Should the prison authorities punish prisoners who blog?

Should the prison authorities punish prisoners who blog?

In Professor David Downes Contrasts in Tolerance (Post-war Penal Policy in the Netherlands and England and Wales), there is a reference to Rijksen’s Prisoners Speak Out (1958) its publication “was clearly an event of major importance in the history of Dutch post-war criminal justice”. The volume consisted of a collection of letters written by serving prisoners which “covered their experiences of the administration of criminal justice. Most contained considerable criticisms of judges and public prosecutors, but also of lawyers and probation workers. The result was a storm of public indignation: the different functionaries were, for the first time, confronted with the implications of their own actions and, for awhile, their self-confidence seemed to be shaken. What had been achieved in any case, was the first piercing of the hermetically closed prison situation. For the first time, prisoners could let their voices be heard from captivity”.

Professor Downes goes on to say: “The Ministry of Justice first tried to suppress the book, thus perhaps guaranteeing an even greater impact. Even 20 years after it’s publication in a fresh edition in 1961, judges and prosecutors named this more than any other book as the source of their belief that too long a sentence of imprisonment would embitter and damage prisoners, both socially and psychologically”. What emerges here is that society can benefit from prisoners speaking out. And yet, the authorities in the Netherlands feared this so much that they at first attempted to stifle the debate.

The position for serving prisoners in the UK was pretty much the same, with the authorities seeking to silence prisoners from speaking out until the Human Rights Act 1998 provided the opportunity to challenge the status quo. The Daily Telegraph reports:

Prisoner wins phone rights case

A PRISONER today secured a legal victory for jail inmates after he won the right to talk to journalists on the telephone on "matters of legitimate public interest".
John Hirst's application for judicial review against Home Secretary David Blunkett and the Home Office was successful at the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Mr Justice Elias ruled that the Home Office policy on dealing with access to the press by phone by serving prisoners was unlawful.

That should have been the end of the matter, especially as my legal argument referred to Article 10 of the European Convention:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.

However, in the Letters Page of the June 2009 issue of Inside Time – the national newspaper for prisoners, I found this rather disturbing report:

Writing blogs

NOEL ‘RAZOR’ SMITH - HMP
BLANTYRE HOUSE

“The prison system has strictly forbidden me to write for publication or have any contact with the media therefore my query for the prison service (or whatever bunch of initials they are calling themselves these days) is this: according to Standing Orders and Prison Rules, convicted prisoners are not allowed to write for publication for payment, however there is no mention reference prisoners writing a blog on the internet; for which there is no payment but merely a chance to express an opinion.

So as a serving prisoner can I write a blog? And if not, can they point out the rule or Standing Order which forbids it? Obviously I do not have direct access to the Internet, but I have someone outside who will convert my typed words for the web, so I am anxious to find out what the objections might be.

I believe this is an important issue which may open up a new avenue for serving prisoners to express their opinions, so I look forward to hearing their reply; though they'll probably draft a new rule forbidding it as soon as they are asked the question. Cynical? Moi?”.

The Ministry of Justice writes:

“There is no specific Prison Service policy on prisoners using or posting blogs, as they do not have direct unregulated access to computers or the Internet. However, in terms of the restrictions placed on the contents of prisoners’ correspondence, PSO 4411 Prisoner Communications Correspondence, paragraphs 7.1 (10) (a) to (e) specifically covers the issue of publishing or broadcasting material by newspaper, radio or television transmission. Whilst the policy does not explicitly mention publication or broadcasting on the Internet, such activities would be viewed similarly to any other form of media outlet, as previously mentioned.

Therefore, if any part of a prisoner’s correspondence on a blog contained material which fell under any of these paragraphs, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken for breaching these restrictions.

As for the setting up of a blog, by a third party on behalf of a prisoner, paragraph 7.2 of PSO 4411 states that ‘a prisoner may not ask, in writing or otherwise, another person to make on his or her behalf a communication which he or she would not be allowed to make directly, or which would contravene this Prison Service Order’. While this has often been interpreted in the context of one prisoner asking another prisoner to write/send something out illegally on their behalf, this could be applicable to anyone outside of the prison”.

At least one serving prisoner has chosen to defy the ban on prisoners speaking out. Yesterday Iain Dale, in his Daley Dozen, highlighted the rather excellent blog post from Ben’s Blog “Should prisoners be allowed to blog?”.

In Ben’s profile he writes: “I am a lifer sentenced for murdering a friend when I was 14. I am into my 30th year of a 10 year recommendation”. That is, the trial judge set a tariff of 10 years. He should have been released at the 10 year stage if he no longer poses a risk to the public of re-offending. In the comments section Phil said: “My initial comments are that I find the thought that a 14 year old convicted and incarcerated beyond the recommended years, has something about it that beggars more questions I am guessing than answers - right now anyways”. That observation is spot on because Ben points out he is an activist who legitimately criticises and challenges the system.

In the September 2009 issue of Inside Time, in the Letters Page, we find this:

"Beware of retribution

From: John Bowden – HMP Glenochil

I thought it important to warn prisoners who contribute with articles to the media that are critical and disparaging of the prison system that a real possibility exists of retribution from the authorities in the form of adverse parole reports and denial of release.

