Sunday, 13 April 2014

The Might of Mitie

Again from Facebook, I notice that Napo Greater London Branch are continuing their discussion of possible bidders for probation work and as a consequence have turned their attention to the largely unknown cleaning company Mitie. 

Now this outfit used to have a cleaning contract at my office after our faithful band of long-serving ladies got the push some years ago. I think I'm right in saying they had a contract for 'facilities management' right across the whole probation estate, including hostels, following our nationalisation into the NPS first time around. They proved to be broadly useless and vastly expensive amid stories of huge round trips to change a light bulb if I remember correctly, so what's the story behind this lot? 

The Wikipedia entry says of them:- 
Mitie Group PLC is a British strategic outsourcing and energy services company with their head office in Bristol, and more than 200 smaller offices throughout the UK and Ireland. Mitie operates mainly in the UK and Ireland with a growing presence in Europe. It provides infrastructure consultancy, facilities management, property maintenance and a range of energy management services to its customers. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index.
Mitie was founded by David Telling and Ian Stewart as MESL in 1987. It was first listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1988. It merged with Highgate & Job in 1989 and was renamed the Mitie Group.
Their strategy of growth through acquisition has seen Mitie acquire several businesses over the past few years and in 2006 it acquired Initial Security, a leading security business. Following on in 2007 Mitie acquired Robert Prettie & Co. Ltd for £32.7m and incorporated the specialist plumbing, heating and mechanical services business into their Property Services division. In 2008 Mitie continued its acquisitions strategy through the acquisition of Catering Partnership, and DW Tilley. The purchase of DW Tilley allowed Mitie to extend their roofing services nation-wide. 2009 saw the acquisition of Dalkia Facilities Management for £130m to bolster its Technical Facilities Management capability and an expansion into Social Housing with the purchase of Environmental Property Services (EPS) for £38.5m. In 2010, Mitie acquired the integrated facilities management business of Dalkia in Ireland.
Mitie stands for Management Incentive Through Investment Equity, and the company's managers own a substantial minority stake in the business. Mitie's business model is based on taking 51% equity stakes in start-up businesses that fall into its broad fields of activity. The management of the new business invests the remaining capital and if certain targets are met they may sell the balance of the business to Mitie after a fixed period for a sum based on the profits achieved (an earn out). Payment is made in a mixture of cash and Mitie shares. The managers usually remain with Mitie after the earn out.
As a result of this business model Mitie has a large number of group businesses that have significant managerial autonomy but share internal systems, Human Resources and marketing resources.
The outfit is run by Ruby MacGregor-Smith and her Wikipedia entry tells us:-
Ruby McGregor-Smith, CBE, is the CEO of Mitie Group PLC, a strategic outsourcing company headquartered in Bristol, UK. She joined Mitie as Group Financial Director in 2002 and was appointed CEO in 2007. She is the only Asian female chief executive of a FTSE 250 company. She was awarded a CBE in 2012 for services to business and promoting diversity. Her ten years at Mitie have seen a £1.5bn rise in the firm’s turnover, which passed the £2bn mark for the first time in 2012.
Following university McGregor-Smith trained for six years as an accountant at BDO Stoy Hayward. After qualifying, she joined Serco Group PLC, an outsourcing firm, in 1991, and worked there for nine years in a range of operational and financial roles.
In 2002, after a brief spell at the facilities management firm Service Group International (SGI), McGregor-Smith joined Mitie Group PLC as Group Financial Director. In 2005 she was promoted to Group COO, and became CEO two years later when her predecessor Ian Stewart retired to take over the role of Deputy Chairman. As the first Asian female chief executive of a FTSE 250 company, the appointment received extensive press coverage.
McGregor-Smith’s tenure as CEO has seen Mitie’s top and bottom lines grow every year, boosted by strong demand for energy efficiency services. She was quick to identify energy management as a source of future growth: the 2009 acquisition Dalkia UK, a facilities management firm specialising in energy services, significantly boosted Mitie’s strength in this niche market. Internal initiatives at Mitie in which McGregor-Smith has personal involvement include ‘Mitie’s Got Talent’, a company-wide talent contest; and ‘Mitie Millions’, at which she and finance director Suzanne Baxter judge budding entrepreneurs with up to £5m to invest in the winners. The only non-executive directorship she holds is on the board of recruitment firm Michael Page.
A recent article entitled 'Fail and prosper : how privatisation really works' on the OpenDemocracy website dwells quite a bit on Ruby, Mitie and how they fit into the great privatisation scam, sorry plan:- 

Ruby earns more than maybe anybody you have ever met. She is not an Oscar-winning movie star. She hasn't won Wimbledon. Ruby McGregor-Smith is an accountant who runs a British company called Mitie (pronounced Mighty). She pays herself £1.4 million a year. Her Mitie shares, worth £2 million, bring another £60K in annual dividends. On the side, as a part-time director, she picks up £60K more. Last September she 'bought' more shares. They cost her absolutely nothing. She sold them straightaway, making £730,000 in a moment. And now, thanks to British taxpayers, Ruby is about to get richer.

On the eve of her 51st birthday last month, the Home Office gave her a gigantic contract: eight years' work, worth £180 million, running two immigration lock-ups in West London. Mitie got the job — holding 1000 men at Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Removal Centres — only three years after entering what Ruby calls the "market". What's Mitie's experience? They run buildings for Lloyds Bank, clean Odeon cinemas, print and distribute documents, and maintain school buildings under Private Finance Initiative contracts.

For almost three years they have run Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, near Oxford. It isn't going well. Last October one suicidal inmate set fire to his cell. The blaze spread quickly — there was no sprinkler system. Ten fire engines rushed to the scene; 180 people had to be evacuated. Seven years ago, after a similar fire in the same Campsfield block, Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Services strongly recommended sprinklers. It didn't happen. Mitie are experts in fire prevention. They tell potential clients: "our fire and security team can integrate fire prevention, detection, and suppression with your security equipment, including fire detectors, fire alarms, extinguishers, sprinkler systems . . ." Why didn't Mitie heed the Fire Service's warning and install sprinklers when they got the Campsfield contract? Phil Miller, a Corporate Watch researcher, asked Mitie. They wouldn't say.

How does this 'market' work? Less than three years' experience of guarding immigration detainees. One massive fire. And then a gigantic government contract to run two more detention centres. Why didn't the work go to a company more experienced than Mitie?

Ruby McGregor-Smith became chair of the CBI's Public Services Strategy Board last year, not long after she'd scooped that £730,000 windfall. “UK business plays a hugely important role in delivering many public services around the country," she said. And:

"It is crucial, at a time when private provision is under intense scrutiny, that we demonstrate the positive impact that the private sector can make in transforming services and generating value for taxpayers through greater competition."

Four years ago she was one of 35 business leaders invited to sign a letter in the Daily Telegraph, urging Chancellor George Osborne to cut public services. Reducing the budget deficit quickly, they claimed, would "deliver a healthier and more stable economy". They said: "everyone knows that when you have a debt problem, delaying the necessary action will make it worse not better." The BBC's Robert Peston noted: "there is a whole school of economists . . . who would describe that statement as laughable."

Austerity politics creates work for outsourcers regardless of whether they do things more efficiently than the public sector, or not. The PFI model that accountants have dreamed up keeps capital spending off the government's balance sheet, making the official budget deficit smaller. Pushing public money into private hands shrinks the state and weakens organised labour.

Ruby McGregor-Smith's £730,000 windfall is unlikely to be her last. On top of her £1.5 million-a-year, and assuming Mitie's share price keeps rising, this year she is due another mighty windfall. Next year, same again . .
.

40 comments:

  1. I'm not part of the probation service, but my job does bring me into contact with quite a few ex offenders. I have many concerns about the privatisation of probation, and being of a political nature read this blog (and others) on a regular basis. I would like to highlight this situation that I became aware of this week, and hope that if anybody does read it at the MoJ they'll give it some serious thought.

