Tuesday, 3 February 2015

All Systems Go!

From DLNR CRC with regard to RAR:-

"Given the tight timescale for preparing for this significant change, we will be taking a two stage approach to developing our work within the RAR. Phase 1 from 01 February will largely assimilate current interventions into the RAR framework and give colleagues time to consider how to work in new ways within these provisions. In the meantime more developmental work will be undertaken, including input from a range of colleagues in DLNR CRC and RRP, to provide a more comprehensive list of RAR interventions and greater clarity on new approaches to working with our service users."


*****
We'll work it all out as we go along but right now we have to get something on paper as Grayling's used all the fag packets, then we can call it 'progressive development" rather than 'what the f*** happens now?'

*****
Merseysiders emailed last week to attend briefings with PF on 5th Feb - no notice considering our other commitments then email from HQ today in panic because only 50% of potential staff have booked onto the briefings.

*****
Working Links started to have meetings with current NPS/CRC partners to find out exactly what services are provided. They will then decide what they need and which companies to keep or whether to re-tender. Surely Working Links know what services they are going to provide? Wouldn't that have been in their bid?

*****
Having been involved a few years ago with a contract relating to the Work Programme (funding body was Working Links actually, who the government at the time were giving shit loads of money to distribute to sub contractors), I can't express enough just how corrupt things get. I think most people that have chosen probation as a career have enjoyed working in an environment with people of similar moral values and an employer that plays it pretty straight and I'd argue that as a consequence have no real understanding of the feral ways these companies operate to obtain their profits. Take that as a compliment please.

I think people in CRCs will be quite shocked at a lot of things that they see unfold as the companies involved become more established and familiar with their purchase. It's all 'OUTCOME' driven, and that's all that matters (get used to that word OUTCOME because you'll be hearing it a lot). Outcomes are realised by hitting TARGETS (you'll hear that word a lot too), and you achieve your targets how? By whatever way the rules can be misinterpreted, bent, curved, stretched or manipulated.


You'll get sick of the weekly sheet of A4 telling you that how you recorded things last week no longer applies, this is how you do it from now on. Until you get new instructions the following week that is! I really do believe a lot of staff will be shocked as practices evolve and the true nature of the beast is exposed. These are all dirty companies where nothing matters except money. And boy! Do they know some ways of getting their hands on it.


*****
I worked with Data Analysts in the old Trust. They admitted to me that when 'outcomes' weren't meeting targets, they were asked to redefine the parameters so that targets were met. I'm not defending TR or the way things were done. It's just a fact of life that people will bend to the political will.

*****
There's a name for this FRAUD....

*****
Finally, seen on twitter:-

Purple Futures briefing today. Q. What will we be doing with under 12 mths sentences? A. We don't know yet. Q. What will we be doing with Offenders during RAR? A. We don't know yet. Q. Will there be redundancies? A. Likely to be staff reductions.

50 comments:

  1. This is a good blog, with some insightful comments. However, I'd ask those that blame the new CRC owners for the situation to consider this; whilst the Sodexos of this world are bound to make staff reductions, this is by design, and the design is that of the MoJ. They have been asked to find a way to deliver more for less. They have responded, and their staff models, their approach to reducing reoffending, and the way they will deliver against the Target Operating Model have been assessed by MoJ procurement staff. The results have been signed off by Ministers of the Crown. The private companies are doing exactly what they are expected to do. And as for making a profit, there is risk in these contracts. This has never been done before. Stories abound of IT failures. No private company is going to approach risk without a hope of reward. You may question whether the MoJ was right to proceed with TR but that was not the private companies' doing. I hope the outcome (and that's not a dirty word) for offenders and the wider community is a positive one, it's not certain right now but I know for sure it's not even likely if people don't put the things they can't change behind them and get on with the job. I'm sure this comment won't be met with a great deal of joy, but I hope that people at least consider the situation with a bit of perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This message sounds familiar but as much as it sticks in my throat I have to say it is true. It is sad that few will come out of this unscathed in some way whether it be service users, victims, public or staff. All we can hope for is that common sense will prevail and labour if elected will do whatever they can to terminate contracts without cost to the taxpayer and reunify a service, take away bureacracy and rebuild the award winning, high performing probation service that served our country well for a very long time.

      Delete
    2. 'I hope the outcome (and that's not a dirty word) for offenders and the wider community is a positive one, it's not certain right now but I know for sure it's not even likely if people don't put the things they can't change behind them and get on with the job'

      Oh do fuck off, please

      Simon Garden

      Delete
  2. As an offender the new system can't possibly be worse than the previous/current system that offers no help and no support just a shedload of judgement and grief from pious nitwits who make no effort to get to know you or treat you as a human being because you are a criminal and will therefore forever be sub human scum.

    A highly ironic attitude to take considering my OM's have variously had a major drug problem as she'd roll up stoned to client meetings and have in the course of my licence committed more criminal acts and breaches of the law than I ever have.

    ReplyDelete
  3. IMO companies and charities have choices, do you want to get involved in dubious ethical work or do you step aside and consider the importance of your brand. The people I work for decided that ethically they we not prepared to get involved with TR.

    If your company or charity gets this decision wrong then the consequences for your brand can be very damaging. If you Google A4E and look at Wikipedia the headings on A4E page are:

    5 Criticism from charities
    6 Loss of personal data
    7 Fraud investigations
    7.1 Hull
    7.2 Teesside
    7.3 2012 fraud investigations
    7.4 Liam Byrne statement
    8 Payments to Emma Harrison
    9 Criticism from Fiona MacTaggart
    10 Allegations from former employees

    Looking back do you think A4E made the right to decision to get involved with the DWP and the welfare to work programmes?

    Ethics and business are inextricably linked and can not be blurred by the word profit. Google Ethics and business and the first line is “The importance of ethics in business”. Unfortunately too many businesses simply follow the money and pay the consequences. .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Two things:-

    There are areas that the private (for profit) just don't belong.

    If you pay less for something, then what you get is less.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Absolutely the companies have choices, and as you say there is risk to reputation - but that's one reason why there is a reward element. Government is encouraging these businesses in, so why are we surprised when they take the bait? As for if you pay less you get less, do you think Aldi are a success because they are providing less for less? As a statement it's simplistic to the point of being useless.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aldi are a success because they stick to what they know. They don't try and expand their markets into areas that they have no knowledge of.
    It's interesting though that you use a supermarket analogy. Aldi have a very good reputation, they haven't tried to profit from any other market then selling good food at affordable prices.
    On the other hand however, Tesco's have tried to profit from any market they think they can make a buck from, and their reputation has been quite heavely dented recently and are in the process of closing many of their stores.
    I have no issue with private companies making a profit, and I have no real issue with private company involvement with rehabilitation services. But horses for courses. I wouldn't like 70% of the NHS outsourced to Aldi or Tesco.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just watching the farce that is Justice Questions in parliament.

    Grayling was never serious challenged on any level about the shambles that is the MoJ.

    Sadiq Khan is toothless. This is the most ineffective opposition I can ever recall.

    Labour has an open goal with regards to McDowell and Grayling's apparent failure to reveal the COI to the Justice Select Committee.

    If as Khan claims, Grayling knew about the COI before his appointment the million dollar question is: was the Commissioner for Public Appointments informed?

    (note: Commissioner is responsible for making sure appointments are made fairly, with no conflicts of interest)

    If CPA were informed, why was McDowell appointed?

    If they didn't know, surely Grayling should be tabling his resignation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I have observed and watched in many sessions is that fundamental questions have been asked - spin and waffle has been given in answer - and stop. No real challenge - now I admit my ignorance in that I don't know what protocol in such scenarios allow but surely if answers are not acceptable then challenge should be the order of the day. I didn't see any of this - just shaking of heads.

      Delete
  8. Justice Q's: After being asked THREE times whether he knew of McDowell's COI before his appointment, Grayling finally admits that he did.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've just had my monthly probation appointment. I arrived expecting to see the entire building rebranded with Purple Futures but the same old signs were up. Inside there wasn't a sign that Purple Futures were in charge. All the noticeboards held CRC headed notices etc. You wouldn't have a clue if you walked into the building that ownership had in any way changed from last week to this week.

    I asked some pertinent questions and was basically told that everything is proceeding exactly as it did last week. No changes at all. And despite the posts on here indicating that OASys was no longer going to be used in CRC's/new incarnations my OM/RO did a new OASys so apparently that isn't going either at least in Purple Futures.

