Post 14 - Devious In & Devious Out - How Does Society Measure the Real Cost?

What a year this has been, so much has occurred in such a short time.  Twelve months since I launched my website (see post 2) at the Law Society for England & Wales with two prominent figures in their respective area of the law as speakers I felt that day would turn out to be a turning point for all those people who are incarcerated and therefore disenfranchised and vulnerable to those who wield power and control over them in their daily existence within UK institutions.  

Peter Cadman and Flo Krause two people I am proud to know personally and call my friends, (who humbled me with the fact that they were prepared to stand on a podium and endorse my vision) gave wonderful and passionate speeches. They talked of the need for 'Transparency' by those agencies tasked with managing UK institutions where human beings are incarcerated, 'Acessibility' to those insitutions via public comment and media, 'Accountability' of those who hold power and influence over the lives of those incarcerated and that such power and influence is wielded with 'Humility'. Peter pointed out it is cheaper to pay for private education at Eton College for a year than send someone to prison, a bizarre and disturbing fact about where our priorities lie as a society. 

Many significant personalities related to the lives of those incarcerated have encountered major life changes, Michael Gove has rightly been sacked as in my view he was simply a devious opportunist and not favoured by the 22 committee who I as with many others believe are the real power within UK conservative politics. A barrister of great integrity Flo Krause 'hung up her wig' and ended her career and her life passion in Law, as has Juliet Lyons who resigned from the Prison Reform Trust. Also Erwin James someone I have known personally for many decades and someone I consider a friend has published his wonderfully brave and moving book "Redeemable - A Memoir of Darkness and Hope" all about his life journey from a horrendous start in life to the integrated, happy and respected man I lunched with in London recently who in addition to his many achievements and being an author of several books and Guardian newspaper columnist he is also now the editor in chief of Inside Time.

What of us? Well one of our staff attempted to blackmail our company director with deleting the website content unless he paid him a significant amount of money, as he thought he was the only one with access to the content management system (clearly the sharpest tool in the box) so no surprise the guy was sacked, thereafter we discovered he actually had not done the amount of work he had been billing or claiming for anyway, we chose not to prosecute him as he was on a probation licence and his girlfriend had recently had a newborn baby.  We were subjected to a campaign of abusive and threatening text messages and involved the police who identified the parties involved and subsequently interviewed one of them and are monitoring events (this saga resulted in the installation of 24hr cctv). We have had meetings and discussions with serveral parties who are commentators or interested parties to Criminal Justice Reform who wanted to involve themselves with us in joint ventures utilising us and we have met many people this past year.  Many of those were well intentioned characters such as Alex Cavendish who is amongst many things a very bright man.

Another, a prominent academic in his field (who yes actually lectures at a university) invited me to a meeting at his campus, and as the day progressed he degenerated into a paranoid, aggressive, dysfunctional excessive drinker (who I hope has sought help) confronting people in the street for looking at him! There was the one who it transpired was a solicitor of meagre integrity and moral values who appears to collude with his client in covering up their crimes. Another was introduced to me as a recently released fraudster (nothing against that if reformed, but I fear he may not be) who was still peddling the same fictitious life history/story that was part of his presentation to victims of his crimes! Needless to say left him swiftly in the dust as little he said was actually true, and now he is gradually grooming identified parties within the Association of Prison Lawyers, barrister bloggers and others he has since identified that he feels may contribute something to his prison refom plans (that others will fund I am sure as he won't/can't as potless), apparently now he is a reformer (as oppose to reformed). He actually stated he was charging people to give them advice regarding what to expect if they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment (charlatan) talk about exploitation! Sadly there are many who see prisons and the plight of people incarcerated as an opportunity to make money by fleecing grants and donors or to create an existence which feeds their pathological need to be perceived as an authority or a prominent personality within the field. Blatantly achieved by grooming and ingratiating themselves with those they perceive as the current acceptable critics who have the ears of the decision makers, or in fact anyone they think may be of use to their devious strategy. 

