Brand Ben

I have now launched a new company - Mokurai Consulting Ltd

Take a peek, spread the word. I've three cats with expensive tastes in food.

www.mokuraiconsulting.com

The Great Debate

The trek to Nottingham was not the most pleasant, but the prospect of debating against Philip Davies MP made the strain more than worth it. I had a low opinion of the man, not for his abilities as a parliamentarian but for his habit of being an easy quote for the more rabid tabloids whenever a prison story appeared. Not that having an opinion is problematic….But knowing what the hell you're talking about should be a prerequisite for commentators on a public salary. And legislative power.

As is the way, I lurched up to the doors of the lecture theatre, peeked in, and promptly went to change underwear. Seemingly endless rows of students, a packed house to the extent that people were being turned away due to fire regulations. And I had never had to stand before such a vista. Twitter and nicotine were my crutches.

Taking my seat at the front I tried to hide my nerves as I gazed upwards through the masses. Shortly after my co-debator, David Perry QC, arrived and I had the pleasure of his urbane company for the next hour or so. Not in attendance were the opposition, the proposers of the motion that “life should mean life”. The vagaries of the railways and Nottingham town centre had temporarily defeated them. Why they didn’t have the wits to engage what I call “a taxi”…..Which somehow signposted the intellectual weight on offer from the other table.

Philip Davies finally arrived, weilding a suitably firm Tory law and order handshake. Greyer than his profile pics, I briefly wondered if he was about to unleash an insightful, complex argument. He didn’t. Speaking first, he wove together the most visceral parts of Daily Mail editorials, being unhindered by any lack of consistency or rationality.

Within moments, Davies had lost the proposition by deciding to argue that not all murderers should receive life sentences at all. This was an attempt to avoid the weakness of the "life should mean life” proposition, which is that murder encompasses a wide range of circumstances from the most horrible serial killings through to mercy-killing. We didn't allow that to pass unchallenged; altering the definition of murder was a different debate for another day.

Davies did spend a lot of time working two themes. Firstly, that sentencing was dishonest and often opaque. In this he had some merit, although the complexity of sentencing lays at the door of legislators including himself. And secondly, he indulged in a prolonged bout of shroud-waving.  Those of us – and most of the audience – who permitted killers to be freed to commit further crimes were, it turns out, condoning child-rape. Hmmmmm.

But in his arguments solidly for the proposition on the table, not much came along. Yes, some Lifers do get released and do kill again. But this is to the tune of maybe 1 or 2 percent. When challenged that keeping 99% of lifers in prison forever to prevent this may be, well, unjust, there was no response. Davies simply could not see that detaining people for what others may possibly do in future is a morally dubious proposition indeed. Added to the fact that those judged dangerous are not released – maybe never – then the debate was, I'm afraid, rather bereft of intellectual substance.

I’d happily tell you what I said in my time at the rostrum, if I could remember. I do recall raising the point that weighing the value of a human life is essentially impossible. Why did I receive a 10 year tariff, why not a 50 year one? How do we even begin to make such judgements? And, more importantly, what would be the point of a whole life sentence across the board? Does it raise the dead?

Davies arrived low in my opinion, and managed to leave lower. But not as low as some of his supporters. One sat directly in front of me, telling me sotto voce during the debate that I should have been hanged. The morality of executing children is an issue I left him to ponder. Such was his clearly visceral feeling for the topic that I insisted he be given the mike during the Q and A session. And it transpired that he knew a murder victim’s family and the pain they endure.

But as I could only reply, would executing me bring a victim back? Would dipping me in acid resurrect the dead? Would any punishment actually undo the pain that follows murder? No. It is an irretrievable act and a full life sentence wouldn't alter a thing.

He was genuine in his feelings; fair enough. But his compadre was tweeting with vicarious thrills that they would now have to run for it afterwards, having told me I should be executed. Yes, mate, because I fill my spare moments plotting to kill everyone who disagrees with me….. The idea that murderers kill at the slightest bruise is pathetic. Clearly, a lot of educating is needed for some people.

We won the vote. Obviously. Twice; both at the start and again at the end the proposition that life should mean life was trounced.

It is a proposition that appeals to the darker, desperate part of our human hearts. The idea that we should hurt those who hurt us is a deeply, unthinkingly, held one. But put to test, when it is demanded that this policy would actually offer more than illusory benefits or a sop to our horror, the idea collapses.

What is said in private should, of course, stay there. But I have to say that in the bar, David Philips talked as much gibberish as he did at the podium.

It was a great night….

Live Debate

The debate mentioned in the previous post will be streamed live on http://www.nutsonline.org/ this evening from 7 p.m.

A Civilised Demise.....

When the Howard League asked if I was interested in taking part in a debate organised by the HL student group at Nottingham University, I girded my loins for a long trek. When they told me the opposition was to be Philip Davies MP, and the topic was "life should mean life", then I instantly offered to start walking....

A quick search of the blog reminded me that I have said some pretty harsh things about Davies. And they were justified. People really shouldn't blather on about prisons unless they have some vague idea what the hell they are talking about - an idea anathema to some MP's, who will bleat in public about damn near anything just to hear their own voice.

The views of Philip Davies are, so I'm told, a reflection of those held by his constituents. Ah, democracy in action. Except that I expect political representatives to inform, educate and occasionally lead their constituents rather than allow them to fester in a cesspit of ignorance and bile. But perhaps I ask too much from our political class.

I will be extremely pleased to patiently disassemble the chant that "life should mean life", as I have done so on the blog several times. And as I am representing the Howard League, I will do so with the utmost civility.

But this will still be a massacre. For people who hold extreme views tend to paint themselves into a conceptual dead-end, and spend their time either defending the indefensible or retreating inch by inch from their absolutist position. And it is only then that the real debate can begin.

Me. Philip Davies MP. Nottingham University. Tuesday eve. Bring it on.....

Prison Blogger Censored

I mentioned before that a prisoner blogger has sprung out of the cesspit that is Frankland prison. I also mentioned that he was being heavily leaned upon to stop writing. Such is the nature of Her Majesty's Prison Service and their fear of free comment aligned with their utter contempt for law. The blog can be found at http://voiceforcons.blogspot.co.uk

I have been contacted by his facilitators on the outside, prisoners being disallowed direct internet access. The latest development is that prison staff are refusing to allow our correspondent to post material out, and withholding supporting material that has been posted in. The illegalities in this situation just pile up on top of each other.

In a response to a "letter before action" demanding an explanation from the prison, some very junior cog in that machine says that because the blog may tarnish the reputation of Frankland (notorious for staff for brutality and racism...) then they refuse our man permission to post his material.

This is illegal. I won't even try to be subtle about it, for there are no shades of grey here. It was established when I began blogging from the other side of the wall that the only restrictions were those applying to correspondence. To wit, neither staff nor prisoners can be directly identified, nor can sensitive security matters be discussed. Using the blog to plan escapes is, well, frowned upon. Outside of these restrictions anything can be said. As readers of my travails within the prison system may recall, I said it all myself. Possibly not wisely, but perfectly legally.

I will keep you informed of the situation, which only adds to my contempt for my ex-keepers and their very vague interest in maintaining the law.

Grayling's Riot Recipie

Not giving a man something is one matter. It can raise disgruntled feelings and frustration, but these are usually kept in check by that blanket of apathy we call the status quo. It is a different matter altogether to set up a procedure, a set of hurdles, strict behavioural standards by which prisoners can earn a number of privileges, allow them to achieve these dizzying heights for nearly 20 years - and then one day tear up that mutual agreement and remove all of those privileges.

Such arbitaryness is inherent in the latest mutterings of the Minister of Justice. Chris Grayling has expressed the urge to remove and restrict a range of privileges from prisoners, ones which have been woven into the fabric of carceral life since 1995. For obedience to certain behavioural standards, compliance and so forth, prisoners earned these privileges. And prisoners know that Grayling isn't working from some great penological insight, he isn't attempting some great experiment. Prisoners know that when the screws come through the cell door to remove their duly earned and bought goods it will solely be because of a punitive and unthinking spasm has afflicted their political master. And if there is one thing which excites a prisoner's blood, it is unfairness and arbitrary abuse of power.

