Report comment

It seems to me that most people are angry about this because:-
1. they feel that 8 years minimum term was not a harsh enough sentence for the crimes for which he was convicted;
2. there are more crimes for which he is considered likely to have been guilty but never prosecuted, which would/should have meant for a heavier sentence in the first place;
3. no-one can believe that a man convicted of such a volume of sexual offences over such a long period of time can truly no longer represent a danger to the public just 8 years on.
4. many of the victims of his crimes were not even notified of his parole hearing and so could not prepare themselves of news of his release (or, as I certainly thought they were allowed to, to make representations).
I agree with Anon 15:12 below.