I'm not sure what the rules used to be in Time of Old, but Tony Martin was refused parole because the parole board felt he showed a high risk of reoffending (not exclusively because he refused to admit his guilt).

The reason Martin showed a high risk of reoffending was that he refused to admit that he had done anything wrong.

There's a jail somewhere in the South of England full of ancient old men. It's where they send the lifers who can't qualify for parole because they refuse to admit their guilt. The prison wins gardening awards.

You're right re Tony Martin - however, I'm fairly sure non-admission of guilt is viewed in general as evidence of being likely to reoffend, rather than an absolute rule.

Not sure what made them view King as unlikely to reoffend, though; that's certainly not a conclusion I'd've reached on the basis of the evidence I've seen (not that the evidence I've seen is comprehensive or unbiased).

Another thought - when you're judging likelyness to reoffend, there's a difference between someone who denies your guilt by saying "I didn't have sex with young boys, and the court was mistaken" and someone who denies their guilt by saying "I shot the bloke, but it wasn't wrong and I'd do the same again".

Err, "denies their guilt", not "denies your guilt". While telling the parole board that you don't think they're paedophiles will make a better impression than telling them that you do, it still probably isn't the greatest plan.

I perhaps should have been clearer about this. I'm not guessing that prisoners probably used not to qualify for parole unless they admitted their guilt; I know for a fact that it was the case until very recently. I am wondering whether it's changed or it's being ignored in King's case for some reason.

Sorry, I was also being unclear. It is definitely not the case that you need to admit guilt to obtain parole in the UK. It definitely is the case that parole boards will take it into account.

I'd thought your reference to "was the case very recently" meant "was the case at the time of Tony Martin", which it definitely wasn't: he was denied parole on the grounds that he'd likely do it again.

Of course, the rule may have changed earlier than that - when's the time that you know for a fact it was the case?

Well, I was told by someone I know who was, at the time, working in the prison service, about, er, four years ago? Maybe five? I suppose it could be that they were just talking bollocks. Because of their position, I assumed they were probably right, but, come to think of it, I should know better than to assume that anyone knows anything about anything just because they do it for a living. Tsk.

That prison full of aged gardeners really exists, though.

I think we're both right about King: even if the parole board are just supposed to take admission of guilt into account rather than absolutely requiring it, releasing him still seems like a bizarre decision.