Saturday, 25 October 2014

Telling Tales out of Jail

We’ve recently had a spate of ‘inside’ exclusive stories in the media about celebrity prisoners and their alleged doings in the nick. Although such leaks and gossip in the red top tabloid press are nothing new, these articles – sometimes entirely bogus or exaggerated – often offer a highly distorted view of prison life and, inevitably, this has an impact on public perceptions of what goes on inside the walls.

Over the past few weeks we’ve been treated to some ‘celebrity’ gossip concerning our current national hate figures Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall. It’s to be expected that fallen idols who were once central figures in the world of popular entertainment for decades continue to fascinate some sections of the general public, especially when the individuals concerned have been banged up for something very ‘naughty’ (to use a term common among cons for sex offenders or ‘nonces’). 

Oscar Wilde's trial in the Police News
Tales about how one or other of these elderly prisoners supposedly got spat at in the jail chapel or had a row with a family member during a visit or even – allegedly – chucked his wedding ring in the prison pond have become staple tabloid fodder, especially in the Daily Mail which never seems to tire of giving cons a good kicking. Of course, this is nothing new. 

The Victorian tabloids – ‘penny dreadfuls’ as they are sometimes called – were just as bad. They enjoyed a particular feeding frenzy when the celebrated playwright, novelist and wit Oscar Wilde was sent down for two years’ hard labour in 1895. The scandal was front page news and none did it better than the Police News.

Having been convicted of gross indecency with other males, he fitted very definitely in the category of ‘celebrity nonce’, even back then. These days Wilde would probably have ended up on what is called a Vulnerable Prisoners’ Unit (VPU), known to generations of cons as ‘going on the numbers’ (a reference to Prison Rule 45, formerly Rule 43: Removal from Association) for his own protection from those fellow cons anxious to show their disapproval by dishing out a good bashing.  

The wider question is how all this gossip and tittle-tattle gets out into the public domain. Occasionally, a prison officer or other member of staff will get his or her collar felt by Inspector Knacker of the Yard on charges of misconduct in public office, which usually involves an allegation of having supplied confidential information to a journalist in return for cash payments. More of these cases seem to have been coming up recently as a result of police investigations into some of the dubious practices of the UK newspaper industry. 

There is some fuzziness around the edges of this particular legislation because the law doesn’t really provide a clear definition of who is a ‘public officer’. The relevant case law seems to suggest that it is the nature of the duties involved, as well as the violation of public trust, that is more important that the holding of a specific office. In theory, it seems that a ‘public officer’ doesn’t necessary need to have been formally appointed or even paid from public funds to fall under the jurisdiction of the law on misconduct. This might be considered rather surprising in view of the fact that the maximum penalty is a life sentence!

Daily Mail: loves a con story
What is pretty clear, however, is that any prison official (whether a governor, screw or civilian member of staff) who flogs gossip and other inside information to the media will be breaking the law. Such breaches of trust can have serious implications for both serving prisoners and for ex-cons whose time in custody might be of interest to the readers of the tabloid press.

Celebrity cons – regardless of what they have been sent down for – are particularly prone to the leaking of such inside information, as are those prisoners who have been convicted of particularly heinous offences. Even some very commonplace or minor incident inside the nick – such as a heated argument or an inmate getting put on a charge for breaking the rules (getting ‘nicked’) – can make a juicy tabloid headline. And even if the tale isn’t true, well never let the facts get in the way of a good tabloid story.

Lord Archer, convicted for perjury in July 2001 and sent down for four years, was a popular target for negative media coverage while he was inside. In fact, this led to him being shipped out from a Cat-D (open prison) back to the joys of HMP Lincoln (a Victorian Cat-B local) for a few weeks following one particular media-generated scandal involving his alleged social activities when he had been granted Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL). In the end it was all revealed to have been a storm in a tea cup – actually a lunch plate – fuelled by the media and he was subsequently returned to another open prison for the rest of his sentence.

Lord Archer: fitted up
Causing any kind of embarrassment to the Prison Service when you are either a celebrity con or a notorious ‘name’ is never looked upon kindly. In fact, for those who are in an open nick it can be a sure-fire way to get a one-way ticket back to closed conditions, even when the media has grossly over-exaggerated an incident, real or imagined.

To be fair, not all inside stories originate from the screws or civilian staff. Quite a number are peddled by fellow cons anxious to make a quick buck on the back of any celebrities they may – or may not – have actually bumped into on wing landing. Sometimes these are just recycled rumours or idle gossip. Groups of cons can gossip away like schoolgirls in a playground. If I had a quid for every story told or retold by fellow inmates that started with “apparently…” I could probably afford to retire early.

It can be dangerous to try to sell tip-offs or gossip about fellow prisoners while the would-be vendor is still in custody. Contacting the media without prior permission is strictly against the prison rules, specifically Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 37/2010 - Prisoners’ Access to the Media. Sometimes hot stories about other cons can be repeated to family and friends during a social visit with instructions to go and try to flog the information to the tabloids.

However, once a con has been released it’s almost impossible to gag them. For an ex-prisoner who has just been kicked out of the main gate with £46 discharge grant in his or her pocket, the temptation to try to make a wodge of extra cash by phoning around tabloid news desks can prove just too strong to resist. Just knowing – or inventing – a bit of ‘hot’ gossip about a fellow con who is either a celebrity or else infamous for their crime could be the only saleable thing they have to offer, particularly if they need some quick cash to fund a drugs habit or other addiction. 

Where's the nearest tabloid editor?
That’s just one of the reasons that famous, or infamous, prisoners need to be very choosy about who they associate with inside. Your best jail ‘mate’ can easily turn out to be a real snake in the grass and, well, go on to ‘grass’ you up to the gutter press as soon as he or she gets out of the nick.

It’s not just stories about famous or infamous cons that get leaked to the press. General ‘shock, horror!’ tales of idle prisoners living lives of luxury at the taxpayers’ expense, including state of the art gyms and Sky TV on giant flatscreens also do the rounds from time to time. These articles seem to be deliberately calculated to outrage retired Army majors in Bognor or the blue rinse brigade from Tunbridge Wells. Needless to observe, almost all of these prisoner-bashing tales are fabricated and fictional.

The Sky TV subscription story has done the rounds for a few years now. No public sector prison has ever permitted prisoners to have subscription channels on their rented in-cell TV sets. The rules are absolutely clear: a maximum total of nine freeview channels, including BBC 1 and 2, ITV and Channels 4 and 5, plus a few others. Anything else is pure fantasy, as any con who has done time in a public sector nick will confirm. 

Believe it or not... No Sky in prisons
The seemingly unquenchable media thirst for celebrity gossip neatly mirrors a general societal obsession with sending people to prison, whether they really are a threat to the community or not. Sometimes it seems that almost regardless of the actual offence, the red-faced retired majors and their blue rinsed ladies (not to mention the tabloid editors) are only really happy when reading in their morning paper that every criminal up before the beak has been sent down for a goodly stretch. 

When these twin fixations come together in the form of a media splash about how a fallen idol or famous person is having a torrid time in the slammer, everyone wins. Except, of course, the prisoner and his or her family and friends. Moreover, I doubt that many victims of the crimes of these cons feel too chuffed about seeing such stories splashed across the tabloid front pages day after day.

It’s always worth remembering that many of these celebrity prison stories are entirely fictitious, having been cooked up by either a fellow con in a bid to make a quick buck or else by a dodgy member of the prison staff keen to do the same. Of course, for governors, screws and civilian staff the stakes can be much higher than for inmates who blab. When rumbled, members of staff can face the loss of their career, a criminal trial and, if convicted, are liable to find themselves on the wrong side of a heavy steel cell door. In the end, no-one really likes a grass, whether in prison uniform or dressed as a screw.  

43 comments:

  1. It is possible to find reliable tweets about "famous" cons of a certain age, if you know where to look for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you see any celebrity cons in prison? I'm sure more "celebrity" nonces will go to prison, especially the ones who sing for a living.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did actually spend time inside with the son of a very well know politician. I actually kind of met his father during a visit.

