Scumwatch Special: Scum on the Run

With convicted murderer Daniel Driscoll still on the loose after absconding from Sudbury open prison a month ago, you'd think that the prison service would be keen to, you know, prevent any more killers from escaping into society. Yes, you might very well think that, but you would be wrong:

A police manhunt has been launched after the convicted murderer of a disabled man escaped from a hospital.

Lee Nevins, 24, gave prison guards the slip while being treated at Sunderland Royal Hospital on Tuesday.

He is serving a minimum 17-year term at a top-security Frankland Prison, in Durham for killing Lee Jobling, 20.

I think that the correct word there was 'was'. He was serving a minimum 17-year term at Frankland Prison. He is no longer serving it, because he has escaped.

Supt Gordon Milward said Nevins was taken to hospital with a hand injury and escaped after asking to go to the toilet.

He added: "I am still looking at, as part of the inquiry, the exact security measures that were in place by the Prison Service.

"My understanding is that he had a pair of handcuffs on, keeping his wrists secured and he was also secured to a guard."

Unless he's taken the guard with him, he clearly isn't secured to him anymore. Obviously I'm not an ace detective like the superintendent, but I might hazard a guess that Nevins becoming detached from the guard is not unconnected with his ultimate disappearance. Well done, that guard!

Mind you, the police aren't all that much better themselves:

A paedophile named on a list of the UK's "most wanted" was arrested but later released after police failed to recognise him.

An inquiry is under way after South Yorkshire Police officers only realised who Joshua Karney was after he was fined for being drunk and released.

Karney, 30, is one of five of the UK's most wanted sex offenders after going missing from Lancashire in 2005.

[...]

The hunt for Karney has appeared on BBC One's Crimewatch and he is on the Child Exploitation and Online Protection "most wanted" list.

When he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly in Barnsley on 24 November he gave false details and was given a fixed penalty notice.

Karney was released and it was only later that officers checked his fingerprints and realised he was wanted.

A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: "We regret greatly that Joshua Karney was released from custody after he gave false details."

Well, as long as you're really sorry. Don't let it happen again, though...

Update: Karney was caught in Hove at about six this evening. So it's just the two murderers we have to worry about now...

"Safeguarding the public"

Do you remember the case of Daniel Driscoll? He's the convicted murderer currently on the run after absconding from an open prison - along with a couple of drug dealers - earlier this month.

Well, it looks like we could soon be hearing about plenty more cases like his:

THE government has quietly resumed the practice of sending high-risk offenders with a history of violence to open prisons, in breach of its own guidelines.

According to complaints submitted by probation officers to their union this month, criminals convicted of grievous bodily harm, domestic violence, robbery and wounding are being moved to open jails.

The National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) has received reports from six of the country’s nine open prisons about a new influx of cases of inappropriate referrals.

Staff at one open prison said that in mid-December they had 25 persistent offenders, all deemed to be high risk to the public.

The use of open prisons to house violent criminals was first announced in October 2006 by John Reid, then home secretary, as a short-term solution to overcrowding.

It was stopped in March this year following complaints from staff about the increasing violence and drug use by the transferred offenders. The government then issued instructions that no violent criminals or sex offenders should be transferred.

It has now emerged that when the prison population passed 81,500 in November, this was ignored and prisoners began once again to be relocated to open prisons.

[...]

A spokeswoman for the justice ministry said: “Our position has always been to safeguard the public.”

What, I ask, does she mean by that? Does she mean that the government will do all it can to safeguard the public? Or does she instead mean that safeguarding the public is simply a vague ideal, something that it would be very nice to be able to do, but which isn't really a priority? Since it's clearly not the former, I can only assume that the message is that while the government would very much like to keep the public safe from violent criminals (by, for example, ensuring that such offenders are kept in high security prisons, rather than in open prisons from which prisoners abscond at a rate of more than one a week), that's just too much like hard work, and that therefore the public can go and screw themselves!

Another triumph for the prison service

A convicted murderer and two men convicted of drug offences have absconded from a jail in Derbyshire.

Killer Daniel Driscoll, 33, failed to return to HMP Sudbury on Saturday after being let out on temporary release.

Lee Mulholland, 28, serving five years for drug offences, walked out of the open prison on Friday.

Andre Hackett - serving four years for possessing crack cocaine with intent to supply - also failed to return after a temporary release on Saturday.

Driscoll, from Stevenage, Hertfordshire, was jailed for life in 1992 aged 18, along with Anthony Coughtrey, then 19, after being convicted of stamping and kicking William Walsh, a 19-year-old father-of-three, to death.

He was ordered to spend a minimum of 15 years behind bars but in 1998 this was reduced to 13 years.

[...]

More than 660 inmates have walked out of Sudbury prison in the past 10 years.

That's more than one a week, on average. You'd think that those running the prison service might just possibly have learnt their lesson by now (specifically, the lesson that convicted criminals are, almost by definition, not the most trustworthy of people, and that if you are responsible for keeping them locked up, it's probably a good idea to keep them behind bars and in your line of sight). But apparently not.

As for the specific facts of this case: there's not really an awful lot to be said. Personally, I would like to see the death penalty for at least some murderers, and life meaning life for the rest. That's life without occasional trips to the cinema, by the way. As such, I regard it as utterly appalling that Driscoll was granted temporary release. But he was, and the number of convicted killers loose in society has just increased by one. Which is one too many.

What would Elizabeth Fry do?

An inmate has failed to use human rights legislation to force a prison to charge him less for phone calls.

Richard Davison, serving 12 years for drugs offences at HMP Elmley, in Kent, wanted the High Court to back his bid.

But Mr Justice Mitting ruled Davison's right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been infringed.

The fact that prisoners received visits and letters demonstrated their rights were protected, said the judge.

Davison, who is not due for release from the jail until September 2009, had applied for permission to challenge a Prison Service refusal in January to attempt to renegotiate its BT contract, which runs until 2011.

Davison's lawyers had argued that the price of calling his girlfriend in Essex, or family members in Yorkshire, was unfairly higher from jail phones than from public booths.

They said prisoners currently pay 10p for the first 55 seconds of local or national calls to landlines, then 1p per every 5.5 seconds.

The cost of calls from BT public payphones is 40p for the first 20 minutes followed by 10p for each subsequent 10 minutes.

You get 20 minutes for 40p? What public payphones are these? And where can I find one? All the ones I find seem to give rather less value for money than the prison ones.

Nonetheless, my heart really does bleed for poor Mr Davison, and all his fellow criminals victims of bourgeois oppression. It is simply intolerable that he and other inmates should have to pay fully 10p per minute to use the telephone, and, being the great philanthropist that I am, I have devised a way of sparing all prisoners the great burden of the costs associated with the use of telephones: take away the phones! Do that, and never again will any prisoner have to endure the humiliating violation of their human rights that paying for their calls undoubtedly is. So take away the prisoners' payphones: their human rights demand nothing less!

Islamic radicalism in Britain's jails

Al-Qaeda prisoners in UK jails are being hardened instead of reformed, top Whitehall sources have told the BBC.

A major programme of radicalisation is underway in prisons, targeting vulnerable young men and preaching violent jihad, it has been claimed.

The BBC's Frank Gardner said sources claim Islamist convicts are undergoing the same process IRA members did at the Maze prison in Northern Ireland.

Ministers hope to tackle the problem by training prison imams, he added.

Frank Gardner, the BBC's security correspondent, said that senior Whitehall sources told him that convicted al-Qaeda inmates and their associates are using prison to build up networks and address books, making contacts with other prisoners who have supplied false documents and even weaponry.

Sources add that among 9,000 Muslim prisoners in England and Wales, a small hard core are devoted to recruiting other young men to extremism.

One government official said that they see prison as an extension of Jihad: if kept together they form a cell, but if dispersed they seek to spread their beliefs.

And despite this, the government reportedly wants to build Muslim-only prisons. Clearly, it is the opposite approach that needs to be taken: spread Muslim prisoners as thinly across the entire prison system as it is possible to do, so that they mix with other Muslims as little as possible (this would also have the benefit of limiting their ability to forcibly convert other prisoners, a practice that has been reported at some jails), keep those Muslims who have been convicted of terrorism offences in solitary confinement, and prevent other Muslims known to harbour extremist views from mixing with their coreligionists. I won't claim that this approach would completely eliminate the problems arising from Islamic radicalism in our prisons, but it would be a big improvement on the system as it is at the moment.

My heart bleeds...

Chris Langham has been tormented and bullied since being jailed for ten months for child-porn offences, his wife has said.

The 58-year-old actor has been pelted with missiles, taunted and had his cell flooded by other prisoners while being ignored by guards, according to Christine Cartwright.

She has stayed loyal to the Bafta-winning star despite his conviction for downloading internet material including vile footage of an eight-year- old being abused by her father.

Miss Cartwright, 54, wept with emotion as she spoke in detail for the first time about her husband's conviction, saying she was keen for their two young children to visit him.

"He's been verbally abused, taunted continuously, had missiles thrown at him and his cell flooded out by other prisoners," she said.

"He is trying to be a model prisoner. He says 'Good morning' to the prison officers, but they just tell him to shut up."

The choreographer and actress claimed Langham was guilty only of "stupidity, arrogance and ghoulish curiosity".

Yes, and also fifteen charges of downloading child pornography. One might have rather more sympathy for Langham's plight, were it not for this last point. As it is, I have absolutely none, and I doubt that anyone else has any either.

It's also interesting to note that even criminals have a grasp of morals sufficient to enable them to identify Langham as scum. When I wrote about the attack by a group of prisoners on the terrorist Dhiren Barot, Mr Smith pointed me in the direction of an interesting article on the subject by Theodore Dalrymple, which is worth reading. Now, if only the average liberal had the same grasp of morality and justice as the average criminal, then we might be in business!

Marching to the beat of a different drum

A MOTHER serving life for murdering her baby son will sue prison bosses for refusing her a native American drum so she can talk to the dead.

Chah Oh-Niyol Kai Whitewind says wardens at Low Newton prison, in Durham, are violating her human rights because they will not allow her to keep potions, spell books and a peace pipe in her cell.

The Birmingham mother-of-three was jailed for life in 2003 for suffocating her 12-week-old son, Bidziil, because he would not breast-feed.

However:

Her letter said: "I am a Shamanic pagan. I do not believe in violence. I have respect for all life and individuality."

Hmm. Yes, if you say so. What was it you were convicted of, again?

I really can't believe that this one will succeed. At least, I sincerely hope it doesn't. The notion that there is a human right to be provided with a magical drum really does put all the other bizarre human rights claims this country has witnessed very firmly in the shade. Although, I think that it may itself be eclipsed by the demand of Swedish prisoners that their "human right" to sunbathe be facilitated by the provision by the prison authorities of bikinis.
Not, of course, that we should be particularly surprised by the increasing prevalence of bizarre "human rights" claims by prisoners. After all, since it has been held that it is illegal to deny prisoners the right to vote, we should not be at all startled if it is claimed that any difference in treatment between prisoners, and law-abiding citizens on the outside, is a "human rights" violation. The principle that there should be equal treatment between these two unequal classes has been laid down; all that is now required is that it should be put fully into practice.

However, notwithstanding all this, this claim is pretty surreal. But just as bizarre as the claim itself, is the list of objects to which pagan prisoners such as Whitewind are already entitled. They include "a hoodless robe, a flexible twig and rune stones". Yes, the "human right" to possess a hoodless robe was surely what inspired the heroes of D-Day as they charged up the beaches.
Still, I suppose that this case does at least demonstrate, that the status of poor oppressed victim is not restricted to Muslims (although they do sit at the top of the victimhood tree), but is open to anyone, just as long as they're not a white heterosexual Christian.

Hat-tip: Laban Tall

Muslim-only jails?

I read that the government is considering building a Muslim-only prison, in order to better ensure the safety of Muslim prisoners, particularly those of the terrorist persuasion. This follows attacks on the jailed terrorists Dhiren Barot (which I discussed here) and Hussein Osman, and the alleged receipt of death threats by Omar Khyam. Aside from protecting these terrorist lowlife from the justified anger that they arouse even in criminals' hearts, it is expected that the special Muslim-only prisons will enable staff to better cater (or should that be pander?) to Muslims' dietary and prayer requirements.

Well, screw that! Personally, I really couldn't care less if "people" like Barot or Osman are getting attacked - indeed, as my comments following the attack on Barot show, I am more supportive of than opposed to prisoners (or anyone else) giving such creatures the beating of a lifetime. So what if they suffer in jail: it's no more than they deserve.
Neither do I see why Muslims, or anyone else, should have their unusual dietary requirements catered to. If you're a law-abiding person, you have every right to insist on keeping Halal, or Kosher, or on being a vegetarian. But when you're in prison, then your right to deviate from the expected norm vanishes: beggars can't be choosers, and neither should prisoners. That's one of the purposes of having prisons, and punishments for those who break the law: you lose some of your rights, and some of your freedoms. In my opinion, prisoners should be given the cheapest, most low-quality food available, and told that if they don't like it, they can, to coin a phrase, lump it.
Equally, while I would generally say that religion in prisons is a good thing, I think that it is clear to all thinking people, that Islam is an exception to this rule. After all, if you've been sent to jail because of terrorist offences committed because you are a Muslim, then I would think that the last thing anyone should want is for you to be further exposed to the religion that has driven you to commit such actions. The worryingly high number of young Muslim men who are radicalised while in prison is a further reason to be suspicious of a plan to put them in an environment where their religious demands are catered for in every conceivable way, and where, indeed, they would only be in the company of their fellow Muslims.

Indeed, the only possible reason that I can think of for wishing to segregate Muslim prisoners from non-Muslims, is to protect the non-Muslims. After all, there have been reports of Muslim inmates forcibly converting non-Muslim prisoners to Islam. But a better solution to that problem would be to simply split up Muslim prisoners, so that, rather than mixing exclusively with other Muslims, as the government seems to wish, they mix almost exclusively with non-Muslims. Then, not only would they be unable to form themselves into gangs and intimidate other inmates into converting, but they would also be unable to radicalise young Muslim inmates, or to plan further terrorist atrocities. And if Dhiren Barot gets his neck broken, well, that's just a price we'll all have to pay.

Postscript: Some readers may recall that in the aftermath of the latest efforts by followers of the Religion of Peace to slaughter hundreds of people, Yusuf al-Qaradawi's favourite dhimmi, Ken Livingstone, claimed that "Muslims are more likely to be law-abiding than non-Muslims". I wonder, in that case, how he accounts for the fact that, while Muslims currently make-up for just 3% of the total UK population, they constitute fully 12% of the UK's prison population. Don't seem to be quite so law-abiding after all, do they?

A Criminal "Justice" Triumph

Since March, I have been regularly documenting the efforts of the government to reduce prison numbers. On Friday, 29th June, the government freed up 1,100 prison spaces, a feat that they achieved by releasing 1,100 criminals into the community early. Two days ago, the prison service trumpeted the freeing up of 1,500 prison places (by releasing 1,500 prisoners early). Now, the inevitable has happened:

A gang of criminals released early from prison to help reduce overcrowding were arrested on suspicion of robbery less than two hours after being freed.

Police detained the three men on a train between Leicester and Nottingham after a passenger claimed they had forced him to hand over hundreds of pounds.

The alleged robbery took place shortly after the three inmates, two aged 19 and one aged 20, were released early from Glen Parva Young Offenders Institute in Leicester where they had all been serving sentences for assault.

At the time of the alleged incident last Monday, the youths, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were travelling to an appointment with their probation officer.

Despite all three later being charged with robbery, British Transport Police decided to release them on bail pending an appearance in court.

The Sunday Telegraph has discovered that, despite a promise not to free criminals convicted of serious offences, at least 19 inmates found guilty of violent crimes have been released early.

They include a man serving a sentence at Durham prison for affray after brandishing a samurai sword in public and telling passers-by he would chop them up; seven men convicted of domestic violence and several inmates previously deemed too dangerous to qualify for Home Detention Curfew.

Yes, the safety of the public may have been jeopardised, but don't you just feel so much better knowing that these poor unfortunates no longer have to endure cramped conditions in prison, but are now as free as you or me?

Well, no, if you were the man who was robbed on the Nottingham train by the early-release thugs then you probably wouldn't feel better knowing that those thugs had been spared a modicum of richly-deserved discomfort. But some people think that the government has not gone nearly far enough. Juliet Lyon, of the Prison Reform Trust, one of a number of organisations dedicated to promoting the interests of criminals, had this to say:

When new ministers are able to put in place proper provision for the 50,000 people a year who serve sentences of less than six months, then we will see the prison population drop back to a sensible level.

What she means by "proper provision" or "a sensible level" is anybody's guess, although I'd imagine that the former means "more frequent and earlier early releases". As for the latter, well, the Prison Reform Trust's website says, pointedly, that in 1993 only 45,000 people were in prison, as against 81,000 now. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that this is the kind of level Miss Lyon wishes to return to. To put that in context, that's an extra 36,000 criminals loose in our streets.

Of course, I don't suppose that Miss Lyon would be one of those who'd suffer as a result of this. Those who shout the loudest for criminals' rights tend to live in rather nice crime-free suburbs.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Justice is Injustice?

The latest installment in the story of the government's war on prison numbers comes courtesy of the Telegraph:

Thousands more convicts are to spend less time in jail as a result of law and order measures published by the Government yesterday.

A new Criminal Justice Bill will limit prison terms faced by released offenders who breach the condition of their licences.

They will serve a maximum sentence of 28 days, instead of being sent back to jail for the duration of their term.

Putting these former prisoners back in jail has helped to push the prison population to record levels.

Greater use of cautions and ending suspended sentences in magistrates' courts will also reduce prisoner numbers.

The Ministry of Justice revealed that the Bill would free up 1,380 prison places at any one time.

This Orwellian-sounding ministry appears to believe that this is a good thing. However I would remind readers that each of those prison places is currently occupied by a criminal, and, moreover, by a criminal who has shown a sufficient continued disregard for the law on being granted early release from prison, that they have been deemed worthy of reincarceration. So, what the Ministry of Justice is really trumpeting, is that 1,380 extra thugs and other assorted lowlife will be loose on our streets, who are presently locked away where they can do no harm.

War is peace, indeed.

Tough on crime?

The Observer gives the latest update on the long-running saga of the government's battle against prison "overcrowding":

The Government will this week spark a new war with the judiciary by stripping England and Wales's 30,000 magistrates of powers to hand out suspended jail terms, in a fresh bid to ease the prisons crisis.

The move is likely to prompt an angry reaction from magistrates who fiercely guard their sentencing powers.

It will also be interpreted as a climbdown by the government which introduced suspended sentence orders (SSOs) for summary offences - 'minor' crimes, such as common assault or driving while disqualified, which are heard in the magistrates' court - only two years ago. Under the order an offender receives a custodial punishment if they commit a further crime while the suspended sentence is running.

But the government has been alarmed by the number of times magistrates have used suspended sentences and by how many have been converted into custodial sentences for reoffenders.

We really do seem to be living in a world that has gone totally mad. How else do we describe a society where the government - which is supposed to exist for the protection of the populace - will use any trick in the book to try and keep criminals out of prison, and on the streets?

My own views on claims that prisons are overcrowded have been set out here before: essentially, I will not accept that prisons are full up until there is no longer one inch of floor space in one cell in the country which does not have a convict lying, sitting, or standing on it. And I also feel that a liberal application of the noose would serve the purpose of reducing the prison population rather well.

Somewhat ironically, however, the government's latest attempt to reduce the prison population may well have the effect of increasing it, at least according to Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, who "warns" (because it is something we all fear) that magistrates could use immediate custodial sentences, if they are prevented from using suspended ones. Whether this will actually turn out to be the case is unclear (personally, from my limited experience of seeing magistrates in action, I'm surprised to learn that they ever send anyone to prison), but it is a pleasant thought.

Criminal "justice": an expert speaks

I think that we have a new frontrunner in the crowded race for the honour of being the most idiotic criminal "justice" expert around. Her name is Mitch Egan, she earns £100,000 a year as a "Regional Offenders Manager" (whatever that is), and she thinks that prison is bad:

She claimed the rising prison population had added to a feeling of insecurity among the public -because people feared criminals who were locked up out of sight.

"For me, prison is an inappropriate punishment for all but the most actively dangerous of offenders, and using incarceration at the current rates actively contributes to the fear of crime," she said.

There you go. Now you and I, being the ignorant proles that we are, may exist under the sad delusion that we would feel happier if people who want to mug us, break into our houses, or steal our cars were placed somewhere where they were unable to do this. But, we are clearly wrong. Rather, we would be much more content if these people were walking freely in our streets.

Miss Egan called for a full debate on imprisonment: "We sanitise our society by displacing justice from communities affected by crime.

"Dislocating punishment from the community, allowing criminal justice to become, and to feel that it becomes, active and impersonal... this makes us all more fearful."

She accused the public of being "lazy" by leaving public protection to the police, courts and prisons, declaring: "Society asks far too much of the criminal justice system."

By "asks far too much", I assume she means "asks that it should work". And I can't see how it's the fault of the public if they leave public protection to the police and courts. What else are they expected to do? If you yourself take action against crime, you can easily end up being locked up.

However, as regards the stuff about bringing criminal justice back to the community: I'm all for that. As I've remarked before, sticking gang members and similar thugs in the stocks or the pillories would have a highly beneficial effect all round. But I somehow doubt that Miss Egan wants that kind of thing.

All told, I find it difficult to see how Miss Egan's comments amount to anything more than post-modern leftist rhetoric, using a lot of buzz words, and signifying absolutely nothing. It has been demonstrated, that, in most cases, prison works. This being so, let's have more of it, not less. And if they run out of beds, then some prisoners will just have to sleep on the floor.

The poor lambs

Dr Ashok Rayani, a physician based at Swansea Prison, has complained that prison overcrowding is harming the health of inmates.

My heart bleeds.

A present for Charlie, paid for by you

Britain's most dangerous prisoner has been given £200 to buy spectacles so he can see the ball when watching the football on TV.

The Prison Service offered Charles Bronson the money after his glasses were damaged in a brawl with two guards at Full Sutton high-security jail.

Bronson, who has attacked at least 50 prison officers over the past three decades, is boasting that he will buy designer frames by Calvin Klein.

He demanded new glasses because he could no longer make out the action while watching Premiership highlights on the BBC's Match of the Day in his cell.

Prison officials, who have spent £500,000 handling rooftop protests by Bronson, agreed.

[...]

Since he was jailed for armed robbery in 1974, Bronson has developed a reputation as Britain's most dangerous convict.

During his time in prison, Bronson, a serial hostage-taker, has been involved in at least ten jail sieges.

He is deemed so dangerous that he has been moved 150 times and has spent more than 22 of his 30 years in jail in solitary confinement. He is currently in Wakefield Prison.

Bronson changed his name from Michael Peterson. He passes the time by painting and doing up to 3,000 press-ups a day.

He was given a life sentence in 1999 for holding a prison art teacher hostage for 44 hours because the man criticised some of his sketches.

He was filmed on jail CCTV leading his victim around like a dog with a rope around his neck.

Words cannot describe the sheer stupidity of this decision. However, words can describe how lowlife scum like Charles Bronson should be dealt with. In fact, four words: 'noose', 'gallows', 'long drop'.