So, err, how does this usually happen?

The Parole Board should immediately publish its reasons for allowing the release of rapist John Worboys from prison, the head of an influential parliamentary committee has said.

Yvette Cooper, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said she was “really shocked” by the move to release the former London cab driver and called for scrutiny of the Parole Board’s reasoning before the prolific sex attacker is let out of jail.

Worboys, a former stripper and adult film star, was jailed indefinitely in 2009, with a minimum term of eight years, for drugging and sexually assaulting women passengers.

It is feared he may have more than 100 victims and the Parole Board’s decision sparked an outcry from charities and support groups when it was made public on Thursday.

The courts sentence, the Parole Board decides upon parole. Is it usual that there’s political interference in either decision?

31 thoughts on “So, err, how does this usually happen?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    I am happy to let the Parole Board decide – as long as they let Worboys move in with them.

    The assumption that the bureaucracy ought to be left to make their own decisions depends on them doing so professionally and competently in line with community values. Which neither the Courts or the Parole Board is inclined to do. So I suggest sacking them all and finding someone who will do their damn job.

  2. Whatever is usually done should be done, least creating precedents which will have second order and third order consequences that we find problematic with other people.

    However, I would like to know why the board feels he is no longer a threat to women because unless he no longer has a penis or is about to croak I cannot fathom why anyone who has experience of humans could believe this horrible piece of shit who for years planned a series of rapes and sexual assaults.

    You’d be a massive fool to believe he could or has changed.

  3. Is it usual that there’s political interference in either decision?

    Guido has lots on this story this morning. It rather looks as though Keir Starmer was content to prosecute on the basis of only a handful of the cases against Worboys and Starmer is nothing if not political.

  4. But … but … but – during the Brexit referendum, the Left told us we had to listen to “the experts”. Same with education – can’t have parents deciding how they want their children educating.

    Surely Mrs Balls isn’t now saying that we should over-ride the experts on the Parole Board?

  5. Perhaps a large of body of evidence destroying the prosecution case against him has suddenly come to light after being hidden by police during his trial?

    Wouldn’t be the first time would it?

  6. The Cooper household has form when it comes to political interference in executive decisions. Witness the blundering intervention by Ed Balls in the Sharon Shoesmith sacking for the Baby P tragedy that cost a shitload of cash and rewarded a fvcking useless social work boss for her failures.

    One might almost be forced to think Labour politicians acted in line with the abhorrent populism and had no respect for the rule of law (except when aligned with their own political views), n’est-ce pas? Does Jeremy, Owen or Polly have a comment here?

  7. Of course there’s political interference. Last time around it was Parole Boards should be more lenient. And it wouldn’t be surprising if Yvette Cooper was leading the interfering.

  8. > Is it usual that there’s political interference in either decision?

    No, but in a sensibly organised society the King or Leader would have altered the original sentence to life in prison or death. Of course in a sensibly organised society the judge who made that sentencing decision wouldn’t have been appointed in the first place.

    Oh, and in a sensibly organised stupid pissed cunts wouldn’t wandering around alone to accept drinks from morally questionable but rather sharp taxi drivers.

  9. Perhaps parole hearings, along with court proceedings, should be made public and published online for all to read? These are after all matters which very much concern the public.

  10. The Unused Testicle

    This is just another case of a socialists opinion overriding principles. Just in the same way that Harperson’s opinions traveled from “bonking 12 year old’s is just fine” to “if any woman accuses a man of rape, he should be locked up”.

    Any sane person knowing even a smidgeon of history would robustly refuse the idea of any politician, let alone a socialist bitch like Cooper, interfering with legal process.

    Of course, as soon as the bint realises that the main culprit in the piece is a useless piece of Labour shit, then she’ll reach for the media eraser.

    I’m still a bit angry that media types are getting away with displaying their Tory-hate with no censure. Ben de “cvnt” Pear (I thought he was a porn filmmaker) and John “Fvck the Tories” Snow.

  11. Bit odd the media and Police announce he probably did more than a hundred.

    Just shove out any figure and give the impression it was all rapes when he actually got done for 1 rape.

  12. He served the minimum tariff and they are letting him out on stringent conditions. It appears that the Parole Board is doing their job. Pols are free to make a fuss about stuff – it’s their job.

  13. He is very likely guilty of several rapes Julia. But I very much doubt the 100 odd crap. With a fucking ludicrous MO like that?

    71 of the claims were MeToo’s before the hashtag existed. Our dear old friend cop-trawling again. And the reports of the time suggests the coppers were looking to unload every incident in their something-might-have-happened in a taxi casebook on the fool.

    In the post Savile age all supposed mass crimes conducted by one man with no clean and clear chain of evidence to each and every charge need to be looked at very carefully.

  14. Life sentence, serves eight years. In the same way as police seem to get younger every year, “life sentences” get shorter.

  15. So when he was sentenced the courts knew he was going to serve this minimum time – which he has – and then be up for parole.

    What is the purpose of parole? To encourage good behaviour, to allow those who have served their time and are no longer a danger to leave prison?
    Its not quite the same as releasing them of all obligations.

  16. Just in case the worst happens after Worboys release, can we have the names of the Parole Board members?

  17. I went and looked at the CEO of the Parole Board and the Chairman of same.

    A career penpusher and a Blair era stay behind quangocrat – what could possibly go wrong ? – add in Keir Starmer and you’ve a real troupe…

    I now some folk working in a lifer rehab halfway house and local plod had 2 watchers 24/7 on one individual … That’s just in one provincial small town….

  18. Is this guy being treated different than other rapists? What is the difference between him and say someone who did a couple of rapes?
    The media attention? That’s hopefully not relevant to parole. The media are not judge, jury and executioner much to their own annoyance.

  19. “How long would he be in for if he was a taxi driver in Rochdale?”

    No more than a minute or two because there’s six mates waiting their turn.

  20. Change his name to Muhammad, the most commong new UK name anyway, and ship him to Sweden. Last rape victim I read about there felt sorry for her attacker & didn’t want him deported. As a Muhammad in Sweden he’d have a ball, or wear ’em out plying his trade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *