# john bowden



## fruitimix (May 8, 2007)

i keep getting emails about him saying how he shouldn't be in prison etc, and having searched around i've found a few websites about him, but nowhere does it say what he's actually in prison for?


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2007)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=206251


----------



## In Bloom (May 8, 2007)

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2007/04/18/story9579162t0.shtm
(best to ignore the sensationalist nonsense about "eco-terrorists", mind)


> Bowden (52) was sentenced to life at the Old Bailey in 1982 for dismembering a London park keeper alive with a saw before severing his head with a carving knife and keeping it in a fridge.


Definately somebody I want to be seen as supporting.


----------



## Paul Marsh (May 8, 2007)

fruitimix said:
			
		

> i keep getting emails about him saying how he shouldn't be in prison etc, and having searched around i've found a few websites about him, but nowhere does it say what he's actually in prison for?



Just out of interest:

What e mails have you received, from whom and when?

And secondly, how have you managed to use the internet and seemingly never heard of google?


----------



## Thora (May 8, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2007/04/18/story9579162t0.shtm
> (best to ignore the sensationalist nonsense about "eco-terrorists", mind)
> 
> Definately somebody I want to be seen as supporting.


The point isn't really what he did, but that he would have been out by now except some social worker has labelled the ABC a terrorist organisation with para-military members.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2007)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> And secondly, how have you managed to use the internet and seemingly never heard of google?



If you search for Mr Bowden online, you'll find 99 articles about the injustices he has apparently suffered for every one that describes with any degree of honesty what he's in jail for in the first place.


----------



## Paul Marsh (May 8, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> The point isn't really what he did, but that he would have been out by now except some social worker has labelled the ABC a terrorist organisation with para-military members.



A point lost on the "anarchists" so keen to make cheap shots at the ABC and anyone else in their targets. 

It is remarkable how quickly the state friendly media campaign against John Bowden was followed up by the "anarchist" one - on Libcom, Meanwhile At The Bar, and now here. Plus of course the eager e mailing of any political groups that have even mentioned the guys name. 

All by people either anonymous or unknown in prison support circles, yet strangely desperate to tell everyone else how damaging any support for John Bowden might be. 

Have you nothing better to do?


----------



## fruitimix (May 8, 2007)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> Just out of interest:
> 
> What e mails have you received, from whom and when?
> 
> And secondly, how have you managed to use the internet and seemingly never heard of google?



an answer: yes i have used google you cockmonger, as if you took the trouble to read my first post you will see that i said: "having searched around i've found a few websites about him, but nowhere does it say what he's actually in prison for?"

that too difficult to understand cuntychops?


----------



## In Bloom (May 8, 2007)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> A point lost on the "anarchists" so keen to make cheap shots at the ABC and anyone else in their targets.
> 
> It is remarkable how quickly the state friendly media campaign against John Bowden was followed up by the "anarchist" one - on Libcom, Meanwhile At The Bar, and now here. Plus of course the eager e mailing of any political groups that have even mentioned the guys name.
> 
> ...


So it's okay for ABC to try to white wash what he actually did and even present it as a "stupid drunken quarrel" that went wrong then?


----------



## Thora (May 8, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> So it's okay for ABC to try to white wash what he actually did and even present it as a "stupid drunken quarrel" that went wrong then?


No, I think that was a pretty ill-thought out and dishonest (not to mention unnecessary) move.

When I first read what he did, I was pretty disgusted and certainly wouldn't have wanted to support him as a prisoner.  But, he did what he did 25 years ago - before I was even born - and people who's judgement I trust do support him.  I've never met the man, so I have no idea if he's changed or is any longer a danger to the public - but seeing as he was in an open prison and allowed out unsupervised, those people who should know obviously think he isn't dangerous.  This isn't about what put him in prison, it's about what's keeping him in prison.  He would have been out by now if it wasn't for his anarchist sympathies.


----------



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (May 10, 2007)

Why would anyone want to support a psycho and nutter like John Bowden.
Sorry to be negative,but anyone who cuts someones head off with a saw and keeps it in a fridge is a nutter.


----------



## revol68 (May 10, 2007)

Thora the issue is that ABC and the like shouldn't have put themselves or John Bowden in this situation in the first place. I always assumed the ABC was about supporting political and class struggle prisoners, that is prisonsers who were sent down for political or class struggle reasons, it's not about supporting people sent down for murder or rape who have then went on to discover anarchism.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 10, 2007)

fruitimix said:
			
		

> an answer: yes i have used google you cockmonger, as if you took the trouble to read my first post you will see that i said: "having searched around i've found a few websites about him, but nowhere does it say what he's actually in prison for?"
> 
> that too difficult to understand cuntychops?



ROFL


----------



## untethered (May 10, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Thora the issue is that ABC and the like shouldn't have put themselves or John Bowden in this situation in the first place. I always assumed the ABC was about supporting political and class struggle prisoners, that is prisonsers who were sent down for political or class struggle reasons, it's not about supporting people sent down for murder or rape who have then went on to discover anarchism.



It seems that ABC will support anyone willing to tweak the nose of the prison system as long as they can dress it up in revolutionary clothes.

No gravy on your dinner? It's just another way that capital oppresses the working class through the prison system.

ABC seems to be a prison support organisation for the sort of prisoners that groups like Amnesty won't touch because they are demanding rights for themselves that they categorically would deny to others.


----------



## revol68 (May 10, 2007)

oh and they also list rhe UNABomber, which is strange considering he was a misanthropic reactionary gobshite with some 'interesting' views on immigration.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2007)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want to support a psycho and nutter like John Bowden.
> Sorry to be negative,but anyone who cuts someones head off with a saw and keeps it in a fridge is a nutter.



That should be "*was* a psycho and a nutter". After all, as Thora mentioned, the guy was serving in an open prison, which means he'll have had several psych assessments to determine his fitness to be placed on a lighter regime.

It's ridiculous that ABC are being tarred with the "terrorist" brush anyway, and if that's the sole justification for not allowing Bowden a licence, where does the law go next, guilt by association for people who've sat on the same bus seat as a mugger?


----------



## revol68 (May 14, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> That should be "*was* a psycho and a nutter". After all, as Thora mentioned, the guy was serving in an open prison, which means he'll have had several psych assessments to determine his fitness to be placed on a lighter regime.
> 
> It's ridiculous that ABC are being tarred with the "terrorist" brush anyway, and if that's the sole justification for not allowing Bowden a licence, where does the law go next, guilt by association for people who've sat on the same bus seat as a mugger?




I'd like to see some evidence that he's not being let out on license because the ABC have been labelled 'terrorists', afterall considering the dishonesty around the nature of his crime I'm pretty supsicious.


----------



## llantwit (May 14, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Thora the issue is that ABC and the like shouldn't have put themselves or John Bowden in this situation in the first place. I always assumed the ABC was about supporting political and class struggle prisoners, that is prisonsers who were sent down for political or class struggle reasons, it's not about supporting people sent down for murder or rape who have then went on to discover anarchism.


Have a read of Bowden's pamphlet "Tear Down the Walls" - it shows how the class struggle is not something that goes on exclusively outside prison walls. It's also a fairly shocking and convincing indictment of the prison service and offers a disturbing glimpse of how prison treats those who do not submit completely to power. It also addresses why it's important to support those who the liberal penal reform groups wouldn't touch with a bargepole due to their radical and uncompromising behaviour and beliefs.


----------



## llantwit (May 14, 2007)

I also think the nature of his crime is of secondary importance to this debate - his argument in the pamphlet is that he's being kept in because he refused to become a broken man and 'do his time quietly'.


----------



## revol68 (May 14, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I also think the nature of his crime is of secondary importance to this debate - his argument in the pamphlet is that he's being kept in because he refused to become a broken man and 'do his time quietly'.



some cunts deserve to be broken down! After what he did he should have shut the fuck up and contemplated what he did!

If Ian Huntley started writing about his brave battle against being broken down by the prison system I'd not have much sympathy.


----------



## revol68 (May 14, 2007)

> It also addresses why it's important to support those who the liberal penal reform groups wouldn't touch with a bargepole due to their radical and uncompromising behaviour and beliefs.



yeah chopping someone up alive is pretty fucking uncompromising as is never accepting your time for it.

fuck him, he can rot for all I care.


----------



## llantwit (May 14, 2007)

The Sun says: said:
			
		

> fuck him, he can rot for all I care.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I'd like to see some evidence that he's not being let out on license because the ABC have been labelled 'terrorists', afterall considering the dishonesty around the nature of his crime I'm pretty supsicious.



Life licences are conditional, and are usually tailored to the particular individual being licenced. If the parole board have reason to believe (they'll have been supplied with submissions by the CPS) that Bowden's association with ABC might lead to him breaking the law then they won't issue a licence (any "criminal activity" while on licence is grounds for recall and further detention).

His link with ABC may not be the *prime* motivating factor for denying him a licence (only a look at his parole board file would tell us that), but it would certainly be a factor given consideration.


----------



## october_lost (May 14, 2007)

Ive tried to avoid this debate on both here and libcom, but I think its taking a turn for the worse because those who wish to steer clear of JB fail to recognise that JB is being punished by association, and simply reiterating how bad the politics are of the ABC doesnt really side step the issue.

Let me put this more simply, it appears the British state was all but willing to release John but for the fact that he as a mutual relationship with the ABC, forgive me but doesnt that mean that some anarchists are asking or supporting of more authoritarian measure that those currently dished out by the state?

If John Bowden is a bit too grisly when and where will the poster boy for prison solidarity make an appearance?


----------



## revol68 (May 14, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Ive tried to avoid this debate on both here and libcom, but I think its taking a turn for the worse because those who wish to steer clear of JB fail to recognise that JB is being punished by association, and simply reiterating how bad the politics are of the ABC doesnt really side step the issue.
> 
> Let me put this more simply, it appears the British state was all but willing to release John but for the fact that he as a mutual relationship with the ABC, forgive me but doesnt that mean that some anarchists are asking or supporting of more authoritarian measure that those currently dished out by the state?
> 
> If John Bowden is a bit too grisly when and where will the poster boy for prison solidarity make an appearance?



the simple fact is anarchists should enver have touched him with a shitty stick in the first place, that would have avoided this problem for both him and ABC.

As it is i'm not convinced he is being held back because of the ABC is suppoused to be a terrorist threat, as the press releases on indymedia have shown themselves to be dripping in dishonesty.


----------



## Paul Marsh (May 14, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> As it is i'm not convinced he is being held back because of the ABC is suppoused to be a terrorist threat, as the press releases on indymedia have shown themselves to be dripping in dishonesty.



So the ABC sat down and made this whole story up, as well (presumeably) as planting stories in the media branding themselves a terrorist group? 

Whilst everyone in the anarchist movement is by now used to your shit stirring, you really have surpassed yourself with that one.


----------



## In Bloom (May 14, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> It also addresses why it's important to support those who the liberal penal reform groups wouldn't touch with a bargepole due to their radical and uncompromising behaviour and beliefs.


Radical and uncompromising behaviour like torturing somebody to death and then keeping their head in the fridge?

Yeah, I'm afraid I'll have to side with the liberals on this one.


----------



## In Bloom (May 14, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> As it is i'm not convinced he is being held back because of the ABC is suppoused to be a terrorist threat, as the press releases on indymedia have shown themselves to be dripping in dishonesty.


I'd definately like to see the full version of this report.  His connections to ABC were obviously a factor, but that may well be only a part of it, the only parts of the report currently publically available are those that Bowden has chosen to release himself.


----------



## october_lost (May 14, 2007)

To be fair though it hasnt stopped you and numerous others from passing judgement as it?


----------



## revol68 (May 14, 2007)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> So the ABC sat down and made this whole story up, as well (presumeably) as planting stories in the media branding themselves a terrorist group?
> 
> Whilst everyone in the anarchist movement is by now used to your shit stirring, you really have surpassed yourself with that one.




sorry Paul but having been on the recieving end of media bullshitting I tend to skeptical of them. I'm not doubting the papers had such stories, i'm doubting if that's the full story for him being turnt down for release.

As for the ABC articles, well after the slant they put on his 'few drunken moments of madness' you will forgive me for remaining skeptical.

As it is I think his own writings would be enough to perk the interest of a parole board without any bullshit terrorist connections.

I'm quite baffled that you of all people would think anarchists should anything to do with John Bowden, afterall Class War have some pretty clear positions on their own prisoner support.


----------



## revol68 (May 14, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> To be fair though it hasnt stopped you and numerous others from passing judgement as it?



yes it's true we have passed judgement on his past crimes and his bullshit rationalisation of them, so what? What the fuck do you expect when you've been banged up for chopping someone up alive?


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 14, 2007)

Paul Marsh said:
			
		

> So the ABC sat down and made this whole story up, as well (presumeably) as planting stories in the media branding themselves a terrorist group?
> 
> Whilst everyone in the anarchist movement is by now used to your shit stirring, you really have surpassed yourself with that one.



I think you've misunderstood, revol68 is talking alot of sense here.


----------



## october_lost (May 14, 2007)

People keep going on about the head in the fridge, can you please explain to me how that rates according to the hierarchy of other crimes for example out of interest is premeditated murder worse than a war crime, a racist killing, or even rape?
Im also thinking is there ever a hope of winning people over who have strayed off the beaten track, or are there some people who are just too much harm for the PR of anarchism that they shouldnt be touched?


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 14, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I'm quite baffled that you of all people would think anarchists should anything to do with John Bowden, afterall Class War have some pretty clear positions on their own prisoner support.



I'm baffled by it too, and I'm an anarchist. 
I personally don't need a group to tell me which prisoners to support. I wholeheartedly supported US blogger Josh Wolf, for example. Israelis who are imprisoned for their conscientious objection to serving in the occupied Palestinian Territories get my support to. But do I want to support a dismembering murder whose crimes have been downplayed by an anarchist prisoner support group? Not really - I think that's misguided. Bowden's crime was not politically motivated. Bowden's imprisonment was not politically motivated. By the same measure, I don't support anyone who uses violence or intimidation to achieve their aims. Why? Because violence and intimidation are what many state and corporate security forces use to achieve their aims. To resort to such tactics can never bring about the type of society which all anarchists profess they want to live in. 
Like revol68, I think Bowden's association with ABC is being used to cover other reasons why they don't want to release him, and no, I don't think that ABC are a 'terrorist group' or 'ecoterrorist group', they're just a prisoner support group. If anything, this current state of affairs shows the lack of genuine prisoner support provided by the state who's detained the ex-convict 'at her majesty's pleasure' for however many years. The state has no viable prisoner support system for soon-to-be-released prisoners who were convicted for violent or murderous acts, to me, that's the real issue here - the failure of the prison system to provide genuine, viable, workable, meaningful support for these types of long-term prisoner upon their release back into wider society.

(edit to add clarity).


----------



## revol68 (May 14, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> People keep going on about the head in the fridge, can you please explain to me how that rates according to the hierarchy of other crimes for example out of interest *is premeditated murder worse than a war crime, a racist killing, or even rape?*
> Im also thinking is there ever a hope of winning people over *who have strayed off the beaten track*, or are there some people who are just too much harm for the PR of anarchism that they shouldnt be touched?



The point is that anarchists shouldn't be extending solidairty to anyone in jail for such vicous anti social crimes!

Strayed off the beaten path? What the fuck! Are you a christian, is god our sheperd?

Just how much recruitment or strength do you think would come from the self organisation of sadistic murderers? I mean if we can't relate ourselves to them then who can we.


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 14, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> People keep going on about the head in the fridge, can you please explain to me how that rates according to the hierarchy of other crimes for example out of interest is premeditated murder worse than a war crime, a racist killing, or even rape?
> Im also thinking is there ever a hope of winning people over who have strayed off the beaten track, or are there some people who are just too much harm for the PR of anarchism that they shouldnt be touched?


This is the problem of the prison system itself - they don't have a meaningful external prisoner support network in place. They're the one's who are panicking and grasping at straws here. It's obvous the ABC aren't a 'terror' group, but what is obvious is the lack of foresight and provision for a support network for when long-term prisoners convicted of violent crime (murder, rape, abh, etc) are released back into society.


----------



## In Bloom (May 14, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> To be fair though it hasnt stopped you and numerous others from passing judgement as it?


Why would the fact that he's only released details that are sure to bring ABC and the surrounding milleu dashing to his defence prevent me from forming an opinion?


----------



## In Bloom (May 14, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> People keep going on about the head in the fridge, can you please explain to me how that rates according to the hierarchy of other crimes for example out of interest is premeditated murder worse than a war crime, a racist killing, or even rape?


Are you seriously suggesting that anarchists should be cosying up to racists and nonces?  Maybe we should be doing community outreach programs for scabs, poor lost lambs that they are.


----------



## october_lost (May 15, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Are you seriously suggesting that anarchists should be cosying up to racists and nonces?  Maybe we should be doing community outreach programs for scabs, poor lost lambs that they are.


Read my post, Im not suggesting anything of the sort, but nothing is so black and white as you argue there are only shades of grey and gradients to pull in our direction. Scabs, racists and murderes have deserted their posts for our movement before and I hope many more do so in the future, albeit with the best of intentions.


----------



## llantwit (May 15, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Radical and uncompromising behaviour like torturing somebody to death and then keeping their head in the fridge?
> Yeah, I'm afraid I'll have to side with the liberals on this one.


Yeah, cos that's exactly what I meant.  
Obviously, I'm not saying his crime should be condoned, but his behaviour at the hands of an unjust prison system, and his critique of that system in his writings since being banged up, should be supported.


----------



## revol68 (May 15, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Yeah, cos that's exactly what I meant.
> Obviously, I'm not saying his crime should be condoned, but his behaviour at the hands of an unjust prison system, and his critique of that system in his writings since being banged up, should be supported.



How is the prison system unjust to him? Because they keep him locked up?

the guy carried out a brutal murder and has never been able to do his time.

I've far more respect for those lifers who do their time than some guy who doesn't seem able to accept responsibility for his crime nor accepted his punishment.


----------



## october_lost (May 15, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> How is the prison system unjust to him? Because they keep him locked up?


Because they are punishing him by admitance of most on here due to his politics. 



			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> the guy carried out a brutal murder and has never been able to do his time
> 
> I've far more respect for those lifers who do their time than some guy who doesn't seem able to accept responsibility for his crime nor accepted his punishment.


Im not sure what criteria you judging this by, if John came out and said is previous criminal act was heinous would that satisfy?


----------



## revol68 (May 15, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Because they are punishing him by admitance of most on here due to his politics.
> 
> Im not sure what criteria you judging this by, if John came out and said is previous criminal act was heinous would that satisfy?



I've went over this plenty of times!

He should never have been touched by the ABC in the first place. If it is true that he is being vicitimised because of his connections with the ABC then at best the case for him getting political support is circular and self fufilling.

Considering he escaped for two years in 1992 I'd say he's never been able to face up to what he done and accept the punishment.


----------



## agricola (May 15, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Because they are punishing him by admitance of most on here due to his politics.
> 
> Im not sure what criteria you judging this by, if John came out and said is previous criminal act was heinous would that satisfy?



I think you'll find that the majority of posters who have actually looked deeper than Bowden's self-serving articles both here and on the other thread have recognized that Bowden's continued detention probably does have rather more justification than his political contacts - for instance, there is the matter of whether his sentence is actually served (his life tarriff was 25 years, plus 5 years for two linked GBH's, plus ten years for a hostage taking, and 18 months of an escape).  

As for Bowden admitting that his previous criminal act (one would also of course point out this should be _acts_) was heinous, that is of course both stating the obvious and somewhat irrelevant, given that he invariably excuses himself ("it was the state wot dun it, guv").


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Ive tried to avoid this debate on both here and libcom, but I think its taking a turn for the worse because those who wish to steer clear of JB fail to recognise that JB is being punished by association, and simply reiterating how bad the politics are of the ABC doesnt really side step the issue.
> 
> Let me put this more simply, it appears the British state was all but willing to release John but for the fact that he as a mutual relationship with the ABC, forgive me but doesnt that mean that some anarchists are asking or supporting of more authoritarian measure that those currently dished out by the state?
> 
> If John Bowden is a bit too grisly when and where will the poster boy for prison solidarity make an appearance?



It's likely that if, as has been claimed, it's John Bowden's association with ABC that is putting the kybosh on him obtaining a life licence, then the parole board has reason (or pretends to have reason, or has been duped by the CPS or the police [probably SB]) to believe that such an association would lead Bowden into criminal activity.

It's bullshit, but it's well-used bullshit that's very hard to challenge, basically "guilt by association".


----------



## llantwit (May 15, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> How is the prison system unjust to him? Because they keep him locked up?


No. What they did to him and others who organise against prison repression inside. I'm basing my comments on a reading of his recent pamphlet "Tear Down the Walls", which talks about lots of ways in which the prison system is unjust. It's not online, and my copy's at home, so I can't quote here. But I'll try and post a few key points from that when I get back later. Admittedly, I only have his word here, and he could be making it all up. But I doubt it. And a lot of what he's campaigning against is general stuff about the prison system, and not specific to his individual case at all.


----------



## agricola (May 15, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> No. What they did to him and others who organise against prison repression inside. I'm basing my comments on a reading of his recent pamphlet "Tear Down the Walls", which talks about lots of ways in which the prison system is unjust. It's not online, and my copy's at home, so I can't quote here. But I'll try and post a few key points from that when I get back later. Admittedly, I only have his word here, and he could be making it all up. But I doubt it. And a lot of what he's campaigning against is general stuff about the prison system, and not specific to his individual case at all.



For some sad reason _"Tear Down the Walls"_ doesnt seem to be available online.  

I guess though that might be a good thing, given this quote from it:




			
				John Bowden said:
			
		

> "For having stood up to and resisted unlawful and inhuman treatment in prison, and retained some basic human integrity and humanity in the process, I probably shall now remain imprisoned far beyond what even a reactionary judge deemed an appropriate period of time all those years ago. Hell will freeze over, however, before I surrender that part of myself that had the courage and integrity to fight back and resist when resistance often seemed futile."



Can anyone who, given what he did, produce such unmitigated, self-serving  and unpleasant tripe have anything meaningful to say about anything?  The fact that he uses the term "reactionary judge" says it all, really.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> The fact that he uses the term "reactionary judge" says it all, really.



You're right.

It's jolly bad form to use oxymorons, what!


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 15, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Because they are punishing him by admitance of most on here due to his politics.


I don't think they are. He was given a 25 year minimum sentence of Life, plus add-on years for subsequent acts of violence, hostage taking, and escape. Without being paranoid it's possible that the American(?) social-worker (is their nationality important here - do they work for GEO?) who exploited the link to ABC, likely to be politically motivated as part of a wider smear on anarchist 'organisations' that's creeping into the media presently. The newspaper story serves the anti-anarchist 'aspect', rather than being a valid reason for denying Bowden release at this point in time. 

Revol68 is still making excellent points about the nature of prisoner support that political organisations make, whatever their ideology. 

Personally, I haven't been able to identify with where ABC are coming from, and like revol68, assumed they supported political prisoners, rather than prisoners with politics. I don't easily recognise the origins of their ideology, and would find it interesting if they could provide an explanation, or point me to somewhere I could read about it. Thanks.

(mending a sentence that didn't scan)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 15, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Considering he escaped for two years in 1992 I'd say he's never been able to face up to what he done and accept the punishment.



That statement is utter tripe - you're seriously claiming that the fact of having transgressed 15 years ago means the guy is (1) still a danger to society (2) unable to demonstrate contrition for his crime? wtf? get a grip man. Consider the following:

_'As far as my past goes, i don't think that it should be forgotten about or swept under the carpet as though it doesn't exist. It does exist. It does exist and is very much a part of me. My own personal experiences have taught me that mistakes made are very much a part of living. Certainly we must try and learn from them, as in this instance, and use this knowledge to let others see what can happen. I dread the thought of other kids going through my experience in order to gain the insight that i have now. Perhaps this could be used as a short cut. 

What worries me in the field of human contact is that there are too many professional status seekers and not enough patients. By that I mean not enough people wanting to look at their own personal problems but quite content to diagnose the problems of others. What I have written here is not intended to be an apologetic account about what happened in my life. Certainly i have caused much suffering and have suffered, but the disease is much larger and older than me. An environment has been created that has encouraged change and that is what must be looked at.'_

It's Jimmy Boyle from A Sense of Freedom. I'm not for a second suggesting an equivalence between Boyle and Bowden I would, however, raise the fact that whereas the former 'found' art, was released and became a feted serious artist, the other has 'found' politics with the result that the possibility of his release has seemingly been removed.


----------



## In Bloom (May 15, 2007)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> Personally, I haven't been able to identify with where ABC are coming from, and like revol68, assumed they supported political prisoners, rather than prisoners with politics. I don't easily recognise the origins of their ideology, and would find it interesting if they could provide an explanation, or point me to somewhere I could read about it. Thanks.





> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Black_Cross
> For many years, the origin of the organization was under dispute, but recent documents have resurfaced that has narrowed down the time frame. According to Rudolph Rocker, once the treasurer for the Anarchist Red Cross in London, the organization was founded during the "hectic period between 1900 and 1905." Most material discussing ABC history points to this era as the birth of this group. However, according to Harry Weinstein, one of the two men who began the organization, the activties of the group began after his arrest in July or August of 1906. Once released, Weinstein and others provided clothing to anarchist sentenced to exile in Siberia. The group broke off from the Political Red Cross - an organization that provided support for all revolutionary political prisoners- when Weinstein and other anarchists received no support despite ample donations from the anarchist community. Weinstein continued his efforts in Russia until his arrival in New York in May of 1907. Once there, he helped to create the New York Anarchist Red Cross.
> 
> During the Russian Civil War (1918-20), the group's name was changed, so as to avoid confusion with the Red Cross. In this era, the groups used various names including: Chicago Aid Fund, Society to Aid Anarchist Prisoners in Russia, Joint Committee to Aid Revolutions Imprisoned in Russia, and the Anarchist Black Cross. During the 1960s, it was reformed in Britain by Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer with a focus on providing aid for anarchist prisoners in Francisco Franco's Spain. The reason for this was Christie's experience of the fascist regime's jail and the importance of receiving food parcels. At that time there were no international groups acting for Spanish anarchist and Resistance prisoners. The first action of the re-activated group was to bring Miguel Garcia, who Christie met in prison, out of Spain on his release. He went on to act as the group's International secretary, working for the release of others[3].
> ...


Hope that helps


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> For some sad reason _"Tear Down the Walls"_ doesnt seem to be available online.


It's not online - it's pamphlet sold for £1 by Leeds ABC. Well worth a read, too. I'd offer to sumarise key points when I get home, but I'm away til next Monday now, so it'll have to wait.



			
				agricola said:
			
		

> I guess though that might be a good thing, given this quote from it:
> [snip]
> Can anyone who, given what he did, produce such unmitigated, self-serving  and unpleasant tripe have anything meaningful to say about anything?


WTF? What's wrong with that statement? That prison is inhuman and degrading? That judges are reactionary? The fact that resistance is legitimate in a prison environment? 



			
				agricola said:
			
		

> The fact that he uses the term "reactionary judge" says it all, really.


Quite. That bit should go without saying, really, shouldn't it?


----------



## revol68 (May 16, 2007)

> WTF? What's wrong with that statement? That prison is inhuman and degrading? That judges are reactionary? The fact that resistance is legitimate in a prison environment?



that he has the balls to big himself up like that after what he's done!

And i'm sorry but if you chop someone up alive I don't really give a fuck for your struggle for dignit, he should shut the fuck up and accept his punishment.

And how exactly is a judge sentencing John Bowden to 25 years for what he did 'reactionary'?

Should he have let him go free and instead pointed his finger at capitalism in general?


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

I guess what it comes down to for me is a separation of condemnation for Bowden's previous acts from the usefulness and veracity of his current critique of the justice and penal system (which I think has a lot of merit) and support for his organising against that system while inside.

That's not an unproblematic distinction to make - it's difficult and messy, but I think it just about holds, and is preferable to simply saying fuck him and cheering on the state that wishes to break, destroy, and pound him (and others like him) into the ground.


----------



## revol68 (May 16, 2007)

so would you support paedo's and rapists in their struggle against the prison system?


----------



## agricola (May 16, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I guess what it comes down to for me is a separation of condemnation for Bowden's previous acts from the usefulness and veracity of his current critique of the justice and penal system (which I think has a lot of merit) and support for his organising against that system while inside.



It has no merit coming from an "abolitionist" who is probably one of the only type of criminals who even anarchists would agree deserves to be locked up for what he did.  Its not as if he is Mark Barnsley, you know.

To back up what Revol68 says, I was not aware that robbing a park keeper, then boiling him alive, then dismembering him (as well as GBH'ing two other dossers) counted as revolutionary behaviour that was harshly dealt with by the forces of reaction.  

As for his resistance in prison, if you are acknowledging that he has been doing that why are you surprised that he isnt getting released?


----------



## agricola (May 16, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> That's not an unproblematic distinction to make - it's difficult and messy, but I think it just about holds, and is preferable to simply saying fuck him and cheering on the state that wishes to break, destroy, and pound him (and others like him) into the ground.



Break him?  From his position of holding his "basic human integrity and humanity" that resulted in him committing an especially evil murder?  He _should_ be broken.


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

> so would you support paedo's and rapists in their struggle against the prison system?
> Reply With Quote



I don't know is the simple honest answer. But I wouldn't rule out support because of past acts. People change - a monster isn't a monster for life. It's just not that simple.
Let me put it this way.
I read John Bowden's pamphlet knowing nothing about his crime, and his general critique stood up on it's own. That's what I support. Since then I've found out more about what he did (and been disgusted by it), that does change things a bit, but it doesn't really lessen my agreement with what he's written.


----------



## revol68 (May 16, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I don't know is the simple honest answer. But I wouldn't rule out support because of past acts. People change - a monster isn't a monster for life. It's just not that simple.
> Let me put it this way.
> I read John Bowden's pamphlet knowing nothing about his crime, and his general critique stood up on it's own. That's what I support. Since then I've found out more about what he did (and been disgusted by it), but that does change things a bit, but it doesn't really lessen my agreement with what he's written.



Well where do you think John Bowden should be instead of prison? Should he have been just allowed to escape off?


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> It has no merit coming from an "abolitionist" who is probably one of the only type of criminals who even anarchists would agree deserves to be locked up for what he did.  Its not as if he is Mark Barnsley, you know.


I know that - and I still think it's difficult to separate wider critique of a system from the previous (disgusting) acts of the person making that critique.




			
				agricola said:
			
		

> To back up what Revol68 says, I was not aware that robbing a park keeper, then boiling him alive, then dismembering him (as well as GBH'ing two other dossers) counted as revolutionary behaviour that was harshly dealt with by the forces of reaction.


It's clearly not revolutionary behaviour. It's sickening. And maybe he doesn't deserve to be released. That doesn't lessen the veracity of much of his critique - whichy is all I'm talking about here.




			
				agricola said:
			
		

> As for his resistance in prison, if you are acknowledging that he has been doing that why are you surprised that he isnt getting released?


I'm not surprised at all, and neither is he, I suspect. He not only acknowledges, but details his resistance in prison in his writing.


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Well where do you think John Bowden should be instead of prison? Should he have been just allowed to escape off?


I don't know. I haven't informed myself enough about alternatives to the current penal system to form a decent response to that question.


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

Oh, and since you mentioned Mark Barnsley as a less problematic example - he wrotethe introduction to "Tear Down the Walls", so I think it's safe to assume a degree of support from him for Bowden.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 16, 2007)

fruitimix said:
			
		

> an answer: yes i have used google you cockmonger, as if you took the trouble to read my first post you will see that i said: "having searched around i've found a few websites about him, but nowhere does it say what he's actually in prison for?"
> 
> that too difficult to understand cuntychops?


ever heard of wiki peadia you moron...


----------



## revol68 (May 16, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I don't know. I haven't informed myself enough about alternatives to the current penal system to form a decent response to that question.



well when reading Bowdens pamphlet weren't you ever presented with a wee question saying 'well what will we do with all the really sick cunts out there who need to be locked up'.


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

Of course I fucking was. I just don't know the answer yet. I wish I had your certainty, mate. I really do.
I'm not exactly sure about the makeup of  the system economic production and distribution I'd ideally like to replace capitalism with, either. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with what we have now, though. Does it?
And nowhere have I said I was against locking really sick cunts up - but it's not a case of the current prison system or none at all is it?
I'm off out of the country for 5 days now - sorry to duck out of this one.


----------



## revol68 (May 16, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> ever heard of wiki peadia you moron...



he's not in wikipedia and i can testify that it is very hard to get info on what he's in for.