      He didn't get any special treatment given his upbringing. This was mostly because he put out the aura of being an absolutely horrible, contemptible and arrogant bastard.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your comments and question. Yes, I did meet a few 'names' while I was inside, although to be honest they were more notorious villains than celebrities, including a couple of well known multiple murderers, the odd major fraudster and even a terrorist. The nearest I came to knowing someone from TV was a bloke who been busted by Rogue Traders!

      However, my golden rule is that I never mention the names of any ex-cons in my blogging. My own view is that this is a very unfair practice when done by fellow cons, whether for money or not.

      At least in his prison diaries Jeffery Archer concealed the real names of people he'd met inside, a practice I wholeheartedly approve of in order to protect other peoples' privacy. Sadly, Denis MacShane didn't follow the same policy of discretion in his own prison memoirs, which I think is a great pity, especially since he did so little time inside that he could never have got to know any of the famous cons whose names he dropped in his book.

      Delete
    3. I would never give any names of anybody I encountered inside. I may pass on their stories but will never name them. I have encounters of some of the most notorious criminals of recent years - and many whom are unheard of. Either way their identities will never be revealed by me. It is a shame that Mr MacShane didn't have the decency to protect his fellow cons. A shameful politician, a shameful con and probably not a particularly nice person in the real world.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for your comments. I agree that discretion is the only proper course of behaviour when it comes to fellow cons, otherwise we risk lowering ourselves to the level of the tabloid gutter.

      Of course, in my blog posts I refer to some of their stories, but I'm careful not to provide any specific details that could lead individuals to be identified, either by their offences or by name. The only exception I would personally make to that rule is if a prisoner known to me is maintaining innocence and has specifically asked me in writing to flag up their case. However, I don't think that I'd be using this particular blog to publicise their situation.

      As I've blogged before, I'm very disappointed with Mr MacShane's behaviour. He rather gave the impression in his recent prison diary that he was name-dropping solely to add a little 'spice' to his rather thin book. Given that he served such a short sentence inside, what could he really know of the cons he named? Possibly he was pressured by his publisher to make the project more commercial, but either way I feel that he shouldn't have done so.

      Delete
  3. Your post raises a very important issue regarding "trial by media". Anybody with a high profile, whether that being through notoriety or fame, would struggle to have a properly fair trial amidst media speculation and false reporting.

    I truly believe that where a victim of a crime can be anonymised then so should the accused. There are those, despite the findings of courts and jurors, believe that mud sticks, there's no smoke without fire etc.

    Convictions should only be allowed to be publicised upon conviction in a court. Many high profile celebrities have had their careers severely damaged by false accusations whilst the complainant remains totally anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments. Trial by media is not a new phenomenon, sadly. If you look at the topical case of Harry Roberts, back in 1966 the British media had pretty much convicted him of the murders before he'd even been arrested!

      Another aspect of the media coverage is the way in which lurid allegations of all kinds can get headline billing, especially when the defendant has a high profile. However, when there's been an acquittal, the journos often seem to lose all interest and just insert a small paragraph or two on page 5 or 6. This leaves an 'electronic footprint' online forever in which all the allegations are left in the air, even when a jury has reached a 'not guilty' verdict.

      Although there is the usual media feeding frenzy over allegations of a sexual nature, this also extends to celebrities who have been accused of involvement with drugs, violence, tax dodging etc. All criminal charges have the potential to damage and even end people's careers, as well as their personal relationships.

      I well remember the famous trial of the then Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe in 1979. He lost his parliamentary seat in the general election just before the case came to court, but was then acquitted on all charges. Click on his name online, however, and the whole grubby story still flags up 35 years on. I imagine some of this material will still be out there on the 'net for the next few hundred years.

      I suppose a big part of the argument revolves around freedom of the press - particularly to report proceedings in open court - which has also been around for hundreds of years. I don't think that there is any easy answer to this problem, which doesn't just damage celebrities and other well-known folk, but can have equally devastating impact on ordinary men and women in their own home communities.

      At the same time, I think that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should not be permitted to issue statements following acquittals in which officials defend their decision to prosecute as being 'in the public interest' and then expressing their disappointment with the outcome of the trial. If a jury returns a 'not guilty' verdict then, in my opinion, that should be that. The CPS should remain silent on the subject and not blow further smoke to fuel speculation. It's a practice that can be vindictive and which gives the impression that, as you quite rightly point out, "there's no smoke without fire".

      Delete
  4. Take Pistorius as an example of trial by media, he was labelled a murderer by the media before he had stepped into Court. Now the state may appeal against the conviction, the Judge forgot
    to mention dolus eventualis as an alternative to first degree murder and culpable homicide!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments. As you rightly highlight, the coverage of the Pistorius case was another example of often prejudicial reporting. The fact that it was a legal process taking place 'abroad' and involving 'foreigners' seems to have removed any last shred of restraint from the media in general, TV and broadsheet press, as well as the usual tabloid suspects - and not just in the UK for once.

      I actually thought that Judge Thokozile Masipa was very brave and did a good job given the incredible pressure on her in South Africa and the international interest in the case, especially given that there wasn't a jury to put the blame on for a verdict that was never going to satisfy either side. Pity she's not looking for a job over here... we could do with a few more genuinely independent judges who focus on the law, rather than the next headline in the Daily Mail or the Sun.

      Delete
    2. "...we could do with a few more genuinely independent judges who focus on the law, rather than the next headline in the Daily Mail or the Sun."

      Can you provide a few examples to backup that statement.

      Peter.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your question, Peter. Obviously, these examples are purely personal opinions. However, one who springs immediately to mind is HH Judge Mary Mowat (now retired) who received such a relentless media battering when she was still sitting at Reading that she admitted at one point that it had impacted on the way she approached sentencing. I'll have to try and find her sentencing comments in one particular case in which she made specific reference to the way the media reported her cases, but that struck me immediately.

      HH Judge David Goodin, who sits at Ipswich is another example of what I believe to be a judge who has an eye on the Daily Mail and its readers, which has in the past reported his sentencing comments with delight. I won't even start with the notorious case of the late Judge James Pickles... a legendary tabloid headline chaser.

      Delete
    4. I've not spoken to one person (out of about 100 people) since the original verdict that thought Judge Thokozile Masipa was right and the 20 or so that I've spoken to since the sentencing all believe that he's literally got away with murder.

      Delete
    5. Apparently Oscar is related to Prince Phillip...that may have something to do with it!

      Delete
  5. Read the interview with June Steenkamp in the Times (Saturday). Reeva had packed her bags to leave Oscar on the night she died, she'd endured enough of his bullying and didnt see a future in the relationship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment. Sadly, The Times is subscription only and I'd rather cut off my own fingers than pay a penny to the Murdoch empire which I believe has rotted the fabric of public life in Britain to a repellent degree!

      I have read similar comments when the trial was being reported. My issue here is not the innocence or guilt of Mr Pistorius... it is much more to do with the tenor of the media reporting before and during the trial. Modern media, particularly mass online and social communication platforms have already played a role in undermining court cases in the UK.

      We've already had trials discontinued or aborted because of breaches of the sub judice rules, not to mention illegal online 'research' by jurors, a couple of who have actually been sent to prison themselves for contaminating the evidence before the jury during live cases. All judges are now supposed to warn jurors of this sort of misconduct and the penalties for Googling the defendant who is in the dock. I honestly find it difficult to believe that at least some of them don't heed these warnings and that is a potentially serious problem for fair trials and the rule of law in Britain.

      Delete
  6. The Shrien Diwani trial is being televised isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that some part may be. To be honest, it's not one that I'm really following.

      Delete
  7. The Honourable Mr Justice Royce is an excellent example of a High Court Judge who is impartial.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was disappointed that you trotted out the line "public confidence in the police is out and all time low" in your previous post. This is no more true than sky tv in prisons! Public confidence has been roughly the same since the early 80`s.

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/15/Trust-in-Professions.aspx

    The Police Federations political activities are not ideal but given the police and the CJS in general are kicked around like political footballs, why should the police be the only ones to be stoically silent?

