No change to Dorset prison provision 'disappointing'

Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill

Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill

First published in News
Last updated

DORSET prisoners will not be sent to Dorset prisons, it has been announced.

As reported in the Echo last week, Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill and the county’s MPs had been lobbying officials to review the allocation of prison places in Dorset.

People from Dorset who are convicted of crime are sent to prisons such as HMP Exeter or HMP Channings Wood.

Places at Dorset’s two prisons- HMP Portland and HMP Guys Marsh- are used for prisoners from Wiltshire and further afield.

Mr Underhill says this ‘undermines’ work being done to reduce re-offending rates.

But following a review of the system, the Ministry of Justice has announced it will not be changing local prison provision.

Mr Underhill said he was ‘deeply disappointed’ at the news.

He added: “ The reality is that, with very few exceptions, Dorset prisoners will be housed outside Dorset whether they are male or female, on remand or convicted.

“Both I and the people of Dorset struggle to understand this.

“When I was elected, Dorset had a prison estate of four prisons – HMP Portland, Guys Marsh, The Verne and Dorchester.

“With Dorchester now closed and The Verne designated for immigration use, 14 months later, we now have two.

“Neither of these is allowed to house Dorset people in Dorset prisons.

“It is frankly ludicrous. A prison has to be close to a prisoner’s community to support family links and community engagement.

“This will join up the geography of the prison estate with community provision so that voluntary sector organisations can deliver care that reflects their local needs.

“As Police and Crime Commissioner, providing support to prisoners and tackling re-offending is a key part of my role.

“Both will be difficult to provide remotely. Prisoners will struggle to maintain contact with their families and the provision of local ‘through the gate’ services will be adversely affected.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:46pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Tinker2 says...

Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.
Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable. Tinker2
  • Score: 7

1:55pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

Tinker2 wrote:
Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.
It rather depends on where the prisoners actually from and where they are sent, doesn't it ? If, for example, they are from Poole or Bournemouth it is no more difficult getting to, say, Winchester then to Portland, or to Guys Marsh for that matter. Probably more difficult if it's by public transport. And the majority of Dorset prisoners are from Poole or Bournemouth, not this end of the county.

Incidentally, there are local prisoners in HMP Portland, notwithstanding whatever the official line is.
[quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]It rather depends on where the prisoners actually from and where they are sent, doesn't it ? If, for example, they are from Poole or Bournemouth it is no more difficult getting to, say, Winchester then to Portland, or to Guys Marsh for that matter. Probably more difficult if it's by public transport. And the majority of Dorset prisoners are from Poole or Bournemouth, not this end of the county. Incidentally, there are local prisoners in HMP Portland, notwithstanding whatever the official line is. Rocksalt
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Redmic99 says...

Police Commissioners are a joke.....hardly anybody wanted them and very, very few bothered voting for them.
Police Commissioners are a joke.....hardly anybody wanted them and very, very few bothered voting for them. Redmic99
  • Score: 2

2:49pm Thu 13 Feb 14

shy talk says...

Tinker2 wrote:
Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.
If the family of a prisoner is on a low income or benefits. They can qualify for the Assisted Prison Visit Scheme, which pays your travelling costs.
[quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]If the family of a prisoner is on a low income or benefits. They can qualify for the Assisted Prison Visit Scheme, which pays your travelling costs. shy talk
  • Score: 3

4:55pm Thu 13 Feb 14

PortlandandWeymouth says...

Tinker2 wrote:
Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.
Thats as maybe, however, prison is not meant to be easy. The idea of a prison sentence is not only there to rehabilitate, reeducate and prevent reoffending, but also as a punitive measure to pay for criminal offences.

As the old saying goes. "If you cant do the time, don't do the crime."

