“I would have preferred to have read your views on practice and the current state of probation. Maybe something around the impact of the ongoing deprofessionalisation of probation officers, the NPS strategy to replace us with non-qualified staff and tick-box style Pre Sentence Reports, or the CRC strategy of heavily cutting staff and replacing interview rooms with American diner style areas.”
Naturally I’m sorry that my topic was not what some people wanted to read. Whereas I can understand that some may want this site to be solely about repeatedly letting off steam about the current very unsatisfactory arrangements (which indeed they are), I thought I’d offer a change from that – sorry to disappoint.
“Instead we get the badly worded “Three Purposes of Probation” and an analysis of what I recall as a pointless discussion about enforcement. Considering TR and the recent Offender Management Act which did away with “supervision” as we knew it, maybe it would have been better to analyse whether Grayling and Gove have a view on what the purposes of probation should be, or maybe the probation chief officers that helped them do away with probation as we knew it. I've always found the HMIP idealistic about what probation practice should be, and blinkered to the climate it is practiced in. In reality, the “Three Purposes of Probation” have been displaced by TR and made impossible by the CRC drive for profits and the NPS drive for “more for less”. Now the distorted purpose and culture that is forced into us is 1. Meet targets, 2. Meet targets, 3. JFDI. And as I said in detail in Guest Blog 52, the probation qualification and professionalism has been slowly eroded over the past two decades. This is what the HMIP, the Probation Institute and every other “expert” seems to ignore! As I heard an academic recently say, the only solution for a probation service and “Work” (to truly rehabilitate) is to sever the MoJ control, to reduce the extent of privatisation and to absorb the probation officer training back into social work.”
I note that the Inspectorate’s focus on quality of Probation practice is described here as “idealistic” – I would certainly loudly and proudly claim this description, provided that it’s recognised that in our idealism we specifically did not look for perfection; instead we looked for “Sufficiency” in the quality of practice, according to the needs and circumstances of the case. Whereas I’m very keen indeed on developing and accrediting skills in this job I take a very different view about the traditional “probation qualification” which perpetuates a rigid two-tier workforce and a barrier to many of the talented newcomers who want to build their career in-service. However, the point this contributor makes about targets is important – see more below.
“Thank you, a good read. However, as a practitioner I have never had any problem with negotiating and compromise, but I think what is becoming a huge problem is the lack of autonomy to make such decisions v dictates which feed the monster – target driven practice. I never really had any problem when targets promoted best practice, for worker and client, but the worst kind of target are those rigidly organisational or financially driven targets! CRCs are in a no win situation, they have no time to develop the kind of relationship that promotes compliance, and I must say it, positive change in people! Their employers demand staff provide a facade of respectability and integrity but their financial targets trump those of integrity and decency, so colleagues are in a no win situation and our clients confused and disenfranchised by the targets!”
Targets is a whole new topic, and one of critical importance. Some of the current ones are shockingly bad – some of us knew in the 1980s that ‘successful completions’ was no measure of anything. The contributors are right to criticise them strongly. The knack is to set the right ones and also to promote the right ethos in how the organisation works towards them – surprise, surprise I have written about this. Anyone who worked with me in Berkshire 1998-2001 will tell you what they think about whether or not we got our targets broadly right, by ensuring that they were congruent with good quality Probation practice. Because the ‘right’ targets are difficult to measure, policymakers keep repeating the mistake of instead employing proxy [“near enough”] target measures which are easier to monitor but in their effect on practice are worse than useless, as many of the contributors have rightly reported.
“An interesting blog but very simplistic and doesn't account for what's happening in probation now. Those of us who endeavour to work to the aims are severely disabled by managerialism. Also can't see the purpose of the prescriptive monthly minimum especially after 2 years supervision it can become counter productive.”
‘Simple’, yes, but not easy, though I believe it can still be done. And even as a main-grade PO with 60+ cases and 12 SIRs a month in the 1970s I never thought it acceptable to require a meeting at less than once a month – it was a Court Order after all.
*******
“I agree: the underlying motive is fundamental and if making a profit is fundamental then this will be secondary to the public good. And if they cannot make a profit, they will, as we have have seen in other sectors, walk away.”
*******
“This is the problem. 'Independence' is available to the highest bidder. Whilst the Government colludes with this and, equally important, whilst the media do not hold these Ministers to account, the practice of self funded advocacy will remain a corrupt force with which the money-makers will be able to justify their actions. If one remains opposed to the fundamental profit motive in CJ, the debate rages on. If we accept that 'we are where we are', the debate is ended and the dysfunction remains in place.”
*******
“A few years ago Mr Grayling said something like, 'I don't want to pay for a service, I want to pay for results.' On the surface this sounds appealing. The author of this guest blog on his website / advertisement states something akin to, 'I don't care who does the job as long as they do it well.' Again this risks sounding appealing. For example, do you really care who comes out to the fire if your house is ablaze as long as they arrive in the prescribed time and put the fire out. You might say, 'well I suppose not.'”
One of the curious oddities of probation work is that while by necessity it requires an ability to see more than one side of a story, and arguably believe both in rational analysis and that everyone has a ‘better side’ to their nature, many of its practitioners appear to claim exclusive moral high grounds to their own beliefs while assuming a morally corrupt position in anyone who disagrees with them. If you are making the assumption that my independence is simply venal you might also consider the possibility that that assumption is wrong.
I see no intrinsic virtue in having a binary view of the world, and have always found that “Truth has more than one face”. My personal emotional attachment to public service is very strong, but I’ve seen enough over the years to know that it doesn’t have a monopoly on virtue, and could sometimes benefit from learning from the private sector. There is an irony that whereas I spent much of the 1990s repeatedly arguing with policymakers that there was no inherent benefit in purchasing a service from an external contractor (if you can do it yourself better and cheaper), I’ve also had to spend much of the time since then arguing that there’s nothing inherently wicked about it either – you have to judge it by how it is worked in practice. I found over the last 15 years that poor commissioning, especially poor targetsetting, (together with shockingly poor IT) was much the greater cause of problems than the profit motive itself. The “risk” of assessing a service by how well it is actually delivered, rather than simply by ‘who delivers it’, could perhaps be seen not as a “risk” but as a benefit, a sign of a rational approach rather than one driven solely by ideology.
I would like to believe that many of the contributors who let off steam on this website have nevertheless managed to do some good quality work – despite all the difficulties. Would anyone want to write a short description of a recent piece of Probation practice that you’re particularly pleased with, perhaps achieved against all the odds?....
“Thank you, a good read. However, as a practitioner I have never had any problem with negotiating and compromise, but I think what is becoming a huge problem is the lack of autonomy to make such decisions v dictates which feed the monster – target driven practice. I never really had any problem when targets promoted best practice, for worker and client, but the worst kind of target are those rigidly organisational or financially driven targets! CRCs are in a no win situation, they have no time to develop the kind of relationship that promotes compliance, and I must say it, positive change in people! Their employers demand staff provide a facade of respectability and integrity but their financial targets trump those of integrity and decency, so colleagues are in a no win situation and our clients confused and disenfranchised by the targets!”
Targets is a whole new topic, and one of critical importance. Some of the current ones are shockingly bad – some of us knew in the 1980s that ‘successful completions’ was no measure of anything. The contributors are right to criticise them strongly. The knack is to set the right ones and also to promote the right ethos in how the organisation works towards them – surprise, surprise I have written about this. Anyone who worked with me in Berkshire 1998-2001 will tell you what they think about whether or not we got our targets broadly right, by ensuring that they were congruent with good quality Probation practice. Because the ‘right’ targets are difficult to measure, policymakers keep repeating the mistake of instead employing proxy [“near enough”] target measures which are easier to monitor but in their effect on practice are worse than useless, as many of the contributors have rightly reported.
“An interesting blog but very simplistic and doesn't account for what's happening in probation now. Those of us who endeavour to work to the aims are severely disabled by managerialism. Also can't see the purpose of the prescriptive monthly minimum especially after 2 years supervision it can become counter productive.”
‘Simple’, yes, but not easy, though I believe it can still be done. And even as a main-grade PO with 60+ cases and 12 SIRs a month in the 1970s I never thought it acceptable to require a meeting at less than once a month – it was a Court Order after all.
“The 'imperfections' of TR cannot be compared to previous imperfections. There is a massive difference between something being fundamentally wrong and the negatives arising out of that, and something being fundamentally cohesive with problems that can be worked on and resolved. TR creates its own unique problems which push good practice way down the list of priorities. My priorities now are carrying out insane IT tasks in order to meet targets, while the associated work which requires those old fashioned notions of thought, reflection and decision making gets neglected resulting in a rushed, poor quality outcome. OMs don't seem to have the discretion to manage their own cases resulting in Judges asking 'what does the case manager really think?' It's a pile of shit and it's those who go around telling us it isn't that seem really creepy, as if they don't have their own minds any more.”
*******
“He does not like TR. Yet in considering the previous arrangement, the bar is immediately raised and we are told they were not 'perfect'. Fairer to say that the previous arrangements were better, open to improvements and preferable to TR. But when not 'taking sides' you need a clever verbal formula to stay above the fray. If not taking sides you have to try and be even-handed.”
********
"There is a saying I can't recall verbatim but is along the lines of 'for evil to triumph, it does not require evil men to do evil but good men to do nothing'. The trouble with 'reasoned' debates on Probation practice under TR, they fail to acknowledge the starting point which is that the profit motive in Probation and other forms of social services undermines the very purpose of those services and compromises all forms of intervention in favour of profit or the minimisation of loss. "
It is suggested here that my position is a case of doing nothing and therefore allowing “evil to triumph” as per Edmund Burke (the very conservative politician who may not have envisaged a British Government enacting its own policy as the kind of evil he was thinking of.) For my part I had said my piece in September 2014 about TR being the “most gung-ho reorganisation that Probation has ever faced”, and was quoted accordingly on Radio Five. For the record, I think that while the various previous arrangements were “not perfect either” they were certainly less bad, though also nothing to idealise.
But our constitutionally elected Government had made a decision and was acting on it accordingly – you have to be a heroic optimist to believe that this will fundamentally change in the next five years. So I focus on the ‘making it work anyway’ option. Since we have started bandying quotes: “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails” (William Arthur Ward). It is a matter for each of us to choose whether thereafter we want to talk about how to make practice work well (despite the changes) or just carry on repeatedly letting off steam.
*******
“He does not like TR. Yet in considering the previous arrangement, the bar is immediately raised and we are told they were not 'perfect'. Fairer to say that the previous arrangements were better, open to improvements and preferable to TR. But when not 'taking sides' you need a clever verbal formula to stay above the fray. If not taking sides you have to try and be even-handed.”
********
"There is a saying I can't recall verbatim but is along the lines of 'for evil to triumph, it does not require evil men to do evil but good men to do nothing'. The trouble with 'reasoned' debates on Probation practice under TR, they fail to acknowledge the starting point which is that the profit motive in Probation and other forms of social services undermines the very purpose of those services and compromises all forms of intervention in favour of profit or the minimisation of loss. "
It is suggested here that my position is a case of doing nothing and therefore allowing “evil to triumph” as per Edmund Burke (the very conservative politician who may not have envisaged a British Government enacting its own policy as the kind of evil he was thinking of.) For my part I had said my piece in September 2014 about TR being the “most gung-ho reorganisation that Probation has ever faced”, and was quoted accordingly on Radio Five. For the record, I think that while the various previous arrangements were “not perfect either” they were certainly less bad, though also nothing to idealise.
But our constitutionally elected Government had made a decision and was acting on it accordingly – you have to be a heroic optimist to believe that this will fundamentally change in the next five years. So I focus on the ‘making it work anyway’ option. Since we have started bandying quotes: “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails” (William Arthur Ward). It is a matter for each of us to choose whether thereafter we want to talk about how to make practice work well (despite the changes) or just carry on repeatedly letting off steam.
*******
“I agree: the underlying motive is fundamental and if making a profit is fundamental then this will be secondary to the public good. And if they cannot make a profit, they will, as we have have seen in other sectors, walk away.”
*******
“This is the problem. 'Independence' is available to the highest bidder. Whilst the Government colludes with this and, equally important, whilst the media do not hold these Ministers to account, the practice of self funded advocacy will remain a corrupt force with which the money-makers will be able to justify their actions. If one remains opposed to the fundamental profit motive in CJ, the debate rages on. If we accept that 'we are where we are', the debate is ended and the dysfunction remains in place.”
*******
“A few years ago Mr Grayling said something like, 'I don't want to pay for a service, I want to pay for results.' On the surface this sounds appealing. The author of this guest blog on his website / advertisement states something akin to, 'I don't care who does the job as long as they do it well.' Again this risks sounding appealing. For example, do you really care who comes out to the fire if your house is ablaze as long as they arrive in the prescribed time and put the fire out. You might say, 'well I suppose not.'”
One of the curious oddities of probation work is that while by necessity it requires an ability to see more than one side of a story, and arguably believe both in rational analysis and that everyone has a ‘better side’ to their nature, many of its practitioners appear to claim exclusive moral high grounds to their own beliefs while assuming a morally corrupt position in anyone who disagrees with them. If you are making the assumption that my independence is simply venal you might also consider the possibility that that assumption is wrong.
