Our Prisons Are Full. So What On Earth Are We Going to Do About It?

I know this isn't an outdoorsy article, but it is something that could ultimately affect our safety, so I thought it was worth talking about.

In light of the news that PC Harper’s killers will not be released early and that the government has amended the Sentencing Act 2026, this has led to calls for further changes to the new Act.

And I think this raises a much bigger question.

Why are our prisons nearly at maximum capacity in the first place?

Because whether we like it or not, we have reached a point where something has to change.

The prison population in England and Wales is now approaching 86,000, while there are fewer than 82,000 prison places considered safe and decent. And official projections suggest the prison population could pass 100,000 within the next few years.

So how did we get here? Well, there isn't one simple answer.

Over the years, sentences have generally become longer. More people are being sent to prison, and more prisoners are being recalled to custody when they breach the conditions of their release. At the same time, the prison population has continued to grow faster than the prison estate.

And then there is another problem. We quite rightly expect people who commit serious crimes to be punished. If somebody commits murder, rape, serious violence, or another grave offence, most people would expect a substantial prison sentence.

But not every person who enters prison presents the same level of danger to the public. That is where I think we need to have a sensible conversation.

Prison should be for those who really need to be there

One possible solution is to look very carefully at who we actually send to prison. There are offenders who are dangerous and need to be kept away from society. But there are also people who have committed less serious offences who might be better dealt with through community sentences, rehabilitation programmes, unpaid work, electronic monitoring, or other forms of punishment.

That doesn't mean letting people off.

A community sentence can still be demanding, restrictive, and punitive.

The question should be whether putting somebody behind bars is actually the most effective way of protecting the public and reducing the chances of them committing another offence.

What about short prison sentences?

Short prison sentences are another area worth looking at. If somebody is sentenced to a few months in prison, there may be very little time to do anything meaningful with them. They enter prison, go through the system, and before you know it, they are released again. If the objective is rehabilitation, that isn't necessarily very effective.

There is an argument for replacing some short custodial sentences with properly supervised community sentences, combined with rehabilitation, drug and alcohol treatment where appropriate, and strict monitoring.

The punishment would still exist, but the prison place could be used for someone who genuinely needs to be behind bars.

What about foreign prisoners?

Another option is dealing with foreign nationals who are serving prison sentences in Britain. Where the law allows it, some foreign offenders could be repatriated to serve their sentences in their country of origin. The government is already looking at this as one way of creating additional prison capacity. 

But again, this isn't going to solve the entire problem. It can create some additional space, but it doesn't deal with the underlying reason why the prison population keeps increasing.

Build more prisons

Of course, the obvious answer is to build more prisons. And there is nothing wrong with doing that. If we need more prison places, then we should build them. The government has announced additional investment and plans to increase capacity, including bringing forward thousands of extra places. But building prisons takes time and costs an enormous amount of money.

And there is another danger. If we simply keep building more prisons without tackling why the prison population is increasing, we could find ourselves having the same conversation again in ten or twenty years. More prisons alone aren't the answer.

What about prisoners serving indefinite sentences?

There is also the complicated issue of prisoners serving Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences, or IPP sentences. These sentences were abolished for new cases years ago, but some people sentenced under the old system remain caught up in it. The government has said it wants to address the remaining IPP population, although releasing people who may still pose a risk has to be handled very carefully. This is an area where rehabilitation, risk assessment, and proper supervision are absolutely crucial.

And then we come back to early release

This is where the argument becomes particularly difficult.

Early release schemes are not new.

They have been used because the prison system simply hasn't had enough space. But when people hear that somebody convicted of a serious crime could be released earlier than the sentence they expected, understandably, there is public anger. The case of PC Andrew Harper has brought that issue into sharp focus. The government's latest changes mean that his killers, who were convicted of manslaughter, will not benefit from the early release arrangements. The changes also exclude other serious categories of offenders. And I can understand why. If somebody has committed a particularly serious offence, the public needs to have confidence that the punishment handed down by the courts actually means something.

But there is a problem. Every time we remove another category of prisoner from early release, we put further pressure on an already overcrowded prison system. That means the government has to find the space somewhere else. And that is why I don't think this debate can simply be about whether prisoners should be released early. It has to be about the whole prison system.

So what is the answer?

Personally, I think we need a combination of measures.

Keep dangerous offenders in prison for as long as the courts and risk assessments determine is necessary.

Build additional prison capacity.

Speed up the transfer of eligible foreign prisoners to their countries of origin.

Deal properly with the remaining IPP cases.

Reduce the unnecessary use of very short prison sentences where a tough community sentence would be more effective.

Improve rehabilitation inside prisons so that people leaving prison are less likely to return.

And perhaps most importantly, make sure probation actually has the resources to supervise people when they are released.

Because there is little point in putting somebody through a rehabilitation programme in prison and then releasing them into the community with inadequate support and supervision.

We need to stop treating this as an either-or argument

I don't think we have to choose between being tough on crime and trying to reduce prison overcrowding.

We can do both.

