I really do feel for the future of this profession, so comprehensively being trashed one day at a time. With wounds still not healed from the shafting of staff into NPS and CRCs and PO's seemingly pitted against PSO's, why on earth is Napo allowing its inept General Secretary to stoke the flames with stuff like this in his blog?
Risk on the increase
Hard on the heels of recent stories involving some CRC providers such as a dreadful self-harm case in Bristol, untold numbers of clients not actually attending unpaid work (Wales) or choosing to spend their time in the local boozer (HNYL) comes this example from an NPS member:
"I was allocated a CRC case last week that had been risk escalated due to mental health (MH) and DV issues and concerns over extremism. The client had only attended 2 appointments with them and missed 4 but was not breached but risk escalated. I actioned the breach as soon as I received it, however this caused problems as the CRC had not issued a breach letter so we are now having to go through the motions of sending a breach letter. In the meantime serious child protection (CP) concerns have emerged and the children were placed on the register today. At the Child Protection Conference today I had to explain why the CRC had not taken sufficient action.
After the meeting I had offered to arrange for the police to attend at the family home to remove the offender on a S136 due to risk concerns toward the family. I deemed the risk imminent and unacceptable. Throughout this process I have been quizzed by police and MH services as to why nothing had been done sooner, and had to tell numerous persons that it was the CRC who failed to act. I just hope that we have managed to mitigate a serious incident especially as this offender had previously threatened violence towards Police Officers but did not turn up for the conference. I have yet to meet this man but it is a very worrying situation that risk was able to escalate so highly without any breach sanctions. The case was identified as having MH problems Pre-Sentence and a psych report, and a PSR recommended a MHTR that was never imposed."
Somehow I do not think that this is a one off occurrence.
Risk on the increase
Hard on the heels of recent stories involving some CRC providers such as a dreadful self-harm case in Bristol, untold numbers of clients not actually attending unpaid work (Wales) or choosing to spend their time in the local boozer (HNYL) comes this example from an NPS member:
"I was allocated a CRC case last week that had been risk escalated due to mental health (MH) and DV issues and concerns over extremism. The client had only attended 2 appointments with them and missed 4 but was not breached but risk escalated. I actioned the breach as soon as I received it, however this caused problems as the CRC had not issued a breach letter so we are now having to go through the motions of sending a breach letter. In the meantime serious child protection (CP) concerns have emerged and the children were placed on the register today. At the Child Protection Conference today I had to explain why the CRC had not taken sufficient action.
After the meeting I had offered to arrange for the police to attend at the family home to remove the offender on a S136 due to risk concerns toward the family. I deemed the risk imminent and unacceptable. Throughout this process I have been quizzed by police and MH services as to why nothing had been done sooner, and had to tell numerous persons that it was the CRC who failed to act. I just hope that we have managed to mitigate a serious incident especially as this offender had previously threatened violence towards Police Officers but did not turn up for the conference. I have yet to meet this man but it is a very worrying situation that risk was able to escalate so highly without any breach sanctions. The case was identified as having MH problems Pre-Sentence and a psych report, and a PSR recommended a MHTR that was never imposed."
Somehow I do not think that this is a one off occurrence.
--oo00oo--
Look, we need to be able to discuss these issues without this nastiness it really does demean us all. The reality is NPS staff do NOT want to write rubbish PSRs but in one hour that is the standard that will be delivered. PSO staff in courts have tried to speak out especially about having to do DV reports, they were then instructed to do as directed (with the threat of discipline and capability).
******
Capability for not writing a report. You seem very confused. You're not incapable for refusing to do something. NPS are getting destroyed on here. I blame Jim for irresponsible blogging as that NPS OM's comments was always going to set both sides off against one another.
******
I don't know why the General Sec published this story: he does know Napo represent CRCs too, yes?
Look, we need to be able to discuss these issues without this nastiness it really does demean us all. The reality is NPS staff do NOT want to write rubbish PSRs but in one hour that is the standard that will be delivered. PSO staff in courts have tried to speak out especially about having to do DV reports, they were then instructed to do as directed (with the threat of discipline and capability).
******
Capability for not writing a report. You seem very confused. You're not incapable for refusing to do something. NPS are getting destroyed on here. I blame Jim for irresponsible blogging as that NPS OM's comments was always going to set both sides off against one another.
