London’s murder rate continues upwards

If that person was still deemed a danger they must then not be released. I'd have no problem with that. I'm sure many wouldn't.


I would - you are talking about locking people up who have committed no crime on the say-so of a panel of 'experts'. Once you do that then why not extend the principle to the entire justice system and do away with pesky trials and actual evidence of wrongdoing.

At a stroke you solve the entire issue of resources that you are complaining about.
 
I would - you are talking about locking people up who have committed no crime on the say-so of a panel of 'experts'. Once you do that then why not extend the principle to the entire justice system and do away with pesky trials and actual evidence of wrongdoing.

At a stroke you solve the entire issue of resources that you are complaining about.

We're talking about terrorism here. Why would anyone want to extend measures related to terrorism to the entire justice system? That makes no sense, and for this conversation is irrelevant.

No-one is suggesting doing away with trials or evidence either. Said terrorist is already incarcerated due to evidence and a trial. You are also aware that a jury is just a panel of "non-experts" who decide someone's guilt.

What you actually seem to be saying is you're happy with someone getting released having served their term - or maybe less of it - even if they are still a danger to the public. And then just dealing with any potential issues on the outside. That's a ridiculous way to manage the problem. And why we're where we are. Unless we have resources in abundance, and we clearly haven't.

Say I've served my full 10 years inside and I'm due for release. I'm still clearly a danger, should I just be let out anyway? What if I subsequently went and killed one of your loved ones? Or should I be followed around by armed police 24 hours a day for the rest of my days? What a huge cost that would entail just for one person....There was a team of 15 allocated just to this guy....

What do you think of de-radicalisation programmes? They're run by experts in terrorist activity. These are the type of people I'm talking about for potential panels, those who have experience and knowledge of the subject.

Or would you prefer one man, a clipboard and a lie detector test I wonder?

I'm not saying I have the right answers, but clearly neither do the government and nor have they for the last decade.

There's supposedly hundreds like him who have been released. And many more who were planned to be before this happened.

To any sane person, the situation is fudgeing ridiculous. Yet here we are.
 
We're talking about terrorism here. Why would anyone want to extend measures related to terrorism to the entire justice system? That makes no sense, and for this conversation is irrelevant.

No-one is suggesting doing away with trials or evidence either. Said terrorist is already incarcerated due to evidence and a trial. You are also aware that a jury is just a panel of "non-experts" who decide someone's guilt.

What you actually seem to be saying is you're happy with someone getting released having served their term - or maybe less of it - even if they are still a danger to the public. And then just dealing with any potential issues on the outside. That's a ridiculous way to manage the problem. And why we're where we are. Unless we have resources in abundance, and we clearly haven't.

If you are suggesting open ended sentencing then I wouldn't have a problem with that, however in this case the guy was only convicted of possessing and sharing Al-Quaida propaganda and sentenced to 3 years. Given that murderers only get around 15 years I cant see that you are going to have much success in introducing unlimited sentences for conviction of non-violent offences. There are already people complaining about the proposal to stop automatic release halfway through a sentence.


What do you think of de-radicalisation programmes? They're run by experts in terrorist activity. These are the type of people I'm talking about for potential panels, those who have experience and knowledge of the subject.

Or would you prefer one man, a clipboard and a lie detector test I wonder?

Nothing at all against them however I would point out that the last terrorist incident in London was carried out by a guy attending a de-radicalisation program and he stabbed the guy running it.

So I dont think they are a total solution.


To any sane person, the situation is fudgeing ridiculous. Yet here we are.

The whole criminal justice system is based on you actually committing a crime before being incarcerated - not on someones opinion whether you will commit a crime sometime in the future. Minority Report was only a movie.
 
If you are suggesting open ended sentencing then I wouldn't have a problem with that, however in this case the guy was only convicted of possessing and sharing Al-Quaida propaganda and sentenced to 3 years. Given that murderers only get around 15 years I cant see that you are going to have much success in introducing unlimited sentences for conviction of non-violent offences. There are already people complaining about the proposal to stop automatic release halfway through a sentence.

A sentence has got to be served first and foremost. I actually started replying to your post from the bottom up :laugh: so I've kind of said this already, but every case needs to be treated on an individual basis. And assessed at the end of the term.

The way things are with Prison's at the moment - being at crisis point - someone who goes in for a 3 year crime, could be radicalised inside and then released being as dangerous as someone who was in for a 15 year crime.

So we need to make sure that the prison's are up to standard and radicalisation isn't occurring inside. It is a major problem, and as usual the resources to tackle it haven't been there.

Nothing at all against them however I would point out that the last terrorist incident in London was carried out by a guy attending a de-radicalisation program and he stabbed the guy running it.

So I dont think they are a total solution.

I agree not a total solution, but they need to be part of the solution. Otherwise we have to keep people locked up forever. At tremendous cost. But we need the funding to sharpen these programmes so as to possibly avoid that where possible.

The whole criminal justice system is based on you actually committing a crime before being incarcerated - not on someones opinion whether you will commit a crime sometime in the future. Minority Report was only a movie.

It's not Minority Report, it's just an extension of the Parole Board. In this case it's a board that is specialised in dangerous offenders.

Let's say the Streatham guy gets 5 years. What happens at the end of those 5 years? What if he's still considered a danger? Do we just let him out anyway because he's served his time? A few days later he kills someone this time though.

Absolutely cannot be allowed to happen. Yet we've let hundreds out and were planning on doing the same with more. With no proper idea as to if they are going to plan an act of terror or not. Or motivate others to do so.
 
Yup, a couple of my mates are Met Police officers and Theresa May’s name is still used as a term of abuse as she remains utterly despised for the swingeing cuts she made as Home Secretary to their numbers :mad:

Going to take years for the new recruits to come through training and even then they will still lack the decades of experience lost when senior colleagues were made redundant during Tory austerity. No doubt Patel will concoct some headline grabbing measures to give Express and Mail readers the impression that they’re still tough on crime though.

Ultimately there is no glossing over what an absolute shitshow subsequent Tory governments have turned the justice system into over the last decade. And we're only touching the tip of the iceberg in this thread.

The experience lost in the police cannot be replaced. Some of the cuts made and programmes lost will be immensely difficult to reverse. Consecutive governments have readily ignored expert advice on where to tread.

And here we are.

They're back in power, likely for another decade. Let's see if they fix what they've broken.
 
Up until the November London attack I assumed all those who were sent to prison for terrorist offences were jailed for life. I can not believe that sentences so low as 3 years have been given and then let out half way through. Sadly, the pathetic sentences are in line with other crimes so it's no surprise the country is knackered.

As for the armed police following them about, well, that's beyond belief.
Some are jailed for life. Like with any crimes there are degrees of severity.

You cannot seriously suggest that downloading and sharing banned materials relating to terrorism should incur the same punishment given to a participant of something like 9/11, 7,7, or the Mumbai Attack.

Sentencing lengths don't work, neither does the death penalty when these guys goal in life is to die for their cause.

Only deradicalisation really works as it removes the intent. It treats the cause so you don't spend even more money tracking these guys for the rest of their lives.

Sadly this costs money as our Prime Minister said as he dismissed the ex head of Prisons after asking him what kept him up at night (imminent release of terrorists), and what could be done about it.

So, all I expect to happen here is that sentencing lengths will increase, worsening overcrowding, ensuring these guys have even more contact with even more people, further enabling the spread of their message and recruiting even more to their cause.

As always, this country won't do what is required and will simply do whatever is cheapest or can be spun as acceptable to the public.
 
In relation to terror offences:

Conviction for spreading or sharing of terrorist ideology - open ended prison sentence

conviction for plotting terrorist offences - life

conviction for carrying out a terror offence - hang ‘em

police policy on terrorists mid-incident - shoot to kill, unless capture is possible. Police operative decision.
 
Spreading or sharing terrorist materials should have the same punishment as carrying it out. Or at least very close to.

I wouldn't martyr this people. Lock them away indefinitely until they're forgotten.
 
Spreading or sharing terrorist materials should have the same punishment as carrying it out. Or at least very close to.

I wouldn't martyr this people. Lock them away indefinitely until they're forgotten.

problem with the bold bit is they then just radicalise others in prison who may be eligible for release etc.

better to do away with them and dump them in a hole. Once convicted of carrying out a terrorist act.
 
problem with the bold bit is they then just radicalise others in prison who may be eligible for release etc.

better to do away with them and dump them in a hole. Once convicted of carrying out a terrorist act.

Hold them in isolation in special units away from the general population.

Have this explicitly taught at schools. If you partake in ANY terrorist activity, this is the rest of your life.

I do support deradicalisation, but letting people out who aren't even pretending to play the game? Absolutely absurd.
 
The whole criminal justice system is based on you actually committing a crime before being incarcerated - not on someones opinion whether you will commit a crime sometime in the future. Minority Report was only a movie.
We are discussing people who have already been locked up for a crime. Not rounding people up who look iffy. You seem to have the wrong end of the stick here if someone has given you that impression.
 
The way things are with Prison's at the moment - being at crisis point - someone who goes in for a 3 year crime, could be radicalised inside and then released being as dangerous as someone who was in for a 15 year crime.

But that applies to anyone in prison for any crime. Are you now proposing open ended sentencing for car theft or shoplifting?.

I agree not a total solution, but they need to be part of the solution.

Well it already is but this was being discussed on last nights news and as someone in the Prison Officers Association pointed out its very easy to fool - all you have to do is say and do all the right things in public and, voila, you are deradicalised. Which is pretty much what the guy in the previous terrorist attack did - he was a poster boy for deradicalisation.


Let's say the Streatham guy gets 5 years. What happens at the end of those 5 years? What if he's still considered a danger? Do we just let him out anyway because he's served his time? A few days later he kills someone this time though.

Then you have to have open ended sentencing just as you do in some murder cases. But as I said, I simply cannot see you getting this idea of open ended sentencing for non-violent crimes through all the Human Rights Lawyers and do-gooders.
 
We are discussing people who have already been locked up for a crime. Not rounding people up who look iffy. You seem to have the wrong end of the stick here if someone has given you that impression.

People who have been locked up and already served their sentence. The proposal is to keep them in prison in case they might do something in the future.
 
No one proposed that.

Post 643

Early release for dangerous offenders should never be allowed. They serve their full sentence, and only then at that point should it be a consideration. If they're deemed unfit for release they stay inside.
 
That's the case for a number of existing offenders. What was proposed is nothing new, just an extension of existing sentencing.
 
That's the case for a number of existing offenders. What was proposed is nothing new, just an extension of existing sentencing.

Yes - an extension of open-ended sentencing to non-violent offences.

Do you think that would be acceptable to politicians like Dianne Abbott or David Lammy given that it will inevitably affect more people from ethnic minorities than members of the white population?
 
Anyone deemed unfit for release shouldn't be released. It's that simple.

And obviously anyone deemed unfit this way needs to have been scrutinised to the nth degree before a decision made.

I'm not sure of the exact details but didn't that John Worboys rapist have his release cancelled because he was deemed a danger still?

Either way we cannot allow danger back onto the streets with increased risk and at huge cost. Which is exactly what we have been doing. It's counterproductive.
 
I'm not sure of the exact details but didn't that John Worboys rapist have his release cancelled because he was deemed a danger still?

Maybe certain crimes have a legal standard of risk assessment. I don't know. While terror, this guy's offence was pretty low level compared to that of a mass rapist so you'd expect the threshold for Worboys to be higher than this amateur hour terror try hard.
 
Maybe certain crimes have a legal standard of risk assessment. I don't know. While terror, this guy's offence was pretty low level compared to that of a mass rapist so you'd expect the threshold for Worboys to be higher than this amateur hour terror try hard.

That's the thing I was mentioning last night though. He's come out seemingly more of a danger than what he went in. But we've been routinely letting these guys out anyway without any proper assessment.

If he'd killed someone yesterday, then this would be looking a lot worse than it is (it is bad already of course).
 
Even the proposal to end automatic release may fall foul of the law..

However, the Government’s plans were branded a potential breach of the law by Lord Carlile, its former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation.
Speaking on BBC’s Newsnight, he said: “The decision to lengthen the sentences of people who have already been sentenced, and therefore expected to be serving half the sentence the judge imposed upon them, may be in breach of the law.
“It’s certainly going to be challenged, and I’m not satisfied that the government has faced up to the challenge fully. In any event, lengthening the sentence is not going to solve the problem because those individuals are still going to come out of prison at some point.”
 
Even the proposal to end automatic release may fall foul of the law..

However, the Government’s plans were branded a potential breach of the law by Lord Carlile, its former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation.
Speaking on BBC’s Newsnight, he said: “The decision to lengthen the sentences of people who have already been sentenced, and therefore expected to be serving half the sentence the judge imposed upon them, may be in breach of the law.
“It’s certainly going to be challenged, and I’m not satisfied that the government has faced up to the challenge fully. In any event, lengthening the sentence is not going to solve the problem because those individuals are still going to come out of prison at some point.”

They could take their time put in the hard work, and do this properly but they won't. They'll act impulsively and quickly, showing intent that will play well on the 48 hour news cycles. Their lazy legislation will be full of holes and rightfully rejected by the courts.

This is the plan.

Pick at the edges of the law. Keep pushing your luck and when the courts rightfully and predictably slap you down, go crying to the masses about those non-elected judges and out of touch courts suppressing the will of the people. If they can't even protect us from terror, what's the point of them?

It's the perfect play.

1. You get immediate praise for doing something, anything, by acting fast. People remember this as the first thing the government did in response to a terror attack

2. You don't have to do any real hard work. Lazy politics. Just up Johnson's street

3. You load up your public relation gun with anti judge rhetoric which helps in your goal of power consolidation and the removal of accountability.
 
Last edited:
After the London Bridge stabbings did we get an immediate reaction like this? Or was it soon quickly forgotten?

Once Brexit gets into full swing and this slowly disappears from the main news, I wonder how much will actually happen? Did anything happen with regards to the law after London Bridge?

A huge injection is needed into the justice system of cash and quality. If we want to incarcerate these people for longer terms, we're going to need more prison spaces and better work inside the prisons.

Neither of which are remotely possible at the moment.
 
After the London Bridge stabbings did we get an immediate reaction like this? Or was it soon quickly forgotten?

Once Brexit gets into full swing and this slowly disappears from the main news, I wonder how much will actually happen? Did anything happen with regards to the law after London Bridge?

A huge injection is needed into the justice system of cash and quality. If we want to incarcerate these people for longer terms, we're going to need more prison spaces and better work inside the prisons.

Neither of which are remotely possible at the moment.

Exactly. Real change costs money and resources. Nothing will change.

The approach I posted is perfect. Costs no money but gives maximum PR returns for both handling and long term optics on their biggest opponents to unconstrained power.

I fully expect to be discussing this again after the next attack.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom