Good to have a court 'special' can we have a 'strike special' listing all of the reasons given as to why 'they' couldnt possibly support NAPO at the time of our greatest need?
Current classics..'I cant afford it' in the same breath as explaining how much spent on a night out or ' Its a done deal' or ' there hasn't been a ballot' or 'NAPO didnt support me 10 years ago' or ' What's the point'....its incredible that intelligent people are not aware that our current Ts & Cs are a result of collective bargaining by NAPO and not the largesse of the trusts.....time to fight or get out of the union.....clue's in the title....
Well, lets kick this off with the latest from Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence, unprecedentedly published yesterday on NapoNews online. They really have got the hang of this malarkey down there at Chivalry Road:-
Napo members have been asked to take part in strike action once again, this time over 31st March and 1st April as we seek to show the public what Chris Grayling is letting them in for as he tries to implement his TR plans with unparalleled haste.
The Government, aided by their army of civil servants in NOMS and the MoJ, have done everything (by way of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill debate and the woeful performance of their officials before the Public Accounts Committee), to ratchet up the tension that already exists between us. The blatant lies in Parliament and the ‘spin’ about the trade unions and their so called ‘agreement’ to the probation reforms are another desperate attempt to deflect the universal criticism that has followed these reckless and ideologically driven plans..
I have of course written to the Secretary of State to seek to raise this and a number of other issues in person, and if that happens I will report further; but I am not expecting a reply any time soon.
Our plight is not dissimilar to that being suffered by members of the Justice Alliance and their members working under the auspices of the Criminal Bar Association, who have already vented their anger by way of two recent days of withdrawal of services (strike action) against the equally ideologically inspired plans to decimate the ancient right to fair representation and throw their members onto the scrapheap at the same time.
It’s why Napo and the Justice Alliance have been working together to explore how we can co-ordinate action and why that is going to happen on the 1 April. The Napo campaign bulletin has reminded members of the fact that it is the day of Mr Grayling’s birthday and we hope to mark the occasion in style as we make plans for a central London rally accompanied by his larger than life and altogether more entertaining effigy.
cont...........
If there were another way to fight back we would have pressed that button a long time ago. Those who say ‘too little too late’ or ‘why are we not coming out for a week or two’ are asked to appreciate that we have to judge the capacity and ability of our members to take a massive financial hit in the form of a protracted strike and we have had to make our decisions based on what is possible and what is deliverable. As Tom Rendon and I have consistently said, we also continue to explore the possibilities for judicial review but the last Labour government’s flawed legislation helped Grayling no end in the form of the Offender Management Act 2007. However we continue to explore this and other options, including the risk element that we have asked our Branch activists to press again with your Trusts, but all these potential options will not come cheap and you will not thank me for committing to a particular course until we have a reasonable prospect of success.
Going on strike is tough, but so is privatisation; which is not just about who does what and who pays, but how the bosses can divide the workforce, destroy the trade unions and impose what would eventually result in suppression of a workforce comprised of decent and dedicated people who stand stand up for our. You know that you could do so much more if the politicians would let you, but they won’t. You know that you could revolutionise rehabilitation in a way that even Grayling would think incredible by having just a fraction of the resources that he intends to blow on his grandiose social experiment, but he doesn’t want to give you that chance. He and his like see you as an expensive commodity that is resistant to change, a barrier to progress and a group who they hope will be eventually ground down and no longer worried about who employs them or their terms and conditions.
The only obstacle before them is you, and your determination to stand collectively for what you believe in.
Ian Lawrence, General Secretary
Now what particularly struck me about this was the following:-
"However we continue to explore this and other options, including the risk element that we have asked our Branch activists to press again with your Trusts, but all these potential options will not come cheap and you will not thank me for committing to a particular course until we have a reasonable prospect of success."
With money in the bank and mindful of that whacking payout to the former employee who's name can barely be mentioned, why does the General Secretary keep going on about the cost of everything? We are talking about the survival of a whole profession here and the idea of a legal fighting fund has been mentioned many times.