    On a Tuesday morning a man is released on the halfway mark from a 6 year sentence which was given for dealing class A drugs. He traveled accross country, attended his probation appointment, and then went to do whatever it is you do when you've just been released having spent 3 years in custody.
    Wednesday morning he went to the job centre to register a claim only to be told he had to submit his claim on line.
    Having zero IT skills he phoned his sister for help and made arrangements for her to help him submit the claim the following day (Thursday), and that indeed is what happened.
    However shortly afterwards his claim was rejected because it was not submitted on the day of his release. He appealed the decision but lost. It's clear to me that this person will probably be back to supplying class A drugs again very shortly as a means of bringing in some income.
    But what galls me most about this story, is that the decision not to give him any benefits was probably made by a company (A4e, Capita, G4S etc etc), that under TR maybe the same company responsable for his supervision! So how do you square that? One arm of the company puts you in a situation that increases your likelyhood of reoffending by refusing you benefits upon release from prison, whilst the other arm of the company is being paid to stop you reoffending.
    I don't know how all this is going to pan out in the end, but the government need to urgently look at these conflicts of interests, the contracts that a given to private companies, and realise that the same company can't play for both team!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many things that are wrong when it comes to those coming out of prison and the benefits system; many people do not have IT skills, a bank account (they have no suitable ID to get one) or a telephone to be contacted on for that first appointment. Grayling bangs on about them being released with £46 in their pocket so why do government departments not talk to each other, have an appointment set up for the day of release and their payments to start straight away instead of having to wait a minimum of 3 weeks for their first payment (and that is if a miracle happens, otherwise it is generally double that.) They then have to go to some work programme, some weeks later where they have to go through everything which they have done before (the amount of duplication within the system is shocking) and they are still ill prepared for the working world. The majority of the people we deal with have never worked in their lives, their expectations of the working world and society's expectations of them is totally unrealistic. Grayling thinks that if they get a job, get a house, then everything will be fine...he is delusional. Having these two things piles on greater pressures when they do not have the skills to be able to cope with. This is also what is missing with all those agencies working with offenders, both in and out of prison; they can help them do their CVs etc but they do not develop their skills in dealing with demanding bosses, the routine of getting up at 6am and commuting over an hour and two separate buses to get to work. Neither do they spell out all the ins and outs of maintaining your own home on a limited budget. But then I guess all the bidders aren't that bothered about making real changes in the lives of those we work with; they will make profit on everything but the PBR element, irrelevant of the quality of service. Rant for today over with...big sigh and relax in the hope that one day I will wake up from this nightmare.

      Delete
    2. Well said. Grayling's notion of Primes buying up blocks of flats for homeless ex-offenders to live in on release is another notion that deserves to just be binned. If anyone said that to me seriously at work I would ask them to have a lie down and then when they had rested we could discuss the many, many things that are so wrong with this notion of TR. The conflicts of interest built into this system that have not existed before now are a real concern ,too. Senior managers destined for the NPS are making decisions about the CRC-why? The staff list for the CRC is full of so-called back office staff with frontline workers as rare as hen's teeth, whereas the NPS is mainly made up of practitioners .Do bidders know they will inherit a load of IT staff and office managers-that will supervise them a lot of offenders?
      As a team manager with 35 years plus in the service I was automatically assigned to the CRC-no one has asked me what I want ,the decision has nothing to do with my working record (I have managed every type of Probation team other than an AP) and selecting people for compulsory redundancy has a greater element of fairness to it than selecting people on the basis of what they were doing on a retrospective date .I am amazed that the whole premise on what sifting has been based, along with automatic assignment has not been challenged legally. I am looking for another job and if successful my resignation letter will cite TR and the impact of sifting as the reason. We need to get mileage into this ,in other walks of life it could be construed as constructive dismissal. If everyone who leaves the service as a result of TR gives this as the reason in their resignation letter you are registering your grievance for the future and making it a public record. Send copies to the Chair of your Board (whether defunct or not) and Grayling.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous13 April 2014 09:56 - It's a very good example to illustrate the kind of system that is being set up by Grayling and his cronies. The best way to describes it is the way our current financial system works - it works only to keep you financially dependant on debt and by doing so, the financial community are able to make money from you. The criminal justice system will be using these same guiding principles. It will be designed to keep you 'trapped' in the system and therefore create a 'commercial market' in which private companies benefit.
      anarchistpo

      Delete
    4. I am not in a good place to comment in detail now.

      I would urge that man to go to his probation office immediately and ask what help they can give - if the supervising officer is not able to assist to an extent that he has enough to eat today and a roof over his head tonight and a plan to get a longer term solution, I would suggest he ask to see the senior officer on duty and record his needs.

