Personalisation in Public Services (Transcript)

Featuring: Professor Chris Fox on public sector reform in the criminal justice setting; Caroline Marsh, an independent consultant who speaks to Chris about how this work has impacted upon practice; and Gail Mann who works on personalisation in voluntary, community and social enterprise services.

Read along while you listen! Find the full episode transcript below.

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the RAH! Podcast belong solely to the speaker, and are not necessarily reflective of the views of Manchester Metropolitan University, or the speaker's employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.

Rah! Podcast Episode 04 - Personalisation in the Public Services 

Rah! Opening Jingle 

Julian Holloway: Hello and welcome to the Rah podcast from Manchester Metropolitan University. My name is Julian Holloway, lecturer in human geography here at the Manchester Met. This podcast focuses and showcases all the excellent work being done by both our students and our staff. Within the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at MMU. We produce themed episodes on a regular basis with topics ranging from history to poetry, to religion to architecture, and various other topics. Today's episode will focus on personalization in the transformation of public services, with some really interesting research with real lasting impact for individuals within public services. And don't forget, you can join in with the conversation by following the hashtag which is #RAH_Podcast. So let's get over to the episode. Personalization involves the cocreation of public services, but giving those involved the chance to design, create, own and potentially deliver some of those services alongside professionals. First, we will hear from Professor Chris Fox on public sector reform in the criminal justice setting. Then we will hear from Caroline Marsh from management solutions about how Chris's work has impacted upon practice. And finally, we will hear about the researcher PhD student Gail Mann who seeks to develop the relationship between the practitioner and service user in voluntary Community and Social Enterprise Services. Don't forget you can join in the conversation on Twitter by hash tagging #RAH_Podcast. We hope you enjoy the episode. 

Rah! Mini Jingle 

Julian: So we're joined in the studio today by Professor Christopher Fox, who is a professor of evaluation and policy analysis here at Manchester Met. Hello, Chris.  

Christopher Fox: Hello. 

Julian: Chris’s research looks at public sector reform so what works and how to pay for it over recent years and working with colleagues in the criminal justice and social care sectors. Chris has developed a new model for delivering a more personalised offender rehabilitation service. And that's what we're going to be talking about today, this notion of personalization in the public sector and in public services. I was wondering if we could just start off, what's the background to this research? How did you get into this particular research project?  

Chris: Okay, well, the policy evaluation research unit that I'm part of is very interested in different and innovative ways to reform the public sector and public services to make public services more relevant to the social challenges that we face today. So the world is changing, social challenges are changing. And because of that, we need to rethink our public services. And of course, since 2008, with austerity, we also have to recognise that we might have less money than we used to have to do all of these things. And this particular idea really came from conversations I had with colleagues working in social care. And in social care over the last 20 years or so there’s been a big change in the way in which social care services are delivered. And the big idea there has been personalization. And this is really about trying to move away from a sort of more hierarchical deferential type model where things are done to people quite often in institutional settings, to a model, where people are much more in control of the services that they receive, have a hand in shaping those services have choices about the services that they receive, and a different way of thinking about people that they are people. And we really wanted to see whether or not it was possible to take some of those ideas that have had a certain amount of success in social care and apply them in a criminal justice setting. And we recognised that people in the criminal justice setting offenders, who are being managed by the probation service may be or who are in prison very often have a lot of the same kind of challenges that people who are in the social care system have they quite often have complex needs. They struggle to have their voices heard, they struggle to be seen as people as opposed to a set of risks to be managed. We wanted to see whether some of the ideas from Social Care could be used in criminal justice and deliver a different kind of rehabilitation service.  

Julian: You mentioned the deference model, is that something that's been strongly critiqued in social care, social reform? 

Chris: In social care, the traditional model saw people tending to be managed, if you like, or have services delivered to them in institutional settings, in a fairly deferential kind of environment where things were done to them, and also in a deficit based model of working, which essentially meant that the service focused on the needs that people had, but the needs were fairly narrowly defined in terms of what the service was, was interested or set up to deliver. And of course, we don't work like that. And in criminal justice, this is a particular problem because in criminal justice, rightly so, people are very concerned to manage people's criminogenic risk, the risk that they might go and commit further crimes and obviously that does need to be managed. But if you reduce people to a set of criminogenic risks, if you work with them in a purely deficit based way, you stop looking at them and understanding them and engaging with them as real people. 

