Prisons do not create criminals or make them worse;
prisons are bricks and mortar.
the article which follows was written in 1998 a year into the New Labour era it
has as much if not greater impact today in 2005 when so many are fearful of the
growth in crime particularly because of the New Labour policies on drugs, gambling
and now 24hr drinking.
article in the respected journal Freedom Today on Crime and
Punishment (www.tfa.net) by a learned contributor David Fraser on the
Supervision of offenders in the community has been a failure and its
continuation exposes the Public to unnecessary risks. [As we learn in 2005]
Courts misled on failed policy
… “the bleak fact is that not one of the considerable
number of these research reports reviewed by the author has borne objective
There are 200,000 offenders subject to supervision in the
community by the probation service.
For members of the
public, as past and potential victims of crime, the over-riding question is:
Do these supervision programmes work; in terms of protecting
us from further criminal victimisation?
An objective appraisal
of the evidence makes it clear that the answer to the question is
negative. Home Office statistics demonstrate
that community supervision is a calamitous failure in terms of the
number of reconvictions recorded against supervised offenders.
In 1995 the overall reconviction rates for those placed
on probation was 53 per cent, the
majority placed under supervision are males under 30; the reconviction rate for those under 21 years was 75 per cent, 21-24 years 62per cent
and 25-29 years 56 per cent. Against a background of a 7 per cent
detection rate, the reoffending rate will be horrific.
to all crimes committed by a criminal; reconvictions refer to the small number of these crimes, which
are successfully prosecuted through the courts.
These statistics are the
only relevant yardstick against which to measure the effectiveness of these penal
measures, which allow many persistent criminals their freedom, and which, as
shown by the above figures, so obviously put public safety at risk. These results contradict the many claims made
over recent years by a number of probation services, which have published
so-called ‘successful’ results of programmes offering alternatives to imprisonment.
In addition, the
Probation Service and other anti-prison organisations in this country have
embraced uncritically the results of ‘what works’ research from both North
America and the United Kingdom which purports to show that certain types of
community supervision can be effective in reducing crime.
The bleak fact is that
not one of a considerable number of these reports reviewed by the author has
born objective scrutiny. As demonstrated
by the following examples, when the ‘research babble’ [You could call it
Spin!] has been decoded, what is found is that
not only do the reported results not equate with the commonly accepted
understanding of success in terms of protecting the public, but they
threaten the public safety.
The first example is
based on a programme run by the Hereford & Worcester Probation
Service, which compared the reconviction rates
of offenders on a supervision programme with those sentenced to a period of
imprisonment. The researchers claimed
that their programme was a ‘success’ because they had found “16 per
cent fewer convictions within two years for the supervision group than for the
is a meaningless claim as far as protecting the community is concerned.
What is relevant,
however, is the number of crimes committed by the offenders on the scheme
against innocent members of the public.
Based on the reported 68
per cent reconviction rate for the supervision
group, and the 7 per cent detection rate,
it is possible to estimate that the 53 offenders on the scheme are likely to
have committed as
many as 500 offences during the two-year period covering the period covering the
programme and the follow-up period; none of these crimes would have been committed had a
prison sentence been imposed.
Assuming only two victims per crime (a direct and a
indirect victim) this means that 1000 people were affected. Quite apart from
the significant financial loss likely to have been sustained by their victims,
the potential personal costs to them in terms of for example,
loss of confidence,
sense of privacy,
despair over the loss of irreplaceable family and personal items can be
[So when the Home
Secretary and Police are discussing in February 2005 the question what the
Householder can do to protect themselves when confronted by the intruder it is forgotten
the lasting damage that such an intrusion has on the victim. In the political-correct world of Blair and
his many adherents this does not appear to be discussed but then with them it
is the destroyer of our society who must be understood otherwise what would he
do with the thousands of interfering busybodies in our society today.
It is not stress councillors
that are required but a stern front and action when it comes to dealing with
the criminal and not whether he or she has a television in the cell or a swimming
pool to use -of course the water must be of the correct temperature or the
Human Rights legislation will be invoked.
