Total Pageviews

Thursday, 10 May 2018

We shouldn't have to worry about an uncertain future so lets fight for a better one for IPP prisoners .Lets fight for fairness lets fight for justice lets fight for those who cant !!!! This will be the last post until the March I look forward to meeting you all.

 

Wednesday 23 May 2018.

Demonstrating outside Parliament Time: 11:30, 2pm then
from 2pm we March a short distance to the Ministry of Justice, Ending 3-30pm.
United,
IPP prisoners, family, friends and supporters. *Champion campaigners for all prisoners’ rights *Activists for human rights of all prisoners *Societies for the rights of equality for those with disabilities / mental health or diversity need.

Why we are protesting?
The situation is unsatisfactory for our IPP prisoners, and for other non-IPP prisoners likewise trapped by perceived risk as well as those with  learning challenges disability or mental health issues.
We face injustice: Our voices will be heard in the UK for IPP prisoners and determinate sentence prisoners. We will be united, chanting. We are protesting s one family; we are protesting for those who cannot do so themselves.

We protest and will keep protesting because we believe in liberty, and justice for all. We will no longer be quiet. We have been tolerant for too long.
We are tired and angry at the governmental lack of response and of Justice Ministers who constantly deflect and side-step the issues. We are irritated at the government’s preoccupation with words and lack of swift action resulting in continued suicides and deaths of our loved ones.

Why are IPP prisoners’ families marching with all prisoners?
We have all been affected by failures in the justice system in one way or another, and by the lack of response from prisons to resolve issues within the prison system or individual prisons.
We are disillusioned. We need fairness, we need a voice and we are going to be heard. We are stronger together.

How many more need to die before we wake up and realise?
We are no longer going to feel intimidated or victimised, we need to see a future. Ministers are responsible for the function and resources of the prisons but have only left them resourced and not fit for purpose. All prisoners have been affected in one way or the other. There is a lot of preoccupation with risk, but we need more support for prisoners in community settings.
We need to stop the recall for non-offences. We need more prison officers and more facilities available in the community. We are now in 2018. IPP prisoners who have been given a date for release are sometimes still in prison a year later due to a lack of hostels.

 Particularly at risk: 
some prisoners are in  need of special care, support, or protection because of age, disability/mental health, or risk of abuse or neglect/over tariff:

 Keep up the fight.
You are the voice for every serving IPP prisoner. They are counting on you to fight their fight Because of age, disability/mental health.:



 Parliament  London SW1A 0PW United Kingdom















Poster's




























Posters and leaflets are Printable  Be free to copy and past. For those not familiar with copy and paste.


Click on image with mouse  to high light  then  right click your mouse then scroll down menu press on copy then open word , On your word page right click mouse scroll down menu and press  on paste. your image should be on world for you to print. Another way to copy and paste in link.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFk_i50dzgk

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/ippkatherinegleeson/
Twitter https://twitter.com/busterandlogan?lang=en



https://you.38degrees.org.uk/…/ipp-prisonrs-demonstration-m 

Tuesday, 8 May 2018

I am currently very interested in the political matters associated with prisons and probation and the very real current crisis in both services and I am especially opposed to the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) law and I have been following the Justice Committee Inquiry for Transforming Rehabilitation.

I think it is of public interest that upon my reading of the very latest evidence on 17/04/18 in the Justice Committee Inquiry for Transforming Rehabilitation that it has become apparent that Dame Glenys Stacey, the Chief Inspectorate of Probation, earning a £140,000.00 salary as a full time post is undertaking other work for DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) which is a commitment for 2 days a week which will undoubtedly infringe on her so called full time post as Chief Inspectorate of Probation.  It is scandalous that she can be paid a substantial amount of money for a full time post yet not commit herself to a full time role with a  commitment to 2 days work elsewhere.


This is something that Justice Committee Inquiry for Transforming Rehabilitation has picked up and said that they will be addressing.  See link http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/justice-committee/transforming-rehabilitation/oral/81716.html


I think the public have a right to know how the tax payers money is being spent on salaries for such positions where they will not be fulfilling their full time role.



Kind regards

S Ryan




PREVIOUS correspondence postdate



Dame Glenys Stacey

HM Inspectorate of Probation


1stFloor, Manchester Civil Justice Centre,


1 Bridge StreetWest, Manchester M3 3FX


0161 240 5336enquiries.HMIProb@hmiprobation.gsi.gov.uk


www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation





Date: 28 September 2017


Re: Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP)


Thank you for your letter dated 12 September 2017.


