Only when someone's job or promotion or public reputation is on the line will anyone with half-a-chance of making a difference raise an eyebrow &, at a stretch, wonder what the fuss is about. They're not in positions of power because they give a crap; its because they *DON'T* give a crap. They're teflon.
The cobbler, lammy, the invisible woman, young ewan mcgregor (or whoever it is)... they're all invested in tech & prisons - probation staff are merely cannon fodder. Ask yourselves: why would they be interested in reversing all of the PR & vested interest & public cash spent building cosy relationships with the tech & incarceration industries? What is the biggest risk they take?
1. Pissing off powerful people with excellent corporate entertainment & razor-sharp lawyers? ORAs of December 2025, resident doctors (formerly known as junior doctors) in England have staged 14 separate rounds of strike action since the dispute began in March 2023. They've voted again in favour of a further 6 months of action if required:
2. Stuffing up a handful of whiny bastards who they've been treating like shit with impunity for a decade or two? Less than a third are in a frail union led by a hapless wannabe, and even fewer are in a union that says "yes" to every govt proposal.
Number entitled to vote in the ballot: 54,432
Number of votes cast in the ballot: 28,598 = 52.54%
Number of spoilt/invalid voting papers returned: 17
Result of voting:
Yes: 26,696 (93.40%)
No: 1,885 (6.60%)
27,000 of the most committed & critical workers in the country have not yet achieved their aim because the teflon-coated, cloth-eared ideologues in Westminster & Whitehall feel able to ignore them for the past 3 years. The most recent ballot *might* just have twisted Streeting's lugs BUT... I suspect it's more likely he's positioning himself as Starmer's successor & making himself out to be the resolver of the issue.
Probation staff do not have the same leverage & will not have the same effect upon lammy, a deputy pm desperate to step-up, because he's already laid out his tag'em & bag'em agenda.
*******
I understand the frustration behind this, but I don’t think it’s as simple as “they don’t care.” It’s worse than that. Probation doesn’t move votes. Hospitals collapsing move votes. Trains not running move votes. Doctors striking move votes. When 27,000 resident doctors vote 93% for industrial action, it makes front-page news and creates immediate political risk.
Probation? We operate in the shadows. When it fails, it’s framed as individual practitioner failure, not systemic collapse. When it holds things together, no one notices. That’s the difference. It’s not personal malice. It’s political calculus.
And right now the political calculus favours:
• prisons (because visible custody reassures the public),
• tagging (because tech looks modern and decisive),
• “tough community sentences” (because it sounds robust).
What doesn’t generate headlines?
Workload ratios.
Case quality.
Professional discretion.
Emotional strain.
Retention.
You’re right about leverage. Doctors can withdraw labour and the NHS feels it immediately. Teachers can strike and parents feel it within hours. Probation withdrawing labour would cause disruption, but it’s slower, more diffuse, easier to spin as irresponsibility. That doesn’t mean we’re powerless. It means influence won’t come from outrage alone. It comes from unity, turnout, credibility and sustained pressure.
If less than a third of staff are union members, and turnout is patchy, decision-makers will calculate that the noise is containable. The uncomfortable truth is this: power responds to risk. Until probation creates political risk (reputational, operational, electoral) it will remain a lower priority than prisons and headline management. That’s not because staff are “whiny.” It’s because we’re structurally easy to ignore. The question isn’t whether they care, the question is how we make it cost them not to.
I understand the frustration behind this, but I don’t think it’s as simple as “they don’t care.” It’s worse than that. Probation doesn’t move votes. Hospitals collapsing move votes. Trains not running move votes. Doctors striking move votes. When 27,000 resident doctors vote 93% for industrial action, it makes front-page news and creates immediate political risk.
Probation? We operate in the shadows. When it fails, it’s framed as individual practitioner failure, not systemic collapse. When it holds things together, no one notices. That’s the difference. It’s not personal malice. It’s political calculus.
And right now the political calculus favours:
• prisons (because visible custody reassures the public),
• tagging (because tech looks modern and decisive),
• “tough community sentences” (because it sounds robust).
What doesn’t generate headlines?
Workload ratios.
Case quality.
Professional discretion.
Emotional strain.
Retention.
You’re right about leverage. Doctors can withdraw labour and the NHS feels it immediately. Teachers can strike and parents feel it within hours. Probation withdrawing labour would cause disruption, but it’s slower, more diffuse, easier to spin as irresponsibility. That doesn’t mean we’re powerless. It means influence won’t come from outrage alone. It comes from unity, turnout, credibility and sustained pressure.
If less than a third of staff are union members, and turnout is patchy, decision-makers will calculate that the noise is containable. The uncomfortable truth is this: power responds to risk. Until probation creates political risk (reputational, operational, electoral) it will remain a lower priority than prisons and headline management. That’s not because staff are “whiny.” It’s because we’re structurally easy to ignore. The question isn’t whether they care, the question is how we make it cost them not to.
Hi Jim, as this was posted at 03:20 I hope you have just returned from a pleasant night out rather than having sleepless nights over the current probation position……first rule of probation survival is to look after yourself !
ReplyDeleteAnon 05:15 I find I can think better early morning and my sleep pattern is all over the place in recent times. I returned to bed!
DeleteEvery little bit helps but the only way to achieve real and lasting change is to organise. That means building an effective union opposition focused on a manifesto of change that provides a roadmap towards a credible vision of what Probation could and should be. This vision and manifesto for reform needs to be a viable alternative that includes a transition plan. Current union leaders need to come together with experts to produce this and then get behind it. Their current efforts are uncoordinated disjointed and ineffective. Anything else is a distraction. We should rejoin the unions and make sure this is the priority and nothing else. Not one minute at conferences should be spent talking about anything else. If leaders do not support it then democratic processes can be used to remove them.
