******
I did, it really angered me! The tone was so awful, as if we’re going to read that and then realise we’ve all been looking at it all wrong. All hail the chief PO for busting those myths and essentially calling us all liars and over-reactors. And you wonder why there’s a retention problem…
I did, it really angered me! The tone was so awful, as if we’re going to read that and then realise we’ve all been looking at it all wrong. All hail the chief PO for busting those myths and essentially calling us all liars and over-reactors. And you wonder why there’s a retention problem…
******
I’ve read the Chief Probation Officer’s “myth busters” piece carefully. It sets out three main corrections and provides percentage tables to show pay growth over time. So let’s respond clearly and factually.
Myth 1: CBF is separate from the pay award
It’s correct that progression (CBF) sits within Civil Service Remit Guidance and forms part of the annual pay framework. But progression is movement within a pay band. It is not a cost-of-living increase. It does not raise the value of the band itself. It simply moves someone closer to the ceiling that already exists. Once staff reach the top of their band, progression ends. From that point on, only the headline uplift matters. So while CBF may technically sit inside the “award”, it does not function as restoration for experienced staff already at band maximum. That distinction is not a myth. It’s mechanics.
Myth 2: Only 1% between 2018 and 2021
The article states that between 2018 and 2024 average increases were 24.4% at band minimums and 10.8% at band maximums. Minimums rose faster to support recruitment. Maximums rose more slowly. That means newer entrants benefited proportionally more than long-serving staff at the top of bands. During the same period, cumulative inflation — especially post-2020 — significantly reduced real-terms value. Nominal increases without inflation context do not equal restored purchasing power.
Myth 3: Only 11% since 2010
The table shows band maximum increases since 2010. For Band 4, that’s 17.56% (22.26% including the proposed 2025 uplift). Spread across roughly 14–15 years, that averages around 1–1.5% per year. Over that same period, inflation has substantially exceeded that figure. The question staff are asking is not whether pay bands have moved at all. It’s whether pay has kept pace with inflation, expanding workload, heightened risk, professional registration requirements and responsibility creep. Those are different questions.
The 2025–26 offer remains:
• 4% uplift to pay points
• 4% uplift to allowances
• Progression where eligible
I’ve read the Chief Probation Officer’s “myth busters” piece carefully. It sets out three main corrections and provides percentage tables to show pay growth over time. So let’s respond clearly and factually.
Myth 1: CBF is separate from the pay award
It’s correct that progression (CBF) sits within Civil Service Remit Guidance and forms part of the annual pay framework. But progression is movement within a pay band. It is not a cost-of-living increase. It does not raise the value of the band itself. It simply moves someone closer to the ceiling that already exists. Once staff reach the top of their band, progression ends. From that point on, only the headline uplift matters. So while CBF may technically sit inside the “award”, it does not function as restoration for experienced staff already at band maximum. That distinction is not a myth. It’s mechanics.
Myth 2: Only 1% between 2018 and 2021
The article states that between 2018 and 2024 average increases were 24.4% at band minimums and 10.8% at band maximums. Minimums rose faster to support recruitment. Maximums rose more slowly. That means newer entrants benefited proportionally more than long-serving staff at the top of bands. During the same period, cumulative inflation — especially post-2020 — significantly reduced real-terms value. Nominal increases without inflation context do not equal restored purchasing power.
Myth 3: Only 11% since 2010
The table shows band maximum increases since 2010. For Band 4, that’s 17.56% (22.26% including the proposed 2025 uplift). Spread across roughly 14–15 years, that averages around 1–1.5% per year. Over that same period, inflation has substantially exceeded that figure. The question staff are asking is not whether pay bands have moved at all. It’s whether pay has kept pace with inflation, expanding workload, heightened risk, professional registration requirements and responsibility creep. Those are different questions.
The 2025–26 offer remains:
• 4% uplift to pay points
• 4% uplift to allowances
• Progression where eligible
No one is disputing the arithmetic. What staff are disputing is the framing. Because when real-terms pay erosion is reframed as “misunderstanding”, it feels less like myth-busting and more like minimising. You can call it clarification. But when experienced practitioners calculate what their pay buys now compared to ten or fifteen years ago, the gap is not imaginary. It’s visible. And no table changes that.
******
We are not stupid. We do not need “myth busters” to explain percentages to us. We can divide 22% by 15 years. We can compare it to inflation. We can look at our rent, mortgages, fuel bills, childcare and food costs and do the maths without supervision thanks! The issue is not misunderstanding. The issue is erosion.
Calling it a “myth” when staff point out that 1–1.5% a year over a decade and a half is nowhere near real-terms restoration feels profoundly insulting. It suggests the problem is that we haven’t grasped the figures properly, rather than the figures being inadequate. Progression is not a pay rise for experienced staff at the top of bands. It is internal movement within a ceiling that itself has barely moved. Recruitment minimums rising faster than maximums doesn’t disprove erosion. It highlights it. And presenting nominal percentage tables without inflation context is technically correct but economically hollow. We are being told, essentially: “Look at the numbers. You’re doing better than you think.”
Eh, No!
We are looking at the numbers.
And we are looking at our bank accounts.
And we are looking at workloads that have intensified year on year.
And we are looking at risk that has escalated.
And we are looking at professional expectations that have increased.
And we are looking at colleagues leaving.
The anger isn’t because we can’t do maths. It’s because we can! When a workforce under sustained strain is told their concerns are “misunderstandings,” it doesn’t feel explanatory. It feels incredibly dismissive! And that is what has landed so badly. This isn’t about confusion. It’s about value. If leadership wants trust, start by acknowledging real-terms loss without reframing it as myth. We don’t need correcting. We need recognising. There's a difference.
We are not stupid. We do not need “myth busters” to explain percentages to us. We can divide 22% by 15 years. We can compare it to inflation. We can look at our rent, mortgages, fuel bills, childcare and food costs and do the maths without supervision thanks! The issue is not misunderstanding. The issue is erosion.
Calling it a “myth” when staff point out that 1–1.5% a year over a decade and a half is nowhere near real-terms restoration feels profoundly insulting. It suggests the problem is that we haven’t grasped the figures properly, rather than the figures being inadequate. Progression is not a pay rise for experienced staff at the top of bands. It is internal movement within a ceiling that itself has barely moved. Recruitment minimums rising faster than maximums doesn’t disprove erosion. It highlights it. And presenting nominal percentage tables without inflation context is technically correct but economically hollow. We are being told, essentially: “Look at the numbers. You’re doing better than you think.”
Eh, No!
We are looking at the numbers.
And we are looking at our bank accounts.
And we are looking at workloads that have intensified year on year.
And we are looking at risk that has escalated.
And we are looking at professional expectations that have increased.
And we are looking at colleagues leaving.
The anger isn’t because we can’t do maths. It’s because we can! When a workforce under sustained strain is told their concerns are “misunderstandings,” it doesn’t feel explanatory. It feels incredibly dismissive! And that is what has landed so badly. This isn’t about confusion. It’s about value. If leadership wants trust, start by acknowledging real-terms loss without reframing it as myth. We don’t need correcting. We need recognising. There's a difference.
--oo00oo--
What does AI say?
Myth 1: "Probation officers are well-paid for their work."
Reality: Pay has fallen significantly in real terms.
While starting salaries for qualified probation officers rose to £35,130 (plus London weighting) by 2024/25, unions argue this does not compensate for over a decade of wage stagnation. Data indicates that probation staff have faced a real-terms pay decrease of roughly 22% compared to similar professions over the past decade, with some estimates suggesting a 60% real-terms cut since 2010.
Myth 2: "The 2024/25 pay rises resolved the pay crisis."
Reality: The rises barely kept up with inflation, and negotiations for 2025 were delayed.
While a 2024 deal brought a 6.4% increase for some and brought forward pay dates, it followed years of suppressed wages. As of late 2025, unions were still in dispute, with reports of "relentless" workload pressures and no immediate 2025 pay offer, leading to threats of industrial action.
Myth 3: "Probation officers are paid equivalent to police/prison officers."
Reality: Probation staff have consistently fallen behind other justice sectors.
Comparative data shows that probation staff have received lower, or joint-lowest, pay awards compared to police staff and prison officers since 2010. As of 2024, probation pay lagged behind other public sector roles (Police Staff 20%, Health 16%, Local Government 18.4% vs. Probation 9.9% increase).
Myth 4: "The high caseloads are temporary, justifying the pay rate."
Reality: Unmanageable workloads are now considered systemic.
The service is under severe pressure, often described as "buckling" or in crisis, with high turnover, severe staff shortages (estimated at 3,150), and unsustainable caseloads. Staff describe pay as "atrocious" for the high-risk, 24/7 nature of the work.
Myth 5: "The service is now properly funded after reunification."
Reality: Despite returning to public control, funding remains a key issue.
Although the 2021 unification was generally welcomed, reports from 2025 show that the service is "under-funded, under-staffed, and overworked". The reliance on early release schemes (SDS40) has exacerbated workload issues without corresponding pay increases for the increased risk.
Disclaimer: Pay data is based on 2024-2025 union negotiations and Ministry of Justice figures. The situation regarding 2025/26 pay is subject to ongoing negotiations.
In other news. Seen on Twitter by Krishnan Guru-Murthy:-
ReplyDelete"On C4 News : Extraordinary interview tonight with Simon McDonald - former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office - who is trying to warn No 10 about the widely reported plans to replace Chris Wormald as Cabinet Secretary with Antonia Romeo without a new appointment process. He says ditching Wormald is “extraordinary” and he wants to talk to them about the Foreign Office investigation into allegations against Antonia Romeo in 2017 which the Cabinet Office said was investigated and dismissed without a case to answer. “Due diligence has some way to go” says Lord McDonald who says there must be a full process before any appointment. He says he’s been trying to speak to No 10 but nobody is calling him back!"
https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/dame-antonia-romeo-set-to-become-first-female-cabinet-secretary-528486?srsltid=AfmBOooOpals7mbEtcI9A5ugt0XYJcGz8LmhXXoJ5wXXPTOeec8HuIlQ
DeleteSummary
Dame Antonia Romeo is set to become the first female Cabinet Secretary amid major government leadership changes following Sir Chris Wormald's resignation.
Sir Chris Wormald resigned after just over one year, marking the shortest Cabinet Secretary tenure, and will receive a £250,000 payoff plus a £2.5 million pension.
Romeo, known for her progressive diversity advocacy and cleared of past misconduct allegations, has previously been considered for the role and is viewed as a reformist leader.
"Her progressive stances have earned her both admirers and detractors. According to The Mail on Sunday, Romeo’s tenure as consul general in New York saw her host lavish events for celebrities such as Anna Wintour and Calvin Klein, moves that reportedly raised eyebrows among some colleagues. Allegations surfaced in 2017 accusing Romeo of bullying, harassment, discrimination, and misuse of expenses—including claims she allowed her husband’s firm to use the taxpayer-funded residence for work events and that she spent government money on school fees, business class flights, taxis, and even £30,000 worth of paint and furnishings for her official flat.
However, the Cabinet Office ultimately cleared her of all wrongdoing... Dave Penman, general secretary of the civil servants’ union, suggested that some of the criticism directed at Romeo carried a “whiff of misogyny.” "
La romeo was a much lauded rising star when she was at the cabinet office francis maude:
"Antonia Romeo worked closely with Francis Maude in the Cabinet Office during the early 2010s, notably as Director of Governance Reform in 2010 and in facilitating government digital strategies. Later, Romeo served as the sponsor for the 2022 independent review of Civil Service governance led by Lord Maude."
La romeo was also the responsible officer for the TR project when maude's cabinet office stumped up the £80m "Modernisation Fund" sweetener to pay off probation staff in order to make TR seem a more palatable proposition to the crc companies... money the pirateer crc's pocketed for themselves rather than hand it out to staff as part of any severance arrangement.
So, rest assured, La romeo will soon be enabled to fuck up the country from a position of ultimate power despite her appalling track record.
Britain’s biggest union has called for the Probation Service to be removed from civil service control after a damning report from MPs flagged staffing concerns and questioned the service’s ability to turn around record-high reoffending rates.
ReplyDeleteUnison, which counts probation officers, other civil servants, health professionals and social workers among its 1.3 million members, said ministers should make good on a 2024 general-election manifesto pledge and review the governance of probation “without further delay”.
An MoJ spokesperson said the current Labour government inherited a Probation Service "under immense pressure which has placed too great a burden on our hardworking staff", adding that the government is fixing this with a record £700m funding increase.
Before the Transforming Rehabilitation programme was launched by the coalition government in 2014, probation trusts separate from the Ministry of Justice were responsible for providing services. The 35 trusts in England and Wales were responsible for overseeing offenders in the community and providing specialist services in courts and prisons.
Since June 2021, following the scrapping of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, probation services have been unified at HM Prison and Probation Service, which is part of the MoJ.
A report from parliament’s Public Accounts Committee yesterday said the number of offenders recalled to prison is at an all-time high, accounting for 15,583 inmates at the end of March last year – or 15% of the overall prison population. MPs said the figure represented a 49% increase since June 2021.
Following their inquiry, sparked by a critical National Audit Office report in October, MPs questioned whether HMPPS has a proper understanding of how many staff it needs to sufficiently improve probation performance.