      It maybe that probation do not have the resources necessary to resolve the problems

      I suggest approaching Citizens Advice Bureau and his MP, I presume he will have registered a need for emergency accommodation - if that is needed - stressing he is in the exceptional risk category as an ex-prisoner (I do not know the current terms or legislation - but there is some small area of discretion for Housing Departments of Local Councils)

      I greatly regret that the situation described is so poor and offer apology for my share of the responsibility, which is carried by all UK electors.

      Delete
    5. I do realise 'today' is Sunday and should have written - go to his probation office when it is next open - sorry - hopefully there will be a duty worker available to assist, if the actual supervising officer is not personally available - this sort of situation is stressful for ALL concerned and why I would no longer choose to work in probation, were it necessary for me to work.

      The responsibility to arrange support is with the UK Government, not an individual worker or even (perhaps) any one specific UK Government funded agency, be that a Probation Trust, The Prison Service or Department of Work and Pensions.

      The UK government is answerable to members of parliament and so an MP can be asked to intervene, though no MP is under any obligation to assist.

      A solicitor may also be able to give advice about getting emergency services, but that can be a very difficult way to get emergency help, even if one is able to get help via a Law Centre. I see there is now a law centres network who have a website where at least information about rights maybe available, even if there is not a law centre in the released prisoner's locality.

      http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/about-law-centres/law-centres-on-google-maps/alphabetically

      Delete
    6. He should not be advised to go to his local probation office - it simply isn't our job. I'm all for assisting people in difficult situations, but this mess is the DWP's responsibility to resolve, s that's where he should be going. Yes there should be much better co-ordination between agencies before release, but I can't see the sense in staff from the wrong agency doing the work of another. The CAB would be a much better destination, though I know they're vastly overstretched.

      Delete
    7. I am annon 09:56

      Andrew, the person described in my post has infact got family and so has a roof over his head and unlikely to go hungry. But the situation is not ideal, and having been refused benefits I'd guess the f*** you attitude has already manifested.
      But I think its something of grave concern in more general terms and something Grayling should be pushed for answers on.
      Lets assume A4e for example win a TR contract and are responsible for said persons supervision. They assist that person in obtaining a property.
      Then the A4e that have a contract with the work programme impose a sanction or stop the benefits of said person.
      The said person then has to go back to the A4e with the TR contract and say thankyou for helping me find accommodation, but I'm being evicted for rent arrears because the A4e with the job centre contract stopped by benefits.
      It's just a crazy situation altogether.
      And whilst I've been writing this it's just crossed my mind that if in fact the same companies that run the benefit system are also running TR contracts, and they do infact buy properties to rent to ex offenders, then I would imagine the rent may be considerable because the company that owns the properties will be the same company responsible for paying out housing benefit on them.
      It stinks.

      Delete
    8. I would query if he was misadvised by the Job Centre, These centres are staffed by civil servants and deal with all applications for benefits. Claims can be made online and by a freephone number, so whoever told him it had to be online was giving out poor advice

      Delete
    9. We are regularly told that online is quicker and claims done online will be prioritised. I don't know if this is new or not. A few months ago I went with my someone on my caseload to a job centre upon his release from prison. We were greater by a member of staff and told he could not discuss his claim in person as that is not what they do. Go away and make a phone call or go online we were told.

      Delete
  2. Ahhhhh Mitie - they provide cleaning services to our offices. Our regular cleaner is usually away by about 9am, so you can imagine my surprise when a young man, a complete stranger reaches over for my bin at like 11am. We got chatting - seems ill health befell our usual cleaner and so he was asked to attend in her place...the reason he was working into opening hours, was because he'd driven from Nottingham to us - some 1.30 hours away, possibly more as the M1 can be rather unkind around 8-9am; all in order to fulfil the contract to come and empty our bins.....nonsense. Our building is rather old, to say the least and we have some old windows encased in metal frames - so, I accept, difficult to replace when broken. But, as the window is right by my desk, I was party to introducing no less than 5 individuals from mitie, to the window, those who came to 'assess' the job, but never actually did a repair; then came one chap with some reinforced double sided sticky tape, and he put this over the broken window, so as to prevent shards of glass falling in or outwards. Progress, I thought, but then another stream of people turned up to "look at the window" so many, in fact, it became an in house joke, that we would start charging them to come and "look at it", up until it was actually replaced-must have taken at least 18 months to actually fix. Now I don't mind private enterprise per sa, and I relish a bit of competition, but if the service you buy is absolutely crap, then you need to be able to get out of the contract, and this it seems is just one burning issue.