    Young Bill

    ReplyDelete
  9. You actually mention Jeffrey Archer and his prison diaries which I've just finished reading and the thing that surprised me was that back in 2001 (when he was imprisoned) you had prison officers complaining about low salaries, job cuts, prisoners and staff saying not enough staff to watch vulnerable prisoners or ensure classes or gym could take place, poor level of food, etc.....in fact many of the things that you seem to complain about afflicting todays prisons seemed to have been an issue 13 odd years ago.

    Is it not simply the case that British prisons have never been as well funded as you would like and it's easier to bash the current politicians rather than the previous ones.

    In my (less informed) opinion the real issue is ensuring that less people turn to crime in the first place through increased job availability, better social services (helping those 'damaged' by earlier events to cope) and better use in ALL areas of the British Taxpayers money. Your hobbyhorse is prisons for obvious reasons but pensioners going cold or hungry this winter, our employed youngsters having little hope of buying a property, our benefits system creating generations of benefit recipients, many of whom have never contributed towards the pot..... if all of these issues were dealt with then maybe prisons could become the rehabilitative places they ought to be.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Harrumph...
    Not less people, FEWER people.

    PS enjoying the blog.i was an IMB member in a past life. Some views on IMB would be interesting .

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that the fact that people think what it says in the papers is what prison is like is a great reason why this blog is so good to give people who have been there and don't mind talking about it a chance to tell other people about what it is really like and good advice on how to make the best of it if like me you are going there for the first time and don't know what to expect.

    Just a couple more days before my sentencing so this will be my last post on here for now. I said it before but it has been a great help for me and getting answers to all the questions I asked over the past week has made me feel a lot better and much more prepared for prison than I would have been. I know it's going to be hard at times but I'm sure I will be alright from what the others who've been in before have said.

    Alex I think you said before that only 2% of the population get to go through this. I never thought I'd be in that 2% but can't say i shouldn't be going to prison for what I did so that helps too. I hope that the blog goes well and is still here when I get out and I might be able to help others then like you helped me the last few weeks.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've said it already, but good luck, Paul! Please let us know when you're back on the outside, and take care. I'll be thinking of you.

      Delete
    2. I've only just returned after a week away, but let's hope that Paul is doing OK. It would be great if he would share some of his prison experiences when he gets out.

      Delete
  12. Maybe you should write to Alex and let us know how you are adapting to life in Prison.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just wondering if you've seen this yet (Grayling screwed on limiting access to JR)

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/27/house-of-lords-defeat-chris-grayling-judicial-review-plan

    Every little helps.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2014-Oct-27&itemId=1&session=2014-Jun-04

    Fascinating to see who agreed with Grayling...

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm glad the House of Lords is a cheque and balance for Parliament!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Another interesting blog. Much as I dislike celebrity culture if those that do time publish diaries, and they draw attention to lives of otherwise invisible prisoners, then it must be a good thing. Also I don't have much problem with those that are released with £46 and no publishing deal talking about the celebs that do. Price they pay for fame and most I know about can afford privacy measures if they want them. Not saying I condone sharing stories just that I understand the motivation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments. I can understand fellow cons peddling stories - true or false - but it's the public officials who do it who really breach confidences. My problem with recent prison diaries is that most celebrities who tend to publish them are never inside long enough to really understand the system or get to know notorious fellow cons as people, rather than as 'names'. Name dropping seems to be purely a commercial move.

      Delete
  17. I watched a bit of Question Time today, it showed Harriet Harman wearing a "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt. I've seen Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband in the same top, it's only a matter of time before Chris Grayling wears the same t-shirt to boost his popularity!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed and Nick looking like... each other!

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/27/david-cameron-this-is-not-what-a-feminist-looks-like

      Delete
    2. The only way Mr G could improve his popularity is to agree to the general consensus and wear a T-Shirt "This is what an arrogant tw*t looks like"

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments. I read recently allegations that some of these t-shirts are being produced in sweat-shops in Mauritius where workers are paid just 62p an hour... If so, then I imagine they will all be disappearing from view pretty soon!

      Delete
  18. Maybe he should wear a "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" t-shirt, the last day is tomorrow, because he is a real tit!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Did you enjoy your road trip?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nothing for a week?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was travelling

      Delete
    2. Check his twitter account

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments. I've only just got back, so more posts to come shortly!

      Delete