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

[cakeismysaviour]

...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 and I hope he loses his case.

AIBU?

I disagree that those things are mutually exclusive. You can punish and rehabilitate surely?

As far as the pension is concerned. Give it to him, but make him pay compensation to his victim's families from it.

Some aspects of all of them are mutually exclusive. Philosophically, they are very different. The most obvious problem is that someone might be rehabilitated before their punishment period is over. Keeping them locked up would not be good for their ongoing recovery but would fulfil their punishment. Since rehab for drugs and alcohol (which is often a factor in offending) is shorter than a lot of sentences, this would be an issue. IMO a vast number of offenders are being punished with no attempt at all to rehabilitate.

Oh I absolutely agree with your last sentence. Ideally both would happen with every prisoner.

Residents of care homes (for OAPs) don't get their full pension, it is taken away and they are given "pocket money" (it used to be £15 a week but has hopefully risen a bit since then, but still mere pennies) so why should he have a full pension? The reasoning behind the care home rule was that they don't have to pay for various things, bills and suchlike, so they don't need it, and the government took it away (this was in the mid 1990s). If this is still the case, he should be treated like any other resident of a "home" who isn't responsible for any bills, and not get a pension.

Now that I didn't know PomBear! So why should any prisoner get a pension, whilst care home residents cannot?

Exactly! Assuming the law/rules haven't changed since I worked in the home, like I said, in the mid to late 1990s, he bloody shouldn't!

Actually, same goes for other people in residential care, for example adults with Learning Disabilities. They receive tiny amounts of pocket money and the rest is not given because they get meals, outings, bills etc. paid.

Well, unless they all get their pension/benefit than surely we should not even be considering prisoners getting it!? And even then I wouldn't support Sutcliffe getting it.

IIRC, prisoners who are found to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice and released have "bed and board" deducted from any compensation payment.

It would seem very odd if a prisoner could receive a pension and not also have some deduction made (the example of pensioners in care homes is a good one).

Perhaps they can tell him that his tax and national insurance went towards the cost of the investigation he necessitated when he killed all those woman and towards the cost of the trial he necessitated in which he was found guilty and the cost of keeping him him prison for all these years since.

And perhaps towards this waste of time and money while he whinges about his rights now.

Perhaps then they should bill him for the cost of all this and have him pay back what he has cost in the exact sum he would have been receiving in state pension if he were a normal OAP and not a fucking serial killer.

I thought he wanted to starve himself to death or is that the other nutter Ian Brady ?

Maybe he could donate his money as compensation for all the orphans that he created?

I don't give a fuck. I really don't see the point of these stories, like most people, I made my mind up about Peter Sutcliffe when he killed those women.

Do tabloid editors who reported gleefully on this sort of non-story think there are people out there thinking: 'ooh I used to really like that Peter Sutcliffe, but now he's after a pension he's gone too far...'

BTW. Gordon Burn's 'Somebody's husband, Somebody's son' is a brilliant non-hysterical account of the murders, Peter Sutcliffe's family and the communities in which the murders happened.

This seems to be an "AIBU to think that someone shouldn't get something that they are in fact not getting"?

Whats the point?

The point is that he is going to court to try and get the pension and that has brought up the subject of prisoners and whether they should be allowed to claim benefits/get pensions whilst inprisoned. Unfortunately, there is a chance that he could win this case (hopefully he won't), so why on earth shouldn't people be able to discuss it?!

Anyway, its only a thread on a forum, do they all need to have a 'point'!?

He terrorised every female I knew, and made us doubt every man we knew. Pension, I don't think so.

But Shipman hung himself, quite deliberately, at a specific time so his wife would be able to get his pension. It was the day before his birthday -very calculated - but it made sure his wife was set for life.

I am wondering why he is really doing this - boredom and devilment?

In about 2006, Sutcliffe began his attempts to claim income support whilst in prison. This ended up in front of the European court in 2011 see here - "rapists and killers demand right to benefits" and the case was lost.

Of course he'll win the rights! Human rights are pretty much always on the side of dangerous and evil criminals.

Apologies, I may have been getting ahead of myself; I'm not sure if there has been a European ruling on convicts' benefits during confinement. It has definitely no been found in their favour to date.

Why on earth would he need a pension?! Is he not in prison for life and therefore his tax and no contributions are paying for his "b+b"

As has been said he isnt entitled to state benefit so why get his pension , it just shows ho w delusional he is , I raped and Killed but i paid my taxes

They don't get it though, do they? So either you point should be that he shouldn't be allowed to challenge it, or that you hope he doesn't win. But all you have here is lots of people hotly asserting that what should happen is exactly what does happen.
I mean, knock yourself out if you want, but I generally think a discussion needs more of a point than "people shouldn't get things that they don't get". Seems a little otiose. Just my opinion though.

Of course he'll win the rights! Human rights are pretty much always on the side of dangerous and evil criminals

Sorry, did you get lost en route to the Daily Mail boards?

sassymcnassy - Personally I don't think this thread is pointless, but that is a matter of opinion, I suppose. :)

I just don't understand why you see it as a problem. As I said before, its just a thread on a message board. It doesn't have to have a point. Sometimes in life things can be pointless and thats ok! If you don't like the thread its up to you whether or not you choose to read it....