Friday 6 January 2017

Petition Launched

More from Carl Eve writing in the Plymouth Herald:-

Family of murdered Tanis Bhandari launch petition to get to truth about their son's killer

The mother of Tanis Bhandari has launched a petition to discover the truth about why one of the young men who killed her son was allowed to be on the streets.

Andrea Sharpe told the Herald she has decided to push for the "complete transparency" she was assured she would get when she first met with representatives of the Probation Service regarding the supervision of Donald Pemberton by the Dorset Devon and Cornwall Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC), run by Working Links.

However, as The Herald exclusively reported earlier this week, the Serious Further Offence review into how Pemberton was monitored after he left prison – carried out by another CRC run by Working Links – and the decisions made after he was arrested on December 15, 2014, when he was spotted on CCTV threatening others with two meat cleavers left, the family with as many questions as answers.

In addition, the Tamerton Foliot family have become concerned over the findings of an internal police report into the circumstances surrounding Pemberton's arrest on December 15, 2014 and the information available on the Police National Computer – and the lack of information regarding his licence conditions.

Andrea only launched the petition, entitled "Time for the Truth" on January 3 at www.change.orghttps://www.change.org/p/david-hood-time-for-the-t... – and yet it has already received 2,791 signatures of the 5,000 needed.

In a passionate statement, she wrote: 

"My son Tanis Bhandari was murdered in an unprovoked attack with a knife on the 1st January 2015 in Plymouth Devon. All my family, friends and neighbours were left devastated by his death. This was compounded by the fact that Donald Pemberton was already being supervised by Devon, Dorset and Cornwall community Rehabilitation Company, at the time of the attack, as a result of a number of previous offences including being in possession of two meat cleavers in a public place. As a result a Serious Further Offence Review was begun. To date we have been denied access to this report, being given only a summary which leaves more questions. Despite numerous requests to management of DDC-CRC we remain without answers and explanations as to many aspects of the case. At the start we were assured complete transparency but as yet we are still in the dark. This has lead to suspicion and mistrust towards those in authority. Being the mother of a murdered son is not my choice. Knowing that DDC-CRC mismanaged and failed to identify numerous factors within this case review is unacceptable and inexcusable. As a parent I'm looking for honest, truthful answers and explanations from those who deny me the full report."

Andrea said the petition will be delivered to the Prime Minister Theresa May, Secretary of State for Justice Liz Truss MP, Sir Oliver Heald QC and David Hood, the director of contracted services at the National Offender Management Service.

Many of the signatories have left comments demanding more transparency from the authorities.

Paul Brookman, from Locking, wrote: "The offender should not have been on the streets" while John Pike from Dubai, United Arab Emirates wrote: "A mother and the public should know the truth so that those responsible for any shortcomings or negligence can be held to account."

Mark Kynaston from Plymouth wrote: "In the interests of humanity ownership of any failings should be acknowledged and set right for the future" while Robin Edwards from Plymouth, noted: "Something went badly wrong with yet another private company running our services."

26 comments:

  1. It's a wonder there has not been more tragedies following TR. 2 years in and we are still in chaos. Hitting targets missing the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There probably has been more than we know, no ones showing any figures to confirm the number of SFO's since post TR.

      I feel sorry for any member of staff involved in an SFO inquiry, it can be brutal, and when you are working well above capacity in trying to hit targets you inevitably miss things, and then the spotlight is sorely on you.

      Delete
    2. Well why focus on them your rather foolish in this as there is no defence to errors that could have prevented death. That is what the role is about risk management. The process failed and it was sadly predictable. It is the chain of authority that will no doubt be held to account as what we are seeing unfold in the south west is more belligerence and ignorance of the Working links private company who are completely new to probation. The blame is a corporate matter as they ran the process and are responsible for safe working procedures. Working continue to fail that standard from what we read about on here with the continued union disputes and crisis of staffing there.

      Delete
  2. This is a disgrace and re-victimising an already devastated mother and her family. Why are the Ministry of Justice harbouring and protecting Working Links' negligence by not forcing full disclosure in the public interest. There are many serious further offences being committed by people not being 1:1 supervised due to staff competence and falling numbers of staff. Working links are revealing their nefarious modus operandi and financially motivated interests every day. The local union reps remain in dispute with them over their unfair dismissal practices and unsafe framework and even ACAS cannot influence them. I am ashamed of my employer and wonder when someone at the top will do the right thing,, protect staff and communities from further injury and remove these charlatan privateers from public services.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon 16:43 around the time of Sonnex in London there were so many SFOs, caseloads so high, staff so new, when we had SFOs there was very little spotlight on the frontline practitioners. Maybe they were concerned about what they would find it they looked to closely, but overall it felt like the ACOs were protecting us - they did not try to blame us. I wonder if probation bosses have the same level of leadership now. I hope so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry... too not to... hate predictive text!

      Delete
  4. Public need to know that staff supervising offenders since WL took over and messed around with perfectly well run system, cut staff to the bone, put us in crap offices and gave us shite IT system that uses up and wastes precious time because it doesn't work cannot possibly keep a close check on all the people they supervise. It just isn't humanly possible, so no, we are not protecting the public as well as we should be and there WILL be additional offences and deaths that could possibly have been prevented. Admin support has been pulled away from many offices and we are doing multiple roles, including being bogged down with admin tasks like answering the phone, taking calls that admin would have dealt with previously, as well as covering for colleagues who are off sick or have given up. We are in a total mess badically and who gives a flying shite about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh how true this is, sounds like we are in the same area.

      Delete
    2. Maybe even the same office!

      Delete
    3. I'm behind you say hello!

      Delete
  5. Not Working Links that's for sure they just want some profits and do not care about anything else and of course the cronyism of the new board team.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am NOT defending the practices of Working Links CRC or the destruction that TR has caused across the Country, but I do think the Police also have responsibility in this case too. I feel for the member of staff involved in this and hope she is being provided with support. Of course my heart goes out to this victim's family, to lose someone is difficult enough but in these circumstances it's an unimaginable the pain and anger they must feel. Let's not forget either the perpetrators of the offence, adults responsible for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reads like you know the details to identify the gender of staff. That is not sensible.

      The staff whoever they are is irrelevant. What it is clear from the report they would not know how to manage such cases. They were either inexperienced as it reads in the Carle Eve report or just not trained.

      Readers have made clear it is not about frontline it is the management the qualifications and experience of the right staff and the overall working arrangements.
      Who is responsible for the appalling situation we have now starts and ends at the top of this Snake. It is time the unions brought them to the notice of Parliament and if your reading NAPO get a move on or do you endorse this.

      Delete
    2. There are very few male OM's in bgsw crc!

      Delete
  7. For WL staff - those leaving soon have accepted vs packages, knowing those remaining will be facing extremely difficult and challenging working environments. Everytime there's a serious offence locally, staff worry whether the perpetrator is under CRC supervision.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The majority of SFOs in the past have arisen out of those assessed as low to medium risk. Therefore the majority of new SFOs under TR will be in the remit of CRCs who can now hide behind 'commercial confidentiality' or 'data protection'. I don't know which is worse: the ignorance of this govt and its ministers, or the breath taking arrogance and couldn't give a fuck-ness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The officer has been referred to as "she" in the reports on this case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm am sorry to say but I am really not comfortable 'blaming' SFO's on TR. SFO's have always happened and always will because not everything is predictable and people are not 'things'. There are failings in nearly every SFO because everything is loooked into with the benefit of hindsight. Probation is not an exact science. The public has become risk averse, the thinking in our society is that there must always be someone to blame and some on here like to point the finger and say what they would have done or what the police or whoever should have done. It is not always obvious what to do when you are making real-time decisions. SFO's happened before TR and there are always learning points but that is what they are. I understand the family feel that the report would bring closure and if I were them I would want the same, what a horrible and traumatic thing to go through in life.

    However I strongly disagree that SFO reports should be realeased to the public and some on here seem to believe this may in some way reverse TR. There also seems to be some kind of blind arrogance on here that a 'good PO' never has an SFO.

    I agree the changes are a disaster for moral and practical reasons but I think we need to be very careful in suggesting that privatisation is responsible. I'm sure that things are just as bad in NPS as far as SFO's are concerned which at the moment is still a public service.

    In hindsight it was asking for trouble touting ourselves as experts in risk management out of political necessity. The fact is there will be more SFO's because the Police have been cut to the bone, we have no-where for people to live and grow roots. Charity is no longer trusted by the public and there is a horrible sense of entitlement coupled with a general view that no-body else deserves any help in life.

    In this field it is all a risk, the police take risks bailing people, the court take risks giving people probation, the parole board take risks letting people out. Sometimes you need to give people a chance. The alternative is to always ask the court to send clients to prison, to never recommend release, to keep everyone locked up and segregated. That is no-way for a society to operate.