It would be an interesting study to correlate and monitor how many 'prison commentators/reformers' were inside for fraud, an offence which has NO offending behaviour programmes to address the devious thinking involved in calculated crimes such as aquisitive fraud yet they are among the highest repeat offenders, whereas those sentenced to life and are on licence for their natural lives post release are the lowest.  It is also often the case in prison that it is the fraudsters who have worked their way into 'key' positions within establishments, usually by grooming and desensitising staff, it is also interesting to see that behaviour continue post release as they are invariably not on licence for long, and where they are on it at all they are quickly perceived by a probation officer under pressure of work as a low priority.  Yet in reality how much do they cost overall, what is the true cost if they are now outside involved in the Prison Industrial Complex which is awash with money (13bn is the cost of the CJS alone at the last count)?

There were some old school rules inside whilst doing your bird which applied in almost all cases. Rules such as a northener in a southern jail AVOID, a southerner in a northern jail AVOID, someone who has been in lots of jails in a short period AVOID, drug user/dealer AVOID, those who gossip AVOID, those who seek influencial positions in the nick AVOID, Sexual groomers AVOID, there are many more but those listed were the mainstay of a peaceful life inside for most people. Either way I have a serious illness to deal with and as such am no longer able to continue in the vein that I once could (not for the time being anyway) and so I will observe from afar the machinations, floundering and manouverings of those devious characters and see if in fact I am sadly once again proved right in my judgment of their motives. I hope not...

Post 13 - Does Corruption & Collusion Really Equal Crime?

To follow on from Posts 11 and 12 the theme of corruption/collusion was very much the topical thread running through most of the media streams globally as a result of the expose regarding Panama and the leaking of 11.4m (2.6 terabytes of data) files regarding the activities of clients from the Law firm Mossack Fonseca, the stabbing in the back of Boris Johnston by Michael Gove and then the Labour Party in complete disarray and rebellion all in my view evidence of the corrupt and collusive world of the powerful where many simply seek to further their own ambitions at whatever cost to their integrity and character. 

The root of all evil?

What struck me about the furore those events created is that generally we can be quite a vindictive and unpleasant bunch when we choose to be, and especially when it comes to criticising the rich and powerful.  Yet which of us would not employ lawyers and accountants to exploit legal loopholes in tax law if we were in a position to have so much money that we needed to protect it from economic factors influenced by others, who may or may not be as astute as us?

So we get all hot and bothered about the tax obligations that may or may not be deliberately avoided, yet at the same time in my view we can appear indifferent to the plight of anyone who in our twisted thinking "deserves all he gets". Consider for a moment someone who is disenfranchised, ostracised or stigmatised such as an ex-offender or someone suffering a mental health illness, or even worse some poor soul who is marked out with both, who then becomes a 'victim'. Do you think you would be inclined to highlight a wrong done against them, to pursue it, or even beyond and actually go to any lengths within the law to right that wrong on their behalf, regardless of the personal cost to you?  The answer if you are totally honest with yourself is likely to be no. Why?

Well for many reasons not withstanding the fact that depending on your standing/vocation it may be professional suicide (hence very few high profile people or politicians take up any cause which is unpalatable to the general public) as it is a high risk/low reward scenario, a thankless task with no reward or recognition for helping someone within that sector of society and certainly not from the establishment. If anything you would probably end up on a watch list of some sort or another. Have we come to the point where in fact not that many people in power seek to know of wrongdoings against those perceived to be outside society, even if temporarily, do we prefer out of sight out of mind, if we don't know then we can't be roped in?

Is it in fact that we are all criminals?

President Obama is now openly talking about the prison industrial complex, he is discussing prison reform and laying out his plans for the future of incarceration within America to the extent that it is now something to be found in most daily papers in the United States and some brave souls promote change on a daily basis. Will it have time to be implemented before either Donald Trump dumps it as he seems likely to do, or before Hillary Clinton screws it up as she has done with so many other initiatives she has been tasked with, who knows? One thing I think we can pretty much count on is as I predicted in my blog of 11th February 2016, UK Prison Reform is one trend where we appear to be completely reluctant to follow our American cousins from across the big pond.

