Tom an IPP Prisoner asked am i going 2 die in prison?

Tom Reid

It seems to me like the fight 2 free the IPPs is weakening right across the board. Am i going 2 die in prison? 27month tariff an now starting 14th year.... Was a kid at the time an just turned 30 year old. Got no hope left but thank u 4 everything.

Join us  

 Help Tom and other IPP prisoners get justice

Join Us -Parliament -IPP Prisoners, and an all Prisoners United Protest / March.
Date: 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 at 3-30pm.

Unit,
*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 needs

What can we do? 

Be there for your family member, be visible, wear printed T shirts, printed or painted banners, bring loudspeakers, flyers......

Why we are protesting? 

The situation is unsatisfactory for our IPP prisoners, and for other non-IPP prisoners likewise trapped by perceived risk because they have a disorder or intellectual 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 as 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 unresourced 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.

The vulnerable are particularly at risk: these are people 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.

Coordinating: Katherine Gleeson & Carole Mcluckie .
Administrator's: Carole Mcluckie & Ann Horton.

 Emergency number ONLY for the 23 May 2018 Carol Mcluckie 07375849555 Katherine Gleeson 07436114070

Hosted by

katherine gleeson

Starts on
Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 11:30 AM

Ends on

Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 3:30 PM

Parliment and Ministry of Justice

London, SW1A 0PW

United Kingdom

FACEBOOK: IPP "Petition. Thank you for your support.

Petition

 

There may be some IPPs prisoners with differcuties but we are also talking about none IPP prisoners who often do double the sentence compared to those who don't have a difference

Research by the Prison ReformTrust has found that there are a significant number of prisoners who, because they have a learning disability or differences as well as mental health issues , are excluded from aspects of the prison regime including offending behaviour programmes. A report by HM Chie Inspectors of Prison and Probation described this predicament – prisoners being unable to access the interventions they needed to secure their release as ‘kafka-esque’ You need the courses to prove to parole you have changed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found, in response to evidence submitted by PRT, that ‘people with learning disabilities /differences serve longer sentences than others convicted of comparable crimes as much as double...... ’. The report went on to say that ‘this clearly breaches Article 5 ECHR (right to liberty) and Article14 ECHR (enjoyment of ECHR rights without discrimination)’ Nearly 80% of IPP sentences for young women surveyed by the Chief Inspectors

of Prisons and Probation were for offenses of arson and for the men it was robbery ABH relatively minor cases all given life sentences without a release date.
SEVING IPP’prisoner told the Prison Reform Trust: To lower my risk, I have to do Thinking Skills: a course offered imprison but because I learning differences can’t read and write, I can’t lower my situation. I’m just stuck. They are saying that until I can read and write I can’t do the course and I can’t lower my risk. It’s hard. Hard dealing with the sentence let alone dealing with these tress of not being able to do the course It’s like when I’m trying to say I can’t learn no more. I’ve been to a special school and I’ve learnt as much as I
can but they don’t believe that. But why should I be punished for two things? I’m being punished for the crime and again for not being able to read and write.

This lack of action has resulted in no progress being made towards dealing with the thousands of IPP prisoners long overdue for release and who have no idea when or indeed if – they will ever be freed.
Whilst it is true that Blunkett has now publicly admitted in the Commons that the sentence “has not worked as intended”, he has also failed miserably to take responsibility for the disaster that he created and has certainly done nothing at all to help find a solution.

legislation to abolish the IPP sentence and has done so in the face of severe political opposition from right wing MPs on both the Conservative and Labour benches; on the other, it has not introduced a timetable for the removal of the sentence from British Law. But has done nothing about the thousands of prisoners already serving the sentence and who are completely unaffected by the recent legislation.

HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation have described those serving IPP sentences as ‘prisoners with many and complex needs, including learning disability’ HUNDREDS of people being held beyond tariff, many had not completed no accredited offending behaviour programmes. Hundreds of people serving IPP sentences had not completed an accredited programme.HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation has stated that ‘the situation is not sustainable. Even with the recent changes in legislation, these numbers far exceed the capacity of the probation service and the prison system (and the Parole Board for that matter) to deliver the necessary quality of service Many people given an IPP sentence under the old legislation, subsequently amended, are still in custody. In fact, given that the reckless

Framing of the sentence doesn’t even attempt to unpick ‘the vulnerability, . Beyond the moral problems of this, it is likely that people will be put in an environment that will make them less settled. It would be, for example a kind of torture As the Joint Committee on Human Rights put it report on deaths in custody.

