The John Worboys farce

Now even the integrity of the judicial system is open to attack by the feminist army and everyone in thrall to it, where does it all end? This creep is being treated like any other criminal going through the system but we are witnessing an attempt to make 'rape' an exceptional category of crime because it is committed against women and by men.

From now on, we will have to fund every attempt at reviewing a PB's decision if the victims object. It cannot possibly be done that way and for that reason this case will go nowhere and we may even have to pay this guy compensation for the discriminatory treatment he is being subjected to, there is no way he could have a fair hearing now either and this is what happens when you wave the barbarians through the gates.

Sadiq Khan is a clown.

Reply 1

999tigger

Disagree. It is going through due process. the judges are more interested in that than any feminist argument. If they have no argument it will be refused.

Reply 2

username1738683

Original post by 999tigger

Disagree. It is going through due process. the judges are more interested in that than any feminist argument. If they have no argument it will be refused.

You trivialise it but in reality it is quite extraordinary to challenge a PB's ruling, so much so that you are cordially invited to look for the last example of it. Presumably, many past victims of crime have disagreed with parole decisions and if this is to stick we will now have to humour everyone stepping forward with objections. The only way this review can be successful is for the legal system to cave in to the feminist mob threatening to kick the door down and defenestrate anyone refusing to dance to their tune in this emotionally-charged atmosphere. This is the rule of the mob but we know that is what many people want, including the SJWs dragging the victims to court as pawns in their twisted crusades.

So... WHAT makes this case so extraordinary? The Mayor, the Mail, the Beeb, everyone makes it a case like no other before. I say it is the feminist craze all over again, there is no legal justification whatsoever to doubt the integrity of the Parole Board.

Reply 3

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Because he should be in for life

Reply 4

Dez

Original post by zhog

You trivialise it but in reality it is quite extraordinary to challenge a PB's ruling, so much so that you are cordially invited to look for the last example of it.

I found a couple just with a quick Google search:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36109271
https://www.no5.com/news-and-publications/news/1110-philip-rule-succeeds-in-judicial-review-to-quash-decision-of-the-parole-board-in-r-davies-v-parole-board/

Presumably there are others but I'm not really sure how to find court records on this sort of thing. I did find a gov.uk page describing the process around starting a judicial review, so it seems fair to say this is a farily established process, not a one-off.

Original post by zhog

Presumably, many past victims of crime have disagreed with parole decisions and if this is to stick we will now have to humour everyone stepping forward with objections.

Well, yeah, that's how the court system works.

Original post by zhog

The only way this review can be successful is for the legal system to cave in to the feminist mob threatening to kick the door down and defenestrate anyone refusing to dance to their tune in this emotionally-charged atmosphere. This is the rule of the mob but we know that is what many people want, including the SJWs dragging the victims to court as pawns in their twisted crusades.

Are you suggesting that one of the highest courts in England is submitting itself to mob rule? Because that's an incredibly strong accusation to make without any evidence.

Original post by zhog

So... WHAT makes this case so extraordinary? The Mayor, the Mail, the Beeb, everyone makes it a case like no other before. I say it is the feminist craze all over again, there is no legal justification whatsoever to doubt the integrity of the Parole Board.

That the media portray this as a particularly notorious case has no bearing on how it will be handled in terms of due process. Of course, the media love to start up a moral craze, that doesn't mean that the law courts are going to listen to them.

Reply 5

username1738683

Original post by Dez

I found a couple just with a quick Google search:

Not examples of a Parole Boards' ruling being challenged by victims. First one precedes the decision to release by the Board, second is an appeal by the prisoner himself against refusal to move him on by the Board.

Presumably there are others but I'm not really sure how to find court records on this sort of thing. I did find a gov.uk page describing the process around starting a judicial review, so it seems fair to say this is a farily established process, not a one-off.

Well, isn't it? I couldn't find a relevant example, although we can safely assume there are thousands of crime victims who oppose PB's decisions to release criminals in the system. There are terrorists, rapists, murderers and all else walking the streets on parole and of course many of their victims are against such decisions but it happens every day. As you say, that is the way the judicial system and the courts work and it is extraordinary to have a judicial review over a PB's final ruling by the victims of a crime. They are, by definition, unchallengeable as a matter of procedure. Next time a rapist is freed on parole, if his victim (s) object to it, surely they are entitled to a judicial review. How on earth can it be denied to them?

So this cab rapist's story has to be justified somehow in its unusual nature, also for the consequences. That sod is entitled to being treated like any other prisoner, whether we like it or not, and that has gone for a ride. The media made some wind of his impending release, it caught on like a wildfire because the ground is good for it, he's been all over the news, top story on the Beeb all day long and all that and, whether we like it or not, it is not just.

Even the judicial review is already a declaration of 'specialness' which I see absolutely no justification for under a dispassionate analysis as it should be at the PB's table, he is now a bone tossed to the dogs and will end up costing us a fortune to look after him once he is finally chucked out. New identity, security measures, he may end up suing if he bumps into a good lawyer. And next time a rapist turns up for release, the Board may be still trying to recover from events. Serious implications for all this.

That's all, if this case justifies a judicial review so do many others on similar grounds. i do indeed believe it was a combination of media exploitation and feminist fervour that made it so special. It will be an interesting test to the foundations of the judiciary, this one.

Reply 6

So-Sarah

I agree with OP - the Worboys case is a clear example of the fem army attempting to hihack the justice system, all spurred on by the fact that Labour have been out of power for many yrs - it's the classict Trot tactic of 'permanent agitation'

Reply 7

username1738683

Latest developments, hot off the press:

Victims of serious crime may be able to sue the police for failures in their investigations following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43140827

Most extraordinary, a historical landmark indeed with repercussions impossible to tell from here.

Part two to be played out next month, the challenge by the same two victims to the decision by the Parole Board to release JW.

David Gauke said "it would not be appropriate" to seek a judicial review of the Parole Board's ruling to free Worboys after less than 10 years.
Victims as well as the mayor of London are seeking a judicial review. The Parole Board has said it is "confident correct procedures were followed"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42747687

This could turn into another landmark ruling with consequences impossible to predict, potentially a flood of legal cases past and future. Under any measure, this case has come to shake some of the most basic established practices in the justice system.

Question remains: what makes this case extraordinary to this extent?