******
I don't know why the General Sec published this story: he does know Napo represent CRCs too, yes?
Yesterday was emotional. I blogged I'm anger at the suggestion CRC is incompetent when we're not. This GS needs to go. Those comments were always going to be divisive. Maybe this is NAPO subconsciously saying we no longer represent the CRC? I'd love to hear his rationale for thsat blog.
ReplyDeleteJust curious about reference to S.136 made by the PO. Says it could be used to remove an individual from family home because of concerns to others.
ReplyDeleteIs this S.136 of the mental health act, which allows the police to take a person from a 'public place' if they have concerns about the person's welfare, as opposed to threats to others?
Does the PO means some other S.136 or is 136 being misapplied here?
And why would a PO 'offer to arrange for the police to attend the family home to remove the offender'? In my experience police don't tend to need our help with such things. Not sure this all adds up.
DeleteYou are Correct. 136 is a public place power. In the old days you used to be able to knock on the door and say come outside mate I need a word with you and then apply the power. After some big pay outs following legal action for inappropriate use of the power this is a big no-no. The process now is to go to Court for a section 135 application which can be applied in a private place. However in reality, you really need mental health on board with this. 136 is an emergency power when an officer is so concerned about a persons mental health there is no other option. It is purely to take them to a place of safety to get them assessed by a professional.
DeleteThis is a very helpful clarification 08.48. There are clearly capability issues for our intrepid PO here, unless it's a bit of an urban myth. Yet this vignette is likely to be carried in Napo briefings to MPs and the like as an example of the dysfunctionality of TR, whereas it will be a case of Napo being hoisted by its own petard.
DeleteI doubt the smart ass NPS PO knows him or herself
ReplyDeleteIts merely the GS continuing to prepare the ground for exactly what Grayling was aiming at, i.e. NPS to become wholly detached from CRCs, eventually absorbed into NOMS, PO/PSO roles merged into an homogenous civil service grade. Remember the Napo focus on collecting NPS subs whilst Sodexo CRC staff being shafted & pushed out the door?
ReplyDeleteAs posters, incl anon07:05 above, point out there are factual, legal & procedural confusions in the alleged PO's story. Sounds more like a manufactured fairy tale.
And why would you breach if decision has already been made not to - I'm assuming these absences had already been made acceptable by CRC. Not appropriate in that case for NPS to retrospectively action a breach. What is Napo's intention publishing this?
DeleteAs of 9/15 there were 3210 POs in NPS. At the last Napo ballot I think the membership stood at about 6500. So, Napo needs a foot in both sides of the divide to be viable.
DeleteThe NPS PO deemed the risk imminent. That's funny. CRC risk escalated to NPS as the risk was considered imminent - high. Doh! Sounds like to me napo are making this stuff up. The GS should spend less time on getting his "car washed" and more time on what he is paid to do. If he can't get blogging right, God only knows what his negotiations skills are like.
DeleteI agree that yesterday was raising issues on an emotional scale. Can I just remind everyone that Workforce Reduction Proposal letters have been sent out now to colleagues around the country. These letters include a statement ' Impact on You' .....'It is with regret that we are advising you that your post has been identified as at risk of redundency ( subject to full and proper consultation). That might shed some light on the anger and emotions being displayed on here. Unity does not help any of us who are at risk of loosing our jobs!! So maybe its about time we started to look at how any of us can get through this mess and the casualties better supported because this is going to get a hell of a lot worse for everyone involved!!!! So picking off 'who didn't do what ' is not helpful.
ReplyDeleteMountain out of a molehill. The case had been risk escalated and allocated into the NPS. This is the process and at the same time the inter-agency work was ongoing. So what the breach wasn't actioned immediately, and absence is probably why the MHTR hadn't started, everything else seems to have been.
ReplyDeleteWe know cases are getting missed and lost in the CRC. Cases are being escalated to NPS with breaches and requirements outstanding to avoid target losses. This is all going to get worse when E3 is used to downgrade the NPS and PSO's replace qualified probation officers. CRC's are crap by default and will be worse when they finish making all their staff redundant. The problem is the NPS will soon be the same.
