Havin a Laugh

If Ian Lawrence is so unpopular, why? He works hard and is on holiday. He is entitled to a break. He works for us and does all we can expect. He is in the middle of difficult credible negotiations and has to be relaxed and appear relaxed. He gets paid for the work at a rate we set in our terms, so what is all the arguing for? 

I like Ian Lawrence, he is a powerful speaker great credit and intelligence for the job. He fights for probation officers whenever I have heard him quoted. If Ian is in a vote I would vote for him again because he is the man taking on a difficult role and with his team who are all professional probation officers. They are all great trade union managers as well so we are in very safe tactical hands I think. Also I reckon Ian is going to surprise us all with a massive secret plan at the AGM. I am hoping to attend, depends on a few home issues but my intention is go and speak up for the top officers we have. If we can support them we can see our way through this because I think Ian has a way through we have yet to see. I am certainly keeping my faith and voting for Ian Lawrence.

******
Are you serious? Working hard and working smart are too different things. He may work hard but what has he achieved? Has he worked smart? I will leave that for the forum to decide... As for taking holiday, I've no beef with that. I do have an issue with how we pay a lot and still face redundancy.

******
Well I was being supportive to Ian because he must have a plan. He has to have been working inside to understand how to beat them on the outside. I am sure he says a lot of things that he is going to deliver on. I am really keen to see how we won the JR for example. I do not really care about the fact we had to pay the costs for Mr Grayling because Ian says we had victory so I am hoping this is the same as the CRC, despite the threat to lose 600. I think Ian is waiting to tell us only 600 is still a victory and somehow we are all going to be ok? 

Ian has also started to renegotiate our redundancy offer to severance pay and even if we get it in the Sodexo, the other CRCs will not follow suit because they will have to deal with Ian and they wont want to do that. I do not think we have to be critical of Ian I am sure he wants what we want. Great national representatives, relatively good access to legal advice, accurate records on accountability, motions that can be followed up, a full membership and happy working HQ. I think Ian has achieved many of the targets so far. 

We also want to ensure NAPO has a position in future negotiations and for us to be taken seriously and respected for being professional. There has to be the continued delivery of the gentle and passive messaging to ensure one day we will be listened to through Ian our great spokesperson who, as I say, is doing a tremendous job of unifying the memberships in NPS and CRCs, keeping probation at the forefront of the political agenda. Ian is speaking on something at Westminster and we should be proud he is able to diversify and speak on issues he has no experience or qualification for, or genuine legitimacy for such a task. However, because he says he can do that, it is good enough for me, so all our members will agree I hope. So don't lose faith, support Ian Lawrence like he supports all of you.

******
Your either on a wind up or IL himself. Thank you though as your recent comments did make me laugh.

******
Of course, and an earlier posting is being facetious and clownish and amusing as well.

******
Thanks. You are insightful and I am flattered, but I must resist there is any suggestion that I am anything other than sincere in my comments.

Let me have another go at reminding readers exactly what Ian Lawrence has achieved for us all. Why, we should in fact be very grateful, as I am. Blind faith is something none of us practitioners operate on. We form opinions and beliefs based on our sound judgement derived from assessment. We use verbal and non verbal skills. Listening and teasing out through attitudinal questions. I have applied these skills to Ian Lawrence. In the voting for his GS role I read the statements and sounding out colleagues. I realise only a small percentage of members voted at all for Ian Lawrence. I think this is because all of us knew he was safe so did not need to bother. The other candidate was all but blocked and obstructed anyway from campaigning. He actually wanted to go to branch meetings to sell himself. Well that was ring-fenced for Ian only because he was a staff member already. The way the officers interpreted the rules made it clear anyway, but I say we got what we wanted.

Ian has proven all the things many on this blog predicted. It is an ideological government. We have no chance, whatever the leadership. We cannot fund a fight on our own and win. We have to get Unison and the other unions to joins us in a solidarity programme. None of these things actually happened because Ian had rubbish chairs from the membership. That collapsible Rendon fellah. The Mrs Robinson woman who ran away after getting caught up in some other difficulties as extreme as stopping a train. Neither of them having had a proper opportunity to deliver, because they had difficulties.

So Ian was left alone and covering his best for them as they were nothing but pressure for him. One of them was always off sick for long periods and it was not made clear to the members. Ian was blighted. He had to deal with the massive spending the two chairs weighed off the last general secretary with a massive cost to Ians planned budget. Losing this money on top of Court costs and running the case as a legacy from the former chair.

This massive failure to understand what he was taking Napo into virtually made Ians early tenure impossible. He set the trend to destroy our work. Ian in role with the old chair from the North in collaboration with the new pair. Poor Ian had to plot his way through. Despite the money spending bonanza, Ian had to spend a bit more. Lucky enough, his long time old friend from the PCS was the best candidate on the day for the role of Assistant General Secretary. I do not know who else was in the running, but it is a testament to equal opportunities that Ian gets his old best friend in. The process run by the officers would certainly have applied PO based analysis skills and there can be no suggestion of cronyism or nepotism because POs would not act in this way.

Losing Harry was a further set back, not Ian's fault or decision, how could it be? Still it worked out well because they appointed a PO and the former chairs old best friend as the replacement using those anti crony anti nepotism skills to ensure we got the best candidate for our PR. I am amazed at the skills that must have been displayed for such a role in the interview. The Panel would have to have had some idea of the scale of the task when considering the candidates calibre and ability. I have to say the silence tactic that she has employed since being in role has really confused the TR Grayling agenda and I think has frightened them and slowed down their pace because they are waiting to see what she will do and might say.

The other officers and officials are all silent too. They must be running similar tactics and this has been accepted by the membership, so we wait and see. I am confident though that Ian has now shaken all the issues off and is set poised from his holidays to take the battle on with Sodexo and win our anti redundancy position, sort the protections of jobs as the primary argument, Secondary Reinstatements of the EVR and management of change protocol and the collective bargaining mechanism as an honourable position for the employer. That's what he will do and tertiary aims are to re invest in recruitment and bring all the members back and see NAPO financial reserves that dropped from 1.5 million to 750k climb back up as he negotiates a 5% pay increase across the board. 

Ian will do all this in his stride because he has the team he chose to do all that we would expect of him and would want him to be doing on his watch. Ian is the leader I follow because I voted for him. Now in reply to you point of being facetious? You decide!