Prisoners win right to challenge governor 

      Three prisoners have won the right to challenge policy
      decisions of their governor which, they claim, led to 
      innocent inmates suffering harsher conditions than 
      guilty ones. 

      David Gorman, sentenced in 1998 to 18 years' 
      imprisonment for rape, and Darren Vickers, convicted 
      in 1999 of the murder of eight-year-old Jamie Lavis,
      have always protested their innocence, as has the 
      third prisoner, who does not wish to be named. 

      Last week, Mr Justice Moses granted the inmates, who
      are all at Frankland prison, in Durham, a judicial 
      review of the governor's decisions. The hearing is
      expected to be in October or November. 

      The central issue is the incentives and earned
      privileges scheme, the aim of which is to reward 
      prisoners for good behaviour. Prisoners can then 
      enjoy "enhanced" rather than "standard" status. 

      In order to qualify for the IEP scheme, prisoners at
      Frankland must first "address their offending behaviour
      and undertake courses such as the sex offenders' 
      treatment programme (SOTP)". 

      However, some prisoners say that they are the victims
      of a catch-22 situation: a prerequisite for admission
      to a SOTP course is an admission of guilt; prisoners
      who maintain their innocence cannot undertake the 
      courses and consequently are not eligible for privileges. 

      According to regulations, inmates who maintain their
      innocence should not be treated adversely, yet in 
      practice this is what happens. 

      Also, privilege levels are supposed to be "portable" 
      between one prison and another. Both Gorman and Vickers
      were on "enhanced" status at previous jails, but upon 
      arrival at Frankland were downgraded to "standard" - as
      a result, they believe, of their refusal to admit guilt. 

      In consequence, they had fewer privileges - they were, 
      for example, allowed less frequent contact with family
      and friends. 

      "What is happening at Frankland is a form of torture," 
      said Gorman. "Inmates who maintain their innocence have
      to live alongside the murderer who has better living 
      conditions, gets more family visits and spends less time
      locked up in his cell." 

      David Wilson, a former prison governor who is now 
      professor of criminal justice at the University of 
      Central England in Birmingham, said: "What this 
      judicial decision must do is to make the prison service
      look closely at the domination of prison regimes by
      psychologists who demand prisoners acknowledge guilt
      before they go on these programmes. 

      "If they don't, prisoners not only have fewer privileges 
      but are unlikely to get parole - a fact that has been
      consistently denied by the prison service."

      Bob Woffinden
      Monday August 6, 2001
      The Guardian 

      From "The Guardian" an English broadsheet

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


      "Perceptions" note: our conclusions already were -

      a) that frame-ups have been protecting VIP murderers
      and sex-criminals in positions of authority, and that 
      very long, 'parole-less' sentences gauranteed safety for
      the guilty in power;

      b) that a conspiracy of pervert and untruthful prison
      governors and warders are then given freedom to abuse -

      (and sometimes torture, see 

      "http://www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html#quote"

      - the wrongly convicted prisoner; holding the threat of
      'no parole' over him to prevent any complaint. 
   
      This item simply confirms those conclusions - including
      the fact that the parole boards and the prison authorities 
      have consistently lied about this matter in the past.
 
      We see no overwhelming reason for them to begin telling
      the truth now. After all they still have a need to cover
      up those sex murders (especially pedophile) committed by
      their friends (and colleagues?). 

      We suggest a close examination of all police officers, 
      judges, politicians and other VIP's (and their sons) 
      who may be more realistic suspects in the two sex-crimes
      noted above. 
 
      Why ? Because there was a determined, concerted effort
      to make both men "confess" - and therefore leave the
      guilty parties at ease (in positions of authority?) in
      _their_ freedom. 

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      Evidence page for 
 
      http://www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
              FURTHER REFERENCES

  GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/offliars.txt