ReplyDeleteExperts come together that's the point of having a GS to do this work from the begining but looks at this mess. The Napo leader has hidden and pacified the officers group who don't have the knowledge to instruct the following order you have listed.
DeleteJoin the unions with a single purpose but we need that purpose to be clearly articulated as rebuilding Probation. A service that is free from the civil service, devolved from central government, locally responsive, local government officers, well funded, free from political interference etc
ReplyDeleteWhile the union is dominated by the blow hard whale of no intellect for the intelligent persuasion we are done for. There has not been any discussion papers from him. No briefings on strategic goals no data sought for writing policy position or design overall that suits the ethos of our original role or how to return to professional standings in the justice system. Should he write anything it's always basic and lacks any testable reasoning. His role is superfluous with him in it we need a real fighting intelligent trade unionist. Mr Lawrence betrays his paymasters with rubbish smoke and mirrors while actually has no talent for the role.
DeleteEveryone can keep saying the union leadership is useless and while some of that criticism is fair, here’s the harder truth: it’s the only vehicle we currently have, and it’s running on half a tank because too many staff aren’t in it or don’t vote when it matters.
ReplyDeleteIt isn’t just Napo, there's Unison, some in Unite or GMB. But that fragmentation weakens us. Employers don’t look at blog traffic or angry threads. They look at membership density and ballot turnout. If union coverage across the service hovers around a minority of staff and strike ballots scrape low participation, decision-makers don’t panic. They calculate. And right now, they calculate that probation noise is containable.
Doctors can shut down hospitals because they mobilise in huge numbers behind one organisation. Teachers can shut schools because turnout is strong and unified. Probation? We argue online, then half the workforce shrugs at ballots.
You don’t have to like the leadership. You don’t have to agree with every stance. But opting out doesn’t create a stronger alternative, it guarantees irrelevance. Power responds to risk. If we don’t create collective risk, nothing changes.
The uncomfortable reality is this: if you’re not in a union, or you don’t vote, you’re not neutral. You’re contributing to the calculation that we’re safe to ignore.
And until that changes, they will continue to ignore us.
Very well said and absolutely on the money 09:51
DeleteCompletely agree,
ReplyDeleteLast 3 comments your all blind by something. The leader of Napo has no intention of spending your money in protecting your roles. Napo draws in subs it's annual spend and for the life of us all it covers their excessive wages and costs. They have no office it's a virtual union these days and as stated above there is no professional group producing policy. Signing up to Napo is a lost cause while the current leader has a role it's as simple as that. We either break Napo in finances by resigning for a few months in protest at the fool in role or we get the top tables to deliver some real plans in conjunction with proper working parties. As they have not done the job we pay them for the don't pay them option is the only best choice. Anyone mislead enough to continue to support Napo is deluding themselves .
ReplyDeleteThe unions are not a single voice GMB stupidly tells us to accept the pay offers suggesting best that can be achieved. Amazing without testing resolve they can go jump. Napo are asking ok good having rejected and unison get good pressure by calling for restorations and removing probation from civil service while not sharing the platform with Napo says a lot to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above. Three “probation” unions has always been a mess and we’re divided even at union level.
ReplyDeleteUnison and GMB shouldn’t be treated as probation unions, and Napo has allowed them to take too much of the space over the last 20–30 years. People should be free to join any union, but probation is too small to be fragmented. We need one clear probation voice and one probation union.
What we’re seeing now is the result of years of weak, complacent leadership. Until that changes, we’ll keep being pressured by HMPPS while the unions look on. The all-staff calls selling the pay offer as “the best we can get” with little visible challenge say it all.
I actually think probation is in a position at the moment to weild considerable power.
ReplyDeleteAll the governments recent reforms about reducing the prison population and the sentencing bill itself is dependent on the probation service. Timpson himself has publicly aired his concerns about what damage these reforms might have on the probation service.
Probation are holding some heavy weight cards at the moment, they're just not playing them properly.
Annon @09:51 is completely right.
'Getafix
In theory, yes probation should be holding strong cards right now. The sentencing reforms and prison reduction plans are completely dependent on probation capacity and credibility.
DeleteBut leverage only exists if someone is willing and able to use it. If the unions don’t properly understand or champion what probation practice is (and should be), or the role of the probation officer as a profession, then those “cards” might as well not exist.
This takes us back to the core problem above, fractured, divided probation unions. Napo claims to be “the voice” of probation, Unison chips away at that authority through sheer numbers, and GMB’s courting of senior grades helped entrench the very managerial culture that led probation into the mess it’s in now.
Structural power without unity and credible leadership isn’t power at all.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhat’s striking about this thread isn’t the anger. It’s the self-inflicted paralysis.
ReplyDeleteWe say probation holds the heavy cards because sentencing reform and prison capacity now depend on us. We say this is the moment of leverage.
And then the proposed solution is… withdraw from unions, starve them of funds, fragment further, and hope something magically improves.
That isn’t resistance. That’s handing away the only collective mechanism that exists to create pressure.
You don’t have to admire current leadership to understand basic power dynamics. I’m not blind to the frustration. People are angry. Some think nothing will change while certain individuals are in place. Maybe that’s true.
But here’s the uncomfortable reality: a union isn’t a subscription service you cancel when you’re annoyed. It’s a democratic body. If you’re not in it, you don’t shape it. If you’re in it but silent, someone else does. If you want it stronger, smarter or braver, that only happens from inside. Leaving doesn’t reform it. Sitting out ballots doesn’t strengthen it. Complaining about leadership while turnout stays low doesn’t scare anyone in Whitehall.
If probation is serious about leverage, it starts with numbers, turnout and unity. Everything else is background noise.
Government negotiates with organised blocs, turnout percentages and credible threats not anonymous blog comments.
Doctors didn’t create leverage by complaining well. They created leverage because tens of thousands voted, repeatedly, and were prepared to act. That created political, operational and reputational risk.
What risk does probation currently create?
Low union density. Divided representation. Patchy turnout. Public invisibility.
That’s not leverage. That’s containment.
If probation really is pivotal to government reforms, weakening collective organisation right now isn’t sticking it to anyone at the top. It’s confirming that the workforce can be managed.
You don’t get power by withdrawing from it. You don’t get influence by splintering it.
And you don’t get taken seriously by proving you won’t organise.
Frustration is understandable. But frustration without structure achieves nothing.
If we want to stop being easy to ignore, we have to stop acting like we are.
Absolutely not.
DeleteCollective leverage works when there’s a credible, unified vehicle to organise it through. That’s why doctors, rail and refuse workers can move governments, they have recognised leadership, coherent strategy and a track record of wins.
Probation doesn’t.
We’re split across three unions pulling in different directions. The one meant to speak for probation has failed for two-three decades to clearly articulate what probation is, secure meaningful wins, or command confidence. It’s riddled with baggage, disconnected from frontline reality, and increasingly remote, literally and figuratively from the workforce it claims to represent.
So yes, leverage needs numbers. But numbers follow credibility, not the other way round. You don’t build turnout and unity on a structure people no longer trust.
Telling staff “a union is only as good as its members” starts to sound like the same gaslighting as “you don’t do this job for the money.” Structure and leadership matter. Without reform there first, calls for unity are just abstract.
Yes, people are disillusioned. Yes, membership has fallen. Yes, there have been fights that didn’t land. No one is denying that.
DeleteBut withdrawing, starving unions of subs, or sitting out ballots isn’t strategy. It’s surrender dressed up as protest.
If probation is politically invisible, fragmented and easy to ignore (which many of us agree it is) then shrinking the only collective vehicle we have doesn’t weaken leadership. It weakens leverage.
Power responds to numbers.
It responds to turnout.
It responds to credible operational risk. It does not respond to anonymous anger on a blog.
If you think leadership is weak, remove it. Stand against it. Demand policy. Force debate. Build mandate. That only happens from inside.
Low membership doesn’t punish anyone at the top. It reassures them. It signals containment. It confirms that probation staff will vent but won’t organise.
And here’s the part people don’t like hearing: you don’t get better leadership without weight behind you. Credibility doesn’t appear first and then attract numbers. Numbers create credibility.
Right now probation has frustration. It doesn’t have organised power.
If you want leverage over sentencing reform, over governance, over pay, over workload you need density. You need turnout. You need unity.
Simply expressing my thanks for your thoughtful comments 14.00 and 15.32. Although, fully understand the intensity of feelings expressed elsewhere. I hope that you can find common ground and that based on the views/analysis/pleas/comments, anger and folk bravely putting themselves out there during the past 6 months and over 15 years via this blog. I hope we can listen to everyone’s views and build some common ground on which there is much to commend and find a degree of solidarity which might enable greater collective action. Even writing to MP’s and cause the public at large to begin to listen. The fact that the Public Accounts Committee (Dec 25) has also sent a wake up message to Government for hugely significant structural reform required and clearly express serious reservations in both the HMPSS and MOJ to manage the risks associated with the new probation programme, neither were they convinced that the new IT systems will actually reduce workload. Hopefully, this will resonate with a few of you and alongside any work undertaken by Unions I invite you to write to your MP and at least raise there awareness Wishing you all a good evening
DeleteIanGould5. Re above
DeleteI'm not against you 1400 but you live in hope and the numbers . 1442 is very clear and correct. We look at past performance as an indicator of future conduct. Ian Lawrence fails to appreciate we pay his salary so we are the boss. He hides in the scam of officers group or NEC rulings . It's all his manipulation. His problem is he thinks he is a member of the management group his collegiate level he is both wrong and naive. He has donkied for them all through while having defenestrated us. Weak not one dispute and no longer any pretence of defending individual members. Our problem is not members or our resolve it's the blatant lack of capable union leadership. An agent willing to fight a real dispute and advise the members why we are doing it and what resolve we have can deliver. The tosser we have is scared of his own shadow so will never expose his poor articulation and lack of decent written alternatives. Yee haw Yee haw he's a donkey we need a lion now.
DeleteI’m genuinely curious what the alternative is meant to be.
ReplyDeleteIf the answer is “leave Napo” — then what?
Join GMB? Join Unison? Create a fourth probation union? Build one from scratch while vacancy rates sit at 21% and workloads are running at 120–140%?
Fragmentation is already one of the problems. More fragmentation doesn’t create leverage, it just dilutes it.
If people believe leadership is failing, that’s a democratic issue. Change it. Stand against it. Force policy debate. Demand accountability. That’s how unions evolve.
But stepping away without a viable structure ready to replace it doesn’t create power. It reduces it.
So yes, tell me what’s the practical alternative? Because “don’t pay subs” isn’t a strategy. It’s just smaller numbers on the negotiating table.
I don’t think this conversation is really about “leaving Napo”. It’s about how Napo becomes what it’s meant to be.
DeleteUnder the current GS, exec and structure, it hasn’t just struggled it’s been failing for over a decade. That’s been said quietly in branches and publicly in offices and elsewhere for years. Many nowadays do not even know what Napo is, or the difference to Unison.
The uncomfortable truth is this, renewal won’t happen without real change at the top. That likely means the GS and much of the exec stepping aside so Napo can reset and rebuild credibility. But it starts with Ian Lawrence.
Most people want a real National Association of Probation Officers. Membership and unity won’t follow a structure people no longer trust. Credibility has to come first.
I agree with you. But right now, whether we like it or not, the existing structure is still the only vehicle we have for pay negotiations and national pressure.
DeleteCredibility matters. But credibility and leverage are built through participation, not declaration.
If change is needed, it has to be organised and won from inside and it has to improve our position, not just vent our anger.
I’m sure Starmer is saying something similar to the cabinet!
DeleteThank you 1548 absolutely right approach and so better written than my scrambled anger. 17:26 makes the amelioration nonsense sound plausible. As long as the general secretary remains in post Napo is a dead deal. The management own him as he sold out years ago and they don't fear or respect him either . I wanted a leader that talks the talk and walks it too. Lawrence for all his failings has only ever spoke up a false position to wash it away after the heat goes out of it. The polarised position we all take is because Napo offers us no good position no action we can get behind and silent GS who is hiding as long as we foolishly pay him 100k plus a year for nothing that is a joke .
DeleteThe unions are leaderless like the whole probation organisation. Those at the top get richer and those at the bottom poorer, they are both unaccountable to those that they represent. My experience of NAPO is that if you attend all the local meetings, agree with everything they say you will be part of the union the inner circle and when you need support it will be given. If you don’t then they will say jog on. Do you work in an office with a union rep? Well remember they get facility time, this means that they don’t carry the same workload as the rest of you. They get time off to get to the AGM and let you pick up the recalls they have because they never see their punters.The only problem is that is NAPO is full of hot air, they talk the talk but cannot walk the walk. The government will not be bothered about probation staff going on strike because they know the overseers will bully and cajole staff to clean up afterwards. As for New Labour well they sold everyone out and we now live in a two tier society and don’t even acknowledge the unions that have backed them for years apart from the likes of ASLEF who get train drivers £60000 salaries.
ReplyDeleteThis constant spiral of “the unions are useless, the reps are cushy, the leadership is hopeless” might feel satisfying, but it doesn’t change the balance of power by an inch.
DeleteFacility time exists because representation takes time. If reps carried full caseloads on top, they’d either burn out or stop representing anyone properly. That’s not privilege, that’s structure.
If a rep is ineffective, remove them. If a branch is complacent, organise in it. If national leadership is weak, stand against it. That’s how democratic bodies change.
What doesn’t work is convincing ourselves the whole thing is pointless while expecting leverage to magically appear.
Government doesn’t fear angry blog threads. It calculates risk.
Risk comes from numbers, turnout and coordinated action.
Fragmentation reassures them. Low density reassures them.
Infighting reassures them.
If probation keeps tearing down the only collective framework it has without replacing it with something stronger, then nothing shifts. Not pay. Not workload. Not governance.
We can keep blaming leadership for everything or we can admit that power requires organised weight and at the moment, we don’t have enough of it.
Complaining about that fact doesn’t change it. Organising does.
“ If a rep is ineffective, remove them. If a branch is complacent, organise in it. If national leadership is weak, stand against it. That’s how democratic bodies change.”
DeleteIt’s not how a dictatorship works.
Anon 18:07 - my experience too.
ReplyDelete“My experience of NAPO is that if you attend all the local meetings, agree with everything they say [even when it’s gossip, discrimination and collusion] you will be part of the union the inner circle and when you need support it will be given. If you don’t then they will say jog on [and overtly pitch themselves against you].”
In the country's second city the Napo reps advice was get yourself a grievance in before they might put one on you. I left Napo . No idea on conciliation discussion mediation low level engagement. Absolutely bonkers Napo reps poor skills of any.
DeleteIf you stand for it, you deserve it!
ReplyDeleteAccept or defy?
Let it happen and then moan about the outcome?
Pick your chickens.
Defy? Why argue with rot. Most just leave and join a different union.
DeleteIf a union is to succeed it has to be strong, that strength is its membership. The membership will only be strong with strong leadership. A union will only be successful if it listens to and works with the majority of the members. For too long NAPO has polarised into different sub-groups and has lost the strength as a cohesive unit which subsequently reflects what we have now a divided work force looking for someone to blame. Trades unionists used to represent their membership but now we see a narcissistic, self centred group looking for adulation after chasing their own agendas. NAPO lacks a charismatic leader, who understands the membership and the need to surround themself with a strong cohort of regional representatives who are knowledgeable and able communicators representing their local area and not their own self interests.
DeleteAnon 18:14 ahh if only life was that simple, ever tried to get a rep replaced? Never happens because they are part of the collective! I have never heard a positive comment about the NAPO General Secretary let alone see him visiting out of his comfort zone, a third term unopposed but what has he ever delivered? Your subs deliver him a £103, 921 salary per annum backed up with £16,692 payment towards his pension, not a bad remuneration package for someone who is as effective as indicators on a BMW. Several years ago working in a prison I saw the POA in action and it ended up with Governor grades having to feed the prisoners! Could you imagine our senior management teams trying to complete a risk assessment, deliver a PSR or deal with a truculent punter probably not. Let’s see how the POA deals with the next Capita scandal and NAPO will still be rolling the dice round the table with McDonald’s breakfasts out of the petty cash!
ReplyDeleteYes 100% right.
