Fresh hope for 'trapped' Scotswood prisoner Danny Weatherson after 13 years behind bars
The partner of a prisoner serving an indefinite sentence has said she and her children are "living in limbo".
Hannah McCulloch is campaigning for Ben Gayton's release. He was jailed under the now abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) legislation.
Mr Gayton received a 17-month minimum term but served seven years. He was then recalled for breaching his IPP licence, which lasts 99 years.
IPPs were introduced in 2003 and designed to ensure dangerous offenders remained locked up until they no longer posed a risk.
However, they were given to more offenders than originally expected and for lower level crimes, with hundreds of inmates jailed for years beyond their minimum terms.
IPPs were abolished in 2012 - but not for existing prisoners.
Now more than half of those freed have been sent back to jail for breaching licence conditions.
IPPs were introduced in 2003 and designed to ensure dangerous offenders remained locked up until they no longer posed a risk.
However, they were given to more offenders than originally expected and for lower level crimes, with hundreds of inmates jailed for years beyond their minimum terms.
IPPs were abolished in 2012 - but not for existing prisoners.
Now more than half of those freed have been sent back to jail for breaching licence conditions.
Ms McCulloch, from Kirkham in Lancashire, said she was unsure when Mr Gayton might be freed from HMP Lancaster Farms.
He was jailed for grievous bodily harm with a minimum tariff set at 17 months but was not freed for seven years.
After his release in 2012, Mr Gayton was recalled to prison in 2014 on a manslaughter charge, for which he was acquitted.
He was recalled again in 2017 on assault allegations, which were dropped. But he is still in prison and will not see the parole board until December.
In 2014, ex-home secretary David Blunkett expressed "regret" that the terms, brought in while he was in office, had led to "injustices".
Always hanging over you
Ms McCulloch said "it's horrible" and "some days Ben will ring but barely speak because he is so stressed and so down"."IPP, you're never rid of it even when you're out. It's a 99-year sentence so it's always hanging over your head", she said.
................................................................................................................
Dad Maurice Stevens, of Lemington, Newcastle, says he fears for his son's life after he's taken to self harm while locked behind bars
Danny Weatherson, 30, of Scotswood, Newcastle, pictured after being released from prison after 11 years 9 months, before going back inside
Worried dad Maurice Stevens fears for his son’s life after he battles for freedom.
Left to “rot” in jail, Danny Weatherson has been fighting for his release for more than 13 years.
It comes after he was caught up in the controversial Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, which came into force for England and Wales in 2005 but was axed in 2012.
But "trapped" Danny hopes there will be light at the end of his dark tunnel after being given a parole hearing date in May.
And dad Maurice says it is long over due as Danny slashed his own throat and needed medical treatment as the pressure mounts for his release.
"He’s got his parole date in May but this is his 13th year in prison for crimes that weren’t worth that length of a prison sentence. His family are frightened that he will take his own life,” said Maurice, 47, of Lemington, Newcastle.
“He’s already attempted suicide in 2016 and then again around Christmas. He’s been left to rot in jail, he’s become institutionalised and will have to be rehabilitated to get used to life back on the outside.”
Danny was just 18 when a judge recommended he served almost 16 months for two attempted robberies before he could apply for parole - but it took 11 years and nine months for him to be released - only to be flung back inside.
He got out on July 3, 2017 and was told to spend three months in a hostel in Leeds before being allowed to return to home soil in Newcastle.
Frustrated over not being with his family, without benefits and miles away from home, his dad says it is understood Danny was knocked over but would not co-operate with police.
And only weeks later on his 29th birthday on July 18, he was recalled to prison.
Since then Danny has been waiting for his parole board hearing date and has finally been told it will happen in May.
But Maurice fears for his son’s mental state.
“He’s now in HMP Northumberland so we hope, if he is released, that he will be put in a hostel in Newcastle near his family.
"At least we can give him the support he needs and hopefully we can help him rehabilitate.
“He feels everyone is against him but he has got our support.
