Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 I understand that there's normally only two staff looking after a wing, which in my opinion, is pretty uncomfortable anyway. So reducing it like you said would make it one prison officer per wing? Would you like to re-evaluate your statement? Not really. Close the fucking wings down. There's no point having staff look after a wing if there's no convicts in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 I understand that there's normally only two staff looking after a wing, which in my opinion, is pretty uncomfortable anyway. So reducing it like you said would make it one prison officer per wing? Would you like to re-evaluate your statement? Not really. Close the fucking wings down. There's no point having staff look after a wing if there's no convicts in them. But there is prisoners in them... Would you like to re-evaluate your statement?Why are you swearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Why are you swearing? Because you are a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Why are you swearing? Because you are a moron. People often say offensive things when they know that they're not winning the argument and lo and behold, you've succumbed to offensive words, but you have still to answer my question if you can do so without losing it again. You said "Close the fucking wings down. There's no point having staff look after a wing if there's no convicts in them.* I said "But there are prisoners in them" I could not see staffing levels being reduced further as they're at a point where removing one prison officer would be unsafe. I'm sure there's loads of jobs out there that require two people for safety reasons, but this one is fairly unique, as there's people in there from all sorts of society, that I certainly wouldn't want as a lodger. I do have to correct my comments about the drug / alcohol statistics, as my hubs says that I didn't quite put it the right way and could be seen as misleading and I therefore apologise for that. The statistics that he was on about concern all new prisoners coming into the prison this year with the main majority being alcohol related offences that included other offences linked to drinking and informed me that this did not include those who were already in prison for other offences. I'm also being told to drop the subject about the prison as talking about the prison affects many people for different reasons including victims and there's strict rules against talking about this area. Apparently, even if something is said that is completely wrong, the prison are not allowed to comment about it as it would be a matter for Home Affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 [/bangs head against wall. Several times] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I'm also being told to drop the subject about the prison as talking about the prison affects many people for different reasons including victims and there's strict rules against talking about this area. Apparently, even if something is said that is completely wrong, the prison are not allowed to comment about it as it would be a matter for Home Affairs. What are you waffling about? The statistics I linked are in a publically available report on the prison. Here it is again. Who's asking the prison to comment? Not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Manxy is like the prisons version of Thommo2012 - the uninformed informer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 She must be getting leaned on by Mr Big. You know, in the showers and that..... ; )) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I'm also being told to drop the subject about the prison as talking about the prison affects many people for different reasons including victims and there's strict rules against talking about this area. Apparently, even if something is said that is completely wrong, the prison are not allowed to comment about it as it would be a matter for Home Affairs. What are you waffling about? The statistics I linked are in a publically available report on the prison. Here it is again. Who's asking the prison to comment? Not me. He's not allowed to share any information unless this has gone through Government channels and would be open to dismissal otherwise. A minister could always ask for these statistics but would likely be valueless unless something productive came from it.The Inspectorate was paid for by the Manx tax payer (£40k I think) and invited and authorised by Home Affairs to inspect the prison, They are a service governed by the laws of the UK and although they could suggest things, they do not have the authority to change things over here. I thought the article was about decriminalising drug use, but now it's a PL and Manxy thread instead. Regards to PL - I think I've proved that unless there's no prisoners in a prison, then you need prison officers, which is why this went off on a tangent. With regards to personal innuendos, that's personal information and an improper comment by PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Back on the decriminalising drugs topic,here is some interesting research on hallucinogens( Psilocybin)by the John Hopkins University School of Medicine. http://www.gizmag.com/johns-hopkins-psilocybin-study-finds-optimum-beneficial-dosage/18981/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Regards to PL - I think I've proved that unless there's no prisoners in a prison, then you need prison officers, which is why this went off on a tangent. Ffs, that's the point. Decriminalising recreational drug use will reduce the number of prisoners in a prison. Substantially. Are you just trolling or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Regards to PL - I think I've proved that unless there's no prisoners in a prison, then you need prison officers, which is why this went off on a tangent. Ffs, that's the point. Decriminalising recreational drug use will reduce the number of prisoners in a prison. Substantially. Are you just trolling or what? Ok, lets look at it from the view that you want me to view it at.1/ You're basically saying that virtually every prisoner is charged with drug offences... correct or not? 2/ You also stated that there would be no need to have as many prison officers because there would be hardly anyone in the prison if drug offences were not criminalised. My turn: How many offences of violence, murder, sexual, vehicle, alcohol and other types of offences will be announced this year? If you could answer that, you'd be amazing, but realistically, no-one would be expected to answer that, even if data was readily available. Like it or not, you will still have two prison staff per wing who apparently put up with all-sorts of problems, regardless if they're drug or alcohol related. If anyone considers that the prison staff would need reducing after considering that not every offence is drug related, then there's something wrong with them. Strangely enough PL and even though you've put an unusual twist on things, I don't actually believe that you're foolhardy enough to actually believe that reducing the minimum staff would help the situation and more likely attempting to wind me up. It would seem more credible to acknowledge that there will likely be all types of incidents and happenings that are not the same, which would therefore create many different types of offences. It therefore follows that you couldn't reduce the number of staff on the wings, without neglecting the safety of either the staff or the prisoners. I can see this as it works similarly to my place of work but will you see this or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I seeeeee but I don't imagine that, if they decriminalised drugs people would suddenly start going off raping, murdering, burglarising (didn't think that would be a real word but it is lol) people/things anymore than they do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Bugger me with a barge pole. Why do I bother? ; )) However: Ok, lets look at it from the view that you want me to view it at.1/ You're basically saying that virtually every prisoner is charged with drug offences... correct or not? Incorrect. I'm saying that a large proportion of the prison population is there because of drug offences. About 50% actually. I'm not the only one saying it of course. That report also confirms it. 2/ You also stated that there would be no need to have as many prison officers because there would be hardly anyone in the prison if drug offences were not criminalised. Correctish. The prison poulation would be considerably reduced. By about 50% actually. It stands to reason that this number would require less officers to manage. My turn: How many offences of violence, murder, sexual, vehicle, alcohol and other types of offences will be announced this year? If you could answer that, you'd be amazing, but realistically, no-one would be expected to answer that, even if data was readily available. Like it or not, you will still have two prison staff per wing who apparently put up with all-sorts of problems, regardless if they're drug or alcohol related. If anyone considers that the prison staff would need reducing after considering that not every offence is drug related, then there's something wrong with them. Strangely enough PL and even though you've put an unusual twist on things, I don't actually believe that you're foolhardy enough to actually believe that reducing the minimum staff would help the situation and more likely attempting to wind me up. It would seem more credible to acknowledge that there will likely be all types of incidents and happenings that are not the same, which would therefore create many different types of offences. It therefore follows that you couldn't reduce the number of staff on the wings, without neglecting the safety of either the staff or the prisoners. I can see this as it works similarly to my place of work but will you see this or not? With half the number of prisoners you'd need half the number of wings. And half the number of the groups of two staff to look after them thar you keep referring to. You know, close some redundant wings down. Your argument is basically that drug offenders are useful for keeping an otherwise overspecified prison ticking over while it waits for proper criminals. Which are highly unlikely to ever materialise. You are a mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 With half the number of prisoners you'd need half the number of wings. And half the number of the groups of two staff to look after them thar you keep referring to. You know, close some redundant wings down. Your argument is basically that drug offenders are useful for keeping an otherwise overspecified prison ticking over while it waits for proper criminals. Which are highly unlikely to ever materialise. You are a mental. So you're saying that you would put the sex offenders with the young prisoners and the male prisoners with the female prisoners then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.