Saturday 30 January 2021

Moral Bankruptcy

Despite or because of the parallels, I'm still following US politics as welcome diversion from domestic matters post-Brexit, but am becoming increasingly astonished at how dysfunctional their supposedly democratic system of government actually is. Maybe it's always been like this and I've just never noticed. As much as Trump was an obscenity, isn't there something very alarming seeing nice-guy Biden issuing daily decrees with the stroke of a pen and at an increasing rate?  

Having 50-odd ways of holding elections strikes me as bonkers, as does a system that produces a Congress and balance of power that seems to bear little connection to the popular vote and delivers a completely constipated legislative structure. For good measure add-in a politicised Supreme Court and dare I suggest that the much-lauded checks and balances inherent in a written constitution begin to look decidedly problematic? This article from The Atlantic 'What's So Great About a Written Constitution?' confirms disillusionment has been growing:- 

Finally, single, written constitutions often stifle much-needed constitutional maintenance. The lack of formal constitutional change in the U.S. over the past few decades has produced a strong form of constitutional disillusionment, both with the written Constitution and with the Supreme Court. The main problem is that formal amendment procedures are so exceedingly difficult, but a 5–4 Supreme Court decision can produce significant constitutional change. Further, a focus on elusive constitutional moments—in which there must be intense and widespread constitutional discussion and debate among the citizenry—as opposed to constitutional maintenance, has obscured the need for regular constitutional change to take place.

In the U.K.’s unwritten system, however, virtually nothing is too sacred to be amended: The prescribed length of time between general elections has fluctuated; reform of the U.K.’s top court has taken place; historical government positions have been altered or eliminated; the role of the monarchy has changed significantly; and even major constitutional principles, such as parliamentary sovereignty, have shifted throughout the years as political and economic developments arose. Most of these have been responses to societal change, and did not require tidal-wave constitutional moments.

Although the longevity of America’s written Constitution remains impressive, many of its structures and operations have always been highly questionable. But recent events seem to have only exposed and exacerbated its flaws: A popularly elected leader should not be able to receive 3 million votes fewer than the challenger but still win the electoral contest; a system of checks and balances should ensure effective and responsible government, not sow political dysfunction; and generations of Americans should not have to live their life without a practical and reasonable opportunity to amend their Constitution. None of those outcomes advances “We the People.”

The U.K.’s unwritten constitution remains far from perfect; mistakes happen, much-needed reforms often stall, and reliance on politics can prove extremely frustrating. But when it comes to educating the citizenry, facilitating a focus on popular sovereignty, and providing a means of regularly updating the constitution, unwritten constitutions can go head to head with written documents any day.

--oo00oo--

Leaving aside constitutional matters, the state of the Republican Party in a post-Trump era continues to cause alarm and astonishment in equal measure as they indulge in the self-delusional belief that election success resides in remaining loyal to a disgraced sociopathic and narcissistic control freak. Despite being victims of an attempted coup, most have decided to indulge in what can only be described as moral bankruptcy and refuse to convict Trump of insurrection. 

Despite this they will clearly continue to carry the day in some States, but seem blissfully unaware that inexorable demographic changes will ensure other Georgia-style results, turbo-charged by increasingly bonkers conspiracy theorists within their ranks. To most of sound mind, if the GOP does not reform quickly, they are doomed. Again from The Atlantic, an article 'This Republican Party Is Not Worth Saving' from September 2020:-  

I was a Republican for most of my adult life. I came of political age in 1980, and although I grew up in a working-class Democratic stronghold in Massachusetts, I found a home in Ronald Reagan’s GOP. Back then, the Republicans were a confident “party of ideas” (a compliment bestowed on them by one of their foes, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York), optimistic boosters of the American dream at home, and fierce opponents of the Soviet Union overseas. While the Democrats were the party of recrimination and retreat, the Republicans were the party of the future.

I understand the attachment to that GOP, even among those who have sworn to defeat Donald Trump, but the time for sentimentality is over. That party is long gone. Today the Republicans are the party of “American carnage” and Russian collusion, of scams, plots, and weapons-grade contempt for the rule of law. The only decent, sensible, and conservative position is to vote against this Republican Party at every level, and bring the sad final days of a once-great political institution to an end. Then build the party back up again—from scratch.

I’m not advocating for voting against the GOP merely to punish Republicans for Trump’s existence in their party. Rather, conservatives must finally accept that at this point Trump and the Republican Party are indistinguishable. Trump and his circle have gutted the old GOP and stuffed its empty husk with the Trump family’s paranoia and corruption.

Indeed, the transformation of the GOP into a cult of personality is so complete that the Republicans didn’t even bother presenting a platform at their own convention. Like a group of ciphers at a meeting of SPECTRE, they nodded at whatever Number One told them to do, each of them fearing an extended pinkie finger pressing the button that would electrocute them into political oblivion.

Some Republicans, even while they grant that Trump is a sociopath and an idiot—and how unsettling that so many of them will stipulate to that—are willing to continue voting for Republican candidates because the GOP is nominally pro-life or because the administration’s judicial appointments show that the people around the president are doing what conservatives should want done.

But Trump’s few conservative achievements are meaningless when compared with his war on American democracy, a rampage that few Republicans have lifted a finger to stop. Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have turned the constitutional order and the rule of law into a joke. If you’re Roger Stone or Michael Flynn, the White House will arrange pardons, commutations, or even the outright betrayal of the Justice Department’s own lawyers. Felony convictions are for the little people. The Constitution is just busywork for chumps.

---////---

America needs two healthy political parties. So if the Republicans suffer a full-spectrum defeat in 2020, what comes next? At the least, a shattering loss should result in a wholesale purge of the Republican National Committee. Even donors who like what they got from Trump will not pour money into a losing proposition.

In the long term, sensible conservatives—who believe in limited government and the prudent, constitutional stewardship of national power and resources—might feel safe to run for national office as Republicans again. Those at the local level who were bullied into silence by their state organizations might be able to come out of hiding and challenge the people who led them to disaster.

Reconstructing the GOP—or any center-right party that might one day replace it—will take a long time, and the process will be painful. The remaining opportunists in the GOP will try to avert any kind of reform by making a last-ditch lunge to the right to fill the vacuum left by Trump’s culture warring and race-baiting. In the short term, the party might become smaller and more extreme, even as it loses seats. So be it. The hardening of the GOP into a toxic conglomeration of hucksters, quislings, racists, theocrats, and cultists is already happening. The party gladly accepted support from white supremacists and the Russian secret services, and now welcomes QAnon kooks into its caucus. Conservatives must learn that the only way out of “the wilderness” is first to vanquish those who led them there.

No person should ever get a second chance to destroy the Constitution. Trump has brought the United States to the brink of civil catastrophe, and the Republican Party has protected him from the consequences of all his immoral and illegal actions more ably than even Fred Trump did. Conservatives need to put the current Republican Party out of its—and our—misery.

52 comments:

  1. I actually think the US system works pretty well and I think a lot of the things we consider peculiar reflect the fact we're not used to a federal system.

    In a federal system representation is not only concerned with reflecting the overall popular vote but also the majority of states themselves. Hence why 2 senators per state regardless of population. It's the same in Australia, another federal system where the upper house has equal representation amongst states. In fact some of the arguments being made to preserve the union here are to reform the House of Lords into an upper house of the nations equal representation for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    As for a written constitution, it's thanks to that written constitution that the election took place in the first place. This from former Labour MP on the subject:

    "The most important aspect of the 2020 race was its remarkable success. An accurate and fair election was organised across 50 states and attracted a record-breaking level of participation: 155 million people cast their votes – and all in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic."

