Starmer refuses to promise that domestic abusers will not be released early under emergency measures to combat prison overcrowding

[IwantToRetire]

After being asked about the release schemes, the Prime Minister said ministers are "doing everything" to ensure domestic abusers are not released early but stopped short of confirming that they will not.

Speaking to broadcasters in Dublin, Sir Keir was discussing reports that there was a loophole in the early release scheme which could see domestic abusers released early.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/starmer-prisons-alex-chalk-domestic-abuse-early-release-overcrowding/

For anyone interested there is a list of Labour MPs who did vote to cut winter fuel allowance for pensioners
https://archive.is/TH8mY

I hope they feel bad

Listening to the jeering, deflection and playground responses in PMQs today I'm guessing they don't.

"Losing the whip is seen by many as one of the strongest punishments a political party can dole out to its MPs. The move essentially expels the member from their party, meaning that while they can remain on the green benches, they have to sit as an independent MP."

Interesting possibility if more Labour MPs get a backbone, and all "lose the Whip", then they can join the Independent Alliance and in no time the Independent Alliance migh become the majority party!

100s of prisoners are released every single day in normal circumstances, most re offend.

this current scheme is exactly the same one as Sunak announced pre GE.

Whatever else you can throw at Labour, the state of prisons is down to the Tories, just as it was labours fault in 2007.

Especially given the Tories knew all about the prison estate in 2010, they had 14 years to put it right

Who can tell? they all sound like a bunch of delinquants

As said up thread, the existing early release of prisoners brought in by the Tories, has had to be increased because of the Labour Party decison to express through legal cases against rioters.

As I think most of the post on the thread show this is what the thread is about, and how as usual politcal posturing never takes into account the impact on women.

So what is happening now is about how Labour has made an existing bad situation worse.

Neither party considered impacts on women or children, least of all the authors of austerity.
We are where we are because over the last 2 or 3 decades we have not built enough prisons for the sentencing we have told the courts to hand out.

The rioters started in the north, then they moved further south, if the courts/government hadn't cracked down on this with severe sentences, god knows how it would have ended.

I don't think they deserve criticism for this.

I don't think they deserve criticism for this.

As already said on this thread this about the Labour Party abusing their position as the Government to indulge in posture politics.

Because they wanted to be seen to be cracking down on rioters / right wingers they hijacked the justice system to achieve this.

So because of this they have delayed existing cases and put pressure on the prison system.

And now the crack down didn't stop the rioting. The rioting stopped because first of all hundreds did not flock to join the rioters, and were also shamed by communities showing exactly to opposite by standing against their behaviour.

And the media showing that they had all responded to misinformation.

Many of the arrests happened days after the events had ended based on CCTV etc..

And again all of this has been said in this thread.

You could have dealt with the points made about how underhand and undemocratic what the Labour Party has done based on what actually happened.

Had the Tories done the same they too would have been criticised for playing politics with the judicial system, and with as usual so little consideration for women.

Again, have you read the thread and if so why not respond to the points and comments made.

Just saying its not fair to criticise them is just your feeling.

I thought kier starmer was going to be steady Eddie, safe pair of hands. That’s what all the lefties told me anyway.

I’m finding him quite sinister. He’s dead behind the eyes, monotone, exhibits no emotions…I think there’s a name for that 😳

Thats one interpretation as to why the riots stopped, its not mine, people stopped attending when they saw the first 2 or 3 sentences of 18months to 3 years and thought "oh fuck....."

We have a separation of powers between Govt and the justice system, so hijacked isn't correct.

Anyway, even without the riots, we'd still be seeing approx 1400 prisoners released.

The bottom line is we as a country have not invested in Prisons, or amended our sentencing guidelines, thats the root cause, you can argue over the scraps but the blame is on Governments, who don't forget, we voted in, over the last 20 or 30 years.

We will also see further releases too.

I was pointing out that Labour's 'temporary scheme' lasted three years when they were in government last time.

'No rapist is being released stop scaremongering'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13838641/Inmate-arrested-suspicion-rape-sex-assault-SECONDS-released-Keir-Starmers-early-prison-release-scheme.html

Now tbf I don't know what he was originally in for, but I don't see how you can say 'no rapist' is being released when this whole thing has been done so fast and with such little preparation, and no-one actually knows who has been released and what each of them were in for. Unless there is going to be a detailed list of names, ages and crimes (which obviously will never happen due to GDPR) then none of know what these people were in for. And bland assurances from KS mean fuck all in my book.

Well someone released for say, shoplifting, can then go home and murder their partner.
As can someone who has been released after serving their allotted time.

Do you think rapists stay in jail forever?

Eventually they ALL get released and many go onto to commit further rapes.

Like i keep saying, this release scheme is not of Labours doing, prison officers etc deserve safe working conditions, 4 to a cell, violence and drug abuse if rife, mostly down to overcrowding.

there is simply no room to imprison the next man convicted of rape.

No, but my point is that you cannot say unilaterally no rapist is being released under this scheme. You simply, do not know that. Unless you know for certain what each and every persons crime is you cannot say with certainty who is, or is not being released under this scheme.

