Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Harry Roberts has been freed

Spymaster is manifesting opinions that have always been prevalent, and which show how some people don't want to understand the meaning of the statue of Lady Justice that sits atop the Old Bailey, why she holds sword and scales.

Yet you'd allow Roberts out and make a mockery of the scales?
 
The link butchersapron provided to that Independent article was pretty informative -- the most detailed i've seen.

Am I to conclude that the evidence the Cartwrights gave to the Parole Board is still secret, officially? You have to wonder who's responsible for leaking any of it into the public domain/pages of the Mail :hmm: (if that what happened -- I'm still unclear).

Saying that, Harry Roberts hardly looks like his own best friend at helping his own cause -- hobnobbobing with other gangsters when he was on day release FFS. His lack of nous does seem clear enough.
 
Of course you do. Which is why city wankers like your goodself will be up against the wall ASAP.

Lol!

Scary stuff, Ding Dong! :D


...he wants you up against the wall...?


Kenneth-Williams3.jpg



( ...must be spending too long on the Carry On thread... )
 
Yet you'd allow Roberts out and make a mockery of the scales?
'mockery'?

You're sounding like the Police Federation fools now. He's spent well over 50 years in prison, all told. A sad, pathetic failure of a life. There is nothing that can happen now that can change that.
 
Yet you'd allow Roberts out and make a mockery of the scales?
He got 30 years and served 48. How is that a mockery? You may not agree with the decision and you are completely free to voice that opinion but I really don't see how it's a mockery? He hasn't been released and public opinion may well be taken into account resulting in his release being put back or not happening. I don't see where the mockery is.
 
Yet you'd allow Roberts out and make a mockery of the scales?

Letting Roberts out is the scales operating; weighing a variety of interests and values against each other. Keeping him locked up until he dies - or executing him which is your preferred option - doesn't need any scales, just a bloody table covered in gorged eyes, pulled teeth and corpses.

Louis MacNeice
 
The link butchersapron provided to that Independent article was pretty informative -- the most detailed i've seen.

Am I to conclude that the evidence the Cartwrights gave to the Parole Board is still secret, officially? You have to wonder who's responsible for leaking any of it into the public domain/pages of the Mail :hmm: (if that what happened -- I'm still unclear).

Saying that, Harry Roberts hardly looks like his own best friend at helping his own cause -- hobnobbobing with other gangsters when he was on day release FFS. His lack of nous does seem clear enough.
The order banning naming of the Cartwright's was lifted in april 2009 and then the story came out via the Mail interview. The interview gives some surface detail of the evidence they provided but i don't think it can really be said to be that they made public their evidence. One of the other articles i linked to said it was actually illegal stuff with his brief that got the possible parole in 2005 pulled and that may have been the real target of the secrecy in evidence giving - we just don't know
 
Just to make clear where i stand on this btw - i think he should be let out, i think he's been kept inside as a totem of the combined power of the police and the POA and their shared interests and the home offices utter cowardice in challenging them. I'd like to see this power symbolically challenged by his release. I mentioned the animal stuff as a possible way the former may try to maintain their grip on Roberts. If he was behind that stuff then he was effectively found guilty of it 2001 and served a further 13 years for it. I also brought it up to try and head off any potential ill-informed heroisation of the anti-social prick that may have been developing.
 
No he didn't, he got life. The mockery is letting him out early.

I don't think you understand what a life sentence and the minimum tarrif given with it means in the British justice system. But if they'd hanged him there'd be some fucker moaning that it was a waste of tax payers money and they should have starved him to death or something.
 
Put aside, for now, my support for CP. I'm arguing that Roberts should not be released.

Keeping him in chokey until he dies is as just as the law allows, imo. He should never be allowed the freedom which he denied his victims.

One of the issues of keeping people incarcerated until death is that of expense. As inmates get older, the cost of keeping them incarcerated rises massively. With Biggs, his time at Belmarsh was costing the prison about £12.000 a month - about 4 times the cost of a "normal" prisoner - and that was with inmates mucking in with changing his nappy, etc.
Even older inmates who are still physically-able cost more, purely because of the likelihood of age-related conditions (some of which, such as hypertension and diabetes) are far more likely in a prison environment.
Of course, if the Home Office (whoever happens to be Secretary of State for Justice at the time) got their fingers out and built a single, central "geriatric prison", like they've wanted to do for about 30 years, you could eliminate the cost issue and still attain humane standards of care, thus satisfying the sort of people you call do-gooders.

Releasing him on some nebulous notion that it makes "we as society" better than him is a nonsense. "We as society" (your term) are better than him anyway. No need to try to prove that.

It's only nonsense if you think that the state shouldn't reflect the more humane impulses of the populace. Personally, I prefer the idea of the state doing so, to the state acting on its' own impulses. While that might please you, given your predilection for violent punishment, I somehow doubt it would suit many people once they'd got a taste of such a regime.
 
He murdered 3 people.

At least.

You appear to be saying that this fact means he should never be released, even if he has reformed significantly in the intervening years (I'm not convinced HR has reformed, but I'm not able to judge).

Just so we're clear, are you saying that any (triple) murderer, no matter how much they have been rehabilitated and however little danger to the public they are now deemed to be, shouldn't be released on licence, which still leaves the state the power to re-imprison if it's deemed necessary?

And if so, are you aware this is not the current legal position?
 
I think most of us can deal with him being an anti-social prick who deserved locking up for however long and it still being amusing to sing his name at coppers in certain situations.
I've done it myself at many different events - but i'm proper wary of the sort of idiot who thinks it's real and useful thing to do (killing cops i mean - not winding cops up) in everyday life and the situation we find ourselves in rather than something that people who would walk all over us if given the chance do. My position is that Killing cops is a pastime for would-be suicides.
 
I don't think you understand what a life sentence and the minimum tarrif given with it means in the British justice system.

Lol, I inderstand precisely what it is, how it works, but more importantly, how it should work.
 
Last edited:
Lol, I inderstamd precisely what it is, how it works, but more importantly, how it should work.

Well if you inderstamd it so well could you explain where the mockery is? Or could you at least put the 'killed 3 people' in italics next time so we can see what kind of argument you're really engaging in. Exclamation marks might help as well.
 
You appear to be saying that this fact means he should never be released, even if he has reformed significantly in the intervening years (I'm not convinced HR has reformed, but I'm not able to judge).

Just so we're clear, are you saying that any (triple) murderer, no matter how much they have been rehabilitated and however little danger to the public they are now deemed to be, shouldn't be released on licence, which still leaves the state the power to re-imprison if it's deemed necessary?

And if so, are you aware this is not the current legal position?

You've got to remember that what he actually wants is the death penalty; imprisonment until death is his soft option.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Back
Top Bottom