Wednesday 26 March 2014

Prisons Special

Another day, another 'special' and for this on prisons, I'm grateful to a reader for sending me the following very interesting internal Noms document. It shows how policy continues to be written 'on the hoof' and use up a considerable amount of fag packets :- 


From:              Colin Allars, Director of Probation
 & Phil Copple, Director of Public Sector Prisons

To:                  Probation Trust Chief Executives
                        Probation Trust Chairs
                        CRC Chief Executives
                        NPS Deputy Directors         

CC:                 NEMC
Governing Governors
                        DDCs
                        Gordon Davison
                        Amy Rees
Senior Community Managers
Sophie Otter 
           

Date:               14/03/14


Re: THE ROLE OF PROBATION STAFF IN PUBLIC SECTOR PRISONS

1. We intend to improve offender management in custody to ensure that it is at the heart of managing offenders and is core to our service delivery. The changes necessary to make these improvements will impact upon the role of seconded probation staff in public sector prisons. We are using this opportunity to consider the role of probation in custody to ensure that the professional skills and expertise that Probation Officers have are used to the best advantage for the whole of NOMS. This note introduces the new role for probation staff in custody and describes how we will introduce and manage this change.

2. This change is occurring in the context of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms and the OM Change Programme. TR highlights the importance of OM in custody, not just in the final, resettlement stages of an offender’s custodial sentence; but throughout an offender’s journey. We are therefore looking to support prisons to deliver continuous improvement in offender management. Probation staff have a critical role to play in this process. We are therefore introducing changes and enhancements to the role of probation staff working in prisons, as well as a different complement of those staff. Building on and further developing the vital role probation already play, this new probation complement in custody will strengthen and support the role Prison Service Operational Band 4s play as Offender Supervisors.


3. The purpose of the new role of probation in prison will be to provide professional expertise in risk assessment and case management. The role will comprise:

(i) quality assuring the delivery of the offender management model in custody;
(ii) directly supporting Offender Supervisors by providing regular advice and guidance; and,
(iii) overseeing and directing all high risk cases managed by Offender Supervisors.

4. In this way, Probation Officers will be more able to influence and contribute to the delivery of offender management in prisons, supporting Offender Supervisors to increase their skills and professionalism in providing OM, whatever their current level of experience. Critically, Probation Officers’ expertise in risk assessment and management will help to drive up and maintain standards in this area and give a level of assurance that prisons are delivering good quality offender management. Further, Offender Supervisors will have increased confidence in the critical decisions they make in overseeing the progression of offenders through the custodial phase of their sentences.

5. A detailed role description will be provided soon as part of future communications about this change.


6. The new role for probation staff working in prisons, which has been developed in close consultation with NOMS Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG), TR colleagues and Probation professionals, requires the skills and experience that qualified Probation Officers possess. Accordingly, in the longer term, there will not be a role for Probation Service Officers (PSOs) in the new arrangements.

7. The transition from current arrangements to the new model will take place over 18 months to two years, and will be phased carefully to minimise the impact on both staff and the work of Offender Management Units. This will ensure the smooth transition necessary for operational continuity both in prisons and in the community. It will also enable the staff affected, particularly the PSOs, to be properly consulted, via their line managers, about their futures and supported into new roles. There will be no compulsory redundancies. Further details of the implementation strategy will be provided in due course, including detailed information on the opportunities available to PSOs currently working in prisons. These posts, depending on the area, may include roles in delivering offending behaviour programmes in prisons, other roles within NPS and potentially conversion into Prison Officers.


8. As many of you will be aware, Public Sector Prisons Benchmarking programme has introduced a model of Offender Management in most prisons (male local prisons and male training prisons) in which offender supervision will be exclusively delivered by Operational Band 4 prison officers. In designing this model, the need for professional, qualified Probation expertise was recognised. The Probation resource required to deliver the new model will be determined through an allocation tool which calculates the required complement of Probation Officers based on the ‘turnover’ of prisoners and risk of serious harm profile of the offenders in the prison. Overall, this will require an increase in the complement of qualified Probation Officers working in prisons. We will work with the leadership of the National Probation Service to determine how this increase should be met. Probation Officers currently working within OMUs in prisons can expect to move into the new roles without any matching or other process.