We know for certain domestic abusers have been released.

https://policeprofessional.com/news/prisoner-early-release-scheme-could-put-safety-of-women-and-children-at-risk-warns-womens-aid/

I agree with that, nothing in life certain, there is always human error, but i would hope and maybe i'm being stupid here, that the prison authorities are only putting people fwd for release who don't pose a significant risk.

Obviously anyone in prison is likely to be capable of violence, just being in these places is going to do that.

My contention here, is that this is not a situation of Labours making, unlike the WFA fiasco.

TBH, I don't expect Labour to fix the prison capacity issue overnight. I can't remember a time when prison capacity wasn't a problem that the government of the day was struggling to deal with.

I just want them to level with us and come up with some workable proposals. I'm open to hearing those.

But I thought the downfall of Corbyn might have meant an end to the times when you couldn't be critical of Dear Leader. The chorus of "you're all obviously Tories if not far right," often aimed at literal socialists, is just as annoying as back in the day when Corbyn fans were asking if I was on the Israeli embassy's payroll.

https://metro.co.uk/2024/09/11/man-arrested-suspicion-rape-moments-early-release-jail-21589096/amp/

Rapist released and immediately re arrested on suspicion of rape.

Thats one interpretation as to why the riots stopped, its not mine, people stopped attending when they saw the first 2 or 3 sentences of 18months to 3 years and thought "oh fuck....."

The time line of when the first cases were heard and riots fading away dont support this statement.

And the role of local communities for once amplified by MSM made these men think its not really going our way is it.

But all this is whatabouterry.

The issue is the new Labour Government told the courts to priorities the cases of those arrested, ie making any already log jammed court system worse ie people thinking they had a court case were delayed.

And because they knew more places in prison would be needed because the directive was to ensure the highest sentencing ADDITIONAL early release had to be put in place.

All of this is in the public domain.

Questions were asked.

Funnily enough not everyone thinks as this Labour Government thinks who seem to have the posture politics of first year students, and so yes people who know how the situation should work, objected.

And its not as though Starmer despite his legal background thinks his personal politics should be the yardstick ie when he said starvation was a legitimate tool in war. Only to be corrected. He's a complete muppet.

On a slightly different angle statement from Women in Prison about the impact on women prisoners being released early
https://womeninprison.org.uk/news/women-in-prison-statement-on-early-release-sds40-emergency-measures-september-2024

As quite a few of the men released early who were interviewed said it was inevitable with nothing being in place to support newly released prisoners they expected to be back in prison as lack of support meant they would re-offend within days.

So I imagine support services for women leaving prison are even more sparse.

But why worry about inconvenient details when Starmer can appear on tv and in papers flexing his iron control macho political muscle.

Voters should know their role is to be duly subservient and grateful.

Not being a Tory isn't a good enough reason to not be questioned.

There's a very authoritarian streak to Changed Labour, isn't there? And the odd thing is, I can't decide whether or not I'd rather have serious-minded authoritarians. Being governed by feckless authoritarians worries me.

There's a very authoritarian streak to Changed Labour, isn't there?

I think part of it is their desperate need to be acceptable to main stream media and big finance.

This seems to be translated into having domineering central control.

Whereas for year the Tories got away with being any number of warring groups running rings round their PM and the Speaker and leaking to the papers.

Of course the other part of it is that many parts of the Labour Party really hate each other, and use any dispute as an opportunity to get rid of their "enemies" to their particular set of politics.

So as Labour has spent the years in opposition not being the opposition but cleansing the party of those thought not to toe the line of the dominant group.

Really, really depressing.

In the end the party system works against MPs being primarily in the HoC to represent and support their constituents. Now Party loyalty takes precedence.

Meanwhile to add to the abuse DV victims have already gone through, whilst their violent abuser gets prioritised for social housing, many victims end up homeless and in substandard, sometimes outright dangerous, temporary accommodation. That's if they can get past the LA gatekeeping to even get accepted as homeless, because despite the narrative many believe support isn't always there. Quality of DV services varies across the country, no doubt partly due to funding cuts.

I know several women who've experienced DV. One returned to her violent DH after being in a refuge because she had nowhere safe to go afterwards. Another was eventually rehoused but in a high crime area and nowhere near any family or friends. She was turned away by LAs near family and friends, not because they were near her ex husband (they weren't) but simply because the LAs gatekept and she couldn't find any support service to support her. She's grateful for the housing but is now very isolated and says she sometimes wishes she'd stayed with her ex husband. I wish she'd been rehoused near me so I could physically be there for her (my LA was one of those who refused to help her).

And those who do get rehoused will, like you point out @JenniferBooth risk being housed next door to or in the same block of flats as someone else's abuser. No wonder lots of women don't leave, if they're not safer when they do.

I get that people should be rehoused including ex prisoners when released. It helps reduce reoffending and helps with rehabilitation. However, when there's a shortage of social housing, it's very wrong if violent abusers get priority over victims of crime. Nobody should be in substandard slum housing but oh someone has to be in substandard temporary accommodation, it should be the violent abusers. Not their victims. (Obviously there shouldn't be a social housing shortage and more is needed - and that's another problem that should be addressed.)

Separately but related to DV, I really hope the rumoured scrapping of the single person council tax discount aren't true. Does the government actually want DV to increase? Social housing shortage, punitive benefits system, failing underfunded support services, and now possibly an end to the council tax discount. How can victims leave if they can't get safe housing or financially survive afterwards?