Mistaken Early Release of Prisoners Sparks Concerns for Victims' Safety

[Social Media]

 

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has confirmed that dozens of prisoners, convicted of breaching restraining orders, were mistakenly released early under a government scheme aimed at reducing overcrowding. In total, 37 offenders were wrongly let out in recent weeks due to their offences being incorrectly recorded. The error has raised serious concerns, particularly for the victims of these offenders.

 

According to the MoJ, most of the released offenders have been returned to prison, but police are still urgently searching for the remaining five. Former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, described the situation as "very distressing and frightening for the victims," noting that it appeared to be a "policy error rather than an operational error." He explained that the problem likely stemmed from older legislation under which the offenders were convicted not being flagged properly.

 

Of the 37 offenders, 32 have been taken back into custody, while efforts to locate the others continue. The MoJ assured the public that the issue has been addressed for future early releases, and all affected victims have been contacted. A spokesperson for the department emphasized its commitment to keeping "the most dangerous offenders locked up" and stated that measures were in place to prevent further errors.

 

The early release policy, which went into effect earlier this month, allows some prisoners to be released after serving 40% of their sentence, rather than the previous 50%. The government has defended the policy, claiming it is necessary due to the "broken" state of the prison system. However, offenders convicted of breaching restraining orders were supposed to be excluded from the scheme, as part of a broader effort to ensure that domestic abusers remain incarcerated for longer.

 

The MoJ spokesperson reiterated the department's position in a statement: “We are working with the police to urgently return a very small number of offenders—who were charged incorrectly and sentenced under repealed legislation—to custody. The convictions remain valid with offenders monitored since their release and will soon be back behind bars." 

 

This incident has raised serious questions about the implementation of the early release policy and the potential dangers posed to victims, particularly those targeted by domestic abusers. While the MoJ has acted quickly to rectify the situation, the error underscores the risks involved in managing early releases under a strained prison system.

 

Based on a report from: BBC 2024-09-27

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

A ridiculous policy, designed to make space in jail for people criticizing the government's policies or making stupid posts on FaceBook. 

 

Can this government get anything right? 

 

Starmer should resign.

[Red Forever]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A ridiculous policy, designed to make space in jail for people criticizing the government's policies or making stupid posts on FaceBook. 

 

Can this government get anything right? 

 

Starmer should resign.

Let's get this right. You are saying that people who make "stupid posts on Facebook" don't deserve to be jailed eh?

You are clearly referring to the far right racists who incited the low IQ, far right thugs to burn terrified humans alive in their accommodation! Do you truly believe that these racists don't deserve to be jailed?

If so, you need need help.

[Nick Carter icp]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A ridiculous policy, designed to make space in jail for people criticizing the government's policies or making stupid posts on FaceBook. 

 

Can this government get anything right? 

 

Starmer should resign.

 

   Can you provide  link to one person who was jailed for criticising the Governments policies ?

[josephbloggs]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A ridiculous policy, designed to make space in jail for people criticizing the government's policies or making stupid posts on FaceBook. 

 

Can this government get anything right? 

 

Starmer should resign.

It's constant deja vu with you. You pop up on every thread spouting the same nonsense.

Nobody has been jailed for criticising the government's policies or making "stupid posts" on Facebook, or posting "hurty words" as you are childishly fond of saying.

People have been jailed for inciting violence, for spreading deliberately misleading information with the aim of inciting unrest, and for encouraging people to set fire to a building that was full of terrified human beings (or "immigrants" as you call them - mustn't think of them as humans).

A right wing fog horn, that is all you are.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A ridiculous policy, designed to make space in jail for people criticizing the government's policies or making stupid posts on FaceBook. 

 

Can this government get anything right? 

 

Starmer should resign.

Once again you spew you the misinformation you have repeatedly been corrected on with actual court reports.

 

Nobody has been imprisoned for criticizing the Government’s policies.

 

Give us names Jonny and I’ll put you right … again.

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Red Forever said:

Let's get this right. You are saying that people who make "stupid posts on Facebook" don't deserve to be jailed eh?

You are clearly referring to the far right racists who incited the low IQ, far right thugs to burn terrified humans alive in their accommodation! Do you truly believe that these racists don't deserve to be jailed?

If so, you need need help.

 

No, I am talking about the guy who asked where the immigrants would go. What would happen when they arrived in his town (or "turf" as he described it) - essentially repeating Rayner's promise that they would indeed arrive in every town.

 

No incitement to violence. Just a picture of some Asian looking guys, which is accurate since many immigrants are indeed from Asia. 

 

Jailed for posting that on FaceBook. Absolutely disgusting authoritarianism. 

 

Meanwhile, the Muslim guys who broke the nose of the female police officer at Manchester Airport still haven't been charged. Not fictional incitement, but actual physical violence against a female police officer resulting in significant injury. 

 

Two tier Keir. 

 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Can you provide  link to one person who was jailed for criticising the Governments policies ?

 

Yes, for about the 20th time.

 

https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/24514302.sellafield-worker-jailed-sharing-offensive-facebook-posts/?ref=rss

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

No, I am talking about the guy who asked where the immigrants would go. What would happen when they arrived in his town (or "turf" as he described it) - essentially repeating Rayner's promise that they would indeed arrive in every town.

 

No incitement to violence. Just a picture of some Asian looking guys, which is accurate since many immigrants are indeed from Asia. 

 

Jailed for posting that on FaceBook. Absolutely disgusting authoritarianism. 

 

Meanwhile, the Muslim guys who broke the nose of the female police officer at Manchester Airport still haven't been charged. Not fictional incitement, but actual physical violence against a female police officer resulting in significant injury. 

 

Two tier Keir. 

 

Name him Jonny and I’ll post the details of the crimes for which he was actually convicted and imprisoned.

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, for about the 20th time.

 

https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/24514302.sellafield-worker-jailed-sharing-offensive-facebook-posts/?ref=rss

 

 

   He wasn't jailed for criticising the Governments policies

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Nobody has been jailed for criticising the government's policies or making "stupid posts" on Facebook, or posting "hurty words" as you are childishly fond of saying.

 

Yes they have. See links above.

 

Rushed through the courts and jailed within a week.

 

Meanwhile the Labour guy who actually called for throats to be slit has a court date for next year. Why was he not rushed through the courts and jailed within a week? I'll tell you why, because Britain has 2 tier justice under free gear Keir.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/credz9gl92yo

 

Let's see how much jail time he gets, if charges aren't dropped once the story disappears. 

 

Manchester thugs also still not charged. 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   He wasn't jailed for criticising the Governments policies

 

Yes he was. Immigration policy. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, for about the 20th time.

 

https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/24514302.sellafield-worker-jailed-sharing-offensive-facebook-posts/?ref=rss

 

He was convicted for:

 

“Lee Dunn, date of birth 10/07/1973, is from Egremont, Cumbria and pleaded guilty to a charge of sending a grossly offensive message, contrary to section 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003.”

 

As is often the case his online posting has caught up with his day job, his criminal conviction has almost certainly cost him the security clearance he must have for lucrative work at Sellafield.

 

“Janet Potter, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS North West, said: “This conviction should be a stark reminder to so-called keyboard warriors: online actions have consequences.”

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/man-jailed-offensive-social-media-posts-wake-recent-disorder

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He was convicted for:

 

“Lee Dunn, date of birth 10/07/1973, is from Egremont, Cumbria and pleaded guilty to a charge of sending a grossly offensive message, contrary to section 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003.”

 

As is often the case his online posting has caught up with his day job, his criminal conviction has almost certainly cost him the security clearance he must have for lucrative work at Sellafield.

 

“Janet Potter, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS North West, said: “This conviction should be a stark reminder to so-called keyboard warriors: online actions have consequences.”

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/man-jailed-offensive-social-media-posts-wake-recent-disorder

 

 

Exactly.

 

Jailed for being offensive on FaceBook. Thanks for takiing the time to prove me correct.  

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Exactly.

 

Jailed for being offensive on FaceBook. Thanks for takiing the time to prove me correct.  

No convicted for breach of 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003, that’s ‘ criminal behavior’.

 

Short form ‘for breaking the law’.

 

You might find the actual law instructive:

 

“127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; “

“3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.”

 

He admitted his guilt, said he got caught up following the mob. (never wise that following the mob thing).

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

 

 

I see your claims of ‘criticizing Government policy’ have evaporated.

 

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No convicted for breach of 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003, that’s ‘ criminal behavior’.

 

Short form ‘for breaking the law’.

 

You might find the actual law instructive:

 

 

“127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; “

“3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.”

 

He admitted his guilt, said he got caught up following the mob. (never wise that following the mob thing).

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

 

 

I see your claims of ‘criticizing Government policy’ have evaporated.

 

 

He was criticizing Rayner's policy.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/

 

Jailed for being offensive. Let that sink it. 

 

No charges for the Muslims who broke the female police officer's nose though...

 

No jail for Huw Edwards and his paedo pics. 

 

2 tier Keir. 

[Chomper Higgot]

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

He was criticizing Rayner's policy.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/

 

Jailed for being offensive. Let that sink it. 

 

No charges for the Muslims who broke the female police officer's nose though...

 

No jail for Huw Edwards and his paedo pics. 

 

2 tier Keir. 

He wasn’t being ‘offensive’ he was being ‘grossly offensive’ to an extent that breached 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Lots of people criticize Government policy, but they don’t engage in racially aggravated breaches of the law.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gdww5lx2vo.amp

 

 

Off you go again on your Muslim thing.

Off you go again on your Edwards thing.

Off you go again on your two tier Starmer thing.

 

Are you aware that Starmer does not control police investigations, court verdicts, and court sentencing?

 

Or is it something else you are willfully ignorant of?!

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He wasn’t being ‘offensive’ he was being ‘grossly offensive’ to an extent that breached 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Lots of people criticize Government policy, but they don’t engage in racially aggravated breaches of the law.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gdww5lx2vo.amp

 

 

Off you go again on your Muslim thing.

Off you go again on your Edwards thing.

Off you go again on your two tier Starmer thing.

 

Are you aware that Starmer does not control police investigations, court verdicts, and court sentencing?

 

Or is it something else you are willfully ignorant of?!

 

 

So not offensive.

 

VERY offensive. 😄

 

Give your head a wobble. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

So not offensive.

 

VERY offensive. 😄

 

Give your head a wobble. 

Odd thing to say given you have been presented with the actual offense your martyr committed, as reported by the Crown Prosecution Service and you have also been presented with the actual law and clause of the law that he breached.

 

My apologies that reality isn’t aligned with your misrepresentation of the facts of the case for which a formal CPS report has been provided.

 

 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Odd thing to say given you have been presented with the actual offense your martyr committed, as reported by the Crown Prosecution Service and you have also been presented with the actual law and clause of the law that he breached.

 

My apologies that reality isn’t aligned with your misrepresentation of the facts of the case for which a formal CPS report has been provided.

 

 

 

The offense was being offensive.

 

Not calls for violence. No actual violence.

 

Essentially being rude. Jailed within a week. 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The offense was being offensive.

 

Not calls for violence. No actual violence.

 

Essentially being rude. Jailed within a week. 

Now you’re trolling.

 

Not a shred of evidence from you that he did not commit the crime he admitted and was convicted for.

 

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now you’re trolling.

 

Not a shred of evidence from you that he did not commit the crime he admitted and was convicted for.

 

 

Strawman. I didn't say he never admitted to it.

 

He admitted to the "crime" of being offensive. 

 

 

A fancy way of saying he was jailed for being rude. 

 

No violence. Not even a call for violence. Just being "offensive".

 

And what's worse, they released people who committed serious crimes to make jail space for him. Some of which were re-arrested within minutes. 

 

This Labour government is a clown show.  

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Strawman. I didn't say he never admitted to it.

 

He admitted to the "crime" of being offensive. 

 

 

A fancy way of saying he was jailed for being rude. 

 

No violence. Not even a call for violence. Just being "offensive".

 

And what's worse, they released people who committed serious crimes to make jail space for him. Some of which were re-arrested within minutes. 

 

This Labour government is a clown show.  

 

“Grossly offensive” Jonny, in breach of the law.

 

I’ve linked the actual clause of the actual law, you should appraise yourself if it.

 

“Strawman” as in portraying grossly offensive posts in breach of the law as “A fancy way of saying he was jailed for being rude.”

 

No Jonny, he was being grossly offensive in breach of the law.

 

 

Edited 43 minutes ago by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Grossly offensive” Jonny, in breach of the law.

 

I’ve linked the actual clause of the actual law, you should appraise yourself if it.

 

“Strawman” as in portraying grossly offensive posts in breach of the law as “A fancy way of saying he was jailed for being rude.”

 

No Jonny, he was being grossly offensive in breach of the law.

 

 

 

We're going round in circles.

 

Grossly offensive. In other words, very offensive. Highly offensive. Extremely offensive. However you try to spin it, he was jailed for being offensive (on social media of all things, not even face to face) while criminals guilty of violent and drug related crimes were released to make room for him. 

 

Paedo Huw Edwards and his pictures of 9 year olds being sexually abused. Not a day in jail. 

 

Manchester policewoman nose breakers, not even charged. 

 

2 Tier Keir. Absolute clown show. 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

We're going round in circles.

 

Grossly offensive. In other words, very offensive. Highly offensive. Extremely offensive. However you try to spin it, he was jailed for being offensive (on social media of all things, not even face to face) while criminals guilty of violent and drug related crimes were released to make room for him. 

 

Paedo Huw Edwards and his pictures of 9 year olds being sexually abused. Not a day in jail. 

 

Manchester policewoman nose breakers, not even charged. 

 

2 Tier Keir. Absolute clown show. 

Yes you are.

 

You’re almost in cut a paste territory.

Edited 23 minutes ago by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes you are.

 

You’re almost I cut an paste territory.

 

Well it seems we have established he was jailed for being offensive.

 

So let's wait and see what happens to the Labour guy calling for throats to be slit. Then we can revisit this.