In July, a month before a critically important Parole hearing to determine my suitability for release after 28 years of imprisonment, I was issued with a dossier of reports that were to be submitted to the Board for consideration. Included was a report from the prison’s Intelligence Management Unit, which stated that its purpose was to provide a summary of intelligence records held on me that were relevant to risk. Usually this file will contain information about behaviour or activity considered prejudicial to prison security and discipline. This information can and often does have a direct and critical impact on Parole decisions, sentence management and security categorization.

In my case the report listed that ‘Prisoner Bowden had an article published in the August 2008 issue of Inside Time’. Apart from completely misinterpreting the content of the article in question, the IMU report also implied that Inside Time had been used as a vehicle to disseminate material deliberately intended to ferment unrest and disturbances within prisons. More ominously, by equating articles critical of the prison system with a risk to security the intention clearly is to both punish the author and discourage the voicing of critical points in a public forum such as Inside Time.

The question has to be asked as to why a prison intelligence unit should consider a piece of writing, largely of academic interest, so threatening that the release of its author should be prevented?”.

Similarly, in Erwin James’s Guardian article about me The Devilish Advocate he writes: “He eventually received a tariff of 15 years, but served a total of 25 before being released in October last year. He believes his activities as a litigant against the Prison Service and Home Office are the main reason he had to serve the extra years”.

Wrapped up in the question “Should prisoners be allowed to blog?” Is the hidden question of: “Why are the prison authorities using the concept of risk to the public as a means to punish and silence prisoners freedom of expression to criticise the regime?”.

Race Relations

Race Relations



By: Ben Gunn - HMP Shepton Mallet

Lifer Ben Gunn has learnt from race relations work that it’s very difficult to appreciate what it’s like to be other than who you are.

How could it come about that efforts intended to reduce the weight of imprisonment on some groups can have the effect of causing disillusionment amongst others? Is this merely another sign that the Prison Service couldn’t get their leg over in a brothel?

I have had a varied interest in race relations. I once had my head kicked in for telling a racist joke; my fault; I merely thought the moment was right in an ironic, post modern way - turns out that I’m no Chris Rock. Oddly, at that time, I was the only man on the wing who was fighting for an Asian guy who was being bullied by staff. At the other extreme, I have been a race relations orderly and led a group of others in organising race equality impact assessments, which attempted to tell management the truth about their prison.

All of this varied experience has shown me two things. Firstly, that we are all essentially the same, and colour, origin and religion don’t alter a person’s fundamentals. Either the individual is a muppet or he’s not. Secondly, that some people are affected by imprisonment in different ways because of colour, origin or religion. If you don’t speak English, if your family are a thousand miles away, if you eat a religious diet – all of these things, and more, can increase the weight of imprisonment.

The Prison Service paid lip-service to addressing this problem, with the depth of their commitment illustrated by putting an Asian man into a cell with a homicidal racist. That got the attention of the Commission for Race Equality, who have forced the Prison Service to conduct Race Equality Impact Assessments. This is a continual process of assessing policies and practices to see if they disadvantage minority groups. An obvious example is the Canteen; if it only stocks hair and skin products for white people then obviously it disadvantages black and minority ethnic people. This is a statement of the bleeding obvious and yet it took a murder in Feltham for the Prison Service to begin to catch on.

Of course, the quality of these impact assessments can vary. Having been intimately involved, I am able to say that some managers are more interested in producing good statistics rather than in actually uncovering and resolving poor practices. However, the fact that these efforts are being made at all is a start.

It was during my stint as race relations orderly a few years ago that I first discovered a weird affect that can come from management paying attention to race relations; it pisses off the white guys. ‘Why should they get everything?’ was a question I spent a lot of time answering, sometimes without effect.

Of course ‘they’ don’t get everything. The point of race relations in prison, as I see it, is to ensure that the weight of punishment isn’t unduly placed on minority groups. If you hold to a particular religion, or diet, and the prison denies you these, then you will be suffering more than the man in the next cell. If only one ethnic group gets the good jobs then the others will have a worse prison experience. So while we are all essentially the same (people are people) the way the prison treats some groups may cause them greater grief than the majority. Taking the edge off that seems only right.

As the majority of us are white, vaguely Church of England, then this is the dominant paradigm. All that prison does is based on that premise. If you are an Asian Hindu, of course the prison is going to have to give extra thought to how to meet your needs. This management attention makes it look as if ‘they are getting everything’, when the reality is that they are only getting what the majority already get.

This is illustrated with food. I have heard some people complain that as, for example, the kitchen may lay on a Caribbean meal then they should lay on an English meal. The fact that every meal is an English meal passes them by.

And why, I’ve been asked, do we spend so much effort trying to meet the needs of minorities when ‘in their country’ we wouldn’t get jack. This is the least comprehensible argument; just because we might be treated less well abroad is no argument for us to treat foreign prisoners badly. Treating people decently shouldn’t be a reciprocal deal; it should be done because it is the right thing to do.

