Pick of the Week 41

I think there is a good debate to have about qualification for Probation work. A broad foundation study aligned with practice that integrates theory and allows for reflection on practice seems fundamental. I feel I benefited from that with DipPS which was as a result of BA and NVQ in Community Justice. However, I think that provided a foundation from which to build. I was glad of further ongoing training but surprised that this was not better integrated into practice and a formal record of my continuing professional development was not encouraged or required. I realise people will cry out that time and resources do not allow for such luxury in the present. Where does that leave the Probation profession if this remains the case? In decline, lacking currency and open to question regards its efficacy I would suggest. I do not know what the answers are in a fragmented and under resourced system, much of which is struggling to profit from its activities.

*****
The demise of Carillion has been discussed at some length this week on this blog. It's been headlined on every media platform and took up many hours of Parliamentary debate. Carillions collapse has impacted hugely on vast areas of society. But what I find most disturbing about massive multi national private companies like Carillion, Interserve, Sodexo etc is that they are allowed to trade as limited companies. It cannot be right that any company that can post £100s millions in annual profits, and pay shareholders millions of pounds in dividends, can hide behind limited liability status. How far should you be allowed to trade beyond your asset value before you should lose your limited liability status?

Barring a few IT systems, these multi national outsourcing companies have no assets at all, so why should they be allowed to trade in £billions? I'd like to run up a £100 thousand bill with William Hill hoping I'd win enough to pay the debt and win a few quid for myself. If I failed, I'd also like to be able to say my plan didn't work out, and I'm really sorry but I only own a fiver! I have no issues with limited companies, but come on, if you allow companies with no assets to trade in £billions under limited liability status, then someone is going to get significantly burned.

*****
I could not agree more with you about limited liability. It encourages the spendthrifts and the corrupt. It would have been a different set of risks for the executives in Carillion - and the banks - to have considered if they had known that in going bust their personal assets would be seized to pay creditors. As it is, they can be as reckless as they wish with other peoples' money, because they know their homes and personal wealth is protected by the law. The same applies to all the fraudsters who rack up dissolved companies, leaving debts, but then going on to their next reckless venture. Making them personally accountable for losses would change corporate behaviour across the board.

*****
It concerns me that working people are having their pensions plundered. Carrillion paid share dividends that equated roughly to the pensions deficit or liability. If I understand correctly this means that workers will likely receive 10% less than they had imagined under a state sponsored guarantee scheme, which if I understand correctly means the tax payer assures them a pension of 90% of what they they anticipated. 

It shocked me that one man, Philip Greene (BHS) who took hundreds of millions out of that company did so whilst the workers pension fund was similarly in deficit. And, with a stroke of a pen paid back a few hundred million to prop up the fund. One man! I remember Robert Maxwell robbing the Mirror group pension fund of a huge amount. I know that there are many other company pension funds languishing with huge liabilities. I still remember Vince Cable saying about the financial crisis that the 'profits were privatised and the debts nationalised.' How do we bring about better governance, shine a light into outrageous profiteering, avarice, by a few at the expense of the many? I am simply not seeing the answers being presented or the arguments substantially made. It is wrong and no one ever seems to be held to account.

*****
Oh no reading the Sunday best of the week and we get a love in for Raho and Rogers. Really Jim have you just announced the run for national chairs here and the general secretary election. I doubt the technocrat will have the backbone let alone the real potential to lead and be followed. Neither have done anything remarkable than acquiesce the whole side into a local arrangement for which has destroyed the union and left all open to local pay and down grade. No fools that pair. A clever move wrapped up in explanations by their support club. Where will they be when the truth of their disaster comes home. In power probably blaming someone else. It is a danger to all the union to allow the management friendlies any free hand. Keep up the good work Jim and let them pair get another PR agent we thought you were independent.

*****
You may not realise it yet but they have contributed to damage that whatever happens has put the union and the movement back many years. It can only be repaired if the Labour government get in and truly repeal 2016 trade union legislation. Corbyn “That means new trade union freedoms and collective bargaining rights, of course, because it is only through collective representation that workers have the voice and the strength to reverse the race to the bottom in pay and conditions.” Unlike Mr Raho and it is well known that Mr Roger is anti Corbyn and somehow the duo think they know better than the Party. Come on Jim help the membership. It is not a game.

*****
I appreciate that you do not understand that distributive rather than centralised collective bargaining was the only viable option post TR. It was the employers that did not want to talk to each other that was the problem. These myths that those hard left wingers are peddling of a sell out by Raho and Rogers are groundless and suppose the pair are far more powerful than the entire Napo leadership and spineless NEC. The Napo far left would presumably compel employers to meet with them in some centralised Stalinist committee and then force them to do everything they want with the power of their Neo Marxist rhetoric.

Let us not forget that the candidates of the left in Napo are Lawrence and Berry. Lawrence has already declared he wants to stand again. If anything they were the ones together with Winters and Pattison who were dealing with the national collective bargaining situation and must bear some responsibility. However, it would be unfair to blame Lawrence as he is largely impotent in his dealings as the employers ignore him as someone beset on all sides and has a glazed expression when matters involve anything complex or strategic. 

There was an attempt to get things sorted at the Napo AGM before last with an enabling motion that was never heard as the left wingers voted to support the already dead NNC that had Lawrence et al looking like rabbits frozen in the headlights of an oncoming juggernaut as they were forced to appear to support the unviable. Raho and Rogers were the only ones who came up with a practical alternative to the nothing the leadership were left with and I suspect Lawrence has been secretly glad of those who blame everyone but him. 

If he had not had at least a couple of pragmatists in Napo then they would not have any formal mechanism through which to speak with employers and his showboating days would have been sunk months ago. Let us see if modern local distributed collective bargaining delivers anything. If it fails as the NNC did consistently to achieve pay increases for all including those at the top of the scale, then the far left wingers can say that they were right but before then they might do well to remember that they have no viable alternative and little to offer but a fading dream of trade union power that has no basis in reality. I would always invite people to deal with things as they are.

*****
I would be the first one to look at all sides and see what might happen but you are and still hold a position that capitulated a major issue. The matter was subject to a protection under the transfer arrangements. There was no defence or claim on this by any party who should and ought to have challenged. Failing that is a clear signal to the future of how things will be managed. Your post well written and to some degree inclusive of the wider views is still disparaging towards the left in the union and this is not helpful. The NEC will not welcome the views either. 

While your descriptors are sort of funny on one level, on another they do not adequately deliver appropriate respect towards people who may or may not have some ownership of the failings. You do make your sides story more credible and interesting, but the claim it was pragmatism is not what anyone wants to hear. Cutting staff, reducing costs, shaving of professional top earners, reducing management oversight, losing flexi time arrangements, changing hostel night staff, the list goes on. Rationalising cuts as pragmatic that's no position so your team offer nothing and in fact have made it worse.

*****
One of the issues I have been very concerned about is how worker's pension funds are effectively being used as bank loans. The Plc claims cash flow problems and does not, claims it is not able to, meet the needs of the pension fund but promises to do so in better times. In the case of Carrillion they continued to pay sizeable share dividends and executive pay and bonuses whilst 'wriggling' out of their duties to the pension fund. Huge debts and pension fund deficits later and hey presto the job has gone bust with pensioners out of pocket and the taxpayer picking up the tab. 

The example is not isolated and others will surely follow. It's wrong, worse than wrong. Many of us were brought up on the values of working hard, abiding by the law, doing right by your fellow man with ultimately a settled and affordable retirement in our later years, health allowing. This fundamental is being eroded as we see the greedy, self serving and reckless antics of our executive elite continue unabated with no obvious attempts to stop them. A social system continues to function well based on trust, fidelity, integrity an appreciable sense of fairness. What's happening?!