    It's Sunday, lots of very fit and some, not so, doing the London Marathon - I wish them all well..me, I think I might just catch up with 'True Detective' before the footi.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Expecting some of the people I work with to live in a house, pay the bills and go to work is like expecting me to marry Prince Harry. I don't belong in that world, I don't want to lose my family and support networks, I don't want to change my lifestyle and I don't envy or aspire to be part of the Royal Family. It's as big a step asking many of my clients to be more like me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon at 12.29 - sorry. but your attitude of shifting responsibility to someone else, as it is not your job, is partly what has got us in this mess - it is our responsibility to challenge systems which fail people...I know when he re-offends, we can describe all the pitfalls in an Annex H, but it's then too late - he's recalled. I am with Andrew - we need to take action, although just finding an SPO - let alone one designated as a Duty SPO is rather more difficult these days, we should be bright and astute enough to make an independent decision, that progresses his situation, not just move it along and without it needing SPO approval.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 30 years in - I think you may have misunderstood my post. My "attitude" is not that nothing should be done to help this guy, but rather that he should be sent to the right place to get something done about his problem. I could spend 30 minutes, maybe longer, resolving his benefits problem - but what have I been unable to do in the meantime? And does he then expect me to solve the next problem he comes across for him? Of course we should be challenging faulty systems, but solving problems case by case isn't doing that - it may even be making it worse, because it lets the DWP off the hook. He should be supported to solve his problems himself - and as far as I'm concerned that means directing him to the right place from the start. At least the CAB will keep records of all the problems they deal with and can collate figures which, in aggregate, might be more effective in challenging the system.

      I'm not saying turn him away if he pitches up at the office asking for help - I've done this sort of thing many times over the years, which is exactly why I believe it's the less effective thing to do. I'm saying that if you're going to give someone in that situation advice about where he should be going to get help, the probation office isn't the place.

      Delete
  5. Last week I completed my 'TR Survey' as requested by Napo. It helped me to clarify what my concerns were about TR. One of the questions was about what could be done differently. I realised that my main concern with TR was criminal justice being run by private companies and all that went with this.

    If private companies were to be paid by MOJ for working with people released from short term sentences who VOLUNTARILY wanted to work with them this would achieve the goals that MOJ say they want to achieve but without the negatives.

    Could MOJ not commission private companies to do this work but it not be part of a legal requirement? As long as they get a minimum number of 'clients' working with them they can have a basic fee and if they significantly reduce reoffending rates they can have the payment by results.

    They would be unable to recall them or breach them or have any legal authority over them, force them to do anything.

    This would encourage the companies to engage with offenders and offer them a real service to allow for real change. It would also encourage them to work with the more difficult offenders to get them to engage (more offenders = more profit) rather than ignoring them.

    I know lots of probation areas and police services do work with people voluntarily at the moment with different projects around the country. Is this not something that TR could tap into as a way of giving their friends lucrative contracts but without destroying a world renowned service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. see post on previous day, some similar musings

      Delete
  6. Here is the very dilemma we find ourselves in played out in these posts: "not my job" versus "I will do whatever I can to help". Now, as we have oft repeated here, we should not make this whole TR business work, we should do exactly what we are told to and no more, as a form of passive resistance. But, what to do with the client in need???
    It really is not easy is it to let the head rule the heart when ours is a business of the soul? Many of us work from an ethics base as opposed to a base ethic that is £profit. What to do?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about district judges who ask us to provide risk assessments for civil cases? Social services who at short notice want info on cases no longer under statutory supervision? Police who wonder if we have any idea where they can find offenders who are wanted? Child protection referrals that need to be submitted two or three times before they are listened to? Prisoners who would like contact whilst in prison? If none of these things are good for profit will they just be ignored in the new world?