At HM Inspectorate of Probation we expect probation services to meet the enduring expectations of probation: to protect the public, reduce reoffending and ensure that the sentence of the court is served. We expect a high quality, individualised and responsive service to be provided to all service users, with a focus on engaging the individual, supporting their desistance and minimising their risk of harm to others. This applies to all service users, including those who have received an IPP sentence.


With regard to IPPs, we contributed inspection data to the IPP thematic report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which was published in November 2016. As this report notes, it is widely accepted that the implementation of the sentence was flawed and that this has contributed to the large numbers who remain in prison, often many years post-tariff. Individuals have been denied the opportunity to demonstrate whether they present a continuing risk to the public, or to have this properly assessed, which is clearly unjust. It must also be recognised that some people with IPP sentences do remain dangerous, and need to be held in prison to protect the public. Risks of harm need to be at a level where they can be managed safely in the community.


The 2016 thematic report recommended that the Secretary of State for Justice should take immediate action to ensure adequate resources and timely support are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their risk of harm to others and to help them progress through the custodial system towards consideration for release by the Parole Board. Furthermore, IPP prisoners should receive regular, meaningful contact with offender managers and supervisors, and the casework, including key assessments, should be up to date. These recommendations remain sound.


The resources need to be in place in the community to ensure that any risks of harm are managed properly. We have recently reported (July 2017) on the contribution of probation hostels (approved premises) to public protection, rehabilitation and resettlement, highlighting the valuable role that these premises can play in supporting IPP transition from custody to the community. We have recommended to the Ministry of Justice that they should focus on the capacity, type and distribution of the probation hostel estate.


HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) are introducing new arrangements for Offender Management in custody, with IPP prisoners being allocated to a probation officer within their prison. We intend to monitor whether this will lead to better assessment and planning, and give more scope for focused one-to-one work.


In your letter, you request various statistics and information not held by HM Inspectorate of Probation. We have thus forwarded your request to HMPPS, who can be contacted at public.enquiries@noms.gsi.gov.uk.


Yours sincerely



Dame Glenys Stacey

HM Chief Inspector of Probation












The very real failer of goverments claim that they are reablitating prisoners when in fact they causing mental health on the prisoners

Found that mental health did not accurately reflect an individuals’ care needs.





During the visit, commissioners met eight prisoners and viewed their mental health records.



HMP Shotts has been instructed by Mental Welfare Commissioners for Scotland to act on five recommendations, one as a matter of urgency, following a recent inspection.
During the visit, commissioners met eight prisoners and viewed their mental health records. They also met the prison’s mental health clinical manager, the governor and three mental health nurses.
The visit was a follow-up from a previous inspection in May 2014, when the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland made recommendations around access to psychological therapies and the need to review the nursing provision on site.

During the most recent visit, they inspected nursing care plans and notes to ensure these were meeting the care needs of prisoners being supported by the mental health staff.
Although the commission expects a response to each of its recommendations for change within three months of the report being published, its findings did call for the prison’s mental health clinical manager to review care plans and nursing notes ”as a matter of urgency” to ensure they accurately reflect individuals’ care needs.

The report also called for NHS Lanarkshire managers to “review the nursing staff complement at the prison to ensure all available treatments can be offered to the benefits of the prisoners and that mental health nurse skills are utilised appropriately”.
Commissioners – comprising a nursing officer and two social workers – also want NHS Lanarkshire managers to consider further options of access to psychological therapies appropriate for the prison population at the Shotts site.
And they want NHS Lanarkshire to review psychiatric input to the prison to ensure prisoners’ needs are appropriately addressed.

The report also states: “The prison governor and the mental health clinical manager should consider a robust roll-out of mental health first aid training for prison officer staff.”






In their report, published last week, commissioners say: “We were pleased to note that there is now clinical psychology input to the prison. The clinical psychologist is available four sessions per week. She offers individual sessions to prisoners and support to the nurses.”
The report continues: “We were informed that a locum psychiatrist has been covering but this is about to end. On viewing care records we are aware that there is a high use of medication across the site.
“We feel that for this to be appropriately managed there needs to be consistent psychiatry input at consultant or higher trainee level. From visits to other prisons we are aware that there are higher levels of visiting psychiatry input to cover the high demand on the mental health team.”
Commissioners welcomed the workshop opportunities that are available to prisoners and the fact that there are ample work opportunities available for the prison population.

The Health and Social Care North Lanarkshire lead for prisoner healthcare at Shotts Prison, said: “We welcome the report by the Mental Welfare Commission into Shotts Prison.
“We are pleased that the inspectors found that prisoners were complimentary of the support and care offered by the mental health team.
“Many of the recommendations within the report are already in place and we are committed to making further improvements to address the requirements detailed in the report.
“We continually monitor progress to ensure we strive for the highest standards of care.”?





Wednesday, 2 May 2018

1.The media image that is presented of an offender at the time of their convictions little relation to the person they now are, and what they are now like some years after they committed their offence, often bear little relation to the person they now are. 2. Not investigating discrimination. 3. Prisons are lawless places. 4. Fighting to get answers to delays if it not in one area, in another. 5. Very real abject failure by the MoJ (Ministry of Jokers)

“I’m not going to dump on Parole Board colleagues”

Sacked parole chief tells Inside Time he expects big changes to come from high profile case
For many people involved in the criminal justice system, the most unusual aspect of the Parole Board’s overturned decision to release a high profile prisoner recently was that the plan was to release him from a maximum security prison. The normal process for releasing prisoners convicted of the most serious offences serving indeterminate sentences is a staggered, risk assessed gradual reduction in security categorisation. The prison in question is a Cat A prison. The usual procedure would have been a move to a Cat B, or a Cat C and then a period of up to three years in an Open Cat D prison. The prisoner is serving an IPP, Imprisonment for Public Protection, which is effectively a Life Sentence of 99 years. The prisoner’s tariff was 8 years and so far he has served 10.

Nick Hardwick – who was as good as sacked as Parole Board chair after the high court decision to block the prisoner’s release – is reluctant to criticise the panel that made the original decision. “First of all, let’s be really clear,” he says. “The test for the Parole Board is: does this person need to continue to be detained? We’re not required specifically to comment on their categorisation. So, the only choices for the Parole Board are, open prison, release, or stay in prison. The first question the panel has to consider is: do we think the risks this person now poses can be safely managed in the community? If we do, the law says they have to be released. Only if they fail on that hurdle do they then consider: should they be moved to open, and then should they be released.”

” The media image that is presented of an offender at the time of their conviction, and what they are now like some years after they committed their offence, often bears little relation to the person they now are. “

But to release a prisoner from such a high security jail, straight onto the streets after ten years of incarceration, with no testing, no authentic way of assessing risk, with the added risk that sudden freedom might create after walking out of such tight security conditions must be hard to justify? 

Sacked parole chief tells Inside Time he expects big changes to come from high profile case

For many people involved in the criminal justice system, the most unusual aspect of the Parole Board’s overturned decision to release a high profile prisoner recently was that the plan was to release him from a maximum security prison. The normal process for releasing prisoners convicted of the most serious offences serving indeterminate sentences is a staggered, risk assessed gradual reduction in security categorisation. The prison in question is a Cat A prison. The usual procedure would have been a move to a Cat B, or a Cat C and then a period of up to three years in an Open Cat D prison. The prisoner is serving an IPP, Imprisonment for Public Protection, which is effectively a Life Sentence of 99 years. The prisoner’s tariff was 8 years and so far he has served 10.

Nick Hardwick – who was as good as sacked as Parole Board chair after the high court decision to block the prisoner’s release – is reluctant to criticise the panel that made the original decision. “First of all, let’s be really clear,” he says. “The test for the Parole Board is: does this person need to continue to be detained? We’re not required specifically to comment on their categorisation. So, the only choices for the Parole Board are, open prison, release, or stay in prison. The first question the panel has to consider is: do we think the risks this person now poses can be safely managed in the community?

 If we do, the law says they have to be released. Only if they fail on that hurdle do they then consider: should they be moved to open, and then should they be released.”
 “From my experience of being chief inspector of prisons I wouldn’t say that I would place complete reliance on the categorisations decisions of the Prison Service,” says Hardwick. “And secondly, I wouldn’t say the safest way to manage someone’s re-entry into the community is always to do that by sending them to open. I think, particularly if someone has support and monitoring available to them in a community setting that wouldn’t be available to them in an open prison, then the safest thing for the public is to put them in that community setting. I’m not going to criticise the panel. I don’t know what I would have done if I’d been on that panel. 

And I’m not going to try and second guess them. The media image that is presented of an offender at the time of their conviction, and what they are now like some years after they committed their offence, often bears little relation to the person they now are. And what the Parole Board was trying to ascertain is what sort of a person [this prisoner] is now, and given that you can never be certain, are his risks manageable in the community? 

What they weren’t trying to do was retry his original offences. What the court said, what this issue absolutely rests on, was should the panel have gone into the alleged offences? And the panel thought, and the Secretary of State thought, and I thought, was that they couldn’t. What the judge said, was that in this unusual and exceptional set of circumstances, the panel should have questioned him about those allegations, to test some of his other responses. We didn’t think we could do that. The judge has said that with this set of exceptional circumstances you could have done that – and I think probably that’s a good thing. The phrase the judge used was ‘this difficult, troubling case, with many exceptional features’. So I think if the court is saying that, then there’s a real dilemma. You look at the stuff he’s accused of, and you think well how can he possibly be released? On the other hand, do we want the Parole Board determining the guilt of people for offences they haven’t been convicted of? We’re not sure we want that either.”

” What the court said, what this issue absolutely rests on, was should the panel have gone into the alleged offences? And the panel thought, and the Secretary of State thought, and I thought, was that they couldn’t. “

So how then can this dilemma be resolved? How can those things be squared? “What the court said, was look, in this exceptional set of circumstances, it could have been squared,” he says. “What I think is, generally, if I make a very difficult decision, or I write something that is a bit controversial, I don’t finalise it until I’ve asked somebody else to have a look at it. And on that principle, I’m quite happy that somebody else is having another look at this decision, another panel will look at it before it’s finally decided. And I think actually, the process of saying, this is a very big decision, before we go ahead, the victims aren’t happy about it, or sometimes the prisoner isn’t happy about it – it could be both ways – we think here that there are some very unusual features to this, we’re going to have some other people, some judges who haven’t seen it before, have a look. I think that’s quite a good thing.”
The claimants who challenged the decision said that even on the evidence the Parole Board had, the decision to release him was irrational. 

Did he think it was? “The judge said, well it was surprising, it was concerning, but we’re not going to say it was irrational. I think the women in this case, I don’t want to call them victims as that almost diminishes them, I think the women in this case have been fantastic, very feisty, very determined and very brave. And what I think has been very humbling, they’ve been very generous towards the Parole Board – they could have been furious, they haven’t, in public at any rate. And they’ve been quite personally supportive of me, their lawyer has -.I’ve been very moved and humbled by that and very grateful for it. What I’d say to them is what they have done is not merely win this important case, but I think they will have achieved some really big changes in the parole system.” Will he welcome those changes? “Absolutely,” he says. “I think it will be a better system for the challenge. And it won’t just work for victims – I think it will be a more just system.”

” People say you’ll get high profile cases and you’ll get a big row. Well this was a high-profile case, there was no openness in this case, and we got a big row. “

But how open to public scrutiny should the decision-making process be? Isn’t there a danger that every time there is a high profile ‘troubling’ case, decision makers will become too risk averse? “Well I think the system should be opened up, but I think there should be constraints to that. You want prisoners to be candid when they come before you, there are witnesses whose identities need to be protected, but I would say to a lot of prisoners, I’d say look, you did a very terrible thing, that’s why you’re before the Parole Board, the consequence of that is now there’s going to be some stuff happening in public that you’d probably rather wasn’t, but that’s how it is. I think at the very least, the Parole Board should be able to explain its decisions. People say you’ll get high profile cases and you’ll get a big row. Well this was a high-profile case, there was no openness in this case, and we got a big row. Few people know how the parole process works. Lots of people think I make the decisions personally. One of the advantages of opening the system up is that people will be able to put these very controversial cases in a bit more context.”

Will it help the public to have more confidence in the Board, does he think? “Well, look, don’t come to work for the Parole Board if you want to win a popularity contest. It’s a difficult job. When a prisoner comes before the Parole Board it’s because he or she has done something horrendous. [This prisoner] is by no means the worst case to come in front of a Parole panel. There are only around fifty people serving whole life tariffs, the rest, many who have done eye-wateringly terrible things, have got to be released one day.”

” If you’re head of an organisation you should take responsibility for what that organisation does and I take responsibility for the Parole Board. “

How did he feel about being sacked? “Well I wasn’t given any choice to stay. I think you shouldn’t have these sorts of jobs if you aren’t prepared to take responsibility. I’m very clear that if you’re head of an organisation you should take responsibility for what that organisation does and I take responsibility for the Parole Board. I’m not going to dump on the people who work for us.”

 ....................................................................................................................

