Tuesday, 23 December 2025

The Chair That Never Fills

 Christmas is two days away, and the house already knows it.

It hums differently at this time of year. The walls seem to hold their breath, waiting for voices they’ve heard a thousand times before. The kitchen fills with smells that feel older than me—food that tastes like tradition, like memory, like something passed down whether you asked for it or not. Chairs are pulled out, plates are counted, cutlery is lined up with care.

And then there’s the chair that doesn’t move.

There’s always one chair that never gets pulled out, never scraped across the floor, never claimed by a body. It sits there quietly, like a fact no one wants to say out loud. An absence so familiar it’s almost invisible.

Almost.

I’m twenty years old, and absence is the first thing I learned about family.

My uncle has been in prison for thirty-five years. I have only ever known him through visits and phone calls—through plastic chairs bolted to the floor, through voices distorted by crackling lines and time limits. I don’t know what it’s like to sit next to him on a sofa. I don’t know what his laugh sounds like when it isn’t filtered through concrete walls. I don’t know how it feels to have my uncle ruffle my hair, tease me, embarrass me, or show up when I need him.

I know his absence better than I know his presence.

When he was arrested, he was given an eight-year tariff. Eight years. That number was supposed to mean something. It was supposed to be a promise, or at least a boundary. Eight years until he could come home. Eight years until life could begin again.

I didn’t exist yet. I wasn’t even an idea.

Thirty-five years later, he’s still inside.

Try to understand that. Try to really sit with it. Eight years turned into thirty-five. A sentence stretched and twisted until it no longer resembled justice at all. Until it became something else entirely—something slow, grinding, and quietly devastating.

People love labels. Prison is full of them. Offender. Inmate. Risk. File number. My uncle has worn many of them over the years, none of them telling the full story, none of them explaining what was stolen from him—or from us.

Because something was stolen.

I never got the uncle I was meant to have. Not the one who comes over on Christmas, not the one who watches films too loud or falls asleep halfway through them, not the one who tells stories I’ve already heard but pretend are new. I never got the kind of relationship people take for granted, the one that just happens because time and proximity allow it to.

He never got to watch me grow up. Never saw my awkward stages, my small victories, my mistakes. Never stood in the background of my life, quietly proud, quietly present.

And that loss doesn’t show up on any paperwork.

People talk about fairness like it’s abstract. Like it’s theoretical. But unfairness lives in the body. It lives in empty chairs and unanswered questions and a constant, dull ache that something fundamental is missing.

And we aren’t the only ones.

There are families everywhere like mine. Families who were told, It won’t be forever. Families who marked calendars and counted down years that kept moving further away. Prisoners who were told they’d be home for Christmas—and then missed thirty-five of them.

Imagine that. Imagine being promised a future and watching it dissolve year by year. Imagine time becoming something done to you instead of something you live.

My uncle missed everything.

He missed birthdays. He missed funerals. He missed the quiet moments that make a family a family. And then, in the span of six weeks, the world took even more from him.

His dad died.
His Grand mother died.
His great-niece died.

Three losses. Six weeks.

And he faced them alone.

No arms around him. No shared grief. No chance to stand at a grave and say goodbye. He grieved inside a cell while we grieved outside, all of us broken in different ways, all of us knowing something unbearable—that we couldn’t reach him, and he couldn’t reach us.

That kind of suffering doesn’t rehabilitate anyone.

It doesn’t heal. It doesn’t teach. It just wounds deeper.

And that’s what makes me angry.

Because prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation. That’s the word they use, the one that sounds clean and reasonable and humane. Rehabilitation. Helping people change. Helping people return to society better than they were before.

But what I’ve seen isn’t rehabilitation.

What I’ve seen is people reduced to numbers. Files stacked on desks. Human beings treated like inventory. Prisons that function less like places of growth and more like warehouses—storage units for lives that have been paused indefinitely.

Release doesn’t come when someone is ready. It comes when someone else decides they’re convenient.

The parole board doesn’t always care what the judge said. That’s one of the quiet truths no one likes to admit. Tariffs become suggestions. Sentences become flexible in only one direction—longer. If the numbers need to look a certain way, people stay inside. If someone doesn’t want to take responsibility, a door stays locked.

I’ve watched this happen.

My uncle once had a parole officer who barely met with him. No consistent meetings. No real understanding of who he was, what he’d done to change, or how he’d spent decades trying to better himself. Then, a week before his parole hearing, suddenly she appeared—long enough to write a report stating she didn’t believe he was ready for release.

A week.

That was enough for her to decide his future.

What kind of system allows that? What kind of justice lets someone with no real relationship, no real insight, hold that much power over a human life?

That isn’t justice.

It isn’t caution.

It’s cowardice.

And I’m tired of pretending otherwise.

The system doesn’t need to be fixed. Fixed implies it works but has flaws. This doesn’t work. It needs an overhaul. It needs to be torn down to its foundations and rebuilt with humanity at its core—because right now, humanity is the first thing it strips away.

As we speak, someone could be dying in a cell. Someone’s family could be going about their day, unaware that their world is about to collapse. Checks missed. Duties ignored. Silence where there should have been care.

And still, the paperwork will be neat.

Still, the numbers will add up.