    Have to say I am somewhat disappointed. I was expecting a least a brass band and streamers and a welcome note from the new CEO as well as details of all the changes that will be happening. But you wouldn't have a clue that anything had changed at all if you rolled up at any Hants & IOW probation office today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what you mean, throughout all of last year I would come to this blog and read of all the huge screw ups, that nobody knew what was happening etc... and expect to turn up at the office and it to be in rubble and flame, however in actual fact it was about the same as it was the year before with the exception of having to see a different numpty each month...

      Perhaps nobody really knew what was happening and there have been huge screw ups in the service for a long while?

      You could get anyone to be an OM, provided you have basic English and reasonable grammar.

      Seriously, Probation Officers are paid far too much when you consider that all they do is refer you to someone who has an actual ability in helping Offenders.

      Delete
    2. "when you consider that all they do is refer you to someone who has an actual ability in helping Offenders."

      Did you ever consider that perhaps the help you need isn't the same as the help that you want? And that clients aren't the only ones I'm trying to help, but also their family members, their communities, and their victims?

      Delete
    3. Pray tell, how do you measure the effect of all this help you are providing for all these people?

      Delete
    4. Just another self important Probation Officer with a over inflated opinion in your importance with regards to recidivism, oh so easily replaced with a Kiosk.

      Delete
    5. To Anonymous 20:02, your comments about the difference between help needed and help wanted. Perhaps you should look at the offender as a human being who is smart enough to know that they help they want IS the help they need. Most people can actually identify their actual needs and it would be illogical not to want those needs fulfilled. Unfortunately your comments also smack of the attitude evinced by so many PO's which is that you know better than I do what my needs are and do not allow me to have any input into getting my actual needs fulfilled. Instead I have to put up with some do gooder (and I'm being polite here) who has the effrontery to dictate to me what my needs should be. And then you wonder why you are not liked or trusted by the clients!

      Delete
    6. You clearly don't understand what the role of a probation officer is, or you are deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that it's often about challenging - it's certainly not about winning popularity from clients, although in some cases that might be the result.

      Delete
    7. Unfortunately clients understand all too well what the role of a probation officer is. We also understand what it SHOULD be and the huge gulf that exists between the two.

      We also get heartily sick of being seen as nothing more than a crime statistic and not as a human being - we got enough of that particular attitude in prison.

      No one understands my needs better than I do - after all I am the one living my life and not my PO. I am not stupid and am perfectly capable of analyzing my behaviour accurately. Probably far more accurately than someone who has never taken the time or made the effort to get to know me as a human being.

      Challenging me, which you say is the role of probation (whatever happened to befriend and advise??), is a fruitless exercise because the challenge is being made without the proper knowledge. I am far from stupid and I have already identified the problems, the needs and yes, the wants which to be frank are often completely indistinguishable from the needs. I know what needs to be put in place to help me get back on an even keel and lead a law abiding life. My PO doesn't because she has never bothered to get to know me in any way in the past two years.

      Nothing any PO has ever said to me has been in any way helpful, reasonable, viable or useful in terms of either analyzing my behaviour, challenging it or providing help and support as to the way forwards. Of course this may be down to PO's who are simply bad at their jobs and who really shouldn't be working in probation just as there are a significant number of prison officers who took the job so that they can legitimately bully people and shouldn't therefore be in the job.

      I agree that it shouldn't be about winning popularity contests but there is a huge difference between winning a popularity contest and actually treating clients as human beings who have a brain and use it.

      In the time I was inside I met very few people who were stupid or incapable of realising where they had screwed up. In fact I met more people working in prisons who I would designate as stupid i.e. officers, staff, management etc than I did stupid prisoners because they were so completely unaware of anything other than themselves and not in an analytical way either.

      I've also noticed that PO's don't like to be challenged by clients when they have failed in their jobs or broken the law. If you (generalized and not specific) are able to challenge me about my failings, I am sure as hell able to challenge you for your failings. You just haven't been caught and sent to prison for your failings yet. There isn't some magic get out of jail free card for a PO who is failing to uphold the law or do their job as laid out in the PI's (not that most PO's in my experience have ever read a single PI).

      It's the same as being expected to accept responsibility for my failings but my PO's can wriggle out of accepting responsibility for theirs? No wonder the system is broke.

