Friday, 21 September 2018

Spurr Sacked - But Not Yet

I guess it's no great surprise that the politicians nearly always find a way of avoiding having to take responsibility for anything other than success and lo, the prison crisis has claimed the head of HMPPS, but not yet! This from the Guardian:- 

Prison Service chief Michael Spurr told to step down

Spurr has faced criticism over crisis in jails but campaigners say ministers are to blame

The head of the prison service, Michael Spurr, has been told to step down from the role amid an ongoing crisis in jails in England and Wales. Although Spurr will remain chief executive of HM Prisons and Probation Service until the end of March next year, the Guardian understands he was told by the Ministry of Justice’s permanent secretary, Richard Heaton, he had to go. A source said: “He’s not been without his critics. A change of direction was needed.”

However, prison reform campaigners praised Spurr’s efforts and said ministers were “deluding themselves” if they thought a change of leader would fix overcrowded and under-resourced prisons. And former Labour justice secretary, Charlie Falconer, said Spurr had been “dealt as shitty a hand by the government as it is possible to deal”.

The announcement of his departure comes after a series of damning prison inspections. Spurr, who has been with the prison service for 35 years, including nine years leading it, has faced criticism over the mounting crisis, with the parliament’s justice committee attacking his “lack of leadership”. He joined the service as a prison officer in 1983 before working his way up through a series of posts as a governor and then becoming head of the service.

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “Michael Spurr will be an extraordinarily hard act to follow. He is an exceptionally principled and knowledgeable leader who has selflessly served an endless succession of short-term ministers. “Whoever takes over will face the same fundamental problems of overcrowded and under -resourced prisons. Those are problems which only ministers can address and none of those whom Michael has served so faithfully have delivered. Anyone who thinks the problems in our prisons can be solved by a change of leader is deluding themselves.”

The formal process to appoint Spurr’s successor will start next month, although it is understood the permanent secretary is to review the top managegement structure of the Prison Service. In a statement, Heaton said: 


“Michael is an exceptional public servant. His commitment to the organisation he leads and to a humane and effective offender management system has been unflinching, through a period when the system has faced extraordinary pressures, challenges and constraints. “Michael’s leadership has been exemplary. But we now need to look ahead, building on Michael’s work and developing a strategy for the next decade. I have therefore decided that April 2019 is the right time to ask a new chief executive to take on this important role.”

Justice secretaries have been handed four urgent notices by the prison inspectorate in the last year – for jails in Exeter, Nottingham, Birmingham and Bedford. It is the most serious level of action the inspectorate can take over conditions in a prison it inspects. In the case of HMP Birmingham, the jail was taken off the hands of its private operator, G4S, and returned to state control for at least six months as officials battle to reduce violence, drug use and disorder.

David Gauke, the justice secretary, said: “I am extremely grateful to Michael Spurr for his leadership of HMPPS. His focus has been unwavering on doing the best for his staff and for victims of crime, on discipline in the prison estate and on caring for and rehabilitating offenders. He is an example of the very best of public service and civil service leadership. I look forward to continuing to work closely with Michael into the new year.”

The number of assaults against prison officers continued to rise in the most recent batch of official figures, which revealed 9,003 assaults on staff in the 12 months to March, up 26% from the previous year. Last week thousands of prisons officers staged a walkout in protest at health and safety violations they allegedly face from working in such conditions. The walkout was brought to an end after a threat of legal action from the government, which said the protest was illegal and irresponsible.

55 comments:

  1. Spurr has ‘followed ministers faithfully’ rather than shown the leadership his role demands. He is personable but he has taken the cash and not delivered the goods. He leaves a legacy of serial failure as a ‘yes’ man

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the Prison Reform Trust that changing leader is not going to make much difference. What will hopefully make a difference is a change of government and a new approach. For starters we need to stop sending people to prison on short sentences, reestablish Probation and prisons as publicly owned properly resourced public services and stop treating the criminal justice system like a market. Spurr has no independent thought so he would follow orders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes agree with both of these posters.

