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.
General Debate 21 August 2014
25 minutes ago