A Long Struggle.

      Proclaiming to be an anarchist in this system of economic madness is seen as being a threat, and a reason to have you silenced in one way or another, preferably locked up. The case of John Bowden is one glaring example. John Bowden has served 40 years in prison and had four parole requests rejected. The main reason for those rejections was not that he was a possible threat to the public, but that he held anarchist views and was in frequent contact with anarchist groups such as Anarchist Black Cross. Four parole requests rejected simply on the bases of his political views, not his threat to the public, says a lot about our loaded judicial system. In this so called "democracy" holding a political view that fights for equality and justice, and in doing so threatens not the public but those pampered privileged parasites that hold the levers of power, is seen as a crime and must be silenced. They have failed in the past, and they will always fail to silence the human cry for justice, freedom and equality.

A now defunct poster, sadly there are many others to take its place.

 

This from Act For Freedom Now:

       On the 20th February, the Parole Board finally agreed to my release after forty years of my imprisonment and four previous parole hearings when my release was denied not because I represented a risk or danger to the public but because I was labelled an “anti-authoritarian” prisoner with links to anarchist and communist groups on the outside, specifically Anarchist Black Cross and the Revolutionary Communist Group.
      Following a parole knockback of my release last year, I instigated a Judicial Review of the decision. Which although it did not succeed fired a judicial shot across the bows of the Parole Board and Ministry of Justice. And persuade them that future decisions on my release or not would have to be based on proper legal criteria. Specifically, whether my continued imprisonment could be justified in the Interests of public protection and-not just because I was labelled a “difficult prisoner” by the – prison authorities.
      So, the parole panel considering my case in February of this year had to admit there was no real lawful justification for my continued imprisonment and so reluctantly agreed to my release. However, in its written decision, the Parole Board claimed that my “current risk factors” included “anti-authority views” and “attitudes supportive of the use of violence.” It also wrote: “During your sentence, you have evidenced that you have a mistrust of those in authority and professionals have previously reported that if you felt unfairly treated or discriminated against, coupled with any engagement with anti-social peers, then this could increase your risk of violence. Your attitude towards authority and your personality characteristics have also been considered by professionals to present a potential challenge in your future risk management.”
       Focusing specifically on my contact with prisoner support on the outside the parole decision report says:. ‘it is clear from official reports that you have passionate political views and during your sentence, you have engaged with groups that have been described as anarchist groups (specifically Anarchist Black Cross). You stated that these groups could be forthright and radical in their protests, but they were not terrorist groups and did not advocate violence.
You told the panel that you’ve had a lot of time on your hands in prison, and this has facilitated your contact with such groups and your general interest in criminal and social justice, equality, unfairness and inequality.” It then concludes with “The panel accepted that your passion for standing up for people whom you believe need support is unlikely to impact adversely on your risk to the outside community. However, the panel was mindful that when you were previously at large having escaped you were helped considerably by associates you had met through these groups and therefore it would need to be borne in mind that you might be provided with assistance if you disengage with supervision in the community”.
        However, in its final decision, the parole Board admitted that my actual risk or danger to the public was minimal and therefore there was no lawful reason why I should remain imprisoned, and on the 13th March the Ministry of Justice agreed to my release.
       Despite 40 years of imprisonment I finally emerge from prison unbroken and my political integrity uncompromised and unyielding, and I want to deeply thank all the comrades who have supported me during my long imprisonment and provided me with the strength to maintain my struggle, especially comrades in Anarchist Black Cross and the Revolutionary Communist Group. I salute you, comrades!
John Bowden
HMP Warrenhill
March 2020
Source: Brighton ABC… please visit
https://www.brightonabc.org.uk/john/ileave.html
Additional note: John was released yesterday. Please check Brighton ABC
website for future statements… https://www.brightonabc.org.uk/
email brightonabc[at]riseup.net

Visit ann arky's home at https://radicalglasgow.me.uk 

The Prisons, Institutions For Creating Submissive Citizens.

        John Bowden was sentenced to 25 years in prison, 40 years later he is still there, even although all the criteria set by the parole board have been met, according to the prison professionals who asses these things, the parole board still hold on to their pig-head authoritarian mindset, and refuse him parole. The fact that he is an anarchist and stands firmly by his anarchist principles of resistance to injustice even within the confines of prison, is the main reason for his denial of parole. They demand total and submissive obedience to their idea of the perfect citizen, he must not resist the injustices that he sees all around him. After all that is the real reason for the existence of the prison system. You can forget all that crap about re-rehabilitation and protecting the public, that is the thin veneer they spread of this repressive tool of the state. 

This from 325:

        On the 22nd January 2019 after almost forty years in prison the Parole Board considered the case for either my release or continued imprisonment. In the case of life sentence or indeterminately sentenced prisoners once such prisoners have been detained for the length of time originally recommended by the judiciary or Secretary of State, in my case 25 years, then the Parole Board has a statuary and legal obligation and responsibility to review the case for either the release or the continued detention of such prisoners. At three previous parole hearings my release had been denied by the Parole Board on the grounds that I was a “difficult and anti-authoritarian” prisoner, and insufficiently obedient to prison authority; my actual risk or danger to the public, the prime official criteria for denying the release of life sentence prisoners, was never cited as a reason for my continued imprisonment.