Faster why are they saying by 2017 and 2020 move your fingers and open the doors now...let them out and get it sorted they mess about too much and its already been 4 years since it was abolished...why are they still in stuck in 2016 sorry but it makes me mad that they don't rush them through...let some out now nobody would know....I bet we are still here in 2020 talking about it... on

Having read many IPP blogs and accounts, I am appalled that this is considered Justice in the UK. You do the crime, you do the time (preferably with re-education + positive self contemplation).. but trashing young lives indefinitely is torture for them and their families if the sentence has no foreseeable end. No wonder prison suicides are on the increase. Put on end to this expensive tragedy NOW! on

Unbelievable Injustice ....calls into question the English Justice System................shows the beginnings of an & quot; open & quot; Police State.... on fingers crossed - this could be the breakthrough that is needed KEEP FIGHTING!  My heart goes out to anyone suffering the injustice of an IPP sentence,  Katherine Gleeson  it goes to show how much SUFFERING is being caused. All I can say to that individual is please do not give up home. There are people out here who know your suffering and we are doing everything we can to help you. The longer the government ignore their duty to resolve this injustice, the louder our voices will shout. We will make sure they are held to account. Keep going, stay strong. Your voices are being heard on

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

 

The government’s privatisation of the probation service, Transforming Rehabilitation, was supposed to ensure that voluntary and third sector organisations played a central role in providing specialist support to offenders.                        We have known that this has not been the case in practice for some time now.  Today’s HMI Probation’s thematic report on probation supply chains confirms that this is the case. The report comes to a number of damning conclusions: The National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for high-risk offenders, “is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected” under TR – for reasons including objecting to the price and doubting the quality. All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ. Their own lack of stability was driving their relationship with principal and smaller sub-contractors in the third sector and most were looking for further efficiencies and cutbacks. Supply chains delivering services within the community were generally small scale, and non-existent in some local areas. A noticeable proportion of pre-2014 contracts with third sector organisations had been discontinued. The Ministry of Justice’s template contract for CRCs – ‘Industry Standard Partnering Agreements’ (ISPA) –  was burdensome, and disproportionate to the value of most of the third sector services being contracted. It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around. Dame Glenys Stacey, Chief Inspector of ProbationTweet Key findings The principal findings from the inspectors’ report are set out below. Implementation Supply chains have not been established at the scale anticipated by the MoJ when setting up TR. Most CRCs are now looking to their supply chain to find further efficiencies to shore up their own financial position, and so those supply chains that do exist look set to shrink further. CRC intentions (as expressed in their bids) for extensive voluntary sector supply chains were not then hard wired into CRC contracts. Instead, government policy to allow CRCs freedom of design led to individualised ‘black box’ contracts which  do not require CRCs to commission specialist services from the third sector or from others. CRC financial incentives do little to guard against the unequal provision of services across the country, or to encourage growth. Are specialist services being provided? Where supply chains exist, they are small in scale, and the scope of services provided by each Tier 2 provider is usually narrow. In the eight CRC local delivery unit areas inspected for this report, there was an average of three subcontracted Tier 2 providers in each locality, with virtually no Tier 3 providers. Tier 2 providers generally included one providing specialist services to women.  The national picture showed an average of six subcontracted services, in scope for our inspection, per CRC. It was noted that there was more than double this amount in Cheshire and Greater Manchester CRC. There was unequal provision across the country, and in some local areas there were no Tier 2 providers.  While inspectors saw some valuable holistic support being provided, there were few examples of true innovation. The small scale nature of provision was underlined by the fact that nearly half of the providers working with CRCs were employing under two members of staff: Is the NPS buying services? The NPS is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected, for many reasons. Some NPS local delivery areas had made no purchases. Inspectors found little evidence of CRCs conducting a periodic, robust user needs analysis, first of all. They are not required to do so, but without it CRCs cannot be sure to commission the right services in the right places. Probation trusts conducted such analyses routinely. NPS divisions are reliant on CRCs setting out (in a rate card) the price and range of services they have on offer to the NPS. Some CRCs took many months to publish agreed rate cards and service directories. Inspectors found that many in NPS divisions and even within CRCs were unaware of the services on offer. Both NPS and CRC staff are frustrated by the rate card process and the way it inevitably constrains how services can be commissioned.These frustrations, and the (often) limited range of services on offer, lead to the pursuit of alternative options, or else apathy among responsible officers in the NPS and in CRCs. Finally, we have found some NPS staff and leaders reluctant to purchase services from CRCs because of concerns about the quality of services to be provided, or whether they represent value for money, or because of an instinctive reluctance to pay. In addition, there is an enduring cultural dimension: professional probation staff do not see themselves as purchasers, and most do not want to be. Quality of provision Inspectors found that the quality of services was variable, but reasonable overall. Tier 2 providers gave due consideration to meeting specific individual needs, and took appropriate action on matters relating to the risk of serious harm to others. Where probation workers had made referrals to Tier 2 providers, the referrals were appropriate. However, CRCs and Tier 2 providers do not work in a sufficiently integrated way, case by case.  Many Tier 2 providers are doing more for individuals than required by their Tier 2 contracts, so as to make a difference to people’s lives and life chances. Recommendations The report makes a number of recommendations. Perhaps the three most important ones are:  The MoJ should: ensure the continued availability of sufficient specialist services locally, through stewardship of those third-sector organisations and services currently available and/or in other ways. produce a national framework that promotes local joint commissioning arrangements to meet the needs of service users and enables the better targeting of resources. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation service should  reappraise the probation delivery model, to enable more effective commissioning of specialist and innovative services. In particular: review whether the rate card mechanism is fit for purpose; ensure that accurate data is available to determine the needs of service users subject to probation intervention, and is used to inform both strategic decision making and contract management; and hold CRCs to account regarding their contractual obligations to develop and deliver services of sufficient quality and meet service user needs.