I see no intrinsic virtue in having a binary view of the world, and have always found that “Truth has more than one face”. My personal emotional attachment to public service is very strong, but I’ve seen enough over the years to know that it doesn’t have a monopoly on virtue, and could sometimes benefit from learning from the private sector. There is an irony that whereas I spent much of the 1990s repeatedly arguing with policymakers that there was no inherent benefit in purchasing a service from an external contractor (if you can do it yourself better and cheaper), I’ve also had to spend much of the time since then arguing that there’s nothing inherently wicked about it either – you have to judge it by how it is worked in practice. I found over the last 15 years that poor commissioning, especially poor targetsetting, (together with shockingly poor IT) was much the greater cause of problems than the profit motive itself. The “risk” of assessing a service by how well it is actually delivered, rather than simply by ‘who delivers it’, could perhaps be seen not as a “risk” but as a benefit, a sign of a rational approach rather than one driven solely by ideology.
I would like to believe that many of the contributors who let off steam on this website have nevertheless managed to do some good quality work – despite all the difficulties. Would anyone want to write a short description of a recent piece of Probation practice that you’re particularly pleased with, perhaps achieved against all the odds?....
Andrew Bridges
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails,” stated William Arthur Ward. Sadly, HMS Probation has capsised and many have taken the lifeboat option and are now watching the destruction aboard our new ships. We don't have to JFDI - we can leave and many, many have.
ReplyDeleteAnd on those new ships the CRC owners are the Pirates, the NPS the slave-traders, and the Ministry of Justice the Church telling us the world is flat!
DeleteInteresting blog. When I was inside I noticed with both prison officers and probation that if you told them what they wanted to hear you got a good report. Conversely tell them the truth about anything and you got labelled a troublemaker. Which naturally leads people with an ounce of sense to lie to prison officer and probation and simply tell them whatever crap they want to hear even if you have no intention of doing it and don't believe a word of what you are saying. So some IPP's got out early for playing mind games for example and others did not and some got released on tag and others did not.
ReplyDeleteThis is why a lot of people with mental health issues suffer really badly in prison and under probation as they are simply not capable of playing these games.
If the system simply requires you to show up to a regular supervision meeting and spout whatever rubbish your OM wants to hear then you'll do this to keep them off your back so you can go and do whatever it is you want. You will have learned how to be a better criminal through being inside (i.e. where you made mistakes before that led to being caught) and a whole host of new contacts and so probation supervisions becomes the price of doing business.
Which is why the system simply doesn't work and was not fit for purpose long before Grayling took the sledge hammer to it.
Life as a citizen in this country is all about conforming and following the rules. So if you did this to get out of prison and continue to do this at least once a week at probation, then the system clearly worked for you. This is the same for many others and over half never reoffend.
Delete"I note that the Inspectorate’s focus on quality of Probation practice is described here as “idealistic” ...... "For the record, I think that while the various previous arrangements were “not perfect either” they were certainly less bad, though also nothing to idealise."
ReplyDeleteSo in a nutshell the probation inspectorate under your watch was a waste of time and you have nothing positive to say about the service you inspected (except in Berkshire where you worked 1998-2001!!!).
"But our constitutionally elected Government had made a decision and was acting on it accordingly - It is a matter for each of us to choose whether thereafter we want to talk about how to make practice work well (despite the changes) or just carry on repeatedly letting off steam."
ReplyDeleteEvery time somebody makes a statement like this I think of the politicians that voted against civil rights, the businessmen that didn't want to give women the vote and the Nazi's who claimed to have "just been following orders"!
And, of course, governments often perform U-turns when there is widespread protest.
Delete"Whereas I can understand that some may want this site to be solely about repeatedly letting off steam about the current very unsatisfactory arrangements (which indeed they are)" ... "I would like to believe that many of the contributors who let off steam on this website have nevertheless managed to do some good quality work" - Andrew Bridges
ReplyDeleteThis is the point, the current probation arrangements are appalling. This is not about "letting off steam", the issues here are presented and discussed. There is no outlet for discussing these issues elsewhere, especially for the now civil servants amongst us. Some like Andrew may expect us to be instead proposing how to make the current mess work, but forget we were asked to do this before, during and after the TR implementation and our views were ignored just as we are ignored now.
The probation practice forced upon us is about meeting targets and we have no say in this even though all can see the problems and that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Obviously Andrew is unable or unwilling to understand this and even rather strangely doesn't support a return to social work which even some academics have called for, which would bring the required checks, balances and credibility into probation work and training. Andrew says he wants "to talk about how to make practice work well" but instead encourages the towing of the government line and working with the current arrangements.
I was surprised an ex probation officer, Chief inspector and "fellow" believes the current post-TR probation and training supports "talented newcomers who want to build their career in-service", despite the evidence even in the media that it does not. Why doesn't he test this by spending a few days at a Sodexo Links CRC and see how different things are to Berkshire circa 1998-2001.
As expected, another patronising and pointless response from the 'ivory tower' overall.
I think the 'letting of steam' phrase was a bit patronising. There are some reasoned critiques of TR on this site - and were the 90% plus who rejected TR at the consultation phase merely letting of steam. Does Grayling do ideological steam?
DeleteTR has damaged communications irreparably between the NPS and CRC. Reports carried out at court can be rushed. Information on ND is limited and officers now mobile and not as easy to contact. Breach information limited and proposals skewed in favour of targets, which is noticeable to Judges and sentencers. Emails bounce back undelivered. Numerous queries daily regarding charges, sentencing details and ancillary orders as court officers too busy with oral report targets and unable to cover court. It is not a question of perception in these circumstances - we are like the child pointing out the emporer's nakedness. It is chaos. Yes, there may be many examples of good practice, but that doesn't detract from the perfectly rational argument that TR does not work and in not working increases risk. Mr Bridges in one of your own reports following an SFO you quite rightly pointed out that good communications are fundamental to managing risk.
ReplyDeleteI am a retired PO, Andrew, but keep in touch with friends, colleagues and the Blog. I have stood on the sidelines and watched the destruction of not just the Service, but colleagues, who were strong, skilled, empathetic people, who loved the job, took a pride in the job and produced quality work. Yes,systems were irritating at times, and IT had its problems, causing occasional squeals of frustration along the corridor - but - they were usually remedied by the local IT staff, and rarely stopped work coming to a complete halt (although I do not deny that once in a blue moon, crashes did happen).
ReplyDeleteBut Andrew, you are telling people to make workable what they have, and produce quality work. But - if people are having to use (or not use) systems which delete hours of work, or do not allow you access to produce that work, or take up so much time that you have no time to see the person that they are supposed to be working with (and certainly have no time to get to know the person, and allow them to get to know you, and trust you, and open up to you), or go home so knackered that they are unable to do their best, how on earth can they produce quality work? And in addition, how many inexperienced, unqualified staff are stuck in maze of shit, not knowing which way to turn, or just guess the right way and plunder through the shit, leaving their client to fend for themselves, because they are unable to do anything which could bring about a positive result.
As we are talking adages, yes, my mam used to talk about 'making the best of a bad job', and I am sure many staff are doing that, but she would also say, 'a man is only as good as his tools' -sorry about the sexism in the sentence!.
Listen to what people are saying Andrew, they are more realistic than you,(other than the TR trolls), and come up with a solution to get back quality, and passion and pride in their job, which of course, involves the client's participation and engagement, giving them hope and skills and the determination that they CAN turn their lives around, albeit 'a day at a time' (adaging again).
Hi Andrew, I think you will find that most of us will respect your dialogue with us, it is refreshing to have someone of your position do so and state what they think. Good for you. As an example of good practice despite all the odds:
ReplyDeleteI am officially on annual leave this week but I have worked this morning. This, if you were to ask, is how many people in the Probation Services are getting by, a way to ameliorate their stresses, by working over and above. However, in my case and in this instance this is not the case. One of my cases is imminently due for release and the paperwork has not been done and sent to the prison. Due to other pressures I had not been able to do this on Friday but I rang the prison and agreed a back - up plan to which they agreed. The job is now done. The reason I did this are twofold, one it is unfair to lump stuff on my colleagues who are already overburdened and two, the case in question deserves a service and his liberty in this case, he will now be released on HDC.
You might say, all good and well but surely this should have been completed weeks ago? I can state that the problem without fear of contradiction is that staff keep leaving, are not replaced or if they are not in good time. This means that everyone else shoulders their workload which means that some then struggle and go off sick. The target was not met but the service maintained if only just and because I care.
On adages it might be worth remembering this one, ‘the targets were met but the point was missed.’
I do think that we have to make the best of what we are faced with, that is a fair point, but the very understandable ‘letting off steam’ by Probation staff will not stop and neither will increasing exits from the Probation Services whilst staff are faced with the chaos that has been wrought.
On a personal note, possibly ideological, it does matter to me who does the work, it matters a great deal and I intend to publish something about why I believe this to be the case.
Once again thanks for taking the time and courtesy to be involved.
Reading his entry again it's quite a cheek Andrew Bridges has returned to excuse valid concerns over TR as "letting off steam" and his advice is to get on with it, a polite JFDI. Today's entry is worse than his original blog and comparable in approach to the recent blog from Paul Senior. This is an example of the pompous self styled know it all's we have running probation services, leading the HMIP and advising the MoJ. No surprise that Mr Bridges is a fellow of the Probation Institute, aka the "lipstick on the TR pig". Is it any wonder probation is in such a mess. Is there really nobody throughout the whole of probation and beyond that is able to say something worthwhile?
ReplyDeleteThat's what we're waiting for, someone with the courage to speak the truth, someone not worried about upsetting anyone or losing a promised favour.
ReplyDeleteWhat does he mean by this last bit? A write up to show goodwill and say 'the show must go on' maybe? What a patronising git!
ReplyDelete"Would anyone want to write a short description of a recent piece of Probation practice that you’re particularly pleased with, perhaps achieved against all the odds?"
DeleteAndrew,I achieve against all the odds every day and to be honest so do many of my offenders
DeleteWell said that's just how I feel !
DeleteCrown Court Judge: "when I reserved breaches of this Order to myself at sentence I made it quite clear that any breaches of this Suspended Sentence Order would result in activation. This breach report is asking for the Order to continue. What does the officer really think?"
ReplyDeleteI was really pleased to explain the difference between CRC and NPS and what the officer really thought, as opposed to what the officer had been instructed to propose. A violent offence where individual had been given a chance and failed to take it. The Order was activated.
An absolutely ridiculous state of affairs causing embarrassment and loss of credibility for all.
Oh Andrew, when will the practitioner's voice be heard? Ivory towers and all that...we are not "letting off steam" we are raging against the multiple changes which ensure quality practice CANNOT BE DELIVERED.
ReplyDeleteAll we want is to do our jobs with an infrastructure which is supportive and not destructive. For example the IT System in NPS which is a disgrace and yes, FAILED AGAIN TODAY!!! Go on Andrew use your clout to condemn those who impose this rubbish on hard working employees, look at the cost in terms of lost opportunity to work with our offenders when we are having to repeat computer work because the system has failed again. Remember people like you only reflect what is recorded. Shame on you.
Mr Bridges lets off some steam on truth and on the public vs private sector, Mr Bridges is a pragmatist. He does not have a problem with the profit motive – nor do I when it's profit that arises from actual wealth creation. But the 'profit' in this context is taxpayers' money being diverted to the private sector, who, as we know, reduce costs by cutting terms and condition of workers and basically dumbing down the workforce. There is no evidence that the private sector delivers better public services. If Mr Bridges knows otherwise, then he will enlighten us. There are no pragmatic grounds for supporting the role of profit in the public sector, unless of course you don't mind staff being impoverished. There are, however, moral grounds for objecting to the taxpayers of the UK funding the profits of multinational companies.
ReplyDeleteVery well said
ReplyDelete3 weeks of hell with new it system and an inspection coming up. No doubt the figures will be fudged and all will look wonderful. Try living and working in the real world and seeing misery day after day.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, it is wrong that the harm done to victims is exploited for the profit of shareholders...letting off steam or the simple truth?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if E3 is actually starting in June 2016? Very stressful for everyone waiting game just like with Crc so unfair.
ReplyDeleteMr Bridges, Prof Senior & many other "realists" pontificating about making TR work are in the enviable position of not having to face the daily stress of trying to make silk purses under threat of disciplinary action. They have secure & comfortable lifestyles (I would imagine an ex-head of HMIProbation is unlikely to be on Skid Row) so can espouse cool pragmatism from afar. To describe informed criticism of the TR shambles as "letting off steam" is a cheap shot at experienced practitioners fighting for their livelihoods, their emotional welfare & their profession.
ReplyDeleteReading through the comments, is it me or has Andrew Bridges #EpicFail response totally missed the point? I'm sure he's reading but does he understand how detached people like him are from the realities of what probation work is, of what doing probation work is like, and of what being a probation officer actually is? Of course he does, but as usual with people like this what we have to say is unimportant to them.
ReplyDelete