APPENDIX 6
Further supplementary notes by Mr David Fraser
and Mr Peter Coad
FINAL OBSERVATIONS
BASIC
FACTS
1. It is important that we all have a common
understanding of what the word "success" means; it has
to be defined so that it can be understood by the general public.
We suggest a definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary
which describes "success" in terms of human behaviour
as "a person who does well". Clearly such a term cannot
be applied to a criminal who continues offending and yet the Probation
Service frequently describes probationers who continue committing
crime as successful. It is a lie; it deceives the Home Office,
sentencers, Probation Committees and the general public.
2. The only criteria to measure the success
or failure of any form of community supervision are reconviction
rates. These are published annually by the Home Office and are
void of any ideological impediment. The majority of probationers
are males under 30 years old. From Home Office Reconviction Statistics
6/97 published 24 March 1997, males under 21 have a reconviction
rate of 77 per cent; 21-24 years 66 per cent and 25-29 years 60
per cent. Set against a background of a mere 4.9 per cent detection
rate, it is not unreasonable to suggest a probable 90+ per cent
reoffending rate. Surely this is incontrovertible evidence of
the spectacular failure of the Probation Service to deliver effective
supervision as promised.
It is desperate straw-clutching to claim that
a "less than predicted reconviction/re-offending rate"
is evidence of success. If a criminal commits 45 crimes a year
instead of a predicted 50, can any reasonable person deem that
to be successful supervision? Unless an offender is observed 24
hours a day, reoffending rates cannot be determined. The anti-prison
organisations never quote official reconviction rates for obvious
reasons.
3. A common theme of the anti-prison organisations
is their dishonest use of the basic administrative cost of a probation
order compared with the cost of imprisonment. Such a comparison
fails to take into account the cost to society of the vast numbers
of crimes committed by those under supervision. In many cases
the cost of the crimes to the public far exceeds the cost of incarceration.
Surely they know that it is dishonest, but truth is so often sacrificed
at the altar of ideology.
4. Prisons are often referred to as "universities
of crime" by anti-prison organisations. For years they claimed
that the evidence was that those discharged from prison had far
higher reconviction rates than those supervised in the community.
In recent years Home Office statistics have demonstrated that
such a claim is unsustainable. In the previously quoted Home Office
statistics, it suggests that there is no significant difference
between reconviction rates for custody and all community penalties.
However, if statistics are not adjusted for "pseudo reconvictions",
the reconviction rate for community based penalties would be 4
per cent higher than for those having served a custodial sentence.
It is interesting to note that the Home Office Statistical Bulletin
5/97 of 24 March 1997 stated, "The two-year reconviction
rate for all prisoners discharged in 1993 fell from 58 per cent
for those discharged from sentences of up to 12 months to 26 per
cent for those whose sentences were between four and 10 years".
Pseudo-Convictions. The practice of applying
the "pseudo-conviction" convention to inflate the "success"
rate of community penalties has concerned us for some time. The
convention allows for a 6 per cent reduction of reconviction rates
on the basis that some crimes committed before a probation order
was made were dealt with during the period of supervision. However,
no such allowance is made for crimes committed during a period
of probation but dealt with after the order has terminated. This
cannot be fair or logical.
Professor Ken Pease comments,
"If reconviction rates
are supposed to say anything about sentence effects, then clearly
it is inconsistent to discount offences occurring before the sentence
begins and processed during the sentence (pseudo-convictions)
but not to discount offences committed during the sentence and
processed after the sentence. The effect of this inconsistency
is to reduce the rate of reconviction associated with a sentence
spuriously.
The cynic in me recognises
that reconvictions are in fact systematic understatements of the
amount of offending by those under the supervision of agents of
criminal justice. The inconsistency noted above is a minor contributor
to this. The major ones are:
1. The failure to attribute any uncleared crime
to offenders under supervision.
.2 The failure to include crime cleared otherwise
than by conviction (tic's etc) among crime committed by those
under supervision.
3. The convention that reconviction is either
there or not, ie that once reconvicted subsequent convictions
while under supervision are simply not counted."
We also agree with the opinion of Professor
Pease that it is logical that the comparative reconviction rates
should start from the date of sentences for community and custodial
sentences. On that basis, the effectiveness of custodial sentences
would be spectacular.
Unfortunately on pages 16, 17, 18 of the written
evidence presented by the Home Secretary, "pseudo-reconvictions"
are used to support the case for community penalties.