I genuinely fear for those who live and work inside all institutions within our governments control, because they are now crime zones as bad as any inner city in this country. I know it, you know it, the media know it, and those working there know it, but the worst thing is those responsible for managing and reporting on the management of it, they also know it and yet nothing changes.

My greatest fear is it never will and hundreds of men women and children will continue to die either because they see no other choice but kill themselves through suicide, or they have diminished access to adequate health care.  It appears to be because many of those in the sector are ego driven, making money from it at various levels and in the end they simply talk or write about it. Apart from myself and Mark Johnson the founder of User Voice I am unaware of anyone who has put their own money into a reform initiative on any meaningful scale, very few actually do anything tangible which may truly change it for the better.  They do not have an original viable idea between them, they squabble and plagiarise each other claiming Kudos here and credit there, and in fact if someone does actually take action, then the acceptable critics join ranks in fear and outrage, with campaigns of instrumental poison and aggression against the entity or person who dared to stand apart, lest they be exposed for what they are...parasites who simply feed of the misery and suffering of others and the conscious neglect of those with the power to influence real tangible positive reform.

Post 12 - 'Risk' Reduction or Not?

The word 'risk' has now become such a regular feature in everything we read, hear and see on the various forms of media which now influence almost every area of modern life. Constantly phrases are used such as "We have to weigh up the risks"..."What are the risks involved?"..."How risky is it?"..."What's our exposure?"..."Can we stand the heat?"..."What are the consequences?"..."What are the outcomes?"..."Have we done a costs benefit analysis?..."What's the ROI?"...etc etc. Risk, something which is pre-eminent throughout so many areas of life today the world over.  Depending where you were fortunate enough (or not as the case may be) to be born or to live, the generic everyday risks you face on a daily basis are or course different. In Europe even a school trip = risk assessment, the relevant HSE are now integrated into every area of European life and we are safeguarded by this statutory factor to the extent that now we probably never give it a second thought.  But 'risk' comes in many forms and not all are tangible or overt, visible therefore manageable, some risks are subtle and engage with us without us even being aware of it as 'risk' takes on many guises which on the surface appear socially acceptable and in fact expected and normal.

It seems so many people and organisations have a view, they readily voice their views and in some cases they are strong influencers of others and their perception and understanding of risks to the point that decisions are made which effect the lives of many and yet most attach the decision to the front line 'Face Person' of the decision.  However the differential in the ability to think critically before influencing is not necessarily something given much weight when these people are put in a position of influence.  So who are the true 'influencers'?  Apart from the obvious Marketing, Media, Religion, Schools and Parenting influences, there are other groups which until recently in my view have been overlooked because if you think about it, it may not be that they are in fact individuals either.

An example on the most serious scale of an individual influencer is perhaps whoever is President of the United States at any given time?  Perhaps even a Prime Minister voted in with a landslide, loved by everyone at the time, who all prospered under his government, but then a decision is made which later appears in hindsight to have been flawed or motivated by other factors than those promoted at the time, if the press and pressure groups are to be believed.  In my personal view only a moron could think such decisions are made alone or with a personal motive in mind, surely they are made on the basis of multiple full and complete risk assessments of the situation and information available and current at the time. A risk assessment is almost never carried out by the decision maker, almost never carried out by the 'Face Person', it is usually done by 'experts' in their respective fields, experts who when the shit hits the fan do not have to stand up and explain their thinking process or their rationale for the decision, as the perception perpetuated by the mass media is of course the 'Face Person'' is the person responsible, ergo they are culpable.  In many spheres of operation such as Politics, the Military or a PLC such an outcome can be fatal as the ingredients of the outcome are obvious to the general public.

"So we'll blame you if that's OK?"

But what of situations where that is not the case, where there is such a myriad of obstacles to establishing who was behind the analysis which gave rise to the final decision, where does that responsibility lie?  What of the Life Sentenced Prisoners who are released (a Killer who is released from Prison and Kills again, or the Multiple Rapist who is released and Rapes again) surely it is inadequate to suggest these are calculated risk decisions taken by an "independent" Parole Board, which was the explanation given on every occasion when there is a failing, who were the 'influencers' and what is their culpability?  In response people suggest we need to leave the EU and abandon the ECHR as it is misused to defend the rights of prisoners and after all they have forgone their "rights" when they broke the law haven't they?  

But the examples above are not representative of people who truly encountered change within themselves, they did not integrate any learning, they did not encounter true remorse, shame or guilt for their actions previously, they simply learnt what they needed to say at any given moment, they manipulated those they had contact with on a daily basis. Inadequately trained and educated in the necessary skills to identify and recognise traits, to the extent that by the time they appeared before the Parole Board reports had been written suggesting these people had changed. In fact they were clearly extremely dangerous men, and in the case of one of those men the authorities were warned years in advance, I know this because I warned them about him and what the future would bring were he progressed, but at the time I was ignored.

The fact is the American and UK prison systems are broken, and no amount of building new prisons to house ever increasing numbers or internal reconstruction is going to change that, because reducing offending rates whatever country we are talking about, is all about people, it's about people engaging with people.  So locking people up for extended periods with others who are all 'doing time' warehoused with little or no intellectual stimulation is simply the blind leading the blind.  You can worry about drug problems in prisons, or lack of education or even the levels of violence, but unless you connect the right people with the 'right' people, you will only effect superficial change and certainly not make any impact on serious crime rates (unless of course that is your intention). No one is born bad. With the exception of the criminally insane or those who 'retire' having made their fortune with their ill gotten gains, criminals change because they want to change. They change because they choose to change, they reach a point where they register the consequences of their actions and decisions. They encounter realisation of the impact they have had on others, they feel the pain they have caused through their actions, they understand and comprehend they have brought hurt and chaos into the lives of many and as a result they are on a road to nowhere.

The Choice to Change is Open to All

They encounter genuine remorse and guilt, shame combined with resolve to never create victims again. Sometimes that realisation is brought about through introspection and self analyses, sometimes through an event, a powerful experience or the guidance and support of another with greater insight and  knowledge of the issues at hand. One thing is absolute, and it is that the decision to truly change their lives is NEVER chosen by a criminal because they have been broken or coerced through an institutional attitude or a political policy.

In my view cutting front line Probation Officer staffing levels is a mistake. Cutting Prison Officer staffing levels is a mistake. Building huge prisons to house greater numbers of criminals is a mistake. Surely it is apparent a refined recruitment process needs to be implemented, and pay a decent salary for educated staff with the right skill sets. Obviously you will not get certain invested parties saying that because if the staff inside have the skills then those parties become redundant. However surely if you are going to have hidden parties "influencing" decision makers then you have to ensure they are the right people with the right tools equipped to do so and not simply doing so because that's how we do it. The world penal community of 'experts' agree that Norway is the world leader in rehabilitation, so why are we ignoring them, are we so arrogant or corrupt that we believe only we know better in everything? Whilst in the meantime recidivism just is, and will remain a facet of broken Criminal Justice Systems the world over while their communities suffer and the invested parties become wealthier as the industry of prisons and incarceration continues to grow and expand? So really we are confronted with unknown risks daily by the mere fact that we do not invest in a proven theory, we prefer to keep gambling and experimenting because we know better?

That is corruption in it's purest form.

Post 10 - Weapon of Choice the SIR not the SLR

If you read the previous Post 9, you are now aware if you weren't before that there are various means of 'punishment' within an institution, either the brutal uncompromising kind of Con on Con or the official process of adjudications or the often used 'unofficial' punishments from the uniforms such as the 'ghosting' described in Post 9.  All have an unquantified cost in human and financial terms, and in financial terms it is another 'blackhole' (see Blog Post 3) within the billions wasted in the UK Criminal Justice System.