        At my parole hearing on the 22nd January all of the professionals employed to assess the potential risk of prisoners the community, prison psychologists, probation officers, etc., all provided evidence stating that my actual risk to the community was either minimal or non-existent and that I could be ‘safely managed’ outside of prison. My lawyer informed the parole panel that the three chief criteria determining the ‘suitability of release’ of life sentence prisoners [has the prisoner served a sufficient length of time to satisfy the interest of retribution?; does the prisoner represent a minimal risk to the community?; can the prisoner be safely managed in the community?] were all confirmed in my case and therefore there was no real lawful justification for my continued imprisonment, especially as I remained still in prison almost fifteen years beyond the length of time originally recommended by the judiciary. The issues raised by the parole panel were not in fact my potential risk to the community or potential for violent behaviour, all of which had been assessed by the system professionals who gave evidence at the hearing and who unanimously attested that my risk of either violent behaviour or risk to the community was minimal; the main concern of the parole panel was my propensity to challenge prison authority and my association with radical political groups on the outside, specifically Anarchist Black Cross. Representatives from the London Probation Service informed the panel that all of the groups that I was associated with were lawful and none were associated with illegal activity, and in terms of my relationship with the prison system whilst I continued to question and challenge what I perceived as abuses of power, I had not been involved in violent protest actions against the system for over twenty years.

        At the conclusion of the parole hearing the panel announced that it would deliver its decision regarding my release within fourteen days. By law parole panels must deliver decisions within fourteen days of hearings.

On the fourteenth day following my hearing the Parole Board claimed that it had not in fact concluded the hearing on the 22nd January but had “adjourned” it and would conclude with a “paper hearing”, when I and my lawyer would not be present, on the 20th February. They also requested additional information from the probation officers responsible for my post-release supervision concerning the conditions and rules of that supervision. The probation officers subsequently provided the Board with the information, and reiterated that in their professional opinion I could be safely managed and supervised in the community.

On the 20th February the Parole Board then claimed that they had “deferred” the “paper hearing” because one of the Board members considering my release had decided to go on leave. In early March in response to inquiries from the Probation Service regarding a parole decision, the Parole Board said that they were in the process of “finalising” their decision. What was becoming increasingly apparent was that the Parole Board simply did not want to make a decision, or at least a decision authorising my release, which placed them in something of a quandary.

        Confronted by the evidence and recommendations of system professionals such as probation officers and prison-hired psychologists who had all stated that there was no public protection justification for my continued imprisonment, the Parole authorities were denied a legitimate legal cover for my continued detention, and obviously were extremely reluctant to openly declare the true reason for their desire to deny my release – a determination to continue my punishment for ever having dared to fight and challenge the prison system, and my refusal to compromise or surrender my political integrity and spirit. In reality, when considering the release of life sentence prisoners one criteria is given absolute priority over all others, and it certainly isn’t “public protection” or the propensity, or not, of the prisoner to criminally re-offend. The most fundamental criteria governing the release decision of life sentence prisoners is the absolute obedience of the prisoner to the authority of those enforcing that imprisonment? Essentially, prisons exist as instrument of social control to tame the rebellious poor and condition them into total obedience to the system; “rehabilitation” is simply a veneer used to legitimise an institution that is intrinsically brutal and inhuman.-------------

---------------Britain now currently has the highest population of life sentence prisoners in the whole of Europe and as the social and political climate here becomes increasingly more repressive and retributive that population of the civil dead will continue growing.

Read the full article HERE: 

Visit ann arky's home at https://radicalglasgow.me.uk

Faceless Corporations Have Us By The Balls.

      The final stages of corporatism, profit from your illness, profit from your incarceration, the end of public assets, the end of public spaces. You are either profitable to them or you are superfluous, a useless waste product. The faceless corporations have us by the balls, ----at the moment!!

via a comrade of Brighton ABC:

      Neo-liberalism, an ideology and concept usually associated with a particularly ruthless brand of free-market economics, has now reached into the very core services of the state and institutions that were once considered strictly off limits to financial speculators and entrepreneurs: the NHS, the prison system and the criminal justice system. Neo-liberalism doesn’t just involve a massive shift of economic power and wealth to an already extremely powerful and wealthy social group, but also a fundamental shift in the philosophy and policy of organisations like the welfare and criminal justice systems, both of whose ‘clients’ are now increasingly lumped together as an undifferentiated mass of the ‘undeserving poor’ or an always potentially criminal ‘underclass’ requiring an equal degree of punitive supervision, surveillance and ‘management’. For the poor the welfare state is becoming increasingly like a carceral state. 

Read the full article HERE:

Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk

DAY OF ACTION.

This from 325:

From ABC LEEDS:

Day of Action in Support of John Bowden

Monday 11th June

       John Bowden is a militant prisoner who has been inside since 1980 (and in fact for most of his life before then). He is serving time for a murder which happened 32 years ago, but John’s two co-defendants have been free for 20 years. John has been writing about, and fighting against, injustice throughout his time behind bars, building up a huge and impressive portfolio of articles about every aspect of the prison struggle. He has paid a heavy price for speaking out though, spending years in the most brutal segregation units, and being targeted for repression time and time again. We do not define John, a good comrade, by the crime he committed 32 years ago, and neither do the State. He is not in jail for what he did then, but for what he has done since. If he did not have anti-authoritarian politics, if he was not a man of integrity who always comes to the defence of his fellow cons, John Bowden would have been out years ago.

Continue READING:

ann arky's home.

BLACK CROSS PRISONER SUPPORT.

An appeal from Leeds Anarchist Black Cross on behalf of 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.
In an official report for the Parole Board, written on 29/2/2012 Brendan 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 and 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.

Continue READING:

ann arky's home.