9. For open prisons the arrangements within OMUs will be slightly different; offender supervision will be a shared task between Prison Officer Band 4 and qualified Probation Officers. Prison Officers will provide offender supervision for the cases that will be managed by Community Rehabilitation Companies on release and Probation Officers will act as Offender Supervisors to NPS cases. There are wider changes to open prisons as a result of an MOJ review of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) and these have been communicated separately.


10. To ensure the effective management, supervision and professional development of Probation Officers working in prison, the following arrangements will also be made:
First, to ensure their professional skills are kept up to date and their development maintained, the expectation will be that Probation staff working in prison will be posted for a limited period (details are still to be confirmed, but no more than 3 years).
They will be managed and supervised by Senior Probation Officers (SPOs) who will be based in the new NPS Divisions. We will work with the National Probation Service to identify any necessary adjustments in the SPO resource assigned to support Probation staff working in prisons.

11. On 1st June 2014 all Probation staff then working on secondment in prisons will transfer to the National Probation Service but will continue to work and deliver services as per current arrangements. More detail on the timing of these changes will be provided in due course and made available for consultation with staff and Trade Unions.

12. The changes outlined in this paper will add to the already fast-moving pace of change for the Probation Service and we acknowledge that this will feel like an additional pressure. However, the changes outlined are will produce a much clearer and focused role for probation staff in prisons. This will ultimately result in higher standards of Offender Management which will reduce reoffending and help to protect the public which, we are confident, will make these changes worthwhile.
 

COLIN ALLARS & PHIL COPPLE

It's great to see how Grayling has been forced onto the back foot over the prisoner 'book ban' policy. It's really captured the public attention with absolutely acres of bad publicity and even a Number 10 petition started by Change.org. This is what Erwin James has to say on the subject:-
In the past few months the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has been rapidly diminishing the regime for people in prison. Last year he ordered all new prisoners back into prison uniform, then he stopped prisoners having Christmas presents sent in from their families. He has meddled with the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme so that prisoners who want to achieve the “enhanced” level of imprisonment – i.e. an extra visit a month, a better cell, a bit more money to spend from their private cash – have to do “over and above” just being well behaved. (A particularly niggardly move as he knows full well that so called “purposeful activity” in our prisons is becoming as elusive as the evidence that his other big idea, “Payment by Results” will actually work.)
More recently he has decided to restrict ROTL – Release on Temporary Licence – because of several high profile failures – yet last year there were almost half a million successful releases from prison on temporary licence. Nastiest of all of Grayling’s interference with the running of prisons however is his decision to ban prisoners from having books sent in and – incredibly – writing materials. These moves apparently are supposed to somehow magically “Transform Rehabilitation” and lead to a reduction in reoffending – yet a more illogical approach to the problem of recidivism would be hard to find.
This week he admitted that the system he presides over was “very flawed” and that the consistently high reoffending figures for released prisoners (costing the economy between £9bn and 13bn a year according to the office for national statistics) – was a “crazy situation.” Mr Grayling talks about “rehabilitation” on the one hand and yet treats people in prison like his own personal political pawns on the other. The fact is, it is the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric that is “crazy” and his determination to involve himself in the decisions which dictate the quality in the minutiae of prison landing life which is “very flawed.”
Commenting on Grayling’s decision to ban books being sent to prisoners Frances Crook, the Director of the Howard League for Penal Reform said: “Over the last year, because of shrinking prison budgets, staff cuts and increasing numbers, prisoners have been spending even longer in their cells without access to facilities such as libraries. It is common for prisoners to spend 20 hours a day in their cells during the week. At weekends they can be cooped up from Friday lunchtime until Monday morning. Conditions have deteriorated so much in recent months that this has become a major concern.
“Being able to read a book is a lifeline and a way of nourishing the mind. As families and friends are now forbidden from sending basic items into prison, prisoners are sitting in stinking cells, wearing dirty clothes, with nothing to do and not even a book to read. We urge the government [i.e Mr Grayling] to reconsider this draconian measure.”
If he really has the interests of future potential victims of people coming out of prison he really should reconsider all of the above.
Grayling is so rattled he rushed out a feeble press release yesterday in response to the Change.org petition:-
I saw your comments about the availability of books in prisons yesterday and am writing to correct some of the misleading reports that have been around.
There has been no ban on the availability of books in prison, and the change of policy has been to ensure that we have consistency across the prison estate. It was never the case that prisoners were simply allowed unlimited parcels - books or otherwise.
The restrictions on access to parcels by prisoners are necessary because of the need to limit the ability of offenders to get hold of drugs and contraband. The logistics of a prison estate with 85,000 people would make it impossible to check in detail every parcel sent in, and so rights of access to parcels are, and have always been, limited.
Prisoners have always enjoyed and continue to enjoy full rights of access to all the titles available through the local public library service, which operates a full service in all of our prisons. If titles are not available there and then, they can be ordered as normal.
In addition, prisoners can purchase individual items through the prison shop if they wish to do so. These can be ordered under controlled arrangements. Each prisoner is allowed up to twelve titles in their cells at any one time, inclusive of those borrowed from the library.
I’m sure that you would agree that we need to ensure that all prisoners have access to books, and also support to help them learn to read if necessary – and that is what happens. Equally, I am sure that you would wish us to ensure that we maintain proper security to prevent the smuggling of drugs, pornography and extremist materials – and that is why we maintain a tight limit on the right of prisoners to receive parcels.
With best wishes
Chris Grayling

PS - Just spotted this:-

More problems for Grayling are looming. This from the F.T. (paywall)

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, is under mounting pressure to act over fears that thousands of prisoners will bring compensation claims for being held beyond their minimum sentence. Ministers face the prospect of a torrent of claims over a backlog of prisoners being held for months and even years after completion of their minimum term. 
One prisoner in Erlestoke prison in Wiltshire, who was given a minimum sentence of seven months, has now spent seven years behind bars.

34 comments:

  1. Erwin James is spot on, as usual. It's now plain to see that the hidden part of the title "Transforming Rehabilitation" is obviously "... Into Punishment"

    Or TRIP, as you might say.

    I love Colin Allars' optimism that he can just wave his magic NOMS wand and expand the role of Probation in OMUs. In my area there is rarely any competition for jobs in prisons, and the end of a 3 year secondment mysteriously gets pushed back, and back, and back...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not many months ago NOMS set prison against probation, disrupted staff working relationships, spent £millions on reorganisation and were throwing probation staff out of custodial settings. People had to make some big changes to their working lives - now, suddenly, there's no acknowledgement of any flawed thinking then or now, just "we've had another great idea and its going to happen, regardless". They are incompetent beyond words.

    The Spinmeisters don't know when to quit. I recall reading recent reports that Buddi told MoJ to go take a hike and walked away from the tag contract, the MoJ now claim they've removed Buddi for non-compliance with the tendering process.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And in private prisons...???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes exactly! "TR highlights the importance of OM in custody, not just in the final, resettlement stages of an offender’s custodial sentence; but throughout an offender’s journey" - except for the private sector, because we know we can't tell them what to do until contract negotiation time.

      Another way of making public sector prisons look more expensive?

      Delete
  4. I wonder if they have a suggestion box at the MoJ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10721637/Released-short-term-prisoner-face-another-two-weeks-behind-bars-if-they-ignore-new-supervision.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure you can't be given a prison sentence if your not charged with any offence?
      Therefore, can I assume that failure to comply with supervision will attract a further charge where a fine or custodial sentence can be imposed?
      I really don't think my mind is working right, because if that was indeed the case, then surely reoffending rates would rise, and only a real fool would take on a PbR contract?
      Someone help me please!!

      Delete
    2. I think its a very clever smoke and mirrors manoeuvre - perhaps some learned friends could clarify? - as with jail time when fines are remitted, its a committal to prison NOT a sentence.

      Delete
  5. Prisoners released after short sentences will be jailed for up to two weeks if they breach new supervision orders, Damian Green, the Justice minister, has announced.
    Magistrates will be given new powers to return criminals to prison if they fail to abide by requirements to end their offending such as drug or alcohol rehabilitation programmes.
    They could also face fines, curfews and made to do community work.
    Mr Green also signalled changes to magistrates recruitment in a bid to improve diversity and make them more representative of the communities they sit in.
    He revealed he is looking at proposals such as limiting the period a magistrate can sit to ten years and requiring candidates to show a rounded knowledge of local issues when applying.

    The Offender Rehabilitation Act will require criminals released from prison terms of less than a year to be supervised in the community for up to 12 months.
    Under the current regime, such offenders are released from prison with no further conditions or requirements placed on them.
    And to ensure they abide by the new orders, the Ministry of Justice will introduce powers for magistrates to jail them for up to two weeks if they breach the conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Two observations
    1. many public prisons now have poor relationships with probation based on previous experiences eg HMP Lindholme where seconded POs were told they would be "sent back" to their probation trust by the end of that week until the prison realised how many prisoners were in the parole process........
    2. as an offender manager in the community with Phase 2 and 3 prisoners I have been chairing sentence planning boards in prisons for the past 6 years and forgive me, thought that was because of errrrrrr, end to end offender management.....
    what the hell is going on here???

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/804/18361/26-03-2014/probation-workers-action-can-defeat-privatisation

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris Grayling

    Tough on literature, tough on the causes of literature!

    Now if we can get that on a placard at the front of any pictures during our strike, I feel it would make a most fitting epitaph!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Chris Grayling has few friends in the outsourcing companies it seems. They can't see any money in TR contracts and are threatening to withdraw unless he improves the terms for them, especially in relation to staff protections. What I say is "of course there is no money in TR". Probation Trusts have been about the most successful and efficient parts of the public sector over the last few years. To beat that, privateers would be expected to make money from a situation where there was the same amount of money against a higher and much more complex caseload (ie much more work to do) and a significantly increased bureaucracy. On top of that the contracts will be impenetrable in parts and missing tons of detail about the nuance of this work. Furthermore much of the expertise of Probation professionals on how to walk the tightrope will be lost, never to be replaced.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually, it's more than that for the outsourcing companies because they run the very real risk of having a non compliant work force. P****d off, exhausted from this constant change, running two systems in tandem and feeling no-one values us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I second that.

      Especially the non-compliant bit. As someone has previously commented, we are VERY good at making sure that EVERYTHING is done EXACTLY as we are asked to do it. Regardless of how things turn out, we can always say that we did just what was asked of us, without any application of common sense.

      Oh, and a withdrawal of goodwill too. If I thought for one minute that the CRC's would make money, and that staff would go out of their way to help them make money, I would buy shares in the company. I very much doubt that I will be reaching into my purse anytime soon :)

      Delete
    2. I'm more than non-compliant. I don't care anymore, I'm thinking sabotage. I'm not considered competent enough to write PSR's and Parole Reports anymore. My breaches and recalls have to be checked by more junior members of staff. I can't work with football hooligans who get a 12 month sentence for violent disorder. I can't work with dangerous drivers. I can't work with sex offenders. Stuff you, I'm not going to work with domestic violence and child protection, the only things left to a CRC PO, either. They're all going to be escalated to high risk because I'm obviously not good enough.

      Delete
    3. Exactly how I feel. This whole TR thing has been so badly handled that I,as a CRC PO, feel like I'm not good enough to join the NPS and have been stripped of my job and career. I have no idea what my job role is, other than having a list of things I'm not allowed to do. All I can say, is that I will be doing my job, whatever that may be, exactly as directed and I won't be doing any extra tasks or showing one iota of good will. Sad really, isn't it?

      Delete
    4. It could be worse, I'm court based NPS and think I'm going to do nowt but fill in risk forms all day, can you imagine what that's going to be like? I am really dreading it.

      Delete
    5. I know. All of us in every part of this organisation are being shafted from every direction.

      Delete
    6. Pretty much like myself doing endless breach/recalls on what I expect to be the very uncooperative under 12 month custody cases. Amazing how the government has managed to make such a fantastic job so thoroughly depressing. There really are no winners in this complete and utter shambles.

