In saying 30 years is not enough?

Out of all the threads on mumsnet this is the one we should all be agreeing on i can't believe their are people on here think others are being to harsh. Some people really need their hard drives checking.

Because the crime has already happened? This thread is about this man and the punishment he deserves. There is no way to prevent this from happening, other than nurseries taking one look at this obvious pedophile and not thinking "yeah, you look like a kind and nurturing soul that should be trusted to be alone with defenceless children". And before anyone says "dont judge a book by its cover!!!!" Clearly, they should have in this case. And yes, im aware even the nicest looking people can be rapists and pedophiles, but not hiring people like this whom may as well have "pedo" tattooed on their forehead would be a good start.

It'll happen someone will always turn a blind eye and 'accidents' happen. I don't believe for one minute that any prisoner has one to one body guarding,
He'll need to sleep with one eye open.

Exactly right. Their crime rate isnt higher because they have capital punishment, and trying to make that correlation is true lunacy. I think we should go a step further a employ punishment from more extremist countries, id be all for watching this waste of oxygen get stoned to death.

He will be out when he is 50 walking the streets would you want him living next door to your future grandchildren

But raping infants isnt lunacy? Dont act like you have a point by using as many words as possible. What punishment you suggest for this thing? A slap on the wrist? 30 years in prison, with time served at 15? Enjoying a solo cell alone fantasising about what he did to those kids? Those victims?

Anyone who rapes another person, but especially a defenceless child, deserves to be killed in the most painful possible way. But you sit there on your high horse saying how that isnt the proper thing to do, and this poor man should only be left to serve a few years in prison for his trivial crimes. Guess youre just "down with this sort of thing".

These threads are a contest to see who can be the most outraged and blood thirsty, they aren't actual conversations about crime prevention.

This man raped children, so you want the UK to introduce policies from a country with a far higher crime rate? I ask again, why?

I think that execution would be a really easy way out for people like him. I’d far rather he has to spend many years suffering in prison for what he has done.

No, it's lunacy, and the hallmark of tinpot, backward, draconian despotic states.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Though we can do better than that, you rape our kids, we kill you. Thats fair

Refer to OP, thats why.

Nothing like as "odd" as people who advocate for state-sanctioned execution, and yet apparently can not see the moral irreconcilability of a State which says "don't kill people, it's wrong, and if you do, we'll kill you".

And what do you think about the argument presented above that there has to be something worse for taking life?

No they have said at least 2/3rds behinds bars according to bbc news so he got 20 years and 6 years on licence

Because people like this should never step foot in public again. Its odd to me that you think someone like this should be back out in society

Well, they didn't "learn their lesson" with Watkins, so...? 🤷‍♀️

I trained as a probation officer and this is what we were told in one of our lectures. There is apparently research that backs this up.

Killing the person also means you're less likely to be caught as there's no one to accuse/identify you.

What this guy has done is horrific and I fully understand why people would want him locked up forever. But the Judge will have had guidelines and would have had to stay within those guidelines (otherwise it leaves it open to appeal).

Wont it be a minimum of 30 years before he can apply for parole ?

I remember hearing adults discussing this when I was a kid (there was some news report about the Death Penalty, maybe 30 years after its abolition?) and an auntie saying whatever the worst penalty is must be for murder/treason, and the reason it wasn't used for rape was because that would increase the chance of a rapist killing his victim, because he would have nothing left to lose.
Whether we're talking hanging or life imprisonment, the argument was there has to be something worse for taking life to reduce the chance of an offender killing the victim, as if they're going to get the same penalty anyway, they might kill them,

Why?

I completely understand and agree regarding emotions but what makes anybody think he has got away "pretty much scot free".

It's a term that is used often around people who think they should be sentenced to death.

Irrespective of sentencing a 30 yr sentence is a million miles from scot free.

We aren't going to be sentencing anybody to death in the UK so knowing this vile creature is not walking amongst us is the next best thing

Probably a Huntley existence and death.🤞

I agree what he's done is vile and I hope he never walks the streets again. But 30 years is not getting off scot free. It's a long sentence.... ideally it would be longer imo so he dies in prison.

I also think the people who were told of his behaviour and the nursery managers should be looked at. Evil is only allowed to happen if the innocent turn a blind eye....