Petition to stop the EARLY RELEASE for PC Harpers killers

Sunshinegirls

You can't keep blaming the Torys Labours been in charge for 2 years they don't have to release these killers it's their choice.

It’s a very good job that you aren’t the PM if you would make decisions purely on the basis of public outcry without making judgments about every other person who is affected by your decision and the consequences of treating them differently. .

That is exactly what a PM should be doing, responding to public concerns. I don't think he has any idea of the strength of feeling about this particular case, and if these men are released he will be held responsible. Spokesman for NO 10 said yesterday although he was deeply concerned but there was little he could do; today an announcement from him personally saying he was working towards a solution. Shades of Trump.
Perhaps if he spent time in No.10 working with his Civil Servants instead of doing yet another self promotion tour he might get something done.

Whitewavemark2

Actually thinking about this issue, it would be wrong for Burnham to interfere. In the U.K. politics and the judiciary is separate to ensure too much power is not taken by the government.

So imo Burnham can’t make this decision.

I agree this but like many others am conflicted.
Thing is we only need to look at the US and the interference by Trump with the judiciary to see how this is not a good idea.
But the repeated footage of those young man smirking and laughing after being convicted of murder sticks in my throat.
I doubt very much there is any remorse, and when they return to their homes it is likely they will brag about killing a cop.
Is horrible but at the same time I appreciate that the judiciary should be permitted to make what they consider to be the right decision for all involved.

eazybee

That is exactly what a PM should be doing, responding to public concerns. I don't think he has any idea of the strength of feeling about this particular case, and if these men are released he will be held responsible. Spokesman for NO 10 said yesterday although he was deeply concerned but there was little he could do; today an announcement from him personally saying he was working towards a solution. Shades of Trump.
Perhaps if he spent time in No.10 working with his Civil Servants instead of doing yet another self promotion tour he might get something done.

A PM should only commit to any action for one person after all the consequences of that action have been examined and risk assessed for others who are in the same position. It is very, very simple to understand why that is necessary.

eazybee

That is exactly what a PM should be doing, responding to public concerns. I don't think he has any idea of the strength of feeling about this particular case, and if these men are released he will be held responsible. Spokesman for NO 10 said yesterday although he was deeply concerned but there was little he could do; today an announcement from him personally saying he was working towards a solution. Shades of Trump.
Perhaps if he spent time in No.10 working with his Civil Servants instead of doing yet another self promotion tour he might get something done.

Honestly eazybee. Of course he's aware of the strength of feelings - that's why it's such a hard decision and why he's to be commended for not pandering to populism bt us working with everyone concerned at trying to come up with a lawful solution. And your idea that his tour means he's not involved with may other things simultaneously is frankly risible. You really don't seem to have the first idea of what being a PM means. Was it you that thought he would be on holiday in the same way as you or me? As for Shades of Trump - ridiculous. If you want to see what Trumpism looks like in the US "justice" system just look up the arrest of the man who put his hand in the Reflecting Pool. Do you really not understand why the rule of law matters?

Well IMO which I'm entitled too Tuliptree, is it is being rushed though.

The basis for a conviction for manslaughter varies greatly and this wasn't taken into account when it was decided that this early release scheme would include anyone with a manslaughter conviction.

Two years should have been long enough to ensure that anyone with a manslaughter conviction would have their case looked at to see if releasing them early was appropriate.

In the case of PC Harper's killers it isn't.

It doesn't include anyone with a manslaughter conviction. If it did, the driver of the car would also be included and he isn't. Why not try basing your opinions on facts - it would facilitate a more productive discussion.

That would be true if there were not hundreds of other issues which demand more urgent attention Smileless2012. The first government that can foresee what might be needed two years down the line when they first come into power would be truly exceptional.

Why not try responding to others politely Tuliptree instead of trying to brow beat them into submission to agree with your point of view.

IMO it not appropriate for the two passengers to be released early and IMO taking the time to look at their case in detail; their total lack of remorse and the way they laughed during the trial would have shown they are not suitable for early release.

If this was not being pushed through, the aforementioned may well have been taken into account. It hasn't been and it should have.

I can't see for the family of PC Harper that there are any issues which demand more urgent attention Casdon.

Smileless2012

Why not try responding to others politely Tuliptree instead of trying to brow beat them into submission to agree with your point of view.

IMO it not appropriate for the two passengers to be released early and IMO taking the time to look at their case in detail; their total lack of remorse and the way they laughed during the trial would have shown they are not suitable for early release.

If this was not being pushed through, the aforementioned may well have been taken into account. It hasn't been and it should have.

I agree with you Smileless2012, but I also agree that decisions made by the judiciary should be apppued across the board.
My only parting shot is that the judiciary got it very wrong when lenient sentencing was given to those boys who repeatedly raped an underage girl. In this instance one particular case was overruled because of the nature of the crime. So in the case of PC Harper, because he was a police officer and will be perceived by certain circles the young men mixed with as fair game, this should be treated differently. There is no remorse and I imagine the young men will conversely brag about their exploits.
Therefore I think perhaps this case could be seen as a stand alone case to be considered separately.

Smileless2012

I can't see for the family of PC Harper that there are any issues which demand more urgent attention Casdon.

Yes and that’s exactly the point of the rule of law.

It’s not that simple Smileless2012, because lack of remorse shown at sentencing is not a legal category? You have to differentiate on the basis of difference in the crime committed when you change the sentencing rules, not make an exception because of attitude.

*applied across the board

I’m very glad Andy Burnham has taken the bull by the horns in this case. I’d also like to know the origins of these men. If they’ve come over from Ireland, as many of their ilk do, then back they should go at the end of their sentences.

I think Andy Burnham is far more in tune with the public than his predecessor. I’m quietly impressed and he’s only had the job for a month. Let’s see what else he does.

Casdon

It’s not that simple Smileless2012, because lack of remorse shown at sentencing is not a legal category? You have to differentiate on the basis of difference in the crime committed when you change the sentencing rules, not make an exception because of attitude.

Lack of remorse does seem to be taken into account when someone is being considered for parole - so maybe that is the route to take?

That's a very good point WW.

‘of their ilk’ you really have some turns of phrase Silvershadow.

Smileless2012

That's a very good point WW.

I agree.

Jaxjacky

‘of their ilk’ you really have some turns of phrase Silvershadow.

I’m glad you like them. And I’ll be sure to think of a few more for you.

Whitewavemark2

Casdon

It’s not that simple Smileless2012, because lack of remorse shown at sentencing is not a legal category? You have to differentiate on the basis of difference in the crime committed when you change the sentencing rules, not make an exception because of attitude.

Lack of remorse does seem to be taken into account when someone is being considered for parole - so maybe that is the route to take?

To a degree, but not just at sentencing, and we don’t know how many other people fit into the same category, which is as long as a piece of string - that is the assessment I’m sure is being made now.

What hasn’t been mentioned on the thread is the knock on implication in terms of prison places being blocked for new inmates as a result of a decision which potentially impacts a large number of people.

I think the problem with this thread is that we are divided into head people and heart people!

Latest update
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8m1pjg4k3o

Tuliptree

Cabbie21

Apparently they can’t just decide on individual cases, but whole categories of offenders.

Exactly that and quite rightly so

It can't be any other way than this! Public outcry cannot be allowed to overwhelm this.

If there were more prisons then no one in those categories would be released early.

AB has no choice. How on earth can we reduce these sort of decisions without more prisons and where is the money supposed to be come from when the choices include a half decent care system.

Yes, my heart goes out on this disgusting crime, 😡 but what else?

Another one in the news today, fortunately this officer didn’t die. A woman, mother of four, works for the Royal College of Physicians believe it or not, dragged a police officer along the road in her Range Rover and has left him with life changing injuries. Partner doesn’t work. Four kids, come over from Bermuda. No prison sentence. Drunk driver. Abusive to the police officer arresting her.
Let’s hope there is an appeal and it’s referred to the Atorney General for undue leniency.

Candace deSilva Diversity rep… of course she is.

Casdons point on - what happens when new inmates are even worse than this crime then there is no room? It's a whole series of ghastly Hobsons' choices.