Julian: So it's moving from a sort of top down model where it's an abstract public sort of thing or an abstract defender, I guess in your case, to something that's actually takes the needs of the person on board and actually looks at the causes, why they, what they're doing, how they're going to get back into, quote, unquote, normal life, I suppose is the best way of putting it? 

Chris: Yes, absolutely. And there are different ways to do this. There's another very strong movement in criminal justice at the moment that is taking a much more psychologically informed approach to working with people in the system. And recognising that sometimes some of the reasons that people end up in the criminal justice system is to do with a whole bunch of perhaps psychological reasons often to do with the way they were brought up and the experience they had as child, abuse they might have suffered as a child of one type or another. But certainly, yeah, trying to think about working with people in a much more holistic asset-based way.  

Julian: So is that in effect is what you mean by personalization, then? 

Chris: Yes. 

Julian: Can you give us an example of how that works? 

Chris: We link a lot of our work to a broad body of research in criminology, which is often referred to as the desistance movement, which recognises that people don't just stop offending, that there is a process of desistance and that process is quite a long, complicated process. And it starts very often with people re-evaluating their view of themselves and starting to not just stop offending, but also recognising that they could have a different non-offending identity. And so they start to reassess internally how they see themselves, 

Julian: Right, 

Chris: - and how other people see them. 

Julian: A shift in identity in effect. 

Chris: And so in part of what our work is, also we hope doing is helping take a theory desistance and show how that theory can be operationalized how it can be turned into some practical measures for working,

Julian: Which is excellent, which is what all theories should do I would have thought,  

Chris: Yeah. 

Julian: ultimately is take a theory and make it more practical and practice based. 

Chris: Yeah, exactly. And that's very much where we are. We're not we're not developing the theory other people have done that work. Our job is to really come in and then say, well, how do we take those ideas? And how do we make them into practical opportunities for people in the criminal justice system? 

Julian: So this is an ongoing research project, and you've done the pilot stage?  

Chris: Yes, we did the first round of very small scale pilots in 2017. And we broke it down into some distinct concepts or ideas. So for example, in social care, a lot of personalization has manifest itself with the idea of the personal budget. This is the idea that people in social care who have social care needs rather than the local authority coming in and delivering that service to them, they are given a personal budget and then they can purchase the service which gives them as more choice and control over the kind of carers they have coming in, what those carriers do when they come in, etc. One of the ideas we took as an example was the idea of the personal budget. Now, we haven't given people in criminal justice and personal budgets in quite the same way you do in social care. But what we did do with into serve was created an enabling Fund, which was a relatively small pot of money that allowed people who were being supervised by probation officer to have some additional resource that they could use to purchase goods and services that were critical to their rehabilitation, but they struggled to get access to so to give you a practical example, so we had people who had been offered a college course, but were embarrassed to go along to the college course because they knew that all the other students would turn up with textbooks and a laptop and they didn't have any of that. And they have no means of getting it. Two or three hundred pounds a relatively small amount of money allowed them to get a second-hand laptop and some key textbooks so that when they turned up on the first day, they didn't feel that they were different. They felt as though they were properly engaged and part of the group. What we found in the early part, it was the people who were accessing this money with very, very cautious about spending it in a lot of cases, they never spent all of it. But the simple fact that it was there led to a change of attitude and a change of thinking. 

Julian: Is that something you think you could feed back into debates in social justice and criminology in that sense? Is that a new finding in that sense?  

Chris: Um, I think I think it is an interesting finding. We've done a number of projects now in in with various organisations where we've, we've experimented with this kind of enabling fund model. And in every case, we find that the power of the enabling fund is not so much the money itself, but the possibility of the money and the way it changes dialogue. And currently, we're doing some work on how that might help us think about the idea of public service reform in terms of giving people more personalization, what that actually means. Is it is it choice that matters, or is it the idea that you're giving people a bit more control over their lives that matters? 

Julian: You're working with Horizon 2020? 

Chris: This new pilot is working with about 10 staff and about 100 people going through the system. And it's funded in part by Horizon 2020, which is a European funding stream. That's because we are part of a larger project looking at co creating public services across Europe, we have colleagues in Europe who are looking at personalization in areas like older people services, and education and welfare. 

Julian: This sounds to me that this sort of personalization almost sounds more expensive to the taxpayer. 

Chris: In reality, I don't think this is necessarily a cheap way to deliver services, because people need to be supported if they're going to effectively engage in co-production, co-creation of services. We don't have really good reoffending data on this yet. It's too early in the process but certainly we've seen at an individual level some very good examples of people responding to this kind of approach, and and maybe their process of desistance becoming more embedded at a slightly earlier stage. And so the hope is that that will then in the long term, save the public sector in the state money and resource. 

Julian: Working with companies like Interserve etc. You know, some might say that this is sort of privatisation by the backdoor this is, you know, more and more ways in which the public sector, public services are being rolled out to private companies and, you know, working with those do, do you see any conflict there working with companies like that?  

Chris: We took the view that while we're not necessarily completely supportive of the way in which criminal justice policy is going at the moment, we didn't want to disengage, because ultimately, we felt that by working with frontline services, we we were hopefully improving the experience that individual people go through services and people’s lies. And so we've taken the view that we want to carry on working in the system. 

Julian: What do you think is the most important lesson from your research for policymakers?  

Chris: We can't conclusively say yet, it definitely works. But we're certainly seeing lots of promise. And because we're able to also generate evidence that links quite well to some fairly compelling theory. I think we have a good case for saying this is a useful direction to go in. 

Julian: Or maybe we can get you back in and find out what actually happens further down the line. So Chris well, thank you, you very much indeed for joining us today on this podcast.  

Chris: Thank you. 

Rah! Mini Jingle 

Julian: In this next segment, once again, we are joined by Chris Fox, who will speak to Caroline Marsh from management solutions. Chris and Caroline discuss the pilot project and how it's had an impact on individuals within the criminal justice system. We will also hear from some of the service users and staff who've gone through the pilot about their experiences. 

Chris: Hi, I'm Chris Fox. I'm Professor of evaluation and policy analysis in the policy evaluation research unit. And I'm here talking about personalization, and how personalization is reshaping our thinking of criminal justice. And I'm here with Caroline Marsh. Caroline, would you like to introduce yourself? 

Caroline Marsh: Yeah, Thanks, Chris. I'm Caroline Marsh. I'm an independent consultant and I've got a background in Adult Social Care as well as criminal justice. I was the director of Adult Social Care and from many years back, I've had a real keen interest in making sure that people who need support and help to change their lives, get the right kind of support at the right time with the right kind of services. And that can only be a very personalised approach. So I’ve done a lot of work to introduce personalization, social care, and then moved over into criminal justice. 

Chris: What is it about personalization, and the way that it's developed in social care say that you see and think, aha, this is something that could really make a difference in criminal justice? 

Caroline: I think a number of aspects. I mean, one is about helping people to take responsibility for their own lives and making choices which are helpful to them in terms of moving out of criminal lifestyle into one which is a different kind of life. And that was a big feature personalization. It didn't get hung up on money. And money can be an enabler of some of those things, whether that's to buy a suit for an interview or a bike to help go to work, but that's not the main important thing. So very holistic, integrated model I think we're looking at which I think is exciting. And I think there's a lot of transferability of those principles we used social care in this sector as well. 

Chris: And we've worked together on a number of pilots now where we've applied some of these ideas in different criminal justice settings. Can you tell me a bit about the pilot and and how that's developed and what some of its key features are? 

Caroline: I think for one thing, it really focuses a lot more on the quality of relationship between the case managers and the service user. And we're providing a better framework to help them introduce interventions in a more timely way, which is more reflective of when people need them. And we've introduced a number of interventions to help with that, including access to enabling funds, help to get some life coaching which is different from the kind of relationship they have with their case manager and also using peer mentors to support service users and help them think about doing different things, and especially giving something back to their community, which is something that came out of some of the conversations we had with service users about them wanting to to give something back. We had 10 case managers on the pilot initially and aim to reach about 100 service users. And it has to be said there's been a lot of organisational change going on this pilot’s had to, you know, just go with the flow on that. And so we ended up with 8 case managers and about 60 service users altogether. But it's still quite a reasonable size sample that we've been working with to try these ideas out. 

Chris: For a service user going through the pilot what's going to be the biggest difference for them, what are they going to see or feel or experience that is different from maybe a previous probation order that they've been on? 

Caroline: A bit more time with case managers in the beginning, and I said time which is often being rushed In the past a bit more time then, and I guess a bit more flexibility about when they say their case managers. I should say, though, that there has always to be a strong emphasis on management of risk. And it isn't by any means an easier kind of journey through probation, in fact, in some ways is harder because they have to be held to account and encouraged to take responsibility for what they do in their actions. So it is always still made very clear what's expected of them, but perhaps in a way that they can understand and get hold of.  

Chris: You mentioned an enabling fund? 

Caroline: We have made small amounts of money available to service users on this pilot, where just buying something might make that key bit of difference to help them move on in their lives. So we have used it for example, in an emergency; somebody had gotten nowhere to stay that night. They there was no room any of the hostels except one and that was one where they had a debt, and so they weren't prepared to accept them unless some of that debt was cleared. So they were able to use the funds to pay off some of that debt for that night and come to an arrangement with a service user a payment plan, so he could then pay them off over a period of time. And that him gave him that stability. And he's been able to really work through a lot of issues while he's been out the hostel. And he's still repaying the amount he owed. And other cases, we've been able to purchase a bike for someone to help them to get to work. You know, they were having to pay a lot of money out in bus fares, and it was getting to the point where it wasn't economic for them to work. So this was really helpful also helps to keep them fit as well. So yeah, that is a couple of examples of how we've used it. 

Chris: We know that the probation sector is is strapped for cash, finances are very tight. What's the sort of case for putting some resource into this kind of enabling fund? 

Caroline: I don't think it has to be large sums of money. I think it's more about the principle of it and seeing what people make of it. So I do think there is a case to be made, I guess probably need to do a bit more of it though, to build up the evidence behind it, but also to get some feedback from the service users about what difference it’s made to them. And we have looked at some research that was done up in Scotland, where a much larger group of service users in the justice system were given access to funds and we think that’s made quite a lot of qualitative difference to those people's lives. But it has to be given freely. It's not a professional gift, it has to be something that people are entitled to. And people have to feel confident it it doesn't come with strings, because that kind of devalues it as well. 

Chris: That's great. And I think we can now hear the voices of some of the people who've been involved in the pilot. So who are we going to hear from Caroline? 

Caroline: Um, let's hear from Tony, who was a former service user himself. He was trained to come into reporting and hear from him about his experience about using this approach with service users. 

Tony: I think inherently the, you know, the service users that I spoke to wanted to speak about their experience. But I think they're a little bit sort of frustrated that they didn't quite know who to approach. It's all very well, collecting statistics and data and numbers. But this is different. This is this is about people. It's personalization. So this is this is more powerful. I think, if the staff do take on board, which I’ve no reason to suspect that they won't take on board, it's that one step towards getting a good relationship with the service users. 

Caroline: And I think you might also want to hear from Ian Ware he was one of the senior managers in Interserve policy and practice team and he’s able to say here, how he's valued the project and what he's going to take forward from this and how he's going to use the work in future service development. 

Ian Ware: Yeah, again, I think I mean, for me, it was really powerful, in a sense of hearing directly voices and experiences that people are providing really clear for us to listen to different people's observations of their experiences as well, because one of the things that we've certainly experienced in the past is feedback being interpreted differently and not direct from people's experience. So I think for me, that was quite crucial, but also hearing a range of different people’s views. 

Caroline: And more locally, and we wanted to make sure that what happened with the pilot staff was also extended to all the staff. And we hear just a short few words from Jackie Green, who's the community director responsible for services in Hull. 

Jackie Green: fundamentally I said division that innovation can be achieved through collaboration and partnership, but I want to understand what this looks like in a pervasive setting. I'm really clear that out organisations should never stop learning and the pilot is a great opportunity for us to reflect on how we engage with service users and what’s most effective in passing further distance from offending. 

Caroline: We did have some really positive experiences of the case managers. And speaking with one of the senior case managers, she told me how much she enjoyed having time to reflect on the practice. And she got a lot out of the actual learning steps that we established to actually share thinking and ideas, and also to use the new interventions and she found the service users she was working with were more highly motivated about engaging with her. 

Chris: Thanks so much for talking talking to me about this Caroline. It's really interesting work and it's great to be working with you on it. And I’m looking forward to the next phase. 

Caroline: Yeah, thanks. Me too. It's been my pleasure. Thank you. 

Rah! Mini Jingle 

Julian: Okay, also working on this fascinating subject of personalization and public services is Gail Mann who's a PhD student at here at Manchester Met. So, welcome Gail to the podcast.  

Gail Mann: Thank you. 

Julian: Gail has over 20 years’ experience working as a clinician as a speech and language therapist in education, health services, both in the UK and Australia. She's held clinical managerial and clinical leadership roles in children's services in the NHS and gained a master's degree in healthcare leadership in 2016. Gail has just started the second year of her PhD studies, and she's researching the nature of the relationship between practitioner and service user, in voluntary community and social enterprises. So it keeps our theme going about personalization in public services. Hello, Gail. And can you tell us a bit about your research? 

Gail: Well, as the title suggests, my research is focusing directly on the relationship between practitioners and service users. And I'm particularly looking at the nature of that relationship as a kind of human relationship, really thinking about who the people are in that relationship, but also the context within which they're working and how those contexts can influence that particular relation. I'm also interested in the effect that the relation can produce. So I'm kind of almost separating the relation and that human relationship away from everything else that's in that intervention and thinking about what difference does that part of the intervention make? And also how do the contextual conditions within which that relation sits affect the nature of the relation? 

Julian: Could you give us an example of what sort of sectors you're working in? 

Gail: Sure. I've got four different research sites I'm going to be working with. And each one of those research sites is a volunteer sector organisation working delivering personalised care, and one of them is a service that provides one to one support for people with mild to moderate mental health needs. There's another working with young people who are encouraging to spend their free time more positively in the community. There's another one that is working with people who’ve decided to have personal budgets. And so that one to one support is helping them to manage and develop their personal budget and plan. 

Julian: And how would you actually go about this or how you intending to go about this? 

Gail: Each case study consists of a practitioner and a service user. pair, so I'm going to be working with that pair, I'm going to be treating them equally because they're both humans in that relationship. So I'm going to be interviewing each one of them and understanding their personal history, and what's brought them to this point before this relation actually happens. And then in addition to that, thinking about the wider context, I'll be working alongside the organisation to understand what are the kind of structural aspects of that organisation and that service delivery, which may influence the relation and how that operates? Because I'm going to be looking for links between those aspects and what people in the relation are saying. 

Julian: So how you going about measuring the culture of an organisation? 

Gail: It would be a more ethnographic approach and and i'm using interviews as part of that. I'm trying to kind of immerse myself in understanding how that organisation operates because I've worked within the system. So I kind of understand what those cultural aspects are. There's there's what’s written in the documents about an organisation, but there's also what's lived and expressed through the people who work in that organisation. 

Julian: Because they, I can obviously imagine there's a dichotomy sometimes between a like a, you know, a nice brochure with a mission statement and the actual day to day running of it. So are you going to be spending time in the organisation on a day to day basis? 

Gail: Yeah, I mean, I still need to negotiate that with the organisation because I haven't started my data collection yet. But I'll be looking to spend some time with them and what you were saying before about documents and vision statements with person centred care I think is a really key point because across health and social care, probably every organisation in the NHS and social care will have the words person centred, written into their vision and they will talk about it. But sometimes person centred care is very difficult to implement in real terms, because the conditions aren't always right for that to happen. So I'm trying to kind of get underneath that really understand the conditions of possibility for the relation. 

Julian: Is there a sense in which you're trying to impact both the organisation but also the actual individuals in this relationship.  

Gail: That's not a goal of my research, because I'll be kind of examining what it is about their relation rather than working with that relationship. However, what I'm hoping is that by delving into discussions about the nature of the relation with those organisations that I’ll be there to support them to think differently, in some ways, maybe I'll be able to bring in new ways of thinking about the relation, but also that they will be teaching me new ways to think about the relation and how I can interpret that, that might be helpful to others.  

Julian: You mentioned that the locality can have an effect on this relationship and the value of this relationship. What did you mean by that? 

Gail: With any intervention, you don't really know what contextual forces are affecting how that intervention is working. Um, you know, that might be home visiting versus being seen in a clinic, for example, you know, so that that could be a factor. That's not something that I'm particularly focusing on, location isn't going to be, I don't think a huge part of it, but I'll be looking out for any of those contextual factors which might have an influence. 

