Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you thought about the costs surrounding this work? Supervision of
prisoners etc? That's likely to cost more than their work brings in.


The answer is simple: those on benefits who commit crimes get their
benefits withdrawn and they are then only eligible for whatever scheme
like the above is deemed socially useful. If they fail to turn up then
they don't get any money at all.

Does anyone in prison still get benefits? I somehow doubt it.


their dependents do.

BUT that wasn't my point.

My point was to NOT give them free board and lodging at public expense
which costs a lot more than benefits, but to make them dependent on
actually doing **** work to get any money at all.



If they aren't on benefits they get a hefty fine redeemable if they DO
turn up to work on public service schemes.

I assume warders would be taking them there and supervising them.

This doesn't cater for the violent criminal, but for sure its a
replacement for the 'been busted with a kilo of grass again' sort.

Mind you, arguably they shouldnt be there at all anyway :-)

Quite. The idea of a prisoner being able to 'pay for his keep' is most
unlikely.


??? I don't follow your logic..