Category A (Security)
The last 3 blogs looked at the inaccurate information in Psychology’s report (subsequently retracted and 1 incomplete file entries); Security’s turn.
# 4, telephone number
I submitted an application, to Security, to have my mother’s mobile number cleared. Unfortunately, she sent me the wrong number; this one was next to her number on the little mobile screen; easy mistake.
My mother then got a phone call from the recipient of the wrong number asking why HMP Wakefield was calling them. At that point, we were puzzling over this. Then got my application returned: number declined; the penny dropped.
I got the correct number from my mother; however when filling in a new form, I copied the details from the old one, including the wrong number (again!). This is not the first time I’ve made this error when copying from one form to another and it won’t be the last. My 2nd application was returned by Security:
“…You have previously submitted this number and previously been informed that this number does not to [my mum]. This number will not be cleared.
I submitted a 3rd application; correct number this time. I also submitted an application explaining what happened, which Security could have found out by listening to the phone calls between me and my mother. I requested that they: “…Please attach my explanation to an IR that has been raised…” Their reply: “Your comments have been noted.” A minor issue, with a reasonable and supportable explanation; problem solved, right? Oh, no…
For the Cat A review, Security are asked to list any “concerning behaviour”.
“22/03 16 – attempted to have a telephone number cleared which he had been declined previously.” The report author was the same officer who had replied to my application with: “Your comments have been noted.”
So, here we have a minor issue, caused by human error, explained and supported by phone calls, being turned into a “concerning behaviour” by a Security officer who was aware of these facts. This is not the first time I have had issues with this member of staff. Given this, why would they include this as a “concerning behaviour” when they are aware that it is clearly not? Draw your own conclusions.
It gets worse (see next blog).
Be happy, be safe.
Graham Coutts, 5th November 2017