Christmas will come, like it always does. We’ll gather. We’ll laugh when we’re supposed to. We’ll remember when it feels safe. And we’ll leave space for the one who isn’t there.

I look at that empty chair and feel something deeper than sadness.

I feel mourning for a family I never got to have.

I mourn the version of my life where my uncle was there—where his presence was ordinary, unremarkable, and constant. I mourn the ease of it. The normality. The way it should have been.

I mourn his life, too. The decades lost. The moments stolen. The fact that his name is spoken more in waiting rooms than living rooms.

And I’m angry. Angry that this has been normalized. Angry that absence has become routine. Angry that families like mine are expected to carry this quietly, politely, without disrupting the narrative that the system works.

It doesn’t.

It breaks people. It breaks families. And then it asks us to be grateful for what little it allows.

So yes, there is an empty chair at the table.

But it isn’t just empty.
It’s heavy.
It’s loud.
It holds everything that should have been there.

And until something changes, it always will.

The Ban on Paper, Mail Restrictions, and Misplaced Accountability at HMP Berwyn

 

The Ban on Paper, Mail Restrictions, and Misplaced Accountability at HMP Berwyn

HMP Berwyn has implemented a ban on paper alongside increasingly restrictive policies concerning incoming mail and photographs. These measures are presented as necessary steps to combat the ongoing problem of drugs, particularly synthetic substances such as Spice. However, when examined closely, these policies reveal serious flaws in logic, fairness, and accountability. Rather than addressing the root causes of drug trafficking within the prison, the ban on paper and associated restrictions unfairly punish prisoners and their families while allowing deeper institutional issues to go unchallenged.

At present, all non-legal mail entering HMP Berwyn is photocopied, including letters, greeting cards, children’s drawings, and personal correspondence. Original items are withheld, and prisoners receive only black-and-white photocopies. Legal mail remains exempt, but everything else is treated as a potential security risk. This policy effectively amounts to a ban on original paper entering the prison.

This ban has far-reaching consequences. Personal letters lose their individuality and emotional value when reduced to photocopies. Handwriting, texture, colour, and even scent—small but meaningful elements of human connection—are stripped away. Cards become indistinguishable sheets of copied paper. For prisoners, many of whom rely heavily on family contact for emotional stability and motivation, this loss is significant and deeply felt.

A Policy Built on Assumptions, Not Evidence

The justification for the ban on paper is the claim that drugs are being introduced through letters, cards, and photographs. While it is true that some substances can be absorbed into paper, the blanket nature of this ban raises serious questions. There has been no transparent presentation of evidence showing that family mail is the primary or even a significant source of drugs entering HMP Berwyn.

What makes this policy particularly difficult to accept is the level of physical security already in place. HMP Berwyn is equipped with sealed windows that do not open, reinforced by wire mesh, controlled entry points, and surveillance systems. These features are designed to prevent contraband from entering from outside sources. Given this, it is reasonable to ask how drugs are still circulating so widely if external entry points are so tightly controlled.

If drugs continue to enter despite these measures, then the issue cannot simply be blamed on families sending letters and cards. The ban on paper appears to be an easy response that shifts responsibility away from the institution and onto prisoners and their loved ones.

Security Begins From Within

If HMP Berwyn is serious about tackling drug use, then it must be willing to examine internal security breaches. This includes reviewing the conduct and oversight of staff, contractors, and external agencies operating within the prison.

Every day, a wide range of professionals move in and out of HMP Berwyn, including prison officers, probation officers, teachers, healthcare workers, and maintenance staff. This is not an accusation against all staff, many of whom carry out their duties professionally. However, it is unrealistic and unfair to assume that the only security risk comes from prisoners’ families while ignoring other possible routes.

True security requires transparency and accountability at all levels. By focusing almost exclusively on mail restrictions and a ban on paper, the prison avoids addressing uncomfortable questions about its own systems and practices.

The Impact on Families and Human Dignity

The ban on paper has a profound effect on prisoners’ families. Families are no longer trusted to send personal letters, cards, or photographs directly. Instead, photographs must be ordered through approved commercial providers such as FreePrints, Moonpig, or Card Factory.

This requirement places unnecessary financial strain on families, many of whom are already struggling. Not everyone can afford to use commercial printing services. For families with children, the impact is especially harsh. A child’s drawing or handwritten card cannot be sent directly, removing a vital emotional link between parent and child.

These restrictions dehumanise communication. Family contact becomes transactional, regulated, and impersonal. The message sent is clear: families are viewed as part of the problem rather than as a support system essential to rehabilitation.

Selective Enforcement and the Illusion of Control

While the prison enforces a strict ban on paper and family mail, its approach to drug enforcement within the wings raises serious concerns. Prison officers regularly observe prisoners openly practising their faith, yet no meaningful action is taken. At the same time, officers frequently target prisoners who are known not to take drugs and who are not involved in drug-related activity.

These prisoners are subjected to repeated cell searches, not based on intelligence or suspicion, but because they are unlikely to have contraband. Officers know these searches will result in nothing being found, which guarantees a “clean” result.

This practice allows the prison to create the appearance of effective control. On paper, it looks as though numerous searches are being conducted with minimal findings, suggesting that drug use is under control. In reality, this approach avoids confronting the real problem and allows drug activity to continue.

Statistics Over Truth

If officers were to repeatedly search individuals genuinely suspected of drug involvement and consistently find drugs, it would expose serious failures in prison management and security. Such findings would reflect badly on leadership and raise difficult questions during inspections and reviews.

Instead, by focusing on compliant prisoners, the prison protects its image. Statistics improve, reports look favourable, and the underlying issue remains unaddressed. This reliance on numbers rather than outcomes undermines trust and fairness.

Prisoners who follow the rules and avoid drugs are punished with repeated searches and increased restrictions, while those involved in drug activity often escape scrutiny. Over time, this discourages positive behaviour and reinforces the belief that fairness does not exist within the system.

The Ban on Paper as Collective Punishment

The ban on paper represents a form of collective punishment. Rather than targeting specific risks based on evidence and intelligence, the prison has chosen to restrict everyone. All prisoners and families are treated as potential smugglers, regardless of their conduct or history.

Collective punishment is not an effective security strategy. It breeds resentment, damages morale, and undermines cooperation. Prisoners who feel unfairly treated are less likely to engage positively with staff or rehabilitation programmes.

Moreover, the ban on paper contradicts the prison’s stated commitment to rehabilitation. Writing letters, receiving personal mail, and maintaining family bonds are fundamental to emotional well-being and reintegration into society.

Rehabilitation Undermined

Modern prison policy recognises that strong family ties reduce reoffending and support mental health. Yet the ban on paper directly undermines these goals. By stripping communication of its personal nature, the prison weakens one of the most effective tools for rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation depends on trust, fairness, and dignity. When prisoners see that restrictions are imposed broadly and without clear justification, confidence in the system erodes. The focus shifts from self-improvement to mere survival within an increasingly restrictive environment.

A Call for Honest Reflection and Reform

The situation at HMP Berwyn highlights a broader issue within the prison system: the tendency to prioritise appearance over effectiveness. The ban on paper and the photocopying of all non-legal mail may look decisive, but they fail to address the root causes of the drug problem.

If meaningful change is to occur, HMP Berwyn must be willing to look inward. This means reviewing internal security, examining staff procedures, and holding all parts of the institution to the same standard of scrutiny.

Until then, policies like the ban on paper will continue to harm prisoners and their families while providing only the illusion of control.

Conclusion

The ban on paper at HMP Berwyn is not a solution—it is a distraction. It shifts blame away from institutional responsibility and places it onto prisoners and their families, who are already among the most vulnerable.

Real security does not come from blanket bans and photocopied letters. It comes from accountability, intelligence-led enforcement, and a genuine commitment to rehabilitation.

Until these principles are embraced, the ban on paper will stand as a symbol of misplaced priorities—one that damages human connection while failing to solve the problem it claims to address.

Stand Up for Fairness: A Call for Equal Enforcement of the Law

 I find it increasingly difficult to understand how this country is being governed, and I know I am not alone in feeling this way. Many ordinary people look at the decisions being made and feel confused, frustrated, and ignored. I hope that anyone reading this can understand where this frustration comes from and see why this issue matters so much to so many people across the UK.

At the heart of the problem is a simple idea: laws are supposed to mean something. If a person enters the UK on a visa, that visa comes with clear conditions and a clear end date. It is a legal agreement between the individual and the state. Once that visa expires, the permission to remain in the country should also expire. That rule should be firm, consistent, and applied equally to everyone. No exceptions based on politics, public pressure, or government embarrassment.

Yet what we see time and time again is inconsistency. The government allows large numbers of foreign nationals into the country, often without proper planning or sufficient infrastructure in place. Housing, public services, schools, healthcare, and local communities are all affected. Then, when the system becomes overwhelmed or public concern grows, the same government performs a U-turn. Policies are softened, deadlines extended, and enforcement quietly reduced. Instead of clarity, we get confusion. Instead of fairness, we get double standards.

This creates the impression that there is one rule for some people and another rule for others. That is deeply damaging to trust in the system. A fair society depends on equal treatment under the law. When people believe that laws are enforced selectively, respect for those laws begins to collapse. It becomes harder to ask citizens to follow rules when they see the authorities bending or ignoring them whenever it becomes inconvenient.

It is important to be clear about one thing: this frustration is not about hatred toward immigrants as individuals. Many people come to the UK legally, work hard, contribute to society, and follow the rules. They deserve respect. The anger is directed at poor governance and weak enforcement, not at ordinary people trying to build better lives. In fact, inconsistent enforcement is unfair even to those who do follow the rules, because it rewards rule-breaking and punishes honesty.

When the government invites people into the country, it has a responsibility to manage that process properly. That means having clear rules, realistic limits, and the courage to enforce decisions even when they are unpopular. Instead, what we often see is hesitation and backpedalling. Promises are made, headlines are written, and then nothing meaningful changes. This cycle repeats again and again, leaving the public feeling powerless and misled.

The impact of this goes beyond immigration alone. It affects how people view democracy, leadership, and the rule of law. If the government cannot be trusted to enforce something as basic as visa conditions, how can it be trusted to manage more complex challenges? Trust, once lost, is very difficult to rebuild.

