The aim of all this is to develop themes and refresh my thinking in preparation for a larger mixed-methods study on parole.

Further details + links to the paper available at the link above.

Themes identified in the interviews included temporal disruption, procedural expectations, and performativity. The paper highlights tensions between the system's risk assessment focus and some participants' expectations of a broader moral evaluation.

I re-examined some of my PhD interviews, thinking about the parole decision as some of my participants saw it: not as the product of a discrete decision-making event (the oral hearing) but of a longer administrative process, in which the sediment of past assessments and reports shape outcomes.

If this situation concerns you too, then please do the same. There are some resources linked from this page, if you would like to use your voice in solidarity with us:

www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-eve...

I feel compelled to use my voice to defend their (our, my) rights, which are under threat, and have written to my MP opposing the further expansion of the police's powers to suppress political activism.

A small number of Friends from the meeting, and more from other meetings around the country, have spent time in prison in connection with their exercise of the right to protest.

As Caroline's letter points out, this raid was part of a wider suppression of the right to peaceful protest. It threatens many groups more vulnerable than Quakers, but came to our home because we support and shelter those who act in sympathy with our principles.

Wood anemones!

Fairly safe to say, I'd think, that it's usually clear the measures don't capture all the harms.

"the vice of shallowness" is brilliant

What's the source for this, Jason? I remember reading De Profundis once, but don't remember this…

remarks to follow the subtleties I've mentioned. But that doesn't mean it's asking too much.

Yes, that's fair enough. Sentencing remarks both express censure and are used by prisons as a succinct record of the facts, to be used in risk assessment etc. In that context it's probably asking a lot of reporters who don't have courts as a regular beat and might not know how to interpret the

for allocating what was a historically severe punishment have to be made public. The reason it was mentioned was that his barrister asked for it to be taken into consideration, and it was. The tone of the reporting is often sensationalist but the reports accurately represent the proceedings.

This wasn't about making insinuations about other autistic people, but about accurately and publicly putting info into the public domain about the context for a crime that was just about as serious as they get, after misinformation about it had led to nationwide rioting. The sentence and the reasons

Disagree. It's important for the sentencing hearing to consider evidence of any mitigating factors which might affect the appropriate sentence. Autism is one such factor and the judge indicated that it was taken into account as mitigation, albeit that it didn't lessen his responsibility by much.

Thanks - looking forward to reading it

Source? And how is 'seriousness' measured here?