due legal process, and it is not for us as the public to overturn their decision on the basis that we think it is wrong.
That is trial by mob rule, and it has no place in a civilised society.
If another case is proved against Mr Warboys
... - (computer decided to post before I finished!)
then he may well face another trial and another sentence, but that does remain to be seen as legal process takes it course.
In the mean time, a more measured approach to the justice system may well dial down some of the lynch-mob mentality that the media are stirring up - it helps no-one.
then he may well face another trial and another sentence, but that does remain to be seen as legal process takes it course.
In the mean time, a more measured approach to the justice system may well dial down some of the lynch-mob mentality that the media are stirring up - it helps no-one.
//the PB is part of due legal process, and it is not for us as the public to overturn their decision on the basis that we think it is wrong. //
But if we think it is wrong and say nothing it is in danger of repeating its mistakes. In what you call 'a civilised society', no one and nothing should be exempt from criticism.
But if we think it is wrong and say nothing it is in danger of repeating its mistakes. In what you call 'a civilised society', no one and nothing should be exempt from criticism.
Naomi - // If criticism is ignored, in some instances interference is not only justified, it is imperative. //
Without doubt, every single case heard in every single court in the world is subject to criticism, which is ignored.
Who decides when the line between criticism and interference is crossed?
Without doubt, every single case heard in every single court in the world is subject to criticism, which is ignored.
Who decides when the line between criticism and interference is crossed?
emmie - // all i know is this case was bodged from the start, he should have got a life tariff. //
To be accurate, you don't know that - it is your opinion based on what the media has told you.
That is the situation for all of us on here - and the wider public as well.
Because people have an opinion, and there are a lot of them, does not mean that they get to interfere in due legal process - that would mean that every time someone thought a legal decision was incorrect (which as I have pointed out, is ever legal decision ever made!) then the public gets to have a say in what happens next.
It is not feasible, and more importantly, it is not correct that a groundswell of public opinion (call it criticism if you wish) leads to a coach and horses being driven through due legal process.
To be accurate, you don't know that - it is your opinion based on what the media has told you.
That is the situation for all of us on here - and the wider public as well.
Because people have an opinion, and there are a lot of them, does not mean that they get to interfere in due legal process - that would mean that every time someone thought a legal decision was incorrect (which as I have pointed out, is ever legal decision ever made!) then the public gets to have a say in what happens next.
It is not feasible, and more importantly, it is not correct that a groundswell of public opinion (call it criticism if you wish) leads to a coach and horses being driven through due legal process.
Naomi - // emmie, I agree with you. Since his man wasn’t prosecuted for all the crimes he committed the case was bodged. //
I don't believe you know that either.
As I understand it, he was prosecuted for the crimes for which their was sufficient evidence to produce a reasonable chance of conviction, which is the way the CPS operates.
He was quite possibly involved in others, but knowing and proving are not the same things - rather like criticising and interfering are not the same thing.
I don't believe you know that either.
As I understand it, he was prosecuted for the crimes for which their was sufficient evidence to produce a reasonable chance of conviction, which is the way the CPS operates.
He was quite possibly involved in others, but knowing and proving are not the same things - rather like criticising and interfering are not the same thing.
Ludwig - // At the very least, what needs to come out of this is more transparency about the parole boards decisions.
We're given the reasons why people are locked up, why are the reasons that they're let out again kept secret? //
An excellent point.
If the PB are certain that their decision is correct, that it should stand up to scrutiny by appropriate people.
By that, I would mean Parliament, and not the media.
We're given the reasons why people are locked up, why are the reasons that they're let out again kept secret? //
An excellent point.
If the PB are certain that their decision is correct, that it should stand up to scrutiny by appropriate people.
By that, I would mean Parliament, and not the media.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.