Skip to main content

Probation - the Devil's in the detail - like most things

According to the Independent a report later this month will
"question the ability of the Probation Service to protect the public from dangerous criminals"

In a sense this shows the way in which many issues cause a mass of column inches, but little is actually done to resolve the problems that are highlighted. The criminal justice system has so many errors in it that we should not be surprised when things go wrong. The government's solution with the police and Probation Service tends to focus on filling in forms rather than dealing with offenders. In the mean time rather than look from a whole system perspective and develop a plan that reduces criminality we end up with ideological battles over small parts of the system. In the mean time we have a system that actually acts to encourage criminality.

The important aspects of any system rest within the detail, but rarely is any proper attention given to the detail and hence little happens.

I have been spending some time looking at the failings of our current system of parliamentary scrutiny and concluded that much of this rests in the failure of ministerial responsibility. The principle that ministers tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to parliament has basically failed. Whether ministers actually know what the truth is is a question in doubt. They depend upon information from across the country much of which can be adjusted in various interesting ways. The end result is a bit of a shambles.

We see a similar issue in terms of the way in which media attention swings to an issue for just sufficient time for nothing to happen apart from spinning from a few ministers.

Two interesting tests of this are:

a) Jamie Oliver's School Meals debate. I am not aware of anything of substance that has changed as a result of that although I am sure that some superficial changes could be identified.

b) Live 8. Live 8 in my view was a major success because it reunited Pink Floyd. It also raised a lot of money. I am not sure what else it has done.

A lot of "Make Poverty History" grandstanding has ensued, but again I am not really sure what has changed of substance that affects people on the ground.

One area I will be campaigning over the next few months is to improve parliamentary scrutiny and ensure that ministers are held more accountable for their departments. I think I have worked out how to do this, but only time will tell.

Comments

Richard Allen said…
If I was you John I would be very wary about be so cynical about Live 8. Of course you are right that (the music aside) it had no real benefits but such a hard hearted view of things is surely unbecoming of a Lib Dem MP. Unless of course you are planning to outflank David Cameron's absurd tories on the right.
John Hemming said…
My view is that we need to work to eradicate poverty across the world. I do take the view that this involves having good systems of government and economic structures in other countries.

However, much that Live8 was a positive event, I do not think it helps to mislead people into thinking it was a key driver into any change or indeed that any substantial change has occurred.

Much of the proposals that were put forward prior to the suggestions of Live8 were the same as agreed after Live8.

Notwithstanding that, I have been a supporter of much of the principles behind "Make Poverty History".
Tristan said…
Indeed, there's a danger that events such as Live8 just lull people into a sense that they've done something and now the issue can be forgotten.

Whilst I share the aims of Make Poverty History (who wouldn't) I am also wary because there have been attempts by the anti-globalisation lobby to hijack it. These people are very dangerous because despite meaning well, they put the very processes which could eleviate poverty at risk through their dogmatic opposition to free trade.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express. Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25). I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting. Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong. It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk cra

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here . This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in