      As a recent post on Facebook said: "Go ahead and judge me, just remember to be perfect for the rest of your life"

      Delete
    8. These are all valid issues worthy of debate my friend. May I suggest a guest blog?

      Delete
    9. He hasn't raised any 'issues' Jim. It's just the same old 'what have you ever done to help me' / 'i don't need your help' arguments always repeated by those among our client group who think everything is everyone's fault but theirs. if he knows where he screwed up and so on, why hasn't he stop doing it? if he really thinks being expected to take responsibility for his 'failings' - i.e. crime/harm to others - is analogous with his expectation that Probation officers should take 'responsibility' for his arbitrary idea of their 'failings' - i wonder what they might be? asking him questions he doesn't want to answer? Not accepting his deflections and justifications? focussing on him and what he needs to do? - then christ has he got a long long way to go. He could perhaps make a start by getting over himself, and perhaps recognising that he's being offered help and support - instead of viewing supervision as a battle of wills, where he has to decry and deny every effort to help him in order to 'win'

      Simon Garden

      Delete
    10. Well Simon I'd welcome a guest blog from you both.

      Delete
  10. From Hansard:

    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Did the Secretary of State know whether Mr McDowell had a family relationship with Sodexo before he referred the case to the Justice Committee?

    Chris Grayling - I think I have answered that question already. I said yes, we knew that Mr McDowell had that relationship, and yes, we followed the Cabinet Office guidelines to the letter. At the time, his wife did not hold a position in the rehabilitation arena. She has now moved to a position where she will be the head of that part of the business. Mr McDowell has decided to step to one side, which is a creditable decision to take. As I said earlier, I do not believe that somebody should be disqualified from applying for a job because of a hypothetical. I know that the Opposition do not agree, and they seem to be out to get Mr McDowell. I can only reiterate that he is a fine public servant. I regret the fact that he has had to leave and I hope that he has a good career in the future.
    ____________

    I don't think Grayling's telling the truth. Mrs McD was, as far as I can see, ALWAYS involved in Sodexo's 'rehabilitation arena' - certainly at the time of appointment she was.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oy Grayling I was " a fine public servant" too and look what you bloody did to me....
    PO

    ReplyDelete
  12. From 'Connect6', one of the many profile sites available on't'internet:

    "Janine McDowell - Deputy Managing Director, Sodexo Justice Services, Sodexo, London, England

    Employment History :

    Sodexo - (Jan 2010 - Jan 2014) Deputy Managing Director, Sodexo Justice Services
    Sodexo Justice Services - Operations Director
    Sodexo Justice Services (formerly Kalyx)"

    And on ZoomInfo it states:

    "Janine McDowell - Kalyx Janine McDowell joined HM Prison Service in 1989 as an Officer at HMP Holloway on an accelerated promotion scheme. Over the next 10 years she worked at a number of establishments and in various roles before her appointment as Deputy Governor at HMP & YOI Feltham in 1999. In 2001 Janine left the Prison Service and joined Kalyx as Deputy Centre Manager at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre before appointment as Director - HM Prison Bronzefield in 2003. Janine was responsible for the start up and operation of this brand new prison for women from the opening of the establishment until taking up post as the Kalyx Regional Operations Director, England & Wales in November 2007.
    [NB: my emphasis] - IN JANUARY 2010 JANINE WAS APPOINTED DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT."

    Hansard again:

    Nic Dakin - To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to lose one chief inspector could be considered a misfortune, but to lose two looks somewhat careless. Will the Secretary of State tell the House precisely when he became aware of Mr McDowell’s links to Sodexo and whether that was before Mr McDowell was appointed to the role? Will he also tell us why he chose not to share that information with the Justice Select Committee when it was going through the pre-appointment scrutiny hearings?

    Chris Grayling - Let us be clear that the recruitment of Mr McDowell followed Cabinet Office guidelines exactly, as I have said to the House and to the Select Committee before. I do not believe that someone should be denied the chance to apply for a job based on hypotheticals of what may happen. I would commend Mr McDowell for recognising the issue when it arose, when his wife was promoted in November, and for taking what I think was a sensible decision. I think he is an honourable and upstanding public servant, and I wish him all the very best.

    There's a definite case of "pants on fire" when it comes to Grayling and McDowell.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Its simply vile. How can we reasonably expect to help heal the damage done to society by criminal behaviours when those who ostensibly 'run the country' display the most appalling abusive traits, i.e. lying, bullying, blaming, selfishness & outright greed.

    My 40+ DV cases display the same behaviours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People follow the example given to them by society. So if society is run by sociopaths with no conscience who would sell their own grandmother for profit if they could get away with it, are you surprised that a large percentage of society ends up behaving in the same way?

      Delete
    2. It's all pigs in the trough- even the naughty ones!

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11386970/Disgraced-former-cabinet-minister-Chris-Huhne-returns-to-Parliament.html

      Delete
  14. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab):

    Did the Secretary of State know whether Mr McDowell had a family relationship with Sodexo before he referred the case to the Justice Committee?

    Chris Grayling:

    I think I have answered that question already.

    I said yes, we knew that Mr McDowell had that relationship, and yes, we followed the Cabinet Office guidelines to the letter.

    At the time, his wife did not hold a position in the rehabilitation arena. She has now moved to a position where she will be the head of that part of the business. Mr McDowell has decided to step to one side, which is a creditable decision to take. As I said earlier, I do not believe that somebody should be disqualified from applying for a job because of a hypothetical. I know that the Opposition do not agree, and they seem to be out to get Mr McDowell. I can only reiterate that he is a fine public servant. I regret the fact that he has had to leave and I hope that he has a good career in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know how the Tories are trying to lay claim to the Magna Carta celebrations? Forgive me but isn't the main precept of said document that no-one is above the law? Chris Grayling needs to get the message that whether it is expenses, telling the truth in Parliament or discharging one's duties honestly he needs to behave.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Grayling's is defending himself by arguing that COI did not exist before contract signing.

    If that narrative is challenged, Grayling is toast.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't seem to get the concerns from those above, surely as Probation persons then you should know that you can act like as much of a manipulative, self serving piece of shit as it's possible to be, just as long as you are not breaking the law?

    That was my number one learning from my supervision requirements...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. aw - was it all upsetting being held responsible for your behaviour by the nasty probation people? Aren't they mean, challenging you like that. You should be allowed to do whatever you like.

      Delete
  18. From Mr McD's interview with JSC:

    Q9 Gareth Johnson: Good morning, Mr McDowell. Can I ask you a question about the commissioning of probation services? There are various arguments that take place between those who feel that the probation service should commission services on a local level and others who feel that it should be done on a national level... On what side of the fence do you stand on that issue?

    Paul McDowell: What is happening at the moment is fascinating, isn’t it? I will tell you where I sit. I don’t particularly have a problem with a national approach to commissioning, so long as you very, very clearly embed in those arrangements the sorts of local, specialist, engaged processes that you need to have included. I think this plays out most obviously in relation to the involvement of the voluntary sector, and, of course, that is something in which I have been experienced in the past four years. I am not sure that you would expect me to say this, but I think there is something very important here. If you take a genuine black-box approach to the delivery of probation services, commission nationally—which is what is going on—and end up with 21 areas of delivery, those 21 areas, once they have been commissioned, are rolled out and are up and running, have a local geographical feel to them, of course. If you get the process right and the supplier in an area is engaged with a range of different local specialist charities, embedded locally, or other organisations, you get back that local feel.
    However, I want to add one thing. I am not sure you would expect me to say this, given that I come from the voluntary sector, but we have to be really careful here. At the moment, there are a number of charities around that, understandably, are really interested in being engaged in this process and want to deliver services under these new arrangements, but we have to do something very brave here. We have to be clear about whether or not the interventions that those organisations deliver are effective. Is there evidence to say that they work?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charities are slowly being co-opted by business, peer mentors and volunteers being exploited as free labor. Watch how they will be used more and more to replace paid staff.

      Delete
    2. Sounds like a good idea, if they can talk to Clients like Humans then it is a win-win situation.

      Delete
    3. Careful, Anon 18:04 - that chip on your shoulder might leave grease stains

      Delete
    4. Keep talking, whoa, keep talking...

      Delete
    5. Are you saying all probation doesnt talk to clients like humans?

      Delete
    6. Oh no no, there may be a few or many of you who could, it's just been trained out of you...

      It's not one of you personally it's just the state of the job you choose to do.

      Delete
    7. *throws troll some food*

      We know!

      Delete
  19. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/03/paul-mcdowell-resign-privatisation-probation

    Some good points in this article (Guardian 3 hours ago).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Some good points in the above article, but it argues that there should be more rigorous checks in future.

    The fact is there are already checks in place, namely the Commissioner for Public Appointments whose job it is to scrutinise appointments.

    This body is charged with making sure candidates up for a position do not have a conflict of interests.

    Now either the CPA were informed of McDowell's COI, or they weren't.

    If they were, why was he appointed?

    And if not, Grayling should resign for withholding information from a parliamentary body.
    "I will not proceed with the share sale unless I am satisfied that it is safe to do so."

    "I have asked the Chief Inspector of Probation to inform me if there any issues arising that could lead to a threat to public safety, he has not done so."

    etc etc

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/why-you-should-care-that-our-probation-service-has-just-been-privatised-119

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On Sunday, our probation service was privatised. In a £450 million a year sell-off, 70 percent of it was flogged to private corporations, who will now monitor the behaviour of all low and medium risk offenders. But despite this being the most profound example of privatisation within the justice system in recent history, the media attention it has garnered has been relatively meagre.

      Perhaps because we've heard so much about privatisation we're starting to tune out. It's less upsetting that way. But what this particular sell-off means in practice is that, rather than having trained and experienced public sector workers to deal with individuals who are potential threats to society, we will be placing the responsibility of rehab with profit-driven companies.

      Over half of the new contracts will be led by Sodexo – a company that, in its previous incarnation as Sodexho Alliance, was plagued by allegations of institutional racism – and Seetec, a firm accused of fraud over its delivery of employment services to disabled people. Not only do these companies have no background or track record in probation, the scheme is unpiloted. It's never had a trial run.

      Delete
    2. The question remains, then: how has this sell-off taken place with so little fuss? It may be that probation has always been a "secret" service. In turn, it is overlooked by politicians, the public and the media. It doesn't get mentioned on Question Time because it's boring, bureaucratic and effects parts of society that remain largely invisible – namely, prisoners and offenders. However, with reoffending at a historic high – nearly three quarters of young offenders reoffend within 12 months of their release – probation is something that must be taken seriously.

      Probation is a lifeline. Without it, there would be widespread disorder. I spoke to a young man called Max Brooks* – imprisoned for offences including graffiti, drug possession, robbery and unlawful wounding – who says his probation officers have been an irreplaceable source of support for him. "I've had nothing but positive experiences with both of my probation officers. I know that they are in it for the right reasons," he explains. "They understand the importance of communication and feedback. I have a really strong personal relationship with them."

      Brooks has been on and off probation for several years, and currently attends probation once a week. However, by the end of February, he will only have to go in once every three weeks as he has made good progress. When I ask what he thinks will happen after privatisation, he becomes visibly nervous. "Well, I'm classed as a high-risk fucker, so at least I won't be under the responsibility of a company," he exhales, laughing. "But I do feel sorry for people that are. I doubt they'll do anything to rehabilitate or reform you. It'll be more of a box-ticking thing – a data collection check. Money is their motive."

      Delete
  22. If it's so good then why has he been on and off probation for several years?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Perhaps this High Risk Fucker finds such value in supervision he keeps committing offences to continue his strong personal relationships?

    ReplyDelete
  24. our boss has been hilarious basically along the lines of 'we're a great team we've had testing times before and come through so we'll be ok'. Also told us cases would be in 'dribs and drabs'. This reassuring email coincided with a 51 page document on the ORA from NOMS. I didn't realise even time-served people expected to do the 12 months - did anyone else? This is a curveball that for court staff to have to stop people as they skip out of the dock to freedom to be told 'hold on you've now got 12mths supervision' and lets not forget in many courts not all courtrooms are manned - definitely a gaping hole in the system with that lot!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I work in the Court team and was aware of this. The main problem was getting Geoamy to hold them long enough for us to get down and see the. The response fromGeoamy was that they could 'delay' things but it would be beyond their remit and probably illegal if they held them. So, when one of our offenders walks out, and a first appt letter is sent to try and get them back in, whats the odd on it being returned as not at this address?

      Then what?

      Delete