FabSwingers.com forum: black cab r-a-p-i-s-t

By *iss_Samantha_Lovecock OP TV/TS
over a year ago

bmth /poole sometimes blandford

so hes out in 10 years.. for drugging and r*pi*g over 100 women..

that , to me seems like a sentience u might get if u r*ped and drugged 1 women ..

did the others not count .

the message seems to be , if your gonna do 1 might as well do 100.. makes no difference if u get caught

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

Apparently he is going to be on a long licence for at least 10 years which according to the judge means he will be on a very short leash indeed

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Radio said he only served 8 years

How is that justice?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've not read the story but 100 women!! That's a shocking amount of women for 1 man to attack. 10 years is a huge disservice to all those women.

Ginger

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

I think according to the BCC he wasn't convicted over 100 women, but more came forward afterwards.

His sentence I think was to be no less than 8 years and he has served 10.

I don't believe he should be let out, however, a judge has explained that he will be on extremely strict licence and no walk in the park

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

The 'strict' licence means he has to check in with probation once a week, and can't contact any of his victims according to the BBC. Not strict in my opinion. Should have had a longer sentence imposed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Bloody liberal do-gooders.... Their hearts in the right place but unfortunately their brains stopped working years ago

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

For the amount of sheer victims and criminality I would have thought this guy should have got life, if nothing else but as a message to anybody else thinking of trying it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ut of townerMan
over a year ago

Travel

I'm what could be considereda liberal do gooder and shocked at this so it's nothing to do with that.

He was convicted of 7 sex offences and 12 drugging charges. Others came forward after. Surely he can re arrested and charged on the other 93 times?!

Him being on licence is irrelvant to the women he attacked. Him being out and that knowledge must be horrendous for them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I know what I think he deserves, but I wont write it on here or I'll end up banned

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucy LewdWoman
over a year ago

North Oxfordshire

"The 'strict' licence means he has to check in with probation once a week, and can't contact any of his victims according to the BBC. Not strict in my opinion. Should have had a longer sentence imposed."

Yeah I agree. This is nothing. License, in this case, should mean having no contact with women wherever possible and having to check in far more than once a week.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otForSoftiesWoman
over a year ago

The North / Party Hard Everywhere

I thought they said he’d be kept in for as long as he was deemed a risk to women - has that really changed and he’s reformed? My best guess is he’s still a big danger

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I thought they said he’d be kept in for as long as he was deemed a risk to women - has that really changed and he’s reformed? My best guess is he’s still a big danger "

(Liberal reasoning on)..But he hasn't done it for the last 10 years (Liberal reasoning off)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I thought they said he’d be kept in for as long as he was deemed a risk to women - has that really changed and he’s reformed? My best guess is he’s still a big danger "

On LBC tonight the women who runs the London Crisis Centre said she very much doubts anyone convicted of this type of offence could be rehabilitated.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Would like to know which genders made up the parole board and their reasons for granting release.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ampWithABrainWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Would like to know which genders made up the parole board and their reasons for granting release."

Quite!

Absolutely disgusting! No way he should EVER be released people like this don't change.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

"I thought they said he’d be kept in for as long as he was deemed a risk to women - has that really changed and he’s reformed? My best guess is he’s still a big danger

(Liberal reasoning on)..But he hasn't done it for the last 10 years (Liberal reasoning off)

Given that we have no idea of the political leanings of the parole board, nor the reasons he was granted parole, trying to use this to score political points seems a little silly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *agicfingerslovelyMan
over a year ago

Rugby

Same here.

Non of the women were told he was up for release and the sentence should have been per each victim and retried for victims coming forward.

The reality that that cuts in services that are supposed to be keeping a control on him means he is likely to reoffend again.

Also what about the life sentence for each victim - what support will they get?

Little in reality.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucy LewdWoman
over a year ago

North Oxfordshire

"I thought they said he’d be kept in for as long as he was deemed a risk to women - has that really changed and he’s reformed? My best guess is he’s still a big danger

(Liberal reasoning on)..But he hasn't done it for the last 10 years (Liberal reasoning off)

I don't know any 'liberal' that would say that. I know alot of liberals.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I know what I think he deserves, but I wont write it on here or I'll end up banned"

Hear, hear, couldn't agree more.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I know what I think he deserves, but I wont write it on here or I'll end up banned

Hear, hear, couldn't agree more.

Well I will.He deserves his bollox flatterned with a lump hammer and his penis putting in a meat grinder and salt rubbing in the wounds.Then prison and then let the victims family's deal with him when he's realised.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucy LewdWoman
over a year ago

North Oxfordshire

"I know what I think he deserves, but I wont write it on here or I'll end up banned

Hear, hear, couldn't agree more.

No he doesn't. He deserves a fair and reasonable punishment under the UK's judicial system.

We don't use corporal punishment in this country.

Arguably, he was not given a fair and reasonable punishment, it was not severe enough. But he still shouldn't be physically injured - we are much better than that as a country.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

there is no justice anymore.only yesterday a man admitted to killing his partner and it then transpires he killed his previous 2 partners as well and was convicted and jailed for those ..he will obviously be expecting another lenient sentence for his third murder.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

"I think according to the BCC he wasn't convicted over 100 women, but more came forward afterwards.

His sentence I think was to be no less than 8 years and he has served 10.

I don't believe he should be let out, however, a judge has explained that he will be on extremely strict licence and no walk in the park "

Is the judge an old man!? This guy should be locked away and the key thrown away...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nothing to do with 'liberals' it was Labour Kier Starmer head of DPP who decided not to prosecute for the majority of the crimes this man committed so 'left' the door open for this to happen.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I think the original sentence appears light but that reflects an experienced judge with full knowledge of the case and law. It was an horrific crime series but the parole review takes that info account as well as the criminals behaviour. I'm disappointed that the original penalty wasn't longer - but that's past history. There's not much that we can do now but hope that he never offends again and that the punishment and rehabilitation have worked.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They've kept people in jail for a lot longer for a lot less.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *teveanddebsCouple
over a year ago

Norwich

If more women have come forward and he didn't get those offenses taken into consideration then why can't they charge him with them now?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

Sadly crimes against women don’t get taken seriously, even now. He should never be released

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ut of townerMan
over a year ago

Travel

This is the bit I dont understand. If you read the article he was convicted on only one count of rpe and a few sexual assaults. (I use the word 'only' in context of the other women who have come forward. 1 is still not acceptable).

The sentence he received is arguably correct for what he was convicted on. It's not correct based on the subsequent allegations. He should be re tried and if found guilty be sent back to prison based on that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is the bit I dont understand. If you read the article he was convicted on only one count of rpe and a few sexual assaults. (I use the word 'only' in context of the other women who have come forward. 1 is still not acceptable).

Correct on the first part but allegations are still only allegations and no matter what we should uphold innocent until proven guilty.

I don't agree withe length of sentence or even the punishment reflects the crimes he committed but he's served the sentence. Again, I don't agree with the punishment he received.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Radio said he only served 8 years

How is that justice?"

That's "Great" Britain's justice system for you

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a disgrace that he is being let out, as previously stated, there is every possibility he will do it again. However, from what I have read, he was only convicted of one count of r&pe and 8 counts of sexusl assaults which is why he didn't get a longer sentence, ridiculous but there you go.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uciyassMan
over a year ago

Leeds

Disgraceful. And they say they are going to keep a close eye on him and the probation service are going to carefully monitor his movements. Send him my way I’ll control his movements once and for all. Bastard

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42574651

A link to the story for those just guessing at things.

He was jailed for 8 years but spent just over 10 in custody if you include periods on remand. Not enough in anyone's books for the crimes he was committed for however, he has served over his tariff and that will play a big part in the decision to free him.

The issue isn't with the parole board. They have done what they had to (although they could have managed the victims a bit better and made them aware). The issue is with the sentencing guidelines that judges follow. That's what gave him such a lenient sentence.

Also, I don't understand why the subsequent allegations were not looked into. Plenty of serving prisoners have time added for subsequent charges.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the original sentence appears light but that reflects an experienced judge with full knowledge of the case and law. It was an horrific crime series but the parole review takes that info account as well as the criminals behaviour. I'm disappointed that the original penalty wasn't longer - but that's past history. There's not much that we can do now but hope that he never offends again and that the punishment and rehabilitation have worked.

The woman from the r*pe crisis centre in London very much doubts seriel r*pists like him can be rehabilitated.

Remains to be seen if he continues to be a threat to women.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42574651

A link to the story for those just guessing at things.

Also, I don't understand why the subsequent allegations were not looked into. Plenty of serving prisoners have time added for subsequent charges. "

There was also this caveat re parole officers - which is what I’d like to see explained, how have they come to this conclusion:-

“At his sentencing, during which he was described as a "repetitive predatory sexual offender", Worboys was told he would not be released until parole officials were convinced he did not pose a threat to women.”

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rnortholtMan
over a year ago

Waveney Valley

The mistake seems to have been on not following up the allegations that were made after his conviction.

Others such as Messrs Harris and Hall have both faced fresh charges post conviction, so the reasoning for not doing so in this case needs to be explained.

While setting the tariff the judge added that he should not be released while he continued to pose a threat. I find it hard to believe anyone who has shown such a pattern of behaviour at the age he then was can change in such a dramatic fashion over the time since conviction. That rather than the time served is the staring point for any possible reform on his part since, let's remember, up until the jury tendered its verdicts, he was denying being a sexual predator.

I wasn't on the parole panel and haven't heard the arguments. Maybe if Yvette Cooper gets her way and the process is opened up to public scrutiny, there may be something to explain this decision, but until then I think it does a lot to undermine public confidence in the system.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *agicfingerslovelyMan
over a year ago

Rugby

if you go on the BBC news site you will see in the drop down that a number of women were so let down by the police they were awarded compensation due the poor and cruel standard of the investigation that allow him to r and abuse more women.

No its clear that he is a threat and yes they should do him for the outstanding cases they admit exist.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hips n FursMan
over a year ago

Huddersfield

"The mistake seems to have been on not following up the allegations that were made after his conviction.

Others such as Messrs Harris and Hall have both faced fresh charges post conviction, so the reasoning for not doing so in this case needs to be explained.

The mistake was that the police didn't investigate two allegations from two different women about him. Think it was about 6 years after that they got him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 05/01/18 09:10:14]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Bring back death sentences.... Only way to deal with these animals!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucy LewdWoman
over a year ago

North Oxfordshire

"Bring back death sentences.... Only way to deal with these animals! "

I do hope that if we brought back the death sentence that one of your loved ones was never wrongfully convicted of a crime.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iss_Samantha_Lovecock OP TV/TS
over a year ago

bmth /poole sometimes blandford

so cant he be tried again for the offences he didnt get charged with the first time round ..

its obvious to anyone with a brain

that this monster is deeply disturbed.will never be fixed and is much too dangerous to be walking around with the rest of us ..

thank god he wasnt on fab..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

....SCUM LIKE THAT SHOULD BE LOCKED UP FOR LIFE AND CASTRATED!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bring back death sentences.... Only way to deal with these animals!

I do hope that if we brought back the death sentence that one of your loved ones was never wrongfully convicted of a crime."

I would hope my loved ones are educated enough not to break the law and if they do they suffer the consequences like everybody else.

If they have solid evidence that you have committed an awful crime, more than once, and ruined people's lives why should you be allowed to breath, you shouldn't. Just my opinion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucy LewdWoman
over a year ago

North Oxfordshire

"Bring back death sentences.... Only way to deal with these animals!

I do hope that if we brought back the death sentence that one of your loved ones was never wrongfully convicted of a crime.

I would hope my loved ones are educated enough not to break the law and if they do they suffer the consequences like everybody else.

If they have solid evidence that you have committed an awful crime, more than once, and ruined people's lives why should you be allowed to breath, you shouldn't. Just my opinion.

Spoiler alert - sometimes the police and courts get it wrong.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Bring back death sentences.... Only way to deal with these animals!

I do hope that if we brought back the death sentence that one of your loved ones was never wrongfully convicted of a crime.

I would hope my loved ones are educated enough not to break the law and if they do they suffer the consequences like everybody else.

If they have solid evidence that you have committed an awful crime, more than once, and ruined people's lives why should you be allowed to breath, you shouldn't. Just my opinion.

Spoiler alert - sometimes the police and courts get it wrong."

that's why I said SOLID evidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And they wonder why there is not much of a deterrent to reoffend.

Seems fucking stupid.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucy LewdWoman
over a year ago

North Oxfordshire

"Bring back death sentences.... Only way to deal with these animals!

I do hope that if we brought back the death sentence that one of your loved ones was never wrongfully convicted of a crime.

I would hope my loved ones are educated enough not to break the law and if they do they suffer the consequences like everybody else.

If they have solid evidence that you have committed an awful crime, more than once, and ruined people's lives why should you be allowed to breath, you shouldn't. Just my opinion.

Spoiler alert - sometimes the police and courts get it wrong.

that's why I said SOLID evidence. "

Too often the evidence has not been solid - which is why the US judicial system has pardoned a fair few that they murdered.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ookingforlustMan
over a year ago

northants

this doesn’t surprise me at all. We live in a society who’s laws care more for its criminals than it does for its victims.

He’ll have served about 1 month for each of his victims.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *agicfingerslovelyMan
over a year ago

Rugby

The release relates to the cuts to the prisons service - better to privatise and let the community suffer from prisoners being released with inadquate supervision and rehabilitation including a strategy to deal with drug addiction.

This case illustrates sharply why cuts should be opposed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread