The Unattractive Face of Drugs

What is it about any discourse on drugs recently that brings out so many unattractive characters? First we had the Guardian-inspired debate between Virgin boss Richard Branson and former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, both very irritating in my view. The former, supposedly self-effacing and shy, a member of a UN commission on drugs, argues for a more caring approach to drug dependency. On the face of it what could be wrong with that? The trouble is I can't help thinking there might just be a wee bit of self interest involved as his Virgin Health Care moves inexorably onto the ground currently occupied by the NHS. And then there's that other irritating character Ian Blair who as an ex-copper is unsurprisingly still wedded to the War on Drugs and thinks we should just throw more money at it. 


This all happened about a month ago and to be honest it made me so depressed I wasn't going to bother commenting. But then yesterday we had the circus at the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee presided over by the supremely pompous Keith Vaz. The irritating comedian and former drug user Russell Brand made the most of his appearance by a masterful show of irreverence and sartorial indifference whilst arguing for abstinence treatment, but not legalisation. And to round things off the unspeakably irritating Peter Hitchens plugged the case and his forth-coming book for the need to get tougher on all illegal drug usage, FFS!


Sadly, I don't think any of this has served to shed light on the issue, or move us forward towards a sensible drug policy. As evidence I would cite this piece in the Telegraph by Daniel Knowles. Whilst attempting to argue the case for legalisation, he says:-


"If we are to treat drug use as an addiction, then we must accept there will always be drug addicts." 


This one small sentence amply demonstrates a true ignorance of the subject. There have always been, and always will be, users of controlled substances that do not develop 'addictions' and are able to lead perfectly normal lives, holding down good jobs and without committing other criminality. It also completely ignores the analogy provided by a legal drug called alcohol. As I can attest through personal experience, not everyone that imbibes has an addiction. 
     

Just So Much Crap

In recent years politicians of all persuasions in this country have clocked up an unenviable record for talking crap when venturing into the field of criminal justice. I suppose it's understandable as they're only seeking to gain votes, rather than contribute towards a meaningful debate and understanding of serious social issues. The latest in a long line is Nick Herbert the policing minister who is currently in Washington, giving an assembled throng of experts the benefit of his wisdom on how to tackle youth crime. 


In an article in the Guardian he suggests that under Labour we acted too much like a bad parent:-

"When cautions are handed down repeatedly, fines aren't paid, or community sentences aren't rigorous, a damaging message is sent to offenders. The state too often acts like a bad parent, neglectful in repeatedly tolerating bad behaviour, then inevitably harsh. Like the good parent, the state should set clear rules and boundaries from the start, dealing with transgression swiftly and surely to prevent escalation."



There must be consequences for offending. "The first instances of wrongdoing – very often nuisance or antisocial behaviour – must be dealt with effectively," Herbert writes.
The state should not be afraid of punishment though treatment is often needed, Herbert says as he calls for a "smart" approach to crime.
The minister writes: "Offenders with mental health issues should be identified as early as possible. Those with substance misuse problems should be put on courses which clean them up rather than just maintaining the habit.
"Being smart on crime does not mean being soft headed. Crime should never be excused and offenders should not be treated as victims. Getting them back onto the straight and narrow should be a rigorous task where we demand results, not a misplaced act of compassion."

According to Herbert, it's all pretty straightforward - a 'smart' approach. First sign of wrongdoing - deal with it effectively. On drugs - get 'em cleaned up. Commit offences - get 'em back on the straight and narrow. From service providers - demand results, not misplaced acts of compassion.


I have to say that this level of analysis and understanding from a Minister of the Crown makes me want to weep. Of course none of this half-baked rhetoric means anything because the issues are far more complex and require skilled interventions by well-trained, professionally-qualified staff in publicly-funded Youth Justice and Probation Services.


In this instance, reliance on alternative Payment by Results contractors will merely lead to widespread fiddling of the books and huge profits for the companies involved - in fact just like A4E and others involved in the governments' Work Programme.

Parallel Universe

On occasion you hear or see something that doesn't quite equate with your normal experience and as a result, just for a moment possibly, you begin to wonder if you've accidentally entered some sort of parallel universe. I got the feeling recently whilst visiting Westfield, the vast new shopping centre at Stratford East London, cunningly designed to make sure that every visitor to the Olympic Stadium did their duty and purchased loads of shit either on the way in, or on the way out.

In the twilight, just for a moment, I thought I had been transported to the mad urban environment featured in that stunning sci-fi film Bladerunner. (If you find this far-fetched, I suggest you give it a visit.) Equally surreal is that I noticed trains from Stratford International do not seem go beyond the Kent coast.


But surely we really are entering a parallel universe when I read that Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust is joining forces with Interserve in order to make a bid to run HMP Onley? Now unless I'm mistaken, this prison currently nestles in the English county of Northamptonshire, a good 150 miles or so down the A1 from Teeside. Actually they're not stopping there, but making a bid for HMP Wolds in Lincolnshire, as well as HMP Durham, a bit nearer to home admittedly. But this a National Agreement for goodness sake. They could be making a bid to run anything, anywhere!


What on earth is going on? We already know that South Yorkshire Probation Trust have jumped into bed with G4S in order to bid for running HMP Lindholme, along with HMP Moorland and HMP Hatfield. You will recall that for their pains the governing Governor threw all the probation staff out due to a 'conflict of interest'. I wonder what will happen to probation staff at Durham prison? And if they win the bid, what will happen to probation staff currently employed by other Services at all the prisons involved?


According to Jonathan Ledger, NAPO's General Secretary, Durham Teeside felt it better 'to jump rather than wait to be pushed' as competition is 'inevitable.' What a dogs breakfast this is all turning into. No longer a unified Service, but everyone for themselves! 

Office Duty

I guess some regular readers might be pondering why this blog seems to have dried up of late? Have management caught up with him? Has there been a dreaded SFO? Has the computer comprehensively crashed? Well, I've been pondering the question too. As has been discussed before, I might have just run out of things to say and a natural end been arrived at. I certainly feel as if I'm repeating myself on occasion. But on the other hand new stuff comes along fairly regularly and someone has to comment on it....However, I think the truth is I've become depressed about the way the job is going and anyone with experience of depression will know that it tends to incapacitate to varying degrees.

So, why have I become depressed? An accumulation probably, but neatly illustrated by this. Several weeks ago I found myself having reason to visit a Probation Office in a far-flung town. In such circumstances I always find it fascinating to read the various notices put up for the benefit of clients in the waiting room. In amongst all the usual helpful ones about services available in the locality there were rather stern ones about behaviour, reporting procedures and the bus fare reimbursement policy, but the one about Office Duty particularly caught my eye.

Now, ever since I first set foot into a Probation Office many years ago, there has always been a Duty Officer available to see any client that turned up at the door unexpected and when their Officer was not available. It was a responsibility that all Officers were expected to undertake regularly on a rota basis. Personally, I always enjoyed the opportunity of meeting clients belonging to colleagues and the buzz from being put on the spot by the inevitable crises that clients always seem to have in their lives. It was just part of the job and part of the service which we offered. So imagine my surprise to be reading that such a facility was only available for one hour daily at this particular office.

I know each office has a slightly different approach to Office Duty nowadays, but I found myself pondering on the notion that our often chaotic clients had to be sufficiently well organised to be able to plan crises around this one hour of availability of a Duty Officer. If anything was likely to further aggravate and inflame clients negative views of the Service, it was surely this? I know it would seriously piss me off.

I recall from personal experience how extremely annoyed I became when my local GP's surgery unilaterally ended the time-honoured practice of an 'open' surgery from 8 till 9am six days a week. Under the new system it's now impossible to get an appointment on the day and more time off work has to be arranged in order to attend a fixed appointment at a future date. It has never been adequately explained to me how this is an improved service for patients. For years I had been willing to queue from 8am in order to be seen before setting off to work and there was never any issue of patients missing appointments, as now of course.

So, just grumpiness or depression? The borderline must be narrow and the latter seems to creep up insidiously. Happily for me, it eventually seems to pass.

Go to Prison : Try Drugs

I have been stirred from my recent sojourn by the recent report on HMP Durham by Nick Hardwick, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. He confirms what we've all known for ages, namely that significant numbers of people go to prison 'clean' and come out addicted to drugs. I suspect Durham might well be worse than many prisons, but then it's long been an over-crowded, run down Cat B 'local' struggling to cope with huge demands placed upon it by virtue of having to serve as a remand prison.

We know that sadly some prison staff in all establishments play a significant part in drug smuggling due to the vast profits that can be generated. And in the case of Durham, we can only speculate about the current state of staff morale at a time when NOMS is putting the jail through compulsory competition with the private sector. In reaching the current sad state of affairs, it's also worth remembering the part played by former Home Secretary Michael Howard who introduced mandatory drug testing within the prison system.