It seems that Law & Order has become a
hot potato so we now have Tony Blair trying to explain after almost eight years
in office the out of control Immigration and Refugee flood which he has
previously turned a blind eye. This negligence has changed our country so that
the indigenous people now fear the future in their own once green and pleasant
Whatever New Labour or
the so-called Conservative Party say it is their stance on Europe and their
history of slowly turning their back on conservative values which has
contributed to the present unrest in our society as evidenced in many areas in
To continue. - Thus when viewed through the eyes of the
beleaguered public, the claims of success for the programme can be seen
to be ill founded.
The second example draws
on the research of Izzo & Ross (1990) who published so-called ‘positive’
results of a ‘cognitive’ skills programme for offenders, originally designed by
Robert Ross and colleagues in Canada.
Supporters of the ‘what works’ research have made much of Izzo &
Ross’s findings that over a nine-month period, the reconviction rate of
offenders on the cognitive skills programme was 18 per cent compared
with 48 per cent and 70 per cent reconviction rates for two other types of
community supervision programme.
When projected over the
normal two-year follow-up period, however, the reconviction rates for those
attending the cognitive skills programme, hailed by many as a ‘successful
example of what works in reducing offending’, equates closely with the
disastrous 53 per cent
reconviction rate for all offenders on probation in the UK (Home Office Statistical
Bulletin: 1995 figures).
Thus the failure in this
example of the much heralded’ cognitive skills’ programme to protect the public
from further offending and the even more disastrous reconviction rates of the
other two supervision groups illustrates the high price paid by the
general public for such experimentation.
Another tactic used by
some contributors to the ‘what works’ research literature is to compare the
reconviction rates of supervised offenders with their ‘predicted’ or expected
While such comparisons
may fascinate some academics, they are a red herring as far as the safety of
the public is concerned; it is the actual level of crime in the community that
matter to them.
This is illustrated in
the example of the ‘Stop’ programme run
by a South Wales Probation Service. The
results were reported as showing that after 12 months, the reconviction rates
of those attending the scheme were “16 per cent lower than their
predicted reconviction rates” Further
investigation of this classic example of statistical mummery showed that after
only 12 months, the reconviction rate of those attending the scheme was already
as high as 44 per cent. And due to the low detection rate, the
actual re-offending rate will be significantly worse.
When [projected over the
usual two year measurement period, the reconviction rate for offenders on the ‘Stop’
programme is likely to be closer to a catastrophic 80 per cent (which falls in line with the
Home Office official reconviction rates of 74 per cent for supervised offenders
under 21 years).
Only by a gross
distortion of the English language could such results be described as ‘successful’. The researchers also reported as a ‘success’,
the lower reconviction rates of those who finished the programme compared with
those who dropped out, a consideration which irrelevant to the public, who
are left to cope with the criminal behaviour of all the offenders on the
scheme, not just the finishers.
none of these research projects provides evidence to show that they stopped
offenders referred to them from committing crime.
Indeed, when viewed
objectively, their results show that, “far from offering protection from crime, these
schemes have put the public at risk” This almost unbearable truth
could not be more clearly illustrated than by the extrapolation that the Home
Office figure of 53 per cent reconviction rate for the 200,000 offenders under supervision in the
community equates to millions of offences committed by them during their period
It is the innocent
public that bears the brunt of this catastrophic failure in sentencing policy;
the continued depredations of the persistent offender have had an effect on the
quality of the lives of the victims and the public at large, probably
unequalled by any other recent phenomenon.
incontrovertible evidence of their failure to stop further crime, the question
must be asked: why the courts continue to use community sentences for
persistent offenders unmotivated to change? Over the last three
decades, the misleading dogma of the of the anti-prison lobby has had a
powerful influence on both policy makers and courts. As a result, sentencers, prey to their own uncertainties, have
been vulnerable to the ides of these anti-prison organisations, which threaten
them with ‘ball and chain’ tag for sending a greater percentage of
offenders to prison compared with other courts.
Sentencers have also
been exposed to the influence of probation reports offering relentless and
undisguised mitigation for offenders, invariably presenting alternatives to
custodial sentences, regardless of the risk to the public. In some probation areas the slavish
adherence to this ideological dogma is reinforced by official instructions from
senior managers to their staff not to recommend prison or even use the word ’custody’
in their court reports concerning offenders.
