Oooh, Another New ‘Human Right’!

Registered disabled Christopher Williams, 49, from Rishton, says he has a heart condition, asthma and rheumatoid arthritis and has been told by medics to exercise and lose weight.

But, a court heard, he has been prevented from entering parks, play areas and country parks and from joining or attending any sports, educational or leisure clubs under a sexual offences prevention order.

Those, of course, being the only places anyone can ever lose weight. It can’t possibly be done in your own room, oh no.

Don’t even go there. It’s like a law of nature, or something…

Williams, currently living in a probation hostel in Carlisle, was spared immediate jail and given a suspended prison termhe is still subject to in April, after a “serious “breach” of the SOPO.He and another pervert who had been sharing Williams’s then home of two years in Edward Street, Rishton, let children in the property, even though both were prohibited from having youngsters where they were living.

Oh, FFS…

Lancashire Police, who say he could go walking in the nearby Lake District or around Carlisle and have claimed Williams had said he didn’t play golf, objected and the justices refused.

Williams then appealed their decision at Burnley Crown Court, where a judge and two magistrates allowed him more freedom to try and get fit, but only at certain times, when youngsters will be in their lessons, and not during school holidays.

Why not just throw it out and tell him to go buy a Wii and eat less?

11 comments for “Oooh, Another New ‘Human Right’!

  1. john in cheshire
    September 27, 2011 at 11:54 am

    And where is he getting his money from to fund his legal actions? No, I know, it’s a rhetorical question. We have become a nation of self-harmers.

    • September 28, 2011 at 5:34 am

      “We have become a nation of self-harmers.”

      A most accurate summation!

  2. Tattyfalarr
    September 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Dip paedophiles from head to toe in permanent flourescent yellow dye and let them go wherever they want to. Job done.

    • September 28, 2011 at 5:35 am

      😆

  3. David
    September 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    I agree with your sentiment Julia but on the other hand, if he is a free man (and I mean that in every sense of the word), then no one has the ‘right’ to tell him where he can and cannot go.

    Of course, the elephant in the room (one of many in our wonderful post democratic era), is that he should probably still be in prison for his behaviour if he has harmed anyone.

    Releasing people early and then restricting their movements is creating an open prison where we are all beginning to be monitored, questioned and subject to the arbitrary rules of the so called ‘elite’.

    I have no problem with this man going anywhere. If ‘the state’ is concerned that he may harm someone then they shouldn’t have released him.

    • September 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      This is the key question and one I’ve had heated discussions about. Either he is released, having paid his debt to society or not, in which case, don’t release him. If recidivism is an issue, then he should be behind bars. If it is not, then he is a free man and should be treated as such.

      • Mudplugger
        September 27, 2011 at 9:52 pm

        Spot on, Longrider. Our justice system has lost sight of the ‘paid debt to society, then free’ message.

        We would be better with jail sentences which were Minimum Time To Be Served, where release is then always conditional upon an ‘authority’ taking responsibility for granting release. If reconvictions occur, then those in that ‘authority’ become accountable, ideally via their salaries. I suspect we’d have far fewer reconvictions, but probably fuller jails – not a bad result.

        • September 28, 2011 at 5:37 am

          Fuller jails at the start of this policy, sure. But eventually, the message would get through, wouldn’t it?

    • September 28, 2011 at 5:36 am

      “If ‘the state’ is concerned that he may harm someone then they shouldn’t have released him.”

      Good point. But we all know why they do. Cost, and the pernicious effects of the ECHR.

  4. Maaarrghk!
    September 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    What exactly was he convicted of?

    • September 28, 2011 at 5:39 am

      According to the ‘Mail’:

      “Christopher Williams, 49, was jailed for seven years for tying up and molesting a 12-year-old boy…”

      That was in 1996. He also had a 1980 conviction for indecent exposure. Those were the things for which he was caught and convicted, anyway.

Comments are closed.