----------



## revol68 (May 16, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Of course I fucking was. I just don't know the answer yet. I wish I had your certainty, mate. I really do.
> I'm not exactly sure about the makeup of  the system economic production and distribution I'd ideally like to replace capitalism with, either. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with what we have now, though. Does it?
> And nowhere have I said I was against locking really sick cunts up - but it's not a case of the current prison system or none at all is it?
> I'm off out of the country for 5 days now - sorry to duck out of this one.



yeah it's not all or nothing, it's quite simple we can be opposed to the prison system in general without having to support any psychopath who doesn't like it much either.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 16, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> he's not in wikipedia and i can testify that it is very hard to get info on what he's in for.


he was the other week when a link to the aritcule ir ead was posted...


----------



## llantwit (May 16, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yeah it's not all or nothing, it's quite simple we can be opposed to the prison system in general without having to support any psychopath who doesn't like it much either.


Well I'd argue you can support the critique written by a "psychopath" (neither of us knows he is one) without condoning the crimes they've committed.


----------



## revol68 (May 16, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Well I'd argue you can support the critique written by a "psychopath" without condoning the crimes they've committed.



You mean agree with his critique, well yeah I suppouse I'd probably agree with close to 90% of it.

But there's a difference between agreeing with his critique and supporting him in a campaign for release.


----------



## likesfish (May 16, 2007)

the state that wishes to break, destroy, and pound him (and others like him) into the ground.
 yes I'll get the popcorn don't actually see the problem with scumbags having a horrible time in jail.
  NOw actually making prison work so that that if they get out there be useful
members of society now thats a diffrent matter.
 if your in jail you should have to earn the right to get out again


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

Bowden reads like an ochlarchist, his actions seem to be ochlarchist.


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Hope that helps


Yeah, it does, a bit, thanks. I need to think on't some more...


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> You mean agree with his critique, well yeah I suppouse I'd probably agree with close to 90% of it.
> 
> But there's a difference between agreeing with his critique and supporting him in a campaign for release.


It would seem prudent to support a lifer in their internal struggle for prison reform whilst applying pressure from without for serious reforms. There is no room for prisons to become profit-making commercial ventures, as they have become in the States. It would be wisest to push for prisons in the UK to model themselves on the best parst of the European system, which has a _proven_ track record of reduction in reoffending, and a greater emphasis on personal responsiblity, (e.g. small groups of prisoners who act as a unit in order to see to their daily needs - food preparation, with time time for re-education and skills-share/learning). There is a PRESSING need for prison reform in this country. It is counter-productive to outsource the running of UK prisons to American firms such as GEO (who run Guantanamo and were formerly known as Wackenhut), or even faith-based enterprises. 

This confusion-diversion created by this (American) Social Worker, along with other recent media smearists of Anarchy, are confusing Anarchism with with Ochlarchism, and I wonder if some segments of the Anarchist  movement themselves are making this same confusion - either way, these misunderstandings that often surface as smears do need to be addressed. 

Anarchism is direct democracy by any other name - it is not mob rule, violence, or the dissolution or destruction of society. 

Anarchism is a social science, and a social movement - it is not terrorism, chaos, destruction and whatever other negative spin which some journalists and many politicians project upon it to suit their political agenda.


----------



## Blagsta (May 17, 2007)

What the fuck is ochlarchism?


----------



## Belushi (May 17, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What the fuck is ochlarchism?



Fuck knows, but I'm saving that for Scrabble!


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What the fuck is ochlarchism?


The only other person I've ever seen use it is that one off mad-mental who runs anarchy.no

I think it's supposed to mean people who believe that anarchism=violence, chaos, terrorism, etc.


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What the fuck is ochlarchism


This might help explain some: http://www.anarchism.net/forum/forum_entry.php?id=9469


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> The only other person I've ever seen use it is that one off mad-mental who runs anarchy.no



There's nothing 'mad-mental' about the Norwegian ABC. 
http://www.powertech.no/anarchy/abc.html

Can someone tell me whether the ABC UK are in touch still with Stuart Christie? I'm intrigued as to what the has to say about their modus operandi regarding the Bowden case.


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

They're not real, you weirdo 

You'll be telling me that you believe that the (entirely fictional) Anarchist Federation of Great Britain has 200 members, next


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

Whaddya mean 'they're not real'. Who's 'they'?


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> Whaddya mean 'they're not real'. Who's 'they'?


That website is a hoax, look at the other pages, it's fucking mental.  It's one person (presumably from Norway) whose sole political activity is inventing fake "anarchist internationals" and publishing denunciations of every anarchist group in existence as "ochlarchists" and "Marxist infiltrators".

It claims that Norway had a successful anarchist revolution several decades back, for fucks sake!


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

You're going to have to prove the claims you've just made. Did you just quickly scan the website, and make those judgement?  I'd like you to show the exact quotes you're basing your conclusions on.  

Membership of the Anarchist International is quite easy. I'm a member of the Anarchist International, but you, with your 'mental-health' jibes have clearly not joined up yet! 


> 1) We are anarchists because we believe that human freedom and happiness would be best guaranteed by a society based on principles of self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid, and because we reject all forms of social relations based on systemic violence, such as the state or capitalism.
> 
> 2) We are, however, profoundly anti-sectarian, by which we mean two things:
> 
> ...



So, let's see some evidence, In Bloom, thanks.


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

http://www.anarchy.no/formula.html


> (1) DEGREE OF ANARCHY = 100[1-([(1-(AUTONOMY%/100))2+(1-(SOCIALISM%/100))2]/2) 1/2]%
> 
> This is the general Formula of Anarchism related to the Economic-Political map. The degree of anarchy is defined for the Quadrant of Anarchism on the EP-map. In general the libertarian degree is used, i.e. also valid outside the anarchist quadrant:
> 
> ...


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

The fact that that site also claims to be the site of the Interational of Anarchist Federations (IAF-IFA) that was formed in Carrara, Italy, when that organisation's site is here, also speaks to the mentalness of it all.


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

http://www.anarchy.no/apt.html


> IWW/AI is also against the "all workers - one union" strategy of the Industrial-WW and others, that reminds anarchists of the Soviet Union, and their intrigues, lies and smearstories related to Jamal Hannah & co at jah@iww.org against the Anarchist International and its sections, similar to Marx's intrigues etc. against Bakunin in the First International. Nobody should link up to this student commie type joke of an "industrial union" nor take it seriously. Boycott "Industrial-WW"! They also may see this as a strong Brown Card warning. If they don't correct the smearstories and lies, they may soon get the Brown Card.


"Brown card" 

Had enough evidence yet?


----------



## revol68 (May 17, 2007)

Luther Blisset that Norwegian lot is one mental person, he used to spam my aol email account years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2007)

You think 'luther' doesn't know this? Hosting his own fake CW group website might have been a hint.


----------



## revol68 (May 17, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> You think 'luther' doesn't know this? Hosting his own fake CW group website might have been a hint.



so who is Luther then?


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> http://www. anarchy.no/formula.html



That's not the site I was reading! Why did you link to that site?
I linked to http://www.powertech.no/anarchy


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> That's not the site I was reading! Why did you link to that site?
> I linked to http://www.powertech.no/anarchy


They're the same site.

http://www.anarchy.no/


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> You think 'luther' doesn't know this? Hosting his own fake CW group website might have been a hint.


There was never a 'fake CW group website' ever. There was a blogspot called 'The Class War' and one of the Luthers made a situationist 'advert' saying you didn't have to pay to be a member of the class war, the class war that is waged from the top down. That site doesn't exist anymore, as far as I know.

I contribute to a blog called Contemporary Anarchist, with other Luthers. 

No fake group created. No fake website.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2007)

Course there wasn't love.


----------



## In Bloom (May 17, 2007)

Anyway, can we move on from LB's participation in the movement for the removal of "gullible" from the OED and get back to John Bowden?


----------



## exhibita (May 17, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> that he has the balls to big himself up like that after what he's done!
> 
> And i'm sorry but if you chop someone up alive I don't really give a fuck for your struggle for dignit, he should shut the fuck up and accept his punishment.



so you're not a prison-abolitionist, you in fact share the state's (and the tabloids) views, usually summed by "lock 'em up and throw away the keys".

luckily some of us, actively anarchist and anti-prison in our beliefs and in our actions, stil exist in this country and consider john to be well worthy of our support no matter what a bunch of armchair geeks and losers think.


----------



## revol68 (May 17, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> so you're not a prison-abolitionist, you in fact share the state's (and the tabloids) views, usually summed by "lock 'em up and throw away the keys".
> 
> luckily some of us, actively anarchist and anti-prison in our beliefs and in our actions, stil exist in this country and consider john to be well worthy of our support no matter what a bunch of armchair geeks and losers think.



So in a post capitalist society what will we do with murderers and rapists?


----------



## exhibita (May 17, 2007)

why do i have to provide you with all the answers, can you not think for yourself?

and why do you assume these crimes would exist without the oppressive and patriarchal society in which they are created?

what do you suggest should happen?


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> why do i have to provide you with all the answers, can you not think for yourself?
> 
> and why do you assume these crimes would exist without the oppressive and patriarchal society in which they are created?
> what do you suggest should happen?



i think they eventually wouldn't, or be exceptionally minimal, but in the meantime, there will be what gets called 'howlback' - making how we deal with actute/post authoritarian trauma rather an important topic for debate, and modelling. we're possibly talking between 2-3 generations before we'd reap the rewards of practicing anarchist social science (maybe 1-2 if we're really organised )

in the meantime, we really DO need to push for a better deal for those imprisoned (regardless of their crime).  
i wonder if you'd like dennis' fox's website - he's excellent on anarchist law


----------



## exhibita (May 17, 2007)

i would be interested to check it out. what's the website address?


----------



## exhibita (May 17, 2007)

i would be interested to check it out. what's the website address?


----------



## yokerist (May 17, 2007)

he looks kinda hairy
http://www.dennisfox.net/


----------



## yokerist (May 17, 2007)

btw a violent psychopathic is far more likely to work in the prison system than be an inmate!


----------



## yokerist (May 17, 2007)

As for john He seems like a genuinely nice guy who was dealt a very bad hand in life; as unpalatable as his past may be ; people change

Read Bad by James Carr

yeah right wonderfully explicit accounts of how he (James Carr) partook in the (literal) GangBanging (by like 20 dudes) of fellow inmates:

he came out of it all a right on well read feminist anarcho/situ type!!! (when this was definitely not the fashion for Black Liberationist Bad Motherfuckers)

Then he got shot. . . . .

The issue is not should we support John but how we should support him:
as for the fucked up american (i think) social worker wanker who has fucked up his release. . . . .  .what a fucker!!!

Rehabilitation and Redemption. . . .  .hard to say in a ragga accent after a few bottles of Leffe. . . .  . .

even harder to realise and conceptualize     iiiiiighttt!

bop bop bop


----------



## Blagsta (May 17, 2007)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> This might help explain some: http://www.anarchism.net/forum/forum_entry.php?id=9469



Nope.  I'm still none the wiser.


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 17, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Nope.  I'm still none the wiser.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule

It seems like a useful term.


----------



## exhibita (May 17, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> As for john He seems like a genuinely nice guy who was dealt a very bad hand in life; as unpalatable as his past may be ; people change.... The issue is not should we support John but how we should support him



couldn't have put it better myself.  that's why i'm off to edinburgh on the 25th for the solidarity demo which i heard about from Mark Barnsley, a good mate of John's going back years.

I didn't know John 25 years ago, I was in Junior School at the time, but I have known him for the last three years, and feel i know him pretty well.

I know him to be a decent, articulate, warm and funny human being.  I know that he would have been out years ago if he had been willing to grass on fellow inmates after the riots (they tried to force him to be witness and he refused), persisted in whistle-blowing against the racist guards, etc etc.

I know that whilst in Edinburgh nick he had performed so well on his work placement, outside the prison, caring for disabled people that he was offered a job should he want it upon release.

I know that of all the prisoners I write to, he writes the best letters which are always a pleasure to receive.  I know that thanks to him and his recommendations I have read some of my all-time favourite books for the first time.

I trust John, and I think that anyone who actually took the time to write to him, with whatever questions they feel they need to ask about his past, would end up having a really rewarding correspondence with a very (self-)educated inspiring anarchist who's full of amazing stories too.


----------



## exhibita (May 17, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> btw a violent psychopathic is far more likely to work in the prison system than be an inmate!



ooh and i know where you're coming from there mate....


----------



## exhibita (May 17, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> So it's okay for ABC to try to white wash what he actually did and even present it as a "stupid drunken quarrel" that went wrong then?



just so we are clear, here is what leeds abc have actually been posting about john's index crime.

"More than a quarter of a Century ago, John Bowden, then a young man, who had already spent most of his life in the “care” of the State, committed what might be characterised as a ‘stupid, drunken, murder’. There was nothing even slightly political about this act, but it was neither premeditated nor committed for personal gain. It was, unfortunately, something which happens all too frequently when men quarrel while drunk. Particularly when they have been brutalised by, marginalised from, and pushed to the very edges of society. In his recently released pamphlet, Tear Down The Walls! John describes the killing as “a senseless, almost gratuitous killing”, which “reflected the extent of my brutalisation after years of brutalising treatment in state institutions.”

The two older men convicted along with John of the murder were released long ago. Possibly, had John been less of a man than he is, if he had grovelled his way through the prison system, turned a blind eye to the injustice all around him, ignored the suffering of others, and tugged his forelock to every worthless turn-key in the system, he might too have been released early...."

taken from the leeds abc statement posted all over the web and on various e-lists.


----------



## october_lost (May 18, 2007)

Exhibita, your post seem to be agreeable until you posted that statement, because its quite evident the killing by John Bowden was premeditated. I think this whole affair wouldnt be so bad if people hadnt been so liberal with the truth.


----------



## yokerist (May 18, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Exhibita, your post seem to be agreeable until you posted that statement, because its quite evident the killing by John Bowden was premeditated. I think this whole affair wouldnt be so bad if people hadnt been so liberal with the truth.



Why is it evident that the killing was premeditated?? Have I missed something where is the evidence of the"evident". . .


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 18, 2007)

sigh. i recieved a letter from john and intend to print him this whole thread and post to him

if he wishes to reply to any then i will post them here in a few days. remember that he can only converse via written letter. so as not to color his words  i will do my best to copy and paste pr scan and print (better)

exhibiter... so kind has been torres and other people johns wife ( a lurker) has read.

for the fools that  posted the pics of freezers with heads in. shame on you you fucking numskulls.

i am too stressed at the moment and have had too much drink to make a cohesive reply. but mark my words this is a man full of regret who has served his punishment.

for all of you downright ignorant assholes and bastards who have closed minds i can only pity you.

goodnight all.

exhibitas cheers m8.. we will meet up soon for sure. if not in scot, then soon eh


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 18, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Exhibita, your post seem to be agreeable until you posted that statement, because its quite evident the killing by John Bowden was premeditated. I think this whole affair wouldnt be so bad if people hadnt been so liberal with the truth.




no one was liberal with the truth at all. there is not much if you do a google about john. it took me 3 years to track him down. 

and so now everyone knows to the extent of his crime,

point is now his association with abc that seems to be the primary reason for his loss of release.

myself.. i am free and able to walkthe streets with my head up high. i am more than willing to meet any of the doubters and have a grown up chat about john. no doubt some asshole will ask me not to forget my machete or electric knife.  fucking idiots....

thanks all for the geniune replies and not just the biased asshat views that has sadly always come with urban.

thats just part of a free forum that allows such views.sometimes my own threads have been binned so i am not immune from the asshat group.

again all urbanites thanks all for reading and thankyou all . even the asshats for your input. as this turned out to be a not so bad thread after all. .

goodnight.


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I'd like to see some evidence that he's not being let out on license because the ABC have been labelled 'terrorists', afterall considering the dishonesty around the nature of his crime I'm pretty supsicious.



see the statement from john i posted in general.

thanks


also as soon as he writes me again in thenext few days i shall have more to post 1st hand


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> some cunts deserve to be broken down! After what he did he should have shut the fuck up and contemplated what he did!
> 
> If Ian Huntley started writing about his brave battle against being broken down by the prison system I'd not have much sympathy.



well mate i tell you what... sympathy eh.. fucking hell if only you cockmonkey ignorant cunt.

edited my last becuase of its badness. god forbid i ever overhear you talking in a pub cockmonkey.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Exhibita, your posts seem to be agreeable until you posted that statement, because its quite evident the killing by John Bowden was premeditated. I think this whole affair wouldnt be so bad if people hadnt been so liberal with the truth.



that's wierd, my last post was (and stated quite openly that it was) simply a quote from the abc group who's words were being misquoted, and as said it was just posted for the purposes of clarity.

i did not even say what my own opinion of it was, i just posted it for clarity so we all know what we are talking about!

please share whatever evidence you have access to that makes you so sure of your position.


