John Podmore, author of Out of Sight Out of Mind, responds to a review of his book, which shows just how important discussion of prisons policy is.
Following the publication of my book Out of Sight Out of Mind I was approached by Unlock: The National Association of Reformed Offenders with a view to them commissioning a review. That review, by Andrew Henley, subsequently appeared in their in-house magazine.
I was grateful for a positive and constructive review of my work. But Andrew prefaced his comments with the phrase that the book was ‘sadly, very unlikely to influence debate or wider public opinion beyond the scope of those who have already taken an interest in our failing criminal justice system.’
The title of the book was intended to suggest why I wrote it. Prisons remain in the public consciousness only for short periods; usually following an escape, a death or any serious incident. They then drift out again. Being largely out of the public gaze they are soon forgotten about again until the next catastrophe.
Whilst I was obviously keen that my contemporaries in and around the prison service would read it I was, and remain still, hopeful that the book will be read by those who have little or no knowledge of prison. I am saying to them particularly that prisons are run in THEIR name, supposedly for their benefit and ultimately to protect them. I provide, in the book, my views and some of my experiences and I reflect the experiences of others, from prisoners themselves to the many charitable bodies working tirelessly and unpaid.
There are other views and experiences, especially from ex-prisoners, from whom there are many valuable contributions. I know of only one other book by a former prison Governor some 10 years ago. Our views are rarely heard or sought. Their public pronouncement is not sanctioned. I believe such views have a value even if disagreed with and I have tried to express them in such a way that those who have previously not taken an interest might be encouraged to do so, and might even go beyond mere interest to the questioning of their representatives in Government. At a time when the cost and effectiveness of public services is regularly being discussed, then why not properly interrogate the large and very expensive public service that is the prison service? I agree with the implication of Andrew’s comment that the debate is restricted to too few. This is an attempt to take it further. It needs to be.
Feedback to date initially supports Andrew’s contention. I am beginning to get letters from prisoners for whom purchase of the book is difficult and writing to me a logistical puzzle with the communications restrictions prisoners endure. Prison practitioners and those bodies spoken about in the book are responding too. They are all positive (apart from the Amazon reviewer who saw the book as the ‘usual old diatribe) but more encouragingly they are reflecting some of the questions I ask. In essence I have said the unsayable, that ‘the Emperor has no clothes’. People are beginning to say, ‘look the Emperor is naked’.
For the general public, the majority do not know there is an Emperor, let alone what he is or is not wearing. It is incumbent on all of us involved in and who care about prisons to inform those that are not involved and do not know what is going on. We have all been guilty of a degree of self-indulgence by keeping the debate primarily in house. The debate must be ‘out there’. I want my book to be part of a process of education of the wider public and that can be done by its widest possible promulgation. In that I risk accusations of self-aggrandisement. I simply say to that, let’s hear from more prison governors. Let’s have the naked truth.