A prison officer who tried to smuggle drugs and phones into a Surrey jail had been on a government-backed scheme to recruit future leaders, BBC News has learned.
Went about as well as any other government scheme, then...
Joshua Bossman-Briandt was on the Unlocked scheme set up to help prison officers become "society's leaders".
Why? Of all the people to look up to,
why?
He was jailed after admitting eight offences, including possession with intent to supply cocaine.
Unlocked said all candidates go through "rigorous" vetting checks.
Newsflash: not enough by far, clearly...
10 comments:
'Went about as well as any other government scheme, then...'
There must be an alternative to jail for this potential society leader. Where are the high-salaried Jobsworths pleading his case for a taxpayer-funded Safari?
Vetting doesn't do anything like Minority Report. It simply checks peoples history financial status and habits, the level of vetting goes back longer and deeper depending on the level required. For this level it isn't much beyond checking his criminal history and financial history.
People become corrupted by power and the ability to make what is easy money. Once in position they are easily led to the dark side as a couple of phones and drugs can easily be smuggled in with little risk for easy money. It appears that the prisons are full of them so just like the drug war out here it seems to be a waste of time.
You want things done on the cheap so you pay peanuts and you get ????
"Unlocked said the case of Bossman-Briandt was exceptional, with just 11 out of the original 52 graduates leaving the scheme early"
Oh yes, given that this idiot actually completed the scheme, we can see how difficult it must have been - and even then there is a more than 20% failure rate. In reality, it probably takes more nous to fail this scheme than to pass it. If you're looking for an "elite" (thank you Common Purpose) it's probably the Unlock failures who should be recruited.
11/52 leaving the scheme early isn't really a very good success rate. Can we be sure they're not giving the benefit of the doubt to those with certain characteristics?
"... a government-backed scheme to recruit future leaders..."
I thought that was the prerogative of Common Purpose.
Where did this man come from? An interesting name. Austro-Hungarian?
Alan Scott.
Ted, maybe Common Purpose has been taken over by the government, or possibly the other way around.
Andy, I fear you may be right (the other way round).
"People become corrupted by power and the ability to make what is easy money."
Perhaps then, we need to identify which sort of people are susceptible to this. And avoid hiring them.
"...so you pay peanuts and you get ????"
I don't think the taxpayer can afford more peanuts!
"11/52 leaving the scheme early isn't really a very good success rate."
As they say, 'close enough for government work'!
"I thought that was the prerogative of Common Purpose."
Who do you think is backing it?
Post a Comment