It appeals to Greyling to strip prisoners of their civilian clothing. Let us ponder this. There were days, not outside of my memory, when prisoners were compelled to wear uniforms. Jeans, or grey trousers, striped shirts, denim jackets....if you have seen Porridge, you know. And then cons were, slowly, allowed to wear some of their own clothing. It began with underwear, then trainers, until by now it is possible to step onto the landings head to toe in Armani.

Well, legend would say that, but I never witnessed it. My constant companion was the Cotton Traders catalogue. Which brings us to the nasty little detail that is always overlooked in the privileges debate - prisoners have to buy these clothes. And they must buy them from whatever moneys they can earn in prison workshops (average weekly pay less than £10) or from the very limited sums allowed to be sent in by friends and family (adding to the pressures on prisoners families). The Prison Service seemed to get a good deal out of this; no longer were they bearing the cost of clothing prisoners. And now, having saved and bought their trainers and sweatshirts, Grayling wants these removed and exchanged for something more drab. I hear rumours of grey jumpsuits. The sartorial objections to this are the least concern, for I assume that having allowed prisoners to buy these clothes and then deciding to remove them, Grayling will not be in any rush to compensate cons who earned this privilege through good behaviour. Prisoners may well feel aggrieved at this situation. And rightly.


Grayling also wishes to restrict prisoners' canteen privileges. For the uninitiated, the Canteen is the prison shop, where cons can spend their wages. Not a physical location within a prison but rather a paper-based order and delivery service contracted out to DHL and Booker, the Canteen list is the prisoners last toehold into consumer society. And where he buys his tobacco, stamps, tea bags and writing paper. To what end, to what possible purpose is this ability to be restricted? None that is cogent and, again, this strikes at the very heart of prison culture and legitimate expectation. The Canteen has existed since the first penological brick was laid. To restrict it out of nothing more than a fit of Ministerial pique will anger prisoners in a way few other issues do.

Except, perhaps, one. And that is Graylings desire to restricting prisoners' access to in-cell TV's.This is the pinnacle of privileges, the one cons most desire - and, of course, the one that imposes a subtle blanket of control. Whilst cons think that TV's were an unalloyed joy, the more strategic thinkers amongst us realised that TV's would also become so adored that their loss through some protest or other would be such a threat as to render swathes of the prison population docile and impotent in the face of outrageous actions by the prison service.

When most of the prison population is locked behind their door for most of the day, and with illiteracy rates shockingly high, then the loss of the distraction that is mindless TV is bound to have a serious effect on mental health and good order.

These things may appear to be trifles to us in our comfortable lives. They are, I assure you, not. These things lay at the heart of what it means to be a prisoner, confined in an environment with few options for even tiny sparks of autonomy, where all resources are deliberately kept scarce. I can tell you that getting out of bed in the morning and having the ability to choose which trousers to wear is important. Knowing there is the opportunity to be able to buy a packet of biscuits to ease night-time hunger is important. And feeling connected to the world, society, events, through the TV is important.

These things are far more significant than I could ever explain to people who have never tasted the loss of freedom, of choice, of autonomy. For they are thin threads of decency, of meaning, that signify some remaining connection to the human community and what it means to be a human being.

And to molest them in the arbitrary way that Grayling proposes reeks of unfairness, of ignorance and of a contemptible disregard of what it means to be a prisoner. If I had to mix you a recipe for a riot it would be this. To institute a scheme to earn privileges, for prisoners to adhere to those terms and spend their pitiful wages in meagre ways to bring small comfort - and then to arbitrarily strip them of all of this out of political spite.

I'm not usually one to keep an eye on the weather. But I have a sudden hankering for a long, hot summer.....

The Freedom you gave away.

So I was out of the loop for a while. I say a while, I mean 32 years. In that time politics rolled on, nations came and fell, new empires were born, and laws rolled off the production line like tins of beans. Things changed whilst I was away.

Not that these changes pass prisoners by; imprisonment is not a Rip Van Winkle experience. Through newspapers, TV, radio, staff, visitors and - mostly - through the perpetual influx of new prisoners who obviously bring cultural shifts along with their Court Warrant through the gates. Being out of the way needn't mean being out of touch.

And yet....There are parts of prison culture which are unalterable. One of these is a complete lack of privacy. At whim, staff can descend upon you and insist you undress, peel back your foreskin and squat over a mirror. Every item in your possession can be pawed over, read, copied, every letter censored, every phonecall recorded. Being a modern prisoner is to live in a fishbowl that sits on the desk of the Secretary of State.

Such freedoms as privacy may be circumscribed out of necessity in prisons, although even that argument has had to take on a nuanced hue. Letters across most of the estate are no longer routinely censored, though the right for staff to do so remains. Every word whispered across a table in the visits room is not listened to, because there are not enough staff to position one at each table. In these ways, although the right to privacy has been lost, the practicalities of intrusion limit the malign effect of that.

Privacy is but a useful illustrative point. I could be referring to any of the rights which individuals assert as the legitimate limits of State power. And during the years I was subjected to that power I resisted in every sphere of my existence. Devouring political theory and history, which was then honed in the daily machinations of prison life where State power is at its most naked, I have slowly become something of a libertarian. Essentially, there should be strict limits on State power to intrude into the private sphere.

However, as I was busy fighting to create a personal sphere in prison, and struggling to escape prison for "freedom", you lot were all busy signing away all that had been fought for since, at least, Magna Carta. I have been released into a society which not only fails to appreciate its freedoms but which has forgotten the most important lesson of history - governments may indeed be necessary, but they are to be treated with suspicion and scepticism. Like prison governors, in fact.

At what point did we think it was a good idea to get rid of a suspect's right to silence? If the State wants to throw a person in prison, why do we equivocate over the idea that they should damn well prove their case? When did we find it acceptable that the local council can install hidden cameras and set spies upon us over our school choices and bin over-filling? When did it seem a clever idea to institute secret courts, with secret evidence? And detention without charge or trial?

These are but mere examples of the intrusion, not just into privacy but physical liberty itself, which society blithely surrendered. As important, but more subtle, is the censorship of thought and speech which has inveigled its way into the dominant discourse.

It is utterly repugnant that unpleasant, offensive ideas cannot be discussed. It is an outrage that society swapped the freedom to speak for the right not to be offended. And it is disgraceful that society has abandoned the idea of challenging horrible or dangerous ideas by argument or ridicule and instead turned to the State to enforce this pathetic demand not to hear anything we find distasteful.

Perhaps it takes a man who has been without freedom for most of his life to appreciate the very concept. Because those of you who have enjoyed it all along have treated the very idea of freedom with contempt.

Thinking Aloud And Censorship

I seemed to have inadvertently tested the boundaries of civilised discourse recently by raising a point on twitter regarding our personal responsibility and the crimes that may befall us. It made me wonder - are there any questions that should never be asked, issues that should never be explored?

The question I poised was this: If a man wore a suit covered in £20 notes and got mugged, would you blame him? If a woman wore provocative clothing and was assaulted, would you blame her?

I received a very quick and brutal schooling in sexual politics and rape in response to the question and quickly had to admit that it was poorly constructed and probably had a false premise. Nevertheless, I stood by the attempt to explore the underlying principle of the question, which was how much responsibility we should take for our personal safety in an uncertain world.

Some decided that the question itself was so offensive that it should not have been asked. Worse, merely by asking I was accused of being a rape apologist. Hmmmm. This followed closely on from a heated stream of abuse I received for asking what the actual evidence was for the existence of Satanic Ritualistic Abuse?

I say that there are no questions that should not be asked, perhaps especially if they are inherently offensive. For if we fear to read into such issues they risk quickly slipping into dogma, which is the death of knowledge and inquiry. And I think that those who fear such questions reveal the weakness of their own beliefs.

The idea that discussion of some ideas can be prohibited for being offensive is profoundly dangerous. To prohibit questioning is downright insane.

A Powerful Question

Whenever I give any sort of public talk then I make it clear that I am not only open to a Q and A, but that if I'm daft enough to insert my life into the public eye then the questions that can be asked can be as personal as people care to imagine. Thankfully, few take full advantage of that offer!

At Exeter University last week, though, someone came up to me at the end. During my talk I had pointed out that people have universal human needs and will struggle to fulfil those needs; and if denied legitimate, peaceful avenues of doing so then this struggle may become violent. My interlocutor sidled up, gathered their nerve and asked a question many may have been thinking - why should we care about the needs of those such as myself who have denied the needs of others? The words "murdering bastard" were not mentioned, but lay in the air as if they could leap into existence at any moment.

