Having been a subscriber to the 'Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism' newspaper since 1999 and received every issue since, I was somewhat amazed that the January 2003 issue was withheld from me on me grounds of the 'current political climate', not that this was quantified or explained or that the member of prison staff who ordered it not to be issued was sufficiently intellectually capable of being able to reason out the decision.

I doubt very much that the individual responsible had as much read the contents of the newspaper or moreover been able to understand it. The simple solution to not understanding or agreeing with points of view is simply to ban them wherever they raise their head in the hope that they will go away.

What after all is meant by the 'current political climate'.

I would take it perhaps to mean the Iraqi crisis, which hardly no person is able to escape from and is therefore not entirely unique news or something likely to arouse censure, unless of course one is misinformed and person of low intellect. Conversely it could also mean that the person is informed but disagrees with the views of particular publications and therefore bans them.

Given that the Prison's Ombudsman had already upheld another prisoner's complaint of the prohibition of the same newspaper at another prison, I quickly put the wheels into motion to challenge the withholding of the newspaper to me. Having written to this other prisoner, he himself kindly sent me the Prison's Ombudsman's judgement.


In addition, the publishers (Larkin Publications) had written to the governor and threatened legal action, the newspaper was released with a letter of apology and an explanation that there had been some confusion.

It's unclear what the confusion was or exactly who was confused.

Certainly, the issue was very clear to me and most certainly it was not me who was confused. What can one say? Except that the Prison Service is no place for confused people.Indeed, neither is it a place for those who are unable to reason out their decisions or maintain a semblance of balance in decision making, but instead relies on prejudice, easy ill-thought out responses and arbitrary reasoning.

'Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism' is popular amongst prison inmates for its 'prisoner reports page' which unlike many other publications which is funded by the Home Office and subject to their approval isn't afraid to ventilate prisoner issues and arguments in a no-holds barred approach.


If I thought that the release of the paper and an apology was the end of the matter, then I was sadly mistaken and should have known better than to have entertained the thought. For some time now, I have suffered from a foot disorder that presents as peeling skin, itchy and excessive perspiring and a general soreness that makes the wearing of shoes significantly uncomfortable.

My childhood, and indeed late later years were marred by the periodic disorder that necessitated that I bathe my feet regularly in prescribed solutions, apply ointments and wear only cotton socks and leather shoes and where possible open toed footwear to allow the feet to be exposed to the open air that would accelerate the healing process. Nylon, plastic or rubber footwear items were not advised.

Some 6 weeks ago the onset of peeling skin appeared on both feet which has grown increasingly worse. Following a consultation with the medical officer, I was advised to wear open toed footwear whenever possible and to apply a prescribed medication which I have been doing since.


The first complication was in collecting my meals, when a prison officer suggested that I could not approach the food servery in sandals and should go to my cell and return in shoes. When I explained the officer himself collected my meal and handed it to me without further ado. I was advised to nominate a fellow inmate to collect my meals in future which I was able to do.


The practice of another inmate collecting my meals continued until around the time of my challenge about the newspaper when a new policy came into force that compelled inmates to collect only their own meals which brought my arrangements to an end. I was advised that I should see the medical officer if I wanted my previous arrangement of meal collection to continue.

What was so clearly apparent, was that the officer who had first banned the newspaper and had of course been reluctantly overruled by the governor was making all the running about meal collection and intervening when the occasion arose to prevent it.This also included approaching healthcare staff for reasons best known to him or herself. It is open to speculation as to the objectives in interfering in my medical status, though one might suggest that it was to interfere with any decision that would allow my meals to be collected.

None the less, I did see the medical officer who prescribed further medication and advised that I wear shoes to collect my meals. Moreover, he advised that I wear cotton socks which the prison does not stock. I am expected to pay for them myself. If the wearing of cotton socks is advantageous to my well-being, then it should follow that as a prescription, the Prison Service should meet the cost. In spite of the doctor ordering the wearing of these socks, it appears that no member of the healthcare staff knows how to arrange it and it may be the case that they are not that interested.


It could however be due to the fact that it is out of the 'norm' and therefore complicated.

I now rely on canteen goods purchased at my own cost and the occasional sandwiches I get from friends.

I find the whole business of changing a perfectly acceptable routine based on a medical condition that was of no consequence to anyone, least of all prison staff to be 'hare brained' and simply little more than one could expect from individuals who would prohibit a newspaper because they themselves didn't understand it. Call it vindictiveness, small-minded, petty or trivial and somewhere in there perhaps lies the answer.

Meanwhile, the Prison Reform Trust in their recent quarterly journal Prison Report published a lengthy letter from me that featured amongst other things my age (56) and my deafness (I am totally deaf in one ear with only limited hearing in the other). The essence of the letter was to question the role of me Prison Service in their treatment of the elderly, and especially so those in the elderly prisoners unit at Kingston Prison.

Before I had received my own copy of the journal I was approached by the governor who had seemingly taken offence at what I had written. I had 'dared' to criticise me under-funding, lack of resources and lack of objectives in the unit I can add to that inadequate nursing care where the more healthy inmate will shave the more infirm, other elderly prisoners will defecate themselves or have incontinence problems.

There is never a rush to do anything about either, and as long as there's no fuss or urgency, the patient will remain caked in or wet from bodily fluids. For living space there are men crowded in three to a room, though in one room there are five inmates whose beds are laid out between partitions. The architecture which is listed, does not permit the addition of windows, there are therefore men who because of the partitioning have no window, they are in effect cocooned in a what can only be described as a box. Their personal possessions remains in cardboard boxes under beds and the day is usually spent sleeping or watching television with little or no attention. So much for the way that society comes to expect the way we should treat the elderly, and indeed the elderly and infirm.


What has happened to the Prison Service Order that gives meaning to the treatment of the elderly prisoner which features the word repect?

The governor was not amused and suggested that as I wasn't an inmate of the unit that I really knew nothing about its condition.

I have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan but I do know quite a lot about the crises in those countries that just happen to be thousands of miles away. Would it not be fair to suggest that I would know a lot about conditions just yards away, and especially so from its inhabitants who are able to venture around the prison. Moreover, from my own personal experiences with healthcare staff. There are many prison officers who simply want a quiet life who are approachable and helpful. This group of staff are unlikely to want to 'make themselves busy' over trivialities' and the irrelevancies of prison life. Many are simply seeking a way to earn a living and are not that career
motivated.

There does however exist an element who seemingly take pleasure in being the archetypal bullies and vindictive individuals, so much so that any questions relating to their decisions is interpreted as being a challenge to their authority. Discussion is out of the question and even the most simple of requests is too much trouble for such absurdly and limited individuals.

It is part of the Prison Service objectives that inmates and staff maintain useful and constructive relationships, that if an inmate has a problem that he or she should feel free to discuss it with members of staff. I would suggest to those who hold such views that perhaps they can give me a clue as to where I should start with particular individuals.

Moreover, if I were to adopt the arrogance and bullying attitudes of some staff, I would consider that, rather than having learnt anything positive that I have instead failed in changing my life for the better.

Having been an employer as a pub manager and interviewed prospective employees, such individuals would definitely receive the 'thank you for attending the interview, but I regret' letter.Their attitude, arrogance, limitations and small-mindedness would determine that. How could I be responsible for exposing the public to such persons, I would suggest instead that they find a role suitable to their characteristics, perhaps as a traffic warden where everyone can be unfavorably disposed towards them which is something that I am sure they thrive on.

I am not one to expect favorable responses to requests or applications all of the time from prison staff and I know that all I can do is ask. Neither do I expect favorable treatment that would place other prisoners at a disadvantage or allow me preferential treatment. However, I believe that I am right to have expectations of respect fair treatment and honesty and that serious considerations are given where there is room for exceptions based on sound reasons.

The big problem remains, that the Prison Service can justify anything and excuse any of its members who choose on a whim to implement some arguably unjustifiable and unsympathetic approach to its charges.


Time and time again, the Prison's Ombudsman has found against the Prison Service in complaints by prisoners.

It should come as no surprise that where the complaint is initially against prison staff, that complaint will be treated with contempt by the governor, area manager and right the way up to Prison Service Headquarters.

Prisoners in general have little faith in complaining to prison staff or governors but know that they have to exhaust that avenue before it is likely to be taken seriously elsewhere and by those independent of the prison.

Some inmates have a more cynical view of complaining, their usual response to making a complaint to any prison staff or governor is usually,

"It's a waste of time, they all shit in the same pot."