Jump to content

Broken Britain...two boys jailed for minimum of only 5 years


Bazj

Recommended Posts

You can beat your chests over this one but if social services or the police took children away from their parents - even after 7 or 8 or more bites at the cherry - you would put an awful lot of people into care, and the papers would be full of criticism of the authorities. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

I shudder to guess how many problem families there are just in Warrington alone. Perhaps good fortune has saved us from a tragedy.

Everyone on here seems to know what to do so why should a food factory manager be any different. He must have been chosen from a list and found suitable for the post.

 

Happy days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, I don't pretend to know how to run a Social Services Department. I have every sympathy for people who make the best decision they can on a difficult day and it all goes horribly wrong. But they went into court to try these boys with a file that goes back 14 years, documenting terrible things. That is a massive failure at all levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP - you are pretty much right in what you are saying While I am not a policeman now. I could have pointed you to umpteen young people who had been through the system loads of times. Pure chance that almost without exception they did not go on to much larger things (nearly all from broken homes.

The point about the food producer is that nearly everyone has a previous occupation - Mrs T was a grocers assistant. (and I am not asking for a party political broadcast on that, cos you know what I mean).

 

Happy days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I take your point Harry, but when it comes to safeguarding children, there isn't an option to put someone with no experience into the driving seat. Mrs T worked her way through the ranks - she wasn't plucked from the shop and given an empire. This guy went from meat pies to control over the lives of the most vulnerable children in one swift move. Scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs T was a grocers assistant. (and I am not asking for a party political broadcast on that, cos you know what I mean).

 

Happy days

 

Indeed, but worth being factally correct, her father owned a grocers shop in Grantham and maybe she did help out in it, but Mrs T actually studied chemistry at Oxford, became a research chemist, then retrained as a barrister, becoming an MP in 1959 and leader of her party in 1974....and the rest is history as they say. :wink:

 

 

But in the case of Doncaster, how one goes directly from pie factory manager to head of social services is beyond me, maybe there is more to this chap's career than is being reported, mind you at the time as I recall, Doncaster was a council in chaos so God knows what their recruitment policy was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shudder to guess how many problem families there are just in Warrington alone. Perhaps good fortune has saved us from a tragedy.

 

Happy days

 

You are probably right HH, and I think the same is true for all social services departments no matter how good they might be, albeit that good ones will rely rather less on good fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sheer blind luck finding a child at risk when there's no history. Social Services rely on doctors, teachers and the neighbours to report incidents. They have no right to bang on the door, force entry or make you produce your child for inspection. It's a difficult and frustrating job, constantly between a rock and a hard place because almost any family situation is better than the care system.

 

However, a file an inch thick, going back over a decade would have been a very big clue for anyone whose experience went beyond a nice crisp crust and effective budget management. Letting someone learn on the job means accepting they're going to stuff up. In this case, that meant accepting damaged or dead children. And here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two are now apparently going to have their sentences reconsidered to see if what they have been given is "unduly lenient". :?

 

The Attorney General is required to look again at cases and pass to the court of appeal 'if asked to do so by a member of the public' :?:shock::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the indefinite sentence is the right way to go - reserve the right to keep them as long as they are a danger, but I do think a five year minimum is a bit optimistic for these two. If I were one of the boys they attacked, I'd prefer to know they'd be gone at least ten years so I was definitely safe that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally I would have executed them and saved the country a fortune. They are no good and they don't deserve a second chance.

 

Same should have been done with the two scum that killed bulger. Instead the taxpayer funded a life of riley culminating in one of them having a kid of his own apparently........... nice to see our taxes being spent on such waste

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the indefinite sentence is the right way to go - reserve the right to keep them as long as they are a danger

 

But at which point are they considered to no longer be a danger ?

 

They have to convince the authorities that they are not. These sentences were designed to do away with the situation we used to have where offenders, rapists, child molesters and so on had been sentenced for an offence, served their time and had to be released even though everyone knew they'd do it again. It's not perfect, but it is better. The minimum tariff has to be served in full too, no chance of early release, parole or time off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP,

 

the bloke who killed my wife was considered to be low risk and according to the parole board people who told me face to face that he had found god and was a different person....

 

he was moved to an open prison after 9 years inside and promptly killed a woman who had been visiting him as a prison visitor. You see criminals aren't like normal people; they are cunning and very calculating because it is in their interests to be like that. Unfortunately there are those out there in the lilly livered toga wearing liberal fraternity that are taken in by the deceit and believe it and let them out..... unfortunately, it isn't usually their family members who are slaughtered as a result

 

These monsterous kids ahve been caught; thankfully before they managed to murder anyone.... next time, will we be so lucky? I doubt it.

 

Oh and yes, everyone does get a say in the release; everyone except the victims and people with any common sense.

 

The Police have no say as to whether a criminal is released, their job is to catch them when they do wrong, that is all. the decision is up to the parole board which from the people I had to deal with all those years ago, were naive kids, straight out of university with the ink still wet on their degrees and not an ounce of real life experience amongst them.

 

Death penalty, that is the only way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa Baz! I didn't say I thought it was right - I just answered Dis as to the mechanics. I have no problem with dispatching the irredeemable, as I think I have said on here a number of times.

 

But as I understand the parole system now, the oral hearings normally used for indeterminate sentences always have an advocate representing the Secretary of State and the Victim as well as Public Protection and the victim and/or family can attend to give an impact statement, as do probation officers or prison psychiatrists where appropriate. The advocate can call any witness he wishes, including the Police. The prisoner also has the right to a legal bod, who can also call witnesses. The panel is usually headed by a judge (occasionally a legally qualified other with previous Board experience) and a psychiatrist or psychologist, with the third member independent but usually from the probation or criminology field.

 

You definitely had a raw deal - I don't know how long ago so maybe the system has improved, but certainly when these boys have served their tariff, their victims will get to participate. Personally, I hope the review of their tariff will see it increased significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus the expert opinions - shrinks, police, prison staff. I think everyone gets a say then a decision is made. I know conduct during the whole of the minimum term is taken into account.

 

And what about the victims and their parents, just wondering do they get a say, I don't think that they do and they should not least so that they are involved and know what is going on. On a wider point, if they are not already told, I think victims should be notified when the person convicted of the crime against them is released, even if it is just a letter in the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me the minimum sentence should be served after they have convinced people that they have "changed" after which if they can still prove it then they should be "considered" for a parole hearing. if turned down then they should have to serve a second period of minimum sentence before being considered again.

 

solitary confinement would be an option. a nice safe concrete stanchion under a motorway bridge would be favourite.

 

as we are short of donor organs then maybe that could be another option. minimum amount of time taken to clean any infections out of the system and then maybe some good will come out of it.

 

but such measures are not to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broken Britain? Was Britain Broken when Jame Bulger was murdered in 93 or the Mary Bell murders in the late 60s? I'm all for trying to find solutions to stop kids falling through the net of responsible society but that won't happen when politicians try and pin all the ills of the world on the current lot when they know full well they will be just the same.We've always had a lawless and chaotic underclass and so far no political party has done anything about it, if indeed anything can be done about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus the expert opinions - shrinks, police, prison staff. I think everyone gets a say then a decision is made. I know conduct during the whole of the minimum term is taken into account.

 

And what about the victims and their parents, just wondering do they get a say, I don't think that they do and they should not least so that they are involved and know what is going on. On a wider point, if they are not already told, I think victims should be notified when the person convicted of the crime against them is released, even if it is just a letter in the post.

 

Cross post Paul - as above, the victims and their families are most definitely informed and involved - their choice though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...