To think he should NEVER be released - HORRIFIC STORY WARNING ***warning reiterated by MNHQ - disturbing content***

[ShockedandOutraged]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6457161/Hes-bad-Ian-Brady.html#article-6457161

After committing a crime like this, it can never be guaranteed that this man is not a risk to society. What parameters do the Parole Board use to determine this? He has not been around to lose his temper/in a position to kill children while inside.

The reports details a network of 'friends' that this fiend has as support when he's out. Who on earth could be friends with something like this?

How can he even want to be released? If he had any remorse he'd have killed himself before now.

The poor parents of these children. Is there anyway they can fight against this?

Or, like this guy we're talking about is going to a probation hostel, he could be breathalysed there to see if he's over the limit re alcohol.

Given that the last time he got pissed he murdered three children, would you really want to be the probation officer waving a breathalyser in his face asking him to blow?

How bad does a crime need to be for life to mean life?

I can’t imagine much worse than this.

So the parole board believe they have monitored him in “stressful situations” and now conclude he can cope? Yes, until the next time. I’m struggling to imagine what sort of “stressful situations” he has faced being banged up all his life? They’re not going to be reflective of what he will face in real life and so it’s like comparing a fucking carrot to a teabag

What’s also strange is that, according to reports, he’s spent the vast majority of his time in prison in protective custody and isolation due to repeated, regular attacks from other inmates. He’s also been moved back to higher security prisons at various points after short spells in lower category/open prisons. It sounds like he hasn’t had a lot of contact with anyone over the past 45 years. A huge risk and experiment for both him and the general public surely?

"This isn’t about whether he’ll do it again, it’s about the fact he did it."

Lets just past this in over and over again because you literally can't say anything else. Its beyond comprehension.

he will surely have to be watched constantly by the local police under his licence?

Oh, yeah, that worked really well with John Venables and Peter Tobin.

They could tag him. That’s one way of monitoring where he is.

The tags can be removed, and have, left in the location whilst the parolee went out to re-offend.

And the new identity, correct, with SM, this poses a threat not just to him but also to innocent people who resemble him who might be killed by a vigilante mob.

It's not safe for him or the public to have him released by that reckoning alone.

@Nicknacky
I'm in London so it might be different here but yes our police can install monitoring software on people's computers. I don't know how often this is checked, I suspect it's used more as a deterrent than anything, but that is what they do.

would you really want to be the probation officer waving a breathalyser in his face asking him to blow

If he's told to do it, he has to do it. If he doesn't it's a breach of his licence and he will know that (if it's a licence condition).

Statistically lifers actually have the lowest rate of reoffending of all released prisoners.

I'll repeat, I agree this man should not be released. What he did was so horrendous, he doesn't deserve a day of freedom. I do not disagree with anyone on that fact. I also know that no, he can't be monitored all the time and that there is no guarantee he wouldn't do anything like this again. I also know though that there have been other people released who have done awful things to children, including murdering them, that people didn't/don't hear about (for whatever reason). You could easily be coming across these people in your day to day life and never know. It's only when cases hit the press that people hear about them. But a lot of people who committed horrendous crimes in the 70's say (so no online reporting back then) have been released post 2000 and are out there living their lives and you don't know who they are.

Belinda that’s a good question ie how bad does a crime have to be to mean life.

It all seems connected to what Law was at the time of sentencing, as oppose to the crime.

Had he be sentenced since 2003 for the crime, he would have a whole life sentence with no parole.

They are going to release him, why so he can go kill some more children and wreck more people's lifes. If anyone thinks such a monster can be rehabilitated they are as insane as the monster himself!

Artofhappiness it's interesting that the Parole Board recommended that they should continue to act in secret because of fears for their safety

Considering that the rest of the judicial process is usually public and that the same argument could be made about judges and juries, a cynic might feel it's a pity they're not more concerned about public safety instead

I believe that, since the John Warboys case, it's now possible to apply for a "summary" of how a decision's been made, but that still doesn't change the secrecy of the actual proceedings

storm I’m in no doubt the force up here have the technology but it won’t be routinely used apart from the worst offenders (and I’m in no doubt this murderer is one of the worst) but internet usage isn’t a main concern in this case.

If he's told to do it, he has to do it. If he doesn't it's a breach of his licence and he will know that (if it's a licence condition).

Oh come on. Don’t be ridiculous. We’re not talking about asking a perfectly reasonable person to blow into a breathalyser. This is someone who says the last time he was pissed and stressed he murdered three children and impaled them on railings.

If he is drunk and a probation officer has to breathalyse him, do you think the officer would just be thinking ‘Well he has to do what I tell him to so it will all be fine’. No, the probation officer will be wondering if he’s about to be garrotted and have some fencing shoved up his jacksy. If he’s been drinking he would already have broken the terms of his licence anyway, so it’s not like he would have the incentive to meekly submit anyway because he would fail it either way. The only way it could be safely done was if he’d not been drinking so he had the incentive to prove he hadn’t broken his licence conditions. But that means he could never be caught out because it would be too dangerous to breathalyse him drunk, plus he’d have no incentive to comply.

Honestly, the idea it would be perfectly safe to breathalyse someone whose previously committed a crime this heinous because they were apparently drunk and stressed is just ludicrous. You’d be sending the probation officer on what was pretty much a suicide mission.

I’ve just realised I kinda contradicted myself. What I mean is that if the technology exists, our force will have the ability to access it should it be necessary but it wouldn’t be routine and would be used in rare cases.

augusta By your way of thinking then any attempt to deal with a breach of conditions could be met with violence?

Look, violent people are released every day with stringent conditions and generally they know and accept the consequences of failing to comply with them. Most don’t want the jail and will attempt to hid a breach, not be violent and go back to jail for life.

augusta By your way of thinking then any attempt to deal with a breach of conditions could be met with violence?

Yes, but most attempts to deal with breaches of conditions don’t involve closely replicatating the circumstances which have previously led to an offender murdering three children and impaling them on railings do they?

Most offenders who have a condition not to drink on their release will probably have concerns about fighting or inappropriate behaviour when they’re drunk. Not garrotting infants.

Thanks @Puzzledandpissedoff, yes, it’s really odd that parole hearings are secret when judges, juries etc carry out their roles in open court. It gives the impression that either parole boards do not trust the public to understand or accept their decisions or that the boards themselves have little confidence in their own abilities and fear their decisions won’t stand up to public scrutiny. Archaic really, and must be horrendous for victims and their families.

No, the probation officer will be wondering if he’s about to be garrotted and have some fencing shoved up his jacksy

If you're a probation officer, you can't think that way. You just can't. They deal with murderers and rapists etc every day. They can't do their job scared or it isn't the job for them. The hostels have more than one staff member on at a time, panic buttons etc. They have to be able to handle murderers otherwise whats the point?! If a person was drunk and displaying dangerous behaviour the police would be called anyway.

augusta But you are making up a totally hypothetical scenario. I don’t agree with him getting out, no way but the parole board will have considered and taken guidance about likely breaches of conditions.

Like storm said slightly upthread, these types of offenders are less likely to reoffend that the general prison population.

My god, just read that after killing the children and baby, all in different, very violent ways, he went to the basement of the house to get a pick axe and mutiliated them further before carrying them outside and impailing the bodies on a neighbours railings. The coroner reports could not state at what point each of the children actually died. He was drunk when committing the crimes and had been fighting in the pub earlier that evening, but was calm and sober on arrest in the early hours and would not say where the bodies were.

There is no way this animal should ever be released. I really hope the parole board’s decision is challenged in court.

"it's interesting that the Parole Board recommended that they should continue to act in secret because of fears for their safety"

That reads to me more like they haven't the courage of their convictions! Most witnesses, judges, lawyers, jurors aren't afforded that privilege.

This whole matter is very simple.

By rights this man should have been executed and that would have been an end to it but in my view we did away with the death penalty as some have been executed whist innocent, a bit late then so understandable.

So we changed that for life imprisonment but the real problem is that life no longer means LIFE and that is a real problem.

Simple as that.

there's some sort of public meeting for the parole board in London, but of course they won't take any questions on specific cases

www.gov.uk/government/news/parole-board-open-management-committee-meeting

I suppose if any of us attended and asked, we would be told about the standard procedures.....wonder if guidelines changed recently though.

Life can mean life Justaboy you can be sentence to whole life without parole.

@Justaboy

But as I said in one of my previous posts. Life never meant life in prison. There isn't any "no longer" about it. The sentence lasts for life, the prison part (in the majority of cases) does not.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-46437471

He committed a monstrous act, has yo-yo'd back and forth through the prison system between isolation, high and low category prisons and has been refused leave to apply for parole in the recent past.

According to the new Parole Board report, [McGreavy] has "a considerable understanding of the problems that he has had and what caused them".

It added: "The psychologist identified a number of factors which make it less likely that Mr McGreavy will reoffend in future."

"These included his improved self-control and the fact that Mr McGreavy has learnt to remain calm in stressful situations."

Oh well. That's all right then. Not.

Storm4star well i do remember back in 1965 that was the main justification for the abolition of the death penalty that someone given a life sentence was to be kept away from ever re offending as what would be the case if they were dead.

That was what a life sentence meant, other wise call it something else!