Saturday 19 April 2014

Some Plain Speaking

The time has come to speak a little plainly I think. It can't have escaped many readers notice that a huge debate has been raging here and on Facebook since the Chair of Napo Greater London Branch, decided to make public the existence of a confidential email to all NEC members from the National Chair. They knew perfectly well that it would ignite a storm of unsettling negativity, and some might want to ponder the motives.

I have to say that I'm getting just a tad fed up with this diversion from the main job in hand, namely the campaign to defeat Chris Grayling's TR omnishambles and the destruction of a proud profession and public service. To be very blunt about it, I'm not hugely bothered about the internal politics of Napo or upsetting the sensibilities of various people in positions of authority at the top. All I'm interested in is defeating TR, and by whatever means possible. 

Now it may well come as a surprise to some, but I'm going to be absolutely clear about saying that calls for the immediate resignation of the National Chair are a very big mistake indeed and would probably prove fatal in terms of Napo's recently re-energised fight against TR. 

As I have already commented, many will feel that the National Chair recently made a somewhat surprising and unwise decision in relation to their future, but right now all I want them to do is make the right decisions in relation to fighting this bloody campaign. If they are forced from office at this absolutely key point, the campaign to fight TR will not be advanced one jot and I honestly believe we'd have had it.

We know from painful past experience what effect a vacuum can have at the top of a union and although obtaining a resignation might be felt to be therapeutic for some, it would be Pyrrhic and utterly counter-productive in terms of the job in hand. As it is, come June 1st, Napo will be losing it's National Chair for 50% of the time as Jeremy Wright has made it abundantly clear NPS will not allow 100% facility time, and the National Chair was sifted into NPS.   

Right from starting this blog my aim has been to try and be as truthful and honest with readers as possible. Lots of you have repaid the compliment by telling me stuff either privately or by means of skilfully-crafted comments and as a result I probably know way too much for my own good. But it means I can't always share the information publicly, either because it would breach confidentiality, or would in my view harm the fight against TR. 

I can assure people that things are going on behind the scenes as a result of readers and union members taking direct action and by using this blog as a vehicle and platform in support of union activity and to influence decision making. Yes it's probably wrong, undemocratic, unaccountable, etc etc, but this is a bloody war here, and we want to win, right?    

Many times over the years I've often jokingly said to friends, family and sometimes clients, 'trust me - I'm a probation officer'. Well, dear readers, I'm now saying it in earnest via this blog:-

'trust me - honestly it's far better that Tom stays in post a while longer'. 

65 comments:

  1. I agree, the absolute main threat in all this is the bat shit crazy idea of TR and even more now selling public bodies that ought not be sold to private companies that at best be described as poor and worst fraudulent and dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree, and this is from a staunch supporter of Napo for many years. As Napo national chair, Tom should not have applied a for directors job in the CRC, nor should he have asked Napo to keep it quiet. This shows his intentions lie elsewhere, and that he and Napo both lack transparency. He has effectively sought to secretly switch sides because his team is losing, and got caught out. He knew his application would compromise his position as a Napo leader, but still went ahead. He should do the right thing and step down.

    I do not agree that Napo is effective, it was slow to act over TR, and the leadership has always been in a mess. There are other matters of concern too:

    1. The hidden cost of Napo retaining ex Napo Assistant General Secretary Harry Fletcher as a consultant.

    2. The refusal to pull out of the government funded Probation Institue where Napo Chair Tim Rendon is a director.

    3. The £140k paid to JL

    ReplyDelete
  3. The points you raise are all perfectly valid. How is the fight against TR immediately advanced one jot by a resignation now?

    ReplyDelete
  4. One point of clarification is Tom rendons directorship of PI tied to his role as NAPO chair?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is my understanding.

      Delete
    2. Then there is no direct personal benefit to him as said director.

      Delete
    3. That is how I understand it. What a shame all this can't just be bloody-well said in a statement!

      Delete
  5. Power vacuum at this point disastrous TR to continue fight and at appropriate point resign

    ReplyDelete
  6. Probation Officer19 April 2014 at 09:51

    The genie is out of the bottle. Tom has compromised his leadership and should step down. I expect the TR battle would be helped by having a chair that is more trusted, credible and transparent, and one who listens to its members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are probably right - but how long will that take and do you think we have the luxury of time right now?

      Delete
  7. There is much personal benefit in being a director if the Probation Institute, and would have helped the application to apply for a CRC directors job. Clearly A career development plan, for which we cannot blame him, but should have stood down to apply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Clearly it's not a liability where a CV is concerned.

      Delete
  8. Well Jim. what can I say, disappointing really. You know very well Jim that the decisions made at the top has been very poor and has not been in the interest of NAPO. However, despite this you want us to accept the leadership as it is - without question. surely that can not be right. The fight to save probation was already lost when the whole process of strike and oppositing the TR was undermined by the leadership when applying for the CRC job as an ACE. A change of leadership at this point can help to resort ppl's faith and move the fight forward. Not changing and continuing with the current leadership means we continue with the dis-trust and the deception to it's paid membership and the unknown of what dysfunctional decisions are being made at the top. I for one can not support this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My position is one of utter short-term pragmatism, but in a war some very difficult and uncomfortable decisions have to be made in order to carry on prosecuting the fight - trying to win must take priority over everything.

      Delete
  9. I do not presume to know what TR's motives were in applying for the ACE job- he would have had to step down from the Chair role if he had got it-which he does not appear to have done-and after 1/6/14 I am uncertain as to how it will pan out with Jezza Wright's pronouncements on facility time.As a union rep NAPO's silence at times has been unhelpful when dealing with live issues on the ground but as we know NAPO emails are being read before we get them I do understand some info only being passed on a need to know basis. So for my mind-to not give succour to the other side-TR stays and steps down at a more suitable moment.This is not it,in my view.As an aside I do think the rows and splits we are experiencing reflect the great divide Grayling and chums have inflicted on the service - that's the old time social worker in me coming up for air. Even more reason for unity in my book.

    The other factor - and this has as much to do with JL as anything -is that when you are dealing with anything legal you have to be ultra careful about what you put into the public arena. We all work in the CJS and know that sometimes what actually happens in a criminal matter bears little resemblence for what the Court settles for as the "truth".-there will be bending and distortions here and only time will be able to give a fuller account of what happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Napo has had Assistant Chief Officers in its Officers' Group before, I cannot see why it cannot have them there again.

      However I do not understand exactly why an officer would apply for an assistant chief's job at this juncture.

      I strongly support Jim Brown's short term pragmatism and thank him for providing a venue for the issues to be explored.

      Delete
  10. 10:39 : here here

    ReplyDelete
  11. I dnt think Tom should resign. But why try and move from NPS to CRC.where it is less safe?!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Presumably he thought there were better career options in the CRC. And a position in senior management in a private sector organisation may well look better on a CV when he tries to make the next step. But I'm not sure why you think the NPS is any safer - Grayling will accept the "need" for 20% cuts next year with the zeal he's showing in pushing through the TR disaster.

      I think Tom should do the decent thing and stand down - everything about this application, from the timing to the secrecy about the NEC letter, shows appalling lack of judgement. But he should stay until the date of the sell-off, as the last thing we need right now is another power vacuum at Chivalry Road.

      Delete
    2. Why perpetuate the myth that NPS is safer ? The MOJ is merely building a strong centre from which to divest the whole of probation service delivery when the remaining objections to the management of High ROSH offenders can be dismissed by the growing experience of the private sector.
      We really are all in this together with no-one safer than the other and colleagues must wake up to this. Indeed there is a strong argument that it is only in CRCs that any semblance of probation values will be retained. Less safe???? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SAFE" !!!!

      Delete
    3. The simple fact is the NPS is the safer option for qualified PO's in the immediately foreseeable future. I think senior management roles on either side are considerably safer still in terms of finding suitable alternative employment when the stuff collides with the air circulation device.

      Delete
    4. "FACT "?
      Believe that if you want, I do not - there is no safe option and it is galling how the false sense of security is flaunted by NPS designated staff; that is how Grayling has secured a lack of dissent but why do you think there are not full terms and conditions parity with civil servants? Because of redundancy costs, that's what. Just wake up to what is happening please.

