Monday, 5 January 2026

Self-preservation

"No Choice But to Leave” : When Self-Preservation Becomes the Only Option

I didn’t leave probation because I stopped caring. In fact, the hardest part of leaving was how much I still cared — about the work, the people on my caseload, and the colleagues I was leaving behind. But by the end, I genuinely felt I had no choice. Self-preservation wasn’t a preference; it was a last resort. The research article “No Choice But to Leave” captures something I recognise deeply. It describes probation staff who remain loyal to the vocational ideal of the service long after the organisation itself has become unliveable. That was certainly true for me.

Staying Longer Than Was Healthy

Like many others, I didn’t walk away at the first sign of difficulty. I stayed. I adapted. I absorbed more work, more pressure, more emotional strain. I tried to remain positive and constructive, even as workloads grew heavier and the space to do meaningful probation work shrank. I raised concerns. I offered solutions. I kept telling myself that things would improve, or that my experience and commitment could somehow make a difference. Over time, though, the cost became impossible to ignore. Exhaustion stopped being temporary and became my baseline. The research talks about constrained voice — that sense of speaking up without being heard. That resonates. It’s not that opportunities to speak don’t exist on paper; it’s that repeated attempts to engage are met with managerial language, structural inertia, or quiet deflection. Eventually, you stop believing your voice matters.

When Values No Longer Fit the System

One of the most painful aspects was the growing mismatch between what probation claims to be and how it often operates in practice. The vocational ideal — supporting people to change, exercising professional judgement, building relationships — increasingly clashed with a target-driven, bureaucratic reality. The legacy of Transforming Rehabilitation still hangs heavily over the service. Market-style thinking, excessive performance management, and administrative overload have reshaped probation in ways that erode professional identity. It becomes harder to recognise yourself in the role you’re doing. This creates an internal conflict: you’re still committed to the people you work with, but less and less able to do right by them.

Guilt, Loyalty, and Letting Go

Leaving brought relief, but it also brought guilt. I think that’s important to say out loud. I felt guilty about the colleagues I left behind — people I respected, people who were also struggling, people who would now carry even more weight because someone else had gone. That guilt is powerful, and it keeps many people in post far longer than they should stay. But I’ve come to understand something else too: I am not responsible for the conditions that drove me out. Those conditions were not of my making, and I exhausted myself trying to work within them, challenge them, and remain constructive until the very end. The research describes this as complicated loyalty — loyalty not to the organisation, but to the profession and to colleagues. It’s a loyalty that sustains commitment, but also masks systemic harm. At some point, staying becomes a form of self-neglect rather than solidarity.

Exit as Survival, Not Failure

When people talk about probation staff leaving, it’s often framed as a resilience problem or a retention issue. But “No Choice But to Leave” makes clear what many already know: exit is often a rational response to sustained harm. By the time I left, I wasn’t choosing between staying and going. I was choosing between continuing at significant cost to my health, or stepping away to protect myself. In that sense, it didn’t feel like a failure. It felt like survival.

What This Should Make Us Ask

If experienced, committed practitioners are reaching the point where self-preservation is their only option, then the problem is not individual weakness. It is organisational. People aren’t leaving because they don’t care. They’re leaving because caring has become too costly — and because staying any longer would mean losing themselves in the process. That should concern everyone. I think I have paid a high price for choosing probation as a career. Too high really, if I consider the impact on my family. I am still struggling with dealing with the impact of what I had to deal with. I regret now that I didn't leave earlier than I did. I know I am not alone.

Anon

38 comments:

  1. Thank you for your words. Very powerful, very clear; and sad to read.

    If I may quote & annotate a couple of segments for the benefit of some thick-as-mince, thick-skinned numpties out there who are basking in their ill-gotten gains.

    1 - "People aren’t leaving because they don’t care. They’re leaving because caring has become too costly"

    * Note 1 for so-called "Leaders" & beancounters & box-tickers: take note that "too costly" does NOT refer to cash or fiscal impact... it means the toll YOU have levied upon human beings, ravaging their physical, mental & emotional wellbeing.

    2. "I think I have paid a high price for choosing probation as a career. Too high really, if I consider the impact on my family. I am still struggling with dealing with the impact of what I had to deal with. I regret now that I didn't leave earlier than I did. I know I am not alone."

