Campaign commentary archive
The Prison and Probation Ombudsman gets a new name.
Complaint routes and remedy
The complaint route Kevan is criticising
The one thing the PPO has always been effective at doing has been providing window dressing for the MoJ to hide behind; if things were really that bad would those responsible actually want a complaints system (?), is a powerful argument. This ignores the increased control which the complaints process has created, and cost efficiency this brings when compared to the expense incurred following alternative responses by prisoners suffering abuses.
Realising the potential of the PPO, the internal three-stage complaints process was cut down to two-stages by the MoJ, eliminating the involvement of the governor absolutely, thereby cutting costs further while focusing the animosity of the prisoners outside of the prison at a faceless bureaucrat. Unsatisfied with this, the greed of those in charge went further by mandating the exhaustion of the internal complaints process by a prisoner before eligibility for their legal aid to challenge any violation would be considered, and access to the courts for any legal remedy made significantly more cumbersome and difficult based solely upon their status as a detained person.
As those appointed to be the Ombudsman and direct its operations began being selected from more and more depraved candidates, its purpose somewhere got lost. Rather than subdue those prisoners who had been wronged by engaging them in a lengthy so-called investigation until their anger had dissipated, the PPO decided it would have zero communication with complainants beyond receiving their initial compliant at all, and instead itself write more and more dismissive responses even routinely rejecting complaints out-of-hand or ignoring them entirely. This includes when discrimination incident reporting forms (DIRF) have been appealed and escalated to the PPO, for example, on one occasion they referred to the Islamic prayer as "shouting". This situation has become so bad that now unless I have a solicitor email my complaint to the PPO, they refuse to acknowledge it even if they sign for its postage receipt, and have been openly discriminatory as well as encouraging of criminal misconduct by prison service employees when answering complaints.
Rebrand and archive conclusion
The preserved conclusion
Much like the 'Police Complaints Commission', 'Independent Police Complaints Commission', 'Independent Office for Police Complaints', or whatever fake title that body goes by these days, the PPO decided that its debased reputation demanded that they be rebranded. The 'Independent Prisoner Complaint Investigations' was born from the demise of the PPO, harnessing all its DNA from the failed and ever worsening PPO, making it inevitable that it will become increasingly lethal to users as its antagonistic trajectory remains.
Whatever name they go by, the result will be the same. This toothless arm of the MoJ will never provide the required redress for any of the violations prisoners suffer on a daily basis, no matter how serious those violations may be or how blatantly they occur. Anyone with the patience to undergo a PPO 'investigation' should never do so intending them to be the sole avenue of solution or resistance, hoping such a corrupt institution will do the right thing is futile. It is essential prisoners do not become disheartened but instead seek alternative means to right the wrongs, defeatism will never end the oppression.
Prisoners are human beings; this is a fact that must be fought for by any means necessary whether that be through complaints, litigation, peaceful protest, disruption, destruction, or violence. Let them pray that there be no need to resort to the latter to establish this truth which must not be allowed to be suppressed by the likes of this rebranded time-wasting clique, who along with their fellow MoJ colleagues desire the concept of dehumanised prisoners to become institutionalised within the minds of all, especially those of the detained.
Kevan's Story
Kev Thakrar As well as suffering from a miscarriage of justice having been convicted under the controversial and discredited legal doctrine of joint enterprise, Kev is one of the 50-men within English prisons to be detained within the Close Supervision Centre (CSC) system under Rule 46 of the Prison Rules 1999. When the Segregation Units disappear people, the CSC is where they end-up.
This is the front-line in the battle against state violence where you must resist or capitulate, and Kev more than any other continues in the Commented [na1]: Semi colons struggle as a champion of the people.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has raised the conditions of his detention with the government, and he has taken a judicial review of the policy of allowing indefinite segregation which enables his ongoing solitary confinement with the judgement for this being well overdue.
Original archive contact details
Please help combat his isolation and help him endure the state inflicted torture by writing to him at:
KEVAN THAKRAR - A4907AE
SEGREGATION UNIT
HMP WHITEMOOR
LONGHILL ROAD
MARCH
CAMBRIDGESHIRE
PE150PR
Additionally, or alternatively, cards can be sent to him via WWW.FUNKYPIDGEON.COM or photos through WWW.FREEPRINTS.COM, and it is also possible to email Kev using WWW.EMAILAPRISONER.COM.
Public support
Messages of support
Show your support for Kevan or comment on this article.
Writings by Kevan
Rebranding the State Tools of Oppression and Concealment
Many years ago, in order to quell physical resistance by prisoners to the degrading and inhumane reality of being incarcerated in England, a complaints process was created supposedly to enable wrongs to be addressed. Those who attempted to utilise this mechanism universally discovered it to be entirely corrupt, with prison officers having another method to provoke and abuse the humans allegedly under their care by writing dismissive and antagonistic responses, rather than it being a professional process.
A so-called independent arbiter was then deemed to be necessary as prisoners were quickly deterred by the replies received from complaining further, and traditional forms of resistance continued. Once a complaint had been submitted, then appealed to a manager, then appealed again but this time to the governor, the complainant could escalate it externally to what was called the 'Prisons and Probation Ombudsman' (PPO).
From its inception, the PPO was predestined to be biased, ineffective, and unscrupulous. Rather than be the independent body it was advertised to be, the PPO was to be entirely funded by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), staffed by former prison service employees, and limited to making only unbinding recommendations to the MoJ/prison service on the rare occasion that they found in the prisoners' favour.