HM INSPECTORATE OF PROBATION: REPORT OF THE
"WHAT WORKS" PROJECT: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE OFFENDER
SUPERVISION
This Report was commissioned by Graham Smith,
CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Probation. It was written by Tom Ellis
of the Research and Statistics Directorate at the Home Office
for work on the Evaluation Survey and Andrew Underdown, Assistant
Chief Probation Officer, Greater Manchester Probation Service,
Support and Information Services.
Dr Ken Pease, OBE, Professor of Criminology
and formerly Principal Research Officer, Home Office Research
Unit, said that he has "skimmed" the Report but had
read closely Chapter 2 (Evaluation Survey) and Chapter 9 (Evaluation
and Evidence Base) and felt equipped to make the following comments.
"I applaud any attempt by the Probation
Service or anyone else to do what they do better. However, I think
Andrew is admirably clear in showing how dire the level of programme
evaluation is in probation. Consider the following:
— 22 per cent of
services did not notify Andrew of any evaluated schemes.
— Of the 210 schemes
notified, only 109 claimed to include reconviction data.
— Of the 109 programmes
claiming evaluation which included reconviction, 22 had in fact
done no such evaluation, and in others the results of evaluation
were not yet available, leaving only 50 apparently worth further
scrutiny.
— Of these, 15
were excluded because of poor data or recency of programme start.
Thus, of those initiatives which services had
the confidence to submit (and which were presumably being touted
locally as instances of successful evaluated practice) less than
one in six survived as worthy of outcome scrutiny. Of the one
in six deemed worthy:
— Only three used
reconviction periods recommended by the Home Office. (This would
not matter if more sophisticated approaches like survival analysis
were used but there is no suggestion that they were.)
— 20 of the programmes
took the starting point of the risk period from the start of the
programme element of the order, or later, thus excluding those
given orders with the highest probability of offending, who are
also reconvicted most swiftly.
— 18 of the programmes
gave no indication that they used reconviction statistics beyond
those held by the Probation Service.
Thus stated, only a handful of schemes merit
serious consideration as evaluations. Of those which do, none
seems, even at face value, to be remotely close to outperforming
expectation to an extent which would offset the direct incapacitation
effect of prison.
Let me be clear that I wish the Probation Service
every success in improving its programmes to the point at which
its effect in securing public protection exceeds that of prison.
However, that day is not close, and Andrew Underdown has done
a service in showing how far from evaluative adequacy the showpiece
programmes of the service fall short."
Comments by David Fraser and Peter Coad
When Graham Smith, HM Chief Inspector of Probation,
gave his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, 21 April
1998, he presented the abbreviated "Management Summary"
of the above Report. We have had the doubtful advantage of reading
the full report; Professor Pease could not be more damning in
his detailed criticisms of the two most important chapters, criticisms
we fully support. When we read it we felt that it was a worthless
exercise in psycho-sociological and management rhetoric combined
with wishful thinking. There was considerable emphasis on various
programmes with a cognitive therapy/behavioural training emphasis.
What was omitted was the completed and carefully researched results
of the Mid-Glamorgan cognitive "STOP" programme with
a 70 per cent reconviction rate. Seen against a background of
a 4.9 per cent detection rate, surely the re-offending rate must
be 90+ per cent. In spite of this known disastrous reoffending
rate, these highly fashionable programmes have been established
throughout the country.
Chapters 2 and 9, the ones commented on in detail
by Professor Pease, were written jointly by Andrew Underdown and
Tom Ellis. We do not know Mr Ellis but we do have some knowledge
of Andrew Underdown who wrote most of the Report; he is an employee
of the Greater Manchester Probation Service and not likely to
be objective about Probation Service function; he is not famed
for his clarity of communication. In a desperate effort to explain
to the public what the Greater Manchester Probation Service meant
by "success" he wrote the following.
"83 per cent of probation
orders achieved successful completion, mostly by the offender
meeting these requirements and obligations but, including with
this definition of success, those cases requiring enforcement
action by the supervisor, where the court concludes that the purpose
of the order can be sustained."
Graham Smith's report is a desperate propaganda
exercise to enhance the credibility of the Probation Service.
In the "Foreword" to his report he says,
"This is the most important
foreword I have ever written. The evidence drawn on in this report,
states at its simplest that "certain community programmes
involving the same population significantly outperform custodial
sentences in reducing offending. Further, we now know or at least
have a beginning understanding of what makes those programmes
so successful.