The case was appropriately risk escalated due to concerns over DV, mental health and extremism, and serious CP issues subsequently emerged. The information is that the client attended two out of six appointments, so the time period we're looking at is probably just over a month. During that time the CRC worker obviously accurately identified the relevant risk issues.
DeleteThis looks more like a serious failure of the NPS system to me - were none of these issues identified at the PSR or case allocation point? I don't think it's a case of hindsight to say that this case should probably have been allocated to the NPS straight away.
This is not meant as criticism of the individual NPS staff, just that there was clearly insufficient time for a proper pre-sentence assessment to be completed.
The smug tone of the NPS officer who sent it into Napo doesn't help, though.
I just couldn't read all the comments yesterday,too distressing, but I was looking for the word responsibility, as I scanned the arguments for PO's and PSOs being the same, equal etc. The distinction has always been the level of responsibility one takes and is held accountable for!
ReplyDeleteMy child is a great communicator, so he could ask a defendant for questions like where do you live? Do you work? for a FDR;if she were at court handwriting it, I could also read her writing, as it's legible. However, if called before a family court judge, a crown court judge or a parole panel, I don't think she would be able to address, risk, risk of reconviction, using all those tools, SARAS, RM2000, ogers etc and risk of harm using, well, knowledge and experience! To be honest my child would probably state that as she is neither trained or paid to recommend a 2 time murder, rapist etc is ready to regain his/her liberty safely, she'd happily pass that job to someone who was.
I wish people, including some employees, actually knew what POs do? They may not be so eager to take on the responsibility!
Truth is, you don't know, what you don't know!
ReplyDeletePiss off NPS PO. Don't get me started saying CRCs are crap. Your generalisations are appalling. When is the mappa process or sentencing planning ever followed? When did you ever complete a parole report on time. If NPS was in order there would be no need for E3. Yet again another example of complete arrogance from someone who thinks he or she is too good to work in a CRC.
ReplyDeleteYes it goes back to yesterday's point of over inflated PO egos in the NPS thinking they know best and that the CRC is full of meaningless work!
DeleteToo right I think I'm too good to work for the shite that is a Sodexo CRC. I applied for the NPS and that's what I got, or should I not be happy I got what I thought I'd be good at? And yes my cases are in top notch order, and I do good resettlement and rehabilitation work too. I trained well, learnt well and therefore practice well. Pity this means nothing to the NPS bosses, but I certainly won't short-change myself and agree the crappy private company led CRC's are good as the NPS or that PSO's (many without qualifications, training or experience) are as good as qualified probation officers.
DeleteThat's a well thought out, intelligent and professional response!
DeleteNPS PO make sure you don't include all your views in your application to the CRC once your budget is announced. I bet you're a joy to work with
Delete@ NPS PO - if by "I applied for the NPS and that's what I got" you mean you were sifted that way, please remember that the sifting process was not done on ability...
DeleteSifting is now neither here nor there. I expressed interest in the NPS and that's what I got. My work hasn't really change so I'm happy with that. I have good practicing probation officer colleagues in both NPS and CRC and views are mixed in towards both. The CRC's have already downgraded/compromised practice and are shedding staff so it's not a place I want to be. I'll see how it goes in the NPS, and yes if redundancies come I'll consider the figures and probably move on to pastures new or return as a CRC temp, whatever's viable. As I said, and I'll keep saying it, I trained and worked hard to be a probation officer and I disagree with our role being handed in a plate to PSO's. The same as I do not believe our role should be handed out to Sodexo temps, Nacro project workers, HMP prison officers / offender supervisors or police offender managers.
DeleteAs I just said on a previous thread, for PSO's to actually be arguing to take on more responsibility without increased pay or access to professional qualifications is very stupid on their part. This is like women arguing for men to be paid less in order to reduce the pay divide at the top. They wouldn't do it as instead intelligent people argue for more not less!!
NPS PO stop. You're embarrassing the rest of us in the NPS. I bet your PSO was good enough for you under the old OM model.
Delete14:36 I doubt your a PO if your unable to get what I'm saying. Funnily enough I never saw colleagues as "my" PSO or "my" admin, etc. We work as a team and we all have different roles, which have similarities and differences all at the same time. I just don't believe in taking a profession which relies on clear role boundaries and responsibilities to an extent, and then deprofessionalising it. For the record I don't try to take on the SPO or ACO's work and if I was asked to as anything more than a one off I'd decline as I prefer to stick to my role boundary, responsibility and what I'm paid/trained to do.
