I am not wishing to have a "political" debate on the rights and wrongs of each Party but, as we "ALL" are seeking a more "justifiable Justice System", I was wondering what we as "EX Sex Offenders", hope this new Government will decide is the correct approach to be taken for both the protection of "society" and us.

For me besides they agreeing to the implementation of the review written by Mick Creedon QPM; especially the reduction of the SOR countdown clock be reduced from 15 to 10 years for low risk ex-offenders, I hope they can change "societies" option that "Rehabilitation" actually is possible and does happen happen to the majority of ex-offenders.




Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

The most pressing priority for the govt will be prison overcrowding, and the early release schemes are barely scratching the surface. I would hope that they implement the presumption against short sentences, which has been talked about a lot and replace it with electronic tags and home curfews for anyone sentenced to less than 12 months. It's certainly a lot cheaper and there isn't much money around at the moment, as the new Chancellor has noted.

However, I see they have appointed James Timpson as the new Prisons minister. He's an employer who has hired lots of ex offenders, and he does believe in rehabilitation, but sadly he refuses to give any of his jobs to SO.

As I've said before, I don't use that label, I don't even use 'ex offender' as it means nothing to anyone in terms of who we are as people. All it does, with many current attitudes, is dehumanise those with past wrongdoings to the appeasement of absolutely nobody.
Also, you have to talk about the rights and wrongs of the parties to fully understand the issues. Bear with me...
So as a person, for me, one of the lines that Starmer used early on in the campaign was "we're not here to manage the shop", as in, just to keep things ticking over or even 'fix' things to just get rid of backlogs, he wants change.
The big problems that get talked about, NHS waiting lists, full prisons, etc are because of Tory systems that have failed. Make no mistake, some of these failures were absolutely part of the Tories' plan.
The Tories cut back on staff processing asylum applications so those numbers growing was no accident, their plan was to get people riled and then go to the election saying 'Rwanda is the solution, Labour don't have a plan'. It is correct that numbers of boat crossings were increasing but the time, money and political capital the Tories spent on this one issue far FAR outweighs its place on the list of priorities for the country (regardless of what Reform or the Daily Fail want to tell you). Rwanda was an expensive gimmick to stay in power and, frankly, it wasn't washing. The fact Tories had to pass a law to say an unsafe country was 'safe' is horrifying in terms of where were the boundaries of these sycophants?! Starmer has already axed it I think, and is absolutely right to do so and all the horror stories of what 'might' happen, quickly disappear.
We saw it with ULEZ, the right-wing media banging on relentlessly every day about ULEZ and they said everything was "Khan's fault" to attack Labour person in power *up until* the Uxbridge bi-election in June. So what happened? Tories win Uxbridge bi-election. But oh look, ULEZ is still there, Khan is still mayor (and won his mayoral vote) and absolutely nothing has changed for the people. But the Tories and the right-wing press did enough to keep their man in.
(A moot point, Labour has now won that Uxbridge seat in the election on Thursday, so could it be said the right-wing press directly interfered with that June bi-election?).
THAT was what this rabble of Tories were about, looking after themselves. I can reel off LOTS of examples of this, including the freedom-stealing facial recognition chaos but I'll save those for another day.
I give those examples, to make my point that the country's issues that the Starmer government will deal with will be looked at through a completely different lens and frankly a more refreshing one.
So instead of the lens of that cretin, Jacob Rees-Mogg saying 'lazy lay abouts need to get back to work', which is a dog whistle sound byte that accomplishes nothing but probably forcing people into unwanted low-paid jobs with unstable hours... how about we put in the effort to help small businesses across the country to grow and then employ local people / friends / relatives. I know which option I'd pick that is more likely for real wealth creation.
I'm trying to create businesses myself and, with the situation I'm in, with police making up rules as they go along, with being turned away because I'm Googleable, it's bloody hard, especially as many systems that are currently in place are working against me, but eventually, I'd love to be able to offer a job to one of you guys on here, for example, because I understand the difficult situation you're in. I don't look at you guys as (Tory separatist lens) 'ex SOs', nor should you identify as such, I see (Labour humane lens) people who are capable, who have skills, who would like a chance to prove themselves with work and put their past behind them.
The James Timpson appointment is a great example of a different lens. I believe, his expertise, no matter the offence, will push forward with a very noble attitude of a more general prevention and a changed system of probation/rehabilitation. I say noble because it won't create the fizz bang headlines that shock people, but it's much better for the people of the country. In the press conference today, Starmer's already talking about youth hubs and the importance of intervening at an earlier stage to prevent younger people getting involved in the CJS.
For many people, finding themselves in the CJS is because of a failure somewhere, so instead of 'throw away the key' attitude, use the data to identify the failure points and try to fix those and you can guarantee the numbers will drop. To fix the real issues there, I can't think of a better pairing to have calling the shots right now.


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

Some interesting points have been made so far, but don't forget that many people in this country don't even accept the concept of being an "ex-SO". You can be an ex-burglar, an ex -drug-dealer or an ex-fraudster, but not an ex-SO. Moving on to Timpson, I was in prison when there was a series of letters printed in Inside Time about his employment policy. What wasn't made so clear was that he is even more selective in his employment policies. Apparently, you can't get a job if you have arson to disclose, even if it was a fire in a bin or setting fire to your bed in a children's home as a desperate protest. I can see his vision of rehabilitation being very limited.

Elsewhere, other ministers are already getting involved in the prisons debate. Although prisons are under the Ministry of Justice, the Home Secretary has been holding forth on them. I appreciate that the overcrowding and "No Vacancies" signs have a knock-on effect on the police and especially police cells, but she should be concentrating on that and letting the Secretary of State for Justice talk about the prisons themselves.

More importantly, though, despite all the talk about rehabilitation and the need to support prison leavers, nobody is talking about the effect of basic DBS checks. Successive governments have admitted that they don't help reduce re-offending (and I suspect they might even contribute to re-offending in some ways), so all they do is continue the punishment. That means they're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

All the talk about concentrating on preventing young people from finding their way into the CJS can also be seen as a tacit admission that they're giving up on people who are already in it. Trying to live a crime-free life? Well, we'd like to help but we'd rather be seen doing something cool instead. Or maybe they think that public opinion isn't ready for that (so they need permission from the media to do it). In some ways this is all just more of the same: same stuff, different wrapper.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Another thing Timpson said is that he won't take on anyone under 25, as they are not capable of reform at that age. So he's really only looking for 'old lags', those who have become too old and too tired to commit more offences. We know that most people stop offending once they get older anyway.

The debate is already forming along predictable lines, with talk of Labour being 'soft on crime', as they announce more early releases, but what's different is that they can't just kick the can down the road anymore. They have to do something drastic right now, to reduce the numbers, no matter whether they get 'permission' from the media or not, and fortunately they have a big enough majority to do exactly that. 

The longer term reforms, which require early intervention, mental health support etc. Well, that debate has being going on for 200 years, since the Victorians first started locking people up in large numbers and it won't be going away anytime soon.

I understand the cynicism completely. I think we mustn’t lose sight of a big factor - where we WERE heading under Tories. We won’t see that because it won’t happen, obviously, but even some of the signals we were discussing on this forum were, as Timpson describes, “addicted to punishment” and certainly, in my view, lazy policing by stealing our freedoms. That cannot be emphasised enough.

I certainly hear your point about no recognition for that ex-SO label, especially when you see celebrations for ex-drugs for example, “I’ve been clean for…” and that is obviously a good thing. Which is partially my reasoning for banishing the label. But it’s the fundamentals of the conversation in which the past is brought up is what I’d like to see change, mostly around employment. The DBS system will obviously catch the very few people trying to get jobs they ‘shouldn’t’ be going for, but the many is suffering for the few.
Now, I’m uncomfortable with the ‘race to the bottom’ when it comes to pay/ workers' rights, but, the systems of having access to work through online platforms has certainly been a lifeline to me. I’d like to see a UK only version of that (so we’re not fighting against cheap labour from other countries, no easy task) but also, the scope of what these platforms offer is expanding. I heard one on LBC recently, Temper, I think it was called. That sounds like a tentative step in the right direction. I think it’s mostly London-based but easily expandable. It's almost professionalising the method to fill shifts at companies, whether it be in bars and restaurants to other jobs with a potentially slightly more relaxed approach/ focus on skills. If you're good you get a good review etc.

As for Timpson, he hasn’t been appointed to have a big recruitment drive for his company, it’s to use his skills and expertise to improve the situation across the board. I know he’s selective but he’s at least chipping away at the huge block of at least attempting to cut reoffending. He IS the somebody already ‘doing something’ and contributing to economy/productivity which this country badly needs. He will have opinions/insights on arson and no doubt IIOC and more, and hopefully NACRO / Unlock etc will also be afforded time to offer insights, especially when it comes to these relentless DBS checks. So I don’t think it’ll be drastic, that’s not Starmer’s style, I’m hoping it will be methodic and progressive (but probably too late us for us, ha). Given Starmer’s background, he will be willing to listen a damn sight more than Tories ever would. (SorryNotSorry, I will keep kicking the outgoing Tories, they’ve been an absolute disgrace on so many, if not ALL, levels.) As for the ‘early release’ scaremongering twoddle, the arrogant sods need to realise they’ve just been battered and have some humility, they have their own problems with Rhetoric UK.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

I'd certainly have Timpson there than whoever his predecessor was, but he is still someone who separates people with unspent convictions into "possibly deserving" and "undeserving". Like all his predecessors, he is already playing to the media to a certain extent, whether consciously or unconsciously.

On the subject of Temper, they do sound promising, but the flipside of them telling you that you are fully insured means that there is commercial insurance involved. That means the insurer has to be told about any unspent convictions on the record of anyone covered by the policy, whether they ask or not. Otherwise, the policy is invalid and they have the right not to pay out. If you tell Temper in advance, then as a recruitment agency (or however they choose to describe themselves), they may well be less likely to accept your registration. I could be wrong on that, and I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt that dealing with unspent convictions is something that they thought about when they set themselves up. On the other hand, if you deal directly with the insurer, you're at the mercy of whatever their approach is to unspent convictions.

Sorry to be That Guy, but I think it's better to know this stuff rather than find out the hard way later on.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

No need to apologise, totally legitimate point. Being unspent is the absolute bane of my life, especially when it comes to insurance. When so many financial systems in recent decades have been 'formalised', let's say, but are still affected by decisions made in 1974 is laughable. And to expect people to remain unspent indefinitely needs urgent review, imo. A cost of living crisis exposes all of these things, so it's never been more pertinent to have these conversations. So again, hopefully, that's where Unlock etc will get a seat at the table and Timpson / Cat D prisons prove employing unspent people can work.

As a side note, have you ever noticed being unspent / monitoring in the community / Cat D prisons never comes up when certain detail-free people scaremonger about early release *sigh*.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

Well, the things exposed by the cost of living crisis also exposed the previous government's view of the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. Having an unspent conviction automatically made them see someone as undeserving, although it is possible to retain membership of the House of Lords despite serving a prison sentence.

Some of the stuff in the media complaining about early release and ROA reform gave me a rueful smile, as one tabloid was raving about burglars having their convictions become spent, even though burglary was excluded from the changes. Now they're moaning about dangerous prisoners being released, even though prisoners with convictions for violent or sexual offences won't be released early. For some reason, the complaints from those sources seem to be louder now than they were under the previous government. Or maybe I'm just over-sensitive. You know: confirmation bias and all that.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Ha, don’t get me started on cronyism. An ex-Tory MP near me who was as affective as a lettuce was quietly put into the HoL. Not a clue as to why.

Well done to the man on BBC 1's Question Time tonight talking about this exact thing. Worth a watch on iPlayer. He said he was in jail 20 years ago and just a few years ago got turned away from a job in a supermarket. And just like that, we can humanise problems. Maybe now is the time to speak out fellow forum-ers!

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.