By Gabriel Princewill-
The Judicial Office has apologised, after being caught failing in their duty to be readily accessible to the press in line with their paid duties, The Eye Of Media.Com can reveal.
A three week investigation of the judicial press office exposed what on the face of it appeared to be a deceptive front to present a semblance of official press officers hired to deal with enquiries from the press. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth.
A spokesperson for the judicial press office apologised for the failing. The Spokesperson told The Eye Of Media.Com: ”because we are all working from home we spend a great deal of time on Zoom calls so are unable to answer our mobiles as quickly as we would like. That is why we also direct people to our individual email addresses, Judicial Office group press email address and our pager service”.
Mobile numbers associated the names of supposedly professional press officers were constantly unresponsive to calls made by different people across different times of the day on 11 different occasions. to each of the numbers listed.
On two occasions, Lauren Benali picked up her calls, and Jenny Birt picked up twice, both out of 13 attempts to get hold of them. Voice mails left on their respective mobile phones were not returned, highlighting a shocking level of ineptitude by press officials of the judicial press office.
The inference from members of our team who rightfully mocked them for entertainment, was that these individuals have been placed there just to fill in a position they cannot actually occupy.
The Judicial Press Office’s Head Of News , Stephen Ward , and senior press officer, Michael Duncan, for all practical purposes might as well not exist at all. Yet, Mr. Ward is presented as the Head Of News, and Michael Duncan, senior press officer. The ostensibly pretentious roles raise questions of whether so called staff are pocketing wage packets for which they are providing no commensurate service, if any at all.
When one thinks of the high post of senior press officer, the first question to mind is senior to who? Where a person actually occupies a senior role, they are expected to demonstrate expertise in their post and set high standards for those junior to them to emulate.
No grounds for Ward to be senior to Benali or Birt are observable- both of whom answered calls on two occasions, albeit without providing anything of substance to redeem the inescapable level of shortcoming found in their department.
Birt was out of her depth with simple questions that she dropped the phone , without any shame for the obvious fact she had just sealed the depth of apparent ineptitude found in an office that ought to be highly regarded, and even revered.
Birt, apparently deals with judicial review, but there may need to be a review of her suitability to the post she represents. She rudely dropped the phone when she found questions about the functionality of press officers in the judicial office too awkward to handle.
Those questions were too difficult for this eloquent sounding lady with avowedly limited substance and insufficient real sophistication to justify her post. There is often a disconnect between how people sound and how they really are, many of these press officers aptly exemplify this
Birt’s colleague, Lisa Allera, also a stated senior press officer, dealing with family law, was reportedly courteous with an admirable level of temperance in addressing our inquiry. She had also let her position down by being inaccessible to our investigators on her mobile phone for nearly 3 weeks.
Asked why listed press officers were not fulfilling their functions, Ms Allera said people were working from home, and there is a pager service journalists can call. It was pointed out to her that the pager service was not working throughout the duration of our investigation, exposing an alarming level of incompetence for a press office which ought to be representing a high and respectable office in the UK.
Ms Allera pointed out that the press office pager was now working, but an immediate trial of the pager number revealed it isn’t receptive to normal mobile numbers, except they pay an extra charge to get through. How ludicrous!
Ms Allera revealed that some press officers work on a part time basis, and advised my colleague to send an email to the press office email, which had already been contacted during the early stages of our investigation. An email was sent to the press office for the second time, as one had previously been sent weeks ago with no response.
The British public can be forgiven for expecting every facet of the Judicial Office to be optimally functioning , setting high standards for other institutions to emulate. On the contrary the judicial press office is lousy and woefully inept in the delivery of its remit. The discovery reveals a shameful reality of so-called professionals cutting corners.
The judicial office and its investigative branch were at loss for words when we contacted them for an explanation of their press office, which we found in utter disarray. They referred us back to their hopeless press office we are exposing.
Accountability
The ludicrous aspect of the whole affair is the lack of accountability in the Judicial Office in addressing their own mess.
A logical deduction is that the contact numbers are either counterfeit, or they reflect an incapability of the so- called press officers to execute the job to which they have been assigned.
The most worrying implication of the revelation is that these officers are paid a salary to do what effectively is a sub-optimal job, if any at all.
The JCIO is funded by the Ministry of Justice(MOJ) whose press office is promptly responsive to inquiries for years without fail.
One of the MOJ’s representatives told this publication that failings of the JCIO press office was nothing to do with them. The implication is that these paid staff are occupying a position and earning a wage for a post they are at best, relatively incompetent at executing their respective roles.
Professional Competence
Press representatives for many organizations have for a long time been observed to lack the professional competence to address queries from the media, raising legitimate questions about the level of training and expertise afforded to those placed in these positions.
Training
Discussing the embarrassing failing with the MOJ press officer, he said; ” Many press officers share not well trained to deal with the press, a press officer from the Ministry Of Justice admitted during a phone conversation about the failing judicial press office, who also are hired to take press requests for the JCIO.
‘More training may be required to better equip many press officers to readily handle press inquiries’, he added.
The Ministry Of Justice from all accounts of staff from this publication, have never once failed to respond to telephone calls, and are often efficient in dealing with inquiries on the spot. Most of the press officers hired by the MOJ are former journalists or from a strong professional background , which invariably enhances their level of proficiency in dealing with inquiries in the spur of the moment. They provide a benchmark against which other press offices can be gauged.
Unfortunately, such adept level of skills is a far cry from many organisations who unashamedly place imposters or inadequate professionals posing as press officers to deal with an inquisitorial media. More often than not, they are to ill prepared for questions even in relation to subject matters about which they have published a press release that day.
Where a spontaneous exposition and discussion of contemporary news would have been most ideal, press officers often resort to requesting email communication, in order to get more knowledgeable personnel who really out to be at the helm of handling the inquiry to begin with.
Requests for email communication by press officers is not unprofessional , neither does ot necessarily detract from an expected level of expertise one would normally accord to them.
Yet, when a much needed response is subjected to a long wait or none at all, it avowedly exposes a shortfall in the provision of knowledgeable and well grounded professonals in their field.The alternative explanation is that they may be evading questions they cant handle.
Efficient press officers do not keep journalists waiting too long for a response that but even those underprepared press officers are much better than those representatives cloaked with a post they cannot deliver.
Ostensibly invincible press officers like the ones listed on the Judicial press office site, appear to at best, be pretentious. at worst, counterfeit. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that individuals getting paid for a job they cannot fulfil, are frauds. And frauds have no business dealing with the press.
One common explanation given by press officers for being unable to engage on a topic immediately pertinent to their organisation is the delegation of various press inquiries to different press officers. This explanation would be tenable if the press officers were able to produce the professional best suited to the topic in question within a reasonable time. More often than not, his is not the case.
Surprisingly, many press officials employed by the UK government and other organizations are incapable of immediately addressing questions about topics they ought to be able to handle, especially when the issues are current, or have been propagated by the organizations themselves that same day.
Press officers who are unable to address a question, ought at least to be able to efficiently get a professional to speedily come back with relevant answers. Alternatively, they would be expected to present cogent reason why a response cannot be available as quickly as preferred by the journalist.
In the absence of being readily accessible to the media, press offices like those at the JCIO, unwittingly reflect an alarming level of incompetence and unprofessionalism, making the respective posts of , at best, very superficial.
On the face of it, it suggests the judicial office and the JCIO who appoint these individuals , cannot actually afford to pay their press officers to do their job, or as already stated, the officials are simply too inept to fulfil the post they purport to
This publication today contacted both the Judicial office and the JCIO to inquire about the appalling state of their press officers, and unsurprisingly they were lost for words.
They directed us to the same seemingly hopeless press office for us to direct our complain or inquiries. ‘I suggest you contact the press office team’ a representative from the JCIO said.
Team? A team works together, but this press office is clearly disjointed in its operation and needs to be overhauled if it is to have any modicum of dignity.
At the moment, the judicial press office is simply a joke and needs to step up and fulfil the functions for which they are paid.
‘Like many others, press officers have been working from home remotely. When we are all in the office there is a single phone line for press enquiries that any press officer who is free can answer. Obviously things are slightly different when we are working from home and we are not always able to pick up mobile calls (for example if we are in a meeting, dealing with another call etc).
‘Apologies for you not being able to get through to us. The best thing I can suggest is that you email this email address as we all monitor it during the day and can pick up queries more quickly that way”. A subsequent mail explained that press officers had been on zoom calls most of the day.
Their apology is accepted, but the excuse is not tenable. The idea that all six press officers were on zoom calls throughout the time of our 8nvestigation is not plausible, and even if true, does not justify the fact mobile numbers have been publicly associated with their professional duties.