Post 8 - Abuse, Ignorance or Arrogance? - No "Medical In Confidence" for Anyone Previously Detained in the UK!

Many people claim they fight for the marginalised, the stigmatised, the voiceless people within societies around the world and they are admired by me for their efforts.  However this particular episode is startling for me as it has occurred here in the UK, where we know better.  We understand as a Nation all about Institutional Conditions regarding stigma, bullying, marginalisation and how these issues and their effects can create victims to the extent it has sometimes led to suicide. 

This is a factual account of one recent experience brought to our attention, it raises so many questions it is difficult to know where to start, so I suppose the best place is the beginning of the issue at hand and you can form your own views?  

It involves a person living their life on Life licence in the community for a crime many years ago who had occasion to attend their doctor.  The client has regular quarterly meetings with the probation services who obviously are aware of all life events and in particular the client had been discussing matters with them regarding Mental Health and well being etc, so no secrets and an open transparent relationship was in place.

This is not an "oh woe me" story on behalf of our client so the details of why they were ill and what events transpired within their family resulting in this situation are in the main irrelevant to the implications of this account.

During their attendance at the appointment with the doctor, they engaged in a completely frank and candid manner during the conversation with their doctor, to the extent they explained about their past and all connected events.  The doctor diagnosed Depression, in fact he was of the view the client had been depressed for many years and expressed surprise that Depression had not been identified during incarceration and that help had not been offered previously.   It cannot be stressed enough the sense of relief and hope felt by the client regarding the situation now that the Doctor had intervened.

The doctor concluded the client was in 'crisis' and following thorough assessments offered a treatment programme involving medication, however the client preferred to try 'Talking Therapy' with the CMHT (Community Mental Health Team) before opting for medication.  The doctor agreed it was a viable option and the client was referred as an emergency.

The process involved a telephone call that afternoon to the client from the CMHT who conducted an hour long 'Triage' interview on the telephone where again the client was open and candid about their past history, they agreed 'Talking Therapy' was an option and told the client the case would be passed to a psychologist who would telephone and arrange an appointment for the client to go in and have a face to face meeting with the psychologists who were also the facilitators.  A few days passed, a time which the client endured (and possibly survived) only with the compassion and active intervention of close friends.

The first "bombshell"!         

I should say at this point that fortunately all telephone calls to and from CMHT are recorded.

The client received a further telephone call from the CMHT, in fact the same person who had conducted the 'Triage' interview for over an hour, they asked if permission could be granted for the Psychologist to approach the clients probation officer!  The client asked why that was necessary when the current situation was directly relevant to other issues and not to an event many years ago, the client also asked why the psychologist could not discuss matters with them in person when they met.  The response was in our view absolutely shocking.

The client was told access to 'Talking Therapy' (thus NHS services) would ONLY be granted in circumstances whereby consent was given for the psychologist to approach the probation officer for discussions prior to meeting with the client (don't forget this is someone diagnosed to be in crisis and in need of support).  Needless to say the client felt this was outrageous as Lifers are already a marginalised group (as there conviction is never spent so will always appear on a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check (now known as DRB Disclosure and Barring check), and felt this was also an example of blatant discrimination.   Permission was expressly withheld by the client without any opportunity for misunderstanding or ambiguity, the call was terminated with the client in tears and distressed. The impact on the client at this point was devastating and brought back overwhelming feelings of helplessness, isolation, loneliness and desperation - and again it may be that it was only due to the intervention of close friends that the client survived this period.

The second "bombshell"!                    

The client went along to a regular quarterly meeting with the probation services, within minutes to the complete shock of the client the probation officer raised the subject of the appointment at the doctor and the subsequent decision to opt for 'Talking Therapy'.  Before expanding in response to the question the client asked how the probation officer knew he had been to the doctor and what had been discussed, and in response was told the Psychologist from CMHT had telephoned probation to ask questions regarding the client etc.  The probation officer was quick to point out that he had asked for a copy of the consent form the client had signed to be emailed or faxed over and when the CMHT psychologist stated they did not have one the probation officer claims they terminated the call.

The client then pointed out that an element of investigation must have taken place on the part of the Psychologist because at no time were the CMHT or the doctor made aware of which probation area/office/officer was responsible for their supervision in the community, and that by engaging in conversation at any level the probation officer had essentially confirmed collateral data which was a breach of their confidentiality, and clearly others associated with probation had done likewise for the Psychologist to have eventually got through to the supervising office/officer.  The only circumstances where such discussions could take place with complete disregard to patient confidentiality were in circumstances where there was a public risk issue, and both parties have since AGREED that did not apply.  It was made clear to the probation officer by the client that permission/consent had not been given to discuss these issues, and that in fact had the Psychologist suggested in an interview that a tri-party meeting would be useful from their perspective it was highly likely the client would have agreed, however that had not occurred.

So not only had the CMHT in the form of the Psychologist breached the medical in confidence of the patient (client), but the probation service had also breached the clients confidentiality ergo the DPA 1998 and this was a cause for concern.  Needless to say a heated discussion took place about stigmatisation, professional standards, bias, prejudice, discrimination, public perception of ex-offenders, medical codes of practice, patient confidentiality, rights to privacy etc and the Lifer shared the experience with us.

An approach was made initially by telephone to the CMHT to raise a complaint, their head of complaints is involved and in communication and meetings are underway to address the issue.

The third "bombshell"!              

Despite all of the above currently being investigated the CMHT Psychologist failing to learn his mistake has since emailed the probation officer to "ask one simple question" which according to the client who spoke with his probation officer on the telephone was "is the patient 'safe' to be alone in a room with us"?  

Do people know we have a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act or the Data protection Act 1998 or The Mental Health Act and that everyone except in very specific circumstances has a right to have their medical history protected? Probation have expressed their support of the client in his complaint, but what does this say about the perception of people regardless of their profession regarding anyone with a Mental Health concern who approaches their doctor, and especially so if they happen to be an ex-prisoner or detainee?   

Do they in fact regain any rights upon release, are they actually free, do they have any level of autonomy in their life outside or is the truth they are permanently marginalised with the stigma which ignorance bestows upon them?  In this case was it abuse?  Was it ignorance?  Or despite being in knowledge the third time Is it arrogance?

You tell us, please comment below by clicking on 'comments'. Please raise the debate, discuss this over dinner, talk with colleagues and friends, or post on our website.

Post 7 - The Collective Power of Shame, Remorse, Guilt and Sacrifice

As many of you will be aware when a person is taken through the UK criminal court system and found guilty they may have occasion to be "sent down" and be sent to prison.   

Prison, well first we have to decide what is a prison without stating the obvious and offending all of you before we get to the bones of this Blog post. Yes we have the physical prison with the road around it which is patrolled at night by vehicles ( HMP Belmarsh), then walls around it, then the internal fences which allow for a guard dog patrol in between them, and finally the administration and accommodation buildings.  

Though there are different types of physical 'prisons' (and I don't mean HMP), there are also the 'prisons' managed by the NHS (Broadmoor) though they would say it is a hospital.  Broadmoor Hospital would say "it is a specialist service that provides assessment, treatment and care in conditions of high security for men from London and the south of England.  It’s one of three high-security psychiatric hospitals in England, and is internationally recognised, both for work with patients and for our extensive research activities" (some may say on people who may not have the ability to consent?).  Then there are of course the privately run institutions for children called STC's such as Medway (recently in the news), and also Immigration Removal Centres where people (asylum seekers/migrants) are taken to be processed and deported despite the fact they are not all convicted criminals but many are fleeing war zones or persecution.  Though now throughout Europe they are blamed for any upsurge in crime statistics or criminal events without having undergone due process such is the fear rampaging across the world of ISIS and their infiltration of Europe using the war in Syria and the subsequent refugees as camouflage for their operatives to gain entry.  All a subject for another Blog post.

They are all in our opinion a form of 'prison', but there are many more and some not so obvious.  The obvious aside from physical environments could be said to be the person confined to a wheelchair (though they may disagree), or a blind person (again may disagree), or someone with Alzheimer's disease, Cancer, a terminal degenerative disease, or a Mental Health condition, the list is endless as they all are human tragedies and effect millions on different levels across the world not just here in the UK so have good reasons to be included.

But I want to tell you about one prison I visited the other day, and the shame it engendered within me so much so that I was reduced to tears and resolved to refer the situation to you the public for Judgement.

It was a particularly cold wet and windy day when I drove into town just going about my business food shopping, as I live alone it allows me to buy fresh stuff daily and if you pick the right time of day you get the 'deals' in the supermarkets so I have a routine and always go in the hope I get a warm chicken every other day and it lasts me for curry, salad the next day etc.  Usually I park my car in the multistorey car park get the lift and straight into the food hall on the ground floor, however this day there were limited spaces so rather than wait in the queue I parked in another car park which meant a short walk over a bridge (in the rain with my brolly) and into the shops.  On crossing the bridge I couldn't help but notice a figure sitting huddled on some blankets, on the floor against the wall, knees to his chest cuddling a Jackrussell dog. The reason he was easy to see was the stream of pedestrian traffic on the bridge was on the opposite side jostling through each other obviously avoiding this person huddled by the wall.  Most of us in our minds would see a 'tramp' and that's exactly what I saw, he had the stereotypical towel over his head as a scarf, tucked into what looked like a heavy military overcoat, (a technique employed in prisons on the exercise yard to keep out the wind), dark thick fleece type tracksuit bottoms, boots with huge soles on, thick socks outside with his tracksuit bottoms tucked into his socks.  As I got closer I bolstered myself and thought to myself I will give him some coins in his tin poor sod.