Another issue is accountability. When policies fail, responsibility is rarely taken. Mistakes are blamed on previous administrations, external factors, or vague circumstances. Meanwhile, the consequences are felt by local communities who had no say in the decisions being made. People are told to accept the situation, to stay quiet, or to be ashamed of raising concerns. That is not how a healthy democracy should function.

Citizens have the right to question government policy without being dismissed or labelled. Wanting clear borders, consistent enforcement, and fair application of the law does not make someone unreasonable. It means they care about order, justice, and long-term stability. Ignoring these concerns only fuels resentment and division.

Peaceful protest and public debate are essential tools in a democratic society. Throughout history, progress has been made because ordinary people refused to stay silent. Speaking out, organising, and demanding better leadership are not signs of extremism—they are signs of engagement. If people believe policies are unfair or poorly managed, they have every right to say so.

The idea is simple: if a visa has expired, then it has expired. That should be the end of the matter. Clear rules benefit everyone. They provide certainty for migrants, confidence for citizens, and credibility for the government. Constant exceptions and last-minute changes help no one in the long run.

Strong leadership is not about pleasing everyone or avoiding criticism. It is about making difficult decisions and standing by them. It is about honesty with the public and respect for the law. Without those qualities, trust continues to erode, and frustration continues to grow.

People across the UK are tired of feeling ignored. They are tired of seeing policies announced with confidence and then quietly abandoned. They are tired of being told one thing while watching another happen. This frustration should not be dismissed—it should be addressed.

Ultimately, this is about fairness, consistency, and responsibility. A country cannot function properly if its laws are optional or unevenly enforced. Citizens should not be afraid to demand better from those in power. Get up, stand up, and make your voice heard—not through anger or hatred, but through clear, firm insistence on equal rules and accountable leadership. Rights are not protected by silence. They are protected by people who refuse to give up on the idea of fairness.

Foreign prison officers exempted from stricter visa rules

 Foreign nationals working as prison officers in the UK have been given a temporary exemption from new visa rules, following warnings some jails were facing a staffing crisis.

Prisons have increasingly been relying on overseas recruits, particularly from Nigeria and Ghana.

But organisations representing officers had warned jails faced losing thousands of staff, after the government increased the minimum salary requirement for a skilled worker visa.

The Ministry of Justice said the move would "ensure jails can continue to run safely with the right level of experienced staff".

Under changes introduced in July as part of efforts to reduce migration, individuals must earn at least £41,700 to obtain a skilled worker visa, up from £38,700.

The starting salary for a prison officer, external is generally below this amount, particularly outside London.

The Prison Officers Association (POA) said the salary threshold changes meant jails stood to lose more than 2,500 overseas recruits, which it said would have had "a catastrophic effect on prison stability".

Meanwhile, chief inspector of prisons Charlie Taylor warned earlier this year that many jails were heavily dependent on prison officers recruited from west Africa.

He said many were in danger of not having their visas renewed, which would have a "devastating effect" on prisons.

The exemption only applies to applicants already in the country and lasts until the end of 2026, with a lower salary threshold of £33,400 in place until 31 December 2027.

The POA welcomed the new exemption, calling it a victory for "common sense".

The trade union's general secretary Steve Gillan said: "It might not be perfect, but it will mean the prison service hopefully can remain stable."

The association's national chairman Mark Fairhurst added: "Our members can now go about their daily lives without the threat of removal from the country."


The Times newspaper reported, external that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood had initially resisted granting the exemption, arguing that the focus should be on recruiting British people.

Earlier this week, Justice Secretary David Lammy told MPs he was in discussions with Mahmood over the issue.

He stressed that he wanted to recruit more prison officers locally, but "the most important thing" was to meet the demand for prison places.

A Home Office source said prisons were being treated differently given their importance to public safety and national security.

They denied Mahmood was against the move, but said she wanted it to be temporary, with prisons hiring British workers in the future.

A Ministry of Justice source said prisons were under strain and the exemption would provide "breathing space" to structure a programme to hire more officers from the UK.

A government spokesperson said: "Net migration has already fallen by more than two-thirds under this government. We are clear numbers must fall further as we create a migration system that is controlled and fair.

"However, public safety is the first duty of any government and we must ensure jails can continue to run safely with the right level of experienced staff. This is vital given the prison capacity crisis we inherited."

Prisons have been able to sponsor visa applications for overseas recruits since 2023 due to a shortage of British applicants.

In April, the government revealed, external more than 700 Nigerians had been recruited to work in UK prisons last year, with the nationality accounting for 29% of job applicants and 12% of staff hired at jails in England and Wales.

This made Nigerians the most common nationality behind Britons to apply for or be offered a job in UK prisons in 2024.

This was followed by people from Ghana, who had 140 job offers.

The Prison Governors Association has said a surge in applications from west Africa appears to have been fuelled by word of mouth and jobs being promoted online by the expat Nigerian community.

Sunday, 21 December 2025

contact us

If you have a story or personal experience that you would like to share, we invite you to reach out to us by email or text. Your voice matters, and your story could help others feel seen, understood, and less alone. With your permission, we will share your story to help spread awareness and understanding. We promise to treat your experience with care, respect, and confidentiality, and to use it to make a positive impact.
Email: voiceforcons@gmail.com
text: 07934170845  (texts ONLY)

Ex-politician Hatton and his wife deny misconduct

 Former politician Derek Hatton and his wife Sonjia have appeared in court to deny misconduct in a public office.

