Despite all the online coverage, I can’t seem to find a decent explanation of the prisoner-release “scandal”. I may well be wrong, but is the story that some foreign criminals, due to be released from prison anyway, weren’t considered for deportation? Nobody was released early, or without servicing a sentence, right? If so, is that it? Why’s it so important? What’s the difference between releasing foreigners and people who happened to be born in the UK, in practical terms? If the rules weren’t followed properly then, sure, there should be some kind of investigation, but given the uproar you’d think the country was about to slip into anarchy or something. Of course, I could be misunderstanding the whole thing…
-----


-----
No, I don’t think you are misinterpreting anything. That is about the sum of it. I was having the same thoughts myself. If they were UK born prisoners being released it’s not as important for some reason (I wonder why that is?).
Don’t take this is apologia, but if you take the view that a certain proportion of released prisoners will reoffend, having more of them around than there needs to be can only increase the expected incidence of crime. In this country, anyway.
Obviously that’s not the real reason people are angry/the Press say people are angry, which is, basically, distrust of foreigners.
Yeah, that makes sense. Xenophobia was the conclusion I came to as well.
Somebody mentioned that some prisoners were meant to be under supervision, but that’s been missed too? I can’t confirm that, however. I can see how that would be a valid issue, if true.