The government’s privatisation of the probation service, Transforming Rehabilitation, was supposed to ensure that voluntary and third sector organisations played a central role in providing specialist support to offenders. We have known that this has not been the case in practice for some time now.  Today’s HMI Probation’s thematic report on probation supply chains confirms that this is the case. The report comes to a number of damning conclusions: The National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for high-risk offenders, “is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected” under TR – for reasons including objecting to the price and doubting the quality. All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ. Their own lack of stability was driving their relationship with principal and smaller sub-contractors in the third sector and most were looking for further efficiencies and cutbacks. Supply chains delivering services within the community were generally small scale, and non-existent in some local areas. A noticeable proportion of pre-2014 contracts with third sector organisations had been discontinued. The Ministry of Justice’s template contract for CRCs – ‘Industry Standard Partnering Agreements’ (ISPA) –  was burdensome, and disproportionate to the value of most of the third sector services being contracted. It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around. Dame Glenys Stacey, Chief Inspector of ProbationTweet Key findings The principal findings from the inspectors’ report are set out below. Implementation Supply chains have not been established at the scale anticipated by the MoJ when setting up TR. Most CRCs are now looking to their supply chain to find further efficiencies to shore up their own financial position, and so those supply chains that do exist look set to shrink further. CRC intentions (as expressed in their bids) for extensive voluntary sector supply chains were not then hard wired into CRC contracts. Instead, government policy to allow CRCs freedom of design led to individualised ‘black box’ contracts which  do not require CRCs to commission specialist services from the third sector or from others. CRC financial incentives do little to guard against the unequal provision of services across the country, or to encourage growth. Are specialist services being provided? Where supply chains exist, they are small in scale, and the scope of services provided by each Tier 2 provider is usually narrow. In the eight CRC local delivery unit areas inspected for this report, there was an average of three subcontracted Tier 2 providers in each locality, with virtually no Tier 3 providers. Tier 2 providers generally included one providing specialist services to women.  The national picture showed an average of six subcontracted services, in scope for our inspection, per CRC. It was noted that there was more than double this amount in Cheshire and Greater Manchester CRC. There was unequal provision across the country, and in some local areas there were no Tier 2 providers.  While inspectors saw some valuable holistic support being provided, there were few examples of true innovation. The small scale nature of provision was underlined by the fact that nearly half of the providers working with CRCs were employing under two members of staff: Is the NPS buying services? The NPS is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected, for many reasons. Some NPS local delivery areas had made no purchases. Inspectors found little evidence of CRCs conducting a periodic, robust user needs analysis, first of all. They are not required to do so, but without it CRCs cannot be sure to commission the right services in the right places. Probation trusts conducted such analyses routinely. NPS divisions are reliant on CRCs setting out (in a rate card) the price and range of services they have on offer to the NPS. Some CRCs took many months to publish agreed rate cards and service directories. Inspectors found that many in NPS divisions and even within CRCs were unaware of the services on offer. Both NPS and CRC staff are frustrated by the rate card process and the way it inevitably constrains how services can be commissioned.These frustrations, and the (often) limited range of services on offer, lead to the pursuit of alternative options, or else apathy among responsible officers in the NPS and in CRCs. Finally, we have found some NPS staff and leaders reluctant to purchase services from CRCs because of concerns about the quality of services to be provided, or whether they represent value for money, or because of an instinctive reluctance to pay. In addition, there is an enduring cultural dimension: professional probation staff do not see themselves as purchasers, and most do not want to be. Quality of provision Inspectors found that the quality of services was variable, but reasonable overall. Tier 2 providers gave due consideration to meeting specific individual needs, and took appropriate action on matters relating to the risk of serious harm to others. Where probation workers had made referrals to Tier 2 providers, the referrals were appropriate. However, CRCs and Tier 2 providers do not work in a sufficiently integrated way, case by case.  Many Tier 2 providers are doing more for individuals than required by their Tier 2 contracts, so as to make a difference to people’s lives and life chances. Recommendations The report makes a number of recommendations. Perhaps the three most important ones are:  The MoJ should: ensure the continued availability of sufficient specialist services locally, through stewardship of those third-sector organisations and services currently available and/or in other ways. produce a national framework that promotes local joint commissioning arrangements to meet the needs of service users and enables the better targeting of resources. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation service should  reappraise the probation delivery model, to enable more effective commissioning of specialist and innovative services. In particular: review whether the rate card mechanism is fit for purpose; ensure that accurate data is available to determine the needs of service users subject to probation intervention, and is used to inform both strategic decision making and contract management; and hold CRCs to account regarding their contractual obligations to develop and deliver services of sufficient quality and meet service user needs. Russell Webster  www.russellwebster.com