Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that Peter Sutcliffe signed away his right to a state pension...

61 replies

cakeismysaviour · 12/03/2012 19:29

...when he killed all those women?

He reckons that he is entitled to recieve the state pension because he is now 65 and because he worked and paid taxes prior to his conviction. He is taking his case to the European courts.

I think he is has a bloody cheek to say the least Angry and I hope he loses his case.

AIBU?

OP posts:
SecretNutellaFix · 12/03/2012 19:31

Well, considering as a prisoner he has no rights to state benefits, then he is talking out of his arse.

DoingTheBestICan · 12/03/2012 19:31

No yanbu,his pension should go towards his keep

suburbophobe · 12/03/2012 19:33

I agree.

oldmum42 · 12/03/2012 19:36

Maybe he did, but it's one of those "yes, but" situations...... if you think he should not be able to claim the pension his tax payments entitle him to, where do you draw the line?

10 years in prison = no pension even though you paid your taxes?
1 years in prison = no pension?
6months in prison = no pension?

Slippery slope if you ask me......

So , YABU

SecretNutellaFix · 12/03/2012 19:40

oldmum- by law, prisoners cannot receive state benefits while in custody. He is detained for the rest of his natural life.

squeakytoy · 12/03/2012 19:40

He is entitled to it, but it should be taken at source towards his upkeep.

BearlyThere · 12/03/2012 19:41

Oh god. Find someone more worthy of your angst.

SecretNutellaFix · 12/03/2012 19:41

Sorry, posted too soon.

Prisoner cannot have benefits whilst they are in prison. However, when they are released from prison they can then have them. As Sutcliffe will never be released, he cannot claim a pension.

TidyDancer · 12/03/2012 19:41

While the idea of him getting state benefits of any kind is abhorrant to me, it's a difficult call to make.

Technically, he's in hospital which complicates matters.

Original poster
cakeismysaviour · 12/03/2012 19:42

Peter Sutcliffe will remain in prison (well I think its a hospital prison) for the rest of his life, so if he did recieve the pension it would be whilst he is still in prison.

OP posts:
Original poster
cakeismysaviour · 12/03/2012 19:45

BearlyThere - Just trying to start a discussion, no need for angst. :)

OP posts:
Llanbobl · 12/03/2012 20:14

But he's in hospital and "patients" are entitled to certain benefits. Whether he is entitled to a state pension or not will depend on which part of the law he is being held under. If MHA it's quite likely he is entitled. However if he is a prisoner and was imprisoned under the Prison Act he is in lawful custody and the Soc Security Contributions and Benefits Act says a pension is not payable. Tis a complex area.

Original poster
cakeismysaviour · 12/03/2012 20:17

Interesting, Llanbobl. He has already made an application to the British courts and was turned down, hence he has chosen to take his case to the European courts. This would suggest he is in lawful custody (which I have always thought he is...).

OP posts:
thekidsrule · 12/03/2012 20:21

i dont get it,whats the point of him applying for a pension if he cant spend it anyway,or is it exercising his "right" as he may see it????????

niceguy2 · 12/03/2012 20:23

I agree with Oldmum. The problem is one of where do you draw the line?

What crime do you have to do before you remove someone's pension? Would the line be multiple murders or just one? Or maybe rapists and child abusers should also lose their pension rights? I don't think many would disagree. Then if we did that what about armed robbers, muggers. Why would they be entitled to pensions but a rapist not?

Difficult one.

Bunbaker · 12/03/2012 20:25

I was a student in Leeds when he was on his killing spree. We didn't have much of a social life because we were too scared to go out after dark. He doesn't deserve his pension.

TidyDancer · 12/03/2012 20:26

The thing is, leaving aside the fact that he's a murderer and faked mental illness and is not worthy of rejoining society, it's actually not that difficult to see where he's coming from. He paid NI and tax. From a very simplistic POV, it's logical. I'm glad that the laws of our country protect us from having to pay out for people like him.

Llanbobl · 12/03/2012 20:35

Probably is Cake as he was found sane to stand trial & sentenced to serve his sentence at Parkhurst. However, if sent to Broadmoor under different law to that used in sentencing he may currently be a patient not a prisoner. SS law in this area is awful.

Prisoners and pressure groups have been campaigning for awhile to get pensions for prisoners and have sought to get S113 of the Conts & Benefit Act repealed - somehow can't see it being successfully at the moment, even though the number if pensioner prisoners is low compared to total prison population.

Witholding benefits from prisoners/prisoners families is a highly emotive area - whilst I don't condone crime - Witholding benefits can lead to recidivism - not likely in this case though as he has been told he will never be freed in much the same as Myra Hindley

cookcleanerchaufferetc · 12/03/2012 20:40

He gave up his rights when he committed those horrendous crimes. Perhaps prisoners should be charged for their stay, even if it is at HRH pleasure, by way of withholding all benefits.

TheCrackFox · 12/03/2012 20:47

I would give him his pension and then charge him the exact amount for bed and board.

The cheeky fucker.

MrsTerryPratchett · 12/03/2012 20:54

Once again on an offender thread I feel the need to encourage people to think about what they want. Do you want to punish, rehabilitate, prevent crime or seek revenge? You can't have all of them as they are mutually exclusive. So would withholding his pension prevent crime? No, and one can see how it would encourage acquisitive crime if people are too poor to live. It would satisfy some people's need to keep on punishing but since he is locked up for life... he is being punished. Revenge, certainly, since taking away all someone's rights seems to satisfy that urge. But if revenge is what people want, why bother with the Courts and due process, just chuck people in a ring with their victim/victim's family?

Original poster
cakeismysaviour · 12/03/2012 20:59

Reading the posts on here so far, I am now wondering whether decisions about these things should be made on a case-by-case basis. Peter Sutcliffe will never be released and I still believe he shouldn't get the pension, but I concede that for other prisoners there may be a case for them having it.

OP posts:
Birdsgottafly · 12/03/2012 21:03

The problem is with Peter Sutcliff is that he is mentally ill.

Do we condem people who are mentally ill, but commit crime?

It is dangerous to remove rights from people. Prisoners are still part of society.

There are a few prisoners rights that need challenging, tbh.

Birdsgottafly · 12/03/2012 21:05

It is a test case which could affect the spouses of prisoners, same with some tax issues, so i have heared.

EdithWeston · 12/03/2012 21:06

I don't see this as problematic. Once you have been found guilty (which Sutcliffe was), and confined, you become ineligible for certain benefits until your release, irrespective of you NI record.

Remand prisoners, those convicted of offences which do not carry a custodial sentence are not included. Nor are those whose mental state mean they cannot stand trial, but are in a secure until.

Sutcliffe was found guilty. If not in hospital, he''s in prison as a convicted murdered.

Swipe left for the next trending thread