Mr Hatton, 77, the former deputy leader of Liverpool City Council, entered a not guilty plea to a charge of counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office at Manchester Crown Court.

Mrs Hatton, 50, of Aigburth, is accused of providing her husband with confidential council information over matters of commercial and business use. She denied the same charge.

Both were released on bail until their trial, which is due to take place in April.

Mr Hatton, of Mossley Hill, Liverpool, pleaded not guilty at a hearing earlier this year to a charge of offering a bribe.

The couple will go on trial along with former Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson, his son David Anderson and the council's former assistant director of highways and planning Andrew Barr.

Mr Anderson, 67, of Knotty Ash in Liverpool, denies bribery, misconduct in a public office and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.

His 38-year-old son, of Wavertree, Liverpool, denies conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and Mr Barr, 51, of Ainsdale, Merseyside, denies conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and accepting a bribe.

They were charged as part of Operation Aloft, launched by Merseyside Police to look into the awarding of commercial and business contracts from the council between 2010 and 2020.

Six other defendants who were charged in connection with the investigation are due to stand trial in February.




my view:

Who can we trust now? It feels as though almost every institution that is meant to protect, care for, or represent the public has been touched by corruption in some form. Systems that were built on trust and responsibility seem increasingly driven by power, money, and self-interest. When the people inside these systems fail, the damage goes far beyond individual cases—it weakens public faith as a whole.

Take prisons and law enforcement, for example. Prison officers and police are supposed to uphold justice and maintain safety, yet there have been repeated scandals involving abuse of power, corruption, racism, and misconduct. When those responsible for enforcing the law break it themselves, it creates a dangerous double standard. Instead of feeling protected, people begin to feel watched, controlled, or even threatened by the very authorities meant to serve them.

The same sense of betrayal appears in healthcare. Nurses and medical staff are widely respected for the difficult and vital work they do, but when cases emerge involving neglect, mistreatment, or institutional cover-ups, it shakes public confidence. These professions rely heavily on trust—patients are vulnerable, and when that trust is broken, the harm is not just physical but emotional and psychological as well.

Politics may be where distrust is felt most strongly. Politicians often promise change, fairness, and transparency, yet many end up involved in scandals, dishonesty, or decisions that benefit themselves or powerful groups rather than ordinary people. Lobbying, corruption, and broken promises make it hard to believe that those in power genuinely represent the public. Over time, this creates apathy and anger, especially among younger generations who feel ignored or manipulated.

Even institutions that are supposed to stand above politics, such as the monarchy, are not immune from criticism. High-profile controversies—such as the widely reported allegations involving Prince Andrew—have caused many to question whether wealth and status place people beyond accountability. When figures at the very top appear protected from consequences, it reinforces the belief that the system is unfair at its core.

All of this leads to a deeper question: if institutions fail us repeatedly, where does trust go? Many people begin to rely more on individuals than systems—community, friends, independent journalists, or whistleblowers—rather than official authorities. While not everyone within these professions is corrupt, the repeated failures of institutions make it harder to separate the good from the bad.

Ultimately, the feeling that “everything is corrupt” comes from disappointment more than cynicism. People want to believe in fairness, justice, and integrity. When those values are undermined again and again, trust doesn’t just fade—it fractures. Rebuilding it would require real accountability, transparency, and consequences, not just apologies or silence.

Tuesday, 16 December 2025

Banning paper

 Here at HMP Berwyn the governor has ordered the canteen to stop selling writing paper because prisoners can spray Spice onto it. 

We are still allowed access to paper in the form of complaints forms, legal paperwork, photocopied mail and internal memos. But we need writing paper to write legal cases, letters, educational notes, etc. This is the craziest rule I have seen in 35 years of imprisonment. What world are we living in now?

Editorial note – We received an update from Mr Stellato in mid-December. He said that after about three months in which paper was unavailable for prisoners to buy, during which time he complained to the prison and to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, it was restored to the canteen sheet. A Prison Service spokesperson told us: “Prisoners [at Berwyn] can buy an A4 pad of paper. If they require a single piece of paper staff will provide them with this.”

JAIL FLING Probation officer pleads GUILTY to having illicit relationship with prisoner at Britain’s most secure jail

 A PROBATION officer pleaded guilty to having an illicit relationship with a prisoner at Britain’s most secure jail.

Bethany Dent-Reynolds engaged in an inappropriate tryst with lag Kieran Robinson at HMP Belmarsh in South East London.

The 27-year-old appeared at Woolwich Crown Court where she admitted misconduct in a public office.

According to the charge, was in an “inappropriate relationship” with Robinson between February 15, 2024, and May 3, 2024.

During that time, she was a probation service officer.

She was also accused of attempting to access unauthorised information on a computer.

That charge was ordered to lie on the file after the probation officer pleaded not guilty.

Dent-Reynolds denied a second misconduct charge that alleged she was in an “inappropriate, romantic relationship” with Robinson between March 1, 2024, and April 20, 2024.

That charge was dropped by prosecutors, the court was told.

Dent-Reynolds was granted unconditional bail ahead of sentence at Woolwich Crown Court on February 6 next year.