People who are dangerous should be kept away from the public.

Victims should come first.

Serious crimes should receive serious punishments.

But prison should not automatically be the answer to every offence.

We need a system that distinguishes between the person who genuinely needs to be locked away from society and the person who can be punished, rehabilitated, and monitored safely in the community. Because if we don't deal with the underlying problem, we will simply continue going round in circles.

More prisoners.

More overcrowding.

More pressure for early release.

More public anger.

Then, another emergency measure to create space.

And eventually, we'll be having exactly the same conversation all over again.

The real challenge for government is therefore not simply finding more prison cells.

It's deciding what prison is actually for, who really needs to be there, and how we make sure that when somebody does leave prison, they are less likely to come back. Because ultimately, the success of a prison system shouldn't simply be measured by how many people we manage to lock up. It should be measured by how effectively we protect the public, punish those who deserve punishment, rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, and prevent people from becoming victims of crime in the first place.

From Wood Green to Kent: The Scottish Boy Who Became a London Boy Who Became a Countryman

Although I’m originally from Scotland, I was actually brought up in North London by my aunt and uncle from the age of five, and the place I knew as home was Wood Green.

Back in the early 1960s, Wood Green was already a pretty lively part of North London. Around 1965, it became part of the new London Borough of Haringey, it was still very much a busy, bustling suburban shopping district. The High Road was packed with shops, cinemas, and department stores and was sometimes described as a sort of mini Oxford Street or even the Golden Mile of North London.

But once you wandered away from the High Road, it was a very different sort of place. There were all those familiar Victorian and Edwardian terraced streets and housing estates, and it had that solid working-class and lower-middle-class suburban feel that I remember so well.

And then, of course, there was Alexandra Park and Palace — or Ally Pally, as we always called it. At around 200 acres, it was enormous to a young lad, and it was basically my playground. I spent an awful lot of my childhood running around there, and it’s probably one of the reasons I’ve always had such a soft spot for open spaces.

I moved away from Wood Green in 1975, down towards the South East London and Kent border, although I continued going back for years. My aunt and my wife’s parents both lived there until they moved away in the mid-1980s, and I’ve still got family in the area, so I do occasionally find myself back in Wood Green.

But, blimey, what a shock that can be.

I know, of course, that everything changes over 60-odd years. You’d expect it to. But when you’ve got childhood memories of somewhere, you somehow expect a little bit of it to have been left behind for you.

And it really hasn’t.

These days, Wood Green is a much more vibrant and multi-ethnic part of London, with independent grocers, restaurants, and food from all over the world lining the High Road. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that; it’s just very different from the Wood Green I remember.

To be honest, I hardly recognise the place anymore. Apart from the tube station and that grand old lady, Ally Pally, even the library opposite the underground station has gone. I could quite easily be dropped there today and wonder where the hell I was!

And I suppose that’s the strange thing about getting older. Places that were once such a huge part of your life can carry on changing long after you’ve left them behind.

I moved further into Kent in 1990 and have lived in the same village since 1994. After all these years, I can safely say I’ve become completely converted to countryside living.

These days, give me a country lane, a bit of woodland, a river or a field, and I’m happy as Larry.

There probably isn’t an ounce of Londoner left in me anymore… apart from the accent, obviously.

Why I Chose to Become a Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian

About a month ago, I made a decision that I had been thinking about for some time. I decided to become a lacto-ovo vegetarian.

For anyone who is not familiar with the term, a lacto-ovo vegetarian is someone who chooses not to eat meat, fish or seafood, but still includes dairy products such as milk, cheese, and yoghurt, as well as eggs, in their diet.

For me, it is a personal choice. I am not making some grand statement about how everyone else should eat, and I certainly have no intention of becoming one of those people who tell others what they should or should not have on their plate.

Everyone has their own reasons for the choices they make, and I respect that.

So why vegetarian?

There are plenty of arguments both for and against vegetarianism, and I think it is important to acknowledge both sides.

One of the biggest arguments in favour is animal welfare. For some people, the thought of eating animals simply becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile with how they feel about animals themselves. That was certainly something I thought about.

There are also environmental arguments. The production of meat, particularly on a large scale, has an environmental impact. Farming uses land and water, and livestock production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Eating more plant-based food can be one way of reducing an individual's environmental footprint.

Then there is the health argument. A well-planned vegetarian diet can include plenty of vegetables, fruit, beans, lentils, pulses, grains, nuts, and seeds. These foods can provide plenty of fibre, vitamins, and minerals. Of course, simply removing meat does not automatically make a diet healthy. You can be vegetarian and still eat an enormous amount of highly processed food, chips, cakes, and other foods that are not exactly nutritional superstars.

That is something I am very conscious of.

There are also perfectly reasonable arguments against vegetarianism. Some people enjoy eating meat and see it as an important part of their diet and culture. Others find vegetarian diets difficult to maintain, particularly when eating out, travelling or trying to feed a family with different preferences.

There are nutritional considerations too. Anyone changing their diet needs to make sure they are getting the nutrients their body requires. Protein, iron, vitamin B12, and omega-3 fatty acids are among the things vegetarians need to consider.

For me, becoming vegetarian is not about believing that one diet is automatically right for everybody. It is about finding something that feels right for me.

Vegetarian or vegan?

This is where things can get a little confusing because vegetarian and vegan are not the same thing.

A vegetarian generally avoids meat, fish, and seafood but may still eat animal products such as dairy and eggs. That is where the term lacto-ovo vegetarian comes from.

A vegan diet goes considerably further. Vegans avoid all animal-derived foods, including meat, fish, seafood, dairy, eggs, and usually other ingredients made from animals.

But veganism is not simply a diet.

For many vegans, it is a lifestyle choice based on avoiding the use and exploitation of animals wherever practical. That can include avoiding products made from leather, wool, fur, and other animal-derived materials, as well as considering cosmetics and household products that involve animal testing or animal-derived ingredients.

That is a much bigger commitment than simply deciding not to eat meat.

Why choose vegan over vegetarian?

There are many reasons why someone might choose to become vegan rather than vegetarian.

For some, it comes down entirely to animal welfare. They may feel that if they have decided not to eat animals, continuing to consume products such as milk and eggs still involves animals being used for human consumption. Becoming vegan, therefore, feels like the more consistent choice.

Others are motivated primarily by environmental concerns. They may believe that removing animal products from their diet has a greater environmental benefit than simply giving up meat and fish.

There are also people who start as vegetarians and gradually move towards veganism. They might initially give up meat, then fish, and eventually dairy and eggs as their understanding of animal agriculture changes.

And then there are people who simply feel more comfortable being vegan.

I can understand all of those reasons, even though I have chosen a different path.

My choice is my choice

I think this is the part that matters most to me.

I have chosen to become a lacto-ovo vegetarian, but that does not mean I think everybody else should do the same.

Food is a very personal subject. People have different cultures, traditions, tastes, budgets, nutritional requirements, and beliefs. What works for one person might not work for another.

I also do not think becoming vegetarian suddenly makes someone a better person. It is simply a choice I have made for myself.

Likewise, I have no issue with someone choosing to eat meat. I am not interested in judging what somebody else has for dinner.

There is enough arguing in the world without turning the dinner table into another battleground.

A month into my new life

It has only been about a month, so I am still finding my feet.

There have been some adjustments. Foods that I previously took for granted now require a little more thought, particularly when eating out or deciding what to cook.

At the same time, it has encouraged me to experiment with food. There are plenty of vegetarian meals that I had probably overlooked in the past, and discovering different combinations of vegetables, eggs, cheese, beans, lentils, and other ingredients has been interesting.

I am not claiming that I have suddenly become some sort of expert vegetarian. Far from it.

I am simply trying something different and seeing how it works for me.

Perhaps that is the most important thing about making changes in life. We do not always have to have all the answers before we start.

No judgement here

There are plenty of heated arguments surrounding vegetarianism and veganism.

Some people argue that everybody should give up meat. Others argue that vegetarianism is unnecessary. Some believe veganism is the only morally consistent option, while others see it as an extreme lifestyle choice.

Personally, I have no interest in telling other people what they should believe.

I have made my choice because, at this point in my life, it feels like the right choice for me.

Someone else may make a completely different choice, and that is fine.

At the end of the day, what we eat is just one part of who we are. I would much rather have a sensible conversation about our differences than start an argument over what is sitting on somebody else's plate.

So, for now, I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian.

It is my choice, it suits me, and I am going to see where the journey takes me.

I have published 132 articles in two years

Yesterday, I checked the stats for my recent article, Nature Is in Crisis, But Why? on my David Wilson Out and About blog, and I was pleasantly surprised by how many views it has had so far.

What surprised me even more, though, was realising that I’ve now published 132 articles over the past two years. When I think about it, there’s been such a mixture of subjects along the way, and I suppose that reflects the different things I’ve experienced, thought about, and become interested in during that time.

I actually started writing during a particularly bad osteoarthritis flare-up, when I was stuck at home for several weeks. With not much else to do, I found myself looking back over my life and thinking about where I’d been, where I was going, and what really mattered to me.

Writing about my experiences, my thoughts on the past, and my hopes and concerns for the future has become a bit like therapy for me. It gives me somewhere to put my thoughts, and it helps me through those darker patches when my osteoarthritis and back problems stop me from doing the things I enjoy.

It’s also made me realise just how precious life really is. And if, somewhere along the way, something I’ve written has helped someone else who might be going through a difficult or confusing time, or perhaps struggling to come to terms with something in their past or present, then that makes all those hours spent writing worthwhile.

I never really set out to write 132 articles. Of course, it all started with one.

I started writing because I needed somewhere to put my thoughts. 132 might sound like a lot, but for me, writing is simply something I enjoy. I find it relaxing to sit down in the evenings, put some music on, and jot down my thoughts or turn them into an article.

So, two years later, I’m still doing it. I suppose that says something in itself.