Thursday, 25 November 2010
Although I am on leave and enjoying a much earned rest, I can't resist just saying something about the recent review of the Jon Venables case. According to the Guardian, the supervising probation officer 'has been cleared' of any lapses in supervision, but in the words of Ken Clarke there were:- "a number of potential opportunities that might have opened up had circumstances been different and that might have made the further offences less likely." Now what on earth does that mean? I think it means that unless Venables was subject to 24/7 supervision there was no way of knowing what he was up to. But to me it confirms once again that should you have the misfortune to supervise someone who offends seriously, no matter how diligent you've been, there will be a suspicion that in some way it's still your fault.