In England, the prisoner has no right of access to his/her files to see if a decision has been based on correct information, while in Sweden and Denmark, prisoners do have such access. Unlike England's draconian rules on censorship of correspondence, Sweden and Denmark have liberal censorship rules, and prisoners have little difficulty in making their views known outside the prison or in pursuing their grievances. All three systems allow a prisoner to make a complaint to a higher administrative official, although there are variations in the appeals apparatus of the three countries. The setting up of inmate councils to provide redress is permitted, with limitations in Sweden and Denmark, but such councils have not been established in England. While English prisons have a board of visitors which is supposed to serve as an independent check on and reviewing agency of prison authorities, these boards do not seem to deal effectively with complaints. A prison board system has been proposed to replace the present supervision boards in Sweden, but the proposal has not been enthusiastically received. The prime legal, external complaint mechanism for challenging discretion is a court action, but courts in the three countries have been reluctant to undertake the task when a prisoner asks. While all three countries have ombudsmen, in most instances they do not provide the prisoner an apt remedy for his/her complaints. Thus, while all three countries provide internal and external mechanisms for redress, these often are ineffective, and there has been a reluctance of external bodies, such as the courts, to grant redress.