The movement to achieve this
is known as What Works. The report offers the Probation Service
and its many valued partners an opportunity to renew and revitalise
community penalties and in increasing their effectiveness, enhance
public protection and reduce offending.
The principles that underpin
these strategies are presented in this report. They will not be
easy to achieve and the implementation phase will require long-term
commitment, endurance and dedication. But the rewards will be
immense in terms of increased confidence and public belief in
and support for community sanctions."
In our judgement and, more importantly, in the
judgement of Professor Pease, there is no substantial evidence
to support Mr Smith's claims. The programmes described are void
of rigorous testing, many are badly planned and poorly researched.
In our opinion, it is a collection of programmes cobbled together
to impress those void of the knowledge and experience to challenge
them. It is a triumph of hope over reality and sophistry enshrined
in obscurantism. The reform of persistent offenders is entirely
dependent on their motivation which can be supported by a dedicated
probation officer. The Probation Service must not target unmotivated
offenders to supervise and expect success.
On 28 April 1998, Graham Smith published a report,
"Exercising Constant Vigilance: The Role of the Probation
Service in Protecting the Public from Sex Offenders",
which praises the excellent work of the Probation Service in general
and their work with sex offenders in particular. We have not seen
the research he mentions into the supervision of sex offenders
but, considering Home Office statistics, how can he justify praising
a Probation Service with such spectacular failure rates?
THE ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF OFFICERS OF PROBATION
ACOP was asked by the Select Committee to respond
to our evidence which they did in their supplementary paper of
6 March 1998. [74]
1. In this paper under "Basic Facts"
we have quoted official Home Office reconviction rates. A photocopy
of these statistics can be seen in Annex "D"[75]
of our primary evidence. Mr Hicks claims success rates of72 per
cent for probation and 71 per cent for community service orders;
he also makes a vague claim of 75 to 90 per cent for some unspecified
supervision which he has refused to clarify. However, further
research suggests he was referring to post-custody supervision
for periods of as little as a few weeks and thus misleading. Research
into CPO annual reports to the Home Office and Probation Committees
shows an average claim of 83 per cent success for probation. Thus
ACOP claims are a direct contradiction of official Home Office
statistics.
2. The Probation Service targets persistent
offenders for supervision resulting in reoffending rates that
can be reasonably calculated at about 90 per cent. That surely
is against the public interest. They have a self-imposed rule
not to recommend custodial sentences. When a probation officer
prepares a PSR, a Home Office computer program is used which accurately
predicts the likelihood of an offender reoffending; it is known
as OGRS (Offender Group Reconviction Study). Such sensitive information
is denied to sentencers in case it might lead to more ideologically
unacceptable custodial sentences. We have not specifically said
that the Probation Service allows criminals to continue offending
while being supervised in the community, but statistics show that
the majority do. National Standards require contact with a probation
officer for only about 18 hours over the two-year period of a
basic probation order. It is therefore not surprising that offenders
unmotivated to reform will continue to offend.
We do advocate supervision for offenders motivated
to reform; in the absence of such motivation they continue offending.
It is the old horse and water problem. It is being realistic,
not sentimental. There is no evidence of successful "motivational"
programmes.
Mr Hicks has publicly stated that he wants fewer
people sent to prison in spite of a continuing fall in the crime
rate as prison populations rise. Mr Hicks quotes misleading research
which claims that it would require a 25 per cent increase in the
prison population to reduce the crime rate by 1 per cent. He is
wrong again; Home Office Statistical Bulletin published 7 April
1998 records a fall in the crime rate of 8.8 per cent for 1996-97
with a mere 17 per cent increase in the prison population. Thus
the potential victims of 441,400 crimes have been protected.
Mr Hicks et al has presented to the Select
Committee downright lies, information to mislead and a refusal
to acknowledge facts in conflict with their ideology. Most of
their evidence should be discounted.
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROBATION OFFICERS
We could criticise much of NAPO's evidence but
we will confine ourselves to a selection from their contribution.
Their Written Evidence[76]
Though they concede that probation and prison
reconviction rates are about the same initially, later in their
evidence they claim 1 or 2 per cent better rates for community
supervision, contrary to the evidence. For many years Mr Fletcher
has claimed an 80+ per cent success rate for probation; he now
seems to make a rare concession to truth.
They play down personal responsibility by blaming
a variety of personal circumstances as reasons for offending.
The vast majority of the unemployed, socially deprived, etc, etc,
do not resort to crime.
NAPO refers to Probation/Bail Hostels as having
a "restrictive environment" and "secure conditions".
We have researched hostel rules recently and discover that inmates
are free to roam for 16 hours a day, unrestricted and unsupervised,
thus free to offend at will. Perhaps Mr Fletcher is unaware that
recent Home Office research reveals that 25 per cent of bailees
commit at least one crime during their bail period.
NAPO continue their long-standing dishonest
comparison of the pure administrative cost of probation with the
cost of a custodial sentence without taking into account the horrendous
cost to society of persistent criminals offending while under
supervision.
NAPO again quotes the Kent research to bolster
their ideology. Perhaps they have not noticed that this "five"
year study was terminated after just over four years and the researcher
admitted that he was unable to secure the necessary prison data
to make vital comparisons. If we were Mr Fletcher, we would treat
with caution researchers who are unable to count up to five.
They refer to the Mid-Glamorgan "STOP"
programme and claim that "reconviction rates fell by 7 per
cent". That is a typical evasion of truth. What they do not
mention is that this well researched programme produced a 70 per
cent reconviction rate after two years. Similarly, they omitted
to tell you the Hereford and Worcester programme produced a 68
per cent reconviction rate. The reconviction rates of these two
experiments were published by the programme organisers; we have
copies if the Select Committee wishes to receive them. It is this
thoroughly dishonest practice of hiding the truth which makes
all NAPO evidence so suspect.
Their Oral Evidence
If NAPO is not anti-prison, why support the
self-imposed rule never to recommend it? Why do they wish to deprive
sentencers of vital OGRS (Offender Group Reconviction Study) which
predict very accurately the likelihood of reoffending? They know,
of course, if a sentencer is faced with the knowledge that there
is an 80 per cent risk of a defendant reoffending, the likelihood
of a prison sentence is greater. If Mr Fletcher claims that his
priority is to protect the public by preventing reoffending, then
the evidence that he fails is overwhelming.
Mr Fletcher ridicules an article written by
Mr Fraser and published in "Freedom Today". It
seems that Mr Fletcher is unaware that the Central Statistical
Office estimate the crime rate to be 15 million annually when
including crimes reported and recorded, crimes reported but not
recorded, and crimes not reported. Mr Fraser quite reasonably
computed that if the 200,000 under the supervision of the Probation
Service committed a ridiculously low average of 10 crimes a year,
it would amount to two million crimes. If only 50 per cent of
those under supervision committed the same amount of crime, it
still adds up to one million. Statistics show that the majority
of those under supervision are persistent offenders so the estimates
are far from unrealistic.
Again NAPO want us to believe that probation
is not a soft option. National Standards lay down required contact;
for a basic two-year probation order, that amounts to a total
of 18 hours contact for the two years. Is Mr Fletcher seriously
denying that it is not a soft option and does he really believe
that persistent offenders can be reformed with such limited contact?
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE PENAL AFFAIRS CONSORTIUM,
THE HOWARD LEAGUE AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE CARE AND
RESETTLEMENT OF OFFENDERS (NACRO)
We restrict this response mainly to issues not
fully covered in papers we have already submitted. Inevitably
there will be some duplication and variations of emphasis. We
respond first to the oral evidence and summarise our comments
on the written evidence.
Oral Evidence given by Professor Andrew Rutherford
We are not surprised to hear Professor Rutherford
praised Roy Jenkins, said by many to be the "father"
of liberal penology.
We were even less surprised to hear Douglas
Hurd's period as Home Secretary described as a "reflective"
one. It was Mr Hurd's administration that gave birth to the bizarre
Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Act, inter alia, forbade judges
from sentencing any criminal for more than one offence (in exceptional
circumstances two) even if he had committed 100 crimes. For sentencing
purposes, it prohibited courts from taking into account previous
convictions or responses to previous sentences including previous
supervision. These bizarre clauses and others were repealed by
Kenneth Clarke in spite of a passionate and vociferous campaign
by ACOP, NACRO, NAPO and their supporters to retain them. There
can be no more compelling evidence of their anti-prison ideology
and it strongly suggests a conspiracy.
Professor Rutherford again repeated the misleading
claim that we are "top of the European league" for sending
people to prison. Special research conducted by Dr Ken Pease,
Professor of Criminology, and Christopher Nuttall, Director of
Research and Statistics at the Home Office, exploded that myth
more than three years ago. In their written evidence, the Penal
Affairs consortium also repeats that myth. They make the (deliberate)
mistake of counting rates of imprisonment per 100,000 instead
of the rate of crime. This myth is perpetuated for ideological
reasons; without it a major plank in their anti-prison platform
collapses. We question the claim by Professor Rutherford that
juvenile crime is falling. If 95.1 per cent of crime is undetected,
how can Professor Rutherford know the proportion of the undetected
crime committed by juveniles and how much by adults? He goes on
to claim that 70-80 per cent of those cautioned do not reoffend;
how can he know the reoffending rates without 24 hours-a-day surveillance
of each offender? Professor Rutherford maintains that community
sentences "allow the finding of solutions". If that
is true, how does he account for the devastatingly high reconviction
rates for community supervision? He refers to the French custom
of sending their young offenders on holiday. Chatting to an inhabitant
of a lovely Wiltshire village about two years ago, she said that
all were welcome in her village except French youths whom she
described as "a gang of thieves".
Oral Evidence given by Paul Cavadino
We were impressed that Mr Cavadino said, on
a number of occasions, words to the effect that reconviction rates
were too high and were disappointing. That is the first time we
have heard him make such an admission in public. He also conceded
that reconvictions must be central to the measurement of effective
community supervision. We support his suggestion, also proposed
by NACRO, that there should be a National Curriculum of credible
alternative programmes as long as they are properly researched.
However, we firmly retain the view that unmotivated persistent
criminals cannot be programmed to reform. It is a matter of personal
choice; the old adage, "you can take a horse to the water
but you cannot make him drink" comes to mind.
Mr Cavadino refers to "What Works"
by James McGuire, a questionable piece of research fully appraised
in Annex M[77] in our
written evidence. Mr Cavadino advocates the teaching of behavioural
skills, which is another name for the now very fashionable cognitive
therapy. The first major cognitive therapy programme in the United
Kingdom was set up in Mid-Glamorgan. Throughout the first two
years it was constantly monitored, and it produced a reconviction
rate of 70 per cent during that time; set against the 4.9 per
cent detection rate, the reoffending rate must be about 90 per
cent. In spite of the failure of this programme, similar versions
are planned or are in operation in many parts of the country,
wasting thousands of pounds.
Although Mr Cavadino says that he wants Pre-Sentence
Reports (PSR's) to give relevant information and sentence options,
he is ideologically against the recommending of prison sentences;
apart from his ideology, why not? We assume he would not be in
favour of reconviction predictors being included in PSR's because
he knows well that they could not be easily ignored by sentencers.
Mr Cavadino said that the Probation Service
no longer put the interest of the offender before the protection
of the public. Frankly we doubt it. We have been saying this about
the Probation Service for the past two decades at least and it
has always been denied. However, if reconviction rates are any
guide, the public is at serious risk from those serving community
sentences. Mr Cavadino said that the reason that courts allowed
so many who breached their probation to stay under supervision
was not to "interfere with good work". We wonder what
good work Mr Cavadino had in mind?
Oral Evidence given by Rob Allen
Mr Allen said that employment was a major answer.
We feel that this is an insult to the majority of those out of
work who do not resort to crime. He also claimed that the fall
in the crime rate was due to a fall in recorded crime; he is quite
right of course. With the rise in the prison population the crime
rate has fallen and, therefore, there is less crime to record.
Mr Allen claims that in the long term community
sentences are more effective than prison; we wonder where that
evidence came from and how many members of the public are to be
sacrificed in the process? We were concerned that Mr Allen claimed
that NACRO started the first Victim Support Scheme. It is simply
not true. Peter Coad was a member of the Bristol Association for
the Care and Resettlement of Offender (BACRO, nothing to do with
NACRO) when in 1974 we set up and funded the very first Victim
Support Scheme. The first worker we appointed on a part-time basis,
was Miss Dorothy Himsworth, MBE. The Chairman of BACRO was Chris
Holtom who was awarded an OBE, presumably for establishing the
first Victim Support Scheme. Colin Thomas, OBE, formerly Chief
Inspector of Probation, was also a member of the BACRO committee
at the time.
Their Written Evidence
We will not respond to the written evidence
in detail as much of the ground has already been covered by our
own written and oral evidence. We particularly draw your attention
to our Annexes M, O76, P76 and Q[78].
Recorded crime peaked in 1992 following the
liberal Criminal Justice Act 1991 and began to fall after its
amendment in 1993. Since then it has fallen steadily; as prison
populations rise the crime rate falls; the correlation between
the two is surely obvious. To protect the public and to punish
offenders is a moral obligation and a financial imperative. Compared
with the 1950's, a criminal has an 80 per cent less chance of
being sent to prison in the 1990's. The myth about pseudo-convictions
features strongly to unfairly bolster up their pseudo-success
rates. The Penal Affairs Consortium claims that 75 per cent of
males under 21 leaving penal establishments are reconvicted within
two years but omits to say that the reconviction rates for those
under 21 on probation are even higher at 77 per cent. They claim
an 89 per cent reconviction rate for those under 17 discharged
from penal establishments. We cannot dispute that statistic because
we are unaware of its source. We do know that under 17's on supervision
orders have an 80 per cent reconviction rate and that makes no
allowance for the 4.9 per cent detection rate. For both age groups
the reconviction rates are disastrous but at least while serving
a custodial sentence the public is protected. Such arguments by
the anti-prison lobby are meaningless straw-clutching.
The struggle by the apologists for persistent
criminals to find programmes to make unmotivated offenders reform
is relentless. The cost to the nation of these offenders financially
and in terms of human misery is incalculable. Endless failed programmes
have been inflicted on society without democratic acquiescence.
If programmes had been devised that really worked, they would
be replicated throughout the world. None works unless participants
want it to work; it is basic human nature.
The dreams of the anti-prison lobby are the
nightmares of society. They seem to live in a world divorced from
reality, objectivity and common sense. Qualifications for membership
are an obsession with their ideology and the ability to abandon
all critical faculties. They represent a serious threat to the
inalienable right of citizens to be protected from the lawless.
There can be no better example of their sophistry than an article
by Vivien Stern CBE, former Director of NACRO, in the June 1993
edition of "The Magistrate". I quote: "Researchers
have confirmed that those who become involved in NACRO's schemes
are less likely to return to crime as a result: 88 per cent of
adult ex-offenders and 80 per cent of young ex-offenders on NACRO's
training schemes do not reoffend." Over the years we have
had to battle against such outrageous propaganda. Whatever labels
are applied to these organisations, Marxists, political revolutionaries
or subversives, in the final analysis it is by their fruits they
must be judged.
Footnote by Peter Coad
I am aware that the Select Committee have visited
many programmes in various parts of the country. I do hope I will
not cause offence by pointing out that, from vast experience,
most programmes are presented to visitors with enthusiasm and
optimism often removed from reality. This is not always a deliberate
attempt to deceive; staff supervising programmes dealing with
difficult persistent offenders, survive only by unshakeable faith
in a successful outcome. Sadly, ultimate disappointment is the
norm. Such progammes should be judged only by their effectiveness
in preventing further offending. That assessment must be the result
of rigorous research conducted over a two-year period from the
commencement of the programme.
We are very conscious that much of our evidence
has been in stark contrast to that of ACOP, NAPO and other anti-prison
organisations with a vested interest. Not surprisingly, we are
concerned that you will be unduly influenced by our opponents'
ideologically based rhetoric at the expense of our rigidly factual
contribution. We have no ideological or political axe to grind.
David Fraser and I engage in this debate as a public duty and,
frankly, because there are very few of us who have the specialist
knowledge and willingness to do so. The cost in time for study
and research is substantial; the financial cost does not bear
thinking about. I have been battling against a tide of counterproductive
criminal justice legislation and Probation Service policies since
1973 and fighting jointly with David Fraser since 1985.
Three months ago Paul Cavadino agreed to the
request of the Select Committee to respond to our evidence. It
is of the greatest significance that he has not done so.
David Fraser
Peter Coad
May 1998
A DEDICATION TO OUR OPPONENTS from Edward
Fitzgerald's "Polonius" (1858)
"There are none so blind as those who won't
seeA single effort of the will was sufficient to exclude from
his view whatever he judged hostile to his immediate purpose."
74 See Appendix 3. Back
75
Not printed. Back
76
See Appendix 16. Back
77
Not printed. Back
78
Not printed. Back
| 