DeleteYou're only a PO. Calm down son
DeleteNPS PO - I suggest a 136 section.
DeleteThere was an element of ability selection in the sift actually.
DeleteHolding Mappa cases was a significant factor in the sift and in my area we had given the Mappa cases to the best officers.
I won't say where I work but there were major workforce benefits from doing the sift in my area.
This doesn't mean CRC staff are rubbish, we lost many really good PSOs as they didn't fancy court work. But we got rid of some "below average" POs. I don't necessarily like saying this, I certainly didn't support the sift or the split or TR but the most of the best staff went to the NPS in my county.
I agree with the idea behind the release, highlighting the bureaucracy between the two agencies causing problems on the ground and placing people at risk. It was said this would happen from the very beginning and clearly it is happening. However the way it has been written is very 'preachy' which is unhelpful as has been said. We don't know what information came out and when it came out and you can only act on the information you have. With the benefit of hindsight it is always easy to say.... should have done this here or there but this isn't the reality of case management. Sometimes you get all you need to know at PSR stage. Sometimes it takes 6 months of inter-agency working before you really get to know what is happening. A wiser idea would have been to highlight two examples, one from CRC and one from NPS. Given the poor design of the system I am sure there are plenty of examples to choose from!
ReplyDeleteExactly. And it is about a broken system. I can't believe some of the comments on here,have never heard any PO or PSO talk in this way. I am court pso. I want to carry on doing the job I applied for. It's not about what I believe I could or could not do, but rather a professional service with clear grade structure, role boundaries and payment accordingly. I have respect for everything the POs do, I don't wish to be forced to do that work or further enable the dysfunctional TR mess by participating in the erosion of professional qualification.
ReplyDeleteAs 10.17 says, it's about a broken system. There will always be some antagonisms about grade worthiness and reward, but a public slanging match only produces two winners – the CRC and NPS senior management who won't mind a house divided at a time when they are turning the screw on everyone. As victims of these machinations, prick either a PO or PSO and they will both bleed.
DeleteA divide and rule tactic always serves the interests of the manipulators and giving this to them on a silver platter is tantamount to self-harming.
In these times it's better to look for common cause than focus on differentials between two sets of frontline staff who are trying to make a dysfunctional system work.
There is an enemy within, though, who needs fighting: those who send glib emails thanking you for all your good work as they simultaneously axe careers and livelihoods.
10:17 is by far the best comment I've read on here. This is the position all should be taking rather than making it easy for the NPS, CRC and MoJ bosses to upgrade PSO's and downgrade PO's but without any additional pay or professional training/qualifications for any of us.
DeleteIt is so sad, as a retired PO, watching the verbal battle going on between NPS and CRC. Standing back from the emotional attacks and defences, can I suggest that what some PO's are trying to say is not so much a criticism of PSOs ( they exist within NPS too) but a criticism of the greedy, uncaring, smug, dangerous, pathetic (shall I go on?) wasters who own/run the CRCs, in particular, Sodexo, who has a world wide reputation for exploitative, unlawful practices.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, there are POs in the CRCs and also PSO's in the NPS. Acknowledging that experience and qualifications (in both arenas) have been downgraded, given the right tools and more time, both grades and sectors would be able to do their jobs in a much more professional way, with greater consideration of potential consequences.
As I keep in touch with colleagues from work, I see people from all levels struggling to do the job as it should be done, and being broken in the process.
My thoughts go out to you all, and my wishes that you need to support each other - remember the old battlefield ploy 'divide and conquer'? And hasn't Commander Grayling done a brilliant job at that?!!!.