But as I got closer I couldn't see a tin and he wasn't holding his hand out, this guy (as I could see now it was a man) was absolutely filthy, his beard made Bin Laden look like a clean shave, I mean he was filthy, his clothes were filthy with mud and grease, his face was red with cold and pockmarked skin, the hair matted - but he wasn't begging, he was whispering to his dog and feeding him what turned out to be a roll.  Next to him was a military rucksack which had also clearly seen better days.  As I came level he glanced up at me (probably because everyone else was avoiding him) and we had eye contact...but this guy was not broken, this guy had clear blue eyes and a straight gaze (not a user or a drinker as I've seen many of them in my day) "alright mate" I asked expecting his hand for money, "seen better days" he replied... and I stopped "so what's going on then how come your sat here in the rain"...

This isn't about me so I won't repeat the whole conversation... 

I spent over 2 hours sat in the rain with this guy well into the dark, he was born in 1970 but looked 65, his dogs name was Tom, he had fought in the first gulf war and left the Army in 1995, married with a little girl.  Due to his behaviour his wife left him and they divorced, he lived rough around Colchester for some years, he said initially friends helped him out with a couch or a night here a night there but eventually he moved on as he felt embarrassed! A military war veteran embarrassed!  One of the hardest things I have done in a long time was walk away and leave the guy there in the rain, but I did, cold hearted I went and got my shopping, grabbed a coffee in the Costa and went home, not looking at him as I went past.

When I got home and got sorted I started to tweet and for some reason he stayed in my thoughts and eventually after an exchange with someone in New York on twitter (roisinmurphy) I decided to go back and find the guy and take him and Tom some food.  I stopped at McDonald's and bought a Chicken sandwich meal and a coffee and I went into town to the bridge, he'd gone, but not too far as I could see him in the doorway of a bakery just of the bridge out of the rain now the shops had shut.  He recognised me but resisted my offerings at first until I assured him he could wash my car for me on Saturday, I gave him some mince for Tom which he wolfed down sharpish, and he ate the chicken meal I had brought along.  I offered to pay for a travelodge so he could clean up and he refused (he'd rather be homeless), I offered him money (only £20) and he also refused, the guy was a completely decent man, bright, articulate, but tired of everything.  My guess is most of all he's tired of being taunted and tormented by his memories as he explained that he had beaten his wife, but it was the Iraq war not him, and I know this is trite but I believe him.  I have heard of PTSD I don't know enough about it but from what little I have read this guy definitely has it and it is with him every moment, as is his loss and pain. 

If anyone felt genuine remorse for what he had done it was him, he was punishing himself for it everyday and in my view he too is in prison!  I felt so impotent and so ashamed (still do in fact), and I have problems too in my life but I was astonished at the resilience and determination he displayed, not to succeed or to progress his life, but to remain on the streets and be anonymous because that's what he "deserves" according to him.

Charities are functional tools that in some cases do deliver their aims but many are simply making money to provide inflated salaries, pay rent to 'mother' companies that gifted their office property in trust, public and self confirmation/recognition, public honours for founders etc what we need to do is mobilise as a people.  If every single person in the UK gave a pound there is a fund for good.  If every single person in the UK did someone else a kindness today what effect would that have.  If we all took 10 minutes in town to engage with the homeless who are all around us we will grow too, we will never know the effect we may have on them, but it can only be positive, a conversation.  Take them a coffee from Costa, or some food from home, gradually we can bring them back into society by showing them a simple kindness.  There are clearly MH issues with many of those people, but they are suffering in many ways and they need help, we all need help now and again.

For those of you who wonder I have gone back everyday since but he has disappeared, he was hungry but proud, that is why he let me believe he would be there to wash my car.  I had never seen him before and he has simply moved on, I walked the town centre all the nooks aand crannies, the doorsteps, everywhere and cannot find him.  For me he is a hero and one his daughter can be proud of, I simply didn't have whatever it took to persuade him there are other ways and I regret that.  The UK is a good place to live, a good place to bring children up and have a chance to build a fabulous life if you are of a mind - but it takes effort, a joint effort.

Regardless of what anyone says you cannot do it alone, care for others now because the day will surely come when you need help because life has a habit of throwing curve balls and you never know what is around the corner, so be mindful at every opportunity.

Visit our Website and get involved in the debate and give a voice to those who are voiceless

Post 6 - To Live An Honest Life You Have To Be Dishonest

It has been said recently that people living in the community with convictions in the main are Liars...that most families of people living in the community with convictions, or serving custodial sentences are Liars...and most children going to school whilst a parent is 'inside' tell lies...we know many people with Mental Health conditions are Liars to avoid the stigma, but do they really have a choice if they want a chance at a full and rewarding life where they are "accepted" and allowed to flourish and develop their full potential on all fronts?

I recently had a twitter exchange with a prominent Academic In a UK university who was a complete stranger to me, he had tweeted regarding some research he was initiating and had recently received funding to conduct some research into the effects of long term imprisonment (if I have understood him correctly).  I had occasion to comment on a tweet regarding his research and as a result we arranged via DM to speak on the phone.

I am grateful and humbled that he gave me the opportunity to talk with him and express my feelings/observations/experiences regarding people living life on life licence post release.  For me personally it was an interesting exercise and an easy conversation to engage in as not only have I lived my own experience, but for many years I was directly involved in a personal and professional capacity as founder and CEO of one of the first (if not the first) exclusively Prison Law Consultancies in the UK (another story for another blog), which according to one prominent Judge was spectacularly successful.  Quite literally we worked with firms of Solicitors and hundreds of people who have received Life Sentences (still serving inside and the community having been released) and many more who had received fixed term sentences for various offences, so I do feel there may have been something to offer regarding the research in question.

Following that telephone conversation I was left alone in my kitchen together with my thoughts which have led to this blog post, which is essentially about Lies, Liars and the capacity of the powers that be to comprehend that by definition anyone who is subject to what I call societal stigmatisation must also live a lie and/or propagate lies in order to maintain their existence.  In my view experience and evidence shows there are very few people who are burdened with a stigma who have the luxury of being able to build and develop their life to its full potential within the paradox of the fear, embarrassment, humiliation, shame, or the guilt that comes hand in hand with public exposure in the UK of ones existence in those circumstances.  This is particularly evident if they are within a group which is stigmatised either openly (such as Ex Offenders, Trans genders or Transsexuals) or covertly (eg those Disabled or sufferers of Mental Health conditions) within our society.  It was not too long ago that being openly Gay in this country was illegal and it still is in 76 countries and yet the UK and the United States still recognise those countries, trade with them and conduct our affairs with them, so by definition and by omission is our country a paper tiger and are we not all liars?

The Parole Board and the National Probation Service, demand openness from offenders if they are to earn release on a parole or Life sentence, yet they release them into a life of lies.  If they are to source employment then they have to disclose their convictions in certain circumstances, and then are rarely employed when prior knowledge exists on the part of the employer unless their is some form of relief or benefit.  The fact is currently, society is not disposed to absorb the truth regarding offenders, release and rehabilitation, it also appears the media alongside the government have no interest in educating them.

It is true statistically speaking that it is an extremely high probability that an ex-offender (perhaps a violent one) lives in every single street within the UK - the numbers are that high.  9.2 million people in the UK have criminal convictions, and the number increases daily.  Not all released prisoners are fortunate enough to be released to work for a charity, or an organisation they have managed to develop links with whilst inside, in fact they are very few.  Most go out and are unemployed, released with £47.00 discharge grant and a train warrant regardless of how long they have served.  There are of course some exceptions who are clearly resourceful and talented individuals who go out and through their own efforts go on to start up and build highly successful commercial businesses such as The Prisons Handbook/Converse and Veritas-Vincit UK to name but two and in their own way discreetly 'give back', but they are rare and they are the exception.

However in the community following a long stay in prison or a Mental Health unit you can hardly lean on the garden fence and explain to the neighbours where you have appeared from.  It is a delicate operation to decide who you can allow into your inner circle, who you can entrust with your history as it does not just impact on the individual, but also their family, their victims family, friends, colleagues of family...some are of the view the fact that those more prominent are somehow seen as successful examples of reintegration is in itself worrying.  It is not hard to reintegrate when all around you know who you are, what you are, where you have been, what you have done regardless of how long ago, there is certainly very little of a 'stress test' in such circumstances.  Perhaps you have no choice but to lie unless you have no family and nothing to lose?

So the Academic and his research into the 'effects' of long term imprisonment?

Well clearly there are other 'learned' behaviours aside from sitting in restaurants with your back to the wall or where you can see the entrance, or noticing the CCTV wherever you go but especially in banks, shops etc, or walking along looking at the ground (as eye contact inside is confrontational in several circumstances), or eating your food faster than most (as food inside is often warm/cold depending on where you were in the queue), or being overly aware of your personal data and the DPA 1998 when asked for personal details in shops etc.  There is a form of protectionist paranoia upon release as you are subconsciously of the view there is a sign on your forehead where it is written "Ex-Con avoid at all costs - Detritus".

Who has responsibility to change this perception?  Does anyone with the exception of invested parties want to change that perception?  Is there a gain or benefits in attempting to change perceptions?  Who quantifies those gains/benefits and decides the cost benefit to us?  Is it moral or immoral not to attempt to change that perception?

Lets face it there appears to be very few people in power with the influence to change things that seem to care about the death rates in our institutions so why should they care about developing a Criminal Justice System that results in high percentages of rehabilitation and successful reintegration for those marginalised by their own actions many years before?  There is much rhetoric currently around these issues, many meetings take place, many people bank salaries on the back of this broken system...so in reality how many want to effect real change? Who is going to step out into the spotlight and take all the flack they will surely encounter from the media, from their voters and from their peers if they champion real change and real reform and not just tinker with the system?  Likely - No one?