“I really worry about his mental state right now as his parole board meeting draws near.”
After Danny, of Scotswood, Newcastle, was thrown back in jail in 2017 Maurice asked strangers to send cards of support to his son.
And caring ChronicleLive readers sent him dozens of cards which gave him the mental strength to get through.
Dad-of-12 Maurice added: “We were so grateful to everyone who sent him cards of support back then.
"They really helped him pull through. But he’s really slipped back again and has turned to self-harming again.”
Builder Maurice said: “He has been in prison for over 13 years for two attempted robberies of a coat and a mobile phone.
“The courts were handing these PPI sentences out like confetti at the time and weren’t thinking of the consequences.
“Danny served all that time in prison for two offences that weren’t that serious. These sentences are a disgrace.”
In 2017, ChronicleLive told Danny’s plight of how his time inside has been in high security prisons including HMP Northumberland, HMP Moorlands in Doncaster, HMP Armley in Leeds, HMP Frankland in Durham and HMP Hull.
He had taken to self-harm to get him through dark days, but Danny’s family revealed the Parole Board said he could be moved to a category D open prison.
However, just weeks later, he was told the prison that had been chosen was changed and Danny tried to kill himself as his hopes were shattered.
His solicitor, Shirley Noble, said he was being kept inside as he “poses a risk to himself” and uses the self-harming mechanism to release the pain he suffers emotionally.
And his dad used his son’s attempted suicide to highlighted the IPP sentences, intended to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence, but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired.
Danny, who had been in trouble for a string on minor crimes before being jailed, was among those who feels they had been left to rot behind bars.
Ministry of Justice data shows there were 2,598 IPP prisoners still behind bars as at September 30, 2018, a decrease of 57% since the 2012 peak of 6,080. And 129 were released during June to September.
The authorities admit the IPP sentence was widely criticised and “used far more widely than intended”.
And this is why it was replaced with a new regime of tough, determinate sentences, alongside life sentences for the most serious offenders.
Former Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss said on IPP sentencing: “ But there are others that have long served their minimum term safe for release.
Danny Weatherson, now 30 was jailed at the age of 18 (collect of Danny)
....................................................................................................................
Harry associate Professor at Southampton Law School, is raising awareness through research of the ongoing problems related to the IPP sentence.
Myself Ann Horton and Martin Ford attended a parliament meeting arranged by Harry and we discussed support for families, in October 2018 a report was published ‘The Pains of Indeterminate Imprisonment for Families of IPP Prisoners’ (available here: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/425364/)
Harry and associate is now conducting a follow-on collaborative project with the Prison Reform Trust. This will look at specific actions that the key organisations – the Parole Board, prison service and probation service – can do to improve the situation for IPP prisoners and their families., there are plans to hold some workshops with family members of IPP prisoners.
We are interested in a range of experiences: including those with relatives who remain in prison; those who have been recalled; and those who have successfully stayed out on licence. Every contribution will be welcome, and we aim to create a safe and inclusive space where everyone feels heard and respected
He is planning for each workshop to be quite small – a maximum of eight people. And we will look to hold them in different parts of England and Wales, including
Workshops are ** Dates will discussed with you for these areas :
· London
· Manchester,
· Cardiff,
· Southampton.
Beyond that probably Southampton, Oxford, Newcastle. And we can look at other locations if there is interest.
He will gather together the recommendations that emerge from the workshops, produce a Report, and present them to the organizations. They will respond to them, and we will then work with them – and you (if you want) – to refine ideas further and to ensure that action is taken.
if you would be interested in being involved? (And whether there are other people that you know locally who would also be interested?)
He cannot promise that our project will suddenly resolve the problems faced by IPP prisoners. And, of course, sadly the loss of prisoners.
But he has been assured by senior representatives of the Parole Board, prison service and probation service that they are committed to doing more for families of prisoners, and in particular families of IPP prisoners – and to take seriously specific actions that our project recommends on the basis of your experiences and suggestions.
Dates for workshops: possible February/early March. He is waiting to identify an initial bunch of interested people, before suggesting specific dates/times to them. I’m well on the way to doing this.
There is a plan to give each participant a £40 Amazon voucher to recognise their participation. This should cover most people’s costs,” but if there is exceptional need for additional financial support then we are certainly open to doing this. (And we’ll provide some tea/coffee, and some snacks, for the workshop).
Involvement of representatives from government agencies: We have talked to various people about this. For the initial workshops it will just be families. In particular to try to make sure that everyone feels able to participate (we are hearing from quite a lot of people who have had no engagement with organizations before, so would find it very stressful to do so). But the project as a whole will absolutely involve representatives from government agencies, and there is commitment by them to learn from the findings from the workshop and to try to improve things.
Please do contact harry email if you have any questions or would like further information Or just want to have a brief chat before you make a firm decision
Emails to Harry ippfam@soton.ac.uk Tel: 02380 594372 and 07814687149. You can also email me katherinegleeson@aol.com 07436114070
Dr Harry AnnisonAssociate ProfessorCo-Director Centre for Law, Policy and Society (CLPS)Year 2 Co-ordinatorSouthampton Law SchoolUniversity of Southampton
Southampton Law School is on LinkedIn. Connect with us https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/11043417/
You might like to know he has published the following pieces.
Inside Time piece: https://insidetime.org/collateral-damage-2/
Inside Time piece: https://insidetime.org/achieving-release/
Prison Service Journal article: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/psj/prison-service-journal-241
Justice Committee submission: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/justice-committee/prison-population-2022/written/95032.html
They have also spoken with a number of journalists and directors about the issues faced by IPP prisoners. And are in regular contact with the Parole Board, Prison Service and Probation Service, encouraging them and assisting them to do more for IPP prisoners and their families
...........................................................................................
Probation reforms: Numbers returning to prison 'skyrocket'
Problems with the partial privatisation of the probation system in England and Wales have cost taxpayers almost £500m, the government spending watchdog says.
Under the changes, which began in 2013, firms were given contracts to supervise low and medium-risk offenders.
The National Audit Office said reforms were "rushed" and the numbers returning to prison for breaching their licence conditions had since "skyrocketed".
The government said this was because more offenders were being monitored.
Prior to the reforms, which were designed to drive down re-offending rates, convicts who had served less than one year did not have to be supervised by probation services.
But from 2015 every criminal given a custodial sentence became subject to statutory supervision and rehabilitation upon release into the community.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said this meant an extra 40,000 offenders were being supported each year.
The NAO report said that between January 2015 and September 2018, the number of offenders recalled to prison for breaching their licence condition increased by almost half, from 4,240 to 6,240.
Over the same period, the percentage of offenders recalled to custody who had received sentences of less than 12 months increased from 3% to 36%.
- Private probation contracts to end early
- Probation system 'a mess', say MPs
- Prisoners 'lack support after release'
The NAO said the MoJ had "set itself up to fail" after it used a payment-by-results model which was "inappropriate" for probation services.
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the "scathing" report raised "serious questions about decision-making at the Ministry of Justice".
'Ineffective'
In 2013 the MoJ began a major reform of probation services, partially privatising it in England and Wales.
It involved 21 companies - known as community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) - monitoring people who had been released from jail after serving short sentences.
But the report says the MoJ designed and implemented its reforms too quickly.
By March 2018, the CRCs were facing losses of £294m over the lifetime of their contracts - compared with the profits of £269m they had been expecting to start with.
Four months later, the government acknowledged that the quality of probation services being delivered was not good enough and announced the MoJ would end the contracts with the CRCs in 2020 - 14 months early.
The report estimates that additional payments to CRCs beyond the original terms of the contracts will cost the department £296m, and terminating the contracts early will cost at least £171m.
The full cost to the taxpayer will not be known until at least December 2020, the report says.
It concludes that the MoJ's contracts were "ineffective" and hampered its ability to hold providers to account for poor services.
Overall, it noted "little progress" had been made on transforming probation services.
Rory Stewart, prisons and probation minister, said the performance of CRCs was "too often deeply disappointing".
"That is why we have stepped in to end contracts early and invested an extra £22m a year in services for offenders on release," he said.
'Botched' contracts
Meg Hillier, who chairs the Commons Public Accounts Committee which scrutinises the value for money of public spending, said the MoJ's "botched contracting" had left this "essential service" underfunded.
"The ministry now needs to reflect and ensure that its new proposals can deliver the much-needed improvements to probation services," she added.
Katie Lomas, chair of the probation officers union Napo, said bringing in providers with no experience in probation and splitting the service into two separate organisations was always going to bring additional costs.
She told the BBC that the government should "pause and reflect" before enacting further reforms to ensure the same mistakes were not repeated.
The chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, welcomed the NAO report, for bringing "greater transparency" to probation funding and contracts.
................................
MoJ needs to think carefully about probation reforms
Failings
Reforms to probation services have failed to meet the Ministry of Justice’s targets to reduce reoffending and cancelling contracts with probation providers early comes at an additional cost to the taxpayer, according to today’s report by the National Audit Office (NAO).
In 2013, the Ministry embarked on a major reform of probation services. It created Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to manage low or medium risk offenders and the National Probation Service (NPS) to manage those posing higher risks. It amended its contracts with CRCs in 2017 to increase their income and stabilise failing services, but in July 2018 the Ministry announced these would be terminated 14 months early, in December 2020.
By March 2017, mid-way through the reforms, there was an overall 2.5 percentage point reduction in the proportion of reoffenders since 2011, but there was a 22% overall increase in the number of reoffences per reoffender. The Ministry expected CRCs to reduce reoffending by 3.7 percentage points over the life of the contracts, resulting in £10.4 billion of economic benefits. By March 2017, just six of the 21 CRCs consistently achieved significant reductions in the number of reoffenders (see the graphic from the report below).
The Ministry also has not achieved its wider objectives. Only two CRCs have delivered the IT innovation they promised and the number of people recalled to prison has increased by 47% as a result of statutory rehabilitation being extended to those serving sentences of less than 12 months. Offenders serving short sentences often find it difficult to comply with license conditions and available supervision has not been appropriate to reflect the diverse needs of these people. Between January 2015 and September 2018, offenders on short sentences as a percentage of those recalled to prison rose from 3% to 36%.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found that CRCs have performed poorly overall, with nine out of 13 inspections assessing CRCs negatively for the quality of their work in reducing reoffending and protecting the public, and five negatively for abiding by the sentence of the courts. The NPS’s performance has been stronger, with all inspected NPS areas assessed positively for abiding by the sentence of the court, and 10 positively for protecting the public and reducing reoffending. However, the NPS has been constrained by severe staff shortages and high workloads. In August 2018, its overall staff vacancy rate was 11%, and as high as 20% in London. (You can see my unofficial league table which ranks CRCs and NPS divisions on the basis of their official HMI Probation ratings here.)
Poor contracting
The Ministry’s contracts have proved to be ineffective, hampering its ability to hold providers to account for poor services. It designed outcome-based contracts to encourage CRCs to innovate, but this did not fit well with its low
risk appetite for failure. As it takes two years for data on reoffending to become available, and changes in reoffending cannot be directly attributed to CRCs’ interventions, its payment by results model was inappropriate for probation services.
The Ministry designed and implemented its reforms too quickly. It sought to transfer the risk of lower volumes of probation work to CRCs, but only tested the impact of volumes reducing by 2%. Two years into the contracts, volumes were between 16% and 48% lower than anticipated. Although this meant the Ministry was paying less to CRCs, it overestimated their ability to reduce costs as their income fell, which put them under financial pressure and affected their willingness to invest in probation services and their transformation plans.
Probation under-financed
By March 2018, CRCs faced collective losses of £294 million over the life of the contracts, compared to expected profits of £269 million, increasing the risk of providers withdrawing services, performance deteriorating further and potentially multiple providers becoming insolvent. Terminating these contracts will cost taxpayers at least £171 million. The Ministry originally expected to pay CRCs up to £3.7 billion over the life of the contracts, but by August 2018 it was expecting to pay CRCs £2.3 billion through to December 2020 when it ends its contracts. Yet, together with its earlier unsuccessful efforts to stabilise CRCs, the Ministry will pay at least £467 million more than was required under the original contracts. The full costs will not be known until at least December 2020.
National Statistics
Proven reoffending statistics: October 2015 to December 2015
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-october-2015-to-december-2015The future of probation
The Ministry has acted on many of the shortcomings in the reforms, including abandoning payment by results, but the NAO has identified risks with its proposals. For example, while the Ministry plans to better align probation regions, it has proposed retaining the split between the NPS and CRCs, meaning it still faces the challenge of ensuring these services work well together and with the wider system. It will also need to manage the risks of transitioning to the new contracts and existing providers withdrawing services or failing outright. For example, on 14 February, Working Links, owner of three CRCs, entered administration. The Ministry implemented its contingency plans and announced that Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC, owned by Seetec, would become responsible for the three Working Links CRCs.
With limited time to procure new contracts, the Ministry should pause and reflect on whether its proposed approach is both deliverable and consistent with its strategic aims for the probation system, and in doing so it should consider how it will respond to the risks set out in this report. In parallel, it should publish a cross-government strategy that spells out how it will work with other bodies to reduce reoffending and develop a detailed plan for managing the wind-down period of its existing contracts.
Amyas Morse, the head of the NAO, issued a somewhat damning summary to accompany the report:
The Ministry set itself up to fail in how it approached probation reforms. Its rushed roll-out created significant risks that it was unable to manage. These have had far reaching consequences. Not only have these failings been extremely costly for taxpayers, but we have seen the number of people on short sentences recalled to prison skyrocket. It is welcome that the Ministry’s proposals address some of the issues that have caused problems, but risks remain. It needs to pause and think carefully about its next steps so that it can get things right this time and improve the quality of probation services.
Conclusion
The NAO report could hardly be more timely with Ministers actively considering what form the next version of TR will take.
Will they follow the advice of the NAO (and countless others) and re-integrate probation or continue with their:" flawed proposals "set out last year?
Video, Set up to fail!
https://youtu.be/XSvKWVe9tPg
................................................................................................
Victims will be able to reuest decistion to be reconsidered in a new system
On Sunday this week (4 February 2019), Justice Secretary David Gauke announced “sweeping changes” to the parole system following a review of the Parole Board’s rules.
The review was initiated by Mr Gauke following the public concern over the planned release of John Worboys (known as the Black Cab rapist) which blew up just after Mr Gauke took up his post at Petty France in January 2018. Eventually, a Judicial Review upheld the application by some of Worboys’ victims which ruled that the Parole Board should reconsider his release. On reconsideration, with guidance from the court that information about additional offences with which Mr Worboys had never been charged should be considered, the Parole Board reversed their decision.
Via an MoJ press release, Mr Gaule announced three main outcomes from the review:
Mr Gauke argued that making the decision process and approaches followed by the Parole Board more open and transparent will improve understanding of victims and the public, and give them greater confidence that the Parole Board relies on robust and thorough risk assessment procedures to inform its decisions as to whether to release prisoners who have completed their minimum term.
Following Worboys, the Parole Board was allowed for the first time to provide summaries of its decision-making in individual cases, which it has so far done in over 800 cases.
The first step in the process will be for a dedicated team within the Prisons and Probation Service to consider whether there is evidence or indications which support making an application for reconsideration. If that team concludes that there may have been a legal flaw or significant mistakes in the process used to reach a decision, they will put together a formal application to the Parole Board making the case for reconsideration.
Applications will be considered by a senior, judicial member of the Parole Board, who will be named, and will decide whether the case should be looked at again. If that judicial member agrees that the decision was flawed, they will direct how the case should be dealt with – either by putting it back to the original panel to reconsider the evidence, or by ordering an entirely new hearing by a fresh panel.
Victims will be guided by their dedicated Victim Liaison Officer to help them submit their case to have a parole decision reconsidered. The process has been designed to be as straightforward as possible, with electronic applications wherever possible and more simple paperwork. Once the Parole Board has notified its decision, there will be a period of 21 calendar days for a reconsideration application to be submitted. You can see the timeline of the process below.
Although the press release makes no mention of it, prisoners will also be able to apply for reconsideration of a decision not to release them.
Big changes to parole
Victims will be able to reuest decistion to be reconsidered in a new system
On Sunday this week (4 February 2019), Justice Secretary David Gauke announced “sweeping changes” to the parole system following a review of the Parole Board’s rules.
The review was initiated by Mr Gauke following the public concern over the planned release of John Worboys (known as the Black Cab rapist) which blew up just after Mr Gauke took up his post at Petty France in January 2018. Eventually, a Judicial Review upheld the application by some of Worboys’ victims which ruled that the Parole Board should reconsider his release. On reconsideration, with guidance from the court that information about additional offences with which Mr Worboys had never been charged should be considered, the Parole Board reversed their decision.
Via an MoJ press release, Mr Gaule announced three main outcomes from the review:
- First ever standard practice documents will set out the Parole Board process to improve understanding and transparency
- A judge-led process introduced later this year to allow potentially flawed decisions to be reconsidered
- Victim Contact will be modernised with online opt-in and information sharing
Standard Practice
The new standard practice will clearly set out the approach and processes normally expected of panel members when conducting a hearing. This will include the type of evidence considered and how panels should assess wider allegations of offending, which may not have resulted in a conviction, and who is responsible for providing such evidence – issues that were at the heart of the John Worboys case.Mr Gauke argued that making the decision process and approaches followed by the Parole Board more open and transparent will improve understanding of victims and the public, and give them greater confidence that the Parole Board relies on robust and thorough risk assessment procedures to inform its decisions as to whether to release prisoners who have completed their minimum term.
Following Worboys, the Parole Board was allowed for the first time to provide summaries of its decision-making in individual cases, which it has so far done in over 800 cases.
The reconsideration mechanism
For the first time, victims will be able to challenge a release decision if they believe it was fundamentally flawed. They will be able to make a case for the decision to be reconsidered without needing to resort to expensive and legally complex judicial review. This process will be available for decisions relating to all indeterminate sentence prisoners, including IPP and life sentences, as well as prisoners on Extended Determinate Sentences. We expect to introduce the process by this summer.The first step in the process will be for a dedicated team within the Prisons and Probation Service to consider whether there is evidence or indications which support making an application for reconsideration. If that team concludes that there may have been a legal flaw or significant mistakes in the process used to reach a decision, they will put together a formal application to the Parole Board making the case for reconsideration.
Applications will be considered by a senior, judicial member of the Parole Board, who will be named, and will decide whether the case should be looked at again. If that judicial member agrees that the decision was flawed, they will direct how the case should be dealt with – either by putting it back to the original panel to reconsider the evidence, or by ordering an entirely new hearing by a fresh panel.
Victims will be guided by their dedicated Victim Liaison Officer to help them submit their case to have a parole decision reconsidered. The process has been designed to be as straightforward as possible, with electronic applications wherever possible and more simple paperwork. Once the Parole Board has notified its decision, there will be a period of 21 calendar days for a reconsideration application to be submitted. You can see the timeline of the process below.
Although the press release makes no mention of it, prisoners will also be able to apply for reconsideration of a decision not to release them.
Expanding victim contact services
The review also sets out how victim contact services are being extended to more people, including victims in cases where a serious charge lies on file but has not resulted in a conviction – as was the case for many of Worboys’ victims. It is also now easier for victims to opt-in and out of the service using a simple online application.
