LETTER: Howard's way
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.ALAN Watkins says that it is not "at all clear what it was that Mr Howard did or omitted to do which was demonstrably wrong", ("A dirty fight indeed, but Mr Howard deserved to win", 22 October). He went on to say thatMr Howard was entitled to dismiss Mr Lewis following the Learmont Report.
One of the key passages of the Learmont Report reads: "Confusion of purpose within the Service is apparent in the area of performance standards and measures. The Corporate Plan, 1994-97, includes the Statement of Purpose, a Vision, five Values, six Goals, seven Strategic Priorities and eight KPIs [key performance indicators]."According to Learmont and heavily emphasised by Mr Howard, this "confusion of purpose" and lack of leadership was a crucial factor in creating the conditions which led to the Parkhurst breakout.
What Learmont ignores and Mr Howard seeks to obscure is that each and every one of these statements and the Corporate Plan itself has been approved by the Home Secretary.
Learmont itself is a deeply flawed report displaying immense ignorance of the framework within which the Prison Service agency was established and ignoring the levels of responsibility above the Prisons Board, despite the ample evidence in its own pages of detailed and overwhelming ministerial intervention. It also ignores the real pattern of Prison Service performance which has improved in remarkably difficult circumstances.
Professor Colin Talbot
University of Glamorgan
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments