I'm extremely grateful to the Editor over on the hugely successful Prisoners Families Voices website for re-publishing some of my recent blog posts, but what's particularly interesting is that as a result she tells me she is getting lots of emails from concerned clients about the effects TR is having on them already. I guess it should come as no surprise that they are noticing changes, but they're getting vocal too, as these recent posts demonstrate:-
Dear Editor PFV.
I am a fan of your blog and have noticed that you are publishing quite a lot of posts by the On Probation Blog. My name is, Ex Offender, as I have been labelled one now after serving a 7 year sentence for armed robbery. I had never been in trouble with the law previously therefore I consider myself NOT a career criminal. I screwed up and regretted it ever since.
I am on probation now and I have a good relationship with my probation officer. He does the best he can under pressure and by meaning under pressure, I mean that he doesn't often see me and is bogged down with paperwork. One day whilst I was waiting to see him, I was chatting to a guy who was a career criminal. He was grumbling about what a waste of his time it was sitting there to see his probation officer for only 5 minutes. He had also told me that years ago, probation officers spent time with offenders supporting them with their rehabilitation and that these days, that doesn't happen.
I told him that it doesn't happen because their job now consists of paperwork - which is what I have been witnessing over the past 6 months. I just want to clear this up by saying that I know for a fact if my probation officer had the time, he would support me and he has even said this himself. He has tried by giving me telephone numbers of employers who take on ex offenders and phone numbers of other support groups, but other than that, he does not have the time. I am not here to slag probation off, they have a job to do and it must be frustrating for them, especially mine who cannot give me the time to advise me.
I am an ex con who does not want to be like the other man sat in probation, I want to make something of myself and put the prison issue well behind me, but it's hard when there is no support on offer. I see young lads going to probation and I see that in no time they will be back in prison as they treat their appointments as a joke. A couple of them were smoking a joint outside whilst waiting to book in which in my opinion shows no respect for the people who are monitoring us. I am finding it all a bit depressing because I take my appointments and what I did very seriously in order to change my life around.
Luckily I have a great girlfriend who supports and helps me with online job applications and things, but what about those who haven't who want support changing their life's. I remember in prison when a member of staff said to me, "you have to take responsibility for your own actions." Which yes is very true, but if the likes of probation do not have the time to support ex cons on release then how is the prison revolving door going to slow down? Do the Government want more people in prison? It appears that way because they are/have stripped the services for ex offenders in my opinion by taking the real job of a probation officer from us.
Regards Andrew B.
*************
Hello..
I have notice that you have been publishing stuff on your blog about probation lately. I have been out of jail for 13 weeks and I am on licence.
The 5 minute appointments are true and are a waste of time. In those 13 weeks, I have seen about 7 different probation officers and every time I try and ring my probation officer, I get told that she is either on annual leave or is in a meeting and that is more or less every single time I try to phone her. Don't get me wrong, she is a nice woman but I am in a dilemma at the moment and could do with a chat with her. But she isn't around for me to do that so who the bloody hell can I turn too?
My family turned their backs on me when I went to jail and I have one pal who is supportive but works full time and I don't want to burden him. I have been reading a lot of online stories about ex cons who have turned their life's around with help from their probation officers but these seem to be older people, no offence, but they are getting on a bit and were in prison years ago. Even when I was in prison it was proper hard for me to get to see my probation officer. I genuinely need some advice. If I am on licence I would have thought I would have got some help and support from my probation officer but it just isn't working out.
Mick.
PS I saw this on Facebook recently and it must be something being repeated up and down the country:-
Told a lifer yesterday that I would not be his officer by the time he had his next ROTL because he is NPS and I am CRC. He said he was 'devastated' saying how well I knew him, his OS in prison, his family-I've even seen him at work on ROTL. Now I don't doubt that whoever gets his supervision will be a good PO but bloody hell- what ever happened to end to end supervision? (not going to lie, nearly had a little cry)
Although this article relates to the book ban, I feel it makes some very interesting observations in a much broader context that applies to all thats happening in the CJS.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5127312?utm_hp_ref=uk
However, the truth is much more concerning: the book ban is part of something much wider and much worse than a draconian policy by the government's "least enlightened" minister. It shows us very clearly that there is a dangerous disconnect between Westminster, Whitehall and what is happening in communities across the United Kingdom. A disconnect which is leading to well intentioned policies not filtering down to producing safe or beneficial outcomes for the people they are designed to help. Ministers have argued for, brought in and implemented policies which have had consequences far beyond what they had intended.
