saint_bert Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sarah-Payne-Murderer-Roy-Whiting-Has-His-Minimum-Jail-Term-Reduced-To-40-Years/Article/201006215646126?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15646126_Sarah_Payne%3A_Murderer_Roy_Whiting_Has_His_Minimum_Jail_Term_Reduced_To_40_Years Bloke is scum. Pure and simple. I just dont see the need for it to be dragged up all over again. 40 years 50 years whats the point? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 He's never ever going to come out, is he. And rightly so. I think it was done because the sentencing protocols had changed and a precedent needed to be set. It only means that his case for parole will be reviewed after 40 years instead of 50, not that he will be automatically released. I can't imagine any review board would grant him parole so yes, you're right, it doesn't make any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 He'll never be let out. The 40 years is the minimum he can serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 he should be put down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 he should be put down I dont think that is an option in the sentencing guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 he should be put down I'd rather he had to endure 40 years worth of whatever treatment is meted out to him than for him to have a quick way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 I'd rather he had to endure 40 years worth of whatever treatment is meted out to him than for him to have a quick way out. I'd rather he was sentenced to death and the £700,000 saved was used for health or education services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 I'd rather he had to endure 40 years worth of whatever treatment is meted out to him than for him to have a quick way out. Yep, same here. I wouldn't prevent him if he decided to end it all, in his cell, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 As been said before,this scum will have to serve 40years before hes even allowed to go before a parole board.Then he has to prove hes no longer a threat to anyone.Its all just legal talk to make sure the law is seen to be done. I will bet a weeks wages he never comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 9 June, 2010 Share Posted 9 June, 2010 'angim...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 10 June, 2010 Share Posted 10 June, 2010 As been said before,this scum will have to serve 40years before hes even allowed to go before a parole board.Then he has to prove hes no longer a threat to anyone.Its all just legal talk to make sure the law is seen to be done. I will bet a weeks wages he never comes out. TBF though, he'll be 91 by then, so, assuming he's still alive, he may well be no longer seen as a threat to society and therefore be released and able to die at home; a luxury he should not be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now