The 'Billy' in question stars in a recent post by Inspector Gadjet. Although he lives on the Swamp Estate in Ruraltown, I certainly recognise him and so I suspect do most probation officers. We're not told how old he is, but he still seems to live at home with his mum and he is the father of a daughter. I'm sure he turned up recently in episode 7 of the BBC three fly-on-the-wall documentary series 'The Lock Up' filmed at Hull custody suite. He was the small irritating young guy going on about 'needing to get out to see his bairn'.
'Billy' has 100 previous convictions and has just been arrested on suspicion of nicking a minibus FFS. I don't know about you, but I put that kind of offence in the juvenile pain-in-the-backside sort of category. What on earth might the motive be? Perhaps he wanted to spare his legs walking home? He was no doubt bored and it was opportunistic. He's obviously not very sophisticated because DNA left at the scene eventually took the police to his mothers door. He cooperated fully and we are told even volunteered the location of the DVD player taken from the dashboard.
According to Inspector Gadjet's thesis 'Billy' should be locked up for very long periods of time basically for being a pain-in-the-backside. I have a degree of sympathy because I'm sure it was 'Billy' who had a go at breaking into my car last year. First he smashed a window to try and get the door open, then left a spot of blood behind whilst trying to bend the top of the door and get his hand inside. He eventually discovered that my make of car has dead-locked doors and even if he had got in, being a SAAB the gear stick is locked into reverse. All very inept, annoying and ultimately pointless. Hopefully his eventual arrest will serve to remind him that he's not a very successful car thief and he either needs to get better or pack it in.
Of course 'Billy' is the product of his environment. He grew up in a community probably suffering second and third generation unemployment as all the unskilled jobs went ages ago. He will have failed at school and was probably excluded at about age 13, whereupon he started smoking and drinking cheap alcohol in earnest on the streets with all his similarly-excluded mates. Any youth provision will have closed ages ago and his drift into regular irritating crime and anti-social behaviour will have started. His offending history may well have been enhanced by being made subject of an ASBO and possibly even by elevation to PPO status where he would have been the beneficiary of a 'premium service' that ensured even quicker arrest.
Thankfully this 'Billy' doesn't seem to have got onto heroin.
So, what are we to do with 'Billy'? Well fortunately evidence and experience shows that he will eventually grow out of it. Even he will finally discover that his behaviour is a pain-in-the-backside and the inevitable girlfriend will certainly remind him at regular intervals. Indeed in all likelihood it will be her who eventually succeeds in providing 'Billy' with the structure, supervision and boundaries that his life has needed all along. Hopefully she will re-inforce all the positive work that the YOT and probation service will be trying to undertake with 'Billy'. Of course what would be best of all is that this young man grew up in a society where all this could have been avoided in the first place. But that's a wee bit radical isn't it?
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Who Do We Blame?
It was with complete dismay that I read in the Sunday Times and Daily Mail that Jon Venables, one of the two children convicted of abducting, torturing and murdering James Bulger, apparently had sexual intercourse with a female member of staff at his Secure Unit when aged 17 and the year before he was granted release on Life Licence. I must say I am very suspicious about this story surfacing at this particular moment given that, having been recalled to prison last year by his probation officer and subsequently convicted of downloading pornographic material from the internet, his case will no doubt be coming back before the Parole Board shortly.
I am dismayed at yet another convoluted twist in this very sorry saga of demonisation that was effectively institutionalised the moment that the trial judge allowed publication of the two 11 year-olds identities in the first place following conviction. Rather than certain parts of the press highlighting the appalling breach of trust and responsibility by the member of staff in question, I note that instead they have begun to call into question the basis on which the original Parole decision was made. Somehow it's being portrayed as if it was his fault that sex took place with a member of staff who should have been looking after him.
But then right from the beginning I have never been able to understand why the public couldn't grasp that the appalling and tragic murder of the toddler James Bulger was not so much about these two 'demonic' kids as it was about their background, upbringing and the wider environment in which they developed. Even at their tender age there was reported evidence of a sexual element to the offence which would be indicative of some inappropriate sexualisation. Even if one or other were suspected of showing signs of a personality disorder, I'm fairly sure that at their age a diagnosis would not have been possible or likely to have been reliable.
Naming both boys after conviction effectively condemned them and their families to lifelong assumed identities with the constant risk of discovery and consequent vilification and torment. Not surprisingly the stress is reported to have had a very negative effect on Jon Venables' emotional state and produced a deterioration in his mental health as a result. I note that in the past his solicitor has said that he 'doesn't think he can ever be free and cannot handle the outside world'.
The sad thing is that even as I write this I realise that it will in all probability attract some very negative comment, but it seems particularly dishonest not to make clear what my 'take' is on what remains a very high profile and emotive case. In trying to understand why people do certain things, it is often the past that provides much of the understanding. These two boys were just 10 year-old children when, for whatever reason, they did what they did.
I am dismayed at yet another convoluted twist in this very sorry saga of demonisation that was effectively institutionalised the moment that the trial judge allowed publication of the two 11 year-olds identities in the first place following conviction. Rather than certain parts of the press highlighting the appalling breach of trust and responsibility by the member of staff in question, I note that instead they have begun to call into question the basis on which the original Parole decision was made. Somehow it's being portrayed as if it was his fault that sex took place with a member of staff who should have been looking after him.
But then right from the beginning I have never been able to understand why the public couldn't grasp that the appalling and tragic murder of the toddler James Bulger was not so much about these two 'demonic' kids as it was about their background, upbringing and the wider environment in which they developed. Even at their tender age there was reported evidence of a sexual element to the offence which would be indicative of some inappropriate sexualisation. Even if one or other were suspected of showing signs of a personality disorder, I'm fairly sure that at their age a diagnosis would not have been possible or likely to have been reliable.
Naming both boys after conviction effectively condemned them and their families to lifelong assumed identities with the constant risk of discovery and consequent vilification and torment. Not surprisingly the stress is reported to have had a very negative effect on Jon Venables' emotional state and produced a deterioration in his mental health as a result. I note that in the past his solicitor has said that he 'doesn't think he can ever be free and cannot handle the outside world'.
The sad thing is that even as I write this I realise that it will in all probability attract some very negative comment, but it seems particularly dishonest not to make clear what my 'take' is on what remains a very high profile and emotive case. In trying to understand why people do certain things, it is often the past that provides much of the understanding. These two boys were just 10 year-old children when, for whatever reason, they did what they did.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
March Against Cuts
Well it certainly wasn't a march where I was. Rather a very slow faltering meander that took nearly four hours to get from Charing Cross Station and back via a sight-seeing tour of the City. I never did get near to Hyde Park and eventually decided on a warm pint of Fullers London Pride at Trafalgar Square before the trek back to Wembley Stadium in order to find the coach. From my perspective the whole thing was a very happy and good-natured occasion and one that parents obviously felt quite safe to take young children to. In the noisy carnival atmosphere there was much banter pretty much all the way round and an almost complete absence of police on the entire Embankment stretch.
You couldn't help but feel that this was a very British sort of affair, despite one placard I saw exhorting us to 'March like Egyptians'. During the whole day I saw a lot of very bored police, a hell of a lot of rubbish and only the odd bit of anti-capitalist graffiti. Nevertheless, when it was possible to get a mobile connection, news began to filter through the crowd that Oxford Street was 'kicking off' and that Fortnums was 'being trashed'. However, now that I've had the chance to see this report and video on the Guardian website I have to say I'm concerned.
The shop doesn't appear to have been 'trashed' at all, but rather peacefully occupied and not apparently to the detriment of customers going about their business. Apart from being morally suspect of the police to be seen offering concern and safe passage to the trespassers, only to then 'kettle' and arrest them, it's a complete public relations disaster and hostage to fortune for the next sit-in. Quite rightly, why should anyone believe what the police say when senior officers decide to deliberately lie as part of a diffusion strategy. Common sense says that works just the once.
You couldn't help but feel that this was a very British sort of affair, despite one placard I saw exhorting us to 'March like Egyptians'. During the whole day I saw a lot of very bored police, a hell of a lot of rubbish and only the odd bit of anti-capitalist graffiti. Nevertheless, when it was possible to get a mobile connection, news began to filter through the crowd that Oxford Street was 'kicking off' and that Fortnums was 'being trashed'. However, now that I've had the chance to see this report and video on the Guardian website I have to say I'm concerned.
The shop doesn't appear to have been 'trashed' at all, but rather peacefully occupied and not apparently to the detriment of customers going about their business. Apart from being morally suspect of the police to be seen offering concern and safe passage to the trespassers, only to then 'kettle' and arrest them, it's a complete public relations disaster and hostage to fortune for the next sit-in. Quite rightly, why should anyone believe what the police say when senior officers decide to deliberately lie as part of a diffusion strategy. Common sense says that works just the once.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Professional Dilemma 4
Experience tells me that this series of 'professional dilemma's' often produces comment ranging from the incredulous to the broadly sympathetic, mixed with a degree of surprise as to exactly what sort of scenarios probation officers can find themselves involved in. Painful though it sometimes is, I nevertheless feel it's worthwhile doing in the interests of explaining a bit more to the general public exactly what the work can involve.
Although what follows happened some time ago, it continues to have an effect on me to this day. It was a seminal moment in my career and I've always regarded it as having been a metaphor for the society within which it occurred, up there with the likes of 'Cathy Come Home' or 'Boys From the Blackstuff' as social commentary. Whether something similar would or could happen today is a moot point because so much of the broad context within which it occurred has changed significantly, not least the degree to which the modern probation service has moved away from it's former social work-orientated ethos. Sadly, I'm not sure it would even register on our radar nowadays.
Lets call him John. When he arrived with us as a case at age 17 he was already severely damaged by society. He had been a troublesome, difficult and challenging child and as a result his parents felt they had no alternative to placing him in the care of the Local Authority. Now there's a misnomer if ever there was one 'in care'. Experience has amply demonstrated to me over the years just how damaging the 'care' system can be for many young people. To misquote Philip Larkin, if family's haven't done it already 'care' will. 'They f*ck you up they do'.
Any probation officer will know only too well what harm can be caused by child abuse. As a result society has procedures for removing that child into 'care', but then often compounds the damage, but this time in the name of the State. It really shocked me when Martin Narey a year or two back came out publicly making a case for more kids to go into care when he was still director of Barnado's, saying that this was preferable.
Anyway, it was obvious that John had been very badly affected by his time in several large children's homes and since leaving had been living a feral, nomadic existence. He had become addicted to glue and other solvents which made his moods and behaviour unpredictable. He was beginning to pose society a problem because of his rough sleeping and low level criminal activity. In those days it was inevitable and entirely appropriate that the probation service would become involved.
Despite his challenging behaviour and multitude of needs, John had an engaging personality that quickly made him a significant part of the life of the office. Remember these were the days of day centres and drop-in facilities for clients and being homeless, he made full use of what was available in a very constructive way. As the months rolled by we tried in vain to settle John in numerous hostels, shelters and housing projects, but always to no avail given his increasingly challenging and erratic behaviour. The team became convinced that only independent living accommodation with support was likely to be successful and I argued strongly for a referral to a clinical psychologist in order to try and get to the bottom of the trauma he was suspected of having experienced.
I remember the day well. Real progress was being made. The housing department had finally been bullied into offering John a tatty flat and miraculously I had succeeded in getting him to the top of the list to see a psychologist. The first meeting had been a revelation to behold. Although extremely unorthodox, I was asked to be present throughout because sadly the female consultant felt scared of John. The next meeting was due, however a phone call from the Court Team informed me that he was in custody but likely to be bailed. Somewhat unusually the custody sergeant agreed to a request not to release him until I got to the station.
John was pleased to see me and seemed his normal chatty self. It was only a ten minute walk back to the office and I explained that the next appointment with the psychologist was at 2pm, again a short walk away. All seemed well, until he suddenly insisted we went via the casualty department of the local hospital. He explained he had been there most of the night and until his unwanted presence had triggered his arrest. He would not be dissuaded from going to casualty and became quite agitated so I had no alternative but to tag along, whereupon the reason for the detour became obvious. Hidden behind some seats was a can of thinners which John proceeded to put in his pocket. Of course I made plain how very disappointed I was with his actions, but thinners is not an illegal substance, there was no evidence it had been stolen and I had no authority to remove it from him.
Of course we were aware that John had been addicted to solvents for some time. As far as we knew he had never used the substance when at the day centre and certainly never within sight of any staff. I believed that the absolute priority of the day was to get John back to see the psychologist and the expert counselling that I knew he needed. Sadly he never made the appointment and was pronounced dead by 1.30pm. The subsequent post mortem found that he had died of heart failure as a result of the sustained abuse of solvents. He was just 19. Although the Coroner eventually recorded a verdict of Accidental Death, I have always felt that in the final analysis it was the State that had failed John.
Although what follows happened some time ago, it continues to have an effect on me to this day. It was a seminal moment in my career and I've always regarded it as having been a metaphor for the society within which it occurred, up there with the likes of 'Cathy Come Home' or 'Boys From the Blackstuff' as social commentary. Whether something similar would or could happen today is a moot point because so much of the broad context within which it occurred has changed significantly, not least the degree to which the modern probation service has moved away from it's former social work-orientated ethos. Sadly, I'm not sure it would even register on our radar nowadays.
Lets call him John. When he arrived with us as a case at age 17 he was already severely damaged by society. He had been a troublesome, difficult and challenging child and as a result his parents felt they had no alternative to placing him in the care of the Local Authority. Now there's a misnomer if ever there was one 'in care'. Experience has amply demonstrated to me over the years just how damaging the 'care' system can be for many young people. To misquote Philip Larkin, if family's haven't done it already 'care' will. 'They f*ck you up they do'.
Any probation officer will know only too well what harm can be caused by child abuse. As a result society has procedures for removing that child into 'care', but then often compounds the damage, but this time in the name of the State. It really shocked me when Martin Narey a year or two back came out publicly making a case for more kids to go into care when he was still director of Barnado's, saying that this was preferable.
Anyway, it was obvious that John had been very badly affected by his time in several large children's homes and since leaving had been living a feral, nomadic existence. He had become addicted to glue and other solvents which made his moods and behaviour unpredictable. He was beginning to pose society a problem because of his rough sleeping and low level criminal activity. In those days it was inevitable and entirely appropriate that the probation service would become involved.
Despite his challenging behaviour and multitude of needs, John had an engaging personality that quickly made him a significant part of the life of the office. Remember these were the days of day centres and drop-in facilities for clients and being homeless, he made full use of what was available in a very constructive way. As the months rolled by we tried in vain to settle John in numerous hostels, shelters and housing projects, but always to no avail given his increasingly challenging and erratic behaviour. The team became convinced that only independent living accommodation with support was likely to be successful and I argued strongly for a referral to a clinical psychologist in order to try and get to the bottom of the trauma he was suspected of having experienced.
I remember the day well. Real progress was being made. The housing department had finally been bullied into offering John a tatty flat and miraculously I had succeeded in getting him to the top of the list to see a psychologist. The first meeting had been a revelation to behold. Although extremely unorthodox, I was asked to be present throughout because sadly the female consultant felt scared of John. The next meeting was due, however a phone call from the Court Team informed me that he was in custody but likely to be bailed. Somewhat unusually the custody sergeant agreed to a request not to release him until I got to the station.
John was pleased to see me and seemed his normal chatty self. It was only a ten minute walk back to the office and I explained that the next appointment with the psychologist was at 2pm, again a short walk away. All seemed well, until he suddenly insisted we went via the casualty department of the local hospital. He explained he had been there most of the night and until his unwanted presence had triggered his arrest. He would not be dissuaded from going to casualty and became quite agitated so I had no alternative but to tag along, whereupon the reason for the detour became obvious. Hidden behind some seats was a can of thinners which John proceeded to put in his pocket. Of course I made plain how very disappointed I was with his actions, but thinners is not an illegal substance, there was no evidence it had been stolen and I had no authority to remove it from him.
Of course we were aware that John had been addicted to solvents for some time. As far as we knew he had never used the substance when at the day centre and certainly never within sight of any staff. I believed that the absolute priority of the day was to get John back to see the psychologist and the expert counselling that I knew he needed. Sadly he never made the appointment and was pronounced dead by 1.30pm. The subsequent post mortem found that he had died of heart failure as a result of the sustained abuse of solvents. He was just 19. Although the Coroner eventually recorded a verdict of Accidental Death, I have always felt that in the final analysis it was the State that had failed John.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
A Hard Case
As the news breaks that Kenneth Noye has lost his appeal against conviction in 2000 of the murder of a 21 year-old who supposedly 'cut him up' on a motorway slip road, spare a thought for the probation officer who has responsibility for the case. Noye was given a tariff of 'only' 16 years and therefore by my reckoning will be coming up for consideration of parole in about five years time. It may come as a surprise to many that all prisoners serving more than 12 months have an allocated home probation officer, or offender manager as we are supposed to call ourselves nowadays. But we really do have to work with everyone.
With such a high profile case there is much information in the public domain and I defy anyone who casts an eye over what is contained here not to get the hairs on the back of their neck standing on end. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no doubt that the case is very firmly in a safe pair of hands and that, notwithstanding the shocking history and background, his case will be dealt with in an utterly professional manner as the possibility of parole approaches. It has to of course, because put yourself in the place of Parole Board members. Wouldn't you be looking for some extremely competent and comprehensive information when considering if he was safe to release?
With such a high profile case there is much information in the public domain and I defy anyone who casts an eye over what is contained here not to get the hairs on the back of their neck standing on end. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no doubt that the case is very firmly in a safe pair of hands and that, notwithstanding the shocking history and background, his case will be dealt with in an utterly professional manner as the possibility of parole approaches. It has to of course, because put yourself in the place of Parole Board members. Wouldn't you be looking for some extremely competent and comprehensive information when considering if he was safe to release?
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Why Don't We Recommend Custody?
Because basically 'probation' recommending custody is an oxymoron.
It never used to happen, but sadly I am aware it does increasingly nowadays and thus further serves to demonstrate the gulf between the old and new style officer. A colleague writing in connection to this issue on the Magistrates blog put the issue succinctly by stating "To propose custody is a failure on the part of the PO and the Service". I agree entirely and there are basically two reasons why we don't.
The first is to do with stating the blindingly-obvious. For example, when preparing a PSR for Crown Court on an armed robbery it would be unwise in my view to conclude with anything else other than an acknowledgment that "custody is clearly inevitable". Indeed I have written those or similar words many times myself. To do otherwise would make the author look ridiculous in the eyes of the court, but it is not the same as proposing custody. Can you imagine how a Crown Court judge would view a proposal for custody in such a case? I can assure you that they do not take kindly to being treated like grannies and told how to suck eggs. A judge knows perfectly well what powers are available and what the appropriate sentence is going to be. The process is considerably more subtle than that.
The second reason is more contentious but lies at the very core of what the job of a probation officer entails. It's basically where their training and experience comes into play in placing before the sentencers a soundly-reasoned argument for a particular course of action that will encompass a degree of punishment, but also a disposal that encourages rehabilitation. It is absolutely vital that the report tries to be measured and balanced, even in relation to the most seemingly 'lost' causes. Of course it's difficult and often a challenge, but that is precisely why society pays us to take on the hard cases as well as the easy ones. To put it bluntly, I have to say that in my view any report that reads as a counsel of despair, offers the court no positive options and concludes with a spirited plea for custody, says more about the author than it does about the defendant.
There was a time, not long ago, when such a report would not have passed 'gatekeeping' either by more experienced colleagues or by management. If nothing else, it shows signs of sloppy, lazy practice and a strong indication of the wrong mindset for this line of work. Regrettably I have to say I have come across this sort of thing when colleagues want 'shot' of a case for a period because someone is 'hard work'. Yes of course I know 'they were given a chance' last time and the time before, but for some people change proves much more difficult, for instance due to a drug addiction. It is completely unprofessional in my view to write such people off with a proposal for custody which we all know will invariably make matters worse.
As it happens there is a good example of what I'm talking about here in a report from 'This is Exeter' and highlighted by the Justice of the Peace blog. In this case the sentencing bench felt able to go along with the recommendations of an 'experienced' probation officer by suspending imprisonment on a 'prolific offender' and noted that the report 'did not write him off.' In essence the issue is not one of semantics, but rather fundamental philosophy and attitude towards the job.
As with all 'rules' there are exceptions. I have previously admitted to not just proposing custody in a certain case, but to effectively engineering it as well in the instance of a sex offender in denial. I have also prepared quite a few reports in cases where the client feels unable to cope with the demands of a community disposal and either requests or sometimes begs for a report that results in custody. In all such cases I have been 'upfront' with the court and ensure they are fully aware of the clients reasoning in making such a request. I still don't 'recommend' custody though, but rather acknowledge that there would appear to be limited scope for an alternative given the clients ambivalence or antipathy towards a community disposal.
It never used to happen, but sadly I am aware it does increasingly nowadays and thus further serves to demonstrate the gulf between the old and new style officer. A colleague writing in connection to this issue on the Magistrates blog put the issue succinctly by stating "To propose custody is a failure on the part of the PO and the Service". I agree entirely and there are basically two reasons why we don't.
The first is to do with stating the blindingly-obvious. For example, when preparing a PSR for Crown Court on an armed robbery it would be unwise in my view to conclude with anything else other than an acknowledgment that "custody is clearly inevitable". Indeed I have written those or similar words many times myself. To do otherwise would make the author look ridiculous in the eyes of the court, but it is not the same as proposing custody. Can you imagine how a Crown Court judge would view a proposal for custody in such a case? I can assure you that they do not take kindly to being treated like grannies and told how to suck eggs. A judge knows perfectly well what powers are available and what the appropriate sentence is going to be. The process is considerably more subtle than that.
The second reason is more contentious but lies at the very core of what the job of a probation officer entails. It's basically where their training and experience comes into play in placing before the sentencers a soundly-reasoned argument for a particular course of action that will encompass a degree of punishment, but also a disposal that encourages rehabilitation. It is absolutely vital that the report tries to be measured and balanced, even in relation to the most seemingly 'lost' causes. Of course it's difficult and often a challenge, but that is precisely why society pays us to take on the hard cases as well as the easy ones. To put it bluntly, I have to say that in my view any report that reads as a counsel of despair, offers the court no positive options and concludes with a spirited plea for custody, says more about the author than it does about the defendant.
There was a time, not long ago, when such a report would not have passed 'gatekeeping' either by more experienced colleagues or by management. If nothing else, it shows signs of sloppy, lazy practice and a strong indication of the wrong mindset for this line of work. Regrettably I have to say I have come across this sort of thing when colleagues want 'shot' of a case for a period because someone is 'hard work'. Yes of course I know 'they were given a chance' last time and the time before, but for some people change proves much more difficult, for instance due to a drug addiction. It is completely unprofessional in my view to write such people off with a proposal for custody which we all know will invariably make matters worse.
As it happens there is a good example of what I'm talking about here in a report from 'This is Exeter' and highlighted by the Justice of the Peace blog. In this case the sentencing bench felt able to go along with the recommendations of an 'experienced' probation officer by suspending imprisonment on a 'prolific offender' and noted that the report 'did not write him off.' In essence the issue is not one of semantics, but rather fundamental philosophy and attitude towards the job.
As with all 'rules' there are exceptions. I have previously admitted to not just proposing custody in a certain case, but to effectively engineering it as well in the instance of a sex offender in denial. I have also prepared quite a few reports in cases where the client feels unable to cope with the demands of a community disposal and either requests or sometimes begs for a report that results in custody. In all such cases I have been 'upfront' with the court and ensure they are fully aware of the clients reasoning in making such a request. I still don't 'recommend' custody though, but rather acknowledge that there would appear to be limited scope for an alternative given the clients ambivalence or antipathy towards a community disposal.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Roger and Out!
I'm grateful to Jonathan Ledger's NAPO blog for providing the news here of yet another disgraceful example of a senior NOMS manager jumping ship in order to feather their own nest in the private sector. Roger Hill has announced that he is 'proud' to be taking up employment with Sodexo, a company that just happens to be in the process of bidding for probation services. I think I'm right in saying that as the former Director of the National Probation Service and current DOM, he was the only senior manager within NOMS who came from a probation background at all. It will be interesting to see if his replacement will either be a career civil servant or former prison governor like all the rest.
With Phil Wheatley now ensconced at G4S and who of course are in the process of bidding for prison contracts, at what point is this process going to be called into question? Are we really to believe that these former public servants have not imparted commercially sensitive information to their new employers? Have they really been giving their public sector responsibilities 100% whilst at the same time sounding out opportunities with the opposition or responding to their advances? As Private Eye would say, we need to be told. I notice from the NAPO discussion forum that at least one colleague has brought the matter to the attention of their MP in the following terms
Thank you for all your support both in the House and elswhere for the
Probation Service.
I am prompted to write again to raise a major concern. As you will no
doubt be aware, Probation is now under the greatest threat to its'
existance in 100 years. Unpaid Work and Approved Premises are about to
be put out to tender - on a less than level playing field. This will
place two major areas of our work into the hands of private companies
who will, by their nature be motivated by profit, not the quality of
their work and will, in my opinion jeopardise public safety as a
result.
Two high profile managers from NOMS HQ have recently left to join
private providers - Phil Weatley, formerly head of NOMS has gone to G4S
and within the last week, Roger Hill has joined Sodexo. Both these
organisations will be at the forefront of the privatisation agenda.
In my view, there is a clear conflict of interest in these
appointments. G4S and Sodexo will have an unfair competitive
advantage in the bidding processes which are about to start - with
inside knowledge brought by Messrs Hill and Weatley. Further, these
two individuals have been closely involved with the reorganisation of
this Service in recent years. It would be interesting to see if their
recent appointments had any influence on their decision making within
that process.
I would be grateful if you could raise this matter with Mr Blunt on the
behalf of myself and my colleagues, all of whom are extremely
concerned about our future in the Service and, indeed the future of the
Service as a whole."
It seems like a good idea to me to let MP's know.
With Phil Wheatley now ensconced at G4S and who of course are in the process of bidding for prison contracts, at what point is this process going to be called into question? Are we really to believe that these former public servants have not imparted commercially sensitive information to their new employers? Have they really been giving their public sector responsibilities 100% whilst at the same time sounding out opportunities with the opposition or responding to their advances? As Private Eye would say, we need to be told. I notice from the NAPO discussion forum that at least one colleague has brought the matter to the attention of their MP in the following terms
Thank you for all your support both in the House and elswhere for the
Probation Service.
I am prompted to write again to raise a major concern. As you will no
doubt be aware, Probation is now under the greatest threat to its'
existance in 100 years. Unpaid Work and Approved Premises are about to
be put out to tender - on a less than level playing field. This will
place two major areas of our work into the hands of private companies
who will, by their nature be motivated by profit, not the quality of
their work and will, in my opinion jeopardise public safety as a
result.
Two high profile managers from NOMS HQ have recently left to join
private providers - Phil Weatley, formerly head of NOMS has gone to G4S
and within the last week, Roger Hill has joined Sodexo. Both these
organisations will be at the forefront of the privatisation agenda.
In my view, there is a clear conflict of interest in these
appointments. G4S and Sodexo will have an unfair competitive
advantage in the bidding processes which are about to start - with
inside knowledge brought by Messrs Hill and Weatley. Further, these
two individuals have been closely involved with the reorganisation of
this Service in recent years. It would be interesting to see if their
recent appointments had any influence on their decision making within
that process.
I would be grateful if you could raise this matter with Mr Blunt on the
behalf of myself and my colleagues, all of whom are extremely
concerned about our future in the Service and, indeed the future of the
Service as a whole."
It seems like a good idea to me to let MP's know.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
The View from Down Under
I think history shows that in the scheme of things certain ideas have an uncanny habit of taking hold at the same time across national and cultural boundaries. Following on from the story I picked up about the failure of the so-called War on Drugs it's fascinating to see that exactly the same debate is going on in Australia. This article from the Western Australian quotes very similar sentiments being expressed by a former Supreme Court Judge no less in highlighting the utter failure of that countries drug policies. Of course Australia's policies are pretty much the same as our own here in the UK.
I know that politicians in all democracies are very scared of appearing to be 'soft on drugs' for fear of how that plays in the right wing press, but I take comfort from the fact there seems to be a decent head of steam building up internationally for a proper debate about the whole subject and that it just might be research-based rather than ideologically-led.
I must admit I had never heard of a charity called the Beckley Foundation before, but they were mentioned as working closely with the new Parliamentary Committee on drug policy reform and seem to be one of the prime movers behind the grandly-titled International Drug Policy Consortium. It turns out that the IDPC is part financed by the European Commission's Drug Prevention and Information Programme, so clearly there are growing signs across all borders that a change of direction is needed in relation to drug policy. There is a thorough resume of the last 40 years Drug War on their website here and some interesting information about Beckley here on wikipedia.
Sadly though it's obviously clearly business as usual as far as the UN Drugs Czar based in Vienna is concerned. The Western Australian reports
"The head of the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) called on Monday for more money and effort to stem a flow of illicit narcotics that earns druglords $320 billion (196 billion pounds) a year."
Oh dear.
I know that politicians in all democracies are very scared of appearing to be 'soft on drugs' for fear of how that plays in the right wing press, but I take comfort from the fact there seems to be a decent head of steam building up internationally for a proper debate about the whole subject and that it just might be research-based rather than ideologically-led.
I must admit I had never heard of a charity called the Beckley Foundation before, but they were mentioned as working closely with the new Parliamentary Committee on drug policy reform and seem to be one of the prime movers behind the grandly-titled International Drug Policy Consortium. It turns out that the IDPC is part financed by the European Commission's Drug Prevention and Information Programme, so clearly there are growing signs across all borders that a change of direction is needed in relation to drug policy. There is a thorough resume of the last 40 years Drug War on their website here and some interesting information about Beckley here on wikipedia.
Sadly though it's obviously clearly business as usual as far as the UN Drugs Czar based in Vienna is concerned. The Western Australian reports
"The head of the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) called on Monday for more money and effort to stem a flow of illicit narcotics that earns druglords $320 billion (196 billion pounds) a year."
Oh dear.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
A Lifestyle Choice?
I notice that my recent piece on the failure of the war on drugs has generated quite a bit of traffic due to it being commented on by 'Bystander' here on the Magistrates Blog. What a shame then that the whole piece didn't get published due to the poor software on Blogger. Not for the first time have I discovered to my horror that all the carefully crafted text I've sweated hours over had not been 'saved' at all, but arbitrarily thrown away instead. It seems to happen when you import text and is very annoying to say the least. I now regret the decision to publish half finished, but I just couldn't face trying to do it all again, so apologies if the piece just seems to end mid flow. I'm afraid it does and I will try and make amends here.
The following comment over on the Magistrates blog particularly struck me
"Useage of drugs is not an illness it's a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that."
In response I would say that it may well be a lifestyle choice for the middle classes in good jobs or the professions. I've always suspected that heroin and cocaine use amongst the medical and legal profession is quite common and in fact featured in a recent episode of the BBC court drama 'Silk'. But such people never come our way because they don't have to commit crime in order to fund their useage. No doubt most lead normal well-balanced lives and their use of drugs probably goes completely unnoticed. Although their 'lifestyle choice' can be said to be under control, unproblematic and in all probability enjoyable, it is of course illegal. Apart from this, why is it such a bad choice as opposed to say alcohol?
This brings me on to the rest of the drug-using population, many of whom are our customers. I would defy anyone to describe their wretched existence as a reflection of a 'lifestyle choice'. Some are driven to inject direct into their head because there is no viable vein left for the purpose. Often disabled by deep vein thrombosis, some with amputations, they have very short lifespans but seem to die almost completely unnoticed by wider society. They will have been held in a vice-like grip by the physical addiction for many years and regular efforts to 'come off' will have been thwarted by being constantly surrounded by other drug users. Such people have to 'deal' with each other in order to fund their own habit and therefore it's not in their interests if people stop 'using'.
I simply don't accept this group ever made a 'lifestyle choice' about using drugs. Typically they have grown up in a drug-riddled, broken society where 'choice' about anything is a completely alien concept. It would be far more relevant here to talk in terms of survival. To be honest I think 'choice' is just a middle class concept. It wasn't always like this though. In the early days of increasing heroin useage, I could refer clients to the Regional Drug Addiction Unit where there was in-patient and out-patient treatment available. Clients could make a meaningful choice about trying to get 'clean'. The facility was run by the NHS because quite rightly it was regarded as a health issue, just like all other addictions whether they be gambling, sex or alcohol. It was a huge mistake to steer drug addiction away from the health sector.
Nowadays in the absence of residential detoxification beds, prison is often seen as the only way to try and kick the habit. It can be achieved with the right mindset, co-operative padmate and drug free wing, but most unusual given the widespread availability of drugs in virtually every jail. It is a sad truism that many prisoners have their first experience of drugs in prison.
Now just in case there might be people out there who think more effort needs to be put into stopping drugs getting into prison, may I confirm that this is just as pointless as every other bit of the so-called 'war on drugs'. Let me just say that the vast sums of money that is to be made by staff and inmates smuggling drugs into prison easily ensures that any and every counter-measure that can be installed will be circumvented. As with all elements of the present illegal drug supply network, any cost benefit analysis easily makes the risk of apprehension worth taking.
It is sheer madness to think that throwing more resources at 'law enforcement' will work, not least because, guess why? The money to be made is so vast that even law enforcement officers are not immune to the temptations on offer. Like it or not, common sense will eventually prevail and Daily Mail readers will just have to get used to the idea.
The following comment over on the Magistrates blog particularly struck me
"Useage of drugs is not an illness it's a lifestyle choice and a bad one at that."
In response I would say that it may well be a lifestyle choice for the middle classes in good jobs or the professions. I've always suspected that heroin and cocaine use amongst the medical and legal profession is quite common and in fact featured in a recent episode of the BBC court drama 'Silk'. But such people never come our way because they don't have to commit crime in order to fund their useage. No doubt most lead normal well-balanced lives and their use of drugs probably goes completely unnoticed. Although their 'lifestyle choice' can be said to be under control, unproblematic and in all probability enjoyable, it is of course illegal. Apart from this, why is it such a bad choice as opposed to say alcohol?
This brings me on to the rest of the drug-using population, many of whom are our customers. I would defy anyone to describe their wretched existence as a reflection of a 'lifestyle choice'. Some are driven to inject direct into their head because there is no viable vein left for the purpose. Often disabled by deep vein thrombosis, some with amputations, they have very short lifespans but seem to die almost completely unnoticed by wider society. They will have been held in a vice-like grip by the physical addiction for many years and regular efforts to 'come off' will have been thwarted by being constantly surrounded by other drug users. Such people have to 'deal' with each other in order to fund their own habit and therefore it's not in their interests if people stop 'using'.
I simply don't accept this group ever made a 'lifestyle choice' about using drugs. Typically they have grown up in a drug-riddled, broken society where 'choice' about anything is a completely alien concept. It would be far more relevant here to talk in terms of survival. To be honest I think 'choice' is just a middle class concept. It wasn't always like this though. In the early days of increasing heroin useage, I could refer clients to the Regional Drug Addiction Unit where there was in-patient and out-patient treatment available. Clients could make a meaningful choice about trying to get 'clean'. The facility was run by the NHS because quite rightly it was regarded as a health issue, just like all other addictions whether they be gambling, sex or alcohol. It was a huge mistake to steer drug addiction away from the health sector.
Nowadays in the absence of residential detoxification beds, prison is often seen as the only way to try and kick the habit. It can be achieved with the right mindset, co-operative padmate and drug free wing, but most unusual given the widespread availability of drugs in virtually every jail. It is a sad truism that many prisoners have their first experience of drugs in prison.
Now just in case there might be people out there who think more effort needs to be put into stopping drugs getting into prison, may I confirm that this is just as pointless as every other bit of the so-called 'war on drugs'. Let me just say that the vast sums of money that is to be made by staff and inmates smuggling drugs into prison easily ensures that any and every counter-measure that can be installed will be circumvented. As with all elements of the present illegal drug supply network, any cost benefit analysis easily makes the risk of apprehension worth taking.
It is sheer madness to think that throwing more resources at 'law enforcement' will work, not least because, guess why? The money to be made is so vast that even law enforcement officers are not immune to the temptations on offer. Like it or not, common sense will eventually prevail and Daily Mail readers will just have to get used to the idea.
War on Drugs Lost!
It's almost official - it's all been a 50 year waste of time, the worldwide 'war on drugs'. According to this report in the Daily Telegraph, some seriously sensible people like the former heads of MI5, CPS and the BBC have come out in support of a new parliamentary committee calling for the decriminalisation of drugs. Ok maybe saying John Birt, former Director General of the BBC is 'sensible' might be going a bit too far, but even so it should be coming clear to all enlightened folk that our policy towards drugs has been an unmitigated disaster in every respect.
Despite all the huge law enforcement effort put into cracking the so-called drug cartels, availability has never been greater, along with potential illegal profits to be made. The whole damn charade, from small time drug busts to warships on the high seas has only succeeded in ensuring that the street price has been maintained and not slumped due to over-supply. Of course the same basic economic laws of supply and demand that keep capitalism supposedly running smoothly operate just as well in the unregulated and tax free world of international drug supply. In my mind all we've succeeded in doing is create the perfect conditions in which mega criminality can flourish. The price is kept stable and law enforcement just takes out the inept or unlucky, leaving the field open for the ruthless and skilled. Just look at what's happening in Mexico.
Lets all hope that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform can have more success in influencing government policy than they have in choosing a snappy working title. Their chairman Baroness Meacher is quoted as saying
“Criminalising drug users has been an expensive catastrophe for individuals and communities. “In the UK the time has come for a review of our 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. I call on our Government to heed the advice of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that drug addiction should be recognised as a health problem and not punished.
“We have the example of other countries to follow. The best is Portugal which has decriminalised drug use for 10 years. Portugal still has one of the lowest drug addiction rates in Europe, the trend of Young people's drug addiction is falling in Portugal against an upward trend in the surrounding countries, and the Portuguese prison population has fallen over time.”
Despite all the huge law enforcement effort put into cracking the so-called drug cartels, availability has never been greater, along with potential illegal profits to be made. The whole damn charade, from small time drug busts to warships on the high seas has only succeeded in ensuring that the street price has been maintained and not slumped due to over-supply. Of course the same basic economic laws of supply and demand that keep capitalism supposedly running smoothly operate just as well in the unregulated and tax free world of international drug supply. In my mind all we've succeeded in doing is create the perfect conditions in which mega criminality can flourish. The price is kept stable and law enforcement just takes out the inept or unlucky, leaving the field open for the ruthless and skilled. Just look at what's happening in Mexico.
Lets all hope that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform can have more success in influencing government policy than they have in choosing a snappy working title. Their chairman Baroness Meacher is quoted as saying
“Criminalising drug users has been an expensive catastrophe for individuals and communities. “In the UK the time has come for a review of our 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. I call on our Government to heed the advice of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that drug addiction should be recognised as a health problem and not punished.
“We have the example of other countries to follow. The best is Portugal which has decriminalised drug use for 10 years. Portugal still has one of the lowest drug addiction rates in Europe, the trend of Young people's drug addiction is falling in Portugal against an upward trend in the surrounding countries, and the Portuguese prison population has fallen over time.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)