I want to make it clear that I post this with no opinion to offer on this Particular Case but simply to hopefully promote some discussion . Are we saying in denying this Guys Parole that the Parole Board simply cant be trusted to decide a Persons freedom ? This case is totally different from the Warboys and the Moors Murderers and I think any Comparisons are wrong ones .
The question of "significant risk", a major criteria for release of lifers should not arise. Some crimes, this included, are beyond forgiveness. If we cannot just kill such offenders, punishment must continue for the whole of their life, regardless of repentance; if they remain in goal, there is no risk to the public.
I've said before that the sentences for worst sort of crimes against the most vulnerable people in society (babies, young children, very elderly and properly disabled) - essentially people who can not defend themselves have to be very strong. i.e. Murder, torture, rap and systematic abuse need the death penalty, I don't care how it's done, I'm not a vindictive person. It won't act as a deterrent as these sorts of people don't think about the consequences, that is what makes them so evil. Society needs to do away with such types, nobody will miss them.