Bristol Defendant Solidarity: Disco//Oslo / Autonomads / Cosmo @ Red Lion, St George

Anonymous Promotions, BDS & Bristol ABC Presents:

BENEFIT FOR BRISTOL DEFENDANT SOLIDARITY
THURSDAY 31ST MAY @ RED LION, ST GEORGE
£4 ENTRY / 8PM DOORS

DISCO//OSLO —- Melody driven German punk rock from Oldenburg

AUTONOMADS —- Machester DIY dub-ska-punk

COSMO —- Cardiff anarcho-folk

Day of Action in Support of John Bowden MON 11th JUNE 2012

Day of Action in Support of John Bowden

Monday 11th June

 

Imprisoned since 1980, (and in fact for most of his life before that), John Bowden has been a thorn in the side of the English and Scottish prison systems for three decades. John has paid a heavy price for being a staunch defender of prisoners’ rights and a committed opponent of injustice, spending years in the most brutal conditions, and suffering numerous physical assaults and treatment that has frequently amounted to torture.

 

Over the past decade though, John’s captors have been using a new tactic to keep him behind bars – the lies of prison social workers and quack ‘psychologists’. First, a few years ago, Matthew Stillman alleged that the Anarchist Black Cross were a ‘terrorist organisation’ and that John was therefore a ‘terrorist’ by implication. Brendan Barnett has now made even more ludicrous allegations against John, but such is the corruption within Edinburgh ‘Criminal Justice Services’ that John’s complaints have led to his victimisation, rather than the disciplining of Brendan ‘Pinocchio’ Barnett.

 

You can read about the affair in these previous articles: http://leedsabc.org/another-attempt-to-sabotage-john-bowdens-parole-by-prison-hired-social-worker/ , http://leedsabc.org/update-from-john-bowden-about-lies-written-by-prison-hired-social-worker-2/ ,  http://leedsabc.org/support-for-john-bowden/ , http://leedsabc.org/corrupt-social-workers-attempt-to-rid-themselves-of-prisoner-john-bowden/ , http://leedsabc.org/end-lies-and-corruption-in-edinburgh-criminal-justice-services/ , and http://leedsabc.org/lying-prison-social-worker-invited-to-audition-for-pinocchio/

 

As John says in his most recent article (http://leedsabc.org/corrupt-social-workers-attempt-to-rid-themselves-of-prisoner-john-bowden/):  “Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services, or what used to be known as the plain Social Work Department, have seriously compromised their professional integrity by defending a member of staff who deliberately told lies in a report to the Parole Boards in an attempt to sabotage my chances of release from prison. Behaving like corrupt policemen instead of traditional social workers seems now to be acceptable practice at Edinburgh Social Services.”

 

To rid themselves of John Bowden, so as to avoid having to deal with his complaints, Edinburgh ‘Criminal Justice Services’ are now trying to instigate John’s removal from the Scottish prison system back into the English one. Two years ago, the Parole Board recommended that John be moved to an open prison, something the Scottish Prison Service have stubbornly ignored, and it is inevitable that if John is moved into a different prison system any ‘progression’ to open conditions will be delayed even further, if indeed it ever happens at all. John has been a tireless critic of the human rights abuses frequently perpetrated by the English Prison Service, and we believe that they would like him to die in jail.

 

Once again, as with the Matthew Stillman campaign a few years ago, it is time for supporters of John Bowden, and opponents of injustice everywhere, to step up to defend John, and to send a message to the prison authorities, that whether they are in jail or out of jail, no comrade of ours is ever alone. Furthermore, these corrupt social workers need to know that their lies and machinations will not go unchallenged.

 

We are therefore calling for a Day of Action in support of John Bowden on MONDAY 11th JUNE.

 

Please organise what you can – banner drops, demos, phone-ins, letter writing, etc – and please help spread word of this call as widely as possible.

 

Some useful contacts:

 

Brendan ‘Pinnochio’ Barnett, Grindlay Court Social Work Centre, Criminal Justice Services, 2-4 Grindlay Court, Edinburgh, EH3 9AR. (Telephone: 0131 469 3408 Fax 0131 229 8628)

 

Michelle Miller, Chief Social Worker, Grindlay Court Social Work Centre, Criminal Justice Services, 2-4 Grindlay Court, Edinburgh, EH3 9AR. (Telephone: 0131 469 3408 Fax 0131 229 8628) NB Michelle Miller also works out of Waverly Court, see details for Peter Gabbitas below.

 

Peter Gabbitas, Director, Health and Social Care Department, Waverly Court, Level 1/8, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8DG. (Telephone 0131 553 8201 Fax 0131 529 6218).  Social Work Advice and Complaints Service, Waverley Court, Level 1/7, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG. (Telephone 0131 529 6217 Email socialwork.complaints@edinburgh.gov.uk).

 

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, 4 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7NS. Scottish Prison Service HQ, Communications Branch, Room 338, Calton House, 5 Redheughs Rigg, Edinburgh, EH12 9HW.  (Telephone 01259 760 471 Fax 01259 762 003 E-mail gaolinfo@sps.gov.uk

 

Ian Whitehead (Governor), HMP Shotts, Cantrell Road, Shotts, Scotland, ML7 4LE. (Telephone 01501 824000 Fax 01501 824 001 ).

 

Letters and cards of support to John at: John Bowden, 6729, HMP Shotts, Cantrell Road, Shotts, Scotland, ML7 4LE.

 

You can also send e-mails to John (or any other prisoner) via: http://www.emailaprisoner.com

 

You can download John Bowden’s pamphlet ‘Tear Down The Walls!’ free of charge from the PDF section of the Leeds ABC website at www.leedsabc.org

 

Criminal Justice Services continue to cover up lies about John Bowden

Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services, or what used to be know as the plain Social Work Deptartment, has seriously compromised its professional integrity by defending a member of its staff who deliberately told lies in a report to the Parole Board in an attempt to sabotage my chances of release from prison. Behaving like corrupt policemen instead of traditional social workers seems now to be acceptable practice at Edinburgh Social Services.

In an official report for the Parole Board written on the 29/2/2012 Brenden Barnett, who works for Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services, made the following incredible claims about my original case in 1980. “Secondary motives for using violence described by the trial judge and acknowledged by Bowden himself suggest a pattern of behaviour that allowed for the predatory targeting of vulnerable human beings on the margins of society defined by race or sexuality”. “Bowden has suggested that his victims were easily discriminated against on the basis of race or sexuality”. “There has been no investigation of the values and beliefs that informed Bowden’s targeting of individuals, i.e. what particular characteristics deemed a person worthy of attack; ethnic background, deviant sexuality”.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support Barnett’s bizarre claims and in fact I was convicted in 1982, alongside two other men, of the murder of a white Caucasian heterosexual male during a drunken party in South London. If ethnicity was any sort of factor in the case it was actually represented in the defendants, two of whom were Irish and the third second-generation Irish; the victim was a native white south Londoner. Neither the police who investigated the case or the prosecution authorities or indeed trial judge had ever claimed that either racism or homophobia had played any part in the case; Barnett’s claims are a total lie, as he well knew.

Naively, I imagined that by officially complaining to Barnett’s superiors his lies would be exposed and the record put straight as far as his report to the Parole Board was concerned. Instead I was about to enter a sort of Kafkaesque nightmare.

On the 2/4/2012 I was interviewed by Jackie Peters, Manager for “Risk Management Services” and Barnett’s immediate boss, and Sheila Ritchie, a “Sex and Violent Offender Liaison Officer”, and also a colleague of Barnett’s. Both made it absolutely clear that they intended to defend and support their colleague no matter what, even if it required some twisting of the facts and a total disregard of the truth. Throughout the interview I was treated with obvious contempt and at one point I was actually asked if any of my victims (I was convicted of one murder) were black or homosexuals. Despite my constant protestations that neither race or sexual orientation played any part whatsoever in my conviction, as the official files make clear, they steadfastly determined to somehow defend and justify Barnett’s lies. I eventually realised that the interview was meaningless and their intention was simply to defend their colleague, so I told them that I would pursue my complaint beyond them and do whatever it took to expose Barnett’s lies. In their subsequent report they would describe this as a “threat” against Barnett. They also alleged I had been “angry and aggressive” towards them and tried to shift the focus from Barnett’s lies onto my behaviour during the interview, which they insinuated suggested a potential risk to both themselves and the wider community. The issue of Barnett’s lies in their report was glossed over and my complaint rejected. It’s important to remember here that we’re not dealing with some miner factual inaccuracy or a biased interpretation of established fact, a fairly common phenomenon in social work reports on prisoners; Barnett wrote blatant lies in his report, claims that had absolutely no basis in fact or reality, lies that are easily disproved by reference to the mass of information in my prison and social work file, and yet those supposedly responsible for investigating my complaint decided that Barnett had done absolutely no wrong and his report was completely acceptable. Protected by an occupational culture that views and treats “offenders” as things to be monitored, supervised and policed, authoritarian characters like Barnett believe they have total power over those under their supervision and with it the absolute right to increase their demonisation and dehumanisation, even by writing blatant lies about them.

Those who employ Barnett and those who work alongside him in the Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services must ultimately take responsibility for his behaviour because by defending and supporting him they have seriously compromised their own integrity and are complicit in his dishonesty and abuse of power. A more senior social worker, Stephen Laird, signed off Barnett’s report and therefore gave the official seal of approval to his lies, which is why those supposedly investigating my complaint, Peters and Ritchie, felt an even greater predisposition to support Barnett, even if his lies regarding my original offence were obvious and indefensible. This is how corruption spreads within institutions like the police and Social Services; defending and supporting colleagues who have abused their power, especially over people considered something less than human and utterly powerless, creates complicity and a culture of abuse generally. The prison system and police are riddled with this culture, which is why the abuse and death of people in custody is widespread and why those directly responsible are rarely identified and prosecuted. It would seem that the “Criminal Justice Services” generally, including social workers and probation officers, are also contaminated by this culture of lying and treating “offenders” as people stripped of all basic rights; my experience with Barnett and his colleagues certainly illustrates this.

Undoubtedly at my next parole hearing Barnett will claim that by challenging the lies in his report I have also challenged his authority over me and therefore I represent a “High Risk of Re-offending” because of my adversity to being supervised by Barnett in the community. As always Public Protection will be cited and used as a justification for my continued imprisonment, when in reality I shall probably remain in jail simply because I challenged Barnett’s lies.

I have now complained to Peter Gabbitas, Director of Health and Social Dept. in Edinburgh, who has overall responsibility for Barnett and his colleagues, and he has yet to even acknowledge my letter, which suggests a disinclination on his part to recognise either my existence or that of my complaint. Incredibly it would seem that a pathological liar like Barnett has the absolute freedom to describe someone in an official report as a “racist and homophobic” serial killer without a shred of evidence, and absolutely no-one in his entire dept has the integrity or moral courage to criticise or expose him, and that apparently includes even the dept’s Director. The complete absence of any basic integrity amongst those at Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services is both scandalous and deeply worrying for those under it’s supervision.

The response of Barnett and Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services to my exposing his lies has been to ask the Scottish Prison Service to engineer my removal back to the English prison system, and on the 4/5/2012 Sharron Di Ciacca, Legal Service Manager of the Scottish Prison Service, wrote to me informing me that such a transfer would take place soon. Moving the “problem” on is of course a classic method of controlling and punishing “difficult” prisoners.

Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services should not be allowed to suppress or simply get rid of “offenders” who complain about and expose individuals like Brendan Barnett, and I ask all groups and individuals concerned about the treatment of prisoners and ex-prisoners at the hands of a corrupt social work dept like Edinburgh Criminal Justice Services to write letters or e-mails of complaint to the following addresses:

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
4 Melville Street
Edinburgh
EH3 7NS

Social Work Advice and Complaints Service
Waverley Court
Level 1/7
4 East Market Street
Edinburgh
EH8 8BG

Michelle Miller
Chief Social Worker
Grindlay Court Social Work Centre
Criminal Justice Services
2-4 Grindlay Court
Edinburgh
EH3 9AR

Peter Gabbitas, Director
Health and Social Care Dept
Waverley Court
Level 1/8
4 East Market Street
Edinburgh
EH8 8BG

John Bowden, 6729
HMP Shotts
May 2012

June 11th: Solidarity with long-term anarchist prisoners @ Kebele

As part of the international day of solidarity on June 11th:
Bristol ABC presents an infonight/benefit evening  for long-term U.S. anarchist prisoners Eric McDavid & Marie Mason. We will be sharing food, discussing the latest on Eric & Marie’s case and watching a short documentary on Jeff “Free” Luers.

6:30pm: Vegan food served (Suggested donation: £3)
7:30pm: Discussion on Eric & Marie’s case
8:00pm: Film screening of ‘The Jeff Luers Story‘ (40 mins).

Marie Mason is a long-time environmental and social justice activist and loving mother of two. In March 2008, she was arrested on charges related to Earth Liberation Front actions that occurred in Michigan in 1999 and 2000; no one was injured in the actions. On February 5, 2009, Marie received an outrageous 262 month sentence (a little under 22 years). The sentence was higher than even that asked for by federal prosecutors. Marie’s sentence is the longest given to any “Green Scare” defendant to date.

 In September 2007, Eric McDavid was found guilty of conspiracy to sabotage federal facilities in the name of the environment. The government’s case was based on the word of an FBI informant who was paid over $75,000 to fabricate a crime. Both of Eric’s co-defendants testified against Eric in return for a lesser charge. On May 8, 2008, Eric was sentenced to an outrageous 19 years and 7 months in prison for a crime that was never committed. Eric is appealing his conviction

London: Noise Demo at HMP Brixton – 5th June

From London ABC:

Her Majesty’s Pleasure*? Stuff that!

A noise demo to show solidarity with prisoners at HMP Brixton, because frankly we don’t feel like celebrating 60 years of having a queen, especially a queen who takes pleasure from imprisoning our mates, comrades, and other fellow human beings. What kind of a sick mind takes pleasure from locking people up in prison? Prisons destroy people. They destroy familes, friendships, and communities too. Putting somebody in prison is an act of violence which contributes nothing real or positive and only brutalises those who are already struggling.

We don’t believe that prison is the answer to any question we have ever asked.

We want to show the people inside HMP Brixton that they are not alone, that they are not forgotten, that queen liz and her government have not succeeding in hiding them away from us, that we support them and give a shit about them. That we think prison is a crime.

So, please join us on 5th June, part of the so-called “jubilee weekend” for a noisy and spirited demo at HMP Brixton. We’ll meet outside Brixton underground station at 3pm to walk up to the prison together. Please bring things to make noise with, your mates, and your righteous rage.

Organised by London ABC, who can be contacted c/o Freedom Bookshop, Angel Alley, 84b Whitechapel High Street, London E17QZ or via our website at http://network23.org/londonabc

(* her majesty’s pleasure is the phrase used when someone is sentenced to prison, eg. you will serve 20 years at her majesty’s pleasure. Prisons in the UK are formally known as Her Majesty’s Prisons (HMP).)

Imprisoned UK anti-fascist Ravi Gill released

From Leeds ABC
May 11th, 2012

Ravi Gill was released from Wayland Prison this morning after completing half of a 21 month sentence imposed last year following the first Welling antifascist trial. He thanks everyone for the support he received while inside.

Ravi was one of seven antifascists fitted-up on conspiracy charges after a German neo-Nazi was floored at Welling train station. A further sixteen antifascists were acquitted.

Six comrades went to jail in the case, with one subsequently being deported. Ravi Gill is the last prisoner to be released.

Is the Parole Board deciding on the continued detention of life sentence prisoner?

From: UK IMC

The review process itself, known as an ‘Oral Hearing’, at which the lifer is present, is conducted like a semi-judicial hearing where reports by social workers, prison staff and psychologists are considered and assessed, and the lifer is given the opportunity to present their own case for release.

Is the Parole Board deciding on the continued detention of life sentence prisoners before their hearings?

Periodically reviewing life sentences by the Parole Board is a process required by law and such reviews, known as Tribunals, are intended to assess the current level of risk presented by life-sentence prisoners at the expiry of Tariff point of their sentence; Tariffs are the minimum length of time trial judges specify a lifer should spend in prison to satisfy the interests of retribution and punishment. Once the tariff point has been reached or exceeded by the lifer then the Parole Board has a legal duty to review and make an informed decision on the lifer’s continued imprisonment.

The review process itself, known as an ‘Oral Hearing’, at which the lifer is present, is conducted like a semi-judicial hearing where reports by social workers, prison staff and psychologists are considered and assessed, and the lifer is given the opportunity to present their own case for release. It is from these hearings, or Tribunals, that the critically important decisions are made about the lifer’s future, especially the one regarding whether to release or not. It would be absolutely wrong, as well as unlawful, if a decision regarding release was made BEFORE the ‘Oral Hearing’ had taken place and the paper work regarding that decision was written up to convey the impression that the decision had been made following such a hearing. In the case of a lifer called Malcolm Legget there exists indisputable evidence that such an unlawful practice took place and its discovery was purely by accident and incompetence on the part of the Parole Board.

On the 6 February 2012 a parole hearing took place at Shotts prison in Scotland to consider the case for release of Malcolm Legget who has been in jail since 1986. During the hearing Mr Legget asked that a prison-based psychologist, Sharron McAllister, be produced as a witness at the hearing to explain what Mr Legget claimed were significant inaccuracies in her report regarding him. The panel agreed to Mr Legget’s request and the hearing was adjourned for a period of six months.

On the 21 February the Parole Board for Scotland wrote to Mr Legget saying the panel had made a definite decision regarding his continued imprisonment and had decided not to direct his release. It claimed the reason for its decision was that it still considered Mr Legget a risk to the community. Understandably, Mr Legget was concerned and confused by what appeared to be a final decision of the Parole Board when in fact his hearing had been adjourned and not yet concluded. Then on the 24 February Mr Legget received a second letter from the Parole Board informing him that the information in the previous letter had been what it called ‘an error’. Mr Legget is convinced that in fact the letter from the Parole Board of the 21 February was a pre-prepared decision made before the hearing on the 6 February and the real ‘error’ was that it was delivered to Mr Legget before the definitive conclusion of his hearing.

If Mr Legget’s suspicion is true, and the letter from the board on the 21 February suggest it is, then it indicates a serious and unlawful abuse of Parole Board procedure and power, and the rubber-stamping of the continued imprisonment of life sentence prisoners without proper procedure.

It also constitutes a clear breach of human rights under Article 5[4] which states that, “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful”. This clearly stipulates that a proper, legally-based hearing should take place to sanction the prisoner’s detention, and in the case of the lifer the parole hearing is constituted to consider the continued detention, or not, of the life sentence prisoner who has reached or exceeded the time stipulated he should remain in jail. The so-called Oral Hearing is the forum where reports and evidence is considered by the panel, which is usually composed of a judge or legally qualified person, and a psychologist and senior probation officer or criminologist. It is from the evidence presented at these hearings, conducted in the presence of the lifer, that the final decision to release or detain is made. The letter Malcolm Legget received from the Parole Board on the 21 February would suggest that a decision to continue detaining Mr Legget was made in private and before the Oral Hearing itself. Clearly, if this did happen then ether a unique and unlawful precedent was created, or the rubber-stamping in private of the continued detention of life sentence prisoners is an established practice and the Parole Board is operating on an unlawful basis.

John Bowden 6729
HMP Shotts
April 2012