This government has sunk to an all time low in sleaze and corruption so we should not expect high standards but Mr Reid is now telling judges not to send paedophiles to prison, this is a disgrace and he should be forced out of office.
2007-01-25 06:26:44 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
OK if that is what Mt Reid wants, then WE want publication in the news papers of who these creatures are, where they are and an up to date photo.
A Government's first concern is the Duty of Care to it's Citizens.
This Government is a failure in that respect!.
Time for all MP's with guts to stand up and walk out whenever Mr Blair and Mr Reid speak in Parliament.
This would show No Confidence and No respect.
The problem is that MPs are showing that they are generally gutless.
2007-01-25 08:20:43 · answer #1 · answered by rogerglyn 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope that is not what wa said. You seem to be confusing a willful desire to have your own agenda reflected rathe than accurately reporting what was said. One man who waas caught with images was not sent to jail. It is not mandatory to send people to jail for all crimes they are guidelines and thankfully the judges are allowed to consdier all the facts - unlike some peolple on here who advocate hunting, killing, maiming while never knowing anything other than what was reported in the low life tabloids (last bastions of truth anyone??).
The reason the new directive was made is precisely becuase this government introduced over 3,000 new crimes punishable with prison sentences. The same government and various home secretaries have responded to the cries of the public and tabloids to lock up ALL criminals that there is now no longer room in jail. The solution being applied is to consider more carefully the other options which were always in place. So really not much has changed other than a recognition - albeit belatedly - is not appropriate for all crimes and all circumstances need to be considered.
Call of the dogs and if there were a threat to the public then a place in jail would have beeen found for the individual in question
2007-01-25 21:47:37 · answer #2 · answered by Gilly S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Home Office letter didn't actually say 'don't put paedophiles in prison', it said only put 'serious' 'repeat offenders' in prison, and i think the paedophile would fall into the 'serious' category so i don't understand the judge in this instance, perhaps he just wanted to get political. I agree though that this government is sliding closer to a very sticky wicket if they start dictacting sentences.
2007-01-25 07:41:05 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a way I agree with Mr. Reid but for a very different reason! Instead of being sent to prison where they receive 3 meals a day, a free education, room and board, free cable and everything else at our expense, I have a better solution to this growing problem.
I think the government should build an anatomically correct robot that can be programmed to do the exact same thing to the pedophile that they did to their victim. The robot should be the same dimensions that a man would be to a child. That way they would know they same pain and humiliation that the child suffered.
Maybe pedophiles would stop and think twice before they committed their crimes.
2007-01-25 06:48:01 · answer #4 · answered by curiousnktown 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A judge decided not to send to prison a man who'd downloaded some obscene images because Reid has circulated a letter to judges asking them not to jail anyone but persistent, violent or serious offenders. His letter was NOT targeted specifically at paedophiles, the judge interpreted the instructions he had received to let this man off of a prison sentence.
2007-01-25 07:31:08 · answer #5 · answered by Huh? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it could selection from a pair of years to a existence sentence, in spite of the undeniable fact that that often ability between 9 and fifteen years interior the U.ok. gadget. the appropriate sentence could be if the guy have been got here upon to be sufferring from some sort of significant psychological ailment, wherein case, they could be sent to a secure well-being facility till it became deemed risk-free to launch them. in this undertaking, a individual might desire to actual be in there for something of thier lives. Sorry, do no longer comprehend precisely how sentencing is worked out..
2016-11-01 06:46:54 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get your information right before you rush to print dude.
Reid only told the judges not to give prison to non serious offences. Your judge thought paedophilia was not a serious offence. I wonder why?.....
2007-01-26 06:52:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Gilly S. We never heard exactly what the paedophile in question did. Not saying it's right to fancy having sex with kids but if there were mitigating circumstances, we didn't hear them. Maybe this paedo was 18 years old and dating a promiscuous girl of 15 and didn't know her real age? OK I doubt it but if he/she was considered a dangerous kiddie fiddler then they would have been locked up.
2007-01-27 05:21:32 · answer #8 · answered by seamer100 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
he will be in just a few weeks! it makes you wonder when this wandering government will find the right man for the job and they better hurry as it will be too late//it would help Reid if Brown was to co- operate with him but Tony Blair doesn't seem to notice.
2007-01-27 08:10:50 · answer #9 · answered by srracvuee 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is because of the overcrowding in prisons. The Governemt are tryign to buy 2 prison ships and an RAF Camp to help with this overcrowding.
But it is really bad....
2007-01-25 06:37:30 · answer #10 · answered by sweet_nili2000 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