Despite management efforts, and despite some people’s belief that minorities are ruling the prison roost, the reality is that if you are not white then your experience of prison is worse. Black & Minority Ethnic prisoners have far less faith in managers; even less faith in the complaints system, and look at the race complaints procedure with cynicism. They feel let down by food and religious discrimination and their view of the canteen seems to be universally poor.

Another thing I’ve learnt during race relations work is that it is very, very difficult to appreciate what it is like to be other than who you are; I’m white, and with the best will in the world I cannot appreciate what it is like to be Muslim or Jamaican. Just because things look acceptable on the surface, even if it looks as if management are bending over backwards, how minority groups experience imprisonment on a daily basis is a complicated business and cannot be taken for granted.

Given the efforts that are apparently being made to meet the needs of minorities, should we worry that this exacerbates the gap between black and white? Yes and no … when it seems that management are giving a lot of attention, then the majority feel ignored and neglected. The answer isn’t to abandon race relations; it is for management to give more attention to prisoners as a whole, recognising that we are not one bland group but that many different needs exist amongst us.

This can only happen when managers start to recognise us as human beings. A radical idea, I know, but at present our concerns are only considered because managers are forced to pay attention by the likes of the Commission for Racial Equality. Why don’t they pay attention solely because it is the right thing to do? This would not only address the needs of minorities but also undercut any perception that if you are white, you have no voice.

John "Ben" Gunn is no pirate, he's a lifer who can write...

Life in the Slammer

Ben Gunn highlights an overlooked part of daily prison life instinctively known to prisoners yet rarely written about.

I once had to put up with a real 'dog' of an SO. A mean-spirited, mean-faced short-arse whose first response to everything was a determined and mindless "no". We engaged in a daily battle of needling each other. I happily despised him, and I daresay he felt pretty much the same.

Until the day he got off his arse to hit the landings, and ended up being the screw to bang me up. My lock was quite a stiff one, and the door a tight fit. Every screw slammed it shut, except this SO; he managed to pull it to and lock it with hardly a sound. This small act changed the way I perceived this mean bastard.

To call a great slab of bolted hardwood or steel ‘a door’ seems to understate the weight of it. It is the very essence of imprisonment, the ever present barrier that marks the rhythm of our daily lives. There should be a more pertinent word for it, one that captures its significance more precisely.

Door will have to do for now. Its movement, the rhythm of its opening and closing, reveals the state of the specific prison. A cell door that is left open for long periods of time will be a more amenable prison. The door that is opened and closed in short, sharp bursts is one that is oppressive and fearful.

When you are able to sit in your cell, door ajar, being sociable and open to visitors, then you are in a prison that allows you some of the supportive aspects of life. When you have to wedge-up during association, you don't need me to tell you that you are in a totally messed-up nick.

While the cell door speaks loud and clear about the state of your environment, it also speaks very clearly about the nature of the screws.

When opening a cell door, the screw can unlock and move on; or unlock and throw it open. He might even throw in a few words to nudge you into some sort of movement. Which of these he chooses reveals his temperament, demonstrates his understanding. Cells are the only semblance of private space available to us; some regard them as home, in a more or less temporary sense.

Throwing open the door on unlocking destroys that pretence of privacy in a thoughtless instant. It is a deeply ignorant act that screws dealing with long-term prisoners learn not to do on their very first day. Similarly, shouting "work" or whatever as the door opens is like saying, "you moron, even though you do the same thing every day, you need to be told what to do". Well, we really don't. We know exactly where we need to be, and being reminded of it is just annoying. The way the screw opens the door is an invariable barometer of whether he has crossed that line into being a dog. Unlock it, don't throw it open, and don't rise to any urge to shout anything. In this way you give a small sign that your imagination may stretch to imagining what it is like to live on our side of that piece of steel.

The way the door is closed also speaks to a screw’s character. Not that it is always left to them - some inmates prefer to bang themselves up; their way of depriving the system of the privilege. But when left to the screw, it can go several ways. He can stick his head in, ask if you’re done, and pull the door to without slamming it. Or he can slither along and slam your door without so much as a by-your-leave.

The chosen method is as revealing of a screw’s character as the way he opens it. Asking "all done?", or "alright?" before he closes it isn't a genuine question. The last thing he wants you to say is “no”, I've got a mission left to run first. Rather, it is a nod across the divide that separates us, a thread-like bridge between those who exist on either side of the lock. With some screws, that final exchange has even taken on the character of being absolution for what he is about to do, a recognition from one human being to another that there is something not wholly right in what must nevertheless be done. That mutual verbal dance reveals the moral character of the screw.

Which brings me back to the dog of an SO. He slid my difficult door closed almost silently; when I had fully expected him to slam it shut without a thought. He took a little extra time to do this all along the landing. He's not on my Xmas card list, but from then on I recognised that he wasn't rotten to the core. A miserable git, maybe, but he still
recognized - for a few moments - that locking a man in a concrete box needn't be done carelessly or harshly. It is a matter of importance. When you lose sight of that, you have lost a part of yourself.

• Ben Gunn is a lifer currently resident in HMP Shepton Mallet

SO is short for Senior Officer, the rank between basic grade and PO (Principal Officer).