DeleteCalling it a dictatorship might feel accurate if you’ve had a bad experience. I’m not dismissing that. But if it really is that closed and that unaccountable, then the question becomes practical:
ReplyDeleteWhat’s the alternative that creates more leverage right now?
Joining a different union fragments us further. Leaving altogether reduces density. Waiting for someone else to build a perfect structure from scratch takes years we don’t have.
I don’t doubt some reps are cliquey. I don’t doubt some branches are complacent. Every democratic organisation has that risk. But the POA example proves something important: they didn’t get leverage by walking away from their structure. They built density and mandate inside it.
If probation staff can’t replace reps, can’t influence branches, can’t contest leadership, then that’s a structural issue that needs exposure and reform. But weakening membership doesn’t solve that. It entrenches it.
And here’s the uncomfortable bit.
Management absolutely loves it when staff fight each other over union politics. It confirms the workforce is divided and containable.
The government doesn’t care whether you’re in Napo, Unison, GMB or none of the above. It cares about whether the workforce can create operational or political risk.
Right now, the honest answer is: not enough.If the argument is that Napo needs renewal then fine. But renewal requires members. It requires contested elections. It requires turnout. It requires people prepared to do more than type “dictatorship” on a blog.
Otherwise we stay where we are which is angry, split, and easy to manage.
That’s not a defence of anyone’s salary.
It’s a defence of basic power mechanics.
Napo beat out challengers seen a dozen times and when they got out and lost a court case instead of learning to behave honestly they changed the rules instead. Bad cloud Ian Lawrence ruined our service and destroyed a principled union. None of these negatives should exist if Napo was running and management properly. That's the point here. Cliques closed groups facility time for some the rest get lost. Come if it.
DeleteI think what this thread really shows is how tired people are. There's anger about leadership. Anger about pay. Anger about missed opportunities. Anger about cliques, facility time, internal politics. Some of that may be justified. Some of it may be perception. Either way, it’s real.
ReplyDeleteBut underneath it all is something else which is fatigue.
People don’t feel heard.
They don’t feel protected.
They don’t feel valued.
And they don’t feel confident that anyone is actually steering the ship.
And that's a dangerous place for any workforce to be.
At the same time, we’re facing decisions on pay and reform now, not in a year, not after an internal reset, not after leadership elections. Now.
So we’re stuck in an uncomfortable reality:
• The structure we have isn’t trusted by many.
• The alternatives don’t currently exist.
• Fragmentation weakens leverage.
• Doing nothing changes nothing.
That tension is what’s playing out here.
I don’t think this is about blind loyalty to any individual. I don’t think it’s about defending poor leadership and I don’t think it’s about pretending everything is fine.
It’s about recognising that disillusionment and withdrawal don’t create strength. They create vacuum. And vacuums get managed.
The truth is we can criticise leadership and still recognise the need for collective organisation at the same time. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
But none of this is easy when people are running on empty.
That’s probably the most honest thing that’s been said in this entire thread.
What this thread shows is that people want others to fight the battle for them.
DeleteI don't really care about the service, what damage it's doing as long as I get wages.
Probation is a PUBLIC SERVICE, How is this probation service SERVING THE PUBLIC?
I expect the unions have as much confidence in its membership as its membership has in its union.
Apathy breeds apathy
When was the lat fight, the last stand, that brought probation to where it is now?
Complain about nobody else doing f-all, but what is the complainants contribution?
'Getafix
What people want is the elected representatives and the general secretary doing their roles, organising, informing, supporting and giving direction. Not taking large salaries and leaving their members struggling with below average pay rises and cow towing to the management in meek surrender. What are you doing about it?
Delete"What people want is the elected representatives and the general secretary doing their roles, organising, informing, supporting and giving direction."
DeleteIsn't that wanting someone else to do the work so you can benefit?
What do I do about it? ( Not really sure about what you mean about (it)?)
But, I'm in regular contact with my MP. I write letters to the Justice select committee, and I drive my local council mad about how the probation service are failing the people i work with.
Its not much I know, and I suspect you do the same, but as you asked, thats what I do.
'Getafix
What are you on getafix usually in tune on this your off beam a mile. Unions job protect its members increase their wages betterment of terms policies working hours annual leave progressive changes equality discrimination and representing individuals all through collective agreements with employers. Napos job professional committee NEC negotiating committee . These 3 strategic parts that are made up of members have all been lost there is no strategy and the general secretary is just virtually holding a full staff Napo complement together where they have not had an office base for 5 years yet no one has left or does a job. 2205 is just staring exactly napos duties lead strategies and follow up by full non cooperation with management and legal dispute where possible. Lawrence thinks he is a peace maker when in fact he's not able to do the job required . The top table needs to see this and start a collection of evidence and capability proceedings to move him on.
Deleteinspector jones again:
ReplyDelete“A new report from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has warned the Probation Service in England and Wales is being placed under significant strain, seriously impeding its ability to protect the public and reduce reoffending rates.
This report draws on the Inspectorate’s inspection findings and research; and I share the Committee’s concern around the huge strain on probation and the critical need for urgent attention, at the most senior level, to ensure it has the staff, resources and focus it needs to protect the public and reduce reoffending.
Our inspection reports paint a grim picture. The probation service has too few staff, with too little experience, managing too many cases. The quality of work to keep people safe is so poor (with only one third of cases judged sufficient), I recently took the decision to pause my core inspection programme to undertake a dynamic inspection of public protection.
That inspection has revealed an absence of accountability, and a fundamental lack of grip on what should be the foundation stone of probation delivery.
However, the programme’s approach is also demonstrating the potential of the committed, motivated probation practitioners who want to achieve better outcomes for the people they manage.
We are seeing that where probation can focus on doing fewer things well, it is driving better results, with a reduced risk of harm and improved safeguarding.
The excellent engagement we are seeing at a local level can be built upon to drive improvement, and reinforces my consistent advice to ministers and senior officials – that a massively overstretched and understaffed service needs to focus on the most essential work in the short term to give it a chance of recovering.
As noted by the Public Accounts Committee, the Service is failing to meet many of its plethora of KPIs and a focus on achieving fewer, more focused targets would yield benefits.
£700M investment in probation is a good starting point – but it must be the start of a grown-up conversation that has not previously moved far or fast enough. Strong leadership and a laser focus on prioritisation will be essential to ensure the probation service gets the resources it needs to keep the public safe, reduce reoffending, and safeguard victims from future crime.”
* The probation service has too few staff, with too little experience, managing too many cases.
Delete* The quality of work to keep people safe is so poor (with only one third of cases judged sufficient)
* That inspection (dynamic inspection of public protection) has revealed an absence of accountability
* a massively overstretched and understaffed service needs to focus on the most essential work in the short term to give it a chance of recovering.
* Strong leadership and a laser focus on prioritisation will be essential
Too few staff.
ReplyDeleteToo little experience.
Too many cases.
One third sufficient to keep people safe.
Absence of accountability.
Lack of grip.
Those aren’t teething problems. That’s structural failure. You don’t “prioritise” your way out of that.
You don’t “laser focus” your way out of that.
You don’t solve that with warm words about motivated practitioners.
If only one third of public protection work is judged sufficient, then the model is not straining, it's failing. And when the Inspector talks about a lack of accountability and grip, that isn’t about frontline staff. It’s about leadership.
Frontline staff didn’t design the operating model.
They didn’t set staffing at two-thirds.
They didn’t reduce supervision depth.
They didn’t build a system where experience drains out faster than it can be replaced.
But they are the ones expected to absorb the risk when it goes wrong.
“Recovery” suggests a temporary setback.
This has been years in the making.
At some point we need to stop pretending that one third sufficient is a starting point.
Because if that becomes the accepted baseline, then this isn’t reform. It’s managed decline. And no amount of investment headlines changes that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9v9d0xj8qo
ReplyDeleteYou lot have to jump thru hoops for fuck all, and listen to the chant of "there ain't no more cash" BUT...
"Government sources confirmed that the Foreign Office reached a financial settlement with Lord Mandelson, but have not said how much this was for.
While Lord Mandelson's salary as US ambassador has not been disclosed, the post typically has a salary of £155,000-£159,999. This would put a three months' pay-out at around £40,000.
Normal civil services HR processes were followed."
Highly not likely. He was appointed did nothing wrong and subsequently sacked. He made no errors committed no crime and was working to his employment terms. Without prejudice his terms apply. Sacking would have included a clause in his favour as it is role under the confidence of prime ministerial control and changes come. Equally if the government fell he would be removed and policy applies to him. What need to know is how much is the clause set at. I'm guessing a year's salary .
DeleteTagging wouldn't be so bad if they had been given to Buddi/MOPAC in London to be fanned out to England and Wales. But the contract was given to EMS who haven't got a good reputation with tagging: very little professional support and just not great service. Whereas Buddi are helpful, proactive, flexible, and admin'd well. So this is the model that should have been used at the national level, but, for whatever reason: brown envelopes and other such nonsense, it was given to the not-so-competent. Now it seems there are more and more parole reports dumped on community probation to deal with, to reduce numbers in custody. We're not professionally respected in this process- the Parole Board begrudgingly have to deal with us with rubber gloves on- to reassure risk management will be dealt with robustly in the community. PPCS admin is quite erratic at times and this furthers and frustrates community probation often left swinging in the wind, but the Parole Board enjoy their £1,500 a day fee for chairing/sitting on each hearing, which they get even if the hearing is adjourned. Build more prisons, give probation in the community more money; be more efficient... bottom line is investment. Don't invest and victims are often further victimised; crime goes up and whilst every company has to have business needs and needs of the business... public bodies do not have a profit mandate so therefore, it's not their overriding concern.- giving value for taxpayer money is a different issue and that can be more efficient with less wastage and better staffing. They could be more efficient about how the taxpayers coffers are used and have that money pumped into the criminal justice system- preferably in the community as the prisons seem to make a hash of things. Don't chisel in an undignified manner crumb levels of pay rises- just pay what has been owed to us for several years. Make prisons and probation less adversarial and more collaborative by changing the national guidelines so community probation can voice risk management concerns. Appease the racists in the Shires should you need to, who want every non-white and 'pesky'' 'dangerous' and 'vilified and demonised' immigrants in prison for life, but also put money into the community to reduce further offending and recall. Otherwise this is all by design and nothing will change. And, in a years, time, the conversation will be the same, with perhaps a tiny pinch of difference.
ReplyDeletehttps://uk.news.yahoo.com/oxfordshire-residents-encouraged-consider-role-050000317.html
ReplyDeleteOne of the big issues is that the people who head both the Probation Inspectorate and Prison Inspectorate have no operational experience in probation or prisons. They don’t have a clue how to engage offenders or prisoners, they look down on operational staff both in the community and custody and as for the inspector for probation he was involved in both sentencing and parole two of the biggest departments who impact on both the community and custody. The latter has become a system bogged down in paperwork, adjournments and deferrals, which in turn leads to more reports, more people languishing in custody and don’t get me started on the impact of recalls. How many parole cases are into two and three years processes and as soon as concluded go straight back in again? The whole system needs addressing it is a farce.
ReplyDeleteI think what this thread has exposed isn’t just anger at one person or one union. It’s something deeper. It’s about probation staff feeling abandoned by EVERY layer of authority.
ReplyDeleteBy management.
By policy-makers.
By inspectors.
By ministers.
And yes, by unions.
When people feel unheard and unprotected for long enough, distrust spreads everywhere. Leadership becomes a symbol for a much bigger loss of faith.
I don’t for one minute dismiss the criticism. Membership has fallen. Confidence has eroded. Some people have had poor experiences with reps. Some feel leadership hasn’t delivered. That frustration is real. But here’s the part that matters now. We have decisions coming up on pay and reform in the immediate term. Not in two years. Not after a hypothetical reset. Now.
If the argument is that the union is structurally compromised, then the obvious question is this:
What is the concrete, time-bound alternative that increases leverage before the next pay round?
Not a feeling. Not a verdict on personality. A plan.
Joining a different union fragments density further.
Leaving reduces bargaining weight.
Building a fourth union from scratch takes years.
Waiting for collapse is not strategy.
So what is the operational route that creates political or industrial risk in the next 6–12 months?
Because power responds to risk.Risk comes from numbers, turnout and coordination.
If we believe probation is pivotal to sentencing reform and prison capacity, then leverage only exists if it is organised and visible. Anger alone doesn’t create that. This isn’t about defending anyone’s salary or record. It’s about avoiding paralysis.
If leadership needs replacing, that requires members.If strategy needs rewriting, that requires mandate. If unity is the goal, it requires participation.
Otherwise we stay exactly where we are which is divided, exhausted, and easier to manage than we'd like to think.
I genuinely want to know what is the alternative that strengthens our hand before the next negotiation, not after it?
If every officer who has expressed their outrage on this blog submits their resignations by the end of February, the power broker clowns at the top will collectively shit themselves. I forsee frantic grovelling by PDU heads asking officers to rethink their resignations. HMPPS cannot afford mass resignations and the focus this will finally bring from the media and stakeholders. Better still if resignation letters claim constructive dismissal... This would force an appropriate response wrt pay, workloads, conditions of service to start with.
DeleteNice but it won't fly for constructive nowhere near the legislation. However the employers have to consult staff and I would be arguing for staff cooperatives than mandating Napo. So non members retain the same rights to be consulted. Leaving it to Napo is a vote yes because Ian Lawrence is not up the job has never shown ability and has nursed his way through with his chumocrysy Keith stockeld and co all backslided into protective roles coluding group.
Delete1249 makes a good post but fails to realise from the commentary the problem with using Napo is they will sell us out again and that is a personality problem. Ian Lawrence left with this pay negotiation again will just do as he does sell out then blame membership as he did the last time and looks for a management nod as he pursues his knighthood mbe obe house of lords he's an idiot.
Delete1. Work your hours.
ReplyDelete2. No overtime.
3. No late night reporting.
4. When re-allocated cases for those on sick or maternity, rack, pack and stack them. Prioritise your caseload and keep yourself sane.
5. Don’t take on SPOC roles.
6. Do everything within timescales.
7. Friday afternoon give your manager a list of the work you could not complete.
8. Remove the goodwill and let’s see how the management deal with that.
9. Everyone go on the sick and take at least six months.
10. Don’t feel guilty the management put you in this position.
@17:39 Love your thinking. However if you do this and then go off sick, you get victimised... Colleagues have gone through traumatising Performance Management processes for allegedly not being up to scratch and failing. Colleagues claimed in their defence that it was impossible to achieve all the dictates within contracted hours. Were told they just couldn't cut it. PDU heads and their deputies can be quite vindictive not realising they are not quite that clever despite it been brought to their attention regularly. Some clearly do not even know what ACAS is and what they do - God forbid. Employment Tribunal claims on their way and not done via NAPO either. National Audit Office report late last year confirmed what we have been telling our esteemed employer all along. Mmmm... they underestimated the time things took despite us at the coalface telling them this consistently. They admitted it at the PAC hearings and then again decided to go against their own underestimation again and didn't deliberately correctly adjust the timings. Classic FU to their employees. Talk about deliberate perpetuation of Workplace Harm! Talk about government sanctioned Modern Day Slavery. They have no idea how to manage, don't care about their employees. If this was a private company the lot of them would have been given their P45s and would have walked out with a cardboard box of personal belongings, but no, they still in their positions and receiving performance bonuses. LIDL now pays more per hour for much less responsibility.
DeleteThese are good advisories and I know if colleagues do this it will break their management grasp. The bit about an employment tribunal no way credible. The process of the sscl is force upon all a process that is designed to follow reasonable contractual obligation. They stick rigidly to it. Reps have no voice here and should a dismissal. On capability or attendance be made it will fall into grounds of reasonable dismissals. Their procedure is to protect them not us. As for Napo taking forward any cases don't make me laugh Napo don't publish cases success numbers because they don't accept them anymore members are left to face issues alone.
Delete@19:01 you clearly don't understand Labour Law at all and process. Nor do you know the details of what is leading up to our claims but yet you are very dismissive without these vital facts. You actually strike me as a union rep with vague knowledge or else a person from the management realm. Very defensive you are. You don't intimidate me at all. We're not taking this forward as NAPO but as individuals. Youre right about realising you are alone, realised that ages ago. NAPO are as useful as an icecube placed in an hot oven and expecting it to retain shape, form and vigour 😂 P.S. Employment Tribunal very credible and have appointed really good counsel. Been there before and done that already with a previous rogue employer and came out tops 😊 Carpe Diem I think it is as they say. No one on here seems to be proactive with actual concrete solutions and seem happy to bewail their dilemma and situation, but does not propose realistic solutions nor seems prepared to go out and claim their rights as it will be to risky for them and appear to be just wanting to just whinge on the sidelines. Have a good evening.
