Thursday, August 06, 2015

"Independent" reports aren't

How do privatised prison providers get such glowing reports? The same way tobacco companies get "scientific evidence" that smoking doesn't cause cancer: bribery:

A former prisons chief who wrote a glowing “independent” report about a controversial youth offender unit run by G4S had previously been paid thousands of pounds as a consultant for the private security firm, the Guardian has learned.

Sir Martin Narey, former director general of the prison service, published a report in July on Rainsbrook secure training centre in which he wrote that “very challenging children” were treated “overwhelmingly well”. He concluded: “My test in visiting places of custody for over 30 years is to reflect about how I’d feel if my son or daughter were incarcerated there. In Rainsbrook’s case, I would consider him or she to be safe and to be generally well treated.”

Narey’s verdict was delivered months after a joint report by Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the chief inspector of prisons in May into the centre condemned it for a series of failings . It pointed to the dismissal of six members of staff after a series of incidents of gross misconduct, staff who were on drugs on duty, and others who had behaved “extremely inappropriately” with young people, causing distress and humiliation.

Ofsted inspectors, who visited Rainsbrook in February, also revealed that a child who suffered a fracture, possibly as a result of being restrained, did not receive treatment for 15 hours because senior staff overruled clear clinical advice that he needed treatment.

Its the same tactic: the false "independence", the money under the table. But the fact that they have to pay consultants to say nice things about them doesn't make those things true - and in fact suggests the opposite.