I know some members have hinted that the senior paid official might have a vested interest in safeguarding union funds, but that's probably far too cynical a view. I am fairly sure though that most members would expect that exhausting every legal avenue in fighting TR was money very well spent indeed. But then I doubt this is the first or last time that the top is out out of touch with the grassroots.
Sadly we may not be able to rely on support from our sister trade union Unison, but it's enormously gratifying that our colleagues in the legal profession are standing with us and I agree with Effie Perine that their views are well expressed here:-
Just over 20 years ago, I walked into an office of a senior partner of a well known North West London high street practice for a job interview. My interviewer, a bearded man, surrounded by orange files was finishing a telephone call, it was clear from the conversation that he was discussing with a member of the local probation service the content of a pre sentence report (known as a social enquiry report back then); they discussed at length the merits of various disposals on offer. The client was receiving a bespoke service. My interviewer paused after he put the phone down to write an attendance note of the call, for which he would be paid. He looked up and I said, as someone who had only received instructions as a pupil barrister that was not aware that this sort of liaison went on behind the scenes. Greg Powell turned to me and said, we do it because we are good at what we do.
Solicitors, Barristers and Probation officers, need to come together on 31st March and 1st April to demonstrate that we make up the engine room of the Criminal Justice System. The relationship between the probation service and the defence community has always been one of co-operation in the interests of our clients and the court system. Adequate funding of both areas will lead to more efficient offender management. This spirit of cooperation will go once the public service ethos has been stripped out of defence and probation work. – Next year, or the year after, there will be no liaison between defence and probation, there will be no discussion re the content of the report, Greg Powell won’t know which call centre desk the triage probation officer will be sitting at, and it will be outside the – ” offender manager’s “ cost plan to seek out the “customer’s” solicitor. The government once again prioritises the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Now what particularly struck me about this was the following:-
"However we continue to explore this and other options, including the risk element that we have asked our Branch activists to press again with your Trusts, but all these potential options will not come cheap and you will not thank me for committing to a particular course until we have a reasonable prospect of success."
With money in the bank and mindful of that whacking payout to the former employee who's name can barely be mentioned, why does the General Secretary keep going on about the cost of everything? We are talking about the survival of a whole profession here and the idea of a legal fighting fund has been mentioned many times.
I know some members have hinted that the senior paid official might have a vested interest in safeguarding union funds, but that's probably far too cynical a view. I am fairly sure though that most members would expect that exhausting every legal avenue in fighting TR was money very well spent indeed. But then I doubt this is the first or last time that the top is out out of touch with the grassroots.
Sadly we may not be able to rely on support from our sister trade union Unison, but it's enormously gratifying that our colleagues in the legal profession are standing with us and I agree with Effie Perine that their views are well expressed here:-
Why Solicitors and Barristers share probation’s fight
cont.....
Solicitors, Barristers and Probation officers, need to come together on 31st March and 1st April to demonstrate that we make up the engine room of the Criminal Justice System. The relationship between the probation service and the defence community has always been one of co-operation in the interests of our clients and the court system. Adequate funding of both areas will lead to more efficient offender management. This spirit of cooperation will go once the public service ethos has been stripped out of defence and probation work. – Next year, or the year after, there will be no liaison between defence and probation, there will be no discussion re the content of the report, Greg Powell won’t know which call centre desk the triage probation officer will be sitting at, and it will be outside the – ” offender manager’s “ cost plan to seek out the “customer’s” solicitor. The government once again prioritises the price of everything but the value of nothing.
On the subject of money, I have heard Tom Rendon say that there is over 1 million in funds and Chivalry Road will sell for 1.3 million. Why is there even a question of money when our very survival is at risk? I think Ian Lawrence needs to take the time and effort to talk to grassroots members about what they want their very considerable subs to be spent on.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of money, I think TR bidders should read this article carefully.
Deletehttp://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2014/03/employers-to-plug-1bn-pensions-gap/
Yesterdays blog contributions were food for thought and I thank anon at 23.19 for listing some questions which have popped into my head, but I have been unable to articulate all in one place. It reminded me of the complexities of our work and especially where Mental Health Services are involved. Over the years I have had many a debate over how best to manage or respond to a client exhibiting symptoms of mental illness and despite having very good working relationships with MHS on a personal level, I cringe at the prospect of someone working for Interserve, without any Probation or CJS knowledge or expertise trying to negotiate with a long in the tooth, resistant Psychiatrist, let alone try to get Children's Services to even acknowledge risk exists - when we know 'thresholds' are so different. Multi - Community Orders with Psychiatric Requirements, ASBO's Injunctions and Restraining Orders, it just keeps getting worse.