Criminals should think of their own families before embarking on a criminal lifestyle, after all, its normally a number of offences before prison is actually used.
[quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]Thats as maybe, however, prison is not meant to be easy. The idea of a prison sentence is not only there to rehabilitate, reeducate and prevent reoffending, but also as a punitive measure to pay for criminal offences. As the old saying goes. "If you cant do the time, don't do the crime." Criminals should think of their own families before embarking on a criminal lifestyle, after all, its normally a number of offences before prison is actually used. PortlandandWeymouth
  • Score: 4

5:33pm Thu 13 Feb 14

toyota777 says...

Absolutely stupid typical Govm't bungling.
Absolutely stupid typical Govm't bungling. toyota777
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Thu 13 Feb 14

dogloverdorset says...

shy talk wrote:
Tinker2 wrote:
Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.
If the family of a prisoner is on a low income or benefits. They can qualify for the Assisted Prison Visit Scheme, which pays your travelling costs.
Which still wouldn't
help someone get from Bournemouth to Exeter easily
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]If the family of a prisoner is on a low income or benefits. They can qualify for the Assisted Prison Visit Scheme, which pays your travelling costs.[/p][/quote]Which still wouldn't help someone get from Bournemouth to Exeter easily dogloverdorset
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Thu 13 Feb 14

dogloverdorset says...

I think the point is that these people come from Dorset, so will return here after their sentence, and we need to prevent them re-offending,, which will be easier if we can work with them before release , locally, to address addiction, health, employment and training.
I think the point is that these people come from Dorset, so will return here after their sentence, and we need to prevent them re-offending,, which will be easier if we can work with them before release , locally, to address addiction, health, employment and training. dogloverdorset
  • Score: 2

8:17pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

dogloverdorset wrote:
I think the point is that these people come from Dorset, so will return here after their sentence, and we need to prevent them re-offending,, which will be easier if we can work with them before release , locally, to address addiction, health, employment and training.
Perhaps you didn't read my points above. Firstly, the majority of Dorset prisoners are not from this end of the county, so sending them here is self defeating. Secondly, there are local prisoners in HMP Portland.
[quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: I think the point is that these people come from Dorset, so will return here after their sentence, and we need to prevent them re-offending,, which will be easier if we can work with them before release , locally, to address addiction, health, employment and training.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you didn't read my points above. Firstly, the majority of Dorset prisoners are not from this end of the county, so sending them here is self defeating. Secondly, there are local prisoners in HMP Portland. Rocksalt
  • Score: 1

10:18pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Tinker2 says...

PortlandandWeymouth wrote:
Tinker2 wrote: Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.
Thats as maybe, however, prison is not meant to be easy. The idea of a prison sentence is not only there to rehabilitate, reeducate and prevent reoffending, but also as a punitive measure to pay for criminal offences. As the old saying goes. "If you cant do the time, don't do the crime." Criminals should think of their own families before embarking on a criminal lifestyle, after all, its normally a number of offences before prison is actually used.
The main purpose of incarcerating prisoners is to protect the public. Sadly those committing the crime have rarely stopped to think about the consequence of their actions and if they get caught and convicted, the effect this will have on their partners and children. It is these, the innocent, that will be most effected.
Your views appear rather stereotypical in assuming that all those that serve a sentance had a 'criminal lifestyle'. You are not taking into account the very broad spectrum of offences, even driving offences. It is also not the case that offenders will normally only be sent to prison after a number of offences have been committed. Many 'first time' offenders are sentanced to custodial sentances.
Dorchester Prison was a 'local town prison' and served Dorchester and Bournemouth courts. Inmates may still have been in the course of legal proceedings and would need to reappear in court again. Dorchester also served as a short term holding prison where reports, risk categorisation and assessments were made prior to allocation of which prison the offender would be sent. Part of this process would be a social report to see what family ties were and where they lived.
You may well have situations arrising now where prisoners families on say, Portland will travel past the island prisons which no longer serve the area and have to travel to perhaps Exteter and back. The prisoner at Exeter may well still be attending court in Bournemouth and have to be transported in a 'sweatbox' each and every time.
The Commissioner, Martyn Underhill appears a compassionate man and is right to speak out.
[quote][p][bold]PortlandandWeymouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: Not good, not good at all. You might say, you don't care about the prisoners, but It is the families who will suffer the most. Long, expensive trips for visits. Hard on the partners and the young children. Visits will be less frequent as a result, creating difficulties in maintaining family ties. Prisoners will feel isolated and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]Thats as maybe, however, prison is not meant to be easy. The idea of a prison sentence is not only there to rehabilitate, reeducate and prevent reoffending, but also as a punitive measure to pay for criminal offences. As the old saying goes. "If you cant do the time, don't do the crime." Criminals should think of their own families before embarking on a criminal lifestyle, after all, its normally a number of offences before prison is actually used.[/p][/quote]The main purpose of incarcerating prisoners is to protect the public. Sadly those committing the crime have rarely stopped to think about the consequence of their actions and if they get caught and convicted, the effect this will have on their partners and children. It is these, the innocent, that will be most effected. Your views appear rather stereotypical in assuming that all those that serve a sentance had a 'criminal lifestyle'. You are not taking into account the very broad spectrum of offences, even driving offences. It is also not the case that offenders will normally only be sent to prison after a number of offences have been committed. Many 'first time' offenders are sentanced to custodial sentances. Dorchester Prison was a 'local town prison' and served Dorchester and Bournemouth courts. Inmates may still have been in the course of legal proceedings and would need to reappear in court again. Dorchester also served as a short term holding prison where reports, risk categorisation and assessments were made prior to allocation of which prison the offender would be sent. Part of this process would be a social report to see what family ties were and where they lived. You may well have situations arrising now where prisoners families on say, Portland will travel past the island prisons which no longer serve the area and have to travel to perhaps Exteter and back. The prisoner at Exeter may well still be attending court in Bournemouth and have to be transported in a 'sweatbox' each and every time. The Commissioner, Martyn Underhill appears a compassionate man and is right to speak out. Tinker2
  • Score: 2

10:30pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

"Many first time offenders are sentenced to a custodial sentence" Really ? I would be interested to see the figures that substantiated that claim. And as I have said above local prisoners are currently being held on Portland.
"Many first time offenders are sentenced to a custodial sentence" Really ? I would be interested to see the figures that substantiated that claim. And as I have said above local prisoners are currently being held on Portland. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Tinker2 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
"Many first time offenders are sentenced to a custodial sentence" Really ? I would be interested to see the figures that substantiated that claim. And as I have said above local prisoners are currently being held on Portland.
When magistrates or judges impose a sentence on someone found guilty of a crime, they will take into account:
•the type of crime and how serious it is
•the law and sentencing guidelines
•if the offender admits their guilt
•the offender's criminal history
•the offender's personal and financial circumstances

Many first time offenders ARE sentanced to a custodial sentances according to the above criteria.
There are local prisoners currently held on Portland, but these are the exceptions. The point is the old Dorchester cat.B, local town prison, has gone. Keeping inmates long distances away from family and local ties is counter productive for all concerned.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: "Many first time offenders are sentenced to a custodial sentence" Really ? I would be interested to see the figures that substantiated that claim. And as I have said above local prisoners are currently being held on Portland.[/p][/quote]When magistrates or judges impose a sentence on someone found guilty of a crime, they will take into account: •the type of crime and how serious it is •the law and sentencing guidelines •if the offender admits their guilt •the offender's criminal history •the offender's personal and financial circumstances Many first time offenders ARE sentanced to a custodial sentances according to the above criteria. There are local prisoners currently held on Portland, but these are the exceptions. The point is the old Dorchester cat.B, local town prison, has gone. Keeping inmates long distances away from family and local ties is counter productive for all concerned. Tinker2
  • Score: 3

8:26am Fri 14 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

I asked for figures on how many first time offenders are jailed. I assume you don't have any since you simply reassert that "many " first timers get custodial sentences.

My point is that the old Dorchester prison was no more accessible to the bulk of Dorset residents than, say, Winchester. As a Cat B prison I would also question how useful it would have been as a resettlement prison. And being so small how many programmes did it or could it have offered.

The reality is we simply cannot afford to have a prison near every town in the country. And certainly not one in an area like West Dorset / Weymouth where the number of people sent to prison is relatively small. I expect you will dispute this but you have no figures.

I might add that a fair number of local people imprisoned will have drug issues. Housing them close to home is not without its problems. Indeed housing any prisoner close to home can be problematic, given that many people will be allowed out on license relatively early in their sentence. As a Portland resident, I might not be thrilled to see a Portlander sent to prison nipping out and parading up and down Easton Street on a monthly basis.
I asked for figures on how many first time offenders are jailed. I assume you don't have any since you simply reassert that "many " first timers get custodial sentences. My point is that the old Dorchester prison was no more accessible to the bulk of Dorset residents than, say, Winchester. As a Cat B prison I would also question how useful it would have been as a resettlement prison. And being so small how many programmes did it or could it have offered. The reality is we simply cannot afford to have a prison near every town in the country. And certainly not one in an area like West Dorset / Weymouth where the number of people sent to prison is relatively small. I expect you will dispute this but you have no figures. I might add that a fair number of local people imprisoned will have drug issues. Housing them close to home is not without its problems. Indeed housing any prisoner close to home can be problematic, given that many people will be allowed out on license relatively early in their sentence. As a Portland resident, I might not be thrilled to see a Portlander sent to prison nipping out and parading up and down Easton Street on a monthly basis. Rocksalt
  • Score: -1

11:59am Fri 14 Feb 14

sunny1966 says...

Introduce Catchment Areas, if your sentenced in Dorset then your time is spent in Dorset, not just from a family welfare point of view, but does this not make financial sense as well !!!! Someone, come the time will still vote for this government, idiots
Introduce Catchment Areas, if your sentenced in Dorset then your time is spent in Dorset, not just from a family welfare point of view, but does this not make financial sense as well !!!! Someone, come the time will still vote for this government, idiots sunny1966
  • Score: 1

2:05pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

sunny1966 wrote:
Introduce Catchment Areas, if your sentenced in Dorset then your time is spent in Dorset, not just from a family welfare point of view, but does this not make financial sense as well !!!! Someone, come the time will still vote for this government, idiots
No, Sunny, it doesn't necessarily make financial sense. Prisoners need a variety of programmes depending on the nature of their offence, addictions, mental health or educational needs. They aren't all available in every prison - far from it. Yes, you could make them available in every prison but that would cost way more than at present. Oh and we would also need to build an open prison as there isn't one in Dorset. We could always stop people going into open conditions, but that would also make things more expensive. I am not saying the present arrangement is ideal, far from it. But it's possibly more complex than can be addressed by simply following county boundaries.
[quote][p][bold]sunny1966[/bold] wrote: Introduce Catchment Areas, if your sentenced in Dorset then your time is spent in Dorset, not just from a family welfare point of view, but does this not make financial sense as well !!!! Someone, come the time will still vote for this government, idiots[/p][/quote]No, Sunny, it doesn't necessarily make financial sense. Prisoners need a variety of programmes depending on the nature of their offence, addictions, mental health or educational needs. They aren't all available in every prison - far from it. Yes, you could make them available in every prison but that would cost way more than at present. Oh and we would also need to build an open prison as there isn't one in Dorset. We could always stop people going into open conditions, but that would also make things more expensive. I am not saying the present arrangement is ideal, far from it. But it's possibly more complex than can be addressed by simply following county boundaries. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

sunny1966 wrote:
Introduce Catchment Areas, if your sentenced in Dorset then your time is spent in Dorset, not just from a family welfare point of view, but does this not make financial sense as well !!!! Someone, come the time will still vote for this government, idiots
No, Sunny, it doesn't necessarily make financial sense. Prisoners need a variety of programmes depending on the nature of their offence, addictions, mental health or educational needs. They aren't all available in every prison - far from it. Yes, you could make them available in every prison but that would cost way more than at present. Oh and we would also need to build an open prison as there isn't one in Dorset. We could always stop people going into open conditions, but that would also make things more expensive. I am not saying the present arrangement is ideal, far from it. But it's possibly more complex than can be addressed by simply following county boundaries.
[quote][p][bold]sunny1966[/bold] wrote: Introduce Catchment Areas, if your sentenced in Dorset then your time is spent in Dorset, not just from a family welfare point of view, but does this not make financial sense as well !!!! Someone, come the time will still vote for this government, idiots[/p][/quote]No, Sunny, it doesn't necessarily make financial sense. Prisoners need a variety of programmes depending on the nature of their offence, addictions, mental health or educational needs. They aren't all available in every prison - far from it. Yes, you could make them available in every prison but that would cost way more than at present. Oh and we would also need to build an open prison as there isn't one in Dorset. We could always stop people going into open conditions, but that would also make things more expensive. I am not saying the present arrangement is ideal, far from it. But it's possibly more complex than can be addressed by simply following county boundaries. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Fri 14 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.
Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 1

2:15pm Fri 14 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Over 72% of male inmates have one or more mental health issues, 95% of all prisoners are male. it seems we have changed little in 300 years when it comes to attitudes towards mental health, especially towards Men. Perhaps if more money was spent and attitudes changed we would have far less people in prison?
Over 72% of male inmates have one or more mental health issues, 95% of all prisoners are male. it seems we have changed little in 300 years when it comes to attitudes towards mental health, especially towards Men. Perhaps if more money was spent and attitudes changed we would have far less people in prison? David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.
I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all.

There are also issues abo
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all. There are also issues abo Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Fri 14 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.
I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all.

There are also issues abo
That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible.

As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all. There are also issues abo[/p][/quote]That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible. As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-) David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.
I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all.

There are also issues abo
That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible.

As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)
Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree.

he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them.

If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all. There are also issues abo[/p][/quote]That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible. As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)[/p][/quote]Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree. he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them. If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Fri 14 Feb 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.
I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all.

There are also issues abo
That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible.

As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)
Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree.

he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them.

If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest.
That's not an excuse to do the same to everyone is it?
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all. There are also issues abo[/p][/quote]That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible. As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)[/p][/quote]Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree. he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them. If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest.[/p][/quote]That's not an excuse to do the same to everyone is it? David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Rocksalt says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.
I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all.

There are also issues abo
That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible.

As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)
Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree.

he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them.

If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest.
That's not an excuse to do the same to everyone is it?
As I said, if you feel strongly enough about it then write to Mr Drax or to Chris Grayling. For myself, whilst I am think it's broadly a good idea to house prisoners locally I simply don't think its sufficiently pressing issue for this part of the country to warrant building a new prison. Unless someone can prove to me otherwise I simply don't think there are enough long term prisoners. Look at the reports in the Echo. Most custodial sentences ( and there weren't that many) were for less than a year. So most people will serve 6 months max, some less.

I am sympathetic towards families who have to travel, particularly when money is an issue. But it bothers me more that many people round the country travel for 2 -3 hours for chemotherapy. It's a shame that things have to compete for resouces, but it ain't going to change in a hurry.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all. There are also issues abo[/p][/quote]That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible. As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)[/p][/quote]Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree. he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them. If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest.[/p][/quote]That's not an excuse to do the same to everyone is it?[/p][/quote]As I said, if you feel strongly enough about it then write to Mr Drax or to Chris Grayling. For myself, whilst I am think it's broadly a good idea to house prisoners locally I simply don't think its sufficiently pressing issue for this part of the country to warrant building a new prison. Unless someone can prove to me otherwise I simply don't think there are enough long term prisoners. Look at the reports in the Echo. Most custodial sentences ( and there weren't that many) were for less than a year. So most people will serve 6 months max, some less. I am sympathetic towards families who have to travel, particularly when money is an issue. But it bothers me more that many people round the country travel for 2 -3 hours for chemotherapy. It's a shame that things have to compete for resouces, but it ain't going to change in a hurry. Rocksalt
  • Score: 2

11:34pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Micke12 says...

Redmic99 wrote:
Police Commissioners are a joke.....hardly anybody wanted them and very, very few bothered voting for them.
Simple question Redmic99 - did you vote for the police and crime commissioner?
[quote][p][bold]Redmic99[/bold] wrote: Police Commissioners are a joke.....hardly anybody wanted them and very, very few bothered voting for them.[/p][/quote]Simple question Redmic99 - did you vote for the police and crime commissioner? Micke12
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Tue 18 Feb 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.
I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all.

There are also issues abo
That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible.

As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)
Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree.

he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them.

If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest.
That's not an excuse to do the same to everyone is it?
As I said, if you feel strongly enough about it then write to Mr Drax or to Chris Grayling. For myself, whilst I am think it's broadly a good idea to house prisoners locally I simply don't think its sufficiently pressing issue for this part of the country to warrant building a new prison. Unless someone can prove to me otherwise I simply don't think there are enough long term prisoners. Look at the reports in the Echo. Most custodial sentences ( and there weren't that many) were for less than a year. So most people will serve 6 months max, some less.

I am sympathetic towards families who have to travel, particularly when money is an issue. But it bothers me more that many people round the country travel for 2 -3 hours for chemotherapy. It's a shame that things have to compete for resouces, but it ain't going to change in a hurry.
You make a very good point re hospital care.
On the prison subject, prison clearly doesn't work. I watched a very interesting documentary about Bastoy prison in Norway, where they have a very different approach.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Tinker has the valid points. The family should not be punished and supportive visits are vital to the reforming process.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with the potential value of family visits. I would question an assumption that all families can play a positive role in rehabilitation. For some families distance will be a blessed relief ( e.g. in domestic violence cases). In other cases the families have been at best collusive and at worst actively supportive of offending behaviour, so it's far from clear what role they will play in rehabilitation.. Once size doesn't fit all. There are also issues abo[/p][/quote]That's a pretty thin reason, if they are in prison, then they are in prison regardless of whether they are 2 miles or 200 miles away. The default position should always be to keep the inmate as near to family as possible. As for an Abo, I have no idea what it is but I am sure it is an issue :-)[/p][/quote]Well, if you really think that someone jailed for sexual abuse ( and the victims are usually family members) or beating their partner really needs to be kept near their family then we will have to agree to disagree. he government has moved to a position whereby prisoners are kept more locally, hence Portland now having lots of adult prisoners in what was a YOI. But some areas simply don't have enough prisoners to justify a local prison. West Dorset is one of them. If, however, you want to lobby for tax increases to pay for more local prison places then be my guest.[/p][/quote]That's not an excuse to do the same to everyone is it?[/p][/quote]As I said, if you feel strongly enough about it then write to Mr Drax or to Chris Grayling. For myself, whilst I am think it's broadly a good idea to house prisoners locally I simply don't think its sufficiently pressing issue for this part of the country to warrant building a new prison. Unless someone can prove to me otherwise I simply don't think there are enough long term prisoners. Look at the reports in the Echo. Most custodial sentences ( and there weren't that many) were for less than a year. So most people will serve 6 months max, some less. I am sympathetic towards families who have to travel, particularly when money is an issue. But it bothers me more that many people round the country travel for 2 -3 hours for chemotherapy. It's a shame that things have to compete for resouces, but it ain't going to change in a hurry.[/p][/quote]You make a very good point re hospital care. On the prison subject, prison clearly doesn't work. I watched a very interesting documentary about Bastoy prison in Norway, where they have a very different approach. JamesYoung
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree