Hearing with horror this morning that the suspect terror attacker on London Bridge was a convicted criminal (for similar offences) who had served a long prison sentence and was out on licence.
The man who murdered Conner Marshall (see the article below) was under the supervision of the probation service as well. Conner’s mother, Nadine, is a tireless campaigner for reform, devolution and proper funding of the probation service so that probation staff can do the job they are meant to do.
The probation service was part-privatised by the Tories after splitting the service in two. One arm of the old probation service - the privatised part, was supposed to work with “low risk” offenders, while the public element of the service was meant to work closer with prisons in order to supervise the more serious or high risk offenders as well as those on long prison sentences, released for supervision in the community for the latter part of their sentence.
This ideologically-driven privatisation of the probation service has been widely accepted to have been a disaster. Aside from the fact that privatisation of a public service rarely makes sense, the idea that people can be placed in separate “risk boxes” is also nonsense. People’s risk can change as their life circumstances change.
I support Nadine Marshall’s campaign to fully devolve the probation service to Wales and for the whole service to be reunited within the public sector. I share Nadine’s concerns about the effects of keeping group work and unpaid work in the private sector. This will ensure the service remains fragmented and split and unable to properly to do the job the service was set up to do.
I want to be clear - the last thing I am doing is having a go at probation officers here. In a former career, I was a probation officer and I know from talking to former colleagues how their caseloads are massive and how there is rarely enough time to undertake the rehabilitative work they are trained to do.
My thoughts are with everyone who was caught up in the events at London Bridge yesterday as well as to Nadine Marshall and everyone else who has lost someone they love to violent acts. As a society, we can do so much more to support people who have been bereaved in this way. I would like to see decent investment in counselling and talking therapies to help people in this situation. I don’t think any of us should be in any wonder that mental health problems are on the rise when we do so little to support and help people to deal with traumatic life events?
We will never stop some people being violent toward others, but with the right level of investment and expertise, we can reduce the risk and the harm that some people can pose.
These experts know what needs to be done, but for many years they have had a government stopping them. If we want to see fewer violent incidents on our streets and in people’s private homes, we have to work at that and pay for it.
This is the full comment I provided for this BBC report. It’s only been partially published.
Plaid Cymru’s Shadow Minister for Social Justice Leanne Wood AM said:
“Plaid Cymru wants to see the entire probation service devolved, alongside policing and justice. We want to ensure people are properly assessed and supervised so they are not a risk to the public. Evidence shows that there have been lot of problems with the current probation system, because of lack of investment and privatisation. There is also a shocking lack of support for bereaved families.
“Fixing these systemic problems here in Wales requires solutions made in Wales, for Wales. Crucially, it also requires proper investment so that proper assessments and supervision both inside and outside prison can take place. No longer can we go on expecting that Westminster will solve our problems for us – and that’s why our Senedd should have full power over the entire probation service.”
Leanne Wood
******
Well said Leanne and talking to probation officers recently regarding the current changes in the service to bring the two halves back together they were reminding me that all the chief probation officers advised against the split at the time ...yet the Tory govt ignored that entirely ...Grayling remained obstinate in the face of all the evidence and the £cost is eye watering but the human cost due to risks created is immeasurable .....and the public have no idea of the risks it created ...and the public £ that has been wasted..
******
Yes. I don’t remember any voices (outside the Tories and the companies set to make out of it) who thought it was a good idea. My views haven’t changed in many years - see this from 2013.
From Wales online:-
ReplyDeleteOne of the heroes of the London Bridge terror attack was a murderer out on day release, it has been reported. It is understood that James Ford rushed to the scene and tried to save the life of a woman who had been attacked by the terrorist Usman Kahn.
Armed with two knives and wearing a fake suicide vest, Khan was tackled by members of the public - including one with a narwhal tusk - before he was shot dead by police on London Bridge.
Ford, now 42, was jailed for life – with a minimum of 15 years – in April 2004 for the murder of a 21-year-old with learning difficulties. Amanda Champion – who had the mental age of a 15-year-old – was found strangled and with her throat cut on waste ground near her home in Ashford, Kent, the previous July.
Amanda's family had tried to block Ford's parole, and only found out he had been released from his sentence in a call from their police liaison officer after the attack on Friday, according to newspaper reports.
Whitehall sources confirmed that Ford – who had been serving the final days of his sentence at HMP Standford Hill, an open prison in Kent – was on London Bridge yesterday.
"[the] family had tried to block Ford's parole, and only found out he had been released from his sentence in a call from their police liaison officer after the attack on Friday"
Delete2. The National Probation Service (NPS)Victim Contact Service(VCS)
2.1 The purpose of the VCS is to keep victims of the most serious offences, where the offender has been made subject to a long prison sentence, or who has been made subject to an indefinite hospital order, informed of key stages of an offender’s sentence, and to be given the opportunity to request licence or discharge conditions on release.