    Note 2: hmpps, moj, hmg, hmip, and every probation region - (a) YOU, collectively, are the cause of this very human catastrophe. (b) YOU, severally & in joint enterprise, are responsible for the current shitshow that is labelled 'probation service'. (c) YOU had every opportunity in the last two decades to make positive healthy choices for staff, for those the service supervises, for society and for the very service itself. (d) YOU all failed. And YOU failed regardless of your gongs & your salaries & your self-satisfied blather & your promotions or your platinum pension. YOU. FAILED. EVERYONE... not least of which YOU failed the poster of the headline submission and his/her caseload & colleagues & family.

    The shitshow remains in production, a daily farce, but we must never ever forget why it's like it is, how it got there and who the enablers were/are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is terrible to read this situation I know many face it has to be said although it will not be published the parody which upset or triggered some defence was meant illustrate the nature of the leadership . It was not understood properly and it got ragged upon. However it is this sort of dismay that many face and it that parody management that ignore the state of the organisation just piling on. Until we collectively push back it will continue .

      Delete
  2. In the CRC the pressure on operational managers was intense and HR support pulled away. This legacy of TR remains and means that SPOs, like myself, have to administer and manage complex sickness absences and wellbeing issues of colleagues in work. Add in civil service bureaucracy and long drawn out procedures and the mix means managers and leaders are micro managing staff wellbeing. A properly resourced HR function is required, without this I don't see much prospect for positive, sustainable change.
    I retire early this May, over 33 years service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck you may w well need the rest. However the use of out source or housing of HR services and their required procedural approach has diminished care for hard working staff who become ill .

      Delete
  3. Both of these comments underline something uncomfortable but unavoidable. What we’re describing here isn’t just burnout or disappointment, it’s prolonged exposure to organisational conditions that steadily strip people of agency, confidence and health. When staff talk about self-preservation, it’s because the system has normalised harm and then reframed leaving as personal weakness rather than a rational response.

    The second comment is important because it shows how this damage travels downwards and sideways. SPOs and middle managers are left holding responsibility without support, absorbing HR functions, managing sickness, wellbeing and risk in an environment shaped by TR’s withdrawal of infrastructure. That doesn’t create reflective leadership, it creates containment and firefighting. People end up managing decline rather than developing staff or practice.

    Taken together, these experiences point to the same conclusion: this isn’t about a lack of commitment or professionalism at any level. It’s about an organisation that has been redesigned to operate without adequate support, realistic capacity or genuine care for those expected to hold it together. In that context, leaving early isn’t abandonment of probation values, it’s often the last way people protect what’s left of them.

    If this service is serious about retention, wellbeing and quality, it has to stop individualising harm and start owning the conditions that make self-preservation necessary in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If we go back a couple of blogs, we had details of an instruction from the POA to their members about not undertaking certain functions and about a threat of collective action.
    Individuals are detailing difficulties in opposing change being implemented on an ad hoc basis and being isolated or being picked off.
    The answer is simple and the difference between the POA and NAPO is startling.
    There has been no communication from NAPO on issues that matter and the view of the Ostrich’s arse is not very motivational

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has been pointed out several times Napo is under disguise and does not function as it should. Poa great issued instructions and tries to lead staff to protect their terms. Napo along with senior management have extinguished any sense of their duty to staff. It has been tabled in some harsh posts yet there is not enough collective response to have impact. Sadly our situation is feeling more locked in as a result of the unions tacit agreed acceptance as to what happens to us. The driver of these abused comes from shared services HR sscl. The own the procedures. These are not actually published. They demand managers stick to timescale. Sickness for example triggers warning letters then trigger disciplinary proceedings triggered by absences or frequency. Managers have zero discretion. Result staff are bullied back early or encouraged to resign or face disciplinary. It bullies under a procedure. Napo are powerless the reps are poorly trained and fearful of reprisal. The national reps no longer exist and Napo would not help in local matters until a dismissal occured. It is all stacked against the staff.

      Delete
  5. 15 years in as a PO and could have written that myself. I felt it to my core reading that. I am at a crossroads. I have given so much of myself and so many unpaid hours over the years to do my best at work but feel like our purpose and meaning of our work is being eroded. Everything feels so much more transactional and box ticking. It feels like a culture of learned helplessness has been created since TR which is toxic. It feels like the message is as long as we skim over the cracks and make it look on paper like work is being done it’s like that’s good enough…. I’m not driven or motivated like that. I come to work to give my very best and as a result I am feeling increasingly disillusioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. * transformation: the act or process of transforming. the state of being transformed; change in form, appearance, nature, or character.

      @10:03 speaks of being "15 years in". That would mean a 2010 start, so it seems their experience of probation has only ever been during the more tumultuous years of the service, yet still they express their dismay thus: "It feels like a culture of learned helplessness has been created since TR which is toxic."

      That speaks loudly & clearly to me about both the political expediency & utter recklessness of the catastrophic TR experiment that was visited upon probation.

      An utter failure posing as 'success', a dereliction of public duty through which ongoing abuse is still being perpetrated & imposed upon probation staff, those subject to supervision and the communities in which we live.

      I imagine the architects & lickspittles of TR have alreay re-written history, telling the world that "transformation" doesn't, in & of itself, mean improvement; that they simply created a "framework for change" which *others* have subsequently misinterpreted, misused & corrupted.

      That would help explain the ever-upward rise of romeo, rees, copple, farrar, et al.

      Delete
    2. I hope this doesn't fall foul of Jim's necessarily careful curation of the blog. If it does, then I apologise Jim, & it doesn't go out.

      It was simply to show a contemporary example of the wholesale revision of relatively recent historical events by a sitting government.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/j6/

      "Five years after the attack on the US Capitol, the White House has unveiled a website that places blame for January 6, 2021, on police, Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi and others."

      source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/white-house-january-6-website

      Delete
    3. Anon 10:37 No it didn't! We've always had a policy of thoughtful diversions and discourse that calmly seek to encourage understanding and truth.

      Delete
  6. From InsideTime:-

    The Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) have been plunged into chaos after a controversial reform plan was shelved and their leader quit, citing personal reasons.

    The reforms, championed by IMB National Chair Elisabeth Davies, would have seen volunteer prison monitors banned from pursuing individual prisoners’ complaints and barred from entering jails more than three times per week. However, the ideas prompted a revolt from chairs of local IMBs, who said they would prevent the watchdogs from scrutinising prisons effectively.

    In December, Ms Davies resigned – and within a week the reform package was withdrawn.

    In a statement, the IMBs said: “Our National Chair, Elisabeth Davies, is stepping down for personal reasons … She has described serving the IMB as a privilege, and is working closely with colleagues and the Ministry of Justice to ensure a smooth handover and continuity of leadership.”

    A fuller explanation of the family situation which led to her departure was provided to IMB members and to Inside Time, but we are not reporting it out of respect for the privacy of Ms Davies and her family.

    Every prison in England and Wales has an IMB, made up of local volunteers who monitor conditions at the jail, publish their findings in an annual report, and take up complaints on behalf of prisoners. The reform package had been worked on over the past 12 months by Ms Davies, who took up her role in 2023, and her colleagues in the IMB Secretariat – civil servants who co-ordinate the work of local boards.

    The Boards are suffering from a shortage of volunteers, with 700 current vacancies. The Secretariat claimed the reforms, set out in a document called the Expectations Framework, would “improve the consistency and quality of monitoring across the organisation, provide greater clarity about expectations for both new and existing members and make the IMB more sustainable in a declining voluntary sector”.

    Inside Time reported in November that among the controversial aspects was an instruction that IMBs should spend less time dealing with ‘apps’ – the forms submitted by individual prisoners seeking help with a problem.

    Members were told that “The ‘taking of applications’ does not mean that a Board should fix or actively pursue the issue raised by the detained person.” A ‘template letter’ was distributed for Boards to send to prisoners, advising them that “the IMB role is not to sort out the problem”.

    Another proposal was to set a limit that no prison should be visited by members of its IMB more than two to three times per week. This was said to be a safeguard against IMB members becoming too close to prison staff or governors. However, IMB chairs told Inside Time that it could prevent them from monitoring their prisons effectively – and dozens got together to oppose the changes.

    On 17 December, Ms Davies wrote to IMB members stating: “The National Board met yesterday … and discussed the member feedback and representations about the Expectations Framework … While the underlying objectives have strong support, we recognise that most concerns relate to the prescriptive nature of the Framework.

    “The National Board approved the Expectations Framework on a non-mandatory basis, but we acknowledge that some of the language may not have reflected that clearly. Today we have withdrawn the Expectations Framework so that it can be amended to address concerns and launched in the New Year.”

