I find this kind of discussion very uncomfortable.
In the first place, I accept that John Worboys behaved in a manner which is totally unacceptable in a civilised society. His behaviour was reprehensible, He was apprehended, his behaviour was investigated, he was tried according to the criminal law, found guilty and received an indeterminate sentence.
I am trying to be non-judgemental, I am avoiding the use of easy, value-laden, emotive words like "scum" and "evil". We live in a society which is governed by the rule of law. We hope - should we be accused of any infringement of the law - that we will be treated according to principles and practices that are universally accepted.
The rule of law applies to all of us, and equally to bodies like the Parole Board. Its decision in this case appears surprising. However, I dislike the idea - intensely - that judicial and administrative decisions which are taken within the rule of law may be subverted by a different kind of rule - that is the rule of the mob, encouraged by an unrestrained popular press.
We do not have a balanced report about the Parole Board's decision. We do not know, in fact we are not allowed to know, the reasons for its decision. I would doubt that its members are so easily manipulated as Robbie seems to imply. My guess is that this decision is now being scrutinised within the judiciary and appropriate branches of the executive. If it is faulty then we can expect that it will be reviewed.
But my main concern is not with this particular case but with the way in which the "popular" press appears to believe it has the right to incite the hoi polloi.
In the words of Rudyard Kipling: Power without responsibility. The prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