ReplyDelete30 years in.
DeleteIt's clear to me that the MoJ or Grayling have no real idea about rehabilitation services, prisons or the criminal justice service as a whole. The MoJ at this present time is a national disgrace.
But I thought you may enjoy reading this little article, and wait for the MoJ explanations or justifications as to just why they felt the need to take such a move.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/03/24/grayling-faces-writers-backlash-over-ban-on-books-for-prison
There was outrage among prominent novelists today after it emerged that prisoners had been banned from being sent books in jail.
DeleteNews of the restriction, which has been in force since November last year, went viral last night after a Politics.co.uk comment piece by Frances Crook hit out at justice secretary Chris Grayling for the "nasty" and "bizarre" decision.
Now prominent writers, including Phillip Pullman and Linda Grant, have lent their voice to the growing chorus of criticism against the move.
"It's one of the most disgusting, mean, vindictive acts of a barbaric government," Pullman, the author of fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, said.
Mary Beard, professor of Classics at Cambridge University, said: "Books educate and rehabilitate. Crazy to ban them being sent to prisoners in jail."
Linda Grant, author of the Booker-shortlisted novel The Clothes on Their Backs, said she was organising a protest against the rule.
Mark Haddon, author of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time, said he has started a mission to get "every writer in the UK publicly opposed to this by tea time".
The rule is a "pointless extra punishment, which is not only malign and small-minded but desperately counterproductive", he added.
They were joined by other influential figures from the arts world, including folk singer Billy Bragg, who wrote: "People in prison need rehabilitation, not retribution. Coalition ban guitars, now deny prisoners books."
A Change.org petition has also been set up and is rapidly growing, with hundreds of new supporters signing it every hour.
"This is part of an increasingly irrational punishment regime orchestrated by Chris Grayling that grabs headlines but restricts education or rehabilitation," Crooke, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, wrote.
"Book banning is in some ways the most despicable and nastiest element of the new rules.
"Of course prisons should have incentives schemes to reward good behaviour. But punishing reading is as nasty as it is bizarre."
Adding his signature to the petition, celebrated author Ian Rankin said: "From visits to prisons and talking to prisoners I know how important books can be in promoting literacy and connecting prisoners to society."
The rule on prisoners being sent packages, part of the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme, bars inmates receiving any parcel unless under exceptional circumstances.
Within a month of being introduced, the rules prevented prisoners receiving Christmas parcels, with prison reform campaigners saying that the 200,000 children in England and Wales with a parent in prison were being put under extra stress by being unable to send them a present.
The rule includes basic items such as stationary, books and additional clothing, including underwear. It also includes luxury items like magazine subscriptions.
Instead, prisoners are forced to pay for all items out of their small prison wages with the money going directly to the private firms running shops for inmates.
Individual governors do have discretion to allow in packages under exceptional circumstances however, including medical supplies or items required for religious observation.
The Nazis banned books as well didn;t they?
DeleteSorry off topic, but I think this quite lengthy article is very revealing indeed, and it appears to carry a warning to those considering bidding for probation work. Please read the later parts of the article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1286576/murdering-scumbags-outsourcing-mess/
‘Some people have resisted the agenda and are defending their commercial position and not improving in the way we’d like to see,’ says Crothers.
DeleteMore of the same is on the way. The Cabinet Office’s new Commissioning Academy will teach 1,500 public servants to be better at procurement by 2015. Traditionally, government buyers have concentrated on negotiating contracts, but they’ve realised that if you want the market to do certain things, then ‘market design’ is also important. In future, they will spend more of their time on the early stages of the procurement process, before the tender is even sent out.
As Crothers puts it, you need to ‘understand how you are going to package up what you are going shopping for’. If you go to market with a $1bn contract, you will get the usual suspects pitching. If you break it down into 10 £100m contracts then you open up the deal to new, smaller players.
In future, the government could ‘spend months engaging with the market, holding roadshows, having conversations, listening to why they may or may not bid, adjusting contract terms and how you go to market. That way you maximise the degree of competition,’ Crothers says.
They also want to get tougher on contractors that try to change terms after the deal is signed, causing value to leak away. This is all specifically designed to bring more entrants into the market, and reduce contractors’ profit margins.
‘We all pay a lot of tax, and if I can help us get to the point of paying less tax, then great. It’s for the public good,’ Crothers says.
There may be trouble ahead, all the same, because as well as making procurement more competitive and complex, the government is also asking outsourcers to do much, much harder jobs. The disability assessments, for example, try to reduce people’s unique sets of difficult, individual circumstances to a box-ticking exercise. Evidently, this tool is not up to the job.
According to the DWP, in 2011 10,600 people died within six months of being told that they were fit to go back to work, and people with untreatable degenerative illnesses have been told that they should get jobs. Clearly something is not working, but Atos ends up shouldering the blame for a mess that is far from entirely of its own making.
There are broadly four problems with the way the government is changing its outsourcing regime. Firstly, as mentioned above, in its haste to get things off the balance sheet, The government risks trying to outsource things that it shouldn’t, or can’t. It’s pretty easy to work out if the bins have been emptied, or if someone is collecting fines or answering phones within four rings, but when it comes to things like probation, or getting people back into work, measuring performance is much murkier.
In probation, for example, there are ‘lots of interfaces between probation and other services so there’s interaction to manage’, says Tom Gash, who has written several reports for think-tank the Institute for Government. ‘It’s also hard to say who or what has helped to stop an individual from reoffending, so it’s hard to measure the value the contractors add.’
This is an especially big problem, as another government mantra is ‘payment by results’. The big outsourcers say that some of the problems with things like electronic tagging arose because they were being asked to do difficult tasks on a scale never before undertaken – problems were inevitable.
Secondly, and relatedly, there is the problem of risk transfer. Politicians are keen to shift the risk for some services into the private sector. It’s nice to be able to blame an outsourcer when there’s a prison riot. But outsourcers need to be paid a fair price for taking on that risk, and that is not an easy calculation.
Take, for example, the case of employment services, where they are taking on the risk of the labour market. As Harries says of the mooted deal to outsource probation services: ‘Of course, the principle of introducing competition into probation is absolutely right but anyone who says they understand all the risks involved is taking quite a big punt.’
DeleteThen there is the specific question of reputational risk, as these deals come under more scrutiny. ‘We are in an era when things like transparency will be built into contracts, and the industry needs to get used to that,’ says Harries.
He says that government too often puts confidentiality clauses into contracts, but this has to change. ‘We need to move to a more mature relationship, and a recognition that these deals will be scrutinised. That might push the price of contracts up but it is the price of doing business with the taxpayer.’
Thirdly, if government goes too fast, it risks having no bidders for some contracts. Gash says that ‘in some cases, there is a limited capacity to respond to opportunities. So in the south-west and other rural areas there isn’t much competition, and if you let lots of contracts out at the same time, providers might not want to bid for all of them. The market may not be ready to respond to opportunities, it takes a while for providers to get up to speed.’
This is especially likely if, as per the government’s new strategy, you want SME s to do the work. A tender with no bidders is no use.
And, fourthly, there is a drive to make outsourcing more varied, encouraging more joint-ventures and mutuals. There is a sound reason for this. Gary Sturgess, an academic expert in outsourcing who used to work for Serco, says: ‘One of the flaws in the contractual system of competition and contracting is that it is such a powerful tool for driving down price that that often trumps the need to be concerned about quality.’
Government is notorious for choosing the cheapest tender. Contracts can also get too big. ‘I’ve seen contracts that are too complex, that are over 1,000 pages long,’ says Iain Gravestock, a partner at KPMG. ‘When you are trying to understand the performance measures and metrics it gets to a point where contracting can introduce too much complexity.’
This report in the Evening Standard today seems to me to be laying some groundwork for Grayling and the MoJ to influence public opinion prior to next weeks strike action.
