talkFORUM

Radicalised terrorists stay in prison -End of

Canals and rivers need dredging and we have idle bodies in prison,,,but human rights !

To be honest you can hardly blame those responsible for letting him out, or cutting his sentence. You'd have to be psychic to have predicted a committed terrorist who wanted to bring violent jihad to the west, start a religious war and blow up several prominent targets causing mass carnage would have been a threat to the public. Plus if you treat them like animals they'll behave like animals and all that about *us* being too civilised to hand out a proper sentence when the justice system is odds on to rehabilitate him with softly softly love and kisses policies.

I'd say the two murders could not have been prevented at all and we need more liberal policies because they really work not to mention more immigration after that bloke from Poland waved a whale tusk about.

Hillman avenger wrote:
Ireland, France, Italy and Belgium all have higher rates of serious crime.
But high as ours is, surely that demonstrates that locking people up isn't deterring crime.
BTW the one country with a larger prison population, the US , also has a higher serious crime rate than us.

Still waiting for your source for this 'fact'.
You 'lot' (for want of a collective noun) seem very reluctant to follow through on your claims of late.

m4rkb wrote:To be honest you can hardly blame those responsible for letting him out, or cutting his sentence. You'd have to be psychic to have predicted a committed terrorist who wanted to bring violent jihad to the west, start a religious war and blow up several prominent targets causing mass carnage would have been a threat to the public. Plus if you treat them like animals they'll behave like animals and all that about *us* being too civilised to hand out a proper sentence when the justice system is odds on to rehabilitate him with softly softly love and kisses policies.

I'd say the two murders could not have been prevented at all and we need more liberal policies because they really work not to mention more immigration after that bloke from Poland waved a whale tusk about.

I know there have been conflicting excuses from all sides as to how this muslim monster could have been allowed back into civilised society, and no doubt many parts of the leftie liberal system have their grubby fingers in the pot, but I heard that the main reason was the ECHR making 'indeterminate sentences' null and void, meaning that there was no choice but to release him under the insane 'half of sentence' rule.
Another reason to escape the insanity of the EU.

Hillman avenger wrote:That is unsustainable.
As far as this incident is concerned, try listening before judging.
In particular the history of this government being told, in 2016, that its cuts in prison service spending, rehab services and the depletion and dumbing-down of probation would lead to something like this. You turn prison into an intense school for terrorism.
But of course that twat Gove was Justice Secretary and ignored most of it.

The first lie of the situation is you can't keep people in jail forever for most of the crimes they've been convicted of. The second lie is that you can track them like white rhino when they get out.

No government wants to fund prisons and no government wants to fund a probation service to deal with them once they've been let out. 60% of prisons are currently overcrowded and the reoffending rate is 30%.

There is no guarantee that if Usman Khan had completed his entire sentence that he still wouldn't have gone on to kill people.

I don't have any answers, no one does.

I do think it would be a good start to strip all religious groups of the bizarre special status they have that appears to put them outside the boundaries of normal civil society in the UK. Strip them any political franchise (i.e. House of Lords), strip them off the self-censoring blanket that prevents any real criticism, strip them over the right to start schools and strip of the ability to import people on 'missionary work'.

Religious groups should have the same rights as the local environmental charity no less no more. Could you imagine your local homeless charity getting away with systemic child abuse or the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting being allowed to advocate for attacks on the local off-license?

Maybe once we're able to ridicule religion in the same way we ridicule the likes of the BNP these people we become fewer.

Vespa wrote:

Hillman avenger wrote:That is unsustainable.
As far as this incident is concerned, try listening before judging.
In particular the history of this government being told, in 2016, that its cuts in prison service spending, rehab services and the depletion and dumbing-down of probation would lead to something like this. You turn prison into an intense school for terrorism.
But of course that twat Gove was Justice Secretary and ignored most of it.

The first lie of the situation is you can't keep people in jail forever for most of the crimes they've been convicted of. The second lie is that you can track them like white rhino when they get out.

No government wants to fund prisons and no government wants to fund a probation service to deal with them once they've been let out. 60% of prisons are currently overcrowded and the reoffending rate is 30%.

There is no guarantee that if Usman Khan had completed his entire sentence that he still wouldn't have gone on to kill people.

I don't have any answers, no one does.

I do think it would be a good start to strip all religious groups of the bizarre special status they have that appears to put them outside the boundaries of normal civil society in the UK. Strip them any political franchise (i.e. House of Lords), strip them off the self-censoring blanket that prevents any real criticism, strip them over the right to start schools and strip of the ability to import people on 'missionary work'.

Religious groups should have the same rights as the local environmental charity no less no more. Could you imagine your local homeless charity getting away with systemic child abuse or the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting being allowed to advocate for attacks on the local off-license?

Maybe once we're able to ridicule religion in the same way we ridicule the likes of the BNP these people we become fewer.

If someone is proven to be a danger to society (ie, a psychopath, terrorist, paedophile etc.) they should not be at liberty if there is a probability that they will offend.
The only reason there is no solution is because of the liberal attitudes that we are brainwashed into believing are the only attitudes acceptable in a civilised society. I would dispute that.