    In a separate development, it emerged that the IMB at HMP Manchester has failed to produce annual reports, as required in law, for the past three years. A national IMB spokesperson said: “We acknowledge there have been challenges with publishing Manchester’s reports, caused by fluctuating board membership, which meant reports could not be completed for publication.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commentary found online [MARK L.’s Post] re-IMB press release in late 2025 (before the recent Davies resignation):

      "The IMB Press Office have now revised their resignation figures after challenge, and confirmed it is six - not five - IMB Members who resigned from the IMB at Downview.

      Also, of the 4 new members who have been appointed to Downview, 2 of them aren’t even in the prison yet, as they have both deferred their start date until January 2026.

      The IMB - with its ridiculous 'Don't Complain To Us' template letters due to be handed out to prisoners who raise complaints with the IMB from January - is in an existential crisis; the issuing of template letters and the refusal they represent to become involved in prisoner complaints, is going to be challenged in the High Court by judicial review once it begins, on the basis it is ultra vires the Prison Act.

      Parliament bestowed on IMBs the statutory duty to hear complaints from prisoners, and it is not for the IMB to refuse to discharge the duty Parliament gave to them because the discharge of those powers is thought, by the IMB, to have become inexpedient; what an absolute mess the national IMB system has become."

      Delete
  7. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyzvrxyxnxo

    Joan Scourfield understands why audiences find it extraordinary to see her hugging the man who caused her son's death.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As an SPO, I recognise every part of this thread. The idea that middle managers are “leading” anything right now is largely a fiction. Many are firefighting, absorbing HR work, managing sickness, risk and performance with inadequate tools, and doing so under constant pressure to keep the machine moving. That doesn’t create reflective leadership, it creates containment.

    What worries me most is the number of experienced staff describing resignation rather than anger. That’s the point at which people stop believing change is possible. When probation reaches a stage where committed practitioners either numb themselves or plan their exit, the damage is already done. No amount of rebranding, recruitment or process tweaking will fix that unless the organisation is willing to confront the conditions it has created and stop relying on individual sacrifice to mask systemic failure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What’s being described here isn’t a morale problem, a bad year, or a failure of resilience. It’s managed decline. People are staying far longer than is healthy out of loyalty, guilt and professional identity, not because the organisation deserves it. Others are leaving quietly because they’ve reached the point where self-preservation is the only rational option left.

    The most alarming thing in these comments isn’t the anger, it’s the resignation. That’s what develops when staff learn, over time, that raising concerns goes nowhere, formal processes protect hierarchy rather than truth, and commitment is rewarded with more pressure instead of support. At that point, people don’t fight the system; they disengage from it.

    If probation leaders, managers or union representatives are reading this, the challenge is simple: stop explaining why things are hard and start responding to what is actually being said here. This isn’t noise, negativity or whingeing. It’s a detailed account of why experienced practitioners are switching off or walking away. If there is no credible, collective response to this, not another consultation, review or statement, then the silence will be taken for what it is: confirmation that decline is not an accident, but a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does anyone know if you've been on long term sick leave on half pay and return to work for 2 months then take 1 days off sick what is the trigger point for going back on half pay? I had always thought it was 3 days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My understanding is that if you’ve already exhausted full pay and moved onto half pay, returning to work for a short period does not automatically restore entitlement. Until earlier sickness drops out of the rolling 12 months, any further sickness, even a single day, can put you straight back on half pay. you should ask HR for a written breakdown of your current sick pay entitlement and confirmation of how any further absence would be treated.

      Delete
  11. Surely this blog could be copied into the HMPPS AI that keeps been spoken (how much money has been poured in I hate to think!!) of to digest, analyse and evaluate all the themes, comments and research which has been referenced in this blog.

    I’ve been following this blog for years and reading comments and views from those who are the frontline like me has afforded some comfort. However it’s got to the point now where the bond you form with colleagues (which lets face it is probably trauma bonding) simply isn’t enough.

    A week or so ago I watched the parliamentary video of Jo Farrar and co being grilled. The questions and challenge given by the panel was spot on…. But the answers Jo gave amongst others the head were terrible and it made me think what hope do we have of anyone listening and taking our service seriously when they just ramble and avoid a direct answers.

    The probation service is in an absolute mess, we are not providing a quality service, why can’t they just be honest! I know there is lots of amazing practice and work that happens everyday but the HMIP reports show a consistent pattern of not keeping others safe. We need to go back to basics, remind everyone what are values are as a service, get back the aspiration to provide the best, not just “good enough” - most people who join the service are caring and conscientious … create an environment which allows that and allows us to feel aligned to our core values. We get ignored and ignored for external reward like pay rises so at-least let us work in a way that gives intrinsic reward!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Reasons to be fearful, part 3:

    Is everybody enjoying their open plan offices? A Harvard Study identified that the 'open space' office is not for collaboration.

    "The modern office blueprint is actually based on Jeremy Bentham’s 18th-century concept called the «Panopticon.»* ... You are not sitting in a creative hub; you are sitting in a surveillance architecture designed for maximum control per square foot... When you are visually exposed from all angles, your amygdala triggers a low-level threat state... if you can be tapped on the shoulder at any moment, you are just available inventory...You are not tired at 5 PM because of the workload; you are exhausted because your auditory cortex has been fighting a defensive war against noise for eight hours... You are being farmed, not managed."

    * A Panopticon is an architectural concept for an institutional building, most famously a prison, designed by Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century, featuring a central watchtower from which guards can observe inmates in surrounding cells without being seen, inducing self-discipline through the uncertainty of constant surveillance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Environment shapes behaviour. When staff work in constant visibility, noise and interruption, it affects concentration, judgement and emotional regulation. That matters profoundly in a service built on risk assessment, relational work and reflective decision-making.

      Probation increasingly resembles a surveillance culture turned inward. The same logic used to manage people on supervision is being applied to staff: visibility equals productivity, measurement equals safety, exposure equals control. That may suit administrative throughput, but it actively undermines professional practice.

      If people feel constantly observed, hurried and interruptible, they do not take thoughtful decisions. They manage defensively. That is not a workforce problem. It is a design choice.

      Delete
  13. Reading this as someone still working in the probation service, I can only say how deeply it lands. What you’ve written articulates what many of us feel but struggle to say out loud — partly because there never seems to be a safe or meaningful space to do so.
    Those of us who are still here haven’t stayed because things are fine. We’ve stayed because of the same loyalty you describe: to the work, to the people we supervise, and to the colleagues sitting beside us who are carrying the same impossible loads. Caring is still what gets us through the day — and, paradoxically, what is wearing us down.
    The feeling of having no real choice is already familiar, even for those who haven’t yet left. Many of us recognise that slow narrowing of options: adapting, absorbing, keeping going, telling ourselves we can hold on a bit longer. We speak up where we can, often carefully, often repeatedly, and too often into a void. The language of wellbeing and support exists, but the reality is relentless pressure, shrinking professional space, and a growing gap between what probation claims to be and what it has become.
    It matters that we acknowledge managers in this too, because from where l stand, they are as trapped as anyone. Many are trying to shield staff, meet impossible demands, and keep services afloat within systems they did not create and cannot fix. The strain runs right through the organisation, and it shows.
    What is hardest is knowing that people are already weighing up exit not as a career move, but as self-preservation. That staying may eventually come at too high a cost — to health, family, and identity. I don’t see clear solutions either. From inside, it often feels as though the choices are limited to enduring harm or stepping away.
    So please know this: your decision is understood. Your honesty matters. And to everyone still here — practitioners, managers, administrators — doing their best in a probation service that feels increasingly dysfunctional and, at times, abusive towards its own staff: you are seen. You are not failing. If you reach the point where leaving becomes the only option, that is not weakness. It is survival.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think they want to get rid of community offender management altogether and it's been a planned slow kill for decades. They knew they were never going to make money from offenders by splitting the service into NPS and CRC-it was just about getting rid of staff-first CRC staff and by bringing it back together they want to get rid of more of the remaining staff- they let NPS have it relatively easy for a few years with all the CRC cases gone then hit them with a huge unmanageable caseload that completely changed the enti
    re way they had worked up to that point and destroyed any work/life balance they had been used to up with the goal of making them leave. I think ultimately they want to shrink the amount of cases probation manages, bring in AI and electronic monitoring, have Police do the community management and have cases report directly to Igneus and other agencies on release and have POs or rather the cheaper lower skilled less educated PSOs working just from the prison estate setting things up for an offender's release. All these recruitment campaigns are just to keep a conveyor belt workforce until the decision is made to get rid of community management and these staff are easily disposable because of the short time they will have worked for probation.. They have to want to get rid of office based case management in the next few years
    or otherwise everything they're doing doesn't make much sense..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This doesn’t need conspiracy theories to explain it. The direction of travel is obvious. Community probation has been weakened by design through unmanageable caseloads, diluted training, falling pay and the steady replacement of professional judgement with tools, targets and technology. When quality drops, that failure is then used to justify more restriction, more monitoring and less trust in practitioners.

      Recruitment campaigns make sense in this model. Experience becomes disposable. High churn is not a bug, it is a feature. A workforce that doesn’t stay long enough to push back is easier to control and cheaper to reshape. AI, tagging and outsourced “support” are sold as innovation, but they are substitutes for the professional capacity that has been stripped out.

      Probation is not being reformed. It is being hollowed out and repurposed into an administrative layer around surveillance.

      If this continues, probation will survive in name only and when the harm becomes undeniable, those responsible will claim it was inevitable rather than chosen.

      Delete
  15. Leo Tolstoy summed this up well way over a century ago. “The wicked become even worse when they are tolerated.” Very astute man indeed.

    ReplyDelete

  16. I didn’t choose this probation service. I chose a profession built on judgement, experience and human responsibility. What exists now is a hollowed-out system that extracts everything from staff while stripping them of voice, influence and protection.

    Those of us who remain after decades aren’t here because we believe in the leadership or the direction of travel. We’re here because lives have been built around a career that no longer resembles what we entered - mortgages, children, geography, and the reality that walking away isn’t simple when your profession has been dismantled around you.

    Risk has intensified, accountability has hardened, scrutiny has become punitive, yet professional autonomy has vanished. Experience is mined, not respected. Loyalty is demanded, not returned. Decisions are imposed by people who will never carry the consequences of them.

    With hindsight, knowing what probation has been turned into, I would not choose this career again.

    This isn’t resilience or commitment. It’s containment. We are not a workforce being supported, we are numbers being managed until we break or disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Risk has intensified" - primarily because the risk industry needed it to. And labelling theory works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s exactly it. Risk didn’t just increase, it was manufactured, expanded and monetised. Once risk became a product, it required constant inflation to justify tools, frameworks, audits, roles and oversight structures. Labelling theory does the rest: define people as permanently risky, then design systems that can never declare success. Practitioners are left carrying liability for risks that have been structurally exaggerated and procedurally impossible to manage. This isn’t public protection, it’s risk theatre, and staff are the expendable props.

      Delete
  18. https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/63831/documents/7438

    Link to the current version of the Sentencing Bill due for 3rd reading in HoL, perhaps as early as next week.
    __________________________________________________________

    https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4012/publications

    History of the Bill to date: "Full text of the Bill as introduced and further versions of the Bill as it is reprinted to incorporate amendments (proposals for change) made during its passage through Parliament."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Off piste, but an interesting insight into the competency of decision making at the MoJ.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/07/catastrophic-moj-leasing-dartmoor-jail-toxic-gas-cost

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A “catastrophic” decision by the Ministry of Justice to sign a 10-year lease on a prison where high levels of a poisonous gas had been detected is expected to cost the UK taxpayer more than £100m, parliament’s spending watchdog has concluded.

      The public accounts committee said the 2022 deal to rent HMP Dartmoor from the Duchy of Cornwall was signed “in a blind panic” by senior civil servants looking to guarantee prison places.

      The category C prison, which held many sex offenders, was closed in 2024 after levels of radon up to 10 times higher than the recommended limit were recorded in some areas. The government has since admitted that it was aware that “elevated readings” of the gas were found in 2020.

      Radon, a colourless and odourless radioactive gas, causes about 1,100 lung cancer deaths in the UK every year, according to the Health Security Agency.

      A report released by the committee said officials from HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) failed to negotiate “a good deal” and signed it in 2022 before carrying out further radon tests.

      “Under the contract terms, the department cannot terminate the lease until at least December 2033. Overall, HMPPS is currently paying around £4m per year for an unusable prison. This includes rent, business rates and security costs.

      “Additionally government must pay additional costs – around £68m – on fabric improvements to the Dartmoor site over the period of the lease,” the report said.