Ghosting is a phrase used in UK institutions to describe an unscheduled transfer of an inmate usually claimed to be for security reasons as most decisions taken in UK Institutions under the 'umbrella' of security are rarely scrutinised too closely by the powers that be.  The uniforms simply claim actions of that nature were taken for the "good order and discipline of the establishment", a catch all used frequently to disguise actions of instrumental aggression against people in the care of the State, usually no right of appeal and certainly not in a timely manner because they are now usually hundreds of miles away in another part of the country. 

"MUFTI"

'Ghostings' typically occur in the early hours when everyone is asleep and the jail is still locked down, if they don't expect resistance there will be three screws in uniform and a junior manager at the door, however if they expect trouble then the 'Mufti' (Minimum Use of Force Tactical Intervention) are called in to do the job, and believe me they do it quickly, efficiently and violently to the extent that now all 'security' cell removals are supposed to be filmed.The Mufti squad since conception have been symptomatic with prisoner injuries, the Howard League for Penal Reform at the outset of Mufti Squads wrote letters requesting enquiries for topical issues exposing staff brutality or prisoner injuries through the use of Mufti squads, yet it is still in use today 25 years later, and not much has changed. Following a 'ghosting' the Con arrives elsewhere with a black mark against his name and can take months if not years for the 'stain' imposed on his record sheet and his reputation to be restored. Despite the fact that more often than not there will have been no breach of prison discipline rules nor will they have been through any 'official' recognised disciplinary process to warrant removal and transfer commonly away from their family and thereby punishing visitors in the process. However that is the overt obvious stuff, what about the ability to inflict 'punishment' without the Con being aware until sometimes years later?  Sounds unlikely, well it happens, and it happens a lot. 

Many staff are ex-military and as such used to handling the SLR however they no longer need such an antiquated weapon as things are far more sophisticated now with the advent of the 'SIR'. This is a Security Information Report, probably designed with good intentions, but unwittingly has become the weapon of choice for those with an interest in a campaign of 'Instrumental Aggression', and it is available to anyone who understands the workings of a prison or worse the Parole Board.  What is it?  Well it is what's written on the tin, a report written following "intelligence" received or known, considered to be significant to the security of the establishment. 

Quite literally a form is filled out detailing the relevant information, and on the face of it you would think it is logical to have such an instrument available as it allows others unfamiliar with the individual or situation concerned to read a file, read any SIR's contained therein and form a view.  But there are obvious flaws which open this process to abuse, the ability to be manipulated and thereby impotent as a tool for which it is designed.  However despite knowing this the prison service continue with this process and subsequently the prisons are full of Cons who have SIR's entered daily on their files without their knowledge.  Information comes in from all areas, yes censorship of incoming and outgoing mail (officially 5% random unless targeted by security) in the post room, and yes monitoring of telephone conversations or recordings of conversations, albeit they are generally supposed to be random unless targeted, (yes you guessed it targeted by security on the basis of information received ergo SIR).  But there is a far more sinister side to this and I am sure you are ahead of me, because there are too many (for the process not to be flawed), examples where SIR's are submitted as a result of spurious allegations from other less principled Cons, or calculated allegations by competitors in the drug distribution game, or by debtors trying to avoid payment, spiteful or malicious Cons who get perverse entertainment from causing another misery or difficulty, peer envy etc, the implications of which are obvious.

However the worst abuse of this system of information gathering, and far more frightening is occasions of false and fabricated SIR's deliberately compiled by a member of staff in full knowledge of all the implications of such an act on the sentence of the Con as these documents are read by the Governor or brought to their attention when considering HDC, or the IEP status of a Con within their establishment.  Even More worrying is the Parole Board specifically request a report from the security department with particular note to how many SIR's if any, have been compiled regarding the person whose case they are considering either for progression or release.  In the case of Lifers appearing in person before a Parole Board Oral Hearing there is quite often discussion regarding entries and it may possibly be the first time the Con had knowledge of any such event, yet they are having to defend against unknown accusers in relation to unknown allegations, which again is a huge flaw in our delivery of Justice.  But many pre-tariff reviews are conducted on the papers only so how do you defend against something you are unaware of, it's a ludicrous and abusive process and one in which the parole board are misled on many occasions.

"Agree or else"

Information needs to be gathered within institutions, information and intelligence should however be gathered relating to anyone who is involved in questionable activities, including staff. As with all systems which involve a human element, it lies with the person inputting the data to maintain their own personal integrity and not be party to any deviation from the professional standards required and to be mindful of the implications for the Con and his family (who are also victims of the offending behaviour).  

This is why without a secure whistleblower telephone process within institutions and NOMS for staff and Cons alike prison reform is doomed to fail, because peer pressure is enormous and the stigma and marginalisation a whistleblower faces is for many a terrifying prospect.

To knowingly compile false reports of any nature in any capacity as a member of NOMS (be it prison officer, case worker, probation officer etc) in our view should be a criminal offence.  In many ways the Parole Board involves the judiciary, and some may say compiling false reports which are laid before them is tantamount to perverting the course of justice.  But from the number of reports we get, plus personal knowledge of this practice we know spurious reporting costs hundreds of millions of pounds and are yet another unquantifiable black hole within NOMS expenditure.

If you know of anyone who has been subjected to this abuse, or someone who perpetrates this abuse on those in their care, visit our website and post on the relevant institution message board and we will bring it to the attention of the appropriate body on your behalf.

Post 8 - Abuse, Ignorance or Arrogance? - No "Medical In Confidence" for Anyone Previously Detained in the UK!

Many people claim they fight for the marginalised, the stigmatised, the voiceless people within societies around the world and they are admired by me for their efforts.  However this particular episode is startling for me as it has occurred here in the UK, where we know better.  We understand as a Nation all about Institutional Conditions regarding stigma, bullying, marginalisation and how these issues and their effects can create victims to the extent it has sometimes led to suicide. 

This is a factual account of one recent experience brought to our attention, it raises so many questions it is difficult to know where to start, so I suppose the best place is the beginning of the issue at hand and you can form your own views?  

It involves a person living their life on Life licence in the community for a crime many years ago who had occasion to attend their doctor.  The client has regular quarterly meetings with the probation services who obviously are aware of all life events and in particular the client had been discussing matters with them regarding Mental Health and well being etc, so no secrets and an open transparent relationship was in place.

This is not an "oh woe me" story on behalf of our client so the details of why they were ill and what events transpired within their family resulting in this situation are in the main irrelevant to the implications of this account.

During their attendance at the appointment with the doctor, they engaged in a completely frank and candid manner during the conversation with their doctor, to the extent they explained about their past and all connected events.  The doctor diagnosed Depression, in fact he was of the view the client had been depressed for many years and expressed surprise that Depression had not been identified during incarceration and that help had not been offered previously.   It cannot be stressed enough the sense of relief and hope felt by the client regarding the situation now that the Doctor had intervened.

The doctor concluded the client was in 'crisis' and following thorough assessments offered a treatment programme involving medication, however the client preferred to try 'Talking Therapy' with the CMHT (Community Mental Health Team) before opting for medication.  The doctor agreed it was a viable option and the client was referred as an emergency.

The process involved a telephone call that afternoon to the client from the CMHT who conducted an hour long 'Triage' interview on the telephone where again the client was open and candid about their past history, they agreed 'Talking Therapy' was an option and told the client the case would be passed to a psychologist who would telephone and arrange an appointment for the client to go in and have a face to face meeting with the psychologists who were also the facilitators.  A few days passed, a time which the client endured (and possibly survived) only with the compassion and active intervention of close friends.

The first "bombshell"!         

I should say at this point that fortunately all telephone calls to and from CMHT are recorded.

The client received a further telephone call from the CMHT, in fact the same person who had conducted the 'Triage' interview for over an hour, they asked if permission could be granted for the Psychologist to approach the clients probation officer!  The client asked why that was necessary when the current situation was directly relevant to other issues and not to an event many years ago, the client also asked why the psychologist could not discuss matters with them in person when they met.  The response was in our view absolutely shocking.

The client was told access to 'Talking Therapy' (thus NHS services) would ONLY be granted in circumstances whereby consent was given for the psychologist to approach the probation officer for discussions prior to meeting with the client (don't forget this is someone diagnosed to be in crisis and in need of support).  Needless to say the client felt this was outrageous as Lifers are already a marginalised group (as there conviction is never spent so will always appear on a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check (now known as DRB Disclosure and Barring check), and felt this was also an example of blatant discrimination.   Permission was expressly withheld by the client without any opportunity for misunderstanding or ambiguity, the call was terminated with the client in tears and distressed. The impact on the client at this point was devastating and brought back overwhelming feelings of helplessness, isolation, loneliness and desperation - and again it may be that it was only due to the intervention of close friends that the client survived this period.

The second "bombshell"!                    

The client went along to a regular quarterly meeting with the probation services, within minutes to the complete shock of the client the probation officer raised the subject of the appointment at the doctor and the subsequent decision to opt for 'Talking Therapy'.  Before expanding in response to the question the client asked how the probation officer knew he had been to the doctor and what had been discussed, and in response was told the Psychologist from CMHT had telephoned probation to ask questions regarding the client etc.  The probation officer was quick to point out that he had asked for a copy of the consent form the client had signed to be emailed or faxed over and when the CMHT psychologist stated they did not have one the probation officer claims they terminated the call.

The client then pointed out that an element of investigation must have taken place on the part of the Psychologist because at no time were the CMHT or the doctor made aware of which probation area/office/officer was responsible for their supervision in the community, and that by engaging in conversation at any level the probation officer had essentially confirmed collateral data which was a breach of their confidentiality, and clearly others associated with probation had done likewise for the Psychologist to have eventually got through to the supervising office/officer.  The only circumstances where such discussions could take place with complete disregard to patient confidentiality were in circumstances where there was a public risk issue, and both parties have since AGREED that did not apply.  It was made clear to the probation officer by the client that permission/consent had not been given to discuss these issues, and that in fact had the Psychologist suggested in an interview that a tri-party meeting would be useful from their perspective it was highly likely the client would have agreed, however that had not occurred.

So not only had the CMHT in the form of the Psychologist breached the medical in confidence of the patient (client), but the probation service had also breached the clients confidentiality ergo the DPA 1998 and this was a cause for concern.  Needless to say a heated discussion took place about stigmatisation, professional standards, bias, prejudice, discrimination, public perception of ex-offenders, medical codes of practice, patient confidentiality, rights to privacy etc and the Lifer shared the experience with us.

An approach was made initially by telephone to the CMHT to raise a complaint, their head of complaints is involved and in communication and meetings are underway to address the issue.

The third "bombshell"!              

Despite all of the above currently being investigated the CMHT Psychologist failing to learn his mistake has since emailed the probation officer to "ask one simple question" which according to the client who spoke with his probation officer on the telephone was "is the patient 'safe' to be alone in a room with us"?  

Do people know we have a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act or the Data protection Act 1998 or The Mental Health Act and that everyone except in very specific circumstances has a right to have their medical history protected? Probation have expressed their support of the client in his complaint, but what does this say about the perception of people regardless of their profession regarding anyone with a Mental Health concern who approaches their doctor, and especially so if they happen to be an ex-prisoner or detainee?   

Do they in fact regain any rights upon release, are they actually free, do they have any level of autonomy in their life outside or is the truth they are permanently marginalised with the stigma which ignorance bestows upon them?  In this case was it abuse?  Was it ignorance?  Or despite being in knowledge the third time Is it arrogance?

You tell us, please comment below by clicking on 'comments'. Please raise the debate, discuss this over dinner, talk with colleagues and friends, or post on our website.