Sometimes it’s shameful to be a New Zealander. Sure, we have some great sport, fantastic kaimoana, a wicked sense of humour and our piece of the earth is gorgeous, with beautiful, warm, friendly people loving and living in it. But, sometimes, we just get it so wrong.
Can anyone explain why we offer parole to rapists, who have refused to admit their offence or accept treatment, after they have only served 1/3 of their sentence? Why can’t we rely on our Police? How am I supposed to feel safe when this ugly fat pig freak (and the others), is allowed back into society with no rehabilition or reform? Why is sentencing and parole so out of synch?
But the board said he had at times shown genuine remorse and the denial of offending was not a barrier to his release because it did not alter his risk. The board said granting parole was an inevitable conclusion.
Aloha! How can there be no risk of reoffending if that ugly fat pig freak cannot even admit his offence was rape? My inevitable conclusion is that this ‘board’ must be simple or our parole laws are totally sucky.
However, it did say that Shipton was a manipulative man, who had made inconsistent and incompatible statements, and was at times untruthful.
Hmmn. Maybe they felt his denial was untruthful, so the opposite is the truth and in fact, ugly fat pig freak realises what he did was wrong, illegal and immoral. Hmmn. Or maybe they were manipulated? How utterly confusing it must be for reasonable and intelligent people to sit on that board.
If anyone doubts just what went on with these power-crazed, peverted pigs who raped and assaulted while wearing the uniforms of our Police Force, read the sentencing notes (from the inaptly named Sensible Sentencing Trust) here, and the repugnant details that came out because of the parole hearings here and below the jump.
Come on NZ. We’re not gonna just let this slide, are we? Oh, and WTF are we gonna do about this? I can hardly bear to read the details of poor Nia’s painful short life. Should we now just assume these animals will be out in a few years on parole too?
The documents reveal:
* Police investigated claims a police officer paid a Rotorua woman $60,000-$70,000 “hush money” over an incident.
* That one witness alleged as police officers, Shipton and Schollum would pull over women drivers, targeting solo mothers, and strike up relationships with them.
* An allegation was made that a senior Hamilton police officer accessed secret police files to help defence lawyers fight the case and seriously jeopardised the prosecution’s case.
* Allegations a senior Hamilton police officer did national intelligence application (NIA) checks on four people central to the investigation and gave the information to defence lawyers before the trial. “The fact that a senior member of the police is prepared to act in this manner is extraordinary. His actions have compromised this investigation,” Vaughan wrote to police superiors. The information allowed defence to narrow a timeframe of when the offence allegedly occurred to January 5, 1989.