Does privatisation of justice make sense?

Chris Grayling, as part of the overall to criminal justice is outsourcing the probation system to private firms who will be reimbursed by results. Is this a new radical approach to a long running problem, or is it another way to deny responsibility?

Would love to put various links but I'm not allowed, however hopefully most on here don't simply take this forum as verboten fact but also check elsewhere.

tlttf wrote:-
Would love to put various links but I'm not allowed, however hopefully most on here don't simply take this forum as verboten fact but also check elsewhere.

What is ‘criminal’ is your propensity to misquote people. When did I say anything about you “not being allowed to post links” in these remarks??

ANY postings that he makes containing extracts from other sources will be deleted

you’re not welcome to post extracts from any sources here

If a link happens to contain a libel, at least the libel won’t be pasted on this forum and we won’t be liable for it. Sorry if that’s too subtle for you, but you never have paid much attention to detail. (By the way, are you talking about Grayling’s overalls or an overhaul?)

As to the subject of the thread, this is just another piece of Tory dogma being enacted. The Tories delude themselves with their mantra that “everything is better in private hands”, ignoring spectacular failures such as the G4S security fiasco at the Olympics, and continue their fire sale of the state in return for generous donations to the Tory Party.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary at the National Association of Probation Officers, claimed the decision was astonishing given that the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation Gold Award for Excellence last year: "This move is purely ideological. It is being rushed through without proper thought to the consequences. It will be chaotic and will compromise public protection."

Care on Commission for old lags will probably enjoy the same level of success as the earlier "Care in the Community" which liberated loonies to haunt the street-corners.

The privatisation of probation service could I suppose be seen as another part of the Tories' effort to demonise the poor.
Not many wealthy crims get put on probation (I don't think) and if we have a privatised probation service with the consequent and unavoidable corner cutting and drop in standards, we can probably look for an increase in criminal behaviour and fuller prisons (Who knows? They might even be able to bring back capital punishment on the wave of moral outrage this will cause)

Ivan, once again you start an answer with abuse to me personally, I apologise for occasionally making a grammatical mistake and simply love the way you jump on the fact (this shows more about you than I). Happily I've never felt the need to attack people for their grammar, however whatever ticks your box is fine by me.

On the above subject, is there somewhere that I've said I agree with the move or did I simply ask the question?

Now that you've made yourself my superior in intellect pray tell the difference between a LINK that directs to another SOURCE and a SOURCE. I'm sure there is one though with my limitations I struggle to see it?

tlttf wrote:Ivan, once again you start an answer with abuse to me personally, I apologise for occasionally making a grammatical mistake and simply love the way you jump on the fact (this shows more about you than I). Happily I've never felt the need to attack people for their grammar, however whatever ticks your box is fine by me.

On the above subject, is there somewhere that I've said I agree with the move or did I simply ask the question?

Now that you've made yourself my superior in intellect pray tell the difference between a LINK that directs to another SOURCE and a SOURCE. I'm sure there is one though with my limitations I struggle to see it?

Hi tlttf.

I think you and I generally get on ok. So perhaps you'll take my word for it that Ivan has been consistent in asking you not to post unattributed quotes/extracts on the forum, and hasn't asked you not to post links. On the contrary, I think it's the absence of links, or of marks making it apparent that you are quoting someone, that he's flagged clearly as the problem.

You'll do us all a service if you can accommodate that request - which is for the purpose of avoiding libel/copyright infringement accusations above anything.

Thanks!

tlttf wrote:-
On the above subject, is there somewhere that I've said I agree with the move or did I simply ask the question?

On the above subject, is there anywhere where I’ve suggested that you agree with the move, or have I simply expressed my thoughts on the subject – “another piece of Tory dogma”?

pray tell the difference between a LINK that directs to another SOURCE and a SOURCE.

It isn't rocket science. Read this sentence over and over again and the point might just sink in….

A link might direct those who follow it to an article that contains a libel, but at least the libel won’t be pasted on this forum and therefore we won’t be responsible for it.

I've never felt the need to attack people for their grammar

No, you couldn't really, could you? Instead you’ve attacked them as “divvies”, for their “limited intelligence”, for reading “fantasy books”, for “living in a time warp”, or because you’re worried about their mental health. You asked one poster if he was “a knobhead”, suggested that some on here should “get their heads out of their a*rses” and told me I knew nothing about education, which is where you’re very very wrong, mister!

Perhaps your funniest piece of hypocrisy was asking Rock if he read what he wrote prior to posting. That’s something you could try doing yourself; it might help you with Grayling’s overalls and overhauls!

this shows more about you than I

What does it show about you when an article which you gleefully posted on this forum turned out to be libellous yet you weren’t man enough to retract it and apologise?

Who said this on another thread?

Isn't it time to take self responsibility a bit more seriously
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t99p90-what-is-the-purpose-of-education#29244

As brownboots1, another Tory troll, used to say on those MSN boards, “you couldn’t make it up”.

Getting back to the topic of this thread:-

Grayling admits probation privatisation will not cut reoffending dramatically.

Labour condemns Grayling's plans as "reckless":-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/09/chris-grayling-probation-privatisation-reoffending

Still obsessed with my posts then Ivan? As a matter of interest the person I called a knbhead actually started the abuse, I simply answered.

Of course Labour disagree with any moves, isn't that what their first instinct to anything new is by default. The facts are quite simply that it's new and has never been tried before, will it work, who knows. Does that mean it shouldn't be attempted?

I'm sure that if some on this forum had their way we'd still be living back in the days of the industrial revolution, still have 3 people to 1 job. Reality is the economy went global.

In all honesty who on this forum has never bought from the internet, did you consider the effect to the local economy where you live, or was you driven by price and perceived value for money.

tlttf. I'm not "obsessed" with your dreary, thoughtless and frequently inaccurate posts, just gobsmacked by your hypocrisy in complaining when you get a taste of your own medicine.

There's nothing new about the Tories finding something else to privatise. They're so obsessed with selling off the entire state, usually in return for generous bungs to their corrupt party, that they even privatised police dog handlers.

And there's nothing new about 'payment by results' which the Tories want to introduce into the probation service. That system was tried in schools in 1862 and then abolished in 1897 because it was so inefficient. But hey ho, the Tories want to take us back to Victorian Britain, as we know from the rest of their policies. Aren't they fortunate that some people, with no sense or knowledge of history, seem happy to follow them down that blind alley?

I'm beginning to wonder whether all these "adjustments" to the way Britain goes about its business may not be part of a hidden agenda within the plan to disarticulate the Welfare State.

The numerous Europhobes inside the Tory Party will be quite happy to see British Law, Custom and Practice departing from Brussels Rules already established by Treaty. The Employers' organisation CBI is also nervous that Cameron's confrontations with the EU will force Britain's separation from an important Market.

I do think you may be right and that there is a broader hidden agenda that we only glimpse from time to time - otherwise government would be starting to show some awareness of the growing unhappiness within many parts of the country, instead of always looking so HAPPY - clearly, their plan is coming together in some way.

Following yesterdays handing of much of the Probationary service to Private Companies and 'Charities', today we find out where the money for the Shareholders of those companies is coming from.......

Closure of some Prisons and more use of G4S run prisons........You know the company which was such a success during the Olympics........

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you discharge someone from prison with just £46, no home and no job, there is a very strong chance that he or she will re-offend.

A government which was genuinely concerned with solving that problem wouldn't be focusing on privatising most of the probation service. Unfortunately, the Tory headbangers are obsessed with Friedmanite ideology and only interested in stuffing the coffers of their vile party with donations from the firms awarded the contracts.

Now Grayling wants to shut seven of our overcrowded prisons. Why? So that the Tories can give more of our money to their cronies to build new ones.

QUOTE: ".... if you discharge someone from prison with just £46, no home and no job, there is a very strong chance that he or she will re-offend."

But fortunately in Coalition la-la-land no such problem occurs when immigrants are prohibited from working or drawing benefits.

Guess they're not satisfied with ending access to legal aid - now they want to privatise the courts and end justice altogether:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3776508.ece

I suspect that this particular article may be what's sometimes called "a lure". A dodgy proposition is leaked to the Press by some (unattributable) government spokesperson to see what the public reaction is. It can be part of a softening-up process that allows a reduced proposal to be presented later as a much more acceptable idea.

"The Court Service" is of course two different animals. Crown Court exists to deal with criminals and if it is not an Official Instrument of The Crown it will not be easy to retain public respect. Imagine the impressive Royal Coat of Arms behind the Judge's bench replaced by the corporate logo of Serco.

The County Courts settle civil disputes, commonly unpaid bills personal injury claims and neighbours' boundaries. Since the Woolfe reforms, the cost of going to Law has increased about 400% and may eventually be replaced by Arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Procedure_Rules

Osborne invites bids to run the country

A quarter of the £689bn spent on public services has been outsourced and there’s more to come

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Economy/article1267685.ece

Problem with all this outsourcing is, you get a cheaper service at first - because pay and conditions are reduced - without any apparent drop in standards - because at first you have in post the same skilled and motivated staff - however, in the longer term, with lack of investment in training and supervision of staff, which of course also keeps the cost down, you get a steady reduction in the real value of what is being provided - for-profit and voluntary organisations cherry pick the work they'll do, because the more complex jobs aren't cost effective, what they will do, they increasingly use under qualified staff for, so the work doesn't get done to the sme standard.
Staff, without security of employment, are less likely to use initiative, or to provide the unpaid overtime that is a standard feature of many public service provisions (personally, I reckon I did an average 10 hours per week unpaid work, and I know I wasn't the only one).

So, as with much planned by this government, you get short-term savings, leading to longer term loss of the benefit provided by the services - which of course gives license for either scrapping the service or a round of tendering, which of course provides the opportunity to do a bit of good to one's business partners.

Yer pays yer money, and yer takes yer choice.

The Tories are avid consumers of Republican politics, and "out-sourcing" has been very popular in the USA for at least thirty years. It's one of the cards up the sleeve of the global companies in calculating tax liability. Fees paid to an associated company for "services" can cut declared profits to a manageable figure.

"Private companies and voluntary sector organisations would take over work with the majority of offenders by 2015, on a payment by results basis."

Every time this kind of thing has been tried in the USA, it has been an unmitigated disaster no matter how large or small the privitization is. Some things are simply bad all around when they are done for profit.

I'll give three examples.

The first happened right in the town where I was getting my masters' degree. The town outsourced parking enforcement to a private company who profited from people illegally parking. The end result was a series of schemes involving everything from deliberately making "no parking" signs difficult to see to the enforcement company blocking legal spaces to tempt people into parking illegally. The final straw came when a church had its regional convention in the town just as it had for many years. The church had a long-standing verbal agreement with the surrounding business owners that convention attendees could park in places normally deemed "illegal" by the business owners themselves. When the convention was over, attendees came out to find 240 cars rendered immobile by the for-profit parking enforcement company. No one could leave until the fine was paid right there on the spot. The parking enforcement company made around $40,000 on that night alone, but the town lost $30 million in revenue generated by the convention because the church and its membership was so pissed off that the town was deemed "unfriendly" and decided to hold its annual convention somewhere else from thereon out. There was a big town meeting on this issue, but alas, I graduated and moved on before I heard the outcome.

The second example is called the "Cash for Kids" scandal. From Wiki:

The "Kids for cash" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were accused of accepting money from Robert Mericle, builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities, in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts to increase the number of inmates in the detention centers.

For example, Ciavarella sentenced children to extended stays in juvenile detention for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, trespassing in a vacant building, and shoplifting DVDs from Wal-mart. Ciavarella and Conahan pleaded guilty on February 13, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, to federal charges of honest services fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States (failing to report income to the Internal Revenue Service, known as tax evasion) in connection with receiving $2.6 million in payments from managers at PA Child Care in Pittston Township and its sister company Western PA Child Care in Butler County. The plea agreement was later voided by a federal judge, who was dissatisfied with the post-plea conduct of the defendants, and the two judges charged subsequently withdrew their guilty pleas, raising the possibility of a criminal trial.

A federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania returned a 48 count indictment against Ciavarella and Conahan including racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations on September 9, 2009.

LINK

The third example was highlighted on the The Daily Show here in the US, and while I'd love to detail it, I'd have to do more research before I can put those details down on this forum. However, generally, it had to do with local jurisdictions outsourcing fine collections to a private company. The result was the private company adding a lorry load of fees and "administration costs" onto the fines, resulting in poor offenders ending up in jail on bench warrants because they couldn't pay. Everything from "late fees" to charging interest on fines not paid in one lump sum saw thousands of people in jail that would not have been if the government maintained control of its own collections. I remember an interview with one man in particular who saw prison become a revolving door. Yes, the moment he was freed from one minor offense, he was re-arrested for failing to pay fines ... and when he served that sentence, he was re-arrested a third time for not paying the fines he had accrued while serving his second sentence. In other words, this man could have literally served a life sentence in 6 month intervals for failing to pay ever-increasing fines bloated by fees and and interest rates added on by the private collections company. Only a lawsuit stopped the cycle.

Here is another link that details even more examples, from Arizona selling its own state capital building to private investors so that the government became a tenant in its own building to the Chicago "parking meter fiasco" that has cost taxpayers over $50 million so far, and will keep costing them for the next 75 years.

Wherever profiteers dig in their dirty, greedy little claws, the working man suffers.

LINK