It was a fair question. A question that many would ask, and an equal number would answer for themselves... My immediate answer is, why add harm to the harm already committed? To what end?

Margerine Campaigning

So I may be spreading myself a bit thinly for some tastes, like a meagre offering of margarine. Here, on Facebook, Twitter, Linkedi n, popping up before audiences across the nation either via some media or appearing in a puff of smoke, as large as life and twice as ugly.

And this raises a dilemma. This blog was never intended to be a daily diary; my autobiography was intended to be the framework for a wider discussion. And yet some people don't travail the digital wasteland further than the blog and still want to know what I am up to.

So... I will explore the technological to feed all the crazy to here as well from the other places and, failing that, will post little pieces if anything interesting is happening. I hope this is a happy medium.

On that note, snow permitting, am off to Exeter University at the invitation of the student Howard League guys to give a talk on penal reform. Sold out!

Strange Company

The privatisation of chunks of prison and probation related parts of the criminal justice system has worked some people up into a lather. Coupled with the concept of Payment by Results (PbR) as a means to reduce reoffending, it is clear to all but the wilfully stupid that the government intends to impose significant change.

I can’t recall having a fundamental issue with the privatisation of punishment – the essence of the matter – as someone, somewhere is making money out of the whole affair. Whether screws or suppliers of cell doors, prisons are a money laundering machine. That the private sector claims to be able to do this more efficiently is, to my mind, hardly a moral point but a practical one. Not that the moral debate was ignored – it just passed by in the blink of an eye 25 years ago and attempting to resurrect it is politically futile.

That lot said, to find myself on a conference platform as host of an event sponsored by G4S was one of those moments when I had to give serious consideration as to the nature of reality. Surely I have slipped across the quantum boundaries into a different reality? For there I was, with an old prison Area Manager, now glad-handing him as a head honcho at G4S. Strange days.

Not everyone is as sanguine over a future where giants such as G4S dominate. Probation officers in particular are taking to the streets in mass outraged mobs….Well, putting down the recall forms long enough to hack out a tweet or two, at least. And the objections seem to be wildly ideological, reducing to “private=bad, public=good”. And crazy libertarian that I am, such ideology doesn’t interest me one bit.

Public services are rarely better than private ones – if at all. The people who make up the organisations can be as lazy, useless or professional as anyone in the private sector. The difference is, a lousy public sector organisation that fails to deliver doesn’t go bust, it just keeps wasting the public’s money. If a private company consistently did badly, it would go bust and open the way for a new competitor.

The idea that private industry is inherently bad is a silly one. The profit motive has driven Western culture to the heights where it dominates the globe. Along with democracy, private enterprise is the greatest contribution the West has made to mankind. And we enjoy its benefits every moment of every day.  To dismiss private enterprise when it encroaches purely because of the profit motive is positively weak-minded.

The criminal justice landscape is changing and ideological objections seem to be futile. It is a fascinating time, where adaptation and flexibility may signal the survival of the best old ideas and practices and the demise of the useless.

Adapt or die. And I’m adapting like hell. And sharing space with G4S is a portent of very fluid times.

Five Live Investigates

Ed here.

Just in case you missed it, Ben was on Radio 5 this morning discussing historical abuse cases.  Available on iPlayer.

He is now laid up with Nora virus, which has been trying to get him for a few days.  Something from him will appear on here in a day or two.

Not Missing, Wandering....

If you wonder where the hell I am when not glued to the blog, it's because I am apparently pursuing several careers. As well as writing and consulting, pitching in at the Howard League and Inside Justice, I also seem to fill the hours being a terrorist-pervert cult leader with a sideline in Freemasonry.

Which, if you hadn't guessed, means I am also busy on Twitter. Compress a thought into 140 characters, and away you go... It really is surprising what exchanges and connections can flow. And so Twitter is where I waffle about my daily doings (so to speak...), and fill the endless hours on trains.

Of course, not everyone welcomes debate - even when they put up a comment for the world to read, they can take umbrage at anyone passing comment in response. Daft. Which is how, in only the last 36 hours, one particularly rancid collective on Twitter has decided to sling abuse my way.

