Thursday 8 April 2021

Best of the Week 2

I started a 15 year career in Probation after securing a Trainee Probation Officer position in 2001. I largely enjoyed my time in Probation. I think the increasing time sat pounding away putting information into a computer to the detriment of working with people, the cut backs meaning a sweated stressed workforce and Grayling's vandalism of the Probation Service was why I have since pursued an alternate career. Good luck to the new recruits I say, they are clearly much needed and represent the future of Probation.

*****
I got a job in Probation almost by accident, it was going to be a tide-over thing, and I knew nothing about it. What I encountered was a vibrant, inspiring institution which rang lots of bells in my then very immature philosophical head about the need to extend dignity and compassion to those who fall through the cracks and make terrible mistakes (and yes, do terrible things). 

I got stuck in and have been there ever since. I was so proud of "my" institution, and so enriched by both colleagues and clients. Several decades later, that has turned to dust. I cannot and will not recommend a career in the tatty remains of this profession to anyone, and personally am just plain embarrassed by what it is now (and its not a profession). 

On a brighter note, this aged old hack is encouraged by conversations with new recruits: they joined with basically the same idealistic principles in mind that I had. They are knackered and disillusioned with the MoJ and NPS, and looking for exits, but there is still a flickering flame on the candle of what I believe are the basic values and ethos. How to fan/protect the flame in the whistling cold gale of the current political climate is the question. 

Pearly Gates

******
I see colleagues becoming ill with the job. You are lucky if you have a good manager but senior management could not care less about the staff or diversity or welfare. They are there to be used as robots spout the policy line to keep their jobs and to blame when the lack of proper staffing, tools, training, time bear down. If you want nil work life balance, stress and very likely anxiety or mental illness, then come work for this organisation. Find another union rather than Napo as Napo management could not care less about individuals just in keeping their job roles. Anyone who has not experienced this lucky you. It is and has been a very real predicament for many.

******
I am reading about “what works” and “end to end offender management”, which probation officers have done for 100 years, which HMPPS have stopped probation officers doing under the banner of OMiC. This is what happens when politicians, civil servants and profiteers meddle with public services, the actual core services become bid candy for charities and private companies seeking financial contracts. If wasn’t muffled by red tape and bureaucracy the probation service and probation officers would be talking and writing about real probation work.

******
Switchback really is a great charity/programme and I had great success with one person who was very committed to seeing it through. That said, another of mine wasn't so great at attending their work placement and kept telling me he didn't like his mentor - after a few three way meetings he was kindly asked to leave the programme. I always wondered if he counted towards their highly dubious 9% re-offending rate - I presume this is 9% for those who complete their programme, rather than the ones they give up on, though I'm not sure. This was many years ago, perhaps they have changed now - but in my mind if you give intensive work and training to very motivated offenders, it's not rocket science that these are the ones who re-offend at extremely low rates.

******
End to end not that old at all and what works not so very old either a bit of USA Ross and plenty of adapted priestly and Maguire. All mid 90s actually. Before the managerialist generation it was Home Office sponsored PO structures and that was an awful period of the 50s do as your told labelled and heavy use of surnames or criminal delinquent. It is important [to] get the facts right. What probation did in the 60s 70s awful. Not so cool 80s and fallen over now regardless.

*****
From the beginning Probation began with receiving and supporting offenders from courts. Helping those released from prison has been part of probation for a long time. What works and end to offender management have been concepts that describe this. The point is, every charity, academic and his dog wants to teach Grandma Probation to suck eggs.

*****
There are some important discussions & challenges to be had in the coming days which have implications for probation work. The new 'Bill' plays a serious part.
"Vaccine passports are just the start – we increasingly have a state that thinks it can do as it pleases"
And, as has been said on here by many before, the behaviour of 'The State' is used as a model & determines what lead the country follows - a concept the self-defined 'elite' seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp when they behave so appallingly with impunity, yet call for the head of anyone else who transgresses the rules/laws/guidance. In doing so they undermine the authority of 'The State' and of its Civil Servants - and of those imbued with responsibility for enforcing the rule/laws/norms decreed by 'The State'.