    "For Americans, the act of postponing legally-mandated elections is an almost unthinkable prospect, flying in the face of constitutional practice over nearly 250 years. In Britain, not so much. Here, local, regional and even national elections can be scheduled then rescheduled with hardly a voice raised in protest."

    "In Scotland, for example, there was outrage when it sunk in that the coalition government’s commitment to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act meant that the next general election would fall on the same day as the planned Scottish Parliament elections of 2015. And so Holyrood (in the absence of a written constitution) did what all politicians instinctively do when given the chance: it gave itself an extra year in office."

    So without a written constitution, does anyone seriously doubt that Trump would have just delayed the election by a few years?

    ReplyDelete
  2. To clarify, the above should have said "former Labour MP Tom Harris"

    ReplyDelete
  3. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-libor-hayes/former-libor-trader-hayes-looks-forward-to-kebab-after-traumatic-jail-time-idUSKBN29Y11I

    No sympathy as he knew what he was doing & the "only doing what I was told" defence is becoming tiresome BUT... he is right in saying that the more senior figures in the financial world need to be held to account as they did direct, co-ordinate & turn a 'blind eye' to the rate rigging.

    Usual state of affairs though - those who benefit the most get away with the most; once again the two-tier structure that we see clearly, that we call out regularly, is never disassembled.

    The privateer traders now taking on the stock markets' hedging with GameStop & other holdings is proving an interesting battle about power & control.

    And the UK seems keen to start a fight wherever & whenever it can - but of course it is never the UK's fault.

    The attitude is the same - 'we' can do what 'we' like, 'you' will do what 'w'e tell 'you' to do.

    Jenrick can travel the UK for no particular reason, Cummings needs his eyes tested, Johnson can travel wherever & insult whoever he pleases, Patel can stalk the streets & point fingers... they can give vast sums of public money to their chums, they can be sneering, Islamophobic, sexist, racist... they can manipulate their own financial arrangements to suit the policies they choose... but 'you' can get arrested on your way to work:

    "A man was threatened with arrest and forced into a police car after refusing to give an officer his name as he travelled to work during the third national lockdown. The cop refused to social distance as he called the man an ‘idiot’ and told him ‘you’re going to get locked up’ during the incident in Solihull, West Midlands, on Wednesday."

    Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/28/man-forced-police-car-after-refusing-to-tell-officer-name-while-going-to-work-13978291/?ito=cbshare

    And Trump is now proclaiming himself the Republican Messiah after McCarthy travelled to Florida to kiss the Kkng's Ring (ugh!), McConnell is falling back into line & neo-Nazi Qanon sympathisers are being appointed to Committee positions - Taylor Greene, a very nasty individual who is being hailed by GOP as "representing the voice of the people"

    The world is not a nice place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. priti aunty flexes her political policing muscles as state control becomes ever more evident:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/30/arrest-of-photographer-at-kent-protest-raises-press-freedom-fears


    won't be long now before they come for Jim...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you talking about? The government has no control over police operational matters. If they did, do you really think the police would be prioritising Twitter spats about trans rights at the expense of investigating burglaries?

      Also why do you refer to her as Priti Aunty?

      Delete
    2. Regardless of any merit your comment may have @21:08, your attitude and tone is really very unpleasant,and unnecessary.

      Delete
    3. I honestly can't see that much wrong with 21:08's 'attitude and tone'. What's wrong with it? Is it particularly out of place compared to other posts? Also a valid question about references to Priti Patel. Is casual racism acceptable when used in reference to Tory ministers then?

      Delete
    4. "Government have no control over operational police matters"? Blimey history says otherwise and no reason to doubt there will be examples even today.

      As for the Home Secretary, a most objectional politician by many accounts and a proven bully. Not that bright either, but then she's amongst one of the most mediocre cabinets of recent history.

      Delete
    5. "Priti Patel is every desi person’s bourgeoisie aunty." A widely held caricature of Patel, especially by desi people, in the same vein that Boris is widely regarded as an etonian buffoon.

      [sarcasm alert for the feint-hearted] - There has ***never*** been any government control of operational police matters. The miners' strike, for example, was just a random series of police officers who disliked the coal mining profession.

      Delete
    6. Oh that explains it nice and clearly 12:26. If it's a 'widely held caricature' then clearly that absolves anyone from criticisms of racism. I'll let Jim Davidson know. Asshole.

      Delete
    7. Nice attitude, lovely tone.

      Delete
    8. This the kind of shit the Tory Home Secretary presides over:-

      The Home Office, in its equality impact assessment of plans to use MoD sites to house asylum seekers, justified the move by stating that housing these individuals in more “generous” accommodation would “undermine public confidence in the asylum system”.

      Delete
    9. Thanks Jim. I think most of us had noticed that she wasn't of the highest calibre. My question is: does that justify the use of racial stereotypes or cultural tropes? The answer to that, of course, is no. The answer is not simply to remind us how incapable she is or how inhumane her ideas are. We're mostly, I assume, agreed on that. Merely regurgitating the criticism sounds a bit like a defence of this 'desi' 'aunty' BS... And 21:38 / 12:26/ 13:19, simply reverting to comments about tone and attitude to mask the absence of any other justification for your enthusiastic use of 'widely held' cultural and racial caricature is particularly feeble. Why not just think about why you've chosen to use the terminology that you have, and be more careful in future posts.

      Delete
    10. "and be more careful in future posts."

      There's a resident in Royston Vasey that seems very displeased with you Jim.

      Delete
    11. @14:11 - have you thought about who might be making the posts? Or are you assuming all the comments you are unhappy with come from white men? For example, if the references to 'priti aunty' (meaning patel is an overbearing, self-important bully) came from an Asian woman, would that make any difference to your position?

      Delete
    12. It would make no difference at all. Why would it? I am not a white man. It doesn't mean I have to choose my language any less carefully as far as I'm concerned. Or that I have less right to object to lazy cultural stereotype. I'm sorry, I really don't know what your position is?

      Delete
    13. Tired references to Royston Vasey have lost any edge or humour they once might have carried. This site is starting to come across as a haven for long in the tooth lefties for the sharing of mutually agreeable clips from the Guardian, and a ever decreasing number of smug and irrelevant in-jokes and asides. I'm outta here.

      Delete
    14. Please leave a forwarding address, I assume Royston Vasey does have a post office?

      Delete
    15. Agreed 14:48. An echo chamber for retired POs and out-of-their-depth long-serving OMs desperate to vent some bile as the next round of capability procedures begin at work.

      Delete
    16. @14.48 and @15.02, I fully agree with you both. The comments on here are increasingly old fashioned and cringe inducing. References to Royston Vasey are 20 years old now. That said, some comments espouse probation practice from the 70s and 80s so maybe they'd consider 20 years ago to be current!

      Delete
    17. Beats me why anybody so opposed to the political views and offended by the content of a blog would voluntary read and engage with it in the first place?
      Seems strange.

      Delete
    18. It may well seem strange to someone comfortable only visiting sites or reading views which confirm and echo their own tired old dogma. That's a big part of the problem here.

      Delete
    19. The only perpetual and constant echoing comments on here are your persistent whinging of "I don't like it".
      It's more then strange that you choose to come here. It's weird!

      Delete
    20. Is that an echo I hear or just another whinge?

      Delete
  5. In other extraordinary news, Trump sacks his entire impeachment legal team because he wishes to continue with the 'Big Lie'. The Republican Party are up shit creek by not distancing themselves from Trump; commercial party donors are turning the money taps off and the writs are flying from Dominion Corporation makers of those 'rigged' voting machines. Even Putin is in a spot of bother with over 100 million views of a video about his vast mansion even though he classically says his judo friend owns it! Can't make this shit up and it's all got a long way to run yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/donald-trumps-new-neighbours-want-the-former-us-president-evicted/news-story/3f8c4966d54cd00fdde676b2ab5bb5dc

      Delete
    2. Donald Trump’s new neighbours “don’t want” him living next door and have filed a legal review that could see him “evicted” from his Florida home.

      The former US President moved into Mar-a-Lago, a historic property in Palm Beach, with wife Melania Trump after Joe Biden took office in the White House on January 21.

      But making the property he purchased in 1985 his permanent residence allegedly violates an agreement Trump reached with the town when he converted Mar-a-Lago into a private members club in 1993, according to CNN.

      At that time, he agreed to limit his stays at Mar-a-Lago, and now some claim his plan to live there full time is a breach of the original terms.

      The use of the property is now under legal review by the town and could see Trump “evicted”, a town manager told the publication.

      Legal documents filed by Trump’s next-door neighbours had a message for the 74-year-old according to the Washington Post: “We don’t want you to be our neighbour.”

      Delete
    3. Presumably Trump is cutting his overheads - thanks to McCarthy & McConnell etc he knows he's safe in the impeachment trial, so why spend $millions on lawyers in that case when you've got a fight against angry Floridians on your doorstep?

      Delete
  6. Good grief, the tone and self righteousness of some people on here is astounding. If your not pro labour then your opinion is not relevant or valid. Get a grip you lot and grow up!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spoken like a true scholar of the Papa Lazarou school of Communication and Social Etiquette.

      Delete
    2. Incoherent, raging, drivel.

      Delete
  7. For clarity, my comment at 17:45 was in response to a post that has since been removed by sender or moderator, and not a response to either 14:05 or 14:15.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've deleted some of the worst "Incoherent, raging, drivel" but we're stuck with some contributors who don't seem to understand how to go about voicing differing viewpoints in a reasonable manner. Unfortunate, but there it is.

      Delete
    2. I read it and it made reference to language nuance inflection . Critical and a bit effusive. Many of my caseload speak in a direct manner but I don't close them off. The difficulty is that contributors have some expectation of a gentle joust while in fact probation has already bled to death. None of the taunting exchanges above are helpful. They are marginally comical though.

      Delete
  8. Whats concerning on here Jim, is that language is a powerful tool. You would expect difference of opinions debated not attacked. 14.15 and others above need to step back and think about how they talk to clients, if this us how they talk to people on here. They would have zero respect from me if I was sat opposite them as a client, being vilified, ridiculed and shot down for thinking differently!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "You would expect difference of opinions debated not attacked."

    It's because of the way YOU attack others comments, the way YOU use language designed to inflame. It's the way that You feel allowed to make an offensive comment but blame those offended for being offended, but cry foul if you get a bit of your own back.
    Although your comment @18:15 is probably the most sensible you have made, it's a bit rich. YOU are the biggest sinner of the faults you point to, and let's be honest, you've only chosen to make it because of the flack you've received today. Deservedly received IMHO.
    You're real frustration isn't because you can't post an alternative opinion, it's really that nobody agrees with them.
    But if you want Kosher, don't go to a Halal shop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just contributed at 1856 and despite my relatively neutral line I do admire and respect tough no nonsense approaches to dialogue. I support all that 1851 conveys as there is strength anger and genuine communication to move the naval gazers. Well done .

      Delete
  10. Seems some in the uk aren't right bothered about covid-19:

    "Essex Police said 18 "reckless revellers" were fined £800 each after officers interrupted a house party on Saturday; while in Merseyside, police found about 200 people partying in a hotel in the early hours of Sunday morning, and also broke up a gathering of 20 people in a gym on Saturday night."

    106,158 souls lost to covid-19

    Over 50,000 in the last 3 months

    More than 30,000 in January 2021 alone

    1,000 loved ones lost every day this month

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rmp1

      Delete
  11. why does trump seem to have a strong affinity with sex offenders and those that defend/excuse their behaviour, their lawyers?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/31/donald-trumps-impeachment-defence-in-disarray-as-lead-lawyers-quit-reports

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald Trump has named new lawyers to lead the defense at his impeachment trial in the Senate next week on the charge that he unleashed a deadly insurrection upon the US Capitol on 6 January. The announcement comes just a day after his previous team fell apart.

