Jump to content

UK to introduce tougher jail terms for convicted terrorists after London Bridge attack


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

UK to introduce tougher jail terms for convicted terrorists after London Bridge attack

 

sdf.PNG

FILE PHOTO: Flowers and tributes to victims are seen on London Bridge, December 2, 2019. REUTERS/Yves Herman

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will introduce tougher jail sentences for convicted terrorists and will end early release as part of a series of measures to strengthen its response to terrorism, the government said on Tuesday.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to make changes after an attack near London Bridge in November in which Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist who had been released early from prison, killed two people.

 

Khan had been sentenced to a minimum of eight years in prison in 2012 with a requirement that the parole board assess his danger to the public before release. He was set free in December 2018 without such an assessment.

 

“The senseless terror attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November confronted us with some hard truths about how we deal with terrorist offenders,” interior minister Priti Patel said in a statement.

 

The government, elected in December, said it would introduce new counter-terrorism legislation within its first 100 days which would force dangerous offenders who receive extended determinate sentences to serve the whole time in jail.

 

Those convicted of offences such as preparing acts of terrorism or directing a terrorist organisation would face a minimum of 14 years in prison, the government said, adding that it would also review how terror offenders are managed when they are released.

 

The father of one of Khan’s victims, Jack Merritt, a 25-year-old who had worked on a prisoner rehabilitation scheme, said at the time his son would have been upset to see his death used to justify tougher penalties.

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-21
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pity we do not have the 'transported for life' option anymore. A penal colony on one of the south Sandwich islands (near to South Georgia island) would be useful .... Just dump them on the shore with a years supply of Meals ready to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, PJPom said:

PS we are no longer allowed to call people Aborigines, they must be referred to as Indigenous or First Nation, failing to follow this ruling you will be branded as a Racist.............

my Koorie mate still calls me Gubba.....is he a racist?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

Happy to support that if the US closes down the churches of anyone involved in a mass shooting at a school

Is it not mostly crazed individuals who have carried out these mass shootings in the US? Do you seriously believe that any of these individuals are going to be worshippers of any church? In the UK, what is the chance that all the Muslims who commit these terrorist atrocities are members of certain Mosques?

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not the lack of long sentencing laws that lead to this murderer being loose on the streets, the laws to keep him and any terrorist in prison for the rest of their life already exist.

 

He was let loose because of funding cuts to the probation service and a drive to cut the costs of prisons by releasing prisoners early.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, possum1931 said:

<snip> In the UK, what is the chance that all the Muslims who commit these terrorist atrocities are members of certain Mosques?

Proven to be quite high, regrettably.  There were several mosques in North and East London and parts of Yorkshire that were found to be preaching an extreme version of Islam where these scumbags were regular attendees. Abu Hamza was the Imam of one of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

 

I personally believe that we shouldn't even consider imprisoning them - one bullet is far cheaper and more certain. That or the option of deportation at their expense!

But then my politics are far right when it comes to the massacre of innocent people.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, possum1931 said:

I bet they don't even get deported when they finish their sentences, and what about closing down the Mosques of anyone convicted of terrorism.

I wonder how certain people would act if it was their daughter who was killed by Muslim terrorism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, possum1931 said:

Is it not mostly crazed individuals who have carried out these mass shootings in the US? Do you seriously believe that any of these individuals are going to be worshippers of any church? In the UK, what is the chance that all the Muslims who commit these terrorist atrocities are members of certain Mosques?

How would closing the mosque help. I suggest get rid of the imam at the mosque a better option.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think a shorter jail term is needed.  About a week should do it.  Just enough time to arrange the lethal injections.

 

Guaranteed no re-offending.  Only for those where there is no doubt of their guilt of course, like the scum who murdered Lee Rigby for example.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, PJPom said:

An example of this is Australia’s so called mandatory sentences for assaulting Ambos and Police, they are usually let off with a smack on the wrist after using the drunk or drugged or mentally troubled excuse.

Being drunk or drugged shouldn't be a mitigation; quite the opposite, it should be an aggravation of the original charge.

 

After all, we don't let drivers walk away from a dumb accident if they say "Sorry, officer, I was drunk or drugged." Why should it be regarded as an excuse for assault?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Being drunk or drugged shouldn't be a mitigation; quite the opposite, it should be an aggravation of the original charge.

 

After all, we don't let drivers walk away from a dumb accident if they say "Sorry, officer, I was drunk or drugged." Why should it be regarded as an excuse for assault?

Abso ***ing lutely!!!!! ????????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, possum1931 said:

If the Mosques got closed it might stop some people from harbouring the terrorists.

As right-wing as I am, there ARE good, peaceful Muslims and they are as horrified by what's being done alledgedly in their name as we are.

They can have their places of worship if they please - as can Jews have their synagogues, Christians their churches Mormons their temples, Buddhists their temples etc. etc.

Just <deleted>, fit in with the UK way of life, stop proselytising and hijacking the religion you CLAIM to follow but which you've actually hijacked, politicalized and violated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 1:39 PM, PJPom said:

Let’s see if this happens, it’s very easy to make promises but remember the law is applied by Judges who do not seem to relate to public opinion. An example of this is Australia’s so called mandatory sentences for assaulting Ambos and Police, they are usually let off with a smack on the wrist after using the drunk or drugged or mentally troubled excuse.

Judges are are not appointed to 'relate' to public opinion. They are appointed to apply the law. On the other hand public opinion impacts on MPs who are in a position to change the law through Parliament. I recall one of the attack victim's parents criticising Boris for threatening longer sentences for terrorist crimes prior to the election but I thought the father's comments were misplaced and Boris more in tune with proposed action in light of what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 10:20 PM, PJPom said:

Sorry, Ambo ( Ambulance attendant usually highly qualified and a life saver) is the most useful public servant ever and anyone who assaults them should go to jail. Certain state have mandated six months minimum but the Lawyers always plead that the offender was so affected by drugs that they didn’t know what they were doing, the Magistrates swallow this plea every time.

PS we are no longer allowed to call people Aborigines, they must be referred to as Indigenous or First Nation, failing to follow this ruling you will be branded as a Racist.............

If the minimum sentence is mandatory a magistrate or judge has no discretion. Do you have a link to them doing that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, possum1931 said:

If the Mosques got closed it might stop some people from harbouring the terrorists.

I highly doubt it. You get rid if the imams spouting nonsence. The place they can do it can always change.

 

or is it you just dont like mosques.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...