So it begins. I bet nobody saw this coming.

That's true to an extent, but equally there's simply no support for the many women (and men) who also struggle with life skills and/or mental health issues or autism, and/or end up homeless, but don't commit crime - particularly not VAWG (or violence against other men).

Some may commit what could be described as survival crimes (theft, shoplifting, or self medicating with illegal drugs). However they don't rape or beat women up.

There's also many homeless people who don't have mental health issues and/or lack of a job. Many are or were in work - until homelessness made it too hard to hold the job down. They're homeless because private rentals are expensive and there's not enough social housing.

As I said before, many sexual predators and DV perpetrators don't change. That includes many who aren't, never were, and never will be homeless whether they've been in prison or not.

I know several women who've been the victims of these crimes.

In more than one case, the victim is the one who ends up homeless - whereas the perpetrator is doing just fine, living with parents, moved in with another partner (likely new victim), or simply back to the house he owned.

There might be a case for "survival crimes/crimes of despair" but there's no justification or excuse for sexual assault, rape, and DV.

Yes. It seems like a knee-jerk act.

The probation service normally work with inmates to help them prepare for release and get their head around where they will live, help access GPs etc & benefits/charities if needed. Kiers decision to release men with no preparation for life on the outside is actually cruel to these men AS well as to the general public who will ultimately pay the price. It was incredibly thoughtless and helps absolutely no one.

Do you want to do any more minimising and deflection?

What the fuck?

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

I think Timpson as prisons minister was an inspired appointment, but obviously reform isn't going to happen overnight.

He would have been released shortly anyway. I don't think we know what he was originally in prison for, probably (?) not sexual assault.

Also his arrest, and the news story, are designed to "prove the point". He's been arrested for "intentionally touching a woman who did not consent". Great, if we've started arresting all men who behave like that, but have we? And I don't think it's what most people are thinking when they see a headline about sexual assault. Also handy that he has a name that suggests an ethnic minority.

If the issue for a lot of these people is they can't cope with life admin, having a job or cooking for themselves then deterrence as a concept is just bollocks.

I think this is my issue. We aren't having any kind of conversation about a group of men lacking in life skills. That's not untypical of mental health related issues, ADHD and autism. And there's simply no support for many of them in that situation particularly if they have never been diagnosed.

They end up homeless because they can't cope.

If no one cares then the type of crime they commit almost becomes devoid of any moral thought process because they feel they have no moral duty to anyone else either.

It's really fucked up.

I wonder too, am I the only person who thinks the primary purpose of prison should be not what's often debated (punishment and deterrence) but actually protection of the public?

I agree. I'm not interested in 'punishment', although deterrence is important.

However it's dawning on me that realistically prison doesn't protect the public- at least, a.short sentence with no attempt at rehab or any kind of treatment doesn't- just postpones further offending.

I think it just gives the vague assumption that we are safer.

Last not lazy!

This issue with full prisons has been ongoing with a long time. The court process is too slow and three is a long backlog. They have been quietly moving serious offenders to open prisons for a year or more to make room. So this is a problem instigated by the lazy Government.

I do agree though that when the ex prisoner isn't a danger to society, there should be help with rehabilitation including housing.

I strongly disagree however with Sadiq Khan's suggestion that ex prisoners should be prioritised above other people in desperate need for social housing.

He (Starmer too) is coming across as a raging misogynist, given that, as he said in that statement, there's no (affordable) housing in London. That includes for women who're victims of DV.

Is he seriously suggesting that DV perpetrators, rapists, and other violent men (and violent women) should be prioritised above vulnerable people including victims of crime (male or female victims)?

Obviously there shouldn't be a shortage of social housing and building more needs to be a major priority for the government, but whilst there is, his suggestion is appalling.

ETA. That's shocking @Resiliencerequired
19 months for that! Poor woman. When is VAWG going to be taken seriously?

I know this lady so wanted to share her story again (somebody else shared it on the other thread) - apologies for the DM link but she is so brave and worked so hard to get him behind bars, she didn’t deserve to be let down again by the government.

Abusive stepfather freed under early release scheme

This Government is turning out to be a disaster. One bad decision after another. And any idiot could have told them that this was a monumentally stupid idea!

Keir doesn't seem to have a vision, just buffetted about by events, and then just making them even worse...

There's no justification for sexual assault.

Not that I'm condoning crime but there's non violent crimes he could've done if he was that desperate to stay in prison.

Unlike some crimes, sexual predators (also domestic violence perpetrators) often don't change their ways, despite rehabilitation attempts.

Also there's many homeless people - including many who have commited no crime. Some are actually victims of crimes, eg. DV is the biggest cause of women's homelessness.

Despite their awful circumstances, most homeless people don't sexually assault people.

(The fact there's homelessness is a disgrace and obviously the UK needs more social housing asap).

I wonder too, am I the only person who thinks the primary purpose of prison should be not what's often debated (punishment and deterrence) but actually protection of the public?

If someone's a danger to the public, they shouldn't be out of prison. (Exceptions if mentally ill and lacking mental capacity. In which case, if dangerous, they should be helped but in a secure setting).

Tbf he would presumably have done the same thing had he been released after 50% of his sentence, which was the previous rule

In theory without this sudden need to turf prisoners out, the probation service etc., would have had more time to "prepare" prisoners for release, and ideally somewhere to sleep if they had no home or family.

Although if as said up thread this happened on the car taking him away from prison ..... sounds like had more time been spent assessing him rather that a tick box exercise of divide length of sentence by x% and this is enough to say okay to release back into society.

In the car on the way out? Done on purpose to get sent back TBH.

It wasn’t just the same day. It was on the car journey away from the prison. He groped the thigh of the staff member driving several of them on their release. Possibly forgot himself with the excitement.

Tbf he would presumably have done the same thing had he been released after 50% of his sentence, which was the previous rule.

It's a much larger issue than him being released X number of days/weeks/months before he would have been under the previous rule.

Catastrophe Keir.

Well played Keir. Stunningly well thought through plan.

A lot of the guys I see in prison will purposely break their licence conditions just to get locked back up. They are homeless with no life skills and bad mental health and prison is safe for them.

So he sexual assaulted someone on the same day that he was released?!

See exisint thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5160543-starmer-refuses-to-promise-that-domestic-abusers-will-not-be-released-early-under-emergency-measures-to-combat-prison-overcrowding

Its quite likely he doens't have a home, and gross as it sounds committed the office to get back into prison.

Some of the men being interviewed after ealy release basically said they had nothing but the few pounds they are given on release, and expect to re-offend / return to prison.

This is why what Labour has done is so crass.

First of all they are happy to cut winter fuel allowance and admit they didn't do an impact assessment and now they do this, again without an impact assessment, just because they want to signal their right on policies of elevating ring wing rioters as being the worst thing ever, and they were going to hijack the justice system to be seen to be doing this.

So why would they care about the chaos they have caused?

Shocker

"Reoffenders would be punished" nothing compared to the suffering of those offended against.