      The committee questioned civil servants about the deal last year. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Conservative chair of the all-party committee, said the MoJ’s handling of HMP Dartmoor had been “an absolute disgrace, from top to bottom”.

      He said: “We heard claims that the leasing of this unusable building, known for years by HMPPS to be choked with radon gas with all the health risks that entailed, was sensible, driven by the need for prison places.

      “Our committee rejects this excuse outright. Dartmoor appears to the committee [to be] a perfect example of a department reaching for a solution, any solution, in a blind panic and under pressure.

      “Government must now respond to us on what it has learned from this catastrophic failure.”

      The decision to close the jail, forcing the relocation of 682 inmates, followed years of monitoring and attempts to mitigate the radon levels. Staff at the prison began monitoring levels in 2010, but the last of the 640 prisoners and 159 staff were not moved out until July 2024.

      Questions have since been asked about whether HMPPS could have acted sooner.

      In a written answer in parliament in July last year, the MoJ said: “Elevated radon readings were first found at Dartmoor in 2020.” The BBC reported in October that radon gas levels higher than the recommended limit were also detected in 2007.

      More than 500 former inmates and prison officers are bringing legal claims against the government, claiming their health was put at risk.

      The Duchy of Cornwall, the estate that provides a private income for Prince William, owns HMP Dartmoor and leases it to the MoJ.


      An investigation into radon levels at the prison launched by the Health and Safety Executive in 2023 is ongoing.

      Delete
    2. The national chair of the Prison Officers Association, Mark Fairhurst, welcomed the report. “It is abhorrent that such a failure has not yielded consequences for the high-ranking decision makers that not only put everyone within Dartmoor prison at risk but also wasted millions of pounds of tax revenue,” he said.

      Appearing before MPs in October, the MoJ’s permanent secretary, Jo Farrar, defended the decision to sign a 10-year Dartmoor lease in 2022.

      “At that time, the prison system was at risk of running out of prison places, and Dartmoor provided over 600 places,” she said. “A sensible and pragmatic decision was taken in March, when all the information that we have now was not available, that it was necessary, given the issues the government were facing, to sign the lease and keep Dartmoor open.”

      A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “This decision was taken in 2022. This government inherited a crisis in our prisons system, where prisons were on the brink of collapse, threatening a total collapse in law and order.”

      Delete
    3. Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you the finest of the finest, our senior leadership figures with the sharpest of minds, a honed acumen, the best education money can buy & more gongs than J Arthur Rank...

      ... And the uber-privileged nobheads spaffed £100m of public money up the wall leasing a building known to be filled with deadly, noxious gas so they could fill it with prisoners.

      BUT all is not lost, children... the money went to a good cause, a pauper prince.

      Dr Jo Farrar CB OBE - Second Permanent Secretary. Ministry of Justice UK. Sep 2022 - May 2023

      Dr Jo Farrar CB OBE became the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice in July 2025.

      Jo was previously the Chief Executive Officer at NHS Blood and Transplant, and before this she served as Second Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice with a remit covering HM Prison and Probation Service, the Office of the Public Guardian, the Legal Aid Agency, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

      Jo has a background in local government, having previously held the positions of Director General for Local Government and Public Services at MHCLG, and Chief Executive of Bath and North East Somerset Council.
      ________________________________________________
      Dame Antonia Romeo DCB was the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) from 2021 to 2025

      Antonia Romeo became the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office in April 2025, with responsibility for delivering the safer streets mission, secure borders, immigration and passports, homeland security, and protecting vulnerable people.

      The role of Permanent Secretary carries with it the responsibility of Principal Accounting Officer, ensuring that the resources authorised by Parliament are used for the purposes authorised by Parliament.

      * Antonia was Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice for 4 years, with responsibility for criminal justice, prison and probation services, courts, legal services, and constitutional policy.
      * Director General, Criminal Justice at the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), responsible for all criminal justice policy and major programmes
      * Director General, Transformation at MOJ, responsible for reform and savings programmes, strategy, digital services, communications, group HR and group estates
      * Executive Director, Enterprise and Reform at Cabinet Office, responsible for reforming the government’s governance and board model, working with businesses

      Antonia sits on the Civil Service Board and is Chair of the Senior Leadership Committee.

      Antonia holds an MA (PPE) from Oxford University, an MSc (Economics) from the London School of Economics, and an Advanced Management Programme diploma from Columbia Business School.
      _________________________________________________

      What were the consequences of their utterly reckless & indefensible actions whilst at hmpps/moj, you ask.

