Books banned..

How much do you know about prisons?
Easier access to drugs than outside, mobile phones, etc.. Bent prison officers and parcels except Pentonville where its thrown in in shampoo bottles.
 
Your post looks like the only word you read in my post was 'prison' - what is your point?
 
Last edited:
You say Grayling is laughingly out of touch. I see young men becoming addicts because of drugs in prison. It makes it harder to rehabilitate them in society which is an area to which I am involved.Parcels, especially books, are a major channel into the prisons. If you think that stopping that route is laughable then you are misguided.
Access to books should be from prison libraries. Ignorant protesters are laughable!
Pretty simple really!
 
Last edited:
You're right. Allowing books into prisons makes young men drug addicts, not sure why I didn't realise that earlier, how silly of me. :rolleyes:
 
But parcel delivery masquerading as books videos, etc etc, is a major conduit for drug shipping in the ordinary non-prison world also. Does it follow that all parcel delivery to regular home addresses should be banned as well?
Or do you only want prison postal deliveries stopped? Which seems a bit casting-a-net-to-catch-a-sprat to me, seeing as postal deliveries to prisons are anyway subject to more detailed scrutiny than postal deliveries to domestic addresses.

The whole thing seems to me to be another rights-infringement perpetrated by an anti-libertarian conservative administration to placate the "hang 'em 'n flog 'em" brigade which is the Conservative Party's natural constituency.
 
Hamm
If you want to have a sensible reasoned argument don't be a facetious prat.
By all means let them have access to books which most do!

Icebreaker.
Youngsters, and some of older men, are generally scared witless when they enter prison. They may act hard but in many cases that is a defence mechanism. They are vulnerable in many ways, some are coerced into buying drugs, others do so to "fit in". Many prisons unofficially tolerate drug use, though that will not be admitted, because there are not enough staff to handle problems that would arise if they clamped down. PO's who check parcels are not always too diligent. By banning parcels the route is closed.
We have a huge prison population and it costs a great deal to maintain our prisons. Quite understandably HMG does not want to increase costs by having more PO's.
Grayling's move may be rescinded not because of protesters but because of the above.
 
Last edited:
Tout Seul said:
Hamm
If you want to have a sensible reasoned argument don't be a facetious prat.
By all means let them have access to books which most do!

Icebreaker.
Youngsters, and some of older men, are generally scared witless when they enter prison. They may act hard but in many cases that is a defence mechanism. They are vulnerable in many ways, some are coerced into buying drugs, others do so to "fit in". Many prisons unofficially tolerate drug use, though that will not be admitted, because there are not enough staff to handle problems that would arise if they clamped down. PO's who check parcels are not always too diligent. By banning parcels the route is closed.
We have a huge prison population and it costs a great deal to maintain our prisons. Quite understandably HMG does not want to increase costs by having more PO's.
Grayling's move may be rescinded not because of protesters but because of the above.
Click to expand...

Your point, which is the same as Graylings, is utter madness. Yes, they can be used to traffic drugs etc but you don't then just ban parcels/books being sent to prison - if society functioned like this everytime it had an issue (shut down the whole process) the world would be a very strange place.

Literacy is a huge problem with those in prison, with many not having the literacy level of even an adolescent.

Isn't prison meant to be a place to rehabilitate?
 
Hamm said:
Your point, which is the same as Graylings, is utter madness. Yes, they can be used to traffic drugs etc but you don't then just ban parcels/books being sent to prison - if society functioned like this everytime it had an issue (shut down the whole process) the world would be a very strange place.
Click to expand...

Many prisons didn't allow books to be sent in anyway (it was a local decision rather than national) and the few that did wouldn't allow hardbacks except in very limited cases (hardbacks are easier to use to get drugs in).

FWIW there are extremely few prisoners get books sent in anyway, and the ones that do usually have a decent education and are able to read, this isn't really going to affect many people.

The rest of the IEP scheme should be looked at closer, which will cause more problems, no clothes sent in, new Entry level of IEP, the ridiculous system of ordering from outside retailers (argos, you order, get charged extra for doing so and usually takes 8-12 weeks to arrive, if you are lucky!)
 
Good post tout

I was indifferent about this until I read that. You have experience.

Quite the most ridiculous point I've seen equating home deliveries to prison deliveries.

And the state of the libraries. Awwwwww

Perhaps before raping a kid or smashing up and ruining someone's home the convicts should consider the "state of the libraries " as a deterrent?
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
Your point, which is the same as Graylings, is utter madness. Yes, they can be used to traffic drugs etc but you don't then just ban parcels/books being sent to prison - if society functioned like this everytime it had an issue (shut down the whole process) the world would be a very strange place.

