What Jackart Actually Said

By invoking those famously ironic words of Mrs Merton the other day 'lets have a heated debate', I rather hoped more light than heat would be generated. Unfortunately it did rather degenerate and I can't help feeling it was a bit of a lost opportunity. Here is what Jackart actually said, and I think if it is read carefully you will see there is rather more to agree on than some have implied:-

The fact is I read your blog because I agree with you about how prisoners are failed by society, and much of criminality is either a result of mental illness or the war on drugs. But most of the rest is facilitated (if not actually caused) by the grotesque incentives of the welfare state.

Too many people who should enjoy mental health support, instead enjoy police attention.

Getting an offender out of the habit of a lifetime requires more than dumping him on the street with £50 odd quid, but ensuring he's unemployable (CRB checks etc...) and investment in the Probation service strikes me as one of the better investments a government can make.

But.

Much of the social work agenda BEFORE people get to gaol, seems designed to foster dependence upon the state, something that becomes near total when they go to gaol.

My point is not that I know what to do about it, or even that you're wrong but you've gone from being constructive and interesting to shrill and bitter and it detracts from, rather than adds to your argument.

Is all.

The Government is dealing with the big picture problem - a decade of Labour overspend due to the inflated tax-bills by bubbly banks. When this easy money dried up, so did the fat years for all state employees. I've seen my other employer (the army) cut to the bone, police numbers cut, the NHS facing real terms cuts and so forth. All of this is necessary because the Labour party spent too much, taxed as much as they could and left no slack when the music stopped.

Some acknowledgement that savings must be made wouldn't go amiss.

I think it would be fair to assume that Jackart doesn't know a great deal about probation, but I do know he's been reading this blog for some time and has previously quoted from it supportively. Educating the public was one of my prime aims in beginning it in the first place. He makes it clear that I've:-

"gone from being constructive and interesting to shrill and bitter and it detracts from, rather than adds to your argument."

I think this observation is entirely understandable because we are engaged in a fight for survival of an entire profession and ethos. We all know that probation is never going to be the same post TR and that's precisely why so many colleagues are throwing in the towel and leaving. We also know that what is being proposed is entirely unworkable and likely to be highly dangerous. Of course in such circumstances voices are going to become a little shrill, but I believe this blog still endeavours to discuss the evidence and debate the issues. 

I disagree completely with those that say the argument with Jackart has been pointless as it is always worth rehearsing why we feel we are right in opposing this whole TR omnishambles and in particular that it has never been solely about self-interest. We have always been as concerned about the effect on clients and the public. I should also mention that we have been accused of becoming a mutual admiration society and of preaching to the converted. 

Finally, Jackart ends by saying:-

"Some acknowledgement that savings must be made wouldn't go amiss." 

Regular readers will be more than aware that I have continually highlighted where savings needed to be made in terms of bureaucracy and in particular tackling bloated Trust Head Offices.

Should the debate have any mileage left in it, I think it would be helpful if it addressed what Jackart says here:-

"Much of the social work agenda BEFORE people get to gaol, seems designed to foster dependence upon the state, something that becomes near total when they go to gaol."