 

Not investigating discrimination

Is there not a lawful duty/obligation on the Governor to ensure that DIRFs (Discrimination Incident Report Forms) are available for prisoners to pick up at any given time without the need to ask staff for one?
 I have previously had to ask staff for one, and then followed 101 questions about what I wanted it for. This year, I have been watching carefully since the 1st of January 2018, and I’ve not seen one DIRF readily available.
I do not think they are taking DIRF’s seriously here. If you manage to get one and put it in you can be waiting 6-months for a reply, and the standard reply is ‘not suitable, no evidence’. And that is without them speaking to you about the matter you have reported. Who knows how these matters are investigated?

 Prisons are lawless places

There is an expectation on prisoners that we stick to the rules. In fact, there is a need that most prisoners stick to rules and prison law so there is some sort of normality in prison. I would say there is also an expectation that the MoJ and the Prison Service also keep to the rules and the law of the land. They should lead by example; how can they expect prisoners to keep to the rules if they don’t?
With that in mind, I have seen many issues in prison. Even though I am NEBOSH qualified I am not one of those clipboard people who quote health & safety law like some sort of bible. Yet there is good reason why the HSE (Health & Safety Executive) should inspect prisons ASAP. No one is given any manual-handling training but expected to lift heavy weights in all areas of the prison. 

COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) is not even thought about, no COSHH paperwork is given out. There are not even any kick-boards on landings to stop items falling from height. To be honest, the list is endless, and I don’t want to go on about Health & Safety as there are other laws being broken with regularity, e.g. employment laws and the minimum wage, hygiene laws. I could go on, but I think you catch my drift. Let’s do something about it, now.
It is my understanding that prison law cannot supersede national law. What is law on the outside must also be law on the inside. Someone out in the real world needs to know that prisons do not operate within the law. Prisons are lawless places.

Figting  to get answers to Delays, if it not in one area its in another. 

Any prisoner who has ever felt the need to submit a formal complaint will know very well just how skilled prison staff are at writing extensive answers that state what the complaint is about but do nothing at all to answer the concerns. RecentlyThe questions we ask in our applications, complaints and in our letters to Inside Time are phrased as they are because they are the questions we need answers to. 

A prisoner at HMP Lincoln said he has been told he should have been transferred to a D cat prison within 28-days and asks for clarification of this rule. The reply from HMPPS explains that he was awaiting an OASys but does not seek to clarify the point asked, is it correct that he should be transferred within 28-days or is the 6-month delay he has suffered permitted by the rules?


So, let me ask one more question, HMPPS do you avoid these questions on purpose, or is your obfuscation an unintended symptom of gross ineptitude? Answers on a postcard please and hold the repetitious waffle.

Very real abject failure by the MoJ (Ministry of Jokers).

I’m writing this letter as I promised I would to and for the many pals I left in Swaleside.
We have seen recently, both Liverpool and Nottingham prisons have, rightly, been slammed for the degrading and awful conditions in which prisoners are held. 
Having been in Walton twice, I can only say that it’s about bloody time. Sadly, there has been another suicide there recently.

“Quite why Swaleside, or ‘stabside’ as it is better known amongst prisoners, hasn’t been added to the list of shockingly bad prisons is beyond any of us who have spent time there.”

Following a spate of suicides in Swaleside in 2016-17, HMIP and the internal IMB reports both slammed the prison in all departments. I spent time both on G-wing and later the in-patient’s unit, and I saw the very real failings of the prison.

The level of abuse being meted out by a small, core-group of officers inside Swaleside is nothing short of bullying, with racist and homophobic overtones. I, personally, was assaulted by several officers when on the in-patient’s unit. I was dragged from my wheelchair because I refused to stop writing to the media about my conviction.

I had cases upheld by the PPO regarding my Rule 39 legal mail being opened, and a disability discrimination incident where the head of security had mocked my disability.
The levels of self-harm which are very serious in nature are so bad in Swaleside, and anything up to 60-men self-secluded for their own safety. This alone shows a picture of abject failure by the MoJ (Ministry of Jokers). 

 It is about time someone took up a legal challenge about this inhumane and disgraceful situation.


comments



Eliseo Weinstein It is wonderful to read about someone who is so passionate about the education and safety of prisoners who are caught in our penal system. Not everyone who is locked up is some heartless monster and it do well for others to remember that it could actually happen to any of us, especially with the way things are turning out.

Anonymous On the 29 march 2017 we buried my brother craig baldock after serving 8 years on a ipp sentence with a 2 year tariff they left him in the ocean with no ring and no sign off  shore R.I.P brother. 




https://insidetime.org/lawless-places/https://insidetime.org/very-real-failings/
https://insidetime.org/repetitious-waffle/ https://insidetime.org/not-investigating-discrimination/
https://insidetime.org/im-not-going-to-dump-on-parole-board-colleagues/