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?”.

You can look to the heavens Boris...

You can look to the heavens Boris...



http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/02/telegraph-column-boris-must-win.html


idea: jailhouselawyer
photoshop: Ronknee

Just in case you were wondering...

Just in case you were wondering how Iain Dale is able to afford to order one of these? It is rumoured that it is because he has done this. Put Dale Mansion up for sale...



And this is why he needed to get rid of his old Audi cabriolet...

The truth about Tory bloggers

Dizzy Stinks with his opinionated arrogance reminds me of those prison governors who are arrogant and believe themselves to be in the right until a judge informs them to the contrary. His blog was advertised on 18DS last night, so I thought I would go and take a look to see what all the fuss was about. It was this post. The trouble is that his waffle was based on a post from this blog. Perhaps, they should be reported to the charity commission? It's about us statement bore no resemblance to the post I read, nor to the other posts I was referred to in that post. My impression was that I was reading adverts for Tory bloggers. This statement beggars belief "The SAU is a charity. This means that its role and ambitions are wholly unpolitical. So we don't toe or promote any party line". One wonders what Tory bloggers have to do with the following statement of purpose? "The Social Affairs Unit addresses social, economic and cultural issues with an emphasis on the value of personal responsibility. We research, challenge and debate issues from welfare to warfare, always seeking to draw out the role of the individual's obligations. We identify research with a potential to inform public policy and translate it from academic discourse into public debate. The ideas it promotes come largely from historians, sociologists and philosophers but also medical doctors and hard scientists".

Dizzy Stinks claims that Watlington's post is interesting. He does so on the basis that it refers to him. The truth is that it is a waffle post, and not interesting for the reasons a Tory might think. It is interesting because it shows Tory bloggers up for not being what they make themselves out to be. They start out from the position that right is right because they are right-wing politically. Therefore any criticisms of them must be wrong because they come from left-wingers. However, Watlington claims that Iain Dale is a genius. I challenge this claim as being unfounded. It will be noted that whilst Iain Dale is happy to accept praise, he has not yet challenged my claims that he is both a liar and a hypocrite.

There is a bad smell coming from the mouth piece of David Davis, and that halitosis is called Iain Dale. Dizzy Stinks, and there is a smell of raw sewage emanating from the Social Affairs Unit. What they incorrectly refer to as misrepresentations and smears, is in fact the sweet smell of truth. They are so used to smelling their own rotten ideas and outpourings, that the breath of fresh air hurts their senses. They seek to destroy criticisms and yet proclaim that they believe in freedom of speech. Their corrupt world is one where everybody is supposed to say what they want you to say. The Tory Party has turned into the Monster Raving Loony Party.

A rather belated Hat-Tip to Chris Paul for the photo likeness of Iain Dale.

The Supreme Guido and the absolute but not absolute freedom of expression

The Supreme Guido claims that freedom of expression is absolute and cites this to support his argument. However, he is wrong because it is not Article 19 which determines this issue. Rather, it is Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 10(1) states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, Article 10(2) restricts this under certain circumstances. Therefore, freedom of expression is not absolute under English law. I am aware of these limitations and see the need for them. The Supreme Guido who advocates that freedom of expression is absolute, in one breath, is guilty of hypocrisy. Because he then goes onto state, and try and defend, his policy of censoring posters freedom of expression on his own blog. Basically, he states because it is his blog, and then admits that only he knows what his rules of censorship are. This way The Supreme Guido always wins. A prisoner in his goldfish bowl. When he is invited to engage face to face with human beings, the little boy in him in the primary school playground takes his ball and refuses to play. In his small world that only he and Iain Dale live, you will notice they parrot each other. Both are scared of competition from other bloggers, frightened of others expressing their freedom of expression. In their small world freedom of expression, it would appear, only exists if anyone agrees with them. The mystery is why Iain Dale defends The Supreme Guido. It's a bit like a puppet and the person pulling the strings. Who is pulling the strings and who is the puppet?

Thinking Blogger Award

It gives me a sense of pride to discover that I have been nominated for a Thinking Blogger Award by Gingersnaps, a honour which I accept. I must say that I did not fully understand what this is all about, when I posted my congratulations on her blog upon her receiving the award. And, I thought that she was only mentioning my blog in passing, as one worthy of note. Had it come to me first, there is no doubt that I would have nominated Gingersnaps for this thought provoking post. It was highlighted by wordpress and brought Gingersnaps to my attention. Since then I have been over at her place several times a day. I cannot get her out of my mind. And, I think this is what it is all about. Which brings me to the post on my blog which caused Gingersnaps to think about what I had to say and led her to nominating me.

