Dear members
Judicial Review Update
This message is going to Napo members via your preferred e-mail address. It is to advise you that in light of the response received by Napo today from the Treasury Solicitor (on behalf of the Secretary of State), a very short further period of time is being given for the Secretary of State to respond to our substantive points. The Officers and myself have taken Counsel’s advice before reaching this decision.
The Secretary of State has however now confirmed that no CRC contracts will be signed for the sale of CRCs before 24 November 2014.
Napo will obviously do all that it can to ensure that members are kept up to date with developments and it is anticipated that another members’ mail out will follow on Tuesday of next week.
Ian Lawrence General Secretary and the Napo Officers Group
I wasn't expecting signatures until December!! Not until an earlier date sounds oxymoronic to me. Nevertheless, this is a positive development.
ReplyDeleteI don't think giving the enemy more time is positive at all. SOS knew what we wanted and if he was so cock-sure of his facts they should've been ready to hand.
ReplyDeleteConsidering he wouldn't even speak to napo before its a bloody cheek.
ReplyDeleteExactly ! If he didn't come up with the facts today then we should be pushing ahead with the next step.. Whatever that is !
ReplyDeleteThis is real progress the MOJ are on the defensive at last - may have been sooner and avoided the split but better late than never.
ReplyDeleteNOW is the time to make sure we are all stoking the TR Truthseekers Train and on board!
https://twitter.com/Andrew_S_Hatton/status/525700316202037248
Yes but they will have had that information akready surely. Why shoujd they be given extra time ..
ReplyDeleteIf nothing by 4pm today then JR shoujd have gone forward I woukd have thought.
Grayling couid perceive this as us backing down with no intention of court proceedings
they state they are following Counsel's advice, There will be a reason for that.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it will be around reasonableness. Cannot be seen to be unreasonable for the sake of a couple of days.
ReplyDeleteI agree with anon 18.48. We have entered the realm of brinkmanship and lost our edge by allowing CG more time. Its been bandied around for ages about a possible JR around failure of duty of care and failure to consult and if he wasn't savvy enough to already have his response to these possible charges drawn up in a document to slap down in front of any challenge, then more fool him (and his Dept). Either we keep this challenge rolling in a clear assertive decisive manner or we are lost. So no niceties and no extra time to MARSHALL A POSSIBLE DEFENCE TO DEFEAT US............ for pete' sake. Dont be fooled by the sheep's clothing, the wolf still lurks within....
ReplyDelete(I am a bit angry, as you can see........)
Deb
Counsel's advice.....what is the point of employing Barristers if you don't listen to them??? There will be a reason and as stated above It is probably to do with evidencing that you have offered them all opportunities to respond.
DeleteI agree, the legal profession are not friends with Comical Ali and have no reason to be anything but hostile. If they thought there was any mileage in immediate progression then they would have not hesitated to do this. I'm not sure that I've met an MP who is a universally despised as Mr Grayling...and that say's something!!!!!
DeleteYes I suspect we are caught by need to appear reasonable and prepared to seek resolution. ie not a frivolous legal challenge. What isnt very clear is how much longer CG has been given..it is frustrating!
DeleteI've heard CG has been given 21 days. While MOJ have said they will not signed contracts during this time and have two questions: Will he still announce preferred bidders?
DeleteIf Preferred Bidders are announced will they be allowed to commence due diligence during this 21 days period?
Feeling concerned and worried at the length of time he has been given
If 21 days is true - that seems pretty worrying to me!
DeleteAbsolutely, which takes me right back to my original posting yesterday at 19.32......
DeleteDeb
Patience All!
ReplyDeleteNever make the assumption that MoJ /NOMS have all the information to hand - this is simply not true!
Remember they don't believe that NAPO will seek a JR so why collect the info?
They also don't know what is going on "in the field" so any issues/information about delivery will have to be sought out .
Granted that the time delay provides good grace from the employee side when there is none from the employer but never make the assumption that the mandarins at Whitehall (Petty France) have any clue .......You have all seen Grayling's previous successes at the Law Courts!!!!!!
The MOJ have confirmed they have delayed the possible sale by at least one week, that is a gain, every week's delay gets us nearer to the General Election 'purdah' date - which I read (But do not know for sure) is the 17th December
ReplyDeleteNOW TWO INTERESTING TWEET INVITATIONS FROM JOE KUIPERS
ReplyDelete- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ONE: -
"
@joekuipers 5 hours ago
#Probation journalist investigation; if you contact me by DM all I will do is give u her contact details. She has confirmed confidentiality. "
TWO: -
" @joekuipers 5 hours ago
I am in touch with investigative journalist who needs hard facts on #Probation breakdown, courts, parole board, etc. in confidence. DM me? "
To Contact him you could start here: -
https://twitter.com/joekuipers/status/525648605219389441
I'm on the fence with this one. Whilst I do believe that the SoS should not be given ANY leeway, I understand that the Court may take the view that he should be given sufficient time to provide the evidence needed. That said, I'm inclined to go for the 'big push' and instigate a JR simply, if nothing else, to disrupt TR to the point where it is no longer feasible. Whatever may occur, hats off to IL for saying what he was going to do then doing it (albeit with this hiatus).
ReplyDeleteBTW Jim, my colleague thinks that I am you simply because our sentence forms, diction and grammar are similar!!
Me thinks she is mistaken :)
Me thinks there are Jim Brown's everywhere...
DeleteI'm Jim Bro...
DeleteNo, lets stop that now, we've been here before. Whoever Jim is we owe him/her a debt of gratitude that we can probably never repay.
Absolutely Anon 20:52.....however, of Jim Browns there are many... so if they should ever try......
DeleteYes, Jim you are a beacon in a sea of cobblers and flim flam.
Delete" Civil Service World
ReplyDeleteHodge says “confusion exists at the heart of government”
Written by Samera Owusu Tutu on 22 October 2014 in News
Margaret Hodge today stated that confusion at the centre of government is impacting on the government’s ability to “deliver value for taxpayers’ money”.
The chair of the Committee of Public Accounts said: “Confusion exists at the heart of government about what exactly the role of ‘the centre’ – Number 10, the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury – should be.”
She added: “This current lack of clarity about the precise role and responsibilities of the centre jeopardises government’s ability to deliver value for taxpayers’ money in key public spending areas.”
Hodge made recommendations last year for greater central government direction, but top officials including Treasury permanent secretary Sir Nicholas Macpherson and Cabinet Office permanent secretary Richard Heaton responded with a letter defending the current arrangement. At the time, Hodge reacted by asserting that Cabinet Office and Treasury were not “demonstrating real leadership in their role as government’s corporate centre”.
Speaking as the committee publishes its 19th report of this session, ‘The centre of government’, Hodge said that senior civil servants are resistant to change. “Correspondence we received appears to demonstrate a conflict between ministers at the centre, who want it to play a more effective, smart and challenging role, and senior civil servants who are resistant to change and remain wedded to departmental autonomy,” she argued.
“This lack of agreement means that there is no clear definition of the role of the centre and the responsibilities for implementing cross-government initiatives, such as debt collection and centralised procurement, are not always clear.” "
http://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/hodge-says-%E2%80%9Cconfusion-exists-heart-government%E2%80%9D
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/24/g4s-serco-pay-out-100000-youth-restraint-claims-stc
ReplyDeleteFourteen children who were assaulted by G4s and Serco staff while being detained in secure training centres (STCs) between 2004 and 2008 have received damages following a Guardian investigation.
DeleteNeither company has admitted liability, but they have paid out almost £100,000 in compensation to the complainants who are now adults.
The Guardian investigation followed a public outcry caused by the deaths in 2004 of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood in the STCs. Myatt, aged 15, died after being unlawfully restrained by three officers in Rainsbrook STC, near Rugby. He had been restrained for refusing to clean a sandwich toaster, which he said he had not used.
Myatt was 1.47m (4ft 10in) and weighed 41.3kg (6st 7lb). One restraining officer was 1.85m (6ft 1in) and 101.6kg (16st). When he told the restraining officers he couldn’t breathe one replied: “Well, if you are shouting, you can breathe.”
Rickwood, 14, killed himself after being unlawfully restrained by four adult carers at Hassockfield STC, where he had been on remand for just over a month on wounding charges. Officers unlawfully restrained him using a “nose-distraction” technique (severe tweaking) after he refused to go to his room.
The families of Myatt and Rickwood discovered that in all four STCs in England and Wales staff were routinely using force to discipline children. That is against the terms of their contracts with government, which stated that force can only be used as a last resort, to prevent injury or damage.
Four years ago, the Guardian received irrefutable evidence that children continued to be restrained for non-compliance in STCs and young offender institutions long after the deaths of Myatt and Rickwood. The Guardian contacted lawyers Bhatt Murphy, who began to seek legal redress for the children concerned.
I' guessing that the MoJ needing more time means that they aren't prepared. Let's face it petty France are clueless when it comes to our work, so any briefings SoS has been getting will not have accounted for the material in the NAPO depositions. And remember, a couple more days of waiting is actually over the weekend, when they have even less chance of getting a coherent reply in, cos those of us with a life and understand the job are with our families or down the pub..
ReplyDeleteI sense a victory.
DeleteApologies for typos in that last one.....I have been down the pub!!!
ReplyDeleteWorkload assessed in West Yorks. Most NPS on around the 200 per cent mark on the old tool, new tool coming anytime soon. Expect a minor revolt next week!!! Management crapping themselves!
ReplyDeleteAdditionally staff refusing to do flat rate reports. Expect FDR meltdown. Going the same way as Manchester. Utter pandemonium!
ReplyDeleteI fear you are only commenting on your own office within the larger area of West Yorks. In my office (W. Yorks) some PO's / SPO's can't get enough flat rate reports to do, absolutely coining it in !
ReplyDelete