      Delete
  3. There are suggestions that a certain Chris Grayling might soon be looking for a new job. Perhaps he could fill the void!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some are fans of the man, e.g. this on twitter from Nikki M "prison governor, author of 'why carry a weapon?', follower of Jesus": *Absolutely gutted to hear we are losing Michael Spurr as Chief Exec of @hmpps. He has been a huge support to me & my team thru difficult times - someone I look up to & hugely admire as the type of morally courageous leader I want to be.*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder if Nikki M read this on here yesterday:

      "The bonus, of between £15,000 and £20,000, was awarded for his work in 2015-2016 when, according to the report, he “exceeded at least one finance and efficiency objective”.

      During that year there was a record mumber of deaths in UK prisons (354). I hope that wasn't the "efficiency objective" he exceeded.

      And that's a "morally courageous leader"?

      Delete
  5. Mrs May due to make a statement at 1.45pm today - it will not be about probation but possibly will have significance for wider Government Policy and so including probation and prisons

    ReplyDelete
  6. ViSOR data security concerns highlighted

    In response to significant concerns from members we sought legal advice on the NPS plans to broaden the use of ViSOR and require members to undergo Police vetting to directly access the system.

    When our representations to the employers failed to secure the protections that members were seeking Napo registered a trade dispute in relation to this.

    High level discussions are now happening with the aim of reaching a resolution that will provide protection for members who have to undergo Police vetting in order to access the ViSOR system directly. A further update will be given to members as soon as we have a conclusion to the discussions.



    .... and the ‘legal advice’ is ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have resisted doing the visor forms so far but have been instructed to do it now I was thinking about testing out whether any action will be taken if I don’t comply? Has anyone on here heard if any individuals have been disciplined for refusing to comply ?

      Delete
    2. I doubt they could do much. We’ve not had it yet, but when the time comes I I’ll wait until I’m forced too. Why not !

      Delete
    3. I have resisted, for nearly a year, have been threatened with disciplinary a couple of times but nothing has happened as yet. I am standing firm and will continue to do so.

      Delete
    4. So true, this point about Napo and advice. Amid all the Napo chatter, you are on your own. Whilst Napo fiddles away, Visor vetting continues apace.

      Delete
    5. Reminiscent of NapoHQ's approach to TR, EVR, etc.
      But once again, helpful to Spurr & HMPPS management.

      Delete
  7. According to the Police Oricle the MoJ concluded its 'public' consultation on probation at midnight.
    How long before there's an announcement?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re visor perhaps simplistic but why have they not simply opposed our having to do the vetting forms at all. It appears aside from sharing our info with police we are now to duplicate info on theirs like administrators!! I recall visor officers had an admin person to do that so why us. The old system was volunteers to access visor I see no real need why we all have to. It was not in our original contracts and quite frankly sick of rolling over at threats made by our employers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I’m not completing Visor vetting forms, simple as. I’ve nothing to hide and my DBS is current. My contract doesn’t require me to provide financial and family information to the police. If failing to comply means the police will not let me access Visor then that is a problem for the employer to deal with. Pass or fail, I wasn’t intending to use it anyway as adding information to Visor is an admin task.

    The position of Napo / Unison should be that Visor vetting will not be completed by members until a satisfactory resolution is agreed. The only satisfactory resolution is there should be absolutely no impact on existing staff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For some time now staff are being harassed by ‘Visor admin’ and managers to complete vetting forms

      Delete
    2. Why are we completing these forms if Napo have registered a trade dispute?

      https://www.napomagazine.org.uk/2018/09/21/visor-data-security-concerns-highlighted/

      Delete
    3. No clarity from Napo beyond this as referenced above:

      "In response to significant concerns from members we sought legal advice on the NPS plans to broaden the use of ViSOR and require members to undergo Police vetting to directly access the system.

      When our representations to the employers failed to secure the protections that members were seeking Napo registered a trade dispute in relation to this."

      The funny bit:

      "Our National Chair elect submitted their own access request and received a response which indicates that Shared Services are waiting for information from the former Probation Trust. As we all know, Trusts ceased to exist in 2014"

      Might be waiting some time...

      Delete
    4. Aha! I found Napo's 'advice' which, in the context of the recent POA action, is a rather limp fig leaf:

      "Our legal advice confirms that we have no basis at the moment to advise members to refuse to comply with any employers instructions relating to ViSOR. We would only be able to issue this advice if it formed part of lawful industrial action. In order to take such action we first have to register a dispute and then, if not resolved, we would ballot members on taking such action."

      Delete
    5. So register a dispute if you can't even advise staff until then.
      With recent POA action and the general chaos across the justice system, NAPO might find ministers are a little more agreeable and prepared to listen then they normally are.

      Delete
    6. 1. Register a dispute
      2. Ballot and take industrial action
      3. Instruct members not to fill in the forms.

      Napo’s limp wristed negotiations mean nothing if HMPPS have already forced everyone to complete the forms.

      Delete
    7. “In order to take such action we first have to register a dispute ... “


      I thought Napo already had?


      So where’s the action??


      Well Napo’s secret squirrel might know more !!


      “High level discussions are now happening with the aim of reaching a resolution that will provide protection for members who have to undergo Police vetting in order to access the ViSOR system directly. A further update will be given to members as soon as we have a conclusion to the discussions”

      Delete
    8. .... knowing Napo, the ‘update’ and ‘resolution’ will be too little too late !

      Delete
    9. "reaching a resolution that will provide protection for members who have to undergo Police vetting in order to access the ViSOR system directly."

      Providing protection for members who have to undergo police vetting suggests to me that any resolution is focused on any consequences that may arise 'post' vetting and not focused on forcing all members to undertake the vetting process in the first place.
      Devils and details?

      Delete
  10. Having spent a considerable amount of time recently undertaking work previously done by a computer person for the IT upgrade, I have now told them it’s not in my job description and have refused to take responsibility for equipment being delivered to the large prison establishment where I am currently based.
    They want me to sign for it and be responsible for it’s safe storage.
    The place is full of thieves!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Our legal advice confirms that we have no basis at the moment to advise members to refuse to comply with any employers instructions relating to ViSOR. We would only be able to issue this advice if it formed part of lawful industrial action.” - Napo


    So start the bloody industrial action already !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Napo ask "if anyone has ever costed the NPS"

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720863/HMPPS_ARA_2017-18__web_.pdf

    Sonia Crozier accounts for £165,000 in her 'Probation & Women' role. The Probation and Women’s directorate is responsible for line management and leadership of probation services in England, and that cost HMPPS around £413m in 2016/7 & £415m in 2017/8.

    It excludes the less transparent figures for HMPPS Wales, which are presented as a conglomerate of provisions including prisons, probation & others.

    According to HMPPS accounts the Contracted Probation Services (CRCs) cost £410m in 2016/7 & £388m in 2017/8. This cannot possibly include any of the 'additional' payments made to CRCs.

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Investigation-into-changes-to-Community-Rehabilitation-Company-contracts.pdf

    According to the Comptroller General's report the combined adjustments of the 6/6/17 contract amendments increased the maximum projected fee for service payments to CRCs under the contracts to £2.5 billion.

    Yet HMPPS say they have commitments of £2.7bn as at 31/3/18. That's a creep of yet another £200m.

    One immediate adjustment was an additional £22 million for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 July 2017. Another effect was that the Ministry’s maximum projected payments arising from the MAF adjustments range from +£6 million to +£37 million per CRC (between +6% & +16%).

    There is still no word of the actual size of the Grayling/Maude generous Modernisation Fund sweetener directly transferred into CRC pockets, allegedly of the magnitude £80m or so.

    In simplistic terms from HMPPS operational figures, 2017/8:

    NPS - £415m
    CRC - £388m

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Sonia Crozier accounts for £165,000 in her 'Probation & Women' role.”

      That’s the same as FIVE probation officers. She’s seriously an overpaid waste of money. £165k to take it in the ass from the Ministry of Justice and disseminate to the National Probation Service how good it was.

      Delete
    2. "official figures estimated that nationally around 46% of staff would end up transferred to the NPS and 54% to the CRCs" - something NAPO says is 'about right'

      So (bearing in mind there's a lack of Wales' data):

      46% costs £415m
      54% costs £388m

      Whereas 46% of £803m = £369, & 54% = £433m

      So CRCs represent an 11% saving on cost as compared to the NPS. Not quite the savings they had in mind. In 2014 the FT said:

      "The MoJ is seeking £2bn cost savings across the department by 2014/ 2015 but hopes to reinvest savings on the probation contracts – estimated at around 30 per cent – into the service."

      Delete
    3. TR was nothing but a tissue of lies & deceit by right wing ideologues & their well-rewarded accomplices.

      CRC/NPS split was initially to be 80:20, then 70:30, but it's proven to be about 50:50 - a ratio no doubt assisted by over 1,000 staff being axed by the private sector CRC owners.

      The probation savings were estimated by MoJ to be 30% but, if there are any savings, they're actually 10% at best - without taking account of the secret 'commercially sensitive' lump sums gifted to privateers from the public purse. Meantime...

      Reoffending has increased.
      Deaths in prison have increased.
      SFOs have increased.
      Prison populations have increased.
      Higher risk caseloads have increased.

      How much more damning do the facts have to be before someone takes heed?

      Spurr, Poree, Allars, Grayling, Cameron, Romeo, Brennan, most Probation Chiefs & all who facilitated TR should be publicly shamed, stripped of any honours & made to donate their ill-gotten gains by way of reparation to those whose lives have been shattered by this travesty of a publicly funded project.

      Delete
  13. Are Unison doing anything about vetting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UNISON registers ViSOR vetting concerns

      UNISON has registered its concerns with both NOMS and probation employers regarding a possible escalation in the number of staff members required to receive clearance to operate ViSOR (Violent and Sex Offender Register). UNISON understands that ViSOR has been subject to a security review which enhanced its classification. This means that full users have to have a level 3 clearance which is very intrusive and delves into aspects of your personal life which are not relevant to anyone’s work within probation. Examples of this include bank details, credit records and political affiliations. At present ViSOR has operated on the basis that only a limited number of users were required and, as such, was easy to manage through volunteers and dedicated ViSOR administrators.

      The ViSOR system is owned by the National Police Improvement Agency and, as such, probation has little influence over the requirements necessary to use it. However, as long as each Trust had only a few operators, few if any vetting’s problems arose. What has added to the concerns of UNISON is that greater use of the ViSOR system is being pushed by NOMS, meaning many more staff would be required to pass the vetting. The impact of this would mean many more staff having to give private details to a 3rd party which has not been a requirement previously, nor relevant to the members of staff’s main occupation.

      In fact all new starters may be required to pass the vetting before securing employment, which would be a significant change in practice and could put off potential applicants. Another big concern is that those who fail the ViSOR vetting need clear guidance on how to appeal and to get the full reasons why. UNISON is unhappy that a Trust’s HR department might get this sensitive information when it is unrelated to the primary employment.

      UNISON and Napo are asking the employers to work with the trade unions to ensure a protocol is agreed in how these employment-related issues, linked to VISOR, are dealt with. If you have any VISOR related issues it is important that you make UNISON aware. Please contact d.bryant@unison.co.uk

      Delete
    2. http://unison-edinburgh.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VISOR-Update-1.pdf

      Delete
    3. "UNISON is unhappy that a Trust’s HR department might get this sensitive information when it is unrelated to the primary employment"

      Trusts ceased to exist in 2014.

      Delete
    4. The NPIA ceased to exist around 2014 as well.

      Delete
    5. The question was whether Unison was “doing anything”. Yes it was prior to TR, and currently yes it is in Scotland. What is Unison doing currently in England and Wales? Any members here?

      Delete
  14. Whilst over the mountain in Unison - Edinburgh ...

    “UNISON City of Edinburgh branch has also informed management that we have advised our Criminal Justice Social Work members not to comply with the ViSOR vetting, and if their employer decides to begin disciplinary action, all our members will be issued with a case- form to complete and these will be forwarded on to the Regional Officer.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clear, succinct, supportive, simple.

      Meanwhile, over at Napo & Unison in England/Wales - "ooerrr, missus, erm, um, well, what if Mr Spurr doesn't like it, oh dear, oh deary, deary dear. Best just wait & see..."

      Copy of a vetting form here for info:

      http://www.northants.police.uk/files/documents/Vetting%20Forms/np%5ENPPV%20Level%202%20Application%20Form.pdf

      Delete
  15. Sorry if this has been asked / answered before but is common in NPS offices for staff to be asked to provide their qualifications (degree, diploma etc) to prove they're qualified PO's? If so can you claim the cost of applying for new copies of your qualifications (been qualified 20+ years, so no idea where they might be!)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We’ve been asked in our NE office we were told that our manager just needs to have sight of them My manager says it’s something to do with POs being recruited who haven’t got a probation qualification ? What a joke this service is !!!

      Delete
    2. Nonsense. They’re required in preparation for the professional register. This is documented. The lie is them saying that they don’t already have a record.

      Delete
  16. Yes another ridiculous demand. Funny they can put deadlines on us for absolutely everything including their whims but when we assert our rights and request something there is no deadline nor a redress for taking so long to meet their legal duties to us as employees. No professional respect and all this in the face of awful pay which does not reflect the demands of the job.

    ReplyDelete
  17. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/25/staff-cuts-prison-leadership-crisis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hundreds of senior staff and management have left the Prison Service in the past five years without being replaced, new figures reveal, which has led to “dangerous” flaws in the system, according to campaigners.

      The exodus of crucial experienced staff has coincided with record levels of assaults, suicides and self-harm in jails in England and Wales and forced the government to take action to increase prison officer numbers after almost a decade of cuts.

      Official figures obtained by the Observer from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) under freedom of information legislation show that 40 senior prison managers have left in the past five years but only two have joined – one of whom quit less than a year later. There were 205 outgoing managers compared with 23 incoming, while only a single replacement was hired in place of 295 custodial managers.

      About 17,000 staff left the service between 2012 and 2016, with 106 operational managers exiting in 2016, up from 47 in 2012. The only net increase came in non-operational roles, with 52 more psychologists and 142 more administrative assistants.

      The revelations will pile further pressure on the government to reconsider its policy of outsourcing prisons to private contractors. The MoJ had to draft in an extra 30 prison officers to HMP Birmingham last week after being forced to take the G4S-run institution back into state control. An inspection found the jail to be “in a state of crisis” with drug use rife and blood, vomit and cockroaches in the corridors. The chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, said gangs could perpetrate violence “with near impunity” and that staff were afraid and experienced bullying.

      Separate figures released by the MoJ forecast the prison population in England and Wales, which has nearly doubled since 1993, would grow by more than 3,200 over the next five years to 86,400 by March 2023. More than half of prisons are now “overcrowded” by their own definition. (contd)

      Delete
    2. Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said it “could take a decade” to repair the loss of leadership and experience. “Prisons are having a crisis of middle management and this could pose considerable dangers,” she said. “While it’s good to bring in young blood to work for the prison service, like with any profession they need help and guidance. If there’s a rat infestation or a riot, you need to be able to turn to someone with years of experience.”

      Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, agreed. “Many governors welcome the opportunity that recruiting new staff represents – but not in prisons where confidence has collapsed and new officers have to learn their craft in the midst of fear and chaos,” he said. “It is no accident that when a prison has got out of hand, the response normally includes reducing prisoner numbers.That is the relief that the system as a whole also needs if new staff are to stay and become competent.”

      Earlier this year the Observer revealed that since 2010 prisons in England and Wales have lost a combined 70,000 years of officer experience. The number of prison officers with less than three years’ experience has more than doubled.

      Richard Burgon, shadow justice secretary, said: “Across all grades, there are still nearly 7,000 fewer staff in the Prison Service than when the Tories came to office. That is the root cause of the repeated crisis in our prisons – a situation that has now clearly become a prisons emergency. But these problems run much deeper than a simple head count. Thousands of years’ worth of vital prisons experience, built up over decades, has been lost for good as valued staff are axed or leave because of ever-worsening conditions. This poses a long-term threat to the stability of our prisons and underlines the recklessness of the government’s race to-the-bottom in our prisons system.”

      A Prison Service spokesperson said: “The proportion of senior managers in the service has not changed since 2011. As with any other organisation, we often promote staff with extensive experience to fill roles vacated when, for example, people retire.”

      Delete
  18. From the Independent.

    Chris Grayling claims that it is “tough for any politician to overrule the advice of the professionals” (Don’t blame me for rail chaos, blame the system – Grayling, 21 September). That didn’t stop him, as justice secretary, overruling the advice of the professionals who warned him that his plan to break up and part privatise the probation service would have catastrophic consequences. Turns out that, unlike the rail professionals, they were right.
    Peter Lock
    Woolton, Liverpool

    ReplyDelete
  19. https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/justice-system/house/house-magazine/98422/richard-burgon-government-must-stop

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The wheels finally came off two key government justice policies this summer, as the Ministry of Justice careers from disaster to disaster.

    The decision to return HMP Birmingham to the public sector after unprecedented failures by contractor G4S should have been enough to end the failed experiment with privatisation across our justice system. An end made even more urgent given that, just weeks before, the government was forced to terminate the privatised probation contracts, despite a £500m bailout over the past 12 months alone. Though less newsworthy than prisons, probation manages over 200,000 offenders annually. Privatisation has left the public less safe and out of pocket.

    Privatisation alone doesn’t account for the crisis in our justice system. Slashing hundreds of millions of pounds, for example, from prison budgets and axing thousands of staff are key drivers of what we must now call the prisons emergency. Across the board, the scale of justice cuts are eye-watering. By the end of the next financial year, the MoJ’s budget will have been cut by 40% under the Conservatives.

    Cuts and privatisation often go hand-in-hand. As budgets fall, there is a greater push for the private sector to step in or to serve as a role model. Under the Conservatives, the driving down of staffing levels and budgets was an attempt to lower the costs of public sector prisons to those in the private sector. That has proven a dangerous race to the bottom. Violence is at record levels with an assault recorded every 20 minutes. We have the highest number of prisons labelled as of “serious concern” in years.

    Without a reversal of its current strategy, the government is guaranteeing more of the same. If it carries on slashing justice budgets, then the crisis will deepen. If it insists on yet more privatisation, then there will be more costly failures. The government needs to bite the bullet and accept that a toxic combination of austerity and privatisation has failed our justice system.

    Labour is calling on the government to outline an emergency national plan and budget to make our prisons safe. The government’s proposed solution for HMP Birmingham is to reduce the number of prisoners and boost the number of staff. So why not commit to end overcrowding and understaffing across the entire prisons estate? Despite recent recruitment, there are still 3,000 fewer prison officers than in 2010. Tens of thousands of years of experience has been lost in an ongoing exodus of longer serving officers, creating a dangerous cocktail of experienced prisoners and inexperienced officers. What is the strategy to retain officers? Another below-inflation pay rise certainly won’t help.

    There should be a moratorium on all further privatisation until there has been an independent review of private sector involvement in our justice system. But despite well-documented failings, the government is again turning to the private sector for solutions. It even hopes that G4S will resume control of HMP Birmingham in six months’ time. (contd)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Labour completely rejects the government’s recent decision to build yet more private prisons. If the government refuses to overturn that decision then, at the very least, it should rule out two likely bidders – G4S and Serco – while they remain under a Serious Fraud Office investigation for their involvement in a Ministry of Justice tagging contract. Any bidders for the new private contracts should be clear that Labour in office will put an end to privatisation in our prison system.

      It was disappointing that the government prejudiced its own consultation on the future of probation with a commitment to retaining a privately-run service. Labour will return all of probation to the public sector. There, it can focus on reducing reoffending rather than making profits. We have appointed Lord Ramsbotham, a former chief inspector of prisons, to look at how this can best be achieved.

      After a summer where the crisis in the justice system has shot up the political agenda, the lesson is clear: the government needs to stop trying to do justice on the cheap. Instead, now is the time to properly invest in keeping our communities safe."

      Richard Burgon is Labour MP for Leeds East and shadow lord chancellor and shadow secretary of state for justice

      Delete
  21. Sadly, I passed Visor vetting meaning I have to stay in the Offender management unit until something else comes along.I was hoping I would fail, just to escape the relentless cycle that is OM work. Caseloads through the roof and expectations ridiculous. Most in my Office are sick of this crap and want out. I am NPS.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @12.59 I can completely identify with you on caseloads through the roof and ridiculous expectations. I am also NPS and would love to get out. The targets are meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Meaningless targets' - a relative concept. They're probably both meaningful & lucrative for those trousering PRP bonuses. Spurr, Crozier & your regional directors will be delighted with your selfless efforts. Well done!

      Delete
  23. www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/25/private-probation-firms-put-victims-of-abuse-at-risk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HMIP tweet: 'Domestic abuse: the work undertaken by Community Rehabilitation Companies' - read our report - ow.ly/pXbg30lSJSm

      Delete