Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Early release rapist now housed in... TOTTENHAM!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4065729/Free-Vile-rapist-...
Article Below.... Your thoughts?
A RAPE monster who shocked the nation by grilling victims in court for KICKS returns to his old stamping ground — freed early after just 14 years.
Posing as an innocent cyclist, vile Milton Brown, 57 — caged for 21 YEARS — hides the eyes that terrorised his prey behind dark glasses.
Shorn of his trademark dreadlocks and wearing a hat with fake fur he was not given a second glance by women and children passing on the pavement.
Had they known his true identity they would have been chilled to the bone.
Brown was jailed in 1997 for a reign of terror so depraved an Old Bailey judge condemned the brute for "lacking the feature that distinguishes man from beast — namely humanity".
One woman who fell victim to the serial rapist was kept as a sex slave for three months at his lair in Camberwell, South East London.
Susan McDonald only managed to escape when he left her to attack a 31-year-old graduate at knifepoint.
Susan — who had been maimed with a pool cue, bottles and a nail-studded wooden plank — never got over her nightmare.
Another of Brown's victims was a widowed mum of three aged 38 — who he spent 15 hours raping.
Like Susan, she faced having to relive her hell in court after Brown sacked his lawyer so he could revel in quizzing them for days.
The ensuing revulsion led to a change in the law to safeguard victims from similar humiliation in future.
Susan's mum Sandra, 62, was not even tipped off Brown had been let out on probation after serving two-thirds of his sentence.
She raged yesterday: "It's an insult."
The mum explained: "Susan never recovered from what he did to her. There is nothing stopping my other daughter or Susan's son from bumping into him."
Brown — a convicted child-sex beast — has been given his own flat in Tottenham, North London, which the council is believed to be paying for.
The Sun witnessed him cycling unmonitored around the capital — including weekly trips to Camberwell to check in with probation.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
Cara, I am not suggesting/debating rehabilitation... I am debating common sense and environment. Tottenham has one of the highest unemployment rates in London, his chances of getting a job are not the greatest. I have worked with some high profile offenders who have come back in the community and believe that each case is different in regards to success of being back in the community. There are also great cases to show it doesnt work, so generalised evidence is in my experience enabling policy rather than assessing the individual. There is strong psychological evidence that suggests sex offending is not rehabilitatable (is that a word?) But thats another debate & not for here...
My concerns, living in Tottenham is how this decision was made... its not council bashing, (this site doesnt just do that does it?) but a geniune question given our social issues, that this was appropriate for both his and our progression. Im not suggesting Mayfair or Norfolk but am wondering who thought Tottenham was conducive.
I agree there are many wandering around unknown to us, both caught/not caught...
-
Permalink Reply by cara howard on
-
Perhaps The Sun isn't the best barometer of debate, the article seems to veer heavily in the direction of scaremongering without any substance around the actual issue which is policy.
-
-
Possibly a little out of date, but interesting context nonetheless:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-reoffending-figures-revealed-013020185....
-
-
I agree The Sun is a trashy paper, but if you extract the "facts" they are his crime, his release and his new location, the rest is decoration which is what you are keen to debate.
I admire your sense of optimism when you say "he will be fairly heavily monitored and will obviously be on the sex offender's register", and a belief that he served 21 years so must be less dangerous & this is part of his rehab process. But I disagree.
I am questioning how appropriate this decision to place a high need offender is considering our own capacity. Parole boards made/agreed decisions on his welfare (thus ours) and to merely conclude that he will be fairly monitored is not enough to make it my position, although I respect its yours
There are thousands of cases in the UK of Sex Offender mismanagement, the flaws in the register system & the number of reoffending crimes. If this is going to work for him, and thus the general public... then again I ask, who on earth thought of Tottenham?
-
-
I'm not suggesting it's enough, none of us can know for sure what is being done, or how successful his rehabilitation has been. I was merely pointing out that the article states he is 'cycling unmonitored around the capital' which having worked with organisations that provide homes for people on licence, that this is unlikely to be the case and it's this kind of sensationalist reporting that creates panic. That's all.
I was attacked on my own doorstep and despite identifying my attacker and facing him in court twice, he got off, so I'm well aware of the failings of 'the system' from painful personal experience.
-
-
((Hugs))
I just wish we had space as an area to deal with our problems without inheriting additional issues. Someone in a public service made a decision this was fine, which it maybe for him (house/travel/culture etc) but in reality for our over-stretched borough it is not.
-
-
Sadly it's the case for so many boroughs, particularly those in London. And let's face it, Haringay don't have the greatest public reputation for making the right decisions in high profile and sensitive cases.
Good for people to be aware and at least more alert. It's very easy to become complacent and forget fairly basic safety measures, so if nothing else, knowing about this sort of thing may remind people to be on their guard. And unfortunately, that's probably about the only thing any of us can do.
-
-
More recent and topical article. Shocking that offenders have the 'right' to potentially be removed from the register. But some more positive stats on re-offending (obviously could be better and little comfort to the victims of these crimes).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/16/david-cameron-condemn...
"75% of sex offenders who were monitored for 21 years were not reconvicted of any further offence"
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
"75% of sex offenders who were monitored for 21 years were not reconvicted of any further offence"
Lets assume for the sake of argument that this is accurate. I'm not entirely sure how confident we can be with the qualification "monitored for 21 years", but we'll have to leave that aside.
If the statement is accurate, "reconviction" sets a high bar and the "75%" statistic may not be as impressive as it sounds.
First, this implies that a quarter were convicted of a further offence, a significant level of recidivism.
Second, we don't know from this statement is, what proportion were prosecuted, but not convicted (maybe on a technicality?)
We also don't know what proportion were arrested for further offences but due to a lack of evidence, either the CPS or the police decided not to prosecute. Possibly this information exists, but it might not be publicised.
This perhaps an area where witnesses are less likely to want to give evidence in Court than with other kinds of crimes.
Finally, the biggest unknown, is how many more offences were committed in fact, but not detected?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Clearly this guy has done horrific things (I think I can remember the original court case). But God, what a nauseating article. I agree with a lot of the points that Cara has made but the additional point I'd like to make is simply to question how much choice a particular borough has over whether someone in his position can move there. I can imagine that there might be issues if someone said they wanted to live in a very specific area that was seen to be inappropriate, but can a borough simply say 'nah, not for us'? And putting this specific case aside, wouldn't every borough then just do that?
-
-
I agree that it would be discrimatory practice if all councils could say no, probably not what I am suggesting. I am querying the common sense assessment by whoever that Tottenham (a place maybe not known for social issues by anyone living on mars) was the best place.
It brings wider local governance issues into play about how much power the council has to say / control additional issues, this is just a horrific case, but I am sure that there are other offenders relocated here or those with higher needs. Ultimately it is us as residents who have to pay for services to meet those needs, plus the issues around insurance and house prices higher crime/social needs attracts.
We as an area can not fully progress if we are always two steps behind due to decisions made by other public bodies without holistic thinking.
I personally feel it is one to keep an eye on, not promoting discrimation or a snobbery policy, but realistic limits to our capacity. It is not unnoticed that boroughs like Haringey are attracting more than their fair share of socially needy new residents that is the responsibility of the whole nation, systematically there is a problem. A problem that would be made worse when housing benefit changes take affect and certain people are priced out of Kensington to come to Haringey.
I love Haringey for how it helps its residents socially, but residents and people who are sent to live here are two different things
OMG am I sounding a bit EDL *covers face* Am I making any sense?
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Clever how The Sun subtley lets us know that he's black. Or did they get a wobbly photo of him cycling past?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