2.2The NPS VCS arises from s.69 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, updated by ss.35-45 of the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act (DVCVA) 2004. Since April 2001, victims of murder, or a specified sexual or violent offence, where the sentence is 12 months or more imprisonment, have a statutory right to be offered contact by the NPS. This was extended to victims of offenders made subject to a restricted hospital order for a specified offence in the DVCVA 2004, and to victims of offenders made subject to an unrestricted hospital order under the Mental Health Act 2007. More information about the specified offences is at Annex A.
2.3 The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime published in October 2015 also sets out the requirements for the NPS, and in particular sets out the rights of victims who have a statutory right to the service, in respect of making a VPS to the Parole Board.
The Code can be found through the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-code-of-practice-for-victims-of-crime
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679684/Investigation-into-the-policy-and-process-followed-by-the-victim-contact-scheme-in-the-case-of-John-Worboys.pdf
DeleteConsiderations for the proposed wider review -
The VCS was conceived at a time when the needs of victims had come to the fore in the criminal justice system. Locating the scheme within the probation service was seen as a way of ensuring that the processes designed to manage offenders were informed by an understanding of the crime from the victims’ perspective.
The NPS have advised HMI Probation that they intend to amend guidance for VLOs. This will emphasise the need for clear and effective victim contact strategies whatever the outcome of the Parole Board’s decision. It will also highlight the risk of delaying contact with victims until it is too close to the parole hearing for them to make a VPS.
Nationally,40,000victims are managed by the VCS, with 4,000 in London. VLOs are not qualified probation officers, by and large. Many have high caseloads and all are managing emotionally demanding work.
The NPS has already committed to provide more training for VLOs and to improve the quality and consistency of correspondence. The NPS Victims’ Policy Team are working with the NPS national training team on a more comprehensive training package which will be available to all PSO staff commencing the VLO role. It is anticipated this training will be rolled out nationally from May 2018. There is to be a qualification which includes specific modules relating to victim work. This is an evidence based qualification which is available to all existing VLOs and is mandatory for all new Band 3 operational NPS staff. This qualification will ensure that staff working with victims have a specific qualification as recommended by the Victims Commissioner.
a more fundamental question remains about the most appropriate location for a service that keeps victims informed about the offender’s progression through their sentence. It was notable that the women we spoke to were, by and large, confused about the range of agencies involved with victims. For several, their police contact had been the most obvious potential source of information, and they turned therefore advice when the case made press headlines. Parole board decisions are particularly important to victims, whether or not they have opted-in to the scheme. Yet under the current arrangements, the NPS retains responsibility for liaison with opt-in victims. No one is responsible for approaching victims who have opted-out but who may now want to participate in relation to a parole hearing.
There will have been a number of former or current clients in the vicinity due to the nature of the event. A devastating blow to a very worthwhile charity:-
DeleteLearning Together Five Year Celebration Alumni Event
A day to celebrate, connect and collaborate.
You are warmly invited to join us for our Learning Together Network Alumni Event on:
Friday 29th November, 11.00 – 16.00 at Fishmongers’ Hall, London.
Everyone who has been involved in a Learning Together Partnership across the UK is invited to join us in celebrating 5 years of Learning Together.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2019/134/pdfs/ukia_20190134_en.pdf
DeleteImpact Assessment of the Parole Board Rules post-Warboys
Probably only available until 7pm tonight, BBC Wales Today report on i-player and featuring short but good clip by Napo Su McConnel. I'm sure this would have been edited down from a much longer interview, but that's how the media works unfortunately. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000bvw0/bbc-wales-today-late-news-29112019
ReplyDeleteMy heart goes out to the P.O. who was managing this case, it is our worst nightmare to have a high profile SFO, I hope management is supportive to you.
ReplyDeleteThere lies a conundrum.
DeleteHe's being supervised by probation, but he's also on tag being monitored by the private sector.
I would presume that because of the background to his imprisonment, and associated risk, it would have been a GPS tag? If not, why not?
It was highlighted earlier this year in the press, that many of those imprisoned for terrorist related offences were due to be released all around the same time. I think that's something anyone that finds themselves in the firing line should remember.
I've watched much of the governments response to the incident this morning, which in the large surrounds longer sentences and stopping early release on licence.
Personally I don't understand that approach. It seems to suggest that the offence could have been prevented if the perpetrator had of spent 12 years in prison opposed to 8 years.
It's easy to say if he'd still been in prison yesterday's incident would not have happened, but that dosen't negate him from committing a similar offence (or a worse offence) when he's eventually released.
Government policy on criminal justice will never by itself prevent offending, particularly if the offending is ideologically driven.
The Government need to be more honest about this and stop pretending that if you give them your vote, they'll fix all your criminal justice concerns.
Theres always going to be another SFO, there's always going to be those prepared to cause harm because of radical ideology, there's always going to be someone that reoffends.
All that those who work in the criminal justice system can do is the best they can to reduce the likelyhood of it happening. They don't have superpowers.
'Getafix
Whole life tariffs for terrorists would have prevented this from happening. Or the death penalty. As a country we can't afford to let terrorists off with short sentences. This may well be a turning point.
DeleteWell said getafix - succinct and includes points others - including me - missed,
DeleteSo, developing @12:37's thoughts... throw everyone who disagrees with you & strays from the direction of your moral compass into a giant oubliette under the Thames? Crossrail have all the equipment in situ ready to go...
DeleteBetter still: public hanging, firing squads, heads displayed on city walls - that'll teach 'em!!
F.F.S.
One man's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.
DeleteThe death penelty, not only fails to advance humanity, its only likely to create martyrdom for those who's crimes are motivated by political ideology, and inspire others to take up the fight on behalf of their state murdered brothers and sisters.
https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/london-bridge-attack-terror-tougher-sentences-police-probation-a9227271.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15751243061412&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fvoices%2Flondon-bridge-attack-terror-tougher-sentences-police-probation-a9227271.html
Delete'Getafix
A sad day for all. Prayers to the family and those affected
ReplyDeleteThat's the best comment today.
DeleteAnd so the blame game continues...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50615928
A row has erupted between the home secretary and a former government minister over the early release of the London Bridge attacker, Usman Khan.
Khan, who was released from prison on licence in December 2018, was shot dead by police during Friday's attack.
Labour's Yvette Cooper said the government were "warned about the risks" of ending Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP).
But Priti Patel blamed legislation brought in by Labour in 2008.
The IPP regime, which was brought in by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett to protect the public from dangerous prisoners, was scrapped by the coalition government in 2012.
In a series of tweets, Ms Cooper, shadow home secretary from 2011-2015, said the government was "warned" about the risks of ending IPPs citing a "lack of resources for probation, monitoring and rehabilitation".
The home secretary responded to Ms Cooper on Twitter, saying the law was changed "to end Labour's automatic release policy".
Ms Patel added that Khan was convicted before the Labour legislation was changed by the Tories in 2012.
Mr Johnson said: "I've said for a long time now, that I think the practice of automatic, early release where we cut a sentence in half and let really serious and violent offenders out early, simply isn't working.
"And I think you've had some very good evidence of how that isn't working, I'm afraid, with this case," he added.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said there were questions to be answered.
"I think there is also a question about what the Probation Office were doing - were they involved at all?
"Whether the Parole Board should have been involved in deciding whether or not he should have been allowed to be released from prison in the first place, and also what happened in prison?"
The Parole Board said it had no involvement in the 28-year-old's release, saying Khan "appears to have been released automatically on licence (as required by law)".
Ms Patel backed up the Parole Board's comments, with a tweet claiming they "could not be involved" in the decision to release Khan because of Labour's change to the law in 2008.
In 2012, Khan was sentenced to indeterminate detention for "public protection" with a minimum jail term of eight years after being convicted for his part in a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange.
This sentence would have allowed him to be kept in prison beyond the minimum term.
But in 2013, the Court of Appeal quashed the sentence, replacing it with a 16-year-fixed term of which Khan should serve half in prison. He was released on licence in December 2018.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50615926
DeleteOne of the people stabbed to death in Friday's attack at London Bridge has been named.
He was one of two people killed when 28-year-old Usman Khan launched the attack at a Cambridge University conference on prisoner rehabilitation.
Mr Merritt was a course coordinator for Learning Together, a prisoners' rehabilitation programme that was hosting the conference at Fishmongers' Hall at the north end of London Bridge.
__________________________________________________
Was the victim a random target?
***** a course coordinator for a prisoners' rehabilitation programme *****
Joshua Rozenburg's interview with Jack Merritt
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00035vj
Meantime Bozo the Clown continues to game the media & exploit tragedy courtesy of his powerful rich chums in the Beeb's hierarchy:
ReplyDelete- Boris Johnson will be interviewed on Sunday's Andrew Marr Show as it is in "the public interest" following the London Bridge attack, the BBC says.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50615808
This will be WITHOUT having to agree to be interviewed by Andrew Neil, as was the previous condition of his Marr appearance.
Interesting read: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/11/30/10-thing-you-should-know-about-the-london-bridge-attacker-and-early-release/
ReplyDeleteNot only is it interesting, its ESSENTIAL reading.
DeleteIt exposes the politically motivated lies, and the hypocrisy & folly of politically expeditious lawmaking.
Right on cue...
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50618744
"An urgent review of the licence conditions of people jailed for terror offences has been launched by the Ministry of Justice following Friday's London Bridge attack."
And just to prove he's making political hay ...
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-50619811
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr has now begun... He tells Andrew Marr this why a Conservative government would change the law... He blames the previous Labour government for the "automatic early release scheme" under which Khan was freed...