Towards the recent end of my probation career I found increasing levels of contempt and disregard for authority were commonplace; not just from those with generations of entrenched criminal beliefs handed down (grandfather, father, son) or those who chose to live alternatively out with society, but an unrest and irritation that filled seemingly more 'everyday folk' with overt attitudes that displayed a general lack of respect for others, a self-centredness, a sense of self-importance, a sense of entitlement which fuelled their victimhood at the unfairness of not having.

* yet this government and its cheerleaders are seen to fill their boots and fuck up with grotesque consequences, but fail to accept responsibility or resign;

* their civil servants are seen feathering their nests, speaking in forked-tongues at parliamentary committees yet achieving nothing;

* chums are given unlimited access to the public purse, for no good reason or purpose

So why can't we, the people, behave the same? Why can't we, the people, lie and cover up? Why can't we, the people, behave badly? That makes for a more difficult and confrontational supervision session, doncha think?

*****
I agree with you. We live in a very broken world. I feel that whilst everyone wants the benefits of living in a society with its organisation and social structures and protections, more and more people want to individual entities, think, say, and do whatever they want, regardless of the impact they might have on the collective.

I think there's many reasons for that, but much of it is about money rather then values. There seem to me to be an attitude that as long as we all pay our taxes that's enough to keep society operational. However, there seems little consideration that 'operational' is only half what's needed to make society function well. A collective sense of social value is also required, and an understanding (and acceptance) that to make everything work, a certain degree of 'me, the individual' may have to be conceded. 

I think more and more that concession is becoming a reluctance rather then a willing contribution. It's that reluctance that fuels the feelings of victimisation and marginalisation, and creates the sense of entitlement. For society to function healthily it has to be more then a mass of individuals only concerned with their own individual life journeys. 

But that's not the sermon being preached from the pulpits of government. They preach the virtues of individual freedom and rights because its beneficial to them, it allows them to carry on doing whatever they want. After all they're extending the same privilege to everyone. But their little corner of society is far different to the society the rest of us live in. It's snake oil and deceitful and they know it's harmful and disingenuous, but as long as they can keep getting what they want, why concern themselves with the great unwashed? Unfortunately, that's a very pervasive attitude that appears to be leaking into everything.

'Getafix

*****
I've worked in prison and personally I would rather be given time with the offenders rather than this be outsourced to officers. The officers don't seem to know what we do exactly and prison can't be arsed to brief them on this as part of the training. With the term offender manager it means all issues they are unsure of come to us. Waste of time. We are probation officers not responsible for issues which prison system have areas to deal with. Plus huge time cost in answering a discussing whatever the issue is bypassing the app system sometimes rather than spending this directly with the person we should have contact with.

*****
I rather think that those who design and develop these changes to probation services start from a base point of somehow viewing probation in the same context as one big offending behaviour programme. An all inclusive, multi disciplined programme that everybody who enters the CJS must be subjected to. Hopefully, some might gain some benefit, but the important thing is that they MUST do the course.

I think "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing", has never been a more appropriate saying in today's CJS. I wonder too, with recent reports that people who go through particular offending behaviour programmes are actually more likely to reoffend then if they hadn't been through the programme, if the same might be true for those subject to probation? Just a thought. 

Everything has become just a process, compartmentalised to create greater opportunities for 'Outcome Mining'. I get the sense that OMIC is just a rehashing of the failed TTG, big idea, great rhetoric, but no foundation. 
OMIC? The upshot is that people will still be released with £46 in their pocket (ever noticed that the £46 never increases with inflation? Been the same amount for 30 years!), and have nowhere to live. Perhaps even more so now, because NFA might mean being able to circumnavigate tagging! I'm just wondering this Good Friday morning, if those making the "machines" actually know what the "machines" as supposed to do anymore?

