Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits


by Rumbold
17th January, 2011 at 9:31 am    

The above headline is the conclusion I drew from the Daily Mail’s piece on a Travelodge in York which employs three murderers. The Daily Mail has revealed that the Travelodge knowingly employees these women, who have been released from prison. The whole tone of the piece is very negative and critical of the decision. The result of this piece makes it more likely that these women will be fired, as Travelodge will want to avoid the adverse publicity and possible boycotts and protests.

The trio applied for the jobs at the hotel branch in Piccadilly, York, while serving sentences at Askham Grange Prison as part of a scheme to get offenders into jobs soon after they are released.

Apart from executing them all, it is unclear what the Daily Mail would have done differently with these women. I have no idea whether they were guilty or not, or whether their sentences were appropriate. But in the eyes of the law they were deemed fit to be released from prison. Upon release from prison they had three main choices: to commit more crimes, to claim benefits or to find work. I would have thought that the last option would have been the most attractive for the general public, as it means that no more crimes would be committed by this individual and they wouldn’t be living off taxpayers. A job would also help them to reintegrate into society. If people don’t want reintegration, then logically no criminal should ever be released, whatever their crime. The Travelodge’s spokesman’s response was admirable (as is their whole programme with the prison), but I wonder how long it will last:

‘The workers from the rehabilitation programme are constantly assessed and have proven to be dedicated and hard-working individuals.’


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Current affairs






46 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  2. Dom Conlon

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  3. Lauren G

    Oh for fuck's sake. RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  4. Nick Entwistle

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  5. James Webley

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  6. Angie

    @sunny_hundal Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  7. Neill Shenton

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  8. Johnny Howorth

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  9. FoleyIsGood

    RT @sunny_hundal Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  10. TeresaMary

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  11. Claire Fowler

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  12. georgereadings

    RT @sunny_hundal: Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  13. Lisa Riemers

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  14. Kevin Arscott

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  15. Mike Ward

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  16. Ross Baxter

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  17. Shrewmaus

    http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx "The ladies – each of whom is responsible for a killing more sickening than the other." (Eh? How is that possible?)


  18. Emma Rycroft

    RT @shrewmaus: http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx "The ladies – each of whom is responsible for a killing more sickening than the other." (Eh? How is …


  19. Emma Rycroft

    RT @shrewmaus: http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx "The ladies – each of whom is responsible for a killing more sickening than the other." (Eh? How is …


  20. Daniel Morton

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  21. Press Not Sorry

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  22. rodti macleary

    I don't want to dilute the idiocy of this Daily Mail story, but it sounds like a great premise for a sitcom: http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  23. MARY JAGGER

    “@sunny_hundal Blogged: D Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits" Or have crime tattooed on forehead? http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  24. Newtonchaz

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  25. Alan C Francis

    RT @rodti: I don't want to dilute the idiocy of this Daily Mail story, but it sounds like a great premise for a sitcom: http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  26. Kevin Davidson

    RT @rodti: I don't want to dilute the idiocy of this Daily Mail story, but it sounds like a great premise for a sitcom: http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  27. Morag Davidson

    RT @rodti: I don't want to dilute the idiocy of this Daily Mail story, but it sounds like a great premise for a sitcom: http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  28. Elaine McBean-Scully

    RT @rodti: I don't want to dilute the idiocy of this Daily Mail story, but it sounds like a great premise for a sitcom: http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx


  29. Jacob Richardson

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Daily Mail thinks criminals should reoffend or claim benefits http://bit.ly/hQY5Sx




  1. cjcjc — on 17th January, 2011 at 9:37 am  

    This is an admirable program.

    But they’re not exactly petty criminals!

  2. Rumbold — on 17th January, 2011 at 9:40 am  

    Cjcjc:

    I am glad that you apporve of the Travelodge’s initative. No they are not petty criminals, but surely all criminals need such a chance (with the usual caveats about sex offenders in vulnerable positions, etc.).

  3. Nadeem — on 17th January, 2011 at 10:30 am  

    hmmm, slightly misleading. Nowhere in the article do the Daily Mail suggest executing the three women, as you have claimed. I think you are guilty of your own brand of shrieking here, Rumbold.

  4. Rumbold — on 17th January, 2011 at 10:35 am  

    Nadeem:

    Given the Daily Mail makes no suggestions what they should be doing instead, and they have in the past been supportive of the death penalty, one can only assume what they would like to do with them…

  5. Liz Church — on 17th January, 2011 at 11:17 am  

    I’m not sure about this, but I thought that a person’s criminal records was protected by the Data Protection Act. Why then, have the Mail decided to publish the names of these three? Did they seek this information “recklessly”? If so, it may be guilty of an offence itself.

  6. Nadeem — on 17th January, 2011 at 11:36 am  

    One favoured foaming of the Daily Mail is “life should mean life.” My problem with your piece is that your assumption that the DM are hell-bent on killing people is a bit of a stretch, they’d probably prefer people locked up forever.

    There is every possibility I am wrong though.

  7. cjcjc — on 17th January, 2011 at 11:37 am  

    “I thought that a person’s criminal records was protected by the Data Protection Act”

    Can that be the case when the trial, verdict, sentence etc. would be a matter of public record?

