Thursday 30 April 2020

Coronavirus and Criminal Justice

We all know coronavirus is changing everything and yesterday the Institute for Government published a report on what they think might be the effect on the criminal justice system. As with so much other high-level thinking, I'm always amazed how probation hardly gets a mention. How can this be? 

The criminal justice system
How government reforms and coronavirus will affect policing, courts and prisons

The UK criminal justice system is facing unprecedented court case backlogs and record prisoner numbers.

These joint pressures will be the result of delays to court hearings caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and the government’s plan to recruit an extra 20,000 police officers leading to an increase in the number of people facing criminal charges.

Published in partnership with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, this report calculates that the prison population could rise to up to 90,000 – its highest-ever level – and possibly over 95,000 by 2023/24.

Prisons in England and Wales are already close to capacity, with cases of violence and self-harm increasing sharply over the last decade. The government’s pledge to provide 10,000 additional prison places is unlikely to be ready to meet the predicted rise in prisoner numbers, while an extra £250m a year of spending would be required just to maintain current levels of performance in prisons.

At the same time, the coronavirus lockdown has seen courtrooms closed for all but a small number of priority cases and jury trials are suspended altogether. This research shows that waiting times to hear cases could increase by more than 70% in the event of a six-month lockdown, with many defendants and victims forced to wait more than half a year for trials in the crown court.

This would result in the highest average waiting time ever recorded. To resolve this case backlog, the report calculates that the government would need to spend an extra £55m–110m a year for two years to run the necessary extra trials.

Summary

The police, criminal courts and prisons have been subject to deep spending cuts over the last 10 years and some aspects of performance have subsequently declined. The Boris Johnson government has promised more money, but its plan to increase the number of police officers by 20,000 will put pressure on other criminal justice services: more officers will likely require the courts to process more cases, and the almost-full prisons of England and Wales to house more criminals. 

On top of this, the criminal justice system will now have to manage the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Some prisoners are being released early and guidance on police charging decisions has already been updated. Most starkly though, the crisis had led to an unprecedented restriction on the courts’ ability to process cases. Without subsequent additional spending, there will be bigger case backlogs – and therefore delayed justice – indefinitely. 

The spending review planned for this year has been delayed. But when it comes, policy commitments such as more police officers, combined with the effects of coronavirus, mean the government will need to provide substantial extra spending for courts and prisons if it wishes to deliver on its manifesto promise of ‘world class public services’. 

The impact of planned government policy on courts and prisons 

The government’s criminal justice reforms, most significantly the plan to increase the number of police officers by 20,000, will place substantial pressure on the rest of the criminal justice system. 

The scale of the impact will depend on how this increase in police officers affects the number of cases charged by police. Over the last few years, the number of charges per officer has fallen. This fall has been attributed to an increase in the volume and complexity of digital evidence; an increase in the severity of crimes; a fall in the capacity of the Crown Prosecution Service, which makes charging decisions alongside the police; and an increase in ‘non-crime’ demands on police time, such as mental health incidents.
In this report we model three scenarios for how police charging will evolve over the next few years, each of which has different implications for courts and prisons. Our main findings are: 
  • In our ‘low demand’ scenario, charges per officer continue to fall at the same rate as they have since 2010. Under this scenario, the additional police officers would create little additional work for the courts and prisons – overall charges, and therefore court cases and the prison population, would be stable over the next four years. However, this would likely mean public and government disappointment at police performance, given the money spent. 
  • In our ‘central demand’ and ‘high demand’ scenarios (in which charges per officer are stable and rise again, respectively), charges would increase. Both these scenarios imply a bigger impact for the crown court than for magistrates’ courts. The number of cases received each year by the crown court would – by 2023/24 – surpass 2016/17 levels under our central scenario. In our high demand scenario, cases received would rise close to their highest level since the turn of century.* 
  • In both our ‘central demand’ and ‘high demand’ scenarios, the prison population would increase to its highest ever level – reaching over 95,000 by 2023/24 in the high demand scenario – and well beyond planned prison capacity. In both scenarios, a higher proportion of prisoners would be short term (that is, serving sentences of less than 12 months). Prisoners are more burdensome to look after when they first enter prison, so this would increase pressure on prison officers even further. 
The impact of coronavirus 

On top of existing government policies such as the 20,000 extra police officers pledge, the criminal justice system must now also handle the impact of coronavirus. 

It is already having an impact. The volume of recorded crime has fallen due to coronavirus and officers’ time has been partially diverted from investigating crimes to enforcing the government’s lockdown. The police workforce has also been diminished due to large numbers of officers taking sick leave or having to self-isolate. As a result, the number of crimes charged could fall substantially. But the ability of courts to hear cases is likely to fall even more dramatically as courtrooms are closed for all but a small number of priority cases, and jury trials have been suspended altogether. 

In this report we model alternative scenarios for the impact of coronavirus on the police and courts, to show how the criminal justice system could be affected: 
  • Police – charging volumes fall by 0%, 20% or 40% for three or six months. 
  • Magistrates’ courts – the volume of less serious, easy-to-process cases** falls by 25%, and other cases fall by 50%, 65% or 80% for three or six months.
  • The crown court – the volume of jury trials falls by 100% in April, and then by 70%, 85% or 100%, and non-jury trial cases fall by the same rate as magistrates’ cases, for three or six months. 
Our scenarios show that coronavirus could create a major backlog of cases. If the shutdown of courts lasts for six months, our central projection is that waiting times would increase by 60% in the crown court (from an average of 18 weeks to 29 weeks) and stay that long indefinitely without further action. 

The government could try to conduct more hearings via video or over the phone. However, there are concerns that virtual courts, where defendants are not in the same room as the magistrates, judges and juries presiding over their cases, could result in unfair treatment. Justice delayed is preferable to justice denied, and the government should instead focus on reducing the backlog once the coronavirus crisis is over. If the government provided additional funding to enable the criminal courts to increase the number of cases processed back towards levels seen in 2015, waiting times could be cut back to pre-crisis levels within two years of the crisis ending. 

The pressure on prisons from coronavirus is quite different. A fall in court cases will lead to the prison population being smaller in the short term (by around 15% if the court shutdown lasts for six months), implying spare capacity. But there is also a high risk of the virus spreading in prisons, and prisons are under pressure as up to 25% of staff are on sick leave or self-isolating. As a result, the government is taking steps to further reduce the density of the prison population by releasing prisoners early. As the turnover of the prison population is quite high, any reduction in prison population will not last for long, especially if the courts take action to remedy the backlog. 

Implications for government spending 

Our analysis shows that the government will need to spend more on courts and prisons if it wishes to maintain their performance in the wake of the coronavirus crisis, and as the impact of policy changes such as additional police officers is felt. 

The pandemic has meant that the government’s spending review, which was due to set out government spending plans for the next three years, has been delayed. When the spending review happens, perhaps in 2021, the government needs to set out a plan for the criminal justice system as a whole – recognising the knock-on effects of each part of the system on the rest. 

It will also need to account for the impact of the decisions taken over the last 10 years, when spending on the police, criminal courts and prisons was cut faster than demand for any of these services fell. In the courts, an initial increase in backlogs and waiting times has been reversed in the last few years. 

But in prisons, levels of violence, poor prisoner behaviour and self-harm have increased rapidly. This means that the criminal justice system is entering this next phase in a weak position – even maintaining existing service standards will be difficult.

The spending envelope for public services that was set out by the chancellor Rishi Sunak at the budget in March 2020 implied much more generous spending settlements over the next few years for unprotected services – that is, those outside of health, schools, defence and overseas aid – than they have received since 2010. Based on those figures, we would expect spending on courts and prisons to increase by 10.5% in real terms between 2019/20 and 2023/24. 

Taking into account increases in demand and cost pressures from wage increases over the next few years, these settlements might just be enough (in the medium term) to maintain the performance of courts and prisons in our central demand scenario, if small efficiencies are made. However, in our high demand scenario, we estimate that the government would need to devote an additional £372m a year to the criminal courts and prisons by 2023/24 to avoid standards slipping. 

The government must also pay attention to the physical and human assets of the criminal justice system. Additional investment is needed in prisons to ensure there are enough places for growing numbers of prisoners. The government has pledged to build 10,000 additional prison places, but these are unlikely to be ready quickly enough to house the expected numbers of new prisoners – and previous governments have struggled to build prisons as quickly as planned. Recruiting enough police officers, judges, court staff and prison officers may also prove difficult, especially as the police and prisons may be fishing in a similar pool of applicants. 

Finally, to address the court backlog that will be generated during the coronavirus crisis, we estimate that the government will need to devote additional spending to the criminal courts for up to two years after the crisis: £55m–£110m per year for two years would be sufficient to clear the backlog in our central scenario and return waiting times to 2019/20 levels. This funding would need to be agreed outside of the spending review process if the government wishes to start reducing the backlog in this financial year.

The whole report can be found here.

41 comments:

  1. Lucy Fraser: "The new modelling shows that reducing the prison population by 5,000 could be effective in limiting the spread of the virus. Thanks to wide measures taken, the population has already reduced by almost 3,000 over a seven-week period."

    Buckland on R4 Today programme: "I did talk about a potential number of four thousand prisoners under the early release scheme, so far we've onnly released about forty"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At about 08:21 on Today programme 30/4/20, BBC Sounds player

      Delete
    2. "... there is also a high risk of the virus spreading in prisons, and prisons are under pressure as up to 25% of staff are on sick leave or self-isolating. As a result, the government is taking steps to further reduce the density of the prison population by releasing prisoners early."

      So 40 out of 82,000 = 0.0005% of the prison population released early. That should do it!!

      Delete
  2. Some advice regarding the Tory Scum Weasels:

    Don't believe a word
    Words can tell lies
    And lies are no comfort
    When there's tears in your eyes

    Philip Parris Lynott

    ReplyDelete
  3. It defies belief that Probation was not a consideration in this report, whatever scenario plays out, we are a vital component in the CJS, and the impact on our caseload and ability to manage should have been assessed. What about the extra staff we might need, what about calculating and ensuring budgets for our wages, what about assessing the impact on us of court report writting, breaches, etc. Unbelievable that we are expected to prop the whole system up and are held accountable when things go wrong, but are seldom a consideration unless it is about scrutinising and apportioning blame. Why aren't our leaders shouting out and insisting that we as a profession be shown the respect we deserve for the role we play within the CJS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probation never has been regarded as worthy of consideration as part of the justice system ever since it was swallowed up by government - except when politicians believed they could further their careers: "We are a law enforcement agency. It is who we are. It is what we do."

      By contrast the original name under consideration would have had the acronym CRAP (the community rehabilitation and punishment service), which spoke volumes for the lack of respect people had for the probation service. Oh how they laughed!

      And you are right, 09:50 - Probation has always been the the scapegoat, the patsy. The soft liberal pinko hoodie-huggers who deserve to be lambasted when anything goes wrong. They have no balls. They are apologists for the criminal community.

      Probation Service was - quite rightly in my view - an invisible force for good for a very long time. It was very rare that a probation officer from the 'old school' would dream of being a braggard or indulging in self-promotion about the work they did. It was simply 'the job'. Dealing with people, for whatever reason they were sitting there, with compassion, respect & humanity. That did involve challenging & testing them. That did involve upsetting & pushing them to engage. But it also involved taking the risk to treat them fairly, to model reasonable behaviour.

      The Probation Service was mortally wounded when it was annexed by the political classes and placed at the mercy of the power-hungry civil service. The upper echelons of the command-and-control prison service, egged on by senior civil servants & career politicians, have simply played with the Probation Service like a feral cat with a fledgling.

      Over the ensuing years they have populated the 'probation' world with career managers, opportunists, profiteers and civil servants.

      Those who have scrambled to the top are not concerned about Probation Service values, do not hold Probation Service values nor would they recognise them if they were injected into their scaly eyes.

      They've more in common with survivalists & preppers - looking after their own needs, making sure they are okay, filling their bank accounts, keeping well away from danger.

      Its heartbreaking. But its real.

      They would say "It is what it is"

      What is it? Its a stinking pile of corrupt, fake bullshit. And it aint going to change for some time to come because they've got their lambswool slippers tucked right under that fat-cat table. They're not going to give their cashcow away to anyone. You can get pretty darn comfy on £100,000+ a year.

      Delete
    2. Well said 11.05 - but 11.39 - it probably began long before 2014 and incrementally maybe since 1991 CJA and the Probation Order lost it's status as a discharge & became a sentence and that probably began from the centralisation that started under Leon Britain in 1984 with his Statement of National Objectives and Priorities - until then Probation Services (always plural - even to this day if you consider the CRCs are a probation service) were local agencies of the local courts overseen by an inspectorate with the only authority of government (apart from in Inner london) being the final approval of the appointment of a Chief Probation Officer - obviously all within the statutory law of the land.

      Delete
  4. Coronavirus has impacted on the justice system massively. It's caused very significant and very particular problems, but I think it's also shined a light on just how broken the justice system has become.
    Coronavirus will be blamed for much of the ailments being shown within the justice system today, but it's not Coronavirus thats responsible. Its years of austerity, cutbacks,
    mismanagement and complete and wanton neglect that are the real culprits.
    The old saying "buy cheap, buy twice" has never been so true.
    Grayling (currently in hibernation) can of course be seen all over the place at the moment. He introduced the savage cuts to legal aid, whilst at the same time closing down court houses causing backlogs of cases and logistical chaos. He also closed prisons without there being the available capacity to absorb those lost places, meaning overcrowding became a far more significant problem then it already was. And just to put the cherry on top he slashed the number of prison officers to a level where prisons could hardly operate.
    I also see the current logjam being seen by the courts only becoming much worse as lockdown is relaxed. There must be a huge amount of disputes growing that will need resolution as lockdown ends. Unpaid suppliers taking action to recover monies owed. Landlords trying to recover unpaid rents and tennents fighting eviction orders. Banks chasing landlords for missed mortgage payments. The number of issues caused by Coronavirus and lockdown that require some form of legal resolution I think could be emense adding considerable pressure to the already heavily overloaded courts.
    And as for probation hardly getting a mention? Why would it? Its a pretty confused service in today's world. Ask any number of the general public what probations there for and their likely to all give different answers. Indeed ask any number of probation service workers and you're just as likely to get just as many varied and conflicting answers.
    Those in the criminal justice ivory towers see probation now as a subsidiary or an extention of the prison service and not a seperate entity in its own right. Its a service that's just fading away or being morphed into some obscure relationship with other parts of the CJS.
    The Union are often blamed for not raising the probation profile, and I think blame is deserved. But the workforce needs to get on board too.
    Yesterday's guest blog gave a great opertuity for people to comment and discuss the intrinsic value probation offers to the justice system in its own right, what it offers and can achieve as an individual and independent organisation that's different and seperate from other parts of the CJS.
    Sadly, that opertuity was largely passed up.
    If those who work within the service itself don't want to talk about probation, they why should others be expected to?

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much also depends on what folks want to say.

      No surprise that Jim will want to ensure the 11:45 from Todmorden to Denby Dale leaves platform 1 on time rather than read some of the unpleasantness that's been posted here at times.

      Delete
    2. Anon 11:34 I think you are confusing 'unpleasantness' with boring, moronic, and deliberately inflammatory contributions. Sarcasm, wit, differences of opinion, view, taste and fact or all completely acceptable. Rudeness is borderline and will depend upon context and degree of skilfull execution, but it's not an attractive trait and I was dissuaded from it at an early age.

      Delete
  5. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/30/uk-prison-officers-punching-inmates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prison officers are allegedly punching compliant inmates who they suspect might misbehave in the future in a practice known as “preventive strikes”, a European human rights watchdog has said in a damning report on the state of jails in England.

      A delegation from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), part of the human rights organisation the Council of Europe, inspected three local male prisons – Liverpool, Wormwood Scrubs in west London and Doncaster – in May last year.

      In its report, the committee highlights a “new and deeply concerning” finding of unjustified violence by staff on prisoners – particularly in Liverpool and Wormwood Scrubs – in the form of preventive strikes, described as “preventively punching compliant prisoners whom staff perceived might, at some point in the future, become a threat”.

      The committee has called on UK authorities to ban the “reprehensible practice” immediately and undertake an investigation into all allegations of ill-treatment.

      More broadly, the committee said that despite some progress since its last inspection in 2016, the prison system in England was in “deep crisis”, finding the jails visited to be “violent, unsafe and overcrowded”, echoing the repeated findings of the chief inspector of prisons in England and Wales, Peter Clarke.

      The Ministry of Justice said it was lawful for staff to use reasonable force to defend themselves against imminent threats to their personal safety but any inappropriate use of force would be subject to disciplinary proceedings and potentially criminal investigation.

      The delegation said use-of-force paperwork at Liverpool prison produced by prison staff could be inaccurate and misleading, and identified multiple cases, in which there could have been instances of unprovoked attacks by prison staff on inmates being qualified as “preventive / protective strikes”.

      These included cases in which prisoners had apparently sustained injuries after direct contact with prison officers and had made complaints about ill-treatment, the report said.

      The committee interviewed the use-of-force coordinator at Liverpool prison who confirmed that, in his view, it was legitimate for staff to use “preventive” strikes against a compliant prisoner if, based on previous knowledge of the inmate, they anticipated that he might pose a threat.

      At Liverpool prison, the committee noted a case in which a prison officer was contesting his sacking for launching an unprovoked attack on a prisoner on the grounds that his actions constituted a legitimate “preventive strike”.

      It emerged that staff at Liverpool prison were following official 2015 guidance on “pre-emptive strikes” that states: “There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be attacked before they can defend themselves.”

      However, further inquiries established the guidance was ultimately derived from Crown Prosecution Service general guidance, which leans upon a case decided in 1909.

      The report said: “In the view of the CPT, the guidance currently provided to prison officers is inadequate and leaves the impression that an entirely subjective apprehension might provide a justification for making an otherwise entirely unprovoked attack on a prisoner.

      “The CPT notes that the 2015 guidance is due to expire in early November 2019 and recommends that it be replaced with new guidance that makes clear to prison officers that engaging in so-called ‘preventive strikes’ on prisoners is unlawful and that any officer who is found to have engaged in this practice will be subject to appropriate disciplinary and/or criminal sanctions.”

      Across the prisons, the committee found that prisoner-on-prisoner violence, prisoner-on-staff assaults and staff-on-prisoner violence had reached “record highs” and found that none of the establishments could be considered safe.

      The report raised concerns over “alarmingly high levels” of drug use in the prisons, as well as high numbers of prisoners suffering from mental health disorders.

      Delete
    2. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “This government has made its commitment to safe, secure and decent prisons very clear.

      “That’s why we are creating 10,000 new places and investing in new security measures to tackle the drugs and contraband that undermine safety.

      “Our hard-working staff receive world-class training and are held to high professional standards of behaviour, including the need to justify any use of physical force.”

      Delete
  6. Telegraph.

    Matt Hancock is set to miss his 100,000-a-day coronavirus testing target today, a minister has admitted.

    The Health Secretary set the ambitious target earlier this month in order to help Britain track cases, particularly for when lockdown lifts.

    This morning Robert Buckland, the Justice Secretary, indicated Mr Hancock was set to miss the target. He said: "Even if it isn't met we are well on our way to ramping this up and 100,000 is an important milestone, but frankly we need more.”

    He said if Mr Hancock hadn't set a bold figure he would have been "criticised for being unambitious".

    “Yes, 52,000 isn’t 100,000, I know that... but we are straining every sinew to get there," he said. "I think now is the time in respect of this to be bold... being brave is something we should acknowledge even if the target isn’t met today.”

    But Mr Buckland also admitted his frustration, saying: "I think it's right of me to be direct with you about the frustrations that I and the Government have, but look at the collective work that's being done by the country, by the care workers, by the NHS, by everybody who's playing their part in staying at home and saving lives and that really is a testament to the British spirit. "

    Hancock will bemoan the loss of his £100 bet when the question is raised at the daily briefing.
    He made the bet specifically as a prop to diffuse criticism when asked about his failure to deliver. He knew weeks ago 100,000 tests a day was unachievable so why not just be honest with the public?

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ifsecglobal.com/security/how-the-prison-service-is-responding-to-covid-19/amp/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rarely has the Law of Unintended Consequences been so graphically demonstrated than in the case of prisoners in ‘lockdown’, in itself a grim custodial term for indefinite confinement of inmates in their cells under sanction. It is those consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic – in particular, the ‘Coronavirus Restricted Temporary Release’ proposals for prisoners – that are currently challenging the resourcefulness of the UK’s custodial professionals: the Ministry of Justice, Prison Officers, Probation Officers and the wider community support services.

      Having, then, sifted the very latest reports from these sectors, we intend our overview here to be a brief analysis of the prison service’s very latest responses to the Covid-19 dilemma, with emphasis on practical solutions advanced by informed insiders.

      Current status of Custody Temporary Release

      Latest figures indicate that 300 prisoners have tested positive for COVID-19 across 69 prisons and 237 prison staff have tested positive across 57 prisons, while 10 Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) staff have tested positive. On 4 April, the Government announced that up to 4,000 risk-assessed prisoners who are within two months of their release date will be temporarily released from jail under the ECTR Scheme (End of Custody Temporary Release on licence) within statutory criteria set out in augmented Rule 9A of the Prison Rules 1999. The selected low-risk offenders are to be electronically tagged and released in stages, although their recall is subject to breaches of licence. The ECTR process is voluntary. If a prisoner does not wish to be released in this manner, they may remain in prison.

      Foremost, prison staff are directed to ensure a “Risk Screening Check” is undertaken for ECTR prisoners, which includes a healthcare check to determine that their release can be safely managed (both for themselves and others in whose charge they are placed). All prisoners must be examined by a healthcare practitioner during the 24 hours prior to discharge.

      Measures to mitigate prison overcrowding in response to COVID-19

      There has been much criticism of prison overcrowding from UK media commentators, with assertions that in this pandemic “one-to-a-cell” self-isolation could be achievable for prisoners only following an extreme reduction of the prison population by up to 15,000 prisoners.

      The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) countered such claims with this statement on April 9: “Across the estate, prisons are moving towards single-cell accommodation, as much as possible, to limit the spread of infection and the number of deaths.” From the date of this announcement, it’s stated: “Work to expand the prison estate” would commence “by installing the first of 500 temporary, single occupancy cells . . . only lower-risk category C and D prisoners will be held in the temporary units, following careful risk assessment.”

      To ease pressure on jails, the first wave of sites has been chosen “because they have the highest number of shared cells, lack in-cell sanitation and house high numbers of vulnerable prisoners.” In addition, the MoJ states it is working with the judiciary to expedite sentencing hearings for those on remand to reduce the numbers being held in custody.

      On 28 April, HMPPS announced it is containing the spread of COVID-19 within jails using an approach known as ‘compartmentalisation’. Through this approach, staff have isolated those with symptoms, and many prisons have been able to shield the vulnerable and quarantine new arrivals. Thanks to wide measures taken since March, states HMPPS, the prison population has already reduced by almost 3,000 over a seven-week period.

      Delete
    2. On the wireless today as posted above:

      Buckland on R4 Today programme: "I did talk about a potential number of four thousand prisoners under the early release scheme, so far we've only released about forty"

      40. Just 40 prisoners under the early release scheme.

      So the 2,960 others were automatic or scheduled releases.

      "Thanks to wide measures taken since March, states HMPPS, the prison population has already reduced by almost 3,000 over a seven-week period." BULLSHIT.

      Delete
    3. How many out of the 40 have had recall initiated?

      Delete
  8. Just heard some Tory trout muttering on the wireless about Hancock's 100,000 tests-a-day being "an ambition, a means to chivvy along the process. it was never a written-in-stone target that had to be met."

    They make this shit up on the hoof every single fucking day. And no-one calls them out on it. Not at the press briefings. Nowhere. They're just being allowed to take the piss out of the nation with impunity.

    Its like some grotesque gothic tale where everyone is locked in a dreamlike trance, aware of the horrors & obscenities unfolding before us; helplessly watching the perpetrators laughing and making merry while bodies pile up & we're unable to respond or fight back.

    They're just wealthy bullies.

    They're not invincible.

    And they need to be taken down.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your right the fattened oaf like mouthpiece bojo clown stammering out shit but says nothing but platitudes sucking up to UK but needs a set of page noted to do it . UK is going to have the worst death rate after trump's mismanagement and Johnson cannot recognise it's his responsibility .

    ReplyDelete
  10. The worst thing about Probation, the CJS and Coronavirus is that the probation staff have been expected to put themselves at risk for peanuts. Currently all staff and managers are chirpy because of bonus payments. This amounts to £150 per month or £37.50 every week. That is £37.50 every week for those of us that put ourselves at risk of death doing “offender facing work in the office from 23rd March 2030”.

    Thanks probation, you’ve really looked after us.

    Senior Managers are receiving £1500 every month for working from home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have recently had to make an assessment on releasing a a HR shielding sex offender. If they contract the virus and die in the community or in custody I will have to live with that. I would rather not have to make such decisions and £37.50 is an insult.

      Delete
  11. May Day message from the TUC

    An open letter from the TUC and General Secretaries of affiliated unions, including Napo's GS, Ian Lawrence, will be posted as a full page advertisement in the Mirror and several regional titles (Manchester Evening News, Liverpool Echo Birmingham Mail and Bristol Post) on May Day (tomorrow). The letter reads

    This year we can’t be all together on May Day – the day to recognise the contribution of working people.

    This crisis shows us how much we depend on frontline workers in our NHS, care, schools, supermarkets, transport and other essential services. They are the best of us. And we say thank you.

    But as we clap and cheer, this country should also do more. Everyone who’s kept Britain going deserves a pay rise. It’s time to ban the zero-hours contracts and bogus self-employment that leave carers, shop workers and delivery drivers struggling. Everyone must get decent sick pay. That’s how the government should thank working families.

    And ministers must make a promise to them too. When this crisis is over, we can’t go back to business as usual. We need a new deal for working people. Jobs for everyone, decent pay, a strong safety net, fair terms and conditions.Tough times are still ahead. That’s when you need your union to have your back.

    So, we say to the working people of Britain: join a union today. Tell your children and grandchildren, your workmates and neighbours. Search “join a union”.

    Frances O’Grady, TUC General Secretary, said: “While we can’t mark May Day as we usually would, I hope this message will show the trade union movement’s unity on the ever pressing need for a new deal for working people”.

    Napo Head Office

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's looking like the government will announce today that they have keep their promise and delivered 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month.
    That's not spin. It's total BS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It'll be about as accurate & honest as the UK bodycount; or as believable as this Liar-in-Chief:

      "US President Donald Trump claims to have seen evidence that coronavirus originated at a Chinese research laboratory.

      Asked what the evidence was that gave him a "high degree of confidence" the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he said: "I can't tell you that. I'm not allowed to tell you that."

      Delete
    2. I presume Trump's pronouncement is just another bit of PR (public relations) deception and distraction strategy for us to argue about instead of learning the reality of the way western societies are mostly governed and manipulated by those with power in or over the media.

      Delete
  13. News story

    The Secretary of State has appointed four new Commissioners to the Gambling Commission.

    One of the appointees is...

    Sir Martin Narey

    Sir Martin Narey became Director General (Chief Executive) of the Prison Service (England and Wales) in 1998 and led prisons for seven years and prisons and the probation service for three. He was the recipient of The UK Chartered Institute of Management’s annual Gold Medal for Leadership. He was the first public sector recipient of this single annual award for ten years. He resigned from the Civil Service in 2005 to become Chief Executive of Barnardo’s. He has subsequently advised the government about children’s social care and has published a number of reports about the care system. He is Chair of My Foster Family; Chair Designate of The Sage (a music venue on Tyneside) and a NED on the board of Unilink Ltd. He is a visiting Professor at a number of Universities.

    These roles are remunerated at £295 per day. 

    Revolving doors?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Andrew at 10:51: Don’t be fooled by Trumps baloney. He is simply a figurehead for a cabal of right wing Christian fundamentalists who are happy for him to act as their mouthpiece while they lurk in the shadows.
    They are pointing the finger at China as the prelude to a protectionist trade war and will whip up a fervour of patriotism and ‘buy American,’ in order to try to kickstart the economy.
    Unfortunately, such actions can have disastrous consequences, particularly when put forward by the land of the free and the loudest proclaimers of free market capitalism.
    Politics and economics go hand in hand in the big top and various clowns are merely a sideshow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Anon at 12:12 that is how I see it as well.

