So it begins. I bet nobody saw this coming.

It's done on purpose/ by design. The current government wants to bring society to boiling points to introduce new laws to infringe out freedom. They need to have valid pretexts, they know what they are doing.

Jc2001 · 14/09/2024 22:04

Well, at least a few people who wrote something on twitter during the riots got locked up, so we're all safe.

There were 2 or 3 imprisoned for inciting a riot, it was more than just writing something on Twatter. They called for people to go to refugee hostels and do violence, on popular feeds.

Anyway, I don't know what the answer is. Lock the ones nearing the ends of their sentences in old army barracks? Make prison sentences for repeat offenders longer? Make them earn any remission as they used to, one month per year of sentence, contingent on good conduct.

Prison seems to be scant deterrent, these days.

I think the photo made him look old and tired.

Maybe he's just feed up with being expected to be nice to everybody.

And now yet another PM has turned up and has the cheek to bring in some cat from another country, whilst saying in public no more illegal immigrants!

Cant trust any of them!

If you thought that all the people imprisoned for social media posts were guilty of tweeting the addresses of asylum seekers then you've really lost the plot.

To avoid embarrassing yourself further you may want to ask someone you trust to help you get caught up.

I will forgive you for suggesting that I would approve of incitement to murder as I believe in Free Speech.

There are always released prisoners who reoffend rapidly. Ultimately it will be a question of does releasing prisoners at 40% increase the reoffending rate from 50%?

'Tweeted things they didn't like' . Nobody should be jailed for expressing an opinion.
Unless you mean 'tweeted the addresses of hostels asylum seekers were living in so their mates could burn them out' ?
But perhaps you think that's OK.

I thought crimes of violence/ sex offenders were not included in this scheme?

Creepybookworm "...this is a problem instigated by the last Government..."

Except that it's this government filling up the prison spaces with people who tweeted things they didn't like so that won't fly.

And then they let out violent/abusive prisoners when there are plenty of people (especially women) locked up for offences like not paying their TV licence.

@IwantToRetire noooo 😱 (maybe Larry is a terf )

plus a personal introduction to Larry the Cat

Be careful what you wish for!
https://metro.co.uk/2024/09/14/larry-downing-street-cat-a-little-s-21604791/

Relatedly, Scotland has recently released all under 18s from YOI.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78ljg04818o

Good idea.

They used nasty words! Thank god the justice system has its priorities right. [Aagh — clutches head: brain hurting, sarcasm overload]

How about releasing women prisoners? Almost all are in for non-violent offences no man would be jailed for. Putting them in prison often destroys their families. Release the women, reshuffle the genuinely violent and dangerous women offenders to one prison and put the men in the freed up space in the women's estate.

Sorted.

BTW Keir, if you're reading this, I would like full consultancy rates plus a personal introduction to Larry the Cat. Thank you.

Which has problems with shipping people back and forth, loss of contact with support networks etc, but there are options other than just letting everyone out or continuing to stuff the sardine tin.

The previous government left Starmer in an invidious position.
What would you have him do?

There's the Estonian offer.

Yes perpetuators of violent sexual crimes, and related DV perpetrators, often don't change. Rehabilitation even when well funded doesn't work on some types of offender.

If there has been successful rehabilitation, then ok can release. Under supervision if necessary.

However we need to start thinking more of prison's primary purpose as being protection of the public.

If someone is still a danger, they should be either in prison or a secure unit. Not because of vengeance, but to keep everyone else safe (actually also keeping the offender safe, especially when it's they're what's referred to as criminally insane).

Can you reference sources for that because I am not sure it's accurate.

See this from before the election
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/press-release/next-government-avoid-prisons-emergency

Starmer said the other day that the riots were hand to mouth to see if they had space for rioters.

Hardly surprising, and shame the media didn't do proper coverage at the time, but this new new Labour of stuffed mannequin Starmer is the creation of 2 business men who used their money to create a value free mirage of a political party.

... a new parliamentary group funded by two donors: businessman and philanthropist Trevor Chinn and hedge fund owner Martin Taylor.
Labour Together, as the operation became known, was explicitly not about trying to defeat Corbyn through any internal coup – they now considered that to be impossible. But it would try to defeat Corbynism – and the Corbynite who would inevitably run in any future contest to lead the party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/14/corbyn-had-flown-too-close-to-the-sun-how-labour-insiders-battled-the-left-and-plotted-the-partys-path-back-to-power

There's more about their dirty tricks in the article. And I am no Corbynista, but the idea that one of the two major parties can be so easily taken over by entryism of those who think that because they have money they can get what they want.

So anyone who thinks this sham of a party, which got fewer votes in this GE than when Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party.

And dont forget this "cleansing" of the Labour Party not only led to getting rid of Jewish members who were anti Zionist but also women who didn't accept the TWAW mantra.

They had to do something, prisons were even more "full" than the Tories had admitted they were.

Posters keep repeating this, but the reality is Labour knew that but still (just like cutting the fuel allowance) didnt do an impact assessment and insisted on further bringing forward the date of early release to make room for the rioters they wanted to get custodial sentences.

And this was done for showmanship, not good practice, by allowing 24 hour courts etc..

This is about posture politics. Wanting to virtue signal.

In doing this they made an already understaffed prison service, and equally important probation service.

It is just absurd.

Boris Johnson was a great one for gimmicky politics.

I dont think anyone who understands process and good practice thought Labour would stoop to such cheap headlines.

Luckily they have all back fired on them.

Even some of the men being released said it was a mistake.

No time to even go through the bare minimum by probabtion services as to how they would be monitored, let alone somewhere to live.

There is nothing more obnoxious than people who put party loyalty above acting and commenting in a way that looks at the fact. Not what fantasy they can spin about wasn't my fault gov., honest. They made me do it.

I'm not surprised at all but I bet he'd still sexually assault if he served his full term. Colin Pitchfork tried it on as soon as he could after being released years later.

Labour had no choice.
The Conservatives were already running an early release scheme and knew the prison estate was full, there was some speculation that calling the GE was precisely so the upcoming shit show would get blamed on Labour.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69015911.amp

It's a mess. But it's not a Labour mess.

Options include non-custodial alternatives for people who aren't a danger to the public. That frees up prison (and secure mental hospital) space for those who are violent and/or sexual predators, and a danger to the public.

Rehabilitation and support for (non violent) crimes commited out of despair/survival/poor mental health.
Including where appropriate, if someone genuinely can't cope with independent living (as opposed to simply not having enough money for decent housing), genuine supported housing. Blocks/complexes with live-in trained support staff.

And where appropriate, things like tagging and curfews.

For both victims and offenders, there's a need for proper support. Be it housing, supportive benefits system, mental health services, social care, or job opportunities. Vitally that support mustn't be one size fits all, and victims and offenders should not be dumped in together especially with housing.

The stereotype of rapists and DV perpetrators as being poor and/or working class etc, is just that a stereotype. Many are middle class and have white collar jobs, and own their home.

Returning to homelessness and links to mental ill health or autism.

Often it's not that someone can't cope with living independently, even if unable to work.

The cause of them being homeless is the same cause as why lower paid working people without health issues become homeless - a punitive benefits system, unaffordable private rentals (with landlords requesting high incomes), insufficient support services, and social housing shortage.

I'm not saying ex prisoners shouldn't have support and housing and help with rehabilitation. Of course they should. But there's two things here.

1. Victims of crime struggling with mental health, or autism, or simply poverty, also need support and decent housing. Likewise people with these issues who are neither victims or perpetrators of crime.
2. When someone is still a danger to women or children (or men), they shouldn't be released. If prison isn't appropriate, then a secure mental health hospital.

If the prisons are full, then either you can't put any more people in them. But I guess you wouldn't want them to walk free either.
Alternatively, you could inhumanely put prisoners 2 to a bunk.
Or.... what?
The previous government left Starmer in an invidious position.
What would you have him do?