So here's the cycle (example not applicable to all of course).

Arrested (in the norm most Lie to one extent or another), The Police build a case (in the norm dress the cake, embellish/Lie as they are unaware of plea), Sentenced and imprisoned arrive prison reception (Lie to get a single cell or quiet wing or medication to sell), Sentence Planning (staff Lie exaggerate/embellish behaviour to meet criteria for OB work = £.  Con Lies as avoidance strategy), Parole Board review (Probation Lie/embellish risk to meet criteria for hostels or community based OB = £.  Prisoner Lies about levels of confidence regarding support he/she will need, anxiety regarding release), Released - Lie to everyone initially as standard tool for successful reintegration into the given community until considered assessment regarding disclosure takes place.

So who creates the liar?  Is it the system, or the need to be an honest member of society, or is it an entrenched criminal value?

Or are we just cynical, you tell us?  Do you really want change and a more open and tolerant society?  If so do something about it, contact your local MP, ask them when they last visited a prison in their constituency, become a peer mentor or a prison visitor as a volunteer, take an interest in community based Mental Health initiatives, get involved with homelessness, get involved in your local communities and literally effect change and make it a better place for everyone, including those who have stepped outside the law - help them find their way back.

Join us, take a look at our website and see what can be done.

Post 5 - Dum Down Offending Behaviour and What Do You Expect?

We had occasion to have discussions with some guys who were recently released from prison, they had served relatively different terms inside ranging from 18 months to in excess of 19 years, they were in for  a variety of offences ranging from Murder to Fraud, we engaged with them over various topics and had many lengthy and insightful discussions.  One of the things that quickly became apparent was the varying degrees of insight into themselves and their offending behaviour and the simple questions like why they had committed the offences they had and why they were not going to do it again.  On the surface simple questions and ones you would think were asked prior to release of certain types of prisoner, and ones which you would think were asked by prison governors or the Parole Board when they conduct their reviews of the suitability of release for those they are tasked with decision making regarding release or progression.

As the Parole Board state within their literature "We carry out risk assessments on prisoners in England and Wales according to provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Crime Sentences Act 1997  "Our main responsibility is to protect the public, and we manage the early release of prisoners serving fixed-length sentences of 4 years or more and the release of prisoners who are serving Life Sentences or Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection and the re-release of prisoners who had been given life or indeterminate sentences were released and were then re-imprisoned"

  

However apparently not so simple.

Example;  One person is of the view he is a better class of 'killer' ergo 'above' others in the criminal 'pecking order' as he killed a male, not a woman, nor a child.  The fact that his victim was a boy just out of his teens seemed to escape him (cognitive distortion) and the fact that almost all those who die at the hands of a criminal leave behind victims also seemed to escape him in the emotional sense.  Yes, a discussion on an intellectual level related to victim awareness can be had with most people who are released from prison, but how many feel genuine remorse, guilt and shame, for their actions is another debate.  One it appears some are ill equipped to undertake.

American prisoner stratification is somewhat different to that of prisons here in the UK, and an article by 'Jim Smith' in 1995 The Pecking Order is also shown to be pertinent today as much as it was 20 years ago as demonstrated by the clear views of our example given above.

Another Example is the fraudster who "only defrauded charities" where "there are no victims"... Hello?  Yes another cognitive distortion.  A complete failure to comprehend that monies taken from them deprives potential beneficiaries of charitable works/handouts.  This person spends 3 weeks in a B Category local prison followed by 19 months in an open prison where of course life is easier, so no experience of a real prison environment ergo no deterrent some might say?

So the question needs to be asked.  Who is responsible for "Dumming Down" Offending Behaviour programmes?

The Ministry of Justice in 2014 reported their offending behaviour portfolio and explain that although most programmes are monitored and or implemented by Forensic Psychologists in the main they are facilitated by uniformed prison officers, where the entry criteria is minimal (see Requirements) and where they clearly state "Personal qualities and life experience are more important than academic qualifications."  In 2003 OBPU were involved in studies which clearly showed interventions were the way to go, facilitated by psychologists.  Yet within a decade cost came into play, psychologists were moved back from front line interventions and replaced by prison officers!

How can it be that programmes so important to the process of reducing crime (victims) can be facilitated on a daily basis by in the main unqualified prison officers?  Yes they may have supervision, even possibly with a psychologist, but surely it is obvious yet needs to be said, the training that comes with years of study and then practical application on site under supervision of a senior practitioner cannot be replicated by a formally uneducated person regardless of how pleasant their manner within the group or culture.  Probation Officers who are formally educated cannot assist as they are inundated with report writing and bureaucracy...so whats to be done?

The challenges which in our view require qualified facilitators and professional oversight are;

Religious Radicalisation, Sexual Offending, Decision Making, Parenting, Problem Solving, Life Skills (cooking, money management, personal hygiene, housekeeping, ironing etc), Basic Education (numeracy & Literacy), Emotional Management, Relationship Skills, Use of Weapons and Violence...just to name a few.

