I am suggesting all people sentenced and in gaol (culpable drivers excepted) are a social danger of some sort, since if they were not they would be on a community based sentence or some other punishment which was cheaper for the state to administer.

Your point, re-remand prisoners – different regimes apply to remand prisoners versus sentenced prisoners.

“Veracity of claims indeed”? – what is your point – or are you quoting me because you like the words?

Col's response is consistent with his previous posts that identify him as someone with a vested interest in incarcerating as many people as possible, not to mention his more ideological rants that verge on fascism.

He conveniently ignores the fact that a large proportion of prisoners are fine defaulters, i.e. people who were given non-custodial sentences but have not paid their fines. Clearly, these people were not considered to be dangerous to others by the courts, but have been imprisoned for economic reasons.

The other major category of people whom he loves to imprison are those who have broken stupid drug laws that don't work on any criteria, and who are only a danger to themselves, if anything.

If we removed the fine defaulters and drug offenders from our prisons, then I daresay the demand for Col's 'services' to prison management in this country would decrease. Perhaps he could then apply for a job at Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Ghraib, where I'm sure he'd find himself in the company of like-minded people.

Yes I do like the words and particularly because they demonstrate that I was having great difficulty believing all of your claims. My point is Col, in this thread you speak from a position of authority and some of the language in your previous posts reinforces widely held and grossly inaccurate community perceptions of all prisoners as dangerous, unremorseful barbarians.

I regard your responses of particular importance in this discussion as many will interpret the situation in prisons through the perspective that you alone have to offer.

On another occasion you might wish to discuss with me the issue of unnecessary incarceration canvassed by garra or perhaps even ‘social danger’ but in the meantime, have you any views on Mentoring and restorative justice

Col, you are certainly entitled to your views but I think you may have missed the point of my article. Are you suggesting prison deaths should continue to be covered up by prison authorities and allowed to continue unabated? You are critical of prisoners per se but I might remind you that 22-year-old Scott Topping was serving time for $1200 in unpaid fines and had 3 weeks left to serve when he was raped and murdered. Linda Jane Baker was doing time for driving without a licence when she died. Are you suggesting those two prisoners were too dangerous to mix in society? As for giving credence to the convicted I think it is the published facts that should be considered before aspersions are cast upon the writer. You suggest prison custodial and inspectorate staff have impeccable records for honesty with fewer blemishes and more credibility than that of ex-bank robbers etc etc. The 1971 Inquiry into the Victorian prison, the 1977-78 Nagle Royal Commission into the NSW prison system and the Kennedy Report into the Queensland prison system would not agree with your assertions. And those Inquiries included thousands of pages of sworn testimony as opposed to personal views expressed in debate. Might I suggest you read them some time. In March 1978 I gave sworn tesimony to the Nagle Royal Commission about the NSW prison system. At that time I was classified as an intractable prisoner confined inside the Katingal Special Security Unit but His Honour never doubted the veracity of my evidence nor was my credibility attacked. I cannnot say the same for the then Commissioner of Corrective Services, Wal McGeechan, or his subordinates who were scathingly criticised. McGeechan was sacked as a result of the Royal Commission. Credibility comes in many shapes and forms Col. There are credible prisoners and ex-prisoners just as there are discredited prison officials.

On the subject of credibility Col I thought you might like to ponder these facts: In 1985 the acting Superintendent of Parklea prison (the then most secure maximum security prison in the southern hemisphere) was arrested with his subordinate and charged and convicted for supplying heroin to the prisoners he was entrusted to guard. A senior doctor in charge of the NSW Prison Medical Service was convicted of supplying drugs to prisoners in return for homosexual trysts in his office at Long Bay. A senior Victorian prison guard, Heather Parker, supplied explosives to Peter Gibb and Archie Butterly so they could blow their way out prison. She then assisted in their escape and was recaptured with Gibb after a shootout with police.In Queensland another prison Superintendent was sacked for stealing and supplying drugs. Two senior prison guards at a privately run Queensland prison were convicted of fraud. A Queensland prison psychologist implemented a sex offenders program in prison and then proceeded to harvest the crop of prisoners for his own sexual gratification. He too was convicted. In 1994 prison officials at SDL CC refused protection to David Smith and then let other prisoners know of his intentions. He was murdered within hours but one of the prison officials who denied Smith protection has since been promoted to a senior role within the Qld system. If a similar situation occurred outside prison the official charge would be 'Conspiracy to murder' or 'Accessory before the fact fact to murder'. In another case Qld prison authorities arranged parole for a prisoner after he agreed to become an informer but as soon as he was released he went on a serial rape spree covering two States.One wonders if prison officials in that case would be guilty of 'accessory after the fact' to the rapes he committed because they let him out? Most of these stories never appear in mainstream media simply because they are/were politically sensitive and prison authorities maintain media clampdowns for that purpose. I think credibility should be based on substantiated facts don't you Col? If nothing else, society deserves that.

Col Rouge wouldn't last a week in SDL with his attitude,lucky for him they put the dozers through the sh--hole.On the downside CC transferred a lot of the screws to Woodford.Bernie Matthews is a man who has been through the system from early age and emerged a better person by his own efforts not because of government policy or prison authorities.Bernies papers should be read by these so called experts then something might be done.By the way Col got any idea how much the new gaols at Gatton and Townsville are going to cost the taxpayer that money would be better spent on rehab. programs. Keep up the good work Bernie