The disciplined forces are titled as such because they are expected to be disciplined as they serve in heavily rules-based institutions.
Members of the disciplined forces such as the Royal Barbados Police Force (RBPF), our Prison Officers, members of the Barbados Defence Force, Fire Service, and the like, are expected to perform their many duties with a level of honour and service and they must appear beyond reproach.
That is the ideal situation. But we know when one is dealing with human beings, there will be exceptions to the rule.
According to the British Army’s Values, being a soldier is not easy as members are asked to do things not asked of other people. Among the values which the British army lists are courage (physical and moral), discipline (orders are carried out), respect for others (no discrimination), integrity (being honest), loyalty (looking out for your team), and self-commitment.
These are values that could easily be ascribed to members of any disciplined force. But there is another side to the British Army that is critical to any debate about how disciplined forces ought to behave.
The British Army offers some commitments to its recruits. It says that the Army’s standards are designed to be lawful, appropriate, and totally professional.
This brings us to the very disturbing issue of concerns about the alleged treatment of warders at Her Majesty’s Dodds Prison in St Philip. The officers’ plight has been highlighted recently in the media, but this is not the first time that these men and women, whose duties are not the most desirable, have been forced to leak information about their conditions of work to achieve some action by the state.
The warders, who did not enjoy the privilege of being appointed to their posts, and it seems there were quite a few of them in this uncomfortable state, suffered the indignity and humiliation of not receiving a salary for months on end because of the bureaucracy that has long plagued the Government service.
Today, their complaints are not too dissimilar. Under the cover of anonymity, warders have come to this publication again hoping that those in authority would hear their plight and address their grievances.
These men and women, who just a few months ago, were cited and lauded for their selfless contribution to the preservation of Barbados’ stability when Dodds Prison faced a possible calamitous outbreak of COVID-19 among inmates and staff, are now being forced to endure what can be described as grossly unfair conditions.
The officers of the prison are being forced, it would appear, to work 12-hour shifts as a regular course of duty, and to do so without any overtime compensation.
For as members of a disciplined force, they cannot freely discuss their predicament without the threat of possible dismissal or even greater punishment.
Our reporter Kareem Smith quoting prison sources described the situation this way: “A national emergency, the scale and magnitude of the 2005 riot and torching of the Glendairy Prisons could become a reality at Her Majesty’s Prison Dodds, if administrators fail to resolve numerous matters that are placing officers in serious danger.”
He went on to describe a situation in which it is not uncommon to have only two prison officers assigned to supervise inmates on a 12-hour shift. Another warder added: “We are afraid . . . one prison officer opens a cell with inmates, and it is a risk.”
We recognise that St Philip may seem like a remote place and so the prison is possibly out of sight and also out of mind. But as the saying goes, those who do not learn from history, are likely to repeat it.
Already, prison officers are sounding the warning and we should not ignore it.
The Dodds Prison is being run by a former Barbados Defence Force soldier, and so we are not surprised by his response when confronted by the allegations of his officers. He has lived his life in a highly disciplined force where orders are given, and they are carried out – no discussion.
Responding in the Press to complaints from his subordinates, is unlikely to be in Colonel Nurse’s DNA. But we humbly suggest that the former army officer finds more ways to open the lines of communication with his men. He needs them, we suspect, more than they need him, but they desire him to be a responsive leader.
The goodly prison boss may need to take off his former army cap and engage the men and women in the Prison Service with a genuine desire to solve the issues that have spilled into the public arena.
To respond to their concern with a terse: “I would wish to suggest that you say to those alleged prison officers who are bringing those matters to the Press that they are in breach of every rule and should be cautious” may not be the best approach by the leader of such an important institution.
