Doom and Gloom Dear Sir
| Author | Bill McWilliams |
| Date | 01 March 1982 |
| Published date | 01 March 1982 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058202900113 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
31
tion.
either
(a)
NASPO
members
are
juvenile,
and
thus,
on
recanting,
would
be
eligible
for
a
caution,
or
(b)
NASPO
are
adults
who
are
’de-spiring’
to
juvenile
behaviour.
Isn’t
it
about
time
NASPO
members
grew
up
and
joined
a
truly
adult
organisation
representing
their
interests-NAPO?
Yours
sincerely,
M.
GOUGH
Shelton
Hilton
Hotel,
Acapulco-on-Trent,
Staffs
PS:
I
hope
Ian
Hankinson
had
a
nice
holiday
in
Greece.
*my
emphasis
Doom
and
Gloom
Dear
Sir,
We
now
have
the
complete
portrait
of
doom
and
gloom
as
Dave
Burnham
(PJ
Dec
’81)
sees
it;
his
language
instructs
of
his
vision:
&dquo;melancholy&dquo;,
&dquo;disillusion-
ment&dquo;,
&dquo;confidence
low&dquo;,
&dquo;role
strip-
ping&dquo;,
&dquo;scepticism&dquo;,
&dquo;deskilling&dquo;
and
&dquo;doomed&dquo;.
Bottoms
and
McWilliams
&dquo;have
come
closest
to
offering
hope
to
the
confused
and
disillusioned&dquo;,
it
seems,
but
is
this
a
ray
of
hope?
Not
at
all;
their
paradigm
will
merely
aid
the
&dquo;im-
plementation
of
the
new
orthodoxy&dquo;.
A
shame,
isn’t
it?
But
what
way
forward
from
our
melancholy
(etc)
might
there
be
which
does
not
fall
into
this
all-
embracing
trap?
Perhaps,
as
Mr
Burn-
ham’s
familiarity
with
the
new
orthodoxy
is
greater
than
ours,
he
will
instruct
us
further,
and
positively
and,
come
to
think
of
it,
quickly
too, lest
we
really
become
&dquo;doomed&dquo;.
Yours
sincerely,
BILL
McWILLIAMS
Research
Officer,
South
Yorkshire
Dear
Sir,
One
gets
the
distinct
impression
from
David
Burnham’s
article
(The
New
Orthodoxy
(December
1981))
that
just
about
every
malaise
in
the
Service
could
be
placed
at
the
door
of
the
twin
demons
of
bureaucracy
and
hierarchy.
The
powerful,
often
unequivocal
state-
ments
in
the
article
almost
demand
their
acceptance
as
facts,
that
is
until
a
search
is
made
for
the
evidence
to
sup-
port
the
statements
and,
in
my
view,
the
subsequent
awareness
that
it
is
either
extremely
thm
or,
in
some
places,
non-
existent.
To
launch
an
argument
on
the
basis
of
such
statements
as
&dquo;I
have
already
heard
officers
mentioning
a
new
certainty
about
their
role
and
sensed
a
contentedly
acquiescent
attitude&dquo;
as
the
basis
for
further
comments
to
do
with
&dquo;disillusionment&dquo;,
&dquo;further
pain&dquo;
&dquo;the
acceptance
of
the
curtailment
of
initia-
tive&dquo;
and
&dquo;general
de-skilling&dquo;
seems
to
be
stretching
the
credibility
of
these
statements
to
the
extreme.
Perhaps
one
could
also
request
Mr
Burnham
to
provide
us
with
the
evid-
ence,
for
it
is
not
contained
in his
article,
for
the
unequivocal
statement
that
&dquo;the
prioritisation
of
work
obliges
officers
to
organise
their
work
in
ways
other
than
that
which
they,
individually,
consider
to
be
most
appropriate&dquo;.
Similarly,
it
would
have
been
helpful
to
have
seen
some
evidence
to
support
the
statement
that
the
structure
&dquo;militates
against
the
use
of
potential&dquo;
-
&dquo;to
think,
to
innovate,
to
contribute
to
the
stock
of
knowledge
and
expertise&dquo;
and
some
implicit
suggestions
that
the
present
advertising
drive
for
graduates
is
almost
fraudulent.
In
both
of
the
assertions
put
forward
by
Burnham
it
would
certainly
be
my
view
that
his
perception
is
inconsistent
with
the
available
evidence:
the
recent
Loughborough
Study
of
860
probation
officers’
attitudes,
for
example,
which
indicated
that
some
80
per
cent
of
respondents
felt
that
the
job
gave
them
the
&dquo;opportunity
to
use
their
own
initiative&dquo;,
gave
&dquo;a
good
deal of
variety
in
the
job&dquo;,
and
other
high
percentage
scores
to
statements
which
indicated
that
skills
and
initiatives
could
be
used
in
the
work
place.
Certainly
Burnham’s
com-
ments
seem
very
contrary
to
my
own
direct
experience,
which
I
would
think
is
not
unique
insomuch
that
initiatives
such
as
the
development
of
day
care
facilities,
social
skill
packages,
work
with
housing
associations,
research,
all
seemed
to
have
been
sparked
off
by
probation
officers
within
the
current
structure
of
the
Service,
a
structure
which
Burnham
obviously
feels
is
extremely
stultifying.
There
were
certain
pieces
of
the
article
which
I
found
myself
absolutely
unable
to
comprehend
and
his
remarks
which
suggest
that
allowing
the
ancillary
To continue reading
Request your trial