Jump to content

Britain’s Best Little Prison


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, yootalkin2me said:

Craig, I knew of you back in the day (early 90's rave scene), you were a very violent person back then and continued to be for some time. This hsppens to some people for a whole host of reasons, I'm sure that you do want to change the firection of your life, and I believe you have. You've done your penance and are now doing the right thing by seeking stability. I know that people can, and do, change, I've witnessed it many times and have done so myself. I say good luck to you and I sincerely hope you continue on a good path as I know that doing the right thing makes a person feel good inside....well done Craig and all the best.

We all make mistakes and why he or others did what they did, then I'm not qualified to say but if the comments on here are a true reflection of society, then I'd say that he has a few points to make and as people know about his background, then I see some weak people on here. Our so called members of society have influenced his reactions and caused him to be angry and IMO, shown their insensitivity to a person rejoining what should have been to a good positive society? Hells bells guys, you've dropped to low standards and yes you can say that he shouldn't of responded the way he did, but neither should others who deliberately goaded him to do it and helped him to likely be banned. 

As for comments on here regards paedo's, then who knows if your favourite person who responds with a like or laughter at your comments might actually be one of those? 

I too wish him and others leaving prison a better non offending future and hope that they've turned a corner and become a normal member of society

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Prison certainly works for this guy doesn't it. Chronic recidivism is learnt behaviour for him and prison is almost a reward like giving a monkey a banana. Every time he loses he probably thinks he's

You have a pretty high opinion of yourself for an idiot.  No employer is going to give him any sort of chance for no other reason than he’s a complete dickhead. 

Posted Images

11 hours ago, manxy said:

Typical standard format - Everyone targets him and he responds accordingly. No prizes for guessing who will win the war of words as one against many rarely wins, especially when the majority are hidden behind fictitious usernames and doubt if any who slated him off would openly tell him who they are in real life? 

You’re right as he would probably beat living shit out of them. And by the way you’re hiding behind an anonymous account too. This thread is garbage. Largely due to your various feeble contributions. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

You’re right as he would probably beat living shit out of them. And by the way you’re hiding behind an anonymous account too. This thread is garbage. Largely due to your various feeble contributions. 

He’d only beat the living shit out of them if

a) they were significantly smaller than him

b) As per his normal attack mode - sneak up behind and attack you

other than that he is just your typical every day bully

Link to post
Share on other sites

People who have committed awful, evil and violent crimes, and are involved with a life of illegal drugs are considered the lowest of the low.

But they themselves don't and consider they have just occasionally erred. Made bad decisions (don't all criminals who get found out. They can always believe there is even lower than themselves. Yes, even lower if that can be possible. Enter the ever-reliable excuse of paedo,  nonce and dealer of heroin to children. Those categories are scattered around liberally and directed at anyone who dares to question low-life.

It's a tactic used by the bully, from the school yard through life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

You’re right as he would probably beat living shit out of them. And by the way you’re hiding behind an anonymous account too. This thread is garbage. Largely due to your various feeble contributions. 

Not bothered - You've said your piece looking for a bite and I'm not biting

Move on

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, gettafa said:

I wonder how Bob McColm, Governor of the Isle of Man Prison, is getting on with his pledge from 2017 to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system?

How would he have the power to do that?  He's running the prison, not directing policy on crime, punishment and victim support. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, woolley said:

I saw the headline on the Examiner this week said that we can't "pull" the programme. Don't see any point in doing so in any case. 

That was just about the reply to one of Moorhouse's more ridiculous questions:

Quote

 

Whether the Isle of Man Government can prevent future episodes of the Isle of Man Prison documentary from being aired?

The Isle of Man Government has no editorial control over the ITV documentary. The decision to air the programmes is a matter for ITV. The Department of Home Affairs has, however, worked with the Producers throughout the development of the series to ensure that inaccuracies or other issues are addressed.

It is unlikely that the Isle of Man Government would be able to prevent future episodes from being broadcast nor is there a wish or need to prevent such airing.

 

Though they must have asked separately as, to get it in the Examiner, they would have needed to know in advance before WQ answers were published.  Of course they would never had had the power and in any case pulling the programme would make things look worse than broadcasting it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I listed the replies to Moorhouse from the CM before on this thread and the 'Nuffink to do with us Gov' response from DfE elsewhere, but it's worth listing what some of the various response from DHA were (question no in [ ]):

Quote

[84] The Prison Governor met with the Executive Producers and a ‘taster’ video was filmed. It was agreed that were such a programme to be made, it should focus on rehabilitation and be broadcast pre-watershed. The ‘taster’ video was shared with the Department and progress to filming was approved. Discussions in the Department continued throughout the filming of the series and in the lead up to broadcasting.

[85] The Prison Governor met regularly with the Executive Producers throughout the filming and post production and kept the Department informed of developments and progress.

[86] The Prison Governor and a number of his Senior Managers viewed the rough cuts and the Minister was shown three episodes as was the Chief Executive. Even though there was no direct editorial control a number of factual amendments were made and several other amendments regarding aspects the Prison Governor was not comfortable with.

[87] No prisoners or staff received financial benefit as a result of the documentary therefore no legal advice was necessary or financial agreements signed.

[90] The Department and the Cabinet Office Communications team agreed a press release with ITV which was distributed to local and UK media outlets, but embargoed from all press releases, commercial publication or syndication until Tuesday, 23 July. However it is believed the embargo was breached online by the release by ITV in error on its Press Centre site. The promotion by ITV is therefore considered to have commenced on the date of the breach which it is believed was on the 17th July 2019.

[91] The episodes were carefully scrutinised from a security perspective. No procedures were breached so no further action was necessary.

Obviously most of this anyone sensible could have guessed, but it's interesting how much control and cooperation they did have.  As Derek said the TV production companies don't want to get a reputation for distorting what happens, because they know that it will put other people off from working with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, woolley said:

I saw the headline on the Examiner this week said that we can't "pull" the programme. Don't see any point in doing so in any case. 

If the IOM newspapers had any half decent investigative journalists, they would have been asking these questions long before the programme aired. They excel in retrospective journalism

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...