To clarify. I am not really a terrorist-pervert-cultist-freemason. Honest. But that's the level of abuse that can crop up from those too deaf to hear another voice in the wilderness of Twitter. Ho hum.

But it is fun, engaging, and full of great people. Twitter. @prisonerben. Pop along.

A Man with A Problem

You probably won't know the name John Bowden, unless you take a particular interest in the radical edge of prison politics. A fellow lifer, he remains in prison having being imprisoned the same year I began my sentence.

John is a highly vocal, politicised, man. Whenever I sat and listed those few prisoners who were publicly and consistently critics of the prison system - never more than a handful - John was at the top.   He writes for a different audience than myself, and does so eloquently from a differing ideological stance. John has always deserved a wider audience.

The prison system has made him pay for his criticism. A brief whizz with Google will reveal the rather extraordinary shennanigans he has endured in recent years.

This blogpost is highlighting the most disturbing new development - the use of secret evidence to the Parole Board by the Prison Service. I incklude what John himself has explained about the situation below. I just want to add that this is a disturbing development; that the prison service is attempting to use John's perfectly legitimate written criticism as an excuse to keep him imprisoned. It could so easily have happened to me.

John's latest follows here:


"It is relatively rare that prisoners, originally sentenced for non-political offences, become so politicised whilst in jail, that their release is opposed by the prison authorities for exactly that reason.

In the case of life sentence prisoners who have served the “tariff” part of their sentence (or the length of time the judiciary stipulates they should remain in jail), the legal criteria determining their release, or not, are clear and straightforward: Has the prisoner served a sufficient period of time to satisfy the interests of punishment and retribution? Does the prisoner remain a risk to the community? Can the prisoner be safely and effectively supervised in the community post-release?

Of course the prison authorities would never openly admit that apart from the above criteria, there is another “risk factor” that would prevent a life sentence prisoner’s release: Their identification with a progressive or radical political cause. Opposing a life sentence prisoner’s release, purely on the basis of their having exposed and organised against human rights abuse in the prison system, would of course make a complete mockery of the claim that, apart from its punishment function, prison also exists as a place of reform and rehabilitation, a place where supposedly brutal and anti-social criminals are made better people by a system administered by humane and just-minded individuals. The entire legitimacy of the prison system is based on the premise that, essentially it exists to protect the public from individuals who represent a threat , so denying that some life sentence prisoners are kept locked-up solely because they embrace an ideology that actually believes in a society and world free from violence, exploitation, and inequality, is imperative if the myths and fallacy used to justify the existence of prisons is to remain intact.

The prison system actually employs a whole legion of compliant ‘Criminal Justice’ system “professionals”, like social workers, probation officers, and psychologists to provide, if necessary, the politically neutral lexicon of “risk-factors” and “Personality Disorder” to legitimize the continued imprisonment of life sentence prisoners, who in reality are viewed as politically motivated and likely to become politically involved on the outside if released. The narrative of my own life and experience from brutalised and violent young criminal to politically conscious prisoner activist, and how the prison system continues to respond to that, is illustrative of how that system actually considers politicised life sentence prisoners far, far more worthy of continued detention than those who might genuinely pose a risk to the community.

In 1982, I was sentenced, alongside two other men, to life in prison for the killing of a fourth man during a drunken party on a South London council estate. At the time, I was 25 years old, and a state-raised product of the care and “youth justice” system. The prison system that I entered in the early 1980’s was a barbaric and de-humanising place, where in terms of the treatment of prisoners, the rule of law stopped dead at the prison gate. My almost immediate response to prison repression was one of total defiance and resistance, that was met with physical and psychological brutality in the form of regular beatings, (in 1991 a civil court in Birmingham found that prison guards in the notorious Winson Green jail had subjected me to a sustained and gratuitous beating-up within minutes of my arrival at the jail), and many years held in almost clinical solitary confinement. Far from breaking my defiance, such inhuman treatment only deepened my determination to fight the system, and to use the only method truly effective in that regard – solidarity with other prisoners. As the years passed, I began to politically contextualise the struggle I was involved in against the prison system, and understand it as a part of a much wider struggle that transcended prison walls and essentially characterised all societies and places where the powerful brutalised and de-humanised the powerless.