Official records of sentences passed by both judges and magistrates
illustrate the effect of such intimidation; they show unarguably how, over the
past decade, courts have favoured the freedom of the persistent offender rather
than the protection of the public; they have sentenced increasing numbers of
offenders unmotivated to reform in the community programmes of the sort described
above, thus giving them a licence to go on offending and victimising yet more
members of the public.
[It is no wonder why crime
is out of control in 2005-It is the scourge of political -correctness over the
past years which has encouraged the increased crime wave]
For the courts to allow
such offenders to stay in the community is to abdicate their primary responsibility
to protect the public, particularly as in every case, the offenders frightening
history of previous criminality is made known to the court before sentence is
No one has the right to
risk the safety of the public with such’programme experimentation’, which, in
the vast majority of cases, is so predictably doomed to failure. Courts should more properly
exercise the conscience and forbearance of the community by reserving community
sentences for those offenders who demonstrate genuine regret over their actions
and who show some degree of motivation to change.
Persistent offenders unmotivated to reform should be sent
to prison, affording the public maximum protection from them for the duration
of the sentences.
We should resist being
bullied by fallacious ideological argument to think negatively about
prisons. Recent Home Office statistics
show that the reconviction rate for those released from prison are marginally
better for than for those offenders placed on community supervision [If
they bother to turn up?]
In any event, the reconviction rates of those released
from prison are a distraction and unrelated to the success or otherwise of
supervision in the community. If in
addition to protecting the public, prison deters or reforms, that is a
bonus. If on discharge, ex-prisoners
re-offend, it confirms that a custodial sentence was right in the FIRST PLACE.
Prisons do not create
criminals or make worse criminals; prisons are mere bricks and mortar; they
cannot be held responsible for further offending. The decision is solely the responsibility of the individual who
chooses to continue a life of crime.
Persistent offenders should get longer sentences, which could eventually
be a deterrent; otherwise, at least, the sentences would protect the public for
longer and longer periods.
The author -David Fraser, who read social
administration at the London School of Economics in the 1960’s, was a Senior Probation
Officer for most of the 26 years he spent working with the Probation Service in
inner London and in Bristol. He is now a criminal intelligence analyst with the
National Criminal Intelligence Service.
[Fonts altered-bolding &underling used-comments in
It is no wonder that both the Conservative and New Labour
are now pleased that the main headline in the second week of February 2005 has
changed to Immigration and Refugee concerns where here again
political-correctness and the Human Rights legislation in 1998 is giving both
parties more severe headaches.
With regard to the above article -Courts misled on failed
policy it should be made a rule that the judge or magistrate who gives a community
sentence instead of a prison sentence in the case of the persistent offender
that it be a rule that all offenders should have to make contact every six months
with the person who gave the community sentence to remind the sentencer that
the offender is still a great pain to many members of the public. This will make it clear to the soft-touch
legal eagles that they are not finished with the case until either the
persistent offender is in goal or miraculously in a few cases they have
relented of their misdeeds.
We ask as we are sure many of those who have experienced
the crime wave when will the do-gooders find other jobs and let real Justice
take its place-the Public are still waiting.]
* * *
To obtain other enlightened articles contact Freedom
THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the
controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF THE
have signed a
DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE
within the past few days
, calling on the
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street website is
The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138
Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the
absolute necessity of a
HEAR HIM ON
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the
people of Britain were given
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon
the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed
the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The
GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with
-only such as British (not EU) passports,
driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER
A BLUNT REPLY TO THE
QUEEN'S SPEECH ON CHRISTMAS DAY-25th
LEGACY-AUSTRALIA-CANADA-NEW ZEALAND-WHY THEY
The Act of
Settlement of 1701-WHY IT SHOULD CONCERN
The Common Law of
ENGLAND is the LAW of
Commonwealth Realms V The Constitution for
AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN
WHY WE MUST BE
ALERT AND WITH OUR COMMONWEALTH PATRIOTS
MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
IF WE DESTROY OUR RIGHT
OF FREEDOM TO FIGHT A WAR ON TERROR-WHO
YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU
HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM BECOMING A
PROVINCE OF EUROPE.
THE QUEEN MAKE IT PLAIN THAT OUR FREE
INDEPENDENT NATION STATE IS SACROSANCT BUT
THAT IF THE PEOPLE WISH TO BECOME SLAVES
-THEN A REFERENDUM THERE MUST BE.