Julian: What other factors might, do you foresee having an influence? What's the kind of received wisdom in terms of the the work that's already been done in this area that you're going to feed in and trying to explore in your research? 

Gail: Just structural things like, is it once a week, is it always at the same time, is it always the same person because obviously that could be, sometimes you see a different practitioner. 

Julian: That’s true yeah, so it could be somebody different.  

Gail: Well, in my research, I've kind of been, I’ve factored that out. 

Julian: Right. 

Gail: In focusing on this case study with the two people but but yes, I mean, that's that is a challenge, isn't it? There are some interventions where the relation is is really pivotal. If somebody is working with you on supporting you to function better in your community, then the relation that relation is more important to the intervention. 

Julian: One of the problems I guess, I suppose we're talking about the qualitative and quantitative divide here is that certainly lots of policy makers and and authorities that tend not to listen to the qualitative element, they kind of just want to see quantitative stats and league tables and, you know, in graphs and things like that, do you think you’ll possibly face that as a barrier going forward? 

Gail: Yeah, that's possibly the case. I'm looking at my research as being mixed methods. I'm using a realist approach so with the realist paradigm, which kind of sits itself between the quantitative and qualitative in terms of the way we think about how the world works. 

Julian: Can you explain realistic valuation? 

Gail: Yeah, I can. So a realist approach to evaluation looks at kind of theorising the programme or or the, the intervention in in quite a detailed way and trying to understand not just the mechanisms, which make the intervention work but also acknowledging that context has a really strong part to play with those mechanisms, realist evaluation kind of challenges approaches, which say that something works or it doesn't work. Instead, realist approaches think about how and why it works. And and, and then link that to the different contexts. So you might have an intervention that works in one volunteer sector organisation, say, but then you try and do that same intervention in another one, it doesn't work at all. And that's because of all all of the different complexities and mechanisms that are making that work in that place. Aren't transferable. But if we can,  

Julian: It’s not one size fits all. 

Gail: No, and if we can't, if we can't understand why and how that intervention is working, how those contexts and mechanisms are fitting together, then we'll never be able to adapt that intervention to a different context. We need to understand how it works and the facilitative context before we can see whether it's going to work somewhere else, takes into account complexity. 

Julian: It’s incredibly important in this particular area of research I would have thought. So a little bit more about yourself. So you've come from practice, you obviously did your masters and now you’re doing your PhD, how you enjoying being a student? 

Gail: I really love it. It feels like a real privilege to have all of this time for reading and thinking. And I think I'm lucky because I've got sort of bank of experience that I can draw on all the time. And I do so I'll read something. And I'll think, gosh, that makes me think of this part of my work in the past or that part. Yeah, it's been, it's been really enjoyable. I mean, there were times when it feels very isolated, and, and quite challenging. But most of the time, I just sort of pinch myself and think, you know, and I would recommend it to anybody who has the opportunity to do I was lucky I applied for one of the Vice Chancellor scholarships, and I was awarded one of those and, and that's made it possible for me to, to have this three years to really focus on something that I've always been interested in, in my work life but but to have a completely new take on it. 

Julian: What does the future hold for you then beyond PhD?  

Gail: I don't know at the moment, I'm quite excited by the possibilities that there might be. And so I don't want to decide yet. 

Julian: What's really important to us there was you having a great time being a PhD student here at Manchester Met, but also that your research is actually going to have some real world impact, which is something that, you know, we're obviously very keen to do with our research and hope, hope that's gonna be the case.  

Gail: Yes, I hope so.  

Julian: Brilliant. Well, Gail, thank you very much for joining us on the podcast and best of luck with the rest of the PhD.  

Gail: Thank you. 

Julian: Thank you. 

Rah! Mini Jingle 

Julian: So that brings us to the end of our podcast on personalization in the public services. Thank you very much for listening. I hope you really enjoyed the show. Don't forget to follow us on Twitter for future podcast updates. You can find us at @mmu_rah. And for more information, all research and events we discussed in this episode, plus many many other things. Please go to the Rah website for the full links and don't forget to tune back in soon for more episodes on a variety of different and hopefully very interesting topics. 

Rah! Closing Jingle  

Julian: This episode was produced by Lucy Simpson, edited by Adam Farish and presented a mixed by me, Julian Holloway.