Total and Utter
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600318 |
| Date | 01 September 1989 |
| Author | Craig Steeland |
| Published date | 01 September 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
142
indeed
the
client
must
come
first,
but
the
two
are
not
necessarily
at
odds.
Efficiency
should
also
provide
a
better
service
for
the
client,
which
is
what
we
all
want.
It
was
also
interesting
to
note
in
the
article
that
those
who
came
to
the
Shelton
centre
were
often
’the
poorest
and
least
able
and
least
articulate’.
It
was
then
said
that
they
did
not
come
as
a
result
of
conditions,
thereby,
I
presume,
reinforcing
the
NAPO
view
that
you
do
not
need
conditions
on
orders
to
do
this
specific
task.
While
I
agree
that
there
are
indeed
quite
a
large
number
of
clients
who
fit
this
category,
I
feel
we
are
making
a
grave
mistake
in
targetting
all
our
work
in
day
centres
with
these
kinds
of
clients.
There
are
clients
who
we
rarely
touch
who
are
intelligent,
articulate
but
who
have
extreme
personality
disorders,
who
will
not
do
anything
voluntarily.
Many
of
them
are
self-destructive
and
need
firm
boundaries
if
any
progress
is
to
be
made.
They
will
only
be
challenged
by
a
specific
order
with
conditions
which
are
strictly
enforced.
So
please
let
us
not
limit
ourselves
but
try
a
range
of
programmes
which
are
geared
to
the
specific
needs
of
the
clients
rather
than
believing
that
any
one
method
is
the
panacea
of
all
the
ills.
In
the
centre
I
am
involved
with
we
do
attempt
to
run
groups
on
a
voluntary
basis
with
only
marginal
success.
Clients
do
come
initially
with
some
enthusiasm
and
then
gradually
tail
off
while
the
staff
have
still
to
be
available
which
can
be
very
frustrating.
I
strongly
feel
from
my
experience
of
running
groups
in
a
Day
Training
Cen-
tre,
Probation
Hostel
and
an
After
Care
Hostel,
that
therapy-type
groups,
because
of
the
demands
they
make
on
individuals,
are
not
groups
you
can
leave
to
the
clients
to
decide
if
they
wish
to
attend.
Ron
Hatt
SPO,
Lewisham
Total
and
Utter
I
was
totally
and
utterly
disappointed
to
see
that
Probation
Journal
(March
1989)
had
printed
without
comment
Mrs
Justice
Booth’s
remarks
about
her
visit
to
an
unnamed
Court
Welfare
Unit,
under
the
banner
heading
’Totally
and
Utterly
Appalled’.
Unfortunately
this
snippet
of
news
did
not
provide
readers
with
any
information
about
the
practice
of
the
court
welfare
officers
concerned
or
about
their
purpose
in
holding
a
joint
meeting
with
the
fami-
ly
members
concerned.
Such
informa-
tion
may
have
provided
a
basis
on
which
it
would
have
been
possible
to
make
a
judgement
about
whether
the
judge’s
comments
were
justified.
If
it
is
accepted
that
the
welfare
of
the
children
following
the
separation
of
their
parents
is
dependent
to
some
extent
upon
the
level
of
co-operation
and
the
quality
of
the
communication
between
the
parents
involved,
then
these
might
be
considered
to
be
legitimate
areas
for
enquiry
by
court
welfare
officers
undertaking
investiga-
tions
for
the
purpose
of
preparing
court
welfare
reports.
A
family
meeting
on
neutral
ground
is
an
obvious
and
in-
creasingly
common
method
of
obtain-
ing
important
and
valuable
information
about
the
relationship
between
the
people
involved.
The
Journal
has
perhaps
done
a
disservice
to
its
readers
by
publishing
out
of
context
what
ap-
pears
to
be
a
blanket
condemnation
by
Mrs
Justice
Booth
of
any
form
of
joint
meeting
following
the
visits
which
she
describes.
To
meet
face-to-face
with
the
con-
sequences
of
separation
for
some
families
is
to
risk
being
totally
and
ut-
terly
appalled.
Perhaps
what
was
most
appalling
about
what
Mrs
Justice
Booth
witnessed
was
not
necessarily
the
pro-
fessional
practice
of
the
officers
con-
cerned
but
rather
what
some
human
beings
are
capable
of
making
out
of
their
most
intimate
relationships.
As
To continue reading
Request your trial