      Delete
    5. There's no 'safe' option but there is a 'safer' option for PO's and it's without question in the NPS.

      Delete
    6. "Fact"? "Without question"? There are no facts here, only assumptions. You may end up being proved right, anxiousmammal, but you cannot know that for sure now.

      Delete
    7. It is fact that CRC PO's will not be holding high risk cases, doing mappa work, advising courts (or being officers of the court). It is fact there is no requirement for CRC's to employ qualified officers and to my understanding they aren't yet bound to employing new staff on the same terms and conditions. It is also fact that pso's currently do almost everything else, leaving CRC PO's as unnecessary and costly.
      I happen to think the future is also bleak for the NPS, but the risk to CRC PO's is altogether more imminent.

      Delete
    8. It's also a fact that there are 20% budget cuts coming to the Ministry of Justice next year, and that Grayling and his coterie are desperate for CRCs to succeed and will not want to shed experience in the immediate future. But I see that your mind is made up already.

      Delete
    9. So? On top of every I posted above, Crcs will take the lions share of the under 12 month cohort whilst taking profit from the fee for service (approx 88% of the current budget). At this moment in time I'd trade a place in the crc for none in the nps like a shot.

      Delete
  12. Replies
    1. Given that mr rendon has access to priveleged information doesn't his appn to join crc, probably in the knowledge it would cause a shitstorm, suggest that he fears what lies in store for nps - where he was allocated. And thus he'd rather stick his brass neck out as opposed to remaining nps?

      Just a thought, not based on any insider knowledge.

      Delete
  13. All those seeking the resignation of TR - do you know if you have vice chairs, sufficiently enthusiastic to pick this mess up and charge forward? I left Napo some time ago, at a time when I felt unsupported by what was my union. Given the time it would take to get another Chair in place and up to speed, we'll be in very different waters....so perhaps we need to rein in our sense of indignation and trust, hope that TR can resume his Napo duties with gusto and a new sense of responsibility and urgency.

    I am sure you read this blog, so come on Tom, come out fighting and do whatever you can to calm the very choppy waters around individuals, teams and do what you can to save the service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 30 years in19 April 2014 13:05 - Tom appears stubborn enough to continue his stay and not resign. There is maybe one way forward he withdraws from Probation Institute. This would show Grayling that we mean business and we will not help his TR agenda. This might help to show that the leader is doing the right thing.

      Delete
  14. I believe Tom should stay and see his tenure through as there is no alternative. Perhaps he and others in Chivalry Road who were aware of his application, made an error of judgement. So be it. Clearly on the heels of the JL situation there is significant concern amongst the membership, perhaps such concerns could be allayed by an appropriate statement of the mea culpa kind.
    I am very concerned about who would replace Tom should he resign as I have seen at close quarters two very weak recent vice chair appointments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whether it was on the heals of JL issue or whether it was sheer incompetence on the part of Chivalry Road, someone needs to be held to account for this. The paying membership are demanding answers and without this, there is likely to be very little commitment towards shown by the membership to support any instructions from Chivarly Road.

      Delete
  15. I agree that by withdrawing from PI this might help to restore some sense of credibility and bring about some eventual justice to the process around opposing TR. If the leadership is committed to challenging MOJ then let's see NAPO take the lead by withdrawing its support for PI.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As Probation Officer at 09:27 noted, he knew that in applying for a CRC executive post he would compromise his position.

    And as Anonymous 10:55 speculated, what would he have done had he got the job? Would his position as chair still been viable? I doubt it. If you publicly deplore something whilst privately wishing to be part of it, you cannot expect to retain the confidence of the membership. We don't know what support he still enjoys amongst the membership, but I suspect it is shrinking fast. So, what is the point of occupying a role when your capacity to galvanise and inspire members has been so weakened?

    I think concerns about a power vacuum occurring if he was to resign are melodramatic. He is reduced by fifty percent anyway come June. It is not as though a fleet is losing its flagship. If Jonathan Ledger could self-destruct and Harry Fletcher resign at the most critical point in Napo's history, then we will get by and get on, without Tom Rendon.

    When one individual does something that surprises one tends towards idiosyncratic explanations; when another one surprises, you start to look for connections; and when it happens again, you do start to wonder that, if it isn't something in the water and you have ruled out an MoJ destabilisation plot, then maybe, just maybe, there's something dysfunctional going on at Chivalry Road. Organisations can lose their way, their aims and values can become Machiavellian.

    Napo has lacked strategy in fighting TR. They are in deep waters and they have not really been imperilled before. I have often thought of Napo as more at home lobbying in Parliament than supporting and fighting alongside branches. The more I learnt about Napo's agendas the more a feeling grew that Chivalry Road was a bit of an ivory tower. Maybe that's the way it always is with hierarchies – they prefer to pair off with their opposite numbers – in Trusts, the PBA, and now the probation institute. People love inner circles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you might be ignoring the point that the GS is part of the problem too.

      Delete
    2. I agree he is - and others too. I think augean stables.

      Delete
    3. In plain speaking terms: It is not easy to criticise the leadership of a union in difficult times. But they've had their halcyon days. I don't think we should be tolerant of their failings and poor performance. I don't think we should be understanding to a fault. I have no patience with those who say one thing and do another.
      For Tom Rendon to remain as the chair is an insult to the membership and to say he should stay is too forgiving and sends out the wrong message about the standards we expect from those elected to serve the membership.. What does it say about Napo as a union when one of it's so-called leaders finds the time and motivation to write out an application, saying why he would like an executive position in a CRC? It beggars belief and it is not a quality you want to see in someone who is supposedly in the vanguard fighting TR. He should go. And, in time, I hope there will be an inquiry of some independence into the machinations at Chivalry Road.

      Delete
  17. Another well argued point Netnipper. The more I listen and read I find it difficult to support the current position of the TR as Chair. Interesting how his initials stands for the thing we are fighting against.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Given the clear lack of judgement by our 'trusted leaders' at NAPO HQ recently, it is no wonder that the advice and support on the ground from NAPO has been so poor....the fight against TR needs clear direction from the 'top' however on the ground locally we have been pushed headlong and at a ridiculous pace, in to a shambles of non sensical changes whereby we sit by watching duplication and waste and get ever increasingly stressed and angry....what do we hear from NAPO on the ground locally....VERY LITTLE!! I think the IVORY TOWER have lost their way big time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends on what branch you are in and who your Chair is locally. Some are good and you know they are standing up for their members whilst others are a bit more low key and they are either boxing clever or doing very little. Not sure if you can generalise.

      Delete
    2. I am a napo rep and branch official and would like to tell you what I have been doing locally. I am representing five members at this one time through formal investigations and disciplinary, each case requiring many hours of work because by their very nature they are of some complexity. Some will sadly, require the services of a national rep. I am also repping on some sickness absence management cases, again of some complexity. I respond to daily emails about the TR process and and liaise regularly with our HR staff. I get a 10% work load adjustment that covers only meeting attendance when I am repping. All of the preparation for cases is done in my own time at home, I work in a full time role.
      I have been told recently by a member that I am crap because I could not deliver what was demanded and one phone call last week, whilst my husband had cooked tea, lasted two hours with a member so distressed that person could not, at times, speak.
      I try to keep take a full role in the branch and attend branch meetings where I try to share any information I have. Usually about 5% of the members bother to attend.
      Then on here, usually a great source of support to me, I read the post of Anon 17:36 . You may hear very little locally because napo branch officers are all so ****ing exhausted we can barely speak! Get involved and support us or shut up.

      Delete
    3. Anon 19:31 I feel the poster could have worded that better as I don't feel it was intended as having a 'go' at local reps. I think we all appreciate the hard work and dedication of people such as yourself in representing members and supporting them through difficult times. I've certainly been helped through disciplinary and competency hearings and emerged unscathed due to the excellent service provided.

      Thanks for commenting and all the work you do for union members.

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete
  19. Netnipper, it's not often your wrong and your right again..I cannot argue against your intelligent, informed and well thought out argument.