    However I am coming down more on the side of the hotel.

    I might not have released them.
    On the other hand, having been released, they deserve every chance.

  8. Roger — on 17th January, 2011 at 11:40 am  

    “But they’re not exactly petty criminals!”

    Murderers are much less likely to reoffend than petty criminals and are less likely to commit other crimes. If they are notinthe specific situations whichled to their crimes they are much less likely to repeat them than- say= petty thieves or drug dealers.

  9. Rumbold — on 17th January, 2011 at 12:01 pm  

    It would be interesting to know the legal status of this- I am sure it must be allowed: newspapers have teams of lawyers.

    Nadeem:

    It was a throwaway comment in the main article, because the Daily Mail didn’t suggest any alternative. I think the ‘life should mean life’ comment does not reflect a distate of the death penalty but rather the recognition that the death penalty is not coming back any time soon, so the focus is on extending setences.

  10. cjcjc — on 17th January, 2011 at 12:11 pm  

    “Murderers are much less likely to reoffend than petty criminals”

    Though it’s rather serious when they do, isn’t it?

    “Nearly 30 convicted killers released from jail over the past 10 years have gone on to kill again, according to Home Office figures released yesterday.

    Twenty-five of them were convicted in courts for the second homicide — including 21 murders. A further four suspects in second homicide cases who had previous convictions died or committed suicide before they could be brought to justice.

    The figures, from 1995 to last year, include seven double murderers, suggesting that all or most of the seven claimed a second victim while on licence after being freed from a mandatory life sentence for the previous murder. An eighth convicted murderer went on to commit manslaughter.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540632/Convicted-murderers-who-were-set-free-to-kill.html

  11. Nadeem — on 17th January, 2011 at 12:16 pm  

    Rumbold:

    I don’t read your stuff for throwaway comments/ unproven assumptions. I read Sunny’s posts for that.

  12. Cynical/Realist? — on 17th January, 2011 at 12:35 pm  

    Kudos to Travelodge for helping such a policy. Discrimination against ex-offenders is a serious issue in employment. It stops people being able to move on from their crimes, and generates re-offending, which is bad for everyone. There are vast swathes of popular opinion that proclaim an interest in justice, but who instead simply want a system of vengance on those committing crimes.

    Of course we need to make sure there is an effective and strong justice system, punishing those who commit crimes. But once you’ve done your time you need to be allowed to reintegrate into society. If society pushes people away, what options are they left with?

    Preaching to the converted here I’m sure.

  13. Refresh — on 17th January, 2011 at 1:34 pm  

    Well done Travelodge.

    Rumbold, I am not sure it was a throwaway comment. I know its your comment and usually you would know. But not in this case.

    Nadeem, I am pretty sure the Daily Mail are supporters of the death penalty, so you would not be shreiking if you presumed the Mail would have preferred them dead.

  14. Rumbold — on 17th January, 2011 at 1:36 pm  

    I don’t read your stuff for throwaway comments/ unproven assumptions. I read Sunny’s posts for that.

    Heh Nadeem.

    Refresh:

    I meant throwaway in the sense that the Daily Mail didn’t say it explicitly, but, as you say, judging by their past record it is not a leap of faith to assume such a stance.

  15. Brownie — on 17th January, 2011 at 2:57 pm  

    As a guest, I shouldn’t worry about convicted murderers working at Travelodges. After a night at a Travelodge you’ll probably want to kill yourself anyway.

  16. Kismet Hardy — on 17th January, 2011 at 2:57 pm  

    I think people are mistaking murderer for serial killer or criminally insane. A paedo or rapist will most likely re-offend, in the same way there’s always a danger a recovering alcy, junkie or smoker could always start again, but murder is generally a specific crime surrounding a specific set of circumstances. I don’t think ‘once a murderer always a murderer’ is a saying with much value to it

  17. damon — on 17th January, 2011 at 3:23 pm  

    There was a bit of consternation in Belfast in the summer, when a worker at an Asda supermarket was found to have been convicted of a particularly foul sectarian double murder.

    An Asda employee at the centre of a row over The Sash is a double UVF killer who murdered two Catholic brothers more than 30 years ago.

    William Hunter was reinstated to his job as a checkout operator at the company’s north Belfast store yesterday, days after being sacked for telling a driver to play the loyalist song.

    His dismissal sparked four days of protests outside the store on the Shore Road, with supporters claiming he was “the salt of the earth” and “an asset to Asda”.

    But it has been revealed that Hunter carried out one of the most brutal attacks of the Troubles, when he murdered John and Thomas McErlane after luring them to a flat in Mount Vernon.

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/asda-worker-shot-catholic-brothers-in-the-head-14882346.html

    His sacking had been about some alleged ”quip” he made about playing ”the Sash” on the radio, but some people didn’t want people like that to be working in their local supermarket. Particularly local catholics, who suffered at the hands of the local loyalist death squads, of which this guy was a member of in the past, and still has the tattoos on his arms showing his allegiance, (which he kept covered at work).

    Hmmmm. Wasn’t sure about that one.

    The bit that some people found most unforgivable about this guy, was that he had worked with the brothers, and had spent months trying to win their confidence and get them to come to his house for a game of cards.
    When they did, they were set up and killed.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.