The guy - Gary - who lost his leg in bombing - has served 3 yrs for rape

[ThomCat]

Can't find a nrews report but there must be one. It was the topic of discussion on LBC this morning.

It was a few years ago. He was part of a gang that kidnapped 2 girls and took part in raping these girls, at knifepoint, 45 times I think it was. He was given 7 years and served 3, that info is correcxt.

He's looking at £50,000 compensation and trying to relese a record to raise more money.

Personally I think he should give the money to the 2 girls who are scarred for life emotionally. Whay compensation did they receive for his crime on them?

Certainly changed my view on him.
Makes me feel sick.

Heard this on the radio - really difficult - don't really know what I think - yes he is a monster for what he did and if it had been my daughter he had raped I would have only been sorry that he hadn't died in the bombings - but he has served his time - is he sorry for what he did - only he knows. But those poor girls and their families - how must they have felt while he was being lauded for his bravery and compassion towards the bombers - sorry just don't know the answers. If it is karma is he being given the chance to try and someow balance some of the evil he has done with some good? Hope somebody else can put it more articulately.

I love how the Sun says the Daily Mail misreported it, saying the conviction had been quashed, when they carried that story themselves, on the 15th.

but it isn't fair... how come he gets 50k for losing a leg

and his victims who arguably suffered a lot more get nothing?

Are you really saying that he deserved to have his leg blown off by a nutter, because he commited a crime at the age of 18 for which according to our legal system he has served his time. Shall we say that terrorism is okay as long as those killed and maimed are ex cons or criminals?? Have the terroists done us a favour in vigilante justice??? NO

I am not saying like the guy, you don't have to lijke him but some respect for his loss and appreciation that you should not be tarred for life for one wrong thing would not go amiss.

But, starlover, his victims weren't involved in the bombings so how can they be entitled to anything?

how can we measure one persons suffering against anothers?

they had their lives ruined! it's not about being involved in bombings.

he is getting money for losing a leg (it doesn't matter HOW)

they have had their lives ruined and get nothing.

i am not saying that he isn't entitled to the money... but it still isn't fair

I am being pulled all over the place by this thread, agreeing with both sides. Anyone else?

Tis a difficult one.

Good post ark.

his victims could sue him once he gets the compensation. that is how the redistribution could be achieved.

ark, that is an excellent post.

Not after 20 years, bk - it's like that rapist who won the lottery. And we are paying to keep him safely in hiding.

yes agree ark... and bossykate

i dunno... it just seems like some people get handed everything and it just isn't fair. i can see both sides.

i know he is entitled to the money, but when i think aboput what he has done it makes me sick. releasing a record to get more money? wtf?

thanks - clearly a moment of clarity in my fog of confusion on criminal compensation!

So when deciding what compensation the bombings victims may get, we should take into account everything they have done in their lives and adjust the money accordingly?

I find the idea of this being his karma shocking, as it implies that all injured and killed in the bombings somehow deserved it.

He did something terrible 20 yrs ago, which is completely seperate to him being in the bombings and suffering his horrific injuries, how you can even try to link the two is ridiculous.

If this is true - "He claimed to have assumed his conviction had been quashed when he was freed from jail after only three years" - he's either very thick or very naive (or hopes Sun readers are very gullible).

His having his leg blown off has no real relevance to his previous crimes but here's the problem ...

He may have done his time in the eyes of the law but he clearly hasn't done his time in the eyes of most of us. 3 years is risible for what he did.

I think it's this sentence with which we take issue because he hasn't served anything like enough time given what he has done.

I wondered if there was too much of a time-lag, otherwise that would have been the way to go bk.
But Janh, what is the alternative when dealing with specimens like this man? I feel innately that the death penalty, however seemingly appropriate in certain cases,undermines democracy and a civilised society, so the cost of safeguarding Gary and his ilk is a price we pay for not living in countries like the States.

or very misquoted, janh. Let's not forget that tabloid newspapers are hardly a concrete source of truth.

That's why I said "if it's true", NDP!

If he had served the full time in prison would it make it easier to bear that he is now getting all this compo?

Ooooo, tricky. Pulled by both sides too and can see both sides of the coin. However, if he is really guilty of being involved in the gang rape, at knife point, of kidnapped girls I have not one jot of sympathy for his suffering.

I can see that you can't exactly go back to everyone's past history to decide if they are worthy of the compensation money though.

Sorry, janh, so you did

Agree much longer sentences, served in full, and proper compensation and treatment for victims would be a very good start. It is wrong that more money and time might be spent on a new identity for rapists/murderers than on support and compensation for their victims and families thereof

I'm not saying he deserved to have his leg blown off no, there is an element of ''well whatever mate, what goes around comes around' yes I admit that I feel that. But I wouldn't have wished it on him as a human being and I'm not actually saying her deserved it, no.
I'm just saying that his 'what about the victims' fight makes me feel a bit sick now. I'm saying my opinion of him has changed. I'm saying that I'd rather see him give the money over to the girls, to a rape counsellign charity, whatever.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over this though okay, I just don't feel happy with the thought of him being the face of the victims of the London bombings and his 'what about the victims' fight.

My emotional response to this is at odds with my intellectual response. The law works on the latter, rightly so, but this doesn't stop me having feelings.