My five nominations are, in no particular order;

Bob Piper. He came to my attention when he was under attack from some other bloggers for a post that I thought was much ado about nothing. I sided with Bob because of the way he handled the situation. He's a thinking man. And, more to the point, he supports my cause for prisoners having the vote. Here are a couple of examples of Bob Piper in action, one and two. And, because I suspect that Bob would nominate my next choice, I will make it harder for him by relieving him of this choice. I can hear him saying "Bastard!". UPDATE: As you can see from Bob's comment, he has declined which means I had to tag someone else. And that is Chris Paul. You can see some of his handy work here.

Our Man In Granada. This blog came to my attention through Bob Piper, and is worthy of greater recognition. He needs your support and this is an example of why.

Iain Dale. Iain Dale's Diary is a must read, and Iain states that it is a golden rule that you blog every day if not several times a day. The junkies need their fix. "Where is he? Where is he?", I inquire if he has not posted by the time I get up and visit his place. He's an old sparring partner of Bob Piper's. Iain is in the blue corner and Bob Piper is in the red corner. I find their little spats entertaining. Sometimes Iain's posts are serious and others like this one are amusing. But it is not just Iain's Dale's Diary that gets this nomination, but also 18doughtystreet.com the internet TV station, and in particular Blogger TV which has proved to be very popular amongst bloggers and even went down well in the States during the recent elections over there. UPDATE: Iain has emailed me to say that he already has this award. Therefore a much deserved blog is bel is thinking
, and is my alternative nomination. Here are a couple of bel's posts, one and two. I note from her blog that she has posted today that she is busy working. I hope that she is not too busy to accept this award.
Rachel From North London
. This is not the post I would have chosen for an example but it will have to do because the one I wanted to choose I cannot find and I suspect I know the reason why. Rachel has suffered a lot recently from a cyber-terrorist, and the post I wanted to show highlighted just some of the abuse she has suffered. Even without this, surviving the 7/7 terrorist attack deserves an award in itself. UPDATE: I have now found the post and will it give you an idea of what she has had to put up with, and why there might need to be a bloggers code of conduct.

Not Saussure. This is the thinking persons thinking blog which makes you think even more. And, here is just one example.

Ken Livingstone says he had Iain Dale in the back of his cab once...

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has issued a press release to counter what he claims are false allegations being made by Iain Dale, a blogger, and 18doughtystreet.com, a internet TV station.

Conspiracy and the Blog War - Let the battle commence!

Information is power. And, politics is about power. I must admit, the first time that I saw Croydonian on 18doughtystreet.com the internet TV station, I formed the opinion that he was arrogant, a snob, and effeminate in mannerisms. The type I take an instant dislike to. When I saw him again, on Blogger TV last night, I groaned silently. But, then I laughed out loud when I caught a flash of him wearing day glow yellow socks! How can you take such a clown seriously? Still, as Blogger TV is my brainchild, I did not switch off and suffered the rest of the show in silence. I was thankful when it finished 5 minutes early, it just gave me enough time to make a coffee before watching The News at Ten on BBC1, followed by Newsnight on BBC2. There was a right old ding dong of a battle on congestion charges. They say that a change is as good as a rest, I had forgotten how good that programme can be, it was almost worth me going out and buying a TV Licence. There again, I have this thing against Crapita and I don't intend to boost it's profits when there is no need to pay.

On Blogger TV, The Chunt brought up the subject of the Wife in the North and her reported £70,000 book deal. Iain was miffed at the size of the advance, and there was a bit of bitchiness. True, when I read that she had a Times connection, and the Times broke the story, there is a whiff of a possible conspiracy. Still, she writes well and that cannot be taken away from her. Unlike some of the cretins who posted on Croydonian relatively recently.

