29 Nov 19: London Bridge sealed off amid reports of gunfire . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding from following the news is that the ECHR ruled in 2008 that IPP sentences were against the human rights act. Happy to be proven incorrect sir.

This article suggests that it was the coalition government that abolished IPP and that decision was backed by The ECHR.

By my reckoning, The Tories have got rid of IPP and have failed to repeal automatic release at the halfway point of the sentence.
 

This article suggests that it was the coalition government that abolished IPP and that decision was backed by The ECHR.

By my reckoning, The Tories have got rid of IPP and have failed to repeal automatic release at the halfway point of the sentence.
Automatic release is for sentences of 4 years or less*: any sentence greater than four years is the within the purview of the relevant parole board.

Khan did not meet that criteria.

*happy to be corrected if such is not the case.
 

This article suggests that it was the coalition government that abolished IPP and that decision was backed by The ECHR.

By my reckoning, The Tories have got rid of IPP and have failed to repeal automatic release at the halfway point of the sentence.
If you read back, and look at official reports, the coalition only scrapped the IPP (after it was introduced by Blair) because the UK high court deemed it illegal, the appeal court of the House of Lords deemed it illegal and this was eventually backed up by the ECHR. The fact that it took 9 years for all this to pan out meant the coalition were now in power and had to scrap it.
The House of Lords also stopped the Home Secretary from determining length of sentences (also backed up by the ECHR some 5 years later) but the HS can appeal to the Supreme Court (as it is now) to set a sentence.
 
As I understand it, it’s the automatic release at the half way point that could have been changed by the government in power for the last 9.5 years.

Johnson is campaigning on doing just that if he is elected. I understand that IPP or whatever it is called, is outside the control of the govt.
Why do you still not understand that the law CANNOT be applied retrospectively?

It wouldn't have made any difference if the Tories had passed legislation for more than half a sentence to be served as custodial, there is no way to apply that law to people already sentenced.

IPPs are no longer used yet there are people still serving IPP sentences.

You seem to want to ignore facts, ignore the law and put the blame on the Conservatives no matter what.
 
It's a good job he was only shot with a 556, if the cops been using "That Rifle" they'd have destroyed the whole bridge!
Current affairs fella.
 
If you read back, and look at official reports, the coalition only scrapped the IPP (after it was introduced by Blair) because the UK high court deemed it illegal, the appeal court of the House of Lords deemed it illegal and this was eventually backed up by the ECHR. The fact that it took 9 years for all this to pan out meant the coalition were now in power and had to scrap it.
The House of Lords also stopped the Home Secretary from determining length of sentences (also backed up by the ECHR some 5 years later) but the HS can appeal to the Supreme Court (as it is now) to set a sentence.
Imteresting.
 
Why do you still not understand that the law CANNOT be applied retrospectively?

It wouldn't have made any difference if the Tories had passed legislation for more than half a sentence to be served as custodial, there is no way to apply that law to people already sentenced.

IPPs are no longer used yet there are people still serving IPP sentences.

You seem to want to ignore facts, ignore the law and put the blame on the Conservatives no matter what.
I’m not blaming The Conservatives for this particular incident, the blame lies with the murderer alone.

I’m merely pointing out that they have had 9.5 years to stop automatic release at the halfway point of a sentence and as far as I can see have not.

They gave up the title of being the party of law and order years ago.
 

Toppet

War Hero
Thank you

I worked in That London mid 80s till the early 90s, can distinctly recall little plastic police "sentry boxes" at various key points in town.
There still is one on Queen Victoria Street that is occasionally manned:

Screenshot_20191203-213258_Maps.jpg
 
I’m not blaming The Conservatives for this particular incident, the blame lies with the murderer alone.

I’m merely pointing out that they have had 9.5 years to stop automatic release at the halfway point of a sentence and as far as I can see have not.

They gave up the title of being the party of law and order years ago.
Why do you still not understand that they could have passed as many laws as they wanted it still would not have made any difference to the sentence the Court of Appeal gave Khan because the law cannot be applied retrospectively?

You're a copper and you can't grasp this?

You'll also know that for 5 years of that 9 they were in coalition with the LibDems so would never have been able to get that legislation passed. The EU referendum was 3 1/2 years ago and that time since has been taken up with Brexit and Parliament blocking Brexit. Theresa May had a small majority and Boris has only been in power 3 months and he has no majority at all.
 
People are unwelcoming because now their kids can't afford to buy houses as Henry and Imogen have shown up in droves, priced them out the market and turned their community into a copy of the one they ran away from in London.

Some people don't deserve a warm welcome. Especially as they then complain about how backward the locals are.
Ref my bold, Henry and Imogen priced the local kids out of the market, because the local kids parents took the extra money from the Henry and Imogen concerned, thus selling their kids chances of buying houses within the local price range. Don't blame Henry and Imogen for having loads of money, blame the greedy parents for pricing their own children out of the local housing market.
 

Londo

LE
It's a good job he was only shot with a 556, if the cops been using "That Rifle" they'd have destroyed the whole bridge!
But but but . Why didn't the police shoot the bomb off his chest ?
 
What an asswipe you are!! Really!!!
Impressive use of exclamation mark to mask lack of vocabulary.

Asswipe?

Have you drunk so much you've turned into an American?
 
I can't disagree, however I think given the paucity of "low-tech" attacks and the seeming preference for these given the much lesser opportunity for interdiction by Security Services, we need to move away from a sliding scale of sophistication/threat to an outcome based approach.

This guy was adjudged to have 'bigged-up' his role by Levensen and his IPP was removed on appeal and reverted to 16 years.

Interestingly the guidelines make no mention of sophistication as a factor, however Lord Justice Wilkie stated; 'When assessing the future risk to the public, too much weight should not be placed on conversations for the purpose of ascribing comparative sophistication: it is not implausible that some self-publicists will talk 'big' and other more serious plotters may be more careful and keep their counsel'.

You could easily state the same when dealing with apparent remorse and rehabilitation.

AM - Sentencing Guidlines -Terrorism

I'd like to see a mandatory "life" tarriff for the preparation of any terrorist offence with severe restrictions on release, a whole life for the actual commission (regardless of death toll, method or sophistication) with the only room for mitigation being coercive or medical grounds.

This guy has gamed the system perfectly: successful appeal, model prisoner, early release and lone wolf/knife combo and now two people are dead.

A very firm message needs to be sent - dabble in terrorism and you will never come outside. Rehabilitation will be closed to you. A similar approach needs to be taken to gangs in London.

Hopefully with a solid majority and Priti at the reins we will see solid progress on these fronts.
Agree with everything in this post except for the slightly fanbois Priti reference at the end; she's a politician, mate, don't trust them.
 

This article suggests that it was the coalition government that abolished IPP and that decision was backed by The ECHR.

By my reckoning, The Tories have got rid of IPP and have failed to repeal automatic release at the halfway point of the sentence.

The effectively indeterminate sentence was the problem.

Replace it with, say, 45 years, problem solved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top