Just another set of obstacles and challenges for Mr. Gove and possibly ones he needs to address quickly before we have complete chaos and implosion of an already fragile infrastructure judging by the levels of re-offending within prisons (because an assualt inside is still a crime, as is a theft or a deception), occurring even before people are released.  Around half of all crime is committed by people who have already been through the criminal justice system.

The cost to the taxpayer of re-offending is estimated to be £9.5 to £13 billion per year according to a government policy paper in May 2015 ... "Re-offending has been too high for too long, despite significant government spending on offender management in the last decade. There has been little change in reconviction rates and almost half of those released from prison go on to re-offend within 12 months.  So clearly the need to reduce re-offending to reduce both the number of victims and the costs to the taxpayer is evident and in order to achieve this, we need a tough but intelligent criminal justice system that punishes people properly when they break the law, but also supports them so they don’t commit crime in the future."

So do we need to increase the numbers of psychologists and probation staff significantly and redefine the role to include more face time facilitating interviews with prisoners and facilitating interventions and programmes?  Short term seems expensive, however long term gains make this the CHEAP option as real insight is developed by prisoners and thereby real reductions in recidivism may be a real outcome.  We make no claims to be experts or even to make a reasonable case, we were simply dumbfounded at the cognitive distortions clearly still apparent in those we encountered during our discussions and do not claim they are in any way representative of the majority.

However the reductions in staff are real and present, the choice now is do we hire more uniforms or do we make a real investment in reducing crime and recidivism in our society?

As Michael Gove said in his speech there is "treasure in the heart of man" Click here

So go to our website and take a look.

Post 4 - Consequences of Shaking The Trees

As some of you may be aware a few weeks ago we started our own blog as we thought it right that we start to link social media with our website as we are new to the whole Internet/social media promotion game.  We were doing OK on twitter @boltsandbars and we were starting to get the hang of the whole tweeting thing (we learnt very quickly that capital letters = shouting not passion) and seemed to be picking up followers fairly quickly, so clearly some of the tweeters found our comments of interest.  As a result we engaged in talks with direct messaging etc, all tools of the twitter world and during one such chat with a follower he suggested we contact 'Jim Brown' (not his real name I am reliably informed) on twitter and see if he can assist us in progressing our objectives in relation to our website by way of an article or an interview, so we did.

'Jim Brown' also has a blog called probation matters where he reports on all manner of matters probation related.  We spoke, exchanged mobile numbers and arranged to meet, in a Northern Hotel lobby, all very MI5 ish.  We talked for 3 hours or so on mostly Criminal Justice System related subjects with a bit of privatisation of probation services within the UK thrown in.  Following our meeting, (the next day in fact) 'Jim' posted his blog which contained some references to our company, our purpose and our website referring to us as the 'New Kids on the Block' - and then life changed.

We received a text from 'Jim' that someone had posted an anonymous entry on his blog which contained offensive and abusive comments and remarks regarding one of the Bolts & Bars team, and 'Jim' informed us he had deleted the post and also now applied moderation.  Then the games began.

That night one of us received three abusive telephone calls from an unknown number, and thereafter abusive/threatening/intimidating text messages on a frequent and regular basis which continue to this day.  Another member of our team has had his house (where he lives with his partner) broken into and items stolen, and then on a second occasion broken into but nothing taken. Then recently two known offenders turned up at the company registered office intimidating our director and demanding the residential address of team members. 

Now of course we are not suggesting for a second these events are connected or have anything to do with 'Jim' personally, for you could not meet a nicer man.    Some have suggested events are connected with ex-employees (since dismissed) or victims/extended victims disgruntled that we employ ex-offenders, or even potential jilted admirers.  Whoever it is , it's getting 'old' and is creating anxiety and distress for colleagues, friends and family and we are saddened and dissapointed that people cannot see the good in what we are trying to do and support us as oppose to attempt to hinder us at every turn.

So what do we do? We have read the entries on 'Jim Brown's blog, and of course all the negative views expressed therein regarding our company, ex-offenders, 'carpetbaggers' etc, but there are also entries from other probation people who encourage debate, welcome positive constructive comment, change and debate, so therein lies the problem which as we see it is twofold.

One is, who is our ominous, threatening, intimidating and boring observer?  

Two, how do we engage in any meaningful way with those who apparently have contempt for us as a whole (ex-offenders) and contribute in any way to making the situation more accessible for those who find themselves without reasonable access to the law and thus justice by virtue of their circumstances in being incarcerated by the UK, many of whom are not criminals but are asylum seekers, migrants, children, or Mental Health patients?

The answer to one is fairly simple, and we can only say hopefully this will cease as it is causing much anxiety and distress to those in receipt and also our colleagues, friends and family.  