As to 'ridiculing religion' - you do realise that we've always been able to, and have done, ......that is until one particular 'religion' became more prominent in the western world, - we are now unable to ridicule them because of fear of retribution.
Can you guess which 'religion' that is?

I’ve just heard a radio interview with a government person [I missed the name/position right at the beginning], who said there were 70 terror convicted prisoners out on licence.
However, we can all stop worrying, as he said that their whereabouts were known and if they did anything wrong they will be taken back to prison.’
Anything wrong!’ Staggering.

VeritasVincit wrote:I’ve just heard a radio interview with a government person [I missed the name/position right at the beginning], who said there were 70 terror convicted prisoners out on licence.
However, we can all stop worrying, as he said that their whereabouts were known and if they did anything wrong they will be taken back to prison.’
Anything wrong!’ Staggering.

When their sentences end they have to be let out. That's the fundamental fact here. You can argue they should stay for the entire length of the sentence, but they'll still be let out. One of the reasons they let people out of license is because they are still within their sentence they can add license conditions - i.e. put them in the care of the probation service.

Vespa wrote:

VeritasVincit wrote:I’ve just heard a radio interview with a government person [I missed the name/position right at the beginning], who said there were 70 terror convicted prisoners out on licence.
However, we can all stop worrying, as he said that their whereabouts were known and if they did anything wrong they will be taken back to prison.’
Anything wrong!’ Staggering.

When their sentences end they have to be let out. That's the fundamental fact here. You can argue they should stay for the entire length of the sentence, but they'll still be let out. One of the reasons they let people out of license is because they are still within their sentence they can add license conditions - i.e. put them in the care of the probation service.

Are they put on licence when the sentence has been fully served, or when they are released halfway through?

VeritasVincit wrote:

Vespa wrote:

VeritasVincit wrote:I’ve just heard a radio interview with a government person [I missed the name/position right at the beginning], who said there were 70 terror convicted prisoners out on licence.
However, we can all stop worrying, as he said that their whereabouts were known and if they did anything wrong they will be taken back to prison.’
Anything wrong!’ Staggering.

When their sentences end they have to be let out. That's the fundamental fact here. You can argue they should stay for the entire length of the sentence, but they'll still be let out. One of the reasons they let people out of license is because they are still within their sentence they can add license conditions - i.e. put them in the care of the probation service.

Are they put on licence when the sentence has been fully served, or when they are released halfway through?

Here are the conditions of license.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/of ... vision.pdf

You can't be released on license when your sentence is served, it runs for the length of the sentence. If you burgle a house and do three years, serve the whole sentence you can stroll off into the sunset. If you are released after two years you'll spend the rest of your sentence on the license under conditions - the stick being if you don't follow the condition you're sent back.

That's the carrot and stick of early release.

For terrorists they can be put on curfews, banned from certain areas etc. I don't think this guy had been subject to those measures.

For terrorists they can be put on curfews, banned from certain areas etc.
I take that, but if they haven't been 'deradicalised', if that is possible, such won't prevent them committing another crime, which is the problem. This one, whether or not under restriction, had offered the signs of being deradicalised, yet clearly wasn't.
What is the answer?

VeritasVincit wrote:For terrorists they can be put on curfews, banned from certain areas etc.
I take that, but if they haven't been 'deradicalised', if that is possible, such won't prevent them committing another crime, which is the problem. This one, whether or not under restriction, had offered the signs of being deradicalised, yet clearly wasn't.
What is the answer?

Here are the powers available to the government.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... /2/enacted

In this case, the government chose not to do any of these things.

I don't know what the answer is. The way the justice system works is:

1. You commit a crime.
2. You are convicted of a crime.
3. You receive a sentence.
4. You serve a sentence and re-enter society.

Usman Khan went through this system as did the 30% of people who leave prison and re-offend. I don't think it's credible to argue that the state should be able to arbitrarily imprison you for life because they think you may be a risk at some point in the future and we don't have the funding to handle these people out and about.

I don't know the answer.

Royal24s wrote:

Zambo wrote:It takes just one to end a life or lives like this person did. The safety of the public is number one, and where there is a risk there should be no release. Anyone who is found guilty of murder should never get out. The chance of reoffending is then zero.

Yes and it's worth mentioning that this man would not have been released except for the intervention of the EU Court in the matter of release dates..

Is this correct.
Wasn't the ruling on sentence length and indeterminate sentences by the ECHR which is an entirely separate body to the EU. There are twenty non-EU countries involved with this

VeritasVincit wrote:

Royal24s wrote:

Zambo wrote:It takes just one to end a life or lives like this person did. The safety of the public is number one, and where there is a risk there should be no release. Anyone who is found guilty of murder should never get out. The chance of reoffending is then zero.

Yes and it's worth mentioning that this man would not have been released except for the intervention of the EU Court in the matter of release dates..

Is this correct.
Wasn't the ruling on sentence length and indeterminate sentences by the ECHR which is an entirely separate body to the EU. There are twenty non-EU countries involved with this

Here is the case. ECHR judgments are not enforceable in UK law - they are advisory only.

https://www.hr-dp.org/files/2013/09/11/ ... NGDOM_.pdf