'Getafix

******
Next time any of our senior leaders talk about professionalising the service, please could you ask them why they think it's ok to employ people with no probation experience as trainers in the national training team who will deliver mandatory PQiP training.

******
It may be because people are so sick of the cover ups scapegoating and lies that more of the same evokes further feelings of powerlessness. Alison Moss's experience shows they do and don't do just what they like. By they I mean senior management and the organisation as a whole. They have browbeaten down so many staff that survival means not reacting perhaps or internalising feelings. I would have thought a few comments would come though as clearly what they are spouting is not the reality for many many staff members.

Anon

*****
Not passive: traumatised. TR was traumatic. I opposed it to the best of my ability and beyond my capacity and the impact of that on me is lasting and profound. Sounds self-indulgent? If I were a surgeon/GP/nurse and said that the privatisation and ruin of the service to which I was devoted had been decimated and it trashed me, that would be easily understood and would invite empathy. If an NHS worker said that their identity was tightly bound to their profession that would be accepted, applauded (literally).

Since TR the impossible demands on probation staff have piled on and on. Ludicrous caseloads is but one aspect. The “reunification” is, I think, a vaguely positive move, but we are back into “sifting” and yet more upheaval and individual colleagues living on the edge. HMPPS is an appalling organisation to work for, and while the long game might be to fight for a public probation service to unshackle itself from the clutches of this awful department, dominated by political imperatives and the prisons end of business, the short term is so bleak. And exhausting: if I was busting a gut at work to make a difference to public safety and towards my clients living peaceful and fulfilling lives, I would be motivated and uplifted, but that is not the game in town.

Some strong and clear leadership would be a thing to hang some hope on. Employers are failing here: if they were “leading” this profession they would be defending it, not jumping through barely legitimate hoops. What can the Unions do? Nobody is watching or listening. Good MPs -seeing as we are politically driven- would be an asset, but none of the good MPs are in power, not even the Tory ones. 

Pearly Gates

******
Hi, I will be retiring soon. Had I known what was in store for me ten years ago l would have left Probation. I remained but have been staggered by the hollowing out of Probation. I see other workers who look to me scared, demoralised, worn down and with little fight left in them. Some of my younger colleagues think I am lucky to be in a position to retire early. I am guessing that people will retire or quit Probation once the Coronavirus working changes and re-joining of CRCs with NPS has happened. The rosy picture the Senior Managers paint is unsurprising. In order for a profession to be properly dysfunctional it needs to deny and gloss over problems and especially to blame individuals at the bottom of the food chain. Not one Senior Manager has confirmed or even suggested that the Probation profession has died on its feet on their watch.

123me

27 comments:

  1. another collection of powerful posts - good job JB.

    We know the blog is read.

    The comments, the observations & the criticisms are often addressed or raised elsewhere, albeit indirectly whilst never being acknowledged or formally recognised.

    The blog maybe runs the risk of being Jiminy Cricket to MoJ/HMPPS/NPS's Pinocchio, their 'go-to' conscience, which absolves them of the need to have any sense of guilt, remorse or regret.

    "On Probation Blog - When You Wish Upon A Star"

    ReplyDelete
  2. There seems to be an 'all inclusive' report published in the Telegraph today. All inclusive because it dosen't seem to be attributing blame to any one agent, but raises concern about the whole process. It's main focus is on sex offender release, but I'm sure the same concerns can be applied across the board to all catagories of offenders.

    https://www-telegraph-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/07/high-risk-sex-offenders-released-jails-without-proper-checks/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16178679386030&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2021%2F04%2F07%2Fhigh-risk-sex-offenders-released-jails-without-proper-checks%2F

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paywall now prevents even the first paragraph!

      Delete
    2. Sorry Jim when I first clicked on with my phone, the full article was available to read.
      Clicking on again I've hit paywall. No idea why I could access it first time around?
      The just of it was in a nutshell about high risk sex offenders being released from Ley Hill open prison, but it emcompassed a whole system critism. People being transfered from closed conditions with only weeks left to serve. A "your problem now" approach. People being sent without any prospect of the parole board agreeing release because of the risk to the public. Ultimately leading to high risk inmates absconding.
      Of those who are being released, a high proportion have to be found approved premises.
      The essence of the article, in my opinion, was that 'risk' is not being addressed with adequately at any stage of the system process, but actually there's no mechanisms in place either that allows prisoners to demonstrate any reduction in the risk they pose.
      It struck me that the article linked in to a few of the topics posted recently. Crumbling CJS, OMIC etc.
      Sorry you can't access it, but if it pops up in any of the localised press later on, I'll post it up.

      'Getafix

      Delete
    3. I think the story is based upon HMIP report here:

      https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/media/press-releases/2021/04/hmp-leyhill-concerns-about-public-protection-weaknesses/

      Delete
    4. From the full HMP Leyhill report:

      5.7 There were not enough probation or prison offender supervisors in post. It was unlikely that the prison would be ready to move to the new Offender Management in Custody model at the end of March 2021, as planned, as there was a shortage of probation staff in the region. Probation offender supervisors had mostly worked off site for the previous 12 months, attending on a rota basis. For the first few months of the pandemic, valuable offender supervisor time had been taken up arranging for prisoners to speak to colleagues based at home. The arrival of new administrators had allowed them to focus on their core work. Telephone conferencing had been used well, and the impressive addition of four new video-link facilities meant that the prison was unusually well resourced to hold virtual parole hearings. There had been good efforts to hold three-way meetings with the prisoner and the community offender manager. Nonetheless, caseloads were high and recorded contact with prisoners was inconsistent.

      https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/04/Leyhill-SV-web-2021.pdf

      Delete
    5. They are still using the same old tired photograph of a prison officer to illustrate.

      (I seem to spend loads of money on newspaper subscriptions)

      That report begins: -

      "High-risk sex offenders being released from jails without proper checks to protect the public
      Chief Inspector of Prisons reveals concerns over the way inmates are being freed from one of UK’s biggest prisons for sex criminals"

      it is not even still on the first page of the Telegraph website

      "By
      Charles Hymas,
      HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR
      7 April 2021 • 8:00pm
      High risk sex offenders are being released from jail without adequate checks to protect the public, say inspectors.

      Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, said he was deeply concerned over serious weaknesses in the way high-risk prisoners were being released from one of the UK’s biggest prisons for sex offenders.

      He said there were neither robust nor timely checks to ensure they were suitable for release into the community. Nor was there any chance for the offenders to show they were no longer a threat to the public through temporary work placements in the community.

      This meant at least half had to be placed in “approved” higher security accommodation because of the risks they posed to the public.

      Many prisoners were also being moved from higher security prisons to the open jail, HMP Leyhill in Gloucestershire, with only weeks to go before they were due for release, leaving little time to check whether they were safe to be freed.

      The prison has suffered a series of escapes including by a convicted rapist and man serving a sentence for sexual assault who absconded together.

      Sex offender Ronan Korby was on the run for four days from the prison after absconding before being arrested by police in Rhyl North Wales.

      Mr Taylor said: “Poor management oversight of public protection arrangements for those prisoners approaching release was a serious concern. The planning was not sufficiently robust or timely, particularly for those convicted of sexual offences.

      “Prisoners had had virtually no opportunity to demonstrate their level of risk on ‘release on temporary licence’ for the last 12 months.

      “Additionally, prisoners were being transferred into Leyhill from closed prisons with just weeks until their release, and the probation staff overseeing the riskiest prisoners had been predominantly off-site for the last 12 months.”

      Many were judged to pose such a risk that they were not ready to go before parole boards to consider potential release, meaning hearings had to be deferred.