      Delete
  15. One of the issues I have with some of the people who post on here (and 09.14 is an example), is they put their political ideology ahead of wanting the best outcomes for our country. Reaching 100,000 tests per day is excellent news, yet a lot of people on here will have been hoping that target wasn't achieved, just to use it as a stick to beat the government with. Don't get me wrong, it's clearly taken far too long to reach that point. But I think it's sad that some people hope for worse outcomes just to score some political points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 15:36 Then put forward some reasoned arguments to facilitate discussion and debate. I only delete rubbish and trolling. Eventually those who find the blog boring will piss off and moderation can be turned off.

      Delete
  16. I posted at 15.26 and I can assure 15.43 that I'm no Tory goon. I have no political preferences whatsoever. I just want what's best for our country and for the people who live here. We need to put political differences to one side to beat our common enemy, i.e. the virus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annon@16:15

      I'm annon@ 09:14. My comment has nothing to do with political ideology or not wanting the best for the country.
      I simply don't believe that 100,000 tests a day have been reached.
      It's really not becoming to pick a comment, embellish it with assumption and then complain.

      Delete
  17. Oh crikey, 100,000 tests target met! Much to 1615's dismay I'm going to be distrustful of the Trumpian political acjievement. The govt has changed the way they take the data. But more importantly, and its been said often by eminent minds, the testing target is pointless in so many ways. Its merely a political device, a mechanism to shore up the political party. Its not indicative of whats best for the country. It is indicative of the circus, the smoke-and-mirrors, the manipulation of the people.

    The stats, the status & designation of PPE, the graphs, the priority of social care, the nature of the tests - all massaged to suit the govt's narrative. Deaths are in excess of 30,000 but they won't say that.

    If they were doing an ok job but were honest, I wouldn't mind. But they're trying to claim they're doing a great job by lying.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Posting a testing kit to an applicant is NOT equivalent to carrying out a test in the community. But that's how they've changed the count since opening the website. They might well have ***issued*** 122,000+ tests, but that does not mean those tests have been carried out.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Latest from NAPO.

    Rumour has it there has been an outbreak at the crown court and they have acted at last. is it too little, too late?
    Home › Covid-19 Bulletin 17 – 1 May 2020
    Covid-19 Bulletin 17 – 1 May 2020
    Share this



    Urgent action in Merseyside

    Local reps, working with national officers, have secured urgent action in Merseyside in response to grave concerns about health and safety and the ability of members to maintain social distancing on the Court workplace. Thanks to their efforts a deep clean has been carried out during a temporary closure and new measures put in place to minimise numbers in the workplace and maintain social distancing. Napo members continue to work in difficult circumstances and the position of the union remains that, apart from in Approved Premises, social distancing must be maintained at all times in the workplace. Your union is here to help, please contact your local reps for advice and support.

    Unions press Minister to extend Government Life Assurance Scheme for Probation staff and investigate impact of Covid19 on Black/BAME staff

    Napo, UNISON and GMB have written to the Justice Minister Lucy Frazer to request that the Government’s £60,000 life assurance payment to the families/dependents of deceased NHS/Social Care workers as a result of Coronavirus, be extended to cover Probation staff.

    Official information supplied to the Unions indicates that so far, 5 probation staff have died (2 CRC staff, 1 NPS member of staff, 1 agency worker and 1 private contractor employee). In our letter to the Minister we have pointed out that from a total probation workforce of 18,000 this is a high ratio of deaths to total employee numbers and is a matter of considerable concern. Moreover, we have pointed out that Probation work is also unique in the combination of close face-to-face contact with service users and intense work undertaken in the residential settings of prison and approved premises, with a very high proportion of the workforce recognised as ‘front line.’

    Napo and our sister unions are seeking to establish the number of Black/BAME staff as a proportion of those probation staff who have tragically died in service. We have been reassured that the absence of this data is now being rectified and once it is received the unions will be looking to work with HMPPS to urgently review what measures might be necessary to protect Black/BAME staff should the data indicate a disproportionate impact of Covid19 on the mortality of these workers.

    Further talks, If you or any member of staff you know is isolating in an abusive relationship please seek help immediately. You can call the national help line on 0808 2000 247 for advice. If you are in danger and cannot speak you can call 999 then press 55. This will alert the police and they will come to your home. Alternatively you could contact Napo via tbassett@napo.org.uk.

    Napo members anger at inadequate NPS Special Payments Scheme

    Napo has made it repeatedly clear that we have not agreed to the terms of the above scheme. Principally, this is because it fails to adequately remunerate staff and is insufficiently inclusive. Nevertheless, the HQ team and Officers have been working very hard to answer lots of queries about the scheme. We have repeatedly raised these with HMPPS and at yesterday’s TU Engagement meeting we did so again. As a result there is to be further review by senior HMMP management to try and arrive at a consistent approach. The unions have made our concerns very clear in advance of that review and hope that these will be taken on board. We will share any feedback as soon as we have it.

    TUCG May Day Booklet

    Napo are among the contributors to this excellent booklet commemorating May Day and the vital contributions that trade union members make to the running of the UK and the well-being of its citizens etc. DOWNLOAD PDF


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again, a la Dino & Napo SW, "local reps" in Merseyside have secured action - well done to them.

      National officers will once again have crashed someone else's wave so they can claim it as their success.

      Members - despite the demands, pressing & seeking of National Napo don't be surprised if the £60K payment doesn't reach probation staff; don't be surprised if BAME staff are not supported by employers or the government; don't be surprised if nothing happened over the special payments scheme.

      I think we have to accept its NOT a Napo thing per se; its a how-seriously-do-you-take-who-is-dealing-with-it thing.

      As far as I can see *any & every* positive outcome of a dispute/complaint/challenge etc has been instigated, led & realised by local reps, with national staff piggy-backing their achievement.

      Delete
    2. Napo, UNISON and GMB have written to the Justice Minister Lucy Frazer to request that the Government’s £60,000 life assurance payment to the families/dependents of deceased NHS/Social Care workers as a result of Coronavirus, be extended to cover Probation staff.

      Why? I don't see po grade ace or leaders not any pso stood at lengthy shift overnight vigils nursing caring and turning the unconscious in turmoil hanging onto life. None in probation remove fluids mop brows or pass food and sugars glucose and inject life saving drips. Administer drugs and oxygen . Comfort hold hands of passing infected dying souls. Make comfortable those in dire need and see them soothe them help back to life. Napo and other unions how foolish you diminish the value of the true NHS intensive care heroes . You must be ashamed.

      Delete
    3. Local reps, working with national officers, have secured urgent action in Merseyside in response to grave concerns about health and safety

      The reps in Merseyside are first rate. There can be no doubt the idea that national Napo had any direct strategy or proper process for support of those reps is just not credible. Merseyside have always fielded their own work and largely taken their own agenda forward on behalf of their region. Napo national office claiming this outcome has come in any way as a result of their national officers is a prime exmple of NAPO misleading and stealing credit where it is just not likley. The local reps are more than capable to raise a local Health and safety dispute of disagreement and at this time over C19 concerns the management would simply have worked to the fastest and required solution to protect staff . a deep clean is desirable on all sides so national napo have very little to do other than to make such ridiculous and clearly unbelievable claims. If you need a national official to get a clean in it devalues the local reps skill base.

      Delete
  20. Official information supplied to the Unions indicates that so far, 5 probation staff have died (2 CRC staff, 1 NPS member of staff, 1 agency worker and 1 private contractor employee).

    There are no figures released on how many members of probation staff have tested positive.

    The NPS Special Payments Scheme (£150 a month) equates to £37.50 a week to balance the realistic risk of death at work.

    Senior managers receive an extra £1500 monthly bonus to work from home.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 24 March 2020 - The UK government has bought 3.5m antibody tests for coronavirus, the health secretary has said, promising that frontline doctors and nurses will be able in due course to find out whether they have been infected and are safe to go back to work.

    26 Mar 2020 - The Government has bought 3.5m tests which will be available on the high street or by delivery through Amazon to people self-isolating.

    Prof Sharon Peacock, the director of the national infection service at PHE, told MPs on the science and technology committee that mass testing in the UK could be possible within days.

    She said: "Several million tests have been purchased for use. These are brand new products.

    6 Apr 2020 - Medical professionals have strongly criticised the government’s proposed rollout of finger prick coronavirus tests to the public, saying that such screening must be supervised by healthcare specialists.

    Doctors and industry trade bodies warned that Covid-19 antibody tests, which screen for whether someone has recovered from the disease, were not appropriate for use by the public.


    6 Apr 2020 - The UK government’s new testing chief has admitted that none of the 3.5 million antibody tests ordered from China are fit for widespread use.

    11 Apr 2020 - Senior health officials are facing demands to reveal how much has been spent on millions of inaccurate coronavirus antibody tests, after it emerged that payments had been guaranteed even if the kits failed to work. Public Health England is also being asked to disclose which companies the tests came from and why payment was not made contingent on the tests proving accurate.

    25 Apr 2020 - "The property manager for Poundstretcher, who is classed as a key worker, said she has been self-isolating after being told by her doctor that it was likely she had Covid-19.

    Natalie, 34, said she requested a test at 07:00 BST on Friday and "finally" got a code to book an appointment at 15:00.

    "I drove an hour from my home in Leicester [to the test centre in Nottingham] and sat waiting for half an hour in the queue only to be told actually they had no more tests left," she said.

    "I am absolutely disgusted. It is bad enough that my closest test centre is an hour away but then to waste my time and fuel... I think the government and public need to be aware that just because you have an appointment and turn up doesn't mean you'll get the very much needed test."

    *** That Appointment was counted as a test ***

    Even though no actual test took place, the booked appointment was counted as a test on the system.

    ReplyDelete