On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release
hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly. "Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
On 2026-08-04, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed >>> to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release >>> hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly.
"Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Andy Burnham has wisely read and taken note of my sage advice, and >implemented my proposal:
Burnham said anyone convicted of unlawful killing, including all
forms of manslaughter, would be excluded from the [early release]
scheme
and indeed my suggestion that this would make little difference to
the prison population issue was entirely correct:
He conceded the announcement would mean "hundreds" more people stay
in prison
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr4wd81pdpo
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 18:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-04, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed >>>> to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release >>>> hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly.
"Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Andy Burnham has wisely read and taken note of my sage advice, and >>implemented my proposal:
Burnham said anyone convicted of unlawful killing, including all
forms of manslaughter, would be excluded from the [early release]
scheme
and indeed my suggestion that this would make little difference to
the prison population issue was entirely correct:
He conceded the announcement would mean "hundreds" more people stay
in prison
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr4wd81pdpo
Well done, Jon.
Does this mean you'll be adding "Special Advisor to HM Government" to
your CV? Or have you already done so?
On 2026-08-31, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 18:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-04, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed >>>>> to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release >>>>> hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly.
"Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Andy Burnham has wisely read and taken note of my sage advice, and
implemented my proposal:
Burnham said anyone convicted of unlawful killing, including all
forms of manslaughter, would be excluded from the [early release]
scheme
and indeed my suggestion that this would make little difference to
the prison population issue was entirely correct:
He conceded the announcement would mean "hundreds" more people stay
in prison
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr4wd81pdpo
Well done, Jon.
Does this mean you'll be adding "Special Advisor to HM Government" to
your CV? Or have you already done so?
I think that position in this group is already taken.
I thought it was relevant to the thread that the government is taking
action on the topic, and amusing that the action it is taking happens
to be exactly what I suggested.
I still think it is a pity that the government has capitulated to an ignorant Press and a vociferous woman who is the mother of a victim.
And, to be fair, a number of police officers who think that their
profession was being disrespected by these early releases.
I suppose the wording of the government's announcement means that they
can still give early release to drunken drivers who kill pedestrians
because the crime is not specifically manslaughter.
Unless and until the
parent of such a victim makes a big fuss.
And meanwhile, there is still a very understandable complaint that
domestic abusers still qualify for early release and are far more of a danger to their victims and to society.
On 02/09/2026 08:29, The Todal wrote:
I still think it is a pity that the government has capitulated to an
ignorant Press and a vociferous woman who is the mother of a victim.
And, to be fair, a number of police officers who think that their
profession was being disrespected by these early releases.
I suppose the wording of the government's announcement means that they
can still give early release to drunken drivers who kill pedestrians
because the crime is not specifically manslaughter.
Not so.
"Burnham confirms those convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous driving and indecent assault ineligible for early release"
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/burnham-confirms-those-convicted-of- manslaughter-death-by-dangerous-driving-and-5HjdgpS_2/
Unless and until the parent of such a victim makes a big fuss.
Laws are not immutable, but are servants of the people.-a They are a
public statement of the nation's morality.-a As such, it's right and
proper that they should reflect public opinion, and if necessary be
amended to do so.
And meanwhile, there is still a very understandable complaint that
domestic abusers still qualify for early release and are far more of a
danger to their victims and to society.
If you need to reduce the prison population because the system can't
cope, some of those currently inside will have to be released or fewer people will have to be sent there in the first place.
All of those currently inside have committed serious crimes, and there
will be victims on the outside baying for them to be locked up forever
if not hanged. drawn and quartered.-a So, you're always going to get bleating.
Instead of just objecting to everything, what is *your* solution?
On 02/09/2026 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/09/2026 08:29, The Todal wrote:
I still think it is a pity that the government has capitulated to an
ignorant Press and a vociferous woman who is the mother of a victim.
And, to be fair, a number of police officers who think that their
profession was being disrespected by these early releases.
I suppose the wording of the government's announcement means that
they can still give early release to drunken drivers who kill
pedestrians because the crime is not specifically manslaughter.
Not so.
"Burnham confirms those convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous
driving and indecent assault ineligible for early release"
Thank you for that link.
So an even worse knee-jerk reaction from a PM keen to cultivate
affection and approval from an ignorant electorate who have no
involvement in running our prisons but know what they want.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/burnham-confirms-those-convicted-of-
manslaughter-death-by-dangerous-driving-and-5HjdgpS_2/
Unless and until the parent of such a victim makes a big fuss.
Laws are not immutable, but are servants of the people.-a They are a
public statement of the nation's morality.-a As such, it's right and
proper that they should reflect public opinion, and if necessary be
amended to do so.
Public opinion should not be a noisy minority of campaigners backed by tabloid editors.
And meanwhile, there is still a very understandable complaint that
domestic abusers still qualify for early release and are far more of
a danger to their victims and to society.
If you need to reduce the prison population because the system can't
cope, some of those currently inside will have to be released or fewer
people will have to be sent there in the first place.
All of those currently inside have committed serious crimes, and there
will be victims on the outside baying for them to be locked up forever
if not hanged. drawn and quartered.-a So, you're always going to get
bleating.
Instead of just objecting to everything, what is *your* solution?
Give early release to those who do not present an imminent risk of committing further offences, including the much demonised Bowers and Cole.
It is unlikely albeit possible that a person who drives while drunk and kills another person with their car will kill another person in the
future. They will probably be banned from driving and we do need a
police force which efficiently tracks and arrests those who drive
without a licence.
Rather, perhaps, than tracking and arresting those
who download certain forms of porn.
On 02/09/2026 09:26, The Todal wrote:
On 02/09/2026 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/09/2026 08:29, The Todal wrote:
I still think it is a pity that the government has capitulated to an
ignorant Press and a vociferous woman who is the mother of a victim.
And, to be fair, a number of police officers who think that their
profession was being disrespected by these early releases.
I suppose the wording of the government's announcement means that
they can still give early release to drunken drivers who kill
pedestrians because the crime is not specifically manslaughter.
Not so.
"Burnham confirms those convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous
driving and indecent assault ineligible for early release"
Thank you for that link.
So an even worse knee-jerk reaction from a PM keen to cultivate
affection and approval from an ignorant electorate who have no
involvement in running our prisons but know what they want.
They're entitled to whatever view they want, whether you regard it as ignorant or not.
It's what happens in a democracy.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/burnham-confirms-those-convicted-of-
manslaughter-death-by-dangerous-driving-and-5HjdgpS_2/
Unless and until the parent of such a victim makes a big fuss.
Laws are not immutable, but are servants of the people.-a They are a
public statement of the nation's morality.-a As such, it's right and
proper that they should reflect public opinion, and if necessary be
amended to do so.
Public opinion should not be a noisy minority of campaigners backed by
tabloid editors.
What should it be then?-a Whatever you decide?
And meanwhile, there is still a very understandable complaint that
domestic abusers still qualify for early release and are far more of
a danger to their victims and to society.
If you need to reduce the prison population because the system can't
cope, some of those currently inside will have to be released or
fewer people will have to be sent there in the first place.
All of those currently inside have committed serious crimes, and
there will be victims on the outside baying for them to be locked up
forever if not hanged. drawn and quartered.-a So, you're always going
to get bleating.
Instead of just objecting to everything, what is *your* solution?
Give early release to those who do not present an imminent risk of
committing further offences, including the much demonised Bowers and
Cole.
But they're career criminals.-a As the judge said:
"these four defendants went out in the afternoon to steal a quad bike.
They had carefully planned how they were going to do that. It was
something they did frequently, and in the cases of Long and Bowers
pretty well all the time. They had all been out thieving
the previous night when they stole the loop which caused the death of
Andrew Harper on the 15th August 2019. They were in the habit of going
out thieving in cars at night. In LongrCOs case it was his only source of income, he never having done an honest dayrCOs work in his life, or, it seems, ever thought that he should."
Other remarks are available.
To allege that they do not present an imminent risk of committing
further offences is, I suggest, rather naive.
It is unlikely albeit possible that a person who drives while drunk
and kills another person with their car will kill another person in
the future. They will probably be banned from driving and we do need a
police force which efficiently tracks and arrests those who drive
without a licence.
How should we do that then?
Rather, perhaps, than tracking and arresting those who download
certain forms of porn.
What is important is all a matter of public opinion, which our laws will reflect.
On 01/09/2026 02:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-31, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 18:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-04, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those whoWhy "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population >>>>> are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly. >>>>> "Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
are deemed to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then
surely you release hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded? >>>>>
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Andy Burnham has wisely read and taken note of my sage advice, and
implemented my proposal:
Burnham said anyone convicted of unlawful killing, including all
forms of manslaughter, would be excluded from the [early release]
scheme
and indeed my suggestion that this would make little difference to
the prison population issue was entirely correct:
He conceded the announcement would mean "hundreds" more people stay >>>> in prison
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr4wd81pdpo
Well done, Jon.
Does this mean you'll be adding "Special Advisor to HM Government" to
your CV? Or have you already done so?
I think that position in this group is already taken.
I thought it was relevant to the thread that the government is taking
action on the topic, and amusing that the action it is taking happens
to be exactly what I suggested.
I still think it is a pity that the government has capitulated to an ignorant Press and a vociferous woman who is the mother of a victim.
And, to be fair, a number of police officers who think that their
profession was being disrespected by these early releases.
I suppose the wording of the government's announcement means that they
can still give early release to drunken drivers who kill pedestrians
because the crime is not specifically manslaughter. Unless and until the parent of such a victim makes a big fuss.
And meanwhile, there is still a very understandable complaint that
domestic abusers still qualify for early release and are far more of a danger to their victims and to society.
On 02/09/2026 10:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/09/2026 09:26, The Todal wrote:
On 02/09/2026 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/09/2026 08:29, The Todal wrote:
I still think it is a pity that the government has capitulated to
an ignorant Press and a vociferous woman who is the mother of a
victim. And, to be fair, a number of police officers who think that >>>>> their profession was being disrespected by these early releases.
I suppose the wording of the government's announcement means that
they can still give early release to drunken drivers who kill
pedestrians because the crime is not specifically manslaughter.
Not so.
"Burnham confirms those convicted of manslaughter, death by
dangerous driving and indecent assault ineligible for early release"
Thank you for that link.
So an even worse knee-jerk reaction from a PM keen to cultivate
affection and approval from an ignorant electorate who have no
involvement in running our prisons but know what they want.
They're entitled to whatever view they want, whether you regard it as
ignorant or not.
It's what happens in a democracy.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/burnham-confirms-those-convicted-of-
manslaughter-death-by-dangerous-driving-and-5HjdgpS_2/
Unless and until the parent of such a victim makes a big fuss.
Laws are not immutable, but are servants of the people.-a They are a
public statement of the nation's morality.-a As such, it's right and
proper that they should reflect public opinion, and if necessary be
amended to do so.
Public opinion should not be a noisy minority of campaigners backed
by tabloid editors.
What should it be then?-a Whatever you decide?
And meanwhile, there is still a very understandable complaint that
domestic abusers still qualify for early release and are far more
of a danger to their victims and to society.
If you need to reduce the prison population because the system can't
cope, some of those currently inside will have to be released or
fewer people will have to be sent there in the first place.
All of those currently inside have committed serious crimes, and
there will be victims on the outside baying for them to be locked up
forever if not hanged. drawn and quartered.-a So, you're always going >>>> to get bleating.
Instead of just objecting to everything, what is *your* solution?
Give early release to those who do not present an imminent risk of
committing further offences, including the much demonised Bowers and
Cole.
But they're career criminals.-a As the judge said:
"these four defendants went out in the afternoon to steal a quad bike.
They had carefully planned how they were going to do that. It was
something they did frequently, and in the cases of Long and Bowers
pretty well all the time. They had all been out thieving
the previous night when they stole the loop which caused the death of
Andrew Harper on the 15th August 2019. They were in the habit of going
out thieving in cars at night. In LongrCOs case it was his only source
of income, he never having done an honest dayrCOs work in his life, or, it >> seems, ever thought that he should."
Other remarks are available.
To allege that they do not present an imminent risk of committing
further offences is, I suggest, rather naive.
It is unlikely albeit possible that a person who drives while drunk
and kills another person with their car will kill another person in
the future. They will probably be banned from driving and we do need
a police force which efficiently tracks and arrests those who drive
without a licence.
How should we do that then?
It's so difficult to give you an answer given that I'm not involved in
the police, or the DVLA, or GCHQ or any of the relevant services.
So if you want an answer, find someone who has that knowledge. Or if you prefer, throw up your hands and say "we can't possibly detect those who drive whilst unlicensed, so let's do nothing about them".
In the USA, motorcycle cops regularly stop motorists and check documentation. I suppose we could introduce that sort of system.
Rather, perhaps, than tracking and arresting those who download
certain forms of porn.
What is important is all a matter of public opinion, which our laws
will reflect.
So, I take it that you approve of our Prime Minister's prompt and
sensitive response to the concerns of PC Harper's family.
I suppose you do know that prisons are now having to convert store roomsNo, it's all absurd, impractical, unworkable, expensive and largely impossible.
and offices and laundry rooms into cells, because we have run out of
room in our prisons?
Maybe we should utilise all other public buildings as makeshift prisons.
How many rooms might there be in Buckingham Palace? Maybe every hotel
should be required to offer a dozen rooms as prison cells.
Oh, right. Not My Responsibility, Mate.
On 02/09/2026 11:21, The Todal wrote:
On 02/09/2026 10:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/09/2026 09:26, The Todal wrote:
On 02/09/2026 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/09/2026 08:29, The Todal wrote:
I still think it is a pity that the government has capitulated to >>>>>> an ignorant Press and a vociferous woman who is the mother of a
victim. And, to be fair, a number of police officers who think
that their profession was being disrespected by these early releases. >>>>>>
I suppose the wording of the government's announcement means that >>>>>> they can still give early release to drunken drivers who kill
pedestrians because the crime is not specifically manslaughter.
Not so.
"Burnham confirms those convicted of manslaughter, death by
dangerous driving and indecent assault ineligible for early release"
Thank you for that link.
So an even worse knee-jerk reaction from a PM keen to cultivate
affection and approval from an ignorant electorate who have no
involvement in running our prisons but know what they want.
They're entitled to whatever view they want, whether you regard it as
ignorant or not.
It's what happens in a democracy.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/burnham-confirms-those-convicted-of-
manslaughter-death-by-dangerous-driving-and-5HjdgpS_2/
Unless and until the parent of such a victim makes a big fuss.
Laws are not immutable, but are servants of the people.-a They are a >>>>> public statement of the nation's morality.-a As such, it's right and >>>>> proper that they should reflect public opinion, and if necessary be >>>>> amended to do so.
Public opinion should not be a noisy minority of campaigners backed
by tabloid editors.
What should it be then?-a Whatever you decide?
And meanwhile, there is still a very understandable complaint that >>>>>> domestic abusers still qualify for early release and are far more >>>>>> of a danger to their victims and to society.
If you need to reduce the prison population because the system
can't cope, some of those currently inside will have to be released >>>>> or fewer people will have to be sent there in the first place.
All of those currently inside have committed serious crimes, and
there will be victims on the outside baying for them to be locked
up forever if not hanged. drawn and quartered.-a So, you're always
going to get bleating.
Instead of just objecting to everything, what is *your* solution?
Give early release to those who do not present an imminent risk of
committing further offences, including the much demonised Bowers and
Cole.
But they're career criminals.-a As the judge said:
"these four defendants went out in the afternoon to steal a quad
bike. They had carefully planned how they were going to do that. It
was something they did frequently, and in the cases of Long and
Bowers pretty well all the time. They had all been out thieving
the previous night when they stole the loop which caused the death of
Andrew Harper on the 15th August 2019. They were in the habit of
going out thieving in cars at night. In LongrCOs case it was his only
source of income, he never having done an honest dayrCOs work in his
life, or, it
seems, ever thought that he should."
Other remarks are available.
To allege that they do not present an imminent risk of committing
further offences is, I suggest, rather naive.
It is unlikely albeit possible that a person who drives while drunk
and kills another person with their car will kill another person in
the future. They will probably be banned from driving and we do need
a police force which efficiently tracks and arrests those who drive
without a licence.
How should we do that then?
It's so difficult to give you an answer given that I'm not involved in
the police, or the DVLA, or GCHQ or any of the relevant services.
So if you want an answer, find someone who has that knowledge. Or if
you prefer, throw up your hands and say "we can't possibly detect
those who drive whilst unlicensed, so let's do nothing about them".
That is actually the fact of the matter.-a Assuming you don't want a
police state in which everyone's moves and activities are minutely monitored, there's very little we can do.-a We therefore have no option
but to accept it and can only deal with those we do serendipitously
catch out.
In the USA, motorcycle cops regularly stop motorists and check
documentation. I suppose we could introduce that sort of system.
They are pretty well free to do that here if they want.-a But it's
expensive to do on any scale and it's a question of what we want to
spend our money on.
Rather, perhaps, than tracking and arresting those who download
certain forms of porn.
What is important is all a matter of public opinion, which our laws
will reflect.
So, I take it that you approve of our Prime Minister's prompt and
sensitive response to the concerns of PC Harper's family.
Yes, I do actually.
I suppose you do know that prisons are now having to convert storeNo, it's all absurd, impractical, unworkable, expensive and largely impossible.
rooms and offices and laundry rooms into cells, because we have run
out of room in our prisons?
Maybe we should utilise all other public buildings as makeshift
prisons. How many rooms might there be in Buckingham Palace? Maybe
every hotel should be required to offer a dozen rooms as prison cells.
Oh, right. Not My Responsibility, Mate.
The only sensible solution is not to send so many to prison in the first place.-a We are well over the European average per 100,000 population, so
it must be possible unless we are more naturally inclined to criminality than other nations.-a If we are, then we have to get inventive, and open
our minds to other forms of punishment that will deter, including
inflicting physical pain, particularly if we can do that quickly,
cheaply and without long-term disability.
I wonder how that could be done?-a Any ideas?
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the manner
of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And, again,
it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the
number of prisoners affected is very small.
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the manner
of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And, again,
it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the
number of prisoners affected is very small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but there
are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison. Why are only a
few hundred affected by the changes? Is that because the rest all have
life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be affected, and
by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be someone else's problem"?
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the manner >>> of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And, again, >>> it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the
number of prisoners affected is very small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but there
are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison. Why are only a
few hundred affected by the changes? Is that because the rest all have
life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be affected, and
by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be someone else's problem"?
Well all the murderers are on life sentences of course. They were never
going to be affected by the changes. And of however many people are on determinate sentences for causing deaths, only a small percentage at
any one time are going to be in the period of time between "when they
would get out if the new rules applied to them" and "when they will get
out under the old rules".
On 02/09/2026 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the manner >>>> of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And, again, >>>> it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the
number of prisoners affected is very small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but there
are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison. Why are only a
few hundred affected by the changes? Is that because the rest all have
life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be affected, and
by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be someone else's problem"?
Well all the murderers are on life sentences of course. They were never
going to be affected by the changes. And of however many people are on
determinate sentences for causing deaths, only a small percentage at
any one time are going to be in the period of time between "when they
would get out if the new rules applied to them" and "when they will get
out under the old rules".
So, whilst the PM talked about the early release scheme not applying, he just meant the new early release scheme, not the old one? Does this mean there'll be the same palaver in a couple of years time, when PC Harper's killers get up to the 50% point on their sentences?
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:Well all the murderers are on life sentences of course. They were never
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the manner >>>>> of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And, again, >>>>> it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the >>>>> number of prisoners affected is very small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but there
are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison. Why are only a >>>> few hundred affected by the changes? Is that because the rest all have >>>> life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be affected, and >>>> by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be someone else's problem"? >>>
going to be affected by the changes. And of however many people are on
determinate sentences for causing deaths, only a small percentage at
any one time are going to be in the period of time between "when they
would get out if the new rules applied to them" and "when they will get
out under the old rules".
So, whilst the PM talked about the early release scheme not applying, he
just meant the new early release scheme, not the old one? Does this mean
there'll be the same palaver in a couple of years time, when PC Harper's
killers get up to the 50% point on their sentences?
Sorry, what do you mean by "old early release scheme"?
On 2 Sep 2026 at 15:33:52 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:Well all the murderers are on life sentences of course. They were never >>>> going to be affected by the changes. And of however many people are on >>>> determinate sentences for causing deaths, only a small percentage at
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the manner >>>>>> of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And, again,
it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the >>>>>> number of prisoners affected is very small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but there >>>>> are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison. Why are only a >>>>> few hundred affected by the changes? Is that because the rest all have >>>>> life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be affected, and >>>>> by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be someone else's problem"? >>>>
any one time are going to be in the period of time between "when they
would get out if the new rules applied to them" and "when they will get >>>> out under the old rules".
So, whilst the PM talked about the early release scheme not applying, he >>> just meant the new early release scheme, not the old one? Does this mean >>> there'll be the same palaver in a couple of years time, when PC Harper's >>> killers get up to the 50% point on their sentences?
Sorry, what do you mean by "old early release scheme"?
I presume he means the statutory basis upon which prisoners are
normally released on licence before the end of their determinate
sentence. And I also agree that he is probably right that there will
be wails of anguish when this date is reached, even though it was
predictable at the time of the original sentence.
On 02/09/2026 11:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:21, The Todal wrote:
On 02/09/2026 10:21, Norman Wells wrote:
It is unlikely albeit possible that a person who drives while drunk >>>>> and kills another person with their car will kill another person in >>>>> the future. They will probably be banned from driving and we do
need a police force which efficiently tracks and arrests those who
drive without a licence.
How should we do that then?
It's so difficult to give you an answer given that I'm not involved
in the police, or the DVLA, or GCHQ or any of the relevant services.
So if you want an answer, find someone who has that knowledge. Or if
you prefer, throw up your hands and say "we can't possibly detect
those who drive whilst unlicensed, so let's do nothing about them".
That is actually the fact of the matter.-a Assuming you don't want a
police state in which everyone's moves and activities are minutely
monitored, there's very little we can do.-a We therefore have no option
but to accept it and can only deal with those we do serendipitously
catch out.
In the USA, motorcycle cops regularly stop motorists and check
documentation. I suppose we could introduce that sort of system.
They are pretty well free to do that here if they want.-a But it's
expensive to do on any scale and it's a question of what we want to
spend our money on.
Well, even if we can't trace unlicensed motorists we certainly can do
more to stop drunken drivers and those who are driving under the
influence of drugs, and anyone else who drives erratically.
Before those drivers kill someone.
If we don't have enough police in cars or on bikes to look out for
drivers who are driving dangerously, then we need some massive extra investment in that area of police work.
I would continue to say that those who kill someone with their car are
far less likely to harm anyone else than someone in prison for beating
up or stalking their former partner.
The only sensible solution is not to send so many to prison in theNot your Final Taser Solution again, ffs.
first place.-a We are well over the European average per 100,000
population, so it must be possible unless we are more naturally
inclined to criminality than other nations.-a If we are, then we have
to get inventive, and open our minds to other forms of punishment that
will deter, including inflicting physical pain, particularly if we can
do that quickly, cheaply and without long-term disability.
I wonder how that could be done?-a Any ideas?
We do send too many people to prison, it is true. Perhaps more than
other European nations.
No doubt there could be much shorter sentences for some,
non-custodial sentences for others.
On 02/09/2026 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the
manner
of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And,
again,
it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the
number of prisoners affected is very small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but there
are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison. Why are only a
few hundred affected by the changes? Is that because the rest all have
life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be affected, and
by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be someone else's problem"?
Well all the murderers are on life sentences of course. They were never
going to be affected by the changes. And of however many people are on
determinate sentences for causing deaths, only a small percentage at
any one time are going to be in the period of time between "when they
would get out if the new rules applied to them" and "when they will get
out under the old rules".
So, whilst the PM talked about the early release scheme not applying, he just meant the new early release scheme, not the old one? Does this mean there'll be the same palaver in a couple of years time, when PC Harper's killers get up to the 50% point on their sentences?
On 2026-09-02, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2026 at 15:33:52 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:Well all the murderers are on life sentences of course. They were never >>>>> going to be affected by the changes. And of however many people are on >>>>> determinate sentences for causing deaths, only a small percentage at >>>>> any one time are going to be in the period of time between "when they >>>>> would get out if the new rules applied to them" and "when they will get >>>>> out under the old rules".
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that the manner
of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result is good. And, again,
it will make very little difference to the prison overcrowding as the >>>>>>> number of prisoners affected is very small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but there >>>>>> are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison. Why are only a >>>>>> few hundred affected by the changes? Is that because the rest all have >>>>>> life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be affected, and >>>>>> by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be someone else's problem"? >>>>>
So, whilst the PM talked about the early release scheme not applying, he >>>> just meant the new early release scheme, not the old one? Does this mean >>>> there'll be the same palaver in a couple of years time, when PC Harper's >>>> killers get up to the 50% point on their sentences?
Sorry, what do you mean by "old early release scheme"?
I presume he means the statutory basis upon which prisoners are
normally released on licence before the end of their determinate
sentence. And I also agree that he is probably right that there will
be wails of anguish when this date is reached, even though it was
predictable at the time of the original sentence.
I would hope that anyone who, like GB, has been around this group for multiple decades would know perfectly well that that was not an "early release scheme" but just the standard prison-then-licence scheme.
It's only tabloid journalists who like to repeatedly forget that fact,
so that they can publish faux outrage whenever they feel like it.
On 02/09/2026 12:39, The Todal wrote:
Not your Final Taser Solution again, ffs.
Why do you have such a closed mind on this?
On 02/09/2026 15:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-02, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2026 at 15:33:52 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-02, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/09/2026 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree with you that
the manner of the change is unfortunate, but I think the result >>>>>>>> is good. And, again, it will make very little difference to the >>>>>>>> prison overcrowding as the number of prisoners affected is very >>>>>>>> small.
I haven't been able to track down any real details of this, but
there are around 5000 murderers and manslaughterers in prison.
Why are only a few hundred affected by the changes? Is that
because the rest all have life sentences of some kind?
Or is it more like "initially only a few hundred will be
affected, and by the time it gets up to thousands that'll be
someone else's problem"?
Well all the murderers are on life sentences of course. They were
never going to be affected by the changes. And of however many
people are on determinate sentences for causing deaths, only a
small percentage at any one time are going to be in the period of
time between "when they would get out if the new rules applied to
them" and "when they will get out under the old rules".
So, whilst the PM talked about the early release scheme not
applying, he just meant the new early release scheme, not the old
one? Does this mean there'll be the same palaver in a couple of
years time, when PC Harper's killers get up to the 50% point on
their sentences?
Sorry, what do you mean by "old early release scheme"?
I presume he means the statutory basis upon which prisoners are
normally released on licence before the end of their determinate
sentence. And I also agree that he is probably right that there will
be wails of anguish when this date is reached, even though it was
predictable at the time of the original sentence.
I would hope that anyone who, like GB, has been around this group for
multiple decades would know perfectly well that that was not an "early
release scheme" but just the standard prison-then-licence scheme.
It's only tabloid journalists who like to repeatedly forget that fact,
so that they can publish faux outrage whenever they feel like it.
Just to clarify, what I meant was that previously most prisoners were released at the 50% point in their sentences. (I referred to that, in my general state of ignorance, as the old scheme.) The 50% was changed to
40% a couple of years ago under what I referred to as the new early
release scheme.
And the answer to my question seems to be: yes, the can for Harper's
killers has been kicked down the road a couple of years.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:05:48 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,507 |