********
I very much doubt that is going to be the case. If you look at how much you FAILED to get done in the first week due to your excessive caseload, it stands to reason that this is going to double next week!!
I'm dreading Monday, but at the same time have a perverse sense of anticipation when I fail to get done twice as much then go to my MM and say 'don't say you weren't warned'.
********
A very stressful first week - Delius issues, unable to take cases back to court because those who know it all seem to have forgotten that the Unpaid work staff (CRC) need access to do our job - hence deleted the most important part on the system, so spent most of the week just swearing. Left work stressed, went home and cried - how did it all come to this. In my opinion it feels like the Unions only started kicking butt when the Probation side came into it, CP has always been the poor relation and I cannot see any improvement - I actually felt suicidal this weekend, I need a job, but don't know if my health can take anymore of this stress!
********
I hope you don't mind me saying but please don't suffer in silence. We can all do something about it. Speak to your manager, colleague, friend or see the Doctor. Take some time off work. Nothing wrong with looking after yourself. I appreciates it's difficult but more so if you think you are alone. Trust me you are not alone. We are all struggling but very important that we support each other during these difficult times. we are all with you my friend.
********
There was a strange surge of evangelical fervour towards the end of last week, with a series of new appointments and shiny suits singing the praises of the CRC. Colleagues seem determined to make something work for their clients, despite the almighty fuck-up that this split has generated. Admin staff are on their knees. As always there are those collaborators eager to pocket extra cash and work extra hours/days on offer, but I guess we have to accept they are making a choice. Not everyone is against TR, and many don't give a crap either way - not if there's a few quid on offer.
I am also dreading next week, and the week after, and the week after that, etc. Pay me off and let some new eager body fill my chair before I'm found lifelessly slumped over my keyboard.
********
I am trying to find a place in my mind where this does not matter as much, but I can't. I am trying to rationalise this in terms of just turn up and do what you have to do, just do your job... because that is what I get paid to do. Sadly, no-one seems able to tell me what my job is any more.
I am so affected by the changes but also by working within such a stressed team with one colleague swearing all the time, another just shouting and railing against the injustice of this. It just dreadful for us all. Part of who I am is to try to help others and I am becoming worn out because colleagues need me (including a very stressed manager) and I need them - this takes all of our energy, there is so little left to give clients however hard we are trying.
I took some time off to try to recharge my batteries but now just feel fearful of returning. I have never told a client to "pull yourself together" but am trying this one on myself now! This was so much more than a job it was a wonderful vocation and it has been just destroyed. Sorry for moaning but it has helped me to just say this here where I cannot be accused of bringing my employer into disrepute... So let's gather ourselves and try to have have a good week!!
*******
I refuse to 'gather myself to try to have good week'. It is as it is.......awful!!!!!!
I will do what I can do without ruining my health or promoting an unrealistic view of what can be done.
*******
This is a summary of my week in IT hell.
nDelius - as well as the 72 clicks to get the right team, my Officer Diary is blank. I can only assume this is because my caseload is listed under my new IOM role and my contacts are entered using my new IOM role. However, the offender manager (hate that term) is me under my old OMU role. Therefore, the alerts that I have set as reminders are not showing in my Officer Diary and I do not have the facility to check the Officer Diary for my old OMU role as I no longer exist under that team on nDelius! I use my Officer Diary as a prompting system. I definitely set a couple of reminders on there Weds but they are not showing and I cannot for the life of me remember what they were! What if they were to do with Child Protection or an urgent action to do the following morning that if it wasn't done would compromise the safety of someone? Re the offender manager bit, apparently this is not something IT can sort out (!!) so it is down to our Administrator (who looks after 16 of us!) to reallocate them all individually!
Lost yet? It continues....
Oasys. I wasn't changed over to IOM and during the TR changes, all allocated officer details were lost anyway so, even though I had been spot on at doing my data cleansing the other week (with which we were more or less threatened with disciplinary action if it wasn't done), my task manager and caseload is now blank and I have to find all my people AGAIN and assign them to me AGAIN. I did one earlier but it went through to a colleague who left our area months ago and refused to give me access until she decided! (I definitely clicked on my own name!). Eventually, IT sorted it (after our godsend administrator did).
Reports on current cases (again apology for the terminology). As a CRC PO I am no longer worthy (in Grayling's eyes) to prepare their PSR if they re-offend. I CAN however, (and am expected to), prepare a progress report and send that to the PSR author who will incorporate it into their report.
UPW and Programmes staff haven't been able to input/access information. This could especially cause problems with BBR/IDAP where the guys go home to their victims. They could share some information to their NPS OM which the OM records but Programmes team don't see as they can't access the records as they are in CRC. Programmes go into group, mention something that winds him the hell up and he goes home and assaults his partner!
You seriously couldn't fucking make this up. As I am sure you are all experiencing, this is the tip of the iceberg. Yes, I feel slightly better now I have ranted!
*********
A police officer from the Public Protection Unit in my area tried to email some info about a sex offender to one of my colleagues this week but the email was blocked because it 'contained profanities'. Brilliant.
*********
I'm in IOM too. I"m finding it most frustrating that as I have the PI people I can no longer officially go to their monthly Crown Court review hearings and speak, I have to be babysat by my NPS colleague. The clients hate it and the Judges can't understand it. Saving money? 2 PO's instead of 1????
********
Progress report! Not heard of that one yet & as for the officer diary - not as long as I have a hole in my bottom will that be getting done !!!! If someone wants to know where I am or what I'm doing - walk to my desk & have a look !!! DID YOU GET THAT - NOMS, MOJ, CIA, GSI, CI5 & B&Q - no f*cking chance !!!!
********
Also, have we all noticed that sect 9a and sect 9b Burglaries under the Theft Act 1968 appear on the schedule 15 offence list - MAPPA 1? Kiss goodbye to my caseload then - hope you can take the strain of those few extra cases nationwide NPS!!!
*********
I'm in IOM too. I"m finding it most frustrating that as I have the PI people I can no longer officially go to their monthly Crown Court review hearings and speak, I have to be babysat by my NPS colleague. The clients hate it and the Judges can't understand it. Saving money? 2 PO's instead of 1????
********
Progress report! Not heard of that one yet & as for the officer diary - not as long as I have a hole in my bottom will that be getting done !!!! If someone wants to know where I am or what I'm doing - walk to my desk & have a look !!! DID YOU GET THAT - NOMS, MOJ, CIA, GSI, CI5 & B&Q - no f*cking chance !!!!
********
Also, have we all noticed that sect 9a and sect 9b Burglaries under the Theft Act 1968 appear on the schedule 15 offence list - MAPPA 1? Kiss goodbye to my caseload then - hope you can take the strain of those few extra cases nationwide NPS!!!
NPS are having burglary with intent to cause Criminal Damage and burglary with intent to cause GBH. Trouble is, you can't tell from looking at pre-cons as these come under the sections of the act mentioned above but so do other, non-mappa offences.
**********
Yep. Trouble is there was no way of knowing for sure who was mappa and who was not in terms of splitting the caseload so we just had to get on with it best we could. Hopefully it will be clearer for new cases coming through the courts (hopefully!!!).
*********
It didn't help that the Delius sub codes weren't always put on correctly. I just read through the deps and removed the MAPPA flags if I disagreed.
********
I had to re-allocate cases back to OM because offence was wrong on Delius...
On the matter of CRC 'Collapsing Rehabilitation Company Novelty Mug' when I looked on 'Seller's other items' you can buy an individual Novelty Mouse Mat for £3.49 for with the same messages ie 'Collapsing Rehabilitation Company' and 'Not Prepared Service' Novelty Mouse Mat for the same price plus £1.09 postage, very enterprising, shame you can't buy a combined one with CRC and NPs at opposite ends! I was thinking about sending them through to Grayling and Co!
ReplyDeleteThe mugs are back on that well known on-line market place :-)
DeleteIt is apparent to everyone that whoever designed this operating model didn't understand the job.
ReplyDeleteWell that's encouraging, it seems that people outside of probation may seem to have some idea of what's going on.
DeleteSo the staff split was done before data was accurate...
ReplyDeleteThey changed the rules a week after we had been sifted, saying that all Mappa 1 cases to NPS, ever since then they have continued to change the goal post to what suites them, you couldn't make it up. Those sifted to the CRC should really take legal action against them for sifting us on wrong data and therefore de- professionalising us.
DeleteAnd yet for us Mappa 1 cases were included in the sifting data but with no guidance on how it should be applied across the Trust. This meant that everyone applied the criteria differently. Complete shambles.
DeleteNapo advised staff to print off & check their caseloads last year.In my area we did not rely on NDelius caseloads but everyone had to go thru their caseload with line manager. I'm notsaying that made the process fair but at least within the criteria we had we were treated "equally" on agreed data. If you disagreed with your Trust analysis of caseload that would have been basis for grievance but you'd be out of time for that now I suspect.
DeleteYou're lucky, we were not even told about the sifting until after it had happened, there was no fair process in Manchester which has left very highly skilled and experience officers working with low risk clients. It was that bad that our cleaner had more chance of getting into NPS, than the highly professional skilled probation officers, what a waste of dedicated staff, and demoralisation of a group of people that probably went over and beyond expectations for their clients. Sod them.
DeleteNewly qualified trainees got NPS and didn't even hold high risk case. Its all bollocks. We have been truly SHATED, So all that crap about we want the most experienced probation officers in the NPS is a load of shit. One for the little people Grayling it would seem that those mostly experienced are in the CRC. They are also now taking agency staff at double the expense when they had all the staff they needed and goodwill and unpaid overtime. What would the public have to say about this wasted tax payers money
DeleteAnon 13:11 These factors and others formed the basis of my grievance which is yet to be resolved. Anyone know any good legal bods out there want to take my case?
DeleteI'd be willing to help with some money for you to get legal advise it will be worth it.
Deleteif you are not in a union please check your insurances - some of them have legal cover for employment issues, it is worth checking honestly
DeleteIt is all indefensible, professionally. The whole process has been poorly managed because of Grayling's recklessness. A chapter of profound shame for the MoJ, NOMS and the Condem alliance.
ReplyDeleteWe need to make sure that we elect those who are not only prepared to speak out on our behalf but are prepared to act. For too long we have been content to let others say they will campaign on our behalf and then when they are elected they end up pursuing their own career interests or promoting a project that few people are interested in.
ReplyDeleteProbation staff still seem to have faith in their managers to rescue them.
Where are the protest resignations by senior managers? Many are just in it for the money and don't care about professionalism and principles anymore just their own progress. This is a sad indictment of how far our profession has declined.
Recommend checking when yr next branch meeting is & advertising it, say here?, so any would-be candidates can liaise with your Branch Chairs & ask to attend to take questions if they want your votes over the summer.Candidates have to put their bidsin by July 4th & often want to include with their "election bid" list of branches who support them.Candidates now more than ever should be prepared to respond to members' concerns.
DeletePrior to the split one of our senior managers said if everything is done fairly staff will accept the change. I'm not sure he was right but given that we can't say the process was fair we'll never know. Perhaps acknowledging what has been done and offering compensation would be a starting point. Will it come to this I wonder? I think not but time will tell.
ReplyDeleteThey will never admit they were wrong and are just pushing this through without taking any note of all the fuck ups. Some one brave and who has legal friends needs to challenge this, only one person has to win and the whole lot will topple.
DeleteMaybe this is where Napo or Unison has to step up - choose an individual with a solid case and back them all the way.
DeleteWeek 2 and no change to NDelius, can't do my job don't have the technology. Please someone in government merge us back this in not working apply common sense its not hard.
ReplyDeleteGRAYlING ADMIT CULPABILITY.
ReplyDeleteJust heard that NPS staff will get a day off for the queens birthday.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well there'll be no one in the office to cover and CRC will not be allowed.
DeleteI'm sure the clients will understand that their OM is off to celebrate the birthday of a woman who's sole achievement was to be born into the right family at the right time.
Ministers attempting to crack down on civil servants’ perks have hit an unexpected barrier – the Queen.
DeleteCabinet Office Minister Francis Maude wanted to cut the two-and-a-half ‘privilege’ days that staff get on top of their 30 days’ annual leave and bank holidays.
But The Mail on Sunday has been told the plan was altered after it was discovered one of the days had been personally granted to the Civil Service by the Queen on her Coronation 60 years ago.
The Cabinet Office said: ‘Civil servants are currently entitled to two-and-a-half privilege days.
It was decided that it was appropriate to make changes to one-and-a-half days, and leave the Queen’s birthday as it is.’
Senior civil servants agreed to forgo the one-and-a-half days. But it has now emerged that this time has been added to their annual leave.
One Whitehall source described the move as ‘cooking the books’ to disguise the fact that staff will be keeping their extra holidays.
Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, said: ‘Things like privilege days are at complete variance with the urgency and pace that we require from the Civil Service, particularly in the present economic times.’
A Palace spokesman said that the decision to keep the Queen’s birthday privilege day was ‘entirely’ that of the Cabinet Office. He declined to discuss any talks between officials about the proposal.
err has anyone told them in the Civil service that POs get 33 days contractually? Watch this space, bet that is first item on post split agenda - reduction in annual leave anyone?
DeleteIt used to be 36, don't forget. Given to POs in lieu of a pay rise. Remember them?
DeleteThey better not take CRC workers leave, COS THEY'VE TOOK EVERYTHING ELSE.
DeleteSo it's goodbye to the Maundy Thursday and the half day Chrissie shopping Civil Service days but keep HM's birthday. Gawd bless you Ma'am.
DeleteI feel completely frustrated and really believe we have and still are being sold out. We hear PBR is no more, but rather it is now payment for service, supervision for U12mths - no plans in place yet! Agency staff being brought in left right and centre to cover gaps that just weren't there prior to the split...at a higher hourly rate! I don't know if all this is fact or not, why? Because we have heard nothing from NAPO, apart from the same old same old, or simple rehashing of what others have said. These blatant contradictions upon which TR was premised need public challenging. I'm sorry but a sarcastic, jovial tweet from the GS (a week ago!!) about whether Delius is working or not just doesn't cut it for me!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right. There's nothing of consequence coming from NAPO's so called leader. He doesn't give a fuck - his job's fine...
DeleteI'm not sure where the information came from regarding PBR turning into Fee for Service and the under 12 month service disappearing from the competition. I am a bidder and these factors are still very much in.
ReplyDeleteGreat. So,how does it feel ordering a Rolls Royce but taking delivery of a Robin Reliant?
DeleteWithout an engine???
DeleteDear Bidder - those elements, according to Ms Romeo, are not at the forefront of current efforts. She stated in interview she wants to keep bidders interested by asking them how they want to be served their slice of the public pie - and pbr aint top of that list. Then there was the ministerial tweet in response to Ms Vera Baird which placed u.12 month supervision on the back burner.
DeleteDon't know what you're bidding for, but the goods are very much damaged. The moj would be banned from ebay if they tried to sell goods by pretending they're something they're not. Its a toxic muddle of utter incompetence, blind faith, ideology, greed and sheer stupidity.
Steer clear - do you really want the blood of those who will inevitably be killed or take their own lives staining your balance sheet?
Dear Bidder
DeleteThe PbR being dropped - see this interview in Civil Service World with Ms Romeo of MoJ ... http://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/interview/interview-antonia-romeo-moj
.... "In fact, it sounds as if Romeo hasn’t yet made the final decisions on the risk within the payment-by-results mechanisms: it’s “being set through the competition”, she says, with the MoJ “asking people to tell us how much they’re prepared to put at risk, and what reduction in reoffending” they think they can achieve".
If the MoJ are telling you that all is well, then you are in for a shock. Caveat emptor.
Dear bidder your business sense must be in question if you want CRC. Staff have no motivation to make this work and if we did we couldn't because our jobs are so complex you can't just divide us and expect it to work, week 2 post divide and we are at collapse stage, you will get a demoralised staff group who have no idea what their job is anymore. Please advise all the other bidders and don't listen to those high up you won't get the truth out of them. On a positive note I am pleased that you are reading this blog it will give you a more accurate picture of the shambles that we are in, no amount of money thrown at it will improve anything, you stand to loose not just your money but your reputation.
DeleteShaw Trust reported to have withdrawn from bidding in the South West area today -seems they think that they can be more effective outside the CRCs.
DeleteHeard they have pulled out in the East also.
DeleteI wish all the bidders would pull out of the northwest (Manchester). The mutuals should also follow them, living in their deluded world of opportunities.
Deletedid anyone ever hear the outcome of NAPO referring this to the International Labour Organisation, think that is what it was called? Is that still outstanding?
ReplyDeleteIt was total bollocks - empty posturing. the ILO/whatever it's called has NO power. It can make a ruling, and in the unlikely event that this is critical of the UK government, then if the government doesn't tow the line it can... issue a report! Yes I'm sure the government are terrified....
DeleteIt will take years -truly.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised that this TR has been a shambles. That's how they want it; a complete disaster. This will help when a new bidder comes in making sweeping changes to which staff will embrace with open arms and without any hesitation. Better something new then the shit we have now.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really dumb analysis!! I get that they want to create success for the providers and there are easy winds that they have built into the process (e.g. taking all Corporate Support roles away from the NPS whilst putting the staff into the CRC = automatic savings when the redundancies come) but to make the service a disaster so the provate sector can come and save the day is not where this all comes from. This debacle is the consequence not of Machiavellian conivance but of sheer unconscious incompetence. They thought they could do it but, because they didn't understand what 'it' was, the result is chaos..
DeleteApolgies for typos, phone screen too small and typing is frustrating.
DeleteNo we won't embrace it, and I hope you don't too. Bidders be aware, that we are not interested.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think bidders care. They don't think they need us. The plan is to manage from afar, palming off our work to tier 2 and tier 3 providers. Haven't people read and / or understood the business plan?!?
ReplyDeleteJust to add... the problems they will face by doing this is breaches won't be dealt with well and risk escalation won't be noticed so SFOs will increase and eventually the work will be taken off them. The question is, how long will this take and what reputational damage will be caused in the mean time. Maybe we need to start lobbying tier 2 and 3 providers now. How about it Napo?!
DeletePointing out these risks to potential bidders is part of what Ian Lawrence from Napo has been doing.I'm not able to copy and paste but there are blogs on this on Napo website.
DeleteTaken from Ian's blog:Yesterday, I attended two meetings at the MoJ alongside Unison, where we met representatives of the prospective bidders for the CRC’s. In our own particular struggle against the forces of darkness that have been hovering above us since Grayling announced his wretched TR project last year, this event (which we asked for via the MoJ) was a busy affair, involving two sessions of about an hour each which saw a vast array of fancy titled executives pitching up to hear what we had to say.
DeleteWe started this somewhat surreal ‘let the buyer beware’ session by saying, in as professional a way as we could, that we would obviously not have started this dialogue in the first place; but that we thought we ought to make it clear that as far as we are concerned they are being asked to buy a ‘pig in a poke’. One that will be vastly different from any type of contract they have entered before and one which also included a series of inviolable safeguards by way of the NNC National Framework Agreement and the additional prospect that there will have to be transitional arrangements to allow cross representation by NPS Union reps to CRC members and vice-versa.
For good measure, we also spelt out the agreed arrangements that Grayling has signed up to for a mirror image collective bargaining regime within the NPS/CRC’s that will effectively mean that whoever wins a contract package area may not have a seat at the bargaining table, which caused a palpable ripple of seat shifting amongst the big players.
We have not fully analysed the responses and questions that came back at us, but It is fair to say that we didn’t think that these people have anything like the information they need to mount realistic bids or any comprehension about the operational chaos that is already out there and we made sure that we will follow up with evidence of this, and that our efforts yesterday were about spelling out a series of home truths. As there simply wasn’t the time to interview them all individually, we presented them with a list of key questions which should keep their bid teams exercised and hopefully cause them some discomfort.
What we asked:
The following are just for starters and we have already identified a series of more comprehensive questions that will be tailored by the initial responses that we receive, or not, as the case may be.
Are you clear on the industrial relations framework that you will be inheriting under the terms of the contract/staff transfer scheme and staff transfer and protections agreement, particularly in relation to:
Continuation of national collective bargaining
Recognition of existing probation trade unions
Application of national collective agreements to new starters
Voluntary severance
Are you pricing your bid with the above in mind?
Are you committed to avoidance of a two tier workforce in the CRC?
We will expect you to offer the LGPS to new starters – please confirm your position on this
What plans have you got for sub-contracting?
What plans have you got for re-structuring the workforce, including voluntary redundancies?
Have you any plans to use zero-hours contracts in any part of your business?
How do you evidence your commitment to equality and diversity in employment and service delivery?
How will you avoid infringing the ILO convention on forced labour in delivering CP?
Do you recognise any other trade unions?
More news as soon as it becomes available
How are you going to work with a demoralised work force.
DeleteHow can your staff deliver good risk assessments without shared information/access to information.
Do you know what a Probation Officer does.
made me sick listening to the old chief of the Trust and subsequently the new CEO of CRC bleat on about change this and change that - the Trust was not broken, it won all kinds of accolades - it did not need changing. Maybe tweaking but not wholesale change - we will not listen to you - talk to the hand !!
ReplyDeleteOK readers what I am about to tell you is not a joke, honestly. NPS boss put out an email today with an "exciting opportunity" for a NPS PO to go with CRC POs to oral hearings, because CRC POs are no longer allowed to speak to the Parole Board without the NPS PO being there. This has got to be dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I only hope the author of the email was selling it as an "exciting opportunity" through sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteCannot believe oral hearing panels will be restricted by this! They'll ask their own questions methinks!
DeleteI hope it was sarcasm, already feel very deflated about my demotion and professionalism being stripped without even me doing anything wrong, and this on top. BLOODY HELL WE ARE THE SAME PO'S WHO DID ORAL HEARINGS, PSR's, HELD MAPPA LEVEL 3 CASES, PAROLE REPORTS ECT 2 WEEKS AGO GET AGRIP AND SOME OF US STILL ARE CONTINUING TO DO THIS WORK. As stated above we are HIGHLY EXPERIENCED DON'T BUY INTO THE GOV JARGON AND BULLSHIT. Are we employed by fish who have a 3 sec memory. WE WERE NOT SIFTED ON MERIT BUT BY A VERY BLUNT INSTRUMENT THAT LED EVERYONE TO BELIEVE THAT ONLY THE HIGHLY SKILLED AND EXPERIENCED PO'S ARE IN THE NPS, SO WHY HAVE THEY EMPLOYED NEW OFFICERS THAT HAVE NEVER BEFORE HELD HIGH RISK CASES, OR ONLY PEOPLE THAT HELD SMALL CASE LOADS WHICH MADE THEIR CASES SEEM TO BE HEAVEY ON HIGH RISK.
ReplyDeleteWe know its not a joke, CRC POs can't comment on risk at oral hearings if they attend and so need an NPS chaperone PO to do that part. Another example of duplication and unnecessary expense. The ridiculousness of it all just has us the in the CRC shaking our heads in total disbelief, its like we're in some mad alternate reality.
ReplyDeleteIf I am not good enough to comment on risk then I am not good enough to attend. Why would there be any need for me to go.
DeleteFrom Twitter - Martin Davies @MartinFly2 CEO YHL CRC
ReplyDelete"Good days meeting with partners in Hull, visit to Beverley. Positive staff working through changes, good to see! SMT tomorrow!"
Is this the reality, are we all wrong??
Its probably more LIES. They are that deep in it they got to lie so they don't look like idiots.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 21.35 (and everyone else) am I the only one who is beginning to ponder whether the insistence that a NPS PO escorts a CRC PO to oral hearings is because, ultimately, if the shit hits the fan at a later date, the public as opposed to the private sector will take responsibility?
ReplyDeleteThe requirement for NPS POs to attend oral hearings alongside CRC staff likely reflects the fact that while CRCs may hold parole cases, they will not be authorised to complete parole reports. As if the notion of such a significant document being authored by a third party - that is, the allocated NPS PO - were not in itself already absurd enough, in the event of an oral hearing any reasonable parole board will as a result almost certainly wish to hear from both the author of the report presented to them AND the individual responsible for sentence planning the case and with that likely providing the information that forms the substance of the presented report. The 'exciting opportunity' to accompany CRC staff to oral hearings referred to above probably also carries with it a similarly thrilling 'opportunity' to write x amounts of parole reports on long term prisoners not previously known to the lucky winner of what will no doubt be a most coveted position
ReplyDeleteSimon Garden
There won't be many CRC parole cases, once all the MAPPAs, high ROSH and Public Interest stuff has gone to NPS. Possibly NOMS thinks report writing skills will wither on the vine in the CRCs so the NPS will need to come in and do the job? Replicating the OM/OS situation. (This is me being Devil's Advocate, so don't shout at me)
ReplyDelete