HMP Belmarsh is home to a number of infamous prisoners including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, neo-Nazi David Copeland and Manchester bomb plotter Hashem Abedi.

Prison officer mum admits 'inappropriate relationship' with inmate after 1,100 messages exposed

 A mum has admitted to having an 'inappropriate' relationship with an inmate while working as a prison officer.

Zoe Oldham was charged with misconduct in a public office in relation to her role at HMP Risley in Warrington. The 29-year-old pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court yesterday (November 18).

The particulars of the offence state that, between March 1 2023 and December 19 2023, while working as a prison officer at Risley prison, she 'engaged in an appropriate relationship with a prisoner'. The court heard how there are 1,100 messages in the evidence for the case.

Oldham appeared in the dock wearing a beige coat over a black dress and with her brown hair tied back in a bun, and spoke only to confirm her name and date of birth before pleading guilty to the single count, the Liverpool Echo reports.

Her counsel Damian Nolan told the court that the evidence in the case stretched to more than 1,100 messages, adding: "She admits the essential nature of the offence with which she is charged.

"There is, on the face of it, division about what is spoken about in the case summary, what is ruminated by the officers interviewing her and the evidence served.

"This lady has young children. Perhaps for obvious reasons, I would ask the court to consider sentencing her in the New Year."

Oldham, of Marlborough Road in Accrington, Lancashire, will be sentenced on January 9 next year, being released on unconditional bail ahead of a mention hearing on December 16.

Adjourning her case and ordering a pre-sentence report to be completed by the Probation Service, the Honorary Recorder of Liverpool Judge Andrew Menary KC told her: "I am going to adjourn your case for sentencing.

"Sentencing will take place on the 9th of January. The fact that a report is being ordered must not be taken as any indication. These matters are serious.

"You should prepare for the possibility of a custodial sentence. The court will consider all matters which are relevant for sentence."

Co-defendant Lewis Smith was also due to appear before the city's top judge this morning. However, his case was adjourned due to issues establishing a video link to HMP Hindley.

The 32-year-old, of Abbey Hey Lane in Gorton, Manchester, has been charged with possession of a mobile phone in a prison, possession of an unspecified prohibited item in a prison and possession of a class C drug in a prison, the latter count relating to anabolic steroids which he was alleged to have possessed while behind bars at HMP Wymott in Lancashire.

He will now face a plea and trial preparation hearing on December 15.

Friday, 12 December 2025

Hundreds of prison officers may have to leave UK after visa rules change

 Hundreds of prison officers from overseas will lose their jobs and may be forced to return to their homelands at short notice after the Government changed visa rules.

The new rules, introduced in July, say that only people who are paid above a threshold of £41,700 annually can have their skilled work visas renewed. This is part of the Government’s campaign to reduce net migration to the UK “significantly”.

Earlier this year, Inside Time reported that more than 700 Nigerians were recruited to work in UK prisons last year. Government figures showed that Nigerians accounted for 29 per cent of job applicants in the Prison Service, and 12 per cent of staff hired. It comes after the Prison Service began sponsoring skilled worker visas for overseas applicants, in order to plug staff shortages.

Tom Wheatley, president of the Prison Governors Association, said the changes to visa rules were “a worrying surprise. This really matters as there are over 1,000 prison officers who only have a limited right to work in the UK and are reliant on a skilled worker visa to continue.”

He added: “Governors would have to sack people when their visas come to an end, and people from overseas, particularly from African nations, have accounted for around 80 per cent of applications for officer jobs. It costs £10,000 to recruit and train every prison officer, and now governors are having to get rid of people when their visa ends. We are losing some good people.”

The Prison Officers’ Association wrote to the Justice Secretary asking Ministers to give special dispensation for those on prison officer grades. Mark Fairhurst, national president of the trade union, said the change was “scandalous and pandering to Reform. As a result prisons will be harder to manage, staff morale will plummet, and hard working colleagues will be forced to leave the country.”

Mr Fairhurst had, earlier in the year, told a House of Lords committee of his union’s concerns that new applicants were arriving from overseas expecting accommodation to be provided and not being prepared for the work they would face, but his union is now supporting their members who have become a vital part of prison operations.

Prisons Minister Lord Timpson said ministers could not give immigration advice but added: “I recognise this may be a difficult situation for individuals who have been seeking sponsorship.”

Four more female prison workers in court on misconduct charges

 In four separate cases, women who worked in English prisons have appeared in court on charges of misconduct at work.

A 19-year-old former prison officer at HMP Five Wells appeared at Northampton Crown Court and pleaded guilty to misconduct charges arising from a sexual relationship she had with a 30-year-old prisoner. The man also pleaded guilty to offences.

The woman admitted providing her telephone number to the prisoner and failing to report his possession of an illicit mobile phone and cannabis. Both defendants admitted offences of misconduct in public office between August 2024 and March 2025 at the Northamptonshire prison. They also both pleaded guilty to a separate charge of committing misconduct on 23 November 2024. They are due to be sentenced on 5 January.

The woman was in court, and the man appeared by video-link. The court heard that the woman, acting as a prison custody officer, ‘wilfully misconducted’ herself ‘in a way which amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust’. The man encouraged and assisted both offences. 

