Please....

Originally posted by @divegeester
The pair of you are both supporting this man’s release,.

I'm not.
The original debate was about the Wisconsin rapist.
And I was supporting the opinions of the professionals involved.

There is definitely a problem with the UK case and I do not support him being released.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
I'm not.
The original debate was about the Wisconsin rapist.
And I was supporting the opinions of the professionals involved.

There is definitely a problem with the UK case and I do not support him being released.

In what way are you supporting the opinions of the professionals (parole board) who suggest his release, when you claim you don’t want him released?

I wonder if either Wolfgang59 or drewnogal are watching tonight’s ITV documentary about the 100 times rapist John Warbouys who is being released on parole after 8 years in prison.

Originally posted by @divegeester
In what way are you supporting the opinions of the professionals (parole board) who suggest his release, when you claim you don’t want him released?

Last time I looked Wisconsin was not in the UK.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I wonder if either Wolfgang59 or drewnogal are watching tonight’s ITV documentary about the 100 times rapist John Warbouys who is being released on parole after 8 years in prison.

The problem with his 100 rapes is that he was found guilty of ONE rape
and several sexual assaults. Imprisoning people on what they might have
done rather than what they have been found guilty of is a dangerous track
to follow.

My concerns over the case is why he was not charged with more.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I have zero tolerance for crimes such as this and offences should result in LIFE imprisonment, that is life until death. The offender is obviously mentally ill and the likelyhood of him reoffending is high. I would totally support him being locked up forever.

One (possible) exception: if he signed a consent to have his testicles removed.

I would go more for removing testicles and penis but I think it would not kill the problems behind his power plays, I think it would just make the obsession come out in other ways, maybe more violence or something. Is this dude in jail as we speak? I assume so.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
The problem with his 100 rapes is that he was found guilty of ONE rape
and several sexual assaults. Imprisoning people on what they might have
done rather than what they have been found guilty of is a dangerous track
to follow.

My concerns over the case is why he was not charged with more.

Good job we “trusted the professionals” huh.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Good job we “trusted the professionals” huh.

Twister!
Everyone must be held to account for their decisions - doesn't mean a system has to
be completely changed. The point is we (you, me, the public) do not categorically
know that he has raped more than once. He needs to be charged. If when proven
he is the multiple rapist everyone suspects then yes, throw away the key.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Twister!
Everyone must be held to account for their decisions - doesn't mean a system has to
be completely changed. The point is we (you, me, the public) do not categorically
know that he has raped more than once. He needs to be charged. If when proven
he is the multiple rapist everyone suspects then yes, throw away the key.

It you who’s twisting. Do you (and drewnogal) “trust the professionals” or not?

The police are “professionals” and made catastrophic errors, the penal system is only holding this guy for 8 years because that all rape is worth in thier “professional” opinion. The guy in the OP is being released because the “professionals” say it’s ok to do so.

Do you trust the professionals or not?

Originally posted by @divegeester
It you who’s twisting. Do you (and drewnogal) “trust the professionals” or not?

The police are “professionals” and made catastrophic errors, the penal system is only holding this guy for 8 years because that all rape is worth in thier “professional” opinion. The guy in the OP is being released because the “professionals” say it’s ok to do so.

Do you trust the professionals or not?

Yes. We all do. But they have to be held to account.

When I said that we should trust the professionals I was specifically speaking
about the probation officers on the Wisconsin case. My point was that it is their
job and their professional experience that enabled them to carry out that job.

Same everywhere.

Now if they have made a mistake it should be investigated.

But we cant just have people's "gut-reactions" making such decisions.

If you want Rape to carry more than 8 years imprisonment do something about it, lobby your MP. But from what I see your concern is over the "100 rapes" which he has not
been charged with.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Yes. We all do. But they have to be held to account.

When I said that we should trust the professionals I was specifically speaking
about the probation officers on the Wisconsin case. My point was that it is their
job and their professional experience that enabled them to carry out that job.

Same everywhere.

Now if they have made a mistake it ...[text shortened]... P. But from what I see your concern is over the "100 rapes" which he has not
been charged with.

I more interested in where you real stance is in all this; on one page you are ardently "supporting the professionals" who have made a call to release the monster in the OP, then on another page you say you don't want him released and you avoided responding when I questioned you on it. It's all appears a bit flaky to me and frankly I've been a little disappointed in you if I'm honest. Not that it matters I suppose.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I more interested in where you real stance is in all this; on one page you are ardently "supporting the professionals" who have made a call to release the monster in the OP, then on another page you say you don't want him released and you avoided responding when I questioned you on it. It's all appears a bit flaky to me and frankly I've been a little disappointed in you if I'm honest. Not that it matters I suppose.

We got our wires crossed when we were talking about 2 different cases!

Wisconsin case and Worboys case in UK.

In both cases I support the Parole Board or whatever they are called.
It's their job, they represent us (the community as a whole not individuals)
They are impartial and follow the law.

The Worboys case I supported the discussion in the Commons and as I have
said think that questions have to be asked regarding why he was not charged
with more rapes. Until then he is a rapist who has raped one woman
(as if that isn't bad enough)
but must be treated as any other singular rapist.

My personal opinion on rape, and in fact any violent crime, is 2 strikes and you are
out. Out of society - put them on a ranch - an open prison surrounded by electrified
fencing and a moat. Don't seek revenge but don't let them back into our society.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
We got our wires crossed when we were talking about 2 different cases!

Wisconsin case and Worboys case in UK.

In both cases I support the Parole Board or whatever they are called.
It's their job, they represent us (the community as a whole not individuals)
They are impartial and follow the law.

The Worboys case I supported the discussion in ...[text shortened]... y electrified
fencing and a moat. Don't seek revenge but don't let them back into our society.

Ok fair enough Wolfie.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
The problem with his 100 rapes is that he was found guilty of ONE rape
and several sexual assaults. Imprisoning people on what they might have
done rather than what they have been found guilty of is a dangerous track
to follow.

My concerns over the case is why he was not charged with more.

It can be very difficult, sometimes impossible - and frustrating to all those involved in cases like this - to find the final evidence or proof connecting the man or men suspected of the rape. We have recently had a very upsetting case in Stockholm which had to to be dropped because it couldn't be proved 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the men (in this case many) had actually raped the woman - this despite the fact that all legal representatives and experts were absolutely convinced that the woman was right and the men lied. She is a drug addict and she was raped, beaten and frightened; she couldn't remember exactly what had happened, couldn't quite recall exactly where it happened. Sperm was found on her and on her clothes. The five men claimed she agreed to sex in exchange for drugs, nobody believed them but it couldn't be proved that she was raped. So our society chose to protect the men from punishment and sacrificed the woman. There were several men present during the rapes who also took pictures and films of the men who stood trial but the material couldn't be used in court.

This was a long legal procedure and unfortunately insufficient initial police-work.