It takes two to tango as they say, but I think he would perhaps admit that he met his match recently with a seriously robust run-in with some very angry wimmin on twitter that seemed to take him genuinely by surprise. If ever you needed some evidence as to the limitations posed to decent discussion by 140 characters at a time, this was it! That's the thing about twitter - it's either mostly platitudinous bollocks, political puffs, or soundbite flame mail.
Anyway, it's good to see that Ben has decided to return to using the medium that brought him to wide public attention in the first place, the blog. In what could either be described as a masterstroke of perversity, or sign of divine revelation, he has confounded us all by posting a piece in defence of probation. It seems it wasn't prepared under the influence of mind-altering substances, but rather the result of some thoughtful reflection. I hope he will not mind me quoting from it:-
My – improbable, maybe – objection to this is that the Probation Service has met every target set by Government to reduce reoffending. Indeed, it is a fact that the reoffending rate for those under supervision is the lowest level ever.
I hold no brief for Government and its bureaucracies. As a general proposition, I think Government can screw anything up. And yet the Probation Service is not merely performing well, it is possibly one of the best performing public services.
In planning to break up this service and sell it, the Government is acting out of pure ideology. There is no evidence whatever that the private sector can do as well, let alone better. Indeed, the discussions I was in with the private sector revealed that they hadn't any clue how to even begin to do the job of probation.
In their ideological frenzy, the Government has blown its cover. If it had the slightest interest in reducing reoffending and protecting the public, it would allow all qualified parties to bid for future contracts. But, and this is the tipping point for me, the Government is barring Probation Trusts from even bidding for the work. The only people with any expertise in this work are being specifically forbidden from being involved in it.
Unfortunately the views he endorses in his two previous posts are pretty repugnant and cast a shadow over any value his backing might have offered.
ReplyDeleteI read nothing that struck me as repugnant in Ben's two previous posts. You really should spell out what exactly you found repugnant because that is a serious allegation to level against someone who at least has the courage to spell out his position on emotive subjects.
DeleteGuys,
DeleteI'm familiar with the two posts you are referring to and indeed the spirited discussion Ben has been embroiled in on twitter. There are a number of difficult issues discussed that to a certain extent have become conflated. I've been pondering for some time how to address them in a post and intend to do so shortly.
Like many people, I suspect we're still trying to get to grips with exactly what Ben is about. He has a habit of stirring things up and to be honest I think he's a tad naive, but then we all might be to varying degrees.
For some time the term 'apologist' has cropped up in my thinking and I have been waiting to find an excuse to bring the matter up. It's a strong term, not to be used lightly, but many of the commentators on Ben's blog have made the case admirably and I'll try and pull a few threads together asap. I don't think Ben means to be an 'apologist' but is finding it hard to understand why the term is being used.
Jim
Totally not connected to the blog but I am aware that words to the effect of... positively embracing the transformation has appeared in individual performance appraisals for this year - is this just our trust or others also?. Remember this from my days of private sector appraisals but came under the heading emotional resilience from recollection - in other words suck it up with a big smile!!! Any negatibe behavioural indicators (as they were called then) were noted and addressed and documented and then refelcted in your performance related pay, promotion and ultimately behavoural competnence which if didn't improve resulted in a performance improvement plan ie fast track out the door.
ReplyDeleteBlimey that is worrying! I've not come across it, but what about other areas? Thanks for raising it.
DeleteCheers,
Jim
I love the language: positively engaging the transformation, it has the ring of a courtship ritual. There must presumably be a moment of consumation! But no surprise that Trusts are falling into line as they have been doing since they were formed. Probation is a well-controlled and obedient workforce who do as they are told and I am sure most are already practising their powers of engagement in front of mirrors, a la De Niro.
DeleteSorry, but can angrymammal please put his/her money where their mouth is, and tell us all what is so repugnant about Ben's post?
ReplyDeleteChris
Ive just read ben gunns blog and fail to see what exactly is repungent about it. It appears to me to suggest a degree of inner conflict trying to arguee a position of support for an organisation who have probably from his perspective been the 'enemy' for most of his life. I confess i havent read all his blogs and i stay away from twitter, but maybe the changes faced now by the service will have a signifigant inpact on him, and as such he has every right to express his opinions. I think we may all do better with cutting reoffending and successful rehabilatation if we opperated more inclusively, and not excluded and marginalised great chunks of our society. Thats only my opinion hayho.
ReplyDeleteI think the concern relates not to the current post about probation, which is somewhat perverse 'I don't like probation but it shouldn't be privatised' but rather in relation to the earlier couple on a range of issues connected to sex offending, sexual politics and language.
DeleteTo be honest I think he just gets a thrill out of being able to wind people up and is always thirsty for acclaim and notoriety. He reminds me of what has been said of Peter Tatchell 'a man never far from an interview'.
Cheers,
Jim
I thought it was a bit harsh having a swipe at Peter Tatchell about his readiness for an interview and media attention – so footballers like to kick balls. Tatchell is a campaigner – it's what he does- a very successful one and more's the pity he's not leading Napo, as at least he has the capacity to make the weather. To my mind he is no different in essence to the suffragettes who fought for women's rights.
DeleteOk you got me there! Maybe a bit harsh, but I've got a downer on him regarding his views on sex offending and the age of consent. Strikes me 'apologists' are popping up all over.
DeleteCheers,
Jim
My colleagues all around me appear to be jumping on the bandwagon, volunteering to any extra responsibilties. Thinking that these additonal tasks on their CV's will save them. Umm hello, what have you been doing for the last 5 years, do your really not think that private companies will have their own management structure in place, being a good PO does no make a good manager. Ohh and just becuase you have been doing a project for 1 month does not mean that you will suddenly be ok because you are flexible, nope it means that you are being utilised (I am using the polite phrase). Here's my latest effort through 'they work for you' where you can send messages to MPs's and Lords. What will you do today to save Probation??
ReplyDeleteDear Lord Ramsbotham,
I am writing to say thank you for your support recently with regards to challenging the rehabilitation revolution, and in particular the impending demise of the Probation Service.
I have previosuly contacted you in relation to this matter and the difficulties that the Probation Service face with a lack of representation/voice within NOM's. There is also a lack of awareness within the public domain of the valuable work that the Probation Service do. As promised in your reply you delivered an excellent responce in recent debates.
I doubt that you very often recieve thanks for the support that you give and regardless of the outcome I wanted to express my appreciation for your recent efforts.
As a member of the public I am extremely worried about the future of the Criminal Justice System and the systematic and dangerous dismantling approach from the government. Once these valuable resources have gone they will be very difficult to restore. I feel the heart and values of Great Britain are being sold off to the highest bidder. There are so many examples of the greed and immoral approach of private companies ie translation services, employment services, G4s security in the olympics and tag contarct investigation not to mention the devistation that is now the NHS.
I have never really taken a great deal of interest in politics until now. I am many others are extremely concerned about mass privatisation and the distruction being caused to the country by recent governemnt policies.
I sincerely hope that with your skills and expertise that you will continue to challenge the ideological Probation reforms, and that you lead and gather your peers in support of doing all that you can to save the probation service and all the dedicated staff whom give their all to their vocation.
Thank you once again for your much valued support.
Go Lord ramsbotham!!!
PS I am not excpecting a reply as I feel your energies are best utilised else where.
Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Well what you say about colleagues suddenly volunteering for stuff is a theme I've heard in a number of places - so-called 'engaging with transformation'. Yes it's sad and unedifying, but utterly predictable unfortunately and as you indicate, unlikely to be successful. But it's everyone for themselves now with managers being particularly vulnerable.
DeleteI like the letter - Lord Ramsbotham has been a good friend of probation for many years and will put up a spirited defence I'm sure.
Cheers,
Jim
For me it was the creation of NOMS that changed the whole face and ethos of the service, and with that change came the writing on the wall and the prospect of privatisation has existed ever since. Those who've come to the job since then have a every different approach and understanding then those who were about before and of course it couldn't be any other way. The introduction of NOMS changed the service from being a career to just being a job, and structured the 'job' in a way with things like oasys that as long as your literate you can do the job. I feel its very important as the struggle to save the service picks up speed, that the foundation stones of the service is championed and brought to the fore, and it dosent self harm by creating an image of people squabling and bitching about there own possitions. Its right to worry about our own positions and our own futures, but the saving of the service should be the prime focus, and its not about what the private sector cant or wont achieve, but what makes the state governed service much more suited and able to be successful.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I agree entirely and very well put. It's the ethos of a proud quality public service that I feel so passionate about, but as you say it's been slipping through our fingers for a number of years.
DeleteIt's hard to define but I see great similarities with the old London Passenger Transport Board in the 50's and 60's, or the BBC even before Birt came along. Both organisations really stood for something in their heyday, but are now shadows of their former selves. They might be cheaper to run, but have utterly lost their souls and as a society we're poorer for it.
Maybe it's just all inevitable and says more about us as old timers than it does about anything else and there's nothing we can do about it, other than record for posterity and future social historians how great these institutions used to be and how few were the voices of objection to their demise - sorry 'transformation'.
Thanks for commenting and stay with it!
Cheers,
Jim
The real cause of privatising so much of the public is not because we need to save money or reduce the natonal deficit, its simply that the those who have just take to much from the pot. A recent report from oxfam stated that the top 100 earners wages in one year globaly could eradicate world poverty twice! So stop cost cutting and destroying our public services please mr government, and concentrate on getting the greedy overstuffed fat bastards fingers out of the honey pot! Spreading it just a bit thinner makes it go a whole lot further.
ReplyDelete