One of the unintended consequences of this action was to introduce a perverse incentive for prisoners to move from their regular cannabis habit to that of heroin as they soon discovered that traces of the former stayed in the body much longer than that of the latter substance. So, in one simple administrative, but politically-expedient step, we moved from a situation of relative toleration of cannabis use, which many prison officers felt kept things calm on the wings, to an explosion in heroin use and associated violence within prisons.

I notice that Nick Hardwick still clings to the naive belief that the problem can be solved by increased security. So, yet another example of the Establishment hanging on to the view that the 'War on Drugs' can be won if you chuck more resources at it.   

New Crime Launched

Yes it's true. At a time of supposed falling crime rates and in what can only be described as a stroke of genius, those boffins at the Home Office have come up with a cunning plan to create more work for the police, G4S, CPS, HMCTS, HMP and the Probation Service to boot! As reported here by the BBC, trials are due to start in England and Wales next month:-

"Offenders who commit crimes fuelled by alcohol are to be monitored and breath-tested to ensure they stop drinking, under government plans.

Police will have powers to impose "sobriety orders" on drinkers cautioned for minor offences, such as criminal damage or public disorder.
They will be regularly breath-tested, with those known for weekend binges tested at those times."

What a fantastic idea, especially when the police don't have much to do. All those pesky pissed-up Friday and Saturday night revellers having to queue up at the station to be breath-tested on a Friday and Saturday night when things are quiet down at the nick. It cunningly creates a whole new raft of offences - like failing to turn up for testing - and thus in one master stroke generates lots more offenders and hence work for all of us in the Criminal Justice System. I simply don't know why we didn't think of this before - you just tell someone to stop drinking and lock 'em up if they don't!

It's brilliant and just the sort of thing I'd expect from those young, thrusting up-and-coming Civil Servants and policy advisers down at the Home Office. It's bound to lead to promotion and the fast track to the top. You know, like Louise Casey.

An Apology

As children I suspect most of us are taught to tell the truth. I can well remember getting a good hiding when a pathetic attempt to plant blame on someone else failed and I was reminded of the virtue of honesty. But as we grow older the issue begins to get a little blurred when the mixed messages start. When asked if we like auntie's new outfit, we're suddenly told that telling the truth about its awfulness is not acceptable. 

As we get older, hopefully we begin to learn the concept of 'good' and 'bad' lies and the general nuances of life that make things so difficult for those people who suffer from a learning disability for instance. Most of us would agree that at some point in our life we will be faced with a 'cost benefit analysis' dilemma when we have to balance the chances of getting caught against some possible reward or advantage. In other words, a moral dilemma.

One of the most challenging aspects of being a Probation Officer is highlighted in this post by Tony on Prisoners Families Voices. He frankly admits to having reached the age of 39, never having had a job. He's been in and out of prison most of his adult life and bemoans how little help his Probation Officer had been following his release in 2011. I suspect he hoped that his PO could help him find a job, and that would be a realistic and normal expectation in my view. But the issue is always what to put on the bloody CV? Just how can you cover 20-odd years constructively and in the absense of any work record?

Tony quite quickly identified the inherent problem in following the no doubt sound advice from his PO to tell the truth and hope that a sympathetic employer will still call him for interview. I've given this advice myself many times with a heavy heart, both of us knowing deep down that, especially in a worsening economic climate, the chances of it bearing fruit are close to zero.

No wonder then that many clients like Tony decide to ignore advice from probation and instead concoct fairytale CV's. There're not alone in doing that though are they? The middle classes have always indulged in a bit of 'creative accounting' where employment histories are concerned, so is it really that terrible? Of course there is always the risk of being found out, but there is also an inherent and huge incentive on the part of the client to become a model hard-working employee and establish a work record. We call that rehabilitation of course.

There are potential problems, such as in relation to Schedule 1 offenders where there is a clear duty to inform employers if there is likely to be any contact with children or vulnerable adults. But this is a pretty unlikely scenario nowadays with the advent of CRB checks. I really hope it works out well for Tony in his minimum wage job and that he's able to progress to greater and better things. I'm just so sorry we weren't much help.

I See Trouble Ahead

I think everyone would agree that finding a newly-released prisoner a job as soon as possible would be A Good Thing. Surely it must therefore be very good news that all prisoners will be required to join the governments Work Programme as a condition of being paid Job Seekers Allowance on release? Well, I'm not so sure and sadly I predict all kinds of trouble ahead. As is so typical of governments nowadays, they seem to feel they know best and I bet the idea wasn't discussed with bodies such as Probation, who just might have a constructive view on the subject.

Long experience tells me that prisoners being released often have a whole host of immediate and pressing problems to deal with such as where the hell to live or how to sort out their script for methadone. In addition they are bound to want to make urgent contact with family, children and partners as these relationships are quite likely to have suffered significantly during any period in prison. They will have urgent need to see their probation officer and may well have quite onerous licence conditions to adhere to. These are just some of the possible pressures laid upon newly-released prisoners and that give rise to the often-heard refrain 'my heads up my arse' or 'my head's in bits.'

So on top of all this we are now going to add an immediate requirement to provide evidence that serious efforts are being made to find a job. Failure to turn up for interviews with the Work Programme provider, or satisfy the adviser that you are compiling your CV, or applying for jobs will mean a sanction of some or all of a claimant's benefit. The pressure is going to be enormous because of course the Programme provider, such as A4E, will be paid by results. A price is effectively on each released prisoners head and can amount to as much as £5,600 if someone stays in a job for two years. 

All I will say is that the advisers involved would be well advised to bone up on their people skills because they're going to need to tread very carefully and sensitively with some potentially very stressed and angry people. Failure to exercise some compassion and understanding at an often very difficult stage in a person's life is quite likely to be counter-productive and rebound in a great deal more prison recalls, or worse in my view. It could be yet another example of the unintended consequences of a bit of social policy that hasn't been fully thought through. 

Perks of the Job

I must admit that over the years I've always had a degree of naive astonishment in relation to the amount of sensitive information appearing in the media and exactly how it might have found it's way there. According to Inspector Gadget it's quite straightforward. He says that ever since the days of the Illustrated London News and the notorious 'Jack the Ripper' case, police officers have simply sold information to the press. He goes on to have the cheek to imply that in effect such actions are merely providing a public service and it's us who are to blame as the newspaper-buying-public. 

His views appear to find support with several former very senior Metropolitan Police officers and whom have recently been giving evidence to the Leveson Enquiry. Former DAC Peter Clarke seemed to excuse the whole thing by saying 'Invasions of privacy are odious, distressing and illegal, but to put it bluntly, they don't kill you, terrorists do." That's all right then!

Of course Probation Officers have always know that as public servants such behaviour is not only illegal but unprofessional, unethical, unwise and appalling to boot. So how come the police seem to believe otherwise and it takes a woman, DAC Sue Akers to say something rather different? Her testimony to the Leveson Enquiry is indeed astonishing to most public servants and members of the public generally, but I honestly think that amongst many police officers there's a feeling of 'What's all the fuss about? It's just a perk of the job and anyway the public love all this salacious gossip.'

The real tragedy of course is that such a belief appears to have broadened into a widespread culture and attitude that is nothing short of corruption involving as it does allegations of the sale of secret information, the frustration of investigations, criminal collusion as well as plain old cronyism.

As I seem to say on a regular basis, we've been here before. I can't be the only person to recall that former Commissioner of the Met Sir Robert Mark got so fed up with the corruption amongst London's CID in the 1970's that he forced them all into uniform for a period. He's famously quoted as saying "A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it employs." In those days I think the perk of the job was taking backhanders from pornographers in Soho. It's obviously got a bit more sophisticated since then.  

Law of Unintended Consequences

At various times in my career I've considered the option of working in a prison, but always rejected it. When I started, some probation areas had a policy of compelling PO's to undertake a stint in prison as there was always a fear that if you didn't rotate staff regularly, there was a danger of staff losing their, shall we say 'distinctiveness'. Some older readers might even recall that in the dim distant past some vociferous elements within NAPO even tried to get all probation staff removed on the grounds that working inside prison was inconsistent with our values. 

My main reason for not working in a prison is that basically someone, other than my employer, could lock me out at the drop of a hat and I would have virtually no means of redressing that action. In an absolutely astonishing move, this is precisely what has happened to all the probation staff at three prisons in South Yorkshire. The governor in charge of HMP Moorlands, Lindholme and Hatfield has taken the action because he discovered that South Yorkshire Probation Trust has got into bed with private prison contractor G4S. Now of course that's the company currently engaged in trying to win the bid to run these three prisons and hence wrest them away from the public sector.

The problem is that South Yorkshire thought this was a smart move because it meant they would get a seat on the Board of G4S and actually be sharing the driving seat running these three prisons, rather than just being a sub-contractor to G4S, if they won the contract. The governor is furious and apparently his boss at NOMS has refused to overturn the decision. To say it's a mess would be an understatement. As of right now 2,000 inmates in three prisons have no probation service looking after their interests and helping them prepare for release. All this beggars belief when you realise that the prison and probation service are supposed to have unified management and oversight in the form of NOMS. Just another unintended consequence of the barmy privatisation agenda.