THAT NO ENGLISHMAN SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER
HE WISHES TO BE A SLAVE OR FREE!
CHRISTMAS WE WILL FIND OUT IF OUR PROTECTOR
'Rights and Liberties'
by HER SACRED OATH
MONARCHY be nothing more than a
PARK in the future
THE TIME FOR BLUNT SPEAKING AS THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF OUR UNIQUE NATION STATE IS IN
We are told on the BBC (Brussels
Broadcasting Service) at 11.30 pm on
Saturday the 23rd December, 2007, that the
QUEEN now has a website which has footage of
the Royal Family in the past and that the
QUEEN is NOT
'Stuck in the past'
far as many patriotic subjects are concerned
we need to remain in the PAST when it
concerns the protection of our
have had and will continue to have but it
must not threaten our very WAY-OF-LIFE our
Common Law of England and all which makes
our country the most unique parliamentary
democracy in the world.
BE NO SURRENDER!
Should the Monarch fail to protect our
inherited RIGHTS and Liberties then we shall
have to fight for a REPUBLIC as
happened in the 17th century because the
Monarch of the day ignored those very
'Rights and Liberties of Englishmen' which
will still survive in the English Speaking
World today in December 2007. How can the
MOTHER of PARLIAMENTS give away what is
already our and our children's
INHERITANCE which cannot be taken away by
PARLIAMENT or the QUEEN.
If the above publicity
exercise is to be used to soften the impact to
the population of the BETRAYAL of their
CONSTITUTION and COUNTRY then it would be
the greatest TREASON by a Monarch since
James II who sold our COUNTRY to the FRENCH
for MONEY and RELIGION.
WE ASK WHAT PRICE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND
THEY ARE PRICELESS!
Choice is Yours!-but time is running out
6 months to be EXACT!
WE are to
THEY are not
WE have more to LOSE
more to GAIN
WE have been clear of dictators from EUROPE
for most of our HISTORY
been cursed with that abomination for most
of their HISTORY and NOW!
Our Queen and the EU Constitution
The Spirit of England
THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE II
We now learn
from the Daily Mail COMMENT on Christmas Eve
that the Queen's Speech will cover the
catastrophic fall in Values and Moral
behaviour since the beginning of her 56
-year reign. This has been brought about by
the actions of HER MINISTERS and the greater
number of those in HER PARLIAMENT who have
placed THEIR CONCERNS before the INTERESTS
of THE PEOPLE and NATION STATE.
the fact that HER PEOPLE feel LOST that has
been the direct result of the actions of HER
SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS and the TRAITOROUS
POLITICIANS including PRIME MINISTERS who
have stealthily over the 56 years of HER
MAJESTY'S REIGN have almost achieved their
aim of ENSLAVING the PEOPLE to a FOREIGN
for the marked drop in the number viewing
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH is no doubt because the
mass of people have realised years ago that
the MONARCH is powerless to PROTECT their
WAY-OF-LIFE and events up to now have PROVED
There is a well know saying
'Nero fiddled while Rome burned'
Is it the case on
Christmas Day 2007 while the Monarch
talks our Rights and Liberties are
being taken from us under our very
Of course the QUEEN
under HER CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE can only
'Advise and Warn' HER MINISTERS but when
the matter concerns the very LIFE of an
INDEPENDENT STATE we expect that HER MAJESTY
consider the arrangement to be AT AN END as
it would make a MOCKERY of the PRIME
IMPORTANCE of the MONARCH to protect our
inherited Rights and Liberties which HER
MINISTERS are endeavouring TO GIVE
We as loyal
subjects of the MONARCH who is the living
embodiment of OUR RIGHTS and LIBERTIES
ask at this late stage with only months to
the eradication of a FREE NATION STATE some
veiled comments that HER MAJESTY will
PROTECT our RIGHTS and LIBERTIES.
As for the
MORAL tone of the NATION STATE at this most
crucial time in ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY this matter
should be left to CHURCH LEADERS who's
responsibility it is to CARE for their
FLOCKS particularly at this FESTIVAL of
MAJESTY'S SPEECH has not been pre-recorded
we ask HER MAJESTY to give those MILLIONS of
HER subjects some hope that their PROTECTOR
has NOT FORGOTTEN THEM.