      Delete
    7. Yesterday, the mother of a lifer (murder) rang me and cried when I told her would no longer be working with her son. She told me how much he liked and trusted me and asked if she could still stay in touch. Later the same day, I had to tell an IPP licence client that I'd seen through oral hearings etc that I wouldn't be working with him anymore and I didn't know who would. He cried and thanked me for all my help. Today a visited a young man in prison who I've managed to secure an AP bed for. He was so delighted, shook my hand and asked me if I would go to the pub and have a game of pool with him when he came out. I was supposed to tell him I was transferring him. I couldn't bring myself to do it.

      Delete
    8. It's soul destroying. I told one of my clients he was being reallocated and all he could say is 'why are you leaving me'? I didn't even know what to say. This process is so destabilising for the people we supervise and they seem to be the last people that the government have considered in all this.

      Delete
    9. Tragic - absolutely tragic and completely counter to all our training, ethos and evidence about what works.....

      Delete
    10. I've been supervising a client on and off for around 3 years. It would be fair to say that our relationship at times has been 'strained', however, we do have an understanding that I am more understanding of his FTA' than I am of his re-offending. He's been offence AND drug free for about 4 months, a big achievement, but has just been given a Curfew for a minor offence but one that occurred with a peer he has offended with and used drugs with in the past. I recommended a 'split' curfew, both during the day and all night. He was nit happy about the mid afternoon one but said that he understood why I done this and recognised that I was only trying to keep him away from said peer.

      He did say that boredom was an issue as his parents both worked during the day and at night he just stayed in his bedroom as his relationship with his parents is still strained and he identified arguing/stress as a trigger to his drug use. I went, and out of my own money, purchased him a game for hus Playstation as this is somethung he enjoyed doing and identified as a protective factor. The game was second hand, only a few ££'s and IMO nit a big deal. The effect it had on him when I dropped it off was massive and he was close to tears when I explained why I had done this for him. Things like this make a difference to hiw people respond to us. I have no idea if he will remian iffence/drug free, what I do know us that we now have a better working relationship and it's less likely that he us going to call me a 'fucking arsehole' and 'I want a new Probation Officer'.

      It's these little things that make a difference and which will be missing come June :( It actually makes me quite upset to think about it.

      Delete
    11. I gave a young, vulnerable female client a Freddo when she came for an appointment on her birthday. It cost me nothing, another colleague had given it to me but it's monetary value was 10p. Her face lit up and she was delighted, she said she loved chocolate but couldn't afford it. She was a poor attender, after the Freddo, she wasn't. A little bit of kindness goes a very long way,

      Delete
    12. Great examples of why we are the glue that holds the criminal justice in the society together, and what is really being lost!

      Delete
  11. I don't think that would bother the private companies but I think they are starting to get a sense of the complex relationships that exist between cooncepts of rehabilitation and of 'success' in business terms. We have seen a decade of training companies achieving outcome targets based on 1,000s of offenders getting Health and Safety certificates, CSCS cards and fork-lift truck driving licences (i.e. nothing that is of any real use in getting them jobs). If the 'outcomes' they are seeking is a successful reduction in re-offending, they will need to get wise to the complex relationship between failure and progress, between relapse and recovery, the 'cycle of change' (i.e. the fact that success is not achieved by going around it just the once). In short, the profit is linked to factors that are unpredictable and can only be influenced and not managed. A bit like 'investing' in the role of a dice. A bid for a CRC will be a gamble, nothing more. More to the point, there is the relationship between aspects of criminal justice; a change in Policing policy results in increased arrests for drug possession, a tv campaign on domestic violence increases arrests, magistrates sentencing policy results in more or less court reports, changes in prison policy results in OM becoming less efficient, prisoners not receiving rehabilitative interventions whilst serving their sentences and, thus, their likelihood of re-offending being higher when they are released to the CRC for supervision. It is like the residents of a ground floor flat being responsible for the plumbing of the top floor flat. Business risks will be impossibloe to ameliorate. This is a public sector role and not a place for business.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If I were a CEO of a CRC or a bidder for said CRC my main concern would be how to ensure that the right offenders are coming our way. NPS staff will be the ones deciding which cases go where. Can we (CRC) be confident that the overworked NPS court staff are going to get this right? Where mistakes happen how will they be rectified and at whose cost? Who will be responsible for the cases whilst it is sorted out? If mistakes keep happening what authority will CRCs have in making sure issues are dealt with? As far as I can see, none at all. Therein lies the problem (one of many) for CRCs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It looks like they have pissed off the whole profession and a form of resistance is brewing. What would happen if some staff stayed on just for the hell of it, to be there when things go wrong or just to help things go wrong; are we we really that hacked off? These are "new times" nothing like this has happened before. How angry and how devious can nice people be??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll find out soon when TR crashes and burns and we're expected to pick up the pieces. I know good will where I work is currently non existent and that's for staff in both NPS and CRC.

      Delete
  14. I am a PSO seconded to a prison. I have seen this letter last week that was sent out. I feel let down by the service and have been disheartened by it all. I give everything to my job and am extremely passionate about what I do. I currently work with a lot of high risk, IPP's and Lifers. Attend parole boards mappa meetings etc. The changes they want to introduce mean I'm no longer needed as i'm not seen as expert or skilled. I am good at my job and knowledgeable in risk of serious harm (something that some prison officer OS' still haven't quite grasped). These changes are actually about making prison officer OS's responsible for ALL cases with Probation Officer overseeing / providing guidance. So almost an SPO but cheaper? I have no issue with the probation officer role they talk of but don't take pso's out because they're not qualified. Does experience not count for anything?? I think they'll find most of us know our stuff and have the respect of our Governors who are fully aware that we do the exact same job as our probation officer and band 4 prison officer colleagues for a lot less money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree with you, I am a PO seconded into a prison and I know how skilled and experienced my PSO colleagues are. I really just wanted to add that POs in our team feel this is just a stay of execution for our jobs; once we have spent some time attempting to teach prison officers how to do our (very different) job (on top of our own workloads) we expect to be told we are surplus to requirements. Not particularly motivated to invest time in training my replacement! Or perhaps we are just unduly cynical but a year after being told our jobs in the prison were to go, the outcome of the long awaited bench marking report makes no mention of PO numbers needed in OMUs, only prison officer roles there. Clearly our jobs are vulnerable, whatever the latest bright idea from Mr Copple.

      Delete
  15. I know the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is not privatised (yet), but it provides a telling example of what a combination of staff cut-backs and shifting mission can do. As I'm sure you know, the CPS are responsible for decisions to prosecute on behalf of the state. They decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, and they're then responsible for conducting the prosecution through the courts.

    It's a difficult job, and one not uninfluenced by changes in the political atmosphere. It involves complex codes of practice and lots of judgement calls about what will or won't add up in court, and it is an essential front- line in dealing with crime effectively: punishing the guilty, reassuring the community, helping victims feel supported etc.

    Thanks to a combination of absolute staff shortages, uncertain management and cack-handed political interventions, the CPS' effectiveness has declined big time over the past year or so. Anecdotal perhaps but you've only got to check out some of the blogs dealing with the practicalities of court to see that the CPS are dropping balls all over the place - and the court room is a poor place for that to happen. Cases are being thrown out because court-required disclosures just didn't happen, witnesses have not been notified or chased up, prosecutors haven't had the time to read the file etc etc. Cases which fail through CPS omissions and mistakes have grown considerably. What's at the root of the problems? Not enough properly qualified people for the work, uncertain management and rock-bottom morale. Sound familiar??

    My point is not to hassle the CPS rank and file (though I do wonder whether CPS management has rolled its collective sleeves up enough to get properly involved), but to worry that the impact of TR will be similar or worse. If so, the coming-off of wheels will be inevitable and frequent. Those of the magistracy who are following developments fear that the consequences for rehabilitation and the protection of society will both be (severely) negative. And this monument to the government's 'vision' may not even save money!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is an example of how not to bring about organisational change: demoralise the work force to the extent it will not recover, break up an award winning public service just because you can, try to get the cost off the governments books but in reality add more long term liabilities and change costs ( eg cost of consultants ) but perhaps most tellingly kill any belief in the social justice and any sense of fair play in our political system.
    Does any one have any information on precisely who the political lobbyists are in this? I think there is a an explanation for this in lobbying by the primes and I think we are a work force used to digging and analysing what we find, let's get onto this. This makes so little sense that the only way I can justify this insane process is that this is the result of machinations by big business..... and yes if that is true we could be talking malfeasance/ misconduct in public office.

    ReplyDelete