I was looking for Steve Taylor's blog, pigeon something or other, to provide a link on my site, and searched Google for prisonlawinsideout to see if his reference too me was in that place. It wasn't, but I stumbled upon "Stupid criminal of the year" on Croydonian and he mentioned that it was not a reference too me. The twit istanbultory suggested that my blog must be in the running for worst blog (obviously he has not read Rachel North London's post on her blog where she opined that jailhouselawyer has a top blog). Newmania(c), I was surprised to learn is male, as I had wrongly supposed that the bitchy comments came from a female. In any event, he refers to my blog as "Eugene" and it is a reference to something sung by Pink Floyd. It was lost on Croydonian and I am puzzled too. I know that in prison "The Mad Dog of Pudsey" used to call me Crazy Diamond, and this certainly came from the lyrics of Pink Floyd as we used to smoke dope and play their records in Long Lartin Prison. "Peter Hitchens" before he bottled it to the real Peter Hitchens posted this comment "The axe murderer is now barred from guido no doubt our mr dale has done likewise". As usual The Hitch, who is now my prison bitch, was talking shit. I still post on both of those sites. Croydonian replied "He's already got a lifetime - and life means life...- ban here, in advance of any attempt post". So, I put it to the test and posted a comment.

"Croydonian: You're a bore. Bring it on, tosser!". He replied (haughtily) "Mr Hirst, Do not post here again. Ever. My comment makers find you morally reprehensible and even supposing that I did not, that would be sufficient to bar you. Your repeated threats of making recourse to legal action are out of place in the convivial place that is the British political blogosphere, and I would counsel you to research the outcome of Dering v Uris before filing a libel action that will most probably be struck out at the first instance. You are also a solipsistic bore with the characteristic chippiness of the autodidact. If you choose to ignore this, any comments you make including any emanating from your IP address but with different alias will be deleted". So, I caught him out in a lie. I had to laugh out loud at "the convivial place that is the British political blogosphere". What a numpty, hello, anyone in there, it's a jungle, you fucking muppet! When the idiot has the string of legal victories that I have amassed, it might just be possible that I would seek his advice, but doubtful, as I am the number one in the country in this area of expertise. Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs...It's a matter of public record that I am self-taught, that's why I don't need lessons from someone with a little knowledge.

Anonymous said: "I think I have also tripped up his budding media career, I can't believe Dale was thinking of having the fucker on his programme". And, there I was thinking it must have been something I said. It is true that Iain Dale both announced on his blog and on 18DS that he was inviting me on to discuss the prisoners votes case. Iain Dale has not had the common decency to email me and rescind the offer and give his reasons for so doing. I think that it is time that Iain Dale came clean about this whole affair. I have exposed a conspiracy. Yet more sleaze from the Tory Party! Just as well he was not selected. There is already enough corruption in politics without adding to it by someone heavily engaged in a conspiracy. At the very least, I believe that Iain Dale should offer me a public apology for his ungentlemanly conduct. Is this how Iain Dale repays the man for giving him the idea for Blogger TV, which has proved to be the most popular progamme on 18DS? Besides being a prison law consultant, I am also a media consultant (albeit not in the same league as Max Clifford). It just goes to show how ignorant some of these bloggers and posters are. It's Iain Dale's and the viewers loss. I have a very good relationship with the media (not the RedTops), and they have based their prejudices on one article by Andrew O'Hagan. Admittedly, it was not the best article ever written about me. But, I thought the photo was good and use it on my profile on this blog.

Croydonian posted: "Did the Dalemeister pull him? If so, stout work all round". Anonymous replied: "the axe murderer wasn't exactly candid despite his claim) manslaughter can mean you were unlucky to get into a fight and somebody died, could happen to any of us. A bit different from axeing somebodies mum to death because you felt like it and then not express remorse, he should be either dead or at least in prison". On the contrary, I am very candid and believe that honesty is the best policy. This idiot on the other hand, refers to murderer and then manslaughter and gives the vision in his head which does not match the facts. It is a pity that he did not watch the 15 minute Ch4 News item in which Simon Israel went into the circumstances of my case, or listen to the Michael Buerk programme, The Choice on Radio 4, when he spent half an hour on the subject. I am a very literal person, and when as a child I exposed white lies by adults I lost trust in them. I did not know then that this literal approach was down to my Aspergers Syndrome. In the past I have been accused of being too truthful. I don't believe that anybody can be that. However, I have learnt that the truth can sometimes hurt and that some people prefer to tell or hear white lies. And, that I then get accused of saying something inappropriate. I think that we all do that at times, but with Aspergers it is more common.