*****
Lawrence & Priestley - chalk & cheese. I'm going to have to watch the JSC again to decide if Lawrence is role-playing (lounging casually, never answering a question directly, showboating, confronting the Chair) or if he actually had any idea of what was actually happening. It was the JSC gathering evidence, Ian, not a 1970's spat wiv mannagemunt! It might be unfair but on first viewing my impression was that the JSC listened to the thoughtful & measured Priestley (who graciously played lieutenant to his NAPO counterpart), but only after the white noise coming from Lawrence had stopped. I'll have a glass of something & give it another go later...

*****
In MY opinion I don't think it was a good performance, but I really, really wanted a blinder of a performance from the man; it was a great opportunity. I now think I realise what made me react so negatively - he's not someone I want to listen to; his style of presentation makes me switch off. I don't find it engaging. I've watched some of it again and I realised I hadn't taken in anything that he'd said. I tried hard, and he did make a few good points. I'd missed them. And I wonder if the JSC did too? But that's MY issue, and MY perception. I can't stand Michael McIntyre either. Or Jimmy Carr. They're funny for some but not for me. What do I want? Grayling's head on display at the city gates.

*****
Apologies then better understood your explanation. Nevertheless we did get to hear Ian move some critical flaws across the room. Sadly not near assertive enough about the abysmal working conditions and not clear on the demise of probation premises has broken the backs of our service delivery potentials, enough for many. It is not his fault if you don't like the message, though I would like to know what have the other union leaders done to help him?

*****
The worry is that for £70k a year Lawrence should be nailing this, not leaving people unsure, unmoved & unimpressed. He had one shot from six yards at an open goal with the JSC and he kicked it over the bar. The JSC won't be watching it again on youtube or internet tv. This is his job. He's the GS of THE union & professional organisation for Probation staff, he should be leading the fight. Face it. He's just not very good at it, hence NAPO is pisspoor and we get crap T&Cs for staff transfer, the non-existent EVR, the lack of a pay rise, the lengthy silences, etc.

*****
It was a Justice Select Committee. If you wanted a slanging match you're on the wrong channel. The unions could only deliver what the protocols would expect. All-in wrestling is not one of them.

*****
"It was the JSC gathering evidence, Ian, not a 1970's spat wiv mannagemunt!" Exactly so, No need for cameos from Mick McManus or Kendo Nagasaki, just answer the nice MPs' questions with the damning evidence at your fingertips. On more than one occasion Mr Unison bailed Mr NAPO out of a self-constructed cul-de-sac-of-shite.

*****
Ben and Ian representing and presenting to the Justice Committee. Excellent presentation by them both.Well done, keep it up.

*****
Notes on Ian's performance as-it-happened:

* well-meaning but missing the necessary gravitas & impact
* answers seemingly without structure
* too eager to impose his own agenda rather than weaving it into the JSC format
* evidently very pleased with himself - big mistake
* overall, an underwhelming & disappointing performance
* 4/10

*****
I thought Ian's performance was made worse by the fact that Ben's was pretty impressive.

*****
Under the Trusts, the SPO role was gradually disconnected from practice. The managerialism model converted SPO into managers. Yes, there were some managers who had strong practice roots who saw their first duty as supporting frontline staff and who had a wealth of experience. But these managers were not so popular with their own bosses, as they were viewed as old-fashioned. We saw a new crop emerge who, no sooner qualified, were agitating to become managers, more for the status and money then because of any commitment to motivating and leading a team. 

These new managers had minimal practice experience, but they were popular with their superiors because they could be relied upon to follow corporate orders. These managers had no difficulty following the party line by aggressively implementing disciplinary and sickness management policies. So you could see the changes to job descriptions as merely the theory catching up with the practice. In the old days a good SPO would stand up for their team and argue the toss with senior management, but then they became errand boys and girls. I just wonder what exactly is being lost, that is not already lost.

*****
"These new managers had minimal practice experience, but they were popular with their superiors because they could be relied upon to follow corporate orders." I think that is not specifically a probation problem, but a problem that will be echoed across the board in all public services. Accelerated programmes were introduced to the police, prisons and NHS, and as pointed out, it allowed those in Whitehall to push whatever service in whatever direction they wanted without very little resistance.

*****
Only this week we have had a landmark example of blatant discrimination towards those with mental health issues: the PIP assessments, A government defeated in the courts for discriminating against the mentally ill. The government talks compassion and acts with cynicism. There is good evidence – as set out in a book, The Spirit Level - that those societies with high economic inequalities have more citizens with mental health issues.

And the statistical evidence of declining prison staff numbers alongside increasing incidence of self-harm amongst prisoners shows what happens when prison regimes unravel. It is shameful that so many people in prison feel unsafe – either from other prisoners or prison staff. Feeling at constant risk of being abused and bullied, never mind coping with underlying vulnerabilities, pushes individuals towards brinks of one sort or another. No wonder recidivism is high: prisons manufacture it.

*****
Prison officers have never had decent mental health training. I remember talking to one (25 yrs experience on the job) about what sort of training was available to them in this area and they responded that HMPS offered a three day voluntary training session. That was it. Just three hours and not compulsory to attend and that was supposed to equip officers to deal with really complex mental health needs. Things will presumably only have gotten worse post Grayling and they probably don't even offer that pitiful amount of training any more.

*****

The article above does not mention who should “lead,” or manage any newly re-constituted service. I have no faith and no confidence in the current incumbents who have remained tight lipped about the demise of the service and would be fiercely opposed to any of them positioning themselves at the top table in the future. They have steadfastly refused to speak out in support of their staff and have pushed through change despite the evidential base which proves that it is badly designed and does not work. At the end of the day, they have feathered their own nests and sold us down the river!

*****
"While we do not think that there should be a return to a Probation Service as it was before TR, we strongly recommend that members of the Probation Service that have left the service since TR was implemented, should be actively consulted and engaged in the design of a new Probation Service." No, of course you don't as the chiefs helped drive the pulse out of what probation was didn't they? Yes of course you want to hear from all those that left voluntarily or ran away as they may have something to tell us that are left in the mire and mess. No thanks to you liking to come back in another consultancy deal on top of your pay offs for selling the Trusts out. Unless you're offering free time which we all know will tear you away from your holidays. Scepticism reigns.

*****
Sorry to correct but some of those that left before TR did not receive any payout to go but able to see the writing on the wall. I was a NAPO rep as well as an SPO. I spent hours of my own time in the evening reading endless documents to keep up with the changes so I could brief members in both the union and the team. I discussed career options with anyone who wanted it outside the service because no one else was doing it. Both the employers and union wanted, for their own selfish reasons, for folk to stay put and make the resulting and predictable mess work.

The turning point for me came with the one day strike after the split had been decided. All union members, bar one, who had been assigned to the NPS did not come out on strike. The drawbridge for colleagues assigned to the CRC was well and truly pulled up. With that I decided to put myself first and got another job. If you consider this to be cowardly, so be it. We will have to differ. I would gladly speak to the likes of John Budd if he is asked to try and repair what is left of the service but I think I would be considered too low in the pecking order to merit any attention. It will take drastic action to repair the damage done but reuniting the service and recreating local links have to be the first steps.

*****
If I was approached to help rebuild a decent Probation Service, as a former SPO with over 20 years management experience, I would consider it but only if my salary was the same as it was when I left i.e. top of the scale. I have already had the piss taken out of me once. I am not going to allow it to happen again. I agree that the problem here was NOMS and the MoJ. The 'takeover' of Probation by Prison management was and is at the core of the problem. 

I recall a colleague telling me that she had overheard Phil Wheatley telling his Prison Service manager colleagues to 'Not discuss this with' the only Probation Manager at the top table during his tenure. Wheatley not only ignored Probation input, he actively avoided it and sought to keep Probation out of the loop. The attitude of NOMS and the MoJ to Probation has been and remains a disgrace. This whole debacle has to be laid firmly at their door. Probation was always a difficult idea to sell, so why was it given to the amateurs to manage? Money and careers to be made? A fool's errand, more like.

