No,absolutely not

Can get lonely still pacing that classically liberal path:

Victims could get a new independent right of appeal to challenge releases of criminals by the Parole Board after the recall to jail of Colin Pitchfork, the double child murderer, for approaching young women in the street.

Nope, no way, un uhn, fuck off.

The entire point is that it’s the Queen’s justice. Yes, we been done wrong. That’s a bad ‘un. But the punishment is going to be according to the law, as written down and understandable to all. The mob gets no look in, has no say.

Well, other than that jury which always has the nullification power of insisting that whatever the evidence that t’ain’t no crime.

This means no raises in sentence because the victim statement after conviction is a proper tear jerker, no lynching, no heavier sentence ‘coz the bloke’s from some class or background or another. Here’s the crime, here’s the time, that’s that.

We can argue against the very idea of parole – serve your time! We can argue that everyone gets it, come what may – roughly what we do have, folk serve what, a half of their sentence these days?

But no, we don’t have a system where some get punished more heavily because some part of the public don’t like ’em. Because that’s killing off the central point of the system. Rulz is rulz, whosoever you may be. A longer time served ‘coz of what some folks think of you breaches that, horribly.

No, fuck off.

12 thoughts on “No,absolutely not”

  1. Does that still apply to adjudications of the parole board though? The sentence hasn’t been changed at all, just the decision to suspend part of it.

  2. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    Indeedy. Nobody is suggesting that the sentence is increased post conviction.

    They are suggesting that one group of people (parole board hand wringers) shouldn’t be given cart blanche to *reduce* that sentence post conviction without reference to another group of people (the victims).

    It is a simple adjustment to the present system, not some huge attack on man’s innate rights.

    If course, the truly fair system would be for convicted people to serve the sentence decided by the courts. But this adjustment is no more or less ‘fair’ than what we have now.

  3. Parole boards can produce some dodgy decisions as they seem to have a lot of bleeding hearts on them who want to believe the sinner has reformed, whereas the sinner is very good at faking it for the bleeding hearts, but I’d rather have the decisions made by a panel of mixed people than the feelz of one victim, or worse, a tabloid campaign designed to boost sales figures.

  4. The ‘experts’ who sit on Parole boards, along with the ‘experts’ who recommend releasing nutters back into the community after a stay in a ‘secure hospital’, should be totally responsible for the actions of the persons they have deemed ‘safe’. It may concentrate the minds of said experts.

    And the same perhaps for members of the clergy too.

  5. But the punishment is going to be according to the law, as written down and understandable to all. The mob gets no look in, has no say.

    Yes, that’s the classic civilizational arrangement we’re supposed to have; we hand justice to the state so that it is impartial and we don’t have endless hillbilly wars.

    But if the state decides to not keep its side of the bargain, whether it’s handwringers on parole boards letting evildoers go or law enforcement letting rioters run amok, then the deal is subject to cancellation.

  6. Yeah, quite right Tim. Rather than interfering with the decisions of the parole boards public opinion should just replace them.

    To the people of XYZ City: “Do you want this murderer released early?” Citizens: “no”.

  7. PJF is correct. But he misses the case that when the state decides that it is to be straightforward CCP-style social credit tyranny then we are also released from any supposed “deal”.

    I’m not being jabbed with anything let alone mystery gene re-writing shite . If the game is now tyranny I will be resisting to the end. They don’t get it both ways. We leave law to them but then they stop playing nice because they want to lord it over us?

    Nice system if they can make it work. They cant.

  8. You should get jagged Mr Ecks. It is a benefit to you. Gives you much better odds of avoiding hospitalisation if you get the Wu Flu. It doesn’t edit your genes, that’s pretty well established. You can ask to be aspirated if you want to stick it to TPTB, but please do it.

  9. Not the slightest chance Bongo and most of your statements are wrong. The shite they offer does re-write your genes for unknown purposes and is not of the slightest benefit as all the figures they claim to work from are a pack of lies to begin with.

    In fact your dangerous naïve attitudes do you no credit. The vax is ONLY so mugs can be put on the vax pass as a 1st step to full CCP-style social credit tyranny.

  10. Harry Haddock's Ghost


    The AZ jab doesn’t use rNA technology.

    The jabs that do use rNA cannot alter your DNA. That’s just simple, proven, fact. Just because they both end in ‘NA’ doesn’t make them the same. It’s like suggesting a piece of code on a PC could rewrite the CPUs instruction set just because they both contain code. Complete balderdash based on ignorance of how DNA / rNA work.

    The vaccines obviously work in massively reducing severe illness and death. The figures are absolutely undeniable on this.

    But other than that, crack on. Your body, your choice.

Leave a Reply

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