A Warning From History

Something from yesterday that I'd completely forgotten about, but that should serve as a salutory reminder about the nature of the beast that became Noms; that took over the Probation Service and sheds some light on certain key people at the top:-

An interesting divertimento from The Guardian, a piece about how a rehabilitation-focused prison (Blantyre House) & its successful Governor (Eoin Mclennan-Murray, being interviewed) were totally shafted by HM Prison Service in 2000 (Narey was DG & Wheatley was Deputy DG) when the Governor was summarily removed & the prison SWAT team were sent to raid the jail looking for weapons & drugs. None were found. A full home affairs select committee inquiry later concluded that the raid was “a self-inflicted injury by the prison service”.

"So why was Blantyre House targeted, did he think? “It was an incredibly successful resettlement prison. It was the pinnacle of my career. It was an entire cohort of prisoners changing for the better, and it was year after year after year. I’ve never experienced that level of success on such a scale. It was about human relationships, about giving people hope, treating people as responsible adults, making them take decisions about their own lives. And letting the prisoners themselves develop a prosocial culture, rather than the usual prison antisocial culture. Trust underpinned that. The trust that existed between staff and prisoners was phenomenal. Prisoners didn’t abuse that trust, not because of threat or punishment, but because they believed that would be the wrong thing to do. They wanted the regime to succeed, they saw how it benefited them and could change their lives.

Even though it was low security, it was the most secure prison I’d ever worked in because the prisoners made it that way. I didn’t have to use coercion. Anyone who abused the three golden rules: no alcohol; no drugs; no violence – well, they were immediately shipped back to the closed system.”

He says the raid was devastating. “It was smashing up something that was so good. The purported reason for doing it was that there was a belief that staff were corrupt, that I was corrupt, that prisoners were running everything. That was how it was cast. I found it incredibly hurtful. It was just a lie. History proves it. They just made things up, because someone, had a view that this shouldn’t work. I was accused of falsifying my drug-testing return figures because the results were so good. They were that good because prisoners took a conscious decision for themselves not to be involved with drugs. You couldn’t get better security than that. It wasn’t believed that you could trust a prisoner to act responsibly.”

He looks crestfallen when I ask him how he managed to recover. “To tell you the truth I didn’t think I had a future. I was one individual taking on the might of the prison service, the civil service. It was kind of David and Goliath. There was no-one to rescue me in the service. People distanced themselves from me. I was damaged goods, contaminated. Only a few notable individuals supported me, the Board of Visitors at Blantyre – fantastic. Those people, along with my wife and family – they saw me through the darkest days. But the saving grace was the home affairs select committee. Without their intervention and the prison inspectorate under Sir David Ramsbotham I would have been finished – because of them I couldn’t simply be killed off.”

He believes Gove’s priority should be ditching the many counterproductive measures that Grayling put in place and investing in rehabilitation opportunities for prisoners. “You’ve got to invest in a regime, keeping prisoners active and engaged. And you’ve got to provide sufficient staff so they can interact with prisoners in a constructive way.” "

Perhaps proof positive that no government of any persuasion wants rehabilitation to be effective? And perhaps this goes some way towards explaining the dismantling of the probation service, the insanity of TR & the Brave New World of E3?

******

And wasn't the Gold Commander for the raid one Michael Spurr?

******
Possible - Spurr was either just appointed to, or about to be promoted to, post of Area Manager for North London around that time; a rather unpleasant sounding man (Murtagh) was the Area Bully for Blantyre & evidently not a fan of rehabilitation of prisoners. Boateng was Prisons Minister, Straw was Home Sec, but as Mclennan-Murray says it was the Home Affairs Committee & Ramsbotham who stood up for reason.

Having briefed for & approved the raid, Narey subsequently took full responsibility for the farce. I think Spurr inherited Narey's post about 2003-ish.

--oo00oo--

The Guardian article by Erwin Jones is well worth reading in full, but here's a further quote regarding Gove's current ideas for prison reform:- 

"Does McLennan-Murray sense that the storm might be starting to calm? “It helps that we’ve got a new secretary of state. Mr Grayling has gone, Mr Gove has come in and he’s a breath of fresh air in many ways,” he says. “He and the prime minister are talking about redemption and investing in prisons to try to change lives for the better. It’s great to have that rhetoric. In the past prisoners were used to help maintain the prison and also help with local building projects. To maximise the ability of prisoners to be assets, governors will need to have more discretion about releasing prisoners [on temporary licence] so that they can do things in the community and external prison grounds. Letting governors actually govern is a move that’s long overdue. The dead hand of central control has stifled local initiative and institutionalised risk aversion.”

But he is critical of Cameron’s idea to introduce prison league tables based on reconviction rates. “It would be a nightmare trying to establish which prison was responsible for the success or failure of a prisoner who had been to a number of different prisons on his sentence. Individual prisons being league-tabled is silly, targets for a cluster of prisons or a national target is a better way forward.”