    We went down the road of risk management to try and prove to our political masters that there was a 'point' to Probation when at the time they could not see one. They played along for a while then did what they wanted and privatised probation anyway. When I first started in probation we did all our records on Microsoft word. It was wonderful but then a fortune was spent on ridiculous databases so that we could extract a tonne of pointless stats and managers could print off pretty graphs and attend meetings. Social services are the same. The databases have led to an explosion of bean counters which are ruining every profession where people are the 'product'. We spend all our time trying to keep the bean counters happy inputting pointless information into databases instead of spending our time with the clients we are trying to help.

    This is an ideal time for the management to shift our focus to rehabilitation and advise, assist befriend. What else can the powers that be do that they haven't already done? Unfortunately we have been persecuted for so long we have been left with weak management with no vision and no backbone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anyone is "blaming" TR for SFOs. However there is the question of motive and agenda where privatisation is concerned. Also transparency and open government. Also protection of public. Quite a few things. What we hopefully shouldn't get is 'scapegoating' of any individual concerned with managing cases under such difficult circumstances.... as created by, err... TR. Also hopefully there wouldn't be any likelihood of increase in number of SFOs due to slicing up of probation service and consequential problems with communication. Also, hopefully no professional takes any kind of 'risk', but rather defensible decisions based on sound judgement in all the circumstances and evidence where possible. Especially where offensive weapons etc are concerned

      Delete
    2. Why shouldn't reports be available to the public? We can read for example the excellent inspection report re Hanson and White on line. Its recommendations are warped by TR.

      Delete
  11. The case officer appears to me to be making the best of a situation arising out of a breakdown in links of communication re the passing on of license details from prison to PNC which seems a fundamental error. The officer appears to have acted extremely swiftly, considering the time of year, to lay information at court, at which point the hearing date may well have been dictated by the court. I am puzzled by a couple of points raised by the report. First, an individual subject to YOI license cannot be recalled direct to prison at the time of behaviour, unlike adult licences. If I am wrong about that, I would be grateful to be corrected. Also, even if the breach had been heard at court, the plea may well have been a denial, in light of the fact that, in this situation, there was no conviction in relation to the behaviour. An individual would otherwise be admitting to behaviour in regard to which he or she had not even been prosecuted. In my view that is an extremely unlikely scenario. Second, the report appears to me to gloss over the decision to grant police bail, regardless of the missing information about the YOI license. This decision appears to be based on the need for further enquiries - presumably relating to the information concerning other possible offences mentioned and in my view therein lies the crucial error. No further information was needed concerning an individual brandishing offensive weapons in public and at this stage should have been charged and remanded as is CLEARLY dangerous. The police and CPS ideally would have then thrown their weight in support of a remand in custody regardless of any plea entered at court. The report glosses over and distracts from this link in the chain of events by pointlessly speculating about future events beyond remand and charge. Smokescreens and mirrors. Regardless of future scenarios this is what should have happened but the police are let off the hook here in my view and wider questions should be asked as to why individuals are released back into the community where there is clear evidence of an offence and potential for serious harm being caused. My heart goes out to the case manager as I know from experience how it feels to be questioned in such circumstances. And finally - NOMS. What the hell is this expensive bureaucratic nightmare for? We were told it would provide a 'joined up' service. Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh public safety rests on the time of year does it ?

      Delete
  12. Re recent post TR SFOs: has anyone else in CRC had an SFO happen on their caseload only to find it has been declared a non SFO? Mine was referred twice as SFO, and twice turned down as SFO. I wonder if this is a new trend? Of course the individual member of staff whose SFO it is and his/ her line manager will be inclined to breathe a sigh of relief and keep stum ever after. Is this only my experience or have other readers of this blog come across the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know of 2 cases mentioned by my colleagues who thought they had SFO's and the offences appeared to be those listed under SFO's, and they have heard no more. Maybe you are right it maybe a new trend to prevent bringing new companies into investigation.

      Delete
    2. Where were the two cases? I'm in London.

      Delete
  13. There have been further SFO's in the DDC CRC and in one case the OM was untrained and inexperienced but allowed by Managers to believe they were better than what they were despite concerns made to Line and Senior Management. This was not their fault but that of the Management pushing for staff to do work they were not adequately trained for. Likewise caseloads are so high that it is not possible for anyone to be entirely up to date with their caseloads. WL do not care but continually peddle the myth that we are doing really well.

    ReplyDelete