Well said ml. As Grayling tucks into his eggs benedict with a smothering of beluga caviar this morning he must be feeling pretty smug, particularly if he happens to alight upon this blog or the strange and factually inaccurate and divisive comments from the NAPO GS. Grayling has done a top notch job in destroying a noble profession. The good ship Probation service has been broken in 2 and both parts are heading at speed down down into the inky black waters of oblivion. Let us at least show a little kindness to each other. Those of us in the CRCs are already in the water(to continue the Titanic metaphor)thrashing around with little hope of survival. Please NPS colleagues do not add to this agony. I am mindful that we are now at the 30th anniversary of the miner's strike. Another Tory success story which destroyed a whole industry and countless communities. Whilst the destruction of the Probation service is perhaps not on the same scale, let's pause for some reflection on this and put the blame back to where it rightfully belongs and not upon one another.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we can each provide evidence of where risk escalation PROCESSES have gone wrong as this should be out focus, not blaming each other. I can start: when I did a risk escalation I undertook all the relevant social services and police checks / communication with the explicit instruction that the information was to be provided to NPS who will be taking the case. But the replies kept coming back to me regardless! Not a great process at all.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jan/23/whistleblower-judge-austerity-policies-have-made-courts-dangerous
ReplyDeleteA district judge who is suing the Ministry of Justice after whistleblowing her complaints about courtroom dangers – death threats, violent claimants and hostage-taking – has spoken out for the first time about her experience of an under-resourced justice system.
DeleteThe challenge mounted by Claire Gilham, formerly deputy director of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, highlights the position of judges who – because they are deemed not to be workers – are exempt from certain employment protections.
Her case is now understood to be before the justice secretary, Michael Gove, and is being appealed to the upper employment tribunal. Her experience of the worst strains inside the family court system reflect wider concerns about the pressure imposed by an influx of unrepresented claimants.
Gilham, 57, was appointed a full-time district judge in 2006 and transferred to Warrington county court in 2009. Two years later, Runcorn county court was closed as part of an MoJ austerity drive and its work transferred to Warrington.
Gilham wrote to a senior judge expressing concern about lack of appropriate courtroom accommodation, the impact on district judges’ workloads and dangers for judges and court staff.
Gilham believes her complaints should be covered by whistleblowing protections but instead said it resulted in her being bullied, overworked and put under additional stress. She eventually suffered a nervous breakdown and has not returned to court since 2013.
Court closures and mergers coincided with cuts to legal aid. Fewer claimants in family cases were entitled to be represented by a solicitor. “[The cuts] fell disproportionately on areas of social stress,” Gilham said.
“When they closed Runcorn court, they promised the resources but they didn’t [appear]. The big inner city courts were protected; they didn’t look at the needs of the court user but the needs of professionals.
“I was working longer hours and had a larger caseload. I was booked up solid for cases three months ahead; I was under constant stress.” Staff at Warrington, she said, organised a vote of no confidence in the courts and tribunals service, HMCTS.
“When they merged the court they cut back staff. There wasn’t any physical space. One person walked into my four-metre-square office [where cases were also heard] and launched herself at me; she had to be restrained. The hearing continued with her suspended in the air.”
DeleteGilham requested better courtroom accommodation but was turned down. “I asked for my own room to be reconfigured because the door was behind the [claimants so she could not get out]. I was under a great deal of stress and feeling at risk.
“Many cases involved drugs and domestic violence. I was contacted by the police who said someone had a settled intention to kill me.” There were concerns he could smuggle in a ceramic knife unnoticed through the security scanner.
“He knew how to get into my room. I was off sick for a time. The police came and put a protection plan in place for my home but there was no risk plan for work.”
Gilham said there was occasionally hostage-taking inside the courts when family cases erupted into angry disputes. Once she had to hide in a locked court room because someone accused of domestic violence was loose in the building.
“We often sat late [because of the caseload], once until 10pm. We had to get through the case. You have to engage with people.”
Earlier this month the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in his annual report to parliament pointed out that “there has been a considerable increase of litigants in person for whom our current court system is not really designed”.
Thomas, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, added that judges felt their burden of work had grown and “are having to handle an ever-increasing quantity of challenging and emotionally charged cases in family and crime … ”
Gilham was on call at weekends and sometimes had to come into court to sentence for breaches of injunctions. She had to work through her lunch hours because there was no other time to draft judgments.
The majority of family cases are dealt with by county court judges. “Workloads are uneven,” Gilham observed. “The higher courts are heavily resourced and people who do that work are protected.
“I would be dealing with sexual abuse cases in my room and sometimes there wouldn’t be a lawyer. I’d be unaccompanied [apart from the warring couple]. You learn to deliver judgments in half an hour. It’s extremely stressful.
“Although judges are not employees, they have terms and conditions which include obeying management. They started issuing instructions which were more detailed and directing how we should deal with cases.”
Gilham demanded to see evidence on renewal of interim care orders because she was aware of past mistakes. She insisted on seeing evidence. “There was a danger of miscarriages of justice. I was told I had no discretion but to accept an email. So I defied them.
“Care orders are not routine. Every time we had to renew a care order, we had to have a certificate that it had been agreed. I was being asked to renew orders where there had been no certificate and I wouldn’t. I was told I was unreasonable and difficult … but judicial independence was being undermined.”
Her legal claim – for disability discrimination and denial of her whistleblowing rights – highlights the lack of resources in the court system where “to preserve measurable performance” some staff indulge in “hiding letters in cupboards to avoid dealing with them or not attempting to place documents in files”.
Gilham’s claim – drawn up by her solicitor, Emilie Cole, a partner at the law firm Bindmans – says she was “seriously overworked as a result of the failure to ensure there was sufficient cover for district judges and other judges to hear the cases set out in listings following the [courts] merger”.
DeleteIt asserts that she should be considered a normal worker because the relationship between a judge and the MoJ involves a “mutuality of obligation” and is effectively contractual.
Under the 1996 Employment Rights Act, workers are entitled “not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a [whistleblowing] protected disclosure”.
Gilham told HMCTS that there had to be changes. “But the changes didn’t happen,” she recalled. “I felt very much forced out. I came off sick in 2013.
“They are now threatening to take away my pension for bringing the judiciary into disrepute,” she told the Guardian. “I can’t walk away from all this without there being some change.
“The [MoJ] has relied for too long on the idea that a courtroom includes a dock and that there’s always people around, but that’s not how it is these days.”
Although Gilham’s experiences may sound extreme, many judges have experienced threats and assaults. In 2013, the MoJ confirmed that there had been 26 incidents in the previous year of attacks, attempted assaults or threatening letters directed at judges mainly in family courts.
Last December, the Ministry of Justice released figures, asked for by the Labour shadow justice minister, Andy Slaughter, showing nearly 7,000 knives were confiscated in magistrates courts in England and Wales last year. Warrington county court is one of those now facing closure in the latest round of cuts.
The MoJ denies that Gilham has been subject to disability discrimination or suffered through her whistleblowing. An MoJ spokesperson said: “There are robust security and safety measures in place to protect judges and everyone else who attends court. These include mandatory bag searches, the use of modern searching equipment and surveillance cameras, as well as security officers with the powers to restrain and remove people from the building should there be a need.”
The spokesperson added: “Judges are not in a contractual relationship with the MoJ but hold office on appointment by Her Majesty, the lord chancellor [justice secretary Michael Gove] or the lord chief justice. This stems from the executive having no control or direction over judicial office holders in certain fundamental areas, most clearly in relationship to how particular cases are decided. The circumstances under which judges can be removed from office are restricted by legislation. The lord chancellor and lord chief justice make sure policies are in place to protect the welfare of judicial office holders.”
Have I missed something. Colleague told me it's kicking off on the blog but I can't see anything?
ReplyDeleteI am an NPS PO and in my area everything is shite! Useless systems ever increasing be autocracy constant dictates from Noms etc.
ReplyDeletewe are unable to do all the work required of us so have to make the best of a bad job! I speak tony CRC colleagues regularly and they are in similar circumstances if not worse ! Those of us with any sense are desperate to get out of probation services!! I'm praying for redundancy but don't think the civil service bastards will let us have it they will probably shaft us to somewhere else !thr only people to blame for this are Grayling and his hatchet men !
Doncha just love these Tory boys & girls giving away our taxpayer monies to overseas businesses. Sodexo held onto 60% of the "modernisation fund" monies originally destined for EVR payments whilst Gove & MoJ sat on their hands & said nowt; now HMRC & the wallpaper boy (Osbourne) have handed Google an estimated 90% of their due taxes by accepting what some believe is only 10% (£130M) in full & final settlement of 10 years' trading.
ReplyDeleteNot only have they sold off our resources & industry & souls to China, Russia, Saudi & Trump, and voted us in for unnecessary warfare; now they're giving global corporate bullies our hard earned taxes.
Anyone fancy a change?
NPS nps nps nps riles crc crc cr crc
ReplyDelete