What was sadly missing from Cameron’s speech, he adds, were proposals on community sentences for short-term prisoners and proposals to dramatically reduce the female population."

--oo00oo--

In any organisation that has strong elements of secrecy and security, we must have trust both in the people, the culture and the organisational structure that all is well and that these necessary requirements are not being used to cover up wrong-doing of various sorts. This has always been an issue and the subsequent Parliamentary Report makes for very worrying reading:-     

The Home Affairs Committee has agreed to the following Report:—

BLANTYRE HOUSE PRISON

INTRODUCTION

1. Blantyre House prison in Kent had a "reputation for excellence" in the resettlement of offenders. It has been described by successive heads of the Prison Service, Chief Inspectors of Prisons and the Prisons Minister in these terms:

"An example of all that is best about the Prison Service".—Judge Stephen Tumin, Chief Inspector of Prisons, 1992.

"The whole ethos of Blantyre House and the excellence that it represents is that of a resettlement prison, and I strongly recommend that it should be so treated and regarded".—Sir David Ramsbotham, Chief Inspector of Prisons, 1997.

"My first ever visit to Blantyre House and I was delighted to see such a constructive atmosphere and purposeful establishment. The Governor and staff are to be congratulated on what they are doing".—Sir Richard Tilt, Director General of the Prison Service, 1997.

"Blantyre House performs a valued role as a resettlement prison within the Service. Its general ethos supports its special function, and I am committed to protecting this".—Martin Narey, Director General of the Prison Service, 1999.

"I conclude by praising the consistent, innovative and courageous approach of the Governor and staff at HMP BLANTYRE HOUSE to their very difficult and challenging task, on behalf of the public. It has established a reputation for excellence as a resettlement prison, a most difficult role, in which the recognition and support of the Minister and the Director General—and HM Chief Inspector— needs to be confirmed not only by official endorsement but early clarification of its future".—Sir David Ramsbotham, Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2000.

"The undoubtedly valuable work that was and is being performed at Blantyre House ... is a model for others".—Paul Boateng MP, Prisons Minister, 16 May 2000.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE SEARCH

Was it necessary to carry out the search?

37. We were completely unconvinced that the search was a proportionate response to the intelligence which has been used to justify it. We do not believe that the reasons given to us in public justify the exceptional search or the way in which it was carried out. Nor do we find the evidence given in private persuasive.

38. We recommend that there should be an immediate review at senior Prison Service level of the manner in which the intelligence produced by the Prison Service's own Chaucer group and used to justify the search of Blantyre House was collected and assessed and what steps might be taken to confirm the reliability of such intelligence.

Was the search conducted properly?

39. We endorse the substantial criticism of the search made in the Prison Service's own internal report. We do not accept that there were insuperable difficulties in finding the keys and reject the claim that it was necessary to use force to enter the chapel and health centre, which are separate from the prisoner accommodation.

40. Neither the Prison Service's internal report nor the evidence we have heard in public and private provide convincing explanations for the damage caused in the search, the use of force to enter the chapel and health centre, the fact that some areas were searched and others were not, the statement that the search was conducted at the request of the incoming governor and the alleged demeanour of the searchers . These are minor matters in themselves, but cumulatively they have done great damage to the ethos of Blantyre House in the eyes of the Board of Visitors, staff, prisoners and outsiders involved in the work of the prison. It is easy to understand why all those people are prone to the suspicion that this was the intended—rather than the accidental—consequence of the search.

41. On the basis of all the evidence we have heard, we conclude that the search was a failure aggravated by the unnecessary damage caused. It was an exceptional operation in Prison Service terms and it was neither planned nor carried out with an appropriate degree of care.

Did what was found justify the search?

42. Some of the items found were significant—especially mobile phones linked to criminals. But it is odd that the search should be justified after the event by the discovery of items not specifically sought in the course of the search. There was a complete mismatch between the objectives of the search, the methods used and the items sought.

43. This was not a normal search and it should be judged by a different standard. We believe the items found fell well below the level of contraband which would justify an exceptional search of this nature. It appears to us that none of the illicit items were found in the areas to which entry was achieved by forcing locks and breaking doors. If this was all that the "emerging intelligence" anticipated would be found, that intelligence did not justify the search. If the "intelligence" led officers to believe that more would be found either that intelligence was flawed or the search was.

Did the Prison Service properly represent the results of the search?

44. We are dissatisfied at the attempts made to mislead the Committee and public over the significance of what was found. We were told on 16 May that a "quite frightening amount of contraband material" was found. A parliamentary answer on 25 May referred to "98 finds of unauthorised articles..."In fact the Prison Service's own internal inquiry concluded "there were no significant finds".