The length of time that my original trial judge recommended I should remain in jail has now long passed, and yet I remain in a maximum security prison, and what can best be described as a campaign by the prison system to keep me here intensifies with the approach of my second parole hearing in over 30 years.
It is essentially my contact with prisoner support groups on the outside, or “subversive” and even “terrorist” groups, as the prison authorities have defined and described them, that is now claimed in some prison system reports, as the main “Risk-Factor” preventing my release. Of course , if necessary, for the purpose of officially legitimising my continued imprisonment, for the convenience of the Parole Board, the usual array of morally compromised and corrupt social workers and prison-hired psychologists will attest to the fact that my enduring “anti-authoritarianism” is just a symptom of my psychopathy and continuing risk to the public. But if there are any doubts that I remain in prison, first and foremost, because of my efforts to expose the prison system for what it truly is, then a document sent to the Parole Board by the Scottish Prison Service on the 2nd December last year, lays them firmly to rest.

The document, an “intelligence report” compiled by the Security Department at Shotts Prison in Lanarkshire, was comprised of two parts, one that I was allowed to read, and another part described as “Non-Disclosure”, which means secret information that I would not be allowed access to. It is rare for “Non-Disclosure” intelligence reports to be submitted to the Parole Board, and it represents a total negation of any pretence of open and natural justice, very much like the secrecy employed to imprison “terrorist suspects” without legal due process. Obliged as it is to officially inform prisoners if “Non-Disclosure” evidence is to be used against them at parole hearings, I received a letter from an “Intelligence Manager” at Shotts Prison in late December of last year, informing me that a portion of “intelligence” on me was so detrimental to “public interest” if it was revealed that it had to be kept secret. I was, however, informed that the “intelligence” related to articles written by me that were critical of the prison system and then placed on political websites. One seriously wonders how the posting of articles and information on the internet that expose abuses of power by the prison system, would so endanger “public interest”, unless of course we replace “public interest” with the more precise “state interest”. The purpose behind the use of “Non-Disclosure” evidence in my case is obvious – To convey to the Parole Board the clear message that my current “risk” is not so much about a danger to the public, but much more about my willingness to publicly expose the brutal nature of the prison system, with the assistance of “subversive groups” on the outside. The part of the “Intelligence Report” that I was allowed full access to confirms this.

Virtually every single one of the “entries” in the part of the report I was allowed access to focuses on what it describes as my “internet activity” and links to “subversive groups” on the outside:

“Bowden continues to leak information through a social networking site.”

“Website features articles relating to Bowden asking people to protest and fight for freedom.”

“Bowden continues to be involved in internet activity and there are plans to have a day of action in support of Bowden.”

“Intelligence provides that Bowden sends correspondence out of prison that is then posted on the internet.”

There is also a reference to what was described as my attempt to set up a debating society in the prison’s Education Department to “platform his current political views, which are focused on poverty.”

This is the evidence that the prison system claims justifies my continued detention after more than three decades in prison. Not a single entry in the “intelligence report” suggests I pose a genuine risk to the community or am likely to re-offend in a criminal way, and yet the Parole Board, a wholly white middle-class body, will inevitably rubber-stamp my continued imprisonment in compliance with the prison system’s wishes.

The two men who were originally imprisoned with me in 1982 were released almost twenty years ago, and I, as a direct result of my struggle to empower and organise prisoners in defence of their basic human rights, remain buried in a maximum security jail, probably until I die.

I will of course continue to write and distribute articles exposing and criticising the brutality of prison as a weapon of social control and ruling class violence, and also highlighting my own victimisation as a consequence of that.

John Bowden"

Source: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/01/505362.html

There are very, very few prisoners who have the stones to persistently criticise the prison system in public. The group has never comprised more than a handful, and each pays a price. They do society a service, in challenging the dominant discourse and attempting to drag the secluded world of prison into the light of public scrutiny.

To attempt to continue their detention for their activities is a repugnant outgrowth of the prison services' need to control and subjugate. It is a matter that should concern us all.

I encourage readers to disseminate this blogpost as widely as possible.