to believe the Parole Board panel should be public

[longfingernails]

At the moment they can chortle and sneer and let down the victims of the likes of Worboys without any personal accountability. Their anonymity shields their elitist anti-victim pro-violent criminal bias.

We have to congratulate the Sun (and Sadiq Khan) for supporting social justice, and standing with the victims. The appalling decision has been sent back by the High Court.

But the parole board members who took this unconscionable decision are free to take similar decisions again, their reputations unjustly intact.

It's good that Hardwick has gone; his CV seems like that of a typical elitist left-wing do-gooder. David Gauke also deserves scorn; advisers advise but ministers decide.

The entire Parole Board needs systematic reform, with victims' concerns placed above all else, especially in the case of violent crime. In my opinion the victim's representative should hold an unconditional veto over parole decisions.

And let so-called public servants take personal responsibility. The Parole Board members who decided to let Worboys loose must be named and shamed.

Parole isn't just given to offenders as a lovely treat. Parole is an important part of offender management. It means that people are in the community, but still serving a sentence and so are required to comply with supervision and various other requirements. If there are concerns the offender can be swiftly returned to prison. So, for example, if the person fails a spot drugs test they can be returned to prison, rather than when they attack someone on an alcohol and cocaine fuelled rage.

The alternative is to serve the full sentence, then be released with no supervision, no control, no checks, no offending behaviour work. Parole allows managed testing of the offender in the community.

But perhaps you are too busy frothing at the mouth and revelling in political point scoring to appreciate that.

You cannot have victims able to give vetoes. They should be able to express their views, they should feel heard but they cannot control the criminal justice system. I would not trust myself to be fair and balanced if someone had hurt my dc and I wouldn't expect anyone else to be either.

Victims and their representatives must have vetos.

No. A fair and just legal system needs impartial people making the decisions.

You couldn't possibly have a system where victims have vetos. One of the reasons for parole is that it incentivises criminals to reform, to behave in prison, and to get their lives together so that they can demonstrate that they won't reoffend if released. If they know that there is every likelihood that their parole will be vetoed, there would be none of those incentives - which would mean spending a fortune keeping people in prison for several years longer, more assaults and crime in prison, and greater reoffending rates leading to more victims.

Parole board must be anonymous, for example family member A is up for parole, and doesn't get it. Parole board names are released, Family member B deicides her sister A has been unfairly treated and harasses Parole board. How on earth are you ever going to get unbiased decisions on an incredibly hard subject from people who how that whatever they decide some people will be angry with them - enough to disrupt their lives.

Are you kidding? As part of my old job I had to provide report to parole boards on prisoner's progress. I had numerous death threats made towards me and my family, so from prisoners with significant links to organised crime or gangs. Without anonymity people involved in decision making would be very much at risk.

Also I don't agree that victims opinions should necessarily lead the way in decision making about crime (although the impact on the victim should be a factor of course). If we are interested in justice rather than retribution then we need calm and consistent decision making by someone arbitrary.