Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To say this monster should never be released

84 replies

Mummymummums · 25/04/2019 19:19

He murdered three tots. Was not mentally ill, and has never explained why. Yet apparently he has changed a lot in prison and is cleared for release.
How can this be right?
AIBU to say that this man must surely be pure evil. Or can he really have changed?
Note: the articles give details, especially the 2nd one, which some may prefer not to read.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-48039373
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-46443110

OP posts:
MrsBobDylan · 25/04/2019 20:07

I don't believe people change. Those poor parents entrusted their children with him because they believed he was a good person. He got drunk, angry then murdered three children in the most barbaric way.

I also don't believe any psychological assessment could possibly established whether he has changed or not.

FifisLovelyApron · 25/04/2019 20:07

people should Be allowed to move on

Someone who has murdered a child - three children in this case - should never be allowed to move on.

WinnieTheW0rm · 25/04/2019 20:09

He was worse than Ian Huntley - murdered more DC, even though they should have been able to trust him. And then what he did to their bodies ... beggars belief.

If it is true that he hasn't never spoken of why he did it, then I simply do not see how he can be assessed a time safe.

Personally I think the horrific nature of the crime should mean a whole life tariff. Though he has been incarcerated for 45 years, and Huntley's tariff is 40.

ChrisPrattAteMyHomework · 25/04/2019 20:10

He should be allowed to move on?

Those parents never moved on.

That community.

The officer who found that horrific scene.

Those children never moved on to see their next birthdays. Get married. Become parents.

Why the fuck should he be allowed to move on.

I would honestly, hand on heart, happily be executioner to this vile person and not feel a smidgen of guilt about it.

snowdrop6 · 25/04/2019 20:13

Chris’s Pratt..totally agree

cakeandchampagne · 25/04/2019 20:16

The ONLY way to be sure he never does anything like this again (to children), is to keep him in prison.

cakeandchampagne · 25/04/2019 20:18

(Adding: Unless, of course, he is dead.)

Puzzledandpissedoff · 25/04/2019 20:21

He will be monitored and managed in the community

Until he isn't, and then there'll be the usual bleat of "Lessons will be learned"

And your remark about harsher sentences not reducing the risk to the public conveniently ignores the fact that the public are protected just fine, so long as people like this remain in prison

HBStowe · 25/04/2019 20:22

Christ. Even if he isn’t at risk of reoffending, surely he still deserves the punishment of imprisonment?

BejamNostalgia · 25/04/2019 20:23

I've said it maybe a million times on here harsher sentences do not reduce the reoffending rate (and therefore risk to the public), money spent on effective rehabilitation and interventions does.

Er, yes, keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural lives does reduce the risk to the general public to virtually nil.

I’m highly in favour of all released murderers being sent to live in Islington, Hampstead or Highgate where the left wing virtue signallers that advocate for them live. It’ll never happen which is why they feel so confident advocating for them. They get the thrill of thinking themselves virtuous but they sack off the actual problem of dealing with it to a council estate in Barnsley, Hull, Rochdale or Blackpool without a second thought.

I used to be passionately anti-death penalty but I’m finding that harder and harder to sustain because lives of victims just seem worthless to our elite. At least if they’re dead you won’t end up with a parole board of do gooders letting them out because they know their actions are free from scrutiny and if they fuck up they never have to account for that. There’s been so many high profile recalls to jail recently where they got it wrong in the first place like Tracey Connelly, Jason Owen and John Venables.

Maybe if someone gets done for a one punch murder or a stabbing done while off their nut when young and v remorseful a second chance is acceptable but not three infants for no reason.

To me it just adds to a growing sense that to the establishment, politicians, civil servants, police, the judiciary the lives and votes and needs of the general population are just worthless. Less than worthless. We just don’t matter.

greathat · 25/04/2019 20:25

I don't think he should have a chance to "move on". I'm not interested in him. I want to make sure he can't do it again, the only way to do that is to keep him in prison

BejamNostalgia · 25/04/2019 20:25

He will be monitored and managed in the community

Like John Venables? Who we now know was breaking his parole conditions with impunity for years. His probation officer was totally aware of that including violence and drug taking but there has been no pushback on the services that got it so wrong.

BogglesGoggles · 25/04/2019 20:31

This presents a strong argument for retributive punishment over rehabilitative. It is an offence to human nature that this thing (clearly a thing for it lacks an semblance of compassion) should he permitted to sully his neighbour with his presence. He should be locked away alone for the rest of his life where he cannot pollute our society further.

Mummymummums · 25/04/2019 20:37

Well said 98% of you. To those keen for him to be allowed to move on, how would you feel if he moved in next door?
I feel that a decent person with genuine remorse would be unable to live with the memory of what they'd done. Surely the memories would make them want to end their own lives if they'd become decent. How could a decent person live with what they'd done, even if historic. But not this guy. Nope. Repeated applications for parole until he succeeded.

OP posts:
MulticolourMophead · 25/04/2019 20:42

I recall reading about this 2-3 years ago, and looked at a few different articles and write ups. It seems the police were in a rush to get the killer and once he confessed and evidence pointed firmly to him, his motive was never looked into properly. Motive isn't actually required after all, it's just something that helps juries, etc to a conclusion.

So it looks like no-one can say with any certainty that he wasn't mentally ill, as it wasn't investigated, and without understanding his motive or mental health at the time how can he be declared no/low risk risk now?

The killings were not a "snapped in anger" type of thing, they were deliberate and they were killed in different ways. He claimed it was because the baby was crying, but he had looked after the children before without a problem.

A lot more should have been investigated at the time.

But he'll be released. I just hope he's not near any other crying babies.

NottonightJosepheen · 25/04/2019 20:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BejamNostalgia · 25/04/2019 20:54

multi, that’s not how it works. The police don’t go looking for evidence of mental illness to explain reasons why, they just try and find out who did the actions concerned. If his mental health was a mitigating factor that was for him and his defence to present that to the court.

He never claimed he was mentally ill nor does it seem to be something suggested by the prison service or parole board. They just seem to suggest he suffered a loss of temper and had poor impulse control.

BejamNostalgia · 25/04/2019 20:56

The killings were not a "snapped in anger" type of thing, they were deliberate and they were killed in different ways. He claimed it was because the baby was crying, but he had looked after the children before without a problem.

This is the problem, the prison service and parole board seem to have 100% accepted it was a snap in anger.

RosaWaiting · 25/04/2019 21:02

Dana "Im thus case people should Be allowed to move on"

interested to know why you think that?

PawPawNoodle · 25/04/2019 21:05

He will have already been released by now.

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 25/04/2019 21:10

YANBU. I couldn't give a hoot if he's now turned into the Arch Angel Gabriel.
The fact remains is he took the lives of those beautiful innocent children. Yes some may argue that some have a point when they say. "There does come a time when your punishment has to come to and end". However that doesn't wash with me.

They (those children) nor their poor parents and families will ever get their lives back why should he.

Magicpaintbrush · 25/04/2019 21:19

Whether he is a 'reformed character' or not (which I don't believe for a second) is completely irrelevent - the crime he committed was so abhorrent he should die in prison. He took 3 young lives in the most horrific and senseless way, destroyed the lives of their parents - he must pay for that with the removal of his liberty until his dying breath. Monster doesn't even cover it. I doubt a single person in the British Isles would be okay with this guy walking amongst us all. What a huge risk they are taking with people's safety. After all, there was nothing to indicate he was capable of what he did prior to the murders - why would it be any different now.

SnowyAlpsandPeaks · 25/04/2019 21:25

I’m all for rehabilitation of prisoners, but there are certain crimes like this one, where life should mean life.

lboogy · 25/04/2019 21:37

I'm normally of the view that once prisoners have served their sentence they should be released. But this case is so barbaric that I can't imagine under what circumstances this guy could ever be released. He's 65 now, lots of life left in him. Life that he denied to those children. If he's being released then he should be released at age 85/90. Not a sprightly 65!

lboogy · 25/04/2019 21:40

@BejamNostalgia would you advocate for the deal penalty if it was one of your children or your DH or even you?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.