ReplyDeleteAs a minister Chris Grayling's remit is far too great to write every single rule in the book. PSI 30/2013 was authored by the bureaucratic National Offender Management Service, and Grayling had no hand in the detail. Ministers don't. They come up with attractive policies to sell to the electorate and their parties, and the fine print is left up to the civil service departments that serve them. In the run up to the 2015 General Election, politicians will be laying out their stalls and designing policies to show voters their vision for the UK. However, between the concept and the reality lie layers of bureaucracy, budgets, departmental negotiations and red tape. Feedback from the "sharp edge" of policy is obscured, and the intent is lost in the translation to reality.
Endemic to the creation of policy in our country is the failure of implementation. The "one size fits all" model of prescribing and implementing policy brings failure time and again. Take the Big Society, the flagship Coalition initiative designed to have us all helping our neighbours and remembering our sense of civic duty. It was badly introduced: those who sought help had their community initiatives financed, but people were not supported in developing community groups to fit local needs. The loans given by the Big Society Bank became the key focus, rather than the wider vision the Coalition had for a cohesive Britain. A good idea became watered down and poorly implemented, ending up far removed from the vision. It failed precisely because it was imposed from above.
What saddens me is that the solutions to this problem are so simple. One MP (Labour's Lisa Nandy) said this week that it's time to stop blaming ministers: it's satisfying, but not particularly helpful. Instead, we need to bring in local accountability structures, enabling the people on either side of the front line to feed back in to policy.
And so too with books, parcels and underwear for prisoners. Throw out PSI 30/2013. Cut out the bureaucracy. Let prison governors decide what should and shouldn't be brought in to their prisons, and then hold them to account for their decisions. Leave the implementation to those at the sharp end.
Had a young middle aged client die of a heart attack last year whilst on tag. Neighbour phoned me as wife was understandably completely distraught; more so as the ambulance crew had called the police to disable the tag prior to take g him to hospital. Wife wanted the black monitoring box out of her (tiny) flat asap, it was providing an unhappy extra reminder of clients situation. Tagging company said they would pick it up 'sometime' but said the family could hand it in at the Police Station if they liked! My Manager said it 'wasn't my job' to collect the box, however I decided common humanity trumped the rules so I went anyway. Broke more rules as hugs all round to wife and neighbour as we sought to console each other in grief at their loss. What I fear the most from TR is the loss of humanity, that there will be no place or time for those little gestures that have been mentioned in other posts - accompanying to an appt, practical support etc, that the level of contact will truly be 5 minutes on each and every occasion in the tick box target (money) driven New World Order.
ReplyDeleteDeb
A very sad state of affairs deb. The sense of humanity to another person is what makes 'probation' probation. If you strip it, of it's core value then what do you have left, absolutely nothing. I recall a time when a client attended the office for his regular supervision appointment. We talked about his life, how he came to be where he is today (achievements and regrets), eventually crossing over into that really delicate area of how he sees the future for himself. Fascinating insight but greater was his motivation to move forward in his life, accepting his short comings, accepting regrets and finding his place in his community, his family, his children. This kind of 'rehabilitation' takes effort, time and energy. Clients are human-beings who require compassion, care and challenge to guide and support them through. They are not robots, they not machines, they are not a commodity that has a price tag on it. The path we are being led by our managers is a dangerous path. I can't imagine that there will be many good officer wanting to remain in probation. Welcome to the new world...
DeleteAnarchistPO
What is sad is the way some contributors to the comments in recent days genuinely do not see such personal engagements as at the core of traditional probation work - there were always some, but I detected more once - generic work diminished and much was compartmentalised after the CJA 91 Act, when it became a major challenge to deal with all the extra work coming from the ACR's, and 'reporting in' schemes began to proliferate and group induction - was used to replace one to one engagement to explain and demonstrate what was required and what rights a probation client had.
ReplyDeleteAt some point I introduced into my practice a 'writing test' where I got new probationers to inscribe on the back of their court orders, 'I agree to such and such' - so much more effective at ascertaining those who really struggled with reading and writing, than just asking a question about it!
But it all took time, which as a disabled person I NEVER had enough of, so what gave was the systematic recording - I had a prolific note making & filing system, but that was hard for others to decipher - though to my surprise drew a commendation after I finally broke and was on long term sick leave when a client went missing and attracted a complaint from the Home Office probation minister.
Probation workers were individuals with their own ways, but who ever more had their individual approaches knocked out of them after 1984 and SNOP - but before 1991 the contract was between the client and the 'supervising' court or in the case of parolees the Secretary of State - probation workers, as officers of the court, were thrown in to oversee and and aid the process, so able to be themselves, though such was not 'taught' but acquired by experience.
I think some complained in 1936(or thereabouts) when Senior Probation Officers were first introduced & gradually management became direction from on high, ever nearer the political centre, although the political centre did not have the professional training or necessarily the human experience to actually understand the processes involved .
