Another nutter taken down....

[DaveG]

Well here we go again, released from the nick in January and on the rampage in Feb, good job plod was following this one as it could have been much worse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51351844

[MarkRobinson]

Ever thought why these nutters don't go and live in a Majority, ( strictly ) Islamic country ??

[Kahuna]

There was a report a year or so ago back on Australian tv and it dealt with some of the Muslim communities in the South of France which were identified by police as a source of recruitment for groups like ISIS and Al Queda.
Basically the income was funded by selling drugs both soft and hard with money going to local mosques and also to pay travel costs for men and women to travel abroad to Syria etc. The coppers could not go in there unless in force and even then they were seen approaching easily so therefore the conviction rate was low and raids were used by local radical inman coaches to convince the young men of the community to join their cause. Many had gone to fight in Syria and other North African countries for one of the main terrorist groups and returned to tell the stories of glory to new recruits.
Of the ones that the police had successfully convicted on drugs or association with terrorism they were further indoctrinated in prison to believe that the West was evil and should be destroyed either within France, Europe or in any of the current conflict zones.
An interview with one young bloke was interesting as he said he had been sentenced on belonging to and supporting a terrorist organisation but had been told what to say in prison during his interiews with the phych's and government officials and thus was released on early parole.
Now it seems that this has happened and continues to happen and the latest episode in England is yet another example.

[Freightdog]

At the time of Amman's release there were concerns about the danger he might pose to the public but there were no legal mechanisms to keep him in prison, BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said.

This in itself, if accurate, is shameful.
He was released partway through his sentence. Surely the sentence itself was a mechanism to keep him in prison, albeit for only a short while longer.
So, the sentences handed out are in fact longer on paper than in reality. That’s simply not good enough.

Unless he was he released to see what he would do next, or to see who he might contact. Which is playing a big game of chance with an unsuspecting public. No matter how quick the response, 3 we’re still injured.

[Yerg]

Ever thought why these nutters don't go and live in a Majority, ( strictly ) Islamic country ??

The reality is in fact simpler than you might realise. In the more natural and (dare I say) "normal" Islamic countries, these nutters are simply not welcome. They are actively rooted out by their own kind. KSA is about the only exception I would make to this, but even they push these idiots towards their own kind, eg Yemen. If you believe that a fox never shits in it's own hole, it's because they are stopped from doing so in those parts of the world. The reality is also that these people don't thrive in the majority Islamic worlds, because those worlds don't subscribe to their fanatical views of Islam.

[Yerg]

At the time of Amman's release there were concerns about the danger he might pose to the public but there were no legal mechanisms to keep him in prison, BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said.

This in itself, if accurate, is shameful.
He was released partway through his sentence. Surely the sentence itself was a mechanism to keep him in prison, albeit for only a short while longer.
So, the sentences handed out are in fact longer on paper than in reality. That’s simply not good enough.

Unless he was he released to see what he would do next, or to see who he might contact. Which is playing a big game of chance with an unsuspecting public. No matter how quick the response, 3 we’re still injured.

Herein lies the greater issue. A 5 year sentence is, (in the UK), in reality, a 2 to 2.5 year sentence, with the other half served freely on licence. Proven that Usman Khan foiled the psychiatric profiling to test whether he continued to be a danger. This guy did too. There is no Orwellian release to see who they mix with. They simply want them out of prison and no longer a statistic of being a prisoner, and people can talk about the rehabilitation of offenders. Not to mention our chronic prison over-crowding. 5 years should mean 5 years. But that is not how we operate in the UK anymore. It's a scandal brewing that will become much bigger over the coming months. Cue the big row coming. This will grow legs and run and run and run...

There was a case of a rapist released halfway through an 8-10 year sentence. He committed rape within 3 months of his release. It ain't just the fundamentalists getting out to commit further crimes.

[pczz]

At the time of Amman's release there were concerns about the danger he might pose to the public but there were no legal mechanisms to keep him in prison, BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said.

This in itself, if accurate, is shameful.
He was released partway through his sentence. Surely the sentence itself was a mechanism to keep him in prison, albeit for only a short while longer.
So, the sentences handed out are in fact longer on paper than in reality. That’s simply not good enough.

Unless he was he released to see what he would do next, or to see who he might contact. Which is playing a big game of chance with an unsuspecting public. No matter how quick the response, 3 we’re still injured.

Herein lies the greater issue. A 5 year sentence is, (in the UK), in reality, a 2 to 2.5 year sentence, with the other half served freely on licence. Proven that Usman Khan foiled the psychiatric profiling to test whether he continued to be a danger. This guy did too. There is no Orwellian release to see who they mix with. They simply want them out of prison and no longer a statistic of being a prisoner, and people can talk about the rehabilitation of offenders. Not to mention our chronic prison over-crowding. 5 years should mean 5 years. But that is not how we operate in the UK anymore. It's a scandal brewing that will become much bigger over the coming months. Cue the big row coming. This will grow legs and run and run and run...

There was a case of a rapist released halfway through an 8-10 year sentence. He committed rape within 3 months of his release. It ain't just the fundamentalists getting out to commit further crimes.

The greater isssue is why the Tory government has spent the last 10 years cutting the prison service, the prosecution service, the probation service and the police force which cretes the circumstances for these evenets and then the victims die waiting for ambulances or a &E because the same people have cut the NHS so much its a joke. Timne the real people responsible were put on trial, the politicians

[xandreu]

Sentencing isn't just about how long a person should serve for their crimes. The way UK law works, as I assume most countries of the world, is that when a judge passes down a sentence to a criminal, in reality, what he's doing is giving the state permission to imprison that person for the set maximum amount of time, as specified in the sentence. So, if a judge passes a sentence of 10 years, it means that state cannot legally keep that person imprisoned after the set time of ten years, unless they commit additional crimes whilst in prison, are found to have been guilty of further crimes whilst in prison, or it is implicitly stated at the time of sentencing that the person's release will be dependent on a review or assessment procedure.

It's the main reason why the judiciary is independent of the state - to prevent the state from locking up people at it's whim for as long as they feel like it (political opponents for example).

So while the state has limited powers to legally extend someone's sentence once they have served it, it can however reduce the sentence as it see's fit. Or rather, change the sentence so that some is served in custody and the rest is served on licence.

If you believe that prison is just as much about rehabilitation as it is punishment, then there's nothing inherently wrong with allowing criminals out of prison for good behavior after only having served half of their sentence. It gives them an incentive to rehabilitate themselves. Otherwise you'd have a prison full of angry men who felt they had nothing to gain from changing their behavior and nothing to lose by continuing to be a problem.

But terrorists, much like paedophiles, don't quite fit in with any of that. Unless a state has limitless resources, it's inevitable that these people will come into contact with each other in prison, in fact, they are often deliberately grouped together, and they feed off of each others twisted radical ideologies and sick fantasies. They are extremely unlikely to change their behaviour or their attitude because in the case of terrorists, they believe that the word of God (or Allah) is the only authority on this earth, they are doing his work for him, and those who punish or lock them up are going against the will of Allah and will untimely be punished for it. It's extremely difficult to get people out of that mantra once it becomes ingrained in them by the people who radicalise them. And as for peadophiles, it's simply part of their nature. You cannot remove this aspect of someone's character no more than you can change someone who's gay straight or the other way around.

The only answer, in the absence of a death penalty, is to accept that some people can't be rehabilitated and keep these people locked up indefinitely. Perhaps give them a piece of land somewhere where they can become largely self sustained (so they are less of a burden on the state) - much like the British did when it sent its prisoners to Australia.

But any government which knowingly allows dangerous terrorists, paedophiles or other criminals to roam the streets is failing at the very basic level of governance, which is, above all else, to keep it's citizens safe. The Tories have been in power for ten years in the UK and there have been several major terrorist incidents in that time. For them to keep saying they will act only for it to happen time and time again is nowhere near good enough.