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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

The problem is more complex than that; we don't build enough houses. It's not a local market thing, it's a political thing.

I'm renting a house to a lovely couple of Londoners, copper/nurse, in NW England, they're on 1.5 x 0.9 wages having ditched London weighting and gone part time; they're still a grand a month better off on shorter hours because my rent is waaaay lower.


That's a wages/house prices/planning issue, firmly at Central Government's door.
 

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.

According to the link, the British Supreme Court told the Europeans to do one.

Before Brexit.
 
We noticed Magic Santa's behaviours as well. Utterly inappropriate, blinking into middle distance as if setting himself aside from the group. We are of the view (quite sincerely) that he is, in a purely clinical sense, not all there.. He seems to operate in a bubble of narcissistic disengagement.
One could say that he was present but not involved
Or, Fitted For, But Not With, Presence?
 

This article suggests that automatic release at the halfway point is still current and has not been rescinded by The Tories over the last 9.5 years.

IPP was abolished in 2012.

Am I missing something?

Determinate prison sentences - fixed length of time

A ‘determinate’ prison sentence is for a fixed length of time.

If the sentence is for 12 months or more
For prison sentences of 12 months or more the person spends the first half of the sentence in prison and the second half in the community ‘on licence’.

If they break any licence conditions - eg they commit another crime - they could go back to prison.

If the sentence is under 12 months
For prison sentences under 12 months, the person’s normally released automatically halfway through.


Indeterminate prison sentences - no fixed length of time

An ‘indeterminate’ prison sentence doesn’t have a fixed length of time.

This means:

* no date is set when the person will be released
* they have to spend a minimum amount of time in prison (called a ‘tariff’) before they’re considered for release

The Parole Board is responsible for deciding if someone can be be released from prison.

Indeterminate sentences are given if a court thinks an offender is a danger to the public.


Indeterminate sentences carry a minimum term, or tariff, for the purposes of punishment and to reflect the gravity of the offence. Once an indeterminate sentence prisoner’s minimum term has been served, he/she is eligible to be considered for release by the Parole Board. The law states that the offender is no longer held in prison as a punishment and can only remain in prison if they pose a risk to the public. It requires a court, in this case the Parole Board, to decide that issue.

<<there's more that's worth reading - the Parole Board can only adjudicate on danger to the public and not whether punishment is/was sufficient>>

And probably this one is the most informative (repeats some of the information above):


There are a variety of custodial sentences which can be handed down by the courts. Each of these will have different periods spent in custody, and in the community on a licence. All MAPPA offenders will be managed during this custodial period by the National Probation Service.Offender Management Pre S Report 002

These sentences are:

Determinate Sentences: This type of sentence has a fixed end point, and is the sentence handed down when a judge states a set length of time. Since 2005, all offenders subject to a determinate sentence will be automatically released into the community at the half way point of their sentence. The majority of earlier sentenced offenders subject to determinate sentences were converted in 2007, however there remains a very small number of long term offenders sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 who are instead automatically released at the two-thirds point of their sentence. Also, any offenders who are sentenced to a determinate sentence of under 12 months for an offence prior to 1 February 2015 are not released on licence.

Determinate Sentences with Post Sentence Supervision (PSS): Following changes in legislation, any offender subject to a custodial sentence of longer than one day for an offence committed on or after 1 February 2015 are now managed on licence. For such offenders whose sentences are less than 2 years will also be subject to a post sentence supervision period following the end of their licence period. Regardless of the length of sentence, the licence and PSS period will always add up to a total of 12 months.

Extended Determinate Sentences: Offenders who the courts deem to be at risk of committing further serious sexual or violent offences may receive an extended sentence. There have been various types of extended sentence with different release mechanisms as the legislation has been amended over the years but the basic principle of an extended sentence has remained the same. It comprises a custodial period plus an ‘extension period’ – an additional period of licence for the purpose of protecting the public from further serious offending. The automatic release points can vary between the hallway point to the end of the custodial sentence, with the offender reviewed for release earlier than that by the Parole Board.

Life Sentences: An offender given a life sentence will have a “tariff” stated by the sentencing judge. This tariff is the minimum period that the offender must serve in custody before they can be considered for release on licence by the Parole Board. Once an offender is released on licence, they will remain on licence for the rest of their lives.

Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP): This type of sentence operates in a similar way to a life sentence but with two key differences. Firstly, the tariff set by the judge is typically shorter than those placed on offenders subject to life sentences. Secondly, following a ten year period served in the community on licence, an offender subject to an IPP can apply to have the sentence terminated/ended. This decision will be made by the courts. Otherwise it operates as a life sentence, with the offender subject to review by the Parole Board in order to be released, and until the sentence is terminated, the offender will remain on licence. Both life sentences and IPP sentences are collectively called “Indeterminate Sentences” as the courts do not set an end point for the sentence when it is handed down. This sentence was abolished in 2012.
 
As I have said before; we should by wary of using terms like 'Prisoner of War' or anything which might give legitimacy to their cause or glamour to their quest for jihad. Treat them like other incurable violent offenders
The disagree is regarding POW status. They, the extremists, have declared war on us. In a wartime situation POWs are held until hostilities cease, therefore lock them up sine die if needs be.
 
What did Churchill say about appeasement?

‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last’

That’s all these Liberals are, appeasers.
Difficult though it may be for me to put my serious head on, I'm afraid I'm going to have to partially disagree with you. Only partially, because I agree that may well be the motivation for some.

But, I don't think that applies to all of them. As I'm sure many on here will have done, I've thought about the finality of ending somebody's life and the fact that there's no way back from it. I was also raised to think of all humans as basically saveable - or, at least, manageable. I've also thought about the experiences and conditions that lead people to commit crimes of such magnitude and what what can both be done to prevent such future crimes and to rehabilitate offenders. I try put myself in the mind of the child that they once were and adult they could have become if circumstances were different. So, I'm all for throwing money at these 'liberal' attempts to reduce reoffending and bring people back into the fold of society.

I'm also prepared to have robust Plans A, B & C in place in the meantime. Those plans should be as humane as we can manage but act to reduce the risk of harm to the general populace. That risk is unlikely to ever be zero, but we can hope to reduce it and learn from experiences such as this. As a firm technophile, I'm in favour of augmenting standard behavioural and psychological measures with research into such fields as functional MRI to determine what, if any, correlations exist between reoffending and brain activity - although this is an area that introduces its own risks to freedom of thought.

However, I also have room in my thoughts for Plan Z for when the risks to others outweigh either the risks of letting them back into society or even keeping them alive - I'd hate to shoot a rabid dog, but, no matter how nice a puppy Rex was before getting infected, until we find a cure for rabies ...

And one other point that may be relevant is the context of Churchill's aphorism - he was referring to appeasers who throw others to the crocodiles in the hope of gaining their own survival. I don't think that really applies to people who, on a face-to-face basis, are trying to stop crocodiles eating people.

One thing many of them could do with attending, though, is a Workshop on Applied Cynicism and a course on how not get your reality cheque bounced. How much training do these people get in what to do if something kicks off? How was the possibility factored into the event's risk plan?
 
As was pointed out above, they had been working with Usman for over a year, before he was released and subsequent to his release, and risk assessments were carried out by the University and within the prison system, according to media reports and this morning's interview with the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge. Moreover, special permission had to be grated - after a risk assessment - before he was allowed to travel to London for this workshop.
And they got it wrong.
 

Yokel

LE
The disagree is regarding POW status. They, the extremists, have declared war on us. In a wartime situation POWs are held until hostilities cease, therefore lock them up sine die if needs be.
Look them up - totally agree. Call them anything other than terrorist criminals - totally disagree. Being a 'soldier' or a Martyr might appeal to some, rotting in a prison cell will not.
 
Look them up - totally agree. Call them anything other than terrorist criminals - totally disagree. Being a 'soldier' or a Martyr might appeal to some, rotting in a prison cell will not.
In my opinion if we recognised we were on a war footing, it would be easier to lock them up. This would save us having to jump through all the hoops the "human rights" lot want, before we can put them away until peace is declared. A millennium, fine by me.
 

Mrsheeny

Old-Salt
Difficult though it may be for me to put my serious head on, I'm afraid I'm going to have to partially disagree with you. Only partially, because I agree that may well be the motivation for some.

But, I don't think that applies to all of them. As I'm sure many on here will have done, I've thought about the finality of ending somebody's life and the fact that there's no way back from it. I was also raised to think of all humans as basically saveable - or, at least, manageable. I've also thought about the experiences and conditions that lead people to commit crimes of such magnitude and what what can both be done to prevent such future crimes and to rehabilitate offenders. I try put myself in the mind of the child that they once were and adult they could have become if circumstances were different. So, I'm all for throwing money at these 'liberal' attempts to reduce reoffending and bring people back into the fold of society.

I'm also prepared to have robust Plans A, B & C in place in the meantime. Those plans should be as humane as we can manage but act to reduce the risk of harm to the general populace. That risk is unlikely to ever be zero, but we can hope to reduce it and learn from experiences such as this. As a firm technophile, I'm in favour of augmenting standard behavioural and psychological measures with research into such fields as functional MRI to determine what, if any, correlations exist between reoffending and brain activity - although this is an area that introduces its own risks to freedom of thought.

However, I also have room in my thoughts for Plan Z for when the risks to others outweigh either the risks of letting them back into society or even keeping them alive - I'd hate to shoot a rabid dog, but, no matter how nice a puppy Rex was before getting infected, until we find a cure for rabies ...

And one other point that may be relevant is the context of Churchill's aphorism - he was referring to appeasers who throw others to the crocodiles in the hope of gaining their own survival. I don't think that really applies to people who, on a face-to-face basis, are trying to stop crocodiles eating people.

One thing many of them could do with attending, though, is a Workshop on Applied Cynicism and a course on how not get your reality cheque bounced. How much training do these people get in what to do if something kicks off? How was the possibility factored into the event's risk plan?
As harsh as it may seem the young lad who died did so because of his fathers deluded left wing beliefs. If my son wanted to work with recently released murderers and terrorists and not in the capacity of providing armed security over them then I would have failed to prepare him for the real world which can be a brutal and nasty place.
 
ISTR the French had a novel solution for hard core Nazis .
Starve and beat them 'till they agreed to join the Foreign Legion on a 5 year engagement
Bizzare, I joined voulantarily although I was a little hesitant initially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top