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> why do i have to provide you with all the answers, can you not think for yourself?
> 
> and why do you assume these crimes would exist without the oppressive and patriarchal society in which they are created?
> 
> what do you suggest should happen?


So in your anarchist society, all the murderers, psychos, sociopaths and nonces would just disappear overnight?  Nobody would ever have some kind of breakdown and become a danger to themselves and others?  You're living in a fantasy world.


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> just so we are clear, here is what leeds abc have actually been posting about john's index crime.
> 
> "More than a quarter of a Century ago, John Bowden, then a young man, who had already spent most of his life in the “care” of the State, committed what might be characterised as a ‘stupid, drunken, murder’. There was nothing even slightly political about this act, but it was neither premeditated nor committed for personal gain. It was, unfortunately, something which happens all too frequently when men quarrel while drunk. Particularly when they have been brutalised by, marginalised from, and pushed to the very edges of society. In his recently released pamphlet, Tear Down The Walls! John describes the killing as “a senseless, almost gratuitous killing”, which “reflected the extent of my brutalisation after years of brutalising treatment in state institutions.”
> 
> ...


"It was, unfortunately, something which happens all too frequently when men quarrel while drunk"

Yeah, just the other night, I got into an argument with a mate of mine so I cut off all his arms and legs and then used his balls to make a windchime.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> So in your anarchist society, all the murderers, psychos, sociopaths and nonces would just disappear overnight?  Nobody would ever have some kind of breakdown and become a danger to themselves and others?  You're living in a fantasy world.



i don't think any anarchist society would belong to me, isn't that what they call an oxymoron - like military intelligence?

what would happen in your utopia?  would they hang, or be tortured til they died a slow death?


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> "It was, unfortunately, something which happens all too frequently when men quarrel while drunk"



said by abc, not by john.  is this argument about their words or about john's actions?


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

by the way, how many of those slagging john and abc are actually actively supporting ANY prisoners?  would love to have the names and adresses of the prisoners they do consider worthy of support, so i can consider adding them to my list...


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> why do i have to provide you with all the answers, can you not think for yourself?
> 
> and why do you assume these crimes would exist without the oppressive and patriarchal society in which they are created?
> 
> what do you suggest should happen?



well actually i do assume these crimes will exist post capitalism, albeit I would hope in reduced numbers.

And I'm in favour of maintaining some sort of prison system for serious violent offenders post revolution.


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> i don't think any anarchist society would belong to me, isn't that what they call an oxymoron - like military intelligence?


Fuck me if you're not the most irritating hippy on Earth 



> what would happen in your utopia?  would they hang, or be tortured til they died a slow death?


Lock them up where they're not hurting anybody, let them out when they're not a danger anymore, problem solved, and nobody has to let nonces go free.

You never answered my questions, by the way.


> So in your anarchist society, all the murderers, psychos, sociopaths and nonces would just disappear overnight? Nobody would ever have some kind of breakdown and become a danger to themselves and others?


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> by the way, how many of those slagging john and abc are actually actively supporting ANY prisoners?  would love to have the names and adresses of the prisoners they do consider worthy of support, so i can consider adding them to my list...



fuck off knob cheese, people might be more enthusiastic about supporting prisonsers on ABC lists if they could actually trust the ABC to only list genuine class struggle and political prisoners, i've got better things to do with my time than to write solidarity letters to folk banged up for assualt, murder or car thieving.


----------



## Gingerman (May 18, 2007)

Rikbikboo said:
			
		

> well mate i tell you what... sympathy eh.. fucking hell if only you cockmonkey ignorant cunt.
> 
> edited my last becuase of its badness. god forbid i ever overhear you talking in a pub cockmonkey.


What would you do if you overheard revolt talk in a pub then?


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> said by abc, not by john.  is this argument about their words or about john's actions?


Both.  ABC shouldn't be launching big campaigns for prisoners who are in for anti-social crimes and they *definately* shouldn't lie to us all about what people are in for.

Not that it's the first time that ABC have given out dangerously misleading information.  I mean, the fucking UNAbomber?  Banged up for "campaigning against harmful technologies" if you believe the yank ABC


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

Gingerman said:
			
		

> What would you do if you overheard revolt talk in a pub then?


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Fuck me if you're not the most irritating hippy on Earth Lock them up where they're not hurting anybody, let them out when they're not a danger anymore, problem solved, and nobody has to let nonces go free.You never answered my questions, by the way.



I'd rather not (fuck you i mean).  i have explained my opinion of john in quite a lot of detail already, i feels sure that he is not a danger anymore and has not been for many years.  by your own logic that would mean he should be free.  unless you have some evidence that he remains a danger?  the state's evidence on this subject consisting of his correspondence (and one visit) with members of abc brighton, perhaps they'd appreciate some further information from you to help keep him in there.

abc have never pretended he was in there for anything other than murder/  you may and do disagree with their description of the nature of that murder but they have never denied john's index crime was murder.  they also list many eco- and animals rights and other prisoners inside for political actions which broke laws.  do you support any of these prisoners (or any other) or are you just an armchair critic?  have you ever contacted abc to discuss any of this with them?


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i've got better things to do with my time than to write solidarity letters to folk banged up for assualt, murder or car thieving.



where do women who've killed abusive partners fit into your boxes of "political" prisoners as opposed to murderers?  do you support any of this large group of prisoners in the uk?


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> where do women who've killed abusive partners fit into your boxes of "political" prisoners as opposed to murderers?  do you support any of this large group of prisoners in the uk?



Well not being infinite in resources I don't directly support every oppressed group of people in the world, no. However I wouldn't have a problem supporting a women who was pushed over the edge by abuse and killed the abusive cunt in principle, of course I'd want to know alot more details and wouldn't just take every womens word for it.

Of course John Bowden is not at all comparable to women who are in for killing abusive partners, which just goes to show that there are thousands and thousands of cases more deserving than his.


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> I'd rather not (fuck you i mean).  i have explained my opinion of john in quite a lot of detail already, i feels sure that he is not a danger anymore and has not been for many years.  by your own logic that would mean he should be free.  unless you have some evidence that he remains a danger?


Perhaps he should be free, I don't know, I've never met the guy, I've no idea what his state of mind is.  I'm not about to campaign for his release when there are about a thousand other, more worthwhile things I could be doing.



> the state's evidence on this subject consisting of his correspondence (and one visit) with members of abc brighton, perhaps they'd appreciate some further information from you to help keep him in there.


So it's snitchjacketing now, is it?  Go fuck yourself.



> abc have never pretended he was in there for anything other than murder/  you may and do disagree with their description of the nature of that murder but they have never denied john's index crime was murder.


Yes, but as you concede yourself with your post about victims of domestic violence, "murder" can mean a lot of different things.  They've actively tried to conceal the nature of Bowden's crime.

I've brought up my problems with ABC's current state before, both in person, by e-mail and on here, I've never had anything approaching a sensible response.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> I'd rather not (fuck you i mean).  i have explained my opinion of john in quite a lot of detail already, i feels sure that he is not a danger anymore and has not been for many years.  by your own logic that would mean he should be free.  unless you have some evidence that he remains a danger?  the state's evidence on this subject consisting of his correspondence (and one visit) with members of abc brighton, perhaps they'd appreciate some further information from you to help keep him in there.
> 
> abc have never pretended he was in there for anything other than murder/  you may and do disagree with their description of the nature of that murder but they have never denied john's index crime was murder.  they also list many eco- and animals rights and other prisoners inside for political actions which broke laws.  do you support any of these prisoners (or any other) or are you just an armchair critic?  have you ever contacted abc to discuss any of this with them?



ExhibitA - good try - your patience has been tested on this thread by revolting and spouting Blooming rubbish. 

They have a strange view of the world which is devoid of human empathy and basic solidarity, what is more, they are not interested. It's a strange sort of ideology which isn't interested in oppression and is more interested in the realism of the bosses....


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Perhaps he should be free, I don't know, I've never met the guy, I've no idea what his state of mind is.  I'm not about to campaign for his release when there are about a thousand other, more worthwhile things I could be doing.
> 
> So it's snitchjacketing now, is it?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> ...



I wonder why you bother on threads such as these? Clearly you are not interested in anarchist campaigns to help people, and I doubt whether you had any intention of helping Johns campaign. Perhaps you had better promote a campaign of your own rather than parasite your 'realism' on the back of real human misery?


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

So Attica if Ian Huntley becomes politicised will you be heading up an anarchist campaign for him?


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So Attica if Ian Huntley becomes politicised will you be heading up an anarchist campaign for him?



THat's you that is with your perverse ideology


----------



## yokerist (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So Attica if Ian Huntley becomes politicised will you be heading up an anarchist campaign for him?



yeah you and bloomy keep surfing the net filling threads with shit and wind. . . I mean how you can seriously say something like that?????


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Somehow, everything I say is completely hatstand and stultifyingly boring at the same time


*yawn*


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> yeah you and bloomy keep surfing the net filling threads with shit and wind. . . I mean how you can seriously say something like that?????



Well what's qualitively different about Huntley's crime and Bowdens. I mean if Huntley got involved in anti prison struggle wouldn't you support him?


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

how about instead of arguing endlessly about john and abc, why don't we swap some information on prisoners we do all agree on being worthy of our support?
i'd like to start the ball rolling with the greenscare defendants, those who haven't informed, information about whom is available on portland indymedia or greenscare.com amongst many places.
also there's the detainees in detention centres, contact details and ways of helping them are available through no borders.
john has a fair bit of support already and i can see some folk are not about to change their minds on him.  why not direct your energy into supporting other prisoners if you're not already?


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

and by the way, for those of you living in london, there do exist two prisoner solidarity and anti-prison groups which are not linked to the abc movement/network.

one is nomoreprison which has a very good website if you can google it (i don't have it to hand sorry).

the other is prisonisacrime who produce exhibit A (a zine) twice a year and fundraise for prisoners around the world amongst other things.

they prioritise prisoners who act in solidarity with others, during the prison sentence and/or in the nature of their so-called crime (eg the eco activists).  

they don't represent rapists, sex offenders of any kind, abusers of children, sexists, racists, homophobes, informers, ex-cops,  etc etc.  they are constantly short of folk to make the most of the project so if you want to get involved or ask them any questions here's their email : prisonisacrime@yahoo.co.uk


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> So Attica if Ian Huntley becomes politicised will you be heading up an anarchist campaign for him?



John Bowden is not a comparison to Huntley. Bowden only killed a drunken park keeper. Huntley murdered two little girls.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> how about instead of arguing endlessly about john and abc, why don't we swap some information on prisoners we do all agree on being worthy of our support?
> i'd like to start the ball rolling with the greenscare defendants, those who haven't informed, information about whom is available on portland indymedia or greenscare.com amongst many places.
> also there's the detainees in detention centres, contact details and ways of helping them are available through no borders.



Okay, how about the UNA bomber he sounds like a good lad, what was his crime, oh yeah targetting 'harmful and destructive technologies' or something equally vague.

Anyway i've no interest in getting into a 'my solidarity/activist penis is bigger than yours' competition, especially as that's not the issue being discussed.


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> and by the way, for those of you living in london, there do exist two prisoner solidarity and anti-prison groups which are not linked to the abc movement/network.
> 
> one is nomoreprison which has a very good website if you can google it (i don't have it to hand sorry).
> 
> ...



Thanks! Prison should be abolished immediately.


----------



## scumbalina (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Well what's qualitively different about Huntley's crime and Bowdens. I mean if Huntley got involved in anti prison struggle wouldn't you support him?



Isn't the campaign over John Bowden not to free him, but to stop him being kept in on the basis of his involvement with an anarchist organization? I wouldn't want to call for the release of ian Huntly cos he'd suddenly gone all right on, but I wouldn't to see him being held in prison on the basis of his political beliefs, that should be determined by whether or not he is a threat to people and nothing else.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> John Bowden is not a comparison to Huntley. Bowden only killed a drunken park keeper. Huntley murdered two little girls.



I'm really hoping this is sarcasm.

Bowden and two accomplices beat, boiled and then cut up their victim alive, and then kept the head in a fridge.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> Thanks! Prison should be abolished immediately.



really?

that would be brilliant wouldn't it.

I take it you and your mates will be rehousing nonces, murderers and rapists in your living rooms then.


----------



## scumbalina (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> Bowden only killed a drunken park keeper.



Unless you're trolling, which I suspect you are, that kind of attitude isn't going to do well in arguing john's corner and it's pretty sick.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Isn't the campaign over John Bowden not to free him, but to stop him being kept in on the basis of his involvement with an anarchist organization? I wouldn't want to call for the release of ian Huntly cos he'd suddenly gone all right on, but I wouldn't to see him being held in prison on the basis of his political beliefs, that should be determined by whether or not he is a threat to people and nothing else.



but that's circular reasoning because the only reason there is a political angle to his non release is because the ABC were involved within prior to this issue, alas there would be no issue to worry about if the ABC stuck to supporting prisoners it should be supporting.


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping this is sarcasm.
> 
> Bowden and two accomplices beat, boiled and then cut up their victim alive, and then kept the head in a fridge.



That's the State's version of the event.


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

Should David Copeland be kept in because of his political beliefs?

I SAY YES


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Unless you're trolling, which I suspect you are, that kind of attitude isn't going to do well in arguing john's corner and it's pretty sick.



Have you never done anything daft when you're drunk?


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> That's the State's version of the event.



And you only have the state and media's account of what Ian Huntley did. Afterall atleast Huntley claims he was only giving them a bath and there was an accident.


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> That's the State's version of the event.


----------



## scumbalina (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> but that's circular reasoning because the only reason there is a political angle to his non release is because the ABC were involved within prior to this issue, alas there would be no issue to worry about if the ABC stuck to supporting prisoners it should be supporting.



I see what you mean, but that's an issue with the ABC, it's happened now and there's a chance that someone is being denied parole because they were involved with an anarchists organization, which is being smeared as terrorist. Whether you lagree with the circumstances that led to this, it's still dodgy as fuck and irrelevant of feelings about what John did, it's still wrong and should be campaigned against. It doesn't mean you're in any way showing a lack of condemnation for what he did, or for ABC's support of him if you think that it's wrong to hold someone in prison based on their political beliefs.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> Have you never done anything daft when you're drunk?



oh okay you're taking the piss.


----------



## scumbalina (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> Have you never done anything daft when you're drunk?




Don't be a heartless fuckwit you stupid cunt.


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> And you only have the state and media's account of what Ian Huntley did. Afterall atleast Huntley claims he was only giving them a bath and there was an accident.



Do you believe everything THE STATE tells you?


----------



## scumbalina (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> oh okay you're taking the piss.



oh


----------



## yokerist (May 18, 2007)

*bong bong bid ely bong bong*




			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> but that's circular reasoning because the only reason there is a political angle to his non release is because the ABC were involved within prior to this issue, alas there would be no issue to worry about if the ABC stuck to supporting prisoners it should be supporting.



well I think John First proved himself as a class warrior/prison activist with respect of loads of prisoners before abc started supporting him:

I mean what about rehabilatation are we not into that word??

I reckon it would be a good idea for people to write to prisoners like think of all the shit we randomly write here that is just (often) midless waffle and petty arguing, imagine some of your words put on paper and sent a prisoner you deem worthy of support:

It could inspire someone, help them, vibe them up even work towards rehabilitating them (for sure prison as an experience is not a very good way of rehabilitating someone)


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Don't be a heartless fuckwit you stupid cunt.


Oh give him a break, the guy's a comic genius


----------



## scumbalina (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Oh give him a break, the guy's a comic genius


I haven't eaten anything yet today, my low blood sugar has fuzzied up my troll radar


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> I see what you mean, but that's an issue with the ABC, it's happened now and there's a chance that someone is being denied parole because they were involved with an anarchists organization, which is being smeared as terrorist. Whether you lagree with the circumstances that led to this, it's still dodgy as fuck and irrelevant of feelings about what John did, it's still wrong and should be campaigned against. It doesn't mean you're in any way showing a lack of condemnation for what he did, or for ABC's support of him if you think that it's wrong to hold someone in prison based on their political beliefs.



the other thing is that I straight out don't trust John Bowden's side of the story to be whole truth. I could imagine there are various reasons as to why his parole could be rejected and indeed some of his writings exhibit attitudes that suggest he hasn't actually accepted full responsibility for his crime or his punishment, certainly enough stuff their to give a parole board enough to chew on without any such nonsense about the ABC being terrorists.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> well I think John First proved himself as a class warrior/prison activist with respect of loads of prisoners before abc started supporting him:
> 
> I mean what about rehabilatation are we not into that word??
> 
> ...



eh no just cause he fought against the prison regime does not make him a class warrior/hero in my mind. Billy Wright and other loyalist prisoners fought against the prison system kidnapped screws and rioted and i'd never extend my hand of solidarity to them. They fought the prison system cos they didn't like their punishment, well guess what, tough shit dickheads I don't really care, youse deserve your punishment and should shut the fuck up.


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

It's a win-win situation for everyone!


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Okay, how about the UNA bomber he sounds like a good lad, what was his crime, oh yeah targetting 'harmful and destructive technologies' or something equally vague.
> 
> Anyway i've no interest in getting into a 'my solidarity/activist penis is bigger than yours' competition, especially as that's not the issue being discussed.



 i dont have a penis i have a cunt.  and i have never advocated support for the unabomber nor provided it myself, for the record.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> well I think John First proved himself as a class warrior/prison activist with respect of loads of prisoners before abc started supporting him:
> 
> I mean what about rehabilatation are we not into that word??
> 
> ...



i agree.
prison doesn't work, some people do change for the positive whilst inside but many go in as petty theives and come out brutalised to the point of real interpersonal violence.  people who abuse children don't hold back out of fear of prison, they think they'll get away with it (and mostly do).


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> i have never advocated support for the unabomber nor provided it myself, for the record.


Yes, but the thing is that a number of ABC sites and publications list him as an "eco-prisoner" and give no details on the fucking disgusting bombing campaign he perpertrated, nor his foul, anti-human politics.  If ABC do that, how can I trust any of the information they put out?  How can I be sure that the person I'm writing to isn't some AR nutter who got sent down for vandalising a cleaners car?


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

This actually reminds me of an idea I had that never got off the ground because not enough people were interested to make it work, which was to create a prisoner support wiki, editable by prisoner support activists only, that gives information on class struggle prisoners, what they're inside for, whether they actually did it or not, etc.

That way, misleading information and out of date listings could be easily and quickly fixed.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Yes, but the thing is that a number of ABC sites and publications list him as an "eco-prisoner" and give no details on the fucking disgusting bombing campaign he perpertrated, nor his foul, anti-human politics.  If ABC do that, how can I trust any of the information they put out?  How can I be sure that the person I'm writing to isn't some AR nutter who got sent down for vandalising a cleaners car?



it sounds like a lot of people have lost trust in the abc groups because of their apparent belittling of the horror of john's index crime.  i also feel this was wrong of them.

i'm really worred that because of this less people will connect with the other groups that exist, and prisoners will lose support.  abc is just one of many prisoner solidarity and/or prison abolition groups.

earth liberation are very reliable, for one amongst many...


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

oops


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

oops


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> This actually reminds me of an idea I had that never got off the ground because not enough people were interested to make it work, which was to create a prisoner support wiki, editable by prisoner support activists only, that gives information on class struggle prisoners, what they're inside for, whether they actually did it or not, etc.
> 
> That way, misleading information and out of date listings could be easily and quickly fixed.



sounds like a great idea


----------



## yokerist (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> eh no just cause he fought against the prison regime does not make him a class warrior/hero in my mind. Billy Wright and other loyalist prisoners fought against the prison system kidnapped screws and rioted and i'd never extend my hand of solidarity to them. They fought the prison system cos they didn't like their punishment, well guess what, tough shit dickheads I don't really care, youse deserve your punishment and should shut the fuck up.



no now come on first its the Huntly paedo dude and now its loyalist scum like Billy Wright; you just simply cant make comparisons with john and these dudes.

well you can but it doesnt wash!!!

Dont you see that there is a difference

http://www.brightonabc.org.uk/campaigns/campaigns-bowden.htm

I think its quite evident which side of the class divide John is on!

as i said earlier Have people read Bad by James Carr

"Jimmy was the baddest motherfucker" according to George Jackson prison resister extraordinaire;  he was also the baddest fellow inmate up the bum fucker as well; but guess what he changed, saw the light, did a Malcolm Little, so to speak.

well revol68 would you of extended your hand of solidarity to James or George or Malcolm???????


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> i dont have a penis i have a cunt.  and i have never advocated support for the unabomber nor provided it myself, for the record.




What about for Copeland? He's a political prisoner, in his own opinion.


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> you just simply cant make comparisons with john and these dudes.
> 
> well you can but it doesnt wash!!!
> 
> ...



Yeah, fucking park keepers confiscated my ball when I was 8, authoritarian bastards! I'd love to decapitate them all!


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> What about for Copeland? He's a political prisoner, in his own opinion.



i do not and never will advocate or give support to racists, any more than i will sexists, homophobes, etc etc...  i do not simply go on "do they id as political" i check out what their politics are.  duh!


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> i do not and never will advocate or give support to racists, any more than i will sexists, homophobes, etc etc...  i do not simply go on "do they id as political" i check out what their politics are.  duh!



How do you know he's still a racist? Last I heard he was becoming a muslim.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

> no now come on first its the Huntly paedo dude and now its loyalist scum like Billy Wright; you just simply cant make comparisons with john and these dudes.
> 
> well you can but it doesnt wash!!!



why?

Atleast Billy Wright's brutality was politically motivated.

And why is being a paedo anyworse than being a sick fuck who chops people up alive? I mean sure what if Huntley claimed to be a changed man, said he only did it because of the brutalising affects of capitalism and patriarchy, what if he even went so far as to describe his crime as 'almost gratutious'.

I don't care much who thinks John Bowden is a hero or whatever the fact is he was rightfully banged up for a brutal murder and he should have accepted his punishment.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> How do you know he's still a racist? Last I heard he was becoming a muslim.



and we all know religious people are never racist bigots of course


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> and we all know religious people are never racist bigots of course



And anarchists can't? When did you realise that you are 100% non-racist?


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> And anarchists can't? When did you realise that you are 100% non-racist?



when he realised he didn't even discriminate against sadistic murdering psychopaths.


----------



## simon foster (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> when he realised he didn't even discriminate against sadistic murdering psychopaths.



To be frank it seems that the anarchists are glad for any members, even if it means opportunistic headbangers. It probably gives them a bit of credo as well, you see how keen they are to write to prisoners, makes them look avant-garde in the students union.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> so who is Luther then?



Anyone and everyone. He is legion.

Unless you mean that _krautisch_ Protestant gobshite who sold out his followers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> so you're not a prison-abolitionist, you in fact share the state's (and the tabloids) views, usually summed by "lock 'em up and throw away the keys".
> 
> luckily some of us, actively anarchist and anti-prison in our beliefs and in our actions, stil exist in this country and consider john to be well worthy of our support no matter what a bunch of armchair geeks and losers think.



That's what I like to see, someone coming in with a nice left jab!

Fact is that, regardless of Bowden's supposed lack of remorse for his crime, that if Bowden has served his tariff, then denying him a life licence because of his engagement with an organisation that hasn't been banned (and our wonderful government do have laws that allow them to do so), then they are in effect withholding parole for spurious and circumstantial reasons.

From a purely legalistic point of view, if the parole board had been presented with the usual two independent psychiatric assessments required for any murderer to receive parole, and the man had been judged a danger (which it appears he hasn't), then the Home Office's position would be understandable. As it is their position appears extremely arbitrary.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> why?
> 
> Atleast Billy Wright's brutality was politically motivated.
> 
> ...



Billy Wright...good choice. I suppose you could have chucked Johnny "Bad Poodle" Adair into the mix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

Gingerman said:
			
		

> What would you do if you overheard revolt talk in a pub then?



Me, I'd walk over to the plotters and suggest they bought me a pint!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> Thanks! Prison should be abolished immediately.



I disagree.

It's one of the few things where if it's going to be abolished I'd rather it was done incrementally, especially for long-term inmates where re-acclimatisation to outside life will often be an issue.

Incremental abolition would also allow voluntary and statutory organisations to be set up, or existing ones expanded, to deal with the "ripple effects" of abolition.


----------



## In Bloom (May 18, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Billy Wright...good choice. I suppose you could have chucked Johnny "Bad Poodle" Adair into the mix.


Why not, they've already got this fella in there.


> The first mail bomb was sent in late May 1978 to Professor Buckley Crist at Northwestern University. The package was found in a parking lot at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with Crist's return address. The package was 'returned' to Crist. However, when Crist received the package he noticed that it had not been addressed in his own handwriting. Suspicious of a package he had not sent he contacted campus policeman Terry Marker. Marker opened the package and it exploded. The injury was slight, mostly because the bomb was poorly constructed. Marker's left hand was sufficiently damaged, enough to send him to Evanston Hospital. The bomb was made of bits and pieces of metal that could have come from a home workshop. It was based on a piece of metal pipe about an inch in diameter and nine inches long. Curiously, the bomb contained smokeless explosive powders and the box and the plugs that sealed the pipe ends were hand crafted of wood. In comparison; most pipe bombs usually use threaded metal ends that can be bought in any large hardware store. Wooden ends do not have the strength to allow a large pressure to build within the pipe. This is partly why the bomb did not have the effect Kaczynski intended. The primitive trigger device the bomb employed was a nail tensioned by rubber bands designed to slam into six common match heads when the box was opened. The match heads would immediately burst into flame and ignite the explosive powders (when the trigger hit the match heads, only three ignited). A more efficient technique, later employed by Kaczynski, would be to use batteries and heat-filament wire to ignite the explosives faster and more effectively.
> 
> The initial 1978 bombing was followed by bombs to airline officials, and in 1979 a bomb was placed in the cargo hold of American Airlines Flight 444, a Boeing 727 flying from Chicago to Washington, D.C. The bomb began smoking and the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing. Many of the passengers were treated for smoke inhalation. Only a faulty timing mechanism prevented the bomb from exploding. Authorities said it had enough firepower to "obliterate the plane." As bombing an airliner is a federal crime in the United States, the FBI became involved after this incident and came up with the code name UNABOM (University and Airline Bomber). They also called the suspect the Junkyard Bomber because of the material used to make the bombs. In 1980, chief agent John Douglas working with fellow agents in the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit (BSU) issued a psychological profile of the unidentified bomber which described the offender as a man with above-average intelligence with some connections to academics. This profile was later refined to characterize the offender as a neo-luddite holding an academic degree in the hard sciences, but this psychologically based profile was superseded by 1993 in favor of an alternative theory developed by FBI analysts concentrating on the physical evidence in recovered bomb fragments. In this rival profile the bomber suspect was characterized as likely a blue-collar airplane mechanic.[6]
> 
> The first serious injury occurred in 1985, when John Hauser, a Berkeley graduate student and Captain in the Air Force, lost four fingers and vision in one eye.[7] Captain Hauser had applied for astronaut training and only a few days after his injury he learned he had been accepted. The bombs were all hand-crafted and were made with some wooden parts.[8] Inside the bombs; certain parts carried the inscription "FC" — at one point reported to stand for "Fuck Computers" but later found to mean "Freedom Club." A California computer-store owner, Hugh Scrutton 38, was killed by a nail and splinter loaded bomb lying in his parking lot in 1985. A similar attack against a computer store occurred in Salt Lake City, Utah on February 20, 1987.



So what do Brighton ABC have to say about Kaczynski?


> Ted is serving multiple life sentences for the infamous Unabomber bombing campaign against individuals involved in developing destructive technologies.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> It's one of the few things where if it's going to be abolished I'd rather it was done incrementally, especially for long-term inmates where re-acclimatisation to outside life will often be an issue.
> 
> Incremental abolition would also allow voluntary and statutory organisations to be set up, or existing ones expanded, to deal with the "ripple effects" of abolition.



so would i.
i wouldn't even want it if it was an isolated change without any other changes to society like the end of capitalism and patriarchy for starters.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

simon foster said:
			
		

> And anarchists can't? When did you realise that you are 100% non-racist?



when did i say that i was or thought i was?

i'm not and i don't.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> when he realised he didn't even discriminate against sadistic murdering psychopaths.



who's "he"?  i am a woman, fyi.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> who's "he"?  i am a woman, fyi.



i dunno what gender you are all i know is your a grade A cock.


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i dunno what gender you are all i know is your a grade A cock.



why would i respond to that, i ponder


----------



## yokerist (May 18, 2007)

Hi my name is simong foster and Im a fucking dinkle donut bean bag head nah meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnn fuking spoonie stewpit shitty poooh

niiiiiiccccce


----------



## yokerist (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i dunno what gender you are all i know is your a grade A cock.



and you are doing wurzel gummage impressions


----------



## agricola (May 18, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> That's what I like to see, someone coming in with a nice left jab!
> 
> Fact is that, regardless of Bowden's supposed lack of remorse for his crime, that if Bowden has served his tariff, then denying him a life licence because of his engagement with an organisation that hasn't been banned (and our wonderful government do have laws that allow them to do so), then they are in effect withholding parole for spurious and circumstantial reasons.
> 
> From a purely legalistic point of view, if the parole board had been presented with the usual two independent psychiatric assessments required for any murderer to receive parole, and the man had been judged a danger (which it appears he hasn't), then the Home Office's position would be understandable. As it is their position appears extremely arbitrary.



...except that we dont know that (the only information is coming from Bowden, and as we have seen he does not always tell the whole truth), and - as was pointed out on the thread in general - his lack of remorse and behaviour within prison _does_ impact on whether he gets released.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> *yawn*



You cannot take criticism that is too close to the bone


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> I see what you mean, but that's an issue with the ABC, it's happened now and there's a chance that someone is being denied parole because they were involved with an anarchists organization, which is being smeared as terrorist. Whether you lagree with the circumstances that led to this, it's still dodgy as fuck and irrelevant of feelings about what John did, it's still wrong and should be campaigned against. It doesn't mean you're in any way showing a lack of condemnation for what he did, or for ABC's support of him if you think that it's wrong to hold someone in prison based on their political beliefs.



Well said that man...


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> ...except that we dont know that (the only information is coming from Bowden, and as we have seen he does not always tell the whole truth



John did not write the comments people have objected to, leeds abc did.  john has never lied or hidden the facts about his index crime, all you needed to do was ask him.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> This actually reminds me of an idea I had that never got off the ground because not enough people were interested to make it work, which was to create a prisoner support wiki, editable by prisoner support activists only, that gives information on class struggle prisoners, what they're inside for, whether they actually did it or not, etc.
> 
> That way, misleading information and out of date listings could be easily and quickly fixed.



*This could be a useful idea for once In Bloom*. But I have to say a few qualifiers which have to be said over and over again. The vast majority of prisoners are inside for economic crime, greater than 94% last I heard (majority of sentences are less than a year, rolling door etc.), so to let prisoner support get bogged down with qualifying it every time is perhaps a bit over the top. But I can see that purists may get a bit edgy in case they 'made a mistake', but your position doesn't answer the 'what about rehabilitation' position. Most murders are usually family, and the people who do them are extremely unlikely to do it again - but they still get sent down for life. What say you here? I would have no qualms about supporting/getting in touch with a murderer, indeed I did a few times in the 1990s (Harry Roberts being one such fellow). 

I believe in supporting prisoners as a class in their own right, and that means warts and all - they should have better conditions cos it could be us within the wider woprking class who are affected next (well those of us who do stuff and have put our ass on the line that is ). 

So a class struggle prisoner supporting wiki could be very useful; where outside groups can contact other like minds, where prisoners can contact those who have been ghosted (thru outside help), and so on.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> John did not write the comments people have objected to, leeds abc did.  john has never lied or hidden the facts about his index crime, all you needed to do was ask him.



John did describe it as 'almost gratutious' and he did write this vomit inducing bombastic bollocks,


> For having stood up to and resisted unlawful and inhuman treatment in prison, and retained some basic human integrity and humanity in the process, I probably shall now remain imprisoned far beyond what even a reactionary judge deemed an appropriate period of time all those years ago. Hell will freeze over, however, before I surrender that part of myself that had the courage and integrity to fight back and resist when resistance often seemed futile.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> It's one of the few things where if it's going to be abolished I'd rather it was done incrementally, especially for long-term inmates where re-acclimatisation to outside life will often be an issue.
> 
> Incremental abolition would also allow voluntary and statutory organisations to be set up, or existing ones expanded, to deal with the "ripple effects" of abolition.



Well said too 

I like people with ideas of their own rather than stale, hopeless, irrelevant and regugitated anarcho/left/communism a la limpcok


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> who's "he"?  i am a woman, fyi.



Don't worry about that child exhibita - he's full of anti human ultra leftism and has never and will never do anything political... You are better off spending your time doing other stuff rather than argue with these no hopers here.

PM on way...


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> why would i respond to that, i ponder




Tell him he's knocking one out on his keyboard and typing with his left hand


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> John did describe it as 'almost gratutious' and he did write this vomit inducing bombastic bollocks,



"For having stood up to and resisted unlawful and inhuman treatment in prison, and retained some basic human integrity and humanity in the process, I probably shall now remain imprisoned...."

the others sent down with john for the same crime got out years ago.  john is inside right now because he has consistently acted in solidarity with other prisoners fighting the system literally from within.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> "For having stood up to and resisted unlawful and inhuman treatment in prison, and retained some basic human integrity and humanity in the process, I probably shall now remain imprisoned...."
> 
> the others sent down with john for the same crime got out years ago.  john is inside right now because he has consistently acted in solidarity with other prisoners fighting the system literally from within.



or cos he's never accepted the fact he deserved to be in fucking prison!


----------



## exhibita (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Don't worry about that child exhibita - he's full of anti human ultra leftism and has never and will never do anything political... You are better off spending your time doing other stuff rather than argue with these no hopers here.



you are quite right, good night all i'm off out


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> or cos he's never accepted the fact he deserved to be in fucking prison!



To be honest if i killed you I wouldn't think I deserved to be in prison


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> To be honest if i killed you I wouldn't think I deserved to be in prison



I'd put good bets on you avoiding a murder charge on the grounds of diminished responsibility.


----------



## agricola (May 18, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> John did not write the comments people have objected to, leeds abc did.  john has never lied or hidden the facts about his index crime, all you needed to do was ask him.



no mention of what he did: http://www.wombles.org.uk/article200705905.php

a throwaway mention of what he did: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/369954.html


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I'd put good bets on you avoiding a murder charge on the grounds of diminished responsibility.



No - if I did it I would shout it loud and proud


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> no mention of what he did: http://www.wombles.org.uk/article200705905.php
> 
> a throwaway mention of what he did: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/369954.html



Tbh I don't care what he did while drunk so very many years ago. 

I would certainly let him loose at the Police federation conference with an Uzi


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No - if I did it I would shout it loud and proud



yes which would only help your chances of getting off on diminished responsibility, well that and testimony from your ex comrades in Class War about such 'real' groups as Toffbusters and those Class War hooliganz.

you silly mental twat!


----------



## agricola (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Tbh I don't care what he did while drunk so very many years ago.
> 
> I would certainly let him loose at the Police federation conference with an Uzi



actually, given that his offending took place against those who were in the gutter with him, i would watch my own back if i were you.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yes which would only help your chances of getting off on diminished responsibility, well that and testimony from your ex comrades in Class War about such 'real' groups as Toffbusters and those Class War hooliganz.
> 
> you silly mental twat!



  When you enter the real world do let us all know. Second thoughts. Don't.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> When you enter the real world do let us all know. Second thoughts. Don't.



would this be the 'real world' where toffbusters and Class War Holliganz actually existed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> ...except that we dont know that...


That must be why I was careful to qualify my post.  


> ...(the only information is coming from Bowden, and as we have seen he does not always tell the whole truth)...


You find a single person who does, and you'll have found a liar.


> ...and - as was pointed out on the thread in general - his lack of remorse and behaviour within prison _does_ impact on whether he gets released.


A situation to which your "we don't know that" (re: his lack of remorse) also pertains, does it not?


----------



## guinnessdrinker (May 18, 2007)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want to support a psycho and nutter like John Bowden.
> Sorry to be negative,but anyone who cuts someones head off with a saw and keeps it in a fridge is a nutter.



not necessarily, if you're hungry and don't want the meat to rot. having said that, I don't think this applies to mr Bowden.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Tbh I don't care what he did while drunk so very many years ago.
> 
> I would certainly let him loose at the Police federation conference with an Uzi



are you from Brighton ABC?


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> not necessarily, if you're hungry and don't want the meat to rot. having said that, I don't think this applies to mr Bowden.



pfft any true meat lover knows that you should hang it out to dry have it as tapas with your pint of guinness.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> pfft any true meat lover knows that you should hang it out to dry have it as tapas with your pint of guinness.



and it was pre BSE, so he could have eaten the brain, too. he can't do that now, unless he is dealing with life long vegetarians. what a waste


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> well I think John First proved himself as a class warrior/prison activist with respect of loads of prisoners before abc started supporting him:
> 
> I mean what about rehabilatation are we not into that word??


A lot of people aren't, for a variety of differing reasons;
Some dislike rehabilitation as part of the penal strategy because it detracts from the punitive element of incarceration.
Some dislike rehabilitation on cost/benefit analysis grounds, as the "yield" for the "investment" is considered marginal.
Some dislike rehabilitation because it can occasionally give inmates not only tools to help them stay out of trouble and out of prison, but also the tools to  defy authority.

In case you're wondering where those reasons came from, they're all opinions I heard expressed by ministerial tory MPs at the Home Office between 1990 and 1994.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe (according to informed opinion I've heard) that any attitudes have changed under new Labour rule.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> would this be the 'real world' where toffbusters and Class War Holliganz actually existed?



   This would be the real world where you actually did something political. You know; talk to people, meet, agitate, organise action and so on....  But you never have.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> John did describe it as 'almost gratutious' and he did write this vomit inducing bombastic bollocks,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While the language may be pompous and a tad self-serving, it is nonetheless a matter of *fact* that if you resist the system in any way, shape or form you're highly likely to be punished for doing so. I'm not _au fait_ with the current guidelines for such heinous crimes as, for example, disobeying an order (any order) given you by a prison officer, but it used to be 7-28 days trimmed from any possible parole (all this without mentioning the unofficial physical punishment you're likely to suffer too).

Within the system as it was and is, resistance of some sort is pretty much *necessary*, notwithstanding what the resister may or may not have done to be there in the first place, or said to justify either their crime *or* their resistance.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> While the language may be pompous and a tad self-serving, it is nonetheless a matter of *fact* that if you resist the system in any way, shape or form you're highly likely to be punished for doing so. I'm not _au fait_ with the current guidelines for such heinous crimes as, for example, disobeying an order (any order) given you by a prison officer, but it used to be 7-28 days trimmed from any possible parole (all this without mentioning the unofficial physical punishment you're likely to suffer too).
> 
> Within the system as it was and is, resistance of some sort is pretty much *necessary*, notwithstanding what the resister may or may not have done to be there in the first place, or said to justify either their crime *or* their resistance.



Quick, can I get you to join the party 

My house, end of street etc 

You all thought I meant....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> or cos he's never accepted the fact he deserved to be in fucking prison!


You could say he did exactly that when pleading guilty.
Be that as it may, I suspect that what you're actually trying to say (in your own inimitable way  ) is that he's never "played the game" whereby his remorse and penitence has been established within the establishment's eyes.
That's his choice. We should think ourselves lucky it isn't one that most of us are in a position to have to make.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 18, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You could say he did exactly that when pleading guilty.
> Be that as it may, I suspect that what you're actually trying to say (in your own inimitable way  ) is that he's never "played the game" whereby his remorse and penitence has been established within the establishment's eyes.
> That's his choice. We should think ourselves lucky it isn't one that most of us are in a position to have to make.


Very good. Carry on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Quick, can I get you to join the party
> 
> My house, end of street etc
> 
> You all thought I meant....



I'm glad you didn't mean a political party, 'cos I'm not a joiner.

I'm not any sort of carpenter if truth be told.


----------



## revol68 (May 18, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> We should think ourselves lucky it isn't one that most of us are in a position to have to make.



Well I'll be thankful for the fact I haven't carved anyone up then!


----------



## The Black Hand (May 19, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> This would be the real world where you actually did something political. You know; talk to people, meet, agitate, organise action and so on....  But you never have.



And you still haven't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Well I'll be thankful for the fact I haven't carved anyone up then!



We only have your word for that "fact", and I'm doubtful that you're ever thankful for anything, you're such a miserable sod.


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 19, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Tbh I don't care what he did while drunk so very many years ago.
> 
> I would certainly let him loose at the Police federation conference with an Uzi



Violent fantasist macho bollocks


----------



## guinnessdrinker (May 19, 2007)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> Violent fantasist macho bollocks



of the best kind.


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 19, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Me, I'd walk over to the plotters and suggest they bought me a pint!



A form of open dialogue! Oddly, that's probably one of the most anarchic solutions put forward on this thread


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 19, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> It's one of the few things where if it's going to be abolished I'd rather it was done incrementally, especially for long-term inmates where re-acclimatisation to outside life will often be an issue.
> 
> Incremental abolition would also allow voluntary and statutory organisations to be set up, or existing ones expanded, to deal with the "ripple effects" of abolition.



Yes! And in the meantime, the way that prisons are run needs to be addressed. What kind of person is created who would be locked up for up to 23 hours a day, with no responsiblity for seeing to their own basic needs (food preparation, meaningful socialisation, skills aquisition, social responsiblity)? This is why the European model, whilst not perfect, has a far lower rate of reoffending than the American model. 

UK, which is following the American model, has the highest number of Lifers in the European Union, and more than the entire European countries combined! 





> England and Wales has more life sentence prisoners than the whole of the European Union combined and more than any other European country.
> 
> The figures, published in the latest edition of PRT’s magazine, Prison Report, show that according to the most recent statistics from the Council of Europe, at the end of 2002 the combined lifer population of the EU was 5,046, but in England and Wales there were 5,268 life sentence prisoners.
> 
> ...



The whole of that article reveals some stark facts: 


> 1. On 30 November 2003 there were 5,475 prisoners serving life sentences in England and Wales.
> 
> 2. The vast majority, 5,305 were men. There were 170 women.
> 
> ...



I believe there are Home Office plans to continue the outsourcing of Prisons/Detention Centres/Psychiatric Prisons, and possibly, if following the model used in the USA, Psychiatric Hospitals, to the American company GEO, who run Guantanamo and numerous US/US-interest Prisons/Detention centres around the world. These manoevres are part of the hiving off of Governmental structures, following the American model which began in the 1980s, and increased throughout the 1990s, where state, and local governments began outsourcing non-core functions to private companies, and later moving to outsource Govt. institutions and state apparatus - nothing less than the privatisation of the State.



> US governments engage in full privatization of more traditional governmental functions. For example, states have privatized prison construction and administration where private firms finance and build correctional facilities and may operate them as self-sustaining, even profitable, enterprises. These operations have met with mixed reaction because they involve the actual ownership of the prison, use of inmate labour and profits associated with it, and use of private employees to administer part of the justice system.http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/new_models_wp?chapter=5&section=3



A constant, and increasing prison class is necessary to ensure profitability for these outsourced, private prisons, leading politicians to use 'Penal Populism' in their electioneering, and alter the laws, and sentencing structures to suit political gain, rather than to serve the Citizenry as a whole. 

One question - why are we following this model when it doesn't work to either reduce crime, or rehabilitate prisoners in America?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 19, 2007)

Aye, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mantra plays very well with much of the electorate at election time....just like immigration and 'security'.


----------



## exhibita (May 19, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Aye, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mantra plays very well with much of the electorate at election time....just like immigration and 'security'.



thanks luther and nino finally this seems interesting.
one thing i sometimes ponder is how come, with 80,000 (or thereabouts) prisoners in the uk system, it is seen as such a vote winner.  the proportion of the public who know someone in prison, or have been inside themselves, would surely be quite substantial after all.
but at least we are getting somewhere close to the real reason why prison is so popular with blairs babes.  it doesn't prevent crime, doesn't deter, or rehabilitate, and many seem to think it isn't even a punishment (see The Sun et al).  what is does do is allow them to be _seen to be doing something_ about crime rates, to give lucrative contracts to their buddies in the business, and to provide cheap labour again for their buddies in business.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (May 19, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> thanks luther and nino finally this seems interesting.
> one thing i sometimes ponder is how come, with 80,000 (or thereabouts) prisoners in the uk system, it is seen as such a vote winner.  the proportion of the public who know someone in prison, or have been inside themselves, would surely be quite substantial after all.
> but at least we are getting somewhere close to the real reason why prison is so popular with blairs babes.  it doesn't prevent crime, doesn't deter, or rehabilitate, and many seem to think it isn't even a punishment (see The Sun et al).  what is does do is allow them to be _seen to be doing something_ about crime rates, to give lucrative contracts to their buddies in the business, and to provide cheap labour again for their buddies in business.



convicted prisoners don't have the right to vote, despite a decision of the ECHR about it. people will believe everything the media will throw at them 24 hrs a day through radio, telly cheap tabloids etc.


----------



## exhibita (May 19, 2007)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> convicted prisoners don't have the right to vote, despite a decision of the ECHR about it. people will believe everything the media will throw at them 24 hrs a day through radio, telly cheap tabloids etc.



i referred to ex-prisoners, and friends and families of prisoners, i am well aware that prisoners don't vote thanks.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (May 19, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> i referred to ex-prisoners, and friends and families of prisoners, i am well aware that prisoners don't vote thanks.



I don't know about ex prisoners, maybe parole conditions or the way they understand them, but families are not as close aas they used to be. they drift apart, and it may be that instead of mainly hearing the story from their relatives, they will be heavily influenced by the media in a way that never used to happen.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (May 19, 2007)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> A constant, and increasing prison class is necessary to ensure profitability for *these outsourced, private prisons*, leading politicians to use 'Penal Populism' in their electioneering, and alter the laws, and sentencing structures to suit political gain, rather than to serve the Citizenry as a whole.



I have actually been wondering these prisons. see this link:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=207902


----------



## Luther Blissett (May 19, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Aye, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mantra plays very well with much of the electorate at election time....just like immigration and 'security'.


*Our BRAND is CRISIS* (a must watch documentary)


----------



## exhibita (May 19, 2007)

getting back to john bowden, i suppose the main issue is more whether we allow (without any resistance) patterns to be set, precedents to go down.  what i mean is if it becomes acceptable and normal for a prisoner's association with anarcho or direct action groups to be treated as a reason to deny parole.  once that is established and they know there'll be no fuss made, then things get harder for current and future "overtly political" prisoners in this country.  it already happens with animal rights activists, could it be me or you next?  inside for a minor, non-violent direct action, conviction and then not allowed out because you associate with a group that has some "eco-terrorist" links?
i'm sure the powers-that-be count on us not supporting john because we're freaked by his index crime, but perhaps we need to be thinking of how else they can apply these same criteria at parole.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> thanks luther and nino finally this seems interesting.
> one thing i sometimes ponder is how come, with 80,000 (or thereabouts) prisoners in the uk system, it is seen as such a vote winner.  the proportion of the public who know someone in prison, or have been inside themselves, would surely be quite substantial after all.
> but at least we are getting somewhere close to the real reason why prison is so popular with blairs babes.  it doesn't prevent crime, doesn't deter, or rehabilitate, and many seem to think it isn't even a punishment (see The Sun et al).  what is does do is allow them to be _seen to be doing something_ about crime rates, to give lucrative contracts to their buddies in the business, and to provide cheap labour again for their buddies in business.



An important factor to weigh in any consideration about how an expanding prison population will affect party political posturing around criminal justice issues is that our prison population has a disproportionate amount (measured against the percentage within the general population) of BME inmates.

If a disproportionate amount of those affected by "the prison industry" are drawn from a finite BME (around 7% of the general population IIRC) community that is generally geographically concentrated, then the effect in terms of affected seats will be minimal

All of which could be perceived by the _soi-disant_ "political classes" as a   licence to expand what Davis called the "prison-industrial complex".


----------



## agricola (May 19, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> getting back to john bowden, i suppose the main issue is more whether we allow (without any resistance) patterns to be set, precedents to go down.  what i mean is if it becomes acceptable and normal for a prisoner's association with anarcho or direct action groups to be treated as a reason to deny parole.  once that is established and they know there'll be no fuss made, then things get harder for current and future "overtly political" prisoners in this country.  it already happens with animal rights activists, could it be me or you next?  inside for a minor, non-violent direct action, conviction and then not allowed out because you associate with a group that has some "eco-terrorist" links?
> i'm sure the powers-that-be count on us not supporting john because we're freaked by his index crime, but perhaps we need to be thinking of how else they can apply these same criteria at parole.



