Passport and psychic probation officers

I was issued with my new Dutch passport yesterday, and aren't I glad to have it! Renewing it always brings the question to the fore whether I shouldn't 'go with the flow' and apply for British citizenship. Today, however, I am glad indeed that I resisted the obvious temptation. This country is getting scarier by the day. Today's new threat: psychic probation officers. Let me explain.

Barry has received a copy of his pre-sentencing report and his sentence plan. They both make for very depressing reading, if only for the reason that neither author can be said to have had anywhere near sufficient time with Barry to make the sweeping statements that they do. And they contain some gems. For instance: The fact that Barry considers himself to have been a respected member of the fencing community is an indication of his low self-esteem. (How do you work that one out?)

This kind of statement reminds me of that of Judge Simon Freeman, telling my husband he was "reprehensible, dressing in a flamboyant fashion to stand out from his peers". Remember this was being said by a grown man wearing a silly horsehair wig and clashing, bright purple and orange robes, which I understand he wears to distinguish himself from other law men. (I believe the scientific name for this is transference: attributing your motives to others' actions.)

Barry's probation officer too picked up on that theme: Flamboyance. Barry is flamboyant. (Must be that low self-esteem again!) She cleverly picked that up after 20 minutes of talking to Barry through a video link. Barry would have been in his prison get up. The most flamboyant thing he owns in that is a turquoise poloshirt. And she isn't of course. Flamboyant. There are after all plenty of excellent reasons beside the search for a little flamboyance that probation officers decide to dye a shock of their hair bright purple.

But this is not the only feat the woman was capable of: She made several sweeping statements about me too. And she has yet to lay eyes on me, or speak to me even! Psychic, I tell you. How else would you explain the unmitigated gall to say that I "collude in Barry's crime"? If I hadn't developed this acute aversion for lawyers and the British legal system, I would consider suing. Did she pick up on the fact I'm Dutch and reasoned that we Dutch are so permissive we are game for anything, including sexually abusing children? Am I the new Mrs. West?

She tells us that I am Barry's main obstacle for accepting his guilt. But for fear of losing me, Barry would comply and 'fess all'. She further says that I am unwilling to comtemplate the possibility of Barry's guilt. She must have seen that episode of the Mentalist, recently.

As I said, where does she get the nerve? But isn't it truly terrifying that so-called professionals are allowed to develop this level of irresponsible arrogance that lets them make statements about people they barely or even don't know using cheap pseudo-psychology? And suddenly, you can see something tragic like Victoria Climbie or Peter Connelly happen. Were life altering decisions about people in these cases too made by people who just didn't bother to find out who they were talking about?

In that vain, let me make a few sweeping statements of my own. My credentials: I have known Barry intimately for twenty years. Years. Not minutes.

Barry isn't flamboyant. He likes colour. Barry does stand out from the rest. He can't help it. What is it the bard said? Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ’em... I guess Barry is of the first ilk. He is kind, intelligent and funny. That is what makes him charming. He isn't charming to achieve some evil end. He just is. And he didn't do what he was convicted of for reasons I have explained earlier.

Mrs. Baldwin, like many of the professionals we've come across on this journey, allows the tail to wag the dog. She is making the assumption that since Barry has been convicted, Barry must be guilty. She is attempting to explain everything about Barry (and me) in that light. She is unable to speak to Barry or to look at anything objectively and come to her own conclusions. The only question remains: Is she doing so through sheer inadequacy, or in a questionable desire to support the system, which we so far have experienced as being extremely good at making it extremely hard for people to point out that it may have made a mistake. But then, the system doesn't make mistakes. The jury always gets all the facts, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And the Guildford Four didn't happen either, or the Birmingham Six, or Ian Lawless or ... As I was saying: scary country, Britain.