Delete1943 good to read you have some plan and want assert your employment terms. Don't underestimate what you or a collective might face when taking this lot on under sscl. You might appreciate combined claim has many facets to be divided as each separate head will have different merits for each in multi case. I'm not privileged to your claim or how your developing a dispute but you will know the employer has to provide some last straw breach of your employment for trust and confidence something the sscl are alert to. I know you would have to be very astute to make a constructive claim. Failing that route if your going down the grievance stream breach of terms that do not result in dismissal or constructive dismissal even if you get to acas mediation process what's the value . Taking a tribunal even if the merits are there despite all the hurdles or settlement offers most issues are capped only discrimination cases have higher claims potential. I can ride out your insults but despite that I wish you well really hope you can achieve. That would help people recognise there is no use in Napo when they actively close cases down against the wider memberships interest. Whatever your grounds I hope they are strong and you can prove deliberate and not accidental the onis and burden is heavy when the service will no doubt defend themselves demonstrating all reasonable steps to resolve issues following the agreed policies which are compliant. I'm glad to read you have experience a et victory do you have much valuable knowledge if you can do it to the NPS you have my support.
Delete2014 I should have also said despite the odd type error there may be some merit in digging out the old workloads agreements which illustrate task timing in your area. Additional tasks above core were well documented and despite timings agreements workloads have grown without any deductions for new tasks . These agreements may assist you illustrate some critical burdens from the employer. Intentional wilfully and recklessly stressing staff into illness . That's about as far as I dare guess at your route but the very best to you I'm on your side no question.
DeleteI don't think the information offered was trying to intimidate you @19:43. You read a bit cavalier to taking a national service into litigation and as long as your paying the bill you will soon learn this organisation is the lucky strike you might think.
DeleteI understand the instinct behind some of these suggestions. People are exhausted. They feel unheard. They feel cornered.
ReplyDeleteBut there’s a difference between withdrawing goodwill and detonating your own position.
Work to contract? Yes.
Stop unpaid overtime? Yes.
Document what can’t be completed? Absolutely.
That’s not rebellion. That’s professionalism.
Mass resignations, coordinated sickness or banking on tribunals as a system reset isn’t strategy. It’s a series of individual risks in a system that has repeatedly shown it will protect itself first.
If this thread shows anything, it’s not laziness or cowardice. It’s something more serious, people don’t trust any layer of authority to protect them anymore. Not management. Not leadership. Not unions. That level of mistrust is dangerous in a public protection service.
But fragmentation and individual legal battles won’t fix that mistrust. They confirm it.
If probation is genuinely pivotal to sentencing reform and prison capacity (and it is ) then leverage has to be credible, coordinated and collective. Not reactive.
Boundaries are strength. Organisation is strength.Burning out one colleague at a time is not.
If senior leaders are reading this, the message isn’t that staff want chaos. It’s that they feel abandoned. And that’s a far bigger warning sign.
100%
Deletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-prison-houseblocksunder-construction-to-keep-streets-safe
ReplyDeletePress release
New prison houseblocks under construction to keep streets safe
HMP Northumberland will gain four new houseblocks, boosting its capacity by 240 places, in the latest Government step to make streets safer. Minister for Prisons, Probation, and Reducing Reoffending, Lord James Timpson said:
"We inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse, and have wasted no time getting shovels in the ground to fix this – with 2,900 new prison places already opened – which also creates jobs for communities like those in the North East."
________________________________________________________
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dangerous-extremists-face-supermax-style-restrictions-behind-bars--2
Updating Parliament today (3 February), the Deputy Prime Minister set out a major overhaul of separation centres to better tackle the unique threat terror offenders pose. This includes exploring ‘supermax’ style controls on the most violent and extreme prisoners, improving how intelligence is collected and used, and reforms to better protect against litigation and limit perverse payouts to terrorists.
"The horrific attack at HMP Frankland was a stark reminder of the dangers our prison staff face every day… This Government will always stand behind those who stand between the public and danger. We will not shy away from reform and we will never lose sight of our first duty: to keep the British public safe."
It really is Animal Farm for the 21st century:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-action-to-avert-summer-prison-disaster
Published today (29 January), new projections show that without the Government’s Sentencing Act – which received Royal Assent last week – the country would have completely run out of prison places as early as June this year.
This Government’s decisive action has safeguarded the police, courts, and wider criminal justice system, and avoided a potentially catastrophic breakdown of law and border.
Parts 1 & 2 of the criminal courts review
ReplyDeletehttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6982095e8c1e89ed1e91bbc7/independent-review-criminal-courts-overview.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/parole-referral-power-guidance
ReplyDeleteOverview
The parole referral power was introduced following recommendations from the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System and concerns raised in high-profile cases. Its aims are to:
provide additional scrutiny for decisions involving the most serious offences
maintain public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the parole process
What does the power do?
The power allows the Secretary of State to refer certain release decisions of the Parole Board to the High Court. The High Court will then decide whether the prisoner can be released or must stay in prison for the protection of the public.
Two tests must be met:
The Secretary of State believes the release would undermine public confidence in the parole system. The guidance* sets out when a case will meet the public confidence test.
The Secretary of State considers that the High Court might not be satisfied that the release test has been met (i.e., that continued confinement is no longer necessary for public protection).
* The Guidance is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6980887301dffa64655800d4/parole-referral-power-guidance.pdf
always worth a look:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministry-of-justice-register-of-board-members-interests