Torrevieja Forum

Here you can discuss anything that you wish.
( Within Reason !!!! )

Moderator: Moderator

By old boy
#1103926
Not trying to defend anyone, but is it just possible that those who were responsible for the prosecution at the time of the trial in 2009 thought believed that, having been given an indeterminate sentence, that a parole board would exercise better judgement before even considering a release this soon.

It also has to be noted that it wasn't until after the end of the trial that most of the other females who claimed that they had also been attacked actually came forward. Again, the police at the time and those in the prosecution service may have felt that he wouldn't be released at this time, and therefore didn't feel the need to drag these females through the system. Apart from the huge costs involved in bringing further prosecutions.

But then, isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?
By old boy
#1103933
I would hope that the probation regime that has been set in this case will mean that any infringement means that he will be returned to prison immediately. This happens in other serious cases, such as the probation conditions for Venables, the Bulger child murderer. He is back in prison yet again because a) he broke his conditions again, and b)he also faces charges for storing illegal photos of children.

I would sincerely hope that this time the courts wake up and invoke a life sentence with no further parole possibilities. He has proven, beyond any doubt, that he will always pose a danger to the public, and therefore needs to permanently lose his liberty. Unfortunately, that will cost the taxpayers.
#1103937
What are you suggesting jimbo, that all the other women need to be cross examined before this scumbag gets what he deserves ?

As I said, whoever guarantees this guy is safe should be willing to share the cell with him if he goes astray.
#1103939
coolkid wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:19 am
Yes let him go and then let some of the menfolk of his victims know where he lives. I know which bit of him i would chop off he wouldn't be raping anyone else when i was finished with him.
You would think that when faced with this option people would be brutal, a mate of my dad kicked the living daylights out of a flasher in our local park, a crowd soon gathered, and my dads mate and the flasher were moved to a secure office in the park, the warden in charge of the park made an excuse to leave the two blokes alone so my dads mate could escape the police, let me have him the crowd shouted, my dads mate opened the door and said go on then, and they backed down, and he left.
User avatar
By Jimbo1916
#1103941
Mrs Nelson wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:09 pm
What are you suggesting jimbo, that all the other women need to be cross examined before this scumbag gets what he deserves ?

As I said, whoever guarantees this guy is safe should be willing to share the cell with him if he goes astray.
Er...I`m not suggesting anything. It`s patently obvious that the scumbag hasn`t got what he deserves.

If he was arrested, charged and convicted on a particular case, and according to public opinion has not done enough time, what`s stopping the police arresting and charging him on a different crime. If the victim has to give evidence in court...well that`s how it works in the UK.

Maybe Old Boy can give his valued opinion.
#1103945
Sorry I wasn’t sure what you meant with your blow over comment.

I’m aware that rapists are or were allowed to cross examine their victims and this must be like reliving the whole dreadful thing again for these poor girls, I would have thought that if trying a single case with an 80pc chance of success saved multiple victims the trauma of appearing in court that one conviction would be enough. Like a lot of things in the uk, the prison service is under pressure, and I hope that this is not a sign of things to come.
#1104001
old boy wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:58 am
Not trying to defend anyone, but is it just possible that those who were responsible for the prosecution at the time of the trial in 2009 thought believed that, having been given an indeterminate sentence, that a parole board would exercise better judgement before even considering a release this soon.
It is possible that they believed that but from what I've read it would have been extremely stupid. Parole is awarded based on the sentence they were given and the judgement of the parole board as to whether they will re-offend; it is NOT based on the parole board 'guessing' what other crimes they may have committed.
old boy wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:58 am
It also has to be noted that it wasn't until after the end of the trial that most of the other females who claimed that they had also been attacked actually came forward. Again, the police at the time and those in the prosecution service may have felt that he wouldn't be released at this time, and therefore didn't feel the need to drag these females through the system. Apart from the huge costs involved in bringing further prosecutions.

But then, isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?
Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, but even better is intelligence and good judgement.
#1104002
old boy wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:53 pm
I would hope that the probation regime that has been set in this case will mean that any infringement means that he will be returned to prison immediately. This happens in other serious cases, such as the probation conditions for Venables, the Bulger child murderer. He is back in prison yet again because a) he broke his conditions again, and b)he also faces charges for storing illegal photos of children.
I believe any criminal on parole would be returned to prison if they as much as got a speeding fine, so I'm sure it will be just the same for this scum.
old boy wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:53 pm
I would sincerely hope that this time the courts wake up and invoke a life sentence with no further parole possibilities. He has proven, beyond any doubt, that he will always pose a danger to the public, and therefore needs to permanently lose his liberty. Unfortunately, that will cost the taxpayers.
I assume from this that you are referring to IF he re-offends?
#1104004
If this humanoid is released and attacks another woman, is it possible in the uk or other countries for the injured party to bring a case against the people who said he was safe to be released ?
By old boy
#1104009
Sheff_Blade wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:21 pm
I assume from this that you are referring to IF he re-offends?


I am referring to Venables; he has been charged, and his trial is scheduled for later this year, although it will be held in private, possibly in front of only a judge.

He has been provided with at least two new sets of identity because people keep trying to publicise his latest identity. These people need to wake up to the fact that they are just wasting public money forcing the authorities to keep renewing his IDs. Mind you, Venables should stop breaking both the law and his parole conditions.
User avatar
By Jimbo1916
#1104014
old boy wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:37 pm
Mind you, Venables should stop breaking both the law and his parole conditions.
Venables should do everyone a favour and go and top himself, which should have happened in the first place, irrespective of his age.

He was born evil and will die evil.
By old boy
#1104017
Jimbo1916 wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:30 pm
If he was arrested, charged and convicted on a particular case, and according to public opinion has not done enough time, what`s stopping the police arresting and charging him on a different crime. If the victim has to give evidence in court...well that`s how it works in the UK.


A number of things would need to be taken into consideration.

Firstly, would any of the alleged claimants be prepared to give evidence in any prosecution. However, that leads to secondly, is there any evidence in existence that would indicate that there is a likely case to prosecute?

As I said before, I believe that these claimants only came forward subsequent to the end of the original trial. One needs to ask the question of why they only did so after he was found guilty? The whole trial, in fact events leading up to the trial, gained a huge amount of publicity so one would assume the claimants must have known about the cases. Why didn't they come forward at that time so that there claims could be investigated?

But I still return to the fact that the judge handed down an indeterminate sentence, with a minimum term of 8 years before parole could be considered. It was, possibly, derelict of the then Attorney General in not referring the sentence to the Appeal Court to have the minimum term made considerably longer. Or even no minimum, which the ECHR have determined is legal.
RUSS ABBOTT

Abbott is a career politician using 'black privile[…]

Windrush

Labour supporters baying for blood, yes indeed. Pe[…]

Bug based snacks in carrefour

The Good thing about a spider at Christmas, ever[…]

Pinocchio's

Hi Does anybody know if Pinocchio's restaurant ha[…]

RIP Dale Winton

Mr jones is maybe talking about this story in the […]

DAEWOO 20” LCD FLATSCREEN TV

Model DSL-20D3 with remote and manuals in Englis[…]

Fibre TV and internet

Sorry posted twice cant see where to delete :(

Logging in

About a month or six weeks ago, logging in to this[…]

New Advertising Slots and Possibilities