Both defendants admitted making an unauthorised transmission of an image or sound from within a prison, conveying cannabis into the prison, and conveying two mobile phones. They also pleaded guilty to making an unauthorised electronic transmission of an image relating to HMP Peterborough between December 2024 and March this year. The man admitted a seventh charge of possessing a device with a SIM card at HMP Five Wells without authority on 22 December. The 19-year-old had previously been on conditional bail but was remanded into custody after pleading guilty.

In a separate case, a 24-year-old former officer at HMP Lowdham Grange has pleaded guilty to having a relationship with an inmate and with conspiracy to supply him with cannabis. She appeared in Nottingham Crown Court, and her alleged lover appeared by video link. The pair pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of supplying cocaine to other inmates. The woman was freed on conditional bail, and they will both reappear in court on 13 April next year.

In another case, a prison worker at HMP Lindholme faked texts threatening her children so she could claim in her defence that she was forced to smuggle £250,000 of drugs into HMP Lindholme. The 40-year-old, who worked within the prison’s education department, was detained in October 2023 after she was found to be in possession of 0.5kg worth of drugs during a staff search. 

When caught she claimed she had been in receipt of texts threatening her children, but it was discovered that she had written them herself. She was jailed for five years and two months at Sheffield Crown Court for possessing cocaine and ketamine with intent to supply.

Finally, a woman officer who was working at HMP Hewell used her access to prison computers to check on the wellbeing of her boyfriend who was serving a sentence in HMP Birmingham. She then convinced two women to visit him, smuggle cannabis in with them, and get him to swallow it. Unfortunately for all of them, when they tried it for the third month running, he could not swallow the drugs and so was caught.

The prison traced the officer’s phone calls from work to the two other women, and now all are awaiting sentencing.

HMP Parc Expansion Approved – But at What Cost?

 

HMP Parc Expansion Approved – But at What Cost?

So the expansion plans for HMP Parc have been approved… but do you realise something? Before anyone celebrates adding hundreds more prisoners, the government needs to wake up and smell the coffee. This is a prison that, only two years ago, recorded a shocking number of deaths. Families and campaigners raised concerns at the time, and many of those concerns still haven’t gone away.

Let’s be honest: HMP Parc already faces major challenges, and expanding it by around 345 additional prisoners raises some very serious questions about priorities, safety, staffing and basic duty of care.

A Prison Already Under Pressure

People who follow what happens at Parc will know that the prison has been struggling with a massive drug problem. Reports over recent years have consistently highlighted issues with illegal substances entering the jail, including accusations that drone drops are a regular occurrence. If existing drug prevention strategies aren’t working, how can anyone justify adding even more prisoners into the mix?

On top of that, there have been ongoing concerns about staffing standards, including disciplinary actions and suspensions. Some families and prisoners have reported worrying behaviour by certain staff—claims that should have triggered stronger oversight and improved training long before any expansion was considered.

Lockdowns and Staff Shortages

Anyone with a loved one in Parc knows how often the prison goes into lockdown. Why? Because it’s short-staffed. Not just occasionally short-staffed, but chronically struggling to maintain basic daily operations.

Now we’re supposed to believe that adding hundreds more people into this already-stretched environment will somehow improve things? It doesn’t add up.

The plan mentions hiring 160 additional staff, but here’s the obvious question:
Why not hire them first and demonstrate that the prison can run safely and effectively before approving an expansion?

Recruitment shouldn’t be a footnote. It should be the foundation.

Profit vs Rehabilitation

The uncomfortable truth is that expansions like this often look more like business decisions than social ones. Parc is a privately run prison, and private prisons rely on occupancy for revenue. But prisons are not hotels. They are environments where rehabilitation, safety, and the welfare of human beings should come before profit margins.

If rehabilitation is supposed to be the priority, then why expand a prison that is already struggling to meet basic standards?

What About the Rest of the Prison System?

Another point that seems to be ignored: if the prison population really is overwhelming the system, why not redistribute prisoners across England and Wales, easing pressure on multiple sites rather than expanding a single one that is already stretched thin?

This approach could help stabilise the broader system instead of loading even more weight onto one of the most troubled prisons in the UK.

The Bottom Line

Before anyone builds new wings or increases capacity, there should be a simple checklist:

  • Is the current prison safe?

  • Is it adequately staffed?

  • Are drugs under control?

  • Are staff properly trained and supported?

  • Are prisoners receiving meaningful rehabilitation?

Right now, it’s difficult for many people—families, campaigners, and even current staff—to say “yes” to those questions.

If the government truly cares about rehabilitation, safety, and reducing reoffending, then expansion shouldn’t even be on the table until the existing issues at HMP Parc are fixed.

Because this should not be about money.
It should be about people.
And it should be about getting things right before making them bigger.

Controversial plans for prison expansion approved

 Lewis Smith, local democracy reporter

Controversial plans to expand the troubled Parc Prison to house hundreds more inmates have been approved by Bridgend County Borough Council.

The proposal was given the go-ahead at a council planning committee in November, to a build a new “K-shaped house-block” that will accommodate an extra 345 residents along with an additional 160 members of staff.

HMP Parc is a category B prison located in Coity, Bridgend. It was opened in 1997 and is operated by private security firm G4S. The current site holds a total of 1,670 inmates as well as 676 members of staff.