      “About half of prisoners went to approved premises owing to risk concerns, but a lack of places in such accommodation meant that some prisoners waited months for release after being granted parole,” said Mr Taylor.

      “Extraordinarily, one prisoner with disabilities was still being held more than a year beyond the date that his release had been approved.”

      Leyhill open prison holds almost 500 adult men prisoners in preparation for their release back into the community. Two-third are convicted of sexual offences and the majority are serving long sentences, half of which were indeterminate or for life.

      “This is a complex population requiring careful management of risk,” said Mr Taylor.

      It follows previous criticism by inspectors of the handling of sex offenders’ release after discovering they were being housed in budget hotels and other temporary community accommodation, putting families and children at risk.

      In a joint report, HM inspectors of probation and prisons said the lack of close monitoring of sex offenders released from jail was "indefensible" in failing to protect the public from further sex attacks.

      They revealed four in ten sex offenders were getting no help to reduce their reoffending after release from jail while during their time in prisons they found “little, if anything was done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.” " Google will not accept any more

      Delete
    6. continuing

      "Checks to establish the risks they posed to communities, families and their children were inadequate in a third of cases and a third of offenders had no home visits by probation officers even though there should have been, potentially putting children at risk.

      A prison service spokesman said: “It’s right that day release for work was limited during a global pandemic. Many sex offenders won’t be released until the Parole Board decides their risk can be managed, and those who are can face tough conditions such as GPS tags, curfews and internet bans."

      A source said it would be wrong to suggest the public have been put at risk because of the challenges faced at Leyhill and ROTL has been reintroduced and is being expanded as national restrictions lift."

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/07/high-risk-sex-offenders-released-jails-without-proper-checks/

      Delete
  3. What a sad read Jim. I don't mind saying again this is no longer a professional job. Many commentators here are saying the same. I get attacked for predicting many will early retire as soon as they can and leave the wreckage behind them. I complain on behalf of the underpaid for the currently same job. No point In writhing about mappa or sitting with the police surveillance teams. The facts are the police are in charge of this work by stealth and none of them are qualified. Omic in jail prison officers not qualified either and pos there becoming less value. Napo failures are stark and the only way through is to go to law challenge the job drifted roles on equal pay. Challenge the untrained duties on staff now called case managers not po. Without this the osmosis will merge out po in the next few years altogether and drive down pay deals as they level down or freeze po grades. We have seen this for vlos Napo assisted them don't forget. Job evaluation will be used against staff while Napo retain its donkey mouthpiece. The broken clock right twice a day is closer than the deniers on here realise. Collectively we must organise and that means looking at the dysfunctional union and getting that back in control of members interests not themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - that seems exactly right - "Anonymous8 April 2021 at 09:39"

      Delete
    2. From Independent 30/05/2018:-

      Strikes are at an all-time low – and that's because we don't really need trade unions any more

      The strike is dead. Or near as dead as makes no difference.

      In an unusually excitable press release, the Office for National Statistics has written the obituary. In 2017, there were just 79 industrial disputes involving some 33,000 workers – the lowest ever. The number of days lost was a little above the all-time low, but again as near to nothing as is practical in a free society that still has trade unions. In Wales, once the very crucible of industrial socialism, days lost were so low they were rounded to zero.

      The only odd thing is that strikes (measured by working days lost) in the private sector exceeded those in the public sector for the first time since 1999, and actually stood at their highest since 1996. This may have something to do with the number of disputes on the privatised railways; in any case it means that the records being broken now are more down to an improvement in industrial relations in the public sector.

      In any case, British industrial stoppages are rare, both by historical and international standards. The two hour delay I experienced in getting a flight back from Barcelona last week, due to action by French air traffic control workers, rather confirmed that picture for me. They were resisting President Macron’s efforts to make the French labour market more flexible. Plus ca change.

      The reasons for this historic level of UK industrial calm are well known. Unions are nowhere near as powerful as once they were. That, in turn, is down to structural changes in the workforce, such as casualisation – how does a freelance journalist, for example, go on strike? The gig economy and the rise of self-employment have also destroyed the very concept of a strike, because you can’t go on strike against yourself, or work to rule when it’s you making the rules, can you?

      Economic change and greater competition has also rendered strikes irrelevant. When the posties went out in 1971, for example, they virtually crippled the banking system, because bank transfers and cheques and contracts – paper documents – all had to be sent via Royal Mail, which had a stronger monopoly then than now. Today, any strike can be easily broken by emails running through cables under the very feet of the picket line outside. Who now would notice if the postal workers didn’t turn up for work for weeks on end?

      Even with the railways and London Underground, the last redoubts of militancy, employers can allow workers to work from home rather than commute, lessening the impact of action. Strikes, as someone must have remarked by now, are an analogue weapon in a digital age.

      Since the Thatcher government legislation on the unions has become progressively tighter, it requires (rightly) convincing mandates via secret ballots to take such a step.

      Delete
    3. The law renders much industrial action useless: giving an employer the best part of a month’s notice of a strike is plenty of time for them to make alternative plans, and especially if the strike is limited to, say, one day. There was a time when strikes were more financially viable because, believe it or not, strikers and their families could claim benefits, including housing benefit, for the duration of a stoppage: today you get your wages docked and there’s no dole for strikers. Those were the days when, for example, the British Leyland car plant at Speke, Merseyside, didn’t produce a single TR7 sports car between October 1977 and March 1978; or The Times and The Sunday Times were not published for virtually the whole of 1979. It was ludicrous.

      Once upon a time too, union membership was compulsory if you wanted a job in many workplaces. This was called the “closed shop”, so the union could, if it wanted, sack you by expelling you from the union if you didn’t do as the union wanted. Few would find that believable, let alone acceptable, today. Nor would many workers take “secondary action” to support unrelated disputes, as was once not only legal but commonplace. When the unions had bargaining power, the net effect was that the strong – workers in industries with monopoly power, for example – would grab a bigger share of the national cake for themselves at the expense of the weak – pensioners, people relying on state benefits and those on fixed incomes who found themselves unable to keep up with inflation. Eventually the British realised this was not only damaging the nation’s intentional competitiveness but was building a more unfair, less equal society.

      I think, though, that there is another reason, not much remarked upon, why industrial action has gone out of fashion over recent years, and that is that the workforce doesn’t need unions because governments, including this Conservative government, give them much of what they want anyway. So we now have a national minimum wage, thanks to the Blair government, and a national living wage, thanks to George Osborne. Theresa May once even talked about worker directors, though she’s gone a bit quiet about that lately.

      We have tough and necessary laws against discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, disability and so on. We still have laws against unfair dismissal (a concept alien to Americans) and employment tribunals – once again virtually free – to pursue claims. There are regulations requiring most employers to provide workplace pensions, with tax breaks still in place to encourage savings. There are laws on health and safety, and in most businesses codes of conduct on bullying and the like. Though they have been stagnating in recent years, it’s also true that real terms wages have hardly ever been higher than they are today.

      So a good solicitor or barrister is of more use to the worker of 2018 than a shop steward or a trade union. I wonder too whether many workers have noticed how inefficient and ineffective many trade unions are, and how they are run by and for the benefit of Trotskyist dreamers who imagine the overthrow of capitalism is just around the corner. The real revolution has already happened, brother: we’ve made the strike redundant.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/strikes-trade-union-government-employment-laws-picket-line-ons-statistics-a8375746.html

      Delete
    4. Not really a prospect of strike from probation never was. This is a bit off the point for me it is about enforcing employment contractual terms protected by unions this direction holds the power balance in favour of staff. The Napo leader is probably just not that able to understand or formulate strategy. Unfortunately he is too friendly to deliver an moj agenda. He must be looking for a job or handout award at some point. What a pity for probation and staff let down by a fool.

      Delete
  4. In about 1984 - not so long after I had moved from Merseyside to Essex - I wanted to keep in touch with developments in probation and understand the political implications - I had become involved with a political party from 1981 -

    The then Home Secretary - who happened to be Leon Brittan - not that I think it was particularly significant - I am not sure if this was just before or after or when SNOP & what turned out to be the beginnings of serious managerialism was announced - but - as had been usual there was a crisis of overcrowding in prisons.

    The Home Secretary was due to make a speech on prison/probation policy - it was an address at a NACRO or other laudable charity’s AGM - and well signalled because it was so well attended - even my old CPO - David Mathieson from Merseyside was there.

    I was outraged before I arrived – travelling at my own expense into central London for an evening meeting – I had been working hard on two parole Home Circumstances Reports as commissioned by the Home Office on two men from Burnham-on-Crouch, serving sentences for serious offences.

    The public statements had been about how parole had – at a stroke – been restricted – meaning my two reports were a waste of time because the men’s eligibility for parole had been removed – sneaked into statements were remarks about an emergency release programme – or some other way of restricting the numbers in custody – it might have been when army camps were opened for prisoners. But what was reported was the tough on crime message.

    I asked a question about the hypocrisy of the way those prisoners and their families and me had been treated – and got a flannelling dismissive response – after Mr Mathieson, came and praised me and encouraged my questioning – saying how the Home Office clerks in attendance and been noting it all down and it did make a difference – but after I was lied to in 2001 by Jack Straw on a radio phone in I began to appreciate that what matters most to politicians is the public impression and getting elected again.

    Workers can make a difference – we did in 1979/80 on the back of “the winter of discontent” – but it took a massive effort and a strike from social workers and even then we only got an almost “catching up” pay rise.

    Probation was a good idea that in the UK began from the police court missionaries and was adapted and extended by the courts and the politicians reacted but the basic philosophy is not understood, neither is social work despite all the today this or that “awareness day” speeches and such-like. We failed to work closely enough with the magistrates to whom we directly sought support from before we got that pay rise in the early days of Mrs Thatcher’s premiership

    Maybe we just need to accept it and work as volunteers where the law allows such work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Leyhill may have had its difficulties in the last year or two, but just you wait til the OMIC arrangements for open conditions set in, it's a recipe for disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anyone got any chums in The Treasury?

    "In the second, from 23 April, Sunak explained that he hoped to find a way for Greensill to qualify for the largest available government-backed loans under the CCFF.

    “Hi David, apologies for the delay. I think the proposals in the end did require a change to the Market Notice but I have pushed the team to explore an alternative with the Bank that might work,” Sunak wrote. “No guarantees, but the Bank are currently looking at it and Charles should be in touch. Best, Rishi.”

    “Charles” is understood to refer to Charles Roxburgh, the second most senior civil servant in the Treasury."

    Its believed that Greensill subsequently qualified for a series of small business 'bounce-back loans' to the tune of £400m - that's some small fucking business!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. As there is a silent P in HMPPS, the P-word "probation" so there is a missing capital in Omic. With which embellishment it would become the C-word in recent MoJ nonsense

    ReplyDelete
  8. From Twitter:-

    "I retired 12 years ago but in my experience the service by then was measuring outcomes by largely meaningless targets & record keeping. I suppose it gave managers a reason for their existence."

    ReplyDelete
  9. From Twitter:-

    "Qualified the same year [2001]. Got out in 2017 finally. Felt by then that the job had limited purpose and that only largely meaningless record keeping was all that mattered to the service. Managers were thus obsessed by it. I don't miss it one bit."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Minor diversion into foreign territory - traffic light system says people coming to the UK must have a test before setting off, then a varierty of options of tests depending on their red/amber/green status on arrival - to be paid for by the traveller from a UK govt provider.

    Firstly, though, if arriving from a 'green' country there's no requirement to isolate or quarantine. "a green list of countries to which holiday traffic is permitted without quarantine restrictions, but with pre-departure Covid-tests required before travellers return to the UK and a second test on arrival."

    If positive the govt says it allows them to "track any variants". Surely the whole point of testing is to PREVENT variants arriving?

    Secondly, which Tory chum is going to pocket the cash from all of these mandatory £100+ tests?

    "Travellers returning from amber destinations will be required to self-isolate at home for 10 days and take three tests – one up to 72 hours before returning to the UK, one after two days and a third after eight days."

    And we know how people are responding to self-isolation. So who can afford two weeks' abroad and then a further two weeks in self-isolation?

    "A red-list of countries to which non-essential travel is banned and arrivals subject to mandatory hotel quarantine for 10 days will be retained."

    Thirdly, wealthy Tory chums have a get-out clause - as always:

    "Quarantine may be cut short by paying for an additional test which proves negative after five days under the previously introduced ‘test to release’ scheme."

    Its all about chums & cash, not about the country.

    Why not wait a little longer to allow the vaccination programme to complete & the benefits to establish across as many countries as possible? No-one thought the travel industry could survive last summer - but it did.

    Why scarifice the population's health AGAIN?


    Anyone need any repairs doing on their house or flat? Maybe some cladding issues?

    A hidden gem from FT in 2016:

    "November 27 2016 - It was billed as an act of generosity — a decision that would “save” a “key piece of northern heritage” for the nation.

    But Philip Hammond’s commitment in this week’s Autumn Statement to spend £7.6m on restoring Wentworth Woodhouse, England’s largest private home, also had a little-known beneficiary: the house happens to be ancestral home of the mother-in-law of Jacob Rees-Mogg"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fucking unbelievable. Now, I'm no royalist by any stretch but seeing Johnson on't'telly spouting shite shows just how little respect he has for anything.

    He looked like he'd been dragged out of Hermione - or whoever she's called - hurriedly stuffed into someone else's mourning suit & thrown onto the street, hair in its usual state of "I don't have to care".

    ReplyDelete
  12. UK Covid live news: virus prevalence in England increases from last week – ONS

    So the virus is now back on the rise, yet...

    Covid-19: People can start thinking about foreign travel - Shapps


    The lack of consistency in messages is beyond farcical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @14.15, I disagree with you. This whole thing has never been about reducing cases, it's about protecting the NHS. Now that the most vulnerable have been vaccinated the NHS has been protected. These increased cases have largely been in children which is an inevitable consequence of reopening schools. Fortunately the risk of serious illness in children is very very rare. So an increase in numbers amongst the young is no reason to halt the opening up of foreign travel.

      Delete
    2. Foreign travel presents, in & of itself, a high risk to the UK population unless/until a higher level of vaccination protection has been achieved globally. That won't be this year, so they should not be promoting or encouraging foreign travel in 2021.

      "This whole thing has never been about reducing cases, it's about protecting the NHS."

      This 'whole thing' has ONLY been about trying to present a shit Tory government as 'acceptable'. The notion of 'protect the nhs' was a useful cloak of impenetrability to disguise the incompetence & criminal acts of the government & their chums.

      Also, its important to recognise that the risks to children are increasing; not to the levels of risk associated with older/vulnerable people, but it is changing.

      Delete
    3. "This whole thing has never been about reducing cases, it's about protecting the NHS."

      Mind boggling logic.

      Delete
  13. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/boris-johnson-and-the-lesson-of-ireland-7873632

    This piece by matt cooper is an excellent reading of the runes

    ReplyDelete
  14. A quote from a post (above) has not attracted any comment. Despite the obvious issues associated with the Forth Bridge protocol & the death of a very old man, I'd like to highlight that quote & see if there's any outrage or concern forthcoming this time:

    “Extraordinarily, one prisoner with disabilities was still being held more than a year beyond the date that his release had been approved.” HM Inspector of Prisons.

    Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete