A Difficult Dialogue
| Published date | 01 March 1992 |
| Date | 01 March 1992 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059203900110 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
43
ACCOUNT
A
Difficult
Dialogue
Nottingham
Probation
Officer
Alberic
Lloyd
reflects
on
the
defensiveness
that
team
monitoring
of
court
reports
can
provoke.
Many
teams
have
instituted
a system
of
monitoring
court
reports
to
improve
professional
skills
and
to
challenge
at-
titudes
on
gender,
race,
culture
etc.
The
rhetoric
of
work
sharing
and
learning
from
our
peers
is
OK
in
theory
but
practice
suggests
a
real
reluctance
to
challenge
and
be
challenged
by
our
peers.
Challenging
our
clients’
attitudes
is
one
thing
but
our
colleagues
can
be
formidable
folk
when
crossed.
Anyway,
are
our
views
and
opinions
any
more
valid
than
theirs?
The
team
spirit
is
a
delicate
child
and
we
have
no
wish
to
upset
matters
and
to
invite
con-
flict.
Isn’t
it
easier
to
rely
on
hierar-
chical
oversight?
Is
management
simply
encouraging
main-graders
to
perform
tasks
that
they
are
reluctant
to
perform
themselves?
As
for
being
challenged,
it
may
seem
that
we
are
now
writing
reports
primarily
with
our
colleagues
in
mind
rather
than
the
court
or
the
defendant.
Is
there
no
individualism
left
in
the
Ser-
vice
any
more?
Are
we
all
to
become
politically
correct
clones?
The
experience
of
my
own
team
seems
to
suggest
that
one
of
the
major
challenges
of
sharing
court
reports
with
colleagues
is
to
be
found
in
the
opportunity
it
presents
for
us
to
ex-
amine
our
own
part
in
the
process
that
labels
offenders.
If
we
are
to
be
more
effective
in
influencing
the
sentencing
practice
of
the
courts,
towards
a
more
frequent
use
of
community
disposals,
we
may
have
to
begin
by
exploring
our
own
attitudes
and
discovering
our
areas
of
bad
practice.
This
can
be
a
painful
task,
and
one
in
which
we
may
often
feel
that
our
autonomy
is
at
risk.
But
is
it?
Probation
officers
rightly
value
their
autonomy,
a
freedom
given
to
us
in
order
that
we
may
fulfil
the
professional
task,
but
is
there
not
a
danger
that
the
tail
may
wag
the
dog?
The
reality
appears
to
be
that
in-
cidences
of
bad
practice
in
court
reports
can
occur
not
only
on,
but
bet-
ween
the
lines.
Here
we
may
discover
a
habit
of
dwelling
on
the
negatives,
of
using
value-laden
statements,
of
stereotyping,
or
of
employing
inclusive
language.
Our
arguments
and
en-
couragements
to
the
court
to
employ
low
tariff
measures
can
be
undone
in
subtle
ways.
For,
inadvertently,
we
may
be
working
to
reinforce
and
to
under-
pin
established
’values’,
world
views
and
prejudices
in
the
courts’
mind,
but
be
blissfully
unaware
of
this.
Could
it
be
the
case
that
the
in-
dividual
probation
officer,
who
is
not
well
disposed
to
have
their
own
at-
titudes
challenged,
will
equally
tend
to
be
timid
when
the
time
arrives
for
them
to
challenge
the
established
at-
titudes
of
court
or
client?
A
Lot
of
Fuss
About
Nothing?
Often,
it
is
in
our
’unconscious’
moments
that
the
truth
can
be
reveal-
ed ;
a
stray,
off
the
cuff
remark
can
pro-
ve
significant.
Some
time
ago,
I
am
ashamed
to
say,
I
used
the
term
’crime
of
passion’
when
writing
a
report
on
a
male
client
who
had
assaulted
his
wife,
causing
her
no
little
injury.
When
challenged
about
this
issue
by
a
female
colleague,
I
could
not,
for
the
life
of
me,
understand
what
was
wrong
with
this
statement
at
the
time.
What
was
I
saying
here,
that
this
woman
had
it
coming
to
her?
So
it’s
alright
for
men
to
assault
women,
is
it?
To continue reading
Request your trial