The application was handed in by Galliford Try Construction Limited earlier in 2025 on behalf of the UK’s Ministry of Justice.

It will now see works at the privately run facility to build a new block on the south-west of the site along with the repositioning of parts of the boundary wall.

This comes in addition to the development of a replacement kitchen and dining block, along with a new gym, multi-faith building, education building, and visitor/staff entrance with extra car parking and associated infrastructure.

HMP Parc is a category B prison located in Coity, Bridgend. It was opened in 1997 and is operated by private security firm G4S. The current site holds a total of 1,670 inmates as well as 676 members of staff.

The application was handed in by Galliford Try Construction Limited earlier in 2025 on behalf of the UK’s Ministry of Justice.

It will now see works at the privately run facility to build a new block on the south-west of the site along with the repositioning of parts of the boundary wall.

This comes in addition to the development of a replacement kitchen and dining block, along with a new gym, multi-faith building, education building, and visitor/staff entrance with extra car parking and associated infrastructure.

Justice secretary wants jury trials scrapped except in most serious cases

 Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test.

An internal government briefing, produced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for all other Whitehall departments, confirms plans to create a new tier of jury-less courts in England and Wales.

The new courts would deal with most crimes currently considered by juries in Crown Court.

But the MoJ said no final decision had been taken by the government.

The plans, obtained by BBC News, show that Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, wants to ask Parliament to end jury trials for defendants who would be jailed for up to five years.

The proposals are an attempt to end unprecedented delays and backlogs in courts, and do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

The MoJ presentation, produced earlier this month, says Crown Courts are facing record backlogs with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be completed.

In practice, this means that suspects being charged with serious crimes today may not have a trial until late 2029 or early 2030.

Officials predict in the document that the caseload will grow to more than 100,000 before then, unless there is further action.

Earlier this year, retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the government ends jury trial for many serious offences, saying they could be dealt with by a judge alone or sitting with two magistrates.

This would be done by creating a new intermediate tier of criminal court, dubbed the "Crown Court Bench Division" (CCBD) sitting in between magistrates' courts and Crown Courts, where juries decide cases.

The CCBD would hear cases involving defendants facing sentences of up to three years, Sir Brian recommended.

The "DPM's [deputy prime minister's] decision", according to the leaked MoJ document is to "go further than Sir Brian's to achieve maximum impact".

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's PM programme on Tuesday, Sir Brian said he was "not prepared to comment" on the government's "hypothetical" unpublished plans.

However, he said "substantial, structural change is essential", adding: "Our criminal justice system is at crisis point".

The second part of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts will be published soon, he added.

'Reforms will not compromise right to a fair trial'

The document says Lammy wants to: "Introduce trial by judge alone for cases involving fraud and financial offences - if the judge considers the case to be suitably technical and lengthy. Exclusions for rape, murder, manslaughter and public interest."

The CCBD would be introduced "as a lower-tier of the Crown Court which hears cases likely to receive a sentence of up to five years by a judge alone", the document said.

This means that while jury trial would be guaranteed for murder, manslaughter and rape - almost all other defendants facing serious offences would be tried by a judge alone.

The document continues: "The reforms will improve timeliness in the Crown Court through extra hearing time... [and] not compromise the right to a fair trial - there is no right to a jury trial."

Lammy is said by officials to have begun the "write round" - Whitehall jargon for obtaining final cross-Cabinet and departmental sign-off before going public.

Assuming he gets that approval, an announcement would come in December, with legislation in the New Year.


A spokesperson for the MoJ said: "No final decision has been taken by government. We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims - with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising - which will require bold action to put right."

But Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association which represents criminal barristers, said the proposals would not solve the crisis in justice.

She said: "What they propose simply won't work - it is not the magic pill that they promise.

"The consequences of their actions will be to destroy a criminal justice system that has been the pride of this country for centuries, and to destroy justice as we know it.

"Juries are not the cause of the backlog. The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors for years."

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the proposals, arguing juries "put ordinary men and women of every walk of life at the heart of justice."

Writing on X, she described Labour's plans as "a short-term decision that risks fairness, undermines public trust, and erodes the very foundation of our justice system".

"Conservatives believe in our traditions and we believe in trial by jury", she added.

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller MP described the plans as "completely disgraceful" and accused the UK Government of "dismantling our justice system and failing victims in the process".

She said the Liberal Democrats were calling for the government to "reconsider" its plans "as a matter of urgency".

Former judge Wendy Joseph KC said the proposal represents an "absolutely fundamental change" to the principles of justice practiced in the UK.

"No one should underestimate how serious that is," she told BBC Breakfast on Wednesday.

She said a lot of judges will be "uncomfortable" about being the sole arbiter of justice.

She agreed the backlog needs addressing, but "there are lot of minus factors in what David Lammy is proposing".

Baroness Helena Kennedy, Scottish Barrister and Labour Peer, said having a jury acted as "a valve on the system".

"There is a crisis of trust in all our institutions," she told the Today Programme, adding that public participation in courtrooms was a "vital proponent" of justice.

Lord Charles Falconer, former justice secretary and Labour peer, said trust was eroded by the lack of reasons given for why people were wrongly acquitted.

People must have faith the criminal justice system has the convicted the guilty and acquitted the innocent, he said.