      Trial lawyers David Schoen and Bruce L Castor will head up Trump’s new legal team, the former US president announced on Sunday evening.

      The ability of Republican senators who plan to acquit Donald Trump to weigh the case on the merits remained challenged, however, after the mass resignation of Trump’s previous legal team and the looming Senate deadline of Tuesday to submit a preliminary memo laying out his defense.

      The House impeached Trump earlier this month on a single article charging “incitement of insurrection” – a historic second impeachment of a US president.

      The new lawyers are not without controversy. David Schoen represented Roger Stone, who was convicted in November 2019 of obstructing a congressional investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, and then had his prison sentence commuted by Trump.

      The Atlanta-based lawyer also met with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when the financier was preparing for trial in New York on charges relating to sexual exploitation and shortly before Epstein died in jail in 2019.

      Bruce Castor is a former acting attorney general of Pennsylvania and a prominent Republican who has been slammed by advocates for victims of sexual crimes because of his stance against reforms involving help for past victims of Catholic priests and in the case of university football coach and predator Jerry Sandusky.

      And Castor gained notoriety for declining to prosecute Bill Cosby more than a decade before the entertainer was eventually convicted in 2018, and also sued Cosby’s victim, Andrea Constand, in a case that was dismissed, and then was sued by Constand for defamation, which was settled.

      Delete
  12. another form olf moral bankruptcy

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/31/market-is-rigged-in-favour-of-rich-as-gamestop-fiasco-reveals

    The best explainer I could find: "Lots of big investment firms, such as hedge funds, will bet on an apparently failing business to lose a lot of value, meaning they borrow shares in the company and then sell them, with a promise to buy them back at a later date. This is called "short selling" or "shorting" and the idea is to make money as the share price falls, i.e. buy the shares back at a price considerably lower than when they sold them & pocketing the difference."

    This morally questionable behaviour is exactly how the financier chums of Johnson etc made vast sums by hedging against the UK market during the uncertainties around Brexit & deal/no deal, which is why some believe the whole negotiation process was so protracted, i.e. it exaggerated the volatility of the markets to allow traders to cash in.

    ReplyDelete
  13. the well of craziness is ever generous:

    "Trump's son-in-law nominated for Nobel peace prize"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with the Nobel Peace Prize is after bizarrely awarding to Obama (he himself thought it was weird he'd been awarded it 9 months after taking office without really having done anything significant by that point) it has become massively politicised in the US so that from now until eternity, every president and their dog will keep getting nominated. I think Trump was nominated 2 or 3 times already. Biden will probably get nominated soon too.

      Delete
  14. Justice Committee, 19 Jan 2021

    https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1547/html/

    Justin Russell: "To update you on probation and its response to Covid and our inspection findings, essentially there have been three phases to its response since the end of March. The initial phase covered the first lockdown from April to June. We found that overnight it had to change radically its operating model. There was a strong central control to that; there was a single exceptional delivery model from the centre. A gold command was set up, and we found it did that very professionally and efficiently.

    There was a big reduction in the work that the courts were undertaking, and that reduced pressure on court teams. Effectively, it became almost impossible to deliver accredited programmes, which are normally delivered face to face in groups, and very difficult to deliver unpaid work orders. Therefore, the delivery of both those things fell to very low levels during the first lockdown, and that has led to significant backlogs for both accredited programmes and unpaid work, which now have to be worked through.

    The staff we spoke to said they were well supported through the lockdown. About 2,000 staff with Covid symptoms were self-isolating during that first period, which is about 20% of the workload, but because they had been equipped with laptops about 1,100 of them could work from home and continued to do so.

    Five of the approved premises closed, but the rest kept going, although at reduced capacity because they could have only single-room occupancy and had to implement Covid-secure arrangements in those approved premises.

    Since July we have moved on to a second phase — a recovery phase — where the service has been following what it calls a recovery road map. There is less complete central control over this. Regional directors have more discretion over the exceptional measures they put in place, and there is a RAG rating system according to local infection rates and how many staff are available. There has been a clear effort to try to see more offenders face to face than previously. By the autumn, about a third of National Probation Service caseloads were being seen face to face and a slightly smaller proportion of CRC caseloads.

    As for the implementation of unpaid work, delivery levels certainly increased during the recovery period. They found safe ways to deliver unpaid work in smaller groups or tasks people would do at home. Just before Christmas, unpaid work delivery had got to about 60% of pre-Covid levels. They also found safer ways to deliver accredited programmes either virtually online and one to one or in much smaller groups socially distanced on probation premises. Delivery of accredited programmes had reached about 70% of pre-Covid levels before Christmas, so there was a big push to get delivery back to normal.

    Since January we have gone into another lockdown. Probation’s response feels rather different from the first lockdown. There is a real push to try to keep the essential service going. Probation offices are staying open; they are trying to see high-risk offenders face to face where that is possible and safe to do so. They are trying to continue to deliver some accredited programmes online, although they have stopped all face-to-face group delivery of unpaid work and accredited programmes and will review that again on 25 January.

    Therefore, there is a different feel with this lockdown from the past one, with an effort to keep things going. For example, all approved premises have stayed open this time, but it is another challenging time for the probation service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The probation service was making good progress on its recovery plans. The new national lockdown will mean that, unfortunately, it is likely to go backwards on some issues. It will be difficult for it to deal with its unpaid work and accredited programme backlog, but I think it has learnt the lessons of the first lockdown. It has learnt how to keep the services going, and that has been impressive to see.

      The big challenge for probation is having to deal with the latest lockdown and the ongoing pandemic, as well as preparing for transition to the new unified probation structure in June. That is a huge change programme that the leaders in the service have to embark upon and is picking up momentum at the moment. The challenge for them is keeping the day job going and dealing with the pandemic while planning for the next six months in that transition. That will be a big challenge for it.

      There are two aspects to that in relation to offending behaviour programmes and accredited programmes in particular. A lot of work has gone into trying to adapt those for safe use, and an alternative delivery framework was launched in September, which means that the programmes will now be delivered one to one, face to face, online or in small groups. We do not know whether that will be effective. They are designed, by definition, to be group programmes and to involve a group dynamic, so we do not know whether they will be as effective if delivered one to one.

      Before Christmas, delivery levels were back up to about 70%. That is still short of the numbers being given out in court at the moment, so they need to push on and increase capacity. That means training up some more facilitators, and there is a six-month lead-in time to train up a new facilitator. A lot of work needs to be done around that.

      Delete
    2. The other aspect of preventing reoffending is supporting people with their basic needs—mental health, substance abuse, accommodation. We found difficulties in accessing mental health and substance abuse services in particular during the first lockdown. That has got a little better over the six months but still is not back up to normal. There were significant efforts made to improve accommodation. That is important particularly for people leaving prison, and money was invested in providing up to two months’ temporary accommodation after people left prison. There has been good work between the probation service and local councils on that. That is due to stop on 21 January—this week—so a really urgent decision is needed on extending it to last beyond the rest of this pandemic, and I hope a decision will soon be taken on that.


      Question - Rob Butler: Mr Russell, one point you make in the report more specifically about adults is that there are too many individuals whose sentences expire before they have developed the skills necessary to move away from future offending. That is almost an obvious result of what you have been saying. What impact do you think that is going to have ultimately on reoffending and, in turn, on public and judicial confidence in sentencing? We know that there has already been a degree of nervousness about sentencing to community orders as it is.