Literacy is a huge problem with those in prison, with many not having the literacy level of even an adolescent.

Isn't prison meant to be a place to rehabilitate?
Click to expand...

If they can't read then what do they need extra outside books for ?
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Quite the most ridiculous point I've seen equating home deliveries to prison deliveries.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point, respectfully.
Nobody is equating the two, just saying that the delivery of drugs to homes via the post is a large component of the drug distribution network. Yet nobody is suggesting banning parcel delivery in the broader society. (Because that would be ridiculous, yes?).

I do, however, take on board T.S.'s argument .............. and am inclined to revise my attitude towards the issue in light of his posts.
 
Fair enough

Same with me

The "protestors" must surely take on board that there is a security issue. So why don't they do something about this? It's hardly difficult to gather up second hand books so why not run an appeal and restock these supposedly bare libraries?

If they genuinely cared about the prisoners literacy, that is what they would do
 
clivex said:
And the state of the libraries. Awwwwww

Perhaps before raping a kid or smashing up and ruining someone's home the convicts should consider the "state of the libraries " as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

And maybe the prison service should actually put some real money into rehabilitation rather than being happy with the revolving door policy that is in place. Obviously you will never stop all crime, but targetting certain groups of criminals and actually persuading them to turn their lives round might save some kid getting raped or someones house getting smashed up in the future.

Getting people to 'upgrade' from cannabis to harder drugs through the inadequate MDT's hardly helps matters either.
 
Some might say that they will "turn their lives around" if they knew what would be coming when they are caught? I agree that there should be rehabilitation but there are limits and responsibility must remain with the offender

Persuade a child rapist? Are you kidding? What, "we will let you out if you promise not to do it again please".

Swallowed the guardian or something?
 
clivex said:
Some might say that they will "turn their lives around" if they knew what would be coming when they are caught? I agree that there should be rehabilitation but there are limits and responsibility must remain with the offender

Persuade a child rapist? Are you kidding? What, "we will let you out if you promise not to do it again please".

Swallowed the guardian or something?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know I didn't say that, and its fact that most people start off at low end crimes and progress into more serious offending. Even so, if someone is sent to prison today for raping a child they will be released one day, what would you rather happen, they get some serious help and hopefully dont offend again, or nothing be done to address the behaviour, they get out and do it again? I only used that offence as an example because you mentioned it in a previous post.
 
walsworth said:
I agree with Ricky on this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/take-away-prisoners-books-you-3285598
Click to expand...


I thought it was ok until I got to this bit

But when any of Grayling’s kind go to prison they don’t suffer the same petty rules. Remember Jeffrey Archer? He was banged up for telling lies in court. When he was inside he not only read books – he was allowed to write them.

So was anyone else at that time, quite what someone was allowed to do over 10 years ago has to do with a rule change 6 months ago is beyond me.
 
Well it's a extreme example. But "hopefully don't offend again?" This is an extreme crime that you don't exactly leave to chance

I. Not getting daily mail about this, but my thoughts would be with the victim or potential victims not the scum that carry out this act. No way

I am talking about the nasty stuff here, not being conned by a 15 year old

I take overall point most certainly but this is beyond the pale
 
clivex said:
Well it's a extreme example. But "hopefully don't offend again?" This is an extreme crime that you don't exactly leave to chance
Click to expand...

Well yes, but thats my point, rehablitation in most jails is non existent, or so bad it might as well not be there. My view is someone doing that should never be released, but as they are then surely trying to prevent reoffending is better than nothing? Not just for this crime, but for any?

I. Not getting daily mail about this, but my thoughts would be with the victim or potential victims not the scum that carry out this act. No way
Click to expand...

Obviously, I hope you didnt think I would have meant it any other way, but the 2 go hand in hand. A potential victim means a potential offender, if you stop someone becoming an offender then you stop someone becoming a victim. It doesnt work the other way round, so you have to stop the offending. Sticking someone in a cell for a few years and just leaving them doesn't work.
 
dvds2000 said:
I thought it was ok until I got to this bit

But when any of Grayling’s kind go to prison they don’t suffer the same petty rules. Remember Jeffrey Archer? He was banged up for telling lies in court. When he was inside he not only read books – he was allowed to write them.

So was anyone else at that time, quite what someone was allowed to do over 10 years ago has to do with a rule change 6 months ago is beyond me.
Click to expand...

In theory, yes, anyone was allowed to write books, but Ricky's point is that the ordinary prisoner would not have been provided with enough peace and quiet to do so.
 
Timmy Murphy's book has an interesting account of his time inside.Personally I think anyone inside should be doing hard physical work if they aren't prepared to accept education or training.
 
Back
Top