    A few days ago, on this blog there was a link to you tube - the various speeches given, at break neck speed, for the PI launch...I got bored after Tom, Sue and another speaker, tried without an ounce of enthusiasm to inspire the audience and sell the whole PI idea to the world...The really annoying thing is if they believed in what they were saying, they would not be supporting the sell off, and so it is extremely difficult to keep faith with those people;so I am entirely with you on the Chair withdrawing from the PI.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is out of Red Pepper it tells how 10 years of neo-liberalism (privatisation) has undermined Sweden's welfare state. Read it because this is where we are going.


    http://europe.redpepper.org.uk/swedens-great-welfare-heist/

    papa

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jim, leaving aside personalities, this is all about integrity. Holding office (of whatever) always comes with responsibilities and one of those is to be committed and consistent to the office you hold. There are certain expectations of a Chair of a trade union, one of those surely is to believe what you are telling your members. I am not surprised this Chair didn't get the ACO post. If I'd been on the interviewing panel I would have questioned his genuineness to commit to what will be a demanding role in the current unfolding disaster remembering that on the day of interview NAPO were still within a strike mandate and were working to rule, with guidance on this to members being signed of by said Chair. I would have been deeply suspicious of said application, personal merits or no. IMO, the members have been BETRAYED by this revelation; NAPO has lost credibility with Management and their position weakened. It is far far more serious than just some personal lack of judgement. So how to move forward? Very difficult, as I understand that the directorship on PI is a position nominally held by the NAPO Chair, so if the Chair changes so will this post holder in name. Tricky then for any Member who thinks they could do a better job as Chair but who themselves totally oppose PI. We are truly in a mess. And, (unless I've missed something) the silence from the GS on this current predicament has been deafening. So much then for strong leaders pulling together and leading from the front......
    Deb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your're completely right Deb of course, but we are also in a hell of a mess - between a rock and a hard place you might say. I'm only suggesting a resignation now will only make matters even worse.

      Delete
  22. Having heard the General Secretary speak and answer questions from practitioners and the public at Brighton last year I was pretty impressed with him, apart from an understandable misunderstanding about some small aspect of probation practice - he has acknowledged that in other venues where he is supported by practitioners.

    Please remember the staff of Napo are in an entirely different position to the members and national officers. The national officers are in effect their managers, it is not for staff to express public opinions about the officers behaviour unless directed so to do by the officers, whatever they may personally think. It would be like a probation officer, telling a client a judge had made the wrong decision! - Whether or not right or wrong decisions are made, by officers and members, the staff are stuck with them, all they can do is advise on decisions, get on with them or resign themselves, I presume somewhere there is a union workers 'club' where they do tell each other exactly what they think in the same way as probation workers, tell each other what they think about judges, but part of probation or trade union work, is about being able to exercise professional discretion!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Napo - yet again, please take note of the bold lead taken on this blogsite. Jim has nailed his colours, others (many who post frequently) take a different view, Jim holds course. No-one has lost a limb. Its about being a proper grown-up. My own view? A power struggle now would be bonkers, but some positions in napo are untenable in the longer term. Mr Rendon seems to have damaged the cause with a poorly judged act, and neither Mr Gen Sec nor Ms PR are convincing. In the meantime, reps are carrying the can, members are fleeing the trenches, and staff in general are being flogged to death by Grayling's henchmen & women.

    We are now split. Day-to-day - Nps & Crc: napo - pro & anti leadership: the rest - stay or leave. Do we continue to buy Putin's gas & oil or do we sanction? Do we arm the rebels or allow the Syrian state to win? Do we just pleasure George Dubya or do we have to tell lies as well (wmd, oil, saddam, waterboarding, ex-rendition, etc etc)?

    I don't agree with all of Jim's words, but he has the good grace (!?!) to publish, to discuss, to put himself out there. The result has been a space of extraordinary disclosure, of extremely helpful exchanges and of significance at a time of crisis.

    Napo - take note.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't want the GS to 'pass judgement' on what has transpired. I want some assurance that a) members are being heard (in whatever forum) and b) that someone has a tight grip on the reins and is in charge. Tell us all to 'sod off, you've got the wrong end of the stick' if you like, but at least tell us something . Deb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous19 April 2014 20:09 (Deb) fantastic post.

