Please bear in mind that this guy was the first person ever to commit a crime while on parole ever, anywhere.
That’s why it’s such a shock
Why is not believing in leftist group think considered obnoxious or trolling. Seriously grow up. People are allowed to have opinions that are different to yours if they can back them up with an argument or reason.
Screaming troll or racist or whatever just makes you look lazy and/or stupid.
1 Like
This guy was twice charged and convicted of setting fire to his cell during his latest stint in prison. He also had a history of assault in prison.
That is not good behaviour worthy of parole for most people.
1 Like
So why did he make parole?
Great question.
I think that’s what we all want to know.
Oh, oh. I know! Is it because we’re a nanny state and we fall over ourselves to make sure all the terrorists are looked after and pampered?
Best guess is he served his full sentence, if he did what E12 is saying he did in the year leading up to his parole he just would have lost his minimum sentence parole
I’m not sure what your point is. Are we not allowed to ask why prisoners are given parole when they have a history of violence and their behaviour in prison has not been at an acceptable level.
Is it the standard, ‘Look away please, nothing to see here.’ philosophy that some of you seem to be so keen on.
Enlighten me please.
No screaming from me. You are the angry ant who rants, name-calls, labels and turns everything into a vitriolic left / right political stoush at every opportunity. It is obnoxious, boring, immature and unconstructive. It would be great if you offered an opinion backed up by argument or reason - it would make a pleasant change from the above.
1 Like
I’m being an annoying ■■■■. I thought you of all people would have understood.
He served four and a half years of a six year sentence.
He set fire to his cell twice. A pretty standard thing in jail. Winos and angry junkies do it quite regularly. It’s no biggie. Except maybe to people who don’t understand the reality of prison. The prison authorities regarded him as an annoying “goose”, not some seriously dangerous person.
And the in prison assault that tripper brought up was during a previous sentence ffs, so has squat to do with his parole.
There are some people who like the flames way more than the facts.
2 Likes
LOL- you were the one who stated as ‘fact’ that the UK terror acts were linked to the upcoming election.
Please, spare me.
Unbelievable.
Completely lost for words for once.
The guy was a violent ■■■■ head who’d been in and out of jail for most of his life. This ain’t exactly unusual. Hadn’t been convicted of anything related to terrorism. Yes, he was on the watch list. Why was this unknown to corrections is where the heart of the problem lies.
Agree but for some reason people don’t think we should be asking those sort of questions.
I don’t see why anyone on any side of the debate wouldn’t want to ask that question. Why is there a communication issue between the Feds and ASIO and the state boards? Is it because they can’t release info under the current rules? What purpose does it serve?
Not quite. I speculated that the UK attacks were election-related after the similar proximity of the French attacks (not unreasonable), then accepted I was likely wrong given the Ramadan connection. I’m guessing you are a guy who is always right, right?
Back on topic. I worked for many, many years in the police / justice environment. Obviously almost all prisoners are eventually released back into society and the sad fact is recidivism rates are very high. As I understand it, parole is seen as a way of easing them back in (with lots of conditions & some support) in a way that reduces the risk of recidivism and improves outcomes over a hard-release. Parole Boards are between a rock & a hard place. If parole is refused, the risk of recidivism is considered higher on ultimate release. If parole is granted, recidivism rates are still high & we end up in these situations (see also Jill Meagher).
1 Like
Unfortunately, information sharing between agencies is very haphazard. It would not surprise me if there is either no integration or regular systemic breakdowns in sharing info with the APB.
Also, if he was on a Federal watch list, questions need to be asked as to the degree of federal surveillance, including his association with people having access to guns.
If, as reported, the federal agency had to ask the parole authorities for his address, so much for a watch list ( or so much for coordination between federal agencies)