Too few of us understood either and so saw our individual approaches dragged away without perhaps realising what the ultimate consequence was - a government who think probation practice can be split at source with two separate agencies dividing the work up between them - exactly the opposite to what the Seebohm enquiry discovered which led to generic social services, from which probation just avoided joining - probably due to the influence of well connected magistrates.
However I have digressed - a consequence of dyspraxia - sorry if my points are not clearly made here.
Let's quietly, no noisily, go back to calling those under supervision Clients.
ReplyDeleteI'm a client on life licence and very worried indeed with all this TR mess.
ReplyDeleteI originally had the same PO all the way through my original sentence and after release despite them having changed roll and moving office several times.
Then NOMs came along and my PO left the service and although unaware at the time it signaled disaster for me.
My new PO wanted to see me more regular then the old one (I was on 6mth reporting then) and the whole dynamics of my relationship with probation changed. Indeed it was pointed out several times to me that the focus of probation was no longer to befriend assist and advise, but soley conerned with the management of offenders. I missed my old PO a lot.
But the real devestation for me when I was arressted and charged with a pretty minor offence and recall was effected.
I was given an oral hearing pretty soon after recall, which I'd never had before being released by way of the old LRC system, and my expectations for release were quite high. After all I'd served several months in prison for an offence that I hadn't been given a custodial sentence for at court and unrelated to my original offence.
However, at the hearing it was discovered that I had no OASYs assessment. OASYs didn't exist prior to my release, so the panal was defered for 3 months to allow this assessment to be made. I completed a short self assessment form and my PO went away to do the whole assessment.
When the panal reconvened I was pretty shocked to find my PO oppossing release on the basis that my OASYs score was pretty high. Why was it high? Because I'd not addressed any of my issues and had done no offending behaviour work at all.
Offending behaviour work and courses did not exist prior to my release.
I was given a 2 year KB to facillitate the time needed to do this offending behaviour work. I felt stitched up. Not least at having my OASYs done retrospectively (with the time I was out over 20 years had passed and had changed an awful lot since I was 17), and my new PO had no real knowledge of me or my personal development.
But Off I went to do the courses to reduce my OASYs scores.
But 2 years turned into 4years with defered hearings and transfers to places that did the courses I had to do.
Then 4 years turned into 5years because it was decided that I would benefit from a short spell in open conditions having been back in custody 4year. And thats what happened. Released again and now been back out almost 7 years with no problems.
But I have to say that I feel it was all the changes that were happening at the time, the creation of NOMs, tick box assessments, and different departments involved in power struggles (personal opinion), and not having my old POs knowledge of my journey through the system that cost me so much time. I fully accept I was stupid enough to get arressted and take responsibillity for that, but what followed far outweighed the sin.
So as a client I am very worried about these changes as I feel a lot gets lost in translation and often the client bears the brunt of the inevitable cock ups that happen with everything when theres great change.
I'm worried at the moment because I don't have a date for my next appointment (on 6 month ones again), its due this month but everytime I ring my POs sick or on leave or his admin team take a message and promise to get back but dont. In fact I haven't seen him for 18 months now as I've seen the duty the last 2 visits.
But TR is very worrying indeed. For people like me it changes a massive part of the foundations that I've rebuilt my life on (as did the creation of NOMs),but I guess Grayling wouldn't care about that.
As an aside I'd like to say I'm often deeply touched by the comments on this blog, the deept of compassion and care and committment that most commentators hold for both the service they're part of and the people they work with is very evident and very warming.
This is an extraordinary story and my only hesitation in considering re-publishing is the amount of detail contained in it - would the poster like to respond?
DeleteThanks,
Jim
Thankyou for asking Jim. I thought hard before posting, and I'm curious as to why you would consider it an extraordinary story?
DeleteFor me it seemed straight forward, the system had changed, you did x at first stage, y at second stage, and z at third stage, complete your offending behaviour courses and bobs your uncle.
Unfortunately for me, the system in place made no provision for anyone returning to custody. It was a bit like trying to travel around the world without a passport, can't go there because you haven't got the right paperwork and can't go here because that document hasn't been stamped.
I guess the system was constructed to give uniformity to proccess, but as that wasn't the way in my day I was a square peg in a round hole, most showed some sympathy with my dilemmas, but in the end I had to 'fit the structure' of the present system.
My only hesitation in having my comment republished, is in regard to my current situation with probation. For me reporting is quite pointless although I don't mind doing it, and have a pretty good relationship with the probation service. I'm grateful I only have to go every 6months, and I guess my personal PO (old school) is quite aware of my situation and the limited amount of assisstance they can extend to me, but also aware that I'd knock their door very loudly if anything was to start to go wrong, so in that respect I feel that they have no concerns if they're busy and I end up seeing the duty.
I respect my freedom, and wouldn't want to draw attention from anywhere that may result in that freedom being reigned in in anyway.
I'll trust your judgement on it Jim.
Thanks for responding. Even having regard to all the usual caveats that apply in discussing any case in the absence of full information, I find it an astonishing story at a whole number of levels - take my word for it and I'd be very surprised if I'm the only one that feels that way. Most of us have had lifers who have committed relatively minor offences whilst on licence and as you indicate, sound knowledge of the person almost invariably enables matters to be dealt with without recourse to recall.
DeleteHowever, it's thankfully 'water under the bridge' now and the most important thing is that you have moved on and presumably resettled well back into the community. You just need to keep to the six monthly reporting for a bit longer and hopefully the supervision requirement will eventually be removed.
Can I wish you the best of luck for the future and thank you for sharing your story with us.
Cheers,
Jim
I am truly sorry for that client's experience and also that us tax payers wasted so much money locking him up the second time.
ReplyDeleteI could comment more BUT the most important fact is that no more set backs occur.
I strongly suggest he consults a solicitor, over the matter of failing to be given an appointment.
In my opinion NO probation service client should ever be in a situation where they do not know precisely what their next appointment arrangements are, which should not be the duty of the client to ascertain as long as he retains address and other conditions and complies with contact agreements - I realise that at times it is appropriate to have some flexibility in the arrangements BUT every supervisee at liberty should at least know to whom they are answerable and if there is a change have an opportunity to meet them at an early stage.
I also plead with the client to contact his MP ultimately MPs can initiate changes in the laws and also hold the Government to account to how those laws are operated.
But I see his priority as contacting a solicitor, if he needs to pay, he should discuss the possibility of claiming back the costs from the Government with that solicitor.
I am extremely grateful to him for publishing his experiences and hope many others will do likewise, I personally realise that not all probation clients feel gratitude to probation workers, but let that not hold their comments back - what is happening is far more important than how individual probation clients feel about their treatment, what is at stake is the whole philosophy of probation, which has been in decline, despite the best efforts of some, since 1984.
Andrew,
DeleteI'm going to disagree with you about the need for this particular person to consult a lawyer or MP. I don't think it would be helpful at all and a letter or phone call to the office to confirm the next supervision appointment would suffice I'm sure.
Thanks,
Jim
Agree, not a situation for a solicitor but given the appointment is sometime this month I would suggest checking opening hours including late night reporting and then going in by the last day of the month and at the very least "reporting" to a duty officer if only to cover your own back! You should have had an appointment but given that you haven't been sent one, I would take the initiative and report and get it recorded... maybe request confirmation in writing so that when someone realises their omission it is absolutely clear that it is not you at fault.
DeleteWhat Jim Brown and Anon at 20.06 write should, of course, be correct and it should only be necessary to present himself at the probation office at a time he knows it to be open, if I has not been sent an appointment.
DeleteHowever, I had the impression that his very helpful post, was prompted by a sense of frustration arising from not receiving reasonable responses when he had contacted on several occasions.
In such circumstances, I am a belt and braces sort of bloke, and think that by contacting a solicitor he might get the personal reassurance that he is understandably seeking - it is also action that can be taken other than making repeated contacts with an office, which may be undergoing reorganisation, where he may feel his contacts are being rebuffed and not being recorded in his case record.
However, I hope I am wrong and am glad that others have put an alternative view - the point I wanted to make in general, is that probation clients can feel between a rock and a hard place, but they can still get a legal opinion from a solicitor, which in itself might provide reassurance - sorry if I did not make it clear - I do not plan to comment again about this though others might.
In other news - having just seen a very bitty documentary about The Police Federation on Channel 4 "Dispatches" it does seem as if they might have more sorting out of their organisation needed than Napo members need!
It was far from a clear picture presented, but as with Napo members out in the country, I suspect some Police Fed members certainly feel their concerns are not taken seriously by their representative organisation AND it seems as if the new broom they appointed to clean up, has given up in frustration
Interesting to find this on the blog today as I've had a day from hell at the other end of the justice sausage machine. Many, many years a PO, now allocated CRC because apparently that was how it panned out on 11 Nov. This week seems to be the start of some unofficial trial of the split as I get handed case after case sentenced from court based upon a range of reports written by nps-allocated staff. I am sitting here on the commute home heartbroken and shocked at the appalling quality of those reports. Atrocious grammar, spelling mistakes galore, judgemental opinion, assumption and condemnation. Everything I was taught not to do when writing a report. And they are a mix of PO and PSO - this aint no purge on any grade.
ReplyDeleteWithout fail the cases seem to all have received what I would regard as a requirement too many (5 in one case) or Orders far longer than I would have suggested.
I hadn't realised how dire things had become. Why are the courts accepting such poor quality documents? How has it become so bad? Where did all the gatekeepers go?
Well the standard of report writing has been getting steadily worse for a number of years and especially since the introduction of OASys-generated reports. I can only assume courts have simply got used to reading crap.
DeleteWon't be long now before someone is killed or seriously hurt as a result of this TR bullshit. The momentum is building. It will most likely, in my humble opinion, be the (ex-) partner, or a probation staff member, or a prison officer. It will be at a time when anger and emotion and fear are funnelled into an explosive response to the wrong question, the wrong facial expression. I was told I'm a fucking cunt today... Duty call, no delius because of a server failure, no managers in the building (TR training event). No more team meetings/briefings means no shared information. TR is the final nail in that coffin. Nothing shared, commercially sensitive, what price humanity?
Deletein our LDU only PSO reports are gatekept by the SPO all others just go out and are gatekept by the poor PSO prior to going into court - many a times I've seen major bloopers where officers have 'cut and paste'.
DeleteI agree with your comments about he bizare proposals coming through - heavily weighted - solicitors are nearly always present and seem to go along with these on the basis that it's better than custody!!
Finally, if any of mine fall into breach the first thing I do is look at the offence & sentence outcome and if I feel the original sentence was overkill I am going to be complaining because it will technically mean a 'fail' for the purposes of payments by results.
On other matters does anyone know if Nigel Evans MP voted for the cuts in legal aid that he is now albeit in a roundabout way, a victim of?
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that the Nigel Evans story tickled me somewhat today, not least because it creates quite a problem for Grayling.
DeleteThis also caught my interest today and I wonder if this is really how PbR will work?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/g4s-chief-ashley-almanza-nets-648k-bonus-despite-firms-troubles-1444739
Good point - but I'm not sure Speakers can vote....?
DeleteI've seen it suggested that, due to being deputy Speaker, he didn't vote either way - but in the late 1990s he made a couple of speeches arguing against the provision of legal aid. I don't know about legal beagles, but his chickens have come home to roost.
DeleteG4S boss Ashley Almazna pocketed a £648,000 bonus from the scandal-hit firm for 2013, despite his admission that it had been an "extremely challenging year".
DeleteThat comes on top of his £1.194m (€1.45m, $1.2m) annual fixed pay, which includes benefits and pension contributions. His basic salary alone is £890,000.
This is in spite of weaker financial results, an ongoing criminal investigation into the business by the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) over its electronic tagging contract with the Ministry of Justice, and a number of damaging scandals across the world.
Almanza took over as chief executive in June 2013, just a month after being appointed chief financial officer.
His predecessor, Nick Buckles, stepped down amid criticism over G4S's failure to meet its contract to provide security for the London 2012 Olympic Games in a high profile corporate blunder.
In December 2013, G4S agreed to repay the UK government £108.9m for overcharging taxpayers on its tagging contract. It had billed the MoJ for the tagging of some criminals who were dead or in prison.
The firm is also under pressure over its contract with the Australian government to run the Manus Island detention centre for asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea. An Iranian man was killed at the camp and riots have broken out. An independent investigation is underway.
Towards the end of 2013 allegations surfaced of abuse and torture by staff at South Africa's tough Mangaung prison, run by G4S. The company denies the claims.
Three of the company's former staff are also facing a manslaughter trial over the death of a 46-year-old Angolan man being deported from the UK in 2010. Jimmy Mubenga was restrained by the three security staff who were escorting him back to Angola before he died on the plane.
The company's profits were also down in 2013. Profit before tax and other exceptional items for the year was £442m, a 6% decline. Including special items, such as the UK tagging contract charge, it had fallen 84.6% over the year from £364m to £56m.
G4S said in its annual report that Almanza had met his financial and non-financial targets and so was entitled to the significant bonus.
"He assumed the role of CEO in a time of great uncertainty," said the report.
"The board asked him to focus on identifying root causes of issues that had led to our profit warning in May and to prioritise the correction of those issues in a sustainable manner.
Nigel Evans couldn't vote on the last round of legal aid cuts being dep speaker- but he did vote for the changes that he himself has now fell foul of!!!
Deletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/130000-poorer-in-fees-nigel-evans-admits-regret-for-past-support-of-legal-aid-cuts-9259579.html
Though he would still have needed to make a contribution he would have got Legal aid - if he'd applied for it... ( as, apparently, would most people for a Crown Court case). As it was, legal aid would not have paid for the Top Level QC he wanted, so he opted to pay out of his own pocket to ensure he got what he considered the best - in other words, he chose to pay £130 000. Must have been a comfort to have that option... (nb. I'm no long term student of these things, this was all made clear on R4 in the last hour or so...)
DeleteAnnon 19:28
DeleteThis article seems to make your point very well indeed.
http://theconversation.com/evans-and-allies-complain-about-cps-as-coalition-wrecks-justice-25619
DeleteThere has been an outpouring of anger over the past few days following the verdicts of not guilty reached by the jury over the nine charges of rape and sexual assault made against Conservative MP Nigel Evans. The Tories have been described as going to war against the CPS; the timbre of their discontent was captured in a furiously paranoid blog from Iain Dale, writing on Conservative Home, who claimed he “will not rest until they are made to come to terms with their poisonous agenda, wicked actions and duplicity”.
DeleteSadly, he failed to make it clear what exactly this persecution is. It would be nice to think he was referring to the gross overrepresentation of working class, ethnic minority boys in police stop and search figures, but instead, it seems to involve accusations that the police and CPS have acted inappropriately over Evans and “broken” our justice system.
That Conservatives are complaining about the undoing of justice in England and Wales has a bittersweet twinge, as the coalition government (in particular Chris Grayling’s Ministry of Justice) has seemed hell-bent on dismantling fundamental tenets of the system over the past few years. It is they who are draining the CPS of resources. They have also cut civil and criminal legal aid, sought to bring about restrictions on judicial review, sanctioned the privatisation of probation, and cut back on the ability to use no-win no-fee lawyers. The most pressing problems with the justice system, then, can be firmly attributed to those now making the complaints.
So it goes with one of the chief bones of contention since Evans walked free: the frustration amongst Evans’ allies at the apparent gross unfairness of his reported legal bills of around £100,000. Bob Stewart, Evans’ fellow Conservative, appeared on the BBC’s Daily Politics to talk about the high emotional cost of the case on his friend; he also explained the financial burden. At the end of his interview, Stewart insisted, “to be asked to pay this money, if that’s correct, it’s wrong: we’ve got to sort that”.
It is both factually correct and indeed morally wrong. But the only reason it needs to be sorted out is because this government brought in the legislation that made it so.
Nigel Evans, who is £130,000 out of pocket after being cleared of sexual assault, has said he regretted his previous support for cutting legal aid.
DeleteThe Ribble Valley MP had previously condemned the rising cost of legal aid and admitted he would probably have voted for the last round of cuts in 2011 had he not been Deputy Speaker at the time.
He said he was stunned to learn he would have to pay his legal fees even if he was acquitted – plus value added tax. Mr Evans, whose life savings have been wiped out, has pledged to campaign on the issue after his return to the Commons.
Tough new rules on the amount of cash acquitted defendants could claim back were passed in 2011 as the Ministry of Justice sought to trim the legal aid budget.
Bill Waddington, the chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, said: “It is interesting it takes something like this for MPs to realise that only two years ago they actually voted for this change against vociferous opposition from the legal community.
“It is interesting it takes something like this for MPs to realise that only two years ago they actually voted for this change against vociferous opposition from the legal community.
“We were saying that it is completely unjust that people who were prosecuted by the state and then acquitted should not recover their fees.”
In 1997, as a Tory frontbencher, Mr Evans told the Commons his constituents were “rightly concerned” over the rising cost of legal aid budget and demanded “more value for the pounds that are spent”.
Yesterday he conceded he probably would have supported the last tranche of cuts to legal aid.
“It’s only when you go through these sorts of trauma that you see the first-hand consequences of that,” he told ITV News.
He said people were being “doubly punished by the fact they aren’t getting a single penny back”.
I have arrived home distraught about my behaviour today, I am a CDO and I can only describe today as fraught. I literally had to run along between courts trying to provide updates, takes results and explain to clients what their sentence entails and book first appointments. A warrant produced a problematic breach with little time to liaise with the OM about what was going on and I fear my lack of time to talk in detail must have sounded awful, but how to explain? The client was waiting in the dock already and the court is clearly losing patience with probation now.
ReplyDeleteI have always believed that it is the first interaction with court staff that starts the supervision process and relationship between clients. I couldn't answer the questions of one bewildered man and he became increasingly angry until security staff were called. This never would have arisen in the past and although I was able to prevent matters getting further out of hand, I feel very uncomfortable.
When I tried to explain to a colleague how I was feeling,she just shouted at me to get on with it and in effect, stop moaning. I have been in tears and do not want to go back. That's the reality of what we are becoming under the weight of this TR crap.
Sorry to hear of your day. Many staff in many roles here also say, often, they have cried at work recently, and do not want to come in of a morming. Some colleagues don't give a rats arse about how this leaves people feeling. You are clearly under pressure,no doubt your role has been under resourced for some time, but the TR bollocks is now stripping away the sticking plasters. Be strong, do not doubt yourself, and remain aware of your own high standards.
DeleteAnd also be proud of the fact that you recognise the situation, that you have felt able to identify where/why the failings lie, and have had the courage to write about it as a means of trying to resolve it for yourself.
DeleteI reckon - if you feel similarly bad in the morning - consider consulting your GP and asking for advise about whether you should be at work right now and also consider using the accident/incident report system - it is the courage of folk like anon at 19.12 that got workers the protections (inadequate though they can be0) in the past by using them we help to honour our forebearers and also affirm the need for the protections - sick leave etc., for ourselves colleagues and successors - plus if we are feeling under extreme stress we are not able to do a decent job - seeing as our job involves behaviours that affect the liberty and well being of the clients allocated to us, it is a serious business.
DeleteThose who employ and manage us have a duty to see we are safe and able to do our jobs properly, it does not read as if that safety was there today.
Andrew that is the case for everyone at the moment. I don't know anyone who hasn't cried or not wanted to go to work because of TR. Are you suggesting we all go off sick? What implications will this have for our future careers (wherever they may be)?
DeleteNo - I am suggesting if anyone feels seriously distressed and unable to face the job, on several occasions they should seek advice from a competent medical practitioner who understands these things and will say whether a person is fit enough to be at work and if they are not issue a certificate to confirm that opinion.
DeleteOne day, when I was setting off to work, facing more to do that day than I could fit in that day, I sat in my car on the drive outside my house and just could not bring myself to start the engine as I realised I was overwhelmed with a state of exhaustion, that meant I was not safe to drive. it was a Friday - I was owed lots of TOIL - so I phoned in - I don't think I had any client appointments due, but was up against some tight deadlines for complicated parole reports. - I took a day's TOIL - I am not sure how I justified it but I did not report how I felt to my SPO who I did not trust.
I told myself I would go in on the Saturday and Sunday after having a good rest and 'catch up' - but on both the following days I felt as bad (I had been qualified 28 years at that point) - I felt as bad on the Monday and now was over the deadline for the parole reports - I went to my GP, saying something like, I could not afford to not be at work but could not face going - I don't know what I expected, I certainly did not ask for sick leave, but that was what was ordered - I never went back and ten months later took medical retirement, very reluctantly.
Others I have known, did get sorted out and go back, which was what I had wanted (as long as I got proper support and reasonable adjustments to cope with fact I am dyspraxic and dyslexic [initially not recognised by employer - later confirmed and accepted - it is a complicated story] ), but I was advised to apply for retirement and after prevarication it was recommended by an independent occupational medical officer.
The sense of shame and anger lasted for about three years, but eventually I got the help I needed, by which time my career was over, fortunately the pension scheme paid enough for me not to financially need to work, although initially I thought I probably would need to get another job. I now get state pension on top of the occupational pension.
At the moment I feel exhausted, drained and to he honest destroyed by this job. As a CRC Officer, I'm being allocated more cases than I know what to do with, yet all my time is taken up with my NPS caseload and PSR's. I can barely face going into the office, I feel physically sick every morning, I'm not sleeping and am suffering from excruciating headaches. I don't feel well enough to be in work, but I' m too scared to see my GP. Being nowhere near retirement age VER is not an option. If I see my GP and am signed off will this be held against me by my future private sector employers? If there's a chance of moving into NPS, will a previous GP note go against me? All I can do is haul myself into work every day and pray it gets better.
DeleteYour employer has a duty of care. Make a list of all your outstanding tasks if you have not done so already. Email this list to your manager starting with the priority task and so on. Ask which tasks you can delay because you have too much to do and ask for an appt to discuss. Blind copy to your rep. Keep a copy and a diary from now on of everything.Communicate in email - do not rely on conversations they can be denied. Remember the OASys mantra - if it isn't recorded it did not happen.Protect yourself and look after yourself which means putting yourself first - I suspect you are not used to doing that! Wishing you all the best.
DeleteMy hope it that our human dignity will produce a great anger in probation staff; such an anger that it dispels our fear and we fight back.
ReplyDeletepapa
From the F.T. It would seem that even the share holders are getting the arse with G4S
DeleteG4S under fire for new chief’s pay
By Tanya Powley and David Oakley in LondonShareholders have criticised security company G4S, after it announced a big pay rise for its new chief executive, despite a recent scandal involving the overcharging of UK taxpayers for tagging offenders.Ashley Almanza, who took over as chief executive last June, was paid £1.46m in 2013 – a 23 per cent rise from his predecessor Nick Buckles in 2012 – even though the security group was hit by a series of scandals last year.According to the company’s annual report, Mr Almanza received a £648,000 bonus for 2013. In total, he took home £1,459,056 in base salary and bonuses, for a year he himself admitted has been “extremely challenging”.One top 20 investor in the group said: “G4S has a history of problems. This does seem like a reward for failure.”Another top 20 shareholder said: “This is a big pay rise. It is not clear why the chief executive deserves quite such a significant improvement in pay. It is one thing after another with G4S, whether it is the latest problems over tagging or past problems at the Olympics over providing enough security guards.”Charlie Elphicke, a Conservative MP, said: “People will rightly ask how a company that has let down taxpayers time and time again can justify raising the pay of its chief executive by nearly a quarter. It is wholly unacceptable and wrong.”However, Stephen Rawlinson, an analyst at Whitman Howard, said the package is comparable with other FTSE 100 companies of similar scope and scale.“Comparisons with previous incumbents are less relevant than what is needed, in a competitive market place for top CEOs, to get the right guy into the business to deliver for shareholders,” said Mr Rawlinson.Mr Almanza is also in line for a further rise this year. His base salary will increase from £850,000 to £890,000, taking his total fixed pay to £1.19m. If the company hits a series of performance targets, he will receive a total package of £4.75m in 2014.G4S was this month given the all-clear to win fresh UK government work: it had been barred after it emerged it had overcharged the Ministry of Justice for the electronic monitoring of criminal offenders. The company has agreed to repay the government nearly £110m for the monitoring contracts.However, it remains under a separate ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.Mr Almanza has been keen to restore the company’s relationship with the government, which had already been dented after it failed to provide enough security guards for the London Olympics in 2012.G4S said the bonus was awarded based on financial and strategic performance criteria set by the board.“[Mr Almanza] took over as CEO at a difficult time in the group’s development, when the profit warning was made by the company and following issues relating to the Olympics. He was tasked with stabilising the financial status of the group and improving the businesses in a sustainable way.”The group employs 625,000 people worldwide and has been reviewing and restructuring its business under Mr Almanza’s leadership. In March, it revealed a net loss of £342m for 2013. But underlying operating profit was £442m.“This has been an extremely challenging year for G4S,” said Mr Almanza in the group’s annual report. “We have taken clear action to address longstanding issues and have introduced wide-ranging changes to strengthen our business.”John Connolly, who took over as G4S chairman in 2012, admitted that 2013 was “no less challenging” than his first year as chairman – the year of the Olympics fiasco.He said rebuilding the company’s reputation “will take time”, as part of a wider transformation plan launched by Mr Almanza.
As has been previously stated, 40% overcharging over a protracted period of 8 years simply cannot be a 'mistake'. It can only be organised theft/fraud. Lets hope the SFO or its equivalent takes the organisation apart and finds the truth, rather than salivating over the sacrificial lambs they have undoubtedly been thrown as distractions.
DeleteAnd this is sure to piss the shareholders off a whole lot more.
Deletehttp://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2604666/G4S-boss-forced-quit-series-blunders-handed-1-7m-2013-line-2m-share-bonus.html
The private security boss who was forced to quit G4S after a trio of blunders was paid £1.7million last year, despite only working for five months – and is still in line for a £2million share bonus.
DeleteNick Buckles left the scandal-hit outsourcing giant last summer in the wake of a major profits warning.
The 18 months leading up to his departure had seen the company roundly criticised for a series of failings – including a blunder described by MPs as a ‘humiliating shambles’ when it failed to provide enough guards for the Olympic games.
Only weeks after Buckles left it was discovered the company had been charging taxpayers for monitoring dead criminals. He was paid £514,000 for working as chief executive until the end of May, and another £1.2million in statutory 12 months pay when he left, the annual report showed. But he also holds a potential 796,000 shares, which could pay out if the group hits performance targets in the future – even though he has left G4S.
At yesterday’s share price of 248p, 1.6p higher, these were worth £2million.
He also received a ‘non-cash gift’ worth £12,890, although the group refused to disclose what this was.
His replacement Ashley Almanza received £1.5million over the year, including a £648,000 bonus despite the company being blacklisted from government work for the majority of his tenure in charge.
I'm assessed by the MAPPA Level 2 Panel to be personally at high risk of harm from a disgruntled client. No one has time or space to do my safety planning, no one has time to talk to me about how this feels. I'm relatively safe for the next three weeks. If he kills me after then, I hope Chris Grayling explains to my children how this happened. Oh and I'm CRC allocated. Bidders take note.
ReplyDeleteI'm very sorry to hear this, but thank you for sharing how your situation is being affected by the present changes being introduced as part of TR. We all hope things turn out well for you and your family as we all do our very best to try and stop this madness.
DeleteI think safety issues are often over looked for staff. You raise a very important point and one that all areas should consider and take on board.
DeleteYou talk about there being a lack of time for your Health and Safety BUT TIME CAN MADE if something is a priority. It is my view that there is a lack of CARE about you and nobody wants to take ownership incase something happens to you....... Just a hunch.......
Delete