Two is somewhat more complicated.  You see we spent many years in small boxes circa 10ft x 6ft engaging in self analysis, introspection, education, reading, growing, developing and engaging with thoughts and feelings we had not until that point encountered with the exception of many years before when we were very young. We do have opinions about the system that many of us lived in and of course some of us are motivated to engage in a pro-social and positive manner to get involved as it is fair to say, the CJS is facing difficulties and you can never have too much information from which to make informed decisions.  Some would say the perspective of service users would be a very valuable tool indeed.  We are not hear to 'beat up' or bemoan the probation service, or anyone else for that matter, we are simply trying to shed light on certain areas of public life of which the public are unaware.  Our main area for concern is the fact that there are quite literally tens of thousands of people who are unable to share/voice their concerns and fears for their friends/family members/loved ones in a focused manner to bring attention to trends or patterns of behaviour emerging within institutions nationwide.

If NOMS or HMP, or the Immigration Service for example supported our project and gave us access to those incarcerated as they do with other unnamed charities, dot.orgs, publications or private companies then they may not have the amount of discontent, violence, suicide and levels of complaints which they currently encounter which indirectly costs tens of millions of pounds a year to the treasury.  They would be able to monitor, thus note from the posts of those visiting, or corresponding with others incarcerated or detained what is going on, what their concerns are, 'temperature feel' the environment and react BEFORE matters have escalated or deteriorated.  Surely it would be a vital tool?

In so doing that would thus improve circumstances for everyone incarcerated by the UK government, but also for the Staff working in those places, less friction, less complaints, less sick time off, less malcontent, less despair and anguish as everyone will feel they are being heard.  Instead of weeks or months to resolve a complaint, someone in authority has had it brought to their attention by a site observer within hours, thereby saving millions in man hours and paperwork throughout several different establishments and systems.  The site could even be incorporated into the 'virtual campus' loop, and monitored internally by individual establishments?  The possibilities are endless.

I guess what we are saying is if somehow we have shaken the trees and unwittingly upset someone somewhere, it was unintentional, and we are not here to lambast or criticise generally.  We are here to help in a constructive and pro-social way as we believe that just because someone is incarcerated (and remember not all are convicted criminals, some are migrants, children, MH patients) then they deserve to encounter decent standards of care by those responsible for their care, and in our view 'care' encompasses a multitude of ingredients.  When you take away the ability for someone to manage their life and that of their families etc for themselves, in doing that we then have a responsibility to them and society as a whole to ensure when they are returned into life outside the walls that they are able and that 'life' is viable for them.

You may not all agree, but hopefully someone out there does and will assist, support and promote our initiative.  We are extremely fortunate in that some shares in the company bolts & bars are in the process of being sold as the deposit for the purchase of those funds was a huge benefit in bringing us to the point we currently find ourselves in, however as we all know money is tight in the current climate.  We do not claim to be a charity and then receive from trusts directly linked to the charity, we do not request donations or ask people to subscribe to us as a charity, we operate as a ltd company for that reason - to be completely transparent and open about who we are and what we are.  We will donate 15% of our net profit to charities, we still seek charities who are OK with working with and accepting donations from people who have been in prison, oddly they are hard to find despite the number of organisations, charities and dot.orgs making millions on the back of people who are incarcerated.  Many of them have provided invaluable tools over the years such as Insidetime and the Prison Reform Trust who produce fabulous material such as the Bromley Report , but there are many others who some might say have not really affected any real change over the last 30 years, but that is a question for other people to answer, suffice to say if they had, there may not be so many of them today.  Bolts and Bars are here for real change, to bring IT and all it can offer into the field of public life, namely our institutions which fail so regularly and cost so much and appear to have no real oversight in relation to the failures other than a few departments who publish reports/studies and white papers which are in general then ignored and left on the shelf to be brought out at the next crisis meeting, as crisis management seems to have been the norm for two decades within certain elements of the Criminal Justice system, NOMS, Border and Immigration and the MH arm of the NHS.

People (human beings who are still members of society here or abroad and who will one day return to live in those societies), regardless of who they are or where they are detained or what they have done, in any civilised society should be entitled to have their voice heard, our site provides that platform, that is why we are here.

Go to our website and see what difference you can make to the world of those less fortunate than us.

Post 3 - The Fraud of Justice - or Good Practice - You Decide

There was a very lively discussion with several 'twitterati' Saturday 17 September (in case you want to track back and read the discussions) generally centred around Probation "Good Practice".  So rather than repeat views and comment I thought I would simply give you a question and allow you to form a view and hopefully expand the debate.

Someone is charged with Murder, the case is fully investigated by the authorities, it results in charges being brought and court proceedings begin.  The evidence is supplied to all parties and is thoroughly examined in an open court by experts on both sides.  The decision is made by a jury of 12 having heard all the evidence tested before them in court, they decide guilty and the Judge passes sentence after a full examination of the evidence has taken place.

Cost for process circa £250,000.

The same someone goes to jail for say 20 years.  Throughout that time he is examined by experts, encounters psychological examination, psychiatric assessment, he is monitored closely for years by those trained in such matters.  His letters are examined, his phone calls are listened to, his visitors monitored, searched and vetted.  Copious and numerous reports are written about him during that time, until he is considered ready to be considered for release.

The Parole Board of experts are supplied with hundreds of papers in a dossier to be examined and digested by them, the same dossier is supplied to the prisoner and his lawyer in order for him to prepare and submit his representations and comment on the dossier.  Both parties can call upon experts and witnesses to take part in an oral hearing where all the material is examined and questions can be asked of witnesses and the prisoner, victims can comment in writing or appear in person to make their personal statement.  The Parole Board panel is chaired by a Judge, and following a full examination of the evidence the panel takes a view on risk to the public and the Judge orders release.

Cost for term in prison to release circa £1.2million.

In the community on license and an allegation is made (not always) and then RECALLED on the recommendation of a probation officer.  Done without any thought to the human cost to friends, families, work colleagues, the existence painstakingly built up sometimes over years.  No examination of the evidence in court, without any testing of the evidence, often without sight of the evidence against him, always without the benefit of representations to the courts or the home office before the recall, and NO Judicial input whatsoever, no expert evaluation simply arbitrary imprisonment, the Guantanamo syndrome if you like.  You stand suspected, not charged, not remanded, no simply accused therefore we imprison you? Done in our name by bureaucrats in Probation and NOMS and often with complete disregard to the protocols in place for such a decision to be made. 

Financial and Human Cost to the taxpayer unlimited!

This is arrogance of the highest order by practitioners drunk on power.  Is this process right, Humane and Just in the world we live in today?  How can it be that a probation officer (could be 24 years old) makes a decision which costs us millions of pounds every single year, year in and year out, with no accountability, no transparency?

The core values of our website, are to allow access to Justice for everyone (Accessibility), to create transparent systems and processes where we incarcerate anyone, patient, child, woman or man (Transparency), ensure compliance with the statutory instruments and the integrity of practitioners and those tasked with the care of those who are voiceless in our society (Accountability) and try to ensure that those tasked with the care and responsibility for the voiceless wield their power with human compassion and integrity (Humility).

Go to our website and join us, make a difference and bring real change to a system which costs the tax payer (us) tens of millions year in year out, and do it in a pro-social way.

Post 2 - Author The Solicitors Journal about us on 20th August 2015.

Launched at the Law Society this week, Bolts&Bars is a new access to justice tool on behalf of the 'voiceless'. Designed as a one-stop-shop for those interested in the incarcerated - not necessarily by court order - including immigrants, children, the elderly, and those with mental health conditions, it aims to provide valuable information about the UK's detention centres and offer a transparent forum for the imprisoned to share their experiences.

'Some people deserve to be in prison for their crimes but they still deserve to be heard,' said Bolts&Bars founder. 'But there is no excuse for young children, mentally ill people, or migrants not to be able to access the law.'

One prominent supporter of the project is notable barrister Flo Krause, who successfully acted for former prisoner John Hirst in his high-profile and contentious action against the blanket ban on prisoner voting, which left David Cameron feeling 'physically ill'.

Providing specific examples from two decades of practising prison law, Krause said: 'To be truly voiceless, somebody is not only unheard but unseen. People are put away into institutions and become voiceless. The institutions subsume them. They disappear behind walls and under the weight of rules and regulations. There is no one to witness their plight and no one to record the dramas that go on behind those thick walls.'

Also speaking at the launch, Russell-Cooke partner Peter Cadman observed that even in the 'good-old days of legal aid' there was an element of abandonment of clients by solicitors after conviction. Now, with funding squeezed ever tighter, the ability for firms to provide aftercare to clients is nearly impossible.

'The timing of this venture is excellent,' he added. 'We are at a time when the public purse is not paying lawyers to assist and represent, and at a time when the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison is so astronomic that the balance between the spend and the save is just wrong.'

Cadman said he hopes the project will help offenders navigate the penal system and calm the 'ripple effect' that impacts on a prisoner's family and friends by providing them the information needed to cope with an incarcerated loved one.

Although the Howard League has benefitted greatly from this silliest of seasons, the same cannot be said for Bolts&Bars. The event, which took place within the Law Society's 'magnificent' Common Room, far from reached the venue's attendance capacity. Barring a couple of legal journalists and invested supporters it was empty, despite 'hundreds' of emails declaring an interest in the launch.

The Bolts&Bars team clearly face an uphill battle. If you cannot get lawyers into a room to discuss our rotten prison estate, what hope have you of opening up various important issues to the wider public who are predisposed to thinking prisoners should forfeit their rights upon incarceration. Maybe, as SJ's Kevin Poulter has suggested, solicitors should reflect on the ways they support access to justice, perhaps by giving consideration to the work of Bolts&Bars.  Go to their website

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal

john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD