New Attempt By The Prison System To Sabotage John Bowden's Parole Hearing
Brighton ABC | 22.07.2009 16:54
The contents of a prison intelligence report on me is I'm sure the latest attempt by the prison authorities to prevent my release and should be looked at in the context of what happened in 2007 with the Stillman allegations. There is an obvious continuum here and a definite pattern of his falsehoods all designed to prejudice the decision of the parole board whenever it needs to consider my release. Essentially the strategy is the same as in 2007 – to try and persuade the parole board that I am linked to an illegal group on the outside (in 2007 it was a terrorist or paramilitary group, now it's a criminal or “gang-land” fraternity) and therefore represent a risk to public safety. There never was in 2007 and there isn't now any police intelligence to corroborate or substantiate the claim of my association with illegal groups on the outside of prison and there remains absolutely no evidential basis to the allegations whatsoever. In fact, the source of the allegations is senior prison staff who keen to manufacture “evidence” of my danger to the public have used the identity of people who have visited me in prison to claim an association with illegal groups on the outside. In 2007 “evidence” of my involvement with a “terrorist organisation” was a visit I'd received from two members of the Anarchist Black cross, a perfectly legal and legitimate prisoners' rights group; in 2008 “evidence” of my involvement in the Glasgow underworld was a visit I'd received from an ex-prisoner who I'd served time with. Despite there existing absolutely no evidence that my relationship with either the ABC members or the ex-prisoner extended beyond the context of prison or that their lifestyles and social and political associations were anything other than perfectly legal, their visiting me was used as evidence in various prison reports to claim that I represented a danger to public safety and therefore should not be released from prison.
In July 2009 the intelligence management unit at Glenochil prison produced a report to “provide the parole board with a summary of intelligence records held on the prisoner Bowden, that are relevant to risk (my emphasis)” the report was intended to influence the decision of the parole board when considering my release after 28 years of imprisonment and is instructive of the way that bias, prejudice and lies are presented as apparently reliable and legitimate “intelligence” when used to “stitch-up” prisoners hated by the system.
The first entry in the intelligence report classified as “reliable” information states: “Intelligence dated the 31/3/09 provides that prisoner 6729 Bowden manipulated a meeting with senior management for his own ends”. The meeting referred to took place in March of this year and was initiated by myself and another prisoner to raise the issue of the punitive treatment of a prisoner on hunger strike. The prisoner, Charles Brannan, was refusing both food and liquids in protest over medical neglect and at the time was being held in a special isolation cell and denied all reading and writing materials. Senior management at the meeting was a female governor, Margaret McConnel, and a senior prison officer, Scott McBrier. Both attempted to justify Charles Brannan's treatment on the grounds that his hunger strike was in fact an attempt at suicide and therefore he had to be denied any article that might assist him to kill himself, including newspapers and writing paper. Unable to sustain the ridiculousness of their argument they eventually agreed to “review” his treatment. Following the meeting either McConnel or McBrier went to the prisons security department and submitted a report to be entered in my intelligence file claiming I'd “manipulated” the meeting for my own ends. Once I'd received a copy of my intelligence file as procedure before a parole hearing in August of this year I questioned McConnel and McBrier about the allegation and both denied being the source of the lie. Following a formal complaint I was informed that the allegation would be removed from my intelligence file prior to it being submitted to the parole board, although no formal disciplinary proceedings would be instigated against the individual, most probably McBrier, for deliberately and maliciously trying to prejudice a parole hearing by making false allegations in an official report.