      Answer - Justin Russell: To be honest, that will be difficult to know, and we will not know for some time because reoffending rates do not get measured for two years in terms of convictions and cautions. It will be slightly confused by the fact that crime rates have come down during the pandemic. There is less recorded crime and potentially less opportunity for people on probation to commit further offences. It will be quite a confused picture. It is certainly true that more people are reaching the end of their sentence without completing accredited behaviour programmes or even sometimes perhaps starting them.

      We were already finding in our inspections quite long delays before people were getting on to some of those programmes, and those are likely to have increased. In practice, the probation service is prioritising the highest-risk offenders. They are prioritising delivery of sex offender accredited programmes and they are prioritising the building better relationships domestic abuse programme and focusing in particular on people who have already started those programmes to make sure that they at least complete them before they end their sentence.

      Delete
    3. Q - Maria Eagle: I want to ask a few questions about the impact of all this on staff who work for various organisations in the criminal justice system. Can you each tell me what the key challenges for staff have been in each area, but also in the context of what the impact of the pandemic has been on staff absence and staff safety, and the challenges that that has left the system with?

      A - Justin Russell: I will start with the probation service, on the last part of your question about the impact on absences. During the first lockdown period, about 2,000 members of probation staff were self-isolating because of Covid symptoms. About 1,100 of those were able to work from home anyway. The conversations I had with the probation service last week showed that the levels of staff sickness this time round from Covid are lower. The numbers are not as high as last time round, maybe because testing has enabled people without Covid to get back to work quicker and people have become more used to working from home.

      In terms of non-Covid sickness, our recovery thematic of looking at the situation in September showed that non-Covid sickness was lower than before the pandemic, and I think that might be a pattern in some other services. We are seeing resilient staff having to completely change the way they work—work from home, work with their children at home sometimes as well, worried about relatives—and become increasingly tired, basically. We are seeing a Covid fatigue setting in with staff. Some of them feel increasingly overwhelmed by what they are being asked to do, although that is not translating into the quality of the work they are doing. We are actually finding that some of their casework is better than it was pre-Covid. Certainly, after 10 months of this, it is starting to get to staff, and they are feeling pretty exhausted in some areas.

      Delete
    4. Oh, and just before they finished.. this:

      Justin Russell: From a probation point of view, we interviewed some people on probation about their experience of supervision during lockdown. They were generally positive about it. People who are in a stable position and have a stable home life welcomed being supervised by phone, and that was quite popular with some people.

      People who were more vulnerable and had mental health problems and more chaotic and complex lives missed the face-to-face contact with their probation officer. It was very difficult for a probation officer without that face-to-face contact or without being able to do home visits to see how that person was getting on, whether they were looking after themselves or whether there were things that needed to be helped. There is a real issue about the more vulnerable part of the probation caseload and how they are supported during this pandemic.

      There has been an understandable focus on the highest-risk cases being the priority for face-to-face contact, and I understand that, but they also need to support people who are vulnerable.

      *** I understand the probation service is in discussions with a major volunteering charity about providing volunteers who can support the more vulnerable people on probation, mentor and befriend them. That is a welcome initiative, and we need more things like that ***


      ADVISE, ASSIST & BEFRIEND - what a novel idea!!!

      Delete
    5. Surely you mean "support, mentor & befriend" ?


      F... F... S!!!

      Delete
    6. Maybe they meant exactly what they said.

      Delete
    7. ooops, sorry, forgot the 'sarcasm alert'

      support/assist, advise/mentor, befriend/befriend, potayto/potarto, tomayto/tomarto...

      While I'm here I'd just like unveil the [allegedly] unredacted version of Mr Russell's words:

      "Now they've finally met their ambitious target of removing most of the experienced, qualified, expensive staff using TR, I understand the probation service is in discussions with a major volunteering charity about providing volunteers who can support the more vulnerable people on probation, mentor and befriend them. That is a welcome initiative, and we need more things like that - by which I mean professional cleansing, getting rid of irksome troublemakers, replacing them with volunteers & saving public money so we can give more of it to those lovely privateers."

      Delete