Thursday, July 1, 2010
Call For Support
The Association of Prisoners is this generation’s attempt to give prisoners the voice we have long attempted to have heard.
Many other groups and organisations exist which play a role in attempting to change the prison system. Some are small and advocate abolition. Some are large, and advocate slow change. Some groups confine their work to specific subgroups of prisoners while others conduct broad based campaigns.
Along with the AoP, prison reform groups span the full width of political thought and action. The sole common ground sometimes seems to be dissatisfaction with the status quo.
This is a call to put differences aside. Prisoners need your help. In order to function, the Association of Prisoners needs the support of reform groups as well as prisoners themselves.
This is a once in a generation opportunity to help form a broad movement which could reshape the landscape of power within prisons and lead to real, positive change.
We hope that you can support us, in whichever way you can. At this moment, the immediate need is to spread the word, informing prisoners across the country that there is a group to represent their interests and which encourages them to set up unions in their particular prison.
We call on everybody to use their contacts with prisoners, individually or collectively, to pass this call over the walls.
Setting Up The Union In Your Prison
We want to build the organisation across the country. In each of prison, just one person needs to get to the library and read Article 11 of the ECHR and grasp the legality of what we are doing. Then read the PSO. It is three pages long and most of it is waffle. Ignore the negative tone, as we grow that will change.
1. Write to your Governor, informing him that you are setting up a Prisoners Representative Association under Article 11 of the European Convention. Send a copy to your solicitor as well, just to cover your back. Tell the governor that you are open to discussions as to how the association can operate in your particular prison.
If the Governor is an idiot, he will hit the roof and instantly break the law by banning the idea of an association. If he has more sense, he will accept the inevitable and, through gritted teeth, have some half-sensible things to say.
2. Ask the Governor how he intends to facilitate the Association. You will need to be able to communicate with people on other wings, put up notices and hold meetings and elections. The Governor has to work out how these things can take place.
3. Once you have informed the Governor of what you are doing, someone on each wing needs to be able to go from door to door asking people if they would like to join the Association, like to put themselves up for election as a local association leader, and whether they would like to vote for the local leadership. All legal and above board.
4. Pass your list of members to Elkan Abrahamson, Jackson & Canter Solicitors or Inside Time, or to myself.
5. Come up with a list of issues you wish to campaign about in your prison. Whilst there is a national list of issues the AoP wish to campaign over, it is important that local branches identify.
6. Watch this space.
Editor's note:
The above is a copy of the circular that is being sent around the UK prison population and Ben thought blog readers might be interested.
Friday 2 July 2010
Thursday 1 July 2010
Association of Prisoners - National Campaign Launch
Association of Prisoners - National Campaign Launch
By Ben Gunn
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
We all know that dealing with PSHQ is task for the unwitting and dim-witted. They are a slippery bunch at the best of times. But PSHQ has been causing the Executive Committee of the AoP a headache for the last year and that has meant that we have been grappling to see the best way forward.
After much drinking of tea and several ounces of Old H being consumed in endless little meetings, we have a solution to the problem. Did I mention the problem? Oh, well... When the AoP was first founded by John Hirst, Pete Smith, John Coyne and others the PS accepted the legal reality - they just couldn't stop it happening. For the first time in British penal history, HQ had to find a means of dealing with organising prisoners that didn't involve harassment or brutality. And so lines of negotiations were opened and it looked as if the PS were going to be sensible, just for once.
But no. Obviously. They then put out PSO 4480, which told governors that they could ignore us. It also created the stumbling block that has had us scratching our heads for the last year. The PS claims that we cannot have a national association, because prisoners just don't have enough common interests.
We hummed. We ahaad. We smoked, drank, argued and banged our heads off many brick walls. Until we found this solution - ignore HQ.
We don't care what HQ says. It's as simple as that. Article 11 of the ECHR says we can have an association and so we damn well will. Of course HQ doesn't want to see that happen; they have always hated the idea of cons having any sort of voice, let alone an organised one. Well, tough. We are here and here we stay.
We have written to the DG to tell him that we are going national, recruiting members and encouraging prisoners across the country to set up branches in their prison.
Instead of us wondering how to deal with HQ, we decided to act and then let HQ decide how to deal with us. And we expect a bit of grumbling, a bit of fancy footwork, and we won't be surprised if they formally ban the AoP. We would welcome the legal fight -that way we can get them into court and skewer them properly.
The idea that prisoners don't have common interests is barking mad. Whilst prisoners come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, colours and creeds, genital arrangements and so on, we all share common burdens. We are all prisoners.
The PS is a national service, not a loose collective of individual fiefdoms. We all live by the Prison Rules and Prison Service Orders. These instruments increase the weight and depth of the burdens felt by every prisoner no matter in what location or category. When the Minister of Justice has a bad day, we all feel the consequences.
That the only, the best, argument that HQ has against the AoP is a claim that prisoners don't have common interests only reveals the desperate corner that they are in. They don't get to decide if prisoners have common interests - prisoners get to decide that. They cannot stop cons organising; that is the law. As long as we don't go around trying to overthrow the system, if they ban us then they will face the legal consequences.
By Ben Gunn
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
We all know that dealing with PSHQ is task for the unwitting and dim-witted. They are a slippery bunch at the best of times. But PSHQ has been causing the Executive Committee of the AoP a headache for the last year and that has meant that we have been grappling to see the best way forward.
After much drinking of tea and several ounces of Old H being consumed in endless little meetings, we have a solution to the problem. Did I mention the problem? Oh, well... When the AoP was first founded by John Hirst, Pete Smith, John Coyne and others the PS accepted the legal reality - they just couldn't stop it happening. For the first time in British penal history, HQ had to find a means of dealing with organising prisoners that didn't involve harassment or brutality. And so lines of negotiations were opened and it looked as if the PS were going to be sensible, just for once.
But no. Obviously. They then put out PSO 4480, which told governors that they could ignore us. It also created the stumbling block that has had us scratching our heads for the last year. The PS claims that we cannot have a national association, because prisoners just don't have enough common interests.
We hummed. We ahaad. We smoked, drank, argued and banged our heads off many brick walls. Until we found this solution - ignore HQ.
We don't care what HQ says. It's as simple as that. Article 11 of the ECHR says we can have an association and so we damn well will. Of course HQ doesn't want to see that happen; they have always hated the idea of cons having any sort of voice, let alone an organised one. Well, tough. We are here and here we stay.
We have written to the DG to tell him that we are going national, recruiting members and encouraging prisoners across the country to set up branches in their prison.
Instead of us wondering how to deal with HQ, we decided to act and then let HQ decide how to deal with us. And we expect a bit of grumbling, a bit of fancy footwork, and we won't be surprised if they formally ban the AoP. We would welcome the legal fight -that way we can get them into court and skewer them properly.
The idea that prisoners don't have common interests is barking mad. Whilst prisoners come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, colours and creeds, genital arrangements and so on, we all share common burdens. We are all prisoners.
The PS is a national service, not a loose collective of individual fiefdoms. We all live by the Prison Rules and Prison Service Orders. These instruments increase the weight and depth of the burdens felt by every prisoner no matter in what location or category. When the Minister of Justice has a bad day, we all feel the consequences.
That the only, the best, argument that HQ has against the AoP is a claim that prisoners don't have common interests only reveals the desperate corner that they are in. They don't get to decide if prisoners have common interests - prisoners get to decide that. They cannot stop cons organising; that is the law. As long as we don't go around trying to overthrow the system, if they ban us then they will face the legal consequences.
Sunday 21 February 2010
Government in U Turn on prisoners’ votes
Association of Prisoners
Contact: John Hirst FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel: (01482) 341281 or 07766964583
Email: john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk
Government in U Turn on prisoners’ votes
Jack Straw gives declaration to implement Euro Court ruling
The Association of Prisoners (AoP) welcomes the government’s declaration to comply fully with its obligations under the European Convention to abide by the Convention and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions.
The declaration was made between 18-19 February, in Interlaken, Switzerland, at a Ministerial Conference organised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which was attended by Ministers of the 47 Member States within the Council of Europe.
The main purpose of the Ministerial Conference was to push forward proposed reforms to the ECtHR. A major problem being that the Court is overburdened with the amount of applications by citizens alleging human rights violations by Member States. Another problem being the Committee of Ministers role of supervising enforcement of the Court’s decisions; and Member States choosing to ignore the decisions of the Court as being final.
Because the Russian Minister of Justice Alexander Konovalov has ratified Article 14 of the Convention, it means that the Prisoners Votes Case can progress to the Final Resolution stage with the Committee of Ministers, and Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice, is powerless to prevent the inevitable. It maybe a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it he did.
Had the UK not climbed down when it did, the UK would have been suspended from both the Council of Europe and European Union in March. The Lisbon Treaty brought together the Court, Council of Europe, and European Union under one large umbrella. It now means that s.3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which bars all convicted prisoners from voting, can no longer be relied upon by the UK government because international law and European law now take precedence over English law.
Ends
Notes for editors
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=PR145%282010%29&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE
Contact: John Hirst FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel: (01482) 341281 or 07766964583
Email: john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk
Government in U Turn on prisoners’ votes
Jack Straw gives declaration to implement Euro Court ruling
The Association of Prisoners (AoP) welcomes the government’s declaration to comply fully with its obligations under the European Convention to abide by the Convention and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions.
The declaration was made between 18-19 February, in Interlaken, Switzerland, at a Ministerial Conference organised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which was attended by Ministers of the 47 Member States within the Council of Europe.
The main purpose of the Ministerial Conference was to push forward proposed reforms to the ECtHR. A major problem being that the Court is overburdened with the amount of applications by citizens alleging human rights violations by Member States. Another problem being the Committee of Ministers role of supervising enforcement of the Court’s decisions; and Member States choosing to ignore the decisions of the Court as being final.
Because the Russian Minister of Justice Alexander Konovalov has ratified Article 14 of the Convention, it means that the Prisoners Votes Case can progress to the Final Resolution stage with the Committee of Ministers, and Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice, is powerless to prevent the inevitable. It maybe a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it he did.
Had the UK not climbed down when it did, the UK would have been suspended from both the Council of Europe and European Union in March. The Lisbon Treaty brought together the Court, Council of Europe, and European Union under one large umbrella. It now means that s.3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which bars all convicted prisoners from voting, can no longer be relied upon by the UK government because international law and European law now take precedence over English law.
Ends
Notes for editors
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=PR145%282010%29&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE
Monday 15 February 2010
Prisoners threaten to sue in voting rights row
Prisoners threaten to sue in voting rights row
By Jack Doyle, Press Association
A group of prisoners is threatening to sue the Government for compensation if their members are prevented from voting in the general election.
The Association of Prisoners want at least £1,000 for every offender in England and Wales refused voting rights.
Five years ago the European Court of Human Rights ruled it was illegal for ministers to deny voting rights to all prisoners.
Since then the Government has held two public consultations on the issue but has not changed the law.
Prison reform groups made a formal complaint to the Council of Europe accusing ministers of using delaying tactics.
Last year Justice Minister Michael Wills confirmed it was "unavoidable" that some inmates would be given voting rights.
A policy paper published in April suggested prisoners serving sentences of up to four years could be allowed to vote.
That would mean giving voting rights to around a third of the 84,000 currently in custody.
Ben Gunn, General Secretary of the Association of Prisoners, said the Government had defied the court for too long.
"I deplore the Government's ineptitude. This Government that has locked up more people than any in UK history has the temerity to claim moral authority, whilst acting in bad faith in defiance of implementing the court's judgment," he said.
"Criminals will doubtless be glad to know that the rule of law is an optional extra. We will certainly be glad for the compo."
Frances Crook, director of the Howard league for Penal Reform, accused ministers of using the issue as a "political football".
"Prisoners are absolutely right to fight for their right to vote and I hope the change comes in before the next election," she said.
"Ministers have been avoiding this issue for far too long in a bid to look tough on crime, but prisoner voting shouldn't be used as a political football.
"Losing one's liberty is punishment in itself. The Government has a duty to encourage civic responsibility, particularly amongst marginalised groups."
By Jack Doyle, Press Association
A group of prisoners is threatening to sue the Government for compensation if their members are prevented from voting in the general election.
The Association of Prisoners want at least £1,000 for every offender in England and Wales refused voting rights.
Five years ago the European Court of Human Rights ruled it was illegal for ministers to deny voting rights to all prisoners.
Since then the Government has held two public consultations on the issue but has not changed the law.
Prison reform groups made a formal complaint to the Council of Europe accusing ministers of using delaying tactics.
Last year Justice Minister Michael Wills confirmed it was "unavoidable" that some inmates would be given voting rights.
A policy paper published in April suggested prisoners serving sentences of up to four years could be allowed to vote.
That would mean giving voting rights to around a third of the 84,000 currently in custody.
Ben Gunn, General Secretary of the Association of Prisoners, said the Government had defied the court for too long.
"I deplore the Government's ineptitude. This Government that has locked up more people than any in UK history has the temerity to claim moral authority, whilst acting in bad faith in defiance of implementing the court's judgment," he said.
"Criminals will doubtless be glad to know that the rule of law is an optional extra. We will certainly be glad for the compo."
Frances Crook, director of the Howard league for Penal Reform, accused ministers of using the issue as a "political football".
"Prisoners are absolutely right to fight for their right to vote and I hope the change comes in before the next election," she said.
"Ministers have been avoiding this issue for far too long in a bid to look tough on crime, but prisoner voting shouldn't be used as a political football.
"Losing one's liberty is punishment in itself. The Government has a duty to encourage civic responsibility, particularly amongst marginalised groups."
Sunday 14 February 2010
BROWN TO PAY OUT £70M COMPENSATION TO PRISONERS
Association of Prisoners
Contact: John Hirst FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel: (01482) 341281 or 07766964583
Email: john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk
BROWN TO PAY OUT £70M COMPENSATION TO PRISONERS
Prisoners including murderers, rapists and paedophiles to sue for loss of vote
The Association of Prisoners (AoP) is to sue the government, in a class action, if it fails to give all convicted prisoners the vote in time for the next general election. The move follows Lord Bach’s statement, in the House of Lords, that it is a matter for individual prisoners to pursue if they feel that they are being denied the vote. In Hirst v UK(No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying prisoners the vote breached their human rights under Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention.
Lawyers acting for the prisoners seek to rely upon a US Supreme Court ruling which decided that the loss of the vote can result in an award of monetary damages by way of compensation. Taking into account the exchange rate for dollars into pounds sterling, each of the 70,000 prisoners is likely to be awarded £1,000 and the bill for the taxpayers will be a staggering £70,000,000!
Ben Gunn, General Secretary of the AoP and author of Ben’s Prison Blog, has said: “I deplore the government’s ineptitude. This government that has locked up more people than any in UK history has the temerity to claim moral authority, whilst acting in bad faith in defiance of implementing the Court’s judgment. Criminals will doubtless be glad to know that the rule of law is an optional extra. We will certainly be glad for the compo”.
Lord David Ramsbotham, at the Barred from Voting campaign meeting in Parliament last Monday, stated that he intends to raise the serious issue of Lord Bach making a misleading statement in Parliament. In the debate in the House of Lords on prisoners voting, Lord Pannick, in relation to whether the government intended delaying the issue until after the next general election, asked: “Can the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that that is no part and has been no part of the Government's motivation?”. Lord Bach replied: “Yes”. However, the outgoing Director General of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), Phil Wheatley, confirms, along with Martin Bentham, that Jack Straw was the Ministry of Justice source who told the Evening Standard that prisoners won’t be able to vote until after the general election.
NOTES FOR EDITORS
1. The Association of Prisoners was set up in direct opposition to the Prison Officer’s Association, under Article 11 of the European Convention incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367035/Prisoners-in-move-to-set-up-trade-union.html
2. Ben Gunn is serving life for murder and is presently located at: HMP Shepton Mallet, Cornhill, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 5LU Tel: 01749 823 300 Fax: 01749 823 301
3. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91215-0002.htm
4. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23754049-straw-prisoners-wont-be-able-to-vote-until-after-general-election.do
5. http://prisonerben.blogspot.com/
Contact: John Hirst FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel: (01482) 341281 or 07766964583
Email: john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk
BROWN TO PAY OUT £70M COMPENSATION TO PRISONERS
Prisoners including murderers, rapists and paedophiles to sue for loss of vote
The Association of Prisoners (AoP) is to sue the government, in a class action, if it fails to give all convicted prisoners the vote in time for the next general election. The move follows Lord Bach’s statement, in the House of Lords, that it is a matter for individual prisoners to pursue if they feel that they are being denied the vote. In Hirst v UK(No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying prisoners the vote breached their human rights under Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention.
Lawyers acting for the prisoners seek to rely upon a US Supreme Court ruling which decided that the loss of the vote can result in an award of monetary damages by way of compensation. Taking into account the exchange rate for dollars into pounds sterling, each of the 70,000 prisoners is likely to be awarded £1,000 and the bill for the taxpayers will be a staggering £70,000,000!
Ben Gunn, General Secretary of the AoP and author of Ben’s Prison Blog, has said: “I deplore the government’s ineptitude. This government that has locked up more people than any in UK history has the temerity to claim moral authority, whilst acting in bad faith in defiance of implementing the Court’s judgment. Criminals will doubtless be glad to know that the rule of law is an optional extra. We will certainly be glad for the compo”.
Lord David Ramsbotham, at the Barred from Voting campaign meeting in Parliament last Monday, stated that he intends to raise the serious issue of Lord Bach making a misleading statement in Parliament. In the debate in the House of Lords on prisoners voting, Lord Pannick, in relation to whether the government intended delaying the issue until after the next general election, asked: “Can the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that that is no part and has been no part of the Government's motivation?”. Lord Bach replied: “Yes”. However, the outgoing Director General of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), Phil Wheatley, confirms, along with Martin Bentham, that Jack Straw was the Ministry of Justice source who told the Evening Standard that prisoners won’t be able to vote until after the general election.
NOTES FOR EDITORS
1. The Association of Prisoners was set up in direct opposition to the Prison Officer’s Association, under Article 11 of the European Convention incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367035/Prisoners-in-move-to-set-up-trade-union.html
2. Ben Gunn is serving life for murder and is presently located at: HMP Shepton Mallet, Cornhill, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 5LU Tel: 01749 823 300 Fax: 01749 823 301
3. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91215-0002.htm
4. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23754049-straw-prisoners-wont-be-able-to-vote-until-after-general-election.do
5. http://prisonerben.blogspot.com/
Tuesday 30 June 2009
Prisoners Votes Case aired on the radio on Iain Dale's radio show
Prisoners Votes Case aired on the radio on Iain Dale's radio show.
Listen here.
John Hirst, Jailhouselawyer, appears twice within the first hour.
Listen here.
John Hirst, Jailhouselawyer, appears twice within the first hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