In September, the Government published the Victims Strategy to further strengthen victim communication and engagement, and we have rolled out new training for Victim Liaison Officers, with input from external services and agencies to increase understanding of the victim’s experience, and ensure they have the necessary information and skills to support victims.
Tailored Review for long-term reform
Alongside today’s publication, the Justice Secretary has also confirmed that he has launched a Tailored Review of the Parole Board which will consider what further changes over the longer term would benefit the parole process. There are no restrictions on the scope of this work, which will be wide-ranging and will report back by the summer before publishing its findings.
It will consider fundamental issues such as the purpose of the Parole Board, which functions it should deliver, its efficiency and effectiveness and its structure, including whether it should become a judge-led tribunal. This also includes assessing whether the Parole Board should receive additional powers and be monitored by an independent inspectorate.
Conclusion
The Parole Board has been intent on improving its transparency for some time and these changes allow it to do so.
How many people – victims and prisoners – take up the opportunity to have parole decisions reconsidered, we shall have to wait and see. I assume that the number of decisions which are overturned will have a bearing on how many applications for reconsideration are made.
Of course, all this may be a temporary measure – one of the possible outcomes of the “Tailored Review” is that the legal footing of the Parole Board changes and it becomes a form of Court or Tribunal.
[You can see the official guidance for a “Tailored Review” here. ]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tailored-reviews-of-public-bodies-guidance
............................................................................................................................
POLICTICAL BLUDERING CLOWNS
Moj fails again - what went wrong
at Britain’s prison of the future?
We
put up a lot with faking justice Minister 4 and grayling he failedand
is now gone on to transport and is failing. he was awarded £18 million
ferry contract to a form with no ferry.Moj fails again - what went
wrong
at Britain’s prison of the future? We put up with a lot of faking
justice Ministers and we only have to look at grayling he failed as justice minister and now transport . he was awarded £18 million ferry contract to a form with no
ferry.
MoJ failings. Britain's overcrowded, dilapidated, prisons, and now we have a new prison - which cost taxpayers £220m to build two years ago - The govt """""promised it would be one of the cheapest, most efficient prisons in the country to run, at £14,000 per place per year. But in reality it's currently one of the most expensive Cat C prisons for taxpayers, at £36,000 per place per year... Ex prisoner officer said its full of drugs and gleaming new prison officers. Moj are decling to let visits and refused requests to interviewany managers or officals . moj are not delivering a fraction og what was promissed to prisoners such as interserve woekshops, which was meant to provide prison jobs for 220 imates according to data the FT obstained throug an FPI request. so why are the moj hiding the truth and covering up problems as they have with IPP prisoner why are they not transparent? . presure has to be put on the Moj to let journalist in,this is the pulic secter project worth millions which should be up to scrutiny. Asulys are worse here than at any other C prison ACCORDING TO GOVERMENT DATA. SINCE THE PRISOM OPENED,338 ANBERLANCES HAVE BEEN CALLLED designed to replicate a normal working environment”.But that wasn’t true when the report was published & it’s still not true today. Well done to Sarah Oconnora columnist,
onthis investigatio.
Investigation by Sarah O'ConnorVerified account @sarahoconnor_ 6 hours ago
https://www.ft.com/content/e8454c86-3f9d-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44 remember that kind man who Clamped down on prisoners able to wear some of their own clothes in order to feel human.banned books and increase prices in the canteen.Graylings misadventures cost british pulic taxpayers 2,7 billion pounds and did nothing signifercunt for prisoners or prisoners.
onthis investigatio.
Investigation by Sarah O'ConnorVerified account @sarahoconnor_ 6 hours ago
warboy http://www.russellwebster.com/the-parole-board-and-warboys/
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-improvements-to-parole-board-transparency-and-victim-support
Reform http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/IPPs
http://www.russellwebster.com/parolechange19/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPosthttp://www.russellwebster.com/naotr19/
https://twitter.com/i/topics/tweet/1101463596561719298?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-47461779
