But this isn’t the way we do it

John Worboys will be asked if he objects to wearing an electronic tag when he is eventually released from prison.

Worboys, 60, dubbed the ‘black cab rapist’, was due to be freed at the end of last month after being granted parole.

The Telegraph has learnt that the original conditions for Worboys’ release allowed him to live in London and without an electronic tag.

A Parole Board judged him no longer a risk to the public at a hearing in December despite complaints that he drugged and sexually assaulted more than 100 women while working as a London taxi driver.

Victims have now protested to the Parole Board about the terms of his release. They are demanding he is tagged and is banned from London where most of his victims live.

It’s the Queen’s justice, not mob justice, or good reason.

Given the democracy bit it’s absolutely fine to shout about how the law should be changed. But not to insist that a specific individual be subject to punishment not sentenced to by a court, nor that a specific individual must be punished without the law.

19 comments on “But this isn’t the way we do it

  1. Yes, it’s the “complaints” bit that knackers the thing, innit?

    It’s never been proven that he raped hundreds of women. Had it been, even a British Socialist Fairy Judge would have banged him up for life means life.

    Mind you, Harriet will be pleased. Complaint = sentenced by the court of public opinion.

    (Sad, then that my little court of opinion didn’t manage to get her banged up for 18 months after driving away from the scene of an accident she caused.)

  2. What a wishy-washy approach! Either give in to the mob, and tag him, or (my preference) tell the mob to bugger off!

    But ask him if he would mind awfully…? FF!

  3. If sentencing is part of the judicial system, then so must any alteration of that sentence be, by a competent authority such as the parole board.

  4. I remember the old days when people advocating this would have shrieked about “vigilante justice”. That paedophile whose house was mobbed by, well, a mob.

    In fact if Worboys was a paedophile the Guardian would currently be holding a 24 hour vigil to protect him.

  5. Thats going to be a good earner, the first photo of him near a taxi, or near women.

    The shit that will surround his life once he gets freed makes you wonder why the fuck he wants that freedom.

  6. It is not the Queen’s Justice. It is the Social Justice Warriors (who infest the civil service) version of Justice. That is, not very just. That is why we cannot punish anyone for anything that does not offend the Shrieking Sisterhood.

    Given that the “Justice” system is utterly out of line with community expectations, people will object. That is what bringing the whole system into disrepute means. The next step is that people will not bother with the police or the Courts and will just lynch suspects.

  7. “…by a competent authority such as the parole board.”

    But parole boards are of questionable competence, consisting as they do of psychiatrists and bleeding heart lefty criminologists. Parole boards are a symptom of a criminal justice system that gives higher priority to rehabilitation of the offender than to the safety of the public. Parole should be abolished or (at the very least) scaled back hugely.

  8. If it’s parole, it can have terms. It’s not exactly having paid your debt, only to be treated as if you had. As it is, breaking parole would have him back in nick without a proper trial, wouldn’t it?

  9. The word ‘parole’ is an interesting one. For the last couple of years I’ve been on a Dennis Wheatley kick. His stories are full of gentlemen heroes. In point of fact, they’re not always terribly gentlemanly – Roger Brook, for instance, is a rapist and child-murderer, among other things. But when asked by an officer and a gentleman to give their word of parole not to escape, or whatever, then, if they give it, they mean it – and stick to it.

    Hard, if not impossible, to imagine any member of the modern criminal class having any such compunction.

    Yet the basic idea remains the same: you are released on licence on condition of committing no further offences during the licence period. It’s still also known as parole. Overwhelmingly often, the licence is breached.

    I don’t actually know if such offenders are, pitiably, asked to give their word, over and above being told it is a condition of their release to commit no further offences.

    Anyhow, the etymology, the origin of this kind of thing seems to be to have given one’s word …

  10. Genuine question – if he is suspected of raping 100 people, why was he tried for only one?

    Fucking Tory austerity o usual CPS incompetence?

    Anyway IMV the whole concept of the parole board is irredeemably fucked.

  11. Dunno, Mr Lud. The criminal class – at least the successful criminal class – are usually quite good at keeping their word.
    Not surprising, really. If you don’t have the law & its servants to enforce agreements then your “word-of-honour” & reputation have real tangible value.
    Of course what one’s “word” & “reputation” might extend to can be quite encompassing but it’s still a high value of honesty.
    It’s a sad state when the only people you can count on to be honest are the dishonest.

  12. bloke in spain – “The criminal class – at least the successful criminal class – are usually quite good at keeping their word.”

    Especially to those inclined to nail their heads to the table. For ordinary people? Not so much.

    The point of criminals is that they think obeying the rules is for mugs.

  13. BiS–I think it likely he has committed a number of rapes –very likely well below ten.

    He has not committed 600/500/300/100 rapes–or ravaged Old McDonald’s Farm. That is marxifem bullshit spewed by the media and the CPS/Blus after the original conviction.

    He is a bad man who had a wicked but also remarkably dumb plan for his crimes. He is likely a danger but that depends on how dumb/committed to his wickedness he is. From the nature of the crimes they actually proved against him–rather than media hysteria– I suspect he will probably disappear into obscurity if he is left alone. And an eye kept on him–for which a fucking stupid tags is not a substitute.

  14. “The point of criminals is that they think obeying the rules is for mugs.”

    The point of real crims is that they disobey the Golden Rule. Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you and yours.

    Not obeying scummy and tyrannical edicts put in place by those who are themselves criminals by the definition given above does not make one a criminal.

  15. But not to insist that a specific individual be subject to punishment not sentenced to by a court, nor that a specific individual must be punished without the law.

    Neither of the things asked for is a punishment. They would be conditions of release. Try harder, Tim.

  16. Re Warboys, I suspect the likelihood is that the rozzers had good evidence on a decent number of rapes, then the CPS had a look and realised that there was little point in proceeding against him on any more in a single indictment, which judgment met with the rozzers budgetary constraints, so no further investigation of the supposed dozens of others ever took place.

    Either that, or they did seriously look into the others and realised that the evidence in relation to each was very thing and might be sustained at trial only by association with the first half dozen or so for which there was good evidence. In reality, therefore, the others would quite likely have been kicked out by a judge at some stage so a decision was taken to focus on the juicy stuff.

    I’m guessing, obvs, but informedly so, ahem.

    Mr in Spain, I can well see that senior, successful members of the criminal fraternity might be word-keepers. But they are a minority subset of the total cohort. On the other hand, I might be prepared to concede that there is a certain amount of word-keeping amongst street dealers.

    But romanticism of our criminal underworld aside, I don’t see why they don’t have the same protection of the law as the rest of us.

  17. I should have been clearer: little point in proceeding against him on any more in a single indictment … because we don’t yet have the American thing of indictments runnings to scores of counts. Such an indictment would by an English judge be regarded as ‘overburdened’ and liable to be broken up. It can be done, but since we don’t do the consecutive sentence up to x number of hundreds of years in prison thing, past a certain point it’s irrelevant.

  18. If there exists real evidence–beyond “Me Too”–he should have been charged and tried for every one and no matter if the trial take half a decade.

    The reason he was not is that no such corroborating evidence exists. Therefore he should not be charged on the basis of unsupported assertion.

    No should on any matter.

    Likewise his MO “Want some drugged Champagne?” is ludicrous as a method for setting up vast numbers of women.

    Contrast the above with Alberto De Salvo –in his pre-Boston Strangler persona as the “Green Man” rapist–who had up to 300 rape claims suggested by the police at the time. The actual figure however seems very hard to confirm. He may have done these crimes but the activities of several other men may have been attributed to him. His method was to talk his way into a woman’s home and then attack and escape quick. Very different and much more plausible then the supposed capers claimed for Warboys–driving unconscious women all over London, returning them to their own bed in one case, so she only realised later she had been attacked etc.

  19. I think there’s a general rule that needs to be thought about here.

    There are certain crimes where encountering the criminal after release would be a difficult experience for the victim – even if the criminal is genuinely no longer a threat to repeat the crime.

    I’d argue that rape is prominent amongst those crimes.

    Where the crime is a serious one (rape, perhaps GBH, possibly some face-to-face frauds), and the victims are mostly localised in one area, then it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable requirement that the criminal should be obliged to live outside that area, such that the probability of casual encounters would be minimized.

    I’m not sure whether that is an available option to the Parole Board, but, if it isn’t, then that is something that could be done legislatively.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.