Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Warboys case won't be reviewed. AIBU to wonder why he has become teflon?

21 replies

lolaflores · 19/01/2018 18:15

Something has got to be so very, very up and stinky about all of this. Given the outrage, the mishandling and over all imcompetence surrounding this case, I had had a feeling, that the government might try to make amends.
But no.
David Gauke says there will be no judicial review and whats more, no reasons can be given (or will be given) as to how this decision was arrived at.
All the usual blether about feeling sorry for victims and then distancing himself with a little bit about his own reservations.
No explanations. No outcome. This animal is being set free or is already free. Women's safety is just not that important after all...
God almighty

OP posts:
IvorBiggun · 19/01/2018 18:17

I wondered if there’s a reason we don’t know about like chemical castration? Or a less chemical, more DIY prison job...

lolaflores · 19/01/2018 18:27

Erm. Chopped or not. He shouldn't be out. I still think he is a real risk to women and that urge hasn;t been dealt with by the chemical castration. And that isn't permanent is it?
Take away the drugs and the libido and drive is restored so he would need supervision.
Something else is going on.

OP posts:
IvorBiggun · 19/01/2018 19:03

I didn’t post a comment about whether or not he should be out Confused

I mean I have on one of the other millions of threads about this but I haven’t here.

TrinitySquirrel · 19/01/2018 19:05

He's probably transitioning so he can go in to Topshop changing rooms...

IvorBiggun · 19/01/2018 19:09

There will probably still be a review but it won’t be brought by the government.

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 19/01/2018 19:13

Further proof that this cunting governmenthe being full of misogynistic pricks. Üho do not give a flying fuck about the safety of üomen.
Even if he has had it chopped off. I'd have fucking burned it off very slowly, 9 years is nowhere near enough punishment for one attack let alone 100.

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 19/01/2018 19:14

One thing I üill disagree üith you about is that he's an animal. Animals üouldnt do something so evil and sickening.

lolaflores · 19/01/2018 19:23

Awwlookatmybabyspider what the hell is going on with your U...are you furiously typing
If the government can't bring a review, then who can?
I am so confused and frustrated as well as deeply suspicious of what is going on.
And I would not be even slightly surprised if this dose of crap for a human being is decidng to reassign itself. Trinitysquirrel
It makes me sick that the best the government can do is read out a limp little statement saying they really haven't got the energy to make afuss about all of this...

OP posts:
lostincumbria · 19/01/2018 19:27

It's almost certainly because the process has been followed properly and they would lose a legal challenge, hence the decision to purse a review of probation generally instead. Sometimes the law just is an ass.

DopeyDazy · 19/01/2018 19:28

I cant understand how he's employed lawyers and psychiatrists to help his case and kept his £300000 house.Is he a millionaire or legal aid. Should his victims have sued him. The crowd funding seems the only possible solution or other victims coming forward

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 19/01/2018 19:31

My keyboard is set to Azerbaijan. God knows hoü that happened. I can't fix it. Arrggghh. It's driving me mad

MyBrilliantDisguise · 19/01/2018 19:32

It beggars belief that he got such a short term anyway, but it was a minimum term, wasn't it? Why does he get parole if the prison doesn't think he's ready for it?

OlennasWimple · 19/01/2018 19:37

Grin at Awwlook's Azerbaijani keyboard!

There's a very high threshold for a minister to bring a judicial review. They have to have legal advice that says that there is a good chance of success, which means in turn that the lawyers believe that there has been an error in law (or procedure) or that the decision is so peverse that it shouldn't be allowed to stand

(It's a bit more complicated, but if there's little chance of success ministers can't spend public money on what could be perceived as personal vendettas)

lolaflores · 19/01/2018 21:47

They'll all be wanting Azerbajani keyboards Awwlook.
Mine is US and it doesn't have a sterling pound sign on it so I have to put GBR Sterling behind everything.
Fucking pain in the hole
Is this the problem with British law being based on presidence or something?
How is a decision judged to be perverse?
But, yes, I see the point now of the government not trying to chase something which will be not have an outcome in their favour.
It just breaks my heart though. Really does.
And its made me realise how much goes on that we have no access to, despite the essential core of it being about public safety. Mine and yours.

OP posts:
Julie8008 · 19/01/2018 21:53

You just cant have the government throwing people in prison because a mob wants it. He was convicted of 1 rape, he has served ten years. All the correct procedures have been followed. There just probably isn't anything legal anyone can do. That's the price of living in a democracy.

lougle · 19/01/2018 22:03

[ALT+156] is the £ sign, lolaflores.

I, too, think there's something odd about it all, but I suspect he was safer in than he will be out. I can't think he'll feel safe, at all, although I'm sure that's absolutely no comfort for the women who knew him for all the wrong reasons.

Jozxyqk · 19/01/2018 22:03

It's cases like this that really make me wonder why the hell transwomen want to transition & be recognised as women. We are still second class citiizens in some respects; sexual harassment & even assault is part of life for a majority. It isn't empowering, despite what a certain transwoman may have to say about the matter.

mrsharrison · 19/01/2018 22:20

I wonder if the 100 victims are planning on bringing a civil case and the gov are aware of this?
A lower burden of proof and no prison sentence but if found guilty he will have to pay them compensation.
Crime victims don't normally have solicitors so i think something is being planned.

Onlyjoinedforthisthread · 19/01/2018 22:21

The reason is simple the judiciary and government must be kept separate, if the government were to interfere this would set a dangerous precedent and go against democracy. Poland is facing European sanctions for government interference in the judiciary and rightly so, we are not living in Russia, China or under some right wing dictator.

Don't get me wrong I believe he should not ever be released but this should not be politicised.

WallisFrizz · 19/01/2018 22:29

I’m hoping it will bring about a review of current parole procedures resulting in longer sentences for future cases. So maybe some good can come of this farce (not that will be any comfort to his victims).

MiniCooperLover · 19/01/2018 22:38

They made some serious legal mistakes refusing to take any of the other cases to court and have realised they can't keep him in unfortunately. Hopefully the plan is to track him and arrest as soon as possible.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread