Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Prisoners Votes

"... I blame the coalition government for burying their heads in the sand."

That is said by ex-prisoner John Hirst who axed his landlady through the head while she watched television.

He thinks he's smart.  I don't.  It's sickening that our money was used to help him gain notoriety.

Thanks to Go Lassie Go for the video.


William said...

What would happen to us if we just ignored the ruling? The coalition won't but what could they realistically do if we just ignored them?

I've read somewhere - dunno if it's true - that they overcame this in France by the judge being allowed to impose a 'no vote' restriction as part of the sentence. Perhaps we could do this.

It is difficult to stomach this unrepentant man in his gloating but he will learn the folly of his triumphs.

"When a wicked man dies, his hope perishes; all he expected from his power comes to nothing." Proverbs 11:7

subrosa said...

I understand, in certain circumstances, judges can say that William, but I'm waiting for the likes of Lallands Peat Worrier to give chapter and verse. I could spend days trawling through documents looking for the nitty gritty.

It is difficult to stomach and to think us taxpayers paid for his legal 'triumph'.

Sandy said...

Hirst on 23 June 1979 killed Mrs. Bronia Burton, with whom he was lodging while out on parole from a two-year burglary sentence, in Burghfield, Berkshire, with an axe, hitting her seven times. Hirst said that Burton, with whom he had been lodging for eleven days, nagged him constantly when he went out, and he felt no remorse.[1]

Hirst pleaded not guilty to murder, pleading guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. This plea was accepted by the prosection. Mr Justice Purchis, sentencing Hirst to 15 years in prison said "I have no doubt you are an arrogant and dangerous person with a severe personality defect", adding "unfortunately, this is not suitable for treatment in a mental hospital".

While in prison, Hirst attacked a prison officer in 1989, leading him to be transferred to a high-security unit reserved for the most dangerous units. The unit was visited by Stephen Shaw then of the Prison Reform Trust, who gave Hirst a copy of Prison Rules: A Working Guide, a PRT publication. Hirst used the book to successfully sue the prison governors over the disappearance of his personal property. Hirst submitted up to nine written complaints to his prison governors per day,[2] also becoming Britain's most litigious prisoner, advising other prisoners and launching numerous lawsuits against the government and prisons.[3]

Thanks to Wikipedia

So now he is out smoking joints and drinking champagne, it is hard to see any justice in this.

JuliaM said...

Hirst is scum, of that there's no doubt. But this would be just as unjust an imposition on our laws if it were fronted by, say, a more photogenic and sympathetic ex-con...

William said...

Interview with Andrew Neil -

Joe Public said...

I blame the politicians for allowing this ridiculous situation.

A criminal legally has his 'human right' to freedom curtailed by imprisonment; yet, a different 'right' cannot be curtailed. Stupid.

Surreptitious Evil said...

I blame the politicians for allowing this ridiculous situation.

Yes, the last lot. Who had 4 or so years to pass a law saying that, just as an off the top of the head example, "Anybody sentenced to a term of detention of at least one year shall be for the full term of their sentence, regardless of remission or parole."

The current lot, to be honest, have such a fetid pile of the last lots screw-ups to sort through, this isn't a huge surprise.

I was pleasantly (because I am a sick, sociopathic individual) surprised to realise that Hirst was as repulsive physically as morally.

Surreptitious Evil said...

Oh, should have previewed that! Or shouldn't have used separators that might be interpreted as somethingML.

It should have read:

"shall be" deprived of the ballot - can't be bothered looking up the Act and section references - "for the ..."

subrosa said...

And spending taxpayers' money on lawyers sandy.

subrosa said...

I would agree Julia. I'm sick to death of this Human Rights business. It always seem to be the innocent who lose.

subrosa said...

Thanks for the link William. What a jerk.

subrosa said...

Aye Joe, and there was Cameron saying the result made him sick. Not nearly as sick as I feel at his refusal to take action.

subrosa said...

I see what you mean SE and suppose there is some little satisfaction in that but still I think Cameron should take some responsibility.

I got your gist the first time. :)

Related Posts with Thumbnails