Monday 15 December 2014

Latest From Napo 53

The following e-mail was sent to all Napo members late this afternoon:-

Since the JR costs hearing held last Friday, Napo has been in consultation with our lawyers to explore a potential appeal. Whilst we were not given permission for an appeal on Friday against the costs order, it is the refusal that we are considering appealing against. The Officers group will look at this in more detail later this week.

Outcome of the costs hearing:

The Court ruled that the MOJ was allowed to keep its evidence secret under a confidentiality order imposed by the Court at the disclosure hearing. This has resulted in Napo writing a comprehensive briefing to bidders outlining Napo's analysis of the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Court. A copy of the letter to bidders can be found on the Napo website: https://www.napo.org.uk/news/napo-has-written-bidders-comprehensive-briefing

The Courts found Napo liable for some of the MOJ costs but found the MOJ liable for our costs in relation to the disclosure hearing. Full details of the costs have yet to be finalised by the Court and we will, of course update you as soon as we can.


Today also saw the publication of the HMIP report ‘Transforming Rehabilitation – Early Implementation’:


Napo provided MP's with a briefing on the report in time for Justice Questions to be held tomorrow morning. The briefing can be found on the Napo website https://www.napo.org.uk/reports You will find a link to the full report at the end of the briefing. Branch representatives meet in London this Thursday and more information will be issued about developments as soon as we are able.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary, and the Napo Officers Group


And here is the latest blog from the Napo General Secretary:-

Napo not down and not out even if others would wish it to be so

Since last weeks news about the discontinuance of the Judicial Review application we have been busy preparing for the costs hearing that took place on Friday, and getting out as much information to you as we have been able to, notwithstanding the confidentiality restrictions. Another mail out is on its way this evening putting some of the outcomes in context.

You will know that we have organised a meeting of Branch Chairs which will take place this Thursday, and in addition have written to NEC members under confidential legal privilege to spell out the facts behind what happened regarding JR and why it happened and why the Officers were unanimous that we had exhausted our available options. We will be releasing more information as we have promised, once we have had that discussion with Branch representatives. Meanwhile, I wanted to say that nobody underestimates the fact that the decision has caused massive disappointment. We share it too. Many members have made a huge emotional investment in the hope that we could use the legal process as a means of saving Grayling from his own recklessness, but in order to rubbish his evidence we firstly had to secure it and then consider what the judges would make of it on the extremely limited parameters that were open to the Court.

We now know why Grayling has refused to release all his assurance tests up to now, and why he is still terrified that the CRC bidders might actually find out that he acknowledges there were, and are, major concerns about the safety of what they are being asked to buy. Todays report from HMI Probation:

https://www.napo.org.uk/sites/default/files/BRF46-14%20-%20HMIP%20report...

makes it clear that while he does not believe there are safety considerations worthy of mention, (I will leave it to others to speculate on why not against the backdrop of the conflict of interest concerns publicised widely elsewhere) there are some 68 recommendations that need to be acted upon, and as you would expect we have sent in a briefing and some key questions to Parliamentarians this afternoon.

Message to the bidders

I have just signed off a letter (the second within a few days) and appendix which tells the would be owners of the CRC's that even though we are prohibited from showing them Graylings evidence it kind of looks like this.

Here is the link:

https://www.napo.org.uk/news/napo-has-written-bidders-comprehensive-brie...

because its too long to reproduce, but I hope it finds some resonance with them as well as our members. Oh and by the way, they and you will be interested to know that Napo and Unison have formally registered a National Pay dispute at this afternoons meeting of the National Negotiating Council. More about this soon.

Message to the gloaters

The blatantly aggressive communique from Mark Head and Colin Allars about last Friday's costs hearing that some CRC Chiefs have reproduced, presumably as a means of trying to ignite internal strife among Napo members, is patently inaccurate in terms of the potential for an appeal by Napo against the costs decision. It also prompts a question to those now trying to stick in the metaphorical knife: where were you when the chips were down, when our members took industrial action, when they were out there campaigning to alert the public to the recklessness of the TR programme and when our members needed you to speak up about the issues that they have been fighting over for the last 18 months?

Nowhere, is the answer.

29 comments:

  1. Hmm am curious as to why there is no reference to the "crucial concessions" won by Napo from Grayling, the existence of which were disputed by Allars and Head in the communique mentioned above. I understand there are legal arguments about confidentiality etc but O for some real openness across the board!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry it is a minor thing I know but the Allars letter was counter signed by Mark Read who is head of CRC

      Delete
  2. there's been lots of doom n gloom lately and I know the writing's on the wall but at least they're doing something?

    Has anyone got anything positive to say about the above?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I feel the following two questions are to narrow and give the SoS the ability to answer YES without further question. Incidentally in Q1 shouldn't it say implemented NOT implanted.


    1. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that all of the key recommendations in the HMIP report have either been implanted or at least will be prior to contracts being signed on 18th December?
    2. If not what assurances can he give the House that contracts will be ready to be mobilised in February 2015?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It would make so much more sense to have all PO cases in NPS and all PSO cases in CRC. Then CRCs wouldn't have to worry about PO qualifications and there would be far less risk escalations to deal with. Simples, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's my guess that within time pay, terms and conditions of crc POs will be eroded to an extent that they will be on PSO salary in the Long run. Hence Nps bleating on abt fair and open competition of Nps staff

      Delete
    2. Can we stop using phrases like "bleating on" in relation to our colleagues? Everyone's being screwed over, and it doesn't help to go along with the MoJ's divisiveness.

      Delete
  5. Anon 20:07 I really disagree with your statement - we know risk is dynamic and there have been a number of cases with PSOs in my office where risk escalations have been required - excluding those inappropriate allocated to CRC in first place. It could also be said that high risk cases are more compliant - much more to lose - low to medium risk cases create the greatest risk of SFOs. I stand corrected but they appear in recent years to have downgraded SFO cases - aggravated burglary used to be an SFO now only deemed so if there is at least one previous serious offence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Low to medium risk cases do not present the greater risk of SFOs there are just more of them. Please understand this. They have indeed downgraded SFOs and rightly so. It is easy to identify a hazard,harder to identify the risks of that occurring. Prevalence remains constant. SFOs are so defined to paint Probation in a better or worse light. We were shocked when Michael Howard produced figures to say there were 200 sfos per year. When he expanded the criteria there were more.
      We have so bought into the notion that or success or failure is measured by the re-offending of some.

      Delete
    2. Yes, good point - the figures I recall seeing (some years ago now) were that High risk cases represent about 8% of the caseload nationally but committed about 20% of SFOs - which should be seen as a sign of good assessment skills, in my book.

      Delete
  6. I too agree with 20:07 above: DV case with PO pre-split - allocated to CRC post split and due to absence of PO allocated case then transferred to PSO on the very day he appears before Court for further DV offence. Pleads not guilty and in meantime Court, without consultation agrees a new bail address out of area - fails to consult Probation and no checks on who would be living at new bail address. CRC PSO has significant concerns and makes referral to SS who support concerns. PSO has met this male 3 times since transfer but has to complete a comprehensive CP report (never done one before) to inform SS out of area of concerns. Male goes on to commit further offences - DV related but not at new bail address thankfully but closer to home. Case now back in rightful place - NPS. Medium risk of harm quickly turned. Before the split, this case would not have been reallocated, would have remained with original PO with wealth of experience and knowledge. Had individual's risk been deemed previously to have reduced and it had been reallocated to a PSO - at the point of bail address change, concerns of safeguarding - it would simply have gone back to original PO to complete CP report - that individual would have been able to comply the report quickly due to knowledge. Instead PSO had to do a significant amount of digging to get relevant background information. That is also the reason why it is important that information is not lost when transfers between the two split services can still be accessed. I truely value my NPS court colleagues, however, in recently months it has becoming increasingly apparent that significant background information is being lost when reports are being completed and there are cases which subsequently are not been assessed or allocated appropriately. There have been two recent cases where all the information was there to deem the case high risk - one eventually - but not without a battle was allocated NPS the other inappropriately allocated CRC - risk escalation required quickly. TR is dangerous and significantly flawed. I maintain the under 12 months could have been managed by Probation Trusts without the need for such dangerous and dare I say ridiculous measures.

    ReplyDelete
  7. sorry above response was in support of Anon 20:13 not 20:07.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought all DV cases were PO cases?

      Delete
    2. Nope - PSOs dealing with more DV cases than every before

      Delete
    3. In Greater Manchester a high flyer tosser of a manger like TASKER is implementing a policy for all PSO's to hold DV cases. Bonkers if you ask me.

      Delete
    4. But Jesus was born in a manger.

      Delete
    5. In our area, the only cases that PSOs cannot hold are DV perpetrator's that have not committed a DV offence within the last 6 months, I am a PSO with numerous serial DV offenders on my caseload, I'm instructed to keep the cases as no DV in the last 6 months even if the perpetrator has been single for X amount of months/years and has recently started a new relationship. Iv had no training either... and cases of inter familial DV don't count, I am instructed to keep these cases even though the current offence is DV against a family member under the same roof.

      Delete
  8. On het Twitter account Francis Crook mentions what appears to be a riot, sorry, 'disturbance' at Guys Marsh Prison:

    https://twitter.com/francescrook/status/544485606605471744

    Can anyone enlighten us as to what when off?

    Appears that despite a wing being tool over and 18 people hospitalised following the 'disturbance', there has been no mention of it on the news. Strange that the Biased Broadcasting Corporation have not ran a story!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for the typo. I would love to blame the phone but it's due to me forgetting my glasses.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I have not seen or heard anything on this one as yet.

      Delete
  9. So, guess what... Who cares anymore? I'm knackered, on long term sick & highly unlikely to return. NAPOs claimed brinksmanship hasn't helped at all. I haven't the energy or stamina for this people-chess. PSO grade roles have Long been abused by Trust managers to facilitate where we are now. The de-professionalisation is parallel to teaching, to social work, to policing & prison service roles.

    I just watched Nick Clegg (metaphorically) sucking Brand's cock (bbc3). Can someone PLEASE get Brand on board? He's a liability, he's "random" and he's a loose cannon BUT he's effective.

    I need to go back to the 1970's for a rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do not disagree with you. Hope you take care of yourself first and foremost.

      Delete
  10. Napo Briefing to Parliament - Ahead of Justice Questions 16/12

    Copied and pasted into Napo Forum

    http://tinyurl.com/njnh5kr

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the last five days, my admin told me she is retiring, another admin has resigned and a PO colleague has gone on long term sick. We're a very small team we're being decimated. Everyone is looking for new jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like my office, I've never seen so many people leave - i think we have a leaving presentation every week! Why does the phrase 'rats off a sinking ship' come to mind?! Now, if only I could find the exit door!

      Delete
  12. Maybe that's the master plan from the centre? Make things unbearable in order to save paying redundancy......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is exactly what they want.

      Delete
  13. Great day today, full of uselessness. Delius on and off all day. Putting entries on for them to disappear. Then lost 2 hours work on an SDR on Oasys, spent half hour on the phone to shared services call centre who logged the call to try and retrieve. Basically resigned myself to writing it again. Did you save it? she said. Erm, no but it was the finishing touches, putting it altogether. Oh I would recommend you save the work at least every half hour. Oh, OK, no shit Sherlock, bitlate now no? Can I continue or will I lose the work again? Erm,I work in a call centre and not qualified to be able to tell you if it's Ok to continue on OASys. You should be OK though. What makes you think that then. Erm, dunno really!! I am on nearly 200 per cent. Like I have time for this shit!! NPS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would you not save for two hours?

      Delete