*****
I don't trust the pragmatists and I do not believe anyone can be free of ideology. One of the authors contributed to the creation of the NPS – yet now advocates a locally-based service. They also present a false dichotomy regarding social work and confronting behaviour. Was there ever a time in the idealised social work era of probation when behaviour was not confronted and can you really have a confronting paradigm without social work values underpinning wider rehabilitative objectives? I don't think so and it's silly to take either/or stances. And by the way, I think there were 35 probation trusts pre-TR – not 42. Probation work is subtle and no one gains by talking tough and playing to the public gallery.

*****

And once again we have probation professionals totally ignoring the service user. If you're going to design a probation system from scratch as is posited by these folks and consulting everyone all over the place about it, shouldn't you also be consulting the service user for their input into what works and what doesn't so you can actually design a service that has a hope in hell of actually doing what it should do? Everyone I know who has gone through probation at any time is in agreement that probation should work WITH the service user and not simply do things to them as they have done historically and continue to do. No wonder the reoffending rate is stubbornly high. When will probation people of all ranks learn that until you work with the service user rather than foisting some rubbish off on them, it's never going to achieve it's goals?

*****
Prison officer behaviour is sometimes part of the problem, as reports of their bullying and abusive behaviours towards prisons support. Prison officers are sometimes prone to see self-harm as an attempt to manipulate the system. Attempted suicides where there is successful prison officer intervention are recorded as self harm and I have no doubt as part of the incident report the role of the prison officer is highlighted.

*****
Keep those reminders coming. In approx 25 years of Probation work I've tried - and, sadly, failed numerous times - to ensure my professional focus is upon those sent to work with me by the courts (or prisons). As a qualified & experienced professional when granted the time, respect & length of leash, I have been at my most useful in helping someone to effect change but.....the biggest distractions, barriers and sources of frustration have always been those uninvited impositions, e.g. 'management guidance', 'practice instructions' or simply accountants monitoring targets disguised as SPOs.

Two comments today have stood out for me: "Probation work is subtle and no one gains by talking tough and playing to the public gallery." & "No wonder the reoffending rate is stubbornly high. When will probation people learn?"

In our so-called democracy we have numerous adversarial systems. Justice is not about truth but about who can 'win'. Politics is not about integrity or the will of the people, but who has power and influence in order to get their own way and 'win'. We have a pseudo-Darwinian society where survival of the fittest doesn't mean healthy - it more often means the fattest cats, the meanest bullies, the biggest liars, the holders of the greatest amounts of power. Leaving the EU? Trump? Boris Johnson? Michael Gove? Nigel Farage? Grayling? *unt? Putin? And it is exactly such people who are prone to 'talking tough' and 'playing to the gallery'. They are also the people who want to keep subtlety out of the picture - who hate nuance, loathe freedom of expression and belittle generosity of spirit.

Whilst 'The Players' are beguiling the media and travelling the world (at our expense) feathering their own nests, us 'Little People' are being taken for a ride. Our taxes are being handed over to pirate shareholders & fraudsters, our national infrastructure is being placed under overseas control. For example, Leaving the EU was about regaining Sovereignty, yet those who have lied & campaigned the most are responsible for the outsourcing which has led to our trains being run by German, Dutch & French companies; our power provided by French, American Japanese & Korean companies; our probation services provided by American, Australian, French & German companies.

And so yes, it is no surprise that such parallel dissonance exists in the probation world whereby the task-in-hand is 'trumped' by the anxiety of job survival, where the depressed and stressed-out professional cannot effectively focus on the needs of their 'client'. Doomed to fail? Designed to fail? Does it matter? It's failing us all.

*****
The report stated that although the probation officer (PO) was newly appointed to the role they had worked for several years in probation in another role. This is where the facts end and the glaring errors and omissions start. The facts are well known though it is that none of the team including the managers were actually Probation Officers who are properly qualified at all.

Working Links will not provide the evidence of the PO's experience, they have confirmed they did not receive the expected training, training that Working Links themselves expect staff to complete. It is also known that Working Links have no training plan to provide any appropriate skills to any staff. It is clear on this blog of the well known public national dispute that the unions have raised for the dangerous practices of Working Links. There are many sign posts and the situation is deteriorating. Johnny Mercer Visited the office in January and has been duped into thinking its rosy. It is not!