On the issue of remorse, the first person who opined that I showed no sign of remorse was a police doctor who asked me no questions in relation to the offence and only took intimate samples from my person. People with Aspergers have difficulty with empathy. Its not the same as not expressing remorse. The diminished responsibility, at the time of the offence, meant that I was not in my right mind, that is, mentally off balance. Therefore, full criminal responsibility is not present. I cannot feel guilt for being mentally ill. I handed myself into the police. The Court of Appeal has stated on, at least, two occasions that someone who self reports themselves to the police is a strong indication of remorse. I have seen prisoners cry in the dock, not out of remorse but out of self pity and some people are fooled by this display. One day on the prison exercise yard I was talking to one of the Guilford 4 or Birmingham 6 (I cannot remember which), and brought up the subject of remorse, and he said not to worry about it as it is a middle class thing to make you feel even more guilty. This is the comment that Andrew O'Hagan reported in his article. I would rather he asked do you feel bad about what happened? That would have got a yes, for example, in Erwin James's article, he asked if I had any regrets, I replied yes, killing my landlady. What a lot of people do not understand, is that prison humour is very black, gallows humour. And the first comment from a London gangster in front of an audience who were watching the news report on TV was "You know what they say Hirsty, if you want to get ahead in life...get an axe". Prisoners found it amusing and laughed. Not at the offence, but at the joke. It was funny, I could not be offended at the remark, and I laughed as well. Similarly, when I was in police custody, I made the comment, I bet she's got a bit of an headache. It was wry humour, something to say, inappropriate, admittedly, but it was in response to something the copper had said which permitted a moment of light relief in a tragic case. Whipping myself would not have brought the victim back to life. It was final. Some people read too much into this and miss the main points. When they wheeled a sixteen year old, in a body bag, who had committed suicide, past the breakfast queue, the heavy atmosphere was broken when some wag quipped "Can I have his cornflakes, because he won't be wanting them now?", the tension broke into laughter. It did not lessen the tragedy. It could happen to anybody, it is one of the easiest things to do is kill someone, it is the show of control that is the hardest. I did not kill my landlady because I felt like it. There were deeper psychological and social factors combined with the failure of the Probation Service to do anything about it when I reported that something was going wrong and my head was in bits and I needed to be moved. They ignored the warning signals I was sending. I did not say that I was going to kill her because I did not know at that time that it would happen. They had alternative accommodation, but told me that none was available, it could have been prevented and the change could have benefited me instead I felt trapped and lashed out. It was not her that I was attacking but the situation like in the American film where the actor was stuck in a traffic jam and it went downhill from there.

Verity said: "Well, excuse me if I elbow my way in here, but I was the first one to mention, in tones of revulsion, that Dale was planning to have the chewing gum you can't scrape off the bottom of your shoe on 18 Doughty Street. I mentioned it two days ago before everyone else got in on the act. And then I mentioned it again. You didn't spike the remorseless axe murderer of an old lady's media career alone, PHitch. I'd already got the underpinnings in place when you came in and added some much needed muscle! So sad, really. He was looking forward to his appearance on TV that he mentioned it several times. Oh well, life holds many a bitter disappointment for axe murders who dream of media stardom. Maybe he could go on Big Brother House or Help, I'm a Celbrity". Nasty piece of work. I have more than enough newspaper and magazine articles, radio and TV appearances. I am famous outside of the blogosphere whereas Verity, who? What was different about 18DS is that I have not done internet TV, and Iain had promised to give the prisoners votes case a proper airing on Vox Politix with a panel of guests. It wasn't about me you silly cunt! It was about prisoners human rights. No way would I go on Big Brother even in the unlikely event I was asked, nor on I'm a Celebrity, as I don't watch or like the programmes. My only interest is to push for prisoners rights. I never sought fame, it was the media reporting that did that but I took it on board and kept my feet on the ground. Nor did I envisage that I would make history with the prisoners votes case. That only dawned later when the media kept mentioning how long the legal position had been in place until I came along. The first man since 1870 to progress the issue, that did give me a warm glow inside. I can understand why these small minded people in their small world become envious. They cannot stand it when someone else steps into the spotlight and upstages them. All these grains of sand are worthless and its the nuggets of gold which have value. They are going to be very disappointed very shortly, watch this space...