Sorry, but this is nonsense.  

A precedent is _not_ being set with Bowden - they are applying the extremely stringent conditions around the release of persons sentenced to life (conditions which only slightly get softer when released, they can still be recalled to prison at any time for nearly any reason), and however much you try and claim it there is still profound doubt as to whether his release has been delayed due solely to his "political stance" - it is, in all likelyhood, far more to do with his behaviour within the prison system (hostage taking, escapes etc), possibly including his published writings (which minimize his own contribution to where he is now), and could well also be taking into account the actual length of his sentence (he got life with a recommendation of 25 years, plus 5 years for two GBH's, plus ten years for a hostage-taking, and finally he escaped for 18 months).  

Unless you are sentenced to life, such stringent conditions do not apply to you.  If you are wondering "could it be me next", the answer is no - unless you murder someone.


----------



## _angel_ (May 19, 2007)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Aye, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mantra plays very well with much of the electorate at election time....just like immigration and 'security'.




Some people do need to be removed from society because they're dangerous though.

I think they should be humanely treated though which obviously doesn't happen. As most lifers are actually released, brutalising them is counterproductive to rehabilitation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2007)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> Some people do need to be removed from society because they're dangerous though.


That's a bit different from "lock 'em up and throw away the key", though.
The idea behind the mainstream current criminal justice practices is about removing people until they no longer pose a danger/until they are rehabilitated, whereas the impetus behind the rhetoric of "lock the up and..." is often about life-length or near life-length incarceration _a la_ the USA. The kind of thing both Michael Howard and John Reid, at different times, have expressed an interest in. 


> I think they should be humanely treated though which obviously doesn't happen. As most lifers are actually released, brutalising them is counterproductive to rehabilitation.


And that is often where our system falls down, we too often treat the majority of our offenders as figures on a balance sheet or livestock to be warehoused, rather than offering any real attempt at rehabilitation.


----------



## _angel_ (May 19, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> That's a bit different from "lock 'em up and throw away the key", though.
> The idea behind the mainstream current criminal justice practices is about removing people until they no longer pose a danger/until they are rehabilitated, whereas the impetus behind the rhetoric of "lock the up and..." is often about life-length or near life-length incarceration _a la_ the USA. The kind of thing both Michael Howard and John Reid, at different times, have expressed an interest in.
> 
> And that is often where our system falls down, we too often treat the majority of our offenders as figures on a balance sheet or livestock to be warehoused, rather than offering any real attempt at rehabilitation.



I think maybe abolish mandatory life sentences for murder and leave to the judges discretion. There are so many people convicted of murder that should have been manslaughter and vice versa. IMO.


----------



## agricola (May 19, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> That's a bit different from "lock 'em up and throw away the key", though.
> The idea behind the mainstream current criminal justice practices is about removing people until they no longer pose a danger/until they are rehabilitated, whereas the impetus behind the rhetoric of "lock the up and..." is often about life-length or near life-length incarceration _a la_ the USA. The kind of thing both Michael Howard and John Reid, at different times, have expressed an interest in.



Michael Howard, maybe - but Reid, together with nearly every other Home Secretary of the past twenty-five years, has tried to sound tough (mainly when there has been a high-profile murder) but has in fact focused upon non-custodial sentencing.


----------



## yokerist (May 20, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> getting back to john bowden, i suppose the main issue is more whether we allow (without any resistance) patterns to be set, precedents to go down.  what i mean is if it becomes acceptable and normal for a prisoner's association with anarcho or direct action groups to be treated as a reason to deny parole.  once that is established and they know there'll be no fuss made, then things get harder for current and future "overtly political" prisoners in this country.  it already happens with animal rights activists, could it be me or you next?  inside for a minor, non-violent direct action, conviction and then not allowed out because you associate with a group that has some "eco-terrorist" links?
> i'm sure the powers-that-be count on us not supporting john because we're freaked by his index crime, but perhaps we need to be thinking of how else they can apply these same criteria at parole.



a very fucking valid and scary point. . . . me thinks


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 20, 2007)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> I think maybe abolish mandatory life sentences for murder and leave to the judges discretion. There are so many people convicted of murder that should have been manslaughter and vice versa. IMO.



Agreed.

Unfortunately it's not something any politician would ever agree with because;

a) it doesn't send (in their opinion, anyway) the right message to the electorate, 

b) it allows judges (who, however value-laden their decisions may sometimes be, *are* at least trained to view cases impartially) to continue to exercise a set of powers the government, with it's lust for crowd-pleasing stunts, wants to exercise for itself,
and
c) A system that dispensed justice *entirely* on the merits of each individual case, free of prejudices, preconceptions and hidden interests, is not what "the establishment" wants.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 20, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> Michael Howard, maybe - but Reid, together with nearly every other Home Secretary of the past twenty-five years, has tried to sound tough (mainly when there has been a high-profile murder) but has in fact focused upon non-custodial sentencing.



How does that affect what I've stated about Reid's expressed interest in US-style life-length or near life-length incarceration?

It doesn't, because the crimes that may fall under the purview of non-custodial sentencing have very little to do with the crimes that incur cries of "lock them up and throw away the key".

I know you have a thistle up your arse about sentencing, but do at least *try* to make your point a bit more relevant next time, eh?


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> How does that affect what I've stated about Reid's expressed interest in US-style life-length or near life-length incarceration?
> 
> It doesn't, because the crimes that may fall under the purview of non-custodial sentencing have very little to do with the crimes that incur cries of "lock them up and throw away the key".
> 
> I know you have a thistle up your arse about sentencing, but do at least *try* to make your point a bit more relevant next time, eh?



I guess the part that immediately preceeded it made me think that was not what you were exclusively talking about.  

In any case, I hardly think you can describe it as US-style, given that we already have, and have had for at least the last forty years, a system that punishes murder with life-length, or near-life length sentencing (unless the offender is rather young).


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2007)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> I think maybe abolish mandatory life sentences for murder and leave to the judges discretion. There are so many people convicted of murder that should have been manslaughter and vice versa. IMO.



I strongly disagree - judges are the last people who should be allowed to exercise their discretion, especially when talking about serious crimes; and in any case decisions regarding convicting someone for murder or manslaughter convictions are one made by the jury, not the judge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 20, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree - judges are the last people who should be allowed to exercise their discretion, especially when talking about serious crimes; and in any case decisions regarding convicting someone for murder or manslaughter convictions are one made by the jury, not the judge.




Why are judges "the last people"?

What do you suggest, that we allow politicians or the police to decide sentences, or perhaps the jury?


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> Violent fantasist macho bollocks



Alternatively entitled 'a bit of fun'... You are obviously not meant to take it literally so your comment completely falls and smashes to pieces...


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> Michael Howard, maybe - but Reid, together with nearly every other Home Secretary of the past twenty-five years, has tried to sound tough (mainly when there has been a high-profile murder) but has in fact focused upon non-custodial sentencing.



Erm, no.


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Why are judges "the last people"?
> 
> What do you suggest, that we allow politicians or the police to decide sentences, or perhaps the jury?



No, but I do expect that the law as laid down in a democratically elected Parliament be followed.  Burglary, for one example, has a maximum sentence of ten years (and fourteen years if its in a dwelling), yet the average sentence for _repeat_ offenders (3 convictions for burglary or more) is somewhere near a tenth of that.  When was the last time anyone got 14 years for a domestic burglary?

Of course, judges are not solely to blame for this - the Home Office has to accept a large slice of that (as do the likes of Lord Faulkener, who apparently views domestic burglary on the same level of seriousness as shoplifting) - but I do think that we should expect judges to do what the law has asked them to do - ie treat offences such as this with the appropriate level of seriousness.  

The mandatory life sentence for murder does, at least, ensure that the guilty party does get a heavy sentence and currently ensures that such persons are subjected to rigorous checks (which, as it happens, may also mean that those on life licence have very low reoffending rates).


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

TO be honest there is so much difference between entering a house and taking stuff when nobodies at home, and murder of a stranger, that perhaps the judges are more in touch with the real world than idiots like you. And the Twat who runs the Victioms of Crime Trust who spouts crap every time the Daily Mail phones him up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2007)

You're not helping any one here atttica.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> You're not helping any one here atttica.



You either know little or are a trifle niave, I wonder which. 

You or anybody else who posts here are not helping anybody either...


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2007)

If you want to compare murder to non-commercial burgalry then you're not helping. I've argued why this case is so important and at great length on here. Idiocies like the above undermine this and seve only to further associate John B with behavior that can fuck up his release. Grow up and and shut up and stop placing your ego before all else.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> If you want to compare murder to non-commercial burgalry then you're not helping. I've argued why this case is so important and at great length on here. Idiocies like the above undermine this and seve only to further associate John B with behavior that can fuck up his release. Grow up and and shut up and stop placing your ego before all else.



Yawn, your angst bores me. If you actually read the thread you'll know it was AgriCOP who did the first comparison/has the original sin. Get your facts right...


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> TO be honest there is so much difference between entering a house and taking stuff when nobodies at home, and murder of a stranger, that perhaps the judges are more in touch with the real world than idiots like you. And the Twat who runs the Victioms of Crime Trust who spouts crap every time the Daily Mail phones him up.



Was I saying they were the same thing?


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Yawn, your angst bores me. If you actually read the thread you'll know it was AgriCOP who did the first comparison/has the original sin. Get your facts right...



um... no, please take your own advice.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

LIar LIar pants on fire. You did in post 257 of this thread.


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> LIar LIar pants on fire. You did in post 257 of this thread.



No - I was contrasting the punishment for burglary with that for murder, as is blatantly obvious.

Comparison

Contrast

Please learn the difference between the two.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> No - I was contrasting the punishment for burglary with that for murder, as is blatantly obvious.
> 
> Comparison
> 
> ...



  Yawn. Trivial *semantics* from a trivial Agricop. Liar.


----------



## agricola (May 20, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Yawn. Trivial *semantics* from a trivial Agricop. Liar.



lol


----------



## The Black Hand (May 20, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> lol


 ROFL U tit.


----------



## revol68 (May 21, 2007)

Just for the record, Attica is a loon, no one takes him seriously, he invents all sorts of groups and actions in his head.


----------



## simon foster (May 21, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> If you want to compare murder to non-commercial burgalry then you're not helping. I've argued why this case is so important and at great length on here. Idiocies like the above undermine this and seve only to further associate John B with behavior that can fuck up his release. Grow up and and shut up and stop placing your ego before all else.



I doubt that the comments by a handful of nerds on an internet forum will have much bearing on the release of this headbanger. You've an over-inflated sense of your own importance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> No, but I do expect that the law as laid down in a democratically elected Parliament be followed.  Burglary, for one example, has a maximum sentence of ten years (and fourteen years if its in a dwelling), yet the average sentence for _repeat_ offenders (3 convictions for burglary or more) is somewhere near a tenth of that.  When was the last time anyone got 14 years for a domestic burglary?


Let me see if I've got this straight:
You expect judges to issue sentences that range across the entire scope of a tariff for the crime?
You expect judges to conform to the will of parliament?
You expect them to follow guidance presented to them by the appropriate ministry?

What exactly do you think they're doing when they issue those (in your opinion) soft sentences, if not at least partially following the injunctions of the politicians to put less pressure on the Prison Service etc?



> Of course, judges are not solely to blame for this - the Home Office has to accept a large slice of that (as do the likes of Lord Faulkener, who apparently views domestic burglary on the same level of seriousness as shoplifting) - but I do think that we should expect judges to do what the law has asked them to do - ie treat offences such as this with the appropriate level of seriousness.


How very noble of you to, in your infinite wisdom, offer a small concession that it might not *entirely* be the fault of the judges.

I think though, that you'll find that what the law asks judges to do is to judge each case on it's merits, and to sentence appropriately, rather than what you claim.


> The mandatory life sentence for murder does, at least, ensure that the guilty party does get a heavy sentence and currently ensures that such persons are subjected to rigorous checks (which, as it happens, may also mean that those on life licence have very low reoffending rates).


No, it ensures that the person who has been *found guilty* MAY serve a high tariff, all other things being equal (which they often are not).


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 21, 2007)

well it would appear a member of the scottish national party has shown some interest in this. in which case this may be a good thing for john. i hope no one is forgetting the point of this thread and what it is about.

yes the crime was dispicable and abhorrent but as a society we are told that prison is to "reform" our prisoners. 25 years is long enough for soem one to be reformed regardless of thier political views.  if it is solely becuase of his views that he is not being released then there is clearly somthing wrong here.

so many prisoners are released only to re offend. i do not know figures but i expect murderer's who are released i am guessing would be amongst some of the lowest re offending groups.

hazarding a poor guess here as i have not seen the social workers report but hope i will soon direct from john i would say that becuase of johns stature and this social workers views the report has been unfavourable.

john is i would say a huge man but muscle not fat. perhaps the social worker felt intimidated or somthing?. surely on the basis of two or three meetings he couldnt have decided that john was not safe for release that would just be amazingly pointless.

anyways meantimes friday draws closer tot he planned protest outside the scottish houses of parliment at 10-11am and awareness by the public seems to be growing which can only be a good thing.

i am just waiting for a letter from john today as i have explained to him whats going on in this thread and others. i may have some sort of answer right from the horses mouth in the next day or so. so keep watching.

he has also asked me to make a print out of all of the relavent posts and send them too him. i will do this in the next day or so and then perhaps he can reply to some of the more serious posts and give soem answers. better i do it that way as then he can read everyones comments for himself.

cheers to all of you for your support and also thanks to the others who have had views that we could say were wuite opposite. ie the poster who when he found out about fridays protest said bring your machete's and axes or the poster who posted a pic of a head in a freezer (nice touch)   but even more thank you's to the people who on seeing those really shitty posts stood up in defence and pointed out how stupid these people really are.

am i an articulate person? no not at all. so these more intelligent writers here have done me a credit and are worth thier wieght in gold.


i am off to work. another day in the oven.

oh and p.s  i became a father again today for the second time  woot woot


----------



## exhibita (May 21, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> there is still profound doubt as to whether his release has been delayed due solely to his "political stance" .... if you are wondering "could it be me next", the answer is no - unless you murder someone.



sorry but the only people with doubts are those who haven't made the effort to research the facts of this case.
as per your comments on the issue of precedent:
firstly no you don't actually need to murder anyone, a conviction is sufficient.
secondly, the legal situation is tightening up, look to the greenscare defendants to see how british activists can expect to be treated in the very near future, and parole rules will apply (when NVDA gets classified as domestic terrorism) for the "lucky" ones at least who survive the initial long-sentences and get to that stage.
if every prisoner who is supported by and/or supports ABC gets labelled a terrorist on that basis alone we are really in trouble.


----------



## exhibita (May 21, 2007)

Rikbikboo said:
			
		

> well it would appear a member of the scottish national party has shown some interest in this. in which case this may be a good thing for john. i hope no one is forgetting the point of this thread and what it is about.
> 
> yes the crime was dispicable and abhorrent but as a society we are told that prison is to "reform" our prisoners. 25 years is long enough for soem one to be reformed regardless of thier political views.  if it is solely becuase of his views that he is not being released then there is clearly somthing wrong here.
> 
> p.s  i became a father again today for the second time  woot woot



wow what a sensible and balanced post, not claiming to know any more than you actually do, pointing out what actually matters, very refreshing on this site!
and congratulations to you and your baby-mother hope you and she and the baby are feeling good


----------



## The Black Hand (May 21, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Just for the record, Attica is a loon, no one takes him seriously, he invents all sorts of groups and actions in his head.



For the record, that applies to you and Limpcock you mean. You are nothing, never done anything, never have beens.


----------



## agricola (May 22, 2007)

exhibita said:
			
		

> sorry but the only people with doubts are those who haven't made the effort to research the facts of this case.
> as per your comments on the issue of precedent:
> firstly no you don't actually need to murder anyone, a conviction is sufficient.
> secondly, the legal situation is tightening up, look to the greenscare defendants to see how british activists can expect to be treated in the very near future, and parole rules will apply (when NVDA gets classified as domestic terrorism) for the "lucky" ones at least who survive the initial long-sentences and get to that stage.
> if every prisoner who is supported by and/or supports ABC gets labelled a terrorist on that basis alone we are really in trouble.



Um... I have seen a lot more evidence posted by those who doubt Bowden's version of events than those who support him (who seem not to have mentioned what he actually did), so how you can claim that we havent made the effort to research the case smacks to me of much the same idiocy as Attica has been displaying.

As for "you don't actually need to murder anyone, a conviction is sufficient", are you really suggesting that Bowden didnt kill that man?  




			
				violentpanda said:
			
		

> Let me see if I've got this straight:
> You expect judges to issue sentences that range across the entire scope of a tariff for the crime?
> You expect judges to conform to the will of parliament?
> You expect them to follow guidance presented to them by the appropriate ministry?
> ...



I expect that because the low sentencing predates most of the recent Prison crisis - in 1997 the average sentence was 16 months for repeat offenders, and Judges (most famously Lord Chief Justice Bingham) took great exception to Howard's relatively mild (a mandatory sentence of three years) "three strikes" for Burglary as an unwelcome intrusion into their "rights" to use discretion, and in any case they chose to attack the legislation consistently, first in the Lords and subsequently by simply ignoring it (up to 2005 _eight_ people have got the mandatory sentence).




			
				violentpanda said:
			
		

> How very noble of you to, in your infinite wisdom, offer a small concession that it might not entirely be the fault of the judges.
> 
> I think though, that you'll find that what the law asks judges to do is to judge each case on it's merits, and to sentence appropriately, rather than what you claim.



That is what I am asking Judges to do - the problem is that they spectacularly _arent_ doing it - do you really think that the majority of burglaries are so trivial that they should result in non-custodial sentences?  And even when people ignore the "second chance" that non-custodial sentencing offers them and offend again (in some cases many more times) they should get sentences which are, on average, a tenth of those of the maximum?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> I expect that because the low sentencing predates most of the recent Prison crisis - in 1997 the average sentence was 16 months for repeat offenders, and Judges (most famously Lord Chief Justice Bingham) took great exception to Howard's relatively mild (a mandatory sentence of three years) "three strikes" for Burglary as an unwelcome intrusion into their "rights" to use discretion, and in any case they chose to attack the legislation consistently, first in the Lords and subsequently by simply ignoring it (up to 2005 _eight_ people have got the mandatory sentence).


Sorry, but your claim of predating doesn't really hold water. In my own experience there has been a politically-driven downward force on sentencing, motivated by a "squeeze" on detention placements since at least 1990, new construction and the expansion/renovation of existing facilities has barely kept pace with demand. There's as little slack in the system now as there was then, and exactly the same pressures from the legislature on the judiciary as there was then. Add to that the farrago with the treatment of the magistracy and it's hardly surprising the judiciary feel restive about politically-motivated headline-grabbing "suggestions", is it?
Me, if I have to have a judiciary at all, I'd rather have one that has the bollocks to tell pols to fuck off than a servile rubberstamping institution.


> That is what I am asking Judges to do - the problem is that they spectacularly _arent_ doing it - do you really think that the majority of burglaries are so trivial that they should result in non-custodial sentences?


Don't try to put words in my mouth, thanks.
IMHO the judge has several separate pressures to balance, given the repeated intrusions of politicians on their domain;
they must adminster the system in such a way that political pressures *are not* reflected in their deliberations,
they must take note of *legislation[/B,] and
they must consider and balance the need for detention with the available resources, pursuant to whatever guidelines they are issued by the Home Office. That means that if they receive a circular informing them that due to overcrowding they should strongly consider non-custodial sentencing for certain crimes, then they have to take it on board. That doesn't mean that the judge is doing a bad job, it means they're being fucked around by news-seeking chancer politicians.



			And even when people ignore the "second chance" that non-custodial sentencing offers them and offend again (in some cases many more times) they should get sentences which are, on average, a tenth of those of the maximum?
		
Click to expand...

Of course not, but if the executive force the judiciary to take into account supply and demand, what do you expect?*


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 25, 2007)

So Exhibita   how did the demo go?  fill us all in please


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 25, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> why?
> 
> Atleast Billy Wright's brutality was politically motivated.
> 
> ...



I've been really trying to refrain from posting until i got to the end of this thread but the namechecking comment shows you up for being the worst sort of fucking idiotic fuck-wit that its been my misfortune to encounter over the years. You really are a silly silly boy aren't ya, you feckin daft cunt?

You're not even a troll, you're just a swamp-sucker, ya fuckin fuckwit. Foolish bwoy.


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 26, 2007)

found this link  it actually has a verbal interview 

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/370172.html?c=on#comments

its about a 5 min interview might be worth a listen?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 28, 2007)

The real point at issue here is truth and the attempt to hide it. Exhibita says she's associated with a publication that helps prisoners. Fair enough. And that this lists prisoners for people to write to. Fair enough again, except that doing this carries a responsibility since not all prisoners are "nice" people with pure motives (some want to milk correspondents for money, others want to write to women only). She recognises this by saying that certain types of prisoner (such as sex offenders, informers and ex-cops) are excluded from the list even though they too suffer all the horrors of prison. What I'd like to know is, assuming that Bowden was on the list (I assume he was since she says she wrote to him herself), whether the publishers knew precisely what he'd done. I'd like to think they didn't. But either way they acted irresponsibly. Knowing he was in for murder they should have checked what he'd done before putting him on their list. If they knew what he'd done and chose not to disclose it while still encouraging people to write to him that would have been really out of order.


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 29, 2007)

John was and has been a member of the abc ever since his early 20s even before he commited this crime. maybe this is why they list him no?


----------



## october_lost (May 29, 2007)

If thats true that raises huge problems that anarcho-sympathisers think its okay to carry out premeditated murder, no?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 29, 2007)

I don't think this was the case. In his pamphlet he says that before he went to prison he was just an ordinary yobbo and that even when he kidnapped the prison governor (his first act of prison resistance) he did it because, faced with the next 25 years in jail for what he'd done, he felt he'd nothing to lose (true and that's part of the case against prisons but what's the alternative for people who did what he did, apart, that is, from the abhorrent death penalty?). He also says that when he eventually did become interested in politics he first joined not the anarchists but the Trotskyists in the form of the "Revolutionary Communist Group".


----------



## october_lost (May 29, 2007)

Purely out of interest define 'joined'? And how then did he get interested in the ABC?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 29, 2007)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Purely out of interest define 'joined'? And how then did he get interested in the ABC?


I'm only going by what he says in his pamphlet. But, fair enough, to say "joined" was going too far. I suppose the right word would be "associated with" or "identified with". 
I don't know when or how he "associated/identified" with the ABC. There's nothing in the pamphlet about it. From reading it I got the impression that he isn't interested in any theoretical differences there might be between the Revolutionary Communist Group and the ABC, just in the struggle of prisoners against their treatment. 
If any one wants to read the pamphlet and judge for themselves, it's called "Tear the Walls Down". The adverts for it say send a postal order or cheque for £2 with the payee left blank to Leeds ABC, PO Box 53, Leeds, LS8 4WP.


----------



## The Black Hand (May 29, 2007)

This is a great political prisoner magazine for all you who think the working class must be pure - then you can get involved in prisoner support work cos you know it is reliable info... (I doubt whether they'll get off their fat behinds). The Warrior Wind is here;

http://www.socialwar.net/.pdf files/warriorwind3print.pdf


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 29, 2007)

ok yes joined was too much but i know for a fact that john used to hand out stuff for socialist workers party. not sure if its the same. well, obviously its not. but i know he was involved in some form of politics as my mum told me and she was married to him.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> This is a great political prisoner magazine for all you who think the working class must be pure - then you can get involved in prisoner support work cos you know it is reliable info... (I doubt whether they'll get off their fat behinds). The Warrior Wind is here;
> 
> http://www.socialwar.net/.pdf files/warriorwind3print.pdf



_"John Bowden has paid a heavy price, not only for a few moments of drunken recklessness (!), but for his integrity, his empathy, and his radicalism"_


----------



## The Black Hand (May 29, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> _"John Bowden has paid a heavy price, not only for a few moments of drunken recklessness (!), but for his integrity, his empathy, and his radicalism"_



I'd love to see you (agricop de boss rse likr) banged up for a year or two - you'd be living with the paedos cos you would request it   I might even give them some drink as well


----------



## Rikbikboo (May 30, 2007)

who the fuck was fruitimix anyways? ide still like to know who was emailing the OP'er


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 8, 2007)

I've just seen a leaflet the ABC put out for a "Hands Off John Bowden! No Vilification of the ABC" demo on 25 March. And where was it held? At the Scottish Parliament! Apparently, the anarchists of the ABC see no inconsistency in denouncing parliament as a "facade" and a "talking shop" but, when it comes to begging a favour from the State, who do they address but members of parliament.
There's another demo today at 12 noon before the head office of the Parole Board in Horseferry Road in London. Once again we'll see "anarchists" begging the State to grant them a favour.


----------



## northernhord (Jun 9, 2007)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want to support a psycho and nutter like John Bowden.
> Sorry to be negative,but anyone who cuts someones head off with a saw and keeps it in a fridge is a nutter.



I wouldnt support him.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 11, 2007)

Rikbikboo said:
			
		

> ok yes joined was too much but i know for a fact that john used to hand out stuff for socialist workers party. not sure if its the same. well, obviously its not. but i know he was involved in some form of politics as my mum told me and she was married to him.



eh? Your ma was married to John Bowden, did she divorce him, did she get severance money?

or have you just lost yer head?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 6, 2007)

There's an revealing discussion going on about this case on Indymedia at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/372570.html?c=on#c175366
Among the things that have emerged there are:
1. His defenders are saying that the person he and the other butchered had a conviction for a sex offence.
2. That when he was first in prison the warders made it clear to the other prisoners what he'd done.
3. That he contacted the Trotskyite Revolutionary Communist Group in 1983 to complain about the treatment he was getting.
Saying that his victim had a sex conviction strikes me as a dangerous defence in view of the claim made at http://www.angelfire.com/ca/serialmurder/JohnBowden.html that "John Bowden was a young man living in Southern London. Along with two alcoholic friends, Bowden harassed many young women. After long months of bothering young women, Bowden moved onto murder."  This claim must be based on something, perhaps even a conviction. His defenders should tell us.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 6, 2007)

TBH I'd let him out to chop up the nit pickers like you


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 6, 2007)

John Bowden writes from HMP Glenochil;  an update on his situation 

20 June 2007 

On the 29th May, less than a week after a demonstration staged outside the Scottish Parliament in protest at my treatment, the administration at Castle Huntly Open Prison, from where I had been transferred at the pretext of having ‘links with a terrorist organisation’, hurriedly held a ‘case management’ meeting to decide on a strategy of neutralising further protests on my behalf and prolonging my time in prison on less obviously vindictive and politically motivated grounds. 

The meeting, held at Glenochil high security prison, where I’m currently being held, was attended by an array of prison service employed social workers, psychologists and governors, and chaired by the Deputy Governor of Castle Huntly Prison, James McKay. No-one at the meeting dissented from the view of McKay that although my stay in maximum security should be prolonged and intended to negatively influence the decision of a Parole Board hearing to consider my release in August, in terms of trying to nullify further protests on my behalf and adverse opinion of the prison system it was no longer expedient to maintain the lie that my removal from an open jail had been as a result of my contact with a ‘terrorist’ group on the outside. The public protestations of the group concerned, Anarchist Black Cross, a perfectly legitimate and non-violent prisoner support group, now rendered the lie untenable. It was therefore considered necessary to fabricate other, less potentially counter-productive justifications for sabotaging my chances of parole and keeping me buried in a maximum security prison. Unfortunately for McKay, who had obviously not anticipated the storm of protest that followed my ghosting from Castle Huntly, he had written a report to accompany my transfer in which he explicitly stated that I was being returned to a maximum security prison pending an investigation into my ‘ongoing contact with an extremist group’. I had been provided with a copy of the report which I then passed on to my lawyer Simon Creighton. 

I was called briefly before the ‘case management’ meeting and informed by McKay that because of suspicions that I had formed an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with a social worker whilst at Castle Huntly the previous year, I would soon be transferred to Perth maximum security prison and required to do a course in ‘personal relationships’ before being allowed to return to an open prison. When I asked why an allegation without evidence had not been investigated and acted on at the time I was confronted by a hostile silence. It was clear that everyone at the meeting, social workers, psychologists, senior prison staff had colluded in supporting and providing legitimacy for what was in reality a blatant stitch-up; a senior psychologist from Perth prison who was also at the meeting agreed that I should be transferred to Perth for a course that in fact did not exist. No prison in the Scottish Prison Service provides any such courses in ‘personal relationships’ and everyone at the meeting must have known that. The real purpose of the meeting of course was to rubber-stamp my continued stay in maximum security conditions to coincide with my parole hearing in August. 

A fortnight after the meeting I was informed by a senior member of staff at Glenochil that because the ‘personal relationship’ course had been a fiction I would remain in high security conditions to be ‘psychologically risk-assessed’ instead. In fact, I had already been ‘risk-assessed’ by a senior forensic psychologist in 2003 and his opinion was that I presented absolutely no danger or risk to the public and should be transferred to an open prison in preparation for complete release. Nothing whatsoever had occurred between that ‘risk-assessment’ in 2003 and my removal from Castle Huntly open jail in April this year to justify either my ghosting back to a maximum security jail or yet another ‘risk assessment’. Nothing that is apart from the rubbish written about Anarchist Black Cross by the reactionary American social worker Matt Stillman. 

There is now little doubt that a suitably compliant prison system hired psychologist will be used to provide yet another pretext to extend my time in prison and shore up with a degree more apparent plausibility the absurd lies of the now discredited Stillman. 

The solidarity shown towards me by supporters on the outside, however, has produced cracks and divisions in the ranks of prison officialdom, and Audrey Park, the Governor of Glenochil, has now broken rank and insisted that the inexorable intensification of protest on my behalf be defused by returning me to an open prison. On the rock of solidarity their wave of repression is being broken and there is now a mood of desperation characterising their attempts to keep the cell door closed on me. In the face of their deceit and inhuman attempts to deny me freedom after 25 years in prison my defiance remains implacable and unyielding, and I will continue to fight their vicious abuse of power as I’ve done for the last quarter of a century. In the words of the Uruguayan poet and writer Eduardo Galeano, “We are as small as the fear we feel, and as big as the enemy we choose”. 


John Bowden 
June 2007 
Friends of John Bowden 
 e-mail: handsoffjohn@reborn.com


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 7, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> John Bowden writes from HMP Glenochil;  an update on his situation
> I was called briefly before the ‘case management’ meeting and informed by McKay that because of suspicions that I had formed an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with a social worker whilst at Castle Huntly the previous year, I would soon be transferred to Perth maximum security prison and required to do a course in ‘personal relationships’ before being allowed to return to an open prison.


I think you've just shot Bowden in the foot. Since presumably the social worker with whom he is supposed to have formed an inappropriate relationship was a woman, there are still suspicions about him "bothering young women".
It looks as if the ABC have chosen the wrong person here to be their flagship prisoner, but instead of dropping him they just keep on digging.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 8, 2007)

Jean-Luc said:
			
		

> I think you've just shot Bowden in the foot. Since presumably the social worker with whom he is supposed to have formed an inappropriate relationship was a woman, there are still suspicions about him "bothering young women".
> It looks as if the ABC have chosen the wrong person here to be their flagship prisoner, but instead of dropping him they just keep on digging.



It is rather the worker who needs a course on professionalism...


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> It is rather the worker who needs a course on professionalism...



Of course it is!  How many years of social-workering and _still_ no head in his fridge!


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 12, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> Of course it is!  How many years of social-workering and _still_ no head in his fridge!



Does every point go over your head. Apparrently so.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 20, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I don't know. I haven't informed myself enough about alternatives to the current penal system to form a decent response to that question.



haven't bothered to read all this thread as it does seem a bit daft.

I know someone who used to be in a Claimants Union group with Denis Nilsen. he was apparently a fairly 'libertarian' type, but surely such selfless work is a tad negated by strangling homeless kids with teadphone cables and chugging ones pipe over their corpses to the doleful strains of Laurie Anderson's 'Oh Superman'.

I'd have thought there is a reasonable argument in that if prison is there to 'protect the public from those who may pose a danger to life' folk who go about chopping folk up while they're still alive and keeping severed heads beside the yoghurts and mayo are not really the sort of people you want leaping about the streets, whether they've read a couple of books by Bakunin or not.

or am i missing something ?


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 20, 2007)

yokerist said:
			
		

> he looks kinda hairy
> http://www.dennisfox.net/



it's Ted Bundy


----------

