Seeeing its "Mothers Day", today, couldnt wait to spread the word, that Marks and Spencers are going to employ ex-offenders and homeless, lets hope, they pay in direct debit and not vouchers!( I suppose, the "poor homeless, will be paid in vouchers!) Would it be too much for Mr Marks and Spencers and Mr Tesco, and Mr Sainbury's, build adquate,low cost, appartments, for the under-privilege,seeing that the high Streets are making vast "Billions", what would it cost between, these three, to pull up one billion, (instead of shipping it to Panama),or helping Israel! But as Ive said"How long will this take? to enforce, I hope im not buried before this comes into "the job-centres, I wonder if they are going to be given a tax-right off helping out, Yes, other wise do you think they would be doing volantary?lol, A true story, aold friend I bumped into a few months back, age 60, had spent his life being brought up by the working sex-workers in Soho, from the age of 14, life yes your right was mainly spent in H.M.P, I would rate him first division, criminal, not like todays crimbo's, they sell a bit of gear, and think their harden crimbo's, he decided he had enough of looking behind his shoulder, never applied for social security in his life was "abled bodied, and self sufficient", the girl behind the counter said"Hi just fill in your previous, please sir, he said, "What? do you want the truth past or made up one? 

April fools day as gone m8

I hate to point out the word diverse was used in this artical then further down the page they said somethink the other way then the word diverse in which i will point out.

Speaking at the Talent Pipeline Conference, organised by the Employers Forum on Age and Employers Forum on Belief, Tanith Dodge outlined how the retailer encouraged a workforce diverse in age, and was working with the third sector to deliver development programmes for ex-offenders, homeless people and school leavers.


She also highlighted work the company had done with female ex-offenders, some of whom went on to become “very capable employees in our business”, and generally recorded lower levels of sickness absence than other sectors of the workforce

What about male ex offender do they not take them on. sexist or discrimination to me.

Below I’ve re-printed a letter taken from Ms. Wisbey’s so called forum ‘blog’ on her website. The letter itself and not just it’s contents make me cringe with embarrassment. Some quotes from the badly worded, grammatically incorrect and generally inarticulate comments. My ‘editors choice’ quotes, the one’s that made me laugh the most:

“Yes”, ha! its seems, that “Unlock”, have “Sole control over ex-offenders”.

“I dont want to talk to anyone that “Already has the answer” – “me and my colleques have worked out a pilot scheme . . . ”

“I dont understand How all these organizations, charities, cant run and organize themselves on a low- budget”?

“I e-mailed 700 mailings, got three replies back”!

Sometimes people on this site have asked why we’re not taken seriously and with letters like this fired off to government departments, politicians and the Home Office, it’s not difficult to wonder why. What amazes me is that MW received all of  three replies back! MW, you and your “colleques” (sic) are probably the reason why reform is taking so long to achieve. MW, leave it, you’re an embarrassment not only to yourself but to everyone who reads your muddled and garbled comments.

To;  Vass Pyrkos Criminal Justice Women’s Policy Team (The Home Office).

Dear Vass,

“Many thanks for your reply and getting back to me, “Yes”, ha! its seems, that “Unlock”, have “Sole control over ex-offenders”, but in my opinion, no help at all, they have 20 Insurance Brokers on their “postings”, but all time wasted and monies(For ex-offenders, and families, (This is not the way to operate!)  I have sent a letter to Mr Cummings requesting a appointment, still waiting? even for a reply, I would like to have  appointment with one of your bosses higher please, to raise my concerns, with issues around ex-offenders, I dont want to talk to anyone that “Already has the answer”, in other words, I would like to talk to the “Home Secretary”,the person who  wants to change this ” Penal system” and  have more Resettlement Programmes, the whole aerea needs restructuring, me and my colleques have worked out a pilot scheme, that would be low- cost affected, and save this country millions, we have all knowledge, worked, of “Frontline” services in the commuties, around homelessness, penal system, drink and drug misuse, social services, we are the people that all  have been down that road and got ourselves back into society! I dont understand How all these organizations, charities, cant run and organize themselves on a low- budget? I e-mailed 700 mailings, got three replies back! All the three were “established ” organizations reconized, but still my group are not being heard! There  is a solution to all this! It has to involove the Sentencing, prison- probation-d.h.s.s.- housing,social-services, there is not enough “Awareness, and Understanding”. We would like to run a “Pilot scheme, for two years to prove to this goverment that our way would work, it would not be putting people out of jobs, but it would save this country a lot of “Funding” Please could you put us in the right direction, would Matthew Hancock hear us out”?

Kindest  Regards,
Marilyn J. Wisbey.

---

At the end of the game the king and pawn both go into the same box.

“This does seem a little disrespectful doesn't it Ian!”  Not at all Chairman and no apologies. It’s factually wrong, it’s badly worded, badly written and contains the largest amount of (supposedly) criminological garbage that’s ever been printed. No one on earth could take MW seriously, (and judging by the replies she got to the letter, haven’t). If you look closely at the site it’s about MW publicising her book (and her "colleques" , one of whom is a character called ‘Neil’ who it’s promised will get you some ‘cheap’ insurance, (at a price)? There are even, also badly worded and written ‘testimonials’ that extol friend Neil’s abilities. It’s a very badly done attempt at self publicity and I’d go as far as to say it borders on the ‘dodgy’.    

 

I don’t mean to be disrespectful to anyone and if I ever come close to it, I will immediately apologise and hope there’s no hard feelings or grudges. I can see Marilyn coming a mile off Chairman and it’s why I stopped responding to her posts and delated mine. It wasn’t even a good attempt at what she’s after  . . . that’s not disrespect, it was simply a warning to the trusting and unitiated!  

“Marilyn,
I appreciate that your two most recent posts promoting your website may be well-intentioned, but as you can appreciate we have to ensure that this Forum does not become a place where our members get bombared with commercial messages from businesses and other organisations, nor from researchers/journalists and the media generally”. CS, (St Giles. Useful liks/contacts).  

 

---

At the end of the game the king and pawn both go into the same box.

Post Edited (IanC) : 08/04/2011 15:13:51 (GMT+1)

Hi Chairman,

I am sorry about that, having re-read it, it could have been misconstrued as an either way offence.   I’m becoming cynical and starting to jump to negative conclusions! I couldn’t care less about her criticism of UNLOCK, that’s her problem (and her opinion) and if it was factually based, or even a personal opinion that’s fine. It wasn’t and goes a bit deeper, (in my opinion). Stick to what you know Marilyn; business and scamming; as are contemporary rehabilitation theories and practices are well beyond your reach, ( wiV yeR colleques n yer mAtEs ).  

Again, my apologies Chairman.

---

At the end of the game the king and pawn both go into the same box.

No worries Ian - it was a bit ambiguous!
I do think that Marilyn is well intentioned, but it doesn't help anyone to be undermining organisations like UNLOCK in correspondence with government departments.

I'd like to think that if people had any issues with the way that UNLOCK goes about it's business, that the staff would be receptive to feedback. That email just came across as a sort of 'professional jealousy' and read like one of the comments on the BBC Have Your Say forum!

---

"To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity" Oscar Wilde.

Ian,

Read my last post again and lower your weapons.... I wasn't suggesting that it was YOU who was being disrespectful.

The first sentence was referring to the letter that you posted the extracts from which was fairly critical of UNLOCK! It was a statement of agreement.

---

"To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity" Oscar Wilde.

This does seem a little disrespectful doesn't it Ian!

Marilyn,
To claim that UNLOCK are "no help at all" is just wrong - I can tell you this from personal experience.
For your interest, there isn't much point in talking to the Home Secretary about the penal system since this falls into the remit of the Ministry of Justice, who UNLOCK staff and members met with very recently to discuss the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
UNLOCK don't have "sole control" over Ian, myself or any other members - and our Chief Executive is Mr Cummines OBE (for services to former offenders). Do you think he got this without being an exceptional advocate for reform?

---

"To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity" Oscar Wilde.

My experience is that many large employers, including M&S (who have had something with ex-offenders for many years), Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda etc all employ ex-offenders, but when they say this what they mean is more often than not taking people on while in prison, on voluntary work/work experience, and then perhaps working through release into paid work, but often only for short periods of time.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, and people need a chance before they are released and immediately after, but where it is wrong is that if, as a general ex-offender, you applied to any of these companies, you would immediately be shown the door.

That's because often there is either money (through funded projects/services/organisations getting paid to get "offenders" into employment", or corporate social responsibility (it'll look good to government and others, or even free labour (offer "work placements" to help people, but when you do the hard-thing and avoid re-offending, and move out of the CJS, you become generally discriminated against as an ex-offender and these employers are nowhere to be seen.

Interestingly, Marilyn, where did you see this information about M&S? From what I've learnt, a lot of organisations (such as A4e, Working Links etc) build up positive relationships with employers, but are unwilling to share this information both because it gives them a competitive advantage but also because the employers themselves don't want people finding out.

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

Did this come from www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2011/03/hiring-ex-offenders-and-homeless-morally-right-says-m-and-s.htm ???

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline