Can any of our readers with a legal background offer an opinion on how it is the Parole Board can get away with declaring Peter Macnamara's release consistent with the safety of the community? This is a gang rapist who's not only never expressed remorse, he's steadfastly refused to accept that he did anything wrong - but apparently we're supposed to accept that despite that, the community's safe with him at large in it. I find that very difficult to accept. Presumably the nation's women aren't exactly chuffed with the message the Parole Board's sending either.
No-one seems to have asked yet, but why not - if this guy was a tattooed proletarian gang rapist with a remorse problem, how likely is it the Parole Board would see him not endangering the community? Helps to be white and rich, obviously.
December 10 in history
5 hours ago