What chiefly characterises the whole of the prisons “intelligence” on me and is used to persuade the parole board to deny my release is not accusations of prison gang activity, drug trafficking, violent behaviour or the deliberate undermining of prison security (the usual stable diet of prison intelligence reports), but rather a focus on my political attitude and opposition towards the prison system. Even my writings about the prison system are considered a “risk factor” and an appropriate reason to prevent my release. In August 2008 I contributed an article on the history of the struggle for prisoners' rights in the national prisoners newspaper Insidetime which is published by the charity New Bridge, founded in 1956 to create links between the offender and the community. The intelligence management unit report to the parole board makes reference to it in the following way: “Intelligence provides that 6729 Bowden had an article published within the August issue of Insidetime. The content of the article suggested that if he or any other prisoner wanted to achieve something within the establishment, their most effective means would be to organise some form of concerted indiscipline. The article laments the lack of defiance and militancy shown by prisoners during the 1990s and is basically an attempt to rouse support for disruptive behaviour”. The purpose behind treating such writings as a “risk factor” and worthy of intelligence interest is twofold: to manufacture yet another sham argument against my release, and to deter other prisoners from publicly voicing criticisms of the prison system.
In 2007 prior to an earlier parole hearing the prison social worker Matt Stillman had reported that articles by me that had appeared on “terrorist” websites (specifically Brighton ABC) was evidence that I was linked to and associated with “terrorist” groups and therefore should not be released from prison.
When considering the release of a life sentence prisoner following their recommended period of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge, the parole board must, first and foremost consider public safety and whether the prisoner continues to represent a risk to the community. In my own case, after almost 3 decades in jail and five years of regular access to the community in the form of work placements outside of prison and frequent home leaves, there was no serious suggestion that I presented any sort of risk or danger to the community. Yet in 2007 a report submitted to the parole board by Matt Stillman contained the allegation that I was linked to a “terrorist” and “paramilitary” group. As a consequence of Stillman's indiculous lie my parole hearing that year was postponed and I was returned to a maximum-security jail for a year. Following an investigation of Stillman's allegation by various social work authorities in consultation with the police the allegation was completely discredited and revealed to be a lie, and I was returned to an open jail.
In July 2009 prior to another parole hearing the intelligence management unit at Glenochil prison in it's report to the parole board claimed: “The intelligence records for Mr Bowden provide that he is a very influential individual who has connections to a number of well-known gangland figures from the Glasgow area”. As in 2007, there exists absolutely no evidence to support such an allegation, which is obviously made to create the illusion of risk or danger to the community, and thereby prejudice the parole hearing against releasing me.
The reality is that elements within the prison system are prepared to lie, commit perjury and fabricate false “intelligence” in order to prevent my release, and even when the lies are exposed, as with the claim that I had “manipulated” a meeting with senior management at Glenochil prison, absolutely no disciplinary action is taken against the individuals responsible.
---------------------------------------
Please write letters of complaint to the parole board and ask that this latest set of lies about John not be considered at his parole hearing in August:
Ms Patricia O'Brian, Team leader
Team H
Public Protection Unit
4th Floor
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Also write to the following places and demand that the contents of this report be withdrawn:
Scottish Prison Service Headquarters,
Communications Branch
Room 338
Calton House
5 Redheughs Rigg
Edinburgh
EH12 9HW
gaolinfo@sps.pnn.gov.uk
Dan Gunn, Governor
HM Prison Glenochil
King OMuir Road
TULLIBODY
FK10 3AD
Kenny MacAskill MSP, The Scottish Justice Minister
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh EH99 1SP
Kenny.MacAskill.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
The first entry in the intelligence report classified as “reliable” information states: “Intelligence dated the 31/3/09 provides that prisoner 6729 Bowden manipulated a meeting with senior management for his own ends”. The meeting referred to took place in March of this year and was initiated by myself and another prisoner to raise the issue of the punitive treatment of a prisoner on hunger strike. The prisoner, Charles Brannan, was refusing both food and liquids in protest over medical neglect and at the time was being held in a special isolation cell and denied all reading and writing materials. Senior management at the meeting was a female governor, Margaret McConnel, and a senior prison officer, Scott McBrier. Both attempted to justify Charles Brannan's treatment on the grounds that his hunger strike was in fact an attempt at suicide and therefore he had to be denied any article that might assist him to kill himself, including newspapers and writing paper. Unable to sustain the ridiculousness of their argument they eventually agreed to “review” his treatment. Following the meeting either McConnel or McBrier went to the prisons security department and submitted a report to be entered in my intelligence file claiming I'd “manipulated” the meeting for my own ends. Once I'd received a copy of my intelligence file as procedure before a parole hearing in August of this year I questioned McConnel and McBrier about the allegation and both denied being the source of the lie. Following a formal complaint I was informed that the allegation would be removed from my intelligence file prior to it being submitted to the parole board, although no formal disciplinary proceedings would be instigated against the individual, most probably McBrier, for deliberately and maliciously trying to prejudice a parole hearing by making false allegations in an official report.
What chiefly characterises the whole of the prisons “intelligence” on me and is used to persuade the parole board to deny my release is not accusations of prison gang activity, drug trafficking, violent behaviour or the deliberate undermining of prison security (the usual stable diet of prison intelligence reports), but rather a focus on my political attitude and opposition towards the prison system. Even my writings about the prison system are considered a “risk factor” and an appropriate reason to prevent my release. In August 2008 I contributed an article on the history of the struggle for prisoners' rights in the national prisoners newspaper Insidetime which is published by the charity New Bridge, founded in 1956 to create links between the offender and the community. The intelligence management unit report to the parole board makes reference to it in the following way: “Intelligence provides that 6729 Bowden had an article published within the August issue of Insidetime. The content of the article suggested that if he or any other prisoner wanted to achieve something within the establishment, their most effective means would be to organise some form of concerted indiscipline. The article laments the lack of defiance and militancy shown by prisoners during the 1990s and is basically an attempt to rouse support for disruptive behaviour”. The purpose behind treating such writings as a “risk factor” and worthy of intelligence interest is twofold: to manufacture yet another sham argument against my release, and to deter other prisoners from publicly voicing criticisms of the prison system.
In 2007 prior to an earlier parole hearing the prison social worker Matt Stillman had reported that articles by me that had appeared on “terrorist” websites (specifically Brighton ABC) was evidence that I was linked to and associated with “terrorist” groups and therefore should not be released from prison.
When considering the release of a life sentence prisoner following their recommended period of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge, the parole board must, first and foremost consider public safety and whether the prisoner continues to represent a risk to the community. In my own case, after almost 3 decades in jail and five years of regular access to the community in the form of work placements outside of prison and frequent home leaves, there was no serious suggestion that I presented any sort of risk or danger to the community. Yet in 2007 a report submitted to the parole board by Matt Stillman contained the allegation that I was linked to a “terrorist” and “paramilitary” group. As a consequence of Stillman's indiculous lie my parole hearing that year was postponed and I was returned to a maximum-security jail for a year. Following an investigation of Stillman's allegation by various social work authorities in consultation with the police the allegation was completely discredited and revealed to be a lie, and I was returned to an open jail.
In July 2009 prior to another parole hearing the intelligence management unit at Glenochil prison in it's report to the parole board claimed: “The intelligence records for Mr Bowden provide that he is a very influential individual who has connections to a number of well-known gangland figures from the Glasgow area”. As in 2007, there exists absolutely no evidence to support such an allegation, which is obviously made to create the illusion of risk or danger to the community, and thereby prejudice the parole hearing against releasing me.
The reality is that elements within the prison system are prepared to lie, commit perjury and fabricate false “intelligence” in order to prevent my release, and even when the lies are exposed, as with the claim that I had “manipulated” a meeting with senior management at Glenochil prison, absolutely no disciplinary action is taken against the individuals responsible.
---------------------------------------
Please write letters of complaint to the parole board and ask that this latest set of lies about John not be considered at his parole hearing in August:
Ms Patricia O'Brian, Team leader
Team H
Public Protection Unit
4th Floor
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Also write to the following places and demand that the contents of this report be withdrawn:
Scottish Prison Service Headquarters,
Communications Branch
Room 338
Calton House
5 Redheughs Rigg
Edinburgh
EH12 9HW
gaolinfo@sps.pnn.gov.uk Dan Gunn, Governor
HM Prison Glenochil
King OMuir Road
TULLIBODY
FK10 3AD
Kenny MacAskill MSP, The Scottish Justice Minister
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh EH99 1SP
Kenny.MacAskill.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Brighton ABC
Homepage:
http://www.brightonabc.org.uk