      Delete
  7. Why have NAPO turned their attention to Mitie - they aren't bidding?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.mitie.com/services/specialist-services/custodial-services/probation-services

      Delete
    2. Mitie obviously understand probation thoroughly (not) - on the web page indicated there is a clickable link that reads

      "Enquiries

      Get in touch to find out more about our range of custodial services."

      It is just next to a heading that reads "Probation services" - presumably the pluralisation indicates they are expecting to run more than one probation service - they obviously are not put off by the prolific reports of the implementation difficulties in the pre-privatisation split - which seems primarily the responsibility of the LibDems and is no doubt connected with Simon Hughes latterly taking a second job (with pay, perks and pension) to the one he already had as an MP.

      Understandably someone so long in parliament who stood back from the gravy train, when it first set off, wants to get on for the end of the ride.

      Shame on him - showing as little integrity as Nick Clegg or Lord McNally who sacrificed his place on the gravy train, for another Government paid job at The Youth Justice Board, which suggests some mutual 'back-scratching' and more has gone on.

      Would it not be best to have as chair of the YJB someone with a professional background in Youth Justice, rather than someone who by his performances in the House of Lords with the ORB revealed his ignorance of the criminal justice process and related services?

      Just wait till it unravels when someone in authority wakes up to the injustice of someone being sentenced to two days imprisonment receiving the added penalty of 12 months statutory supervision, containing penal sanctions, exactly the same as someone who is sentenced to 364 days imprisonment!

      What were the former criminal justice lawyers in parliament doing who voted for such injustice, especially the advocate in chief Jeremy Wright - (integrity light - Jeremy Wright!)?

      That is without commercial companies handing down sentences by defining what Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, should be applied to particular statutory supervisees - hopefully the MOJ will employ a lawyer with criminal practice EXPERIENCE - to advise about the implementation of both these aspects of the ORA - I am a non lawyer - but certain the advice should be DON'T unless you want a whole load of legal, practical and ultimately reputational troubles - which Parliament - all 650 MPs and all, approximately 763 members of The House of Lords failed to stop being enacted!

      Perhaps it will take the equivalent sort of situation that has affected Nigel Evans, who after voting for defendants who avoid conviction to be prevented from being repaid all their court costs is now bleating that he should have his paid!

      Delete
    3. Not bidders though, at least not as Prime.

      Delete
  8. Conflicts of interest ? Where to start ??
    Auditors:
    Mitie Plc - Deloitte LLP :
    Daily Mirror 02/11/11 “City firm Deloittes picks up government contracts worth nearly £7 million after bankrolling the Tories”.
    Sodexo Plc - Pricewaterhouse Coopers :
    Rt Hon Francis Maude MP statement 19/12/13 “On 11 July the Justice Secretary made a statement to the House about significant anomalies in the billing practices under the Ministry of Justice’s Electronic Monitoring contracts with Serco and G4S. Since then the government’s response has been rigorous. The Justice Secretary has led extensive work within the Ministry of Justice. At the same time I initiated a cross-government review with PWC, Moore Stephens and a highly experienced Oversight Group. This reviewed 28 of the largest contracts held by Serco and G4S worth £5.9 billion in total”.
    Capita – KPMG and G4s – KPMG:
    Spend Matters UK 04/01/11 “ KPMG “working for nothing” to get on the right side of the Government - KPMG, ranked the 11th biggest government supplier in the first five months after the election, provides audit, advisory and consultancy services. The firm said it was not expecting to profit from its work with the coalition until the middle of next year, that 10% of its public sector work was done for no charge and that it has bid just £1 for some contracts worth millions.
    It can’t go on forever, says Alan Downey, head of public sector at KPMG, but , “We’re hoping to position ourselves well when the government decides it is willing to pay.”
    and there is much more.... but I am so sickened by this I can't continue but suggest any one who wants to dig starts with Ernst and Young and McKinsey (former employee William Hague) and asks just who are the mysterious consultants Grayling is employing at a cost of £9 million so far??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "position ourselves well when the government decides to pay"
      guess he's hit paydirt then

      Delete
  9. gone are the days where, as duty officer, we'd spend time with people trying to find them accommodation or whatever, I have time and time again been advised by my SPO to 'signpost' people to agencies and that I am here to address their 'offending behaviour'. The caring sharing Probation Service ceased to exist circ 1990.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And aftercare service!

      Delete
    2. We do have to prioritise our time and our resources but we can still assist and befriend where it's needed. Whether it be meet someone to register with a GP, at a drop in housing appointment, make someone a cup of tea and sit with them for their first mental health appointment. Time is sparse but we can do this when necessary.

      Delete
    3. Had a fairly similar conversation with my SPO who wanted to give me an additional 15-20 cases. When asked how I was supposed to see them all, I was advised to 'just turn them round'.

      This from a manager!! Very sad times and it appears that things do rot from the head down.

      Delete
  10. They go to the same schools,they go to the same parties and skiing resorts. They meet in the corridors of power, they are mates looking out for one another.They are mega rich already but with the sell off of the Welfare State they are all about to get richer.

    Politics now is about what the politicians can do for their rich mates and how the rest of us can pay for it. The selling off of Probation is simply the appetisers for the big one, flogging off the NHS. There aint anywhere to run might as well fight the bastards. And if our managers don't understand this now they just bloody stupid.

    papa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point made Papa. But the manager are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing, looking out for themselves. It is better to serve in the house for the master then work in the corn fields. They don't care about the workers. Only interested in themselves.

      Delete
  11. From The Financial Times and NOT completely off topic: -

    MoD’s latest procurement plan still ‘a mess’
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By Gill Plimmer and Kiran Stacey


    Article begins: -

    "The first of the new aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy

    Executives from some of the UK’s biggest outsourcing groups have said government attempts to bring in private sector experts to help run the £14bn weapons procurement programme are a “mess” that risk costing the taxpayer more than they save.

    An overhaul of the equipment and support arm of the Ministry of Defence, which began after previous plans for part-privatisation collapsed, reaches the next stage today, as the department issues tender notices for some of the world’s biggest contractors, including KBR, Bechtel and Atkins.

    But those hoping to win contracts warn the new plans are too complicated because government officials have decided to split the MoD’s weapons-buying into four, with one arm for each of the three forces – army, navy and air force – and “joint command” for cross-force projects. One executive involved said: “There are big questions about how all the companies would work together. All in all, it’s a bit of a mess and unlikely to give great value for the taxpayer.”"

    The rest is here (paywall) : -

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4671554-c2ee-11e3-94e0-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk&ftcamp=crm/email/2014?ftcamp=crm/email/2014413/nbe/BreakingNews1/product_a2___a3__/nbe/BreakingNews1/product#axzz2ymfgMlAR

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am Anon at 15:20 and I forgot one !
    Serco - auditors Deloitte (independent advisors PWC)
    Financial Times 10/02/14 "Serco has won its first contract with the British government since a ban on it bidding for public sector work was lifted 10 days ago".
    You really couldn't make it up could you?
    I do not understand why corporate prosecutions did not follow for G4s and Serco - there's a better audit trail (proof) for their fraud than most of my ( sentenced) clients.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Serco and G4S will ride in to save the day as far as Grayling is concerned. Other bidders may be dropping out but they will provide the façade that the process is competitive and he will duly reward them with a region or two each, telling us all that they now have their houses in order.

      Delete
    2. I can't see how Serco and G4S can be included in the TR competition now. Surely they'd have to re-tender the lot and run a whole new PQQ process - I doubt the bidders still left will allow it.

      My guess is they'll get in at tier and mop up there.

      Delete
    3. How they can get the all clear whilst still under investigation for fraud beggers belief and gives a good indication of just how corrupt this government are.
      I would not be suprised if theres been many meetings over the last few months where government advisors have coached them both through things to enable them to get back on side.

      Delete
    4. I'm affraid that is how Governments work. They converse with each other in the shadows with the sole intention of maximising the private sectors grip on our communities. What we are witnessing today is the one if the most degrading and dehumanising politics - a sophisticated form of politics. This is pure and simple corporate control for the sole purpose of making profit out of people through absolute control.

      Delete
  13. I feel like i'm living in 1920s Russia

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sounds like you have been asleep. Have you not noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very Nice
    We are real advanced and reliable property managements specialists
    we are best property management companies in Atlanta and provide property maintenance.

    ReplyDelete

  16. Website design - Next Theme Digital Marketing more information then visit:www.nexttheme.com - ☎ 0800 2062 247

    commercial cleaning Bristol

    ReplyDelete