      Promotions, decorations, plaudits & shitloads of taxpayer cash to stuff in their bank accounts.

      Delete
    4. It's a ruse to ensure king Charles and William collect their Dutchy revenues.

      Delete
    5. Alongside enriching the royal household with taxpayer cash, Romeo also gave them a bit of paper: "The extraordinary high point was the honour of writing and producing the official coronation roll, which recorded for posterity Their Majesties’ coronation in 2023."

      Back in 2014 an exciting new set of contracts were unleashed upon the nation, when Romeo (Director General, Transformation at MOJ & senior responsible officer) denied that such offenders will suddenly be presented with a new set of staff and procedures or that it would be a fuck-up:

      “It doesn’t necessarily mean a completely new set of people; it will all depend on what’s best for that particular case... I personally listen very carefully to what people tell me... my job is to make sure that we don’t take any unnecessary risks as we move; that we look very carefully and seek assurance that what we’re doing won’t lead to any reduction in ‘business as usual’ ... My job as senior responsible officer is to make sure we deliver the benefits of the programme. We need to really understand what’s going on... The Cabinet Office has a very clear process for awarding contracts... a best practice contract management function that will have the deep domain business expertise that is required...To get large transformation programmes working, you’ve got to have really good assurance in place so that you know you’re not believing your own hype..."

      The failed tr experiment lost the taxpayer over £half-a-billion; money that thankfully went into the starving bank accounts of struggling multinationals such as sodexo, serco, etc.

      Fortunately the whole shitshow has been suitable sanitised for posterity:

      "We thank the CRC providers for their work over the past six years, and recognise the positive work that has been done and the innovation CRCs have brought to the probation service during this time."

      https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmjust/285/28504.htm

      Delete
  20. This legislation expands community sentences, suspended sentences and post-custodial supervision while saying virtually nothing about workforce capacity, professional skill, or risk ownership. In other words, the courts are being given more options and probation is being handed more responsibility, liability and scrutiny without any guarantee of time, staffing or professional autonomy to deliver it safely.

    This isn’t reform; it’s displacement. Prison pressure is being pushed downstream into probation, where risk is already concentrated, caseloads are already unsafe, and accountability is already punitive. Every new requirement, condition or recall power lands on an officer who will be blamed if it fails but has no say in how it was designed.

    If Parliament passes sentencing reform without legislating for caseload caps, professional standards and proper resourcing, then it isn’t strengthening community justice, it’s knowingly loading more risk onto a service that has been hollowed out for over a decade. And when it goes wrong, we already know who will carry the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I attended a briefing this week about E-POP where those pops who are low or medium risk (with no active safeguarding or mappa) will complete online tick box reporting rather than face to face appts to alleviate appointments and improve capacity…. Another step away from developing actual relationships with those you supervise. I can see the value for those with standalone requirements but for the majority, especially those who have been subject to probation for years this will feel like the service is trying to shut the door on meaningful contact. SFOs are mainly perpetrated by medium rosh offenders if I recall rightly so what’s the evidence base for this??? Risk is fluid - how can know if risk is escalating from someone ticking a few boxes which they decide!?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The claim that this is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” for probation doesn’t stand up when set against what was said to the Public Accounts Committee. The evidence given makes clear that senior officials have known for years about unsafe workloads, retention failure and a workforce model that no longer works. This is not a sudden moment of insight or ambition, it is overdue acknowledgement of problems that have been repeatedly raised and repeatedly ignored.

    What Parliament was told confirms what staff already know: probation has been running on deficit staffing, stretched capacity and goodwill for far too long. Dressing this up as transformation doesn’t change the reality. Recruitment promises, digital tools and legislative tweaks are being offered instead of the fundamentals the Committee was effectively probing for - workload caps, retention, professional confidence and stability.

    If this really were a once-in-a-generation moment, the response to Parliament would include binding limits on caseloads, meaningful pay restoration and a clear commitment to rebuilding probation as a profession. Instead, we are hearing familiar language about efficiency, innovation and “doing more differently”, while the structural risks Parliament questioned remain unresolved.

    That isn’t renewal. It’s managed decline, repackaged and the people giving evidence won’t be the ones carrying the consequences on the frontline.

    ReplyDelete