ReplyDeleteI think NAPO should respond to it and offer an indept interview to the Evening Standard explaining all thats wrong with TR. Make the public more aware of what Graylings really doing and why the strike is essential.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-the-shocking-scale-of-london-criminals-going-round-and-round-the-justice-system-9212345.html
The failure of rehabilitation policies in London was laid bare today as new figures revealed that more than 500 criminals with at least 50 previous convictions apiece have committed new offences in the capital.
ReplyDeleteThe new crimes, which were all committed during a 12 month period, include burglary, sexual assault, racial or religiously aggravated attacks, wounding and knife offences.
There were also drug crimes, thefts, and convictions for arson and possession of an offensive weapon. More than four out of five of the criminals were men, but 80 were female. At least 40 were foreign citizens.
The Ministry of Justice admitted that the figures showed a “shocking level of reoffending in London” and highlighted the need for a “complete overhaul” of the way in which offenders were handled.
In a further illustration of the scale of the problem, the statistics also show that 334 of the offenders were convicted on at least two separate occasions during the year covered by the figures.
That means that each had either been jailed or given a community punishment without successful rehabilitation taking place only weeks before committing a new crime.
Today’s figures were obtained by the Evening Standard using the Freedom of Information Act and come only days after this newspaper warned that the cost to the nation of re-offending is as high as £13 billion a year - the cost of the London Olympics.
Responding to the findings, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling admitted that many of London’s prolific offenders were being let down by a “crazy” system which allowed those given short sentences to return to the streets without help to turn their lives round.
He said reforms to ensure that all freed convicts received supervision were being introduced later this year to reduce the “stubbornly high” number of serial reoffenders going “round and round” the justice system.
“I think we have a very flawed system,” Mr Grayling said. “We have got 50,000 people each year walking out of our prison system with little or no support, £46 in their pocket, walking the streets of London and elsewhere with little help to get their lives back together.
“The result of that is thousands and thousands of offences, many serious, committed by a group of people who no-one is watching over at all. That’s a crazy situation. It’s got to change.”
The new statistics show that 554 “highly persistent” criminals in London with more than 50 previous offences were convicted of a new crime during 2012, the latest period for which statistics are available.
Shall we call him 'transparent' Grayling? It's pathetic. Winning a debate when you skew the presentation by manipulation doesn't make your ideas any more defensible.
DeleteI heard that Greater London Branch are asking about the Strike Fund that was promised. Apparently they donated £550 and are now asking what this is to be spent on
ReplyDeleteChris Grayling has finally brought Ray Bradbury's novel to life. His outlawing of books being sent to prisoners is within a gnat's todger of the plotline for Farenheit 451. Well done, Chris. Along with removing legal aid, dismantling the Probation Service, filling the pockets of global greedy pigs and generally causing mayhem, do you have any more mean-spirited, despicably stupid tricks up your shiny sleeves?
ReplyDeleteBack to books...I wonder if this ban has come about as a direct result of legal highs being sent into jails? I think there has been an upturn in prisoner on prisoner and staff violence in custody....and I will submit a FOI request to test my theory. I hear tissues, yeah hankies sprayed with legal high substances are being sent into jails, by remote drones....honest, it is further evidence of just how ingenious our client group can be when they apply themselves. The connection is, I think, when people use these substances, as they come down from the highs, without any support or knowledge, begin to exhibit extreme aggression. As always, substances become currency in jails and therefore, books with possibly pages socked in unknown substances become, a threat to the security of the prison and to staff and inmates alike. Having done a stint in a local jail I have never been impressed by the efforts to discover, uncover and/or address drugs problems, or the drugs coming in. With further reductions in staff, the means by which identification, searching and safety can be more successful, it doesn't surprise me that a blunt instrument (Banning books) has been the MoJ's reaction.
ReplyDeleteOn the Evening Standard, Mr Grayling is becoming very repetitive, has he no other argument or comment o the £46 in their pocket scenario, is becoming something of a joke, and of course it is anything but a joke, people do leave prison with nothing but £46; but sadly, I don't see anything improving as a result of TR.
I assume the Moj will explain away the book ban in exactly the way you have 30 years in. And, whilst I agree that methods of smuggling have become more advanced as security has tightened, I don't agree that has anything to do with the book ban.
DeleteInstead, and unfortunately for Grayling, it's an unforseen consequence of his implementation of a new IEP system last year, an attempt to demonstrate to the public how tough on crime he and his party were. What he didn't do was consider the system he foisted upon the prison service at any great length. It's becoming his mantra really 'do first- think later.
However, what I do feel quite good about in relation to this book ban, is that it's demonstrated to those not involved with the criminal justice system, just how nasty he and his party really are, and how poorly thought through some of their policies really are. Some of the comments in this article, and by respected people , should be quite concerning for Grayling and his brotherhood.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/authors-blast-chris-graylings-vindictive-act-of-banning-prisoners-from-receiving-books-9212921.html
The £46 and 'nowt' else doesn't wash anymore.
DeletePrisoners may leave prison with only £46 in their pocket, but thats not going to cover the £600 court costs they'll owe under Graylings new plans.
When he shouts about the very much worn out phrase '£46' now he should be reminded that those leaving custody are also getting something else new. Straddled with a not to insigifacant debt around their shoulders before they even start to try and rebuild their lives.
A group of leading authors have launched a furious attack on the Government for banning prisoners from receiving books to read in jail.
DeleteThe new rules, which came into force in November, prevent inmates from receiving parcels from the outside unless they have “exceptional circumstances” such as a medical condition. Books, subscription magazines and clothing such as spare socks and underwear are all prohibited.
A petition on the Change.org website calling on Justice Secretary Chris Grayling to rethink the move had last night gathered more than 5,500 signatures as authors including Philip Pullman, Mark Haddon, Anthony Horowitz, Susan Hill and Emma Donoghue united in condemnation.
Mark Haddon, the bestselling author of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, told The Independent it was a “counterproductive” policy. “It’s a gratuitous and mean-spirited punishment which fails to acknowledge the vital part books play in educating and rehabilitating prisoners,” he said.
“[Mr Grayling] is playing to the gallery, I suspect, and not thinking about what’s best for society. Today’s prisoners will be your neighbours tomorrow.”
Anthony Horowitz, author of the Alex Rider series of spy novels, said he was in regular correspondence with a young inmate serving a life term for murder but was shocked to discover that he could not send him any of his books.
“Books represent humanity and civilization, two abstracts which may be in short demand in the prison environment,” he added.
Susan Hill, author of The Woman in Black, said: “Given that the books sent in would be screened for drugs or offensive weapons and any removed entitled ‘How To Escape’, I am baffled as to Grayling’s reasoning. You judge a society by how it treats its prisoners. Banning books is the first thing dictators in totalitarian states do.”
Philip Pullman, the author of fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, said on Twitter that the rules amounted to “one of the most disgusting, mean, vindictive acts of a barbaric government”, while Emma Donoghue, author of the Booker Prize-nominated Room, added: “Reading and study would seem to me to be one of the only ways of spending a prison day.”
How peculiar. All the Probation Officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are shouting.The barristers and solicitors are shouting. Who expected that the likely demise of the bullying Secretary of State would come from the authors? The pen is mightier than the sword.
DeleteI want to tell you why I will strike
ReplyDelete1. I am a NAPO member and voted for industrial action because I have been treated appallingly by my employer
2.public safety is at risk
3. Justice should never be for profit
err that's it
Exactly.
DeleteIm in unison and i am disappointed with the lack of response from this organisation. Pretty much non exsistant in our area.
ReplyDeleteWill be doing as much as i can for napo on strike day.
Thanks! Am sure your Napo colleagues in your office will appreciate that.
DeleteGrayling has managed to make Prisons more dangerous by simplistic policy making. His approach to Probation means that communities will be equally unsafe. At least he is consistent.
ReplyDeleteEvening Standard comment: The high costs of criminals re-offending
ReplyDeleteWhether provided by public or private sector bodies, the best way of preventing re-offending is through support for criminals on leaving prison
Evening Standard commentA A AMonday 24 March 2014
The figures obtained by this paper about the scale of re-offending by persistent criminals are startling: in the course of 12 months, more than 500 criminals with at least 50 previous convictions apiece committed new offences in London, including burglary, sexual assault, wounding and knife offences, drug crimes, thefts and arson. Indeed 334 of the offenders were convicted on two or more separate occasions during the same year.
Serial re-offending is, of course, a familiar problem and so are the underlying causes. As Justice Secretary Chris Grayling observed: “We have got 50,000 people each year walking out of our prison system with little or no support, £46 in their pocket, walking the streets of London with little help to get their lives back together.”Preparation for prisoners to return to ordinary life already takes place before release. But what is crucial is that there should be a system of support once they leave prison. The Government has made one useful reform: people serving sentences of a year or less will now be supervised after release. They need help obtaining jobs and housing. This paper’sFrontline London campaign, which helps businesses employing former gang members, is an example of support which can help offenders change their lives. Many more could benefit from the same approach.Probation officers are preparing to oppose forthcoming changes in contracting the supervision of less serious offenders to private companies and voluntary bodies. This plainly needs careful monitoring: the record of some private security companies in the criminal justice system has not been encouraging. Yet whether provided by public or private sector bodies, the best way of preventing re-offending is through support for criminals on leaving prison. Given that re-offending costs about £10 billion a year, it’s money well spent.
Has the nation seen Grayling for the man he really is- uncaring, unthinking and unwanted by almost everyone?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588463/Tories-rebel-prisons-book-ban-Chris-Grayling-pressure-reverse-stance-no-backing-quarter.html
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is under pressure to reverse a ban on books being sent to prisoners which has been branded ‘unenlightened’ by senior Tory colleagues.
DeleteThe restriction on reading material being sent to prisoners by family and friends is part of a new ‘incentives and earned privileges’ regime introduced by the Ministry of Justice.
The scheme has caused uproar among writers and civil liberties groups - one of which likened it to measures seen at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. They argue there should be no restrictions on access to books in prisons, supposed to be places of rehabilitation and education.
Even senior Conservatives who normally back Mr Grayling’s hardline approach are uneasy. One senior Tory minister said: ‘Chris Grayling wins the prize for the Government’s least enlightened minister. He has no backing for this from any quarter at all.’
The Justice Secretary insisted last night that parcels being sent into prisons had been a vehicle for ‘contraband’ and there were not enough staff to check them all properly. He insisted prisoners could access books from jail libraries and could purchase more using money earned by working inside.
‘Parcels are an obvious conduit for getting drugs into prisons. If we allowed all prisoners to have access to parcels from home, it would be an impossible volume of post to go through systematically,’ Mr Grayling said.
Dear Messrs Lebedev
ReplyDeleteYour newspaper seems determined to support the ill considered and hasty actions of Chris Grayling and this Con-Dem coalition regarding the dismantling of the criminal justice system. Whilst the soundbites from the Government spin machine might sound attractive, they are merely putting a Tory gloss on a dangerous and damaging concept, i.e. Placing the safety of our communities in the hands of speculators and accountants rather than with skilled practitioners focused on the task in hand.
The wanton vandalism being served upon the criminal justice system by Grayling will result in a ridiculously under-resourced national public sector provider left to try and manage the core statutory business of the Probation Service which the Government dare not hand over, i.e courts and high risk work, whilst the remaining assets will be sold off to global companies whose only focus is financial reward. If its such a good idea, sell the lot off.
Why not? Because it won't work. All that will happen in any event is there will be terrible consequences for some victims, hand-wringing and finger pointing by politicians and the media, and a culture of blame reinforced as the global companies hang individuals out to dry viz-the existing track records of G4S, Serco, Atos, et al. They have all been awarded contracts in health, employment, justice, and ALL have been caught lying, manipulating the system, cheating, committing fraud to the tune of £Hundreds of Millions of public money- yet they continue to be awarded contracts.
The scandal is not the exemplary track record of a 100 year old service which has always been under-resourced, under the radar yet highly effective - the scandal is the fact that the UK continues to be sold off to global asset strippers, putting Public money into fat cats' pockets and offshore bank accounts, whilst services in the UK diminish to appalling levels of incompetence.
I will be on strike next week to make a stand against this dangerous and disgraceful behaviour by this UK government.