      Delete
  25. It is fact that CRC PO's will not be holding high risk cases, doing mappa work, advising courts (or being officers of the court). It is fact there is no requirement for CRC's to employ qualified officers and to my understanding they aren't yet bound to employing new staff on the same terms and conditions. It is also fact that pso's currently do almost everything else, leaving CRC PO's as unnecessary and costly.
    I happen to think the future is also bleak for the NPS, but the risk to CRC PO's is altogether more imminent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. From what I can gather, NPS POs are twiddling their thumbs, there being very few Tier 4 cases. Which set of POs are really that redundant? Remember, the conservatives would rather there wasn't a 'state' at all. They believe all should be privatised. NPS maybe simply be a smokescreen with all real probation work going to companies. If not immediately, then within short measure. The writing is on the wall. I doubt very much that NPS is a safe haven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NPS POs twiddling thumbs. You are so out of touch. A case load of nearly 60 still writing court reports. That is what is happening in the NPs

      Delete
    2. 60 tier 4's? I bet not and if you are still holding tier 3 then you're not yet with the new aystem. Most new allocations are going to CRC POs

      Delete
    3. There are still wildly different interpretations of the tiering system across the country - particularly when it comes to what constitutes "high risk" or meets the threshold for MAPPA Level 2 or 3. For all its faults, the RSR tool may at least lead to some consistency.

      Delete
  27. Jonathan Aitken has written a report for a right leaning think tank, "urging" the government to recruit 15,000 mentors to prevent re-offending......... yup none of us are safe, here is the next stage of Grayling's master plan
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/19/jonathan-aitken-prison-mentorslan.

    ReplyDelete
  28. anonymous 6.40 in my LDU NPS POs are breathing a sigh of relief, they have stopped writing reports and had their caseloads slashed - I have to laugh when NPS staff pass me their cases apologising that I am getting so much extra work and I, in return, apologise that I am nicking their job - literally!!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. The link appears broken - try this

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/19/jonathan-aitken-prison-mentors

    Former cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken is drawing on his personal experience of befriending and helping a former prison inmate to quit crime and find a stable job, as he calls on ministers to establish a new national network of 15,000 mentors to slash reoffending rates.

    In a report on mentoring for the Centre for Social Justice thinktank, Aitken tells for the first time how he helped Leroy Skeete, a fellow inmate in Belmarsh prison in 1999, where Skeete was serving an 11-year sentence for aggravated bodily harm, to end his cycle of reoffending and find full-time work a decade later.

    Aitken, who says the government could cut the £11bn-a-year cost of reoffending by at least £1bn if it overcame resistance from the probation and prison services and organised mentoring properly, tells how Skeete had all the hallmarks of a serial offender when he first met him, but had the drive and will to turn his life round with the help of friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jonathan Aitken should talk to Monty Don ....

      Delete
    2. So what have they promised naughty Jonathan in return for such pearls of wisdom? He was simpering away smugly on BBC news this morning, "speaking from experience".

      Delete
    3. In fact Aitken's on virtually every news programme across all channels talking about 21 crc's and £450M budget available to aid moving away from existing restrictive practice and opening doors to new ways of reducing 60% reconviction rates. Sounds plausible with nothing out there to contradict such claims.

      See, napo, it CAN be done. If a washed up, mahogany-skin ex-fraudster can get his silky forked tongue on air, why can't you? Grayling must be enjoying his easter egg: "I've crucified NAPO today!"

      Delete
    4. It just goes to highlight how these games are played. They know all Napo HQ will be enjoying a pleasant Easter break - Jonathan knows he can have the airwaves to himself over Bank Holiday - but this blog is still on duty...

      Delete
    5. ... and on fire, as always!

      Delete
    6. So a rich man, with powerful friends and access to the corridors of power in business and the state, with plenty of time on his hands, is able to help one ex-prisoner into work. Where are the 14,999 others? And what happens when they get bored, find some other 'worthy' project, or get frustrated by the lack of progress being made by their charges?

      Delete