APPEAL not be answered we can at last
confirm that the MONARCHY is after all
nothing more than a talking shop suitable
for YouTube and therefore nothing more than
Benn's comments about the despotic and
need for a
politician with INTEGRITY and love of
country who has for decades witnessed the
growth of the monstrous creature soon to be
STATES OF EUROPE.
Liberties of Parliament-
Birthright of Subjects of England.
[All words/word underlined have a
WE WISH YOU ALL A
CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY
Xmas message to you all last year we find
that our sentiments remain the same with the
added emphasise on the coming danger to YOUR
COUNTRY from those many traitors in YOUR
HOUSE of COMMONS who intend to sell YOUR
COUNTRY to a FOREIGN POWER]
We Remember The
Spirit of England-Winston Churchill-1953
were warned in 1953 to beware of wreckers of
our Constitution and Way-of- Life but it had
taken Tony Blair just 10 years to do just
THAT while everyone had their minds they
thought on more important matters. Well! in
2007 his predessessor Gordon Brown is
leading you to SLAVERY and only awaits the
final signature of the present holder of the House of Wessex the over 1000 year
PROTECTOR of our inherited
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of ENGLISHMEN
Of the House
of Wessex since King Alfred 'the Shepherd
and Darling of England' in the annals of 893
leave it to the work of
Alfred the Great
England was saved to become the first
individual nation -state which over 1100
years later a member of that same House of
Wessex has already signed away much of those
ancient Rights and Liberties and
fundamentals of justice and Rule of Law and
only awaits a final signature to enslave her
people into a despotic undemocratic godless
police state to call itself a
within the power of Her Majesty the Queen to
refuse to ratify the New EU TREATY because
whatever lies her ministers have given her
over her long reign the TRUTH is now clear
for ALL TO SEE.
Netherlands a number of years ago their
MONARCH resigned for a day rather than sign
the Bill put before him. The New EU TREATY
is the death of a NATION STATE of over 1200
years in the making. It is the treasonable
actions of HER MINISTERS which has placed
THE QUEEN in the forefront in the protection
of the Rights and Liberties of HER SUBJECTS
as on no one else can HER PEOPLE DEPEND.
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
BE THE LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND
[Author of Germany's Four Reich's]
'There'll always Be an ENGLAND'
-NOT any MORE
OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WILL PORTRAY ITSELF
AS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD
'Don't tell the voters-or you
will ruin everything '
"...we have to make sure
that there are no discussions taking place
in the open air"
Burghardt, a former EU ambassador to the US,
warning that details of the new EU
diplomatic service (officially to be known
as the External Action Service) should not
be discussed in public before the
ratified the NEW EU TREATY
and Ireland has held
its TREATY REFERENDUM early next summer
(source: EU Observer on 27th
The EU has also stated
that none of its institutions should rock
the boat until the English have ratified
Over the next few months
you will hear more than ever the wonderful
benefits of the EU. Whether it is Global
warming or whatever they feel shows them in
a good light and when you have swallowed the
bait you will not know what has hit you.
They intend to show how reasonable they are
and that they are there to make you happy.
If you all fall for this con-trick then you
will deserve the SLAVERY that is in store
Referendum: how Labour
could still smell of roses.
'Money to spare'
when we leave the EU in
Open Europe says:
Build 40 brand new
general hospitals each year 2007-13
- Cut council tax
by nearly 50 per cent
- Cut the
basic rate of income tax by 3p
duty by 75 per cent
total bill for the London Olympics
in less than a year
on the European Communities
(Finance) Bill on Monday 19th
A TIME FOR EUROSCEPTICS TO LEARN
FROM THE PAST-ONLY A TWO-PRONGED ATTACK CAN BRING
VICTORY AND SAVE YOUR FREEDOM -CONSTITUTION AND
Let the people speak!
[Latest Addition - June07]
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY
WON'T HE TRUST YOU?
HELL ON EARTH
want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95%
of British people want a REFERENDUM
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST
Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a
REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line
The Petition reads as follows:
the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people
will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the
EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature."
Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008
Eurofacts 27th July 2007.
'The Spirit of
In London on St.George's Day -1953
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT
,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE
TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
[All underlined words have a separate