Labour was accused of taking a “dangerous gamble with public safety” yesterday as the Government unveiled plans to release thousands of prisoners early. The Mail has more.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced a series of measures designed to ease overcrowding in jails and avert a “total breakdown of law and order”.
Offenders will be automatically freed after serving 40% of their sentence, rather than the current 50%.
She stressed the rule would not apply to violent offenders serving more than four years, sex offenders or those in prison for crimes connected to domestic abuse. Dangerous offenders serving extended or life sentences would also be exempted from the scheme.
But Keir Starmer’s new Justice Minister Lord Timpson fuelled fury at the “anti-prison” approach as he suggested that courts should be handing out shorter sentences in the first place.
The peer, a long-time campaigner for reform who has argued that two-thirds of inmates should not be in prison at all, said the authorities should be “less focused on the length of a sentence” and more focused on rehabilitation.
The aunt of Zara Aleena, who was murdered by a man who had been out on licence for nine days, raised concerns that Labour was “gambling with public safety” and convicts will not be “supervised adequately”.
In a speech at HMP Five Wells, in Northamptonshire, Ms. Mahmood said prisons were “on the point of collapse”, with barely 700 places left in the adult male estate and jails operating at 99% capacity since the start of 2023.
If prisons ran out of cell space, she warned, the country faced the prospect of “van-loads of dangerous people circling the country with nowhere to go”, police officers unable to arrest criminals and “looters running amok”.
She said: “In short, if we fail to act now, we face the collapse of the criminal justice system and a total breakdown of law and order.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Apology not accepted. The top brass were and still are on board with the aims, and will have known the general drift if not the fine detail. Apology to the whistleblower not accepted either as their first instinct was to silence and punish. They got caught but will do it all again tomorrow more carefully.
My thoughts, exactly: They’re dishing out some money the government collected from the taxpayer and will henceforth cover their tracks more carefully. The mere fact that the air force has a diversity plan, IOW, that objective requirements are lower for the right kind of applicants, should be sufficient grounds to get rid of everyone involved with this starting with the top brass. Richard Knigthton is responsible for ensuring that something like this doesn’t happen, not for apologizing after his subordinates where caught breaking the law for the personal benefit of applicants to their liking while harming national security as a side effect.
Pushing the boundaries for positive action implies that they were well aware that they were acting illegally but hoped to get away with it in order to create a precedent for more law breaking with damaging side effects by other departments.
Ridiculous. People should be hired purely on their suitability for the role and nothing else. Speaking of diversity, more on the delusional fibber, Sadiq Khan and the state of the UK;
”Sadiq Khan’s claim that London was “built by migrants” is bizarre and without foundation, unless he means to refer to the Germanic tribes – Angles, Saxons, Frisians, and Jutes – who arrived in England two thousand years ago, and whose major legacy was linguistic: the Anglo-Saxon that developed into English. These tribes did not “build London.” Unlike the U.S., Great Britain is not a country of immigrants, and there was little immigration until the mid-20th century, when migrants started to arrive from the Caribbean in the 1950s, and then, in the 1960s, the migration of Pakistanis began. The Pakistani presence has been an unalloyed catastrophe. Many of them arrived – and continue to do so — as economic migrants, eager to take advantage of the full panoply benefits offered by the British welfare state, including free or subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, unemployment benefits (even without having held jobs in the U.K.), family allowances, and more.
Muslim migrants have had difficulty integrating into a society of Infidels, whom they are taught to regard as “the most vile of created beings.” Their unemployment rate is three times that of the British. Their rates of criminality far exceed those of the native British, and of other, but non-Muslim, immigrants as well. Muslims make up 7% of the population, but 30% of those in prison. Perhaps most unsettling has been the deliberate debauching of many thousands of English girls by grooming gangs of Pakistanis, who first ply the girls, many of them in their early teens, with drink and drugs, engage in sex with them, and then pass them around as sexual toys to be used, repeatedly raped, by dozens of fellow Pakistanis. The police often chose to look the other way, afraid that they would be accused of “racism” if they started to round up Pakistanis.”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/06/sadiq-khan-claims-london-was-built-by-migrants
A tenuous link to the article being; just as you should face no discrimination in getting any job and nobody should be overlooked or turned down based on race etc, the same would naturally apply to criminals. The law should prosecute the person who commits the offence, irrespective of race etc. Not turn a blind eye and give a free pass to reoffend because police are performing some sort of tick box exercise, thereby basically enabling and encouraging the criminals to just keep at it. Have people not learnt anything from the whole Jimmy Saville fiasco?!
Should it be concluded that, for the purposes of justice, it was an advantage that Saville wasn’t a migrant?
That’s a generic lie. It’s mirrored by the German Greens claiming that Turkish immigrants were really responsible for rebuilding Germany and reacquiring general prosperty after the second world war when – in reality – the so-called Wirtschaftswunder happened in the 1950s while so-called Gastarbeiter (guest workers) weren’t imported in numbers before the 1960s. Why did none of these supposed extraeuropean Übermenschen ever accomplish anything noteworthy in their native countries?
In the late 19th century, Chinatown in London consisted of just one street, Limehouse Causeway. At the time, the population of London was about 3 million.
In the 1911 census, the number of people in England and Wales with the surname of Patel numbered just 11 people.
In the late 1930s, a newspaper article called ‘The Foreign Bits of Britain’ related how a small country estate in Hertfordshire had been purchased by a German count in 1901 to be used as a ‘farm colony’ where German immigrants who had fallen on hard times could go to live and work at their trade to earn enough money to return home. The several hundred men who had lived there before the Great War had, by the 1930s, become a handful of old people. That was the extent of the ‘foreign bits of Britain’ that this newspaper could identify.
Today, in Tooting, South London, there is a blue plaque on a building which ‘celebrates the migrants who built Tooting’. Photographs of this area from the 1950s show no obvious migrants. Admiral Lord Nelson referred to the estate of the Hamiltons, not far from Tooting, as ‘paradise Merton’. The area was built up in the late 19th century and, as the 1911 census shows, was inhabited by lower middle class tradesmen, clerks and their families.
But all this is irrelevant. The claim that London, or any part of it, was built by migrants is not an assertion about the past. It is a claim to current ownership.
How do you square the circle of practising affirmative action whilst not discriminating against those you’re not affirming? Like everything nowadays, the policy appears incoherent.
You can’t and everyone knows that but they don’t say it.
So the result is that officials must prepare abject apologies both for not selecting minorities AND discriminating against majorities, and trot them out as occasion demands, without meaning either.
Likewise when an MP offends trans activists, they fill in a boilerplate apology form and mean nothing, because they would as readily apologise for insensitivity to de-transitioners. And in this way, basic morality soon disappears from a nation.
The primary cause of this is the Equalities Act 2010 brought in by Harriet Harman and immediately adopted by the following Tory government. Bin this and we could return to leading a normal life whereby we can call anybody names without fear of prosecution.
Just imagine for a minute that the discrimination had been against black men.
And then try and imagine that an apology would be all that was required.
Air Chief Sir Richard Knighton should resign or be sacked.